Posted on 01/31/2012 12:02:51 PM PST by RetSignman
For those in Florida who haven't been to polls yet, I urge you to consider the questionable values of the 'squeaky clean' image he tries to portray.
(Excerpt) Read more at archives.cnn.com ...
I’ve highlighted two excepts from both debates from transcripts. I’ll supply the links to the transcripts at the end of my observations.
South Carolina: The question is: Who’s the best person to take on President Obama? I would make the argument that a conviction conservative who has a clear contrast with President Obama on the most important issues of the day is the best person — someone who has a clear contrast on health care, a clear contrast on global warming, a clear contrast on the Wall Street bailout — will talk about the one issue — [that huge issue in the last couple of years where government has come in and taken over, and both Newt and Governor Romney have supported that.huge issue in the last couple of years where government has come in and taken over, and both Newt and Governor Romney have supported that.]
(Keep in mind they didn’t have the option to rebut)
Florida: I’ll repeat the question for you. Why do you think you’re the best, most qualified person on this stage to beat President Obama?
SANTORUM: I agree with the previous two speakers that this is a big election. This is an election about fundamental freedom. It’s about who America is going to be.
Are we a country that’s going to be built great from the bottom up, as our founders intended, or from the top down?
I just think I’m a lot better than the previous two speakers to be able to make that case to the American people. I’m not for a top- down government-run health care system. I wasn’t for the Wall Street bailouts like these two gentlemen were.
Governor Romney talks about the private sector and how he’s going to bring private sector. When the private sector was in trouble, he voted for government to come in and take over the private sector and be able to — and to bail them out.
Cap-and-trade — both of them bought into the global warming hoax, bought into the cap-and-trade, top-down control of our energy and manufacturing sector.
If you look at President Obama’s speech the other night, what did he lead with? He lead with manufacturing. He led with manufacturing why? Because the base of his party, the ones that are always the ones — not the base — the swing vote in his party, the ones that Ronald Reagan was able to get — we call them Reagan Democrats up in Pennsylvania. Those are the blue-collar working people of America who know that this president has left them behind. He has a plan for them, and it’s more dependency, not work, not opportunity.
So he went out and tried to make a play for manufacturing. That’s been the center point of my campaign. The center point of my campaign is to be able to win the industrial heartland, get those Reagan Democrats back, talking about manufacturing, talking about building that ladder of success all the way down so people can climb all the way up.
That’s why I’m the best person to be able to go out and win the states that are necessary to win this presidency and govern with the mandate that Newt just talked about.
(Again he attacks Newt and Romney when they can’t respond)
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2012/01/south_carolina_gop_cnn_debate_.html
http://archives.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1201/26/se.04.html
Character matters.
This is not helpful. Rick is a fine young man, and yes, I am growing impatient with him. I have said some things in anger I wish I had not. But we need his voters to vote for Newt. I would prefer them to vote because they want to stop Romney, not because we used ‘negative’ techinque just like Romney against him. I hope they will please consider what a Romney nominee will mean, and vote for Newt. Thanks
Santorum must be doing better. Attack dogs are out in force.
Exactly what was the matter with what Santorum said?
So Rick had the last word, and he used it to his advantage? That’s a crime and lack of character? This scorched earth policy being used against Santorum is not engendering any support for Newt from people like me who want to see Romney and Obama defeated.
That’s what happens when Gingrich and Romney go first.
If you have a beef with anyone, it should be the moderator, who picks the order in which questions are answered.
Paul’s answer came after Santorum, do you have a beef with Paul as well?
[Rick is a fine young man,...]
I am certain he is in his private life but by using tactics like he has in those two debates, shows a level of desperation that should be highlighted.
Ambushing your competitors when they can’t reply to his attacks are usually reserved and expected from the left.
My brother-in-law lives in Florida and supports Santorum. But he also understands that the first order of business is to stop Romney.
He said to me, “I’m voting for Rick, by voting for Newt.”
There’s no way the GOP is winning the white house this time around. The enemies list has grown far longer than the friends list. Good people were accused of secretly working for Romney and destroyed. The left would be proud of some of the filth being spewed at Michelle Malkin over her endorsement of Santorum.
Now its all about assigning blame when the voters themselves deserve the bulk of it.
Your post makes no sense.
It’s the obligation of every candidate to truthfully point out the differences between himself and his opponents.
I'm not sure why you added the negative spin, though - I don't think FR is a site intended for attacking conservatives.
Any good debator would have done the same. I really can’t follow your argument. By the way, your link is dead.
[Paul’s answer came after Santorum]
Read the transcript...Paul went FIRST. Santorum LAST.
THAT’S why I supplied them.
Rush gets it. Says that people shouldn’t count on the Santorum vote breaking for Gingrich. I know that if my only choices are Romney and Gingrich when the race comes to Michigan, I’ll leave that slot blank simply because I’m disgusted by both of them.
http://www.therightscoop.com/rush-not-sure-santorum-vote-would-go-to-gingrich/
I agree. Though I have now put Michelle Malkin in the same catagory as Ann Coulter. Not because she endoresed Rick, but because her main concern is bringing attention to herself. No, she is not working for Romney, but she might as well do so. It will be an up hill battle for the white house. We can not win with Mitt Romney that is for sure. Newt has a fighting chance because he really is an alternative. I do think we need to quite trashing each other condidate. We can leave that to Mitt, he is doing fine without us.
[Any good debator would have done the same]
The debate had ENDED.
The links are at the top and brightly lit up.
[The links are at the top and brightly lit up.]
...and you’re right, they are dead.
To be fair, certain strong candidates did not step up to run, and none of the GOP's factions, good, bad, or indifferent, pushed forward a truly compelling candidate.
Imagine a primary between Mitch Daniels for the Bushies, Paul Ryan for the grassroots, Don Carcieri for the northeast establishment, Dave Heineman for flyover country, and a prominent business figure from the private sector.
But I would agree that the voters have at times rewarded bad behavior by the candidates we have.
Rick Santorum is a fine man ... and he is acting like a politician that he is, too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.