Hypocritical Bombast from Santorum (again)

Immediately after discussing how Santorum will attempt to contest the Arizona and Florida primary rules and results after the fact to try and take some delegates from two states that are otherwise winner-take-all, Santorum's communications director delivered this bombastic (and hugely hypocritical) statement about Michigan changing the allocation of one delegate after the primary there:

To go back and try to change the game after it's over is, you, it's the worst of the worst in politics," he thundered. "That's the kind of thing that happens in Iran. It doesn’t happen here. Those types of things are exactly what people don't find comforting from the Romney campaign.

http://harndenblog.dailymail.co.uk/2012/03/team-santorum-accuses-iran.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



So...when he wants to change rules after the fact for 15 delegates, "Good."



When Michigan changes rules after the fact for 1 delegate to Romney, "Bad" on an Iranian level?



This one almost outdoes his "Only candidate never to support a bailout" (except for airlines and steel industries) and "Only candidate never to support an individual mandate" (except when I was running for House and thought it was a damn fine idea) lies, except that lies are worse than hypocrisy, even at this level.

Can't stand Santorum, but in his defense, he wants the national GOP rules obeyed. That rule is that delegates chosen prior to April 1 be proportionally apportioned.

Prior to 1 April 2012, any presidential primary, caucus, convention, or other meeting to select National Convention delegates shall allocate delegates on a proportional basis. [Rule 15(b)(2)]

What are the chances of Santorum winning anyway? I thought Romney had this pretty much wrapped up

He is the front runner but there is a chance he will not have more than half of all delegates. That is what Santorum is betting on.

At this point there a greater chance of Romney getting necessary majority than not.

Santorum just pulled a Newt by saying that we might as well re-elect Obama because Romney isn't much better. Way to show some class and forethought there Rick. You will enjoy choking that one down after the primary.



I wish Romney was a little stronger defender of conservatism but one thing is clear is that his campaign is battle tested and has continued to move forward like a well oiled machine. This strengthens his resume as a strong manager capable of weathering storms and getting things done right.

I think Romney's defense of his conservatism will be stronger in the general election. I think many GOPers will be surprised at 1)strong Mitt is in the general and 2) how conservative he actually governs.

SpiffCoug wrote:
I think Romney's defense of his conservatism will be stronger in the general election. I think many GOPers will be surprised at 1)strong Mitt is in the general and 2) how conservative he actually governs.

I've always thought this too. He tricked Mass into voting for him so he's got my vote. If you're smart enough to dupe liberals into voting you into the highest office in the state then you've got talent.



And for the record Rick is a whiny little girl. "I don't get enough time in the debates!" "The media wants Romney." "Drudge carries water for Romney." "Romney spends more money." "Romney's ads are negative." "MIght as well vote for Obama."



What a wuss.

mizzoucoug wrote:

I think Romney's defense of his conservatism will be stronger in the general election. I think many GOPers will be surprised at 1)strong Mitt is in the general and 2) how conservative he actually governs.

I've always thought this too. He tricked Mass into voting for him so he's got my vote. If you're smart enough to dupe liberals into voting you into the highest office in the state then you've got talent.



And for the record Rick is a whiny little girl. "I don't get enough time in the debates!" "The media wants Romney." "Drudge carries water for Romney." "Romney spends more money." "Romney's ads are negative." "MIght as well vote for Obama."



What a wuss.

"The only reason Romney wins is he outspends me 7-to1!!!"



But then he flips and tries to use that to persuade people we need someone who can beat Obama when he outspends them 20-to-1. If 7-to-1 is the only reason you're getting beat, doesn't that work against the argument that you can beat 20-to-1?



Also--what's more important in winning a general election (assuming that's the goal): is it appealing to the far right who will vote "Anyone-But-Obama," or is it appealing to the independents, moderate republicans, and conservative democrats who would rather have Obama than a Victorian-era crusader?

Elections are about WINNING! Nothing else. Obama just admitted to being an etch-a-sketch president when he was speaking with Russia. So we have 2 choices:



Obama's unaccountable 2nd term, which we can pretty well guess what will happen--keep in mind 1-3 potential SCOTUS appointments for him as well.



or



Romney's predictably moderate (yet non-socialistic) style of governance. Even if all he does is strike down Obamacare, that should be enough to make most Americans happy.

C'mon now, let's ease off on Santorum. After all, if I had an uncle, he'd look like Rick...