March 7, 2012

The Two Man Race

  12:53 pm

Last night, Mitt Romney won the majority of the primaries and caucuses held last night, but not the momentum and the battle for narrative.

(Here the blogger puts on an asbestos suit.)

Romney won narrowly in Ohio and Alaska.  (more on that later.) He won Virginia by default due to Gingrich and Santorum not making it on the ballot, and embarrassingly still finished under 60%. He won his home Massachusetts as well as Idaho by convincing margins. Even in Idaho, it’s worth noting that Romney lost every county North of Lemhi County to either Paul or Santorum. The strength of Romney’s numbers comes from places like Pocatello and Twin Falls with their high LDS population.

Romney won Vermont, but but with a surprisingly low margin. He finished just under 40% at 39.8% with Mr. Paul at 25%  and Mr. Santorum hot on his heels at 24%. If Romney should win a majority anywhere, it’d be in New England. Instead, Rick Santorum gets three delegates out of Vermont as does Paul.

I know this analysis exasperates Mr. Romney’s supporters. After all, doesn’t winning count for something?  There’s a difference between winning and uniting the party. If you look back to 2008, you saw John McCain win in places that moderates would struggle in such as Missouri, Oklahoma, and South Carolina. He also won big winner-take-all states such as California and New York by significant margins.

In 2000 on Super Tuesday, you saw George W. Bush do the same thing, winning a decisive 26-point victory in California, an 8-point victory New York, and taking Maine to stop McCain from sweeping New England.

In 1996, Bob Dole swept every State on Super Tuesday, he swept every state the week before on Junior Tuesday, and the only contest he lost during that period was a Saturday Caucus held in Missouri.

In GOP primary history, Super Tuesday is a time, not when candidates take slightly more states than their rivals, but when the party begins to unite behind a frontrunner and states not disposed to the frontrunner, swallow hard to help unite the party, and big state Republicans vote overwhelmingly to the same end. That simply didn’t happen on Tuesday for Mitt Romney.

Santorum was supposed to be wiped off the map, and to lose all but maybe one state. Instead, he emerged strong and with three wins and a solid second everywhere other than Vermont or Georgia.

His campaign has a great David and Goliath narrative going for it, and that itself is attractive to voters. Unfortunately for backers of Mitt Romney, they’re cheering for Goliath in this fight and that’s not where most people are.  Romney keeps outspending Santorum by margins like 6:1, and 4:1. I even heard 12:1 cited for Ohio with negative trashing Santorum, but Santorum keeps fighting back.  The situation reminds me of a quote by Apollo Creed’s manager in Rocky II when talking to Apollo about a rematch with Rocky, ” I saw you beat that man like I never saw no man get beat before, and the man kept coming after you. Now we don’t need no man like that in our lives. ”

A sentiment many Romney supporters, no doubt, share.

Of course, if this is a two man race, then there’s the whole issue of Newt Gingrich.  Mitt Romney owes Newt Gingrich big time, because without Gingrich’s presence in the race, Romney would have lost in two additional states: Ohio and Alaska.

I cringe at analysts who will take two candidates numbers and add them together and state that’s the total, the more popular would have gotten. Counting on much more than 60% to two third of a candidate’s vote to go one way or another is really too much.  So, I don’t blame Santorum’s Michigan three point loss on Gingrich’s 7% total.

However, in Ohio, Romney won by only 1 percent, Gingrich won 15% of the vote. Even if Gingrich supporters would only have gone for Santorum by a marginal total, that would have made the difference. Similarly, Romney’s narrow 32-29% win in Alaska would probably not have happened if not for Gingrich snagging 1 in 7 Alaska votes thanks to the public endorsement of the first dude and  they passive support of Sarah Palin.

Some Santorum backers have called for Gingrich’s withdrawal while the campaign itself is suggesting to tea party and conservative leaders that it’s a bad idea to keep splitting the anti-Romney conservative vote. Newt supporters are quick to point out that Newt suggested Santorum drop out back in Florida and that Santorum didn’t listen. The difference is that in Florida, only three contests had been completed, one of which Santorum won. Now, we’ve had twenty-two contests, Santorum won 7 and Newt has won 2.  We can see patterns emerging. Excluding his home state win, Newt hasn’t even finished second anywhere since February 4th when he came in a distant second in Nevada behind Mitt Romney. Since then, he’s finished third five times and in dead last behind Ron Paul nine times.  Newt’s campaign running out of money and momentum.

Of course, words and logic won’t persuade Newt. Votes might. Santorum will have to work hard to win Mississippi and Alabama next week. If he does that, it’s going to be hard for Gingrich to stay in the race. After all, what good can a candidate with a Southern Strategy do if he can’t win the South outside of his home state.



by Oldest
by Best by Newest by Oldest

I enjoy the irony of Santorum demanding Newt getting out of the race because he has no chance to win.


"Unfortunately for backers of Mitt Romney, they’re cheering for Goliath in this fight and that’s not where most people are."


Then does Romney have a majority of delegates, states, and a huge plurality of votes?

Do you read what you write? This is nonsense.

Adam Graham's Inner Monologue

I'm not big on Jesus, but I love that Saint Paul. He really understood that religiosity and hate is what it's all about.

That's why I support Rick Santorum.


I'm sorry, I just don't buy this analysis. Tennessee was 70% evangelical- not one pollster came anywhere near this sampling, and thus massively overestimated Romney's chances. Romney took far and away the most delegates (50% of them), won 6 out of the 10 states (twice as many as Santorum), and took 40% of the popular vote across all states in a four-man race. This is a good result for can argue that it could have been better, which I suppose is technically true. But I think saying that Romney "should" have won a state with 70% evangelicals is like saying that Santorum "should" have won a state with 50% Mormons-- it was NEVER going to happen.


"embarrassingly still finished under 60%"

Lazy reporting. With Santorum and Gingrich voters stuffing for Ron Paul to spite Mitt, that 60% is not the true number.

I love the narrative where Mitt is "supposed to win big in the state next to him" (ie, Vermont) yet no word about Santorum's state next to Pennsylvania and how he lost that state. Instead it's how close it was and how poor Romney did.

"He finished just under 40% at 39.8% with Mr. Paul and Mr. Santorum hot on his heels at 25% and 24%" - Yet no mention of how Mitt was closer to Santorum in an Evangelical stronghold when Santorum is supposed to win. Sure the blame will be on the split ABR vote, but a portion of Newts voters would have gone to Mitt and still been closer than this 16% gap that is "hot on his heels". Mitt was "hot on Rick's heels in Ricks state next to Pennsylvania. Wait a minute. Mitt won that state called Ohio.


"The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong,


but that is the way to bet."


Adam, give up. Santorum isn't going to be the nominee. Just give up. Quit.


This is all well and good in helping provide a historical perspective, but it is still, ultimately, irrelevant. There is simply no path left for Santorum to reach the 1,144 delegates he needs. Even being incredibly conservative and gifting him numerous states and counties, he can't get there. Romney, again using a very conservative metric, is going to land, at a minimum, 1,200 delegates before the convention.

This is the bottom line. Romney is going to be the candidate. In practical terms, he already is. As much as supporters of Santorum or Gingrich may hate to admit it, and even though it was closer than some Romney supporters may like to admit, the battle has been fought, and there is a victor. The nominee will be Romney, and the sooner we unite as a party behind our nominee, the more likely we will be to defeat Obama in the Fall.


I too was surprised by some of Romney's small margin of victories. Frankly, 20 pts over Paul in VA is a loss given how utterly unelectable Ron Paul is. And the turnout was awful. Santorum or Gingrich would have won there.

It is also amazing how well Santorum performed in OH despite being massively outspent. DeWine said Romney had so much money that he himself had received 5 robocalls (one telling him not to forget the "caucus"). Again, Santorum would have won if he had more resources. One must also wonder whether voters are beginning to tune out the negativity of Romney ads and what impact that has going forward.

Despite these valiant efforts to compete it is nevertheless important to note important failings. Santorum does not have an actual campaign. He has advisors and finances, but no real operation. In 2008 I remember hearing about the numbers of campaign offices the candidates had in the states and their GOTV efforts. I have not heard a single thing about a Santorum or Gingrich campaign office or GOTV efforts. I know they must exist, right? And for both to fail to get on the ballot in their home state is inexplicable. Has anyone considered that Santorum's kids could have gotten the necessary signatures? These shortcomings are important. It is hard to argue you can handle the toughest job in the world when you can't run a campaign.


Adam's article is so bad it made me sound like a Rombot.

Willard Mittens Rombot

I had to work side by side with a part time Baptist Minister for years so I can tell you who the "anti Romney conservative vote" is referring to. It's a shame.


As for the upcoming contests, here are my predictions:

KS: Santorum

Island territories: All Mitt, maybe Paul in Guam.

AL: Noot

MS: Noot

HI: Mitt

MO: Santorum

IL: Mitt


Santorum was supposed to be wiped off the map, and to lose all but maybe one state.

A few supporters were saying that... NO ONE ELSE was. Heck, I couldn't even bring myself to even believe that, much less say it. Losing ND was unfortunate, but predictable seeing how many Democrats voted there. Oh, yes, the Democrat turned Republican voter. They account for the closeness of this race.

It was actually a very good night for Romney on this basis. He was able to defeat the combined efforts of the Left, the Right, and the Democrat voter with Operation Hilarity, and even a touch of bigotry thrown in the mix.

You spend some time on the money spent theme. Yes, Romney does spend a lot. He HAS to to get past the negative media by the MSM, Fox, and talk radio that precedes him into each state. Once he gets on the ground and telling his side of the story that 12 point Santorum lead in Ohio, the 16 point Santorum lead in MI, all dry up. But that takes money and advertising where Santorum and Gingrich get free press.

There is definitely a LOT of calling black white in this race. Examples: Romney is the insider! Nope, Gingrich and Santorum are. Romney can't be trusted, he's a liar! Nope, Santorum is the one who lied about stating "I took one for the team" and voted against his principals. Romney's a weak frontrunner, 75%, no 65%, no 60% of the party doesn't want him! What about Gingrich and Santorum, do they not have lower polling numbers?


Its not a two man and even Graham should be able to fiqure that out. There is no plausible road for Santorm to win. The race is simply whether Romney can clinch or we have a brokered convention.

And the guy who finishes a distant 2nd like Santorum will not win a brokered convention. That would be suicide for the GOP. In fact, the super-delegates will put Romney over the top if he is close (which he will be).

Oh, and your analysis trying to explain Romeny's 6 wins and three second place finishes (in states where there are actually people) is simply laughable. Your intellectual dishonesty is striking, if not predictable.


Mitt has well over 3 Million votes so far. A lot of the states have been Caucuses with very low vote totals as a result.....and we still haven't had a majority of the state contests. Nobody else is close.

Mitt is at 418 delegates, a clear majority of those allotted. When we get to the unpenalized WTA states his delegate total will soar.

And Santorum, conscious of the fact he's getting trounced, is screaming at everyone to kick Gingrich out of the race. His Super Pac just demanded to Newt that he leave.

As IF that would do any good.



“I took one for the team” and voted against his principals.

High school or middle school?


9 - like the honesty of the second half of your comment. Unfortunately, it's lazy again to miss the VA Santorum & Gingrich ballot stuff for Ron Paul. Without them Mitt probably beats Ron Paul 75% to 25%.

Santorum is "supposed to win" the state next door if you use standards set up for Mitt. He is supposed to be Mr. blue collar. So Santorum should have won in Ohio by 20%. Mitt is going against the media, the right wing talk show hosts, and the evangelic pastors. He needs to spend money to get his narrative out there instead of letting others create it for him. If Rick wasn't the final ABR, he wouldn't be anywhere near where he is.


14 - But you're ignoring the point. Look at #8. Is the goal to elect a Republican to the White House? If so, how does continued support of Santorum get you there?



I agree. a 15-16% margin is hardly "hot on his heels."


12, HI: Mitt, Don't underestimate Operation Hilarity.


So Adam, please explains better to us "where most people are."

Could it be that they are listening to the advice of religious leaders (or their own prejudices) and making sure they "stick it to the Mormon" as a badge religious honor?

I've stayed away from the religion topic and have been hesitant to openly blame religious bigotry as a major factor in this race ... but when record levels of evangelicals turn out and log their votes against Mitt I can't be silent anymore.

What current position of Mitt's don't the Evangelical's like? Point to me the comment where he's bashing the religious right (like McCain often did, yet he got more Evangelical support than Mitt's getting). Show me where he's trying to destroy the Evangelical movement.

It's an absolute joke that they aren't accepting Mitt and someone in the media needs to say this loud and clear.

Obviously it's not every Evangelical (or even a majority in many states) that feel this way and are voting along religious lines, but it's a large enough percentage in the South and Mid West to tip the scales in many of these races, and it's sickening.

It's like they realize that they want to "Stop Mitt" ... but don't realize that that would mean the Rick or Newt would actually be the GOP nominee. Pathetic.

And Adam, you better not claim this isn't happening or excuse it ... your own post above implies that LDS only vote for Mitt because he's LDS. You can't play it both ways buddy.


Santorum totally underperformed in Oklahoma. He beat Romney by 6 percent, in a state where he had huge leads just a week ago. Romney won 6 out of 10 states last night, and the only state he finished further back than second place was North Dakota. Romney is going to win this thing. You don't have to give up hope yet, Adam, but you would do well to start thinking about coming to terms with it soon.


10. "Adam’s article is so bad..."

Ha. Nice try, but you won't hurt Adam -- he is wearing his fireproof underwear today: "(Here the blogger puts on an asbestos suit.)" :-)

Flame away.


16. Nice intelligent retort... Sorry, he voted against his "principles".

I have no doubt he probably voted against his principals, too. At least once.


To say that a candidate "could have won" if he wasn't outspent (as if spending more money is a bad thing) ignores the fact that a major part of running a successful campaign is raising money. Santorum's early losses could have been attributed to lack of funds due to the short time he was a top tier candidate, but he's been up there for a while now. If he can't raise the necessary funds to win a crucial primary like Ohio, what's going to happen in November? Santorum's supporters whine, as usual, about being outspent, and Romney is criticized for outspending Santorum as much as 12:1, but Romney should instead be admired for it.

I guess it shouldn't surprise me that a GOP candidate is villified for raising and spending money by other GOP candidates. After all, since we are now the party of class warfare and anti-capitalism, this must just be one more nail in the coffin.


Newt has way too much pride; besides Santorum didn't leave the race when Gingrich wanted him to dropped out for the sake of conservatism.


I've not read it because my model says there's a 90% chance that your article is bollocks, Adam.

Sorry. 😉


If all four stay in.... it only helps Mitt. So while the ABR vote complains about who the front runner is and his spending, they should be looking at themselves and hurry very quickly to decide which of the two they want and unite to vote behind one. Their far right blinders are on and they are so focused on their ideology, they're about to lose the race.


Actually, there aren't all that many Mormons in states like Ohio, Massachusetts, or Vermont. In Ohio, for example, Mitt lost the Evangelicals by a significant margin, and was penalized by a large number of liberal Democrats crossing over to vote against him....but he won.....and if there weren't hardly any Mormons there, who DID he win?

He won Catholics by a margin of 43 to 31....and there are a lot of Catholics in the state. He also won mainstream Protestants. But it's that Catholic part that must hurt.

The Mormon won Catholics big time, and Santorum and Gingrich are BOTH Catholics.


25 - Newt is the most hilarious about that. Trying to make the claim that the only reason he can't beat Mitt is because Mitt has so much more money to spend than him. Then he claims that Obama will have even more money than Romney, so Romney won't be able to play that people should vote for Newt who can't even beat Romney soley because of being outspent...but Newt's the best guy to send against the guy with eveh MORE money than Romney. It really makes your head spin.


The spin on Adam's article made me dizzy. 2 weeks ago, pundits were saying Mitt would be in great shape if he won Ohio (where he was behind by double-digits) and win at least half the states.

Just look at this line for evidence that Adam isn't even TRYING to be honest in his writing:

He finished just under 40% at 39.8% with Mr. Paul and Mr. Santorum hot on his heels at 25% and 24%

In what universe is a 15 point loss "hot on his heels"? Good grief.

Well, he did that, and now the ostrich naysayers are trying to spin this as evidence Mitt is weak.

As has been said, here, many times... if the GOP had kept the delegate rules from last round, Mitt would be the decisive winner. But, the GOP wanted a longer race, giving more states the chance to participate. Well, that's what we've got and you can't blame Mitt for the race going on this long.

Santorum is as strong as he is because:

* The ultra-right talking heads (Rush, Leven, Erickson, etc) are bashing him left and right, up and down.

* Obama, the DNC, and the democrat unions are advertising against Mitt and are encouraging dems to vote for Santorum in the open primaries.

* Mainstream media has failed to properly vet Rick and continue to allow untruths about Mitt to go unchallenged.

* In some states, there is still a huge hatred and distrust of Mormons.


25. And, as if Rick and Newt wouldn't happily outspend an opponent if they had the means to do so. It's just so silly. I can't believe the media is playing along.


Newtorum won 6 out of 10 states yesterday.


Nice spin cycle Kenmore!

What a fact free analysis. Your beloved St Santy Panty of the Immaculate Skid Mark isn't going anywhere bub.

And did someone leave a paint can open near you?

"Santorum was supposed to be wiped off the map, and to lose all but maybe one state."

Who said that???

As far as reality, Santo let Ohio slip away...the jewel of the crown. Santo is nearing the territory of mathematic certainty that he cannot reach the 1150 delegates needed.

Romney took his cherry picked Ohio like an adult taking a lollipop from a kid.

Game, set and match Kenmore, aka Adam.


#25: Santy/Newty are in the race because of (1) Tons of free media from Fox and conservative radio, especially Hannity. (2) A couple of sugar daddies who inexplicably give them tons of money and (3) a plethora of anti-Mormon pastors.

It's funny how Mitt is competitive in the polls in some of these states--until everybody goes to meetin' on Sunday. And voila, his numbers crash.

And Adam, weak little David beat Goliath because he had God on his side, not the "people." If God has a dog in this fight, you might have to say it's Mitt, who is the only one with a path to the nomination.

It's Mitt who is David, with everybody under the sun against him and Newt and Sant lying their heads off about him, unchallenged. The real miracle is that Mitt is doing as well as he is.



Back in 2008, many Romney supporters accused Huckabee backers of only supporting Huckabee because he was an Evangelical and Huckabee got about 50% of the Evangelical vote in some places and lost it in others. Now, if Romney is getting up to 80% of the LDS Vote, are you going to tell me with a straight face that religion has nothing to do with their vote. The parts of Idaho that voted for Romney are a lot like Utah.


30. Yeah, Newt has quite a few of those mind-numbing comments. Like how he's the best one of the four to debate Obama in the fall, even though he's lost several recent crucial debates to Ronmney. Or telling Santorum to drop out due to lack of support when Newt himself can barely crack into the top three. It amazes me sometimes that he actually believes the things he says.


8. You nailed it!


Adam Graham, your hero losing his neighboring state last night was embarrassing. I don't care what you say about money. If Santorum spent millions in New Hampshire or Connecticut to try to beat Mitt, he would have lost badly.

The fact is, no one wants Santorum to be the nominee besides the pitchforkers in the midwest and prairie. And those states are a shoe-in in November anyway. Mitt has won in THESE swing states:




New Hampshire


Tied in Iowa

Arizona, which is going to be close

Mitt is indeed going to be the nominee. I've done the calculations, and he will enter the convention with over 1200 delegates, even IF this contest continues to be close through July, let alone if Mitt runs away with it.

So give it up, Santorum will not be the nominee, I promise you.


30. Actually, GetReal, it's worse than that. Newt is actually saying Newt IS winning against Mitt's money. It's laughable.

He's actually trying to make the case that since Newt beat Mitt while outspending Gingrich 1000 to 1, that Newt is the only one who can beat Obama while being vastly overspent.

He wins TWO states out of 20ish and he has the audacity to tell his supporters that he's WINNING? I wonder if he's related to Charlie Sheen.


#36 Don't go there, Adam. NOBODY complained that evangelicals voted for a So. Baptist preacher "Christian leader." What we did was complain about was ugly, ugly, anti-Mormon emails that went out all over Iowa. And pastors loading up their church buses with little old ladies from the hinterlands to caucus against the Mormon.

Show me where in Idaho, Mormon bishops sent out emails not to vote for Santorum the Catholic and then we can talk.


Adam Graham...

I was wondering when the sniffling manbabies would appear, but didn't think it would be so soon..Check out the total POPULAR VOTE tally.

Romney: 3,194,834

Santorum: 1,957,515

Gingrich: 900,099


Imagine if Mitt said the things that Aantorum says.

"We're hanging in there!"

"Everyone thought we were done, but we did not drop out!"

"My opponent has raised way more money than I did and has outspent me!"

"Waaaah! Waaaah! Waaaah!"

If Mitt said those things, I would be embarrassed by my support for him.


Goodness! I was sure shocked at how poorly Mitt did in Idaho! I fully expected 99 percent 😉


36. The difference, Adam, is that Mormons don't vote AGAINST someone because of their religion.



I read posts on Red State making that complaint that Evangelicals voting for Huckabee were doing so just for his religion.


I meant to say that Santorum was on Paul's heels, not Romney's. I'vec corrected the post.


The only reason Romney hasn't wrapped this up is because evangelicals refuse to evaluate him without their litmus test. I know this because im evangelical and used to do the same thing. Evangelicals refuse to look past thecfact that Romney is mormon and it is shameful.


I now declare Santorum to be "Sant, the mighty Antorum."



What is the relevance of the popular vote total? Delegates matter. At this point in the race, (a) momentum and (b) performance relative to expectations matter even more than vote totals or delegates.



That's a fine delineation. So, I'd be okay voting FOR Huckabee because he's an Evangelical as opposed to vote against Romney because he's a Mormon. Either way you're applying a religious test and looking at the candidate based on religion rather than their values.


49. Ryan, are you even following this conversation? How can you ask that, if you are. The discussion was that Mitt is not connecting, that he's losing even though he's winning.

But, both the popular vote and the delegate vote prove the lie.


I do not think that Mitt's Mormonism should be a factor in the political race. I do think that religious issues should be. Mitt went against religious freedom when he ordered Catholic hospitals to administer the morning after pill even though conservatives were working hard to keep the exclusion.

Romney during an interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press” said he supports the contentious Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which adds “sexual orientation” to a list of federally protected classes that prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.

The bill upsets conservative leaders because it grants special protection to employees based on their “actual or perceived” sexual orientation. Moreover, it would force Christian organizations that oppose homosexuality to hire gay employees.


Moreover, the ENDA-like law forced Boston’s Catholic Charities to shut down its century-old adoption agency because it refused to place children in gay households against Catholic teaching.

“Given Romney’s extensive pro-homosexual record and willingness now to depart from principle on this crucial issue, should we trust a ‘President Romney’ not to reverse course again on federal pro-homosexual laws such as ‘Hate Crimes’ and ENDA?” LaBarbera posed.

What would happen to preachers that preach the Bible if speaking out against homosexuality is listed as a hate crime? Could they even read verses straight from the Bible? Or would they have to avoid reading some of them?

It's not about religion. It's about religious freedom.


#42..Popular vote tally correction..sorry

Romney : 3,194,834

Santorum: 1,957,515

Gingrich: 1,827,245

Paul : 900,090


49 - Then it's even worse for Santorum, because Mitt has a greater percentage of total delegates than the total population vote.


52. Granny, you're just not telling the truth about that catholic hospitals.

Mitt did enforce the laws BUT he fought against it, aggressively.

Mitt also fought hard (and WON) for the rights of Catholics to not adopt kids into gay homes.


The only people who don't see what a train wreck a Mitt Romney general election candidacy will be are his supporters.

Erick Erickson at sees it, so does Michelle Malkin an Ed M. and Allahpundit @

Yesterday, noted economist Thomas Sowell said when asked what is Mitt Romney's biggest baggage: "His Flip-Flopping".

Last night on FoxNews, Laura Ingraham was asked why Mitt isn't connecting with Conservatives she said because of they haven't gotten past Romneycare and now his 2009 comments on a Federal Individual Mandate.


While waiting in a green room for a TV panel last night, as Democrat that could vote Ron Paul asked why the TeaParty doesn't get with Romney since those seem to be the values they wanted. I told him the TP has been hijacked by 'social conservatives' or "religious right" and taken over the ORIGINAL FISCAL issues.

He asked if Romney were a "Southern Baptist".....would it make a difference. He said he really thought it would........especially in Oklahoma where I am. He's right. It's where kids are taught such that they would go to school on Monday and tell their Mormon friend: "You and your mom are OK, but the rest of the Mormons are bad." SO YES.......RELIGION is huge in states in the south. Profession to LOVE the Constitution but TRASH it by their religious hate.

OK did FANTASTIC w/Rick's continual snide remarks of Mitt's $$ and Rick's PANDERING to evangelicals in OK, "home". (vomit, isn't that he said about JFK??) Closed the 25% down to 6%......DID THE PRESS REPORT THIS??

ADAM, did YOU report this?? Oh, no.

Absolutely, Keith #45.........the Mormons have LONG voted for the BEST candidate, NOT for their religious affliation. THEY respect and will PROTECT religious freedom....UNLIKE Santorum who is using religion to promote himself politically.

(vomit, again........isn't that Saint's words??!)


56 - That is one angle. The other angle, is that this country's independents and moderates will not be voting for a far right, religion on his sleeve conservative. So with that one would have to accept we have no candidate that can win this year.

Romneycare - the great conservative flip flop. Since it was conservative (heritige foundation involved) before Obama made the idea non-conservative.


36. Your argument is way weakened by the fact that Romney was beating fellow-Mormon John (I'm putting in the "h" just to piss him off) Huntsman by 62%-17% IN UTAH!! If Utah/LDS were ultra susceptible to "homerism" wouldn't they just vote for the Mormon FROM THEIR OWN STATE!?!?

And anyways, we're not talking about why LDS are voting FOR Romney, we're talking about why many Evangelicals WON'T vote for him. It's different to vote FOR someone you like/trust/support and another altogether to vote AGAINST someone. One is much more subversive. Huckabee got a lot of positive Evangelical support, Santorum is someone most of these folks didn't know about 2 months ago and won't care about in 2 months ... he's just the current ABR.

Your argument is laughable Adam.


#56.........those guys are worried about their pocketbooks.

They are TOTAL fools if they think Santorum has a chance against BHO. He has the same kind of resume......and corruption...that he would go against.

Santorum is a MUCH BIGGER flip flopper than Mitt is!!

He was PRO-CHOICE until he ran for office..........THEN his Catholic religion was important to him.

He made a fool of himself in the last debate with his FLIP FLOPS. BUT the press....and those you mentioned #56, protect St. Rick.

God Help Us. We have too many fools.


Adam, Still no response to #8?


Erick Erickson has not had one positive thing to say about Romney. Honestly after some of Romneys wins I could not believe how biased he was in his "analysis." You can name drop conservative commentators all you want. It doesn't matter.


Granny, you’re just not telling the truth about that catholic hospitals.

I didn't write that article.

The only people who don’t see what a train wreck a Mitt Romney general election candidacy will be are his supporters.

The Obama administration have already hinted that they'll be playing the class warfare card. Can you imagine what they'll say about Romney's support of Wall Street bailouts compared to this list of Romney's "Top Contributors"?

I don't fault Romney for being rich or running with the rich - but that list won't look good to the majority of Americans.


52. You will find no greater supporters or protectors of religious freedom in the USA than Mormons. It used to be a matter of survival to early LDS. Our church has gone to bat for this issue time and again. You have NOTHING to fear with Romney on this issue. He actually fought to try to get Catholic adoption services to keep doing their good work. This revisioninst/partial histories from places like "Christian Post" are subversive lies aimed at stopping "The Mormon."

I've had it folks. The "I won't blame the bigots" gloves are off for me. It makes me want to puke.


I think most Mormons support Romney and are enthusiastic about him in part because they identify with him and feel that he represents them well. There is a big difference in supporting someone you identify with and opposing someone because he belongs to a different church. Mormons supported George Bush in overwhelming percentages, but he didn't belong to their church. Conversely, Romney consistently wins every demographic but one. It's not conservatives, it's Evangelicals. He wins conservatives of other faiths as New Hampshire, Nevada, Florida, and Arizona have shown. He also wins Catholics by a large margin. He wins people with a college degree, he wins moderates, independents, and suburban cities. Who does he lose consistently? Evangelicals. In fact you can almost predict the total vote percentage based on the number of conservative Evangelicals voting in the primary. And yet, he is still going to win, despite the frank opposition of the largest voting demographic in the party.

Is this a party of principles, or or of demographics? Is this a big tent? Are we willing to lock arms with people of other faiths to fight for common principles? Evangelicals should asks themselves these questions.


#62, I see you are from Jersey as I am. You probably thing Chris Christie is a Conservative too, don't you?


Granny #52

Mitt was not for the morning after pill on demand. He was for the morning after pill if requested and after in cases of rape or incest.


GrannyT. That list is what Obama's list of top ten were last cycle. Sour grapes from the libs.

Thunder (Romney/Rubio 2012)

The problem with your assumptions are many.... You assume all of Newts voters would go to Santorum. You assume Santorum is more acceptable than Romney. All are false assumptions. In Ohio, Newt was not a factor. In fact, if it was not for Big Labor support of Santorum, Santorum would have lost by double digits.

We should not allow Union thugs to elect or Nominee, Santorum = big Labor


63. The Obama administration have already hinted that they’ll be playing the class warfare card.

Haven't you noticed? Obama has already been playing in the Republican Primary. He's won a couple of states - OK, ND. But he's lost in MI and OH.


A neighbor told my wife she heard Mitt was saying he was God's choice and that she was not going to vote for Mitt because she doesn't want a religious fanatic as president. Since Mitt has kept religion a mile away from his candidacy, where do you think she is getting that information. By the way, she is evangelical.


63. Just because you didn't write the article doesn't mean you're passing along the truth. It's false. And, passing it along means you're spreading lies.


GrannyT. That list is what Obama’s list of top ten were last cycle. Sour grapes from the libs.

Here's Obama's list:


65. Very well said.

Mormons locked arms with Evangelicals for Bush and against Gay Marriage in CA. We've supported their candidates time and again. To have them turn their back on us now is not something that will be forgotten nor forgiven easily.

As a resident of the deep south I KNOW what's going on, and I'm more and more tempted to move my family back to a more friendly situation back west where my children won't face this silent bigotry/glass ceiling as they grow up.


This is something I would expect to read on Fox News, CNN, or MSNBC.

That's not a compliment.


73. That's just being dishonest, again. We've stated that Romney's 2012 Wall Street donors are Obama's 2008 Wall Street donors. You supplied Obama's 2012 list of donors. Obama may NOT get that Billion Dollars he keeps promising to unleash on the Republican nominee.


I'm constantly amazed by the selective statistics given to minimize Romney's successes.

True, Romney has not had an easy time of it. There are still 3 other candidates in the race who continue to divide the delegates. But you say that past campaigns were able to unite the party faster than Romney has. Well, that may be true for some previous campaigns, but let's have a good look at last year.

You cite wins for McCain in states like CA and NY proving he was able to unite the party faster than Romney. First of all, this time around CA and NY have not yet voted. Furthermore, when they do vote, they will probably go to Romney.

Secondly, in McCain's super tuesday he lost half of his 20 contests. He lost 10 states on super tuesday! What did that do to the race? It made him the clear frontrunner and led Romney to drop out of the race! So this time around Romney is winning more states than McCain and yet all you hear from the media is that it is far from over and Romney still has much to prove.

This is rediculous. In 2008 McCain lost Iowa, Nevada, Colorado, Minnesota, Main, Wyoming, Michigan, Georgia, Tennessee, North Dakota, Massachussets, Alaska, Montana, Alabama, Louisiana, and Kansas... and he won fairly easily.

Romney has done better in most of these states than McCain did in '08 plus most of the ones McCain did well in in '08 and yet all you hear is the opposite of Kudos for Romney.

Very selective statistics if you ask me.


73, Granny. I said LAST cycle (meaning 2008). Obama had all the big Wall Street companies as his top contributors last cycle. That's well documented.


74. That loud silent bigotry is what made me stronger.


Just because you didn’t write the article doesn’t mean you’re passing along the truth. It’s false. And, passing it along means you’re spreading lies.

It's false? I just did a Google search for Catholic adoption in Massachusetts and this was the first thing that popped up:

Catholic Charities stuns state, ends adoptions

Gay issue stirred move by agency


66. I like christie, yes. I am an independent who usually votes republican.not every candidate is a perfect "conservative." I think Romney can fix the economy and I really don't care how pro life or anti gay marriage santorum is.

Freedom for William Wallace

Adam Graham, you are much like the candidate you support...a whiner. If, if, if...If my aunt had nuts she'd be my uncle. This is one of the dumbest FPP I have seen on R42012.

By far your worst post...and to be fair you have had some good ones.


As soon as I saw the exit polls saying that 71% of the vote in both Tennessee and Oklahoma were from evangelicals I knew it was over. I hate the word bigot being thrown around but it is becoming clearer and clearer the continuing resistance to Romney. So sad.


Don't change Ads! Keep brings the lols.


How about this story?

Massachusetts Tells Catholic Church it Must Permit Homosexual Adoption

But, the Catholic hospitals stopping adoption was not the main emphasis of the article quote. I want to know what will happen to churches that don't hire homosexuals and/or to preachers if they preach the whole Bible IF Romney is successful in listing homosexuality as a protected class.


The first few sentences told me this was an Adam Graham piece of work. You and the media Adam....nice spin. You don't think Mitt came away with the momentum? Did you fail to check the Gallup poll just posted right before you posted this "wishful thinking"?


Also, if Santorum or Newt were to drop out that would have the opposite effect of which you hope. The polls show that Romney is consistently the more popular second choice in nearly every case, so, if Newt were to leave Romney would benefit more than Santorum.


83. It is sad. As an evangelical I am embarrassed.


As soon as I saw the exit polls saying that 71% of the vote in both Tennessee and Oklahoma were from evangelicals I knew it was over. I hate the word bigot being thrown around but it is becoming clearer and clearer the continuing resistance to Romney. So sad.

Did the 71% evangelicals vote over 90% against Romney like the Mormons voted for him?


#78. Jeff, the absoluty silly thing about attacking Mitt for Wall Street donations is that the other candidates would be welcoming the money without complaint and when it is convenient for them. That is hypocrisy my friend.


One of the most SILLY articles I've read since the lastest bashing of Mitt by those who don't like him.

Nice try hater...but people can see through this garbage portrayed as "journalism."


Look at the counties Mitt won, as compared to Newt and Rick. This isn't a specifically Evangelical issue; Romney is failing to win in the south, the midwest, and rural areas generally. If Romney supporters keep telling themselves the only problem is "those derned nasty biggotted Evangelicals", they're going to miss the fact that he's not doing as well as he needs to do with the rural white working class. Did Mitt win in the (Catholic and Lutheran) upper peninsula of Michigan? Is he going to win in (heavily Catholic) western PA? How will he do in Western NY, which has the highest concentration of Catholics in the east? My suspicion is he's not going to do well in these areas, based on previous trends. Which means he's got a problem that goes beyond Evangelicals. Attributing something to religion which has as much to do with culture and geography doesn't do your guy any favors.


In reality, yesterday was a blowout. Romney won 6 to 3 to 1. The states he lost were all Southern, and one caucus state. It looks like Romney's going to dominate the non-Southern primaries, Romney and Santorum are going to split the caucuses, and Gingrich and Santorum are going to split the South.

If the results were reversed, everyone would be saying Romney's dead - well the only real difference is Romney already had the majority of delegates. Romney's lead in delegates since day one, and has never been surpassed.

Romney results

6 - 1st

3 - 2nd

1 - 3rd

Santorum results

3 - 1st

4 - 2nd

2 - 3rd

1 - no show


Granny T, if Mormons are voting largely for Romney is it not reasonable to say that a good reason is because they are voting against bigotry? Sure there are plenty of reasons to be FOR Romney, but put yourself in their shoes.


The comments from #83 are the truth unfortunately. Romney is CLEARLY the best candidate in my opinion, but THE reason he's not getting total support from "conservatives" is because he's LDS and people are bigotted against him.


92, you're suggesting that Romney's problem isn't with bigots, just the uneducated, the unsuccessful, the poorly read, and the most religious.

You say to-may-to, I say to-mah-to.


92 Generally speaking, rural areas are evangelical areas.



It's a problem of cultural cues, AJ. Mitt is a rich, buttoned-up dude who just doesn't fit in in areas where rich buttoned-up dudes leave the boonies to go work in the city. People like him just aren't seen in rural areas.

I grew up in rural western New Hampshire, a mill town. From what I can remember, the folks who made money in Boston were seen as a bunch of back-stabbers who got to where they did by screwing people.

I think that mentality isn't just in rural western New Hampshire, but rural areas of indistry in general.



You know, I'm not sweating my haters.

Firecracker (Romney / West / Christie / Huckabee / Rand Paul)

89 -- You are a hopeless case.


Re 93, I meant to correct it; I believe Romney was surpassed for 10 days when Gingrich won SC.


Jeff, Mitt also fought hard (and WON) for the rights of Catholics to not adopt kids into gay homes.

I'm still trying to find a link that shows you're right and I'm wrong. I can't. Do you have a link for any Catholic adoption facility still based (or reopened) in Massachusetts or are you the one not telling the truth?


Granny T - I understood the evangelicals voting for Huckabee as he was one of them as Mitt is one of the LDS. Santorum is just the last man standing against Mitt. Santorum is not one of them so he isn't going to get 90% of evangelical vote like Huckabee would.


80. Come on, Granny. Are you suggesting a governor should ignore the law?

Here are clips from an open letter written by family values leaders in MA.

Stood for religious freedom. Last year, Governor Romney was stalwart in defense of the right of Catholic Charities of Boston to refuse to allow homosexual couples to adopt children in its care. Catholic Charities was loudly accused of “discrimination,” but Governor Romney

correctly pointed out that it is unjust to force a religious agency to violate the tenets of its faith in order to placate a special-interest group.

• Filed “An Act Protecting Religious Freedom” in the Massachusetts legislature to save Catholic Charities of Boston and other religious groups from being forced to violate their moral principles or stop doing important charitable work.

Since well before 2003, we have been laboring in the trenches of Massachusetts, fighting for the family values you and we share. It is difficult work indeed – not for the faint of heart. In this challenging environment, Governor Romney has proven that he shares our values, as well as our determination to protect them.

For four years, Governor Romney has been right there beside us, providing leadership on key issues – whether it was politically expedient to do so or not. He has stood on principle, and we have benefited greatly from having him with us.

Signed by:

Rita Covelle

President, Morality in Media Massachusetts

Richard Guerriero

Immediate Past State Deputy, Massachusetts State Council, Knights of Columbus

Mary Ann Glendon

Learned Hand Professor of Law, Harvard Law School

Kristian Mineau

President, Massachusetts Family Institute

Dr. Roberto Miranda

President, COPAHNI Fellowship of Hispanic Pastors of New England

James Morgan

President, Institute for Family Development

Joseph Reilly

President, Massachusetts Citizens for Life

Thomas A. Shields

Chairman, Coalition for Family and Marriage


89 — You are a hopeless case.

I guess it really is a hopeless case to try defending myself against being called a bigot. But, I get very angry when people lie about me and/or my family and friends. You guys are just too blind to see that Romney has a problem with SoCons because of his SINO record.


I have some great friends that are evangelical. Evangelicals are not the issue. It's the pastors. For them, their livelyhood is a business. They need people in the seats to pay for their livelihood. Mormon prosylatizing is enemy #1 to this. A Mormon in the white house will just make that even more difficult. So I can see where the pastors come from in saying the half truths or firey discourses shunning mormons.

In summary though, Mitt is not losing states because of bigotry, but it is a fact that there is a core group that will do everything they can to keep him out of the white house.


Love Jay Nordlinger today on NR:

"Have you noticed that, when Romney wins, he can’t quite win? I mean, his victories are spun as losses, or not-good-enough wins.

He wins New Hampshire, and everyone says, “Own backyard. Neighboring state. Spent a lot.” He wins Florida, and they say, “Spent a lot. Was mean to Newt.” Wins Nevada, and they say, “Lotsa Mormons.” Wins Michigan, and they say, “Home state, whaddya want? Should’ve won by more.” Wins Arizona, Washington, Idaho, Wyoming, they say, “No big deal. Doesn’t really count.” Wins Ohio, and they say, “Squeaker!”

A reader of ours writes, “When Newt won South Carolina, why did no one say it was ‘in his own backyard’? When Rick was campaigning in Ohio, why did no one point out it was a ‘neighboring state’ of Pennsylvania? Why is Romney’s wipeout win in Massachusetts less impressive than Newt’s plurality win in Georgia?” "

Describe any dishonest blogger you know? (hint: Adam "Bagdad Bob" Graham)"

And, of course, old huck's army huckster gaineyT with her worn our hucks army amunition against Romney. Funny she doesn't even know she's firing blanks.


92. AJ, exit polls suggest Mitt does very well among ALL groups other than Evangelicals -- and that really only in the south. He did great among Evangelicals in most of the states he won. But, the south has a long history of Mormon hatred.


Granny - it's is intellectually dishonest to say that there is not bigotry going on with the "A vote for mitt is a vote for Satan" meme that's going around. . . . To deny it is simply laughable.

Firecracker (Romney / West / Christie / Huckabee / Rand Paul)

93 -- You should also note that Romney placed SECOND in GA, TN, and OK, right in between either Grinch or Satan. In fact, Romney destroyed Satan in Georgia, scoring more than 55,000 votes over him.

Romney also beat out Grinch in both TN and OK. Perhaps Romney's position in the South isn't as weak as some may think. I'm hoping in the next couple of weeks, with more talk of Romney's inevitability as the nominee, or in the alternative, a brokered convention, the ABR vote will be more evenly divided between Grinch and Satan in KS, AL, MS, and MO.


These are the areas left that are winner-take-all. They’re all primaries, many of them are delegate rich, and Romney will win nearly every one of them. None of them are Southern.


New Jersey




Washington, D.C.


Puerto Rico

Is there a serious path to victory for Santorum? No.


Granny - I am probably the hopeless "Case". Pun intended.

Rick is the strongest Social Conservative in the race. That is not the issue in my opinion. I believe all four candidates are going to fight for the social conservative cause, so I look at the fiscal issues and national issues and Rick just doesn't match my views.


Granny, *I* am not calling YOU a bigot. But, there are many in the south that are.

I do wonder, however, why you're unwilling to see the truth about Romney's record.

Firecracker (Romney / West / Christie / Huckabee / Rand Paul)

What I find most pathetic about Santorum is that he's a Catholic running as an Evangelical. He's a phony, pandering to a bunch of uneducated sheep looking for a Pastor-in-Chief. No wonder Catholic voters are rejecting him.


Of course, words and logic won’t persuade Newt. Votes might. Santorum will have to work hard to win Mississippi and Alabama next week. If he does that, it’s going to be hard for Gingrich to stay in the race. After all, what good can a candidate with a Southern Strategy do if he can’t win the South outside of his home state.

This applies to Santorum also, he hasn't won anything outside South but caucuses, cranky "rage against the machine" caucus is same whether it is in West or Mid West, so it's not like Santorum has show some wide appeal, he has just won caucuses, couple southern states, and came close in couple Rust Belt states with help of Democrat party poopers, voting to get the weaker Republican candidate as Obama's opponent.

Romney vs Newtorum among Republican voters:

New Hampshire



48 – 46


48 – 44

In Ohio Romney won the Republicans by 4-5 points also

Ohio was like Santorum's New Hampshire, he was a congressman in a western Pennsylvania border district for 4 years and PA Senator for 12 years, he had the cultural background fitting for the state. The question is, if Santorum can't win in Ohio, where can he win?

*Time to go Newt*

This made Ohio Santorum's Gettysburg, like Confederate forces, he was crushed, but like Union army, Romney didn't manage to totally crush him, by cutting his retreat, like he could have done if he had won Tennessee. After the battle, the result of war was inevitable. Failure to stop the Confederate retreat just made the war longer and more painful, but the direction was already clear. If Santorum couldn't win in Ohio, where can he, there isn't that many cranky caucuses left, Missouri and Kansas possibly, and Southern primaries area heavily proportional, whereas Romney friendly areas less proportional.

You can't win the primary by just winning some of the caucuses and Southern primaries, especially considering how proportional the coming southern primaries, Mississippi delegate math is about as proportional as Oklahoma delegate math and Alabama delegate math is about as proportional as Tennessee delegate math. Texas and North Carolina are pure proportional, as is Louisiana.



Will you pretty please address this part of what I've been trying to say?

But, the Catholic hospitals stopping adoption was not the main emphasis of the article quote. I want to know what will happen to churches that don’t hire homosexuals and/or to preachers if they preach the whole Bible IF Romney is successful in listing homosexuality as a protected class.

Maybe that doesn't bother some people but I have both family and friends that are preachers. I've read where preachers are imprisoned for preaching the Bible in countries that have adapted similar laws. The Obama administration (and Romney in Massachusetts before him) is getting away with forcing Catholics to go against their religion on the contraception issue. Is regulating hiring in religious institutions and regulating what preachers can or cannot say next?

Firecracker (Romney / West / Christie / Huckabee / Rand Paul)

Does anyone know anything about the upcoming caucuses in U.S. territories such as Guam, Virgin Islands, North Mariana Islands, and American Samoa?

My understanding is that they are 9 delegates each. Are they proportional, or winner-take-all?

With the bigot vote coming up in KS, AL, and MS, I'm hoping wins in these four territories can offset any Romney losses delegates in those three states.


117 So you believe Romney wants to destroy churches including his own?

Reginald from texas

I fully expect Newt to beat Santorum to lose to Gingrich in Alabama and Mississippi. Santy is woefully underprepared to be President. In a month from no, people will be suggesting that Santorum get out of the race so Newt can pick up more steam.


118 All I know is Romney will win American Samoa in a landslide victory, and they select their delegates at convention.

Reginald from texas

Santorum cannot close the deal with Republican voters - he loses by healthy margins with republicans who vote. He has to depend upon Obama supporters to make a case in the open primaries

Reginald from texas

117. If they are a private hospital and do not receive any federal funding, then they can do what they want. However, if the solicit and receive government funds, they should abide by the law. They can make their own choice.

Reginald from texas

Romney will win Illinois, Hawaii, American Samoa, Puerto Rico and probably Missouri this month.


89 Granny T. You keep missing the point. Mormons do NOT vote against anybody because of their religion. Please don't say those evangelicals were voting for Santorum because of their common religion. Santorum is a Catholic. They are purely voting against the Mormon. The sad thing is Mormons have so many of their same values and beliefs, but they are blinded by their hatred. Of course, I know there are many, many kind and non-judgmental evangelicals that don't let hatred get in their way. I will just try to forget the times I was told I was going to hell by some of them when I was growing up.


So you believe Romney wants to destroy churches including his own?

I don't think Romney is thinking things through. Maybe he hasn't read about cases of preachers being arrested. I just did a quick Google search and found an article UK Pastor Arrested Over Comments on Homosexuality and will post a brief quote from the article to try to explain what I've been trying to say:

Christian groups in the U.S. expressed concern that similar arrests could be made here. Marc Stern, general counsel for the American Jewish Congress, said the U.S. has yet to see a case like McAlpine’s.

“In the United States, speech rights are still pretty strong,” he said. “It’s likely they’ll be tested over the next few years.”

Judge said many Christians in Great Britain didn’t believe laws passed 10 years ago would be used against them. He cautions Americans to be vigilant.

“You should be aware of what is being passed by your legislatures,” he said, “because these laws further down the road can be used to infringe on liberties.”


Romney will win Illinois in a landslide. My prediction:

Mitt: 45%

Santy: 31%

Newt: 23%

Paul: 17%

Remember: Vote early. Vote often.


89. Also, I really, really resent that it is insinuated that being a Mormon is the only reason I am voting for Romney. Nothing could be further from the truth. I lived in the west at the time Salt Lake city was given the Olympics, we were so excited for it until all the scandal erupted. It was very embarrassing and we couldn't believe that our time to be in the spotlight was being tarnished. I had no idea who Mitt Romney was until he volunteered to help. ( Yes, volunteered. He was paid one dollar and donated 1 million of his own money). The day he jumped out of the car and helped direct traffic to make sure people got to their events on time was the day he won my vote forever.

We will be forever thankful for helping save us from embarrassment. The more I read and learn about him, the more I know my decision is the right one. You know some people actually use their brain to think for themselves instead of just regurgitating what their told.


This article gives a pretty pathetic political analysis. I would like to point out some inconsistencies:

1.) If winning marginally (Romney) does not unite the GOP, how can losing marginally (Santorum) be hoped to do so?

2.) The author discounts wins in areas with large Mormon populations (Idaho) but fails to give credit for winning in areas without large Mormon populations (Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Virginia).

3.) The author would like the reader to believe that Santorum is only losing due to lack of funds (6:1) in comparison to Romney. I wonder how he will do when Obama outspends him 10:1.

4.) The author would like the reader to believe that Romney winning in some states is ONLY due to other candidates NOT being on the ballot. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? How can a candidate be considered a serious contender when they can't even be responsible enough to get their name on the ballot in a state? I hate to think the author is advocating a person for president who is not organized enough to even run a campaign let alone a country!


Please don’t say those evangelicals were voting for Santorum because of their common religion.

I'm trying to say that Santorum stands firmer on religious liberty than Romney does. What part of that don't you guys understand?


117. Granny, I don't know if I can talk to you anymore if you're going to keep posting lies.

Anything Romney did in MA that infringed upon any religious rights was done only because he had no choice. He had to enforce the law. Wherever he could, he fought for religious freedom.

Romney is ABSOLUTELY NOT for forcing churches to hire homosexuals as clergy. It goes against everything Mitt holds dear.

Mitt's desire to keep gays from being discriminated against will NEVER cause him to support forcing religions to go against their beliefs.

And, if you'll take a few minutes to research how hard Mitt fought for the Catholic Charities, you'd know it's true.

But, honestly, Granny, you don't sound like you care about the truth when it comes to Romney.


130. That is a baseless claim. You cannot point to any record that shows Rick is firmer on religious liberty than Mitt.


If America loses our religious liberty what will happen to those of us that have strong religious beliefs? It doesn't matter whether the person holding those beliefs are Catholic, evangelical, Mormon, or a strong Independent Baptist like me. I want someone that will not only say they will support religious freedom - I want a strong leader willing to lead the charge if those liberties are infringed upon. Rick Santorum has stepped up to that challenge.


This race is coming to a close. the talk about brokered conventions is stupid. it ain't happening.


Granny T

Romney during an interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press” said he supports the contentious Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which adds “sexual orientation” to a list of federally protected classes that prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.

So sex is already proctected class, but has that forced Catholics to hire female priests? No.

Anyway Romney fought against forcing the Catholic institutions to give adoption children to gay couples.


That is a baseless claim. You cannot point to any record that shows Rick is firmer on religious liberty than Mitt.

Don't you get it? Romney supports classifying homosexuality as a protected class. He ordered Catholic hospitals to administer the morning after pill - before the battle was fully settled - according to numerous articles I've read. Santorum has been getting slammed for standing up for religious freedom. The Obama campaign has already made that part of their campaign fight. I'd rather fight Obama over religious liberties than fight him over class warfare. I have a feeling there would be a lot more people willing to stand up and fight to keep our religious freedom - even in states like Ohio.


Jeff, the religion thing is only one factor. Its mostly socio-economic differences. Romney doesn't have a strategy to win those people over. Ergo, he is losing them to Santorum. When Romney wants to reach out to these people who are predisposed to distrust him, he will. Until then, he is moving forward with a strategy that is working.

I repeat: Romney's strategy is working. Do the math people. Romney spent millions of dollars reaching out to Iowans only to have religion be used successfully against him at the ballot box. He has figured out another way around those people and good for him. Just don't expect him to win anywhere in the south or midwest. It won't happen.


Yes, Mitt has a problem with "white, working class, rural Americans." This demographic is suspicious of rich, educated, urbanites. I live in both worlds; I get it: The "suits" are evil in the minds of many. The yokels are contempable yahoos in the minds of the urban elites.

My dad was in the logging business in NoCal. He always spoke with contempt of the "valley cats" who were so darn dumb they couldn't survive one minute in the dangerous mountains.

It's not just class warfare; it's cultural warfare. Rush and Palin have gone out of their way to exacerbate the division rather than close the breach. But anti-Mitt people are not honest: They go about of their way to make up or exaggeration objections to Mitt while heaping upon his rivals all kinds of vitues they do not possess.



Santorum was a legislator, you seem to demand that Romney should have used executive power to break the law, to try usurp the legislative and judicial branches of local government.

So if trying to break the law over those issues is your requirement, Santorum hasn't gone "George Wallace" either.


Yesterday, Romney won a majority of the states and a majority of the delegates.

For Adam, that's not good enough.

Inference : Adam is thick as Callista's helmet.


133. As I mentioned earlier, you won't find a stronger group of people protecting religious liberty and freedom than Mormons. We realize that we're a whopping minority and that religious tolerance/liberty is all we have. 150+ yrs ago being that minority got a lot of Mormon's killed by adherents of other religions. Once bitten, twice shy.

But we also believe strongly in the rule of law, that laws need to be followed. Immoral laws need to be fought and repealed and challenged for sure, but that is not the job of the Executive Branch (like Romney as Gov. in MA). They are generally tasked with insuring laws are carried out and rules enforced. That's just simple costitutional government 101. You're buying into shallow and deceptive arguments that have no basis in true history. Like when that group in 2008 (and it's been drummed up this cycle) that Romney is the "father of gay marriage" when those watching the fight saw Mitt go tooth an nail and use every trick up his sleeve to slow/stop it from happening. There ARE people (yes, even Christian leaders) who will lie to you for political or financial gain. Don't buy it Granny T. You seem to nice a lady.


Adam, here is your post after Michigan and Arizona:

Looking at your article, Romney did what you said he needed to do. But this week, you say it's not enough. If Romney needed to sweep Super Tuesday, why didn't you say so last week?

Here's a narrative perhaps you haven't considered: In Florida, a must-win state, Romney was down by double digits. He came back to win. In Michigan, a must-win state, Romney was down by double digits. He came back to win. In Ohio, a must-win state, Romney was down by double digits. He came back to win.

And finally, the question that every anti-Romney piece needs to answer: if not Romney, then who? Weak front-runner or not, Romney is ahead of Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul in every category: states won, delegates won, vote share, fundraising, etc. If there's a reason Romney is unsuitable, that reason goes double for everyone else. The only alternative is an untried candidate. And considering the effect vetting has had on every non-Romney candidate so far, a new candidate at this stage (or worse, at the convention) would be political suicide. So if not Romney, then who?


52. Granny,

Your "Christian Post" website has a bunch of anti-Mormon articles.

FYI, gays hate Romney and his positions.


you seem to demand that Romney should have used executive power to break the law, to try usurp the legislative and judicial branches of local government.

No, I wish he would have screamed to uphold the Constitution instead of bowing to pressure from the left. Much like what was written in the other article I linked to in post #117

There was no language in the 2005 bill that ever mentioned Catholic hospitals or repealed the 1975 statute exempting hospitals and healthcare workers who object on religious or moral grounds. Two contradictory amendments–one that specifically applied the 1975 statute protections and one that said the new bill superceded the 1975 statute–in the end were taken out. So the 1975 law remains on the books and in force. It must coexist harmoniously with the new law.

Romney’s own Department of Public Health found the 1975 statute was still valid from their independent legal review as discussed in this Dec 7, 2005 article: “Private hospitals exempt on pill law“.

“The state Department of Public Health has determined that Catholic and other privately-run hospitals in Massachusetts can opt out of giving the morning-after pill to rape victims because of religious or moral objections, despite a new law that requires all hospitals who treat such victims to provide them with emergency contraception.”

Public Health Commissioner Paul Cote Jr. told the Globe: “We felt very clearly that the two laws don’t cancel each other out and basically work in harmony with each other.”

“The staff of DPH did their own objective and unbiased legal analysis,” Romney’s spokesman told the Globe. “The brought it to us, and we concur in it.”

Even if there was some lack of legal clarity on conscience exemptions between the 2005 law and the 1975 law (Chapter 112, Section 12I Abortion or sterilization procedures; refusal of hospital or health facility staff members or employees to participate), and even though the two laws on the books had to exist in harmony, the Massachusetts Constitution (Article XVIII, Section 1) makes things clear:

“No law shall be passed prohibiting the free exercise of religion.”

Beyond Romney being wrong with his debate response and with his decision to impose emergency contraception on Catholic hospitals, Romney and Fehrnstrom still need to explain two things to voters:

In view of his words and actions at the time, what does Romney really believe? On December 7, 2005, Ferhnstom said the governor, “respects the views of health care facilities that are guided by moral principles on this issue.” So, why, when given a choice, did the governor decide to force emergency contraception on Catholic hospitals against their beliefs a day later? On December 8, 2005, he reversed course after getting political pressure as reported in “ROMNEY SAYS NO HOSPITALS ARE EXEMPT FROM PILL LAW; HE REVERSES STAND ON PLAN B” and said at a press conference, “In my personal view, it’s the right thing for hospitals to provide information and access to emergency contraception to anyone who is a victim of rape.” What IS Gov. Romney’s real belief on this issue?

Why did Romney apparently violate the freedom of religion provision of the Massachusetts Constitution with his decision? Why did he not turn to the Massachusetts Constitution as his primary point of reference? Romney could have simply said, “The Massachusetts Constitution guarantees Catholic and other religious hospitals the freedom as part of their practice of religion to not have a law imposed on them that violates their consciences, so to uphold my sworn oath of office, I need to uphold the Constitution. Why did Romney not do that?

As we documented a month ago, Romney failed to reference and uphold the Massachusetts Constitution with regard to marriage, and it appears he did the same thing on conscience rights and freedom of religion with emergency contraception. Are Romney and his legal advisers unfamiliar with basic principles of constitutional law?

BCI hopes that the media and other candidates continue to call him out on these questions.


Granny T

I have watched as time after time people answer your questions about Romney with solid evidence and rebut your clearly biased articles with facts, and yet you continue to come back and repeat the same distortions of the truth.

Enough! It is clear you are not interested in the truth. As soon as someone rebuts you, you run away with no response and then come back a week later and try to spread your propoganda again, even though you know it is not factually accurate.

It us about time someone calls you on it. You aren't interested in finding out who the best candidate is. You aren't here to spread the truth. You just like the rest if the Romnots who are only interested in beating Romney, no matter what it takes.

There is nothing wrong with that, but it is time that a spade be called a spade.



OT: Who has the wonkier hair: Callista or the Donald?


There you go again Mr. Graham.


Well, if it was against the MA constitution, then shouldn't they have complained to the MA Supreme Court? If their complaint got shot down by MA Supreme court, what does that tell?


133. Granny

If America loses our religious liberty what will happen to those of us that have strong religious beliefs? It doesn’t matter whether the person holding those beliefs are Catholic, evangelical, Mormon, or a strong Independent Baptist like me. I want someone that will not only say they will support religious freedom – I want a strong leader willing to lead the charge if those liberties are infringed upon.

Your implication is that Americans could lose their “religious liberty” if Romney is elected.

You seriously need therapy, Granny!


By the way "Boston Catholic Insider" is anonymous blog, so not really the most reliable source.


your 144 drubbs up my 141 inference about Romney being the "father of Gay Marriage" right on cue!!

It's like you and the people you quote really believe that Romney just can't wait to bash down your church's door, shove Morning After Pills down all the teenage girls throats, personally perform a gay marriage, and then force your congregation to accept one of those gays to be your pastor.

It's hilarious, but sad that people believe these lies and it effects this nominating process.


I do not remember how old you are, Granny, although I recall you once posted it.

In some years (I do not know how many), your spirit and body will separate, and your body will be laid in the ground or cremated. It will be then that you realize how much you got things wrong in this life as you await with fear and trembling the resurrection, when your spirit and body will reunite to stand before the judgment bar of Jesus Christ.

And I say this in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.


Franko, please stop.


Let's face it. The two man race is for second place. Romney blew the competition away last night. If you look at the remaining winner-take-all states, they’re almost all Romney states, they’re all primaries, and none of them are in the South.


It's hilarious (and sad) that the yokels "don't trust" Mitt. Here are some of smart, in-the-know people who DO trust Mitt: Mark DeMoss, Ann Coulter, Robert Bork, Darrell Issa, John Bolton, Jan Brewer, Jon Hunstman, Tim Pawlenty, Rob Portman, Orrin Hatch, Mike Lee, Jason Chaffetz, Kelly Ayotte, Nikki Haley, Pam Bondi, Bob McConnell, Christine O'Donnell, the Sekulows, John Sununu, John Thune, Crhis Christie, Donald Trump, GHWB and Barbara, Jeff Lake, Sheriff Babeu, Jeff Sessions, Rick Snyder, Holy See Ambassadors, John McCain, Peter Wilson, Mark Kirk, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, John Ashcroft, Bill Haslam, Dan Quayle, Lisa Murkowski, Eric Cantor, Sen. Cobern, Marsha Blackburn, Lamar Alexander, Michael Medved, George Pataki, Ted Nugent and Chris Rock.


LOL, 155, I think you mean KID Rock.....



The problem is no one knows what the truth is. I do know that Romney himself says he supports ENDA.

MR. RUSSERT: You said that you would sponsor the Employment Nondiscrimination Act. Do you still support it?

GOV. ROMNEY: At the state level. I think it makes sense at the state level for states to put in provision of this.

MR. RUSSERT: Now, you said you would sponsor it at the federal level.

GOV. ROMNEY: I would not support at the federal level, and I changed in that regard because I think that policy makes more sense to be evaluated or to be implemented at the state level. And let me describe why.

I have tried explaining why these issues are important to me (and some of my Catholic and evangelical friends and family) and what happens? I get lashed at and told I "need therapy". I guess some of you go along with the idea that the religious right are a bunch of crazy people for believing God more than man. Well if I'm nuts at least I'm attached to the right Tree.

Yes, there are times I get busy with other things and cannot get back on the computer to back up my thoughts.


Romney is a very weak candidate. He's like a first string quarterback struggling against the third string defense. The Three Stooges would be a improvement on these clowns. Clearly Santorum and Gingrich are not anywhere near front line conservatives. Romney should be very happy that Palin passed on running because she would have stuffed Romney in the side pocket last Tuesday.

The fact that Santorum and Gingrich are splitting the conservative vote is a major sign of weakness with Santorum and Gingrich. A front line conservative would have consolidated most of the Santorum and Gingrich vote behind them.

Another story that shows how weak all of these candidates are is the turnout. In Oklahoma, the turnout was down from 2008 by around 46,000 votes. In Tennessee, the turnout was up around 10,000 but Ron Paul got aroubd 18,000 votes which were likely a lot of anti-war Democrats. In Georgia, turnout was down around 57,000. In Massachusetts, turnout was down around 133,000. Vermont is interesting. McCain got around 28,000 votes in 2008 with around

37,000 votes cast. Romney got 24,000 votes with around 58,000 votes cast. All the extra voters that turned out went to someone else.

If we just pay attention to the non controversial primaries, Romney has around 185 delegates to 70 for Santorum, 103 for Gingrich and 12 for Ron Paul. I leave out caucuses because there is room for mischief. In Colorado and Minnesota, Santorum and Gingrich could have enough delegates in the later rounds to shut Romney out. In ND, Romney and Paul could have enough to kick Santorum out. Then you have 4 states where the Romney people cheated. If the proportiality rules had been followed, Florida would have been 30 for Romney and 20 for Gingrich rather than 50 for Romney. In Arizona, it would have been around 18 for Romney and 11 for Santorum rather than 29 for Romney. In Michigan, it would have been a 15-15 tie rather than Romney getting 16 and Santorum getting 14. Virginia is incalculable since the turnout was so low and Romney got 86,000 fewer votes than McCain did in 2008.

If we had the same rules in 2008, Santorum would have gotten all the delegates in Oklahoma, Gingrich all the delegates in Georgia, and Gingrich would have been on the ballot in Virginia.



I won't have to wait. 2 Corinthians 5:6-8 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: (For we walk by faith, not by sight:) We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.


130. The part I don't understand is that your perception of what Santorum is VS Romney is wrong. You will not find a President again that will fight as hard for Religous freedom as Mitt Romney! Romney's hands are tied. He can't brin up religion without it being a controversy. Mitt is held to a different standard. You know that.


The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is a proposed bill in the United States Congress that would prohibit discrimination in hiring and employment on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity by civilian, nonreligious employers with at least 15 employees.

So that already frees the religious organizations from following that law.

He said it should be left to the states anyway.


Ryan60657 - Of COURSE Callista has wonkier hair than the Donald. . . . Even my 13yo son said last night - 'why does she do her hair like that???"


OH please. . . .let us not start with the scripture bashing. . . .


158 Those are horrible arguments. Romney's killing the competition, but under an imaginary situation, or with imaginary competition he wouldn't be doing as well - that's the argument. Let’s stick to the realm or reality. Romney's going to win, he has this thing all but tied up. Gingrich and Santorum aren't leaving the race because they have something to gain by staying in. They both know they're not going to be the next president though.


142. ngthagg, YES! Excellent.


Granny. Enjoy your posts. You have joined my list of "don't read. don't reply" commenters. You don't care about the truth. I have no time for that.


#156: LOL! Kid Rock? Chris Rock? Kid Rock for Mitt today; Chris Rock tomorrow.

#162: Donald Hair vs. Callista Hair? No contest. Callista wins for funky. But both will end up in the Smithsonian.

Can you imagine sleeping with Callista's hair? Does it come off at night?


The LDS Church does not allow its buildings to be used for political purposes, and the absolutely do not tell members to support any candidate. This is a fact despite what your bigoted and prejudice friends may have told you. Churches are no place for political debates. Rick Santorum lost my support entirely by giving his speeches in Evangelical churches throughout America and asking Ministers to campaign for him? Romney respects separation of Church and State. Santorum has taken his campaign to another level of disrespect, by using Church facilities and congregations as his political forum. This fuels more contention intolerance, and even hatred by bringing up religion too justify vain political ambitions. He also lost my support when he solicited Democrats to vote for him during the primaries, which plays perfectly into the hands of Obama's. Obama wants to see Rick continue his scorched earth policy. This will destroy any chances of Republicans uniting together. Some democrats would vote for Rick in the primaries just to keep Romney at bay. Obama's e biggest worry is Romney because he has already demonstrated he can bring democrats and Republicans together as a Governor. Romney has the best chance to win in November because most people are turned off by the self righteous arrogant Evangelical approach to others beliefs.


The "parts in Idaho that voted for Mitt" just happen to be the parts of Idaho with people living in them. The rest of Idaho is basically emptly vigilante country.


"*empty vigilante country.."

FF William Wallace

#100. Adam, the thing is I don't hate you. This is just a horrible post that comes across whiney. You have and can do better. That is my point. Truth is, the race is mathematically over.



The race is mathematically over.

The race began and ended in FL. Newtorum staying in the face is just causing trouble. Anybody giving them money or votes is just causing trouble--making it easier for Obama. Mitt is a much better candidate having faced up to and dispatched all the ABRs. Sorr those who hate the Evil Elite Establment: He's won.

Palin was so ridiculous today on my radio, saying she voted for Newt because "that's who Alaskans want." Alaskans want Newt? They voted for Mitt but want Newt? How does that work? Palin, Rush et al have said that when the time comes and our nom is Rom, they will support him.

Well, the time has come. Be men and women of your word.



she voted for Newt because “that’s who Alaskans want.”

Exactly, KG. This is just one of many examples of the lies and misrepresentations Mitt faces, daily. Totally ignoring the facts (that AK selected Mitt first, Santorum second, Paul third, and Gingrich LAST) she can say AK want's Newt???

Romney MORE THAN DOUBLED the votes for Gingrich in Alaska.

Palin is stupid, delusional, a liar, or just trying to sneak in as the nominee at a brokered convention. Maybe a combination of those.


My list of reasonably fair media hosts:

Britt Hume

Neil Cavuto

John King

Bill O'Reilly

Best guest experts:

Karl Rove

Dick Morris

Do you agree? Disagree? Who would you add? Who would you delete?


Hmmm, I guess Britt Hume needs to be moved to the Guest Expert list.


Fox & Friends are nearly always friendly to and positive about Mitt.


Oh, and I'd add Chris Wallace to the top list. He's tough, but fair. And he's one of the few who calls BULL when his guests lie about Romney's record.


I like Rove the best because he has the best analysis. The Teavangelicals hate him because he tells it like is is. He told them Palin, O'Donnell and Angle could not win and they went ballistic. He told them a brokered convention is as likely as life on Venus--and they went nuts, calling him all kinds of names.

Rove hasn't endorsed Mitt, but makes it clear (if you read between the lines) that Rove believes Mitt's the only one with a chance. The Teavangelicals believe it's a Rove-conspiracy to get Mitt as the nominee so the Pubs lose this time so they can run Jeb Bush in 2016.

With minds like this in our party, I don't see how we ever win anything ever again.


Here's why the Hijacked Teaparty are bad actors. In the beginning when they ran sharp, principled conservatives (like Mike Lee), they won. When they ran inexperienced, unqualified crazy women like Angle and O'Connell, they lost.

But they can't see it. They believe Rush when he tells them any uber-conservative can beat a Dem; "conservatism wins every time," says Rush. Well, Rush is wrong. You have to run a good candidate. Duh!

So they assign the label "principled conservative" to Santorum, whether it's true or not. (I don't believe it is) and believe he can therefore beat Obama. Just like Angle beat Reid and O'Connell beat some lame Dem. 😥


Santorum and Gingrich, and their supporters, are just embarrasing themselves (and the candidates wasting their supporters' money) by continuing the race when there is literally no chance they can win unless Romney dies (and even then someone else will be drafted).

Would I same if it was Romney in their positions? Well yes, in fact I was almost alone amongst the Rombots in 2008 declaring that Romney was finished after Florida and had to get out after ST:

Heath Says:

January 29th, 2008 at 8:35 pm

McCain is the nominee unless he drops dead.

Shattering but congrats to him.

Heath Says:

February 6th, 2008 at 10:46 pm

Correct in every sense.

If Mitt wants to get embarrased that’s fine – but he’s throwing away his political career.


Someone needs to inform the writer of this diatribe that Santorum isn't gonna win the nomination. It's over, buddy.


Hey There. I found your weblog using msn. This is an extremely smartly written article. I will be sure to bookmark it and come back to read extra of your helpful information. Thanks for the post. I will definitely comeback.

Comments are closed.

Recent Posts

Tweets by @Racefour

Search R4'16