Sultan Knish/Daniel Greenfield Ping List. FReepmail me to get on or off.
And let the smears come--ALL of them—after he wins the nomination everything the MSM throws at him can be blown off with a “that's ancient history—already dealt with it—time to move on—or do you work for an “olds” organization?)
“There are many furious headlines being written castigating Santorum for somehow having sneaked under the radar without paying his dues by being lambasted by the conservative establishment for a week. The consensus is that he only almost won because all the other candidates crashed and burned. That might be true, but who tanked the other candidates? Aside from Cain, the liberal media hardly had to lift a finger. It was the gatekeepers of the establishment who did all the heavy lifting.”
Uh, it was the Purity Caucus that did most of that. They wanted to get rid of every non-Mitt candidate because of something they said that wasnt conservative enough.
And now, the guy that did nothing but stay in the shadows, lived in Iowa for weeks, and comes out almost in front is in the spotlight. The Purity Caucus doesn’t want him to get the same treatment because they have been pumping him as the “true conservative”, even though if you use their own standards, he is “no better”.
Well that’s too bad for him. He wants to be on top, Now he is going to have to do more than visit farms and malt shops.
Agreed. I’m a Perry-backer but I really like Santorum as well. My main concern with him is his financial/organizational sustainability for the long haul. But I do find it amusing that he is being labeled a “big government conservative” when I’ve never heard that term used about the biggest RINO moderate we have in the race. Perhaps it’s because in the case of Romney, it’s kind of hard to call him a conservative (big government or otherwise) with a straight face-though many in the establishment are trying their best.
I don’t know who’s going to ultimately emerge as the anti-Romney. I’m sticking with Perry till he decides to hang it up-but I think on the merits, Santorum would definitely be my second choice.
And while other Americans went to work every day, Rick Santorum campaigned in Iowa. Just like our current President, campaigning every day. No jobs.
Santorum is also benefiting from being the anti-Gingrich. Many could never get completely comfortable with the potential that Bad Newt might show up at any time.
If they feel they have a choice, and someone who has a chance to win, I think we’ll see a lot of Gingrich’s support (what’s left of it) flock to that candidate, i.e. Santorum.
If Santorum turns in a solid second-place finish in NH, the money will start rolling in for him even faster and Newt’s time may be running out.
We’re not looking for a Greek deity, just a flawed man who can win an election and check some of the worst abuses of the past four years...
I am looking for Superman.
That man is Newt so long as he continues to intellectually eviscerate that Lame-O MuttTard.
Might be Perry, “IF!”, he can get his game on and sharpen his knives.
Could be Santorum but, he needs to learn commity of speech.
Romney is a corporate salesman and a good one. However, he has taken no position so he can be all things to all people.
My hope is that like any other “Me too” salesman he goes down in flames.
We need a couple more debates now that we have fewer voices, who diffuse the real thinkers and then we will see who really has a plan for America.
Mitt, with his 59 page/point proposal, which no one with ADD or a “Type A” personality would give more than 3 minutes of serious thought.
Santorum, who seems to be a good man and fairly conservative but lacks a Power Point plan and points that are quickly understood.
Newt, gets it and is a very flawed man. Hell, ain’t I? A record of real achievement from a conservative point of view?
You betcha!
I’ll spell it out in a second.
Rick, Rick, Rick. I took you on as a recommendation from a friend but you ain’t working it and I suspect you were talked into doing something maybe you hadn’t seriously considered before.
Doesn’t mean you couldn’t be a decent President but, dang it! Act like you want it and I can stay with you as an alternative to Mitt. As it is, all I can do is send you my hard earned loot and hope your voice mutes the governer but sadly, yours is the one that currently not heard.
Get with it or Go home. BTW, love what you are doing in Texas.
Romney’s positions and that of Newt’s are pretty well known.
One has acted them out and the other has not.
One is opportunist for the purpose of advancement, the other is a serious intellect and strategist whose performance in the past I very much agreed with.
In fact, I had to educate our new local host his 2nd day on the air. He made the unfortunate mistake of Praising Bill Clinton for Welfare Reform, the Balanced Budget and lowered taxes through capital gains tax cut.
Brian Sussman made an unfortunate mistake of trying to give Clinton credit on the one hand while demonstrating his errors on the other.
I called in and thanked him for deciding to become a full time talk jock but I wanted to correct his view about Clintons legacy. Not to be contrarian or take away from him or Bill Clinton but they were just plain wrong and I asked I might quickly demonstrate why Clinton deserved zero Credit and when I am through who really should get the credit, without insulting anyone.
So I quickly went through them:
Contract with America, who wrote it? Newt Gingrich was his reply.
That is correct.
Now to clear the record I’ll go through them in the order I think is most powerful:
Capital Gains tax cut-
Was thought of as a response to Clintons raising of taxes and as a tool to keep the investment community well, inevesting and spurring additional investment. That was a Contract with America initiative and a well thought out position by Newt.
There was some horse trading and Newt gave away something no one really cared about to get it and the economy kept going with the result being unemployment dropping from 7% to 4% in a few short years.
The host immediately got the idea, said he would probably rephrase his thought at the end and asked me to continue.
Balanced Budget -
Again, Newt gave Clinton some bases that were already on the secondary list, devised by Dick Cheney, as alternatives for closure. Clinton got a win for his anti-military wing, we gave away something we didn’t care about and got what we wanted.
Welfare Reform -
this was the end goal all along and with a new Republican majority Congress it easily passed the House only to have Clinton veto it.
No problem. The President has the bully pulpit but was embroiled in a few distractions at the time which made it possible for Newt, Dole and few others to take their case directly to the American people who were sick of welfare queens.
Clinton was made aware the American people and the Houses were very much in the majority and very excited about reforming welfare. Still, he vetoed it again and then tried to make the argument he was going to co-opt the argument and reshape welfare reform as he saw fit.
It became very apparent the American taxpayer had, had enough and so had the houses. The pressure became to much and Clinton relented with nary a change to the original welfare reform act.
While he took credit for welfare reform it was never his idea, never became a priority until politically forced.
This was a Newt idea and part of the Contract with America which he shepherded.
Mitt has done nothing like this and I can trust Newt to follow through on his positions.
Still, I am in the Bachman(was), Santorum or Perry Camp. They just need to catch and if they cant’ then I am with Newt, all....the ...way.
Welfare Reform, the Balanced Budget and lowered taxes through capital gains tax cut.
Who has a record like that?
Who can perform like that?