New Poll: GOP Enthusiasm Behind Santorum

The latest CNN/ORC Poll finds Santorum in first place, and Gingrich is last place. Santorum edges out Romney 34 percent to 32 percent, but this is still within the survey's margin of error. Paul comes in at 16 percent and Gingrich at 15 percent.

Santorum enjoys much more enthusiastic support, with 55 percent of his supporters "strongly" supporting his candidacy. In stark contrast only 38 percent of Romney's voters "strongly" support him. Nevertheless, Romney still clearly leads in perceived electability, with 68 percent of Republicans expecting him to eventually clinch the GOP nomination, and 55 percent expecting him to have the best chance of beating Obama. In comparison, only 13 percent believe Santorum will win the GOP nomination and 18 percent believe he has the best chance of beating Obama.

It is notable that Santorum has garnered so much enthusiastic support, with 32 percent of Republicans saying they would be enthusiastic if he won the nomination, compared to the 21 percent who would be enthusiastic for Romney. This is particularly notable because, as Gene Healy recently cited,

"In a Pennsylvania Press Club luncheon in Harrisburg last summer, Santorum declared, "I am not a libertarian, and I fight very strongly against libertarian influence within the Republican Party and the conservative movement."

Despite the upswing of libertarian rhetoric within the Republican Party, and the emergence of the Tea Party shifting the balance of power within the party away from social issues and toward economics, Santorum still gets many Republicans excited.

Comments

[db]

I just keep shaking my head. It's like the republicans (and democrats when they have primaries) just wait to be told what the issues are and then put on that uniform and wear it. Honestly, how can people accept that this socons shit is a worthy debate with the economy in its present state, ten more years of looming war that xan be avoided, and the looming entitlement catastrophe?

[Sanjuro Tsubaki]

It seems like any remotely credible "social conservative" position in four years or so will be twisted into an excuse for big government liberalism by people like Obama. Santorum is just like a lot of liberals: he's an insufferably obnoxious fool.

[Proprietist]

^ THIS.

The left and right are doomed to fail in a democracy at whatever statist ends they desire because the pendulum always swings the other way, and the rival party in control will easily use your own apparatus against them.

If the Left attempts to use the government to regulate industrial impacts on the environment, the Right will let the corporations rewrite the legislation to grant them exemptions to pollute. If the Right attempts to use the government to define marriage by traditional Christian values, the Left will attempt to redefine it to allow gay marriage and force churches and businesses to recognize it.

[CatoTheElder]

"I just keep shaking my head."

Same here. I just can't believe that, at one time, the political characterization "libertarian-conservative" seemed sensible, that conservatives and libertarians could advance a common cause of individual liberty. Republican morons have now turned that term into an oxymoron, and now seek to expel libertarian-leaning folks from their party. I left over twenty years ago, so it's personally no big deal. Still ...

[wsd]

Looking to bring more bisexual passion to your life? Welcome to=== Datebi.C/0/M ===, the world's largest bisexual community for no strings attached encounters. Hundreds of thousands pretty girls and handsome guys eager for hookups, bisexual stands, and discreet affairs are active here. Come in and discover the excitement you deserve! u_u

[Aresen]

If Romney wins the nomination and chooses Santorum as his running mate (which I think is what will happen), anyone voting Team Red better check Romney's medical records closely.

[John]

I think Mittens is pretty healthy. And Santorum wouldn't do shit as President. None of his goofy ideas would ever get passed. And a Santorum Presidency sure would end the left's love affair with the Imperial Presidency.

[sarcasmic]

And a Santorum Presidency sure would end the left's love affair with the Imperial Presidency.

Yeah. Until they get one of their own in. Then they will be back in love with it.

[Eduard van Haalen]

See Bush, George W.

[Aresen]

None of his goofy ideas would ever get passed.

After the Libya precedent, he doesn't need Congressional approval to start a war with Iran.

Plus, his economic policies read like a Team Blue platform brochure. I'm sure that he could get cooperation from the Dems on ways to spend money.

[sarcasmic]

Not to mention using executive orders when Congress won't pass legislation.

[DK]

I'm thinking you are correct. I don't see a 3rd Gingrich surge. It's clear the voters don't want Paul. I think Santorum sticks enough in his 2nd surge to challenge Romney. The appeal of Santorum is precisely that he is a Bush in Mt. Sinai clothing. Old Testament sensibilities mixed with compassionate conservatism.

[Cytotoxic]

BARF

[.]

GARAFALO

[Sanjuro Tsubaki]

VP candidates are generally irrelevant. Cheney was the most influential one since LBJ.

[Capt. Jean-Luc Picard]

The latest CNN/ORC Poll finds Santorum in first place,

[Cmdr. William Riker]

The latest CNN/ORC Poll finds Santorum in first place,

[robc]

Im not at all surprised that Orcs support Santorum.

[Aresen]

It's the Fox support that is surprising.

[Mad Scientist]

I really do want to see his daughter get her hopes up before he loses. The tears will be so much yummier.

[MWG]

Reason, you can close this thread down. We have a winner!

[Pro Libertate]

This has got to be just one of those weird surges. Surely most GOP voters understand that as bad as Romney is, Santorum is even worse.

[plebian hunger force]

Surely most GOP voters understand that as bad as Romney is, Santorum is even worse.

Why would they think that? GOP voters are not libertarians and Romney can't even be counted on to repeal Obamacare.

[Pro Libertate]

The one advantage to Romney, oddly, is that he'll sway with the wind. If the GOP takes firm control of both houses--which is likely--and a significant number of the newbies are interested in paring down government, he could end up doing limited damage.

I'm not advocating Romney, nor will I vote for him, but with the economic situation and the out-of-control government, the need for at least a modicum of fiscal sanity is huge. Obama clearly is willing to let the country fall to pieces economically. Whether that's due to stupidity, overwhelming love of socialism, or political cowardice, he's got to go.

[Gray Ghost]

ProL, so despite writing this about Obama,

Obama clearly is willing to let the country fall to pieces economically. Whether that's due to stupidity, overwhelming love of socialism, or political cowardice, he's got to go,

Would you go for Santorum over him? I'm in Texas, so it doesn't matter in the slightest whether undecideds vote for Santorum, or Obama in the general. (Or Gary Johnson, in my case) But I'm interested in which lesser evil you'd pick, living in Florida.

[Pro Libertate]

I'll vote Johnson. If I had to choose? Well, Santorum is bad in ways that are less likely to result in implemented policy, but I only say that because Obama is so godawful.

[sasob]

Obama clearly is willing to let the country fall to pieces economically.

Well of course! Why in hell would he care? Hell, he's always going to live well regardless. The same is true of all the bastards who run things in this country - the general populace can be reduced to pauperism, but the rulers will do fine. It's been that way all over the world, for thousands of years.

[Pro Libertate]

How America isn't turning on the political class altogether at this point is beyond me.

[plebian hunger force]

It takes a lot to spark open rebellion with all its uncertainty and potential for horror. American citizens still have some hope that elections can be used to effect their desired change. Let's hope that their optimism is not misplaced.

[Pro Libertate]

I'm not even thinking physical revolt. Just the political variety.

[plebian hunger force]

Isn't the tea party the political variety? The TP may well build momentum to the point that it has enough influence to challenge the status quo in a major way.

[Pro Libertate]

It seems pretty status-quo supporting so far in the primaries.

[plebian hunger force]

I haven't been following the down ticket battles this primary season. The noise of the Presidential primary is drowning out the sounds from the other battles. The down ticket fights are where any real change to the status quo must occur and the tea party had a large impact in 2010.

[Scruffy Nerfherder]

This is a gift to Obama.

Anyone think he stirred the socon's hornet nest on purpose? I'm starting to wonder.

[Rev. Blue Moon]

Anyone think he stirred the socon's hornet nest on purpose?

Yes, I think this.

It is inconceivable to me that the President sat down with his advisors and said "Mandate contraception? Hey, no one will have a problem with that!"

What's that Iron Law: Foreseeable consequences are not unintended.

[John]

I don't think it is inconceivable. You have to remember the kind of bubble Obama lives in. He literally doesn't interact with a single person on the other side. And also, he has very little control over what his political appointees actually do.

Sibileus is a first rate nitwit. I think it is entirely conceivable that she did this on her own or with a wave of the hand approval from the White House and caught the White House flatfooted with the ensuing up roar.

Maybe this is some grand strategy. Certainly having the paid hack Stephanopolous ask a bunch of birth control questions out of the blue at the debates makes it look that way. But incompetence can never be counted out as a reason with this administration.

[shrike]

Out of the blue? That is nuts. Many of us have long known that the party that says "leave us alone" are total fucking hypocrites when it comes to the Right to Privacy - which they deny the existence of. Ron Paul is just as bad on privacy. What kind of liberty-minded person thinks an individual has no reprieve from an obtrusive state?

[WTF]

Not enough 'christ-fag'.

[shrike]

Why is it so important for these assholes to deny a Right to Privacy?

No one has ever answered that.

[Eduard van Haalen]

Ron paul has never championed the right of privacy against an overbearing federal government. Never once.

[shrike]

If there is one thing I love it is raising gerbils. Do you know what is like to have a cute little gerbil's whiskers tickling your asshole? Don't judge until you try it!

[nicole]

Certainly having the paid hack Stephanopolous ask a bunch of birth control questions out of the blue at the debates makes it look that way.

John, I don't know why you think this was out of the blue except for the fact that Stephanopoulos posed the question to the wrong candidate. It's pretty well known among people who care about such things that Santorum is not simply against Griswold on some technical grounds about the right to privacy but advocates criminalization of contraception?or at least advocates the viewpoint that it is 100% cool to criminalize it. How many people do you think there are who deny a right to privacy but still think that? I was screaming at the TV that he was asking the wrong candidate about this, because he could have made Santorum really "stand out from the crowd" on that one.

[plebian hunger force]

It is inconceivable to me that the President sat down with his advisors and said "Mandate contraception? Hey, no one will have a problem with that!"

You have accepted the spin that this is about contraception. It is not. The left has been trying unsuccessfully to get tax payers to pay for abortion on demand for decades. This is about promoting abortion as much as possible, not about contraception.

[BigT]

Exactly. Thehospitals won't be made to pay, but the Insurance companies will be compelled to pay. In the end it matters not WHO pays, it matters that birth control and abortion are free (paid for by taxpayers).

[nicole]

Anyone think he stirred the socon's hornet nest on purpose? I'm starting to wonder.

Yep, I've been saying that from the beginning. He had the perfect GOP candidate to do so, too?super SoCon, super crazy.

[sarcasmic]

The talk about shrinking government, but in reality all conservatives care about is gays and abortion.

[sarcasmic]

And killing brown people.

[WTF]

And lawn order.

[old fart]

and lawn jockeys.

[plebian hunger force]

Bullshit.

[Citizen Nothing]

Right. And bullshit.

[John]

If the GOP nominates Santorum they will have earned the epitaph "Stupid Party" for all eternity. Worst economy since Hoover. And these dumb fucks want to fight the culture war.

[plebian hunger force]

Do you really think that Santorum would ignore the nation's economic problems and focus entirely on the culture war? No, I didn't think you did.

[Aresen]

No, he would just make the economic problems worse.

He is a meddling do-gooder of the William Jennings Bryan stripe.

[plebian hunger force]

Santorum will have no problem signing a repeal of Obamacare - that alone is worth a great deal. I could also see Santorum taking the initiative in driving a repeal through Congress as well. Granted, repealing Obamacare alone won't be completely satisfying, but that much may be all that can be hoped for within the next three years. If Obama is reelected, Obamacare will be set in stone and if Romney is elected it is not at all certain he would sign a repeal and he almost certainly would not be a zealous advocate for its repeal. Romney isn't exactly a political tiger.

Dreaming about a RP or GJ Presidency might be fun, but not too realistic.

[Mark Levin]

Santorum is my guy.

Liberty or Tyranny!

[SugarFree]

Maybe--just maybe--four more years of Obama might be worth the debacle of a Santorum run finally and utterly severing the socons from political power.

[John]

That didn't work with the New Left when McGovern got slaughtered. Political movements never go away.

[Zeb]

Someone should bring back the Whig party.

[Nepilium]

Just for you Zeb...

[nekoxgirl]

The McGovern loss definitely had it's impact on the Democrats. They nominated Carter in '76, who was viewed as being much more of a conservative (in comparison to McGovern at least).

Clinton was very economically conservative as well.

It wasn't until Obama that the Democrats really went so far left on the economic issues. That's nearly 40 years between McGovern and Obama.

Of course, I really don't know much about the guys that ran in '84 or '88 but judging by how thoroughly they got their asses kicked, if they were anything like McGovern, I don't think it must have been a winning strategy.

Anyway, if a Santorum loss would but that so-cons in the wilderness for around 40 years, I'd be all for it.

[shrike]

There is no evidence Obama is "far-left". The mandate? A conservative idea. Obama is a centrist - maybe slightly right of center (moreso than Bush easily).

[shrike]

I'm retarded.

[shrike]

Obama is a centrist - he wants everything controlled by his central committee. He wants healthcare controlled by the center of the government. He wants contracts to be arbitrarily rewritten by the center of political power. Center, center, center, that's how Obama rolls.

[shrike]

He's right of Bush because he is more pro-war, expanded Gitmo, increased govt snooping, and is trying to control the internet. How right can you get?

(ignore that socialist economic policy behind the curtain)

[H man]

Spoof or not, I'm stealing this.

[db]

Shit, you really are so blinded by your TEAM shilling that you can't see that a leftist policy is still a leftist policy even if it's supported by both parties.

[Mo]

Seeing as this administration is more like Bush III than FDR V, it's hard to call it far left McGovernite. Let's also note that Carter deregulated multiple industries and gave us Volcker, who broke inflation's back. Also, Obamacare is less liberal than Hillarycare was in the 90s

[Scruffy Nerfherder]

Wishful thinking. They've had a taste of power under Bush, they will be coming back for more.

[SugarFree]

Obama will destroy Santorum in the general, I don't care if gas is $10 a gallon. Wishful thinking is all I have at this point.

But John's point is well taken.

[Pro Libertate]

I think we're underestimating the effects of a bad economy on the election. Just a relatively moderate increase in gas prices could initiate another full-blown recession. If that happens, Obama is out regardless of the opponent.

Which could be very scary if Santorum somehow got the nomination (not going to happen unless things get really bizarre).

[plebian hunger force]

Despite the hyper-ventilating about Bush's "theocracy", it would be difficult to point to much socon influence in the Bush Administration. The only real complaint that social liberals can make about the Bush years is that Bush didn't actively promote the social liberal agenda - at least not all that much.

[Eduard van Haalen]

That means theocracy in their vocabulary.

[BigT]

Bush had 'faith-based initiatives' to support social services by religious organizations. I am indifferent to who provides the services, they shouldn't be supported by tax dollars. So Bush was a socialist in that sense, but with a bow to fundies.

[ChrisO]

Pretty weak sauce on the fundy front compared to what Santorum wants.

[plebian hunger force]

Another way of viewing tax dollar support of social services provided by religious organizations is as an effort to subvert those organizations. Certainly Catholic organizations have accepted a great number of strings in order to access the tax dollars they receive. If Bush had promoted faith-based initiatives while insisting that they receive tax dollars without restrictions, then the theocracy argument would be more persuasive.

[db]

I think Obama would be even worse during a second term. He has spent his first term building support among (or at least not explicitly shunning) the hawk community and actively supporting the security state that Bush ramped up. He has been angling for the "he's not so bad, and that [insert socon name here] is fucking nuts!" vote for years. Now he's got his crazy socon (almost) and independent who aren't pleased with Obama will have to calculate which they'd rather live with.

Once he wins a second term though, he won't have much holding him back other than a retarded congress that is all too happy to delegate power to the Executive.

[Spoonman.]

I do too, but as a new Pennsylvania voter I'd still vote for Obama over Santorum.

[db]

As a long time PA voter I will vote for Gary Johnson or write in Ron Paul before I vote for either Obama, Santorum, or Romney.

[killazontherun]

Bullet or vote for either one, I'd eat the bullet.

[plebian hunger force]

the debacle of a Santorum run finally and utterly severing the socons from political power.

An excellent reason for you to vote for little Ricky if he is the nominee! You are totally wrong, of course. Social conservatism represents the political will of a large portion of the population. You write as if socons are nothing more than a tiny fringe political faction. I'm sorry to intrude on your make-believe world, but social conservatism is not a fringe political impulse. It may not represent the views of a majority, but neither is it down in the 2% range occupied by libertarians.

[P Brooks]

"In a Pennsylvania Press Club luncheon in Harrisburg last summer, Santorum declared, "I am not a libertarian, and I fight very strongly against libertarian influence within the Republican Party and the conservative movement."

He's a shoo-in.

[John]

Well everyone does hate Libertarians.

[sarcasmic]

I know it.

Those damned libertarians who don't want the government to control every aspect of your personal and economic life.

People have to be controlled.

Anyone who doesn't want people to be controlled is evil.

[WTF]

Libertarians are scary. They want to take over government so they can leave you the fuck alone!

[sarcasmic]

Who will tell you what to do if government leaves you alone?

Who will set the rules?

How can there be rules without deadly force to back them up?

[sasob]

Libertarians are scary because they won't let you use the government to push people around or do your stealing for you.

[killazontherun, technocrat]

Who even thinks like that? It is like getting a fat guy to be your jockey in a horse race.

[P Brooks]

Surely most GOP voters understand that as bad as Romney is, Santorum is even worse.

The news is not good, Shirley.

[John]

NO they don't. And part of it is the utter incompetance of the Romney campaign. Why is Romney not killing Santorum over his endorsement of Spector and his taking millions from unions? Either of those two things should kill his campaign. And Romney to my knowledge hasn't mentioned either. Romney really is an idiot son.

[SugarFree]

Romney seems afraid of GOP in-fighting damaging his chances in the general... but nothing damages his chances in the general worse than not getting the nomination.

[Pro Libertate]

That's dumb. The Democrats had a blood feud in 2008 and managed to win.

[sarcasmic]

Abortion!
Gays!
Gays!
Abortion!
War!
Terrorism!
Abortion!
Abortion!
ABORTION!

[shrike]

Romney was/is pro-choice.

Nothing else matters.

[West Texas]

The only way I vote for Santorum is if the last minute polls show a chance of Obama getting reelected and with a Dem majority in both houses. If the GOP holds on to the house and/or wins the Senate, I'm voting 3rd party. No way I would ever vote for Obama and hardly any way I would ever vote for this control freak frothy closeted homosexual and his issues.

[Apatheist ?_??]

Instead of feeling dirty by voting for Santorum in that situation, don't bother. Obama isn't going to win Texas anyways.

[sasob]

Not even if he gets the GOP nomination? You don't think the Republicans will carry Texas regardless.

[Apatheist ?_??]

Yes, I think Texas will go Republican no matter what (at least for this election), so there is no reason to vote for the Republican if the national vote is close.

[West Texas]

Well, I on another tour in Massachusetts at the moment, so it's not like my vote would matter here, either.

It's more of a statement/principle thing.

[P Brooks]

All morning, Bloomberg has been frenziedly beating the "OMFG MITT SAID LET GM GO BROKE!!!" gong.

A little while ago, they put up a "survey" question straight from the "Have you stopped beating your wife?" school of political discourse, on the order of, "Did the GM bailout help GM?" Not "Was the GM bailout good for the American economy (and the federal budget deficit) overall?"

GM is an unmitigated success, apparently, and every good American should be glad the union triumphed over those rapacious capitalists.

[Pro Libertate]

What? How? Why?

[Auric Demonocles]

I hate how people are using the fact that GM now is doing well to justify the bailouts. That's not a reason to take my money and give it to a bunch of idiots.

[WTF]

Yeah, it's alot easier to be successful if you can take billions of dollars from people by force.

[Pro Libertate]

Don't forget the trumped up attacks on Toyota.

[Auric Demonocles]

Actually I have a Toyota that is under recall for the floormats getting stuck and causing uncontrollable acceleration. I ignored it for the past couple of years. Last week my gas pedal wouldn't come up after I took my foot of it and keep accelerating. I pushed on the brake and held the car at a constant speed, then yanked on the floormat and things went back to normal.

[Pro Libertate]

Well, you should've bought a GM.

[Auric Demonocles]

Tugging the floormat seemed pretty effective.

Also maybe I'll bother with that recall soon.

[Menthols Wahsington]

Why don't don't you just pull the floor mat out? Boom! Problem solved.

[BigT]

GM's 'success' is temporary. Given the poor workmanship and idiotic management, they will be in the ditch again in a few short years.

GM IPO was $33, we need $51 to break even, now $26. The public is screwed.

[Thom]

Despite the fact that Santorum is an anti-libertarian, I'm pretty sure the media would have no problem pinning all the horrible things a President Santorum does on the evil libertarians.

[Anonymous]

The tea party was never a libertarian movement, sorry guys. It was 20% genuine libertarians and 80% stock conservative astroturf and Santorum is the proof.

[shrike]

The Tea Party was afraid some of their precious SS/Medi benefits might be spread out to the stock clerks, janitors, and mechanics that have none.

[romulus augustus]

In my tea party group, most of the older folks say they would gladly give up some SS & Medicare to avoid burdening their grandchildren with debt held by the Red Chinese.
Stop being so damned broad with your characterizations.

[shrike]

Just citing a poll that 70% of TP doesn't want SS/Medi touched. I have never been to a TP event so claim no first hand knowledge.

[.]

Apparently you have no first hand knowledge of SS or Medicare either, because stock clerks, janitors, mechanics, etc. are subject to and elligible for both.

[BigT]

Obviously you are completely ignorant on this topic as with most others. TEA is Taxed Enough Already. Started as a grass roots anti-tax, anti-big govt movement, soon adopted and co-opted by the usual socons who agreed with anti-tax ideas, but wanted to add social issues. Tea Party has evolved from a libertarian movement into a so-con dominated group. Sad.

[e]

Would they give up their Medicare scooters though? How would they get to the tea party rallies otherwise?

[Stormy Dragon]

In your tea party group, most of the older folks lie.

[West Texas]

I'm not sure "Astroturf" is quite the right word - I think it really was more true grassroots and genuine and not contrived - but you're right otherwise. It was the usual "conservative" types protesting against Obama's radicalism. It wasn't racist but it wasn't libertarian, either. They're socons who share the same view of the purpose of government as progressives, that the government is all about goring oxes (oxen?), they just disagree on whose ox should be ultimately gored and who's "good" and who's "bad".

[plebian hunger force]

They're socons who share the same view of the purpose of government as progressives, that the government is all about goring oxes (oxen?), they just disagree on whose ox should be ultimately gored and who's "good" and who's "bad".

Which makes them just like libertarians as well.

[West Texas]

True only to the extent that libertarians think people are free to gore any ox they choose.

Not true in the sense that libertarians think that the government should be doing the goring on their behalf.

And a juvenile comment on your part if you are making the really deep pressing freshman philosophy 101 point about "when you get down to it a lack of values is just another set of values, man."

[plebian hunger force]

Not true in the sense that libertarians think that the government should be doing the goring on their behalf.

Most libertarians are more than happy to win any way they can, even if it means using the influence of government.

And a juvenile comment on your part if you are making the really deep pressing freshman philosophy 101 point about "when you get down to it a lack of values is just another set of values, man."

Well, I never had a freshman philosophy class so I'll take your word on the kind of arguments that get bandied about. Nevertheless, progressives have promoted the idea of doing away with all those pesky, restrictive bourgeois values for over two centuries. Advocating the abolishment of societal standards of behavior and eliminating the ideas of duty and of personal accountability are also part of the progressive worldview. The progressive worldview does indeed define a system of values, so, your attempt to demean the idea aside, promoting a lack of values is most certainly another set of values.

[plebian hunger force]

The tea party was never a libertarian movement

True. Despite Miss Emily's suggestion that the tea party shifted the balance of power within the party away from social issues and toward economics, the tea party did no such thing. The socons had very little real influence in the Republican Party to begin with. The controlling faction of the RP, which is firmly socially liberal, rhetorically panders to socons, but doesn't go beyond rhetoric. Social liberals have been redefining society steadily for decades and the RP establishment has passively accepted the changes. The establishment certainly doesn't fight back against the agenda of social liberals - that's one of the biggest gripes of the socons, they have no champions with much influence in the political class. Sure, the RP establishment continues to prosecute the WOSD just as the DP establishment does, but that's just because the political class knows that the majority of Americans simply do not want drugs legalized and calling for legalization is a huge political liability.

The tea party's central thesis was "quite screwing up the country and leave us the hell alone". Tea party organizers, for the most part, kept the focus on economic issues in order to preserve unity, but the tea party wasn't rejecting social conservatism in general. Just look at their rallies. Did it look like the majority of the attendees were obsessed with free love and drugs or did they look like they stepped out of tidy suburban homes?

astroturf

Yeah, astroturf, right. Because all those tea party rallies were stock full of renta-a-mob activists who were paid to be there and didn't even know what they were protesting - just like Occupy. Complain about the tea party if you like, but it was definitely not astroturf.

I am generalizing, of course, but no more so than most people who blabber about the tea party. The shear size of the tea party movement means that it contains some considerable diversity.

[P Brooks]

Anyone who doesn't want people to be controlled is evil.

So evil, they will FORCE you to be uncontrolled. You know, Libertarian Authoritarianism.

DISOBEY

[Brandon]

And Tony's got his next talking point. Thanks, P.

[Old Mexican]

Despite the upswing of libertarian rhetoric within the Republican Party, and the emergence of the Tea Party shifting the balance of power within the party away from social issues and toward economics, Santorum still gets many Republicans excited.

Santorum: "Wait until they get a load of me!"

[LOL]

+1

[Enjoy Every Sandwich]

Santorum still gets many Republicans excited

You mean they'll vote for whoever gives them a woody? That does seem to be the way that the voters pick their leaders.

[johnd2]

Ron Paul may be building up Libertarian ideas for the future. But right now, Republicans are mostly social conservatives. The general population is not. So unless they get wise, or the economy tanks, its Obama for 4 more years. Bummer.

[plebian hunger force]

Republicans are mostly social conservatives. The general population is not.

Which is why, when allowed to vote on specific issues, Americans always vote for gay marriage, to legalize drugs and to provide abortion on demand at tax payer expense. Give me an effing break. Americans are more socially conservative than not.

[radar]

The Stupid Party, indeed. I don't consider myself a pure libertarian like most of you guys here. Always been more of a libertarian-leaning Republican, although one motivated more by undying hatred for Democrats rather than much real affinity for the GOP. Santorum would be the last straw for me, though. An irrelevant socon culture warrior (who got one of the worst asskickings an sitting Senator ever received in 2006) as the party's standard-bearer in an election that should be 100% focused on our horrible economy and impending bankruptcy?

I fucking give up. I knew these cynical bastards didn't really take limited government seriously, but "well, still better them than the Dems" doesn't work for me anymore. If we're doomed to continue electing clowns who are intent on continuing to push the country off the cliff, the speed at which we approach the edge really doesn't matter.

[Citizen Nothing]

Well, a Santorum nomination will probably push the LP candidate (if it's Gary Johnson) up to 3% or so for the first time and secure LP ballot access in a few additional states.
(That and tree-fiddy will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.)

[Chef's dad]

What?! Don't go givin' dat Starbucks no tree-fitty!

[nekoxgirl]

I'm just glad N.C. always has the libertarian candidate on the ballot. If I had to chose between Obama or Santorum...well I probably wouldn't bother showing up to vote at all.

But between the two, Obama might actually inch out Santorum as the least horrible option. How odd that the Republicans may nominate the only candidate running for the GOP slot that might actually make my disaffected liberal friends show up to the polls and pull the lever for Obama.

Great job GOP! Nominate the only person so horrible he'll guarantee the left turns out to give Obama another term. Awesome.

Santorum is so terrible, I think I might actually kind of like Mitt Romney now. My head hurts.

[Scruffy Nerfherder]

Obama might actually inch out Santorum

I'm eating lunch, stop it

[Sanjuro Tsubaki]

BTW "l"ibertarians,

I haven't heard much talk about Ron Paul lately. Suggest y'all go looking for a remotely-electable candidate in 2016. Assuming they'll bother to have a presidential election that year...

[Old Mexican]

Re: Sanjuro Tsubaki,

haven't heard much talk about Ron Paul lately.

There's a chance he will go 3rd party. The GOP definitively does not want him, in light of the so-obvious voter fraud committed in Maine. If the GOP is not even willing to hide their dirty work, it tells you that it will simply not let Paul win any of the states, and even if he gets the delegates, I bet the GOP will not let them vote.

Paul received one million dollars just last Feb 14, all from small donors, which means he has not lost his following. He has also been the happy recipient of virulent attacks from high profile buffoons like Bill O'Reilly, which means Paul is still a force to be reckoned with.

A Santorum-Paul fight will be the most interesting to see: A self-avowed anti-libertarian against a constitutionalist and libertarian, or fascist vs classical liberal.

[Drax the Destroyer]

Oh thanks for the head up. We'll make sure to push a war-mongering, vitriol spewing, tax-wasting, economically illiterate fuckhead in 2016.

[Braadwijk]

It's apparently lost on Evangelicals and socons that their efforts to rid 'Merica of liberals, terrorist Mooslims, and Shariah is making us just as backwards and destitute as the very people they hate. I enjoy my cup of irony with a delicious frothy whipped topping.

[GroundTruth]

"Santorum still gets many Republicans excited"

Excited enough to puke, that is.

[P Brooks]

That's not a reason to take my money and give it to a bunch of idiots.

If the government cannot prop up egregiously mismanaged companies with taxpayer money, what good is it?

[juris imprudent]

The entire economy will become just like the defense sector.

[alittlesense]

Some pretty good economic news is movint the market up right now. Job less claims are down for one thing. So I predict this November, the economy will be a little better than it is now, Santorum will be still be a raving fool, and the Democrats will retain the White House and probably pick up more clout in Congress. Is there a Republican party leader with more than two live brain cells?

[Scruffy Nerfherder]

nope

[.]

Job less claims are down for one thing.

Only because more people have given up and quit looking for employment. They are no longer counted.

[ChrisO]

Apart from evangelicals and their fellow travelers, I think many mainstream Republicans support socially conservative candidates on the misguided assumption that they are the "next Reagan."

Reagan himself wasn't particularly conservative on social issues, but he played the Moral Majority bunch like a fiddle. Got their support without actually giving them anything.

I think the working assumption within the GOP is that the only real options are country club/establishment squishes (Rockefeller) or socon-talking "conservatives" (Reagan).

The GOP is so far from its early-mid 20th Century days of Calvin Coolidge and Robert Taft that true fiscal conservatism isn't even part of the discussion. Republicans have their pet programs, too.

[The New Plan]

* Push for Santorum in the primaries/caucuses, hand Ron Paul delegates to Santorum at the convention, if necessary

* Push for Obama in the general, leading to a devastating, landslide defeat of Santorum

It's the only hope of killing the socon base.

[plebian hunger force]

Excellent idea! May your grand strategy prevail. Spread the word. We'll drive a stake through the political hearts of all those horrible social conservatives for sure! Since you are so convinced that you have the American People on your side, which is the right side of history, then you shouldn't hesitate to help Santorum win the nomination.

The only things that could wrong is if Santorum wins, the socons will be newly empowered and if Obama wins, he will complete the economic destruction of America in his second term and the harsh economic times will trigger a dramatic resurgence of traditional values. Your plan can't fail!

[KCTed]

The core values of the real and true Republican Party calls for limited government and working within the constraints of the constitution. When examining the libertarian philosophy, it's just a greater step in the same direction.

The tea party is simply some spot in-between true (not neocon)Republican, and Libertarian.

When Santorum creates this type of division entirely as rhetoric, (especially in front of tea partiers)he shows everyone that he has no identity. If he can't present voters an identity he will eventually self-implode, spewing santorum everywhere, all over everyone.