Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Republicans Politics

Santorum Suspends Presidential Campaign 577

Posted by Soulskill
from the no-longer-his-primary-concern dept.
bobwrit writes with this excerpt from CNN: "Conservative challenger Rick Santorum announced Tuesday that he is suspending his Republican presidential campaign after a weekend of 'prayer and thought,' effectively ceding the GOP nomination to front-runner Mitt Romney. Santorum made his announcement after the weekend hospitalization of his 3-year-old daughter Isabella, and in the face of tightening poll numbers in Pennsylvania — the state he represented as a U.S. senator — ahead of the April 24 primary. 'Ladies and gentlemen, we made the decision to get into this race around our kitchen table, against all the odds,' Santorum told a news conference, flanked by emotional family members. 'We made a decision over the weekend that while the presidential race for us is over, and I will suspend my campaign effective today, we are not done fighting.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Santorum Suspends Presidential Campaign

Comments Filter:
  • by TriezGamer (861238) on Tuesday April 10, 2012 @06:55PM (#39637979)

    I have a hard time believing that Santorum actually expected to have a chance at this stage. My mother is a Neo-conservative Christian party-line voter, and even she is considering voting for Obama again; and not because she likes him. The entire GOP lineup is a mess.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 10, 2012 @07:04PM (#39638095)

      Ron Paul is the best candidate America had in over 50 years.

      • by Mitreya (579078) <mitreyaNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Tuesday April 10, 2012 @08:55PM (#39639149)

        Ron Paul is the best candidate America had in over 50 years.

        While I admire him for many of his views (anti-war, personal privacy, consistent, etc), Ron Paul is not a viable candidate. He is not realistic in many of his plans - and he can get away with it because he doesn't really expect to win. For example, he's the guy who plans to eliminate IRS and (at least earlier) public schools. How realistic is that?

        • by CrimsonAvenger (580665) on Tuesday April 10, 2012 @09:30PM (#39639433)

          For example, he's the guy who plans to eliminate IRS and (at least earlier) public schools.

          How would he manage that? Public schools are run at the State and local level, not by the Federal government.

          And the President really doesn't have the power to shut down State and local programs.

        • by nschubach (922175) on Tuesday April 10, 2012 @10:09PM (#39639707) Journal

          The IRS could use some trimming... we can all agree on that.

          He never said anything about getting rid of public schools that I'm aware of. He just wanted to get rid of the Department of Education at the Federal level. He feels the individual State Boards are doing a good enough job and the Federal level is a waste of resources. (At least, that's how I interpreted it. Never did I get the feeling that he wanted to get rid of Public Schooling though.)

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by darronb (217897)

            State boards are doing a good enough job? What his definition of a bad job be, then?

            He's from Texas, too. Wow.

        • by 7-Vodka (195504)

          He plans to eliminate the IRS... how realistic is that?

          It's actually very realistic if you eliminate the military industrial complex. It balances out quite nicely on the accounting books.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 10, 2012 @06:56PM (#39637993)

    Santorum pulls out after repeatedly coming in number two

  • by Reverand Dave (1959652) on Tuesday April 10, 2012 @06:57PM (#39638003)
    Good bye crazy douche-bag, you will not be missed.

    Signed, Someone with a college degree a.k.a a snob.
    • Re:Good riddance (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Black Parrot (19622) on Tuesday April 10, 2012 @07:21PM (#39638297)

      Good bye crazy douche-bag, you will not be missed.

      According to conventional wisdom, the Republicans always nominate their runner-up next time around. I saw a couple of sites predicting Romney on this basis, long before the primaries started shaking out.

      If the CW is right, Santorum will be their next nominee.

      • by toddestan (632714)

        The scary thing is, if history repeats itself, Santorum will be labeled as the *moderate* candidate in 2016.

  • by Just Some Guy (3352) <kirk+slashdot@strauser.com> on Tuesday April 10, 2012 @07:01PM (#39638055) Homepage Journal
    "Santorum Wiped Out"
    "Santorum Expelled"
    "Santorum Voided"
    "Santorum Discharged"
    "Santorum Creamed"
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 10, 2012 @07:04PM (#39638099)

    The GOP lineup has the same problem as the 2004 lineup that failed to defeat GWB. I took one look at that ticket and said: A Massachusetts old money man + a slick trial lawyer. That was everything the moderate GOP voter hates about the Dems, and wouldn't make anybody switch. They finally realized they needed something different and went with Obama.

    The GOP is making the same mistake. The fact that the front runner is from MA is pure coincidence. It's wealthy businessmen, religious fanatics, and a guy who was fresh in the 90s.

    The only "something different" candidate is Ron Paul; but he's too different. The GOP needs something fresh. I'm not sure where it'll come from, but these guys are not fresh. Really, for someone like myself with weak party affiliation the GOP is dead after GWB. The organization itself is defective. Not to say that the Dems are much better. It's the slightly less evil party.

    I think we need just a bit more time for things to get so bad that sane people with the capability to lead will want to run on a 3rd party ticket. The two main parties are rapidly on their way to ruining their respective reputations. Not this time though. Not. Ready. Yet.

    • by MightyMartian (840721) on Tuesday April 10, 2012 @07:23PM (#39638315) Journal

      Look. Anyone with any sense knew that the Tea Party was going to hamstring the Republicans in the 2012 race. The Democrats knew it, which is why Obama isn't sweating, and hasn't been since he saw how the Republican True Believers all fell in love with a moron (namely Sarah Palin). For the core Republican leadership and strategists, it was equally clear. The Tea Party wasn't some general movement, no matter how much its advocates stated, it was a Libertarian populist movement that was sucking the blood out of the Republican party.

      The only thing that was going to cure that was to let the lunatics run the asylum for a while. Everyone knew Romney was going to get the nod, but would be badly damaged in the process. By having the likes of Santorum and Gingrich, men who never ever ever ever ever ever had even the slightest chance of becoming President, cut him to pieces, all that happened was the Tea Party movement managed to hamstring the whole party. But by November of this year, the Tea Party and a goodly chunk of the retrograde social conservatives will be utterly discredited. Romney will limp through to a loss, but the message will be clear; "America does not want extremists, or even people who play extremists on TV."

      After this year, the sane candidates will come out of hiding, they're careers and reputations not utterly savaged like Romney's. The next GOP candidate won't have an incumbent to deal with and won't have the Tea Party cancer eating away at the party's strength. I think this whole race has been nothing more than a tactical day at the nut house, and the Republicans will have learned their lesson.

      I mean, the Republicans came back from Goldwater. Of course, it was with Nixon, so maybe they don't want to have it map that closely to elections past.

      • by Black Parrot (19622) on Tuesday April 10, 2012 @07:53PM (#39638619)

        The Tea Party wasn't some general movement, no matter how much its advocates stated, it was a Libertarian populist movement that was sucking the blood out of the Republican party.

        No, it was (mostly) a bunch of middle- and working-class retirees, unwittingly carrying water for billionaires.

        And after the first few weeks, only "populist" if being funded by the usual Republican operatives counts as being populist.

        I think this whole race has been nothing more than a tactical day at the nut house, and the Republicans will have learned their lesson.

        It will be interesting to see if they learn the appropriate lesson, but I don't expect it.

        They had a good scam that served them well for half a century: pretend to be conservative rather than plutocratic, and lure people to vote against their own self-interest by playing on their fears, intolerance, and bigotry.

        But they've had to keep narrowing that "base" (as the media insists on calling them) by ever more radical rhetoric against everyone else, and now it's getting so narrow that the coalition of plutocrats + bed wetters + social conservatives + bigots doesn't add up to enough people to reliably win elections anymore.

        Plus, the plutocrats been appealing to those groups so long that the nutters are starting to run the nuthouse.

        But where can they turn? The plutocrats (the real Republican base) certainly aren't going to give up their desire to enrich themselves at public expense, and the nutters aren't going to give up their nuttery.

        I suspect the actual lessons to be learned are:

        a) the plutocrats will realize they need to divorce the others, and will start looking for a new scam to replace the old one

        b) the nutters will conclude that they weren't nutty enough, and crank it up two notches next time around.

        The party's civil war will continue, because there's no exit strategy for when the nuts start taking over the nuthouse. Some chance the party will fall apart and be replaced by a new one, as has happened before in the USA, but I expect that to take years, if it happens at all.

    • and one year after the war in iraq had started, but before it had gone completely to hell in a handbasket.

      2004 was in the middle of the housing boom, when every fucking idiot thought they had $500,000 in equity in some piece of shit mcmansion that was in reality just a game piece so that some hedge funder could pump and dump another Mortgage Backed CDO on the widows and orphan investors of the planet.

      "ask yourself, are you better off now than you were 4 years ago, using the fake paper accounting that is ful

  • by interkin3tic (1469267) on Tuesday April 10, 2012 @07:11PM (#39638191)
    Okay, so now will republican voters maybe start paying attention to Ron Paul? He's the guy who is ACTUALLY in favor of smaller governments and the constitution.

    You guys still claim to like those things, right?
    • Re:Ron Paul (Score:5, Insightful)

      by quangdog (1002624) <quangdog@@@gmail...com> on Tuesday April 10, 2012 @07:22PM (#39638311)
      I actually really like about 80% of what Ron Paul claims he'll do. The other 20% scares the living heebie-jeebies out of me though.
      • Re:Ron Paul (Score:5, Informative)

        by Khith (608295) on Tuesday April 10, 2012 @07:58PM (#39638667)

        Why is nobody ever specific on what they find so frightening about his policies? Is the Constitution frightening? His positions are basically the positions of the founding fathers.

        I'm going to assume that the 20% that scares you is foreign policy, since most people don't understand his views on that. We bring the troops home and defend our country's borders instead of those of another country. If someone attacks us, go to the Congress and get a declaration of war, identify a specific enemy (not just "terrorists" or some other vague concept), and then attack with overwhelming power and then COME HOME instead of occupying. Some politicians are doves and some are hawks. Ron Paul is a porcupine. They generally want to just be left alone, but if you mess with them you're in for a world of hurt.

        Ron Paul is misunderstood on many issues because the media tends to distort his positions. Look at what the man himself has said and done and then decide.

        • I'm going to assume that the 20% that scares you is foreign policy

          I would have assumed it's "do away with legislation that is flawed but still protects us from various things." The libertarian response in those cases is that if it were unregulated, something better would come up.

          I do find that to be a bit of ideology trumping common sense. Many libertarians, I don't know about Ron Paul specifically, think the FDA should be abolished, that the free market would do a much better job. I suspect that's a naive position, I see no evidence that in the absence of the FDA

        • Re:Ron Paul (Score:5, Insightful)

          by dkleinsc (563838) on Tuesday April 10, 2012 @09:00PM (#39639189) Homepage

          So I'm among those who like about 60% of what Ron Paul stands for and am seriously worried about the other 40%. (For the record, I like about 30% of what Obama stands for and am seriously worried about 70%, and for Romney the split is closer to 5%/95% with the 5% varying from hour to hour.)

          The parts I'm all for: drug legalization, bringing the troops home, restoring civil liberties, and cutting back on big military spending.

          The parts I'm seriously concerned about: Returning to a gold standard, eliminating all social welfare programs, pretty much complete deregulation of economic transactions, and eliminating any restrictions on what the states can do within their borders. The reasons:
          A) Returning to any sort of metallic standard is basically decreeing 0% inflation. This sounds like a good thing for those with wealth trying to hang onto it, but most economists think somewhere around 2% inflation is actually closer to the ideal, and some argue that 4% is better. Current mainstream macroeconomics thinks that lower inflation generally yields higher unemployment, which was part of the argument of William Jennings Bryan's bimetalism campaign back in the 1890's.

          B) Eliminating social welfare programs is just plain stupid, because those without jobs and without welfare will do what they need to do to eat. Private charities can't handle the case load (they're already overbooked), so that means that people will be turning to crime in increasing numbers with the goal of keeping a roof overhead and food on the table. Many of those people will get caught and thrown in prison, costing the government even more than welfare does.

          C) Deregulation of business makes for unlevel economic transactions with all the advantage invariably going to the side with the largest supply of capital, legal advice, and market share. In other words, if you think software EULAs and cell phone contracts are one-sided now, you ain't seen nothing yet.

          D) The basic problem I tend to have with "state's rights" arguments is that the rights in question have almost always been the right to oppress black people (southern politicians were using that exact phrase in 1860 and 1960 to mean precisely that). Which seems to be activity that Ron Paul at least in the past was a supporter of.

          • Re:Ron Paul (Score:4, Insightful)

            by phantomfive (622387) on Tuesday April 10, 2012 @10:05PM (#39639675) Journal

            Returning to any sort of metallic standard is basically decreeing 0% inflation.

            Surprisingly, this is not true. You can still have periods of inflation, even with a gold standard, and you can have periods of deflation as well. In part because of money velocity, and in part because of changing amounts of gold in circulation.

            The problem with the gold standard is you have absolutely no control of when the inflation or deflation happens. And by Murphy's law it will happen whenever you don't want it to.

            Besides, the world is a better place when gold is used to make things pretty, not stored in vaults.

          • Re:Ron Paul (Score:5, Insightful)

            by swillden (191260) <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Tuesday April 10, 2012 @11:47PM (#39640411) Homepage Journal

            Something to notice about your two lists: Look at which items on the lists a president can actually do and which ones he can't.

            Your "all for it" list:

            1. Drug legalization. The president can't do this by himself, it requires Congress to change the law. He can tell the FBI and the DoJ to go easy, though. Congress could appoint special prosecutors to do the work the the president directed the DoJ not to do.
            2. Bringing home the troops. The president is Commander in Chief. If he orders the military to come home, they come home.
            3. Restoring civil liberties. Some portions require new law, which only Congress can do, but in large part the president can simply direct federal agencies to stop stomping on civil liberties. He's their boss. The PATRIOT act may still be there, but if the president decides not to use it, it's moot (at least until the next president, which is why the laws do need to be changed).
            4. Cutting back on big military spending. Again, the president is Commander in Chief. Congress passes the budget, but nothing says the DoD has to actually spend it all.

            Your "seriously concerned" list:

            1. Returning to a gold standard. The president can't do anything here, only Congress.
            2. Eliminating social welfare programs. The president can't rescind the programs without Congress. He may be able to order the agencies to stop distributing the money. I think it more likely that he would order the agencies to come up with more stringent guidelines.
            3. Deregulation of business. Similar to social programs, only Congress can change the core regulations. The president could probably get the SEC to revise its guidelines, and could probably get te DoJ not to prosecute -- but Congress could still appoint prosecutors.
            4. States' rights. Neither the president nor Congress can allow the states to violate fundamental rights. That would require a constitutional amendment, to repeal the 14th. Again, the president could direct the DoJ not to prosecute, and again Congress could appoint prosecutors.

            Also, in the areas where a president went too far in exercising his executive powers, Congress could pull him up short by passing legislation that limits his freedom of action in those areas. They probably couldn't limit his power as Commander-in-Chief, because that's not an authority they gave him, but all of the social programs, business regulation, etc., are powers created by legislation, not the Constitution. The authority given by Congress can be taken away, or limited, by Congress. They'd have to do it with veto-proof majorities, but if the president tried to do anything too extreme, that could be done.

            Bottom line: Most of the things you'd like RP to do would be within his power as president, while the things you wouldn't like would not. To achieve any of those things, he'd have to convince Congress.

      • Re:Ron Paul (Score:5, Interesting)

        by shutdown -p now (807394) on Tuesday April 10, 2012 @07:59PM (#39638675) Journal

        I'm actually curious as to what does scare you. Personally, as a leftie myself (what they call a "social democrat" in Europe), I don't get why left wing is so mad at Ron Paul. I mean, the guy basically just wants to give the states free reign - so what? This means that we can have our own liberal paradise with blackjack, hookers, marijuana, public healthcare and education etc in blue states, rather than having to fight the tug of war with conservatives over who gets to put more crap into Federal laws. What's wrong with that?

        Meanwhile, on the federal policies that do make sense to keep at federal level (like foreign affairs / wars), his stance seems to be much closer to your typical leftie - you know, pulling out of existing conflicts, not starting new ones, and generally minding your own business and not mucking around with other countries.

    • Re:Ron Paul (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Tassach (137772) on Tuesday April 10, 2012 @07:23PM (#39638317)

      Ron Paul's strength is that he accurately identifies a lot of problems.

      Ron Paul's weakness is that his "solutions" to those problems are dangerously naive, based on long-discredited theories, or are just downright crazy (or all of the above).

      Any enthusiasm about RP has to be tempered with the realization that even a broken clock tells the right time twice a day.

    • No way. He doesn't hate gays and atheists, says marijuana should not be illegal, and blames Rs for excessive war spending. In other words, some kind of a pinko commie terrorist.

    • Re:Ron Paul (Score:5, Insightful)

      by RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) <taiki.cox@net> on Tuesday April 10, 2012 @07:57PM (#39638657)

      No. We need the fed. We need the FCC. we need the FAA. We need the FDA and FTC.

      We need competent people running them.

      We don't need smaller government. We need smarter government. Going on a witch hunt because somehow the fed is offensive is the LAST thing we need.

      • Re:Ron Paul (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Lucractius (649116) <Lucractius@[ ]il.com ['gma' in gap]> on Tuesday April 10, 2012 @11:12PM (#39640185) Journal

        While some federal government based co-ordination is required for national level standards... i don't think he is against this... he sounds like the kind of person that would say to the states/people "right, you want this to be a federal matter, please pass a constitutional amendment saying so..." and you would get the XXth amendment stating something to the effect of the federal government has the power to regulate radiofrequency spectrum across all states in the USA (for the FCC) or the federal government has the power to regulate all air traffic, civilian and military, inside USA airspace. (for the FAA and nationally coordinated ATC), and so on.

        Quite sensible when you think about it... and a lot harder to just keep expanding on with bullshit 'interstate commerce' type nonsense. He seems to just want to make people really think about what the federal government does, and get back to the principle of 'enumerated powers', if the federal government is going to control something, he would probably be fine with whatever it is if it was a constitutional amendment passed by the majority of the states, thus expressing the will of the people.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by ChrisMaple (607946)

        By your post, you have identified yourself as a technocrat, someone who believes that small-scale "experts", devoid of an overall philosophy, are all that are needed to run a government.

        The Fed is a ruse to make people believe that the monetary policy disasters of the government aren't the government's fault. There was no need for the Fed when it was created, and things have gotten worse since then.

        The FCC's proper function is to register frequency allocations and correct violations thereof. It is presently

  • Prayer and thought (Score:3, Insightful)

    by GrahamCox (741991) on Tuesday April 10, 2012 @07:16PM (#39638245) Homepage
    "Prayer and thought".

    There's your problem. How about more thinking and less appealing to a non-existent sky-fairy? I truly look forward to the day when politicians can safely declare some sort of rationalist-based intellect instead of this, but I expect it's a long way off.
  • anti-science (Score:3, Interesting)

    by khipu (2511498) on Tuesday April 10, 2012 @07:19PM (#39638273)

    I guess it's kind of relevant to Slashdot because of Santorum's strong anti-science stance.

  • by erroneus (253617) on Tuesday April 10, 2012 @07:31PM (#39638389) Homepage

    Anyone who has even casually been following the republican primaries can see how incredibly twisted and corrupt the party is. How could anyone still think voting republican is a good idea? Not saying democrat is a great way to vote either, but there are other parties and it's about time for some fresh parties and directions. The old has not served us well for the past 20+ years.

  • Message from God (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Spiked_Three (626260) on Tuesday April 10, 2012 @07:35PM (#39638427)
    God told him to run.

    Then, God told him to quit.

    Maybe God should be Romney's running mate.
  • by gstrickler (920733) on Tuesday April 10, 2012 @07:45PM (#39638521)

    In a surprise announcement, Mitt Romney announced that he too is suspending his campaign for the Republican Presidential nomination.

    In his shockingly candid speech, Romney said "I only stayed in the race this long to ensure that Rick Santorum didn't get the nomination. Now, with Santorum out of the race, it's time for me to withdraw and leave the contest to the two candidates whose beliefs actually differ from those of Barack Obama".

    "The American People deserve a choice of candidates who actually have differing beliefs. The only differences in belief between myself and Barack Obama, is that I'm a Mormon, and he is not. My policies when I was the governor of Massachusetts were virtually identical to President Obama's policies. If I were elected, you would be hard pressed to find anything that I would do differently. Therefore, I'm stepping down to ensure the voters have an actual choice in November."

    When asked who he was going to endorse, he declined comment. This story may contain factual errors, and was, in fact, entirely made up. However, as making up facts and reporting on whatever we want is now commonplace, we figured you wouldn't notice.

  • by GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) <almafuerte@nOspAM.gmail.com> on Tuesday April 10, 2012 @10:48PM (#39639985)

    Hospital? What do you mean? Aren't you against science, progress and think that god and prayer can do everything for you? Well, stay the fuck out of our hospitals and just leave your daughter at home and pray until she dies, then say it was god's will.

    Really, that's what we should do to the anti-science bigots. You are "pro-life"? You want creationism in schools? Great, go live with the Amish. If you enjoy living in the 21th century, embrace science and dump your imaginary god.

  • by frank249 (100528) on Tuesday April 10, 2012 @11:16PM (#39640207)

    #TDSBreakingNews @RickSantorum suspends presidential campaign. Dibs on the "Romney Licks Santorum" headline.

The unfacts, did we have them, are too imprecisely few to warrant our certitude.

Working...