SANTORUM / MARTINEZ 2012
Newt can go back the couch with Nancy.
Posted on 01/04/2012 10:11:00 AM PST by Berlin_Freeper
On Wednesday morning, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich told radio talk show host Laura Ingraham he could "absolutely" see himself teaming up with former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum to beat Mitt Romney.
"Of course," Gingrich said. "Rick and I have a 20-year friendship. We were both rebels, we both came into this business as reformers, we both dislike deeply the degree to which the establishment sells out the American people. We both think Washington has to be changed in very fundamental ways, and we have lots of things that fit together. And the thing that’s interesting is if you take the votes, you add to that Perry and Bachmann, you begin to see the size of the conservative vote compared to Romney…if you take, you know, Santorum and Perry and Bachmann and Gingrich you get some sense of what a small minority Romney really represents.."
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
“Santorum’s 15 mins is just about up. He’d be wise to tag up with Newt.”
On the contrary, he’d be unwise to do so. One of Santorum’s main selling points is that he doesn’t approve of perversion.
it was a straw poll that saw our last nominee finish in 6th place there.. SC will pick the next nominee
And that is the truth. Conservatives won 75% of the vote in Iowa yesterday, and the liberal won (technically) with 25%.
That is exactly the game plan from Romney. The best way to defeat the conservatives is to have them at each others' throats.
I trust they know that. If I know it, then they surely know it.
Newt can go back the couch with Nancy.
“BillyBoy” is the brand name of condoms.
Your frequent “scumbag” language often reminds me of that.
How conservative are you really?
That would be an awesome ticket. The Rats would crap their pants.
“Perry supported both Gore and Giuliani in the past.”
Yes, and Reagan was a Democrat once.
Perry has a long-standing dislike for Romney, dating back to Romney’s decision not to allow the Boy Scouts in the 2002 Olympics opening ceremonies. Perry believes it was because of their decision to bar homosexuals.
Exactly. Early push polls and straw polls do not decide the nominee. Primaries and caucuses do. That's why I didn't jump the bandwagon when freepers were going "OMG!!! Rick Perry is polling #1 in US rite now!!! The election is OVER!" and "The Cain Train is UNSTOPPABLEEEEE!" Santorum's the only one thus far who's surge has translated into actual votes. "Front runner" Newt was polling #1 throughout December and won a distant 4th place on election day, falling to carry a single county. Somehow his fan club here has convinced themselves Newt did a good job when his got his butt kicked by a 80 year old libertarian kook.
>> SC will pick the next nominee <<
Is this the Newt talking point of the week? "Iowa caucus winners are flukes, South Carolina picks the President" Well, that's news to our last two Presidents, both Barack Obama and George W. Bush were non-incumbents who started off by winning Iowa. On the flip side, Jesse Jackson Sr. and John Edwards won the "first in the south" South Carolina primary. I don't recall them getting nominated.
I don’t have a problem with him running negative ads. He needs to stop whining about it. You don’t see any other candidate complaining do you? If he really wanted to hurt Romney he’d get out of the race and endorse Santorum.
Agreed! if Newt could be THAT unselfish, I’d like him! Pave the way for Santorum / conservatives / tea partiers to CLEAN UP the GOP. Rinos need not apply — go become what you are, The Moderate Party. The Squishes.
Damn, you've got Jim Rob down to a T. LOL
That was great :-)
Hypothetically, Santorum would be able to pick a much more conservative running mate than Gingrich.
Newt would be ahead if, instead of calling other candidates liars, he would point out the positive about himself and the negative about B. Obama. People are most concerned about choosing somebody who can beat B. Obama.
Gingtorum? I can dig that!
Lost what? The Iowa Caucus? Iowa hasn't predicted the eventual Republican nominee in ages. As a matter of fact, it's nearly become the kiss of death to win it.
McCain took 4th place in the 2008 Iowa Caucus. Same as Newt just did. The real primary begins in South Carolina. If Newt loses that, or if Santorum beats all the odds and wins it, then we'll talk about Gingrich "losing".
Interesting. I've never seen "BillyBoy" condoms. I've seen a lot of Trojan condoms for sale but I wouldn't assume a freeper with the screename "Trojan" was referring to the condoms instead of the Greek warriors.
BillyBoy's is also the name of a popular (and delicious) BBQ restaurant here in the Chicago area. Of course my screenname isn't referring to them, ether. What's your point?
By contrast, "Berlin" was the headquarters of the NAZI regime in Germany. It can refer to a lot of things too.
>> How conservative are you really? <<
Well, let's see... one time I took a political ideology test and I believe I scored a 93% conservative rating. When I took a test determining what kind of conservative I am, I ended up right on the middle of the spectrum between "Neo-conservative" and "Paleo-conservative". I'm pro-life, pro-gun, pro-traditional family, pro-freedom of religion, pro-ANWR drilling, pro-smaller government at ALL levels (federal, state, and local), pro-tax cuts, pro-reducing spending, pro-troops, and anti-illegal immigration. I've been on FR over a decade and don't like freepers who suck up to RINOs like Lisa Murkowski, backstabbers like Newt Gingrich, or liberal Democrats like Joe Lieberman (or when they pretend a staunch FDR New Deal worshiper like John F. Kennedy was "more conservative than today's Republicans")
Why do you ask? I'm not sure why my post questioning a politician's conservatism would make you question my conservatism. I won't be cutting global warming ads with Nancy Pelosi any time soon.
2000 Iowa Republican caucus
George W. Bush (41%)
Steve Forbes (31%)
Alan Keyes (14%)
Gary Bauer (9%)
John McCain (5%)
Orrin Hatch (1%)
I guess if we define "ages" as "the most recent Republican to win the white house", your statement would be correct. Bush won the 2000 and 2004 Iowa caucus. And of course, the most recent Democrat to win the White House (who is in power right now), started his presidential campaign with a upset victory over Hillary Clinton in the Iowa caucus.
I would agree if Gingrich fans said "the Iowa caucus winner doesn't necessarily win the nomination", but instead they're claiming that Iowa "only produces flukes" and "no Iowa winner has won the nomination in ages" when it reality about 2/3rds of the Presidential nominees started with a victory in Iowa, including the 2 most recent presidents (Obama & George W. Bush).
I doubt Perry would go with Romney and like all back stabbing Rinos, Mittens does not play in the sand box well with conservatives.
Well, of course he won the 2004 Iowa Caucus. He was the incumbent president and de facto nominee. I'm just wondering, though, what the track record of the Iowa Caucus looks like before the year 2000.
Does your theory hold up before then? I haven't googled to find the answer.
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.