Posted on 01/27/2012 4:27:15 AM PST by tcg
...I was concerned the event would degenerate into a petulant verbal battle between Gingrich and Romney. However, Rick Santorum drew applause - both from the live audience and probably from viewers around the country - when he called on both of the candidates to stop their petty personal politics.
"The bigger issue here is, these two gentlemen, who are out distracting from the most important issues -- we have been playing petty personal politics, can we set aside that Newt was a member of Congress and used the skills that he developed as a member of Congress to go out and advise companies -- and that's not the worst thing in the world.
"And that Mitt Romney is a wealthy guy because worked hard and he's going out and working hard? And you guys should leave that alone and focus on the issues"
Santorum then invited the moderator, Wolf Blitzer, to focus on the real issues. Unfortunately, that took awhile...
However, the way Santorum handled that entire matter changed the progress of the debate and established him for the rest of the evening as the man with the most substance...
...His explanation of the Declaration of Independence as the "Why" of America and the Constitution the "how" was brilliant. His ringing defense of the Creator as the source of our unalienable rights - and the role of the Government to recognize and protect those rights - downright inspiring.
Finally, his explanation on the ways in which his religious beliefs would affect the way he would execute the office of the Presidency was outstanding.
While most of the pundits were expecting either Romney or Gingrich to win this important debate; clearly, this was Rick Santorum's night.
(Excerpt) Read more at catholic.org ...
Worst plant of the debates so far.
Even beats the Paul-bot in Huckabee’s “Undecided” forum in SC:
Huck: “Wait, so you really weren’t undecided before asking your question tonight?”
Too: “Umm, no. But now I’m MORE decided for Ron Paul.”
>> So you’re ok with his right-to-life stance?
For sure. I’m against abortion but I’m not a single issue voter. Anyway, I recognize that other than bully-pulpit work and appointing judges, there is damn little a POTUS can immediately DO about abortion. So to some extent it’s just posturing, *however* a candidate believes on the issue.
>> I’m still not sure why you even mentioned right-to-life then.
Simply because there are quite a few single-issue voters for whom RightToLife == Conservative, and I’d like to point out that that narrowminded view is SO untrue. While Santorum IS conservative on abortion, he’s far from conservative on many other of his positions and beliefs.
I jumpped off my couch watching Rick Santorum DESTROY mittens!
I think you hit on something huge in the first sentence. Other than the bully pulpit, and the ability to sign/veto, social and fiscal issues really are not decided by the President. Its just a way to get voters to snipe.
I think the important questions to ask a President are:
What type of judges will you appoint?
Will you eliminate unelected czars?
Who will be your Secys of State, Defense, and Interior (Interior Dept gives offshore oil/gas permits)?
What is your foreign policy based on?
What will you use the Attny General for?
Are you willing to veto legislation?
I doubt many here are single-issue voters, but I could be wrong.
Re: abortion: presidents can do a LOT to roll back Roe v Wade, just as ObamaCare did a lot to promote it with Planned Parenthood.
Re: every other issue, there are a few key issues that the Republican candidates need to contrast with Obama if they’re going to win. Abortion unfortunately isn’t one of them, but healthcare, stimulus spending, environmental regulations, and foreign policy etc. are among the few.
IMO, Paul loses on foreign policy, and Mitt and Newt lose on one or most of the other big issues. Santorum is not perfect, but I haven’t seen anything about him where the others aren’t much worse.
Newt claims credit for the economic booms under Reagan and Clinton, but he’s also supported Fannie/Freddie, global warming regulation and bailouts which are all directly tied to the economic downfalls since. IMO, he’ll get slaughtered on those points (among others) and will hand the election back to O.
Side note, I bet he’ll likely only get one shot at a debate, without clapping, and with lefty moderators. O has no incentive or obligation to do 50 debates like the Rs are now. The contrast is more important that debates.
(Btw, are you a programmer? “==”)
although we disagree on the candidate of choice, your points are reasonable and taken.
>> (Btw, are you a programmer? “==”)
You mean by occupation? Judging by where I spend my time, my occupation must be “freeper”. But, yeah, in my “spare time” I write code for money when Mrs. Tick demands food on the table. :-)
“I was just wondering how Santorum has any money left . . . anyone know?”
Malachi 3:10
“Apparently Spector promised in exchange for his support to back whatever R judge nominees came up as head of the Judiciary Committee. He stood by the promise and helped 2 of the most conservative justices get appointed against a flurry of attacks.”
...as if the other more conservative R would not have supported the R nominees.
FAIL
Embarrassing FAIL
Rick just divides the C vote assisting Romney.
We only had votes in three states and they want it to end now
Santorum stood out because Newt failed to put a stop to Romney’s personal attacks.
He should have deflected them and made each response about the issues and how he would deal with them.
It was a sorry night for Mitt and Newt.
People had to keep reminding me why I dislike Santorum to keep me off the ledge.
That’s what ‘they’ kept telling Perry. He did and I wish he hadn’t.
Santorum has a right to stay if he thinks he has a chance. It’s entirely up to him. He may get a bump from the debate. If he doesn’t he may decide to pull out.
It’s pathetic that people think everyone should quit but their own candidates.
Our candidates need to beat everyone, not win by default.
I dont think there are much differences either, which is why I will be ok with any of them. Some are more SoCon, some are more ProCon, but they wont really affect those areas unless legislation is given to them.
What they can do (and will most likely be in a position to do) is appoint up to 2 judges. Maybe Romney gives us some more moderate, Paul will probably give someone who is more libertarian, Newt will probably be solid, but I could see him doing a Harriet Myers thing because he wants to be smarter than the average bear. I have no doubt Santorum will nominate good judges.
As to willingness to using the veto, I think Paul and Santorum are the two candidates left who are true believers in their cause, which could be good, but also means there is not much room to be swayed. I think Newt will veto some things to give a middle finger. I think Romney is the most maleable in a Clinton way, and we could probably move him to sign/veto.
We know the differences in foreign policy, so we can judge that based on what we think is the best use of the military.
So, in the actuality of their presidencies, I dont see how the results of the four will be much different from each other, aside from foreign policy.
What I would like to here about are the czars and Administration staff. I think that is where some policy would be affected.
Now we have PaulBots and NewtBots.
That wasnt the issue. Specter was the Chairman. I dont know who was next in line, but the Judiciary Cmte had Hatch, Grassley, DeWine, and Graham on it. You need 10 votes to get the judge out of committee, meaning all of the Republicans. Specter promised to give his vote, as well as getting the 4 above to automaticall support the nominee out of the committee.
Sometimes it is just about the procedural stuff like that.
I thought we weren’t supposed to be tearing down candidates.
“Rick isn’t a conservative.”
Then, there are no conservatives in the race.
“The whole characterization of “two quarelling children” is pure leftist sophistry. Romney started slinging mud and Gingrich had to respond in kind. If people had bothered to attack Santorum as much he would have had to do the same thing.”
the only leftists who have created this characterization are Mitt and Newt.
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.