Althouse: "SANTORUM: Obama Is Preferable To Romney."

March 22, 2012

"SANTORUM: Obama Is Preferable To Romney."

"No he’s not, and you just demonstrated that it’s time to end your campaign. Either you’re an idiot, or you’ve cracked under the pressure. Either way, go home."

117 comments:

cubanbob said...: Reynolds is right. Its time for him to fold the tent. And the same for Newt and Paul.; 3/22/12, 10:10 PM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: If the media actually cared what Republican primary voters think, this would be getting more coverage than the Etch-a-Sketch.; 3/22/12, 10:12 PM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: Reynolds is right. However, I'd like Newt to stay in just for the media bitch-slap factor.; 3/22/12, 10:16 PM
Rick said...: Agreed.
Finally, something regarding which I agree with the Prof.; 3/22/12, 10:20 PM
shiloh said...: Althouse, as long as you continue to be smitten w/mittens.

btw, both your diehard cons and the few liberals here find your "cruel neutrality" nonsense somewhat amusing.

Hey, if mittens can't stand up to perpetual clowns Newt/Santo, he's toast against Obama! ok, ok, he was probably toast regardless lol.

solo estpy diciendo ...; 3/22/12, 10:29 PM
William said...: I just hope, for the sake of this great country, that Romney does not use Etch-a-Sketch to draw obscene doodles. Many young people spend half the day drawing obscene sketches on this seemingly harmless toy.; 3/22/12, 10:29 PM
Jacob Asplund said...: Mitt is worse than Obama for conservatives. A phony, backstabbing comrade-in-arms is more dangerous than an open enemy.; 3/22/12, 10:30 PM
Fen said...: Santorum disquals with an own goal.; 3/22/12, 10:30 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: If Santorum actually said this, it is time for him to quit. What he is saying is that he is more important than either the Republican party or getting Obama out of office. If he doesn't put getting Obama out above his personal ego, then I don't want him as our nominee, and probably not in the party at all.; 3/22/12, 10:31 PM
Fen said...: Who the hell is Jacob Asplund? New Shiloh sockpuppet?; 3/22/12, 10:31 PM
Wince said...: Santorum's pathetic off the cuff ramblings have been an embarrassment for some time.; 3/22/12, 10:32 PM
Ross said...: Obama better than Romney? I think that's a bit disingenuous.

"In a few short days, Republicans from across this country will decide more than their party's nominee. They will decide the very future of our party and the conservative coalition that Ronald Reagan built. Conservatives can no longer afford to stand on the sidelines in this election, and Governor Romney is the candidate who will stand up for the conservative principles that we hold dear," said Senator Santorum. (Feb 1, 2008)

"Governor Romney has a deep understanding of the important issues confronting our country today, and he is the clear conservative candidate that can go into the general election with a united Republican party."

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/former-us-senator-rick-santorum-r-pa-endorses-governor-mitt-romney-56763867.html; 3/22/12, 10:36 PM
Craig said...: Romney can win, but he'll have to run left of the incumbent to do it.; 3/22/12, 10:37 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: You're all creeping into political cultism, which doesn't surprise me with Reynolds - or that you, Ann, chose to post this:

Why should he quit? He speaks his mind, truthfully, which is better than Romney any day.

There seems to be this phenomena building around Romney - just as it did around Obama - where everyone wants to protect him rather than vet him.

Romney's Communications Director - not some low level staffer as many are now saying - just told us that Romney (specifically, not his campaign as so many are now saying) is lying to us and will abandon us once he gains the nomination. Why give him the chance? Or why not at least press Romney on it, now, since that's what we're supposed to be doing? Why just accept the word of a known flip-flopper he won't flip again?

Everybody wants to beat Obama - I get that - but at what cost? That's the point Santorum's making and it's a good one:

Right now the Mormon "church" is embroiled in two racism scandals - one involving the baptism of Jews and one involving racism against blacks - yet the Romney campaign has made it known that anyone who mentions Mormonism is a "bigot." That's kind of queer if you ask me - calling others bigots when racism is the charge against his 'faith." Where's all the Jeremiah Wright-hating folks for this?

It most definitely doesn't speak well of Romney's honesty (the people asking aren't the bigots but Romney's "church") or to how Romney will utilize power when he gets it, actively smearing innocent people with "bigot" the way Obama smears others with "racist" - and yet conservatives are going along.

is Obama II really what we want - from the right side of the aisle?

As far as Santorum and internet porn, it seems pretty obvious to me that many are suffering from tunnel vision this election, focusing exclusively on the economy - Romney's one strong suit - to the detriment of the multitude of issues a president has to deal with. This, to me, is silly. mitt Romney made the exact same statement, on internet porn that Santorum did in 2007, but - again - in their desire to elect a Republican "messiah," only Santorum catches flak for caring about the culture along with everything else. Why? the answer is simple:

Just as in 2008, we are witnessing political cultism creep into our nominating process, perverting it into something it's not supposed to be. We are supposed to be vetting candidates - harshly - not crowning them by virtue of them showing up.

Mitt Romney has many negatives, RomneyCare being as huge as ObamaCare because it's bankrupting his state, but still we're applauding this man as some kind of economic savior when we should be raking him over the coals to be sure he's what we want and can deliver. That's not only not happening but isn't even on the radar - and it's shameful. Much more than anything Rick Santorum has said because, so far, he's only told the truth.

And, if you ask me, only in the twisted reality of a budding political cult does THAT become a bad thing for a politician to do,...; 3/22/12, 10:37 PM
Ann Althouse said...: What Santorum is saying reminds me of why I thought Obama was preferable to McCain.; 3/22/12, 10:38 PM
Jason said...: Santorum has simply run out of things to say.

What we are hearing now are the last few relevant words from a guy who is literally seeing his political career come to an end.; 3/22/12, 10:38 PM
pm317 said...: Bruce Hayden said...
---------

Hotair has the video and he did say it with his self-righteous stuck up face.; 3/22/12, 10:39 PM
shiloh said...: Quite the dichotomy as clueless Santo marches to the beat of his own drummer, whereas clueless mittens marches to the beat of several drummers er the current conservative flavor of the day.

Indeed, mittens is flexible! :D

bottomline, mittens just ain't likable, especially to conservatives.

But it's ok for Reps to whine about Santo ... really. :); 3/22/12, 10:40 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: Ann Althouse,

What Santorum is saying reminds me of why I thought Obama was preferable to McCain.

Ahhh, the ol' "rational" bit again, eh? Again - RomneyCare is bankrupting Mitt's state - sell me on his economic genius again.

Again - he screams "bigot" like Obama screamed "racist" when his "church" is charged with racism - sell me on his use of power.

You're a tool, Ann. You simply are not thinking - and especially not skeptically,...; 3/22/12, 10:45 PM
Jason said...: Why should he quit? He speaks his mind, truthfully, which is better than Romney any day.

I speak my mind every day too. Doesnt mean I should be president.

Any person who truly believes that Barack Obama would actually be better than Mitt Romney is an idiot. Period.

Romney's Communications Director - not some low level staffer as many are now saying - just told us that Romney (specifically, not his campaign as so many are now saying) is lying to us and will abandon us once he gains the nomination. Why give him the chance? Or why not at least press Romney on it, now, since that's what we're supposed to be doing? Why just accept the word of a known flip-flopper he won't flip again?

I dont understand why that's such big news. Every primary is like that. The Dems do the same thing - they run to the left as fast as they can, and once they win the nomination, they float back to the center as far as they can.

Mitt Romney has many negatives, RomneyCare being as huge as ObamaCare because it's bankrupting his state, but still we're applauding this man as some kind of economic savior when we should be raking him over the coals to be sure he's what we want and can deliver. That's not only not happening but isn't even on the radar - and it's shameful. Much more than anything Rick Santorum has said because, so far, he's only told the truth.

What do you want Romney to say or do? He's put forth an economic plan that includes tax reform and lower spending. He's pledged to repeal ObamaCare should it get to his desk. He's explained that he will be a pro-business president. He's publicly endorsed Paul Ryan's budget plan. As far as being "raked over the coals", what more do you expect him to do?

I realize you dont like Romney, and thats OK...but at the same time, it also seems like he would never be good enough for you no matter what he does.; 3/22/12, 10:46 PM
Michael K said...: No, Romney will do just fine but Santorum just blew up what was left of his campaign and , especially, his chance of any role in a Romney administration. He was asking Democrats to vote for him 9n Michigan with robocalls. This just caps it.; 3/22/12, 10:49 PM
John Stodder said...: It's a non-RINO thing. We're not supposed to understand.

As Michelle Bachmann said in the first debate, Obama is going to be a one-term president. What the non-RINOs concluded from that bold prediction was that 2012 was the year to put an extreme right-winger in the White House. All the GOP had to have was the sense to nominate one.

Santorum was the last hope of those who believed in the dream. He and the other non-RINOs are very, very sad about this, and you won't be able to talk them out of it.

Imagine you have a teenage daughter who was just dumped by Biff, her boyfriend. You can say, "You'll find someone else... someone better," but they just won't believe you. The non-RINOS like Santorum are like hormonal teenage girls who just got dumped by Biff. There is no logic, no planning, no thinking. Just feelings, and a solipsistic obsession with them.; 3/22/12, 10:49 PM
Michael K said...: "Why should he quit? He speaks his mind, truthfully, which is better than Romney any day. "

He doesn't have to quit, just change parties. He was recruiting Democrats in Michigan. Gingrich is preferable to this sanctimonious twerp. I could see Gingrich playing a role, like UN Ambassador if he can get over his bitterness at Romney. Santorum ? I hear the Crystal Cathedral is hiring.; 3/22/12, 10:54 PM
Michael K said...: Shiloh, please tell me some about what conservatives should think.; 3/22/12, 10:55 PM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: Can we free ourselves from the cult of authenticity?; 3/22/12, 10:55 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: Jason,

Any person who truly believes that Barack Obama would actually be better than Mitt Romney is an idiot. Period.

You're not paying attention - RomneyCare is bankrupting the state. How does that make Mitt better than Obama?

I dont understand why that's such big news. Every primary is like that. The Dems do the same thing - they run to the left as fast as they can, and once they win the nomination, they float back to the center as far as they can.

Now you can't read:

The Communications director said ROMNEY - not his campaign - will flip on us.

What do you want Romney to say or do? He's put forth an economic plan that includes tax reform and lower spending. He's pledged to repeal ObamaCare should it get to his desk. He's explained that he will be a pro-business president. He's publicly endorsed Paul Ryan's budget plan. As far as being "raked over the coals", what more do you expect him to do?

Again - you're not paying attention:

it's not what he's supposed to do - WE'RE supposed to vet him. He's a flip-flopping politician. Why take his word on anything? If he was Nixon you'd be making damned sure you knew what was up with him.

And again - calling people bigots like Obama used racism, when it's his church that's been busted for racism - you missed that one. Why?

Because it sticks - the man will wrongly, and ruthlessly, smear his opponents because you choose not to do your duty.

Or do you find racism against Jews and blacks and appealing quality in a president?

For the last time:

Romney's fine - he's been everything I've expected - but YOU:

You're making yourself into a total tool and a lousy citizen.

if Romney was vetted and made the cut, I'd be fine with that - I don't have to vote for him, but I could at least relax a bit. But you guys think this is a crowning ceremony and not a nomination process. For the billionth time:

Vet the man.; 3/22/12, 10:58 PM
a psychiatrist who learned from veterans said...: He needs to get a little sleep. Maybe he was feeling bad about his VP chances. Don't think he's going to be able to run with Obama either though.; 3/22/12, 10:59 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: My Etch-a-Sketch hotspot keeps wandering out of range.; 3/22/12, 11:02 PM
Michael K said...: "And again - calling people bigots like Obama used racism, when it's his church that's been busted for racism - you missed that one. Why?"

I thought we were past religious bigotry but if that's all you have...; 3/22/12, 11:09 PM
Wince said...: Ann Althouse said...
What Santorum is saying reminds me of why I thought Obama was preferable to McCain.

Agreed. But that was in the aftermath of eight years of Bush and the financial crisis, where the idea was to reveal what the Democratic promised land of "Hope and Change" really entailed against the promises.

Not to destroy the Republic, which is the course being charted for the country in a second Obama term.

Now the argument is let's see what the Republicans can do. Congruently, Dick Morris tonight reported the Republicans are polling strong in most of the contested senate races.; 3/22/12, 11:10 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: "What Santorum is saying reminds me of why I thought Obama was preferable to McCain."

I won't badger you about the vote you cast in 2008 but I note that people have stopped saying "Obama is so pragmatic". Why is that?; 3/22/12, 11:10 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Saintorum is this century's nuttier version of Elmer Gantry.; 3/22/12, 11:12 PM
rcommal said...: More framing. Jeez, we really are in an Etch-A-Sketch world. Shake it up. Frame again. Skritch, skritch, slash, squeak. Shake. Frame again, world without window. Squeak, slash, skritch, skritch. Et cetera ad nauseam.

Blecch to shoddy workmanship.; 3/22/12, 11:14 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: Michael K,

I thought we were past religious bigotry but if that's all you have...

hey, it's better than avoiding the issues to crown the Mormon's "White Horse" as they baptise Jews and tell their kids blacks are less-than-people because we've been stained with the mark of Cain.

If bringing that up - to a Mormon bishop you want to put in the White House - is "bigotry" then guilty as charged.; 3/22/12, 11:16 PM
bagoh20 said...: You see people, this is a real gaffe. Not a mispoken phrase, or using some un-PC language, or making a debatable factual error.

This is being totally undeniably wrong, and about something critical; unforced, unexplainable, last call is over, see ya later Rooster - the nickname we gave him in high school for being outspoken and cocksure.; 3/22/12, 11:16 PM
Wince said...: Lem said...
My Etch-a-Sketch hotspot keeps wandering out of range.

Plus, I heard the Etch-a-Sketch 2 is overheating.; 3/22/12, 11:17 PM
Steve Austin said...: Yeah, after months of nothing, Santorum really stepped in it tonight with more than just a gaffe. This was a newsworthy meltdown.

I think he's done and frankly needs to bow out. Even a large portion of people who don't like Mitt realize that priority number one is removing Obama.

Santorum has zero emotional intelligence. He has no clue how he has been coming off to people the past few weeks. Explains why he lost his senate race by 18 points.; 3/22/12, 11:26 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Baptising Jews after they are dead? Who cares about that really? Is that all you have?

I think it was Mad Man who commented earlier he gets tired of feined outrage over minor issues.; 3/22/12, 11:27 PM
Shantastik said...: I hope Althouse is smitten with mittens. Her and women like her that were fooled by Obama are unfortunately the key to the election. Let's hope Althouse gets smitten enough to change her dramatic 2008 mistake.; 3/22/12, 11:31 PM
Saint Croix said...: Wow, it's been a rough primary.

One nice thing about a rough primary, the truth comes out. It really does.

For instance, Althouse says that the imbroglio over the campaign's gaffe is "inane" and a "non-incident."

The same day she resorts to an ALL CAPS ATTACK on Santorum.

So it's pretty obvious that Althouse likes Romney, and does not like Santorum.

See? The truth comes out.

I think this is a crisis for Mitt Romney. So we'll see how he responds to it.

I think it's a crisis because the etch-a-sketch comment is so visual. It sticks in your mind. And it fatally undercuts Romney's whole campaign.

What are we all worried about? His authenticity. What does Etch-a-Sketch do? Undercuts everything he says.

A campaign is like a house. You have a platform. "This is my platform for the house I am building."

Then you shake it up and it doesn't exist anymore.

It was a profoundly stupid comment.

If Romney is our nominee, I can imagine the media repeating the Etch-a-Sketch comment over and over and over. This discussion will have the effect of suppressing the Republican vote.

We can't believe what he says. It undercuts everything he says.

Romeny needs to fire him.

Is it fair? I don't know. Why the fuck are you making such an "inside baseball" comment to the media, anyway?

It implies a contempt for the voters. "Yeah, we're saying one thing in the primary, but we'll be singing a different tune in the general."

Would you hire this guy to run your campaign? It's a disaster.

You fire him to make the point that he's not speaking for Mitt Romney.; 3/22/12, 11:32 PM
Jason said...: You're not paying attention - RomneyCare is bankrupting the state. How does that make Mitt better than Obama?

The man says he will repeal ObamaCare if it gets to his desk. If that's not good enough for you, then I cant help you.

Now you can't read:

The Communications director said ROMNEY - not his campaign - will flip on us.

Thats NOT what he said. Thats how you perceive what he said, because you hold a negative opinion of Romney.

This idea that once Romney wins the nomination he is going to turn into some flaming liberal is ridiculous.

You're making yourself into a total tool and a lousy citizen.

if Romney was vetted and made the cut, I'd be fine with that - I don't have to vote for him, but I could at least relax a bit. But you guys think this is a crowning ceremony and not a nomination process. For the billionth time:

Vet the man.

"Vet the man".

WTF does that mean? He's going to win the Republican nomination for president. This process has gone on for months. Its not Romney's fault that Rick Perry cant put two coherent sentences together, or that Newt Gingrich has done nothing but abandon his principles to make money since leaving Congress, or that Herman Cain likes to talk dirty to women, or that Ron Paul is nut regarding foreign policy, or that Rick Santorum has emerged as kind of nutty himself. And its also not Romney's fault that no other candidate that could have been presidential material didnt run.

I guess I dont know what you want Romney to be "vetted" for...his tenure as Mass. governor, his private business affairs, his financial records...theyve all been made public. He has expressed his stances on the issues. I guess I dont know how much more he needs to be "vetted".

The problem with most conservatives isnt Romney...its the fact that they had this grand vision that someone else should be running for president, like Sarah Palin, Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Mitch Daniels, etc., and they are pissed he or she isnt. And they dont want to "settle" for Romney. If that's the case, and one wont vote for Romney because they are pissed someone else they liked didnt run, then that's their prerogative...but it certainly doesnt mean Romney is going to be worse than Obama.; 3/22/12, 11:33 PM
rcommal said...: What he is saying is that he is more important than either the Republican party or getting Obama out of office.

Why, yes he is. But let's be fair about it: He's echoing sentiments of a whole chunk of not just *his* base, but the *the* base. Or so I've been informed, yea these many years (dating back to the last election cycle).

If he doesn't put getting Obama out above his personal ego,

Where have you been? (Honestly, Bruce, this is surprising me. You have been one of the commenters here for whom I've had a great deal of respect, on account of your paying attention and your clear-headedness. Was I wrong?)

then I don't want him as our nominee

As if his commitment to bigger, more overweening government, though from the socially conservative right, wasn't sufficient

and probably not in the party at all.

Well! Now I'll be truly damned. What with, now, pretty much EVERY part of the party thinking (now, to repeat) that at least a good chunk of, if not everybody else in, the party doesn't belong in it...

what, pray tell, in the hell is left of it?

Blecch. What a mess.; 3/22/12, 11:34 PM
Steve Austin said...: I agree with Saint Croix. This Fernstrom clown needs to be fired. Romney needs to disavow him fast.

This reminds me of McCain's campaign manager who felt he needed to always prove he was smarter than his candidate and be the center of attention.; 3/22/12, 11:41 PM
crosspatch said...: "You're not paying attention - RomneyCare is bankrupting the state. How does that make Mitt better than Obama?"

Because the people of Mass. WANT that program. It wasn't Mitt Romney's idea to have a health care plan. The state General Court (Mass. Legislature) was going to implement a single-payer state system like Vermont has. Romney talked them out of it and kept private insurance.

But the bottom like is that the people of Mass to this day overwhelmingly LIKE their state plan WANT it. It wasn't a plan that was shoved down their throats like Obamacare was down the throats of the people of the US against their will.

That is a HUGE difference.; 3/22/12, 11:42 PM
Cindy Martin said...: Santorum needs to go. He is unelectable with moderates and is driving this conservatibe crazy. I can't stand him. Go Mitt.; 3/22/12, 11:52 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: AJ Lynch,

Baptising Jews after they are dead? Who cares about that really?

Uh, the Jews.

Is that all you have?

No, you conveniently overlooked the racism against blacks, and the use of his campaign to wrongly smear others as bigots when racism is the charge against him. Convenient, that.

I think it was Mad Man who commented earlier he gets tired of feined outrage over minor issues.

Now it's your turn:

Who cares what mad Man thinks? Was he put in ovens or something?; 3/22/12, 11:57 PM
john marzan said...: romney derangement syndrome.; 3/22/12, 11:58 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: Jason,

The man says he will repeal ObamaCare if it gets to his desk. If that's not good enough for you, then I cant help you.

And we're supposed to take the flip-flopping politician's word, why again?

The Communications director said ROMNEY - not his campaign - will flip on us.  Thats NOT what he said. Thats how you perceive what he said, because you hold a negative opinion of Romney.   This idea that once Romney wins the nomination he is going to turn into some flaming liberal is ridiculous.

Bullshit - here's the video of him saying it. Look and see for yourself. You're lying.

WTF does [vet the man] mean?

it means ask him the tough questions he's demanding don't be asked - make him squirm, or not. If not - if he's got decent answers to the tough questions, great. But if not, then we know what he is.

He's going to win the Republican nomination for president.

No - you're going to hand it to him - not the same thing.

This process has gone on for months.

With not one tough question for him in the entire process. Like, your church is currently embroiled in not one but two racism scandals - one against blacks and one against Jews - where do you stand on these controversies?

Or, your campaign has revealed that anyone who mentions Mormonism is to be branded a "bigot." This reminds me a lot of how President Obama branded others as racist - for instance, John McCain, who went to great pains not to bring up race in the election. Do you truly think anyone who questions the tenets of your faith is a bigot?

Or, your faith claims the American Indians are the lost tribe of Israel and you once stated that one thousand years after Jesus returns, he will rule from Missouri and Jerusalem. How does that first claim square with science and anthropology and why should anyone vote for you if you believe the second? Do you think either of those claims might make negotiations with Israeli leaders difficult?

Then sit back and watch and listen - that's vetting. It's what we did with Jeremaih Wright and Obama until Obama had to give a speech on it. Why not Romney?

Oh yeah - because you really, really like him. Give me a break.; 3/23/12, 12:15 AM
The Crack Emcee said...: crosspatch,

"he people of Mass. WANT that program. It wasn't Mitt Romney's idea to have a health care plan. The state General Court (Mass. Legislature) was going to implement a single-payer state system like Vermont has. Romney talked them out of it and kept private insurance.

But the bottom like is that the people of Mass to this day overwhelmingly LIKE their state plan WANT it. It wasn't a plan that was shoved down their throats like Obamacare was down the throats of the people of the US against their will.

That is a HUGE difference.

But to have stuck them with a system that bankrupted the state doesn't lead to the conclusion of Romney being some economic genius that'll save us. he was supposed to LEAD - not follow them off a cliff or allow them to jump.

Vet the man.; 3/23/12, 12:21 AM
Revenant said...: they baptise Jews

Yawn.; 3/23/12, 12:23 AM
Saint Croix said...: Why this urge that Santorum has to leave the race NOW NOW NOW? Answer: the hope is that when Romney is the nominee, we will start to see the "real" Romney. And then, the theory goes, everybody can relax as we will see that he's better than Obama.

The problem with this is that once he's the nominee, it's too late. We're stuck with the bastard.

How far towards the "middle" is he planning to go?

What if he says, "Obamacare, mend it, don't end it"?

Or, "I'm pro-life, but I also believe in the right to choose!"

Or, "We might have to raise taxes. I agree with President Obama on that point."

The question is not whether Romney is worse than Obama. (How could he be?) The question, the fear, is whether he's just another asshole.

There are lots of voters who will not vote for assholes. If two assholes are running, they stay home.; 3/23/12, 12:25 AM
Bender said...: It sticks in your mind. And it fatally undercuts Romney's whole campaign. . . . This discussion will have the effect of suppressing the Republican vote. We can't believe what he says. It undercuts everything he says. . . . It implies a contempt for the voters.

They don't care, HC, they really don't. So they go and rattle around between denial and rationalization and projection and deflection.

And, frankly, most of them are perfectly fine with Romney saying one thing to get the votes of conservatives and, once he has them, giving them the finger and daring them to not vote for him. That is because they either have no principles themselves or they are liberals who are disenchanted with Obama.

They are the same folks who cheered on McCain from 2006-07, saying they wish he would run, and then they all abandoned him to go vote for Obama. They will do the same this time around. All of the mushy moderates will find some excuse to not vote for Romney. Just go to any Democrat state or big city to see how they will vote Dem no matter how corrupt, incompetent, or disasterous the Dem is. California is bankrupt and it is more Dem than ever. Besides, the "I'm most electable" and "I can beat Obama" arguments will not work in November.

Meanwhile, he will have miscalculated the extent to which he can force conservatives to suck it, and many of them, having been so alienated, will stay home.

But it is likely too late now. We're stuck with him.; 3/23/12, 12:33 AM
Saint Croix said...: Not to pile on, but I saw this today.

Ugh.; 3/23/12, 12:47 AM
bagoh20 said...: I don't care what Romney's church thinks, anymore than I do Obama's. They had crazy shit going on. I care what he will do. I don't think it's reasonable to expect he's going to impose his church's beliefs on the nation. That never really happens. It doesn't work under our system. I can't even imagine how it would happen. National Jewish baptism day by executive order? Install Injuns on the Supreme court? I don't get it.

If he wins and I'm wrong, I'll come here and apologize and admit I was foolish.

Crack, Will you do the same if he proves you wrong?; 3/23/12, 12:49 AM
a psychiatrist who learned from veterans said...: Reading about Courage*: "Imagine an attack with a series of intermediate objectives. Relief (after surviving the first) does not work by swinging you back to some prior neutral state. It bounces you back to feeling much better than your real circumstances suggest you have a right to feel, Relief often prompts a false sense of security... But the external world isn't obliged to ratify your complacent view of it; you are asking for trouble."

I think this fits into how pivotal Illinois might have been. Santorum felt very much endangered by the loss but so relieved by the etch-a-sketch moment that he fell into the problems noted above and by bagoh20 @ 11:16,

* WI Miller; 3/23/12, 12:55 AM
ignatzk said...: Vet the man.

Well, Santorum just vetted himself out of contention.; 3/23/12, 1:01 AM
KCFleming said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 3/23/12, 1:05 AM
KCFleming said...: Whether you love or loathe Romney, the statement by Sntorum was blinkered and boneheaded.

Homer Simpson has better sense.; 3/23/12, 1:05 AM
ignatzk said...: SANTORUM: Obama Is Preferable To Romney.

If you are the "true conservative" that Santorum calls to, would you agree with him?

This is the opening Newt Gingrich was waiting for.; 3/23/12, 1:09 AM
bagoh20 said...: "he was supposed to LEAD - not follow them off a cliff or allow them to jump. "

It's Massachusetts. They always jump, and nobody is gonna stop them, especially some Republican they let in just for the novelty. It's not a dictatorship.

I'm no fan of Romney, but he showed them that if they insisted on jumping, here's a parachute. The MA Dems cut holes in it, because that's what they do. They destroyed what was originally a reasonable and modest plan that Romney backed, and the people wanted it. The people rule, right or wrong. He let them, so now they have what they want, for better or worse.; 3/23/12, 1:22 AM
The Crack Emcee said...: Revenant,

they baptise Jews

Yawn.

bagoh20,

I don't care what Romney's church thinks, anymore than I do Obama's.

(I'm getting to your question next,...)

ignatzk,  

Well, Santorum just vetted himself out of contention.

You're all missing the point - the point isn't what the Mormon "church" has or hasn't done, but putting the tough questions to Romney. What Santorum does (which I don't think is bad) isn't the point either - vetting the front runner is.

Do your duty and vet him, that's all I'm saying. It's wrong not to,...; 3/23/12, 1:26 AM
The Crack Emcee said...: bagoh20,

I don't care what Romney's church thinks, anymore than I do Obama's. They had crazy shit going on. I care what he will do. I don't think it's reasonable to expect he's going to impose his church's beliefs on the nation. That never really happens. It doesn't work under our system. I can't even imagine how it would happen. National Jewish baptism day by executive order? Install Injuns on the Supreme court? I don't get it.

Dude, cults don't think like you and I, and what you're imagining isn't what I'm suggesting. Will they openly impose a theocracy from the White House? No - not possible. But will the "church" fan out across the nation and start bugging the hell out of us with their new legitimacy? You bet your sweet bippy they will. And they will start to impose changes, slowly, wherever they can, inside of government and out, all for their own benefit. That's how it "works," bagoh, like the ol' slowly-boiling-the-frog trick.  If he wins and I'm wrong, I'll come here and apologize and admit I was foolish.

You will, eventually, but like I said, not for what you're thinking. I expect Romney will do O.K. for a while. Mormons always put on a great show of "traditional" imagery, but they're big on imposing themselves on others to an extent that is socially confining, and they will with power. I have no doubt about it. We're opening Pandora's box and it's a shame you don't get it.
 Crack, Will you do the same if he proves you wrong?

Have I ever backed away from my ethics? I can't vote for the man because he's a cultist and I refuse to put one in power. If he makes it, the failure will be ours, not his. There's as good a chance he'll be cool merely to legitimize the "church," but that's still not good. It's a cult - we can't win here.

Selling out logic and the free will of others is not supposed to be what we're about.; 3/23/12, 1:47 AM
Nora said...: Well, I'm not surprised Santorum warms to Obama, because IMO he is basically a Republican version of Obama - an empty pot running on ideological slogans and no real executive experience.; 3/23/12, 1:48 AM
The Crack Emcee said...: Pogo,

Whether you love or loathe Romney, the statement by Sntorum was blinkered and boneheaded.

  Homer Simpson has better sense.

Why? Since when does honesty become a negative? Santorum is doing the same thing I've been doing with the statements of Romney's help - holding them to their words. You're responding to the soundbite - listen to the rest of his statement:

Addressing reporters afterward, Santorum lit into Romney for saying “I’m going to run as a conservative.”
“He didn’t say ‘I am a conservative.’ He said ‘I’m going to run as a conservative.’ So what do you do, you just sort of decide what you’re going to be for the elections?” Santorum asked. “No one can accuse me of that. People say, ‘Well, you can’t win because of that.’ No, I will win because of it.”
Santorum said his brand of political authenticity will play well in Texas because “people are looking for someone who is real, someone they can relate to, not someone who can get in front of an audience and say whatever they want.”

In other words, Santorum is speaking to the cynicism of the Romney campaign - and to Romney's supporters who (also cynically) want to win that way.

We're supposed to be conservatives, we're supposed to be changing the game - that's what the Tea Party represented once. Not this any-weapon-at-hand bullshit but the greater ideas brought forth by the Founding Fathers and the spirit of the Revolution. We're supposed to be taking our country back - not continuing with what's been killing it. The man is trying to be the adult in the room.

Except in the usual way the game is played - which Romney has been playing to the hilt - do I see anything wrong with what Santorum is representing or saying. As a matter of fact, I admire him for it. He's being for real while everyone else is playing a game.

And, considering Newt started off complaining about Romney's tactics as well, he comes off as extremely hypocritical in my eyes, but of course that's nothing new for him,...; 3/23/12, 2:03 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: rcommal

If Santorum were to win the nomination, I have little doubt that Romney would back him. And, indeed, I think that he has said that any of the Republican candidates would be preferable to Obama. And, it isn't just Romney. Most of the candidates throughout the primary season have said essentially the same thing. Even Gingrich, the candidate who, up until now, I thought the most self-indulgent.

Last election, Romney ended up backing McCain, and, more importantly, due to the rancor between the candidates, Hillary! backed Obama (and, ended up getting Secretary of State...) Now, there was always the question of how strongly the Clintons would support Obama, once Hillary! dropped out, but there was never a question that they would at least go through the motions (and, I think, in the end, they did more than that).

Maybe it is being, at least a little, a team player. And, Santorum did seem to be able to do that when he was in the Senate. Some of the votes he took there for his team may have helped run up his loss of his Senate seat.

If by some miracle, Santorum were to win the nomination, he would expect that Romney would back him, and, indeed, Romney's backing would be essential for victory, because his base is more centrist than is Santorum's.

I just think that this is very small of Santorum. And, isn't something that I want to see in a President (Obama is small enough as a person already).; 3/23/12, 2:05 AM
The Crack Emcee said...: ignatzk,

SANTORUM: Obama Is Preferable To Romney.

If you are the "true conservative" that Santorum calls to, would you agree with him?

Of course. Electing a conservative has been the goal from Day One. Santorum's living up to it. It's the rest of you that have lost your way. I've been saying so with Limbaugh's apology, the PC retaliation by conservatives for it, and in their support for Romney without vetting him. So-called conservatives are acting like Libarals in order to win - which makes them no better.

Somebody has to have principles around here,...; 3/23/12, 2:08 AM
Nora said...: Saint Croix said...
"The question is not whether Romney is worse than Obama. (How could he be?) The question, the fear, is whether he's just another asshole."

Yep, whom should you choose - the one you fear might show himself to be an asshole, or the one that had already shown himself to be an asshole? Tough choice indeed.; 3/23/12, 2:15 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: Which brings me to another point. I have to assume that Santorum was reacting to some of the attacks made on him by Romney, and, most likely the SuperPACs supporting Romney. Which makes him appear to also have a thin skin.

But, if he thinks this is bad, what about when the Obama campaign gets geared up, with their billion dollar war chest and their own SuperPACs. Plus, of course, the MSM carrying water for them. What is he going to do, with these forces trying to pin anything they can on him, probably including being a religious zealot, possibly, being a devout Roman Catholic, even supporting child molestation by priests? Plus, how he obviously wants to strip women of their reproductive rights, preferring them to be barefoot and pregnant (not helped by the size of his family). 24/7, every time you turn on the TV or radio. In other words, he ain't seen nothing yet.

Let me add here that I don't think that Gingrich would do much better. I think that both Romney and Paul are much better in this regard.

Here is another part of this problem. A couple days ago, Ann posted about Romney starting to push the meme that Obama was a nice enough guy, just too naive to lead this country effectively. And, a number of us pointed out that this is probably what is going to be needed to win in November, with personal attacks on Obama alienating the moderates needed in such a win. Esp. the moderates who voted for Obama in 2008.

My question then is how can we believe that if Santorum is going to strike out at Romney this way, after those attacks got under his skin, how can we believe that he won't turn a campaign against Obama into a personal attack on him, thus possibly alienating a lot of the moderates who voted for him in 2008? As I noted above, whoever gets the nomination is going to go through hell to win the election. The Obama people have shown themselves to be absolutely vicious and unprincipled in pursuit of victory. The only thing important to them is winning. Nothing else. To the victor go the spoils, and that includes the Department of Justice, etc.

I think that there is a decent chance that Romney (and Paul) could stay on message through such an assault. With this, I think that there is little chance that Santorum could.; 3/23/12, 2:24 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: Yep, whom should you choose - the one you fear might show himself to be an asshole, or the one that had already shown himself to be an asshole? Tough choice indeed.

I am not sure if either one is an asshole. I don't think that is really the question, and I would vote for an asshole, if I thought that the country would be better for it. Remember, with almost 50% of the American public not paying any federal income taxes, and many of those being "takers", it is going to require a tough SOB to seriously cut the size of the federal government back to manageable levels. And, that is going to make him appear to be an asshole to a lot of the public.

Now, if you were to ask if Romney were as much a lying pond scum out to destroy our country as we know it, as is Obama, then I think you might have a better point.; 3/23/12, 2:33 AM
Unknown said...: All the candidates I supported got voted off the island early on.

Mitt Romney will get my vote. He will be smart if he picks a true conservative as his running mate. McCain wouldn't have done nearly as well against Obama if he hadn't chosen Sarah Palin for his running mate.

The economy will still be the focus of this campaign, and Romney is the only one running who has the life experience it will take to turn this country around and bring back jobs and grow the economy. I believe he will put this country first.

Santorum should drop out today and apologize for supporting a socialist Democrat over a 'moderate' Republican. That shows that he puts his personal ego ahead of the party.

Let's not lose focus "ABO" 2012!; 3/23/12, 4:20 AM
DEEBEE said...: Expected the race to go till June. This comment essentially makes it a one man race, or the tird coming of Newt.; 3/23/12, 4:59 AM
damikesc said...: It's time for Ricky to go home. He has just killed his aspirations for higher ofice forever with that inane comment.

Petulance is something we should avoid in a President. Ricky is laden with it.; 3/23/12, 6:10 AM
edutcher said...: As I've said, Santorum is a sorehead and a whiner.

If he wins LA at all, it won't be anywhere near double digits.

I agree with Insta and Austin's right; Romney can only do himself good by firing Fernstrom.

Ann Althouse said...

What Santorum is saying reminds me of why I thought Obama was preferable to McCain.

Meade,...; 3/23/12, 6:13 AM
DADvocate said...: Mitt just needs to smile and thank Ricky for handing him the nomination.; 3/23/12, 6:31 AM
Writ Small said...: That comment was two days after Santorum bragged at his Illinois concession speech that he didn't need a teleprompter.; 3/23/12, 6:54 AM
Mick said...: Obama is not eligible, so OF COURSE he is not preferable. Not that Romney is "good" by any stretch.; 3/23/12, 6:58 AM
SGT Ted said...: Yup, Stick a fork in Santorum. He has descended into crackpot territory. He done.

Oh and off crack goes with the 'cult' crap. ALL Christian sects in this country are "cults" using the criteria with which they judge Mormons, with the exception of the RCC and Jews. They ALL used God to shit on minorities.

The Baptists and Methodists and other modern Prot sects would have all been burnt at the stake 400 years ago for heresy. ESPECIALLY those creepy "Born Agains".

SO much for "concern" about Mormonisms alleged cultyness.

"I have a personal platonic relationship with the son of GOd whose been dead for 2000+ years, but those Mormons are really weird."; 3/23/12, 7:25 AM
Fen said...: All the candidates I supported got voted off the island early on.

Same here.

I expect Romney will stab us in the back - over border enforcement, over social isssues, over Israel and Iran.

But I still prefer him to Obama.; 3/23/12, 7:25 AM
SGT Ted said...: The person talking like a cultist is Rick Santorum, claming that Romney and Obama are the same.

Yes, the emerging cult of "conservatism" where, if you deviate from the "true conservatives" say is "true conservatism", you are excommunicated, much like the leftists do with their apostates. Cultist thinking right there.

Santorum wants to be cult leader for conservative cultists. He is also a Christian authoritarian.

I don't consider Christian authoritarians to be "conservatives" in the Modern American sense. I see them as Religious Reactionaries foremost, like Mike Huckabee, who will use and abuse government when it suits them to serve God.

You can keep that crap. A cult is a cult. I don't do cults.; 3/23/12, 7:40 AM
MadisonMan said...: Bagoh20, I think it would be cool to have gone to High School with the President (there's no one in my class that will ever run); I'm sorry you're losing your possible link to the White House :)

I don't see how Santorum survives this, but the viability of his candidacy has long been a puzzle to me.; 3/23/12, 8:06 AM
X said...: Dude, cults don't think like you and I

at least not me. you do know that a characteristic of cultism is obsession?; 3/23/12, 8:09 AM
Saint Croix said...: "I have a personal platonic relationship with the son of GOd whose been dead for 2000+ years, but those Mormons are really weird."

Is that supposed to be Crack? He's an atheist.

I have heard of one preacher who is trying to make an issue of Romney's faith. So there may be more, of course.

But the vast majority of attacks on his religion has come from the atheist and secular left.

See, for instance, this bigot or this one or yet another one, all in the paper of record.

My take on this is that nobody is afraid of the Mormon church. They just don't like Romney, and are trying to scare people.; 3/23/12, 8:20 AM
SGT Ted said...: I think what also rankles Cult Leader Rick of the True Conservatives is that he isn't winning in the GOP Primaries.

That's where the True COnservatives were going to mop the floor with squishy RINOs like Romney on the way to victory in 2012.

And the GOP voters have told him "No, we're liking Romney a bit better than you".

Now Cult Leader Rick is lashing out in desperation.

Cult Leader Rick doesn't get that when he endorsed Romney in 2008 and praised him as a "Conservative", he looks pretty damn stupid and silly denouncing Romney as "the same as Obama" in 2012. I'm sure his cult followers don't get it either.; 3/23/12, 8:24 AM
SGT Ted said...: I have heard plenty of callers on tlak radio who call themselves "conservative' and identify as Christian who wouldn't vote for Romney because of his religion. I have read postings from Santorum supporters saying the same thing.

The dirty little secret of the Born Again and Come to Jesus conservative crowd is that they have been extrememly bigotted towards Mormons. And thats not just in the south. I've heard the "cult" crap from them here in CA since the 1970s on.

SOme of them even think the RCC is a "cult", when you overhear a conversation not meant for your ears. They were saying it openly about Mormonism last election, but they are quieter now. I think alot of them will vote for Romney in the general, but they aren't voting for him in the primary. Mormonism is why. They just won't tell you that.

We'll hear about this split after the Primary if Romney is the nominee. The DNC owned press will bring it up trying to peel off Christians and demoralise them into staying home. We'll hear ALL about how True Conservatives just don't trust Romney from them. His religion will be brought up as a big factor.

I know crack is an athiest, which is why his focus on Romneys cult tendencies sans any examination of Santorums cult tendencies baffles me.; 3/23/12, 8:36 AM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: John Stodder said:
"The non-RINOS like Santorum are like hormonal teenage girls who just got dumped by Biff. There is no logic, no planning, no thinking. Just feelings, and a solipsistic obsession with them."

Right on. It's an angry childish obsession that gives Axelrod the giggles.; 3/23/12, 8:36 AM
One Particular Harbor said...: This comment highlights what is most unlikable about Santorum: his self-righteous, holier-than-thou insistence that he is entitled to the nomination because he is the second freakin' coming.

He. Cannot. Win.

As for the Mormonism stuff -- really? Do the Santorum fanatics really want to go there? Because HIS Church has some pretty damned nasty history that has continued, continues to this day. Plus, let's get real down and dirty with his creepy, freakshow Opus Dei connections.

I know what that organization is all about -- I grew up with that shit, it's twisted, sick, evil and speaks to truly psychopathic personality disorders in people who are into it.

This comment of Santorum's shows he's a spoiled, self-entitled, petulant little piece of shit, and he's done. He's finished. And he has no one but himself to blame for it.; 3/23/12, 8:37 AM
Saint Croix said...: Yep, whom should you choose - the one you fear might show himself to be an asshole, or the one that had already shown himself to be an asshole? Tough choice indeed.

I feel an urge to go Althouse on you and say, "think harder!"

Romney has walked back from a huge number of positions that are a no-no for Republican. Used to be pro-choice. Now he's pro-life. Used to believe in global warming. Now he doesn't. Used to socialize medical care. Now he hates it. Used to raise taxes. Now he's against that.

Romney seems sincere to me. He really does.

I also believed John Edwards in 2000 when he said that he was appalled by partial-birth abortion.

Fucker lied to me.

I am warning you, the Romney campaign, and anyone else who wants to hear it, that voting is as much an emotional choice as a mental one.

If I am lied to by Romney, fuck him. I'm not voting for liars.

I think Romney knows this, actually. I hope he does.

Bush raised taxes. Republicans stayed home. That's what happens.

You want to motivate and inspire people? They have to believe in what you say.; 3/23/12, 8:39 AM
Matt Sablan said...: Santorum is just playing 3-d chess. By saying this, he is making all of the people who were saying 'there's no difference between Obama and Romney' face that comment head on. Now, they are forced to realize how silly it sounds.

This is Santorum trying to get everyone onto the same page for when it is time to fall in line.

... Oh wait, no. No one's that devious. It's just Santorum being Santorum.; 3/23/12, 8:40 AM
Matt Sablan said...: "As for the Mormonism stuff -- really? Do the Santorum fanatics really want to go there?"

-- It's not Santorum who told Politico that Romney's religion is weird.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/60921.html; 3/23/12, 8:43 AM
The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...: Romney seems to have a knack for getting ideologues to step on their own dicks. I'm guessing that by the time November rolls around he'll have the Left looking like foaming, raving lunatics. More so than they already do.; 3/23/12, 8:45 AM
SGT Ted said...: Hey ST,

They are ALL lying to you. ALL of them have climbed aboard the Lib bus when they thought it would benefit them. The only ones that haven't have imploded their campaign and are gone.

There is no "pure" candidate in this race. People need to keep that in mind.

Because, you know what? I voted for the Libertarian when GHWB broke his tax promise. The libertarian was "pure". whoo-fuckin-hooo.

Eight years of Clinton later, with him setting up the failures that led to 9/11, I certainly regret my vote and the mentality that led me there.

I'd vote for a dead goat, if it could replace Obama. Even if the dead goat was a RINO.; 3/23/12, 8:48 AM
Saint Croix said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 3/23/12, 8:52 AM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: BATON ROUGE, La. – Newt Gingrich spoke up in defense of Mitt Romney Thursday night, insisting any Republican presidential candidate would be a better president than Barack Obama.

This is how the adults do it.; 3/23/12, 9:10 AM
LoafingOaf said...: Saint Croix: "I'm not voting for liars."

Good luck finding an honest politician.; 3/23/12, 9:12 AM
Saint Croix said...: If the moron who said "etch-a-sketch" is The Architect of Romney's campaign, why wouldn't you fire his ass? His campaign has been horrible.

Romney has been doing well because he's spent a shitload of money, and his personality is reassuring. And a lot of us are plagued by doubts about the economy and the world. And se want to be reassured that it's going to be okay.

I think Romney's reassuring self-control is (by far) his best attribute. Both Santorum and Newt seem like bomb-throwers.

Romney's persona is reassuring. But the etch-a-sketch comment undercuts his entire demeanor.

Look what it's done. Althouse is using caps, Crack has gone on a Mormon witchhunt, people are in a panic.

Nobody is excited about Romney, everybody is afraid that he will be a bad nominee. The base doesn't trust him. The RINOs are attacking the base. Republicans are shooting each other. Liberals are laughing.

It's a disaster. Fire some people. Shake up the campaign.

Look how horrible it's been. The Romney campaign theme seems to be, "It's hopeless, Republicans. Give up. I've got the numbers. Give up."

Yeah, cause hopeless despair is such a winning theme.

I don't think Romney sucks. But his campaign needs fixing.

Hire Karl Rove. Seriously.; 3/23/12, 9:29 AM
holdfast said...: Is Mitt a bit of a squish? Sure.

But that's a 1000% better than the current red-diaper baby in the White House.

If you're really concerned about enacting conservative policies, the way to do it is to put ANY Republican in the WH, then make sure you have an actually conservative (not just GOP) Congress so you have the right legislation for the President to sign.; 3/23/12, 9:32 AM
Dante said...: Crack, I'm not sure I understand your position. While I detest Romney, and think it would be better overall for Americans to get a double dose of Obama so that they can clearly see the effects of leftist socialist policy (or crony socialism, or whatever is the name for a government controlling the demand side of a market), I have a hard time understanding your position on his religion.

I'm not religious, so I don't know how various religions confront the words in their bibles when they are clearly wrong, such as old testament stuff regarding homosexuality, taking over the world, women required to wear hats in church, etc., but it seems more of the same.

So, there are teachings in Mormonism that are racist. What is Romney supposed to do? He identifies his culture with these folks. Your pointing out that he is culpable for that group's anti-semitism/racism towards blacks seems kind of like the same sort of thing. Is Romney culpable because the group is generally identified with these isms?an; 3/23/12, 9:42 AM
bagoh20 said...: Yes, Santorum in being unusually honest, and I believe him. That doesn't mean that I want what he's offering. He will always put his religion ahead of everything else, and that's his right, but it means I can't vote for him.

I don't think Romney is lying to us - he's lying to his church, just like most people do. That makes him perfectly normal, understandable, and to me, reasonable.

I agree that Mormons will get a boost from his election and probably express themselves and gain influence more just as Crack fears, but that still leaves me free from their power in policy.

Santorum would damage the conservative cause by following religion in his policy. This is much like Althouse's reasoning for her move away from McCain - bad for conservatives.
Obama has and will damage the country directly. Mitt gives us an alternative to damaging either any worse, and he might just do what he's always done - cooly find the best solution to tough situations.; 3/23/12, 10:05 AM
Fen said...: Crack, I'm not sure I understand your position.

He's upset that Romney's faith is off limits. By "vetting" Romney, what he really means is a Q&A that attacks Mormonism and publicly exposes it as a Cult.; 3/23/12, 10:09 AM
bagoh20 said...: "Romney, what he really means is a Q&A that attacks Mormonism and publicly exposes it as a Cult."

I don't know if he'll be back here, but I bet he agrees that's what he wants.; 3/23/12, 10:14 AM
Ross said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 3/23/12, 10:21 AM
Ross said...: There sure is a lot of bigotry and misinformation in this thread about the LDS Church. So let's address a couple of those points.

Mormons baptizing Jews.

That was an issue in the 90s which was resolved to the satisfaction of all parties involved. The church agreed to not baptize Jews and remove the names of any Jews that might have been baptized after. The church members can still disobey the rules after all (what with it not being a cult and all).

Mormons hate African-Americans.

This is not true. African-Americans have been members of the LDS Church since the 1830s. Also, restricting the priesthood to certain groups within God's church has been done since ancient times (Levites being the only tribe of Israel holding the priesthood as an example).

Some people may not like the truth but I hope this helps those seeking to understand.; 3/23/12, 10:22 AM
Saint Croix said...: Peoplw who are worried about Romney should read this. It gives me hope.; 3/23/12, 10:32 AM
SGT Ted said...: “Clearly, if the Supreme Court strikes down Obamacare, there will be celebration in homes across America,” he says. “I believe the bill is unconstitutional, in addition to being wrongheaded. My own view is that if the Supreme Court does not [overturn the law], then we will be required to take that action if I’m president.” -Mitt Romney

Yup. Sounds JUUUUST LIKE Obama. The tax cutting talk sounds just like Obama too, you know.; 3/23/12, 10:42 AM
Saint Croix said...: Jonah nails it.; 3/23/12, 10:50 AM
The Crack Emcee said...: The Blogosphere Is Worthless (Which Is Why It's Free,...); 3/23/12, 11:20 AM
Steve Koch said...: Santorum's comment disqualifies him from further consideration as the GOP prez nominee. His comment is so stupid and vile that it makes it mandatory to reject him. The people still supporting Santorum are mostly dems, particularly stupid GOP voters, and the religious right, particularly anti Mormon bigots.

It is time to realize that Romney is superior Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul as the GOP prez nominee and unite behind Romney against Obama.; 3/23/12, 11:30 AM
The Crack Emcee said...: I'm crawling into my shell on this one:

When Sarge can say all cults abuse minorities but can't understand why we shouldn't give them power, we've got a problem.

When bagoh can say that honesty makes Santorum bad, but dishonesty makes Romney normal, we've got a problem.

When Ross can claim the Mormon "church's" racial issues were all resolved years ago - when I've been documenting them, as they happen, over the last month - we have a problem.

When Ann can claim "cruel neutrality," but still put forth totally biased shit, and few call her out - we've got a problem.

The problem is none of you care about truth or anything else. You want what you want and that's all you want. Back in the Punk days, we called your types "Little Hitlers" and it's as good a name as any for such delusional passive-aggression.

You're all looking a bit insane to me, and that's not good for my head, so I'm taking a break. As I've said, all I have to do is wait. I've never seen any good come out of cultism and I'm sure I never will. Cut your own throats if you like. I can't stop you and you're determined not to stop yourselves.

I've got better things to do than hang with liars, crazy people, and others who think making white into black and black into white - because it makes them feel good about themselves - is what this country needs.

Have fun "debating" Garage,...; 3/23/12, 11:33 AM
hawkeyedjb said...: So, if Romney is nominated, Santorum will endorse and perhaps campaign for president Obama in the fall?

A prospect that probably worries Obama more than Romney...; 3/23/12, 12:00 PM
Cedarford said...: Fen said...
Crack, I'm not sure I understand your position.

He's upset that Romney's faith is off limits. By "vetting" Romney, what he really means is a Q&A that attacks Mormonism and publicly exposes it as a Cult.

=================
BINGO!!!!; 3/23/12, 1:46 PM
Methadras said...: Santorum sandbagged his own campaign. Too bad I really liked him too. It was just a moronic thing to say.; 3/23/12, 1:47 PM
Cedarford said...: hawkeyedjb said...
So, if Romney is nominated, Santorum will endorse and perhaps campaign for president Obama in the fall
================
I'm halfway hoping Saint Torum, who is On A Mission From God - (Who Called Him, according to his wife and Rick) - refuses to endorse Romney.

BTW - No obligation exists to offer other candidates plum spots if one becomes the nominee.
Many candidates are deliberately shup out of any role in an Administration, or just "considered" for a post, with no guarantees.

Hoping that there is a place for Gingrich as a "policy salesman" - where his poor executive and administrative skills combined with his masive ego would not cause too much harm. Give Newt an idea, make him think it is his own - and the guy is hot to trot.

I'd even think Perry could do well in a post - perhaps Energy or Interior. And I think Huntsman might do well in both places - I wouldn't send him back to his old Asian haunts..let him show he can do a good job in a national domestic policy area.

But not Cain, Bachmann or Santorum. Perhaps an ambassadorship to a middling country not critical to US interests. Gaboon. Ecuador. Moldava. Yemen (for Saint Torum).
An ambassadorship might be a good place to try to rehab Sarah Palin. See if she can stick it out, do a good job interactin with furriners - and not quit abruptly. I'd offer her something nice, but not a major nation...Portugal, the Netherlands, Thailand..; 3/23/12, 2:23 PM
Tarzan said...: You want to motivate and inspire people? They have to believe in what you say.

I don't want to be motivated or inspired by my President. Those days are over, for better or for worse.

In this Internet age, we know WAY too much about each other for that sort of relationship to occur.

That's okay. I just want reasonably capable adult leadership in the White House. I want someone who will have the sense to delegate responsibilities to capable people based on sound decision-making, and someone who understands money and wants to see American people making it.

"Taxed Enough Already" does not have to mean, "Storm the White House and turn the existing order on it's head!"

I don't totally disagree with that sentiment, but prefer the middle path.

NO ONE owns the TEA Party, no matter how much they try.

There is no Right Answer(TM) and there are no marching orders.

Some will understandably find this disconcerting.

Today there is no day or night
Today there is no dark or light
Today there is no black or white
Only shades of gray...; 3/23/12, 4:53 PM
Tarzan said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 3/23/12, 5:01 PM
SGT Ted said...: Crack,

I reject your premise that Romney is a cultist. Because he doesn't act like one.; 3/23/12, 6:50 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: O.K., Sarge, I'll bite - just because I need a laugh:

How does a cultist act?; 3/23/12, 8:27 PM
dadofhomeschoolers said...: Normal, to everyone who doesn't want to see.; 3/27/12, 9:10 AM