2012 republican presidential nominee III: can romney get santorum out of his hair?

from a lol standpoint, nothing will beat Gingrich/Gibson with a beaver hand puppet '12

must resist joek

but it's just sitting there, waiting for you

Also I am waiting for someone to photoshop Mitt with Bane from The Dark Knight Rises.

I'm thinking more that he's going to get special-effected into a certain television show.

http://ethicsalarms.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/donald-trump-youre-fired.jpg?w=500

In the context in which he said it, it seems as silly to me as guns-and-religion in '08. But that did linger with Obama, and this may linger with Romney.

that this is legal is fairly insane

money on gingrich is wasted money

But for Mr. Gingrich, the donation could be both boon and burden: Mr. Adelson comes with potential liabilities. His main source of income, casinos, could upset some social conservatives. That he operates in China could rankle isolationist voters, while some of his views on Israel are hawkish by mainstream Republican standards.

sometimes i can kinda see why right-wingers complain about the Times. this is all speculative concern-trolling on behalf of imagined conservatives. (plus i doubt sheldon adelson's "views on israel are hawkish by mainstream republican standards." i mean, what would that even be.)

anyway it's funny to see the anti-newt people circling the wagons and start caring about the finer points of campaign finance:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/287652/gingrich-and-his-super-pac-video-deroy-murdock

Gingrich may be in hotter water, however, for his super PAC’s video slamming Romney for his Bain years. As the Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin and my old friend Quin Hillyer of the American Spectator wrote today, at Sunday’s Meet the Press debate, Gingrich seemed very familiar with that upcoming video and its contents and sources — perhaps excessively so. Candidates and their super PACs are not supposed to coordinate their activities. If Gingrich were not in touch with his super PAC, how did he know so many apparent details about this video?

Money dirtying Romney is not wasted money!

^^^

well it may be wasted for Adelson's purposes but if some rich asshole wants to waste his money helping Romney and the GOP lose from my POV that's money well spent lol

otoh it totally shouldn't be legal in the first place

I can envision Bam quoting Newt's attacks on Mittens, that'll make you all feel extra good about doing your robotic duty.

it's true, I love doing the robot

why do you think people 'feel good' about any of this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obIHUeChpmE

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_U1CihVAdib8/TMIekLOViAI/AAAAAAAAClg/o47njcNEHSc/s400/chairman_obama_poster-p228421125179924816tdcp_400.jpg

(New avatar for Morbius.)

haha

lol

If Obama is 'Bam' can I start calling him Dr. Orby for his amazing perceptive powers?

Orbitz

Let's stay focussed here.

New Hampshire primary is TONIGHT and we're all just standing around with our finger in, while there are burning questions to be asked. Will Congressman Paul make a secondary, tertiary, or quarternary primary splash? Will Newt's attack ads on Willard depress NH voters into staying in bed all day? I want prognostications and I want them NOW, people! Let's show some HUSTLE!

90% of you are clearly rooting against Romney, whereas anyone against the oligarchy should be rooting hard for Maximum Obamney.

The devil we already know is the right man for the job. We boo and hiss the devil we don't know.

lols @ maobama

maobama looks v cheerful

can't believe ILXers aren't more excited about the Huntsman Hustle, dude is SURGING

eww

Huntsman appears saner than any of his competitors, but he'd still be a total disaster in the White House, bcz politics, bro.

Huntsman entertaining a campaign stop with an impromptu version of China Pighttp://images.politico.com/global/blogs/832011_Huntsmanpiano_AP.jpg

Santorum, yesterday (got it from The New Republic):

"Look at the guys that we voted on when it was their turn. Jerry Ford, it was his turn...let's put up Bob Dole, because it's his turn...let's put up John McCain, because it's his turn. Those moderates who can win. Those moderates who can win -- according to who? According to the national media and according to the experts who don't want a conservative and don't want a Republican. Ladies and gentlemen, we win elections when our people are excited about who to vote for...I remind you, in 1980, when we had another critical election, when we had another Democratic president running the country into the ground...we had a choice in the Republican primary. We had the establishment who the money was behind and the mainstream was behind in the Republican Party and that was George H.W. Bush and he won Iowa. But when New Hampshire people, moderate New Hampshire, moderate to liberal New Hampshire, when they voted, the people here in New Hampshire said, we're going to vote for what America needs, not what we're being told to do by people with money and power in the Republican Party...and you voted for Ronald Reagan. And if it wasn't for New Hampshire, Ronald Reagan would never have been president. Think about what you're doing and the vote that you cast and the message you send out of New Hampshire."

Stepping back and speaking objectively, I've gotta say that's pretty good. If I were voting for Romney today, that would definitely give me pause.

ya but you can't assume people voting for romney are rational actors on any level

He overstates Reagan's peril in 1980 and Bush's popularity with the mainstream GOP.

Time for someone to hit back with an "I knew Ronald Reagan, and you are no Ronald Reagan."

Followed by the Spartacus-like "*I* am Ronald Reagan!" montage.

(xxpost) Probably, but wouldn't Reagan have been in serious trouble if he had lost NH? (Don't know, just asking.)

nothing santorum has ever said tracks with what is real in any way, so i highly doubt his analysis. exactly what went into reagan's win in NH in 1980 i have no idea, but who knows.

acc to him, base excitement exists antagonistically with appeal to 'moderates' and leaning independents, which is kind of a funny admission if you think about it.

hah xp to alfred

Reagan nearly derailed Ford in '76, no small feat against a sitting president. He certainly wasn't the underdog to GHWB in '80.

The lesson I drew from Santorum's little bit of froth quoted above was: winning Iowa is rather meaningless.

I know Reagan was the presumptive favourite, but I think there was some big campaign shake-up after Iowa, and I'm guessing the combination of that and two consecutive losees would have been a problem. (Checking, though, Iowa was close enough to be meaningless--32% to 30% for Bush--so maybe it was something of a non-issue.)

GHWB was the underdog in that scenario. Reagan had been building an organization to run for prez since the 60s.

the facts are both GHWB and Reagan were establishment candidates

no way GHWB would ever have been the nominee in '80 even knowing how history unfolded.

Reagan had more money and (obv) lots more name recognition, iirc.

He definitely crushed Bush in NH (50-23) and SC (55-15). But from Santorum's point of view, I think "And if it wasn't for New Hampshire, Ronald Reagan would never have been president" is a good way to plant doubts in NH voters.

Ladies and gentlemen, we win elections when our people are excited about who to vote for...

Find this pretty funny considering I don't think many Republicans are excited about Santorum. Self-identified conservatives (R & I) I've heard on CSPAN are way more excited by Paul, and the freeper fringe are salivating over unleashing the Newtron bomb on Obama.

(As Hail Marys go, I mean.)

Yeah--Santorum's calculus would be a lot more convincing if he had an ounce of charisma.

unleashing the Newtron bomb on Obama.

too easy to make Goldwater/daisy connection.

Apparently Stephen Colbert is polling better than Jon Huntsman in South Carolina.

ha