Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rick Santorum: If I Win The Illinois Primary, I Win The Nomination
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/17/10737243-rick-santorum-if-i-win-the-illinois-primary-i-win-the-nomination ^ | Andrew Rafferty and Alex Moe

Posted on 03/17/2012 7:04:37 PM PDT by Steelfish

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-181 next last
To: NoRedTape
>”I favor Obama over Romney, any day”<

I'm sure the next two Justices that Obama picks for the SCOTUS will be glad to hear it.

I can't stand Romney, but I loathe Obama. The choice is clear if it comes down to that.

Anybody but Obama.

51 posted on 03/17/2012 9:32:43 PM PDT by Kickass Conservative (A day without Obama is like a day without a Tsunami.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

Some people are concerned that Santorum might have an optics problem, that liberals could too easily make it look like he is trying to baptize government into the church, which of course he would not do (any more than he did in Congress).

But if Gingrich can’t squeak it, it looks like Santorum is the only other who makes sense, and he will just have to deal with the unfair liberal optics as they come.


52 posted on 03/17/2012 9:34:28 PM PDT by raccoonnookkeeper (I keep raccoons in a nook!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: PSYCHO-FREEP

Give it a rest, psycho. You’d better be praying Santorum gets the nomination because otherwise it’s Romney.

He’s not my first choice either, but I not only see the handwriting on the wall, I can actually read it.


53 posted on 03/17/2012 9:35:24 PM PDT by altura
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Kickass Conservative

When I see a post like that, it makes me despair for the country, for the intellect on Free Republic ...

Is anybody even paying attention to Obama running roughshod over everything and ignoring congress and the people.

I’ll crawl over hard dirt to vote for Romney or anyone else who is our candidate and I pray that the stupidity expressed by some here is not universal.


54 posted on 03/17/2012 9:38:07 PM PDT by altura
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

“If Rick Santorum wins the nomination, the GOP is insane.”

That is without a doubt one of the most idiotic statements I’ve seen in a while. As if nominating a social conservative (both Reagan and George W. were) would guarantee us losing. History shows this is not the case.

No, the real insanity is the GOPe pushing this socialist who wrote the precursor to Obamacare. In an election where our future is at stake, the freedoms we will pass along to the next generation, repealing Obamacare is “ground zero” in our struggle to get back this country.

So against that backdrop, what do our elites do? Oh, here’s a good idea, let’s nominate the guy who essentially wrote the damn bill! Now THAT is insanity.


55 posted on 03/17/2012 9:40:39 PM PDT by lquist1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kickass Conservative
I'm sure the next two Justices that Obama picks for the SCOTUS will be glad to hear it.

Romney put outright liberals on the bench in Massachusetts. Obama's choices won't be much different than Romney's. So that dog won't hunt.

Here's where I stand:

“If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures.” ~ Alexander Hamilton

Vote for Romney if you must. But I'll not have my vote sullied by casting it for such a treacherous fraud.
56 posted on 03/17/2012 9:40:58 PM PDT by Antoninus (The less virtuous a people, the greater its need for laws.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: lquist1
So against that backdrop, what do our elites do? Oh, here’s a good idea, let’s nominate the guy who essentially wrote the damn bill! Now THAT is insanity.

Bingo. If we don't defeat the GOP establishment in 2012, it doesn't matter if they defeat Obama in December. They and their creature Mitt Romney are part of the problem.
57 posted on 03/17/2012 9:43:27 PM PDT by Antoninus (The less virtuous a people, the greater its need for laws.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish; PSYCHO-FREEP

I don’t think he’ll get to the point of promising “permanent lunar-based colonies within eight years.”


We have experienced what happens with such government migration. Near death valley is a desert community called Palmdale. They started building little subdivisions there in the early 90s, cute tiny starter homes and town homes. Young middle class couples in their 20s starting families moved out there to enjoy the low house prices. For years all was quaint and well. Then the government deemed the housing there “section whatever” and gave inner city “families” the right to squat in them. BOOM, property values went down so far that most of the middle class kids had to walk away from their homes. Great, more to give away. Now the place is a cesspool of gang activity.

The moon could look like that two years after Gingrich starts bribing people to go live there. GWGs — gangstas without gravity.


58 posted on 03/17/2012 9:45:37 PM PDT by Yaelle (Santorum 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Any Santorum supporters living in the Chicago area should seriously think about volunteering at his office in Elgin. I will be there on Monday and Tuesday.

And those who live in other areas can use the phone at home program on his website.

Does anyone know of a Santorum list on Free Republic that lists those living in Illinois? It would be nice to ping them to the volunteer opportunities.

Winning Illinois would really reset the race!


59 posted on 03/17/2012 9:46:18 PM PDT by LovedSinner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

I want some of what Santorum been smokin’

He can’t win the nomination outright unless both Newt and Mitt drop out soon.

He needs 64% of the remaining delegates of the remaining primaries.

Somebody needs to get Rick’s head in touch with Rick’s mouth, but real quick.


60 posted on 03/17/2012 9:51:34 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

And if they vote for a flaming liberal like Romney, or a big government, global warming, Amnesty granting, Acorn endorsing, influence selling, ethically challenged, space mirror, serial adulterer like Newt, then it won’t matter if we win the election.


61 posted on 03/17/2012 9:59:27 PM PDT by NavVet ("You Lie!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

If Newt drops off, and he wins the big states like TX, PA, IL, and who knows even CA , he’ll get close to Romney’s tally. If Romney doesn’t win on the first ballot, the delegates are free to choose. The delegates in the states will vote with what their states’ conservative voters preferred. Santorum could then pull it off in a 2nd or 3rd round of balloting. I do now agree with brokered conventions but this is now becoming increasingly inevitable. If Santorum loses IL, I think the writing is on the wall. Mitt wins the nomination. Unfortunately, like what occurred in WA, MI, and OH, Gingrich may become the great spoiler again!


62 posted on 03/17/2012 10:02:05 PM PDT by Steelfish (ui)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
Allow me to disagree. If Romney picks a Nominee that mirrors an Obama pick, Republicans will rise up and let him know, just as they did with Bush's Harriet Meyers choice.

Bush backed down, just like he did with his Amnesty idea because he felt pressure from the base, both Conservative and Moderate elements.

Obama would not look back. That is the difference. I will take a chance on Romney rather than having no chance at all with Obama. Obama’s second term would be a “nothing left to lose” term, not a “lame duck” term.

63 posted on 03/17/2012 10:02:46 PM PDT by Kickass Conservative (A day without Obama is like a day without a Tsunami.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: altura; Kickass Conservative
Is anybody even paying attention to Obama running roughshod over everything and ignoring congress and the people.

Is any of you ABO, default Romney supporters, really paying attention to the actual record of Mitt Romney?

Do any of you "Head-in-the-Sand" reflexive GOP voters, no matter how Progressive Liberal the candidate is, actually researching out the candidate you want us to vote for by twisting our arms and collective principles and morals?

With a record of nominating 75% Democrats and Hard Leftist judges.

With a record of supporting Gay Adoption.

With a record of implementing and supporting Gay Marriage.

With a record of supporting the Brady Bill and implementing a state-wide "Assault" Weapons Ban AFTER the federal AWB expired.

With a record of supporting Man-Made Global Warming and supporting an associated Cap-And-Trade system in Massachusetts.

With a record of implementing a Socialist Health Insurance Program called RomneyCare with $50 Abortions and an Individual Mandate.

With a record of supporting TARP

With a record of raising Taxes and Fees by 300% while Governor of MA.

With a record of supporting Amnesty for Illegal Aliens (Pathway to Citizenship).

Are you really going on record as calling those adamant or even hesitant for voting for such a Progressive Liberal idiots?

Even if the alternative is Obama?

At what point do you step back and say enough is enough?

Does the GOP Need to put up an actual avowed Communist before you pull your head out of the sand and wake up?

64 posted on 03/17/2012 10:03:16 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Kickass Conservative; Antoninus
Obama would not look back. That is the difference. I will take a chance on Romney rather than having no chance at all with Obama. Obama’s second term would be a “nothing left to lose” term, not a “lame duck” term.

Romney's own record disputes your hope in him doing the right thing.

2/3rds or 75%, I forget which right now, of his nominees were Democrats, hard-left Democrats who couldn't give a flying leap about the constitution or anything else considered conservative in nature, and you state you hope he would listen to pressure from the base?

He's still lying about implementing Gay Marriage and supporting Gay Adoption while Governor of Massachusetts and you still want to HOPE that he would do the right thing?
65 posted on 03/17/2012 10:07:27 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: altura
I am starting to think we are a minority here.

Cut your nose off to spite your face is becoming the norm.

I am nearly 59 years old, and I have never seen a threat to what I consider the American way of life until Obama came along.

I'm going with Mark Levin on this. I too would Vote for a can of Orange Juice over Obama.

66 posted on 03/17/2012 10:10:01 PM PDT by Kickass Conservative (A day without Obama is like a day without a Tsunami.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Kickass Conservative
Allow me to disagree. If Romney picks a Nominee that mirrors an Obama pick, Republicans will rise up and let him know, just as they did with Bush's Harriet Meyers choice.

Have you been watching the scorched-earth campaign Romney has been running against his Republican rivals? Do you think that's by accident? Romney destroyed the Republican party in Massachusetts and is doing the same kind of damage to the national party right now. He will nominate liberals and stick it in our face--or he will have no qualms about lying to us that his nominees are actually conservatives. The man is a born charlatan.

Or haven't you been paying attention?
67 posted on 03/17/2012 10:11:05 PM PDT by Antoninus (The less virtuous a people, the greater its need for laws.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

When Ronald W. Reagan came into his native IL to campaign in 1976, he said it would be a miracle if he got 40 percent over Gerald R. Ford in that liberal state. I think that is about what he got. The state is liberal, liberal, liberal, and we can’t put much hope in it. I think the key to Rick’s potential loss was his failure to get on the VA ballot. Having to forfeit ID and UT hurts too.


68 posted on 03/17/2012 10:12:34 PM PDT by Theodore R. (Mathematically, it's all over, says Mittens. I'm pretty sure the people will again let us down.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
If Newt drops off, and he wins the big states like TX, PA, IL, and who knows even CA , he’ll get close to Romney’s tally. If Romney doesn’t win on the first ballot, the delegates are free to choose. The delegates in the states will vote with what their states’ conservative voters preferred. Santorum could then pull it off in a 2nd or 3rd round of balloting. I do now agree with brokered conventions but this is now becoming increasingly inevitable. If Santorum loses IL, I think the writing is on the wall. Mitt wins the nomination. Unfortunately, like what occurred in WA, MI, and OH, Gingrich may become the great spoiler again!

it's possible, however, I don't know how probable.

But there are a lot of conservatives who are put off and truned off by what they view as Rick's Sanctimonious behavior and attitude concerning social issues that it will take both Rick and Newt to capture as many as possible delegates from Mitt to force a brokered convention.

The goal now is to get to the Brokered Convention so that Mitt does not get the nomination.

For myself, I'd rather not risk Rick dropping out of the race somewhere down the line after Newt had dropped out.

As long as Newt is still in the race, Rick will stay in the race.

With both in the race, we get a brokered nomination, not so sure if Newt backs out.

With respect to your comment concerning Mitt winning the nomination if Rick loses IL, I believe it is almost statistically impossible for Mitt to win the nomination no matter the outcome of the IL primary.

THere are only 7 out of 26 primaries that are winner-take-all. Those 7 primaries only account for 189 delegates and I don't believe that Mitt will win all of the WTA primaries.

Mitt would have to win 46% of the remaining delegates to win the nomination outright.

As things have been going, there isn't a chance in hell that he can accomplish this.
69 posted on 03/17/2012 10:14:58 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: 21twelve; Absolutely Nobama; AFPhys; afraidfortherepublic; AmericanInTokyo; ...
Pinging the list to LovedSinner's post above (#59). Any Chicago-area FReepers who want to help are encouraged to do so.



Santorum for President ping. Let me know if you want on or off the list.

Like Rick on Face Book.

Top 10 Reasons why Conservatives should support Santorum

16 Reasons Why Mitt Romney Would Be a Really, Really Bad President
70 posted on 03/17/2012 10:20:06 PM PDT by Antoninus (The less virtuous a people, the greater its need for laws.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie
As Governor of MA, Romney had no “base” to rise up and pressure him to seek out more Conservative Nominees. Republicans were outnumbered in the MA Legislature to the point of being reduced to background noise.

I am not defending Romney, just calling it like I see it. This “no difference” between Obama and Romney is ridiculous.

Obama is a Marxist version of a “sure thing”. A President Romney gives us at least a fighting chance to influence his Governing.

I will take a fighting chance with Romney over unconditional surrender to Obama any day of the week.

71 posted on 03/17/2012 10:22:19 PM PDT by Kickass Conservative (A day without Obama is like a day without a Tsunami.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus; 21twelve; Absolutely Nobama; AFPhys; afraidfortherepublic; AmericanInTokyo
Well, Rick is slightly off. He doesn't look closely enough at causes. The breakdown of the American family is not the principal cause of the undermining of this country. The principal cause of the undermining of the American family is also the principal cause of the undermining of this country and that's the metastatic growth of government at all levels.


72 posted on 03/17/2012 10:25:48 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

Comment #73 Removed by Moderator

To: SoConPubbie

[ Obama would not look back. That is the difference. I will take a chance on Romney rather than having no chance at all with Obama. Obama’s second term would be a “nothing left to lose” term, not a “lame duck” term.

Romney’s own record disputes your hope in him doing the right thing.

2/3rds or 75%, I forget which right now, of his nominees were Democrats, hard-left Democrats who couldn’t give a flying leap about the constitution or anything else considered conservative in nature, and you state you hope he would listen to pressure from the base?

He’s still lying about implementing Gay Marriage and supporting Gay Adoption while Governor of Massachusetts and you still want to HOPE that he would do the right thing? ]

We are so screwed if Either Mittens gets in or Barry gets a second term.

Mittens would only slow things down and then in four years the GOP would be blamed so much but with little to show we would still be in an economic malaise the likes of Carter’s wet dreams. This would GUARANTEE a Democrat Victory over the house the senate and even the presidency in 2016. They would not be pulling any punches as they would run someone that would make Obama look like a middle of the road moderate. Because they know they would have a very good chance of winning. Not to mention the class warfare game that could be played to Bolshevik conclusion during that election if we get Romney and mediocre performance out of him which is very much likely.

Of course Obama winning would be a very much “nothing to lose” second term that would see him likely either completely destroying the economy so badly that they play the game of “Destroy and Support” in that they would destroy the economy and then support the people as the “great savior” thus ensuring either “Glorious Revolution” or the mass construction project of making millions more so dependent that they will have a permanent grip on power that would only come undone with Blood sweat and tears, but mostly Blood and Tears.

ABO and ABR, because we either need Newt or Santorum, hell I would take Ron Paul over Romney for the above reason above.


74 posted on 03/17/2012 10:31:37 PM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar
"If Rick Santorum wins the nomination, the GOP is insane."

Nope. It the primary electorate that's crazy.

Turnout has been historically low as the bulk of the party is simply not interested in the primary.

Santorum's 40% Values Voters base and a 3 man race could be enough to get him a win in Tampa.

In the olden days values voters were about evenly split between the two parties. Now it seems they're all in for the GOP...as long as Santorum is the nominee.

If he is not, they're likely to stay home.

Idn't that just the damnedest thing?

75 posted on 03/17/2012 10:32:02 PM PDT by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
I have been paying attention, have you?

Obama is acting like Pharaoh and refusing to support ANYONE running against him will just make his Second Term a living hell.

As I said before I am no fan of Mittens, but IF it comes down to him and Obama, Obama must be defeated.

No need to reply. You are as firm in your position as I am.

76 posted on 03/17/2012 10:35:20 PM PDT by Kickass Conservative (A day without Obama is like a day without a Tsunami.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Quinn Hillyer is right in his analysis. Newt is potentially a greater threat to Santorum than Perot was to GHWB.


77 posted on 03/17/2012 10:39:21 PM PDT by Theodore R. (Mathematically, it's all over, says Mittens. I'm pretty sure the people will again let us down.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Kickass Conservative
I will take a fighting chance with Romney over unconditional surrender to Obama any day of the week.

Besides the fact that Romney will get creamed by Obama in a general election match-up because he and the MSM will use Romneys Extreme Progressive Liberal record against him and slaughter him.

Besides that fact, you're still living in the land of HOPE and trusting that Romney will listen to pressure.

There is no fighting chance with Romney, only the facts of his Progressive Liberal Record and his continually lying about his record and his character assasination of his rivals for the GOP Presidential nomination.

You make Don Quixote look reasonable.
78 posted on 03/17/2012 10:43:17 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Kickass Conservative
As I said before I am no fan of Mittens, but IF it comes down to him and Obama, Obama must be defeated.

Obama must be defeated. But 1.) Romney is such an awful candidate that he most likely won't beat him and 2.) A liberal Romney presidency will fail and will only lead to someone even worse than Obama in four years with an even bigger mandate than Obama had in 2008.

Romney vs. Obama is a lose-lose, so we must strive to make sure that devil's bargain never happens.
79 posted on 03/17/2012 10:43:41 PM PDT by Antoninus (The less virtuous a people, the greater its need for laws.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: PSYCHO-FREEP

Your “boy” died. Not electable. No one wants him. Just for that. let’s rock.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HV3zWSawJiw

“As long as they play our song...”


80 posted on 03/17/2012 10:50:09 PM PDT by Lazlo in PA (Now living in a newly minted Red State.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

He is probably correct. If he can win in Illinois, the polls will shift enough for the 11% that keeps jumping to the front runner to move from Romney to him. I do not see Romney ever getting it back if they leave him.


81 posted on 03/17/2012 10:54:01 PM PDT by Ingtar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
The breakdown of the American family is not the principal cause of the undermining of this country. The principal cause of the undermining of the American family is also the principal cause of the undermining of this country and that's the metastatic growth of government at all levels.

...which happens because family breakdown forces desperate people to look to government to rescue them from their plights. How many single mothers are on government assistance of some kind? Nearly all of them.

The left knows full well that this is a vicious cycle. Provide free stuff and loosen the laws so that people are not responsible for their bad behavior and families will break down. Family breakdown creates more of a demand for public assistance. Santorum is the only candidate who understands how to break this cycle by getting the government out of the business of abetting family breakdown and by using the power of government to assist families to stay together and survive without government assistance.
82 posted on 03/17/2012 10:54:11 PM PDT by Antoninus (The less virtuous a people, the greater its need for laws.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie
Uh, are you confused?

We had NO discussion regarding the Republican Primary that would make Romney the Nominee. We were talking about the scenario of Romney BEING the Republican Nominee.

Do you think I would Vote for Romney in the Primary? Nobody here would do that. We are talking about the General Election IF Romney is the Nominee. That is the only way I would Vote for him, albeit very reluctantly.

Don Quixote? HAHAHAHA, you are a funny guy.

83 posted on 03/17/2012 10:55:45 PM PDT by Kickass Conservative (A day without Obama is like a day without a Tsunami.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Lazlo in PA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tllhmK9g4G4&feature=related


84 posted on 03/17/2012 10:56:46 PM PDT by Lazlo in PA (Now living in a newly minted Red State.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: PSYCHO-FREEP

... and he still will do better in Illinois even in this scenario than Gingrich would have done. If Newt still wants to pin his hopes on a divided convention, he needs Romney to be held down here. Otherwise, that “inevitability” will start coming into play.


85 posted on 03/17/2012 10:58:07 PM PDT by Ingtar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

Amen.


86 posted on 03/17/2012 11:00:38 PM PDT by newzjunkey (Santorum: 18-point loss, voted for Sotomayor, proposed $550M on top of $900M Amtrak budget...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kickass Conservative

Before you say that, take a look at Romney’s record of court picks in Mass. Also remember, when you see his excuse, that the board that recommended the judges served at the Governor’s pleasure.


87 posted on 03/17/2012 11:00:48 PM PDT by Ingtar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

The simple arithmetic is that the way to deny Romney a first-ballot win is not to concentrate on how many delegates other people win; the way to deny him is to keep Romney himself from winning more delegates. What matters in this game is Romney’s delegate count in relation to the target majority of 1,144. The only way to slow him down is to give a conservative challenger a chance not just to win more proportional delegates, but to win more via “winner-take-all” rules which deny any new delegates at all to Romney.


Bears repeating. If newt wants to be considered honest he will admit he is helping Romney now.


88 posted on 03/17/2012 11:04:05 PM PDT by Yaelle (Santorum 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.

Also it is a loophole primary (the vote for the presidential candidate doesn’t drive delegate selection; voters vote for individual delegates). Also officially IL delegates are unpledged.

So Santorum could win and still lose....my sense of it is that IL Republicans running for delegate with adequate name recognition generally favor Romney. Santorum needs good organization here and probably doesn’t have it.


89 posted on 03/17/2012 11:12:17 PM PDT by scrabblehack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator
You have a perverse definition of "true conservative."

Post 39 could enlighten you to the error of your ways but I notice Santorum's supporters borrow a page from these fine folks:


90 posted on 03/17/2012 11:15:27 PM PDT by newzjunkey (Santorum: 18-point loss, voted for Sotomayor, proposed $550M on top of $900M Amtrak budget...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Ingtar; Yaelle

You nailed it- it’s all about momentum. Santorum will have a tsunami working for him if he pulls an IL win. I agree with Yaelle, Newt needs to get the hell out of the race. But apparently he’s ego is getting in the way. This would have been all over for Romney, if Newt did the proper thing and dropped out after Santorum’s smashing trifecta win. Very likely Santorum would have carried WA; almost certainly MI (where Romney won by a mere 3 % points) and definitely in Ohio where Romney won by less than 1% of a point. Newt is now the saboteur. But don’t tell that to some of our FReepers here who have their heads buried not in sand but in concrete.


91 posted on 03/17/2012 11:42:53 PM PDT by Steelfish (ui)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

You always forget to mention Rick blew big leads in Michigan and Ohio, and actually finished 3rd in Washington (even with all Newt’s votes he would have lost).


92 posted on 03/17/2012 11:52:14 PM PDT by trappedincanuckistan (livefreeordietryin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey

Why are Santorum supporters so delusional?


93 posted on 03/17/2012 11:53:49 PM PDT by conservative98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: conservative98

Do you have an hour?


94 posted on 03/17/2012 11:57:57 PM PDT by trappedincanuckistan (livefreeordietryin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

I’m ok with newt trying his southern strategy in MS and AL. But at that point it was time for him to be a statesman and step aside. He would and still does have enough power to be a king maker.


95 posted on 03/18/2012 12:15:39 AM PDT by Yaelle (Santorum 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Yaelle

>> But at that point it was time for him to be a statesman and step aside

At least he has the potential of being a statesman.

Go Newt!


96 posted on 03/18/2012 12:21:16 AM PDT by Gene Eric (Newt/Sarah 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: moder_ator; Patton@Bastogne

It would be nice if you would provide some links to all those charges against Rick Santorum.

For instance, I happened to know that there is some interesting information related to Rick Santorum voting to increase the Department of Education, if he in fact did.

You see, in 1979 Newt voted to create the Department of Education. Here’s a link for verification.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1979-468

The charge under the heading Bankruptcy is fraudulent.

Rick Santorum did not vote to deny abortion protesters the ability get relief from their general debts by filing bankruptcy.

Rick did sign a bill that denied violent abortion protesters from declaring bankruptcy to write off debts incurred by violent criminal acts.

As a Conservative I don’t wish to see people be able to kill, bomb, firebomb, or cause physical injury, then be able to avoid having to be responsible for debt incurred by these acts.

These two charges against Rick have been posted all over the forum for weeks. They imply that Rick is very anti-abortion protester. They also imply that Rick is much worse than Newt because he voted to increase the budget of the Department of Education, when Newt voted to create it.

Folks, I understand your desire to trash Santorum to increase Newt’s chances, but it doesn’t serve Newt welll to use the tactics that include these two charges over and over.

How about some links for verification of these charges so we can look more of them up.


97 posted on 03/18/2012 12:30:33 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (I believe in Cap and Trade. I know, I know... Cap spending and trade Obama!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: moder_ator

With apologies, I meant to link you to the post just above.

Thank you.


98 posted on 03/18/2012 12:31:38 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (I believe in Cap and Trade. I know, I know... Cap spending and trade Obama!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

...and I’ll have no way to compete against Barack Obama, no money, no organization or debate skills, but at least I’m a “conservative” so what’s the big deal?


99 posted on 03/18/2012 1:25:37 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (Ich habe keinen Konig aber Gott)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

God, I hope so.


100 posted on 03/18/2012 2:03:12 AM PDT by Pinkbell (Rick Santorum For President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-181 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson