Santorum to officially enter

[Keystone Phil]

I know where I'll be next Monday. 

[Keystone Phil]

I've never seen someone that is "irrelevant" get so much attention. Irrelevant candidates are Roemer and Bolton. We don't talk about those people. They don't have a following. They don't have a network. They are irrelevant.

Don't think he'll win or come close to the nomination? Great. That's a fair opinion. Just don't say that he is irrelevant and then feel the need to attack him so often.

[Keystone Phil]

So...not irrelevant, right? 

By the way, I've heard Santorum compared to a lot of people. That is definitely a new one and the most...uh...interesting.

[Keystone Phil]

So...not irrelevant, right? 

By the way, I've heard Santorum compared to a lot of people. That is definitely a new one and the most...uh...interesting.

Well, the reason I make it is that it's pretty obvious to everyone that Santorum has no chance to attain the nomination and never has.

Yeah, I've heard that one before. It's been wrong in the past and could be wrong with this situation. Here's the difference between someone like myself and so many others: I don't know what's going to happen. I'm not going to pretend to know. If Santorum was a former Governor that was defeated for re-election by the head of the KKK over twenty years ago and had zero national following, I'd say that he wasn't going to be the nominee. Santorum isn't that type of candidate though. Again, you could be right. He might be a total failure as a candidate. He might get out of the race minutes after the caucuses end in Iowa or, hell, maybe even before Iowa rolls around. But the key word there is could.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, I would be happy with that, too. 

[Keystone Phil]

Bolton could beat him, which says alot.

I don't think anyone truly believes that.

[Keystone Phil]

Happy Santorum Announcement Day! 

Unfortunately, I can't get out to Somerset like I had planned but I will be there in spirit. 

[Keystone Phil]

You'll all be very happy: no pilgrim outfits at today's announcement. 

[Keystone Phil]

"Those are balloons, not shots..." - Santorum as balloons pop in the background. Only at a Santorum event...

[Keystone Phil]

"Those are balloons, not shots..." - Santorum as balloons pop in the background. Only at a Santorum event...

Somebody just fainted as well. He even got down from the podium, and helped the man. This is one crazy rally!

Yeah, it really has it all, doesn't it? Aside from the balloons and fainting, I think it ran very smoothly. He did a good job.

[Keystone Phil]

Great announcement video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMqq36GVCIk&feature=player_embedded#at=102

And, no, it's not just great because he mentions his Grandfather's past in Italy. I'll have to try to stop by his ancestral hometown next time I'm over there. I'll overlook that he's a northerner, too.    I always figured he was a southerner for obvious reasons. His Grandfather coming from a wealthy northern town and leaving behind a comfortable life certainly makes the story more unique. I think it has the potential to really resonate. It's "The American Dream" from a different angle. I like it.

[Keystone Phil]

So is this going to hurt Palin/Bachmann's chances in Iowa splitting the teabagger vote?

You have to get votes in order to split them.

Despite their problems, don't be so harsh on Palin and Bachmann. They'll get votes.

[Keystone Phil]

This is why Saintly Rick is going nowhere

Then stop talking about him.

[Keystone Phil]

This is why Saintly Rick is going nowhere

Then stop talking about him.

Ah, the dreaded "if he's so unimportant, why do you feel so threatened as to talk about him?" schtick.

I talk about him because he's entertaining. Massively, marvelously entertaining.

Further confirming that his haters actually like him as much, or even more, than I do. 

[Keystone Phil]

Even though I myself am supporting Herman Cain, I believe that Santorum would make a great candidate. Don't underestimate him: going into Iowa, the winner of that contest would need to win the evangelical/social conservative vote. I believe the former Senator has the credentials to attract such voters.

Besides, if an establishment candidate like Romney or Huntsman win the nomination, they could always chose Santorum as a running mate.

Ah, but the running mate must have at least some semblance of credibility. 

Such a shame your candidate for President has an ounce of credibility. I guess that's the reward when you pull off one of the great cons in American political history.

[Keystone Phil]

Even though I myself am supporting Herman Cain, I believe that Santorum would make a great candidate. Don't underestimate him: going into Iowa, the winner of that contest would need to win the evangelical/social conservative vote. I believe the former Senator has the credentials to attract such voters.

Besides, if an establishment candidate like Romney or Huntsman win the nomination, they could always chose Santorum as a running mate.

Ah, but the running mate must have at least some semblance of credibility. 

Such a shame your candidate for President has an ounce of credibility. I guess that's the reward when you pull off one of the great cons in American political history.

Still, Romney is not only far more electable to Santorum but, as much as I dislike him, would made far better President than Rick's Santorum.

Thanks for your opinions, caller. Stay on the line for a complimentary hat and mug.

[Keystone Phil]

Even though I myself am supporting Herman Cain, I believe that Santorum would make a great candidate. Don't underestimate him: going into Iowa, the winner of that contest would need to win the evangelical/social conservative vote. I believe the former Senator has the credentials to attract such voters.

Besides, if an establishment candidate like Romney or Huntsman win the nomination, they could always chose Santorum as a running mate.

Ah, but the running mate must have at least some semblance of credibility. 

Such a shame your candidate for President has an ounce of credibility. I guess that's the reward when you pull off one of the great cons in American political history.

Still, Romney is not only far more electable to Santorum but, as much as I dislike him, would made far better President than Rick's Santorum.

Thanks for your opinions, caller. Stay on the line for a complimentary hat and mug.

Translation: I don't have any rational response to the facts.

I don't know how much more electable he is. Your second point was clearly one of your silly opinions, not a fact.

Out of curiosity, why didnt Santorum run in 08? I know it was fresh off his defeat, but he would of been somewhat relevant!

So running sooner after his defeat would make him more relevant? Explain further.

[Keystone Phil]

Santorum can be compared with Roemor when it comes to name recognition.

You can't be serious. Santorum was a rather well known (whether for good reasons or not) U.S. Senator for years and more recently a FOX News commentator.

[Keystone Phil]

Since Mr. Morden locked the other thread for topic derailment...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

First of all, it's Philip with one "L." Despite your many errors in the follow post, that is the worst. 

You say he's justified. I say he's a cheap act. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, I do want to compare your actions to my admiration for the guy. You go out of your way to attack him any chance you get. You certainly do obsess over him as many of his haters do. In fact, you help keep him relevant. In a way, I guess I ought to appreciate your sick obsession.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Pennsylvania's entire voting history isn't based on Santorum and Toomey. Here are the hard facts: in the four statewide General elections in which the two men were the nominees, my guys won three of those four. My guys will have served at least eighteen years in the U.S. Senate. Again, not bad especially for two people that were apparently so "out of touch" and "unelectable."

And contrary to popular belief, Santorum can't be that disgraced. He breaks 40% against that beloved Casey in 2012 rematch polling. I'm not saying he would win or even that it would be a close race but disgraced? Wrong again.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Badger, you're a very angry, obsessive old man. I don't know what Rick did to you out there during your time in the western part of my state but perhaps I should have some sympathy. It must have been very traumatic. Nothing else could explain your constant desire to start flame wars about Rick.

[Keystone Phil]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So he would be on track to be another Mike DeWine, right? Last I checked, he was serving in statewide office again in your state, Badger. You never hear about DeWine's landslide 2006 defeat. Thanks for making the point that Santorum's crushing defeat wasn't at all just about Rick.

[Keystone Phil]

Specter won by over 10% in 2004.

Toomey won by 2% in 2010.

Tell me Phil, which one of those two years trended more Republican nationally?

Who cares? Specter faced weaker opposition anyway. That's when people liked and were very familiar with Specter, too.

I don't think someone's time in the Senate matters more or less based on their victory. Toomey could have won by twenty percent, two percent or two votes - it doesn't matter. He's a U.S. Senator. That's what matters.

LBJ only won his Democratic primary (and essentially the General election) by 87 votes. Did his time in the Senate not matter because of his insanely narrow margin of victory?

[Keystone Phil]

Who cares? Specter faced weaker opposition anyway. That's when people liked and were very familiar with Specter, too.

It's worth noting that Specter had only narrowly won his 2004 primary. Toomey faced no serious oppostion in his 2010 primary, whereas his Democratic opponent had narrowly defeated the incumbent Senator.

What? What does that have to do with anything?

My point was that Specter was very well known and still well liked among the general electorate in 2004. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Or how strong Sestak was. Plenty of us said that from early on. He also ran a stellar campaign (though Toomey did as well). But even if Toomey was some terribly weak candidate, that doesn't matter. He gets to be a U.S. Senator and that's what matters.

[Keystone Phil]

This thread was about as inevitable as the sun rising in the morning. And just about as predictable. I notice however that nobody has suggested that Santorum will be a viable candidate. Which says something at least.

Santorum absolutely can be viable. Less candidates have caught fire in the past.

[Keystone Phil]

Perry said he personally opposed gay marriage but was OK with marriage equality in NY because it's a state issue. To which Santorum tweeted back...

“So Gov Perry, if a state wanted to allow polygamy or if they chose to deny heterosexuals the right to marry, would that be OK too?”

Yeah, Rick. Denying heterosexuals the right to marry is on the table

Yeah, even I had to roll my eyes at that one. 

[Keystone Phil]

I can't imagine he'll be in race much longer. I am mildly interested in seeing who he'll endorse.

He just picked up the former Executive Director of the SC GOP and Huckabee's PAC as a staffer. Not really a sign that he's planning on an early exit.

Well Phil, there's still a lot of work to be done, but I'm confident that Santorum will be on the lips of every Republican by January 2012.

Ha. Yeah. Another "Santorum" joke. Got it. Funny. The jokes. Cool.