You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
-Election 2012
Santorum trifecta rattles White House race
2012-02-09
[Daily Nation (Kenya)] Christian conservative Rick Santorum
...candidate for president and former U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania. He was a lawyer before becoming the Representative for suburban Pittsburgh in 1991. He lost his Senate seat in 2006 to Bob Casey, a Democrat machine politician and political dynast. Santorum is a social conservative whose primary attraction is seemingly that he is neither Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich...
reignited his White House bid Tuesday, claiming an unexpected trio of state wins that raised new question marks over Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney.
...whose real first name is actually, no kidding, Willard, was governor of Massachussetts and is currently the front-runner for president on the Publican ticket. He is the son of the former governor of Michigan, George Romney, who himself ran for president after saving American Motors from failure, though not permanently. Romney's foot is in an ideological bucket because of Romneycare, a state-level experiment that should have been a warning against Obamacare if anyone had been paying attention. Romney's charisma is best defined as soporific, which is probably why he is leading the Publican field...
Santorum, written off only a few weeks ago, won caucuses in Minnesota and Colorado and a primary in Missouri -- a clean sweep that represented another stunning turnaround in this topsy-turvy Republican presidential race.

The established wisdom was that Santorum was surging in the Midwest and could take Minnesota and Missouri thanks to support from evangelical Christians, but no one expected him to win out west in the Rocky Mountains.

It was a bitter blow for Romney, who romped home in Colorado during his 2008 bid, scooping more than 60 percent of the vote.

"The Romney bandwagon just went in the ditch," CNN analyst David Gergen said, as pundits scratched their heads and struggled to explain the loss.

The Republican battle to be the nominee to take on President Barack Obama
I inhaled. That was the point...
is in a interesting repositioning phase ahead of "Super Tuesday" on March 6, when 10 states vote at once and almost a fifth of all delegates are decided.

A clutch of seven February contests, including the three held on Tuesday, will not alter the fact that Romney goes into that day the frontrunner, but they could boost Santorum's challenge and put added pressure on the favourite.

The surge by Santorum, a former US senator, arguably places him back out in front of former House speaker Newt Gingrich
...former Speaker of the House, author of the Contract with America. Gingrich gave the country welfare reform and a balanced budget and the Publicans a landslide House victory in 1994. On the downside, he has a roving eye and a loose fly, he's opinionated, and he's abrasive despite his ability to work with the other side of the political aisle...
, whose campaign has slumped in recent weeks, making a mockery of his claim to be the obvious "anti-Mitt."

With nearly all of the precincts reporting in Missouri, Santorum was the big winner with 55 percent of the vote, more than double Romney's 25 percent.

In Minnesota, Santorum won 45 percent of the vote, easily defeating Texas congressman Ron Paul at 27 percent. Romney was a distant third at 17 percent, with 85 percent of precincts reporting.

The biggest shock of the night was in Colorado, where Santorum won 40 percent of the vote, edging out Romney on 35 percent, according to official party results.

"Wow, what a night for Santorum and a disaster for Mitt," Charles Franklin, cofounder of pollster.com and a professor at Marquette University Law School, told AFP.

"This certainly raises the stakes for Super Tuesday and the burden on Romney to start winning like a frontrunner should. It's a great second chance for Santorum to replace Newt as the top alternative."

Romney and Gingrich will take solace in the fact that none of Tuesday's contests are binding votes but for Santorum it is all about momentum, media attention and maybe some more cash to fill up his depleted campaign coffers.
Posted by:Fred

#13  Conservative. The problem is... You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Posted by: OldSpook   2012-02-09 21:12  

#12  Any process that could produce nominees like Dole, McCain and Romney when 40% of the electorate self-describes as conservative is either malfunctioning or designed to be something other than what it appears to be.

One major problem is that the nominee often isn't really the choice of the Majority. Often smaller states (IOWA, NH) are given a far greater amount of influence over the nomination process while other,often much larger, states get none.

In addition, due to the long, drawn out process, the media is allowed to practically pick the winner by attacking real conservatives (like we've seen this season).

And, IMHO, it is designed that way by the republican leadership.
Posted by: CrazyFool   2012-02-09 18:26  

#11  What's the difference between Zero and a syphylitic camel?
You can cure syphillis.
Posted by: Glenmore   2012-02-09 17:08  

#10  I'll vote for whomever the Pubs nominate (including a syphilitic camel). We've GOT to get rid of Bambi.
Posted by: Barbara   2012-02-09 16:10  

#9  Gallup did a mid-year poll in 2010 which found that 42% of those polled were conservative, 35% moderate, and 20% liberal. This poll is fairly consistent with other polls.

One would think that we would get a conservative POTUS and Congress more frequently. All I can figure is that a high percentage of moderates vote with the liberals. Or people have distorted views of what they claim to be. Or that there are more liberals out there and they are ashamed to claim being liberals.
Posted by: JohnQC   2012-02-09 15:42  

#8  Santorum has a quality missing from the rest. He has Character. I would not worry if he could make it to the Whitehouse.
Posted by: newc   2012-02-09 13:04  

#7  From a purely practical perspective, the primary system could use some tweaking. Any process that could produce nominees like Dole, McCain and Romney when 40% of the electorate self-describes as conservative is either malfunctioning or designed to be something other than what it appears to be. One obvious indication of the latter is the VA GOP changing the rules at the last minute so that only Romney appears on the ballot (Paul was approved before the rule change).
Posted by: Iblis   2012-02-09 10:17  

#6  From a Canuck perspective looking over our Southern border, the US electoral system seems, well, a bit weird

That's because so many ignore the name "United States". How do you get 13 former colonies, now autonomous governments to agree to a federal system? You certainly don't do it by arranging things that allow a couple of them to dominate all of them. That still applies today. As gorb points out, other than the usual suspects, no one wants 10 states with major metro areas to tell everyone else how to live. Buried in the contract, the Constitution, is the escape clause by State's Convention which permits 3/4ths of the states to tell the remaining 1/4th with all those metro areas to stick it if they push a centralized autocratic agenda too far.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2012-02-09 09:28  

#5  The biggest changes happened in about the '60s. It used to be that the party organization picked the candidate with just a few primaries to see what kind of chops the candidate had. JFK basically won the nod on the basis of the West VA primary.

The primary process has devolved now to the point where it's a popularity contest with very limited gravitas. The idea of anyone Dem or Repub voting in any primary is bizarre in the extreme.
Posted by: AlanC   2012-02-09 08:24  

#4  From a Canuck perspective looking over our Southern border, the US electoral system seems, well, a bit weird

Seems that way from here, too. But consider the ability of folks to travel back when it was developed in the late 1700s. Also, just imagine what would happen if the popular vote alone decided the race. They would run in the big cities and that would be the end of it. Liberals would love the popular vote. At least this way the votes in flyover country aren't ignored.
Posted by: gorb   2012-02-09 08:05  

#3  Ok. I will say it. From a Canuck perspective looking over our Southern border, the US electoral system seems, well, a bit weird - like it was designed by Constantly Nattering Ninnies (CNN) to sell "news". LIke John King whining when he had his short one slapped -not really news but there it is. Rather than afulsome airing of conservative views, it looks like each of the conserv runners are trying to take each other out at the knees, or going hi-lo on each other. The demos do not need an advertising campaign. They can just do reruns of the slammers against whoever is the last man standing for the Republicans. Maybe I just dont get it.
Posted by: Northern Cousin   2012-02-09 05:17  

#2  George Washington would have a difficult time running agains the Food Stamp President. I fear we have four more years of the Manchurian. I am planning for the worst.
Posted by: Besoeker   2012-02-09 03:13  

#1  I've been telling locals that the GOP race agz the Bammer was still wide open despite Mitt's early wins, ala NEWT-VS-MICHELLE'S-BOYZ.

Marquette sounds surprised - don't know why.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2012-02-09 00:32  

00:00