Posted on 02/07/2012 9:46:14 AM PST by mitchell001
Santorum would get delegates if they put the rules back to the Steele rule.
As for howling, the real howling would be the universal outcry if, as Gingrich predicted and polls showed a week or so out, he had one what he said was a winner-take-all florida race, and then Romney had filed a complaint to get proportionality.
Which is fine -- the issue is political, and we would favor or not based on whose ox was gored.
In Virginia, the court ruled against Perry in part because while the rules that were adopted could well have violated other rules, he didn't complain before the deadline, and instead worked under the rules as Virginia had expressed them, so it was disengenous to try to get a court to rule against those rules later.
BTW, I think the same is true in Virginia regarding political ox-goring. When it looked like Gingrich and Perry had made it, even I was bemoaning that Santorum had not, and making fun of Bachmann for not even trying.
And when Perry was knocked out, the Gingrich folks were all laughing about him here, and saying how it proved he wasn't a serious candidate, and were quite pleased the rules meant that only Gingrich would compete against Romney (and Paul).
It wasn't until Gingrich got knocked out that the GIngrich folks started complaining about the rules, and agreeing with the Perry folks that it was unfair.
If Gingrich hadn't been knocked out, I am certain the Gingrich folks would have derided Perry for his lawsuit. Heck, a lot of them did anyway, just because it was in their nature.
Alan Keyes lost to Barack Obama in his bid for a Senate seat from Illinois by about 2.2 million votes.
I'm not sure when Rick bought this particular house, but I'll take your word of 2006 minus 9 years or, 1997.
So what? He was paying local property taxes. A lot more than you can say about a host of other congress critters.
Was he 100% ethical about it? No. Did he do anything illegal? Emphatically no. Was it at least somewhat hypocritical after what he did to oust Wofford, an appointee who, by the way, was an appointee warming a seat to replace a dead Republican? Yes it was, but on a scale which would barely even register on the Richter scale if he hadn't been a conservative Republican.
Does Pennsylvania have a distaste for even the appearance of corruption? Again, it depends. If you want to see just how much corruption is tolerated, read today's local headlines about Bill DeWeese, the state representative convicted of actual corruption. If the election were being held today, DeWeese would probably be re-elected. That says more about his constituency of government teat suckers than it does about DeWeese.
OTOH, Rick Santorum took his loss like a man, learned something and has now made a comeback. I can't help but admire that.
Yeah, politics is about personality as well as politics. Yes, Santorum is imperfect on the personality issues as well as some political issues.
Ask yourself: Who is closest to that generic Republican which we consistently see beating Obama in the polls. The serial adulterer who has never won an election outside of a safely conservative congressional district? The wooden former governor of Massachusetts who can't crack 50% in any primary of national poll despite the most impressive list of endorsements? Or everybody's second choice (and clear first choice for about 1 in 5 of us)?
Particularly when most of the Gingrich people say they will never support Romney. And most of the Romney people say they will never support Gingrich. How are you going to win the real prize by picking either one of them?
Wow! That's quite the hyperbolic statement. Unfortunately, it is total BS. You need only go back to 2010:
New York:
Charles E. Schumer- D
3,047,775
66.31%
Jay Townsend-R
1,480,337
32.21%
Difference= 1,567,438, more than double your "record".
Wow! That's quite the hyperbolic statement. Unfortunately, it is total BS. You need only go back to 2010:
New York:
Charles E. Schumer- D
3,047,775
66.31%
Jay Townsend-R
1,480,337
32.21%
Difference= 1,567,438, more than double your "record".
Well, Mr. Milk Toast sure cleaned everybody's clock tonight!
You need to look up the definition of the word "literally."
Something about him tells me he would "lose it" in a big way when the left opens both barrels on him; he would likely reply in an arrogant and crybaby manner and turn off many voters.
“I’ll vote for whoever the nominee is, but those that think Santorum is their white knigh, will soon find out he’s milk toast.”
If you are going to berate people or cast doubt as to their intelligence, then maybe you should think about using words correctly. I am not a spelling or grammar Nazi, but at least get it right. It is not MILK TOAST, it is milquetoast. Sorry to point this out, but it is difficult to take a post seriously when it calls other’s knowledge into question and then goes on to be ignorant itself. More than once I might add.
This pretty much sums it up for me. It seems we're to choose from the used car salesman, the petulant child, the angry attack muffin, and 'get off my lawn' guy.
I gotta go with the muffin on this one.
Not true, don’t hate the guy, just know his abilities, and they aren’t enough to win a national election. And for the record, I voted for him in 06 even though I knew he had no chance in hell of winning. Just like if he is the nominee this time, I’ll vote for him even knowing he’ll lose.
This isn’t a personal, its an honest assesment of the guy. I watched him get effectively painted as a radical candidate and unacceptable and watch him and his surrogates flounder like fish out of the water over it.
This guy has no chance in a Chicago style no holes barred well funded campaign that would be launched against him if he is the nominee. End of the day I’ll vote for the Republican nominee no matter who it is, because its better than the alternative. If it boils down to another turd sammich vs doughbag election, then so be it.
As to a poll of republicans a year ago about senate nominees, all you got there was a name recognition reply, among a sample that represents less than 30% of the states population. And even among that he didn’t hit 50%.. So that means less than 15% of the states population would pick him as the republican nominee, and less than 50% of the republicans.. that equates to another ROUTING. HE wouldn’t carry PA today in a state wide race, he’d be blown out once again... he burned his bridges too many times here.
I am saying the same thing I have been saying, this guy was routed for a reason folks, he was voted out of office, folks didn’t rush to the polls to vote for his opponent, they crawled over glass to vote against him. That happened for a reason.. and that reason will become apparent soon enough.. Just hopefully soon enough to stop another electoral disaster.
Its not a GIVEN.. he didn’t lose PA, he was ROUTED, And I guarantee what you think you know about PA isn’t remotely accurate.
Santorum wasn’t tossed ny nearly 20 points because it was a democratic year, or he endorced spectre, or because his oponenet was named Casey.
Those are all nice trite sound bites for his camp to use, but they aren’t accurate, had Santorum lost by 5 or 7 points you could use those types of excuses, he didn’t he lost by 17!!! 17 points folks, to lose by nearly 3/4 of a Million Votes isn’t a culmination of a bad year for your part, a bad endorcment or an oponent with name recognition, its a FLAT OUT REJECTION OF YOU, FULLY and COMPLETELY. And you can keep dilluding yourself into thinking otherwise, but its absolutely not true.
Funny how this blue state sent santorum to Washington 2 times before as their Senator... yet somehow its the Blue States Fault??? Santorum is a milk toast folks, he lost in 06 because he was quite successfully painted as too radical and dangerous by his oponents, he had no answer for it, and wound up being routed. He also had undercut himself by alienating republican donors and support across the state through years of saying one thing and doing another. He’s a solid social conservative, of that I will give him, but he’s milk toast on most other areas.
I would like to be wrong about this, but I watched Santorum get crushed, mostly due to his own repeated misteps, and I don’t see any way this guy is going to be able to carry a national campaign.
The “Casey” name in Pennsylvania is like the “Kennedy” name in Massachusetts. If fact, the Casey name is so strong, many years ago a bartender at a Harrisburg, PA hotel by the name of Robert E. Casey took up the suggestion of a patron and ran for State Treasurer and subsequently won the election. He became Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in 1976!!!. So, you see what Rich was up against from Day 1 as far as name recognition.
See link below.
http://www.ourcampaigns.com/CandidateDetail.html?CandidateID=217397
You're also forgetting that Schumer, as head of the DSCC had made Schumer his #1 target that year. Schumer had indicated that in spite of all the democrat victories in '06, he would have still considered it something of a loss if they hadn't been able to get rid of Santorum.
Apparently a lot of FReepers align perfectly with Schumer when it comes to their views on Santorum...
Vigilantman,
As you know perception is reality, especially in politics. No one said Santorum’s house was a huge ethical lapse, though it certainly didn’t go over well, and
As to PA corruption, local districts are far cries from national or state wide ones... Murtha had a job for life in Johnstown district, and would still get elected to this day despite being utterly corrput, Deweese et al are the same deal, they have their little feifdoms and they run them with iron fists.. and the electorates there are old school... Yes, he’s a crook, but he’s our crook. However if you put Murtha or DeWeese on a statewide ballot they’d get slaughtered, so taking tolerance of corruption at district levels to equate to statewide tolerance is a bit much.
Lets be honest, Our current Governor won is largely do to the fact he took on the Corruption of Deweese et al.
The fact we got Fast Eddie in the first place was because then Lt Governor refused to run for office, and the republicans put up a guy, who while a nice enough joe, had about as much Charisma as moldy bread. (That is a comment directed at the PA is a blue state idiots who don’t live here, not yourself.)
Santorum held a house, which is fine, he paid taxes on a house which is fine, but he LIED about living in it, and like it or not expected the local school district to pay for his kids education when he clearly was not living there, and that my friends is a no no, not only is it a no no, by the law it is technically ILLEGAL. I own property in several school districts in PA, and pay property taxes on all of them, however if I send my kids to a school in one of those districts claiming a house I own, but do not reside in as my residence for doing so, technically I am in violation of the law. Because I AM NOT A RESIDENT OF THAT DISTRICT.. paying the property taxes to the school district is not what determines residency, actually living there does. Now, is it a huge end of the world infraction? No.. and honestly while it cost him some votes on election day, I don’t think that mini scandal was a big huge vote change.
But what it did do is futher solidify an electorate that was already well against him, to be more so, by showing just one more example of his say one thing and do another nonsense. PA School Taxes are outrageously high, and the teachers union is far too powerful and should be abolished, so while joe and jane six pack are struggling to pay 2.5% of their homes value to a school district every year for mediocre results, its going to piss them off to see someone playing games like Santorum was.. like it or not.
The fact he made it a huge talking point against Wofford just added to the mix, because it stopped the “everyone does it” argument from having any sort of merit. How can you have attacked wofford so badly on this as though it was a moral imparative to you, and then do something similar yourself? In fact I do recall when Santorum made it an issue with Wofford, Wofford even told him, when you are in washington all the time, you will see.. (Im paraphrasing of course, but Wofford was right at the end of the day).
My gripe with Santorum is fundametally that I don’t see a man capable of winning a hard national election. 06 he a modest attack by outside forces to paint him as an extremist, and they did it very very well, and he never ever was able to respond effectively to it. He lost an election by 17 points to someone who was more boring than a rotting deer carcass who literally no showed the entire campaign.
I don’t see him being remotely capable of handling what will be thrown at him if he is the nominee, he’ll be painted as incredibly extremist, and he does not have the intellect or oratory skills to defend his positions effectively when challenged. Do you think if Santorum had faced an agressive leading attacking question about say his stand on abortion, or gay marriage or any of the other hot button issues at the begining of a debate, that he could have turned it right back on the moderator and made him look a fool and called them to the carpet for it? Absolutely not. But that is exactly what is going to happen to any republican nominee they are going to have to face that and much worse, and if they are not capable of standing up to it, and smart enough to recognize it and turn it back on the attackers, they will be painted into a corner and never get out of it, and that’s exactly what happened to Santorum in 06 and its what I believe will happen in 12 if he is the nominee. The race will be over before it begins.
2012 is a sad crop of candidates, no doubt about it. As to which I think can handle the storm, and not only handle it,but take it to Obama directly and make this a truly ideological election, where its not going to be simply, tit for tat who can find the most dirt, or the next scandal, but truly ask the electorate and articulate to the electorate the differences in the choices they are truly facing, Newt in my mind is the only one who can and if he does, it will be routing.
If we settle for Romney V Obama, there is little difference between the two, Romney takes ObamaCare off the meny for the 12 election so Obama and the Dems love that, that election is little difference... nuanced differences that the general electorate isn’t going to be able to notice. Santorum, while a social conservative is not a generic conservative, he’s more along the lines of the “compassionate conservative” of Bush, and frankly we don’t need another Bush. He’s fundamentally not for smaller government, he’s not fiscally conservative, he’s not articulate or intellectual enough to be able to truly make a strong ideological argunment, and because of that, his social stands will get him painted as an extremist before he even gets started.
I have stated before, end of the day I will vote for the republican, no matter how bad he is, because I believe even the worst is better than what we have currently, but I’d really like to vote for someone who gets it, and understands not only what the leftward slide is doing to our nation, but has plans and can articulate them on how to reverse it. And there is only one guy in this bunch who offers that, and that’s Newt.
I'm sorry I thought you hated him. You keep saying "He truly is hated across the political spectrum here", and so I assumed you were part of that spectrum that truly hated him. You certainly talk like you hate him, at least that's how it comes across.
In general, while I appreciate insight from people who live in a state or county, who are connected and know something that most people would miss, I find that people in states aren't always the best judges of their own politicians because they have too much history.
Well, you’ve convinced me that Santorum is not a conservative. Since there are no conservatives in the race, I guess I’ll go fishing on Election Day—or if I do go and vote, I’ll just write in Mickey Mouse.
Fiji,
Look, why is it if you point out someones proven weaknesses and record you are saying he isn’t conservative? Santorum is a social conservative, no doubt, and he is politically more on the conservative side of the isle than the liberal. He is definitely not a Fiscal or Small Government conservative, no matter what he verbally claims, just look at his record and you can tell that. He is politically more along a Bush, the big government conservative with a stronger social conservative bent.
That however is NOT why I am saying I do not believe he can win an election. I am not happy with anyone who is not small government conservative myself. How can we say the federal government is too big and powerful and needs reigned in, and then argue for someone who doesn’t hold that belief??
Why I don’t think Santorum can win is that he will easily be painted as an extremist because of some of his social stands and for some of the statements that have come out of his mouth on them... While I may agree with his stands on things, his articulation of them are silly at times, and can easily be portrayed as hateful. Gingrich caught hell over suggesting the poor kids learn how to work, and was attacked as being racist... Gingrich handled it well, and didn’t back down... When it comes time, and the time will come, that Santorum is openly challenged for some of his social stands like that, he will NOT be able to handle it as Gingrich did, trust me on that, he doesn’t have it in him.
He’ll defend his stand, but he won’t do it forcefully or articulate it well.. just as he always has done. He just doesn’t have it in him.
In 06 the left targeted Santorum because of his social stands more than anything else, then sent in the troops, and they were completely effective in painting Santorum as dangerous and unacceptable.. Santorum and his campaign had no response to it, they never effectively countered the attacks, and to this day I haven’t seen anything out of the guy to suggest he can do any better or handle such attacks any better.
That was a statewide race in PA, the money and action taken against Santorum was MINIMAL compared to what the GOP nominee is going to face in the national general election. Santorum proved he couldn’t handle the PA race, he’s got no chance in a national one.
These traits and history do not combine to show me a candidate who I have faith can win the election, I’ve been through Bob Dole, I’ve been through McCain, and end of the day I see the campaign from a numbers side of things being not much different with a Santorum nomination. And that’s rediculous. We have the worst and weakest president since Carter residing in the White House, we should be able to trounce him without any effort at all, and I honestly feel 2 of the 3 contenders to be the nominee will almost certainly ensure us failure, even though we should be able to run Mickey Mouse and win.
Time will obviously tell how things play out, but I really don’t see this guy as being able to pull it off, not even close. A VP attack dog/surrogate yes, top of the ticket? Just not seen anything ever out of this guy to make me believe he’s got what it’ll take.
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.