• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Rick Santorumm is "suspending" his campaign.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Veddy interesting. I hope (sincerely) that he is doing this for fear of losing in PA and not due to his daughter's ongoing health problems. In any case I wish him and his family well.
 
Last edited:
Good, no sense in delaying the inevitable. Now hopefully Romney will also realize that Dr. Paul is an unstoppable force and follow Santorum's lead.
 
Craig234 said:
As they say, Reagan couldn't get elected today by them
Click to expand...

You referring to 'Reaganomics', where we spend money we don't have and expand government? You say he couldn't get elected today but we've a track record of nominating Leftist Republicans from Bush, McCain, and Romney.

What you're demanding out of the Republican party is exactly what you're getting. It's what the Tea Party is supposed to be fighting to prevent, we're tried of the big gov spenders in the GOP.
 
senseamp said:
Gingrich and Santorum should have flipped a coin for who would stay in. They would have had a better chance beating Romney if only one of them stayed in, even accounting for the 50% chance of losing the coin toss.
Click to expand...

One of the few occasions where I agree with you.

Thing is though, to run for president takes a huge ego. Anyone with that big of an ego would find it hard to just drop out or take a chance on a coin flip.
 
I wonder what the party offered him to get out - very likely that was a big factor.

Maybe just 'you'll get party thanks in 2016', maybe something else.
 
Santorum was running in the wrong race. He didn't want to be our President, he wanted instead to be our Pope. Good riddance.
 
Newt has also basically suspended his campaign, and now it looks like Romney is unstoppable for the GOP nomination. At least if you add in the GOP super delegates already pledged to Romney. As it was, if Santorum failed to win the 4/24 GOP primary in Pennsylvania, his chances would have plummeted to zero anyway and Gingrich had no delegates at all. So for what its worth, I think we can all assume Romney is going to win the 2012 GOP Presidential nomination. As the least unacceptable candidacy between the 4 remaining candidates of dumb, even dumber, even dumber and egotistical, and a fibertarian fantasy to round out the mix.

As now, for the third time in a row, the GOP is likely to come into the Presidential general election with a candidate that only partly appeals to only its extreme right wing.
Leaving about 75% of the more rational GOP electorate with a choice between Obama or delusional. Add in the fact that Romney is so out of touch with the average voter, and his propensity to thus show it off in gaffs in debate, is likely to result in a second term for Obama.
 
Jaskalas said:
You referring to 'Reaganomics', where we spend money we don't have and expand government? You say he couldn't get elected today but we've a track record of nominating Leftist Republicans from Bush, McCain, and Romney.

What you're demanding out of the Republican party is exactly what you're getting. It's what the Tea Party is supposed to be fighting to prevent, we're tried of the big gov spenders in the GOP.
Click to expand...

None of those are 'leftist Republicans' (Romney's etch a sketh is not 'left', he's all about the wealth policies).

A moderate Republican would be a figure such as Nelson Rockefeller, who was forced not to run for re-election as Vice President as moderates were being purged.

Republicans made a 'litmus test' for screeing RINOs; Reagan violated several.
 
Craig234 said:
No, they won't. That's not how the party of privilege works.

The last the time the 'Republicans' went through this unpopularity, they rode it all the way to ending the party (the Whigs, replaced by the 'new' Republican party).

King George III lost the colonies rather than make a few modest compromises. The French and the Czar lost their lives rather than soften conditions.

The Republican party has really only gone one direction since it was founded - with a few compromises during the 'liberal era' from FDR to Carter. And far right since then.

In 1980, the Republicans learned they could be up a 'radical right-wing' candidate who had been trounced 4 years before - and win big. The lesson - go to the right more.

That's why in this primary, when one might think the candidate best to beat Obama would be more moderate, the party has gone more and more to the right.

Why Romney has embraced the further right position on basically every issue, however much it shows him a liar and hypocrite, it's what's needed to win that party.

They weren't ashamed for losing by picking the 'radical right' guy in 1964 with Goldwater - they just learned how to campaign more effectly and make money more important.

They aren't 'going left' to get elected, they're suppressing Democratic voters. They're giving wealthy donors an even larger say.

Of course Romney will now etch a sketch to the left, but that's not 'the party' doing so.

As they say, Reagan couldn't get elected today by them; having shifted wealth to the top to historic highs, the policy they all pushed it to move more to the top.

That's their policy, their agenda, their base. All the rest is marketing, including compromise.
Click to expand...

But but but but but but if they keep going right they won't be able even to win a vote for dog catcher. Nobody could be that stupid, could they? I am telling you that Mitt Romney is God's gift to women, and I don't mean sexually because his wood isn't of the right height.
 
Last edited:
Dammit, I had such high hopes for him. Every day I did my best to help him along by googling spreading santorum.

I suspect there was an internal poll that spelled bad news for him in PA and his daughter's hospitalization is being used as a convenient excuse.
 
Jaskalas said:
You referring to 'Reaganomics', where we spend money we don't have and expand government? You say he couldn't get elected today but we've a track record of nominating Leftist Republicans from Bush, McCain, and Romney.

What you're demanding out of the Republican party is exactly what you're getting. It's what the Tea Party is supposed to be fighting to prevent, we're tried of the big gov spenders in the GOP.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call them leftists. They are more starve the beast with super low taxes, reap as much rewards while doing so in and out of Govt, get into as much debt as possible so our benefactors chain tax payers to treasury debt for life, Republicans.

It's gonna be sweet for the super rich when 100% of our tax money goes to pay ultra wealthy bond holders! (tax free for them of course) It's about 23% now. Going to 6% intrest would see 50% of our tax dollars going straight to them. 81' intrest rates and/or continued borrowing will see 100% of monies collected going to the richest Americans.

Last leftist Republican was Eisenhower who with a republican senate and house raised top marginal rates to 93% to, pay off war debts, rebuild Europe and built the largest infrastructure projects the world had ever seen.
 
Last edited:
Craig234 said:
None of those are 'leftist Republicans' (Romney's etch a sketh is not 'left', he's all about the wealth policies).
Click to expand...

Bush worked with Ted Kennedy to pass the greatest expansion of entitlements in history. He spent more money and grew government faster than anyone before him.

McCain worked with the Democrats in the Senate, the gang of 14. Was so far Left that Romney was the 'conservative' alternative.

Romney is the father of Obamacare, having signed Romneycare in for Massachusetts, the state of Kennedy and Kerry. He makes no apologies and stands by it to this day.

There IS NO ONE nominated for President by the Republicans, in my life time, who is a conservative that would shrink government. Reagan's popularity corrupted the GOP on the ideals of big spending. Their actions betray the rhetoric for which we elect them.

You'll know you've met a conservative President when you get back into office and your seat isn't there. When the centralized power in Washington is returned to the people and out of reach from your elite ruling class.
 
Oh well, with Gingrich and Santorum gone, there is always a GOP protest vote for Ron Paul. If it did not bring forth a plague of mosquitoes, locust, flies, mutant frogs, and Paul bots, it almost be humerus.

I have already stocked up on a ample supply of popcorn, beer, and barf bags, I suggest you all do the same. Avoid price inflation, before its too late.
 
I suggest a supply of 30 year rations, good boots to head to hills and guns and ammo. This ship is sinking no matter who gets in.
 
Jaskalas said:
Bush worked with Ted Kennedy to pass the greatest expansion of entitlements in history. He spent more money and grew government faster than anyone before him.

McCain worked with the Democrats in the Senate, the gang of 14. Was so far Left that Romney was the 'conservative' alternative.

Romney is the father of Obamacare, having signed Romneycare in for Massachusetts, the state of Kennedy and Kerry. He makes no apologies and stands by it to this day.

There IS NO ONE nominated for President by the Republicans, in my life time, who is a conservative that would shrink government. Reagan's popularity corrupted the GOP on the ideals of big spending. Their actions betray the rhetoric for which we elect them.

You'll know you've met a conservative President when you get back into office and your seat isn't there. When the centralized power in Washington is returned to the people and out of reach from your elite ruling class.
Click to expand...

lol How much of Walmarts profit is dependant on cashing SS and welfare checks?

It's too late for that. About half our GDP depends on govt spending, half of which is debt. Cut govt spending, of which half is debt, and GDP collapses. Sorry, we're into a debt death spiral which requires ever increasing borrowing just to maintain. Course it won't continue forever. Hyper inflation will kill us within 10 years.

After dust settles and ppl are done dying we'll probably get straight up communism. Thanks republicans for ruining a good thing.
 
Last edited:
Anarchist420 said:
Dr. Paul is still going to win MT and Bill O'Reilly is going to have to pay up to John Stossel.
Click to expand...
And we all know, as Montana goes, so goes the nation. FACT: Everyone who has won Montana in the primaries has gone on to become president. I didn't bother researching that, but I'm pretty sure it's true.
 
Jaskalas said:
Bush worked with Ted Kennedy to pass the greatest expansion of entitlements in history. He spent more money and grew government faster than anyone before him.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to waste much time on this, but what the hell are you on about.

Ted Kennedy worked on one majori bill with Bush, during the 'compassionate conservative' period supposedly where Bush might cooperate on some issues, and appeared to do so on 'No Child Left Behind', which Kennedy supported - only to then see it perverted as Republicans failed ot fund the good parts and it was used as a weapon against schools.

Kennedy as I recall said he felt betrayed and that was the end of that.

Bush had three especially huge cost programs, and Democrats supported none of them.

The first was Medicare Part D, his top domestic priority his first term to reward Republicans' top donors; Democrats voted 9 yes, 105 no (Republicans were 207 yes, 19 no).

The second was the Iraq war - which if up to Democrats would not have passed, more voted no than yes, putting aside that many 'yes' votes felt they did not vote for war.

The third was the Bush tax cuts for the rich. This was two bills. The first was Democrats 28 yes, 153 no; the second was 7 yes, 198 no (Senate was 2 yes, 46 no).

So, anyway, your 'Bush and the Democrars had the same agenda to skyrocket spending' is crap.

I'm not that interested in word games about 'real conservative' - people love to use that to hide behind while voting for bad candidates. Bush was called the 'real conservative' then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top