A Requiem for Rick
Rick Santorum’s decision to suspend his presidential campaign came after a weekend when his daughter Bella was hospitalized again (she suffers from a life-threatening genetic disorder), and while facing a tough April with the only state he had much chance of winning being his native Pennsylvania. He was behind Mitt Romney by over 2-1 in the delegate count with the odds greatly against a comeback. He made a rational decision against continuing.
So now that his effort belongs to the history books, how should it be judged?
I have tremendous respect for anyone who runs for office: I’ve been “in the arena” since the 1970s and know it requires spectacular commitments of time, energy, willpower, brainpower, and money. Mark Shields claimed a presidential run is like “surgery without anesthesia … marriages, careers, and reputations are often casualties.” He was right.
Rick Santorum had one advantage at the outset: No one expected much when he announced his candidacy last spring. (One of his staunchest supporters complained that the Republican establishment was deliberately ignoring Santorum, which they probably were.) The last time Santorum faced the voters, Pennsylvania dumped him from his Senate seat in a record-breaking landslide. He was at 1% in a Gallup poll last November and had nowhere to go but up.
Up, he eventually went. After traveling in obscurity to every county in Iowa, Santorum watched Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, and Newt Gingrich all rise and fall. He stuck to his guns (literally) and kept insisting that he would surprise the pundits in Iowa. Santorum peaked at the right time in early January and was finally declared the winner of the Iowa caucuses after a two-week recount.
After three upset victories in the heartland on February 7, he surged to a stunning 12-point lead in the Rasmussen Reports survey in mid-February. But he lost two achingly close key “battleground” contests in Michigan (by 3%) and Ohio (by 1%). After that, Romney’s superior finances and organization grinded out a victory, though Santorum did end up winning 11 states in the South and heartland, which is 11 more than most people expected.
Along the way, Santorum made his share of errors (as candidates often do) — foolish comments on religion, college degrees, and contraception that made even some of his supporters cringe. His constant refrain that “America is above all a moral enterprise” was out of sync with the economically conservative suburban wing of the GOP, which undoubtedly would sooner agree with Calvin Coolidge: “The business of America is business.”
Should Santorum get another chance to run in 2016 or 2020, he will have to learn from his recent mistakes. A majority of Americans may agree with him on the Middle East, abortion, and gay marriage, but they don’t want to see campaigns turned into religious crusades. To improve his future prospects, he will need to broaden his message and base beyond the social conservatives of rural America.
He may get that chance due to his spirited campaign this year. Before he announced his campaign last year, he was a “has-been” whom few people had even thought of recently. Now, thanks to his shrewdness in spotting an opening among social conservatives and his strong message, he’s a national figure with a following.
What about the rest of 2012? Santorum indicated that he will campaign for Romney in the fall to defeat President Obama. In an editorial, the Wall Street Journal praised Santorum for leading the assault on President Obama’s health care plan, but also noted: “There are no consolation prizes in presidential politics.”
Actually, they are wrong about that: On three occasions in the last century, a presidential nominee picked the runner-up in delegates to be their running mate and then went on to victory in November. In 1932, Franklin Roosevelt chose John Nance Garner; in 1960, John Kennedy chose Lyndon Johnson; and Ronald Reagan chose the first George Bush in 1980. And of course, Johnson and Bush both became president.
The odds are against Romney selecting Santorum as his running mate, due to the personal animosity that developed in 2012 — California Republican analyst Tony Quinn rates it as a 1 in 5,000 chance. But 2012 need only be a trial run. At age 54, Rick Santorum should have another national campaign in his future. Presumably, he’ll get his own show on Fox News or talk radio and hit the speaking circuit, thus earning a good living and keeping in touch with social conservatives.
In his Wisconsin concession speech, Rick Santorum deliberately evoked Ronald Reagan’s unsuccessful run in 1976 that was followed by a landslide victory four years later. That seems premature: one key difference is that Reagan took President Ford to the final night of the 1976 GOP Convention, holding the incumbent to just 52.57% of the delegates. Obviously, Santorum didn’t reach that level of performance this year. But who knows about next time.
Look at it this way: In 2011, Rick Santorum had virtually no future on the national stage. Now, thanks to his runner-up finish in 2012, he might yet have one.
Fluff and nonsense.
He just never really connected with people.
“One of his staunchest supporters complained that the Republican establishment was deliberately ignoring Santorum, which they probably were.”
And why? Because he was “too” conservative. God forbid the Republican establishment should actually embrace conservative principles and ideas, instead of trying to come up with the next Bob Dole or John McCain. If Romney wins, it’s only because Obama has been such a horrific president and voters will vote for anybody but Obama, not because conservatives or Tea Party members have embraced Romney or his ideas. Conservatives will certainly vote for Romney this fall (who else is there), but while holding our noses. Anybody is better than Obama. Anybody.
Hmm, my comment got nuked. I admit there was a little French in it.
To attempt to repeat: Santorum was NOT the political conservative he was touted to be. “Too conservative” is not the problem. (Maybe the link I provided was another problem, so you’ll have to take my word for it.) Too nannyish and sanctimionious, yes.
Sanctimony summs up Rick’s personality to a tee. He was not a fiscal conservative during his house and Senate tenure. People can vote with their hearts on matters of social politics if that is their wish but it is fiscal conservatism that is at the core of conservatism and the core of individual freedom over soft despotism, rather it is Left of Right. Santorum’s and Newt’s attacks on Rommney’s wealth were disappointing to behold, and gives a great insight on which of these three men is the better candidate for the general election. I am happy Rick got out, I wish mightly the self immolating Newt would follow suite.
ONly reason Santorum hung around longer than the usual opposition candidate was the higher proportion of states that awarded delegates proportionately.
If Romney wins, it’s only because Obama has been such a horrific president and voters will vote for anybody but Obama, not because conservatives or Tea Party members have embraced Romney or his ideas.
If you look at the exit polls, Romney did as well among conservatives and Tea Party supporters as Santorum did, or perhaps a little better.
A fixed smile hiding a very angry, very narrow minded, top down politician who was an undistinguished senator running as a one trick pony. He actually wants to tell people what they can do in the privacy of their bedrooms. Santorum would have lost in a landslide to Obama. He brought out the worst in the GOP – the resentful haters who refuse to put Romney’s record in context.
He will come around to support Romney because to do otherwise will make him irrelevant, but it is noteworthy that his first instinct was not to do what good men in his position always do which is to congratulate and endorse the nominee.
The term, “haters” is as relevant to intelligent discussion as the term, “bash”.
Both are on the level of, “Oh, YEAH?” or “la la la I can’t hear you!”
And just how are we to put a record somewhere to the left of Teddy Kennedy “in context”?
I wish Bella and her parents good health, fulfilled personal lives and a wonderful life going forward.
However, if I was moved to analyze deeply and fully the Rick Santorum campaign, it would come out quite differently, I suspect.
1)I don’t buy this “Republican establishment” nonsense. If they were intentionally “ignoring” Santorum, so was pretty much every other human in the nation.
They were also “ignoring” Pawlenty, who looks, sounds, acts and speaks NOTHING like Santorum.
There was no grand conspiracy against any candidate. In fact, the evidence points clearly in the opposite direction.
EVERY one of the other candidates had a grasp (tentative and fleeting as it was) on the brass ring….and blew it themselves.
2) This incessant whining that “Romney and the Republican Establishment” somehow “unfairly” garnered more votes in any particular primary, is the lame alibi for losing.
Santorum didn’t lose to Romney in South Carolina, he lost to Gingrich.
Santorum wasn’t the Tea Party favorite in the beginning of this race, but neither was Romney…Bachman was.
Santorum didn’t sparkle at the debates, but neither did Romney. Gingrich and Cain did.
Santorum didn’t come out of the gates with the best resume’ on the stage, Rick Perry did.
And…it was Rick Perry’s abysmal performance in the debates that did him the most damage. It was Cain’s lawsuits that did him in. Pawlenty had no name recognition or pizzazz. Gingrich turned off an entire nation…and that nation turned to the only guy left standing who wasn’t an insane crank as the last “not Romney”.
Santorum had every opportunity to knock Romney out.
As I predicted on these very pages, the leftists would set social issue leg snares and bear traps that do damage EVERY TIME to a Republican candidate. Santorum not only allowed himself to have them snap shut on him, he often fastened them on himself.
Santorum was given every opportunity to gain momentum and he blew it. Just as every other flavor of the month got weighed, measured and was found wanting.
3)Santorum was the LAST pick of the “not Romney’s”. Not the first. In fact, the “not Romney’s” never had much enthusiasm for him over the other candidates and he only gained momentum after Gingrich self-imploded.
His “genius” in this race, was to be the least popular “not Romney” until the others crashed and burned and he was the only viable alternative remaining, just in time for a Midwest and Southern swing.
4)Romney by that time had proved himself a political oaf. He was there for the taking. Santorum had a chance to secure substantial momentum. He simply had to swing undecideds and Romney as a “second choice” voters after their favorites had floundered. He didn’t. He scared them away.
Even his wife told him he came off as shrill and strident too often and had to chill. His schoolmarm scold act was very leftist in tone and temperament, if polar opposite substantively.
Santorum blew it. He had Romney on the ropes.
5)Frankly, he blew it for me. No, he was never my choice. I just did not think any of these folks was an “A” teamer. I was hoping, praying, begging for a brokered convention and the selection of an “A” teamer.
I also said that if it wasn’t a brokered convention, we were going to get Romney. Now, we have.
It’s time to quit whining. And time to quit making lame excuses and alibis.
And, no…Rick Santorum does not have a big future in national politics. There is no pathway to being the LAST pick of the “not Romney” crowd in any future national election. This was his swan song.
That…would be my analysis.
Romney won every debate except the one in SC where they ganged up on him for not releasing his tax returns. Romney then trounced Newt in the 2 Florida debates. Every time Romney seemed in trouble he bounced back. Romney will be an excellent President.
I agree…whatever ‘moving to the center’ posturing we may see in the next few months will not predict his conservative nature. He’ll no longer be beholden to only the citizens of the most left-wing state in the Western Hemisphere (except maybe Cuba), but will be finally free to express his true views to the majority-sane US populous.
As a business owner and employer I wish I could share the enthusiasm here that Obama will not be President come 2012. The enormous war chest of the DNC will soon unlock the vault containing video of Romney’s incessant flip-flopping, his terrible jobs record, and healthcare. How about the tape when Romney asks his voters not to think of the “R” as being for Republican but as being for “Reform” instead? I hope Rick never endorses Romney because we really don’t know which Romney is real- the liberal from Mass or the conservative he has run as in the primary. I knew what I was getting with Rick. I am tired of being run over by the elites of the party and will probably vote only in the Congressional races which is all that matters now. Rick’s voting record on fiscal issues gave him a rating with the American Taxpayers Union (a non partisan group unlike the Romney campaign slime machine)as fourth most fiscally conservative in the Senate. I have come to the conclusion that the Republican Party does not represent me and plan to switch my party affiliation to Independent.
In other words “My guy didn’t win, WAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!! I’m taking my toys and GOING HOME!!!”
So whom would you say is an “A” teamer?
And just a quick nitpick. There is no such thing as a “TEA party favorite”. The TEA party isn’t even cohesive enough to define let alone say that those who are ideologically aligned would have a base candidate specification. The “TEA party” is a media construct designed to propagate a meme.
I suppose one could superficially define the “TEA Party” through the use of negative attributes but it would still be superficial and not a true definition.
Tea Party members all want less government and lower taxes. That is the cohesion that holds them together. Each individual might also want other things, but they all want those 2.
Replies #s 2, 4, 5: I generally agree.
#3 “Because he was ‘too’ conservative………” I’ll beg to differ. Santorum is a good example of a wolf in sheep’s clothing. I don’t consider him a conservative at all. He was a key part of the big-spending & high rolling Republican Congress between January, 2001 and January, 2007. The Alaska “bridge to nowhere” ring any bells? Even now, he has not been able to recognize that in order to get the $1 trillion federal budget deficit under control, all parts of the federal budget must be on the table. Especially defense spending as the deficit can’t be tamed by just cutting entitlements.
Then there is Santorum’s views on the so-called social issues. His stance on birth control, abortion, gays, etc. can hardly be called conservative. Granted, I live in a “purple” state where “gimme that old time religion” doesn’t gain much traction (see the results of the ‘personhood’ ballot initiatives in Colorado for 2008 & 2010).
Even fellow staunch conservatives that I know here don’t want big government, or politicians, telling them what their religious beliefs should be. Trying to impose those personal religious views on others, as Santorum tried, is not conservative.
Technically, the budget COULD be balanced by just making cuts to entitlements, as long as defense spending didn’t grow as a percentage of revenues. Entitlements are by far the largest slice of the pie and defense spending has been in decline for 30 years now.
“I was hoping, praying, begging for a brokered convention and the selection of an “A” teamer.”
Under normal circumstances, we would have had an “A teamer” as you describe. But the circumstances, under an affirmative action POTUS, are not normal. You just watch as they come out of the woodwork in 2016 (if Obama is reelected or if Romney turns out to be a lousy POTUS [which I doubt]) or 2020. Face it, electing an AA POTUS was a horrid mistake. I hope & pray that a majority of the American people see this & will act accordingly at the voting booth in the future.
Envision the fix. Immediate 30% reduction in gov’t at every level, while the remaining depts/agencies are focused solely on removing regulations for the next 4 years. Enforced trickle-down-sizing.
Securing the border, repealing Ocare, plus tort reform, plus nationwide health insurance policies/coverage, just to start.
Is this Romney, even with wins in both Houses?
That’s not Gingrich or Santorum either.
Compared to the theoretical perfect candidate, Romney falls short. But he was not up against the theoretical perfect candidate, he was up against Gingrich and Santorum.
Despite all the advantages Romney had Santorum would have won Ohio had Newt stepped aside, and Willard would have been in deep trouble. That’s how I will remember it.
“I was hoping, praying, begging for a brokered convention and the selection of an “A” teamer.”
Anyone who thinks there is sufficient time after the convention to organize a decent campaign which could take on and defeat a well funded incumbent supported by 90% of the media is, frankly, brain dead. When you are brain dead, it’s very hard to understand that Romney is the captain of The A Team.
The Romney campaign won by flooding the market with a bunch of negative ads that reinforced lies told by Democrats. This is what they did during the last campaign. Republicans who reinforce lies by Democrats have a name, and it is “Losers.”
Shame on Mitt Romney. He has done terrible harm to the Republican part by lying.
The Romney campaign won by flooding the market with a bunch of negative ads that reinforced lies told by Democrats.
Negative ads are completely and utterly normal in political campaigns. The Gingrich and Santorum campaigns ran negative ads against Romney, and for the rest of the year the Obama and Romney campaigns will be running negative ads against each other. A lot of you anti-Romney people sound like political virgins who have never paid attention to politics before this year.
People seem to forget that it was both Gingrich and Santorum that went negative first, attacking Romney from the left for how he made his money. Remember that 30 minute movie from Gingrich, all sob stories about people who Romney fired? (Never mind he saved a lot of companies by firing people)
. . . what you neglect to mention is that this is exactly what the other candidates would have done if they had the money. Politics is politics, and always has been,.
I would be happy to match brain power with you, by any method of your choosing.
I happen to think that Romney is and has been an oaf throughout this process. If you believe he won the debates, you are myopic.
No objective observer agrees with you.
It’s ok to be a fan.
Frankly, I’m hoping that Romney turns a ton of people into fans from here on in.
But, he has been a weak front runner, with enormous advantages to date.
And…I do not buy the crapology that a top notch candidate coming from a brokered convention in August…would be worse than a miserable, divisive, unenthusiastic campaign…with someone around whom nobody would coalesce.
In fact, I think the notion of running a sure loser candidate is completely idiotic.
Whether Romney can rise above being a crappy candidate who does not inspire remains to be seen. I’m rooting for him now. We should all try to get everyone to coalesce around him now. If he can stop being an oaf, then we have a chance.
Beating the overthrow is my main objective. But, I don’t go into it with inane rose colored glasses.
No objective observer agrees with me? Not one?. How absurd. You think he lost every debate and still emerged as the nominee? And anyone who would call Romney an oaf is completely lacking objectivity. And is lacking intelligence.
The meaning of oaf. Calling Romney an oaf is as brain dead as calling for a brokered convention
“…a top notch candidate coming from a brokered convention in August…”
The problem is, there were NO top-notch candidates who want to run this year. All the favorites–Ryan, Rubio, Jindal, Christie, Thune, Palin–all said no. And if they didn’t want to run before, why would they suddenly change their minds in August?
There’s nothing magical about a brokered convention. If the GOP’s stars didn’t want to run for President, then a brokered convention can’t fix that.
There’s also the fact that a lot has changed since the last time a brokered convention chose a candidate (Adlai Stevenson). Today, you need huge amounts of money and organization to win. (Obama has amassed a billion dollar war chest.) You just can’t put all that together in the space of a couple of months starting in August.
Yes, if there are several popular candidates but none has a majority of delegates, a brokered convention can make the final call. But the idea that a brokered convention is going to pull a new name out of a hat with any hope of beating Obama is a fantasy.
Cincinatus didn’t want to be dictator, either, but he accepted the role when called upon by his country to do so, did his job, and then resigned when he was no longer needed.
Rick Santorum is a social conservative, AND NOT a fiscal conservative. Further, there are lots and lots of video clips of his comments from earlier days in circulation that were making the rounds on the internet, which would have made very effective campaign commercials for the other side. His support for a certain brand of social engineering is what lots and lots of people hate about the Republican party’s policies.
You mean if Santorum runs again he might have to be like Mitt Romney and change? Oh heaven forbid! At least Romney changed to become more conservative. Here we see a suggestion that Santorum will have to become less conservative. Not possible. Rick has too much integrity for that. NOT!!!! LOL
Just like I prefer to worry about soul pollution vs health pollution
so I also prefer a social conservative vs a fiscal conservative.
An an ideal world we would have both but in today’s world one is cool and one is not.
Health and ‘free’ money trump these days…morality not so much.
God bless you Rick and your family. Thank you!
“Morality”? Whose?
Christian “morality”? Muslim “morality”? Atheist “morality”? Buddhaist “morality”? Confucian “morality”?
American Judoe-Christian morality;) God Bless America.
Already anticipating a 3rd party vote for POTUS this year…sigh.
In other words: You plan to vote for Obama.
No amount of spin you try to put on it can deflect that that is exactly what you would be doing, no ifs, ans, or buts.
santorum got as far as he did because he was the last not-romney standing. (those who had potential to go the distance had no one but themselves to blame for their falls.)
Santorum had rush, beck, hannity, et. all constantly tooting his horn for their audiences. he whines about the “conspriacy” against him – there wasn’t one. People listened to him, looked at his liberal voting record in congress, and decided we didn’t want anything to do with him. there was a reason PA voters slammed him in his reelection by *18* points. if he’d been nominated, not only would the middle have resignedly gone for obama, I know some conservatives who’d have tossed a coin or stayed home.
Romney will be a great President! He surrounds himself with good, smart people who have worked for/owned a buiness and not just sucked at the government teet for all of their working life. Unlike obama who can only hire professors, and those government sickophants.
As far as winning the debates, all of the pundits I listen to and watch were saying he won. So I’m not sure who you listen to.
According to some pundits who have conceded that he runs a very tight ship. That he is in control. And as we all know now he has a secret weapon that the dems are scared spitless about.
Hoosiertoo: you go ahead and vote whomever, but you might as well vote for obama since that is what you will be doing anyway. So go punch your clock in the white house.
Subject: Mike Leavitt(former gov of Utah) on the 2002 Olympics
Contrary to what Rick Santorum says, Mitt Romney was responsible for turning around the 2002 Winter Olympics, writes Mike Leavitt. Thanks to some charges leveled by former Sen. Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney’s stewardship of the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympic Games has become the subject of a curious controversy. Among other things, Santorum has suggested that Mitt succeeded thanks only to a “federal bailout.” As I was governor of Utah at the time, I’m in a unique position to set the record straight.
Here are the facts: Four years before the Games were to begin, they got caught up in a scandal. Sponsors began to withdraw and the budget of the Games was nearly $400 million over anticipated expenditures. A new leader was needed. Utah was at risk financially and I personally engaged in the search for the right person. I found Mitt Romney, who had a distinguished career in business, helping to start new companies and turn around failing ones. Within weeks of his arrival, Mitt had laid out a revitalized vision for the Games. Mitt assembled a new team to bring the budget under control. I repeatedly heard him explain that if the budget was to be balanced, every spending request had to be divided into needs and wants. He called on the people of Utah to volunteer to close the gap. I’ll never forget the ad he placed in Utah papers. It read:
“Help wanted; hard work, no pay, better hurry.” Fifty thousand people responded. When the Games had concluded, they were an unqualified success. In a world still reeling from the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, people across the globe were assured that they could gather in safety to celebrate the highest qualities of the human family. Mitt Romney’s leadership had turned the $400 million deficit into a $100 million surplus. It was a spectacular turnaround.
Sen. Santorum’s suggestion that only a “federal bailout” made all this possible is flatly wrong. We looked to the federal government only to assist with security and necessary infrastructure. Throughout, Mitt did the right thing, and he did it extraordinarily well.
After the Olympic Games had concluded, Mitt Romney returned to Massachusetts where he was elected governor. His state had a $3 billion deficit and the economy needed a turnaround. With the same discipline he used in business and the Olympics, at the end of four years he turned it into a $2 billion rainy-day fund. The bottom line is this:
The profile of the person we were looking for to rescue the Olympics matches almost perfectly what United States needs in our next president. We need a leader who can return us to fiscal responsibility, discern between those things that are needs and wants, and inspire a demoralized people to believe again. Mitt Romney is a leader who can do those things, and more
.Leavitt served as Utah’s governor from 1993-2003
Whatever the future autopsies of the Santorum campaign will say will depend far more on the particular political agendas of the authors.
The facts though is that Santorum’s campaign for the nomination was done in by a combination of Romney money and organization and Newt Gingrich’s quixotic quest for relevancy beyond his allotted time.
Had Gingrich had the good grace to drop out, Santorum would have won several more key contests, and we’d be looking at an entirely different convention today.
Thank God that Senator Rick had the grace to bow out, thus not playing “Bobby Kennedy” to Romney’s “Hubert Humphrey”.
It now falls to Romney to signal that he has “gotten the message” sent from the Conservative base, and choose a decent Conservative as his running mate to unite the Party. Rick Santorum wouldn’t be a bad choice…and it would be a precedent set by Ronald Reagan when he chose centrist George H. W. Bush as HIS running mate.
mittens 2012: at least he’s not a communist!
is this the bumper sticker i get from the romney camp if i were to donate a few $?
Don’t donate. That will get you on a perpetual mailing list and you will receive requests from all over the US. You never get off that list.
It’s funny how the guy that actually worked in the private sector is considering to somehow be the Washington insider, but the two guys who spend all their lives in Washington, either in politics or lobbying, are “outsiders”.
I guess Gingrich held done a private sector job in academia, but that’s pretty iffy.
Like I said, Republicans have simply lost their minds, unable to look at Romney objectively. Or any candidate, it seems. The one true small government conservative in the race (Paul) was almost ignored completely
I would say if anything, it showed how the Republican base lost its mind.
Facing the worst president of modern times in terms of how he handles they economy, they rally behind a mean spirited, passive-aggressive social conservative, who wants to fight about gay marriage and ban pornography.
Really? That’s what Republicans want to fight about? Not massive government spending and debt? They want to sent another big government conservative to Washington after GWB started this mess (that Obama has doubled down on).
And it wasn’t even some religious leader the egged this on, like the Moral Majority stuff in the past. This was all the Republican base’s own idea. What a bunch of phonies the Tea Party turned out to be.
I think it didn’t go over well when the evengelicals were shown with their hands on him blessing him, and saying things about Romney. Not from the religious amongst us, but for the larger public. If Romney had done that you can imagine the outcry.
This business of birth control that he didn’t put down immediately also was a no brainer. When that idiot stephie asked Romney about it in a debate, Romney laughed at him. There was no one who wanted to ban birth control, as he said. But obviously that question came from the white house as a harbinger of what was to come from them. Rick should have stayed away from it, period.
I didn’t like his whinney voice and he was so upset that everyone in the media didn’t give him a chance. Well, I have to tell you he got millions of dollars in advertising from glenn beck. Glenn had him on all the time. He talked about him incessantly and dissed Romney. I gave up listening to him because of it. At least until rick dropped out. Not only his voice but he whined all the time. The things he said about Romney showed a really sore looser. I hope Romney doesn’t pick him! Can you imagine his whinning if he was up against 0b0z0?
I hope there is peace for his family and for his daughter and for himself. But I don’t want him as president.
romney has said he wants a vp who can take over if needed. he knows that *isn’t* santorum. I consider it safe to strike santorum’s name from the veep list ’cause I don’t think romney would ever include it as anything more than perfuntory at most.
I would have found it very hard to vote for the religious zealot but I would if he were opposing obama. He has let his religiousity take precedence over common sense
I actually preferred Santorum until almost the very end. When he began to whine about Romney I lost interest both in the man AND the politician. And now, he “graciously” says he’ll campaign in the Fall for Romney. I don’t believe him. Why wait? Why not ask his delegates to avidly support Romney? If ever a unified party were necessary it is now and few if any Republican candidate wannabees are doing what is necessary which is close ranks.
Because the race isn’t over yet. Gingrich and Paul could still deny Romney 1144 delegates, and if that happens, it’s a whole new race at the Convention.
No. They couldn’t. They are not going to win 80% of the remaining delegates. Please, put down whatever it is you are smoking and rejoin the real world.
Gee, what a letdown! I only read the headline and rushed to the article – I thought it was about Moran.
Santorum was just the last choice of the ABRs. Anything else?
We won’t be able to write his history until next year, after the Fall elections.
I would rather vote for someone with strong principles — even if I don’t agree with all of them — than a flat-out flip-flopper whose opinions change with every new poll.
I don’t know where most of your get your claim to “conservatism,” but, for me, I am Conservative because of my loving faith in God, and my desire to please Him in every way possible. So, yes, I live out my faith.
The fallacy that Conservatism is all about fiscal policy is hogwash, IMHO. Social liberalism, of necessity, prevents fiscal conservatism; for social liberalism demands fiscal liberalism. You cannot pay for social programs while trying to be fiscally conservative. It doesn’t work. Conservatism demands self-government and responsibility. Self-governance means the individual polices him/her-self, maintaining proper behavior in society; and the concept of taking care of one’s own needs, instead of relying on society or government to take care of them.
Liberalism is the opposite belief. It portrays the ultimate in dependence upon others (society/govt) to take care of them; as well as a lack of interest in being responsible for oneself and one’s behavior. Liberals look upon “freedom” as license to whatever they want, w/out consideration for the consequences of their behavior upon themselves, others, nor obedience to the law.
And, yes, I agree with Rick Santorum. America needs a man like him to fix this nation! As it says in 2 Chronicles 7:14, “If My people, who are called by My Name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from Heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.”
America doesn’t just need better economic policies; we need to turn away from the social ills that have contributed to our destruction, and restore our nation. We need to once again teach the Biblical principles of moral behavior and upright character–as our forefathers did.
We cannot continue to allow this moral decline–it’s destroying everything that was once good about this country. Founder & once-president John Adams said, “Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.”
Learn the Truth about your country’s history by visiting http://www.wallbuilders.com/
They won’t!