Santorum: If you like Romney, vote for Obama

[SteelerEmpire]

I have to agree with Santorum here. It's insane that the only one that can supposedly beat Obama is the one that's most like Obama... as if the Obama style agenda will eventually continue with him as President, or with him not as President. It'll end up being like another Obama vs Clinton battle in the general election. The voters should have a "clear choice." But Santorum un-balled his fist eventually and kind of backed off his statement. Lack of leadership ?

-----------------------

As the campaign rhetoric grew increasingly testy between the two camps, Santorum said that Romney is so much like Obama, voters in the fall might as well stick with the incumbent.

LINK: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...ote-for-obama/

[zulater]

I'll leave it to suit to explain why this premise is total bullshit.

[SMR]

This is gettin' ridiculous. Honestly, I don't think I am going to actually vote this time. I'm just tired of politics and almost past the point of trusting anyone (candidates).

Sigh...

If I can find an isolated tropical island, I'd be happy to move there even before I retire.

[GoSlash27]

Santorum committed the cardinal sin of speaking the truth during an election. Same thing Romney's campaign manager did. *Of course* Romney's just like Obama. We all know that. We also know that once he's secured the nomination he's gonna veer so far left so quickly it'll look like he blew a tire.
Everybody knows this, but nobody's supposed to say it. Not the media because they love the idea of "losing" this election to somebody slightly left of Clinton and not the Republican Party because they exist simply to win elections.
That leaves us with no real choices, which is just the way they like it. But who's fault is that, really? Every cycle we have at least one candidate who speaks the unvarnished truth and sticks to principle and gets buried by the media and party as a result.
If we aren't doing our homework and seeing beyond the bullshit, it's our fault.

[GBMelBlount]

[B]I have to agree with Santorum here.

It's insane that the only one that can supposedly beat Obama is the one that's most like Obama...

Really, you feel there are NO differences and want four more years of Obama?

If that is the case then I am embarrrased for you.

[GBMelBlount]

Santorum committed the cardinal sin of speaking the truth during an election. Same thing Romney's campaign manager did. *Of course* Romney's just like Obama. We all know that. We also know that once he's secured the nomination he's gonna veer so far left so quickly it'll look like he blew a tire.
Everybody knows this, but nobody's supposed to say it. Not the media because they love the idea of "losing" this election to somebody slightly left of Clinton and not the Republican Party because they exist simply to win elections.
That leaves us with no real choices, which is just the way they like it. But who's fault is that, really?

Every cycle we have at least one candidate who speaks the unvarnished truth and sticks to principle and gets buried by the media and party as a result.
If we aren't doing our homework and seeing beyond the bullshit, it's our fault.

I respect your point.

It is unfortunate that politics is as it is.

However, I would prefer Romney to Obama and feel he is more electable than Paul or Santorum.

I like both Paul and Santorum however I do not agree with Santorum's statement AND if he ends up later supporting Romney then SANTORUM is no better.

If he sticks with this vote for Obama over Romney shtick then I will lose respect for him as no republican compares to Obama.

Either way Santorum has lost a degree of my respect.

Sorry.

[st33lersguy]

One key difference between Santorum and Romney is Romney is focusing on the main objective, to defeat Obama while Santorum (as well as Gingrich) seem to be more focused on beating Romney and are trying to harm Romney without caring for the consequences.

[GoSlash27]

One key difference between Santorum and Romney is Romney is focusing on the main objective, to defeat Obama while Santorum (as well as Gingrich) seem to be more focused on beating Romney and are trying to harm Romney without caring for the consequences.

That's exactly where the disagreement comes from. To my way of thinking the main objective isn't to defeat Obama, but rather to effect a change in direction. It's a trade-off (although one that the Democrats don't seem compelled to make) between electability and principle. You run someone who's electable and you'll probably win but won't get any change for your troubles. You run someone too conservative and you'll get someone who's serious about fixing this mess, but probably won't win.
The grift in the system is that the media proclaims who is and is not "electable" and uses that to skew the process way to the left.
If (when) Romney ends up being the nominee, he'll still do 98% of the crap that Obama does and create a bigger mess than we've already got. Only difference is the Republican Party gets blamed for it rather than the Democrats. I'd rather not be put in that position, so I won't be supporting Romney.

[suitanim]

I've outlined several tiumes the myriad differences between Romney and Obama. There are HUGE differences in almost every plank of their respective platforms. This made-up garbage from the extreme far-right stinks of the old adage that if you tell a lie long enough, people start to believe it. I'm not even going to address it anymore because it's actual probably more in the vein of Bigfoot and space aline conspiracy talk from the kookier elements at this point.

But therein lies the rub: There is a difference between Santorum and Romney: Santorum may quite possibly insane. The more I hear this boob talk, the more concerned I am that he actually has some remote chance of actually being elected to the most powerful office in the World. He's a small-minded, and dangerous reactionary caveman. Ron Paul has some radical ideas, but at least he has some logic and reasoning behind what he believes. Santorum is just a nutbag...

[zulater]

That's exactly where the disagreement comes from. To my way of thinking the main objective isn't to defeat Obama, but rather to effect a change in direction. It's a trade-off (although one that the Democrats don't seem compelled to make) between electability and principle. You run someone who's electable and you'll probably win but won't get any change for your troubles. You run someone too conservative and you'll get someone who's serious about fixing this mess, but probably won't win.
The grift in the system is that the media proclaims who is and is not "electable" and uses that to skew the process way to the left.
If (when) Romney ends up being the nominee, he'll still do 98% of the crap that Obama does and create a bigger mess than we've already got. Only difference is the Republican Party gets blamed for it rather than the Democrats. I'd rather not be put in that position, so I won't be supporting Romney.

A non vote for Romney in November( he will get the R. party nod and you know it) is essentially a vote for Obama. So if Obama gets reelected please consider yourself culpable for what comes after.

There's a known "evil" (not claiming Obama's literally evil) in the current President. If you believe his social programs and lack of budgetary control endanger this country, how in good conscience can you not at least give Romney a chance to show he's not as bad as you fear?

Sulking and abstaining in the general election because the candidate of your choice wasn't able to gain his parties nod is a vote for Obama. It's really that simple.

[suitanim]

This is precisely why Romney isn't hard-charging the Louisiana primary. The state isn't going to vote for Obama no matter what, so who cares if Santorum wins. He COULD pull off an upset anyway as the southern part of the state is more educated and informed...Santorum obviously wins the redneck North ha;f of the state.

As far as people pouting and voting for someone other than the nominee, we saw that same petulant and childish reaction form the Hillary voters after eating sour grapes in that primary. They came around in the end. Children must play their baby-games, though...

[st33lersguy]

A couple of fundamental differences between Romney and Obama, Romney has had effective leadership experience unlike Obama before being elected and Romney understands the economic world and business unlike Obama

[st33lersguy]

If a vote for Romney is a vote for Obama, then why did Democrats come out in large numbers and overwhelmingly vote for Santorum in the Michigan Primary?

[Godfather]

This is precisely why Romney isn't hard-charging the Louisiana primary. The state isn't going to vote for Obama no matter what, so who cares if Santorum wins. He COULD pull off an upset anyway as the southern part of the state is more educated and informed...Santorum obviously wins the redneck North ha;f of the state.

You sound like you've done your homework

I want to know who's advising Mittens. Louisiana is more urbanized and more Catholic than Al-Abama and Mississippi. In other words, friendlier territory for Romney than a pair of states that were basically a three-way tie. If Mitt were to win in Louisiana, it would be a huge symbolic victory because he'd finally have won a primary in the Deep South. If Sanatorium wins, who cares, the South was his turf anyway.

[Godfather]

If a vote for Romney is a vote for Obama, then why did Democrats come out in large numbers and overwhelmingly vote for Santorum in the Michigan Primary?

Two different motivations. Some were trying to sabotage the GOP by getting a less electable candidate nominated. Others are blue-collar, culturally conservative Democrats who sincerely preferred Santorum.

[GoSlash27]

A non vote for Romney in November( he will get the R. party nod and you know it) is essentially a vote for Obama. So if Obama gets reelected please consider yourself culpable for what comes after.

There's a known "evil" (not claiming Obama's literally evil) in the current President. If you believe his social programs and lack of budgetary control endanger this country, how in good conscience can you not at least give Romney a chance to show he's not as bad as you fear?

We already know what Romney's about. He has a record.
And as far as the rest of it, I will happily consider myself "culpable" if you will do the same. That includes all the blame and setting back the reform movement within the Republican Party at least another decade. As for me... I'm done voting for the lesser of two evils. Hell, it's hard to tell which one is the lesser in this case. So you may as well save yourself the effort of trying to change my mind.

[suitanim]

You sound like you've done your homework

I want to know who's advising Mittens. Louisiana is more urbanized and more Catholic than Al-Abama and Mississippi. In other words, friendlier territory for Romney than a pair of states that were basically a three-way tie. If Mitt were to win in Louisiana, it would be a huge symbolic victory because he'd finally have won a primary in the Deep South. If Sanatorium wins, who cares, the South was his turf anyway.

Again, he's past that. This is about the general. Why dump a bunch of time and cash on a state that isn't ever going to vote for a black Democrat anyway? This will almost certainly be the last win for Santorum, as the next stretch of states are much more friendly to Romney.

As far as LA is concerned, it's really two states: Alabama and New Orleans. Don't believe me? Check out the county-by-county results:
http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/county/map/r/la

[suitanim]

Finally, I'll do one more plank-by-plank comparison between Romney and Obama when we get closer to the general. I've already done one, and the differences are quite stark, despite the repeated canard from the extreme right and left refuting that. What interests me the most about this whole subject is that all these "conservatives" keep holding up Reagan as the gold standard of conservatism, which is ludicrous because Ronald Reagan would actually land to the LEFT of all the current candidates, Romney included. Paul on some social issues is the only candidate less conservative, an that's a libertarian thing.

[GoSlash27]

Finally, I'll do one more plank-by-plank comparison between Romney and Obama when we get closer to the general. I've already done one, and the differences are quite stark, despite the repeated canard from the extreme right and left refuting that. What interests me the most about this whole subject is that all these "conservatives" keep holding up Reagan as the gold standard of conservatism, which is ludicrous because Ronald Reagan would actually land to the LEFT of all the current candidates, Romney included. Paul on some social issues is the only candidate less conservative, an that's a libertarian thing.

"Plank-by-plank comparison?" Yeah, *that's* valid. After all, it's not like either of these two would lie on the campaign trail or anything...