One Thousand Miles to Drive

Rick Santorum will be in Mandeville, Louisiana, at 12:30 p.m. CDT Wednesday, and that’s more than a thousand miles from here.

Google Maps says it’s an 17-hour drive, so if I left Tuesday evening and drove straight through, I’d arrive in time: Exhausted beyond words, yes, but in time.

This would be completely crazy, but I’ve done crazier things.

Romney won Puerto Rico, and Illinois votes Tuesday. Certainly Santorum made news with this prediction Saturday:

Rick Santorum told crowds in Illinois’s conservative downstate that a victory Tuesday would be the key to his nomination.
“This is a pledge,” he said Saturday afternoon. “If we’re able to come out of Illinois with a huge or surprise win, I guarantee you — I guarantee that we will win this nomination. We will nominate a conservative, and we will beat Barack Obama.”

Pat Austin blogged about Santorum’s Sunday in Shreveport. I figure Louisiana’s primary on Saturday will be decisive one way or another. If Santorum wins, he’s definitely the last man standing against Romney and Gingrich is done. If Gingrich wins, he has an excuse to keep going. If Romney wins . . .

Perish the thought. But I plan to be there when the deal goes down.

 




Santorum’s Sunday Schedule Includes Appearances on ABC and CNN

Was Rick Santorum exaggerating when he accused Fox News of having a pro-Romney bias? We report, you decide: The “fair and balanced” network doesn’t have him scheduled for any interviews today. Santorum will appear on two other Sunday shows on ABC and CNN, while campaigning today in Louisiana before going to Illinois for a series of Monday rallies, including one in Ronald Reagan’s hometown of Dixon, Illinois.

SANTORUM CAMPAIGN PRESS RELEASE

Republican Presidential Candidate Rick Santorum will hold the following open press events. All times are local.

Sunday, March 18:

Senator Santorum will appear on ABC News’ “This Week” and CNN’s “State of the Union.” Check your local listings for times in your area.

9:30am CT Senator Santorum will provide his personal testimony to the First Baptist Church of Bossier, LA.
Location: First Baptist Church of Bossier
2810 East Texas Street
Bossier City, LA

10:50am CT: Senator Santorum will attend the Calvary Baptist Church in Shreveport, LA.
Location: Calvary Baptist Church
9333 Linwood Avenue
Shreveport, LA

12:45pm CT: Senator Santorum will attend the LSU/Mississippi State baseball game in Baton Rouge, LA. All media must show press identification (business card, station identification, etc…) and enter through Gate 2.
Location: Alex Box Stadium
Corner of Nicholson Drive and Burbank Drive
Baton Rouge, LA

6:00pm CT: Senator Santorum will take part in community service at the Greenwell Springs Baptist Church in Greenwell Springs, LA.
Location: Greenwell Springs Baptist Church
19421 Greenwell Springs Road
Greenwell Springs, LA

Senator Santorum will also appear with Tom Bevan and “Beyond the Beltway with Bruce DuMont” on WLS in Chicago, IL. Times of airing to be determined.

Monday, March 19:

9:00am CT: Senator Santorum will hold a “Rally for Rick” in Rockford, IL.
Location: Venetian Club
2180 Elmwood Road
Rockford, IL

12:00pm CT: Senator Santorum will hold a “Rally for Rick” in Dixon, IL.
Location: Ronald Reagan Statue
Dixon Waterfront
Dixon, IL

3:00pm CT: Senator Santorum will hold a “Rally for Rick” in Moline, IL.
Location: Moline Club
513 16th Street
Moline, IL

7:30pm CT: Senator Santorum will hold a “Rally for Rick” in Peoria, IL.
Location: Davis Bros Restaurant
2402 East Washington Street
East Peoria, IL

His Newtness and His 176,000 Donors

It’s Friday night and the Missouri caucuses are Saturday. Newt Gingrich isn’t even on the ballot in Missouri, which will award 52 delegates. There was a Missouri primary in February but, because of legislative hassles, that vote was officially “non-binding.” However, Rick Santorum won that primary with 55 percent of the vote — nearly a 30-point margin over Mitt Romney — and today’s caucuses will certainly ratify Santorum’s victory.

Maybe Missourians are still sore about 1838, who knows?

My point is that Santorum is about to put another one in the “W” column, the seventh state he will have won this month: Tennessee, Oklahoma and North Dakota on March 6, Kansas on March 10, Alabama and Mississippi on Tuesday, and now Missouri.

It’s important to say this, because none of the reporters, analysts or commentators on Fox News are going to tell you that Santorum’s on a winning streak, because they are indeed biased against him.

Now, let’s talk about Newt Gingrich. Ace headlined this:

Gingrich:  I Have Come Here To Chew Bubblegum and
Not Drop Out of the Race and I’m All Out of Bubblegum

Which is both cruel, and a fairly accurate summary of this:

Asked on CBS’s This Morning “under what circumstances” he would end his campaign before the convention, Gingrich responded: “Probably none.” He told host Charlie Rose, “I’ll be with you in Tampa, Charlie,” adding, “I have 176,000 donors at Newt.org. They want me to stay in the race.”

Hey, Newt, how many online donors did Herman Cain have before he dropped out? Lots. Rick Perry? Lots. Maybe not 176,000, but lots.

Gingrich is counting donors cumulatively, going back to late November and December, before any actual voting took place, when he was No. 1. On Dec. 13, Newt led Romney by more than 12 points, 35% to 22.3% in the Real Clear Politics average of national polls. It also includes the comeback period in January when Newt got a bump from his Jan. 21 win in South Carolina and, once again, bounced up to a lead (RCP average 31.3%-27% as of Jan. 27) in the national polls.

While he was on top, or at least a viable contender, Gingrich collected online donors by the tens of thousands, but that was “front-runner” money. Those donors were bandwagon-jumpers who thought they were giving money to The Man Who Could Beat Mitt.

And those people aren’t giving money any more because in the past six weeks it has become apparent that Newt can’t beat Mitt.

Gingrich lost Florida Jan. 31 and lost Nevada Feb. 7, and was 0-for-3 on Feb. 7, when he was third in Colorado, fourth in Minnesota and, as previously noted, failed to make the ballot in Missouri. Newt was fourth in Maine (7%) on Feb. 11; on Feb. 28 he was third in Arizona (16%) and fourth in Michigan (7%); and on March 3 he was fourth in Washington State (10%). On Super Tuesday, March 6, Gingrich recorded third-place finishes in Ohio, Tennessee and Oklahoma, and was fourth in Alaska (14%), North Dakota (9%), Vermont (8%), Massachusetts (5%) and Idaho (2%). On March 10, he was third in Kansas and fourth in Wyoming (1%).

In case you lost count, since Feb. 7, Gingrich has placed third in five states and placed fourth in 10 states, for a total of 15 third- or fourth-place finishes in the past six weeks. You can add in the balance against all those electoral embarrassments Newt’s lone victory in his home state of Georgia on March 6, but that was completely offset by his defeats Tuesday in Mississippi and Alabama, two states his campaign had previously called “must-wins.”

Newt is clearly no longer The Man Who Could Beat Mitt.

He is now The Guy Who Usually Finishes Fourth, and the vast majority of his previous donors aren’t going to pay a dime for that kind of action. They thought they were giving money to a winner, you see, and they’re not going to follow him down the rabbit hole of Wishful Thinking.

There is also the telltale silence of Team Newt about their February fundraising numbers. On Feb. 29, the Santorum campaign told the Associated Press they had raised $9 million in February from 100,000 donors. A week later, the Romney campaign said they’d raised $11.5 million in February.

Gingrich? Crickets chirping.

That silence tells us a lot, but not nearly as much as we’ll learn next week when the official FEC numbers for February are available. What we know, however, is that the Gingrich campaign ended January with cash on hand of $1,788,590, but with debts of $1,726,085, so that their net balance (minus debt) was just $62,505.

By comparison, Santorum’s cash on hand at the end of January was $1,474,064 against debts of $956,701, for a net balance of $517,363.

This is simply astonishing: In the month where Gingrich scored his biggest success (the Jan. 21 South Carolina primary win), somehow his “burn rate” was so high that it vastly exceeded his contributions. Gingrich spent $16.4 million in January, while raising only $5.5 million. Meanwhile the underdog Santorum finished the month with a balance (minus debts) more than eight times greater than Gingrich’s!

With that in mind, what do you think Gingrich’s financial report for February is going to tell us? And how do you think his March fundraising is going so far, given his inability to win Alabama or Mississippi, and his third- and fourth-places finishes nearly everywhere else this month?

Newt’s not going to be able to reverse this perception by scoring any wins any time soon. He’s not on the ballot Saturday in Missouri and won’t finish better than third Sunday in Puerto Rico. Polls indicate Gingrich will finish third in Illinois on Tuesday. That brings us to Lousiana next Saturday, March 24: One poll last week showed Gingrich third there, too. Gingrich was in Louisiana today, begging:

NEW ORLEANS — Newt Gingrich is asking supporters for donations as small as $2.50 to keep his GOP presidential campaign going.
The former House speaker told a New Orleans audience Friday that he can’t raise as much money as front-runner Mitt Romney can. But he said he is gaining 500 to 1,000 new donors a day. He said many of them give small but that he welcomes amounts that might lead to larger contributions later

He’s already desperate, and when the February financial reports are made public, showing a campaign that is essentially bankrupt, whatever little puddles of hope Gingrich has been able to sell to those “500 to 1,000 new donors a day” (a dubious claim) will evaporate almost instantly. If Newt then loses March 24 in Louisiana, it’s over.

UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers! And thanks to the commenter who called my attention to a Feb. 17 article by Luke Rosiak of The Washington Times:

When Newt Gingrich’s presidential campaign disclosed in October that it planned to pay the candidate $70,000, the transfer was unusual for a campaign committee. But weeks ago, the former House speaker revised his bill for the third quarter: He actually expected to personally receive $115,000 to reimburse himself for expenses during that period.
The campaign would not explain how the candidate forgot about and then found $45,000 in receipts. Far beyond that payment, the destinations of dollars donated to Mr. Gingrich’s campaign are being obscured by the unprecedented use of a clearly prohibited tactic, The Washington Times found — one that has accompanied the flow of the better part of $1 million in unexplained cash to Mr. Gingrich, family members and top staffers. . . .

Read the whole thing. How I missed that article last month, I don’t know, nor do I know what the explanation for such unusal accounting might be. But one can imagine that it raised eyebrows among the big-money donors. Newt would probably dismiss such financial questions as coming from “the elite media.”

UPDATE II: My attempted humor about Missouri’s less-than-exemplary history of religious tolerance has generated some less than mirthful comments from those who sympathize with the plight of 19th-century Mormons. But my mild jest about 1838 could never rival the studied cruelty of Allahpundit’s well-aimed shot at Gingrich:

Second look at Newt staying in the race to gratify his delusions of grandeur about being chosen as a consensus nominee at a brokered convention?

Ouch.


Did Somebody Hear a Dog Whistle?

Far be it from me to go around willy-nilly accusing people of anti-Italian prejudice, just because they don’t support Rick Santorum for President, as all intelligent, honest and courageous people must.

It would be an unfair accusation to imply that Santorum’s critics are prejudiced against Italians, you see, so long as we acknowledge the obvious possibility that they may be stupid, dishonest or cowardly. . . .

Why insist on having arguments laid out like PowerPoint presentations, clubbing people over the head with obvious 1-2-3 simplicity, rather than having confidence in the reader’s intelligence?

Isn’t it possible that if everything we write is Rhetoric for Dummies™ we will drive away more intelligent readers with our repetitive implicit suggestions that they’re in need of lecturing, as if they were a roomful of ignorant 19-year-old college freshmen? Why not attempt to attract an erudite readership by having the humility to assume that our readers may be as knowledgeable as ourselves? But I digress . . .

Dr. Rusty Shackleford is intelligent, honest and courageous, and so I was therefore shocked to learn of his anti-Italian prejudice:

The real explanation here, I think, is that nobody really took Santorum’s presidential bid that seriously until recently.

Huh? Santorum won Iowa (Jan. 3), Missouri, Colorado, Minnesota (Feb. 7), Tenneessee, Oklahoma and North Dakota (March 6) and Kansas (March 10), but “nobody” took him seriously until he beat Newt in Mississippi and Alabama this week?

Michelle Malkin endorsed Rick Santorum on Jan. 30.

Ed Morrissey endorsed Rick Santorum on Feb. 5.

Do you mean to suggest, Dr. Shackleford, that Malkin and Morrissey are “nobody”? Or maybe that their endorsements of Santorum were a reflection of their inferior knowledge and judgment?

Perhaps I am mistaken in discerning such possible implications of Dr. Shackleford’s argument. I’ll have to consult Jeff Goldstein and see if “intentionalism” has any insights on this problem. Or maybe Da Tech Guy is onto something here, despite his being just another stupid dago.

Sometimes, one may best instruct by example.

And I never heard of such a thing as a “fair fight.”

RICK SANTORUM for PRESIDENT
Because He’s Not a Gutless Punk Like Those Other Guys

Why Do You Hate Italians?

She’s an Italian actress named Alessandra Mastronardi, and if you needed a reminder to read Bob Belvedere’s Camp of the Saints . . .

Well, certainly she did the trick, eh? And speaking of Italians . . .

Mr. Santorum issued a statement that said, in part, “As the son of an Italian immigrant myself, I continue to believe that English is the language of opportunity in America under statehood or the current status.”
Mr. Neumann said that despite Mr. Romney’s having the backing of establishment Republicans in Puerto Rico, Mr. Santorum still had a good chance here “because of his connection with the religious sector of the community.” Mr. Santorum is Roman Catholic, as are an overwhelming majority of people in Puerto Rico.

Being in favor of English is not the same as being anti-Spanish. My daughter, who is fluent in Spanish — her husband is the son of Argentine immigrants, and she spent a year in a full-immersion Spanish language program in Argentina — teaches kindergarten in a school here in Maryland where about three-quarters of her students are the children of Hispanic immigrants who don’t speak English at home. You know what? Those kids’ parents are so happy that my daughter teaches those kids English. It is indeed “the language of opportunity,” and everybody knows it, and it shouldn’t be “controversial” for a politician to say so.

Good news for the English-speaking Italian-American in Missouri:

Thursday evening at the Chariton County caucus inside the Railyard Steakhouse . . . Republicans voted to send their full share of delegates to the district and state conventions in support of Rick Santorum.
For weeks, the Romney campaign has forcefully argued that Mr. Santorum’s victory in the Missouri primary last month was meaningless because no delegates were awarded. That assertion may turn out to be only partly true, which became clear for the first time here at the caucus meeting. . . .
An early glimpse into the caucuses unfolded here in Brunswick, a small town about two hours east of Kansas City, which decided to hold its meeting two days before the rest of the state.
The first question of the evening was whether to bind delegates to the results of the February primary. The measure passed by a wide margin and no discussion, which sent four delegates on behalf of Mr. Santorum and none for Mr. Romney or Representative Ron Paul of Texas.
“All of our county delegates will be bound to the popular vote for Chariton County,” said Andrea Rice, the county Republican chairwoman, who presided over the meeting and announced the results. “Four delegates will go for Rick Santorum.”

See what I’m talking about? Yes, officially, the Missouri primary was “non-binding,” but there was never any logic to the Romney spin. They wanted us to believe that Republicans attending a caucus in a county where Santorum previously got 60 or 70 percent of the primary vote would then turn around and award a majority of delegates to Romney. And considering that Santorum got 55% of the vote to 25% for Romney in the primary, this kind of caucus-flipping skullduggery would have to occur in county after county in order for Romney to swindle Santorum out of any significant number of delegates.

That’s just crazy talk, yet we heard that spin repeated endlessly on TV, and have seen it everywhere on the blogosphere. “Non-binding” became one of those things people said to show how sophisticated they were, as if anyone who counted Missouri a solid win for Santorum was a dimwit yokel, but Santorum won Missouri by THIRTY FREAKING POINTS!

“Non-binding,” my ass. Continue reading Why Do You Hate Italians? →

I’VE BEEN BLINDED BY HATE!

So says Bill Quick at Daily Pundit, who says I’m “spouting arrant hooey” in observing that Newt Gingrich’s campaign is doomed.

Quick says my “visceral hatred of Gingrich” accounts for my hooey. Even if accurate, this accusation completely misses the relevant point that Newt’s campaign faces financial ruin after Tuesday’s double defeats in Mississippi and Alabama.

As I’ve said repeatedly in the past week, while we have had announcements of February fundraising totals from both Romney ($11.5 million) and Santorum ($9 million), we haven’t heard a peep from Team Newt, which is a very bad omen for Gingrich.

Perhaps I was the only one who noticed the report (and I could look it up if I had to) of what Gingrich was doing while his campaign in Nevada was stumbling toward its Feb. 4 disaster. Newt was reportedly “dialing for dollars,” phoning up contributors who hadn’t yet maxed-out and asking them to give more. If you know anything about elections, you know that the most valuable resource in any campaign is the candidate’s time. The report that Gingrich was dialing for dollars in Nevada, at a time when he evidently didn’t have time to attend a scheduled meeting with the state’s popular Gov. Brian Sandoval, was therefore something I saw as highly significant.

Remember: On Jan. 21, Gingrich had defeated Romney in the South Carolina primary, following two televised debate performances that many conservatives hailed as triumphant for Newt. Yet here he was, less than two weeks later, his campaign evidently in such dire financial straits that his time had to be devoted to fundraising phone calls.

What that tells me is that the Gingrich campaign’s “burn rate” got out of control in Florida: They weren’t merely spending the money as fast as it came in, but they were spending it so fast that they outpaced even the bumped-up fundraising they had after their South Carolina victory. (Remember, also: Rick Perry endorsed Gingrich on Jan. 19, which should have made all of Perry’s big-money Texas donors fair game for Newt.)

Quick furthermore accuses me of “wishing and hoping that Gingrich supporters will move en masse to Santorum without Newt urging them to do so,” a mistake that I can assure him — and anyone else — that I have not made. But neither do I suppose that Newt’s endorsement would have any magic benefit for Santorum. In case Bill hasn’t noticed, the endorsements of Newt by Perry and Herman Cain have not magically transferred their supporters to Newt’s camp.

Politics doesn’t work that way: People support who they support for very idiosyncratic reasons, and people who have spent the past few months staunchly supporting Newt Gingrich — most obviously including Bill Quick — do so in part because they have rejected the available alternatives.

If they wanted to support Rick Santorum, the Newtoids might have jumped aboard the Santorum Express after Iowa, or after Santorum’s Feb. 7 trifecta in Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri. The fact that they are still supporting Gingrich now, when his campaign is so plainly hopeless (e.g., attendance at his Illinois events numbered in the dozens) tells me that Newt’s remaining diehards have strong objections to Santorum’s candidacy which might deserve the term “hatred” far more than my own attitude toward Gingrich does.

As a sort of Rorshach test, let me ask Bill Quick what he thinks of this inkblot quote that Newt gave Greta Van Sustern last night:

I’m third among the three, but we’re continuing to campaign, continuing to develop ideas.
And I have a hunch that just as has happened in the past, the more we watch Romney and Santorum fight, the more attractive I’ll look and the more I will regain strength as people look at my solutions, rather than politics as usual.
I don’t pretend to be a traditional politician. I’m somebody who wants to really have very large-scale change in Washington.

To borrow Toby Harnden’s excellent phrase, this is “so far removed from reality that calling it delusional seems like an understatement.” And once again, I’ll quote myself:

Unfortunately, some Gingrich supporters want to blame people who explain to them that Newt can’t win, as though he could win, if only we’d be quiet and pretend he could.
Lashing out at scapegoats is not a useful substitute for success.

You can kill the messenger, but the facts are still the facts, and I do not rule out the possibility that we may be doomed to Mitt Romney. However, if conservatives were really serious when they said they wanted “Anybody But Mitt,” they must understand that their only hope now is to rally behind Rick Santorum.

(BTW: Bloggers should observe how well Bill Quick has understood my Rule 4 adage: “Love me, hate me, as long as you link me.” What’s the point of having an argument, if it doesn’t boost our traffic?)

UPDATE: Bill updates to say that I’m “mischarecterizing [his] arguments,” and maybe I am. But the point is that I’m linking his arguments, and anyone can compare what I’ve written and what he’s written and make up their own minds as to whether either of us is right. I don’t rule out the possibility that we’re both completely wrong, or that we’re each clinging blindly to some comforting small piece of the truth while both ignoring something very large that we don’t want to look at too closely, i.e., the likelihood that we’re doomed beyond hope of redemption and should be praying for the swift arrival of the Sweet Meteor of Death.

Maybe we should both stop blogging about the 2012 GOP campaign and start blogging about Whitney Houston’s dysfunctional family.

If you think about it, there are similarities . . .

Rick Santorum for President Because …

. . . he really brings out the crazy-talk at MSNBC:

Lawrence O’Donnell: “Is anything surprising to you in this result so far?”
Mark Thompson: “No, not at all. When Rick Santorum first announced he was running for President, in his announcement speech, he was criticizing President Obama for saying America wasn’t as great as it was until there were programs like Medicare and Social Security. But in that criticism, he said directly to the President, he said, ‘Mr. President, America was great before 1965.’  I called that out as a coded message. You know, I go to Selma every year, and 1965 is a sacred year in the history of this country, and a never-forgotten year in terms of the history of Alabama. When he said that, I knew exactly who he was speaking to in that coded language. So I’m not surprised at all that he won Alabama.”

Selma! Coded language! Also, please: Hurt Karen Finley Some More.

A Santorum Miracle? ‘So Be It,’ Says Mitt

“Romney campaign says losing nomination would take ‘act of God'”
— MSNBC, March 7

“Senator Santorum is at the desperate end of his campaign . . . He’s far behind in the delegate count, far behind in the popular vote count. If you look at the math, it’s a very difficult road for him.”
— Mitt Romney, March 13

“So far we have two, two and half times as many delegates as he has, millions of more votes than he has. . . . If he is able to pull off a miracle, then so be it.”
— Mitt Romney, March 12

Saw that last quote via It’s Only Words, who offers some excellent advice for Mitt Romney, although I’m not sure that he’s in a mood to listen. Nevertheless, there is evidence that despite all the bold talk of Romney’s “inevitability,” Team Mitt’s starting to sweat:

Romney was not planning to visit Illinois until Monday. Now, he adds a Friday morning campaign stop before flying to Puerto Rico.

Having complained bitterly about some of the Santorum campaign’s bungles, it is an undeniable fact that Santorum’s success is beginning to push the Romney campaign up against Mitt’s inherent limitations. If Santorum can keep up the pressure, it’s possible that Team Mitt could commit the kind of error that might turn the tide against Mr. Inevitable. And, regardless of what you may have heard, Romney is much weaker than the delegate-counters want to admit.

To illustrate why Republicans should be worried about Romney’s “inevitability,” here is the Wall Street Journal‘s delegate count:

Romney ……… 495 (53%)
Santorum ……. 252 (27%)
Gingrich …….. 131 (14%)
Paul ……………. 48 (5%)

 Via Dan McLaughlin at Red State, here are the vote totals to date:

Romney ……… 3,513,994 (38%)
Santorum ……. 2,405,653 (26%)
Gingrich ……… 2,094,267 (23%)
Paul ……………… 974,855 (11%)

So, while Romney currently has 53% of delegates, he has less than 40% of actual votes. Santorum has 27% of delegates and 26% of votes.

Why the extra delegate edge for Romney? Because Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul have drastically underperformed in terms of delegate count: Between them, Newt and Paul have 34% of the votes, but only 19% of delegates, so that votes for either of them have had the practical effect of adding delegates for Romney!

More troubling, however, as Dan McLaughlin further demonstrates, is that Romney’s popularity is actually declining among Republican voters as the campaign continues:

Romney’s share of the vote decreased every month, from 40.5% in January to 39.8% in February to 36.3% in March. This is not the kind of performance that you expect from a candidate capable of winning people over to his side. That spells trouble if Mitt wins the GOP nomination.

What happened to Newt? His January numbers were high because of his Jan. 21 win in South Carolina (243,172) and his second-place finish in Florida (533,117) on Jan. 31. February was a wipeout for Gingrich, while his March total was boosted by his win in Georgia, where he got 424,976 votes, 38% of his total for the month to date.

Compared to Gingrich, Santorum has run a far more balanced campaign: He has won in the Midwest, the West and South, and has won in both primaries and caucuses. In terms of viability as a national candidate, Gingrich’s campaign has been largely an illusion. He has never won a caucus, and just three primaries — South Carolina, Florida and Georgia, about 1.2 million votes — account for 57% of his total votes so far.

Newt Gingrich was interviewed tonight by Greta Van Sustern, who acted as if Newt were still viable after losing Mississippi and Alabama. However — excuse me for repeating this, but it is very important — the Gingrich campaign still hasn’t announced its February fundraising totals, and may now be teetering on the brink of financial collapse:

Santorum has run a relatively low-budget campaign throughout the primary season, but the campaign announced recently that it raised $9 million in February, as he rose in the polls.
Gingrich’s financial picture is considerably more murky.
Campaign fund-raising and spending reports for February are not due to the Federal Election Commission until next week, but the Gingrich campaign spent little money on advertising in Mississippi and Alabama, even as Gingrich was saying the states were crucial to his success.
And Winning Our Future, the pro-Gingrich Super PAC that has been propped up by nearly $11 million in donations from the family of Las Vegas casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, has reduced its advertising on TV and invested in less-expensive radio ads, suggesting the PAC could be running low on money.

In that context, here is Santorum strategist John Brabender on CNN:

American Power headlines this, “Pressure Increasing for Newt Gingrich to Step Aside in GOP Race,” but there’s no need to “pressure” Gingrich to do anything. Newt’s losing and his campaign is probably broke, and what’s important now is for Republican primary voters to understand that there is no longer any point in voting for Gingrich.

If you want to stop Romney, vote for Santorum — period.

So, what’s Romney up to? Raising money at the Waldorf Astoria in New York, which should tell you something about his situation.

“Mitt Romney proudly supported the Wall Street Bailout that rewarded the reckless behavior of Wall Street Insiders — at the expense of the American taxpayer. Now that his campaign is looking to get some fast cash — he returned to the very people who benefited from the bailout — that Romney supported.”
— Hogan Gidley, Santorum campaign spokesman

Meanwhile, Santorum is campaigning in Puerto Rico, and leaving the fundraising to his grassroots supporters: His online money bomb has raised nearly $1 million in the past 24 hours.

A “miracle”? No, but it’s got to have Romney worried.

UPDATE: From Shane Vander Hart, who was one of the first bloggers to endorse Rick Santorum:

We were told by Newt Gingrich’s campaign spokesperson, R.C. Hammond, that Mississippi and Alabama were must wins for Gingrich to be considered a credible candidate. Newt Gingrich is no longer a credible candidate after last night’s losses. Now he says the goal is to keep Mitt Romney from securing the 1144 delegates needed to win the nomination since he recognizes he can’t achieve that number himself.

Shane quotes Jamie Weinstein of the Daily Caller:

But if Newt can’t win Mississippi and Alabama, where will he win? . . .
He’s functionally done, not being able to beat a Northerner in his Southern backyard.

“Functionally done” is an apt description. And this result is not Jamie Weinstein’s fault. It’s not my fault. It’s not Rick Santorum’s fault. Unfortunately, some Gingrich supporters want to blame people who explain to them that Newt can’t win, as though he could win, if only we’d be quiet and pretend he could.

Lashing out at scapegoats is not a useful substitute for success.