Video: Newt Gingrich calls for liberating Big Bird from the Bureaucracy

Two separate exchanges here. First, Piers Morgan asks Rick Santorum if Big Bird should be killed. Santorum says he's voted to do so in the past before saying, "you can kill things and still like them." The next exchange involves Newt Gingrich who says "Big Bird will be fine" and then flips the coin by saying we "should liberate Big Bird from the bureaucracy".

Big Bird is definitely having a 'Joe the Plumber' moment by being mentioned in a debate.

h/t Right Newz:

Romney losing to Santorum..... in Michigan?

I don't want to make too much of this but if Santorum beats Romney in Michigan, it may be the equivalent of landing an upper cut on an opponent with wobbly knees. It would be devastating. However, according to the Public Policy Poll (PPP), not only is Santorum ahead of Romney in the latter's formerly home state but he's blowing him away.

Via PPP:

Rick Santorum's taken a large lead in Michigan's upcoming Republican primary. He's at 39% to 24% for Mitt Romney, 12% for Ron Paul, and 11% for Newt Gingrich.

Santorum's rise is attributable to two major factors: his own personal popularity (a stellar 67/23 favorability) and GOP voters increasingly souring on Gingrich.  Santorum's becoming something closer and closer to a consensus conservative candidate as Gingrich bleeds support.

Santorum's winning an outright majority of the Tea Party vote with 53% to 22% for Romney and 10% for Gingrich. He comes close to one with Evangelicals as well at 48% to 20% for Romney and 12% for Gingrich. And he cracks the 50% line with voters identifying as 'very conservative' at 51% to 20% for Romney and 10% for Gingrich.

Yeah, that's a 15% lead for Santorum in Michigan. The vast majority of Gingrich's support would likely go to the former Pennsylvania Senator as well if the former Speaker dropped out.

A couple of random thoughts on this.

1.) As a Catholic, Santorum could very well be capitalizing on Obama's contraceptive mandate. It's a rule the administration issued that targets Catholicism more than any other religion since it goes completely against the Church's teachings. Though they're not supposed to endorse any political candidate, the Catholic Church might just be mad enough to do it with Santorum. Obama's Community Organizing tactics work when the CO's are underdogs. In the fight between Obama and the Catholic Church, the CO's are actually the bullies and the Church is the underdog. This, as much as anything, could be giving Santorum the momentum he's got.

 2.) If Romney loses Michigan, it might be time for the establishment to throw up its hands and work for a brokered convention instead of coalescing behind any presumptive nominee other than Romney. Along those lines, if Romney represents the establishment and Santorum represents the Tea Party, how clear would that line of distinction be between Jeb Bush and Sarah Palin?

Via The Hill:

Santorum’s contraception boom — “We’re all Catholics now,” said Mike Huckabee — won’t hold up. Because we’re not. This race could well go to a brokered convention. If Jeb Bush is proposed, so Sarah Palin should be minutes later. She is now and always has been the singular Jacksonian voice in the original Tea Party phenomenon; the only one who can bring it to the mainstream. Her absence from the primary race has left a vacuum and no substitute has been found. Every other possible or potential leadership hopeful has risen and receded in this long Republican primary season.

But as The Hill’s Josh Lederman reports from the CPAC conference, the former Alaska governor received far and away the most spirited and enthusiastic reception at the convention of about 10,000 conservative activists. She drew the audience to its feet more than a dozen times during her keynote address on Saturday.

“The cheers for Palin were so loud that they drowned out her remarks again and again,” he writes. “Conference organizers had to set up three overflow rooms to accommodate the throngs of supporters eager to hear her words.”

Make no mistake. The second it's shown that Romney will not be the nominee, the establishment will fight, tooth and nail, to make sure neither Santorum nor Gingrich gets the nod and it certainly doesn't want Ron Paul (the one thing I agree with the establishment on). These are not just speculative rumors; they're practically self-evident truths.

They're only option at that point is to work toward a Brokered Convention. Jeb Bush and Mitch Daniels are warming up in the bullpen right...this...very...second.

h/t Hot Air

2003 Video: Did Santorum call for Stimulus?

In 2003, when George W. Bush was president, Rick Santorum seemed to advocate for an economic stimulus package while Democrats said it was too much money. Note that the reporter asked Santorum about a $600 Billion stimulus package. The Democrats stimulus package in 2009 was only $187 Billion more.

Santorum seems quite comfortable with the package. In fact, at the end of the clip, he said something about not having to worry about deficits during a recession.

Uhhhhhhhhh.... I..... think.... what... he... meant..... was........ never mind.



h/t Free Republic

Video: Rick Santorum's 'Victory' Speech

Yeah, he came in second place - by eight votes - but he wasn't expected to be in the top five just two weeks ago. This was an energetic speech that started out with two words:

'GAME ON'

Via Fox News:

Video: NBC's David Gregory Challenges Santorum on Support for Romney in 2008

In 2008, Rick Santorum endorsed Mitt Romney as the conservative alternative to John McCain. As a staunch conservative myself, I preferred Romney to McCain at the time as well. It's not like Santorum chose Romney over Reagan. That said, it was a fair question on the part of Meet the Press's David Gregory to ask. Santorum answered it fine; it was an obvious attempt at a 'gotcha' moment, which I have no problem with.

Would love to see Obama asked about his support of registered socialists in the Democratic Party. Using that standard, Romney is very conservative and if this is Gregory's best effort to catch Santorum in a lie, maybe it's time to start whipping out three years worth of lies from the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

David?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

h/t Freedom's Lighthouse:

Catholic Online: Santorum Surprise in Iowa?

There is no question that Rick Santorum is surging in Iowa as a consequence of Newt's fall. The former is the only Tea Party-minded candidate whose tires have yet to be kicked. This race will boil down to three entities. Establishment vs. Kook vs. anti-Establishment.

Romney has the establishment vote locked up
Paul has the Kook vote locked up.
Perry, Bachmann, Gingrich, and Santorum are all fighting for that anti-Establishment vote

Perry is, as they say, all hat and no cattle. The gap between his rhetoric and how he governs is cavernous. Bachmann has already risen and fallen; she has peaked and a significant portion of her votes seem to have gone to Santorum at this point. Besides, it would be nice to see her remain a powerful force in Congress. Gingrich has a problem similar to Perry in that his liberal side isn't just glistening; it's blinding.

Catholic Online highlights Santorum's bonafides:



More at Catholic Online, h/t Free Republic

2004 Video: Is this Santorum's Biggest Wart?

In 2004, current Senator Pat Toomey was the conservative candidate running against incumbent RINO and eventual Democrat, Arlen Specter. Sitting Pennsylvania Senator at the time, Rick Santorum, fell in line behind the Republican establishment and publicly endorsed Specter.

As bad as this is, it doesn't come close to the number of warts on Romney, Gingrich, Paul or Perry.

Nonetheless, it is what it is and Santorum should have to address it.

Via Ace of Spades:

Video: Santorum Rips Ann Coulter

Ann Coulter's fervor for Mitt Romney may be getting the best of her. She recently went after Rick Santorum for voting against e-verify but what she didn't say is why he did it.

Via American Spectator:

Arguing on behalf of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in her syndicated column Wednesday, Coulter portrayed Santorum as soft on illegal immigration, citing his vote against the so-called "E-Verify" measure to provide automatic electronic verification of workers' immigration status. But Santorum said that he voted against "E-Verify" in 2006 because it was part of a measure sponsored by John McCain and Ted Kennedy that would have provided amnesty to illegals.

At an Iowa campaign stop, Santorum was asked to respond to Coulter's attack and smacked her down in about 30 seconds:

"Why would Ann Coulter criticize me for voting against the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill? I mean, Ann, should I have voted for amnesty? Should I have voted for comprehensive immigration reform? Because if that's what you're saying, then, doesn't sound like you're the real conservative here. I think when Jim DeMint and every conservative in the United States Senate voted against the McCain-Kennedy bill -- yes, we voted against E-Verify, but we voted against a pretty bad bill that I think, at least you said you were against."

Here is the video of Santorum via the Other McCain, responding to the question about Coulter's charge. You actually have to fast forward to the 4:45 mark to hear it though.

Coulter may have hurt her cause here, not by going after Santorum but by evoking this kind of haymaker from the former Pennsylvania Senator.

As they say in football, after a QB throws a bad pass that is intercepted, I'm sure she'd like to have that one back.

CNN Poll has Santorum ahead of Gingrich in Iowa

Yeah, it's a CNN poll but Santorum has been waiting for a bone to be thrown to him for quite some time now. If Gingrich's warts continue to reveal themselves on a near daily basis, this may just be indicative of a trend we can expect. In any case, Santorum's momentum is going in the right direction less than one week before Caucus day in Iowa.

Via CNN:

A new survey of people likely to attend Iowa's Republican caucuses indicates that the former House speaker's support in the Hawkeye State is plunging. And according to a CNN/Time/ORC International Poll, one-time long shot candidate Rick Santorum has more than tripled his support since the beginning of the month.

Twenty-five percent of people questioned say if the caucuses were held today, they'd most likely back Mitt Romney, with 22% saying they'd support Rep. Ron Paul of Texas. Romney's three point margin is within the poll's sampling error.

The poll's Wednesday release comes six days before Iowa's January 3 caucuses, which kickoff the presidential primary and caucus calendar. The Iowa caucuses are followed one week later by the New Hampshire primary.

As Byron York Reports, a significant percentage of Paul's support is coming not from Republicans but from Democrats and Independents. In theory, among Republican voters - according to this poll - Santorum may be Romney's next challenger.

In Iowa, both Romney and Paul are each up five points among likely caucus goers from a CNN/Time/ORC poll conducted at the start of December. The new survey indicates that Santorum, the former senator from Pennsylvania, is at 16% support, up 11 points from the beginning of the month, with Gingrich at 14%, down from 33% in the previous poll. Since Gingrich's rise late last month and early this month in both national and early voting state surveys, he's come under attack by many of the rival campaigns. 

'Conventional' wisdom at both Hot Air and and Erick Erickson at Red State says that this news benefits Romney because Santorum has no money or real organization. Frankly, this defeatist attitude among conservatives is wearing thin. Then again, Erickson recently threw all of his chips into the 'elect Gingrich' movement so his reticence to see a path to victory for Santorum could be slightly misguided.

The fact remains, there has never been a primary season like this one. That conventional wisdom everyone would like to follow was rendered meaningless some time ago.

Santorum may be a distant memory one month from now. He may also be the frontrunner. Anyone who tells you they know which it will be, is guessing.

That said, if you're a conservative, revel in this news as long as you can because it's about to change.

More at Hot Air

Debate Video: Santorum Filets Ron Paul on Iran

Don't play this inside the Ron Paul echo chamber; they don't want to hear it. That doesn't make it any less true. Paul's view on Iran begins with an egregiously false premise that includes Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), which proved useful during the cold war with the Soviet Union. That premise necessarily involves a belief that Iran's leaders aren't guided by a Jihadist mentality that actually yearns for nuclear destruction. Paul increasingly appears incapable of grasping that reality; the look on his face at the :56 seems to demonstrate it.

Rick Santorum enunciates quite well, why Paul is intellectually vacant on the issue.



h/t H4A

Video: Isn't it about time for Santorum to get Traction?

Gotta admit. I'm a bit tired of the narrative from conservative circles that says, 'I like Santorum but he's not getting any traction.' Just whose responsibility is it to GIVE him traction?

Folks, if you're a Tea Party supporter, this is your guy. Give him a little traction.

If you do, I have no doubt that Sarah Palin will endorse him.



h/t Hot Air

Audio: Santorum Actively Seeking Support of Palin Supporters

Sarah Palin gave Rick Santorum an opening last week when she came very close to endorsing him on Hannity's television show. The former Senator from Pennsylvania is in desperate need of a shot in the arm and a Palin endorsement would certainly give it to him. At some point, however, he's going to have to garner a bit more support before the former Alaska governor is going to give him that endorsement.

To this point, Santorum hasn't been able to do that. What Palin did on Hannity appeared to me to be her attempt to open the door for Santorum but he's got to walk through it.

Here is Santorum talking about why Palin supporters should get behind him but he probably shouldn't expect a Palin endorsement until he at least gets into double digits.

Via Breitbart:

Video: Did Sarah Palin Endorse Rick Santorum?

The answer to the question in the title is, 'It sure looked like it.' While appearing on Hannity's television show, Palin first said she would not endorse anyone. Soon thereafter, she seemed to fire a shot across the proverbial bows of both Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich by mentioning Rick Santorum by name and strongly hinting that the former Pennsylvania Senator is her kind of candidate.

Maybe it's just me but the only difference between Palin endorsing Santorum in this exchange and her not doing so was the fact that she didn't use the word 'endorse.'

Another good reason to support Santorum over Bachmann, for example, is that if Bachmann will be pulled out of Congress. Santorum does not currently hold elective office.

Judge for yourselves. Is this an endorsement?


h/t Daily Caller

Video: Mitt Romney's Achilles Heal Exposed in Debate

The candidate who landed the hardest blow on Mitt Romney was named Rick but his last name wasn't Perry; it was Santorum. By far, the achilles heal of Mitt Romney is ObamneyCare. For some reason, Rick Perry decided to go to the mat with Romney over the latter's hiring of a landscaping company that used illegal aliens, despite the fact that Rick Perry's most powerful ad was a recent one that masterfully highlighted the similarities between Obama and Romney while pointing to the fact that the former Massachusetts governor edited one sentence out of his book that called for government run health care across the United States. This is bad for Romney because his defense of Romneycare has been that he DOESN'T think it's right for the country. That position doesn't square with the sentence in his book that he had taken out and that is his biggest weakness.

In essence, Santorum used the content of Perry's ad and while Perry can be heard in the background of this clip echoing the charge brought up by Santorum, the Texas governor not only blew a big opportunity but he came out looking petulant by going after Romney on the illegal immigration issue.

Here is the exchange where Santorum successfully exposed Romney's biggest weakness. Via The Blaze:



Here is the excellent ad recently released by the Perry campaign that Santorum actually benefited from:

Video: Ron 'Jekyll and Hyde' Paul shows his Hyde Side in the Debate

When you get Ron Paul talking about domestic policy - except the part about a border fence keeping Americans 'in' - he's like Dr. Jekyll. For the most part, he makes sound logical arguments most conservatives can agree with. When you get him talking about the Islamic threat to western civilization, he transforms into something sane people want no part of. The good news is that he's showing Americans that he has a Hyde side. In last night's debate, Paul essentially blamed America for 9/11 and as Rick Santorum said, Paul parroted bin Laden.

The mask is now officially off of Ron Paul. I don't know what was more compelling to watch. Was it Ron Paul going completely off the track or was it the apoplectic looks on the faces of Gingrich and Santorum?



h/t Breitbart

Rick Santorum: Shariah Law is 'Evil'

Though it's difficult to determine to what extent this is nothing other than red meat rather than an indication of how he might govern, Rick Santorum deserves credit; short of Rep. Allen West, I'm not sure any of the prominent faces in D.C. have gone this far. These words might just help Santorum leapfrog several others in the pack for 2012.

Via POLITICO:

DURHAM, N.H. — Rick Santorum on Friday asserted that Sharia law has no place in America.

“Jihadism is evil and we need to say what it is,” he said at the Strafford County Lincoln-Reagan dinner, remarks that show how the former Pennsylvania senator continues to establish himself as the candidate most-aligned with the Republican Party’s conservative base.

“We need to define it and say what it is. And it is evil. Sharia law is incompatible with American jurisprudence and our Constitution.”

The good news is if this type of campaign rhetoric continues to resonate with the American public, all Republican candidates will have to start talking like this. Then the issue can be actually debated, which is the last thing Islamists want.

Santorum was one of the Republican casualties in 2006 as U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania so it remains to be seen if deeds will match words but this is great to see from a one of the 2012 nominees.

At its essence, Shariah Law is supposed to be the law of the land in whatever land it's the law. Until the West understands that the issue of Islam is not First Amendment but Article VI, we won't be able to confront it. Talk like this from Santorum is a good step.

h/t Weasel Zippers

Video Explosive: Rick Santorum Drops a BOMB on Abortion Debate

While appearing on CNS News for an interview, former Republican Senator from Pennsylvania Rick Santorum not only compared abortion to slavery but connected some extremely explosive dots based on Obama being black and on record as saying that unborn babies are not persons. Santorum is clearly thinking about a presidential run in 2012 and while he's not anywhere near the front of the pack, this 50 second clip is a quantum leap among social conservatives.

It's hard to debate this logic, which is why Obama is unlikely to do so.

Just watch.



Santorum provided further clarification of his point after the interview.

Via the Washington Post:

Santorum expanded on his comment in a statement Thursday. "For decades certain human beings were wrongly treated as property and denied liberty in America because they were not considered persons under the constitution," he said. "Today other human beings, the unborn of all races, are also wrongly treated as property and denied the right to life for the same reason; because they are not considered persons under the constitution. I am disappointed that President Obama, who rightfully fights for civil rights, refuses to recognize the civil rights of the unborn in this country."

Check mate, mate!

h/t to Red State

1999 VIDEO: BARBARA BOXER WOULD NOT DENOUNCE MURDER

And you thought things only recently started sounding insane. This exchange is truly amazing. In 1999, then Senator Rick Santorum (R) of Pennsylvania engaged California Senator Barbara Boxer in a debate on the Senate floor over the issue of partial birth abortion. Boxer was presented with a premise from Santorum in which he appeared almost apoplectic at her response. Santorum wanted to start with the common ground any rational thinking human being would agree to.

If a baby is delivered and is fully separated from the mother, that baby should have the right to live and that an abortion at that point would actually be murder. Surely, Boxer would agree with that. Uh, not so much. Her argument appeared to be that the baby doesn't have the right to live until it leaves the hospital.

This video really should end all abortion debate and Boxer is clearly in the camp of endorsing murder. We're not even talking semantics at this point. Boxer supports murder.

Via Verum Serum.

JOE SESTAK VS. RICK SANTORUM?

This one could get interesting. Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum (R) took conservative heat in 2004 when he endorsed Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey in the primary. Now he seems to be taking heat from Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) who is actually running against Specter in this year's Democratic primary. Sestak appears eager to find in others that which has been dogging him - a scandal involving trades for political favor.

This tack Sestak is taking really couldn't be more transparent and odds are the White House isn't the least bit happy about his latest comments. They could - and should - spur the White House press corps. to question Robert Gibbs about the whole "Jobsgate" scandal.

Sestak has found himself mired in a percolating scandal after admitting to a talk show host in February that the Obama administration offered him a job if he dropped out of the primary against Specter. Whether demonstrating hyper-sensitivity or having a valid point, Sestak has apparently decided to go after Santorum for comments he made in reference to the latter's endorsement of Specter in 2004.

POLITICO quotes Santorum, who responded to a question about why he supported Specter over Toomey in 2004:

"The reason I endorsed Arlen Specter is because we were going to have two Supreme Court nominees coming up," said Santorum, responding to a question at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans. "I got a commitment from Arlen Specter that no matter who George W. Bush would nominate, he would support that nominee," he added.

This has the ring of misery wanting company. If this is a battle Sestak is going to pick, he's going to lose. Offering one's endorsement to the head of the Senate Judiciary committee in return for fast tracking the president's judicial nominees doesn't quite rise to the level of being offered a cushy job by the White House in return for dropping out of a Senate primary race.

After all, the senate's job is to offer advice and consent when it comes to judicial nominees. Specter understandably denied Santorum's claim but Sestak, in making this an issue, comes across as being overly concerned about being alienated by attempting to get others to join him in the frying pan. He's comparing what the White House offered him with what Santorum alleges was agreed on between he and Specter. It doesn't measure up and this speaks to how much this scandal is inside Sestak's head.

Santorum was wrong in endorsing Specter in 2004. He obviously did so because Specter would yield more power than would a freshman Senator in Toomey. Now Specter is no longer a RINO - he's a Democrat.

This may be a sign that Sestak is really getting uncomfortable with Jobsgate. Jeffrey Lord at American Spectator has been following this story quite closely and his most recent article goes right for the jugular - Sestak's honor relative to the oath he took as a Midshipman. Could it be that Sestak's conscience is beginning to hound him a bit more loudly lately?

More on Lord's work here.

RICK SANTORUM FOR PRESIDENT IN 2012?

If this is true - and assuming that Santorum has learned from his mistakes - he could leapfrog many of the candidates now on the table for the Republican nomination. The 2012 election is nearly three years away and someone like Santorum entering the race is a prime example of why debating who the front runners are in early 2010 is a vain endeavor.

TPM Reports:

Former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA), who was defeated for re-election in 2006 by a whopping 18-point margin, has been slowly but surely re-emerging on the political scene -- and could be a presidential candidate in 2012.

Over the last few months, Santorum has built up a schedule of visits to the top three primary and caucus states: He has already made two trips to South Carolina, one in December and another in January; he visited Iowa this past October, and will be headed back in March; and he just announced a trip to New Hampshire on April 30.

What lessons will Santorum necessarily have needed to learn if he is going to make a serious run? I wrote about one of them not to long ago.

Then-Sen. Arlen Specter was in a primary against conservative and current Republican candidate Pat Toomey, who most closely aligned with – or so he thought – that state's junior Sen. Rick Santorum. However, along with George W. Bush, Santorum threw his support behind Specter in that primary. Not only did Santorum lose his seat in 2006, but Specter defected to the Democrats in 2009.

In 2010, Tommey is the odds-on favorite to win Specter's seat. For someone like Santorum, a professed conservative, to have on his record the endorsement of Arlen Specter over a real conservative in 2004 is something he cannot escape. Instead of spinning it, he needs to put his head down, humble himself, and admit wrongdoing. The only way Santorum proves viable is if he delivers a heartfelt mea culpa.

Santorum almost seems to make light of it here by doing it in a way that not everyone would get it.

"In 2004, President Bush and a Senate colleague from Western Pennsylvania made the difference for Specter. Those dogs don't hunt anymore," Santorum wrote, adding that the primary against Specter "will be fun to watch. And watch I will."

As TPM points out, Santorum was referring to himself as the "Senate colleague". Notice that Santorum focuses exclusively on Specter without alluding to Toomey. A public apology to the latter from Santorum would be a good start.

This is not something that Santorum can afford to be flippant about and needs to assert in no uncertain terms that he was WRONG and became a victim of inside the beltway groupthink. As we all know, politicians cannot be trusted and must be watched constantly. That includes Rick Santorum and he must feel the heat.

Sarah Palin is doing in Arizona, by endorsing John McCain over Tea Party favorite J.D. Hayworth what Santorum did in Pennsylvania in 2004 and I still believe it will hurt her with conservatives. She's also endorsed Rand Paul in Kentucky over a Tea Party conservative in Bill Johnson.

h/t to Hot Air