Congrats, Phil: Santorum announces presidential candidacy

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

Go get em Frothy!

[Lincoln Republican]

In the famous words of James Carville from 2012

The Republicans aren't going to nominate Santorum for anything, we all know that.

[CountryClassSF]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well for starters, Romney governed as a pro-abortion, pro-socialist health care liberal, then flip flopped on those issues to win a primary. Then ignored the issues in the general - spending the entire time trying to appease pro-abortion/gay leftists and ignore everything and everyone else. Worked out really well. He also ignored the need to get Reagan Democrats/conservative independents in the Rust Belt and heartland to get to 270.

Santorum has a few things that I disagree with, but much less than Romney. I voted for Santorum even after he dropped out of the race.

If Romney is to be forgiven for being the first person in America to socialize health care, Santorum can surely be forgiven for some of the votes he took in favor of higher spending.

[Mr. Morden]

Santorum's announcement, which you'll be able to watch live on his website, will be at 5pm Eastern on Wednesday:

https://santorum.nationbuilder.com/forms/user_sessions/new

Santorum previews his announcement in a fundraising email:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/26/rick-santorum-expected-to-join-crowded-gop-2016-fi/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[TJ in Oregon]

Good luck to the Rickster. I don't believe he has much chance of being elected president but I'd love to be proven wrong.

[CountryClassSF]

Good luck to the Rickster. I don't believe he has much chance of being elected president but I'd love to be proven wrong.

I really wish they found out he won Iowa on caucus night vs 3 weeks later. He was denied so much momentum last time. How on earth does our country count votes so slowly? UK counts everything on election night and we can't count a caucus!!

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Good luck to the Rickster. I don't believe he has much chance of being elected president but I'd love to be proven wrong.

I really wish they found out he won Iowa on caucus night vs 3 weeks later. He was denied so much momentum last time. How on earth does our country count votes so slowly? UK counts everything on election night and we can't count a caucus!!

The count reached on election night showed Romney winning by 8 votes, with everything in. However, counting mistakes were discovered during the certification process, and once the corrections were made, it turned into a 34 vote Santorum victory.

[TJ in Oregon]

Good luck to the Rickster. I don't believe he has much chance of being elected president but I'd love to be proven wrong.

I really wish they found out he won Iowa on caucus night vs 3 weeks later. He was denied so much momentum last time. How on earth does our country count votes so slowly? UK counts everything on election night and we can't count a caucus!!

Winning Iowa still wouldn't have helped much with the bigger challenge: the general election. I probably would have voted for Santorum if I thought he had a chance of beating Obama. I didn't think he really did, so I sat out the 2012 Republican Primary and voted instead in the Democratic Primary for local races. I'm not yet to the point of saying, 'to heck with the Republican Party I just want to stand for something.' I still think a goal should be winning too.

Maybe I'm wrong and Santorum can bring out the 60 yr old retired Polish-American auto worker Church bingo-night crowd in Parma that has been eluding the GOP since Reagan. That's the path Santorum would have to travel to victory. He's yet to show an ability to do that: he lost most of the blue collar Midwestern areas to Romney in the primary so I have trouble seeing him take them in the general. He'd lose the swingy suburbs too, so that needs to be compensated somewhere. I just don't see the numbers adding up. I'd like to but I don't. Again, prove me wrong, Senator Santorum.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well for starters, Romney governed as a pro-abortion, pro-socialist health care liberal, then flip flopped on those issues to win a primary. Then ignored the issues in the general - spending the entire time trying to appease pro-abortion/gay leftists and ignore everything and everyone else. Worked out really well. He also ignored the need to get Reagan Democrats/conservative independents in the Rust Belt and heartland to get to 270.

You don't harp on issues where the public is shifting against you, unless you have the ability to actually change minds on the issue and no politician alive has that ability. Otherwise, you are just asking to get clobbered and thus pave the way for the Great Society 2.0. You make the contrast on the key issues where you enjoy an upper hand. Job creation and the overal economy were just that. Romney's problem was not what he focused on, but his inability to keep the subject from being changed and his gaffe's made that worse. When it comes to gaffe's, Santorum is notorious for inserting his foot into his mouth.

[Mr. Morden]

Just over 8 hours until the big moment.  Will Keystone Phil join us for this blessed occasion?

[CountryClassSF]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well for starters, Romney governed as a pro-abortion, pro-socialist health care liberal, then flip flopped on those issues to win a primary. Then ignored the issues in the general - spending the entire time trying to appease pro-abortion/gay leftists and ignore everything and everyone else. Worked out really well. He also ignored the need to get Reagan Democrats/conservative independents in the Rust Belt and heartland to get to 270.

You don't harp on issues where the public is shifting against you, unless you have the ability to actually change minds on the issue and no politician alive has that ability. Otherwise, you are just asking to get clobbered and thus pave the way for the Great Society 2.0. You make the contrast on the key issues where you enjoy an upper hand. Job creation and the overal economy were just that. Romney's problem was not what he focused on, but his inability to keep the subject from being changed and his gaffe's made that worse. When it comes to gaffe's, Santorum is notorious for inserting his foot into his mouth.

The minorities and youth are more pro-life than the older generations.  The New Yorker reading latte set who's for abortion on demand will never consider voting Republican, ever, for any reason.  

I understand that the homosexual issue is more favorable to the left.  But again, the militants on this side of the issue are far-left urban liberals, they did not even vote for Romney, who essentially took a "Que sera sera" attitude on things.  The Gay vote also doesn't move an inch either way. It's rock solid leftism.   The Right is going after votes it will never obtain, while ignoring votes it needs to obtain.  

Romney spent the entire campaign essentially grand marshaling the gay pride parade.  It didn't do him any favors.  Didn't do Bob Dole any favors. Didn't do John McCain any favors to try to appease a crowd that will never support them under any circumstances. The West Village and the Castro ain't going Republican. Sorry.

Santorum brings back Conservadems who are put off by Romney types or plutocratic candidates.  Guess where they live? Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida.

[retromike22]

I tried to listen to his announcement speech, but then I had to stop.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

He's running, and is looking to expand his appeal beyond evangelicals:
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/05/28/us/politics/rick-santorum-republican-2016-presidential-race.html?_r=0&referrer=

[CountryClassSF]

Great speech. I hope to envision a scenario where I can vote for him again. I voted for Santorum in 2012 even after he dropped out to protest Romney.

I'll tell you this: He has the potential to be a top tier candidate.  Watch.

[Free Bird]

Lol mentions winning twice. Bob Casey would like a word

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Did a person faint this year like last time?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well for starters, Romney governed as a pro-abortion, pro-socialist health care liberal, then flip flopped on those issues to win a primary. Then ignored the issues in the general - spending the entire time trying to appease pro-abortion/gay leftists and ignore everything and everyone else. Worked out really well. He also ignored the need to get Reagan Democrats/conservative independents in the Rust Belt and heartland to get to 270.

You don't harp on issues where the public is shifting against you, unless you have the ability to actually change minds on the issue and no politician alive has that ability. Otherwise, you are just asking to get clobbered and thus pave the way for the Great Society 2.0. You make the contrast on the key issues where you enjoy an upper hand. Job creation and the overal economy were just that. Romney's problem was not what he focused on, but his inability to keep the subject from being changed and his gaffe's made that worse. When it comes to gaffe's, Santorum is notorious for inserting his foot into his mouth.

The minorities and youth are more pro-life than the older generations.  The New Yorker reading latte set who's for abortion on demand will never consider voting Republican, ever, for any reason.  

I understand that the homosexual issue is more favorable to the left.  But again, the militants on this side of the issue are far-left urban liberals, they did not even vote for Romney, who essentially took a "Que sera sera" attitude on things.  The Gay vote also doesn't move an inch either way. It's rock solid leftism.   The Right is going after votes it will never obtain, while ignoring votes it needs to obtain.  

Romney spent the entire campaign essentially grand marshaling the gay pride parade.  It didn't do him any favors.  Didn't do Bob Dole any favors. Didn't do John McCain any favors to try to appease a crowd that will never support them under any circumstances. The West Village and the Castro ain't going Republican. Sorry.

Santorum brings back Conservadems who are put off by Romney types or plutocratic candidates.  Guess where they live? Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida.

I think I must have missed that. I seem to recall Mittens supporting a Federal Marriage Amendment. Perhaps you would have preferred he began every speech with that?

As far back as 2004, Romney was publically stating opposition to Gay Marriage.

I will never understand this masochistic desire on the part of some conservatives to not just harp on but throw in people's faces their most controversial and unpopular positions. We get it, you don't like Gay Marriage. There is no sense making the non-religious accountant in Hamilton county or the young libertarian in Coos county who would likely not prioritize the issue feel compelled to make it a priority and thus stay home or vote Democratic. This approach, is by far the most counterproductive and foolish approach not just to the issue itself but the broader movement and party as a whole.

Romney got the same percentage of Evangelicals as Bush did (78%) with them composing a larger proportion of the electorate (26% as opposed to 23%). Romney did just fine turning out traditional marriage supporters and pro-lifers for all the talk of his various problems both real and imagined. His problem was with more secularist fiscal conservatives and libertarians, as well as non-religious working class swing voters.  Using those very issues, Romney got out the ones who were highly religious, but slipped amongst those who were not.

You cannot be more against Gay Marriage then supporting the FMA and voters whose votes Romney lost in OH and PA and so forth were not going to be motivated by mentioning the issue more often.

[The Other Castro]

CCSF, by all means join the Santorum campaign and try to help him win the nomination. Then, we can all see what happens when Republicans finally nominate a "true conservative". You and the liberals and self-accepting gays that you loathe so much all want him to be the nominee, but for very different reasons. Take a minute to try and figure out why that is.

[CountryClassSF]

State's rights are a constitutional principle and will be - separate feelings and desires from Constitution. Santorum will fight for marriage - not just give a canned line about it.

[WVdemocrat]

State's rights are a constitutional principle and will be - separate feelings and desires from Constitution. Santorum will fight for marriage - not just give a canned line about it.

Is that your stance? That it would be giving the federal government too much power to for it to step aside and let two loving people get married? That is f***ing crazy. It's a politically-acceptable copout for homophobes. I can't believe you're not wiser than that.

[Potus]

State's rights are a constitutional principle and will be - separate feelings and desires from Constitution. Santorum will fight for marriage - not just give a canned line about it.

Is that your stance? That it would be giving the federal government too much power to for it to step aside and let two loving people get married? That is f***ing crazy. It's a politically-acceptable copout for homophobes. I can't believe you're not wiser than that.

The only way we will ever protect states rights is a Federal Marriage Amendment that bars them from recognizing gay marriages!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Man this thread got militant rather quickly.

Because every time Romney talked about marriage he sounded like he was having a root canal.

We need clear cut positions. At least I do - to reverse cultural rot & stop the war on religious freedom. The only way we do this is with someone we know not only where they stand, but whether or not they will actively fight for the cause.

Can anyone honestly say Romney would fight for traditional marriage? Ever?

He says he supports FMA. He never once pushed it. He never once promoted it.

Do you really think stating where you are is going to change someone else's minds? Santorum is not going to convert people on this topic, but ironically, he did call for a another awakening and that is probably the only way to change minds on this. Having a Presidential candidate go around and make sure everyone knows exactly where he stands on this issue isn't going to make one on the opposing side take the same course. Such a position means you are basically saying you want to lose until the public comes around to your viewpoint, which could be decades or centuries. That is not how the political parties work.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Man this thread got militant rather quickly.

As only Santorum (or of course Hillary Clinton) would openly and actively endorse.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Very much so. We need someone in there who understands what is happening in the decay of our country and has the will to reverse as much as he could. It's not just about positions, it's about passion and vigor. Santorum could be that candidate if the addicted-to-RINO establishment doesn't tear him apart like last time.

How is Rick Santorum a true Republican (a fake distinction, obviously) yet Mitt Romney is a "RINO"?

Mitt Romney has been a moderate, then a conservative, and claimed, at one time, that he was an independent.  He became a "conservative" around the time he decided he wanted to be President and knew what it would require to be appealing to the GOP base.  It's unfair to call Romney a RINO, but he's had to make far more concessions to his home state than Santorum has ever had to.

Santorum's always been a Republican, always been pro-life, always been socially conservative, always been generally conservative, with some concessions to being from PA.  He's not a "movement" conservative, but he's conservative enough to have risen to the Senate GOP leadership at one point.   Until 2012, no one viewed Santorum as a RINO, and the only reason people did is because he backed Arlen Specter in the 2004 Senate Primary, saying "politics is a team sport".  (He's not wrong there, by the way.) 

[CountryClassSF]

Mitt Romney has been a moderate, then a conservative, and claimed, at one time, that he was an independent.  He became a "conservative" around the time he decided he wanted to be President and knew what it would require to be appealing to the GOP base.  It's unfair to call Romney a RINO, but he's had to make far more concessions to his home state than Santorum has ever had to.

Santorum's always been a Republican, always been pro-life, always been socially conservative, always been generally conservative, with some concessions to being from PA.  He's not a "movement" conservative, but he's conservative enough to have risen to the Senate GOP leadership at one point.   Until 2012, no one viewed Santorum as a RINO, and the only reason people did is because he backed Arlen Specter in the 2004 Senate Primary, saying "politics is a team sport".  (He's not wrong there, by the way.) 

Hey hey hey, he was a SEVERE conservative =P