He is the only guy left who can make a run at this. No candidate is perfect, but Santorum is the best of the bunch by a long shot this time around. Every other candidate has had their turn in the spotlight, all but one. But maybe that can still change.
Maggie Gallagher at NRO reports
Rick Santorum has snagged two big “gets” in the Iowa caucuses, the endorsements of Bob Vander Plaats and Focus on the Family state policy council head Chuck Hurley.
Hurley appears to be asking Perry and Bachmann to step down to unite behind Santorum. Chutzpah?
and Lowry adds
Santorum has had a major chicken-and-egg problem. I get the impression social conservatives in Iowa have been leery of supporting him because he’s been so low in the polls, meaning he stays low in the polls. He’s always needed something to give him an initial boost of plausibility. Maybe this is it, but who knows? I tend to believe one of the three, Perry, Bachmann, or Santorum, is going to get a big boost at the end. Here, by the way, is Walter Shapiro on why Santorum is more impressive on the stump than Perry.
It is true that plausibility is a key concern, but if Santorum can surprise in Iowa and one of the other more conservative also-rans calls it quits, Santorum could still make a run at this as the alternative.
Santorum is smart, experienced, and as solidly pro-life as you are likely to find. He is a good and decent man and he is qualified. Now more than ever, conservatives need to get behind Rick Santorum, before its too late.
December 21, 2011 at 3:44 pm
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
December 21, 2011 at 3:45 pm
– THAT from a sock puppet/puppeteer. What's wrong with that picture, folks? Oh, the irony.
That doesn't even make any sense. Seriously, if you're going to rant, at least try to make your comments have some kind of meaning.
December 21, 2011 at 3:53 pm
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
December 21, 2011 at 3:58 pm
I reiterate, Paul …; it
would only irk a crackpot.
If the shoe fits, wear it.
Dude, are you just randomly typing on a keyboard and hoping that the keystrokes result in some kind of coherent thought, because your last batch of comments are basically incoherent. And I must assume that you're the same person typing all of these anonymous comments. If only there was a way to distinguish between you guys . . .
December 21, 2011 at 4:11 pm
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
December 21, 2011 at 4:16 pm
Remember the rule….
Nasty + Anonymous = Deleted.
Every time.
December 21, 2011 at 4:17 pm
Pat/Matt:
If you're going through deleting comments by dear anonymous, please feel free to delete mine as well.
December 21, 2011 at 4:20 pm
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
December 21, 2011 at 5:52 pm
For the leaders of the Republican party, Santorum isn't even in the script. If you can figure out one thing this election, please figure out that giving your vote to the Republicans because they are 'pro-life' guarantees the abortion mills stay open. This is even sadder than watching minorities vote for Democrats. The Republicans use you as a voting bloc and they have no intention of fixing the problem when they can just pay lip service and get your vote year after year.
If Santorum is truly pro-life, he'll get no where near the nomination, and as you might guess, if the nomination process isn't as rigged as I think it is, Ron Paul will get it. You ought to be able to tell that by now, based on name recognition alone.
December 21, 2011 at 8:29 pm
"If Santorum is truly pro-life, he'll get no where near the nomination"
Giving up before we've even started is not an option for me. During the primaries we get to vote for whom we think is the best candidate. Why vote for Paul when Santorum is still in the running? If I have to vote for someone I don't really like down the road because that's my only option, I will. Paul, Romney and Gingrich are who the media talks about–who cares? Paul and Gingrich can't beat Obama, and Romney is so moderate it's like McCain all over again. No thanks.
Sheesh.
December 21, 2011 at 9:47 pm
@Paul Zummo: What is a URL? I tried it, it did not work.
December 21, 2011 at 11:25 pm
You don't need to type in a URL. That's only there if you have a blog or some other website that you want attached to your name.
December 22, 2011 at 12:01 am
Eleven governors have been elected to the presidency: George W. Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Franklin Roosevelt, Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt, McKinley, Cleveland, Hayes, and Polk.
Six vice presidents have been elected to the presidency: George H. W. Bush, Nixon, Taylor, Van Buren, Jefferson, and John Adams.
Six senators have been elected to the presidency: Obama, Kennedy, Harding, Benjamin Harrison, Pierce, and Jackson.
Five cabinet secretaries have been elected to the presidency: Hoover, Taft, John Q. Adams, Monroe, and Madison.
Three generals have been elected to the presidency: Eisenhower, Grant, and Washington.
Two representatives have been elected to the presidency: Garfield and Lincoln.
Two ambassadors have been elected to the presidency: Buchanan and William Harrison.
Nine vice presidents assumed the presidency: Ford, Lyndon Johnson, Truman, Coolidge, Teddy Roosevelt, Arthur, Andrew Johnson, Fillmore, and Tyler.
Make of that what you will.
December 22, 2011 at 1:54 am
Yayy Santorum!! Wooohoo! More dead Mooslum radical babies! YEAH! THEN I'll be ,like, SAFE!
December 22, 2011 at 2:09 am
It's always funny that Paulbots, who haven't met a dark-skinned person they haven't wanted to lynch, accuse others of the sort of race-based genocidal thoughts that run through their minds. Projection, much?
December 22, 2011 at 11:00 am
"Paul Zummo said…
It's always funny that Paulbots, who haven't met a dark-skinned person they haven't wanted to lynch"
Yes. Those Paul bots go around lynching people CONSTANTLY!! I was just sayin' the other day they should stop doing that. The Neocons get too jealous.
December 22, 2011 at 1:59 pm
Tsk tsk, Barabara. There were probably at least three really good comebacks you could have had to my comment. On a simple level you could have at least said it's a gross mischaracterization of the feelings of a lot of Ron Paul supporters. You could have explained why Ron Paul and his supporters are more sympathetic to jihadists than, say, Mexican migrants. Hell, you could have just made a snappy remark about my name. Instead, you went with the intellectual equivalent of "I know you are but what am I."
I gave you a hanging curve and you poppped up to second. Tsk tsk.
December 22, 2011 at 3:22 pm
Here's some commonsense commentary from a black supporter of Ron Paul about the racism non-issue. http:/www.dailypaul.com/194924/a-black-mans-take-on-ron-paul-letters-an-open-letter-to the-media One interesting comment that this Paul supporter makes is that Paul's voting record shows no sign of racism. Not one! So Don and Paul, pt that in yor pipe and smoke it!
December 22, 2011 at 8:40 pm
I do love the smell of pipesmoke.
So, to sum up: Ron Paul 2011: I didn't write those offensive newsletters.
Ron Paul, 1990s: I wrote those newsletters, and they're not racist.
On second thought, I would prefer a cigar.
December 23, 2011 at 12:34 am
"Tsk tsk, Barabara. There were probably at least three really good comebacks you could have had to my comment."
I could never hope to have a "comeback" to YOU, Don. You're my hee-ro.You are "uncomeback-able". Your smears, ad hominem an illogic are pure genius. No one can hold a candle to your employment of Alinsky…at least on this blog. I someday hope your sink to your level! I'm on your side, Dude!!
"On a simple level you could have at least said it's a gross mischaracterization of the feelings of a lot of Ron Paul supporters."
But those Paulbots eat babies, I read it on Free Republic, sorry they scooped your site. Bummer. Anyway, you are on target on those Paulbots. They lynch black people when they should be smiting those radical towelheads. What's the matter with them, anyway?
" You could have explained why Ron Paul and his supporters are more sympathetic to jihadists than, say, Mexican migrants."
Wow! Why didn't I think of that? I'm just learning at the feet of the master here. I heard Ron Paul was secretly a jihadist himself! Makes sense to me. Lets repeat it a bunch of times so it becomes true, like that bit about how he's unelectable. Ron Paul is a secret jihadist! Ron Paul is a secret jihadist!
" Hell, you could have just made a snappy remark about my name. Instead, you went with the intellectual equivalent of "I know you are but what am I.""
Hhmmmm. This is hard.I'm afraid I'm not very snappy, only a pedestrian variety neo-Neocon How about "neener, neener"?