The Intelligensia at the Washington Post: So Polluted With Statism, Even Automobile Reviews Are Political

It's one thing to suffer through the tortured secretions of Washington Post hacks editorial writers like, say, E.J. Dionne. Everyone knows his mind has been so poisoned with Statism that he now conflates fidelity to the Constitution with "judicial activism".

But it's quite another to read political drivel in a WaPo automobile review, written by someone who claims to be named "Warren Brown".

I like the clean design of the stately-bordering-on-prim Honda CR-V. It appeals to my inner Rick Santorum. But I absolutely love the swank swagger of the Mazda CX-5’s body. It addresses the dominant, motivating Barack and Michelle in me. There is an audacious flow about it front to rear...

...The three-point grille (left corner, right corner, bottom-connecting corner) opens gently, almost with a smile. The side panels are rhythmically muscular, as if they are involved in dance. The rear end with its upward-tilted bottom, slanted back window and sloping, roof-mounted air spoiler, is downright sassy.

It's unclear which rear end he's referring to. Is it that of Barack or Michelle?

Legacy media: so good at journalism stuff it's scary.

Hat tip: JTT.

Admirer of him though I may be, it's time for Newt Gingrich to step aside

While I wasn't directly in Newt's camp -- he was my second favorite candidate after Rick Santorum -- I agree with Dan Riehl.

Via Reuters, yes, I'd say Newt's campaign is very much in doubt, alright. Now, he'll only hurt his reputation with many in the base if he remains in the race...

"This really was his last chance to show whether he had the ability to win," said Natalie Davis, professor of political science at Birmingham Southern College in Birmingham, Alabama. "If he can't win in Alabama ... he really can't win anywhere. This was his last stand and he lost."

...I backed Newt after Perry dropped and didn't turn on him after he imploded in Florida, while also having a terrible debate. I've been content to watch it play out, not hitting either him, or Santorum. But all Newt can be from here on is a spoiler.

The bottom-line is, whether you back him, or not, Santorum has won himself the right to go one-on-one with Romney and settle things cleanly and once and for all. Not only will Newt begin to lose more and more friends across the conservative base by staying in - they'll see it as his ego and Adelson's money keeping him in - he's likely to begin performing worse and worse, only making it all the worse for him.

By losing as he did last night, he proved he can't win much of anywhere. His candidacy is not viable. The only honorable move left for Newt is to drop out. Do the right thing, Newt. Enough GOP primary voters have spoken that, in my opinion, the best thing Newt can do now is to show some respect for them.

What's been fascinating about Santorum's rise is that he's done it even though Gingrich (and earlier, other conservatives) split the base's vote.

Romney's problem is that he abandoned the base from the start. That doesn't seem to me to be a viable plan to win the primary, much less the general.


Related:
• In defense of Rick Santorum.
• Rick Santorum for President.

For those voting on Tuesday: we have a country to save

If Constitutional Conservatives and Tea Party Activists are to stop Mitt Romney in Ohio, it's imperative they support Rick Santorum.

NBC/Marist Poll: Santorum Has Small Edge in Ohio

A new NBC News/Marist poll in Ohio shows Rick Santorum just ahead of Mitt Romney among GOP primary voters, 34% to 32%, followed by Newt Gingrich at 15% and Ron Paul at 13%.

"A Romney win, following his victories last week in Michigan and Arizona, would cement his front-runner status and keep him on his path (no matter how rocky it's been) toward capturing the GOP presidential nomination. But a Santorum win would signal that his close second-place finish in Romney's native state of Michigan wasn't a fluke, and it would likely ensure that this Republican nomination battle remains competitive -- perhaps through April and maybe even June."

To be clear, I will walk on broken glass to vote for Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum or a Mall Santa in order to defeat Barack Obama in the general election.

That said, did the Tea Party go away? Did it disappear into the ether after the GOP's crushing victories in the 2010 midterms? Did it shatter after a million internecine battles?

Or is it merely simmering at a low boil while grassroots groups canvas for its primary favorites?

To my friends voting on Super Tuesday...

The time for action is now. The situation our country faces is too dire and the stakes too high to sit on the sidelines. You may, as I do, feel the fatigue of negative attacks, experience anger at the proctological scrutiny of your favorite candidates, or disgust at the blatant bias of the Democrat-media complex.

But you must, like an Olympic athlete, put all of that aside and vote on Tuesday.

If I could vote in one of your states, I would be casting my vote for Rick Santorum. Praised by no less a set of conservative luminaries like Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin and Sarah Palin, Santorum has been a consistent conservative throughout his career.

Architect of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, a proponent of the original Balanced Budget Amendment and an expert at national defense issues, Santorum's appeal is far wider than legacy media would have you believe.

This election will be about the future of America

Do Americans want a nation flooded with food-stamps and welfare payments, a European-style decline, and an out-of-control president who flouts the very Constitution upon which he took an oath to uphold?

Or do they want a return to founding principles, fiscal discipline and respect for the rule of law?

This election will be about founding principles, the most important of which are faith, family, private property rights and individual liberty. Those tenets were foundational to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Our rights are God-given, not offered in a bill by some bureaucrat in Washington. How can someone articulate the nature of American exceptionalism without a grounding in our founding document and our highest law?

The "Great Society" proved the defective nature of the Democrats' philosophy. Even if they were inspired by altruistic desires, Democrats have utterly destroyed the two-parent family, especially in the urban core.

Dozens of studies have proven that easy access to food stamps and welfare payments inflate the percentage of single-parent families. And single-parent families are linked directly to violent crime: in fact, no matter what race you are, you have the same chance of going to prison if you are raised in a single-parent household.

As for private property rights and the rule of law: the Constitution means what it says. To the extent that temporary politicians dismiss the genius of the Framers; strip away the bonds on the federal government placed explicitly upon it; and confiscate more and more private property in pursuit of a Utopian, benificent state that can't be and never was; they are corrupt and lawless. A government that takes your private property for purposes other than those specifically enunciated in the Constitution is operating outside of the law.

These lines are crystal clear and it will take an articulate conservative grounded in the founding principles to draw the sharpest contrast between the European nanny state that Obama seeks and the kind of government our Framers created.

You can cherry-pick the man's record all you want, but Santorum's record is one of consistency.

Santorum has a legislative record...

Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on $40B in reduced federal overall spending. (Dec 2005)
Voted YES on prioritizing national debt reduction below tax cuts. (Apr 2000)
Voted YES on 1998 GOP budget. (May 1997)
Voted YES on Balanced-budget constitutional amendment. (Mar 1997)

Rated 25% by CURE, indicating anti-rehabilitation crime votes. (Dec 2000)
Rated 27% by the NEA, indicating anti-public education votes. (Dec 2003)
Rated 0% by the LCV, indicating anti-environment votes. (Dec 2003)
Rated 100% by CATO, indicating a pro-free trade voting record. (Dec 2002)
Rated 0% by APHA, indicating a anti-public health voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 0% by the AFL-CIO, indicating an anti-union voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 81% by NTU, indicating a “Taxpayer’s Friend” on tax votes. (Dec 2003)

--Source: Issues 2000 Legislation Tracker

Rick Santorum is a true, God-fearing, Constitutional conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan. If we are to begin repairing this country, we need him or someone like him as President.

This election won't be about access to condoms. It's going to be about freedom. What it means to be an American. And Rick Santorum would be an outstanding choice as president.

So, to my friends voting on Tuesday: I urge you to consider supporting Rick Santorum for president. Send a message to Washington: the era of big government is over. The time for action is now.

We have a country to save.

Taranto obliterates the "Santorum as unelectable extremist" meme

James Taranto pounds the final nail into the coffin off the ludicrous contention that Rick Santorum is "unelectable". The last major Republican candidate to receive that kind of label was the "too old", "too crazy", "too stupid", "too conservative", and "too warlike" man named Ronald Reagan.

This column has recently become skeptical of the view--nearly universal on the liberal left but common as well among conservative elites--that Rick Santorum is "unelectable" or far less likely than Mitt Romney to defeat President Obama in November. A new USA Today poll reinforces our skepticism.

The survey, conducted by Gallup, included two samples of registered voters: 1,137 from a dozen "swing states," all of which Obama carried in 2008, and another 881 nationwide. The swing states included six that George W. Bush carried twice (Colorado, Florida, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia), three that Bush carried once (Iowa, New Hampshire and New Mexico), and three that last went Republican in 1988 or earlier (Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin).

The findings: Santorum leads Obama in the swing states, 50% to 45%, and nationwide 49% to 46%. This gives him an edge of three percentage points over Romney, whose swing-state lead is 48% to 46% and who ties the president nationally at 47%.

To be sure, this is only one poll, and the election is still more than eight months off. One possible explanation is that voters are less unfavorably disposed toward Santorum because they don't know him as well as they know Romney, and that once they learn how hard-core the former senator is on social issues, they'd bolt for Obama if Santorum becomes the nominee.

Writing in BusinessWeek, Bloomberg columnist Clive Crook offers another explanation for Santorum's appeal, while also arguing that it is limited by social issues:

Santorum combines this proletarian stance--unusual in a hard-right conservative--with more familiar elements of GOP populism: patriotism, reverence for family, hard work and self-reliance, hostility to big government, and proud religiosity (to a fault, in his case). If not for the extremism on sexual politics, it would be a potent blend even beyond the Republican Party's social-conservative core.

The trouble with this is that, as we've noted, "the extremism on sexual politics" is in substantial part mythical--and the propagation of the myth doesn't seem to be hurting Santorum. The timing of USA Today's survey (Feb. 14-21 in the swing states and Feb. 20-21 nationwide) coincides with a media hysteria in which the former senator's critics have frequently exaggerated or distorted his views to make him appear more extreme than he is. If he wins the nomination, he will have several months to explain himself to an electorate in which extreme social liberals constitute a small minority. And by that point, conservatives and Republicans who are now joining in on the "extremist" attacks would have an interest in setting the record straight.

Say, I've been out of the country for a while. How'd that Bob Dole and John McCain as "electable moderates" thing work out for the GOP?


Related: Time to Take a Stand

To My Friends in Arizona and Michigan: It's Time to Take a Stand

Before I begin this rant, let me make my stance regarding Mitt Romney perfectly clear.

I will walk on broken glass to vote for Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum or a radioactive goat over Barack Obama in the general election.

That said, did the Tea Party go away? Did it disappear into the ether after the GOP's crushing victories in the 2010 midterms? Did it shatter after a million internecine battles?

Or is it merely simmering at a low boil while grassroots groups canvas for its primary favorites?

To my friends in Arizona and Michigan

The time for action is now. The situation our country faces is too dire and the stakes too high to sit on the sidelines. You may, as I do, feel the fatigue of negative attacks, experience anger at the proctological scrutiny of your favorite candidates, or disgust at the blatant bias of the Democrat-media complex.

But you must, like an Olympic athlete, put all of that aside and vote on Tuesday.

If I could vote in one of your states, I would be casting my vote for Rick Santorum. Praised by no less a set of conservative luminaries like Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin and Sarah Palin, Santorum has been a consistent conservative throughout his career.

Architect of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, a proponent of the original Balanced Budget Amendment and an expert at national defense issues, Santorum's appeal is far wider than legacy media would have you believe.

This election will be about the future of America

Do Americans want a nation flooded with food-stamps and welfare payments, a European-style decline, and an out-of-control president who flouts the very Constitution upon which he took an oath to uphold?

Or do they want a return to founding principles, fiscal discipline and respect for the rule of law?

This election will be about founding principles, the most important of which are faith, family, private property rights and individual liberty. Those tenets were foundational to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Our rights are God-given, not offered in a bill by some bureaucrat in Washington. How can someone articulate the nature of American exceptionalism without a grounding in our founding document and our highest law?

The "Great Society" proved the defective nature of the Democrats' philosophy. Even if they were inspired by altruistic desires, Democrats have utterly destroyed the two-parent family, especially in the urban core.

Dozens of studies have proven that easy access to food stamps and welfare payments inflate the percentage of single-parent families. And single-parent families are linked directly to violent crime: in fact, no matter what race you are, you have the same chance of going to prison if you are raised in a single-parent household.

As for private property rights and the rule of law: the Constitution means what it says. To the extent that temporary politicians dismiss the genius of the Framers; strip away the bonds on the federal government placed explicitly upon it; and confiscate more and more private property in pursuit of a Utopian, benificent state that can't be and never was; they are corrupt and lawless. A government that takes your private property for purposes other than those specifically enunciated in the Constitution is operating outside of the law.

These lines are crystal clear and it will take an articulate conservative grounded in the founding principles to draw the sharpest contrast between the European nanny state that Obama seeks and the kind of government our Framers created.

You can cherry-pick the man's record all you want, but Santorum's record is one of consistency.

Santorum has a legislative record...

Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on $40B in reduced federal overall spending. (Dec 2005)
Voted YES on prioritizing national debt reduction below tax cuts. (Apr 2000)
Voted YES on 1998 GOP budget. (May 1997)
Voted YES on Balanced-budget constitutional amendment. (Mar 1997)

Rated 25% by CURE, indicating anti-rehabilitation crime votes. (Dec 2000)
Rated 27% by the NEA, indicating anti-public education votes. (Dec 2003)
Rated 0% by the LCV, indicating anti-environment votes. (Dec 2003)
Rated 100% by CATO, indicating a pro-free trade voting record. (Dec 2002)
Rated 0% by APHA, indicating a anti-public health voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 0% by the AFL-CIO, indicating an anti-union voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 81% by NTU, indicating a “Taxpayer’s Friend” on tax votes. (Dec 2003)

--Source: Issues 2000 Legislation Tracker

Rick Santorum is a true, God-fearing, Constitutional conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan. If we are to begin repairing this country, we need him or someone like him as President.

This election won't be about access to condoms. It's going to be about freedom. What it means to be an American. And Rick Santorum would be an outstanding choice as president.

So, to my friends in Arizona and Michigan: I urge you to consider supporting Rick Santorum for president. Send a message to Washington: the era of big government is over. The time for action is now.

We have a country to save.

Grass roots: Romney gives economic speech in front of 65,000 empty seats

But, Melvin, he's the only one who can win!

Mitt Romney's economic speech falls flat at near-empty stadium

Romney fails to elaborate on his 20% tax cut in awkward speech setting where he let slip another gaffe about his wealth

Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney's much-heralded economic speech flopped Friday, overshadowed by a gaffe over luxury Cadillacs and his choice of an over-ambitious venue, the Detroit Lions' football field.

Romney opened himself up to derision for choosing a 70,000-seat stadium which attracted just over 1,000 people, many of them school children bussed in to help fill out the crowd, tucked into a corner of the astro-turf pitch.

The small crowd underlined again his inability to draw large numbers of supporters and to excite the conservative base.

The speech too turned out to be a flop. Having been hyped by his campaign staff all week, Romney had little new to say... ...Political opponents quickly waded in. Obama's campaign adviser, David Axelrod, in a tweet, wrote: "Judging from pictures, looks like Mitt pinned himself in inside the 20."

After delivering his speech, Romney made a throwaway remark about cars that will be replayed when the speech itself will have been long forgotten.

In an attempt to ingratiate himself in the motor capital of America and undo some of the damage caused by a call in 2008 to let the car industry go bankrupt rather than be bailed out by the federal government, he listed cars owned by himself and his wife Ann.

He would be a president who loves cars, he said. "I like the fact that most of the cars I see are Detroit-made automobiles. I drive a Mustang and a Chevy pick-up truck. Ann drives a couple of Cadillacs, actually. And I used to have a Dodge truck, so I used to have all three covered."

Look, I think it's great Romney's rich. I love the fact that he's successful. But, hell, don't give the opposition easy soundbites!

Speaking of which, Rick Santorum was interviewed by Mark Levin tonight; the Right Scoop has the audio of the complete interview.

Have I mentioned that I support Rick Santorum for President?

In defense of Rick Santorum: no matter what Obama and the media say, this election is going to be about freedom, not contraception

This election will be about the future of America.

Do Americans want a nation flooded with food-stamps and welfare payments, a European-style decline, and an out-of-control president who flouts the very Constitution upon which he took an oath to uphold?

Or do they want a return to founding principles, fiscal discipline and respect for the rule of law?

Tonight on Fox News, Brit Hume asserted that Santorum's social conservatism would be "poison" in a general election. The media, willing accomplices to the Democrat Party, will be more than happy to paint the former Pennsylvania senator in that light.

But this is a false premise.

Faith, Family and Freedom

This election will be about founding principles, the most important of which are faith, family, private property rights and individual liberty. Those tenets were foundational to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Our rights are God-given, not offered in a bill by some bureaucrat in Washington. How can someone articulate the nature of American exceptionalism without a grounding in our founding document and our highest law?

The "Great Society" proved the defective nature of the Democrats' philosophy. Even if they were inspired by altruistic desires, Democrats have utterly destroyed the two-parent family, especially in the urban core.

Dozens of studies have proven that easy access to food stamps and welfare payments inflate the percentage of single-parent families. And single-parent families are linked directly to violent crime: in fact, no matter what race you are, you have the same chance of going to prison if you are raised in a single-parent household.

As for private property rights and the rule of law: the Constitution means what it says. To the extent that temporary politicians dismiss the genius of the Framers; strip away the bonds on the federal government placed explicitly upon it; and confiscate more and more private property in pursuit of a Utopian, benificent state that can't be and never was; they are corrupt and lawless. A government that takes your private property for purposes other than those specifically enunciated in the Constitution is operating outside of the law.

These lines are crystal clear and it will take an articulate conservative grounded in the founding principles to draw the sharpest contrast between the European nanny state that Obama seeks and the kind of government our Framers created.

Social Issues and the Media

In a debate, when some left-wing hack like George Stephanapolous kicks off the proceedings by asking about contraceptives, Rick Santorum should respond as follows:

"Are you having problems getting contraceptives, George? Is someone proposing to ban them? I reject your question. This country faces existential threats economically and from nuclear-armed terror states. I respectfully request that you prioritize your questions in terms of importance to all Americans and not just your personal issues in getting access to contraceptives. So let's start off the debate with a question about something truly important to all Americans."

Legacy media is doubly irrelevant. Not only do most Americans dismiss the notion that journalists are "unbiased arbiters", but they also realize that journalists have a dog in the hunt. Newt Gingrich used this approach effectively to shred several left-wing debate moderators and that template still applies.

The Duplicity of Karl Rove

The "big-government Republican" label is a meme promulgated by the same folks who twisted the arms of GOP senators to support President Bush. For Karl Rove to criticize Santorum for anything is laughable.

So Rick Santorum's really a 'Big Government' guy?

Santorum has a legislative record. Check it out.

Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on $40B in reduced federal overall spending. (Dec 2005)
Voted YES on prioritizing national debt reduction below tax cuts. (Apr 2000)
Voted YES on 1998 GOP budget. (May 1997)
Voted YES on Balanced-budget constitutional amendment. (Mar 1997)

Rated 25% by CURE, indicating anti-rehabilitation crime votes. (Dec 2000)
Rated 27% by the NEA, indicating anti-public education votes. (Dec 2003)
Rated 0% by the LCV, indicating anti-environment votes. (Dec 2003)
Rated 100% by CATO, indicating a pro-free trade voting record. (Dec 2002)
Rated 0% by APHA, indicating a anti-public health voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 0% by the AFL-CIO, indicating an anti-union voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 81% by NTU, indicating a “Taxpayer’s Friend” on tax votes. (Dec 2003)

--Source: Issues 2000 Legislation Tracker

I'll say this:

So the man who led the only successful reform of an entitlement program -- the 1996 Welfare Reform Act -- is in favor of "big government"?

Rick Santorum is a true, God-fearing, Constitutional conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan. If we are to begin repairing this country, we need him or someone like him as President.

What this election will be about

Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, and Sarah Palin -- all of whom have praised Santorum effusively -- can't all be wrong.

This election won't be about access to condoms. It's going to be about freedom. What it means to be an American. And Rick Santorum would be an outstanding choice as president.


Related: Rick Santorum for President Website

Let's Go Back to the Replay: How Bob Casey Beat Rick Santorum in 2006

What happened in Washington? Millions of jobs lost. The largest deficit ever. An arrogant government out of touch. "Pennsylvania deserves a senator in touch with Pennsylvania... we need someone fighting for fair-trade laws, that don't give away our jobs... someone who will stand up against the partisan politics in Washington... someone who's fiscally responsible... who balances a budget, just like you do, every day of your lives. We can do better in Washington, and we will. I'm Bob Casey, and I approve this message." --Transcript of Bob Casey, Democrat for Senate Ad, 2006

The midterm elections held on November 7, 2006 resulted in a massive victory for Democrats, allowing them to capture the House, the Senate, and a majority of state legislatures and governorships from the GOP.

Senator Rick Santorum was one of the victims of the sweeping Republican loss, falling to Bob Casey by a double-digit margin.

Wikipedia describes some of the major reasons for the national power shift, which included "the decline of the public image of George W. Bush, the dissatisfaction of the handling of both Hurricane Katrina and the War in Iraq, Bush's legislative defeat regarding Social Security Reform, and the culture of corruption, which were the series of scandals in 2006 involving Republican politicians."

As for Santorum himself, The Washington Examiner notes that:

The biggest policy reason for Santorum's loss was his outspoken support for the war in Iraq. By November 2006, the war was going badly and threatened to turn into a full-scale catastrophe. President Bush resisted calls to change course and had not yet settled on the troop surge that would ultimately rescue the situation from disaster. While Santorum's Democratic opponent, Bob Casey, called for a different course, Santorum stuck with the president, and with the war.

"As other Republicans attempt to steer away from Iraq and terrorism, Sen. Rick Santorum argued yesterday that America must stop 'sleepwalking' while 'evil enemies' plot the nation's destruction, making foreign policy a focal point in the final days of his campaign," the Philadelphia Inquirer reported on October 27, 2006. Santorum made the finale of his campaign into a so-called "Gathering Storm" tour, in which he mixed support of the war with calls for continuing vigilance in the war on terror. In making the war such a central part of his campaign, Santorum stubbornly kept the focus on the weakest part of his candidacy.

The voters clobbered him for it. In Pennsylvania exit polls, 61 percent of voters said they disapproved of the war. Santorum lost among them, 15 percent to Casey's 85 percent. Among the largest sub-group of war opponents, the 42 percent of voters who said they strongly disapproved of the war, Santorum lost seven percent to 93 percent. That by itself was enough to doom any hopes for a third term.

That Mitt Romney criticizes Santorum for losing an election -- primarily for his support of the Iraq 'Surge' that the Massachusetts Governor also backed -- is disingeuous at best. Romney didn't run for reelection in 2006.

In this morning’s debate on NBC, Rick Santorum questioned Mitt Romney’s decision not to run for reelection when he was governor of Massachusetts... “Well, if his record was so great as governor of Massachusetts why didn't he run for reelection?” Santorum asked. “I mean if you didn't want to even stand before the people of Massachusetts and run on your record--if it was that great, why did you bail out?”

...Had Romney accomplished the majority of the “100 things [he] wanted to do” in office, or enough of them to be satisfied? Had he decided, at that point, to run for president in 2008 and that the best way to do that would be outside the governor’s mansion in Boston? Or had Romney looked at the poll numbers, which were declining throughout the second half of his term (he was spending a lot of time in Iowa and New Hampshire around then), and concluded that he couldn’t win reelection against a popular Democrat?

A review of Bob Casey's television ads paint a clear picture of his approach to defeating Santorum. In short, he ran to the right of Rick Santorum, promising:

• Fiscal responsibility

• A balanced federal budget

• Stronger border security

• Less centralized government in Washington

Bob Casey beat Rick Santorum in 2006 the way all Democrats win in the rational 46 states (California, Hawaii, Illinois and New York not included): He lied. He lied early, often and about everyone and everything.

Fiscal responsibility? While endorsing Barack Obama, voting for out-of-control federal spending, Obamacare, and supporting amnesty for illegal immigration?

How's that working out for you, Pennsylvania?

The Casey game-plan for victory over Santorum has about as much relevance for the Obama campaign as salads have for Michael Moore. Which is to say: none at all.

Pew: Santorum Passes Romney Nationally

It's Mitt Romney's worst nightmare: a true conservative that has energized the small-government wing of the Republican Party.

Rick Santorum’s support among Tea Party Republicans and white evangelicals is surging, and he now has pulled into a virtual tie with Mitt Romney in the race for the Republican presidential nomination. In polling conducted Feb. 8-12, 30% of Republican and Republican-leaning registered voters favor Santorum while 28% favor Romney. As recently as a month ago, Romney held a 31% to 14% advantage over Santorum among all GOP voters.

Santorum is now the clear favorite of Republican and GOP-leaning voters who agree with the Tea Party, as well as white evangelical Republicans. Currently, 42% of Tea Party Republican voters favor Santorum, compared with just 23% who back Romney. Santorum holds an almost identical advantage among white evangelical Republican voters (41% to 23%)...

...Three months ago, a slim majority (53%) of Republican and Republican-leaning voters said Mitt Romney was a strong conservative. Today, 42% see him this way, while the number who say he is not a strong conservative has jumped from 33% to 50%.

This growing skepticism about Romney’s conservatism is most pronounced among Tea Party Republicans. Among Republican and Republican-leaning voters who agree with the Tea Party, just 29% say Romney is a strong conservative, down from 51% three months ago. Fully 68% of Tea Party Republicans say Romney is not a strong conservative...

Santorum is a Constitutional conservative praised by Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin -- to name but a few -- and, most importantly, is a man who has stood by his principles through thick and thin.

He didn't cut and run when he backed the surge in Iraq. He didn't shrink from leading a successful entitlement reform (the 1996 Welfare Reform Act). He's voted the right way on almost every important issue for conservatives.

If you have an extra five-spot (or ten of 'em), Rick Santorum can use your support.


Hat tip: Memeorandum.

Best Illustration Ever: Democrat Color Wheel!

Spotted (and shamelessly ripped off) from the peerless Moonbattery (update: the original came from The Looking Spoon):

And I couldn't resist creating the equivalent version for the real Republican Party (not big government Statists, but Constitutional conservatives and the Tea Partiers):

Bold differences, sharp contrasts.

Which is why I support Rick Santorum for President. The nattering nabobs and paid lackeys can decry Santorum as a big government hack all they want. I'll let the various conservative groups we care about rank him: judge for yourself.


Hat tip: BadBlue.com.

Florida Tea Party Leaders Endorse Newt Gingrich

Floridians: I urge you not to allow the Beltway establishment to bully, threaten or scare you. Mitt Romney is the weakest GOP candidate of the bunch and Florida's Tea Party leaders see that threat clear as day.

"The Florida Tea Party Coalition With Newt" endorsed the former House speaker on Thursday, saying they would "help defeat Massachusetts Moderate Mitt Romney and then President Barack Obama."

“It is clear to me and many others in the tea party movement that Newt is the Reagan conservative that America needs,” said Peter Lee, founder and director of the East Side Tea Party of Orlando.

Lee was joined by statewide tea leader Patricia Sullivan, who said, “I stand with Newt because I know he will stand up to the establishment and insist on fiscal reforms."

In all, more than 30 Florida-based tea activists signed on to the coalition. The geographically diverse representatives ranged from the Panhandle to Broward County.

Separately, the TEA Party of Florida, the only political tea party registered with the state Division of Elections, endorsed Gingrich.

The GOP establishment's -- and, specifically, Mitt Romney's operatives' -- unconscionable attacks on Gingrich should motivate every undecided primary voter to support Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum.

And I'm glad Florida's Tea Party leaders are playing hardball with the RINO mushes who won't fight Obama as hard as they fight conservatives.


Related: Debunking the Beltway Hacks' Latest Spin: Gingrich Will Harm Down-Ticket Republicans

Romney loses South Carolina by 31 points, Karl Rove hardest hit

Yes, Mitt Romney lost by 31 points.

       40% Gingrich
       27% Romney
       18% Santorum

The anti-establishment candidates -- Gingrich and Santorum -- literally crushed Mitt Romney 58 percent to 27 percent, a margin of 31 points.

Erick Erickson describes these results as evidence that the GOP conservative base far outnumbers establishment RINOs -- and that the conservatives are pissed.

Newt Gingrich’s rise has a lot to do with Newt Gingrich’s debate performance. But it has just as much to do with a party base in revolt against its thought and party leaders in Washington, DC. The base is revolting because they swept the GOP back into relevance in Washington just under two years ago and they have been thanked with contempt ever since...

...Newt has taken the worst the media, Romney and the left can dish out, and he’s still standing and fighting with passion and eloquence. Sure, he’d probably be an erratic President, but right now Republican voters don’t care about his Presidency. They care about the fight with the left both Mitt Romney, and the Washington Republican leaders like John Boehner and Mitch McConnell don’t seem inclined to engage in.

I support Rick Santorum over Newt and Mitt. I support Newt over Mitt. And I support anyone over Barack Obama.

But Doug, you might ask, what about Ron Paul? What about him? Ron Paul is a kook, an anachronism, a Kucinich Libertarian wearing GOP clothes, whose views on foreign policy are so outside the mainstream that they can and must be dismissed.

Congratulations to Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum. Oh, and here's a private word for Karl Rove: pfffffffffffffffffffffffffttttt.

Which GOP candidate has the courage to begin stripping away the Democrat welfare state that is bankrupting this country?

When the media questions a GOP candidate -- from Eric Cantor to Paul Ryan -- their perspective is always the same. Why are Republicans unwilling to compromise with their altruisitic Democrat partners? Why won't they work with President Obama?

The framing of these questions is, of course, patently bogus. When Democrats had control of Congress from 2006 to 2010, and after Obama's election in 2008, where were the great compromises that the media loves to harp about?

• Did they compromise on Obamacare? Or did they ram it through on midnight of Christmas Eve with bribes, backroom deals, and thousands of hidden pages of legislation?

• Did they compromise on Global Warming? Or did the president command the EPA to issue CO2 regulations when even a Democrat-controlled Congress couldn't pass cap-and-trade legislation?

• Did they compromise on the Stimulus package, ramming through trillions in deficit spending that has utterly failed to rescue anything except for the public sector unions' campaign coffers?

• Did they compromise on their outrageous financial reform legislation ("Dodd-Frank") that is spreading misery and layoffs throughout the country?

Actually, I don't recall a single Democrat compromise on any of these outrageous measures. Not a one.

So when we choose a candidate, are we going to have another RINO mush who will "go along to get along"? Who will permit the Democrats' social welfare state to continue expanding, albeit at a slightly slower pace? Who will not try to move the rudder on this country before it sails over the fiscal abyss?

Or will we have a man with courage? Who will shoot straight with the American people? Who would issue a true declaration of political war with the Marxist Utopians that have overthrown the real Democrat Party?

A man who would give a speech like this, paraphrasing Truman?

Two years ago an American juggernaut dropped a bomb on Democrats in Congress and destroyed their usefulness to the Marxist Left. That bomb had the power to swing 63 House seats and 680 state legislative seats and left in its wake what the National Journal called "devastation".

The Democrats began this war in 2007 when they promised to run the "most ethical Congress ever" with "no new deficit spending." Instead they permitted and encouraged rampant criminality and an all-time record of nearly $6 trillion in new deficit spending.

But the end of their reign of fiscal terror is near. The electorate dropped the political equivalent of an atomic bomb on the Democrats again last month. The force which gave birth to this country -- an insatiable desire for freedom -- has been loosed against those who brought fiscal ruin to the nation.

The greatest marvel is not the size of the Democrats' defeat, nor its cost, but the achievement of the people -- a true, grass-roots effort to repudiate Marxism, Statism, Utopianism, whatever their un-American strategies are called -- into a workable plan. People of all races, religions, economic backgrounds and interests worked to advance freedom. It is doubtful if another such combination could have been assembled anywhere in the world. What has been done is among the greatest achievements of a people fighting incipient tyranny in history. It was done under pressure and without failure.

We are now prepared to obliterate more rapidly and completely every destructive endeavor the Democrat Statists have created. We shall destroy their agencies, their bureaucracies, their unconstitutional czars, their ideologues who have burrowed into regulatory bodies unknown to most Americans. Let there be no mistake: we shall completely destroy the Democrats' political power-base: the bloated federal bureaucracy that has grown, unchecked, for one reason and one reason alone, which is to fund Democrat campaigns.

It was to spare the Democrats from utter destruction that I issue this ultimatum.

If they do not now accept our terms they may expect a rain of political ruin, the likes of which has never been seen on this earth. Behind this 2012 offensive will follow subsequent forces in such number that and power as they have not yet seen and with the political skills of which they are already well aware.

The power of the people will continue to grow as more citizens educate themselves regarding the unholy alliance of Democrats and the fourth branch of government -- the public sector unions. Both align themselves against the citizen, against the taxpayer, and threaten the destruction of our country, our currency and our way of life.

We pledge to politically eradicate the Marxist left that inhabits the body of the Democrat Party like some sort of horror film zombie.

And in 2014, 2016, 2018 and in every subsequent election, we will return this great Republic to the Constitutional basis that our Framers intended. Our contract with America is this: it is the Constitution.

No political quarter asked, and none given.

This is a war for the country's future. We can have a failed Marxist welfare state of the sort melting down in Europe. Or we can begin to right the ship by returning to the principles of Constitutional government, the wisdom of which becomes more and more obvious by the day.

I believe Rick Santorum is the only candidate who would issue this kind of ultimatum to the Democrat-media complex. Time grows short to save this republic. I urge you to offer him your support.

Bumper Sticker o' the Day: We're Coming For Ya

Via Moe Lane and RightWingNews:

What can you do? If you have a few spare bucks, support Rick Santorum for President.

Helpful Flowchart: Should I Vote for Barack Obama?

The Looking Spoon:

I also have a simpler flowchart that I use with drones Democrats. It's really just a "Yes/No" deal:

Q: Do you favor the current course of fiscal irresponsibility, which will bankrupt America and needlessly sentence future generations to poverty and misery?

If you answered "Yes", please vote for Barack Obama. If you answered "No", please support Rick Santorum for President.

Rick Santorum: How are those Romney-style "moderate" candidates like McCain and Dole working out for ya?

Mitt Romney, contrary to popular belief, would be the easiest of the Republican candidates for Barack Obama to defeat. Not to say I wouldn't support Romney if he were the nominee (after all, he's not a radical Alinsky-ite bent on destroying "transforming" the country). Hell, I'd vote for a Golden Retriever over Barack Obama... it would certainly do less damage.

But Romney's so-called "electability" is an ill-disguised myth. He can't attack Obama on the Democrats' biggest Achilles' Heel: Obamacare. His Wall Street background, as we have seen in recent days, is ripe for an attack from the populist angle, whether it's warranted or not. And, as Rick Santorum pointed out this evening, "moderate" GOP establishment candidates have a horrible track record in presidential elections.

Drawing an implicit contrast with Mitt Romney on the eve of the first-in-the-nation primary, Rick Santorum [reminded the crowd of] a centrist, establishment candidate... the 2008 Republican nominee, [and] the people of this small New Hampshire town bordering Maine wanted none of it.

“Let’s put up Bob Dole, because it’s his turn,” Santorum said ironically of the 1996 GOP nominee. “Let’s put up John McCain, because it’s his turn.”

Some in the crowd started booing, while others cried out “No!”

...“Give us an opportunity to be that conservative alternative, not just in this primary, but the conservative alternative that will draw clear contrast,” he said, “and be able to attract the votes and voters we need to win this election.”

I urge you to support a true Constitutional conservative for President.

I urge you to support Rick Santorum.

Erick Erickson: Mark Levin and Sarah Palin unable to gauge true conservatism

I usually resist the urge to engage in internecine warfare, but RedState's Erick Erickson's attacks on Rick Santorum have moved me to action. As Rick Perry has faded in the polls after some disastrous debate performances, Erickson has likewise thrashed about trying to pump up the candidate. And similarly with Newt Gingrich, who -- after a brief surge in the polls -- has faded. Believe me, I'll happily support either, but right now Rick Santorum appears to be the most conservative candidate with momentum.

Erickson has been left with the proverbial dead parrot returned to his store, and must resort to arguing that it's still alive.

Owner: Well, he's...he's, ah...probably pining for the fjords.

Mr. Praline: 'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!!

Dear Erick,

So you're saying Mark Levin, who is a personal friend of Santorum's and knows him as well as anyone (Santorum was an early campaigner for Reagan in 1980 in Pennsylvania with Levin) is wrong?

That Mark Freaking Levin is supporting a big-government Statist?

That Santorum's leadership work on the 1996 Welfare Reform Act -- arguably the most successful re-engineering of an existing entitlement program ever -- is not worth discussing, especially now?

That Santorum's obvious knowledge and support of national security is to be dismissed as China prepares for war and the Middle East boils over?

That Santorum's brave battle for a Balanced Budget Amendment was all a sham?

That cherry-picking a couple dozen from thousands upon thousands of votes that Santorum cast -- many of which were thrust upon the GOP caucus by the big-spending Bush 43 administration -- are somehow representative of his personal interests?

That because he lost an election in a disastrous year for Republicans nationally, a year that swept the Democrats into power, as the most conservative Senator from Pennsylvania in the last half-century?

Why, didn't Barack Obama lose a Democrat Primary to Bobby Rush just a decade ago by 31 points? Uhm, yes. Yes, he did.

No. I don't get it. So Mark Levin and Sarah Palin don't know that Santorum is really a big-government guy, that he's fooled them for all of these years.

All candidates are imperfect, some more so than others.

But tearing down good conservative candidates like Rick Santorum to me makes no sense, especially when other good candidates like Gingrich and Perry appear to be losing momentum.

Some introspection, I believe, is necessary.

The Movie Event of 2012... [The Looking Spoon]

The Looking Spoon:

If you have some extra coin, I urge you to upport Rick Santorum for President.

Is Rick Santorum Really a 'Big Government' Guy?

That's the line being spouted by the establishment Republicans in an effort to offer covering fire for Mitt Romney's, eh, schizophrenic policy positions.

So Rick Santorum's really a 'Big Government' guy?

Santorum has a legislative record. Check it out.

Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on $40B in reduced federal overall spending. (Dec 2005)
Voted YES on prioritizing national debt reduction below tax cuts. (Apr 2000)
Voted YES on 1998 GOP budget. (May 1997)
Voted YES on Balanced-budget constitutional amendment. (Mar 1997)

Rated 25% by CURE, indicating anti-rehabilitation crime votes. (Dec 2000)
Rated 27% by the NEA, indicating anti-public education votes. (Dec 2003)
Rated 0% by the LCV, indicating anti-environment votes. (Dec 2003)
Rated 100% by CATO, indicating a pro-free trade voting record. (Dec 2002)
Rated 0% by APHA, indicating a anti-public health voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 0% by the AFL-CIO, indicating an anti-union voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 81% by NTU, indicating a “Taxpayer’s Friend” on tax votes. (Dec 2003)

--Source: Issues 2000 Legislation Tracker

I'll say this:

Rick Santorum is a true, God-fearing, Constitutional conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan. If we are to begin repairing this country, we need him or someone like him as President. His speech on Tuesday night was truly inspirational. Almost Reagan-esque, if it's not too trite to say that.

He is opposed by the Beltway establishment -- who has pre-ordained a Mitt Romney/Barack Obama faceoff in 2012. But they don't get to say who the GOP candidate is. You and I do. I urge you to support Rick Santorum for President, who has built a successful campaign out of sheer will, character and faith.

Four years of Barack Obama will have seen roughly $6 trillion added to the national debt -- with $10 trillion more to come on this trajectory in short order. Based on these spending levels, the Congressional Budget Office told Paul Ryan that they could not run their computer models another 25 years because the models collapse. The amount of debt they project simply cannot be rolled over -- there isn't enough money in the world.

Are you or your kids going to be around in 25 years? If so, I'd recommend you support someone who is a true Conservative, who believes in a Balanced Budget Amendment, fair taxation rules for all, and the will -- the fight -- to strip away the federal leviathan that dictates how much water your toilet tank holds, what kinds of light bulbs you're allowed to buy, how much mileage your car must get, and what kind of health care you'll receive.

Or we can continue kicking the can down the road and wait until the last possible minute to try to fix things, right before the civil society unravels.

It's now or never, folks.

If you feel the same way, I urge you to support Rick Santorum today.


Others writing about Santorum: Marathon Pundit ("The real Santorum web site is RickSantorum.com"), Mental Recession ("Here's the Real Rick Santorum Website") and Fausta's Blog.

Google Trends: Rick Santorum Searches Explode

Someone alert the IPCC: here's a real hockey-stick graph. The latest Google Trends data shows an astonishing jump in searches for Rick Santorum (who, by the way, would make an excellent, excellent Republican candidate for president).

Santorum is a true Constitutional conservative and has the track record to prove it. And it appears he is quite close to winning the Iowa Caucuses.

If you can afford it, I would encourage you to support Santorum's campaign any way you can. It's time we elected a principled conservative -- in the mold of Ronald Reagan -- as opposed to a Beltway RINO.

There's nothing that would piss off the establishment GOP more, which tells me it's the right thing to do.


Update: Robert Stacy McCain has running updates on the Iowa Caucus.