Who’s Behind Door Number Eight?


How weird is this year’s election? The guy who won/tied/narrowly lost (depending on the latest numbers) the Iowa GOP caucuses last night is a guy we haven’t talked about all year. Until two weeks ago he was polling the the low single-digits and a week ago he barely had a pulse.

Meet Rick “man on dog” Santorum, our Not-Romney of the week.

Rick Santorum is a former Senator from Pennsylvania. He was elected to the Senate during the Republican Revolution of 1994 and voted out of office during the Democratic Tsunami of 2006. Believe it or not he was present at every major GOP primary debate in 2011 and hasn’t ever been caught with a live boy or a dead girl.

It goes without saying that Santorum is a conservative, but while all GOP candidates say they oppose abortion and gay marriage few are as enthusiastic about it as he is. He thinks states should be able to ban contraceptives.

I’m not going to take the time to cover Santorum in much detail because I don’t expect to see him stick around for long. Actually, I give him a week until the New Hampshire primary.

Rick Santorum spent the past nine months kissing every elbow and rubbing every baby in Iowa. He didn’t have much money to spend so he didn’t have any other choice. But now he’s under the gun. Following New Hampshire on January 10th is South Carolina on the 25th and Florida on the 31st.

The real story last night was Mitt Romney’s failure to win big. It wasn’t unexpected, his polling has remained consistent for months now. The fact is 75% of the GOP voters want anybody but Mitt.

Not only was turnout lower than expected, but Romney actually got fewer votes this year than he did four years ago. Apparently six of his original supporters died since then.

Tim Pawlenty has to be kicking himself right now.



This entry was posted in 2012 GOP Primary, Mitt Romney and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

48 Responses to Who’s Behind Door Number Eight?

  1. I loved that game when I was a kid!

    Just sayin’.

  2. OldCoastie says:

    Lil Ricky’s turn in the bucket.

    I don’t think New Hampshire is going to want any part of him.

  3. myiq2xu says:

    Politico:

    If you went to bed early, Rick Perry said in a gracious speech that he was going “back to Texas” to reassess his campaign, which means he is most likely out. … Michele Bachmann got half as much support as Perry but refused to bow out. … Newt Gingrich gave a blistering, vicious speech ripping Romney (who he would not mention by name) as a “Massachusetts moderate” and savaging Ron Paul as dangerous on foreign policy, especially Iran … Santorum gave a warm and widely praised (though quite long) quasi-victory speech while Romney gave a fairly wooden and disjointed version of his stump speech. The only saving grace for Romney was that he gave his speech after most of the civilized world was asleep.

  4. The mystery to me is what difference the Iowa voters saw between Bachman and Santorum? Other than the obvious scary parts.

  5. catarina says:

    I wish the lord would take me now.
    It’s all a big nothing.

    -livia soprano

  6. Betty says:

    How many people in Iowa participated in the caucus last night? What percent of the population of Iowa, of the US does that number represent? And the whole point of the caucus, to elect delegates, is a joke because the delegates are not bound to support the winner.

    So what was last night, and these last months really about? Was it just to rip through candidates and never allow us to actually vote for one?

    Smear them, make them blow their cash, for what – a non binding straw poll? Who benefits from that if not the political establishment?

    I feel like beating a drum.

    • Lola-at-Large says:

      So that’s what that Colmes-Santorum-baby story was about. Huh. Just shows how much the penised-American Colmes knows about childbirth and other scary lady activities. If you deliver stillbirth, most hospitals these days encourage parents and family members holding and grieving the baby. It helps make it real and has all sorts of psychological benefits. A friend of mine had this happen to her, and her nurses even took pictures of her baby and her holding the baby. That was 17 years ago.

    • WMCB says:

      I worked in the medical field for too long to judge families for what their grieving process is. I’ve had families do all kinds of things with the “corpse” (ewwwwww!!!) of their recently passed loved one – brush their hair, talk to them, play music, do impromptu poems, sit for hours and hold them, climb into bed with them, etc. You can characterize that as weird and sick if you use certain words to describe it, or you can characterize it as a lengthy goodbye. Depends on your tone.

      Families can grieve however the fuck they want. They had a dead newborn. They wanted his short life to be significant and have meaning – to themselves and their other children. Not my place to heap scorn on that.

      Santorum has plenty of issues. How he and his wife grieved the loss of a child is not one of them.

  7. guest says:

    Santorum scares me and as inconsequential as Iowa is, it propped up Obama last time around. But the difference I think is that Santorum is the unwanted candidate of the establishment. So maybe we can rest easy that he won’t be the nominee.

    • WMCB says:

      Oh, I think Romney will be the nominee by a hair. And I do think that the rank-and-file is mostly going to hold their nose and vote for him in the general if it comes to that (they will support ABR all through the primaries).

      But this is only going to deepen the rift in the GOP party. 2014 is going to be interesting. Those teapartiers may vote Romney to get Obama out, but they are now AT WAR with the establishment, and seem very determined to wrest the party away from the consultants and image-makers. If the setbacks of the 2010 presidential election don’t discourage them to the point of giving up, there will be more fireworks to come.

      Me, I’m always rooting for The People and their right to vote and be represented and self-determine, regardless of their political views. So I say more power to ’em, even the slightly loony ones.

  8. catarina says:

    John Ziegler turns on Palin:

    …Palin had the gall to essentially call for Michele Bachmann to get out of the race and endorse someone else.

    For me this was the very final straw. I don’t even like Bachmann, but I was immediately livid.

    Where does Palin get off telling the only woman who (unlike her) had the guts to get in the race to endorse someone else when she hasn’t had the courage to do that herself? The multiple levels of hypocrisy here would be staggering even for a liberal, but for a conservative they are simply off the charts.

    http://www.johnziegler.com/editorials_details.asp?editorial=210

    • DeniseVB says:

      Johnny Z needs some attention? “I won’t be ignored” 😀

    • DandyTiger says:

      That was a bit of payback. Bachmann was hired by the RNC/Romney machine to keep Palin out and to help keep the non Romney vote split. She served her purpose and was no longer of any use. Her money and that support just went poof after Iowa. It’s a rough game out there, and Palin isn’t done yet.

      Now that McCain is endorsing Romney, look for Palin to endorse earlier than she was planning.

  9. yttik says:

    A few weeks ago Palin asked why people weren’t taking a better look at Santorum. Almost immediately he started to rise in the polls.

    I’m not endorsing Santorum, but I am making popcorn and endorsing Palin power. Irrelevant, my ass : )

    • guest says:

      Yes, I remember Palin speaking up Santorum..She is a miracle worker.

    • DandyTiger says:

      I think she purposely signaled to the Palin army in Iowa to back Santorum. I’d say his late miraculous rise has her in part to thank.

      I’m guessing she’s torn between Newt and Santorum right now. I’d say she’d endorse one of them if the other was mostly gone. But who knows, since Newt may go heavy negative, she might just go all in for Santorum.

  10. DeniseVB says:

    Hey guys, Dems say the extremist teabaggers won last night !

    http://weaselzippers.us/2012/01/04/obama-campaign-manager-jim-messina-on-iowa-caucuses-the-extremist-tea-party-agenda-won-a-clear-victory/

    We better send them money to help them fight the evils…. /sarc.

  11. WMCB says:

    Brief but good article on Santorum. In a nutshell, he is just as in favor of Big Government Power as the most ardent socialist – he just wants it employed to his liking, for things he defines as “good”:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/287068/santorum-s-big-government-conservatism-michael-tanner

    The few areas where my political beliefs overlap with the teapartiers tend to be on the Libertarian side, not the govt-sticking-its-nose-in side. The Libertarian side is also where I often part company with modern-day Liberals, who tend to be much more Big Statists than in the past. Classic liberalism saw the benefit in using govt, but keeping a sharp eye on and always limiting its role. In a head-to-head conflict of individual rights and the “greater good”, classic Liberalism tended to err on the side of closely guarding individual rights – while still trying to help within that framework.

    I don’t think govt is bad. I think it’s good and necessary. But I recognize that govt and bureaucracies are inherently dangerous, and a magnet for the power-seekers, and tend to morph and consume a country both financially and philosophically over time. This happens from BOTH the right and the left.

    What I want is a real liberal with a mind to judiciously and proactively use govt, while being mindful of its dangers, and protective of individual liberties. Is that too much to ask???

    • DandyTiger says:

      Apparently yes, that is too much to ask. At least from the new Dem party as it is organized. Sadly I think it has to be brought to its knees and rest from the people. Same with the Republican party.

      • WMCB says:

        Apparently yes, that is too much to ask.

        You’re right, but I can’t for the life of me understand why the fuck that is. It’s really not complicated, DT. It could fall loosely within the realm of the basic tenets of EITHER party, given some “lean” one way or the other.

        Why is “I want a medium-sized govt that doesn’t try to do everything, that does the few essential things well and cost-effectively, and otherwise leaves me the fuck alone and makes sure no one tramples on my rights.” such a weird, bizarre, radically inconceivable and un-doable concept in this country???

        • DandyTiger says:

          We’re in a position with pretty much the same party machine complex running both parties. I’d guess, just a guess though, that most people are a bit fiscally conservative but a bit socially liberal (e.g., are now for gay marriage according to polls). Sadly there isn’t a party that promotes fiscal conservatism in any way shape or form, and there isn’t a party that promotes social liberalism in any shape or form. Both parties promote big government spending into the bank accounts of the very powerful, and both parties are for keeping the social wars just as they are without really moving in either direction so they can keep fear going and the illusion of choice.

  12. guest says:

    WAPO singing a different tune — singing praises of Hillary! But they want her to rescue the ‘damsel’ in distress and bring along Bill.

    “Wish you were still up there,” one fan after another lamented.

  13. guest says:

    CBS News reports “there was no cheering, chanting or clapping for the president’s message during the address, distributed to more than 200 caucus locations throughout Iowa.”

    Damsel in distress

    • elliesmom says:

      Why would anybody who had a life go to one of the Democratic caucuses last night? Surely they must have needed to wash their hair or something.

      • Lulu says:

        The still from the video Obama tried to do with the Democratic caucuses was very weird looking. He did not look like himself. He was orange and his head looking like it melted or something. His hair was an peculiar color and his hairline looked altered. I thought it was a double for a second. I am sure it was video distortion or really bad makeup, but his head is shrinking. Very odd and creepy and plastic looking.

        • guest says:

          Yeah, he didn’t look good in that video. They didn’t have time to cover up his gray or they miscalculated that it would look good. But he just looked beat.

        • DeniseVB says:

          Bizzarro. Looks spray tanned, or effects of the Hawaiian sun on his skin?

        • votermom says:

          Woah. He looks like Dennis Rodman.

        • imusthavepie says:

          Obama’s broadcast was plagued with some audio issues and static at various points.

          Those aren’t “audio issues”, that’s just how he talks.

        • sandress says:

          This is going to sound insane conspiracy theorist, but it’s probably bad makeup. They probably tried to grey his hair (make him look more serious, grandfatherly), and they probably tried to darken his skin tone some (remind people that he’s the first Black president, dogwhistle for progressives). In terms of branding, it makes sense. In terms of execution, he looked terrible.

        • Inspect Her Gadget says:

          Hillary told her supporters to darken the video to make him look black.

        • elliesmom says:

          Maybe that’s the tan he got in Hawaii?

      • guest says:

        Only 25K showed up..

  14. foxyladi14 says:

    his head is shrinking. 😆 :lol;

Comments are closed.