Santorum declared winner in Missouri, Minnesota

Washington Post ^ | 02/07/2012 | By Philip Rucker and Nia-Malika Henderson

[SeekAndFind]

DENVER — Rick Santorum had a breakthrough night on Tuesday by winning the Missouri primary and the Minnesota caucuses, breathing life into his struggling campaign and slowing Mitt Romney’s march to the Republican presidential nomination.

Early returns had Santorum running two-to-one over Romney in Missouri, and the Associated Press projected he would win the state’s “beauty contest” primary, which awards no delegates but provides fresh momentum to the former Pennsylvania senator’s campaign.

Romney was hoping to extend his winning streak as he tried to strengthen his claim to the mantle of the presumptive nominee, but he was bracing for a loss in one or more states as Santorum made an aggressive run in Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri.

Rep. Ron Paul (Tex.), who has yet to secure a win in the 2012 sweepstakes, mobilized his loyal support networks in the three states, banking on low turnout in the non-binding contests to give him a win.

Meanwhile, Newt Gingrich did not compete in Missouri, which was holding a “beauty contest” primary that awarded no delegates. The former House speaker looked past Tuesday’s contests and instead campaigned in Ohio, one of several delegate-rich states voting March 6 on “Super Tuesday,” when he hopes to jump-start his struggling candidacy.

The Colorado and Minnesota caucuses are not binding and would not award convention delegates, but at stake Tuesday night was the prestige of winning.

[ebersole]

Per local 10pm news
Santorum 45%
Romney 30%
Gingrich 14%
But Denver county hasn’t reported their numbers yet

[Domandred]

Toobad Santorum is a RINO, otherwise I’d be excited about this.

hahahahaha Rick is the least RINO of any of them and the most conservative. That includes Ron Paul

[Apollo5600]

“Name ONE conservative principle Newt aggressively supported between the time he resigned from Congress and the time he started thinking about running for President.”

You knew that if you included his whole record, your argument would be meaningless, as we’re talking about one of the chief conservative defenders we had in Congress. This is a deceptive line of argument.

Not sure where you got the cap and trade stuff. He testified against it, if memory serves. Not sure about Medicare D, though I am aware that Santorum has voted social programs. I know he supported a form of the individual mandate, but he has repudiated it, and it seems it was something that fooled a few other conservatives and conservative groups as well, though has since been rectified.

You are basically relying on us being ignorant as to his character and record in order to push your Mush, just because he’s fooled you into thinking that he is some great Christian.

My problem with Santorum honestly has nothing to do with his record. I’d be willing to forgive his mediocrity if he was still a good guy.

The problem is that I’ve noticed a systematic pattern of deception from Santorum since the early days with Cain. Without fail, he twists anything his opponents say just to invent something to disagree with. In turn, you guys turn around and gobble it up without really questioning it.

Santorum has a questionable character that strikes me as far too desperate to be our representative of Conservatism. Newt may be a serial adulterer, but, ironically, he’s the most principled in his ambition to make a difference in the world. Santorum wants to make a difference for himself. It’s that one simple character flaw, that one must look beyond the surface to even notice, that convinces me that a Santorum nomination would represent a country in decline.

Newt offers us something in the fact that he has tirelessly fought on our behalf before, and I believe that he can easily do it again. With the Newt charisma, I expect him to help a new generation of “pure” conservatives (more pure than even him!) to regain Congress.

With Santorum, I do not believe he has the character for it or the drive to do anything for the country.

I’ll literally mourn a Santorum Presidency, as it means that we picked a guy from the bottom of the barrel to be the face of our movement. It’s sad. Victory through bottom feeding. It’s a farce.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: I’m still very cautious as there are probably some very populous areas out where Romney might do well enough to overtake the lead

______________________

The results from the biggest city — DENVER, aren’t in yet. THAT is where Santorum’s current lead might take a hit.

As in California, where two HUGE LIBERAL cities — San Francisco and Los Angeles tend to OVERWHELM the rest of the small places, DENVER tends to overwhelm the rest of the other small places in Colorado.

[Republican Wildcat]

Results posted as they come in:

Missouri: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2012/missouri-primary-feb-7 (looks like Santorum is going carry every county in this state)

Minnesota: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2012/minnesota-caucuses-feb-7

Colorado: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2012/colorado-caucuses-feb-7

[SeekAndFind]

RE: With Santorum, I do not believe he has the character for it or the drive to do anything for the country.

Could you provide evidence for that assertion?

[Republican Wildcat]

The problem is that I’ve noticed a systematic pattern of deception from Santorum since the early days with Cain. Without fail, he twists anything his opponents say just to invent something to disagree with. In turn, you guys turn around and gobble it up without really questioning it. Santorum has a questionable character that strikes me as far too desperate to be our representative of Conservatism. Newt may be a serial adulterer, but, ironically, he’s the most principled in his ambition to make a difference in the world. Santorum wants to make a difference for himself. It’s that one simple character flaw, that one must look beyond the surface to even notice, that convinces me that a Santorum nomination would represent a country in decline.

LOL...okay, I get it - you are just another one of the militant former Perry supporters using the old templates and just replacing "Cain" with "Santorum".

[Republican Wildcat]

Because he says so. Isn’t that good enough?

[SeekAndFind]

From RealClearPolitics ( which seems to get it faster than FOX ):

Colorado: Santorum 41, Romney 30, Gingrich 16, Paul 13 (46% counted)

[montag813]

Fantastic speech...best he’s given so far.

[Lazlo in PA]

Not sure where you got the cap and trade stuff. He testified against it, if memory serves.

Your memory is foggy. He testified against it, but in his book Contract with the Earth, he goes into a scheme that mimics the Cap and Trade idea with a Conservative bent. One has trouble pinning down Newt on issues over the past couple years because he came down on both sides. He was going around with Rev Al a few years ago peddling education reforms. He ran around with Hitlery a few years ago peddling big govt' control of health records. You cannot slam Rick for being a RINO and with a straight face defend Newts Conservative purity.

[Apollo5600]

Hmmm, just listen to what he says about Newt, and look up what he’s said about Cain and the others. I was doing some reading a week or so ago and caught Santorum’s comments on Newt’s moon colony idea.

Newt, as you know, was arguing for a business/capitalistic solution to advancing the space race. Santorum not only accused him of wanting to great a new wasteful government program, he took the time to accuse him of being Crass, Irresponsible, and Pandering just to even think of it.

This is a pattern of misinformation and mindless condemnation that has come out of Santorum from day one. I first noticed it in the first debates after Cain began to surge. He reacted to the 999 plan by ignoring everything Cain had said in public about it, and depicting it as a tax increase for States that have a sales tax.

This guy is not interested in good ideas or giving real good criticism or opinions on anything. He’s in full campaign mode, all the time, everywhere. When Newt was advising conservatives to cool it and be good to each other, Santorum was one of the guys who never took it seriously.

If Santorum had behaved the way Cain and Newt did in their own personal debates, and if Santorum wasn’t always whining and insulting the other candidates, I’d feel a lot differently about him.

He wants the nomination too badly. His character is flawed. I suspect he pushes so hard with the attacks because he himself has nothing to offer. I wouldn’t be happy with a Santorum surge or a Santorum nomination as a result. He’s the one who deserved it the least.

Of course, the problem is that I realized that conservatives aren’t as enlightened as I used to imagine them. I always thought only libs voted on appearance and using shallow guidelines. Unfortunately, considering how conservatives have systematically trashed each of their good candidates one by one, and are now taking seriously one of the worst offenders of it, my judgment now is that conservatives are just as clueless as their liberal counterparts. They don’t judge anything properly, and are too easily taken in with rhetoric.

I used to feel the same way about Newt, until I took a real good look at his biography, statements and actions since the late 1970s.

Newt is definitely a calculated politician... but what turned me on to him was when I realized he was one ambitious SOB who wanted to “lead” a revitalization of civilization, and he has definitely been a guy who has fought for our cause valiantly and without regard for his own reputation.

Let me tell you something. I can admire a guy with grandiose ambitions moreso than the guy whose only ambition is to be President.

[GeronL]

Looks like Mittens could actually lose in East Utah!

43% reporting in Colorado, the AP says he has 42.1% with 28.2% for Romney and 16.4% for Newt

Missouri -99% reporting

Santorum 55.2%
Mittens around 25%

Minnesota (79% reporting)

Santorum - 44.9%
Paul - 27.3%
Mittens - 17%
Newt - 10%

[Old Sarge]

Romney was hoping to extend his winning streak as he tried to strengthen his claim to the mantle of the presumptive nominee

And WaPoObama continues to beat the "Willard Is Inevitable!" drum, despite results to the contrary.

[Apollo5600]

I was a Cain supporter all along. Don’t compare my system of reasoning with your own.

[Republican Wildcat]

It’s not reasoning, it’s just flat out bashing for the sake of doing so.

[Mountain Mary]

I missed it, Trib. Tell more about the condition of the Massachusetts Liberal?

[SeekAndFind]

RE: His character is flawed. I suspect he pushes so hard with the attacks because he himself has nothing to offer.

____________

Nothing to offer eh...

Before you make such a conclusion, I suggest you visit this site:

http://www.ricksantorum.com/issues

[Republican Wildcat]

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1439552184001/rick-santorum-conservatism-is-alive-and-well

Here’s video of the speech

[slapshot]

Sorry to burst your bubble: “Mother Church” wil weigh the plus and minus and come down on the side that makes the most economic sense. Don’t be surprised that the “bishops” (after a little persuasion) try to convince their “flock” about the advantages of the human justice parts of Obamacare

FWIW: after what I saw as an altar boy ( and was deposed in an abuse case), and attended a Catholic HS, I am convinced the RC church worships one thing only: $$. I have since converted to Missouri Synod Lutheran