Adelson dumps Gingrich and Santorum’s star is rising

US Politics
on 29 Comments

News spreads fast. Bloomberg is reporting Adelson isn’t planning on floating Gingrich anymore which leaves him high and dry and scrambling for cash.

Five losing contests later, Gingrich and Winning Our Future, an outside political action committee supporting him, are almost silent on television airwaves, offering free water and coffee at events, and revamping a fundraising strategy based largely on the support of a single wealthy backer, Sheldon Adelson, and the Las Vegas casino owner’s family.

In the past seven days, Winning Our Future has spent $61,290 on broadcast television advertisements, compared with $636,920 spent by Mitt Romney and a super-PAC backing him, Restore Our Future, according to data compiled by New York-based Kantar Media’s CMAG, a company that tracks advertising.

For now, the Adelsons don’t plan to deliver another big check to float Gingrich’s campaign, according to a person familiar with their deliberations.

So, have you checked out that video up there yet? (I rec, it’s funny) Gee, what can I say?  Does America deserve a president named Santorum? Wrong question. Do I think he’ll win? No. Do I think he’ll win the GOP nomination? At this point, maybe. I’ve been saying all along you can’t win the GOP nomination if the fundies don’t love ya, and fundies don’t like Mormons, something about hell….it’s hard keeping all those extremists sorted out. I wish we could send them to an island far far away, together. Anyway, enough of my ramblings.

The Hill:

But Rick Santorum’s wins in Missouri, Minnesota and Colorado have instead coalesced support around his campaign, with Gingrich now looking for another miraculous come-from-behind.

Meanwhile, a super-PAC supporting Santorum’s campaign told Bloomberg the money has been “rolling in” since the former senator’s upset wins, including a $1 million donation earlier this week.

Googled Santorum lately? Yep, that site is still holding strong and remains in the #1 position, after the Santorum campaign’s paid spot. But it doesn’t end there, it’s not just a gag site, something I realized tonight when I clicked on “Click to continue“:

Rick Santorum is Good at Winning Caucuses

Caucuses by nature are built around people who are the most politically passionate. In Democratic caucuses, this benefits a candidate who is a bit further to the left, and his success in caucuses was a big key towards President Obama’s run to the Democratic nomination four years ago. But, as being too far to the left is considered completely unacceptable in our political climate, a socialist group is unable to highjack the proceedings. Things are different in the Republican, where you have two groups of complete whack jobs who are viewed as being a part of the conservative mainstream: the Ron Paul Libertarians and the extreme Religious Right. These people are more passionate than your average conservative, and are more willing to spend their time attending a caucus.

Think of it this way: following the Florida Primary, won by Mitt Romney, a fair amount of attention was paid to the low turnout rate. About 8.5% of Florida’s population showed up to vote in the Republican primary. Compare that to Colorado, where just over 1% of the state population participated in the caucus, and Minnesota, where less than 1% participated. And while Santorum had a strong showing in Missouri’s primary, that primary was merely symbolic and awarded no delegates. As a result, Missouri’s Republican Primary only drew from 4% of the state’s population.

What’s the conclusion to draw from this? Santorum does have a following. In Midwest states, he is the social conservative candidate of choice. But we won’t know if he’s become the social conservative candidate of the south until March. More importantly, we have no evidence to this point that Santorum can win anything that a significant portion of a state’s population actually shows up to. Until he does that, Santorum is merely the King of Contests Nobody Gives a Shit About. And while that may parlay a better contract for him with Fox News this fall, it will not get him the Republican nomination and certainly would not allow him to even put up a competitive race against President Obama in the General Election.

Comedians are going to have a field day with this, that’s one thing we can look forward to.

About Annie Robbins

Annie Robbins is Editor at Large for Mondoweiss, a mother, a human rights activist and a ceramic artist. She lives in the SF bay area. Follow her on Twitter @anniefofani

Other posts by .

Posted In:

29 Responses

  1. Blake
    February 11, 2012, 12:30 pm

    At least Santorum has not called Palestinians invented people ….yet. I am glad Newt Gingrinch has been neutered. His huge ego needed to take a dent. I will never forget for as long as I live when asked about his controversial statement regarding Palestinians being “invented people” he proceeded to speak on 11 rockets being fired into “israel” last November.

    I could not understand why a great nation with so many brilliant people can only offer the likes of Herman Cain, Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum & Mitt Romney.

    • richb
      February 11, 2012, 2:18 pm

      Not only has already done that he also topped Gingrich by calling them Israelis rather than Arabs.

      • piotr
        February 12, 2012, 9:18 pm

        This really reminded me a discussion on Seinfeld. “Why was that woman offended when I said X? Is it obscece” “Strange, indeed. It was weird, but not obscene”.

        Saying that all inhabitants of West Bank are Israeli was, well, weird. Hard to tell in GOP primary what is weird. Google “Santorum box turtle”.

    • seafoid
      February 11, 2012, 3:07 pm

      “I could not understand why a great nation with so many brilliant people can only offer the likes of Herman Cain, Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum & Mitt Romney.”

      Look at how much money it costs to win the election and look at who pays for it. Every one of the Republicans in the race bar Paul is a clown. It’s a circus.

      • Blake
        February 12, 2012, 8:18 am

        Totally agree. At the risk of sounding cynical imo they have been put there to ensure an Obama win.

  2. Les
    February 11, 2012, 2:10 pm

    He’s more Catholic than the Pope and would outlaw all contraceptives. He does not however agree with the Church when it comes to the pursuit of peace, rather he wants to bomb Iran.

    • dahoit
      February 12, 2012, 11:09 am

      Since when have wacko evangelicals supported Catholics and Popishment?Very,very ,very strange,and mystifying or Dieboldical fraudulent.

  3. richb
    February 11, 2012, 2:39 pm

    The Bloomberg article explains part of what happened in Colorado. While there was some support for Romney there was none for Gingrich amongst evangelicals in the Caucus. The biggest factor for the wide swings amongst evangelicals is how much money is spent by the SuperPACs.

    • Annie Robbins
      February 11, 2012, 6:22 pm

      While there was some support for Romney there was none for Gingrich amongst evangelicals in the Caucus.

      there’s something so personally unsavory about the guy it’s hard to imagine he could ever pass the ‘family values’ sniff test. something about dumping the wife in the hospital won’t be sitting well with most american women, i don’t care how much you dress it up.

      it’s been a long time since i was following santorum news (like back when he was in congress) but he’s a sleaze bag of massive proportions as i recall, more dominionist than not if i recall correctly. something about women not working outside the home. or something . you’d think evangelicals could find one semi normal candidate to back.

      here’s wapo special on santorum women quotes:

      link to
      just a few here

      On stay-at-home mothers

      “Respect for stay-at-home mothers has been poisoned by a toxic combination of the village elders’ war on the traditional family and radical feminism’s misogynistic crusade to make working outside the home the only marker of social value and self-respect.’’

      — From “It Takes a Family”

      On equal opportunity

      “Radical feminists have been making the pitch that justice demands that men and women be given an equal opportunity to make it to the top in the workplace.”

      — From “It Takes a Family”

      i wonder if he is aware most families can’t survive without that other income. or does he think women work because it’s a hobby or just a matter of choice?

  4. FreddyV
    February 11, 2012, 3:15 pm

    Annie, you are a very funny lady. Great post.

    This Republican thing is a freakshow. I can understand Romney’s business credentials being a good thing for the US, but he’s a religious nutcase.

    Gingrich: Lost interest.

    Ron Paul is the only guy talking sense, but he won’t get in, sad to say.

    That leaves a second term wide open for Obama. I hope he bitch slaps Netanyahu the minute he wins.

    Although, we have Santorum who seems to be the Republican Poster Boy, a total religious nutcase and completely wrapped up in ‘Left Behind’ theology.

    No wonder Israel is ramping up for war with ‘Magog’ Iran and threatening to destroy the Al Asqa Mosque. The fundies will lap this up like flies on a turd. Prez Fecal Lubematter will get in and we can all sit back and wait for Jesus! Yee Haw!

    • seafoid
      February 11, 2012, 5:27 pm

      Romney is going to be screwed by his private equity past and his role in bullying a Mormon mother of 5 who wanted to have an abortion while he was her local “bishop” back in the 1980s.

      link to

      There is no discipline in the Republican party. The nomination has turned into open warfare and whoever comes out on top will be so weakened that it will be open season on him when it comes to the discussion with the Dems.

    • Annie Robbins
      February 11, 2012, 6:18 pm

      i’m glad someone appreciates my soh freddy. things have spun out so far into the twighlight zone it’s hard to keep up or predict what will happen next. but i give it my best shot!

  5. seafoid
    February 11, 2012, 4:03 pm

    Obama would wipe the floor with Santorum. Romney is very weak if he can’t beat this schmuck.

  6. Kathleen
    February 11, 2012, 4:20 pm

    Santorum’s voting record is going to take him out. That is if anyone looks at it.

    This Obama interview is so disappointing . He repeats unsubstantiated claims. Iran needs to “stand down on their nuclear weapons program”
    link to

  7. CloakAndDagger
    February 11, 2012, 5:19 pm

    Comedians are going to have a field day with this, that’s one thing we can look forward to.

    Oh, it will be hard to beat what is already on the web, such as this image:

    link to

    Of course, you still have time to support Ron Paul and save our nation.

    • Charon
      February 11, 2012, 7:18 pm

      LOL! What the heck was he really doing? Pounding his abdomen? Weird

      He’s a weird guy. I’m not surprised the fundies are voting for him. The GOP probably only changed some rules this yeah and moved some states around for Romney’s benefits. Give him a lead and the public might be willed to vote for the guy. Well that didn’t work out. It’s been a pretty so far. Newt is finished in all likelihood. He’ll probably stick around the month. Don’t know about that Santorum guy. So weird.

      Ron Paul’s Caucus and delegate strategy is now being mentioned by the MSM. His campaign believes they may thus far have the most delegates of any other candidate. I wouldn’t discount Paul just because he hasn’t won yet. He may have won today, but we won’t know until tomorrow. Still the popular vote for this is like a straw poll anyways.

      • CloakAndDagger
        February 11, 2012, 8:08 pm

        I know its juvenile, but it had me in stitches!

        As for RP in Maine, seems the GOP used some shenanigans to prevent certain caucuses from counting, delivering the beauty contest to Romney by 194 votes.

        It is telling how small the turnouts have been for these caucuses – less than 6000 votes from the entire state of Maine!

        But, the word on the street is that most of the delegates went to Ron Paul. This is particularly significant in Maine, where all the delegates are unbounded, and so are “super delegates”. The other state that has such a setup is Pennsylvania – where Frothy once reigned. Not sure how they feel about him, though.

  8. Daniel Rich
    February 11, 2012, 7:02 pm

    How’s that for a LV casino ‘tycoon’ betting $ 10 mill on a losing horse?

  9. gazacalling
    February 11, 2012, 9:05 pm

    Supporters of rights for Palestinians are often treated terribly, dismissed and slandered. But they are usually not viciously mocked.

    Liberals in this country have failed utterly, miserably, when it comes to the most basic social unit, the family. The family exists for the protection of the most vulnerable among us, children.

    Liberals never engage in a real discussion about the meaning of spousal love and the social purpose of strong families. They have abdicated this discussion, gone completely AWOL. If you are at all interested in promoting strong families in this country, 10 out of 10 times you are a conservative.

    Worse, liberals actively mock and jeer those who would engage this conversation. If you are going to stand up and say that the actions that destroy families hurt the wider society, you can expect to get the Santorum treatment.

    And here it is yet again, on display from Annie. On a site that prides itself on being a serious discussion of issues of grave responsibility for Americans, issues that are usually dismissed and utterly stereotyped. I suggest this site sticks to what it knows, and not go stereotyping and mocking others on totally unrelated political issues.

    What do liberals not get about the fact that sexual morality matters for the health of the whole society anyway? In 1960, 5.3% of all births in America were to unmarried women.; 50 years later it is 40.8%. In 1960 married families made up almost three-quarters of all households; 50 years later just 48%. Cohabitation has increased tenfold since 1960. All of this is very worrying if you care about the common good of American life, but you won’t get a single worry out of liberals. They give you the Annie Robbins wink-and-a-laugh.

    Dismissing family issues and sexual mores is fine if you are already an adult, already self-sufficient, and not a vulnerable child who has to suffer from not having a mom and a dad.

    I took on all comers on this site a while back on gay marriage, an issue that MW should stay far away from, as it ruins its creditability. Annie et al. tried to engage a discussion, but they were totally out of their depth. The reason is simple — liberals never engage these issues, they never even think about them seriously.

    You can read it all in the comments section here

    Liberals can only mock anyone who wants to talk about limits to adult sexual proclivities. They resort to crude nastiness only because they totally lack any good arguments.

    Phil Weiss and Annie Robbins are my heroes on I/P. Their intellectual courage is admirable and very beneficial.

    Rick Santorum’s engagement with issues that liberals don’t want to talk about for some reason (it’s probably a simple lack of intellectual courage) is equally admirable. His courage and virtue towers over the filth who slander him on the internet.

    • Annie Robbins
      February 11, 2012, 9:29 pm

      And here it is yet again, on display from Annie. On a site that prides itself on being a serious discussion of issues of grave responsibility for Americans, issues that are usually dismissed and utterly stereotyped. I suggest this site sticks to what it knows, and not go stereotyping and mocking others on totally unrelated political issues.

      hi gazacalling. can you be a little more specific? were you referencing my comment about i wonder if he is aware most families can’t survive without that other income. or does he think women work because it’s a hobby or just a matter of choice?

      is that what you mean by “dismissed and utterly stereotyped”. or was it perhaps my comment “dumping the wife in the hospital won’t be sitting well with most american women, i don’t care how much you dress it up.” because frankly i was mocking gingrich, not american women who that wouldn’t sit well with, which i would guess is in the hundreds of millions myself included.

      also, i meant what i said referencing santorum’s “stay-at-home mothers has been poisoned by a toxic combination of the village elders’ war on the traditional family and radical feminism’s”. often times radical feminism has got nothing to do with women in the workforce. women have to work to support their families, that is the state of affairs for most people. but when i was raising my son, most of his childhood i was a stay at home mom because i felt it was what was best for him. i could afford it tho and it wasn’t his dad supporting us, he was broke. so what is it that you feel i dismissed or utterly stereotyped? or don’t you think it was santorum utterly stereotyping working women. if men and women are doing the same job, why should they make equal pay? do you think our shoes, medical operations and toothpaste costs less. or are our rents and house payments or taxes less?

      • dahoit
        February 12, 2012, 11:26 am

        In 1960,one family head worked and the other stayed home and nurtured their children.Now,in some cases both family members are working two jobs each,and the children are unnurtured.Progress?Or an untold result of alleged women’s liberation,which have them slaving alongside men in terrible working conditions of underpaid and overstressed consumer selling jobs like Macys and Walmart of no security,no benefits,sales goals,non sick time and vacation blackouts of prime selling events like Christmas,bringing about dread of the once most happy time of the year.
        Ask my wife,as I hear about it every day when she comes home and complains about the terrible atmosphere at her job,of cutthroat coworkers and sales stealing,which is obviously the motivation of the corporate heads.Wait until the old blue haired stressed workers pull out their glocks,and make the headlines,its coming.

      • gazacalling
        February 12, 2012, 6:58 pm

        Ok, fair enough, I should have been more specific. I was referring to one simple aspect of the post — linking to Dan Savage’s site.

        Dan Savage is by any measure a scumbag, spewing toxic pollutants on the culture. Annie, he is totally beneath you in every way.

        Citing his site and thereby participating in his tactics is beyond bad taste, it is filthy.

        Imagine if the tables are turned. Imagine if a politician was brave enough to champion human rights for Palestinians, and in response he was branded a “terrorist” on the internet by the same tactics of Savage. Everyone on this site would be rightfully denouncing this.

        Imagine if you went to a new internet site and saw a post where the author cites a warmongering neocon to the extent that “we all know” Palestinians don’t deserve any rights because they’re all terrorists. Would that turn you off to the site as a whole? Yes. Now what do you think happens to anyone who knows from firsthand experience the vital importance of intact families for children and the larger society who, searching for info on the Conflict, stumbles onto this site and sees it uncritically signing onto the radical agenda of the homosexual lobby? It would be the same.

        Please take the larger view of the place of MW in the internet. Filthy jokes on irrelevant topics might get a few laughs from those who already agree, but they actually really hurt this site.

    • Annie Robbins
      February 11, 2012, 9:34 pm

      also, do you have any data to support your theory abut liberals and the family or are you just hypothesizing?

      link to

      High divorce rates and teen pregnancy are worse in conservative states than liberal states

      But moral panic won’t help lower divorce rates and teen pregnancy in conservative states; education will.

      here’s another:

      Atheism & Divorce: Divorce Rates for Atheists are Among the Lowest in America
      Why Do Conservative Christian Defenders of Marriage Get Divorced More Often?

      By Austin Cline

      Conservative Christians of all types, evangelical as well as Catholic, tend to link their conservative brand of their religion with proper moral behavior. By far the most popular context is marriage: they claim that a good, solid marriage is only possible when people acknowledge conservative Christianity’s claims about the nature of marriage and gender roles. So why is it that Christian marriages, and especially conservative Christian marriages, end in divorce more often than atheist marriages?

      The Barna Research Group, an evangelical Christian organization that does surveys and research to better understand what Christians believe and how they behave, studied divorce rates in America in 1999 and found surprising evidence that divorce is far lower among atheists than among conservative Christians — exactly the opposite of what they were probably expecting.

      11% of all American adults are divorced
      25% of all American adults have had at least one divorce

      27% of born-again Christians have had at least one divorce
      24% of all non-born-again Christians have been divorced

      21% of atheists have been divorced
      21% of Catholics and Lutherans have been divorced
      24% of Mormons have been divorced
      25% of mainstream Protestants have been divorced
      29% of Baptists have been divorced
      24% of nondenominational, independent Protestants have been divorced

      27% of people in the South and Midwest have been divorced
      26% of people in the West have been divorced
      19% of people in the Northwest and Northeast have been divorced

      The highest divorce rates are in the Bible Belt: “Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama and Oklahoma round out the Top Five in frequency of divorce…the divorce rates in these conservative states are roughly 50 percent above the national average” of 4.2/1000 people. Nine states in the Northeast (Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Rhode Island, New Jersey, and Maryland) have the lowest divorce rates, averaging just 3.5/1000 people.

      link to

    • kma
      February 12, 2012, 12:07 pm

      you are confusing the word “liberal” with “American left” which is actually very conservative. divorce does not stop parents from parenting their children. mothers in 1960 did not have careers to fall back on like they do now, which suggests that the divorce rate is probably more related to women’s freedom to choose not to be treated poorly than sexual habits. modern countries that are liberal pay actual money for childcare because they value that work, and they provide a healthy safety net for single moms as well as decent education for the kids.
      I don’t even know what to say about the gay comments. I haven’t noticed that they make bad parents! I would guess that it’s harder for them to be better parents in a straight marriage than a gay one….

      • gazacalling
        February 12, 2012, 7:10 pm

        Good point, kma. This is the same point Charles Murray is making in his latest book.

        And this applies to Annie’s second comment as well. Liberal elites do follow traditional mores in their own lives, and their children benefit from it. But the underclass doesn’t, and the response of the liberal elites is silence, a nihilistic every man for himself. The explanation for this is sheer intellectual spinelessness.

        In my experience in following politics daily for decades, liberals are moralistic on absolutely everything. There isn’t a topic on which liberals won’t start with their heavy-handed moralism — except with the gaping exception of sexual morality. Then, suddenly, according to them no moral judgments are even possible. This is silly and extremely destructive.

        So, let’s not fall into that pattern on this site. Annie, you want us to take your tears for Palestinian children seriously. Then please don’t participate in the degenerate mockery of someone because he takes the cruel fate of American children to heart.

    • kma
      February 12, 2012, 12:14 pm

      p.s. my last reply should be addressed to “gazacalling” in case that isn’t clear. thanks.

  10. pabelmont
    February 12, 2012, 12:16 pm

    Two disparate remarks.

    [1] Can we (someone; who?) pay Gingrich — now — to say that Israelis are an invented people and Judaism is an ancient religion, not a nationality. If he is kicked in the teeth by Adelson, can he be persuaded to kick back?

    [2] On family and conservative values: My take has long been that (religious) conservatives are essentially very, very strong and defensive speakers of various doctrines whose purpose is the maintenance (conservation) of power among those who already have it: husband/fathers in the family (at least, in THEIR families), the rich and powerful in the economic and political worlds.

    But the maintenance/retention of power is a lousy argument, too grabby, so they come up with other arguments: power to the husband/father to PRESERVE THE TRADITIONAL FAMILY (even if it doesn’t work, as Annie shows above), and TRICKLE-DOWN economics as an argument in favor of what in reality is TORRENT-UP economics.

    The realities do not match the arguments, but the FORM of the arguments is support for “values” which people (and not just men and not just the rich) have been taught to respect. The manipulation of (what to me seems) irrationality among conservative voters is the art form which permits a conservative party at all. (However, the existence of the American oligarchic system has gone a long way to making both parties conservative parties as far as economics goes, but that’s another issue.)

    SO, if a particular conservative politician is a bad role-model for family-life (Gingrich, others, many caught philandering), so what? They PREACH THE CONSERVATIVE GOSPEL and it is the preaching, the talking, the teaching that matters, not the doing. After all, we are all sinners, but the liberals don’t speak the good words. Certainly not with the requisite smug self-righteousness.

    Sort of a catch-22 for liberals, who (in politics) like to argue and consider “facts” and “practicalities”. The people who are moved politically by conservative talk are not empiricists but moralists. Annie’s statistics will not touch them, for their minds are closed.

    I agree that it would be a fine thing if liberal politicians (are there any, anymore) would talk about families, starvation, cold, lack of healthcare, and also talk about self-sufficiency of families and the earning power of the men in the families and show that the old frontiersmen and farmers and homesteaders had a self-sufficiency from which a LAUDABLE ethic of self-sufficiency developed, and don’t we all wish the times still permitted that, bit WE ARE ALL INTERCONNECTED, and none more so than the sorporations, and WELFARE — both corporate and for people — are both desireable, not MERELY and not ONLY corporate welfare.

    Etc. (Actually, I don’t know how to make that speech, espceially not to conservative voters.)

  11. MHughes976
    February 12, 2012, 3:27 pm

    I think that the principal idea of liberalism, ie belief in personal freedom compatible with equal liberty of others, is that everyone should be free to make what choices seem right for them given their circumstances with as little as possible in the way of social pressure. Liberals may be accused of making rather too blithe remarks, considering that ‘circumstances’ may include serious economic pressure – must do for many people in a world of scarce resources. But the point doesn’t have to be blithe and unrealistic, and the fact that people are often under economic pressure does not by any means justify putting them under social pressure ‘to conform’ as well.
    Breadwinning and homemaking are both means of increasing family resources and it should be a matter of individual circumstances which path is chosen. Breadwinning by women is often the best choice. It has obviously been a popular choice among female voters and part of the resonance (and relevance to the ME debate) is the fact, implicit in annie’s remarks (still find it hard to use the upper case for her), that those voters are unlikely to welcome Santo’s message.
    This is not a site for debating every important issue, of course, but there are links between different manifestations of liberalism. The right of fathers, patria potestas, was a feature of Roman law that has been much reduced throughout the modern period and Locke’s Treatises, the foundation of liberalism, can be used both to discredit Zionism and to see the first beginnings of a liberal theory of family.

  12. Justice Please
    February 13, 2012, 12:34 pm

    If the corporate media were not hell-bent on tinkering with the election process (= if they neutrally covered the issues), Ron Paul would have a field day with Rick Santorum.

    Don’t make the mistake of constantly underestimating your fellow citizens. There are nowhere as many fundamentalists as the corporate media would make you believe, just as there aren’t as many “terrorists” as the corporate media would make you believe.

    They want to stop an alliance between anti-war progressives and anti-war conservatices by pushing negative stereotypes about both groups. Don’t let them win!

Leave a Reply