Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gingrich and Santorum Vie to Be the Conservative of Choice [Defeat Romney? One Must Drop Out!]
NY Times ^ | January 13, 2012 | RICHARD A. OPPEL JR.

Posted on 01/13/2012 9:39:30 PM PST by Steelfish

January 13, 2012 Gingrich and Santorum Vie to Be the Conservative of Choice By RICHARD A. OPPEL JR.

DUNCAN, S.C. — Conventional wisdom dictates that for either Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum to vault past Mitt Romney and win the South Carolina primary on Jan. 21, they must handily win the vote of upstate social conservatives, like the ones who packed a high school lunchroom here Friday night. But if the reactions of the 500 or so people here were any indication, these voters remain split.

Mr. Gingrich, a former House speaker, asked the crowd to vote for him because he is the only candidate, he suggested, who can both outperform President Obama in a debate and provide a clear enough conservative break with Mr. Obama’s policies, making him a safer choice to win the general election.

“If Barack Obama, with the disaster he has been, can get re-elected, the level of radicalism he will impose in his second term will be beyond anything you can imagine,” Mr. Gingrich said. “Defeating him is central to everything we are doing.”

He added that if he won both this state and Florida’s primary at the end of the month, he would have the momentum he needed to win the nomination. And in what seemed to be a veiled swipe at the front-runner, Mr. Romney, he warned that conservatives might split their vote. If that happens, he said to applause, “we are going to stumble into nominating somebody that 95 percent of the people in this room are going to be very uncomfortable with.”

Mr. Santorum, a former Pennsylvania senator, likened himself to Ronald Reagan, and called on voters to make him the winner of their primary, as they did for Mr. Reagan in 1980.

(Excerpt) Read more at thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Politics
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-115 last
To: llandres

Newt has a HISTORY of jumping in bed with much of what DUh-bama’s DUmocrats support...single-payer healthcare, Gorebull Warming, ethanol subsidies and more.


101 posted on 01/14/2012 5:50:45 PM PST by RasterMaster ("Towering genius disdains a beaten path." - Abraham Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: llandres

Sarah was asked about Todd’s “endorsement”....she said: “The first dude went ROGUE”. Newtie shouldn’t expect Sarah joining up anytime soon.


102 posted on 01/14/2012 5:52:14 PM PST by RasterMaster ("Towering genius disdains a beaten path." - Abraham Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

That’s right - especially since THIS hand-picked candidate has much more money and can outlast the rest (except RuPaul).


103 posted on 01/14/2012 6:10:36 PM PST by llandres (Forget the "New America" - restore the original one!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: RasterMaster

Newt was speaking out against cap & tax on the House floor the same day Gore was pushing it. He’s said MANY times that making that ad with Pelosi was one of the stupidest things he’s ever done.


104 posted on 01/14/2012 6:47:36 PM PST by llandres (Forget the "New America" - restore the original one!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: RasterMaster

For God’s sake, she was joking. They’re a team, and she’s prevented from personally endorsing due to her contract with Fox.


105 posted on 01/14/2012 6:51:40 PM PST by llandres (Forget the "New America" - restore the original one!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: llandres

Rest assured, he certainly hasn’t learned from that “mistake” and went on to see if he could TOP that mistake many times by joining up with the worst DUmocrats.

Lately, he decided to adopt the DUh-bama premise that corporate gains automatically equate to “greed” and the campaign can’t explain away another “mistake” chalked up for Noot. The “professer” is just too smart for the lowly conservative voters!


106 posted on 01/14/2012 7:18:11 PM PST by RasterMaster ("Towering genius disdains a beaten path." - Abraham Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: llandres

The Evangelicals have decided Santorum is their man. It will be interesting to see if that makes a difference, or if Gingrich’s Tim LaHay trumps Santorum’s Tony Perkins et. al.

What is clear is Perry is done. I hate to say that, because on paper he’s the best of a bad bunch. But he has never shown he’d be able to compete for this nomination, and it looks like those in positions of influence have decided he isn’t worth backing.


107 posted on 01/14/2012 7:27:09 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: llandres
Yes, many states have changed their rules away from the "winner take all" to proportional.

This does extend the primary period as well as giving candidates the opportunity to become better known.

The additional debates, even those that are run by the idiots at various MSMs, enlist additional exposure to the so-called "second tier" candidates that would have never been given any exposure.

Instead of forcing candidates without mega buck supporters, to drop out (as happened in '08 with McLame) can raise some money to continue.

The establishment didn't necessarily warm up to this rule because they like and expect to pick the candidate "most likely to win" (in their opinion, i.e. Dole & McLame).

More people and more states have the opportunity to be included in the choice.

This is why the "establishment" along with their willing allies in the MSM continue to proclaim various people as "non-electable" and also why people who should know better, to accept that view - sad as those are the same people who loathe the MSM and complain about how "unfair" they are, as well as those knowing that this same group are cheerleaders for Obama and will do everything to destroy the Republican candidate. These people will still accept the premise that only Romney is "electable."

108 posted on 01/15/2012 12:46:57 PM PST by zerosix (native sunflower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Lazlo in PA
Puh-leeeeze. "Clean family man." For one thing, unless you are personally and intimately familiar with the Santorum's daily life, you have not idea whether Santorum is a "clean family man" or not, and for another thing, to all appearances JIMMY CARTER was your ideal "clean family man," and so is the dangerous statist fraud Romney.

For once I find myself questioning Mark Levin's judgment for being such a Santorum fan.

Newt may be a lot of things -- a thousand times more inspiring, passionate, and eloquent than Santorum is certainly among them.

One thing Newt is NOT is sanctimonious. No one could ever call him that.

Santorum, on the other hand ...

109 posted on 01/17/2012 9:09:03 AM PST by Finny ("Raise hell. Vote smart." -- Ted Nugent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Finny
"There's no question at times of my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate,"

Newt discussing his multiple affairs with CBN March 9, 2011.

I think I will take a touch of sanctimony over Patriotic Adultery any day.

110 posted on 01/17/2012 9:20:20 AM PST by Lazlo in PA (Now living in a newly minted Red State.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: neverbluffer
I was at the event tonight. Santorum went around the room shaking hands like he didnt care if he was in the room or not. Not even a smile or a thank you for coming. That does not sit well with me...

Wow. That doesn't say much for Santorum.

As for me, the mud on his feet started to show first when he blamed voters for not leading the leaders, or some such mumbo jumbo, though he phrased it in happy sounding campaign-ese. Most of all, though, was at the end of the South Carolina talk (I've linked it elsewhere), when he exhorted people to keep true to their "values," to vote their "values." My business is language, and I know cryptic language-to-avoid-shooting-straight when I see it -- a big part of my job is to steer my clients away from it because it is the equivalent of junk food. I complained to a friend: "What does he mean by 'values'? That’s fuzzy bsh*t talk. WHAT DOES HE MEAN BY VALUES? Talk turkey, or don’t talk at all."

Gingrich has a lot of flaws, and he's very risky because he might go sideways at anytime, though it seems to me that he has a solid history of sticking by his campaign promises, and he's made some GREAT ones lately.

But Gingrich TALKS TURKEY. Santorum is too chicken-hearted to say exactly what he means when he urges people to vote their "values." If he means "vote for somebody who isn't on his third wife," I say Go sit on it and rotate, Rick.

111 posted on 01/17/2012 9:28:26 AM PST by Finny ("Raise hell. Vote smart." -- Ted Nugent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Finny

Santorum is the weaker of the two.

Remember he supported mr uber rino “scottish law”


112 posted on 01/17/2012 9:31:13 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Lazlo in PA

Then your priorities and your presumptions are BOTH out of order.


113 posted on 01/17/2012 11:00:36 AM PST by Finny ("Raise hell. Vote smart." -- Ted Nugent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Finny

Looking past his despicable personal life, how about the priority of believing what Newt says? He has hitched his wagon with Hitlary on Health Care, Rev Al on education and Al Gore with Global warming over the past few years. Now he says he is a full out Conservative again now that he needs my vote to get in the WH. I don’t believe a word he says because ten minutes ago he had different positions on the same issues.


114 posted on 01/17/2012 11:18:55 AM PST by Lazlo in PA (Now living in a newly minted Red State.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Finny
BUMP!!!!!!!!!
115 posted on 01/17/2012 12:31:54 PM PST by b9 (NEWT all the way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-115 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
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

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