‘They Have Begun to Consider the Implications of a Santorum Victory’

Posted on | February 18, 2012 | 74 Comments

Do you remember the scene in the original Rocky, when one of Apollo Creed’s handlers points out that this luckless no-name Philly palooka is a southpaw? Left-handed boxers are unusual enough that Creed’s man was a little worried, and then he watched that TV news spot of Rocky Balboa practicing his body work by pounding on beef carcasses in a freezer.

And breaking ribs . . .

That scene came to mind today when I picked up the Saturday Washington Post and read a story at the bottom of the front page:

Obama’s Chicago-based reelection team has begun digging into Santorum’s background, diverting opposition researchers who thus far had been focused on Romney. They also blasted an e-mail to supporters in Pennsylvania, asking them to submit their most damning recollections of Santorum, a former senator from the state.
Though campaign officials still view Romney as the likely nominee, they have begun to consider the implications of a Santorum victory. They view him as a weaker general election opponent, but one who has shown an ability to connect with the population that is most disillusioned with Obama: white, blue-collar voters. . . .

Read the rest. We would be getting way ahead of the game to speculate too much of how this Italian kid might fare against The Champ. But there are a few folks in The Champ’s corner who seem worried that The Champ has some vulnerabilities that this luckless palooka could be uniquely positioned to exploit. Bitter gun-and-Bible clingers, anyone?

Look at what Santorum did to Romney in Ohio: Stole away one of his key endorsements in a crucial Super Tuesday state. A week ago, Santorum was in fourth-place in the Michigan polls, but now he’s beating Romney in Romney’s home state. And suddenly Mitt just lost the co-chair of his Arizona campaign (because nobody cares about “moral issues,” you see).

They used to say Romney was “inevitable,” but now Mitt’s starting to look more and more like . . . well, dead meat.

Hey, Champ: Watch your ribs.

Category: Barack Obama, Election 2012, Rick Santorum

Comments

74 Responses to “‘They Have Begun to Consider the Implications of a Santorum Victory’”

ThePaganTemple
February 19th, 2012 @ 9:35 am

I look forward to the lefty ugliness. At some point, you’re going to have to come to grips with the facts that you can’t fight liberals by the Marquis of Queensbury rules they insist on imposing on you but never on themselves. In other words, you’re going to have to swallow your pride and get just as ugly as them, regardless of how the MSM portrays it.

As for Sarah being drafted, number one that can only happen if she acquiesces, but if she did, there would be enough conservative Democrats who would vote for her to more than make up for what she would lose from the mostly worthless fucking independents.
PhillyCon
February 19th, 2012 @ 10:14 am

Not a socon myself, but good luck winning without them.

Good luck finding free labor and energy to offset the labor unions. At least, Karl Rove understood this simple fact.
ThomasD
February 19th, 2012 @ 10:44 am

Over the Christmas holiday I was in Florida having dinner with an old friend, an attorney who is a partner in a very old and well connected firm. He very specifically floated the notion of Jeb being picked at a brokered convention. I told him my opinion was that the base would revolt over such an action by the party.

Agree or disagree about the merite, the notion is out there, and it has been out there for quite some time.
richard mcenroe
February 19th, 2012 @ 10:56 am

The only action movie hero under 60 still working.
JimmyDean
February 19th, 2012 @ 11:03 am

This sounds like condemning to me:

Rick Santorum

“One of the things I will talk about that no President has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea. Many in the Christian faith have said, “Well, that’s okay. Contraception’s okay.”

It’s not okay because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They’re supposed to be within marriage, they are supposed to be for purposes that are, yes, conjugal, but also [inaudible], but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen. We take any part of that out, we diminish the act.”
Quartermaster
February 19th, 2012 @ 11:18 am

The depth of their stupidity is hard to imagine, but it’s there, alas. They really do fear someone besides Mittens being the nominee.
Quartermaster
February 19th, 2012 @ 11:26 am

Methinks you need to learn to read. There’s nothing there that condemns the use of contraceptives within the bonds of marriage.

However, I think you may have a point if you are claiming that much of the electorate can’t read.
Quartermaster
February 19th, 2012 @ 11:28 am

There was a recent article that showed that the GOP has won consistently because of the social issues. Fact is, amorality is why we are in the situation we are in. Irresponsibility in anything leads to bad results, including government. The welfare state alone has been one of the biggest promoters of such things. That “sin is a reproach to any people” is pretty much axiomatic.
Pathfinder's wife
February 19th, 2012 @ 11:30 am

The timing would be very off — if they nominated her it would look like gross pandering to the base. And yes, the lefty ugliness would be horrible.

If she had a chance it would have been to declare before now. If the GOP wants to go the route of a brokered convention, it will have to be with somebody out of the blue, and that raises other problems (not that they would be insurmountable, but they are there). That’s my take on it at least.
Pathfinder's wife
February 19th, 2012 @ 11:39 am

Where in that statement did he say “I want to condemn birth control”?

He’s making a comment to his personal beliefs (which he has been on record as saying he would not force on the electorate, but he will talk about the case against the notion of birth control that our society has taken). Do we not allow public officials to speak of their personal beliefs anymore?

I don’t see people throwing a fit about Michelle Obama making comments about eating healthy food other than it appears to be more political gesture rather than any personal belief (so the bully pulpit encouragement is seen as ok, but the heavy-handed hypocrisy isn’t).
CPAguy
February 19th, 2012 @ 12:00 pm

Ultimately, we are screwed.

Santorum is no great Conservative. Has shown little inclination in the past or in the future to enact major change….however, he is the best guy running.

When he becomes President, we must hold this nanny-staters feet to the fire.
A Stephens
February 19th, 2012 @ 12:17 pm

None of us want to be dictated to from on high regarding morals. I would submit that private citizen Santorum feels the same. Hence, it’s that recognition which would inform a President Santorum.

By the same token;

None of us wants to be told to shut up regarding our position that a decay in morals, principles, integrity, and ethical behavior is largely a consequence of a “progressive -anything goes” ideology where black/white ceases to exist and where truth is a malleable object.

Santorum is saying No, I won’t shut up. In my view that’s a good thing. It’s past time to have this conversation with the Left. The fact that it’s a conversation they are afraid of is demonstrated by their attacks on those most willing to engage them. Unfortunately too many supposedly on our side, are just as afraid.
JimmyDean
February 19th, 2012 @ 12:25 pm

Only a complete idiot would not interpret that quote that as condemning the use of birth control.

Santorum’s even explicitly condemning Christians that have no issues with birth control in the context of marriage (which is essentially all Protestants), calling them sexual libertines.

I wouldn’t care if these were his private beliefs, but again, he explicitly says he wants to make this an issue for his Presidential campaign.

But just keep spinning, maybe we can also get him to tackle the issue of m@sturbation for his next stump speech.
Pathfinder's wife
February 19th, 2012 @ 12:35 pm

While the economy is a very big issue, the more I think about it the more I question the sense of making it the only issue.

I don’t think anybody will be able to keep us from economic hard times in the following years, and if that’s the one thing a canidate is running on, then it will cause ill will from the electorate when the shtf. That leaves only the avenues of constitutionalism and social issues, and they are actually much more important, because economies have always ebbed and peaked — its how a country rides the wave that has been the indicator of how successful a country is (and countries that have lost their way don’t successfully ride the economic waves), and that’s the thing that’s worrying people the most (or at least from what I’ve heard in the ordinary comments of the ordinary people around me — hard times they can accept, disintegration is the thing they fear).

I think we really are at a socio-cultural tipping point in this country, that it’s been a long time coming, and the outcomes are up in the air — and that this is going to be the real heart of the matter.
PhillyCon
February 19th, 2012 @ 12:41 pm

Its called being one dimensional and not being able to “war game” For example, football teams usually go into games with several offensive weapons, not one.

Its also kind of naive, thinking the economic narrative will favor the GOP in the fall. Look what happened with that unemployment number … the media was declaring already that we are back to being on track.
Pathfinder's wife
February 19th, 2012 @ 2:36 pm

heh, yeah

funny thing is, the GOP could rip the Dems on the economy (and on the social issues and the constitutional issues) but it seems they are just as in love with some of the Dem’s pet projects as the Dems are, hence the problem
Bob Belvedere
February 19th, 2012 @ 3:23 pm

‘Fear The Vest!’

I like it.
Bob Belvedere
February 19th, 2012 @ 3:25 pm

To Richard: Liam Neeson doesn’t turn 60 ’til June.
Bob Belvedere
February 19th, 2012 @ 3:30 pm

It would only look like a gross pandering to the base in the Left’s narrative.

Why are people so afraid to take on the Left?

Screw ’em! The time has come for the showdown at the Gates Of Mordor.

WOLVERINES!
richard mcenroe
February 19th, 2012 @ 3:42 pm

Neeson’s a serious actor who beats the crap outta stuff. Statham’s a kick’n’shoot artist. Very good in the Expendables.
richard mcenroe
February 19th, 2012 @ 3:44 pm

A freak on Twitter made a point: Occupy will be back on the streets this summer. They’ll do half our selling job for us.
Pathfinder's wife
February 19th, 2012 @ 9:48 pm

It won’t be just the Left making that assumption — the worst damage will come from the right (it’s already started).

Palin can only be effective at gathering voters to her if she isn’t the establishment’s pick, and the brokered convention route would ruin that.

Believe me, it’s very disappointing — but nonetheless, it’s there.
Under the Fedora: Da Rules, Da Race, and Da Movies
February 20th, 2012 @ 1:34 pm

[…] McCain tells us that the White house is now starting to take Santorum seriously: Obama’s Chicago-based reelection […]
Round-Ups for Roll-Over RINOS « Obi's Sister
February 21st, 2012 @ 7:27 am

[…] mean. Quin Hillyer has some excellent advice on how to proceed, especially since a nervous Obama is looking over his shoulder […]