Rickie on Romney
Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney's harshest critic during the primaries, continues to offer thoughts on why Mitt might not win.
Rickie on Romney
John Baer, Daily News Political Columnist
If Rick Santorum is anything, he is consistent.
He, for example, was consistently critical of Mitt Romney during the GOP primary race. He pounded the Mittman harder and longer than even the sharp-tongued Newt.
And the basic message was always the same: Romney is the wrong Republican to run against Obama.
Well, on the eve of Mitt’s coronation in Tampa, Rick remains a bearer of bon mots when it comes to Romney’s chances come November.
In an interview with Howard Kurtz for The Daily Beast, Rick said the following:
“If the campaign is about issues, we win. If it’s about Mitt Romney’s record as a businessman, then we don’t win. If it’s about Mitt Romney’s tax returns, then we don’t win. If it’s about whether people like Mitt Romney more than Barack Obama, then we don’t win.”
Hmmm.
Let’s see. Rick likely would say his comments are taken out of context if anyone in the liberal elite media were to point out sort of obvious conclusions about his comments, but here goes anyway.
A focal point of Mitt’s campaign is his ability to better manage the economy based mostly on his experience as a successful businessman. Yet Santorum suggests that record is not a winning one.
A backdrop of the race is Democrats’ contention that Mitt’s un-yielded tax returns prove that he’s got either politically-questionable investments or so much money overseas at a time the U.S. economy needs investments at home that he can be painted as a rich person who prizes profit over patriotism. So Rick suggests that discussion equals a Romney loss.
Finally, since so many elections are flooded with issues, facts, counter-facts and blurred arguments and often turn on something as simple as the likability of the candidate, Santorum flat out says people don’t like Mitt as much as they like Obama. And a new USA Today/Gallup Poll says Obama holds a 23-point advantage over Romney in likeability.
So Santorum might prove to be more than consistent. He might prove in this instance to be right – no matter what he says in his convention speech scheduled for Tuesday.
This is why I wish that Santorum would have won the primary. He would have lost big in the general, but it would have been much more interesting than watching Mitt mangle his words and thoughts.— SoundGround- I agree. I wanted Rick or Newt to get the nomination. Rick would have also been better than Mitt The Twitt because I would have had less bouts of nausea. I swear every time I see Willard do his sissy pansy walk across a stage, sidewalk or platform, I have to reach for the barf bag. — CommonSense in Philly
- Release the tax returns, Mr. Romney.
Now.— MGarr - He will not release his 09 return because he took advantage of the Voluntary Disclosure Program which allow him to declare his previously undisclosed offshore accounts, which was a felony. — DavidAG
- His tax returns will also show donations to Planned Parenthood...a big big big no no no for that GOP ilk he just jumped into bed with. — tdoc
- Santorum is right, Mittens is a big spending liberal. Just look at how he smacked Akins around. TRUE conservatives don't support Mittens Mandate!— The Fundamentals of the Economy are Fine
This again highlights the Todd Akin / Jon Runyan Abortion problem. If GOP Republicans kick him out the likes of Santorum will stay home. If Akin/Runyan stays, the suburban female GOP vote will collapse.
— Cuddles- Mitt is scary!— woody56
- That's the problem with Americans these days. They elect someone because they're "likeable". I'd rather have someone like Christie, who's not very likeable, than Obama who's likeable but does nothing.— Commentdant_Klink
Romney is the clear winner, tax returns has nothing to do with anything, it's smoke being blown to cloud the current occupant of Pennsylvania Avenue's p-poor record. It's the economy stupid - plain and simple.- Wrong Dimwit. Tax returns show the character of the man. We should know how much money he's hiding in off shore accounts since he wants to give himself yet another tax cut. And if it's all about the economy, then Willard is the last person we need in the white house. Remember, when he was governor of MA, he did a lousy job with their economy. He had Massachusetts 47th out of 50 states in job growth. Citizens had to actually leave Massachusetts to find a job. So on all counts Willard is the clear loser. Willard might be good for the boardroom, but he'll be lousy in the oval office. — CommonSense in Philly
- Ignoring for a moment your childish name calling, your point makes no sense. Tax returns say nothing about the character of a man. Mitt fulfilled his legal obligation to pay taxes, and on top of that, he donated nearly $3 million to charity. If he (or, more likely, his accountant) is wise enough to use the tax laws to lower his tax burden, why shouldn't he be able to do that? If he did not minimize his tax burden, he'd be a fool.
Tell us, common sense, have you ever taken a deduction (assuming, of course, that you actually pay taxes)? If so, what does that tell us about your character?— jfar86 - Alright Jfar86, I'll break it down so you'll understand. Willard showing his tax returns is a reflection of his character (or lack thereof)in that Americans would see how much of his money he's hidden in off shore accounts TO AVOID PAYING TAXES. If may be legal to do that, but it's not honorable. And for me a president should honor his country, and not cheat his country out of his fair share of taxes. In fact, it's sleazy. And his $3 million to charity was to the Mormon church. Duh, he's mandated by the church to do that! As for your childish question, yes I pay all my taxes every year, and at a much higher rate than your sissy hero Romney. — CommonSense in Philly
- Dimwit? Sissy? The fact that you need to resort to name calling really tells us all we need to know about the intellectual heft behind your arguments.
Again, did you take lawful deductions? If so, does that make you sleazy?
The whole focus on tax returns is a giant red herring and straight out of Obama's playbook. He won earlier elections based on distorting information in sealed divorce records. Instead of focusing on personal details that, quite frankly, have no bearing on the election, why not focus on Obama's record? Unemployment is still over 8% and things don't look to be improving anytime soon. He's spent nearly $1 trillion in stimulus projects, and what do we have to show for it? Curb cuts in Philadelphia, Solyandra, and what else?— jfar86 - Jeez. I'm NOT running for public office, so what I deduct is none of your GD business. And Willard's deductions don't make him sleazy, it's his avoiding paying his fair share of taxes (at his reduced tax rate, no less) by hiding his money in off shore accounts, THAT is what makes it/him sleazy. Lastly, this article and the associated postings is about Willard, NOT Obama. Stay on point Jfar and not try to deflect or spin by changing the topic. Just shows your argument is weak. — CommonSense in Philly
John is the author of the book "On The Front Lines of Pennsylvania Politics: Twenty-Five Years of Keystone Reporting" (The History Press, 2012). Reach John at baerj@phillynews.com.
