Santorum’s Choice


By Steve Deace

Rick Santorum (and his supporters) have a decision to make.

Does Santorum still believe that Mitt Romney is “the candidate that will stand up for the conservative principles that we hold dear” as he said when he endorsed him four years ago instead of Mike Huckabee (he said Romney and not Huckabee was “the only place to go” for conservatives)?

Or is Santorum now firmly convinced that Romney is the man he confronted in the final debate before the Iowa Caucuses for destroying marriage in his own state, and represents a total repudiation of the values and principles Santorum has fought for his entire political career?

If Santorum can live with Obamney as the alternative to Obama this fall, then by all means he should continue doing exactly what he’s doing. Who knows, maybe he’ll do it well enough to earn a spot on Romney’s ticket or at least in a Romney administration. It shouldn’t be all that far-fetched that Santorum would join up with Romney, because he did it just four years ago.

But if Santorum believes that replacing Obama with Obamney represents a major setback in the battle to win the future for our children and grandchildren, then he needs to realize he may never have as much leverage on a national stage then he does right now to give the country a true alternative in the general election—and also stop the Republicrat establishment he fought as a senator from having its way yet again.

At this point, barring divine intervention, there is not a path to the nomination for Santorum that I am aware of. He is even in worse shape than Huckabee was at this point in 2008.

Santorum did not get the decisive Iowa Caucus victory Huckabee got. We eventually found out he did win by a slim margin, but any bounce or momentum he would’ve gotten from that victory was mitigated by the bungling of the outcome (which was no fault of his own).

Santorum, a northern Catholic from Pennsylvania well known to New Hampshire voters, got about 3,500 fewer votes in the Granite State primary than Huckabee got as an unknown Southern Baptist in 2008.

One week after receiving a vote of confidence of the majority of Christian leaders meeting in Texas, Santorum lost the Catholic vote and finished behind Romney in third among evangelical voters in one of the most evangelically-populated primaries in the process. Huckabee didn’t win South Carolina four years ago, either, but he did get almost 27,000 more votes than Santorum did on Saturday. Santorum suffered this setback in South Carolina despite the fact one of his top aides is a long-time South Carolina Republican activist and the executive director of Huckabee’s PAC.

Santorum faces the disadvantage of having to face a well-known southerner in Newt Gingrich in all the conservative southern states he’d typically be the most likely to find a receptive audience to his message, something Huckabee didn’t face as the true southern candidate in 2008.

Santorum has fought hard to get to this point, and should be commended for that. He’s here both because of his own work ethic and tenacity, and the fact the moment was too big for previous frontrunners Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry. If either of them would’ve had staying power, Santorum doesn’t make it this far. But they didn’t, and Santorum to his credit took full advantage of that.

But this is now a whole new ballgame.

Santorum’s presidential candidacy is like the mid-major school in the NCAA Tournament that makes it all the way to the Final Four after taking advantage of the chaotic bracket rearranged by upsets. Once that upstart team gets to the Final Four, it usually faces a reality check up against elite competition. Make no mistake, Santorum is facing a similar reality check.

On one side is Romney, who is not going to lose any of his party establishment support for as long as he’s still in the race. Romney has the 25-30% of the primary electorate the establishment represents locked up, and the establishment never breaks ranks. So siphoning off votes from Romney likely isn’t an option for Santorum, nor is persuading Ron Paul’s supporters. At times it seems almost as if the Paul campaign detests Santorum more than President Obama thanks to a lingering feud between Santorum and National Right to Work, which basically is Paul’s presidential campaign apparatus. This explains why pretty much every nasty anti-Santorum flier or robo-call distributed in this campaign has come from either the Paul campaign or those sympathetic to it.

That leaves Santorum no other strategic alternative but to raise himself by diminishing Gingrich, a man with whom he’s been friends for 20 years.

However, the only reason for conservatives to choose Santorum over Gingrich is because Santorum has been a better husband and father over the course of his life, because their political records are virtually identical.

If conservatives are concerned about Gingrich’s past personal baggage, and skeptical they have seen enough evidence of positive life change over the past decade to warrant giving him another chance, then they should absolutely support Santorum and those conservatives likely already are. However, it’s obvious after South Carolina the ranks of those conservatives are dwindling.

That leaves each man’s political record to draw distinctions for most voters, and their records are virtually indistinguishable.

Every pro-life accomplishment Santorum lists off Gingrich can also claim (I don’t count winning the deeply flawed partial-birth abortion “ban” that didn’t really ban anything at the Supreme Court as a win). Same goes for defending marriage. Gingrich joined Santorum as one of the original signers of the Personhood pledge. Their legislative records on fiscal issues is also very similar.

Don’t like the fact Gingrich has been “pro-life with exceptions” throughout most of his career until recently? Neither do I. Just as I don’t care much for the all the pro-abort RINOs Santorum’s PAC has given money to.

Don’t like the fact Gingrich once supported a Romneycare-style mandate and supported the TARP bailout? Neither do I. Just as I don’t care much for Santorum’s vote for Medicare Part D, which until Obamacare was the biggest welfare state program in American history.

Don’t like the fact Gingrich once sat on Nancy Pelosi’s big comfy couch? Neither do I. Just as I don’t care much for Santorum doing an endorsement photo-op with a pro-abort/pro-global warming Pelosi-clone named Christie Todd Whitman.

Don’t like the fact Gingrich endorsed a total RINO named Dede Scozzafava in a critical primary? Neither do I. Just as I don’t care much for Santorum’s support of notorious RINO Arlen Specter in a crucial primary, which put Specter in office long enough to cast one of the critical votes in favor of Obamacare.

Everything principled conservatives don’t like about Gingrich on virtually every issue is also a weakness of Santorum’s. Likewise, virtually everything you do like about Santorum’s record on the issues is also a strength for Gingrich. Even their foreign policy views are carbon copies of one another. Heck, these two guys could pretty much finish one another’s sentences.

After vetting these candidates I came to the conclusion Santorum was no more consistent on the issues than Gingrich, but he has been more consistent in his personal character and that obviously matters.

Is Santorum really prepared to make the case his 20-year friend hasn’t really undergone the positive life change his daughters and sons-in-law who know him best say he has? Unless he is there is really no other case Santorum can make for his superiority to Gingrich as a candidate, because the leadership intangibles Gingrich brings to the table are what has caused conservatives to rally to him instead of Santorum.

Gingrich is the only man alive who has actually won a national election on conservative ideology and reform. Gingrich has pretty much already accomplished all the things Santorum is promising to do. Gingrich has demonstrated the most consistent courage and conviction on the need to reinstitute the rule of law, which in my opinion is the most important issue of the day. Gingrich is the first Republican political figure in a generation to be able to put the media in its place and win the crucial sound bite battle in the arena of ideas, where conservatives have lost so much ground to the left since Ronald Reagan left office.

If you’re a conservative that thinks the country needs a chaplain in the White House then Santorum is rightfully your candidate. The rest of us who feel like we are at war both at home and abroad with the future in peril and desperately need a general have settled on Gingrich. South Carolina’s primary represents every variation of American conservatism, and it gave an overwhelming nod to Gingrich as the one to challenge Romney.

If Santorum (and his supporters) are thinking critically and not emotionally he has to know this. I have a hard time believing a guy that throughout his career has almost always chosen to take the best deal he can get rather than dying for the cause hasn’t thought about this already. In fact, Santorum has probably played out a million scenarios in his mind for what the best deal looks like before I even wrote this.

If so, he also has to know that between now and January 31st he will have more leverage to stop Romney and the party establishment then he will ever have, because if Romney loses Florida that will be a mortal blow to his candidacy he likely will not recover from. If Santorum cannot come out of the two Florida debates this week making any definitive headway, then he becomes nothing more than an unintentional stalking horse for Romney heading into the primary by draining votes from Gingrich. It’s quite possible Santorum may not win another delegate.

Gingrich needs Santorum at the moment, but if Gingrich were to win Florida – as he did South Carolina – without him then Santorum’s clout in this race will be erased just as quickly as the clout of the Christian leaders who endorsed Santorum in name only last week saw theirs evaporate.

Santorum (and his supporters) have a decision to make, and there’s not much time to make it. Every day this decision is put off only serves to help Romney and the party establishment that has done so much damage to the conservative brand and thus the country already.

P.S…As a personal aside…

If I really thought these pro-life and pro-family leaders who didn’t help Huckabee four years ago were really going to help Santorum, I wouldn’t have publicly endorsed Gingrich prior to the Iowa Caucuses. Although I am convinced Gingrich would make the better president, if I thought there was going to be a real coalescing behind Santorum that included real resources I would’ve kept quiet, and just voted for Gingrich without saying anything beforehand so as not to get in the public way of such a coalescing.

But I did my homework and talked to every little birdie I had, and I knew that a real coalescing wasn’t going to happen. Just as I knew nothing tangible would come out of the Texas meeting so there was no reason in the end for me to spend two days there. And look what happened, Gingrich’s numbers with evangelicals went up after these evangelical “leaders” supposedly coalesced behind Santorum.

Here’s an inconvenient truth many of you won’t want to know but you must — many of those most public about their support for Santorum now whitewashed John McRomney’s record four years ago and are still doing so. Heck, when Gary Bauer was on Fox News endorsing Santorum, I couldn’t tell if he was endorsing Santorum or Romney.

At some point we have to grow up as Christians, and realize that political engagement is not as simple as selling our souls versus tilting at windmills. We have to move beyond the factions/tribalistic battles all of us have wallowed in, me more so than most. We have to stop looking at who feels our pain, and start looking for someone that will do something about it.

After getting to tour the sausage factory from the inside, I learned this replay of high school clique turf wars is exactly what the Republican Party establishment wants us to do, as opposed to putting issues and leadership ahead of churchy warm fuzzies. Divide and conquer is the oldest warfare strategy known to man. Time and again we play into their hands, as do some of our leaders. And some of these “leaders” do so on purpose, because it makes it easier for them to cash the check from the establishment after they’ve sabotaged their own.

I’ve had enough, and I’m not getting fooled again. My book isn’t about getting fooled again by candidates. It’s about getting fooled again by a failed political paradigm and a failed generation of leadership that has either been fooled or is fooling us over and over again.

I’m done being fooled. Going with Gingrich was my way of saying I’ve had enough of ineffective Christian leadership propping up the Republican Party establishment either via their naiveté or duplicity, thus doing further damage to my kids’ future.

From now on, I’m picking who I think my Biblical worldview says is the best candidate, regardless of which table in the lunch room they sit at, and then let God be the judge of the decision I made and why I made it.


  • Kevin Subra

    Good article, Steve (from a Santorum supporter). It will be interesting to see where Rick lands in the near future.

  • prolifer

    Nice article Steve. 
    Yes, there is no difference between Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum on
    social issues except that Gingrich doesn’t really practice what he
    preaches.  Well, now that I said
    that, Gingrich doesn’t really preach the social issues either.  Sure he voted the right way, but lots
    of politicians do that. 


    It a candidate’s willingness to lead on this issues that I
    look for.


    That’s why I voted for Bob Vander Plaats in the 2012
    Republican Primary over Terry Branstad. 
    Branstad has signed into law every piece of pro-life legislation that is
    on the books in Iowa, but that wasn’t good enough for me.  Face it, Branstad had to sign those
    things into law, but it’s not like he was out there pushing those issues in the
    public square.


    Number of social issues included in the Contract With
    America? Zero.


    Why? Because life and marriage are not 70% issues in


    I like Newt. 


    If he’s the nominee I will gladly support him. 


    I’m thrilled he won South Carolina.


    I want him to win Florida.


    But I’m not about to point my finger at a guy like Santorum
    who has taken the slings and arrows for advancing our causes and tell him to
    get out of the race.  Rick, Mitt,
    and Newt has all won a state.  Just
    because Newt won the last one doesn’t mean Rick has to get out of the race.

    • Jared Mills

      He’s right in what he’s saying though. Santorum has a very slim chance of making the nomination and if he Gingrich wins FL without Santorum’s help, I doubt he’ll get as high of a position. Right now, he could get VP probably (or at least serious consideration for it). This is about striking when the iron is hot, and it is flaming hot against Romney. We do need to capitalize on this, and I do think the best thing for Santorum to do is to try and cut a deal with Gingrich for VP, since he isn’t going to win the nomination at this point. I voted for Santorum in the caucus, and I still consider myself a Santorum supporter. My dream ticket is a Santorum/Gingrich one, not a Gingrich/Santorum. But I’m also looking at the facts, and it doesn’t look good for him. I would rather have my second pick and destroy Romney in FL then have Romney win FL and live to fight another day. We need to draw a line in FL to stop him. I just hope Santorum will see this.

      • Chris Downey

        Looking at facts, or circumstances?  Circumstances tend to change.

        • QuoVadisAnima

          In fact, the only constant in this current election process has been change. 

          And there’s a good chance that it will change again:  Gingrich has never won a national contest, is notorious for blowing it when he’s a the top (just look at his brief Iowa surge), and has never passed 43% popularity in his entire life, even when he was riding at his highest as Speaker.  Gingrich fans need to recognize how unpopular he is with the general population.  Are we really going into the general betting that our nominee is going to be less unpopular than theirs?  Heaven help us!

    • Sean

      My commitment to you is twofold: first, to continue supporting your work to defend the rights of the unborn, and second, if elected President, to advance pro-life legislation, appoint judges who will stay true to the meaning of the Constitution, work to bring about an end to judicial tyranny, defend religious freedom, and work with allies in Congress and throughout the country who desire to bring about a day in which America restores legal protection to all unborn human life. – Newt Gingrich 

  • Consistencyanyone

    was Deace as forgiving to Jim Nussle as he has been Newt Gingrich? 

    “several years earlier, Nussle had divorced his first wife and married a congressional staffer with whom he’d had an affair.  Anytime Deace had an opportunity to make a snarky comment about Nussle’s family situation or the fact that Nussle had been unfaithful, he took it, and he took it far.  Nussle went on to lose the election.
    Deace crucified Nussle for having had an affair.  Gingrich has had two.  Ironically, Karen Nussle, that congressional staffer mentioned earlier who eventually became Jim Nussle’s wife, worked for Newt Gingrich at the time the affair began.  Even more ironically, Newt’s current wife, Callista Gingrich, happened to be a congressional staffer for Jim Nussle at that same time, which is how she met Newt.So, apparently, Deace feels that unfaithfulness is evil when Jim Nussle does it, but it’s not quite as bad when Newt does it… twice?” – the Iowa

  • Chalkart

    Excellent article Steve…bravo!

  • Julie Grace Foster

    Excellent analysis Steve.  You have been reading my mind.  I am going to post this on Reverend John Hagee’s wall and Pastor Rod Parsley’s wall. The last time they endorsed McCain over Huckabee (the establishment candidate who they thought could win) Two weeks later, McCain publically called them crazy for their Biblical beliefs.  I think God allowed Gingrich to be broken so he could be restored.  I celebrate his “contriction” instead of holding his past sins against him.  I hope the evangelical leaders can stop looking at the sins and see the change.  It is almost as though we are like the Jews in post-crucifiction Jerusalem.  Do we see Saul, or do we see Paul?   

  • Waynenalljr

    Sorry, Steve!  Totally disagree with this article.  I think Rick Santorum has been a consistent conservative for decades, even though he admits to some mistakes (and which of us haven’t made a few!).  Just as plausible to ask Newt to step aside as to ask Rick to step aside at this point.  Who knows what the race will be like a month from now!

    • Anonymous

      If you believe that “Rick Santorum has been a consistent conservative for decades,” you:

      a) didn’t read the article
      b) have been locked up in your closet for decades
      c) are smokin’ some pretty good weed!

      And it isn’t “just as plausible to ask Newt to step aside as to ask Rick to step aside” (and I don’t care for Newt just a little bit less then I really don’t care for Romney) . . . because “Rick” is not even close to taking out Romney and Gingrich is within’ spittin’ distance of having him “hooked, netted and landed.”

      People like you are the only obstacle between what Steve is talking about above and President “Mittrock Obomney” . . . in fact . . . it is for people like you that he wrote darn thing I’ll wager . . .

    • QuoVadisAnima

      Yep, I agree, Waynenalljr.  Steve is willing to forgive Newt’s non-conservative and immoral mistakes of the past, but not Rick’s – apparently he & the bobbing heads here are more willing to forgive a huge debt than a small one?

  • Aaron JH

    “if I thought there was going to be a real coalescing behind Santorum that included real resources I would’ve kept quiet, and just voted for Gingrich without saying anything beforehand so as not to get in the public way of such a coalescing.”

    Steve, no offense but you needn’t have worried about whether you should have kept quiet or not as Gingrich was in 4th place just before you endorsed him, and he finished in a distant fourth place after you endorsed him.  But even if your endorsement had a minor effect, all that did was siphon just enough votes away from Santorum to put the Iowa primary result in doubt and give Romney the “I won Iowa” ammo that he did not deserve. 

    So if your endorsement of Gingrich made even a half of one percent’s difference, all you did was deprive Santorum of the boost that a clear-cut Iowa victory would have gotten him.

    Also, the evangelical endorsement in Iowa (namely Vanderplaats) clearly did make a difference.  So you are saying that you decided to endorse Gingrich prior to Iowa because the evangelical endorsement was not going to make a difference two primaries after Iowa (in South Carolina)?

  • James

    6 1/2 a dozen of the other – Both are status quo BIG govermment NEO-CONS!

  • mikelmann

    This was an excellent paragraph:
    At some point we have to grow up as Christians, and realize that
    political engagement is not as simple as selling our souls versus
    tilting at windmills. We have to move beyond the factions/tribalistic
    battles all of us have wallowed in, me more so than most. We have to
    stop looking at who feels our pain, and start looking for someone that
    will do something about it.

    But then you said:
    From now on, I’m picking who I think my Biblical worldview says is the
    best candidate, regardless of which table in the lunch room they sit at,
    and then let God be the judge of the decision I made and why I made it.

    The first paragraph seems to recognize the uncertainty of our political choices and the (practical) need for effectiveness. Then in the second paragraph you seem to take it back. Come clean: the choice between Gingrich and Santorum (or Paul for that matter) cannot be traced back the Bible. So let’s abandon the whole fiction of Biblical worldview mandating political choices.

  • Daniel Cesar

    One additional element for your analysis Steve comes from a saying of Jean De La Fontaine,” It is a double pleasure to deceive the deceiver.” 

  • John Lofton
  • Chris Downey

    “…if I thought there was going to be a real coalescing behind Santorum that included real resources I would’ve….”

    Sounds to me like a weather vane twisting.

  • Anonymous

    Deace, you will appreciate this one…Santorum presents the ultimate “Dark Knight” scenario.  You (nice people) blow up the good people by pressing the button or I blow up both you (nice people) and those good people.  He has consistently proven he believes that “the END justifies the MEANS” and that somehow good can come from evil.  Every BAD endorsement, every BAD vote, every BAD decision Rick Santorum justifies away by saying that he did that because in the end, if everything happened the way I think it will, this is the right/good thing to do.  As if Santorum could predict every step along the way to go his way.  With Specter, Santorum said, I THINK that Toomey will lose the general election to Casey, so I will support Specter (even tho he votes against conservativism at every opportunity) because he might throw me a bone and support judicial nominees.  That is Santorum’s mode of operation on everything.  A dedicated compromiser.

    Worse, he doesn’t have an “outside the box” thought at all…instead of supporting Specter (and all the other liberals, Romney, Todd-Whitman, etc etc) “because of the judiciary” why didn’t he support and work toward the republican LEADERSHIP throwing Specter (if he would have won without Santorum’s gushings) out of the judiciary committee into something mindless where he couldn’t do damage to the republican party and conservativism? 

    Why don’t republicans use their leadership power to put liberal members in harmless places instead of catering to them, as the democrats keep their members in line?  Because they don’t have to when they have “nice” people like Santorum willing to compromise away core issues.

    Santorum likes to be perceived as honest and non-establishment, but in truth he is neither.  He is as establishment as they come (since he falls right in line and snaps a salute to the republican system), and who could consider him honest when he trips out lines like “Mitt Romney is the TRUE CONSERVATIVE” (over Mike Huckabee) instead of saying what he NOW says…he felt Romney was somehow better than Huckabee (lesser of evils????) against McCain.   Isn’t that a LIE?  Tell me again how honest he is?

    • QuoVadisAnima

      True – we are better off with a pol who is completely self-interested, and does things only to further his own interests, than one who is interested in supporting the GOP.

      • Anonymous

        Well, if this was “supporting the GOP and lacking self-interest,” then all I have to say is, I’m a self-interested pol who doesn’t support the GOP any more either:”

  • Pete S

    As usual, you express your opinions in very strong terms.  No half-measures in any use of rhetoric–that’s your style, and I normally consider it very persuasive.

    But not this time.

    I will grant you that Santorum’s window of opportunity may be closing, but he will last through March, and mid-March is a freaking lifetime away during which any number of things can happen.

    And if no one has generated critical mass by mid-March, then we do face that very rare chance of having a brokered convention–a convention where no one goes in with enough delegates to win on the first ballot.

    The fact is that if that very rare circumstance occurred–Santorum actually has the best chance of being chosen as the compromise.  There is absolutely no reason for him to even consider folding the tents yet.  You are simply a Gingrich supporter trying to use what power you have to use the last vote (in SC) and claim that, now that your guy won one, this is “all over.”  Very convenient timing.

    Just a few weeks ago, Steve Deace was preaching that everyone should give Michelle Bachmann “every opportunity” to win your vote, because she had been so faithful to conservative views.  Now Santorum must be quickly thrown over the side.  What makes it tough to take is the sneer I hear in your voice when you say people can continue to support Santorum just because he’s a good husband and father.  As if that doesn’t mean very much in America today.  I’m frankly shocked to read such a thing on your blog.

    Gingrich is strong.  There is much to like about him.  I can vote for him if he ends up being the nominee.  I am willing to consider forgiveness for his past transgressions, and I admit that he has handled his checkered past every bit as well as a candidate could.

    But why on earth would our party get enthusiastically behind this candidate, when another candidate is every bit as conservative, more faithful to principle, and has a blemish-free personal life?  All you can really come up with against him is past endorsements of fellow republicans, prior to recent years that have seen the party becoming more and more conservative?  And to go so far as to consistently criticize the hard, hard work Santorum did in the trenches on abortion in the congress.  It’s frankly beneath you.  And I mean it.  These are moments on the floor of congress for the ages–the stuff talk radio guys wish they could do.  Asking Russ Feingold if a baby slips out of the birth canal during an abortion, whether it can still be killed, and getting him tongue tied.  Asking Barbara Boxer on the floor if a baby’s toe is still inside the birth canal whether the baby can still be killed, and having her flee the scene saying she can’t answer any more questions.  You often note how much more pro-life american culture is these days.  How do you know that the reason for that is NOT Rick Santorum’s work back then?  I think he was INDISPENSIBLE.

    Gingrich could win the nomination, and he could win the election, and he could be really good.  But Steve, I’m telling you that this could be Nixon the sequel.  Gingrich has some pretty significant personal flaws, and they could eat away a presidency.  In addition, he is much more risky a nominee than Santorum.  he could get the nomination and fall flat on his face.  We are going to put a thrice married man on stage with the mistress that broke up his last marriage (picture her as first lady of the nation), and we are going to put him next to a perfectly faithful family man with two beautiful young children.  There is significant risk in the party making that choice.

    It’s fine for you to be a gingrich supporter and keep pointing out his strengths, which are indeed significant.  But I just can’t stand this attitude of yours that is so certain he’s the only one worth considering that you have stooped to cheap shots of a great public servant and good man like Santorum.

    Go Rick, and hang in there!  You aren’t hurting anything by doing so!


  • James

    If todays so called Christian right were around approximately 2,000 thousand years ago – They would have shouted for the release of barabbas.
    There is no room for the ‘prince of peace’ in your hypocrisy and foolish rhetoric.

  • Guess

    Since when has asking folks to support someone because he can win been part of your m.o.?

  • Margarita Szechenyi

    Gingrich stated in this video (at 4:50) that he favors exceptions for rape & incest.  That is in direct, blatant opposition to his supposed new found Catholic faith.  This shows dishonesty and duplicity, especially this week when he sent a letter to Catholics promoting his movie about JPII.  It makes me sick that he would use JPII as a campaign tool.  Besides the exceptions to criminalizing abortion, Newt also totally disregards the urgent pleas of JPII and Pope Benedict XVI against our current foreign policy & war-mongering.  Whether or not you agree w/ Catholic teaching on abortion and JPII’s/B16’s thoughts on our foreign policy, you should at least take not of Newt’s inconsistency as one who presents himself as a champion for Catholics.

  • Joe

    Steve…..Santorum is the reason we have Obamacare. I recall a couple of years ago when he snow-balled Pat Toomey in favor of liberal Arlen Specter. Guess what, Specter got elected, left the Republican Party and was the crucial vote needed to push Obama care over the top. All these people Paul-bashing, you cannot have it all. He is the best person up there by far and yes he is electable because patriotic independents and democrats like him. He would have never won Clayton County without them. Furthermore, I have listened to many democrats and indepdendents that are disgusted just as much as any of us are about the Congress and Obama.

  • James

    LOL! I have been banned from posting – MESSAGE I received – MessageThe site has blocked you from posting new comments. What are you afraid of?

  • Damonrambo

    Really doesn’t matter. Neither Gingrich nor Santorum, because they are not on the ballots in several states (and appointed insufficient delegates), can numerically win the nomination. Romney is going to win. The only person who could possibly beat him, is Ron Paul, and the media has everyone so brainwashed that he “cannot win” that he cannot keep his earlier momentum going. The media has picked their pro-abortion, pro gun control, Mormon candidate, and their is little we can do about it. However, if you are a Reformed Christian, as I am, and believe in the Sovereignty of God, as I do, then I say vote the right way, and leave the results up to God. For me, this means a vote for Ron Paul, a Southern Baptist of integrity, who will actually do what he says… From Pastor Vodie Baucham, and why he chooses Ron Paul..