The Santorum Surge: Goodbye Ron Paul Territory:

Stephen Brashear/Getty ImagesRick Santorum during a rally February 13, 2012 in Tacoma, Washington.

We now know of at least two tactics that work really well in the 2012 Republican nominating contests – negative ads fueled by deep corporate pockets, and appeals to the most intolerant, hard-right elements of the party.

Once upon a time (like a month ago), attack ads helped Newt Gingrich mount a real challenge to Mitt Romney, and then helped Mr. Romney beat back that challenge. The second dynamic is propelling Rick Santorum from also-ran to statistical dead heat with Mr. Romney for first place.

Two polls that came out on Monday – by the Pew Research Center and Gallup– show that Mr. Santorum, who was languishing near Ron Paul territory only a couple of weeks ago, is now the choice of around 30 percent of Republican primary voters. A New York Times/CBS News poll released this morning confirmed these results—it pegs Mr. Santorum at 30 percent to Mr. Romney’s 27 percent.
 
If you think I’m exaggerating when I say “most intolerant” and “hard-right,” I suggest you read up on this past weekend’s CPAC conference. That gathering of right-wing political activists is mandatory attendance for Republican candidates like Mr. Santorum and Mr. Romney. Sarah Palin is still a huge favorite there.

For the candidates, the idea is to persuade the right wing that you always have and always will believe every single thing they believe with all your heart and soul. No deviation is permitted. You have to be as anti-abortion as possible, as well as anti-tax, anti-immigration, pro-death penalty, and pro-spending cuts. You don’t necessarily have to demand a repeal of child labor laws, but it couldn’t hurt. And you have to hate Barack Obama much, much more than everyone else there.

Mr. Romney had a really hard time pulling this off, because he didn’t claim to be a right-winger until fairly recently and everyone knows he’s done that to secure the nomination. Mr. Santorum, on the other, speaks fluent right-winglish.

He started out his speech by arguing that it was past time to “compromise, to do what’s politically reasonable,” and that the presidency wouldn’t be worth winning for the Republicans if Mr. Romney were the nominee. “We will no longer abandon and apologize for the policies and principles that made this country great in exchange for a hollow victory in November,” he said.

Mr. Santorum, who came on stage with most of his large family, including his wife Karen, “the rock on which I stand upon,” couched much of his speech in the language of Reagan-style trickle-down economics (at one point suggesting that cutting taxes for the very rich would help the very poor). He also pushed hard on an extreme social agenda.

Mr. Santorum warned that President Obama’s health care reform would “crush economic freedom.” He said Americans would “have to pay tribute to Washington in order to get the care you need for your children.” He said Mr. Obama was forcing the Catholic Church to pay for birth control services. He said liberals had invented the idea of man-made global warming.

That none of this is true did not bother Mr. Santorum’s audience one bit. The crowd cheered each of those lines.

I’ve never thought Mitt Romney was much of a candidate, but will the Republicans actually nominate someone as far along on the loony fringe as Mr. Santorum? It will be interesting to see how far Mr. Santorum can take this new surge of his. I’m sure that Mr. Obama’s team is hoping he can take it very far indeed.

Source: http://loyalopposition.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/14/the-santorum-surge-goodbye-ron-paul-territory/

Rick Santorum back in the race after sweeping wins over Mitt Romney:

Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum has revived his flagging campaign with a trio of victories to upset frontrunner Mitt Romney's seemingly inevitable progress towards the party nomination.

Santorum achieved a clean sweep of the states being contested –Colorado, Minnesota and the non-binding "beauty contest" primary inMissouri. It was a disastrous night for Romney, not only because he lost states that only a few days ago he had expected to win but because of the scale of the defeat, coming in a humbling third in Minnesota.

The setback came just a week after he won the Florida primary and added a further victory on Saturday in Nevada, seemingly cruising towards the Republican nomination to take on Barack Obama for the White House in November.

Santorum ruined that, easily winning Minnesota and Missouri and finally taking Colorado after the result see-sawed back and forward during the count. Santorum won by 40.2% to Romney's 34.9%. To illustrate the scale of the defeat, Romney had won Colorado just four years ago by 60% to his then rival John McCain's 19%.

Santorum, the former senator for Pennsylvania and the most socially conservative of the candidates, won Iowa, the traditional start of the campaign, on 3 January but his campaign has been flagging since.

On the back of victories in Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri, he can claim to be a serious contender. Speaking at his victory party in St Charles, Missouri, Santorum presented himself as the voice of conservatism and the Tea Party movement. "Conservatism is alive and well," he said.

His triple victory is the latest shift in a Republican race that has seen the lead change hands over and over again.

Romney's poor showing will renew doubts about his ability to excite the Republican grassroots and whether he can inspire not only Republicansbut the independents who will decide the White House race in November.

Also of concern to Republicans and offering hope to Democrats for Obama's re-election was the low turnout, suggesting there was the same level of disappointment with the Republican field expressed by voters in Florida last week.

Speaking in Denver, Colorado, Romney appeared shaken. He congratulated Santorum but vowed he would continue campaigning and still expected to become the nominee. "We've got a long way to go," he said.

Santorum, in his victory speech, focused not on his rivals but looked beyond the Republican race to the battle for the White House, staking his claim to be the serious contender to Obama. "I don't claim to be the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney; I stand here to be the conservative alternative to Barack Obama," he said.

He took a swipe at Romney over his remark, taken out of context last week, that he did not care about the very poor. "I care about the very rich and the very poor. I care about 100% of America," Santorum said.

Santorum's main problem has been lack of cash compared with his rivals but his wins should see donations coming in by Wednesday. He has been helped until now by Foster Friess, the Wyoming-based investment manager, supporter of Christian causes and backer of the Santorum Super Pac Red, White and Blue, who was at his victory party.

Santorum may now face the same kind of multimillion negative ad campaign to which Romney subjected the former house speaker Newt Gingrich.

David Axelrod, Obama's main campaign adviser, said in a tweet: "If history is any guide, the bombers over at Mitt's Super Pac have discarded the Newt co-ordinates, dialled in Santorum and are on their way."

Santorum referred in his speech to Romney's negative ad campaign in Iowa and Florida against Gingrich. There were no entrance or exit polls in Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri to determine whether there was a backlash against Romney's strategy or whether it was simply a matter of ideology, with Santorum viewed as more conservative than Romney.

Although Romney remains favourite to win the party nomination eventually, the win by Santorum sets the stage for a protracted campaign that could run on into the summer.

The four Republicans – Santorum, Romney, Gingrich and the Texas congressman Ron Paul – are slugging it out for the party nomination to take on Obama in November.

Paul, fighting an idiosyncratic campaign outside the Republican mainstream, has so far failed to deliver any upsets. He managed second place in Minnesota.

The winner of the Republican nomination needs 1,144 delegates to the party convention in Tampa in August. The Associated Press, which keeps a running tally of delegates awarded so far, has Romney on 101, Gingrich 32, Santorum 17 and Paul nine. That was before Tuesday night's results.

The big results for Santorum were Minnesota and Colorado, whose caucuses were about delivering delegates.

Colorado has 36 delegates at stake and Minnesota 40. Missouri had no delegates up for grabs. Its convention to choose delegates is not until 17 March and it only decided to hold its primary to try to seize a share of media attention.

The potential turning point could be Super Tuesday on 6 March when 10 states hold elections. Gingrich and Santorum victories in some of these states and a share of delegates in others would doom Romney's chances of bringing the race to a close in April.

Romney, aware of the danger posed by Super Tuesday, has scheduled a campaign event on Wednesday in Atlanta, Georgia, one of the biggest states in contention that date. It should go to Gingrich as it is his home state.

Gingrich has also turned his attention to the Super Tuesday states, spending Tuesday campaigning in Ohio.

Source: iTunes

Blech, Rick Santorum. As a Pennsylvanian i can tell you folks: he's not a good look. An embarrassment to our state, don't let him be an embarrassment to our country

Santorum lol... Just what the Republicans need. A person supported heavily by evangelicals. Good luck winning the independent vote with that fuck.

Has Obama signed anything into law with a stipulation that he didn't have to follow the law? I suppose he hasn't since I don't think they have sent anything back to him that he vetoed. You remember who did this? That is right! Your good ole buddy Bush. Remember that torture bill that was too clean for his tastes that he vetoed and was sent back to him requiring his signature? Remember when he wrote that he is signing the bill but he doesn't have to follow the laws? That right there is when the presidential powers expanding by a million. That is the mindset of a king that they are above the law and don't have to follow it. Guess what? I have that same mindset with marijuana but at least not with torturing. I didn't see too much outrage from the "liberal" media when Bush did it. However, all fucking hell would break lose if Obama did. Just trying to point out how dumb the American public and both parties are.

"You don’t necessarily have to demand a repeal of child labor laws, but it couldn’t hurt."

Lol, it always makes me laugh when people on the left talk this way. And they say the people on the right are the intolerant ones.

Looks like some Dems are getting upset/worried that Romney may not be going against Obama. They know one mention of Romneycare from Obama, as well as Romney's weak excuses for it, will spell an easy victory for Obama. That's why they try to convince people that Romney is the only one who can win. Sad thing is, so many people bought into it earlier.

I don't understand why Americans are voting for santorum and Romney, they are both terrible candidates.

Though this is true, Americans might as well replace a terrible president by another one.

What you seem to be referring to is signing statements though they don't work like how you say they work, any way Obama is the worst hypocrite and here is the proof:   

During his presidential campaign, Obama rejected the use of signing statements. He was asked at one rally: "when congress offers you a bill, do you promise not to use presidential signing statements to get your way?" Obama gave a one-word reply: "Yes."^[19] He added that "we aren't going to use signing statements as a way to do an end run around Congress." On March 11, 2009, President Obama issued his first signing statement, attached to the omnibus spending bill for the second half of FY2009.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement

It is interesting to see liberals condemn Bush but worship Obama for the same things....and somehow claim that they do not happen.

Same reason they voted for Obama and Bush?

One, I hope you didn't call me a liberal/Democrat (I'm more libertarian than anything).  Two, thanks for bringing up the points.  I didn't have time before work to do any research and that topic (signing statements) popped into my head.  I just thought it was bullshit that these statements are even allowed (especially in the case of the torture bill).  Just goes to show that Obama pretty much lied about everything on the campaign trail.  That is what pretty much all politicians do though.  The only one I semi trust is Ron Paul considering he has been banging his head against the wall for numerous years.