Republican Presidential candidate Rick Santorum today steadfastly refused to bow out of the race to leave Mitt Romney a clear path to try to defeat President Obama. He insisted a fight for the nomination, in the long run, was best for the party and promoting its values. He did however fumble with his choice of words throughout his press conference.
“I have never been the kind to roll over and take it like a man. Not even when my wife asks nicely,” he said, in trying to make light of the subject, and in an effort to appear more ‘everyman’ to the electorate. “This race to find our candidate, to define our issues, is best when one man takes on another man, even if a couple old guys stand around watching.”
A blushing Santorum struggled to articulate why, despite falling approval ratings for Mr. Romney and a growing lead for President Obama, that the contest needed to stretch toward the summer months and the party’s nominating convention.
“Look, it’s like this: the out of touch liberal media wants me to bow out because they don’t like a clean cut Christian rising to power, especially that rugmuncher Rachel Maddow,” he said, prompting a question if such language was appropriate.
“Fuck yeah it’s appropriate. I’m tired of all these women boasting about how much they love the vijay-jay. Well, guess what? Rick Santorum loves the pink too! Well, I don’t really love the tuna. But the Bible tells me I need it to procreate.”
Sensing confusion, aggressiveness and even anger from the assembled media (except Fox News which simply asked Santorum for his opinion on Catholicism), Santorum launched into stream of consciousness phraseology apparently meant to appeal to his base.
“Lord Jesus. Restore freedom. Obama’s war on religion. Family values. Reagan, Ronald Reagan!!” Santorum said, giving himself the sign of the cross.
“It’s like this. The Republicans deserve mano a mano. No wait, that’s man on man, forget that,” he said. After being told mano a mano literally means “hand to hand” he said “No. That sounds dirty too.”
Before Santorum could further embarrass himself, the press conference was hastily halted by his press secretary. Carrying a “Santorum 2012” red sweater vest to the podium, she announced a sale on the suddenly fashionable item.
“We are discounting these by 40 percent, not because Rick is getting out of the race but because we need to sell some vests to states other than Arkansas, Mississippi and Oklahoma,” she said. She added that the first 100 sweater vests sold would include a Confederate Flag emblazoned on the back.
Within an hour, all 100 sold – each to voters in, well, Arkansas, Mississippi and Oklahoma.
Facing a firestorm of criticism that has angered women’s groups across the country, The Susan G. Komen For the Cure Foundation today turned to an unlikely source for funds: men. The cancer-focused organization announced a creative twist on one of its signature events in order to get the attention of men, and their wallets.
“Today we turn to the good intentions of men by announcing the Susan G. Komen 3-Way,” said Karen Handel, the Susan G. Komen Senior Vice President of Public Policy. “It’s every man’s fantasy and suddenly we need the cash. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist, ya know.”
The event will allow men to service two women simultaneously, for a small donation. They are allowed to bring the own female donors, or choose from a pool of female Komen supporters. Or at least the ones that remain.
“We were going to call the event ‘Donors for Boners’ but our PR staff nixed that,” Handel said, which was followed up with a question by every single reporter at the press conference simultaneously: “You actually have a PR staff?”
Responding to another question, Handle said the “Komen 3-Way” was strictly limited to heterosexual activity – only one man per group, based on their “significant religious support.” When a reporter pointed out that the two women in a 3-way could be considered homosexual activity, she snapped back: “No way. Two women kissing isn’t gay. It’s hot” adding they wo
uld allow two men in a threesome at a later date “basically if we need the funds.”
Reaction to the plan was immediate and passionate. Republican candidates for President were split on the announcement. Newt Gingrich was opposed, simply because the activity sounded like fun. Mitt Romney praised the plan because more private research funds equate to more money for rich people. But he saw the larger picture as well.
“Now, finally, the tide is coming to Uncle Mitt and I am becoming mainstream, relatable and pretty fucking fun,” he said. “One man, multiple women? Hmm. Wonder where I’ve heard THAT before. Welcome to the party, bitches.”
Mitt Romney scored a runaway victory in Florida last night, earning as many votes as Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, who finished 2nd and 3rd respectively, combined. Earning almost 50 percent of the vote, Romney obviously was happy with those numbers.
But as I watched CNN’s primary coverage, and the slew of exit polling and other statistics they kept throwing at the viewer, I saw a different set of numbers that should make Romney even happier.
Among very conservative voters, Romney actually narrowly lost to Gingrich. And he still won the primary by 14 percentage points.
Why should that be cause for celebration in the Romney camp? This is after all a Republican primary and you want to earn the favor of conservative 
voters, right?
But what those numbers reveal is Romney – at least in Florida, but I suspect among the national Republican electorate nationally — has a commanding lead among the centrist and moderate segments of the party. And that is the support you must attract in a general election.
What we tend to forget is that primaries are staged for true party activists – and those who turn out to vote are dyed-in-the-wool Republicans (or Democrats in other years). So in order to get people to volunteer, or to attend a rally, or to donate money, you are usually forced to position yourself as the “most conservative” or the “most liberal” candidate.
And then – the moment you win the nomination, you immediate have to run towards the middle to win the moderate, unaffiliated voter. THAT vote is the one you must win to capture a general election.
So the system is set up to create flip-floppers, or at least very clever wordsmiths who appear to be changing their tune while singing from the same hymnal as months before.
When I was hired to run the communications operation for a gubernatorial candidate, he suffered from name recognition of 5 percent. That’s not good. But in a few months, we were able to appeal to the party insiders to win their trust, but also position him in the polls as the Democrat most likely to defeat a popular Republican incumbent.
We ran on the idea of actually placing a Democrat in office, someone who shares most of your political ideals, but also has a record, and an attitude of teamwork that was in the best interest of the people. Stalemates don’t get you change, they just get you angry.
If the idea is to put your candidate in office, aren’t you doing your party a disservice by ignoring electability in favor of the most conservative, or most liberal, candidate. Because once the gates open and everyone gets a say, the words “liberal” and “conservative” are no longer positives.
So, for Mitt Romney, he can move forward knowing he’s already winning the middle of his party, and can likely play in the middle beyond the GOP convention. He needs to use his sizable financial advantage, and his message, to remind people he is still a conservative. Maybe not your grandfather’s conservative necessarily, but definitely your children’s president. And isn’t that what we are really fighting for?
Republican Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich today said he would propose a Constitutional amendment making the popular family card game “Uno” illegal. Gingrich said the game sends a negative message to children and opens the door to widespread tomfoolery later in life.
“America is so great. Where else can a guy like me actually be in position to be president? I mean really??” he said. “But we need to restore that portion of greatness that Ayatollah Obama has stripped from us.”
Asked 10 times by reporters what any of this has to do with the widely popular game, Gingrich said “don’t get your panties in a bunch” before adding “but it’s great to see they’re letting women be reporters now. That’s charming.”
“Uno, singlehandedly, is undermining our children, – by using colors and procedural tricks such as skipping someone’s turn and reversing the order of play rather than following the rules – to make them think that some language other than English should be the official language of our beloved United States,” Gingrich pontificated. “It may be cute to say ‘Uno’ when you’re on the verge of winning, but if this continues, America clearly will be on the verge of losing.”
Gingrich continued on. And on. And on, adding that “Uno” undermined America’s efforts to combat illegal immigration and “discouraged learning habits” in children by teaching a foreign language as a mainstream option, in a fun manner. Asked if he would consider asking the game’s manufacturer to re-name the game to “One” Gingrich said he would rather discuss the Constitution and 
make a simple issue more convoluted.
“I’m upset by the color issue as well,” he went on. “Coloreds are ruining this country by providing variety and choice and things pleasing to the eye. And when people are stimulated by coloreds, they do things like daydream, envisioning rainbows, and not developing a working habit.”
When a reporter pointed out Gingrich said “coloreds” instead of “colors” he muttered. “Goddamnit, use your outdoor words Newt.”
Gingrich’s Republican foe Ron Paul vehemently opposed Gingrich’s plan.
“If people wanna scream Uno instead of reading an economic textbook, or thesis on supply side economics, let ‘em,” he said. “Hell, if they wanna put a red 1 down on a yellow 6, let ‘em do that. Why do we even have rules for these games?”
The SuperPAC for Mitt Romney immediately issued an attack ad not against Gingrich but against Ron Paul. The voiceover in the ad says, in part “Ron Paul hates Asians and has proposed Asian families be soiled by the blood of menstruating women” followed by Paul saying “If they wanna put a red 1 down on a yellow 6, let ‘em do that.”
The White House press secretary, asked about the latest Republican controversy, referred to a YouTube clip of President Obama singing an Al Green song because it polled well and then reminded the press corps that he killed Osama bin Laden.
There have been more Republican presidential debate than there are Duggar children.
Ah, well, not quite, but it is tied. And, as because you surely know there are 19 Duggar children, you also know there have been 19 GOP square-offs.
If you ask me, it’s not too many. These debates have served a purpose, a great public service. They have given the electorate a clear view of the candidates. Their views, their intellect, their records, their styles, their reactions when caught in a lie or exaggeration. I truly believe those that have been eliminated through this process did not have the mettle to lead our nation and the bright light of scrutiny that comes with running for president.
I have long believed that the presidential race should be taxpayer funded only (roll your eyes, but did you even imagine the Super PAC mess we’re in now?), and in exchange for those funds, candidates must submit to 2-hour-long debates, several of them, all on different topics. Foreign policy for 2 hours? May sound dull, but to me it sounds pretty complete. No skimming over the issues while viewers take a bathroom break. Inform us. Move us. Most importantly, make a record of your views and be subject to intense follow-up questions.
If we did subject-exclusive debates, we would get the candidates’ truthful and full positions on those issues and they would be unable to escape the 30-second sound bites they virtually memorize. Which three departments did Rick Perry want to eliminate? What do we know of Newt’s Israel stance except that the Palestinians are an “invented people?” What do we know of Romney’s economic plan, beyond that he’s perfectly content paying less than 15 percent in income taxes?
You’ll notice there are rarely debates within a week (or usually two weeks) of a presidential election. That is not a mistake. Debates, more often than not, can do a candidate harm rather than help. Undoing that damage does two things: 1. Takes valuable time and 2. Gets you off of your pre-debate message.
Campaigns in 2012 are nimble. A quick 30-second ad can be hoisted onto the airwaves; friends of the campaign can make media tours to be high-level spokespersons giving the opposite impression of the candidates own words; staffs can release miles of statistics and voting record to reflect the actual record, away from the rhetoric.
But, the truth is people remember what they see.
Which gets us back to the point. If we remember what we see, after 19 debates we can (and do) say “we don’t like what we see.” While this creates a headache for the Republican Party in 2012, we should feel encouraged and proud we’ve weeded the political garden of the immature presidential plants.
It’s always better to throw away the rotten tomato two days before you have to make the salad. Otherwise you’re stuck with a rotten salad.
