Rick Santorum Warns Trump the GOP will Turn on Their Own

Normally I'm not a big Rick Santorum fan. But his warning to Trump is spot on. Glad to see a party mainstay show some backbone.
As White House lawyers begin researching impeachment procedures, former senator and Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum said Friday night the GOP is nowhere near supporting such a move, but warned President Donald Trump that "this can't continue for a whole lot longer."
Santorum voted to convict former President Bill Clinton of perjury and obstruction of justice during his impeachment trial in 1999. (Reminder- he was acquitted in the end.) Santorum believes that as of May 19, Republicans would currently oppose impeachment. But then he showed some surprising independence and backbone and cautioned that things could change dramatically if damaging revelations continue to plague the Trump administration.
"Unlike Democrats, who will never break with a president, no matter what they do -- I mean I don't care, they can find him with a smoking gun and a picture, they wouldn't break with him -- Republicans will," he warned. "So I would say this to President Trump: This can't continue for a whole lot longer."

Santorum Endorses Romney

Little Ricky has finally formally endorsed Mitt Romney. Instead of bringing you what or other people think of what he said, I instead give to you, exactly what he said via email to his email list subscribers (I do not say supporters, since you don't have to support him to subscribe to his email list). (Also, I leave the "Beth" on the email, because it amuses me. My name is not Beth. Nor is it my father's name. And this was actually the email that was sent to him. And for some reason, all of the emails he has received from Santorum's campaign have been addressed to Beth, whoever she may be.)

Beth,

Thank you again for all you did as one of my strongest and committed supporters. Your belief in our campaign helped us start a movement of Americans who believe deeply that our best days are ahead as long as we fight to strengthen our families, unshackle our economy and promote freedom here and around the world. Karen and I will be forever grateful for the support, kindness and commitment you showed us, as well as our children, over these last months.

On Friday, Governor Romney came to Pittsburgh for an over-hour long one-on-one meeting. The conversation was candid, collegial and focused on the issues that you helped me give voice to during our campaign; because I believe they are essential ingredients to not only winning this fall, but turning our country around.

While the issue of my endorsement did not come up, I certainly have heard from many of you who have weighed in on whether or not I should issue a formal endorsement. Thank you for your counsel, it has been most helpful. However, I felt that it was completely impossible for me to even consider an endorsement until after a meeting to discuss issues critical to those of us who often feel our voices are not heard by the establishment: social conservatives, tea-party supporters, lower and middle income working families.

Clearly without the overwhelming support from you all, I never would have won 11 states and over 3 million votes, and we would not have won more counties than all the other candidates combined. I can assure you that even though I am no longer a candidate for president, I will still continue to fight every day for our shared values - the values that made America the greatest country in the history of the world.

During our meeting I felt a deep responsibility to assess Governor Romney's commitment to addressing the issues most important to conservatives, as well his commitment to ensuring our appropriate representation in a Romney administration.

The family and its foundational role in America's economic success, a central point of our campaign, was discussed at length. I was impressed with the Governor's deep understanding of this connection and his commitment to economic policies that preserve and strengthen families. He clearly understands that having pro-family initiatives are not only the morally and economically right thing to do, but that the family is the basic building block of our society and must be preserved.

I also shared with Governor Romney my belief that we cannot restore America as the greatest economic engine the world has ever seen until we return America to being a manufacturing superpower. He listened very carefully to my advice on this matter, and while our policy prescriptions differed, he clearly expressed his desire to create more opportunities for those that are feeling left behind in this economy.

As it is often said, "personnel is policy." I strongly encouraged Governor Romney as he builds out his campaign staff and advisors that he add more conservative leaders as an integral part of his team. And you can be sure that I will work with the Governor to help him in this task to ensure he has a strong team that will support him in his conservative policy initiatives.

Of course we talked about what it would take to win this election. As you know I started almost every speech with the phrase that this was the most important election since the election of 1860 and four more years of President Obama is simply not an option. As I contemplated what further steps I will take, that reality weighed heavy on me. The America we know is being fundamentally changed to look more like a European socialist state than the land of opportunity our founding fathers established.

Freedom and personal responsibility are being replaced with big government dependency. The greatest and most productive workers in the world are being hamstrung by excessive regulations making it impossible to compete. Our healthcare system had been socialized, and the worth of each life dictated by some government bureaucrat. Our allies are insulted while our enemies are appeased. And our religious beliefs and freedom have come under attack.

What is even more troubling is what a second term of an Obama administration could bring. President Obama's admission to the Russians that he will have more flexibility in a second term can only be translated to "if you thought I was liberal in the first four years you haven't seen anything yet!"

The primary campaign certainly made it clear that Governor Romney and I have some differences. But there are many significant areas in which we agree: the need for lower taxes, smaller government, and a reduction in out-of-control spending. We certainly agree that abortion is wrong and marriage should be between one man and one woman. I am also comfortable with Governor Romney on foreign policy matters, and we share the belief that we can never allow Iran to possess nuclear weapons. And while I had concerns about Governor Romney making a case as a candidate about fighting against Obamacare, I have no doubt if elected he will work with a Republican Congress to repeal it and replace it with a bottom up, patient, not government, driven system.

Above all else, we both agree that President Obama must be defeated. The task will not be easy. It will require all hands on deck if our nominee is to be victorious. Governor Romney will be that nominee and he has my endorsement and support to win this the most critical election of our lifetime.

My conversation with Governor Romney was very productive, but I intend to keep lines of communication open with him and his campaign. I hope to ensure that the values that made America that shining city on the hill are illuminated brightly by our party and our candidates thus ensuring not just a victory, but a mandate for conservative governance.

Karen and I know firsthand how difficult the campaign trail can be particularly as governor Romney faces relentless attacks from the democrats. We have been praying for him and his family and will continue to do so in the weeks and months ahead.

Thank you again for all you have done for us, and I look forward to working together to defeat President Obama this fall and to protect faith, family, freedom and opportunity in America.

With Gratitude,

Rick Santorum

P.S. As promised, very soon we will be making another big announcement, and I will be asking you to once again join forces with me to keep up the fight, together. Stay tuned.

Things that make you go "hmm..."

"Now don't be putting words in my mouth!"

Former Senator Rick Santorum is laying low over the holiday weekend. His campaign has made no major media buys or announced any upcoming events.
So naturally we, the opinionated outsiders, must speculate.
Has he run out of money? (Probably not.)
Is he throwing in the towel? (Don't get your hopes up!)
Not wasting money on media buys over a religious holy weekend? (Always a possibility.)

Hat Trick Romney! So now what?

Mitt Romney waves to supporters in Wisconsin. Linked to source: newsobserver.com

Mitt Romney made a clean sweep last night and won in Maryland, DC, and Wisconsin for a grand total of ---

Romney 654
Santorum 270
Gingrich 137
Paul 71

So now what?
Will his challengers go quietly into the night?
Of course not.
Next up we have Pennsylvania, Rick Santorum's sort of stomping grounds. He was their Senator and Congressman for several terms, but really he lives in Virginia, and he was born in VA as well. It is also the state the soundly kicked his butt and didn't re-elect him in 2006.  But nonetheless, he ain't dropping out of this race until he's gone back to PA. In his "concession" speech last night he said we're at "half-time" in this race. If by half-time he means he now has less than half of the delegates Romney has, I guess that makes some sense.
So other than being Santorum's home state, what does Pennsylvania have to offer?
72 proportional delegates.
The primary is on April 24 along with Connecticut (28 proportional), Delaware (17 winner takes all), New York (95 proportional), and Rhode Island (19 proportional). Obviously, Pennsylvania isn't even the most profitable state that day, with NY on the calendar as well. The only reason it is a big deal is because it is Santorum's "home."
The PA polls are all over the place, thanks to super old data in them, but they do consistently show Santorum ahead.

click image to enlarge

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/rick-santorum-pennsylvania-polls-showing-close-race-are-work-of-democratic-hack/2012/04/01/gIQA7yE2oS_blog.html

This second screen shot might be one of my favorite Santorum quotes ever. He's really showing his colors lately that when he doesn't like something someone says or does, he insults them. "...Democratic hack... has probably singularly gotten more polls wrong..."  And what was the hack's big offense? He only shows Santorum leading by 2 points. Heaven forbid. It's almost as if Santorum was winning in every single state, and the front runner, and suddenly somebody dared to say he has some competition.
Meanwhile, talking about really old data, check out the Real Clear Politics offerings for New York-

Click image to enlarge. Screen grab from Real Clear Politics.

Yes, that would be data from nearly a full year ago in the mix. And the most recent data is from February. So yeah, that's not too helpful either. And things aren't much more useful for CT and DE polling either.

On Wisconsin, On Wisconsin!

Tuesday will bring us the Wisconsin winner-take-all primary. The cheese heads have 42 delegates to offer the winner. Maryland (37 proportional) and DC (19 winner take all) will also hold primaries, but so far, no one seems to have noticed.

Things are looking pretty good for Romney in Wisconsin. He's holding on to a fairly stable lead there. He is also leading in MD and DC. If Romney can walk away with all 42 + 19 on Tuesday, and let's just say half of Maryland, for a grand total of 79 (we'll round up), and we'll be generous and give Santorum 17, that would bring the totals to---

Romney- 645

Santorum - 280

Gingrich - 140

That would put Romney well more than half way to the 1,140 needed to take the nomination. And puts Santorum just shy of half way to the half way point of getting the necessary delegates. 

Santorum still thinks he has enough friends in Pennsylvania to win there. Pennsylvania's primary is in 3 more weeks, and has 72 proportional delegates. If by some miracle he takes a clean sweep of the state, and gets all 72 delegates for himself, for a grand total of 355, he would only be 785 delegates short of the nomination. (Or in other words, he still wouldn't be close to winning.) 

Last week Gingrich laid off his staff and admitted he has no hope. But he also reminded everyone just how "grandiose" he can be by comparing himself to the University of Kansas men's basketball team, which squeaked past Ohio State on Saturday night to set up Monday's NCAA tournament championship showdown with top-seeded Kentucky.

After tomorrow, we the people and the media, get a nice little three week break. April 24 will bring us Pennsylvania, New York, Connecticut, Delaware and Rhode Island.

Why Romney's Growing Endorsement List Matters

Let's talk endorsements, media, and all that other stuff.
Warning- my pro-Romney bias will likely show up.

Last week Jeb Bush, a not so small name at Republican parties endorsed Mitt Romney. Yesterday, Marco Rubio, another popular name endorsed Mitt Romney. And George Bush the Elder will endorse Romney today.
And yet the Washington Post runs an article about how hard it is to find a Romney "superfan."Now, I wouldn't label myself as a "Superfan," or "Romniac," but I do know a few people who fit that description well. In fact, a quick glance at my sidebar (over there to the left) will link you to several of them. And yet, the Washington Post made it sound like drudgery to find just two or three. I find it amusing that the ones they found I had never even heard of, which means there's even more Romney devotees than originally thought. (Maybe the WaPo google machine is broken?)
 In fact, just for fun, I decided to do a very quick search on Romney fan blogs.

That would be over seven million responses in .2 seconds. (Told you it was a quick search.) To get this result, I obviously put in "mitt romney" into google, then clicked "more," and then "blogs," and then "homepage" (not posts- found in left toolbar, so as to remove all newspaper article posts). Seven million amateur blogs.

Hey, Rick Santorum, you just won the Louisiana primary, now what are you going to do?

Linked to Source

Hey, Rick Santorum, you just won the Louisiana primary, now what are you going to do?

More of the same. Talk about Mitt Romney, give him lots of free press, and then cuss out a NY Times Reporter.


“If you haven’t cursed out a New York Times reporter during the course of a campaign, you’re not really a real Republican, is the way I look at it,” Santorum told Fox News.

On CNN his spox with the funny hair tried to convince John King that Santorum is "an Italian guy from a steel town who knows how to finish a fight."

Sounds like the Santos are sending up a test balloon to see if the tough guy thing works against clean cut Romney. Speaking of which, what was Santorum talking about when he called BS? Romney. What else? It's all he ever talks about.

In fact, let's look at everything Santorum talked about today.

He paid a little visit to the Supreme Court where the constitutionality of Obamacare was discussed (if you are a Republican, that is what you think they are talking about anyway).  Let's all take a moment to recall that the former Senator from Pennsylvania has absolutely no influence over the SCOTUS whatsoever (and he's not even on the DC ballot. But I do sincerely hope that he got to go to his home in the DC suburbs, see his little daughter, and sleep in his own bed for a night. Because it really sounds like he needs a good night's sleep.)

While standing on those hallowed grounds, just a few feet away from his former Hill offices, he said,

Mitt Romney should be in Washington, D.C. while the Supreme Court hears a challenge to the national health care law, Rick Santorum said Monday.
"Mitt Romney's 3,000 miles away. He should be here. He doesn't want to talk about the issue because he can't on substance disagree with the policies of this administration."

He also responded to suggestions from the Romney camp that his little outburst to the NY Times proves he's unsuited to be president.
"After I won Louisiana by 23 points? I understand the game but this is, you talk about desperate and pathetic, Mitt Romney can't run on his record."

I'd like to argue that it isn't his temper and language that makes him unsuitable. It is his inability to actually discuss a subject that isn't Mitt Romney. 

So where was Mitt Romney?
In California, talking about health care and the Constitution.
"What's happening today in Washington is an attack on free enterprise, an attack on economic freedom unlike anything we have ever seen before," Romney told an audience at NuVasive, a medical device company that designs artificial spine replacements.
He did not directly discuss the Supreme Court docket, but there was a big sign over his head that said "Repeal and Replace Obamacare."
"I just don't think the president and his people understand that as they burden enterprise with taxation and with regulation, they hurt all of us," Romney said. He also discussed innovation and jobs creation.

Santorum Math is a Beautiful Thing (or Romney wins IL)

"My math has to be right! I counted with this many fingers!"

So Romney beat Santorum in Illinois. Now what?
Well, someone has to win in Louisiana Saturday, and it likely won't be Romney. But let's talk about IL before we go south.
In spite of my confusion yesterday about whether or not there are 54 or 69 delegates in IL, the answer is both. There are 54 "direct election proportional" and the remaining 15 are picked in a complicated "don't call them superdelegates" (because Democrats have supers, the GOPdoes not) process. So technically there were 54 delegates up for grabs last night, but Illinois has 69 delegates. Got it?
Really the only questions we all have at this point are -
1. Is Gingrich ready to drop out yet?
2. Does Santorum have a chance of reaching 1,144?
3. Is Romney going to reach the magic number, and if so, when?

To answer the first question, no. Gingrich still continues to make it clear he won't drop out, and that now he is only in the game to keep votes away from Romney. But quite frankly, isn't he also taking votes away from Santorum? Gingrich has been stumping in Louisiana, where he is matching Romney in the polls at about 20% each. Santorum leads there with about 34%.

On to the next two questions.

NBC’s “First Read"  says that even if Romney won every single delegate available after today, he wouldn’t reach the magic 1,144 number until the May 29 primary. If he only wins 60 percent of the delegates in most of the state, he won't reach the threshold number until the Utah primary on June 26. I can't find an article online to back me up, but I heard John King on CNN say pretty much the same thing last night.

Everything you need to know before the Illinois primary tomorrow

The inexplicable Google image results for "official language of Massachusetts." I highly recommend enlarging for full amusement.

Tomorrow (Tuesday) brings the Illinois primary. Here's what you need to know. 
Illinois has 54 delegates according to one article, and 69 according to CNN and Real Clear Politics. I'm pretty sure the answer is actually 69, but you never really know. Sometimes these news outlets make it really hard to know who to trust.*

Source: http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/calculator/

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/19/politics/campaign-wrap/index.html

The current delegate count is-
Romney 519
Santorum 239
Gingrich 138
Paul 69

Score 1 for Romney (actually that's 33 for Romney)

Santorum sleeps on the job, Romney wins Puerto Rico

As of 6:30 p.m. ET, with about 10% of total ballots accounted for, according to some media outlets, Mitt Romney had 82% of the vote in Puerto Rico (10,000 votes). 

Apparently the Puerto Ricans were not swayed by Senator Shirtless who trailed in a distant second, at 9% with more than 1,000 votes.

And I Approve This Message

Politics, personal loyalties, and preferences can be fickle beast. I appreciate the comments left on my last post, both here and on other social sharing sites. I know not everyone agreed with me, and that a few of my fellow Romney loyalists were not happy that I didn't stump for him in my tirade. I still stand by what I said.
The following clip is making the rounds today, promoted by Romney fans. Santorum fans are hanging their heads in shame, I am sure. I share it, not to mock Santorum, but to remind everyone, we, Republicans, are all on the same page. After this bitter battle to the convention is over, either the Romneyites or the Santorumites (and the Gingriches in theory), will lay down their arms and join together.
We're all Republicans and we all want the same thing in the end. (Unless you are a Paulite, in which case, you get a pass, because we know you don't want the same thing as the rest of us.)

Who Said What?

Meanwhile, here are the top stories on Drudge this morning.

Can you guess which of the GOP candidates said what?

1. The idea that the Republicans have to be organized before [the convention] or they will be out of the race I think is a fundamental misunderstanding of television, the internet, you know YouTube, all the things we now communicate with. A very exciting Republican Party that actually talked about ideas and actually had a fight over the platform based on real ideas, I think might be a more interesting party than one which nominates somebody who's boring for five months.

2. And that is that English needs to be the principal language. There are other states with more than one language, like Hawaii, but [for Puerto Rico] to be a state of the United States, English must be the principal language.

3. There will not be a brokered convention.

4. Yadayadayada, gold standard, federal reserve, yadayadayada.


To be fair, the first one was said in 2008. [source]
2 Source
No source for #3 because I heard it live on air this morning.

Delegate Math- how Santorum won the states, but Romney won the delegates

Here is what the headlines all say-

CNN

Fox News

Yahoo Conglomerate

 And my absolute favorite-

Daily Beast/Newsweek

Now, I don't mean to make this site completely 100% pro-Romney. But yes, my biases show through. I don't apologize for that, since apparently I'm not the only one incapable of not showing bias.
All of the major news outlets ran headlines promoting Santorum. And yes, Santorum did win two states last night. But there were 3 states and a territory in play! But when you count up the delegate vote, guess what? Santorum DID NOT WIN!
Romney took home the 9 delegates from American Samoa. (I am very biased when it comes to Samoa. After all, I lived there as a child, and my father played a part in them becoming a territory. So yes, again, I am biased, and unapologetically so.) American Samoa, which, for all of you haoles, is pronounced SAW-mo-uh, not suh-MO-uh (not one pundit got that right last night), is a little island nowhere near Hawaii, hanging out on the international date line.
About 70 people turned out in AS to vote for Romney. Only registered GOP could vote in the caucus, so few attended. It's rare in American Samoa for anyone to officially register as a Republican or Democrat because local elected officials don't run on party lines.

American Samoa
Romney 70


Mississippi
Romney 88,619 (31%)
Santorum 94,909 (33%)

Hawaii
Romney 4,250 (45%)
Santorum 2,369 (25%)

Alabama
Romney 180,184 (29%)
Santorum 214,493 (35%)

Now for basic math-
Romney = 88619+ 4250+180184+70= 273,123
Santorum= 94909+2369+214493= 311,711
Santorum lead by 38,648.

Now, for those of you who like to call out my bias- look I just showed you how Santorum won the popular count.

But back to the delegates- here's last night's haul.
41 Romney
35 Santorum
24 Gingrich
1 Paul

Now we can't possibly have an election in the United States without someone complaining about the electoral college, delegates, and apparently now the delegate system. The delegate system is based on the electoral college. The electoral college goes all the way back to Constitution Convention of 1787, and before that to the Centurial Assembly system of the Roman Republic (your random fact of the day, your welcome).
The GOP convention and delegate system has changed a few times since it began in 1856. We've been using the current state by state delegate system for about 40 years (early 1970s).
This is me going rogue here. My gut tells me that professor of history Newt Gingrich is up to something. He's a smart man. Yes, he's as egotistical as they come. But he is smart, and he knows better than anyone else that he has no chance of winning. So why is he staying in the race? My gut says he wants to change the delegate allocation system. I don't know what he wants to change or how he wants to change it. But he's not running on a platform (like Ron Paul) where he wants to bring some specific issue to the convention and get it noticed. In fact, other than his current gas price stunt, and the moon colony thing, I can't think of any specific issue he has really talked much about. But he has to be up to something. And my gut says it is going to be something to do with changing the delegate counts. Again, this is a man who is a professor of history, with a mind that knows details and procedures like no other. It fits. I think he will stay in the race right up till the convention, so that he can make a threat or ultimatum to change the system.
Anyone want to argue with me on that?

Rick Santorum Beat Chuck Norris, but Romney Beat Santorum

Chuck Norris can count to infinity twice, but he can't beat Rick Santorum.
The previously unconquerable Chuck Norris made robocalls for Newt Gingrich in Alabama this week. But not even the roundhouse kicking icon was enough to score Gingrich a win. Or did Rick Santorum beat Chuck Norris??
Or did Mitt Romney beat Rick Santorum?
Rick Santorum managed to sweep the South with victories in both Alabama and Mississippi. Gingrich took second, and Mitt Romney technically took third. If Ron Paul even knew there were primaries tonight, I'd be surprised.

While this is a major feat for Santorum, it doesn't actually help get anyone anywhere near closer to victory in the end. Because both states were proportional states, and the wins were nearly 30% splits, the delegates will get divided up equally. There were/are 107 delegates up for grabs today/last night. (We're still waiting on Hawaii and American Samoa to come in right now.) 47 in Alabama, 37 in Mississippi, 17 in Hawaii caucuses and six more in caucuses in American Samoa. It will probably divide up Santorum 29 delegates,  Gingrich 24 and Romney 22.
-- Corrected--
That was the AP prediction last night. Here are the updated, corrected numbers.
After Tuesday votes in Mississippi, Alabama, Hawaii and American Samoa:
DELEGATES WON
41 Romney
35 Santorum
24 Gingrich
1 Paul

CNN Delegate Count, Source:http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries.html?hpt=hp_t1

Uh, yeah, so Santorum may have won two states, Romney walked away with the most delegates (again). So I stand by my earlier declaration. Rick Santorum may have beaten Chuck Norris, but Mitt Romney beat Rick Santorum.

And while it may seem crazy that Alabama and Mississippi even managed to be important in a GOP primary, it is even crazier that Puerto Rico is in play this week as well. In fact, Santorum mentioned it several times in his victory speech that he's headed there next. It couldn't possibly be because no one else is headed there, Romney just won all those [almost forgettable] other island protectorates, and PR has 23 winner take call delegates.

Residents of Illinois can look forward to a long week of negative ads and robocalls until their primary next Tuesday.

Santorum continues to fight the mathematical projections (that say he can't win), and Romney still has more delegates than everyone else combined. Depending on which news outlet you listen to, Romney may or may not amass enough delegates before the convention.
Gingrich's spox (Hogan?) said some disturbing things on CNN tonight. He really insinuated that Gingrich is sticking it out to the convention just to mess with the way the process currently works. It left me with a very uncomfortable feeling. Gingrich is a die-hard Republican. I trust him to not do anything to truly hurt the party. But I have no trouble picturing him wanting to change the primary process and doing all of this just for that purpose.

Media Bias and What Happens Next

A look at this evening's "top of the fold" cover on the Huffington Post is a sad look at media bias in politics. From the "Hiel Hitler" pose to the "hostile takeover" headline, there is nothing but bias in this image. And since when was a five year bid a "hostile takeover?"

I stopped watching Fox News years ago because of the hatred and vile on the network. Sure, maybe it is conservative friendly (it isn't fair and balanced, that's for sure), but I don't care to hear hatred for any party. I only read the Huffington Post to get a true liberal slant on stories for something to compare my own beliefs against. I prefer CNN because I think they actually spend more time on looking pretty and sleek graphics and theme music than they do on bias. (And because they are the only American network I can rely on to give me human rights stories.)

But if there is one thing to be learned from this political cycle it is that Mitt Romney has not won over the media. The news stories today have all been about how Romney has failed to win all Republicans. Or how the base is not yet behind him. And if I hear one more story about how the GOP doesn't have a strong candidate and may have to go to a brokered convention, I may pull my hair out.

Let's look at the straight up facts.
Romney now has 429 delegates, compared with 169 for Rick Santorum, 118 for Newt Gingrich and 67 for Ron Paul. Add it up, kids. That is 429 delegates for Romney, 354 for the other three guys combined. That is a majority of Republicans behind Romney. The other three guys put together can't outdo him. Yes, I've seen the stories about not getting enough delegates and a potential brokered convention. And if that happens, so be it. There's no point in saying "Well, historically..." anymore. This campaign cycle hasn't followed any historic patterns, so we can stop pretending it will in the future.

The plain and simple truth is that Gingrich needs to step down. He has 118 delegates, which in theory is impressive. Except 53 of those came from his own home state last night. He only got 79 delegates total last night. He came in third or fourth place in every single state except for his home state! He's not winning. His money is drying up. And he will have no momentum to move forward. He has no chance of suddenly winning at a brokered convention, although I suspect that a brokered convention would be a daydream of his. He loves history. He probably relishes the idea of a shouting match on the convention floor and the thought of being carried on the shoulders of his men through the room to the stage. But the truth is, if he hadn't been absolutely vile to the competition up to this point, if he were to drop out now, he would make a good VP. But he shot himself in the foot when it comes to that.

No one is more surprised than I am that Rick Santorum is a strong contender. And the truth is, I don't actually think he is that strong on his own merits. I think what he is is the poster child for the anti-Romney vote. I don't believe people are behind Santorum as much as they are against Romney. I believe if anything were to happen at a brokered convention that it would be a dark horse who could usurp Santorum support. And if that person were charismatic and surprising enough, he/she could really compete against Romney.

(As for Ron Paul, do I think he should bow out? Yes. But I don't think it would make any difference. I don't think his supporters would then fall behind someone else. I think they would follow him out of the party. However, I do think in the tightest races like Ohio last night, it would make a difference if there had been one less "anti-Romney" option available.)

So really, it all comes down to Romney at this point. He either has to finally, convincingly win over more voters, or we're going to a brokered convention. He's a by the book kind of guy, so I don't think we'll see any surprise moves come out of him. But if it were me, and I wanted to shake things up, I'd buck convention completely at this point and do something crazy like start talking seriously about VP possibilities. If you can't get the voters to love you, get them to love your ticket. (For instance, a Romney- Nikki Haley ticket? Who could argue with that?)

Just a little interesting moment from Twitter last night. Judging by the surprising number of retweets, I'd say I'm not alone. 

Super Tuesday Predictions

Spoiler Alert! If you don't like knowing what to expect on Super Tuesday, you have been warned.
Here's what to expect tomorrow- the polls and my personal predictions. (Note- I am making my predictions without taking the time to see how the states divide up the delegates (winner takes half? by congressional district? truly proportional?) Nonetheless, I feel confident overall.)

Alaska- 27 delegates, proportional (caucus) - There are no available polls for this state, so I'll base my predictions on the national polls- Romney 39%, Santorum 26%, Gingrich 14%, Paul 12%. Except in this case, my gut says Alaska would be a Paul friendly state.
Prediction: Romney 12 delegates, Paul 8, Santorum 5, Gingrich 2.

Georgia- 76 delegates, proportional- Last week's polls (2/26) showed Gingrich 34%, Santorum 25%, Romney 21.5%, Paul 8.8%. But this week Gingrich has actually increased that lead to about 40(ish)%, and Romney has taken second place.
Prediction: Gingrich 36 delegates, Romney 15, Santorum 15, Paul 10.

Idaho- 32 delegates, proportional (caucus)- no available polls. But I'll call it more than 40% for Romney.
Prediction: Romney 20 delegates, Paul 10, Santorum 2, Gingrich 0.

Massachusetts- 41 delegates, proportional- expect Romney to win by a landslide (polls indicate a 40 point lead)
Prediction: Romney 30 delegates, Santorum 5, Paul 5, Gingrich 1.

North Dakota- 28 delegates, proportional- no available polls, so again, I'll go with the national polls, but this time straight across the board (as compared to my Alaska feelings).
Prediction: Romney 12 delegates, Santorum 8, Gingrich 5, Paul 3.

Ohio- 66 delegates, proportional - Santorum and Romney are neck and neck. Most polls have them tied or within a point of each other. But this is a meeting in the middle at the moment. Santorum is sliding down, while Romney is climbing up. Expect it to be close, with a tie for delegate count.
Prediction: Santorum 25 delegates, Romney 25, Gingrich 10, Paul 6.

Oklahoma- 43 delegates, proportional - most recent polls are over 2 weeks old. At that time Santorum had a 20 point lead. I'll call it for Santorum, since no one else has invested any time or resources there.
Prediction: Santorum 25 delegates, Romney 10, Paul 8, Gingrich 0.

Tennessee- 58 delegates, proportional- a last minute poll shows things are almost tied up in a state that had been expected to be Santorum and Gingrich friendly.That poll shows Santorum 35%, Romney 31%, Gingrich 20%, and Paul 9%. And again, this is a Santorum on the downhill, and Romney on the uphill situation. But there has been early voting that gives Santorum the advantage.
Prediction: Santorum 22 delegates, Romney 18, Gingrich 10, Paul 8.

Vermont- 17 delegates, proportional- most recent poll is 2 weeks old, but had Romney with a modest lead.
Prediction: Romney 10 delegates, Santorum 4, Paul 3, Gingrich 0.

Virginia- 49 delegates, proportional - Only Romney and Paul are on the VA ballot, because the other two candidates failed to meet requirements. Romney leads currently with 69%, Paul 26%. Write-in votes are not allowed.
Prediction: Romney 40 delegates, Paul 9. 

My total prediction-

Romney- 192

Santorum- 111

Paul- 70

Gingrich- 64

Yes, I am giving Ron Paul more delegates than Gingrich. Call me crazy. But I really do think tomorrow will be Gingrich's swan song (which will sound a lot like a dying duck). I also predict some serious whining on Santorum's part about how Romney spent SOOO much more money than he did and only BARELY beat him.
Tonight I heard a Santo surrogate talking about how Santorum has won more counties than Romney, which is some of the most ridiculous spin I've ever heard. Winning a sparsely populated county in Iowa is not the same as winning a densely populated county in Detroit.
The math is simple- to date, Romney has won 52% of all delegates so far. My math for tomorrow has him winning 44% of the delegates. And really, if Georgia wasn't so heavily for Gingrich (which it rightfully is voting for the native son), the numbers would skew more in Romney's favor. Even in the states where Romney doesn't win (with the exception of Georgia), he's going to walk away with close to 40-50% of the delegates in that state.
Of course, as I type this, I am watching CNN, where John King has just said that now Oklahoma might be closer than I am giving it.

Live Blogging (and Tweeting) the Arizona and Michigan Returns

I am the Swing State Voter

I will be live blogging and tweeting throughout the night during the Arizona and Michigan returns. This will be best read from the bottom up. I will update from the top, pushing older comments down. And I will put timestamps in as often as possible.

10:18- CNN waited until Santorum started getting boring before interrupting. They have now called it for Romney as well! WOOHOO! 
41% Romney
37% Santorum
12% Paul
7% Gingrich
There will still be some questions about delegates later because they follow the congressional districts.

10:14- Looks like NBC is calling it first- for Romney in Michigan! (They interrupted Santorum speech to do it.) I wonder if CNN is just being polite to Santorum and waiting a few minutes to call it themselves? Or are they just not ready yet?

10:05- just to build on my question about how many Democrats voted for Santorum versus Catholics-

Again, basic math of 100
9 Democrats voted total, of which 4.77 voted for Santorum.
22 Republicans voted for Santorum.
And 10 Independents.
That's not a good sign.
It really is looking like it will come down to about 4-5% difference in who wins. That 9% may actually make a difference, but not enough of one!


9:58- Sounds like we may be minutes away from Michigan getting called for Romney!
Meanwhile- the exit polls on religion in Michigan.

Again using very basic math on 100 people.
39 voters were white evangelicals, of which 19.5 voted for Santorum.
61 were not white evangelicals (the question not being answered if this is where Catholics would identify, but we'll assume that they would)- and 26 of them voted with Romney, and 18 for Santorum. Again, it does not look like Santorum attracted the conservative Catholic vote he was angling for.

9:50- Food for thought- something to follow up on later tonight. Rumors are coming in that Santorum lost the Catholic vote in both AZ and MI. If it is true that more Catholics voted for Romney, and Santorum's robocall strategy really has brought out several thousand Democrats, that means Santorum may very well have more Dems voting for him than his own target audience.


9:40- The question has been asked multiple times over the last few days what it means if Romney loses Michigan. I want to address that question right now while we still don't know which way MI will go.
It will mean nothing. It will be a little bee sting to the campaign, and give talking heads something to talk about. Because what would they talk about if he won? The only reason it is an issue at all is because Gingrich is trying to make it one. Gingrich who is so far behind in most states that he's hanging out in Georgia, his home state, speaking at the college he used to teach at. Georgia with its 76 proportional delegates. It's Gingrich's only chance to catch up with Santorum. He is the one making the claims that it is an insult not to win your home state, because it is his home state that is his last chance to win something. And he knows both Santorum and Romney have fierce battles in their home states.
But does it matter? No. No matter who wins- Santorum or Romney- it is going to be very, very close, and it is proportional. There is a good chance that the winner will only walk away with 3 more delegates than the other one. And Romney just won 29 delegates in AZ tonight. Just as a reminder, Gingrich only has 35 delegates total.
So if Romney doesn't win, what happens is that Gingrich has something to harp on for one week. And that is pretty much it.

9:25- For all those people who claim that Romney won Arizona because it is so heavily Mormon, please see the Exit/Entrance polls at CNN.

Let's use basic math and pretend only 100 people voted.
That would mean-
14.8 Protestants voted for Romney, 12.2 voted for Santorum
7.38 Catholics voted for Romney, 6.3 voted for Santorum
12.74 Mormons voted for Romney, 2.8 voted for Santorum
6.12 "other Christians" voted for Romney, 6.66 voted for Santorum

In other words, Romney did not win because of the Mormon vote. 28.3 of the 41 votes (so, more than half) were not Mormon. He would have won without those votes!



9:20- According to The Fix Twitter feed- Santorum is winning self identified Democrats in Michigan by a 3-1 margin over Romney and Paul, according to exits.

9:03- Arizona is a winner-take-all state. That brings Romney up to 135 delegates.

9:02- Michigan update now has Romney at 41% and Santorum at 39%. Still only 19% of the votes in. This is going to be a very long night. (Oh and Ron Paul at 11% and Gingrich with 6%!!!)

9:01- All polls closed in AZ and MI. And as the polls close, CNN calls it for Romney in Arizona with 44%, Santorum 27%, Gingrich 16%, Paul 11%.

9:00- With 14% of the votes in from Michigan: Santorum 40%, Romney 39%, Paul 11%, Gingrich 7%.

8:30-  It is already a nail-biter in Michigan. Romney was leading for the past hour (1% reporting), and now it is Santorum ahead by about 600 votes (6% reporting).


6:30- CNN is already saying that Michigan will be very close, and to expect it to be a very late night. I'm prepared!

In every primary everywhere there are always rumors that the other party has been infiltrating the polls to cast protest votes. When I worked at the South Carolina campaign office we had a lot of very concerned citizens calling in to say they had "seen Democrats" at the polls. Whether or not that sort of thing is ever true or something to be worried about, we'll never really know. But today we have a very different story with the Santorum campaign actually sending out robocalls to Democrats encouraging them to come out and vote for Santorum in protest of Romney. These aren't even PAC robocalls- they are actually from the real campaign. That is just a crazy, gutsy move. CNN is already showing that 10% of voters in Michigan have been Democrats today. (That is not the same as saying 10% of Democrats voted for Santorum, but you know that won't stop the crazies from saying it that way later.)

Rick Santorum on Separation of Church and State

Former senator Rick Santorum has done it again. He's taken his inability to separate his politics from his religious beliefs to a whole new level. Last October he addressed an audience at the College of Saint Mary Magdalen in Warner, N.H., where he brought up J.F.K.’s famous 1960 address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association. (link will take you to full transcript of JFK speech) At the time Santorum said, “Earlier in my political career, I had the opportunity to read the speech, and I almost threw up. You should read the speech.”
When Kennedy gave that speech there was a great deal of concern during the campaign season that he would be taking orders from the Vatican, or forcing Catholicism on all Americans. The speech was a major turning point in his campaign, thanks in large part to the following quote. 

“I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him."

It is a little shocking that Santorum is choosing to insult the speech, rather than echo it.

On Sunday, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos asked Santorum whether he stood by his statement last year. Santorum's response-

“The first line, first substantive line in the speech, says, ‘I believe in America where the separation of church and state is absolute.’ I don’t believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute. The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country.”

Even when referencing a famous historical speech, Santorum has a frightening habit of taking things out of context, inserting new meaning, and acting upon it. Santorum went on to say that the First Amendment

“says the free exercise of religion — that means bringing everybody, people of faith and no faith, into the public square. Kennedy for the first time articulated the vision saying, ‘No, faith is not allowed in the public square. I will keep it separate.’ Go on and read the speech. ‘I will have nothing to do with faith. I won’t consult with people of faith.’ It was an absolutist doctrine that was abhorrent at the time of 1960... To say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes you throw up. What kind of country do we live that says only people of non-faith can come into the public square and make their case? That makes me throw up.”

Woah, wait, where did Kennedy say he would not consult with people of faith? 
To say that Kennedy was saying that people of faith have no role in the public square is an extreme stretch. What Kennedy did say was, "where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials;"

Whether conservative or liberal, Kennedy's speech is enlightened and inspiring, unless your intent and belief is that church's should have more power over the government. There is nothing in the speech that indicates that religious beliefs should be withheld from voters or activists. In fact, Kennedy bravely remarks,

"But if the time should ever come — and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible — when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same." 

It does not blatantly say that he would choose to follow his religious beliefs over politics, but it does allow one to interpret that he may do so, and vice versa.
It is bothersome that Santorum would find this speech so offensive and disgusting. It leaves one to question his own motives and approach, especially in light of Mitt Romney's 2008 speech that addressed religion. (full text of Romney Religion Speech). Romney's speech was compared many times to the Kennedy speech. Santorum's comments and lack of further clarification leave just enough room open for interpretation as to leave one wondering if he would put his religious ideals above the interests of the country. Or does he not see a situation where his religious beliefs may not be in the best interest of the country?
In his speech, Romney said,

"As governor, I tried to do the right as best I knew it, serving the law and answering to the Constitution. I did not confuse the particular teachings of my church with the obligations of the office and of the Constitution – and of course, I would not do so as President. I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law.
"As a young man, Lincoln described what he called America's 'political religion' – the commitment to defend the rule of law and the Constitution. When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A President must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States."There are some for whom these commitments are not enough. They would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it is more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do. I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers – I will be true to them and to my beliefs."

Perhaps it is time for Santorum to either come out and say that yes, he is completely governed by his religious beliefs, or not. He alone has brought his religion into the campaign, and it is time for him to make it clear where he stands on the separation of church and state. Is his ultimate goal to bring in so many of his own religious and moral beliefs that the church would lead the state?

The Contraception Controversy Spelled Out

I can't even believe I am writing about contraception for a blog on politics. But nonetheless, here I am. I'm not going to point fingers at the candidates on who has said what about contraception. I'm just going to get down to specifics on what voters really need to understand on the topic.

Contraception is not always cheap. If you have insurance it may still not be cheap.

Contraception (and we use this term to mean the hormonal therapies available specifically to women) can be used for much more than birth control, as it is often prescribed for actual illnesses that effect women.

Contraception is available to every woman in the United States as of this moment, even if minivan-driving soccer moms aren't willing to drive to their inner-city clinic to ask for it. Don't believe me? 33.5% of Planned Parenthood's services are for contraception.

In this new contraception debate, voters need to get off the moral issues surrounding contraception. The questions they need to be asking are far more simple-

Are you the type of person who believes that the government should provide services to individuals?

OR

Are you the type of person who does not want the government involved in pricing and services, and wants to see businesses provide affordable products?

OR

Are you the type of person who believes that the government should forces businesses to provide certain services?

OR

Are you the type of person who can't answer those questions, but when you find yourself in trouble, you get mad that the government doesn't have an obvious solution for you?

Right now people are focusing on the wrong issues (the moral side of the question). It isn't a moral issue. And it also isn't about a woman's right to choose this time around (even if a lot of people are discussing it as if it is). The question at the end of the day is whether or not you are the type of person who wants the government to make it happen, or you believe the government needs to get out of business.

The Obama policy as recently enacted is flat-out about the government making a business do something. You either like that or you don't. Take the “moral” contraception part out of the equation, and insert in any other numbers of scenarios, and use the same, equivalent argument.

Should the government force businesses to provide employees with fuel for their cars? After all, the employee works there, and has a car, and therefore should use it and be expected to use it! It is the employee's RIGHT to have a car and to drive it! The employee has the RIGHT to free gas!

What? You don't like that example. It is too impersonal? Okay, we'll use one a little more closely related.

Should the government “require” (it sounds so much nicer than “force,” doesn't it? But really, it is the same thing.) businesses to provide free drug addiction rehab services to employees? After all, by current definitions drug addictions are not the fault of the abuser. If it isn't the person's fault that they are addicted (except that they took drugs in the first place) (yes, there are exceptions to this rule for prescription addictions versus illegal drugs, see below), don't they have the RIGHT to free care?

Apparently we have become a country that no longer believes in personal accountability. Shouldn't the person be at fault for taking an illegal drug in the first place? Where is the accountability for that?

It is the same exactly thing with contraception. Either the woman is accountable for her own choices and body, or she is not. As stated earlier, yes, contraception is used for more than just birth control. It is used for many illnesses, and no one can help whether or not they have most medical conditions. This is where and why the need for a defining line on birth control for contraceptive purposes versus hormonal treatment for medical conditions must be drawn.

Where is the accountability? It is a woman's right to choose what she does with her body. Shouldn't she also be accountable for her choices? Why should the American taxpayer and/or her employer be accountable for her choices?

The precedent set by the government requiring businesses to offer contraception options to employees could have very negative effects. The drug addiction scenario is very real. The gas for cars? Not as immediate and realistic, but still a future possibility. (How many employees already expect commuting stipends and parking spots? Is this really that much of a stretch?)

All of this does beg the question over and over, why stop at contraception? Why only contraception? If the argument is that birth control is for more than preventing unwanted pregnancies, because it helps with illnesses too, why are we not forcing employers to provide complete coverage for terminal illnesses, diabetes, asthma, etc? Individuals are obviously not at fault for getting cancer or diabetes, so why aren't we forcing companies to pay for them? Why are we forcing them to pay for something there is actual personal accountability for?

Is the price of contraception expensive? It can be. Is the price of an unwanted or unexpected pregnancy expensive? Yes, even more so. But is that the government's problem? Or should voters be putting the pressure on businesses to lower the prices? Or should voters be putting the pressure on the government to create a business climate that allows businesses the lower prices?

The current political question is not about the morality of contraception. The real current question is about whether or not you believe the government should force a business to provide an offering to employees?

 

I watch the CNN debate so you don't have to!

I'm back! With another round of "I watch the debates so you don't have to!"

The first hour recap-

The "table method" of having everyone sit next to each other is definitely blocking a little bit of the physical posturing. 

Romney - I'm going to take programs that are important but that could be better run at state level, and send them back to states. 

Ron Paul calls Santorum a fake conservative issues. 

The most interesting thing I have learned so far is that Santorum is so passionate on abstinence/birth control issues that he wanted to pass legislation to pass federal funding for teaching abstinence to counteract Title 10 Planned Parenthood legislation. Ron Paul, of course, is against spending money period, but he makes the point that Santorum voted for Title 10. Santorum was willing to pay twice for social programs, rather than not vote for the first one (Planned Parenthood) at all. Santorum loses big time on the fiscally conservative count, and backs up Paul's "fake" label.

Second hour-

Heading in to the second hour we're discussing both birth control and apparently Romneycare/Obamacare. 

Santorum still lacks finesse at debating. He's bringing his A-game tonight, but he lacks the ability to regulate his emotions and channel his energy. (something Romney has perfected, and Gingrich exploits). 

Romney says Santorum supporting Arlen Specter led to ObamaCare.  He supported Specter over the Republican Toomey.

Santorum says he supported Specter because he thought Toomey was too conservative to win. Umm...

Apparently Gingrich still doesn't have an angle except for dropping Reagan's name. To which, I'd like to remind everyone what it is Gingrich has said about Reagan.

Ooh, after the commercial the candidate get to define themselves using one word. What word would you pick? I'm sure they are all scrambling to find a synonym for conservative right now. I would pick-

Newt- Grandiose. 

What I think he will pick- Leader

Romney- business leader

What I think he will pick- Leader

Santorum- moral extremist

What I think he will pick- Conservative (he's not creative enough to find a different word)

Ron Paul- crack pot

What I think he will pick- liberty activist (because he won't play by rules)

Their actual answers- Paul: Consistent 

Santorum: Courage 

Romney: Resolute. 

Gingrich: Cheerful.

I spit out my drink when he said cheerful. 

From Twitter, Ralph Reed says "Good, spirited debate. Best by Mitt yet. Santorum folded contraception Q into broader need to strengthen the family. Well done. #CNNDebate"

It absolutely kills me that women in combat is even an issue. I am 100% in favor of women being equal with men in combat. If men have a problem with that, fine, they can quit and let the women take over. 

How out of touch with social media is Rick Santorum? Well, he still has his endorsement of Specter up on youtube -http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9cXPSyLNgYk.

And we've moved on to Iran.
Santorum's stance- take the opposite view of VP Biden.
Romney- We simply cannot allow Iran to have nuclear weapons. No greater obama failure than this.
Paul- We don't know if they really have a weapon.
UM??? You mean other than them showing the footage this week of Mahmoud looking at the technology???

No Child Left Behind Act Question-
Santorum voted for it. However, his answer explaining why (party politics dictated that he should). But why he doesn't believe in it now was a believable answer. He gets a pass from me (and a flipflop), but the audience boos. The reaction here sets apart anyone who has actually worked in real politics versus the armchair quarterbacks. If you've worked on the Hill, you understand where Santorum is coming from on this one. NCLB passed by a majority because the party leader said so. Before it got passed though nobody liked the final product because both sides put in too many caveats and regulations. It was not the bill the POTUS started with or wanted. But no one could back out by then. Santorum may very well have never believed in it (we'll never know), but had to vote for it, because as he said, "politics is a team sport." Boo if you want, but if you've worked in the real trenches, you know what he means.

The Twitter feedback really looks like people feel Santorum didn't do his best tonight, and that Romney has really made a comeback.
I'm looking forward to the AC360 recap after the debate to see what the "experts" think.