Santorum beats Romney in “The Iowa Bowl”
By Chris Saxman | Wednesday, January 4th, 2012 | PoliticsFormer US Senator Rick Santorum (Pennsylvania) rallied from a three touchdown deficit to force overtime with former Governor Mitt Romney (Massachusetts).
Santorum won the Iowa Bowl with a better speech. A MUCH better speech that started with a firm “Game On”.
Conventional Wisdom holds that there are too many more contests in a very short amount of time, but the political game has changed greatly over the last four years.
It is doubtful that Santorum can make up the time, money and manpower advantage that Romney or Texas Congressman Ron Paul has at this stage.
HOWEVER – Team Obama cannot be thrilled with the potential prospects of a untied GOP ticket of Romney – Santorum. That puts several states in the Northeast and MidAtlantic in play for the general election.
Pennsylvania. New Jersey. The Philadelphia media market is very expensive and Obama would much prefer to be spending his money in Charlotte and Richmond and Albuquerque.
If Obama has to spend money in the New York TV market….
Start spreading the news….Barry’s leaving today….
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Comments
7 Responses to "Santorum beats Romney in “The Iowa Bowl”"
A GOP ticket of Romney – Santorum does sound interesting.. However the fourth estate has not carved up Santorum yet, he does have some negatives. Still…..Think I will vote for Paul anyway.
Mitt Romney paid $49 for every vote he got and Santorum paid 73 cents for every vote he got so who won?
I have to respectfully disagree. I think that your views about a Santorum VP nomination are based solely on geography and not politics. Santorum has very high unfavorables in any state that trends democratic — including PA and NJ. The whole argument that placing him on the ticket would somehow force Obama to spend money in the Mid-Atlantic seems to be more speculative than based in any actual analysis. Obama would welcome running against a Romney-Santorum ticket.
If you really want to put the mid-Atlantic in play, nominate someone who is actually still popular in that region. Christie, Corbett, and Pat Toomey come to mind. George Pataki is still waiting in the wings. I agree that if Romney is the nominee that the running-mate has to have conservative credentials, but he can’t be a polarizing socially conservative zealot either.
An observation here. The “teaser” link on the main BD page read:
Santorum beats Romney in “The Iowa Bowl”
By Chris Saxman – January 4, 2012 – Comments: 3
“Santorum’s moral victory in Iowa could lead to him being on a future unity ticket with Romney, forcing Obama to campaign in areas he might have not expected.”
Yet, I see no such language in the article it links to. My initial “reaction” was to the words “MORAL VICTORY.”
HUH. Moral? Whose Morals. Morals are religious. Ethics are Civil. So I wondered where this even came from. Frankly, Santorium was the only candidate not to have whithered under the whithering fire-power of the Mitt and his Super Pacs vast arsenal of money. And still Mitt comes out only 8 votes ahead of Santorum.
Oh, this is beyond wierd. We now face a Newtlier arsenal poised to destroy Romney, but to what (or whose) benefit? If I were Newt, I’d take a deep long breath before unleashing his not inconsiderable–but no match for Romney–arsenal of attack ads.
This is going to be very, very, interesting. Poor New Hampshire is in for a ride, but it won’t last long. The real show down will be in South Carolina. With Perry staying in, it seems to me it is going to be a real free-for-all. Frankly, I don’t like this scenario for ANY of them.
Oh, I forgot Ron Paul. He may be the last one standing after the shoot-out. But his skirts are no cleaner than the others. How much did he spend trashing Newt Gingrich? A maxim of politics in multi-candidate races is that the one who throws the s*** at the other guy usually loses votes to the 3rd guy. In this case, they are all slinging mud in equal measure and this is not a good thing. Obama must be laughing his ass off right now. The gang who couldn’t shoot straight. I would not be surprised if Jon Huntsman didn’t come of this as the last man standing. Hmm.
And oh yeah. Perry is going to defend the Alamo. Against whom is the question. What we have here are several armies all fighting one another. I’d love to be in South Carolina right now. They know politics.
At least Santorum understands the myth of man-made global warming. Wish I had his way with words. Never could express my thoughts in writing.
SANTORUM: “I believe the earth gets warmer, and I also believe the earth gets cooler, and I think history points out that it does that and that the idea that man through the production of CO2 which is a trace gas in the atmosphere and the manmade part of that trace gas is itself a trace gas is somehow responsible for climate change is, I think, just patently absurd when you consider all of the other factors, El Nino, La Nina, sunspots, you know, moisture in the air. There’s a variety of factors that contribute to the earth warming and cooling, and to me this is an opportunity for the left to create — it’s a beautifully concocted scheme because they know that the earth is gonna cool and warm. It’s been on a warming trend so they said, “Oh, let’s take advantage of that and say that we need the government to come in and regulate your life some more because it’s getting warmer,” just like they did in the seventies when it was getting cool, they needed the government to come in and regulate your life because it’s getting cooler. It’s just an excuse for more government control of your life, and I’ve never been for any scheme or even accepted the junk science behind the whole narrative.”
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.