Rick Santorum (please, don't Google his last name) is the funniest not-Romney yet

[Green Monstah]

You can drop the super secret text. I'm pretty much in agreement here.

For some reason, I thought you were the resident CUF pro-home school guy....

[Pelado]

[YOUTUBE]07FSu0mHYSg[/YOUTUBE]

[Pheidippides]

For some reason, I thought you were the resident CUF pro-home school guy....

Close. I'm the resident was-homeschooled-as-a-kid-and-wishes-an-early-demise-to-homeschooling-parents guy.

[Pelado]

[YOUTUBE]ervNqp3RVDA[/YOUTUBE]

[DU Ute]

He's like the BYU sports of presidential candidates.

[YOhio]

Great headlines.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/david-...um-115459.html

[RobinFinderson]

Before Santorum had established himself as one of the most serious contenders for his party's presidential nomination, I had primarily only heard some of his most outlandish and religiously oriented comments, so I naturally assumed that he was a fruitcake. But now that he has had some success, the media is presenting some of the other things that he says, and if folks here would be honest, it is pretty easy to see the appeal. The Daily Show did a piece about the GOP debates, and showed how Santorum actually attempted to explain how compromise, and supporting your party's president into unpopular territory, are part of the difficult political process that is necessary in order to accomplish anything in government. His common-sense response to the booing audience was to simply say that politics is a team sport (or something to that effect). It made sense, and it was refreshing to see someone speak to the way that politics actually works.

I still think that Santorum would be a terrible president, and that he would lose to Obama, but he has genuine appeal that Mitt seems to lack. I've enjoyed watching Mitt eviscerate Newt with incredible skill and obvious intelligence, but that isn't the appeal that I am talking about. Santorum actually has some of that appeal, and I think that accounts for a lot of his success.

[CJF]

Before Santorum had established himself as one of the most serious contenders for his party's presidential nomination, I had primarily only heard some of his most outlandish and religiously oriented comments, so I naturally assumed that he was a fruitcake. But now that he has had some success, the media is presenting some of the other things that he says, and if folks here would be honest, it is pretty easy to see the appeal. The Daily Show did a piece about the GOP debates, and showed how Santorum actually attempted to explain how compromise, and supporting your party's president into unpopular territory, are part of the difficult political process that is necessary in order to accomplish anything in government. His common-sense response to the booing audience was to simply say that politics is a team sport (or something to that effect). It made sense, and it was refreshing to see someone speak to the way that politics actually works.

I still think that Santorum would be a terrible president, and that he would lose to Obama, but he has genuine appeal that Mitt seems to lack. I've enjoyed watching Mitt eviscerate Newt with incredible skill and obvious intelligence, but that isn't the appeal that I am talking about. Santorum actually has some of that appeal, and I think that accounts for a lot of his success.

The problem is that Santorum has beaten up on Romney for his ability to compromise with the very liberal state leadership of MA. Claimed that he is the only true conservative and that he sticks to his convictions. You can trust him. Romney just turned the tables on him.

[Uncle Ted]

Santorum is feeling picked on...

Mr. Santorum said his two opponents had tag-teamed him — again — during Wednesday’s debate in Arizona, and he referred to Mr. Paul as Mr. Romney’s “wingman.”

[...]

“The coordination that I felt at that debate the other night was pretty clear,” Mr. Santorum said Saturday. “I felt like the messages were being slipped behind my chair.”

[...]

Stuart Stevens, a senior campaign adviser to Mr. Romney, called the claims “whiny silliness” from a flailing candidate.

“To say that people are ganging up on me in a debate, when there’s only four people in the debate and they’re raising questions – kinds of speaks for itself,” Mr. Stevens said of Mr. Santorum after the Arizona debate.

While acknowledging that Mr. Romney and Mr. Paul “like each other,” Mr. Stevens said “The notion that Ron Paul would do anything but speak his mind is not an argument you can push very far.”

“If ever there was an iconoclast who got up there and said what he believes, it’s Ron Paul,” Mr. Stevens said.

[RobinFinderson]

The problem is that Santorum has beaten up on Romney for his ability to compromise with the very liberal state leadership of MA. Claimed that he is the only true conservative and that he sticks to his convictions. You can trust him. Romney just turned the tables on him.

I won't deny that Mitt has gotten in some substantial licks, and recent polls show that he has been effective in cutting Santorum's gains. But again, that isn't the 'appeal' that I am talking about. Bush had the 'appeal,' much to the consternation of liberals, and Santorum has a bit of it too. Too simply join the left-wing chorus that would label him as a religious homophobe and morality fogey is to sell the man too short.

I totally agree with the majority of CUF that Mitt is the best GOP candidate with regard to his chances of winning against Obama (Paul is still my personal favorite), but Santorum is actually a pretty likeable guy.

[Surfah]

I won't deny that Mitt has gotten in some substantial licks, and recent polls show that he has been effective in cutting Santorum's gains. But again, that isn't the 'appeal' that I am talking about. Bush had the 'appeal,' much to the consternation of liberals, and Santorum has a bit of it too. Too simply join the left-wing chorus that would label him as a religious homophobe and morality fogey is to sell the man too short.

I totally agree with the majority of CUF that Mitt is the best GOP candidate with regard to his chances of winning against Obama (Paul is still my personal favorite), but Santorum is actually a pretty likeable guy.

Santorum isn't likeable. He's not Mitt. That is what defines him.

[Pelado]

I won't deny that Mitt has gotten in some substantial licks, and recent polls show that he has been effective in cutting Santorum's gains. But again, that isn't the 'appeal' that I am talking about. Bush had the 'appeal,' much to the consternation of liberals, and Santorum has a bit of it too. Too simply join the left-wing chorus that would label him as a religious homophobe and morality fogey is to sell the man too short.

I totally agree with the majority of CUF that Mitt is the best GOP candidate with regard to his chances of winning against Obama (Paul is still my personal favorite), but Santorum is actually a pretty likeable guy.

I don't think the hits landed by Mitt were the focus so much as batting down the narrative of "consistent conservative" that Santorum is trying to sell.

That said, I agree that he can be quite compelling - perhaps never more so than his post-Iowa speech.

[creekster]

I won't deny that Mitt has gotten in some substantial licks, and recent polls show that he has been effective in cutting Santorum's gains. But again, that isn't the 'appeal' that I am talking about. Bush had the 'appeal,' much to the consternation of liberals, and Santorum has a bit of it too. Too simply join the left-wing chorus that would label him as a religious homophobe and morality fogey is to sell the man too short.

I totally agree with the majority of CUF that Mitt is the best GOP candidate with regard to his chances of winning against Obama (Paul is still my personal favorite), but Santorum is actually a pretty likeable guy.

I just don't see it that way. I think the man is a CLOWN. I really dislike him and think he is a frightening prospect as a candidate. But, maybe I am again on the fringe. just MO

[oxcoug]

I won't deny that Mitt has gotten in some substantial licks, and recent polls show that he has been effective in cutting Santorum's gains. But again, that isn't the 'appeal' that I am talking about. Bush had the 'appeal,' much to the consternation of liberals, and Santorum has a bit of it too. Too simply join the left-wing chorus that would label him as a religious homophobe and morality fogey is to sell the man too short.

I totally agree with the majority of CUF that Mitt is the best GOP candidate with regard to his chances of winning against Obama (Paul is still my personal favorite), but Santorum is actually a pretty likeable guy.

I saw that Daily Show clip tonight and I thought it was one of their worst segments in a while from the perspective that it completely missed the actual vibe of Santorum's performance - and the consensus among the analysts from across the spectrum which was that Santorum was in contortions trying to explain how he is both this legendary "conviction conservative" and this arch-compromiser.

Of course politicians have to compromise to get things done - which exactly why a Republican governor of a deep blue state had to make many compromises, a fact which Santorum now hounds Romney for.

The difference is that Romney really had to make the compromises as a buck stopping chief executive tasked with the people's business, while a legislator like Santorum has a much more realistic chance of keeping his/her hands clean.

[RobinFinderson]

I saw that Daily Show clip tonight and I thought it was one of their worst segments in a while from the perspective that it completely missed the actual vibe of Santorum's performance - and the consensus among the analysts from across the spectrum which was that Santorum was in contortions trying to explain how he is both this legendary "conviction conservative" and this arch-compromiser.

Of course politicians have to compromise to get things done - which exactly why a Republican governor of a deep blue state had to make many compromises, a fact which Santorum now hounds Romney for.

The difference is that Romney really had to make the compromises as a buck stopping chief executive tasked with the people's business, while a legislator like Santorum has a much more realistic chance of keeping his/her hands clean.

I can understand why you would be bothered by the Daily Show segment, but the show, which gets many miles from showing where 'analysts from across the spectrum' are often just repeating what they hear in the echo chamber, gave Santorum props for a genuinely useful point. They have also gotten many cheap miles out of skewering Santorum for both his name and his nutz-o social positions. The big point of the segment, as I recall, was not to be a review of the debate, but rather to be a commentary on how the GOP base represented in these audiences will flat out reject any position other than this abortion that is metastasizing into the party's platform.

I think that Mitt's biggest failure as a candidate has been his inability to make the race about the economy. He just can't tilt public discourse toward his strengths, and every time some stupid social issue comes up, like the relatively minor fuss over Catholics and contraception (I've heard that 98% of Catholic adults have used contraception at some point), Mitt steps right into it like a bag of flaming dog shit. He keeps legitimizing these stupid non-issues by giving them serious time, and that draws attention away from his strengths. And every time he steps on one of these flaming bags of poo, he alienates conservative democrats who might otherwise support him.

Though it is far easier said than done, Mitt needs to show the leadership necessary to change his party's culture away from its current death spiral. Mitt needs to figure out a way to say something like, "Gay marriage, contraception, and abortion... these are important issues, and I share the same moral views about these issues as most of you. However I don't believe that politicizing these issues by making them a critical part of our party's platform is a way to win this election. That is just going to harden people's views, and folks, we need to be honest about these issues, as conservatives we have not been persuasive advocates for our beliefs. You only have to look at the polls about gay marriage to see that we are losing too much ground on this issue, especially among the young. We aren't going to win over those people to the Republican party if they feel passionately about this issue, and they disagree with us. Now is a time for us to be persuasive about these issues, and discuss them with our friends and neighbors. If we do this with kindness and respect, and we don't try to demonize those who see these issues differently, then we will find more success than if we inject these serious issues with all of the negative feelings that are often generated by a big national election. I could talk about my strong moral convictions about these issues, but I am going to choose to talk about the economy instead, because the economy is the issue around which the success of our next president will hinge."