Santorum is a better MAN than Romney, I have no quibble with that.
It's important to be clear about what elections have become - a cross between American Idol, the Oscar Show, and Jackass.
There is NO POSSIBILITY WHATSOEVER that a candidate who has discussed (on an intellectual and spiritual plane) contraception or fornication can be elected to any statewide or national office in this country at the present time, given the degraded state of the culture.
On top of that, Santorum comes across, on TV (which is where the battle is gong to be fought) as a little boy, and also as one who lacks confidence.
Neither Romney nor Santorum has a prayer vs. Obama, given the nature of the process and the team they are fighting against.
I thought the Palin CIABN (campaign in all but name) had found the seams in the Obama defense, so as to simultaneously a) Have good visuals, b) Stick up for the little guy, c) Take down Obama by telling the truth about him, and d) Symbolize the nation's core population and values by her very existence, without ever speaking a word.
Unfortunately, IMO, we have no replacement who can perform all of these tasks, and all will be required for victory.
Romney is a certain loser, and thanks to Romney for his scorched earth, attack ads on Newt Gingrich, Romney made it possible for Santorum to surge in Iowa.
The GOP isn’t called the stupid party without good reasons. OPEN primaries wherein same day registration is permitted and Independents are allowed to vote, along with democrats registering Republican at the door, has to be the most insane policy ever.
No wonder Romney and Ron Paul are are coming in first and second! Close the primaries to Registered Republicans who have previously voted in the last election and we will get a wholly different result.
Jim, you’re right about Sarah Palin, but she didn’t run and Todd told Greta he’s happy she’s sitting this one out. The lamestream and GOP-E have their guy, Romney and the money is behind him. Nobody else need apply, thankyouverymuch. Even Faux News is in the tank for Romney. Can’t upset the apple cart. Go-along-to-get-along. Sarah Palin wouldn’t stand for that and Newt Gingrich won’t either.
Newt is bloodied, but he’s a fighter. I think he’d fare best against Obama. Santorum is a losing senator from PA, but he’d fare better than Romney. Perry is bloodied, but he’d fare better than Romney.
Romney will send the GOP the way of the Whigs and that’s the silver lining.
Thanks for pinging me.
IMHO...
Politics is not binary as the media projects and many believe. Within left and right there are factions with their own interests. Often the factions co-opt the brands of “left” or “right”, kind of hiding inside them, unbeknownst to their rubes and footsoldiers, and go along for a low-cost political ride so to speak.
What the left is saying internally, of course, is very telling about a Republican candidate’s chances.
It is rather like wallowing in the slop to read it, but nonetheless it is very telling.
I found an interesting article on a far-lefty site that was quite in-depth and very revealing.
I would suggest reading the whole story at this link...
http://www.nationofchange.org/santorum-secret-jobs-manufacturing-focus-wins-votes-1325862818
but I’ll excerpt here and ruin the ending for you...
“Perhaps the Club for Growth is right when it says Santorum is bending to “political expediency” when he talks about renewing manufacturing. But it is a bow that is rooted in reality: there really is a 99 percent out there, and they are not interested in or satisfied with Mitt Romney’s Bain Capitalism. To the extent that Santorum succeeds in presenting even an alternative message, he has the potential to connect with blue-collar conservatives in communities that have been abandoned by presidential contenders and presidents of both parties.
That’s a potential that should concern Santorum’s fellow Republicans. And it should concern Democratic strategists as well. Mitt Romney is not going to appeal to blue-collar voters and working families in hard-hit factory towns. He’s one of the people who hit them. But when Santorum talks about running as “someone who can go out to western Pennsylvania and Ohio and Michigan and Indiana and Wisconsin and Iowa and Missouri and appeal to the voters that have been left behind by a Democratic Party,” he is positioning himself as a very different candidate than Romney and the other Republicans. And that difference explains much of his appeal.”
Of course the 99% concept is a fraud, there are really those who pay and those who take, it’s more like 65% and 35% than 1% and 99%.
The simple fact is that Romney’s background is the quintessential target for Democrats - they have to be positively salivating at the thought of running the big Zero against him. A word to the wise is sufficient - IMHO, Republicans look to be setting up for an epic disappointment if they are banking on Romney beating Obama with his staunch “I feel very strongly both ways” moderation.
IMHO, while crony capitalism only pretends to be conservative, true conservatism appeals to everyone.
Romney is currently scrambling to raise as much as he can from big donors since at some point he will be faced with the fact that his true support with Republican voters is very underwhelming.
Perhaps I’ll post that article in a separate thread.
IMHO, if the “smart money” of big capital was indeed smart, they’d think twice about throwing any more good money after bad towards the Romney campaign.
The continued bailouts they believe that Romney would provide for them is, in the big picture, a business plan that will ultimately fail, while Santorum’s vision of actually, oh, I don’t know, rebuilding the American economy using real productivity instead of debt and foreign investment, will ultimately pay off tremendously well for big capital. It’s not like foreign investment must be completely avoided, to a certain extent it makes sense. But like most human “herds”, when foreign investment became the watchword, capital lost all it’s brains and flew out of America like a gold rush. Large swings and sways like that, based on hype, invariably tarnish the luster of the best investment ideas.
Once a few more of the “powers that be” give up on beating the dead horse of bailouts that Bush started (gasp !) and the Holy Grail of investing exclusively overseas (gasp!) - to the point of starving American entrepreneurs for equity investment - and look for a new face not in the Republican line of succession (eek !)...
conservative elites and Republican-brand die-hards can perhaps begin a sheepish stroll away from Prince Romney and back towards reality.
There is a large portion of the Democratic party that is comprised of working families, the stereotypical “working-class”. They make a good living, go to Church, save for their own retirement, etc. They simply vote Democratic most of the time because grandpa did and perhaps they’re in a union - including cops, firefighters, etc. Even in big cities and suburbs. These folks typically do NOT think that immorality is fine - many of them are completely sick of the indoctrination of public schools. They certainly do not buy into the left’s notion of moral relativism.
Perhaps in this election even “moderate Republicans” might even admit that good morality is not evil. /partsarc
I understand they’ve been bullied into uttering the oath that morality is “relative” by the left - in hopes of the left not taking their lunch money or giving them wedgies quite as often. But they’ve been sulking at the lunch table with nothing to eat and their underwear waistband up around their chest for quite a time now, so perhaps such an admission would give some much needed exercise to their delicate spines.
Nothing sells like success. If an “evil Christian” with all those “evil morals” got America on a winning track - even though they resurrected some of those old “morals” - it would suddenly be hip to be square again, despite what America is bombarded with on TV and in the newspapers.