Skip to comments.Santorum surges into the lead (National poll Santorum 38%, Romney 23%)
Posted on 02/11/2012 6:19:11 AM PST by Rational Thought
click here to read article
I don’t like Santorum personally but could get behind him, and am interested in what Reagan Democrats he could peel off.
He can carry the ethanol industry wherever they’re moonshining it, that’s a plus, and maybe religious independents.
Cool it with personal smears.
In 2006 the entire GOP was wiped out thanks to the ABC News Mark Foley October surprise and the Iraqi war trashing with no Bush counter attack to justify the war.
Second newt has never run or won a state wide race only gerrymandered congressional races so he is the inexperienced one here .
Ask anyone. And then ask yourself this: is what I say about Santorum true or not because that is the only thing that should matter to you.
Because you’re going to totally go bass backwards in how you try and connect the dots. So let me help you out. I support who I support because of the truth about his opponents - but you will no doubt assume I say what I say because of who I support. Therefore I am loathe to play your little mind game.
BUT FTR, Newt. And the reasons are well documented in my archives at American Thinker and all over the web - and all over hundreds and hundreds of posts here.
As I see it, in a Romney-Obama matchup, Romney will lose much of the conservative vote, who will stay home or avoid that lever by his name.
In a Santorum-Obama matchup, Santorum will lose the moderates, the mushy, the independents. And there are more of those.
Romney would lose big. Santorum would lose bigger.
Neither one is strong on anything but platitudes that serve to fig-leaf their shortcomings of record.
But in a couple of weeks Santorum is going to be hamburger anyway. He’s just the anti-Romney du jour.
Your personal attacks on Rick are overrun the top and cool with the snide comments about me if you don’t want the admin involved real quick .
Your memory of 2006 is wrong it was The Mark Foley election surprise which Are
And unlike Newt, hes an establishment candidate
The notion that Gingrich is not “establishment” is laughable. He’s been a Washington insider forever.
Coming from an anti-Perry troll like you, however, I understand your political ignorance.
If Santorum could win delegates from states that he could never win in a general election, such as MN, IL, or maybe WI, that would be really ironic.
That's why Santorum won't win.
You make a very important and over looked point. Santorum has NOT been vetted. Consider that Chuck Norris understands Santorum better than Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin do. Why? Santorum has been ignored with Newt and Mitt’s ridiculous obsession with each other.
I think I can say with some confidence that as the truth of Santorum’s liberal record comes out, you will see Rush and Levin start to back away from him a bit.
But a word of warning to Newt’s folks - you damned well better start getting some of this stuff out there now before Levin and Rush become too invested in their love of Santorum to admit they were wrong.
You must have both, but the right way is to do whatever it takes to CUT GOVERNMENT. Otherwise you kill our economy and it won't matter anyway. Reagan did his best - he SLOWED government growth. But a sustained effort long enough could actually do it. What if a President simply removed a bunch of cabinet departments (most of them are useless). He could do stuff like that.
Otherwise, as has been said so often, we're just rearranging the chairs on the Titanic.
You may be right, but how do you think Newt can possibly prevail with his adverse gender gap? Maybe the American people are truly still stuck on Obama, and nothing will matter.
This not only reveals how weak this voting block is, it also shows how ignorant most of the voters in regards to the facts or details about the candidates, truly is.
You are absolutely correct about Santorum, but you get viciously attacked for rightfully pointing it out, complete with history and documentation to back up your information about him. I can say that I have fully investigated Santorum and find the same alarming things from his past, but I have also been attacked for pointing his many contradictions, out to the forum.
This blind, impulsive stampede and Lemming mentality will only prove to ruin us later. It always does.
You have zero reading comprehension or you’re just being an obtuse ass on purpose.
So Burt, I will write R E A L SLOW for you now. YES, the Foley stuff and a lot of other crap is why Rick lost. I GET THAT. I HAVE ALWAYS SAID THAT.
What ticks me off about Santorum and many of his supporters is that they can’t stand the truth. The truth is that Santorum RAN AS A WEENIE MODERATE in 2006. That’s not why he lost, but it is how he ran.
Now he claims he’s the true conservative, and it’s not true.
So BURTboy, I’ll try one more time. My point is NOT THAT HE LOST 06 - my point is HOW HE RAN 06 compared with what he says today about HOW HE RAN 06.
If you can’t read, do not respond.
I no longer care about numbers. Perry was my first choice and Gingrich second. I am now for Gingrich 100% and will support him until he wins or quits. If Gingrich drops out, I will no longer be supporting anyone for president, I will only be voting against candidates.
In my opinion, the Reagan Democrats are all dead. Those were white middle class folks who were part of the WWII generation who worked in manufacturing and the like. Most of them married.
I don’t think that group exists anymore, and if it did, we would have a lot more conservative dems in congress now.
I think the white males in what would have been the Reagan democrat mold are now voting GOP anyways.
Thus the GOP has to figure out how to attract younger voters and the suburban soccer Moms. I think Santorum and Newt scare the hell out of both of those groups.
Romney isn’t a good candidate either because he’s obviously going backwards the more people see of him during the past three months.
I think we are in trouble.
The 2006 election in PA was all about the war in Iraq. Democrats did an excellent job of making PA an anti war state while Santorum was a supporter of our Military action. Added to that was a candidate (similar to Obama) that the media promoted. Still to this day, there has been little vetting of the Senator. Almost nothing is known about Bob Casey Jr. except that he is the son of a very popular ex Governor (Bob Casey Sr.).
Now, you might be able to make an argument that if Santorum did so poorly against Casey, he could do poorly against Obama. But, times have changed and the war in Iraq is no longer a front-line issue.
What could become an issue, perhaps even the leading issue, is the threat from Iran. If this comes to fruition, Santorum would be Obama’s worst nightmare.
I fear you’re right.
Per se, I don’t have anything “against” Santorum. He was important in getting welfare reform passed and was a part of Newt’s own ‘94 Revolution.
However, although his fiscal and economic record (save for the Medicare Prescription Drug fiasco) is probably above-average, he’s known primarily as a SoCon type which I fear won’t sell well this cycle. He also can’t play the assertive role (which is needed against a d-bag like Obama) without coming across like a whiny, sanctimonious prick.
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.