[jbock13]

Haize, you know my biases, so rejoice in the fact that it's already game, set, and match.

[Purple Haize]

Haize, you know my biases, so rejoice in the fact that it's already game, set, and match.

You know it. I suspect it. I'm just hoping Santorum and Newts money people see it and turn off the spigots.

[jbock13]

I will agree with you on this point. Santorum keeps pointing out that he's being outspent by Romney. So wait... that's a good thing? That you're proving you don't have the ability to raise money? So, if we give you the nomination, can you raise enough money to win then?

That's my problem with Santorum. Along with the fiscal problems.

[jbock13]

The Republican who can beat Obama.

[youtube]

[/youtube]

[jbock13]

So Santorum wins Alabama, and I project, Mississippi. Seems like it could be a momentum booster for him. Santorum looks very refreshed, and ready to get after it, whereas a week ago he looked tired and defeated.

The real question is whether Gingrich was ever a serious contender or will his hatred for Romney cause Romney to get the nomination. Newt is done. There is no other state he can win. He had to win tonight.

[Purple Haize]

Agreed. But this is aBout delegates and the math really didn't change tonite. The proportionality thing is still working in Romney's favor. I'm suprised Willard did as well as he did considering every media outlet was saying he had no chance in either state.

[LUminary]

Santorum probably can't get to the the 1,144 magic number, but the thing is he could very well preclude Romney from getting there. Then who knows... The wildcard is Gingrich, I guess. But maybe not as much so. Why he is staying in now I don't get. Losing Alabama and Mississippi has to be the death knell for him. Don't think he will hurt Santorum as much now. I'm not sure how much of the conservative-split vote he'll get after tonight. But it would no doubt help Santorum if he gave it up.

I've thought all along that none of this will matter so much once there is a candidate chosen, that once the focus is solely on Obama it's a different ballgame and Romney or Santorum will have full backing. But I do think conservatives feel short-changed in this process by being told by the "Republican establishment" and media that Romney is the one who can get elected because he is more moderate. Being moderate sure didn't work out so well for John McCain or Bob Dole. I don't think conservatism is dead yet, and I think that social issues still matter to enough Republicans.

I do feel a bit sorry for Romney, however. He's trying to be conservative. He just has the "establishment" and media keep telling everybody that he's not. That's a tough battle to overcome.

[jbock13]

If you're trying to be a conservative, it means you weren't ever one to begin with.

[LUminary]

Probably so.

One thing I'm puzzled about (well, one among many) is that Newt seemed to be saying last night that Santorum and the conservative cause would be better off if Newt stays in the race. I don't get that. Everyone I hear on the tube seems convinced that Newt will indeed say in. Newt says he will. But I wonder if reality might set in. I don't see Newt getting near the percentage that he's been getting after last night. My guess is that the bulk of Newt's support will shift to Santorum, with or without Newt in the race.

I understand the math favors Romney. But the momentum sure is with Santorum.

[jbock13]

Agree LUminary.

[jmdickens]

But I do think conservatives feel short-changed in this process by being told by the "Republican establishment" and media that Romney is the one who can get elected because he is more moderate. Being moderate sure didn't work out so well for John McCain or Bob Dole. I don't think conservatism is dead yet, and I think that social issues still matter to enough Republicans.

Santorum is not conservative, so the people voting for him are either misinformed or honestly delusional.

Also, Social Issues are important but not when the economy and war are much greater threats. Social issues are personal and should stay that way. Independents feel that way and that is what wins the elections, not theocratic stances on social issues.

[ALUmnus]

You're way too obsessed with this theocracy thing. I don't know where that came from.
No candidate can be neutral on social issues, whether you think it should stay personal or not, because the other side is pushing full-throttle in the opposite direction. If you value your beliefs, you need someone who will defend them (notice I didn't say push them), or you will get run over and be forced to live within the guidelines of someone else's beliefs.

It's a tug-of-war with the social issues, and the only way for them to stay personal and out of public policy like you suggest is for both sides to stop pulling. But honestly, do you think that would happen? It won't, especially when so many social issues can't reasonably coexist.

[jmdickens]

You're way too obsessed with this theocracy thing. I don't know where that came from.
No candidate can be neutral on social issues, whether you think it should stay personal or not, because the other side is pushing full-throttle in the opposite direction. If you value your beliefs, you need someone who will defend them (notice I didn't say push them), or you will get run over and be forced to live within the guidelines of someone else's beliefs.

It's a tug-of-war with the social issues, and the only way for them to stay personal and out of public policy like you suggest is for both sides to stop pulling. But honestly, do you think that would happen? It won't, especially when so many social issues can't reasonably coexist.

I am not obsessed with social issues, I think they are topics that politicians like to use to trick people into voting for them and then will abandon those issues because they were never a serious issue to the politician in the first place.

The problem is TOO much federal government. That is why all of things not authorized to the federal government in the constitution should be left to the states. Marriage is one of those issues. I do not support Gay Marriage. I support the marriage as God displayed in Genesis with Adam and Eve. However, that should only concern my state of North Carolina, not anywhere else. This stance works for one reason and also the best reason: DUE PROCESS!!!

Due Process forces states to allow individuals certain rights as established in the US Constitution and the state constitution. BY allowing the states to vote however they want, it allows a greater chance for all the states to individually support marriage as defined by scripture. Federal Marriage Amendment wont work because of the voting process. We have the same values ALUmnus, but we have a different way of sharing our values.

Abortion was overturned by the Due Process argument. It is because they put abortion at the federal level and Texas would have had a better chance of winning if it used States' rights as its defense.

The argument that there is someone out there who will protect our rights is a farce. The Constitution protects our rights, we need people to defend the constitution. Arguably, by precedent and history, that is Ron Paul. We truly are lacking freedom

Also, can you cite where the LIBERAL side is pushing? I dont support liberalism but pushing by both parties for more government is 2-sided coin. Both are doing things liberally.

[Purple Haize]

You totally just made that up. Levin and Hannity would never say that.

The bottom line is this. You can't show me any evidence that Romney is a conservative.

I actually think Santorum is a bit of a fraud. He's a social conservative, but not a fiscal.

Too your point:


BOSTON, Feb. 1 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Today, former U.S. Senator
Rick Santorum (R-PA) announced his endorsement of Governor Mitt Romney.
Senator Santorum served two terms in the United States Senate where he was
also Chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, the third-ranking member
of the Republican leadership
"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.
"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."
Announcing Senator Santorum's support, Governor Romney said, "I am
honored to have Senator Santorum's support. Throughout his career of public
service, he has always led with a steadfast commitment to our party's
conservative principles. He has fought for life, marriage, tax cuts and a
stronger national defense. In the coming days, I look forward to working
with him as we fight for our party's conservative foundations."

Sooo. Was he lying then or lying now?

[Humble_Opinion]

He was being compared to McCain... Practically anyone in the Republican party (besides Snowe and Graham) would have looked 'Conservative' compared to McCain.

[Purple Haize]

He was being compared to McCain... Practically anyone in the Republican party (besides Snowe and Graham) would have looked 'Conservative' compared to McCain.

Really? I see Reagan mentioned but not McCain. He d isn't put any qualifiers in his endorsement.

[jbock13]

Neither one are really conservatives on both fiscal and social issues so.....

[Humble_Opinion]

He was being compared to McCain... Practically anyone in the Republican party (besides Snowe and Graham) would have looked 'Conservative' compared to McCain.

Really? I see Reagan mentioned but not McCain. He d isn't put any qualifiers in his endorsement.

I was talking about in '08. Romney was running against McCain in '08 and the perception of McCain as 'the Maverick' would have made practically anyone in the Republican party appear to be Conservative. We can have this discussion all day, but in the end - I don't think Americans are going to the ballot box to vote for a Conservative like Reagan. It's ABO in 2012.

[Humble_Opinion]

Lots of good news coming in for the Romney camp today... Here's the link to Drudge's page with all of the headlines: http://www.drudgereport.com/

[ALUmnus]

That's pretty much the go-to place for good news on Romney.

[Purple Haize]

RUSH
Maybe the conservative alternative to Romney is Romney.
Looks like even Rush is ready to rally around the flag. Don't worry JB he won't get the seat I saved for you!

[jbock13]

That's pretty much the go-to place for good news on Romney.

he's so in the tank for mittens.

Haize I heard what rush said. Don't get too excited. He played the clip his political advisor said.

[jbock13]

Let's vote libertarian party!

along with .48% of all Americans!

Otherwise I'm sympathetic to your point.

[LUconn]

It's what they can always count on. You folks being stupid enough to rally behind any liberal big government corporate stooge as long as he has an R next to his name come election day. The world keeps turning, and nothing changes.

You talking down to everybody on this board is getting so old. I just hope one day I can be as much of a free thinker as you. Hopefully Fox News will teach me how! Because that's the only way I can formulate thought!

[jbock13]

It just doesn't make sense how someone lets the country go to hell when they know what's right. The Democrats are united for socialism. The Republican Party can still be used effectively. Ron Paul did it. Rand Paul did it. Marco Rubio did it. You can't just say the Republicans suck, though most of them do.