Santorum leaves the race

Romney was going to win the nomination anyway. His campaign was better organized, better financed and had the support of a broader swath of the Republican Party (see the string of endorsements in the past few weeks as evidence). I think Santorum did quite well considering where he was just a few months ago and given a general lack of funding in most of the process. He has gone from a political loser (crushed by 18 points in his 2006 Senate race) to a genuine player on the national scene. Nothing to be ashamed of.

As for Romney, he has his shot. Let’s see what kind of campaign he runs in the general. The President is well funded, has a good organization, the advantages of incumbency and a protective media ready to practically campaign on his behalf (Fox News and talk radio excepted, of course). That’s a much tougher hill to climb than defeating poorly financed and poorly organized opponents with a tendency to shoot themselves in the foot (see Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Gingrich and even Santorum).

Recent polling of likely voters (Rasmussen is the best in this regard) shows the race as practically a dead heat now. (Don’t cite polls of adults or registered voters for me – that is the wrong screen and is worse than useless). I think at this point the race is literally a toss up. So let’s see who runs the better campaign and also what events transpire in the next few months (if gas prices stay high and unemployment doesn’t dip significantly – that’s bad news for Obama). I don’t think we will really have a sense of what way the race is really going until after both conventions (post Labor Day) and how the swing states poll.

I have a question for social conservatives who greatly like Santorum. I know that some of you had a hope that Santorum might surge from behind and explode in Pennsylvania. But there’s no question that if Santorum had stayed in for any longer, it could have been even more of a sticky mess. Todd’s third-party post got be wondering. Santorum’s out. This November, are you going to suck it up?

Whatever, Dr. Veith. Newt jumped from 2nd the 3rd, yesterday. He’s clearly surging.

Make that 3rd to 2nd.

Ron Paul is still in it. But if he can’t win, I’ll go with a third party. Romney’s not a social conservative. He shouldn’t be running as a Republican.

For conservationism, it’s now best for Obama to win re-election then take full credit for the coming catastrophe. Short term hurt, but it will be best in the long run. The alternative is to continue our long term decline, buffered (and hence made more acceptable) be slight Republican course corrections. Things will have to get a lot worse before they get better.

I feel disenfranchised, now.
Our Primary isn’t till June…

Quit worrying, Republicans. Romney has a real chance to win the election. He’s the kind of guy the average American can have a glass of Perrier-Jouet with.

Third party it is. Don’t know which yet, but sure isn’t going to be Romney, i happen to agree with tODD on this one.

I am not going to encourage anyone to vote against their conscience, but some of the criticism of Romney (he is insincere, a flip-flopper, not a real conservative, etc.) makes me chuckle. My only question is, as compared to whom? All of the candidates in the Republican primary are (were?) deeply flawed and supporting any of them would have required a certain amount of nose holding. But tell me that isn’t true for all candidates. If you don’t like Romney, fine, don’t vote for him. But to pretend that he is singularly bad when compared to Santorum, Gingrich, Paul, etc. is a bit of a stretch to me. If you are inclined to vote for Obama, you just have different political views than Republicans in general – but I would submit that even the most enthusiastic Obama supporter, if they take a close enough look, will find plenty that they don’t like and would have to fight through to cast a vote for him.

It looks like the coronation of Mitt Romney can now proceed.

We don’t usually crown people who lose elections, do we?

Pastor Spomer said (@6):

it’s now best for Obama to win re-election then take full credit for the coming catastrophe. Short term hurt, but it will be best in the long run.

Many Democrats were saying the exact same thing in 2004. I really do think we’re just replaying that election, with the sides switched. If so, total death knell for Romney, obviously. Another flip-flopping, wooden Massachusetts politician that didn’t inspire his base, running against an incumbent President.

Bror said (@9),

i happen to agree with tODD on this one.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Did I announce who I’m voting for? My mind isn’t necessarily made up yet.

@5

Spoiler alert! Ron Paul can’t win.

“Another flip-flopping, wooden Massachusetts politician that didn’t inspire his base …”

Yeah, but at least Kerry’s family made the best ketchup in the world. Romney’s family made this and this.

Yes, your mind is made up, tODD. We all know that you are writing in Carl Vehse. Think about it: He is bold, thoughtful, compassionate, and committed to blaming problems on the indiscretions and failures of his predecessors.

@Kirk

“Candidate X can’t win” is the absolute dumbest thing people say in regards to elections. Obama can’t win either, if everyone decides he can’t.

I don’t worry about who “can win” or “can’t win.” I vote my conscience.

Tom @ 13 – Kerry’s family didn’t make the ketchup. It was the family of his wife’s dead husband.

And the Pacer is an extremely awesome vehicle as evidenced by this piece of classic rock film:

@Kylaessa

No, in this case, Paul literally can’t win. There are 1151 delegates remaining and Paul needs 1073 to pass have the majority. Unless basically every single remaining primary voter votes for him, he can’t win.

I haven’t decided yet if I will suck it up yet one more time. I don’t believe Romney will do much, if anything, about the many things that matter to me but he almost certainly will push us along the downward spiral more slowly than Obama. That’s no small deal.

One thing his Mormonism has going for him is that, at least in theory, it should make him more sensitive to preserving religious freedoms. That’s not small deal either. But I have doubts that it will make that big of an impact when he comes face to face with the System.

SK @ 16, how convenient to look at it that way – now. I suppose you never bought a bottle of “W Ketchup”? Remember? “You don’t support Democrats, why should your ketchup?” It was, supposedly, especially good on non-French “Freedom Fries.”

Freedom Fries! Yes!
Animal Style, please.

I agree with Bror, “Third party it is. Don’t know which yet, but sure isn’t going to be Romney”

I agree with Todd’s argument in principle concerning the validity of third party voting which reciprocally concurs with my argument in principle regarding third party voting without him mistakenly thinking I’ve concurred with whom he will specifically vote for since he’s not said who specifically he will vote for whereby it might be mistakenly construed due to my concurrence with his principle third party validity voting argument that I’ve implied he has indicated specifically who he’d vote for that could be mistaken for my concurrence with a specific candidate that he’d vote for he never has indicated explicitly.

Damn you, Mike Westfall! I’m trying to cut back on that place!

@ 20. Melted cheese, grilled onions, and Thousand Island dressing? I’d go for that!

I never saw “W” ketchup. I never even heard of it, even when the Freedom Fries movement was all the rage for a week.

And if I’m giving up fries, I’ll have my potatoes Irish Nacho style, if you please.

W Ketchup: still around (it seems), and as relevant as it ever was.

Here’s W Ketchup endorsing Ron Paul for President.

And here’s W Ketchup comparing Obama to Hitler and Mussolini.

W Ketchup! When you care more about politics than flavor!

W Ketchup™ was founded to free Americans from the ketchup monopoly …

Ketchup monopoly? Ketchup monopoly? Who knew.

… and to allow all Americans to support a ketchup that shares their beliefs.

Do I want to believe what a bottle of tomatoes believes?

… W Ketchup™ is a private company that makes ketchup in America solely from ingredients grown in the USA and does not support any liberal agendas.

My agenda is to liberally apply Heinz to my veggie dogs and fries tonight. (See what I did there? I’m every bit as clever as those “W” guys!)

Tom – You have an agenda? Is it in a day planner, or do you just wing it and write something down on sheet of notebook paper?

Well, as far as Third Party candidacies go, I think I’m going to vote for Rachel Ray from the Wine and Cheese Party.

http://www.rachaelraymag.com/easy-party-ideas/great-get-togethers/theme-party-menus/wine-and-cheese-party

Once again a lot of you are forgetting the federal courts. If Obama appoints two more Supreme Court Justices, especially if he replaces Scalia or Thomas or Kennedy, another entire generation of the unborn can kiss there lives good-bye. I can’t have that on my conscience. Obama has to go.

On the other hand, I can’t promise that Romney is all that pro-life himself. But I can reasonably hope he will make deals with social conservatives and keep them if he is elected. If one more justice who sees how wrong Roe vs. Wade is can be appointed to the Supreme Court, abortion will be regulated by the states again, and the abortion debate will cease to be academic. This is an attainable goal in my lifetime only if Obama does not appoint a replacement for any of the so-called conservative justices on the court. And the only way to accomplish that is to defeat Obama.

SK @ 27, my entourage lets me know where I need to be, for what, and when. But only if it involves food or a box of granulated clay.

entourage

Another comment from the ghastly outsider: I understand the “third-party” argument. The argument that Todd made against Don in an earier thread, to move away from the “you can’t win, therefore you shouldn’t” idea.

But in reality, is it such a wise idea to start a new “revolution” 7 months before the election, thereby ensuring the scenario Kerner warns against, instead of working hard over many years?? It sounds to much like a political cop-out to me.

Btw, I’m not necessarily supporting any side here, just observing the scenario from way up here.

Kerner,

You have a point regarding abortion. But, and it’s a big BUT, Romney is a cultist, who believes in many gods, to begin with. There is far more to his belief system if you take the time to study them. His steadfast, long rooted, cemented relationship with the Mormon church eliminates his ability as POTUS. Everything involved with his cult runs contrary to the Word of God.

This man has flip flopped on several KEY ISSUES, there is no reason to believe he wouldn’t do it again. Having the ability to choose a Supreme Justice, could easily slide down the slope, resulting in an individual who’s real beliefs are well hidden. We’ve seen this with Obama as president, there is no reason to believe it couldn’t happen with a hopeful Supreme nominee.

My conscience will never allow me to vote for this man. He is the worst of those who have run for president for this election.

Santorum is a big disappointment, but better to find out now, that he is a ‘hot head’ then find him spewing off in the Oval Office, or abroad with the leaders of the middle east or other hot spots.

Ron Paul, isn’t worth the time it takes to jot down all his bone headed ideas.

Rick Perry was the best, however, no one knew that he was suffering from back pain due to surgery, not so long ago. I just wish he had spoken up from the beginning, there would have been a great deal of understanding from the get go.

Gingrich is the most brilliant of all. However, no matter how he apologized for his past, the snarly group from the right wouldn’t accept it. Gingrich made it clear he had asked God to forgive him of his sin. Newt has the ability, he has what it takes to talk to “heads of state” the rest don’t, they do not have the experience nor are they in the same league as Newt Gingrich.

If God Wills it, this election could turn around, but in the meantime, there is no reason to vote for a man who can believe the nonsense Romney believes, as the best of two evils.

God can intervene, we must trust HIM.

Tom, #23, I’m hooked on ‘em. I’m weak. I admit it. In fact, if the atheist student union had brought 140 lbs of In-N-Out Burgers… well… I don’t want to think what might have happened.

All you people who say you’re going to vote third party, I bet you’ll stop if Obama wins a 2nd term.

I remember several liberal acquaintances saying how much they loved Nader in 2000 and were going to vote for him. After Bush won, they shut up real fast.

I don’t like Romney at all but politics is the art of the possible. If Obama gets a second term, he will appoint Supreme Court Justices who are very hostile to the First Amendment and religious conscience. And he will get hostile judges on lesser courts and you know the Republicans, chastened by losing the presidential election, will just meekly give Obama everything he wants. You who are hoping you can be pure, vote third party, and you can count on the conservatives in congress to block Obama’s worst choices will be in for a shock. At that point many Republicans will cave to Obama.

There won’t be much remaining of the First Amendment once Obama is finished with his second term. We will be like communist China where there are official churches that only teach what the government allows. Do you really think that the hard left will allow churches that oppose abortion or that refuse to recognize gay “marriage”? We could elect a moderate president who won’t do much good and won’t do much harm and who belongs to this funny cult, but where’s the “purity” in voting for someone like that? Or you can allow Obama to be elected and you can practice all the purity you want when the government arrests people for the “hate crime” or “thought crime” of being Christians.

So, Jacob – your argument rests on electing the guy who might do the least possible harm based upon possible selections for the federal courts. I have pointed this out before, but how many moderate milquetoast Republican presidents and their senatorial co-conspirators over the last 40 years or so have been packing the lower courts with ardent Constitutionalists? True, we have a couple tokens on the Supreme Court – the occasional bone for the conservatives – but can you honestly say that the courts are arguably more conservative since Nixon? Think about it. Since 1968, Republicans have had the Presidency for 28 years compared to 16 for the Democrats. That should have been time for the Republicans to have changed the course and shape of the federal courts if they wanted to.

Now, you could argue that the Republicans were never able to change the courts sufficiently because the Democrats controlled the Senate and House for many of those years Republicans had the Presidency, but that would play more into Todd’s argument wouldn’t it? That maybe the best way to change course is to change tack at the House and Senate level (or even at the state level and repeal that ridiculous amendment for direct election of senators).

Forget Romney; he’s next to useless (especially if there is a Presidential debate; then he’ll be next to Useless). Win the House and Senate. Win the governorships. Win the state house and senate elections.

But, whatever the outcome of the election, I’ll still mow my lawn, grill out in the backyard, watch the birds and the cows in the field, look out for the kids playing in the streets in my neighborhood, go to church on Sunday mornings, help out with this or that. Life will go on and I’ve got lots of more important things to do than overly consider the scant differences between Mr.’s Romney and Obama.

Precisely SK and well stated. All the “anti third party” or their corollary “why not at least the devil we know” (a.k.a. well he’s at least to the right of what’s there today) debaters, their argument, always boils down to the same rehashed scare tactic. To wit: “Well do you really want Obama again”, “You’ll change your mind when he has a second term”, “what about the courts”, “doom and gloom, no really I mean it this time as opposed to when Clinton had a second term, doom and gloom, no really this time…I mean it, doom and gloom, seriously doom and gloom, you better not for if you do I say again doom and gloom”. And they loose sight of the big picture in their “the Nader voters woke up”. From the reverse angle of a liberal position the dnc finally learned, “if you want their vote, you better produce an ideological liberal and not just the democratic version of a gop conservative pretender. This is what got them to Obama and a cohesion around him. Agree or disagree with the president one thing that can be said about him is that for his part and what we label as “liberal” ideology, he is ideological and not just a façade version produced by the dnc machinery. In fact that is what he is accused of constantly. Put another way conservatives wish we could have such an ideological candidate as the liberals do presently rather than just a “not Reagan/not Obama”. Flipping the direction: Obama is not a “not Reagan”, he is his ideological counter part.

Once Obama gets a lock on the Supreme Court and the Republicans are cowering like abused puppies because they lost the presidential election, you can forget about any positive change for the next thirty years, if ever. You have the incumbent who wants to force churches to pay for abortions and would force other violations of conscience. You have a moderate candidate who will likely keep the status quo, and he is of a minority religion so he may not be eager for the government to regulate/persecute churches. So do you tolerate the status quo guy while trying to consolidate your power, or do you lose everything by “sending a message” and voting third party. I am disgusted with the Romney/establishment Republicans but the bigger issue is how an Obama-selected court will neuter the First Amendment and do a lot of other damage that will likely never be undone.

I’m having a great time listening to Gingrich and Santorum blame FOX News for Romney’s “inevitability.”

Kerner: “Obama has to go.”

“Obama has to go.”

“Obama has to go.”

“Obama has to go.”

“Obama has to go.”

Can someone set this to music, please?

Third party it is.

Writing in Ron Paul it is.