The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    tmccarthy0's picture

    Don't Google The Santorum Surge

    By tmccarthy0 on Wed, 12/28/2011 - 7:29pm |

    And so it goes, it is time for the Santorum Surge in the GOP Primary as each of the not-Mitt former front-runners flame out like candles in a typhoon. We should review what has happened in this season of Republican's vying for the Presidency.

    The Rise and Fall of Pre-Perry was great wasn't it? Before Perry actually got into the primary race he was the greatest thing since moonshine and mason jars. But then the Rickster opened his mouth, and all that fell apart. His debate performances left people wondering if he was drunk and his refusal to prepare even for a debate sealed his fate as a a guy who will never-be-President.  He doesn't seem to realize it though, but he should formally withdraw soon, he is just wasting his money now. And Pre-Perry was over with lightning bug speed.

    Then there was the Christy Co-opt, which happened after Perry's plummet. Chris Christy became a dream of the Republicans and he told them to stuff it. Wow, that ended before it began.

    Then we had the Cain Mutiny! Oh it was grand, but then as quickly as he rose, his legs were cut out from under him, as women came out of the woodwork to end his campaign of selling books.

    Then we had the longer lasting Newt Reformed, which had powered up the not-Mitt machine for what seemed like a lengthy political period of time, but then everyone remembered why the hell they hated Newt Gingrich in the first place!

    The Paul Rocket has been building for quite sometime, I don't know why. He is just another flash in the pan, because there is just too much negative information out there for him to be taken seriously as a candidate for President of the United States. Sorry Libertarians that is simply the truth. Google it.

    So the next not-Mitt candidate is Rick "no one can have an abortion for any reason unless they are married to me" Santorum, he is moving up in Iowa like a dead fish floats to the top of the water. My prediction is, he too will be gone quickly. However, my advice to you all is to not google his name, and for that you can thank Dan Savage. Hah!

    And that just leaves Mitt doesn't it, my god, how is he going to be able to turn himself into the next not-Mitt candidate? I don't know, but we are going to find out I am quite sure!

    Crossposted @ TheAngriestLiberal

    Comments

    If the anti-Mitt thing wasn't primarily about his Mormonism and relative reasonableness (I'm stressing the word relative there), then Jon Huntsman would be the logical next not-Mitt candidate.


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 12/28/2011 - 8:49pm

    Of course  VA you are correct, but you cannot include the word logical and Republican Primary voters in the same sentence, it is an Oxy-Moron.


    by tmccarthy0 on Wed, 12/28/2011 - 9:04pm

    I'm looking at the anti-Romney phenomenon from the standpoint of what the tea folks will tolerate and I think S. Carolina is key. It's hard to see the tea elements in S.C., who are in a death struggle with the "establishment" wing, rolling over and playing dead in front of a Romney surge in that state. And if Gingrich and Santorum begin to switch their numbers and Santorum shows anything at all in Iowa the tea folks will have to support someone. This makes, imo, Santorum the heir apparent(leaving Perry out of the equation which I think will be shown in the Iowa caucus) I think Gingrich's failure to make the Virginia primary after a public show at trying is an astounding development and may have negative overtones beyond losing votes there---it makes him look highly incompetent as an executive. Of course, Santorum didn't qualify in Virginia either, but that doesn't' fit my scenario of how I back out of my Gingrich endorsement. 


    by Oxy Mora on Wed, 12/28/2011 - 11:50pm

    Here is my question, do you think Sarah will get into this race? She certainly has to see the rise and fall of these soon to be former candidates as an opening. One that wasn't clear. She hasn't had to debate like all these other candidates so she hasn't had the opportunity to ruin herself. Republicans are obviously looking for not-Mitt. Cause there is no other explanation for what we've been watching.

    Let's say she makes a decent showing in Iowa because of this vote rogue movement, would she then change her mind and run? Plus she hasn't been getting the attention she needs lately, she can't even sell a reality show about her husband!

    But yeah, Rick is going to have his time in the spot light, I just don't think it is going to last.


    by tmccarthy0 on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 12:01am

    I think for many states it's too late to get on the ballot, and some states (many? most?) don't allow write-ins, either. That doesn't mean she won't make some attempt in order to get more attention, of course.


    by Verified Atheist on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 6:38am

    A number of deadlines have passed, but not all of them. Since her chances, however, of getting enough delegates to actually win would be nearly impossible, about all she could do is split the anti-Romney (which is also the anti-GOP Establishment) vote and thus help ensure he gets the nomination. For this reason, a lot of the attention from within the party's base would not be very positive, if not down right hostile.  Her fading star would fade even more. 

     


    by Elusive Trope on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 8:29am

    Oooh interesting thought Trope. One never knows with that woman.


    by tmccarthy0 on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 10:00am

    Ultimately, her power to command the media and, thus, money is based on the perceived vastness of her following.  Her first reality show was a major blow to that.  A Huntsman or Bachmann-like outcome in a primary would put an end to the speculation that her time has come and gone.  Whatever she does, it will be to position herself as kingmaker within the Party.  I don't see how she can pull that off, but as you say one never knows.

    If she just wants the headlines, my suggestion to her would be to join the Occupy movement.  That would get people talking about her.


    by Elusive Trope on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 10:08am

    This is very true VA, a number of important primary deadlines have come and gone, one which has highlighted the utter incompetence of Newtie as Oxy pointed out. It is going to be a wild primary season and a more wild convention by the looks of it!


    by tmccarthy0 on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 9:59am

    I honestly don't think she is a factor.  

    As for Rick Santorum, I think it depends on his showing in Iowa. He was apparently on the Today show and that brings to mind momentum, timing and the role the media play in creating the story of the day---all of which puts Santorum in a favorable spot right now. In one poll it looks like Santorum siphoned off some Gingrich support and if that's a trend it gets real interesting. 

    Again, we're all looking at this from the perspective of the candidates. The perspective from the Tea Party is where the story is, imo. The various tea components are on a mission to take down the establishment wing, so who are the funders, what's the mix of evangelicals and deficit hawks, particularly in S.C.what will be the Iowa results and how will they, tea, react.

    I want to make it perfectly clear that I'm  not yet ruling our Gingrich even though his Intrade is about 4%.  


    by Oxy Mora on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 10:04am

    You are probably right Oxy, this Santorum Surge is happening at the right time, he isn't peaking too early. He hasn't made huge mistakes in debates or when speaking to the Press, and although he has some baggage, he doesn't have the baggage of a Newt or a Paul, which works in his favor. He is Catholic, but he isn't LDS, and the TeaFolks seem to now believe that at least Catholics aren't a cult?? err or something???

    And SC is important, much more so than the Iowa Caucuses.  I just think there is way too much negative stuff out there about Newt for him to ever be the nominee, but I could be completely wrong on that as well.


    by tmccarthy0 on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 10:14am

    BTW I think A-Man called this Santorum surge as a possibility about a week ago.


    by Oxy Mora on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 10:45am

    I think you are correct on the Oxy, I just wonder how long it will last.


    by tmccarthy0 on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 11:30am

    One thing to keep in mind that when Newt surged in places like Iowa, there was a corresponding surge on a national level.  Santorum has yet to show such a corresponding surge yet.  He is at 4%, his highwater mark on the gallup poll.  He ticked up a percentage point, and since it a five day rolling poll, if there is any kind of national surge for him, we should see another uptick today.


    by Elusive Trope on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 11:50am

    Another good point, and quite true as well.


    by tmccarthy0 on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 12:11pm

    Santorum seems to be benefiting from the conservative Christians in Iowa freaking out that their votes are going to be splintered so as to give Mitt or Paul the victory.  (They're not thrilled about Ronny as well).   Santorum seems to be the one that a number of those in grassroot networks have decided to get behind.  Huck's Army has endorsed him for example. 

    The tea party folks (which overlap with the conservative Christian wing) has adopted Newt for the time being, which is what has allowed him to stop his national plummet in the polls (IMHO). 

    NH will only be interesting as to whether it will end the run for Perry, Huntsman and Bachmann (she might be toast after Iowa).

    Santorum does bring up for an interesting race in SC - which is a winner take all contest, although it has lost have of its delegates.  Last time people looked Newt was running strong there.  But Santorum could appeal to the Christian right in that state.  With Bachmann and Huntsman and even Perry out of the race by then, the question would be whether Santorum and Newt split the votes and hand Mitt the state. 

    If either Newt or Santorum somehow pull off a SC vote, Florida will decide whether it becomes a long slog or Mitt can begin his "inevitable" push for the nomination.  Paul and Santorum (with a strong showing in Iowa) will go all the way to the Convention.  A SC win will probably keep Newt all the way to Tampa, too.  He knows there is just too much AntiEstablishment (and thus AntiMitt) sentiment out there.  Both Santorum and Newt see book sales and media stardom along the lines of Palin, even if Mitt gets the eventual nomination.


    by Elusive Trope on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 10:29am

    I have a lot of respect for Dan Savage, including his It Gets Better project.  But I have to say the whole Santorum google bomb is rather juvenile and gives people who hate homosexuals just another justification in their minds for that hatred.  The more I think about it, it's like 'what are in jr. high here or what?'


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 12/28/2011 - 9:33pm

    But you have to admit that Rick Santorum has a real obsession with gay people, sex and bestiality.  Dan Savage has a platform and he used it, just like Rick.


    by tmccarthy0 on Wed, 12/28/2011 - 10:07pm

    Dan does have a platform, and I just think he could have found a more creative and mature way of using it to deal with Santorum.  I went to the site behind the splash page, and it had someone's response to a criticism - a criticism I think points out what I am thinking - How would you feel if someone did this to Obama, say when he was running against McCain.  So everytime someone googled Obama's name, some crude and racist definition popped up at the top of the search.  If it was started by say some conservative radio host, would you say "he had a platform and he used it" so no big deal?  And kgb brings up a good point about kids doing some school homework research and getting this kind of thing when all they want to do is a report on the elections.


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 12/28/2011 - 11:11pm

    Yeah, pretty much my take on it too. Of course, Colbert really gets credit the for the whole thing ... and his whole shtick *is* being juvenile.

    The thing that bugs me is that all this really does is give Google a reason to adopt a policy of correcting "apparently-malicious" results in an arbitrary fashion, which Santorum has lobbied for once previously and was rebuffed. If it starts to impact a serious presidential candidate and subjects kids just trying to do their schoolwork to *that* definition at the top of the list ... I don't know where things will head.

    OTOH, the reaction an individual has to discovering this tidbit of internet lulz provides a great indicator of relative maturity level .... so it is a nice barometer.


    by kgb999 on Wed, 12/28/2011 - 10:12pm

    I thought a surge of santorum was what tumbles onto the sheets after sphincter relaxation...no?..carry on, then


    by jollyroger on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 2:43am

    Santorum does not even want a man and woman to play tooooooooooo much!

    I just cannot imagine Mrs. Santorum wearing a costume and....

    Sorry, I lapsed there a sec or two. hahahahahaha

    Now Ron Paul, I mean Mrs. Paul was most probably 'dressed up' when Curly Rand became attached to the womb as they say.

    I could see her wearing black face and singing Al Jolson songs, but that is a subject for another day!

    Now Mitt? I do not know how he ended up with all those kids!

    I mean I would guess he had to look at the backs of cereal boxes or something.

    What was the question again?


    by Richard Day on Wed, 12/28/2011 - 10:22pm