Did Ted Cruz Really Win Every County in Maine?

The Boston Globe and 2 local papers didn't give him a chance. He didn't win a single county in Massachussetts 4 days earlier. Did Cruz really win EVERY county in Maine?

By Cruz Camp's Own Admission, Heidi Should Be Thoroughly Vetted

The head of the Ted Cruz campaign has said Heidi is Ted's closest adviser. The FEC violations involve her current employer. No personal attacks, just a necessary professional evaluation of Heidi Cruz's role in the Cruz Crew.

How Ted Cruz Can Stop Immigration Abuse NOW!

As a self-described "constitutional expert" Canadian born Cruz could do us all a great service to stop illegal immigration by simply answer 4 teeny weeny questions...

The Complete Concordance of Cruz Corruption, Deceptions and Lies

Reagan was attacked by the Establishment, but people LIKED him. Cruz on the other hand is despised by mild mannered Huckabee and "sealed lips" George W. There is a reason. Here is an (almost) complete compendium of Cruz lies.

Why Isn't Anyone Discussing the SCOTUS Ruling on Natural Born Citizen?

There is a lie being told that "Natural Born Citizen" is not defined anywhere in the Constitution. That's True. What's Not True is that it is NOT settled by the Supreme Court. (It has)

Why I'm Happy To (Now) Be A Texan

In honor of @pmbasse, a descendant of one of the original 300 Texas settlers, I want to tell you WHY I LOVE TEXAS. As they say, I wasn't born here but I got here as soon as I could. And for me that was 3 times.

Ted Cruz Takes More Wall Street Money than Hillary Clinton

When you see who REALLY is running Ted's campaign, you realize how "inside" this pretend outsider is. The top CIA, Goldman Sachs executives are LITERALLY running his campaign.

The PolitiJim Twitter FF List

The most rewarding and frustrating experience on Twitter has to be the concept of Follow Friday. I have a solution. See where PolitiJim gets his news, and twinteraction from.

Saturday, March 31, 2012

George Washington and the Ryan Wrinkle –Rubio Rub

ryan rubio

Like everyone else, PolitiJim heard the rumblings of the Ryan-Rubio Romney rubber stamps starting on Wednesday night.  If you’re a PolitiJim reader, and you think I was riled, rankled or upset, you need either new reading glasses or some ginkgo biloba.

I’ve had Twitter friends assume the race is all over now.  I’ve had fellow patriots speculate on whether we should quit trying to fight for Newton Leroy, and even conservative headlines this morning about the “death” of conservative movement and post mortems galore.

What are you so shocked about?

I wrote of the betrayal of Paul Ryan three times.  The first was during the Boehner budget ceiling debate when Paul Ryan and Allen West caved to the $1 Trillion defense cuts and would not “hold the line” with DeMint and Bachmann and the Tea Party 22Paul Ryan was not with us.

Second was when he let Newt squirm on the false accusations of Newt’s “social engineering” statement (that proved justified from the restult of Ryan budget plan 2.0).   A conservative committed to truth wouldn’t allow a fellow conservative who had just profusely praised his plan 3 days earlier in print and interviews to hang like that.  It was a flag to me that Ryan either had personally not taken the effort to listen to the David Gregory interview, has thin skin and a bigger ego than believed, or has an entirely other selfish agenda.   I’m LEAST likely to believe the last one.  But again, Paul Ryan was not with us.

And then when some of the “real conservatives” really didn’t care whether it was Gingrich or Santorum who stopped Romney, even THEY abandoned their standards of conservative truth by arguing FOR Santorum’s big government, big union, unprincipled prolife and Tea Party attacking evidence, using Paul Ryan as an example.  “Paul Ryan voted for XXXXXX like Santorum did, so you should be cut Rick a break.”  Have you not learned this life lesson FOR YOURSELF?  You can ONLY accurately judge people by their “performance and actions,” not by their words or promises.  At this juncture not only is Paul Ryan not with us, those who abandon their principles to “settle” for Romney are too.

People who tweet stuff like this…

If all the people you thought were conservative heroes now endorse Romney, did you stop to think it might be you and not them?

…embarrass the legacy of our Revolutionary War founders.

I appreciate that you are not a liberal.  I appreciate that you understand that Obama needs to be gone.  But if a Bush/Boehner GOP establishment type - who does NOT have a driving desire to demolish the STRUCTURE of our current tax, regulatory and political system – is elected, this original Constitutional principles of this country will irrevocably be lost.  Because that leader will inevitably practice what got them to their political position - compromise.  And compromise they will even more.  IT IS WHO THEY ARE.

WeyrichEndorseNewt Romney abandoned any attempt to be fiscally conservative in his OWN STATE after only two years.  He doesn’t even have the courage to stick up for his past decisions (like gay marriage), acting like a wussie weenie who lies and blames his own Supreme Court.  It so sickened Heritage Foundation founder Paul Weyrich that he warned the ENTIRE GOP he would leave the party if McCain nominated him as VP.  And since 2008 he only added to his rap sheet by spending years sabotaging Sarah Palin and becoming even more brazen in his deception and lying.  What would he do knowing CONSERVATIVES were ready to follow him to Presidency?

This is why I’m holding on for a Gingrich miracle.  He was there BEFORE the Tea Party took off, he even fought Reagan on giving into Bob Dole and scuttling his entire tax cut plan and engineered a broader acceptance of the GOP than Reagan did.  You don’t like his vote for Medicare Plan D like Paul Ryan?  Well, he doesn’t apologize for it like the rest of the pretenders, vigorously explaining his CONSERVATIVE reasons that directly line up with his words when it happened.  Taxpayers were paying $250,000 for heart surgery that could have been avoided with $2,500 Lipitor.  The health savings accounts he thought would give an example of how to begin privatizing government control of health care  AS A STEP toward great reform.  Santorum?  It was wrong.  I’m sorry.  I “took one for the team.” ANYTHING EXCEPT taking responsibility.

Why do you think Israel turned AGAIN to Benjamin Netanyahu in 2009 after Barak, Sharon and Olmert? Because REAL internal and external threats didn’t give them the luxury of taking a chance with a politician who had not been tested and successful in leadership.  And even with an extremely corrupt and liberal government, he’s done wonders.  (Pray for the Shalom of Jerusalem and Israel!)

rubio hairfly And the new Rub
With Marco Rubio?

I love the speeches Marco Rubio gives.  No one has sounded more like Reagan including maybe even Reagan.  But I’ve never seen Rubio as an immediate answer to our lack of leadership.  For one, I’m all caught up in avoiding - what the Democrats have done - in hiring a young charismatic, great speaking hopeful with ZERO executive experience to run the government, HOPING his “CHANGE” will be great.  CONVINCING me you can fly an airplane with only the experience of driving a car, is different from demonstrating to me that you can actually do it.  My little warning flags have been popping up for the past year as his name has been bandied about as a potential VP hopeful, even with Romney advisors running back and forth being employed by both camps possibly even to manipulate the Florida primary.

When someone first presented the notion that Marco Rubio is NOT a “natural born citizen,” and thus not eligible to be EITHER Vice President or President, I felt queasier than after gulping down a whole nest of 3 week old worms.  So letting only the truth guide, I subscribed to every blog, talking about it and I set out to find the truth.  I was sorely disappointed when it was clear his father had NOT become a naturalized citizen before his birth.  I also thought of the place in history he would have by doing as George Washington did and placing the country above his own personal self ambition.  F. Swemson has written a brilliant letter asking him to do just that.

The fact that Rubio evaded these questions since last year (like Santorum) and didn’t boldly come out and declare that he knew he was not a natural born citizen, began to be another red flag.

But by now it should be clear, Rubio is not with us.

They want this guy to lead us:

So the conservative casualty list now includes people we never imagined back on April 15th of 2009 who have ended up being more Benedict Arnold than Bill Buckley Jr.  They include:

  • Matt Drudge – media bias/distortion for RINO’s.
  • Nikki Haley – betrayal of Tea Party values and candidates.
  • Ann Coulter – all of the above.
  • Glenn Beck – all of the above plus calling Tea Party people racist and killing OTHER conservative investigations while likely being a plant for Romney the whole time.
  • Allen West – betrayal of Tea Party “hold the line” AND NDAA defense that is severely in error.
  • Rick Santorum – beginning with choosing Romney over Huckabee, Specter over Toomey, this shouldn’t be a surprise – but as someone who almost supported him, I include him for a myriad of well documented reasons.
  • Ben Shapiro, Editor of Breitbartdoesn’t believe Sheriff Joe Arapio’s six month investigation on Obama’s forged documents because Breitbart staff told him “there was nothing there.”
  • Rush Limbaugh betrayed conservatives by undercutting Huckabee (not my favorite but more conservative than Romney) in 2008, and did it again this year saying “Santorum was the only conservative left in the race.”  Worse, he defended CORPORATISM (what the founders disdained as Mercantilism) over Constitutional capitalism.
  • Michelle Malkin for radically either under-researching Santorum and Gingrich claims and hypocritically not correcting the record when notified (which she won’t stand for in the liberal media.)
  • John Bolton – willing to support Romney LONG before the race was decided against the other “true” conservatives ESPECIALLY since Romney and his advisers have been squidgy (or worese) about taking bold stands on Iran and Israel compared to Gingrich.
  • Paul Ryan.
  • Marco Rubio.
  • The National Review Online editorial staff.  Endorsing ANYONE but probably the closest in spirit and track record to the founder as Thomas Sowell pointed out.
  • RedSate/Erick Erickson – First it was the sabotage of a Tea Party heroine HE ORIGINALLY ENDORSED, then it was the degradation of Sarah Palin and his Glenn Beck like breakdown, and along with the rest of “MSCM,” he defaces his oath to the Constitution as a member of the Georgia bar by refusing to defend it against the gloating subversion of our President.
  • ???? (Who’s got next?)

    (feel free to post your own in comments)

Gee PolitiJim, there’s no one left!

Precisely.  The odd thing is that none of these people are bad people.  I think most of them genuinely care about our country and disdain the socialistic tyranny creeping upon us by Barack Hussein Obama.  Unlike the crazy rhetoric of some conservatives, they are not RINO’s (like an Arlen Specter or Olympia Snow.)  They are just significantly less principled than they claim to be.  Here’s a shocker: WE ALL ARE.

braveheart_dvd_02 There is a difference between those who call themselves Christians, and those who will still confess Christ under torture in a Chinese gulag.  Braveheart is inspiring because we ALL want to believe when things get tough, we will be able to be the non-compromising courageous patriots we admire.

This is why leadership is so important.  If that leadership is weak or abusive, another will find it’s place – good or bad.  Scotland would not have been free if not William Wallace or Robert the Bruce.  Lenin and Castro would never have gained power without the abuse of the proletariat by the previous selfish regime.

Leadership will also achieve the unthinkable.  Not only was 60% of the country AGAINST George Washington’s mangy army in the winter of 1776, the states wouldn’t give him money to fight.  If Washington had decided the battle was too tough with his army dwindled from 30,000 to 3,000 (1/3 who had no shoes and left a trail of blood on their march), the Revolution would have been over.

THIS is not the guy who says he was forced to “give in” to the Supreme Court and then lied about it.  This is not the other guy who claimed he was adamantly prolife, but voted with the entire Democrat party to accept Sotomayor to the bench over the objections of Rush, LifeNews, and all conservatives including John McCain.  Then he tried to scuttle conservatives who wanted to filibuster her nomination to SCOTUS.

Meanwhile, Gingrich can’t even get credit for standing up to Clinton, Bush 1 and even REAGAN who all put severe pressure on him to cave to “moderation.”  How did this happen?

Complicity, self-promotion and ego over a commitment to the truth.  Everyone had a vested interested in their “guy” or “girl” or acceptance by other conservatives  - rather than letting the truth take them down the “right” path.  Conservative blabber amplifies false narratives against Newt amplified from Ann Coulter and Matt Drudge, but the truth of his heroism in fighting Cap and Trade, ObamaCare and TARP don’t even make a ripple.

719_Republicans_for_Action_Washington_Crossing_the_Delaware,_Emanuel_Leutze_s_1851_Painting But if Washington took into account that he was outnumbered, outmanned and outgunned, he never would have bravely attacked a much mightier army in the dead of night Christmas Eve, 1776.

So, someone, somewhere has got to stand up for truth.  If the Redcoats surround us and we are out of food, I certainly will join forces with whoever will help us defeat them – even if it means I settle for a less courage leader.  In my case, that will be Romney, but only because no one has shown me convincing proof Santorum can escape his social conservative lightening rod of a tongue that would crucify him against Obama.

Meanwhile, I will continue to urge, implore, beg, chastise and challenge my fellow patriots to stand firm for a leader who has been succeeding against liberal insurrection and media successfully for 30+ years.  I will continue to wage war with Newt.

I am one of the three thousand marching from Valley Forge onward, willing to settle only for “Liberty or Death,” even if it means doing so without shoes or hope.

Let the politicians go ahead and keep setting themselves up for leaders who will betray them in the end.  Or worse, be found ineligible.  You can have them.

But I will look my children in the eye 20 years from now whether we are Greece West or the Great Shining City on the Hill once again, and say, I never gave up trying for the best for you.

And I never will.

Friday, March 30, 2012

Christians Giving Christians a Bad Name


PolitiJim loves him some Jesus.  On the contrary I have a real hard time with some of my “brothers” and “sisters” in Christ.  Jeremiah Wright would be one.  Is he even truly a Christian?  None of us knows.  Know one knows the heart of men except God.   What we DO know is the crap that spews out of his mouth.  As Thomas Sowell said about Santorum’s electability, “I wouldn’t put my rent money on it.”

I wrote yesterday (unexpectedly) about a Christian brother who wants us all to vote for the best Sunday School Teacher instead of the best man qualified to actually LEAD the country and reform our government to get back on a Constitutional footing in it’s finances to judiciary.  The mere possibility we suspect at least 4 Supreme Court Justices are willing to force tyranny upon Americans in supporting ObamaCare, is demonstration enough of how close we are to losing the heritage of Hamilton, Jefferson and Washington.  Those who ORIGINALLY pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor, also followed through on sending it in.  (Unlike some of you PBS or TBN telethon types.)

I have been meaning to write about the pastor that claims voting for Romney is a vote for satan and when someone sent me a video of a fiery “hell and brimstone” preacher who introduced and prayed over Rick Santorum, I thought I’d write about both. 

A preacher named Dennis Terry introduced Rick Santorum and you will see that he is very angry at homosexuality and overt sexuality overrunning our culture, the courts allowing Buddha in school but banning Jesus, and, at one point, he tells non-Christians and liberals to “get out” of his church if they don’t like what he’s saying.  Here is his full pulpit meltdown prior to introducing Saint Santorum, Supposed Savior of American Christianity.  (I’m guessing this pastor didn’t know that Rick claimed Protestants caused all this and were in “shambles.”)

Fiery Santorum Preacher Tells Athiests to Leave

On one hand, most conservative Christians would agree that our Founders would likely tar and feather all of us for letting our culture get so far away from their original ideals.  The Christian and Catholic churches BOTH decided that government was too “unholy” in the early twentieth century and abandoned it.  It has taken us 50 years to even get a place back at the table, let alone being the ones who serve the dinner or decide the menu.

But Ricks’ Pastor buddy is theologically and biblically wrong on a number of his statements and just outright foolish in his fiery rhetoric.

First, I need to tell my friends who don’t know Jesus (and now are much less likely to want to know Him), this is NOT someone showing what Jesus taught.  Contrary to the tone of Greenwell Springs Pastor here…,

Jesus is not mad at you.

And He would NEVER EVER, make you unwelcome in a church.  The only people Jesus cussed out were the religious folk.  Personally I suspect Jesus would leave with you, were you in this service.  Yes, there will be a time when Jesus comes back in judgment.  Not to “get even” or angrily release pent up hostility like some spoiled third world dictator insecure in his own power.  He doesn’t need ANY of this and is not threatened by the tiniest sin or the greatest blasphemy.  We are told He “sits in the heavens and laughs,” at men conjuring up all their plans.  We are also told that He weeps like a parent whose child is wasting or ruining their life, or a parent who has to see his child go through pain.

No – he’s given the whole planet to us, and even provided mechanisms to take back control after Adam and Eve decided to trade it for a promise much simpler than “Hope and Change.”  But not through threats, or anger or violence.  Any example is terrible, but His anger will be directed against satan and those who have tried to kill or deceive His children.

The Baptist preacher was also quite incorrect that God would come back to America after Christians had taken over the government.  It has NEVER worked that way and isn’t likely to this time.  And He doesn’t require men to get their act together before He get’s involved.

Our revolution against British tyranny came AFTER a historical spiritual revival.  As did the economic resurgence in the early 1900’s and the 1980’s.  (What? You don’t remember the “Jesus” movement?)

Laws and Government do not change people’s hearts.  (Other than depress them.)  I think one of the brilliances of Gingrich was understanding that Reagan’s conservatism would have been as temporary as that of Coolidge if people didn’t see a “payoff” to conservative ideas.  It is why he actually helped Reagan not cave to Bob Dole’s insistence to water down the tax cuts.  And in Contract With America he selected legislative initiatives that were ALREADY popular with the American people.  They rewarded the second modern conservative movement with expansion of their power in Congress and historic approval ratings.

We aren’t going to TALK people into giving up sin.  Why do you think Baptists have the highest divorce rate when they are the most (vocally) opposed to it?  What we can do is show them we are the best stewards of government and liberty, and demonstrate the financial, relational and other “successes” that make THEM choose to embrace our philosophy.  Christianity DOES offer (statistical) proof that it is the most fulfilling and happiest lifestyle.  Somehow I suspect Santorum’s Baptist preacher missed the survey.  Good thing or he might have skewed the results downward.

The Bible is unequivocal.  The “law” kills but “blessings” bring people to turn from bad ways.  Screaming about how bad people are, how much sin they commit or how “ungodly” they are won’t win a single person over.  But it will surely make those wavering consider abandoning your sphere of fear. 

My first thought while watching this was that how this will come across to MOST American voters.  It will do worse to Rick Santorum and the GOP than what Jeremiah Wright did to Obama.  The fury, you say?  One reason Wright didn’t “stick” as bad to Obama (although it did harm him somewhat) was because it was totally counter to EVERYTHING ELSE the public perceived about him.  Unfortunately, the “we are going to force our religion down down your thoughts” vibe, validates the fears about Santorum.  I have no doubt MSNBC will devote an entire hour rerunning this video.

What Lee Atwater and Reagan knew is that it isn’t WHAT IS SAID that persuades people.  It is their PERCEPTION derived from visuals and audio.  Meg Ryan can tell you to go to hell in her cute, pixie little voice and you’ll still love her.  John Kerry can tell you’ve won the lottery, but you’ll start worrying that he’s also going to tell you that the IRS wants it all.  I remember a story (if someone finds a link please post it in comments) that the mainstream media thought they had Reagan on a policy flub.  Brilliant campaign strategist Lee Atwater knew it didn’t matter because the image was of an “in charge” President that would outweigh all else.

Ben Shapiro, editor of Breitbart, emphasized this in a speech to King Street Patriots this past week essentially the same thing.  Republicans keep arguing facts, figures and logic while liberals tell an emotional story that tugs the heart.  The VAST majority of voters will allow emotion to sway them.  And in PolitiJim’s opinion, the above Baptist bombast will serve to blow not just our candidate out of the water, but our cause. (Liberal emotional advantages at 27 minute mark.)

Shapiro goes on to insist that the Obama campaign is COUNTING on diverting the campaign issues from economic to social issues and invented the contraception argument for just that person.  He singles out Santorum’s campaigning on these issues as a sure loser against Obama in the general election. (Santorum at the 47 minute mark.)

I had held back writing an article on another Christian preacher who made me sick by attacking Mitt Romney’s Mormon religion.  I actually picked Bill Keller up on my radar years ago when he started a 24/7 email and internet prayer ministry.  A few years later he launched 24 hour prayer channel.  I was enthralled with someone using technology to actually meet peoples needs and couldn’t imagine a better example of Christianity.  Until news articles began popping up about him saying some pretty weird stuff.  When he demanded a boycott of Trinity Broadcast Network and even Wallbuilders David Barton SIMPLY for supporting Glenn Beck’s Israel initiative.  David Barton who painfully researches the faith of our founders?  And the TV network that carries more Christian preaching around the world than any other network? 

These people are more mafia than Immanuel meditaters.

I wrote a long lengthy email pleading with Mr. Keller to start exhibiting the mercy and grace of our Savior and was shocked to get a reply.  A very nasty, condescending reply.  And EVERY reply after repeated attempts to appeal to him on a scriptural basis.  (PolitiJim started seriously searching scripture the excuse to revert back to his South Side roots, eviscerate this idiot and then repent later.  Never could find that scripture…..)

Only after multiple emails did the person with an email of “bkeller@liveprayer.com” and signature of:

Know that I am praying for you, be richly blessed,
Bill Keller
Founder,  www.liveprayer.com

admit they were not actually the Bill Keller, but one of hundreds of people who answer his emails.  Despite giving me his personal phone number.  I guess Mr. Keller missed those scriptures on DECEPTION.  You can read the entire fascinating email flurry here, but start at the bottom and read it (it deals with whether Beck has converted to Christianity).  If you contact this “fake Bill Keller” at the number he provided, be sure to tell him PolitiJim says hi.

Where was i?  Oh yes.  So, Mr. Keller released a letter to all Christians last week saying, “If You Vote for Mitt Romney You are Voting for Satan.”  This is aimed at CHRISTIANS by the way.

He is kind enough to offer a scripture even that begins:

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ…

Hmmmm.  ..the GRACE of Christ.  Not the condemnation, not the rules, not the “law,” or threats.  The free forgiveness to all who simply accept Him as the Son of God.  Which Bill Keller is quoting St. Paul who is talking about people like BILL KELLER deserting the GOOD NEWS of GRACE!

Now, as much evidence that there is of the extreme hidden evil of Barack Obama, I don’t think it is accurate (or helpful) to say that Barack Obama is satan.  And the overt lying and deceit of Mitt Romney have been WELL documented on PolitiJim.

As PolitiJim followers know, I’m much less worried about whether Mitt truly believes the stranger tenets of Mormonism than if he can beat Obama, repeal and reform the encouraging socialisms and sprawl of government, and motivate people toward conservatism.  I discuss my thoughts in the link above, but all in all if you have a lying, deceitful Christian and a lying, deceitful Mormon does it really matter?  As yesterday’s post discussed, born-again Christians that teach Sunday School are not necessarily great Presidents as Jimmy Carter has proven.

As I’ve said this past year, ALL OF THESE CANDIDATES will be exactly who they HAVE been and not what they SAID they have been.  A President Romney will be a RINO (and better looking) Boehner.  A President Santorum will be the WORST qualities of Dan Quayle and RINO George HW Bush combined.  A President Paul will be a resolute super-fiscal conservative isolationist who will do what always as – be extremely fiscally conservative and extremely unpopular with everyone except “his” people.  A Gingrich President would astound the media in getting legislation enacted with Democrats, be reformed minded, try to sell  few “big” ideas to inspire Americans and eventually have RINO’s try to sink his initiatives. 

To fellow Believers I say this:  Start leading with light instead of cursing the darkness to non-Christians or non-conservatives.  Inspire people to be like you and stop your arrogance that simply “being” a Christian actually translates to exceptional JOB PERFORMANCE.

To fellow conservatives who are NOT Abraham’s offspring I say this:  Honestly, we all aren’t this bad.  Statistically as a whole, we ARE happier, more fulfilled demographic than any other.  And the REAL Jesus isn’t uptight and angry at you.

To non-conservative moderates I say this: We want you to be wealthy.  We WANT your wellbeing.  Greece proves free stuff will eventually rob EVERYONE of peace.  The USSR (and China) prove that anything other than freedom robs your children of a safe future.  And as William Bradford learned in the Plymouth Rock experiment, there is a natural law of freedom God built in that DOES require a moral standard, but gives more than you could ever imagine.

To liberals I say this:  Screw You.

(Ha! Gotcha!  If you aren’t laughing just remember you are now acting like the uptight religious conservatives you can’t stand.)

Seriously, liberals, just seek truth.  We don’t wish you ill.  But if you try and steal freedom and future from our kids, even then we just want to stop you – not harm you.  You no longer have statics on ANY side to warrant socialism or communism (or moral relativism) so prove to us that you will make decisions based on intellect rather than selfishness. 

Honestly, we’ll get along a lot a better.


Thursday, March 29, 2012

How Nescient Are Some Christians?


A Christian Pastor proclaims, “Santorum is from God” in an article advocating that is the sole reason to vote for him over Mitt Romney.

Does God want Americans to vote for a specific presidential candidate? Pastor Steven Andrew believes so. He says, “Rick Santorum is from God, and will win with Christians and Catholics uniting for Santorum.”

He understands some prefer Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich, but believes they can’t be nominated. He says, “There is only one Christian left in the race for President–Santorum.”

Here is the ridiculous “I’m voting for Rick because he’s a Christian” argument.  The most important job in this country (and at this time) will be chosen because someone TALKS about their faith in Christ.

Did God not use Cyrus to bless Israel?  How about the Roman empire that facilitated the spread of the gospel due to their engineering of highways and trade that would not have been possible even a few hundred years earlier.  Why didn’t he use a Jewish nation to engineer aqueducts and highway systems?

Should we choose our surgeon, home builder, or butcher whether they believe in Jesus and not based upon HOW GOOD THEY ARE AT THEIR JOB?

Perhaps this is why God separated becoming a new creature SPIRITUALLY from the “renewal of the mind.”  Pastor Steven may be going to heaven, but forgive me if I don’t put the hands of the nation into a Senator who as #3 Senate Leader ran up nearly $1 Trillion of debt, lost both houses of Congress, actually angered Pennsylvania Leaders and Christians so much THEY wanted to get rid of him and who compromised his principles that resulted in ObamaCare and unborn children being killed TODAY in Pennsylvania.

God said, “my people perish for lack of knowledge.”  These are the same people that told us that Jimmy Carter would be a great President because he was a born-again Christian that taught bible study. 

My response to this Pastor who might want to stick to teaching the Gospel was posted as follows:

Wow.  Never let it be said that there aren't Christians willing to do the EXACT same things the unsaved heathen will do for Barack Obama.  Like covering over egregious and unrepentant sins of their own candidate.

Rick Santorum is NOT "from God."   Moreover, this pastor is quite ignorant of both the ungodly behavior of Rick Santorum or the mechanics of politics.

I am not against him as a fellow Christian - but am as one who is the equivalent of the Richard Nixon of conservatives and Christians.  I support my assertion with documented facts:

1. - "if Catholics and Christians unite" won't happen.  He is a very poor Catholic to hear some tell it.[PJ add]   (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/rick-santorum-the-cherry-picking-catholic/2012/03/22/gIQAQb6oTS_story.html http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/sf/page/28573#479555) and himself forced Catholic Hospitals to dispense contraception (www.thenewamerican.com/culture/faith-and-morals/10930-santorums-contradictions-a-record-of-forcing-catholics-to-pay-for-contraceptio )

2. - Not only has he betrayed ProLife causes consistently throughout his career for politics, he LIES about when he did. (http://www.politijim.com/2012/03/pro-life-slutss-for-santorum-part-2.html)  He wouldn't stop funding for Planned Parenthood through Global One fund, he undercut prolife conservatives running for office, he not only endorsed BUT CAMPAIGNED FOR pro-partial-birth-abortion advocate Christine Todd Whitman, he voted FOR Sotomayor when Rush Limbaugh and others came out against her and voted WITH the Democrats to put her on the court, he denies his OWN testimony and that of his family that he was at one time pro-choice.    I will grant you that he has been better than most on actual VOTES, but on issues like appointments and in being fully for prolife issues - he is WORSE than a charlatan.  It's not that he has problems in his record.  IT IS THAT HE LIES ABOUT THEM.

3. He is a terrible "big government" Republican willing to use government to achieve whatever it suits him.  He has made it impossible for non-union companies to compete for government programs and even had to be shut down by Gingrich because his draft of Welfare Reform EXPANDED welfare instead of reformed it. (http://www.politijim.com/2012/03/principled-slutss-for-santorum-part-3.html)  His own economic program (like Romeny's) does NOTHING to reform the tax code but keeps an ungodly progressive tax in place.  And the worst is that he has blatantly sold his votes for contributions as described here: http://www.politijim.com/2012/03/wheres-aldo-and-ricks-7-obama.html

4. He has ZERO executive experience and actually has a record of getting LESS conservatives elected.  The man hasn't led ANYTHING accept a charity for the poor that only gave away 12% of the money it collected.  (http://www.politijim.com/2012/02/objectively-comparing-mitt-rick-and_25.html)  Being someone who creates legislation doesn't make them able to do what a PRESIDENT needs to do.  (And "being a Christian" doesn't qualify.  It requires galvanizing people of different persuasions together to a common goal like Newt Gingrich did with Contract with America or Reagan did with Supply Side Economics.  Why else did Pennsylvanians turn him out of office by record margins?

5. He is simply unelectable.  (http://www.politijim.com/2012/02/objectively-comparing-mitt-rick-and.html)  Not only is his theft of $100K in PA funds to homeschool his children going to come into play - the PA TEA PARTY IS ALREADY AGAINST HIM.  Now if those who lived with his public persona for 12 years would kick him out by HISTORIC margins, what FACTUAL BASIS makes any sane person think the rest of America would?  HE IS NOT EVEN WINNING THE PLUARALITY OF REPUBLICAN VOTERS!!  His ACTUAL numbers shows an inability to reach the majority of our OWN PARTY let alone the country - http://decoded.nationaljournal.com/2012/03/santorums-narrow-slice.php  And in one month he has lost 24 points in Pennsylvania - and will likely loose it to Romney.  His biggest problem is his own profane mouth.  He's told FOXBusiness he wants the government to regulate what goes on the bedroom.  His own campaign would not retract sending out a memo saying that Michele Bachmann was ineligible to be president BECAUSE SHE WAS A WOMAN.  Even if he suddenly became a different politician and could keep his mouth shut on social issues, the liberals will crucify him to the 44% of American voters who really don't know who he is yet.  Thomas Sowell "wouldn't bet the rent money" that Santorum can overcome his divisive language.

6.  It seems he might not even be eligible.  Are Christians going to suddenly overlook the very likely possibility Santorum is not a "natural born citizen" because he is "their guy?"  I pray it isn't so.  http://www.politijim.com/2012/03/wheres-aldo-and-ricks-7-obama.html

This is one born again Christian that will do EVERYTHING to make sure we do not sink with a man who will RUIN THE CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN IMAGE as his lies and hypocrisies that sunk him in PA come to light. http://www.politijim.com/2012/03/slutss-for-santorum-part-1-truth.html

(End of PolitiJim comment)

With the very disheartening example of Steve Ertelt at LifeNews this week, I am now curious if Pastor Steven Andrew will approve the comment to put on his site. The snapshot of the submission of the comment can be seen here.

He has a book called, “MAKING A STRONG CHRISTIAN NATION.”  I’m curious if “free speech” and listening to opposing view points are a part of that or, if like Ertelt, he will edit out what others see to push his own point. 

Thank God my faith doesn’t rest in the exhibition of Christian virtue by supposed “Christian” leaders, but on the never wavering Grace of Almighty

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Prolife Politics or Postulate?


PolitiJim prayed about all night and this morning about whether to write this article.  Unless you are blond or liberal you now know what I decided.  I am going to attempt to write this with as little snark and sarcasm as possible for PolitiJim, but it is an important issue.

This particular article would not be necessary, if a certain prolife leader would have taken my invitation to cogently debate these issues – but every time I asked a specific question, he pulled a non-conservative tactic of accusing me of accusing him of not being Christian.  Or something.  His replies encompassed ANYTHING other than debating facts.  So this particular piece is NOT to trash him, or to create more “Holy Wars,” but again to try and get down to OBJECTIVE truth.  And I invite him to respond to each point and will even post his response on PolitiJim.  (I’ll bet he won’t post this on LifeNews, however.  Any takers?  PolitiJim needs a new computer.)

We’ve already learned of Ann Coulter’s betrayal of the conservative movement in trying to make Mitt Romney and RomneyCare seem Bill Buckley-like, Matt Drudge’s sell out and now one of the leading Right To Life – Prolife advocates, Steve Ertelt.  This GOP primary campaign has revealed more about character (and sadly) just how unprincipled many conservatives are.


Now Steven claims to “like” Jesus (I’m sure he really LOVES Him, but is incapacitated to say so in 160 characters).  I, however hate the Steelers (except brother-in-Christ Troy Polamalu) and likely haven’t listened to “rock” music since a couple of years after being saved.  But you would think Steven and I would basically have the same goals right?

In the heat of a Twitter “battle” (for lack of a better word), my Christian brother and head of the LifeNews organization tweeted this:


Here again, you would think we would agree, right?  We hate people who CLAIM to pro-life (or claim to be consistently pro-life) but aren’t.  We both also are TIRED of the misrepresentation.  But here we differ.  I claim the person misrepresenting their prolife view is Rick Santorum, and Steven Ertelt thinks it is PolitiJim.

But this head of a major publication for ProLifers (and former multi-state head of state Right To Life groups), has decided it is fair game to trash other prolife people who don’t support Rick Santorum, or who try to get him simply acknowledge inconsistencies about “his” candidate.

ProLifeMommy4Newt is a PolitiJim following friend and we are certainly birds of a feather.  Both deeply committed Christians, trying to find respect in reason and – as you see from her Twitter name – Prolife like PolitiJim.  And like PolitiJim, she is waging a war on an insidious development in the conservative movement.  The ignorance or intentionally taciturn of truth. 

Neither of us are looking to gloat, berate or be “right.”  We simply want accuracy and balance.  I tweeted out yesterday my true feeling.  I said something to the effect of, “I would be much more willing to support Santorum if he wouldn’t pretend he wasn’t or had been wrong (or lied) about things he has.”  Like the bible says, a man is known BY WHAT HE DOES, not but what he says.  My concern is that not only does his pretense continue to make him unelectable reinforcing the hypocrite image he has in Pennsylvania, but that if he miraculously got elected he would actually betray the Prolife cause. Because he CONSISTENTLY has in the past.

So before PolitiJim was aware of the discussion, ProLifeMommy4Newt sent a Tweet and Ertelt responded in succession:





So notice a couple of things here.  First, notice the “give me a break” comment to someone who is CLEARLY identified as a “prolife” mommy, - someone who Ertelt should see as an ally.  There is no attempt to try and persuade her, just a defense (and somewhat arrogant) reply with a pat answer devoid of any actual “facts.”  Not exactly “Like Jesus” moment, but I’ve had those too.  So, ProLifeMommy attempts to bring up a “fact,” something (later) that Ertelt claims to be open to.


In fact she brings up FOUR facts.  But look in the dismissive manner in which Ertelt answers.  Condescension and arrogance and ACCUSING Prolife Mommy of making false claims and "Making stuff up.”  Any chance he simply would ASK for proof?  (We’ll address the actual facts below, but the Attack Count is now Ertelt SE=3, ProLifeMom PLM=0)


Ertelt never addresses Santorum’s enthusiastic (“a true conservative with principles like us”) endorsement of Romney in 2008, nor the campaigning (not just endorsement) for pro-partial birth abortion (and pro-cap and trade) candidate Christine Todd Whitman.  We will take his other two assertions in order and see how they register on the PolitiJim Postulate Plumb line aka “PolitiPostulate”.

Sotomayor.  Ertelt clarifies his error later that Santorum wasn’t in office when Sotomayor was “voted on” since indeed, Rick actually DID vote on her initial approval to the Federal judiciary in 1998.  Unfortunately, he digs himself deeper:


Here is where I would like to ask Mr. Ertelt if his early snark to ProLifeMommy about giving him “a break on not being open to the facts” is appropriate.  First, it is not only false that no one was focused on her in 1998 – it is BLATANTLY false.  This was all covered in the Prolife NUTSS #2 article and sourced from ABC News which reported:

This was not a typical Circuit Court nomination. When Bill Clinton picked Sotomayor in June 1997, many conservatives believed her confirmation would put her in a fast track to the Supreme Court. The Wall Street Journal editorial called her a liberal judicial activist. Rush Limbaugh said Clinton was putting her on a rocket ship to the Supreme Court. A vote to confirm her to the Circuit Court, many Republicans believed, would make it hard to vote against her if she was nominated to the Supreme Court.

Republicans, led by Majority Leader Trent Lott, delayed Sotomayor’s confirmation vote for more than a year. When the vote finally happened, 29 Republicans — including most conservative stalwarts like Mitch McConnell, Phil Gramm, Jon Kyl and even John McCain — voted no.

Santorum joined every Democrat in the Senate and 24 other Republicans in voting yes. Sotomayor was confirmed by a vote of 67 to 29.

Perhaps Mr. Ertelt wouldn’t accept this publication.  How about a ProLife source like… his own LifeNews?  Not only does he reference EXTREME positions known at the time, Mr. Ertelt advocates:

Although the brief was written 20 years ago by someone other than Sotomayor and may have been done without her knowledge or consent, some abortion advocates appear to have their smoking gun to allow them to support Sotomayor with fewer reservations than they have thus far.

For pro-life organizations, the brief will likely be another piece of evidence leading to opposition of her nomination.

Not on anyone’s radar?  Nothing to retract?

On her 2009 Supreme Court nomination, “Mr. Consistently Pro-Life” not only did he do NOTHING to stop her, or anything to express his displeasure at the nomination – HE TRIED TO SUBVERT THOSE CONSERVATIVES WHO WERE!  (Sorry for the yelling.)  He went on record saying (essentially) it wasn’t worth the effort and we needed to be “pure” on this.  (And by pure he means roll over and play dead.)

PolitiPostulate Score: (PLM = +2, SE = –2). (You get negative points for asserting a falsehood, but I gave him a pass on the “research your facts” false accusation to ProLifeMommy).

Mr. Ertelt, please restore our faith in your integrity by acknowledging these fact.

Ertelt assertion on Planned Parenthood.

Being as gracious as I can, I’m willing to concede that Mr. Ertelt simply didn’t read ProLifeMommy’s tweet carefully.  His first response that Santorum funded Planned Parenthood was that he consistently voted AGAINST it.  BOTH of these are true.  But then the guy who “Likes Jesus” doubles down.


Calling a prolife mommy, a “Mister” isn’t exactly staying above the fray.  Claiming (in all caps) that Senator Santorum ALWAYS voted specifically against it simply being a bad journalist.  Especially when PLM sends his VIDEO INTERVIEW where Rick Santorum ADMITS that he voted for funding via Title X that funded services (albeit not abortion) through Planned Parenthood.  (Approximately at 4:30 mark).

PLM asks if SE has SEEN the video (which if he would, would at least get him to admit that Rick Santorum didn’t ALWAYS vote against Planned Parenthood, right?)


Ok – maybe my readers can find it but I can’t get the Bill Clinton legalese voice over out of my head on this one.  (Whoops. Snark.  Sorry!)  Seriously though, Editor Ertelt completely whitewashes his earlier assertion.  It turns out this is a SERIOUS problem for him by the way.  Ertelt ran a story in LifeNews in February slamming Ron Paul’s ad for saying that Rick Santorum “supported Planned Parenthood.”  There’s only one problem.  The ad never says that.

As you see the ad merely points out NOT that Rick Santorum is for funding Planned Parenthood, but that his supposed steely resolve to be the principled prolife candidate isn’t all that ….well, consistent.

The journalistic integrity of LifeNews is important.  It is arguing statistics and facts about the horrors of taking unborn lives (or in the case of Obama “just born” infanticide).  If a media outlet can’t get this right, how do we use it as a reference for FAR MORE important issues to defend our views to those that already skeptical?  As of this publishing, LifeNews still has no retraction or clarification EITHER in the misleading title, or in the misleading portrayal of the Paul ad.

In fact, the article goes on to wax eloquent about how strong of prolife record Rick Santorum has.  And you know what – HE DOES!.  It’s nothing to be ashamed of.  But LifeNews becomes more propaganda than principle when it says he “frequently” has a 100% prolife record, without just saying what it is. NOT a 100% lifetime prolife record.  It’s not so hard to tell the truth, really.  On Title X it also parses words saying that Santorum “has joined the effort to revoke all funding for Planned Parenthood via Title X.”

Again, technically true but not accurate.  On two counts.  First, this misleads the fact that Santorum’s positions have radically changed.  As the Washington Post gleefully points out the hypocrisy by documenting Santorum saying in the Arizona debate: “I’ve always opposed Title X funding,” and then in 2006 saying, “I support, you know, Title X.”  Again, LifeNews is NOT presenting accurate information to it’s readers to make an informed opinion.  They essentially are falsely accusing Ron Paul of saying something he hasn’t, trying to “puff up” Santorum to look like a 100% prolife candidate and never giving the facts how often he has digressed on abortion issues. That’s not to say he is NOT an overall prolife advocate.  He still clearly is.  But we prolife conservatives would expect a Jesus-liking journalist to just give us the juice WITH pulp and let us strain it – rather than being spoon fed some campaign line from the Santorum camp.

The story STILL isn’t completely told until you realize that Rick Santorum HIMSELF has laid the standard on how we should judge him.  In Santorum’s own words:

“I can’t imagine any other organization with its roots as poisonous as the roots of Planned Parenthood getting federal funding of any kind.” April 2011

I guarantee someone will object to VIDEO evidence of Santorum’s
lie because it happens to have been caught and linked by HuffPo.

Note that this was LAST APRIL.  So if he “can’t imagine” Planned Parenthood getting funding “of any kind,” wouldn’t it be fair to say that he disagrees with Mr. Ertelt’s own defense that the mere ProLifeMommy is simply too stupid to understand Title X?

The “non-zombie” ProLifers who actually like to think for themselves are quite at a loss what is so hard with Santorum supporters like Ertelt who can’t simply acknowledge that truth.  As I’ve written before, it isn’t Rick’s lack of a completely perfect record that bothers me.  It is his habitual lying and political maneuvering around it that first made me wary of him.

Running PolitiPostulate Score: PLM = +4, SE = –4.  Running Attack Count is now SE=4, ProLifeMom PLM=0 for the “Mr.” without any apology.

Mr. Ertelt, please restore our faith in your character by apologizing to ProLifeMommy for trying to attack her documented facts that Rick has NOT “always” voted against Planned Parenthood or even Title X.


Now, PolitiJim was oblivious to this until I read the FIRST PJM tweet referencing Mr. Ertelt.  My first response? (@GintheGin and @MsJeffDesigns you should have been proud of me!)


And now we come back to the initial tweet of Mr.E saying that he was losing respect for prolife people who mischaracterize.  Not an especially thankful acknowledgement of my praise to him –but whatever.  As I read through the back-tweets and realize that the Editor of LifeNews is backhanding a fellow prolife advocate and Christian, I’m trying to remain objective.  I ESPECIALLY holding down my extreme displeasure of Mr. Ertelt’s utter lack of these facts or – as a supposed journalist – attitude in not even acknowledging basic truths.

I’m a little less charitable – but TRYING to keep it civil. 


This whole discussion could have STRENGTHENED the ProLifers together (and helped Mr. Santorum’s image by the way), had he only said something like:

Yes, I’m disappointed that Mr. Santorum voted for Sotomayor in 1998, but he has a strong enough stance on prolife issues that I’m choosing to overlook it.

But he didn’t.  Instead he turns to page 13 of the James Carville political maneuvers manual and responds:


Frankly, I’m more than a little shocked at this point because I just got done saying “I appreciated” Mr. Ertelt and that he was a “warrior” for prolife causes.  Even the girls who turned me down for the first 7 high school dances weren’t this cruel.  (Ok, one of them was but my therapist tells me “hose nose” could be considered an affectionate term and I’m going with that.)  And yet I digress.

Can someone show me how asking a fellow Christian to admit that “truth” and “honesty” are paramount is attacking his faith in Jesus Christ?  Or moreover, what it has to do WITH THE ARGUMENT and facts at issue?

As PolitiJim readers know, I am QUICK to correct ANYTHING factually in error but it might take me a few days to apologize for my errors.  But eventually do.  Steven (we are told he doesn’t want to be called “Steve” in his bio), claims to have totally debunked EVERY one of my “false charges” in tweets to ProLifeMommy.  I’m encouraged by this since he seems to immediately be familiar with the very well researched and documented PolitiJim article in question.  I nicely ask for links so I can double check my facts (wait, isn’t HE supposed to be the journalist here?), but you won’t believe his response:


It appears to me that he is hiding behind some fake offense (didn’t Jesus say TAKE NO OFFENSE?) in order to actually debate ideas.  In the middle of this I also tweeted:


Response from Steven Ertelt? 


He DID actually tweet PLM a link to support his supposition that Santorum had NEVER voted for Planned Parenthood.  But it was already debunked LifeNews article that falsely portrayed the Paul ad.  In terms of REAL dialogue, REAL give and take of ideas and REAL debate it was bupkis.  Even mild mannered @GintheGin who is NOT taking sides and just observing the timeline adds:


Response from Steven Ertelt?


Actually – I responded to a number of tweets that now have disappeared off of his timeline.  At one point he DOES seem like he’s open to debate – and then runs away.  (You can read MY SIDE of them in my timeline or here, showing me responding to his comments – but his are gone. Next time I’ll copy them faster.)  Here is one that he scrubbed:


But I try to get him back on track after he is then FURTHER offended by pointing out that he is not answer the questions, but attacking my portrayal of his Alinsky tactics.


So PolitiJim reels off a series of questions (all documented) with his usual response:


Just in case you supposed he was offline, he did suddenly respond to a well meaning tweet from


So suddenly Steven sees the need to not “trash” each other like he did ProLifeMommy.  This is great news to me.  However, I never saw the apologetic tweet to her. 

What this means.

This is important to me for a couple of reasons.  We have chastised liberals for years for playing the Clinton game.  It goes something like this:

  • Liberal correctly accused of error by inquisitor.
  • Liberal asked to clarify, admit or apologize.
  • Liberal accuses inquisitor of exactly same, parses or diminishes it’s importance.
  • Inquisitor now points out BOTH factual error AND obfuscating behavior of liberal.
  • Liberal declares inquisitor is ….(fill in the blank, racist, sexist, homophobe, hypocrite, demeaning toward others, insensitive, ignorant, trying to play games, blah, blah blah) – ANYTHING other than answering the charge.
  • Liberal then declares that we should all get along and all this “animus” isn’t healthy for the (country, party, issue, blah, blah, blah), and “can’t we all get along.”
  • Liberal suddenly declares themselves the winner and the truth NEVER gets out.  Worse, it demonstrates to others that the truth doesn’t matter.

You saw this play out here with a LEADER of what is supposed to be the BEDROCK of the social conservative movement – the Prolife movement.  He pulled EVERY ONE of these tricks without ever truly DEBATING THE ACTUAL ISSUE.  Then, when someone stepped in to say “play nice” he was all over that – but still unwilling to debate facts.

Worse, he attempted to get away with lying.  (Yes, lying.).  From earlier in the conversation, he asked (by various people actually) why he is one sided on Santorum:


He mentions that he has defended Gingrich on his site and Twitter column so I have no explanation for the COMPLETE ABSENCE of any negative tweets on Santorum (despite vulgarity, accusations of voter fraud, likely ineligibility, etc.) and yet he not only retweets the Gingrich layoff news but also this:


So Prolife Publisher is all principle and balance, right? Completely neutral EXCEPT any pro-life candidate, correct?


Well, that is so good to hear that you journalistic integrity is completely intact.  And I totally understand that you as an American citizen are different from your role as Editor of LifeNews and wouldn’t let any bias creep in.  We appreciate you for that.  Like all other mainstream reporters and editors, you SPECIFICALLY do not endorse anyone publically so that bias is not called into question right?



Hmmmm.  According to the Santorum site they saw your personal declaration to cast your vote for Rick Santorum as endorsement.  In fact, you call it “the highlight of your precinct.”

American Journalism Review says:

Journalists should not reveal their political views,
Twitter or no Twitter.

In pre-Twitter days, what he did would have been akin to standing up at a public meeting to express his views, which would have been a firing offense at any decent newspaper…  So, no, the emergence of social networking has not changed the rules on how journalists should interact with the public. …to reach out to readers, to engage them in discussions about its mission and what it might do better to serve readers, nothing about the new venues changes the old rules about a reporter's obligation to be, and appear to be, neutral. From that flows credibility, and credibility is the basic reason for a newspaper's business success.

Mr. Ertelt, let’s dispense with the running score of who is documenting these issues correctly and who is not.  And just as a sweetener, I’ll throw away the score on “personal attacks.”

How about we debate REAL issues about abortion among the candidates.  In the old William Buckley, Jr. spirit I submit:

Resolved: Rick Santorum has not been consistently pro-life and, in fact, has betrayed his pro-life views an uncomfortable number of times.

I’ll even give you my complete arsenal of data so you can come prepared.  It’s been out on PolitiJim for 2 weeks, re-titled Pro-Life NUTSS for Santorum Part 2.  I do NOT include the complete lack of ANY attempt in all of his years in congress to author or co-sponsor a personhood amendment, but it includes documentation of:

If you refuse to SERIOUSLY investigate these issues, or if you attempt to downplay their importance because of a bias for Santorum, please don’t bother.

I simply can’t take another dishonest conservative media person who is unwilling to put truth first, and politics second.

Thanks for listening.

The Santorum Collapse

I just couldn't help but notice how poorly Santorum is now doing in some of the state polls for upcoming contests. In the latest Marquette University poll, Santorum is now down 8 points against Romney in Wisconsin (primary is on April 3rd). In the previous Marquette poll, conducted in mid-February, Santorum was up by a whopping 16 points! A 24 point swing in a little over a month is nothing to sneeze at, though it is probably par for the course in this roller coaster of a GOP primary.

Even worse, he currently only has a 2 point lead in his home state of Pennsylvania (primary is on April 24th) according to the latest Franklin & Marshall poll. This is a monumental collapse compared to the 29 point lead he had in the Franklin & Marshall poll taken in mid-February. At this rate, he will lose his home state by the time the primary rolls around, and that would be a blow that he won't be able to recover from, despite the facts that all PA delegates are unbound anyway. Home states represent the people who know you best and if you can't even carry your own party's primary there, well, that is certainly a sign of something.

The news is no better in North Carolina (primary is on May 8th), where the latest PPP poll shows Santorum and Romney currently tied. This is a state where at one point Newt was leading by 37 points so it should be prime Santorum country, especially when facing a Massachusetts liberal like Romney. Could Santorum still pull North Carolina out? Sure, he isn't exactly behind in the polls, but you have to understand where the race will be once North Carolina rolls around.

On April 3rd, we will see results for Wisconsin, Maryland and DC. It looks highly likely at this point that Santorum will lose all three (he isn't even on the ballot in DC). Then on April 24th, results from a bevy of northeastern states, Connecticut, Delaware, New York, Pennsylvania & Rhode Island, will be released. None of these states are demographically friendly to Santorum and so he will likely lose at least four of them, if not all 5 (as the latest PA poll implies). So, only after losing what will likely be 8 in a row will he stumble into Indiana, North Carolina and West Virginia, which will be friendlier territory. After neighboring Illinois and Ohio went for Romney, Indiana will be tough to win for Santorum, though it could be relatively close. West Virginia, which has become a more reliably conservative state over the years, is also a state where Santorum wasn't able to get a full delegate slate in all the districts (so even if he wins he likely loses). If the race is in such a state on May 8th, how can Santorum even hope to win North Carolina? Heck, it's very conceivable that Santorum might no even win another primary until May 22nd, when Arkansas and Kentucky Republicans vote.

How did the campaign of St. Rick get to such a point? Santorum was marketed as a true conservative who was diligent and disciplined. He essentially stole many of Newt's talking points and kept trotting out his family to show he has a strong moral character and no personal baggage. But the truth of the matter is that his record is actually not that conservative on economic policy and in just the last week he flew off the handle at least thrice, throwing a tantrum on Neil Cavuto's show, implied he would rather go with Obama instead of Romney and even swore at a reporter. On top of all that, he turns off a large percentage of the Republican electorate with his over the top moralizing that makes people fear the government inserting itself into their private lives.

Rick is done. The sooner his supporters realize this, the better. There is still time if they get behind Newt, who has a more conservative record, can unite all factions of the party, is a fantastic speaker and also seems to be a much more loyal Republican (he has repeatedly said that any Republican would be better than Barack Obama). If Santorum supporters stick to rick, Romney seems to be on track for 1,144 and, if that happens, the hopes of a conservative emerging from a brokered convention disappear.


Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon Favorites More