Posted on 02/06/2012 6:59:48 AM PST by SeekAndFind
>>Hmmm... Santorum has a shot at beating Romney in Missouri. Why? Because Newt isn’t on the ballot. The conservative vote is split between Santorum and Gingrich. If one were to drop out then Romney wouldn’t stand a chance at getting the nomination.<<
The point of the article is that Romney does stand a chance if Santorum were to drop out, because so many already dislike Gingrich, particularly women.
This is why Missouri’s vote could be important even though it won’t result in any delegates; it will show just how strong Santorum could be against Romney if Gingrich were to get out of the way, at least in one southern state.
I can't agree. Satorum will lose the feminist, pro-abortion, vote. He won't face the gender chasm that Newt will face. Ugly butch feminazi's won;t support ANY GOP candidate. Ordinary, faithful, conservative women like my wife for instance won't vote for Newt.
What a crock of crap. Unlike you and others who regurgitate this talking point, I actually live in PA, and have lived here for quite some time, the idea Casey Jr was going to simply carry the day simply he had his daddy's name is NONSENSE. Its a nice talking point that the Santorum backers and camp love to espouse but its complete CRAP.
Santorum lost and lost HUGE because frankly, he deserved to lose and lose HUGE.. he was repeatedly 2 faced throughout his career, and those things finally came back to haunt him. He had a nice anti-illegal immigration screed on his english re-election web site, and a nice pro-immigration/amnesty line on the spanish version. Casey literally no showed the campaign, and trounced Santorum not because Casey was Casey, but because ANY democrat would have trounced Santorum by that point because Santorum had alienated over his 12 years in the senate most of his support by perpetually doing things to drive his supporters away. You can only play the say one thing and do another game so many times before it comes back to bite you on the arse, and by the last election, Santorum had run his fate.
Wheter it be his attacks on Wofford for not living in PA when he was trying to beat him, only to be found not to be living in PA and lying about it himself by keeping an empty vacant house and claiming it as his residence later, etc etc etc... Santorum did not lose because of an OFF year, he didn't lose because "Casey Jr" has his daddy's name, he lost because he deserved to lose, and he lost by a huge margine because he deserved to lose.
He was attacked by the left, and had no counter to their attacks at all, he had managed over time to alienate most of the big money republican donors, etc etc etc.. He lost because frankly he deserved to lose, he coulnd't handle that campaign he has ZERO chance in a national one against an opponent who is far more charismatic and funded.
About the only thing Santorum does have is a nasty streak that comes out during elections, so on that front he'll be on an even keel, but he has NO shot at beating Obama, he would not be able to get over 45% of the popular vote by the time its done, and against the most incompetent administration in history no less. Most likely he'd wind up around 40%
He's a non started in a national campaign, he'll get defined by the left as radical, have no counter to it, and get routed just like he did in PA. Those that believe otherwise are drinking way too much kool aid.
I’ve been all over the place with my choice this year. Sarah & Cain were destroyed by the opposition while Newt has done a good job helping Romney knock him down. I thought about writing in Newt tomorrow but think I’m going to vote for Rick. I want to see Romney crushed in Missouri! May not mean much in the long run but it will feel good tomorrow night......
>>Yesterday I was talking to my older sister in Idaho. We spoke about the GOP candidates and she told me, “I can’t stand Newt Gingrich.”<<
And I’m afraid that is the case nationwide. Too many women don’t like Gingrich and will vote for Romney to register that sentiment. Those same women would easily vote for Santorum if they thought he had a chance, but they view a vote for Santorum as a wasted vote when he’s running so low in the polls before the primary election.
What I’m saying, I guess, is that Romney’s vote totals include a lot of strictly anti-Gingrich votes, not pro-Romney votes. If you’re dead set against somebody, you vote for whoever will beat him, just like most of us will suck it in and vote for whoever’s up against Obama in the fall, whether that be Romney, Gingrich, or Santorum. But if Republican women can’t stomach Gingrich, you’ve got to ask yourself what Independent women think of him.
.
Santorum is a ‘true Conservative’??
Santorum:
Voted AGAINST increasing the number of immigration investigators:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00201
VOTED AGAINST HIRING AN ADDITIONAL 1,000 BORDER PATROL AGENTS, paid for by reductions in state grants.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00179
VOTED TO GIVE SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS TO ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=1&vote=00058
Voted to allow illegal immigrants to receive the earned income credit before becoming citizens.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00154
SANTORUM: Trim Social Security now- even if painful.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j7O34Bpp42k-IlMMNiOLBkYF2zNw?docId=b1cff9ecefe24ca6ae1764a09761e361
VOTED AGAINST FOOD STAMP REFORM
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00353
VOTED AGAINST MEDICAID REFORM
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00352
Voted to increase the social services block grant from $1 BILLION to $2 BILLION
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00302
VOTED TO RAID SOCIAL SECURITY instead of using surpluses to pay down the debt.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=2&vote=00056
Voted to impose a uniform federal tax mandate on states to force them to allow convicted , rapists, arsonists drug kingpins and all other ex-convicts to vote in federal elections.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00031
.
Santorum; Big government spender:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zt6XCZz2X1Y&feature=player_embedded
__________________________
Santorum needs to put his country before his ego and drop out.
.
SO WHAT? Can Santorum run an administration and take on the necessary reforms to rein in government? Just because someone is "right" on the issues does not make them presidential material. The same goes for all who are running. IMO, Santorum doesn't have what it takes to be a good president.
We'll see how well Ricky does in a match-up against Mittens in MO. If he can't beat Mittens there, without Newt on the ballot, then why stay? Reason, to keep splitting the conservatives. With Ron Paul and his followers? Who knows? Maybe Mittens has made the Paul camp some promises.
I loathe and despise Mittens almost as much as Obama.
I think a lot of folks are like my wife. She's nominally for Romney because, even though she strongly prefers Santorum, she's afraid he has no chance. Gingrich is poison to her. She thinks he morally bankrupt and unworthy of the Prsiedency. I agree with her there but think that not supporting your favored candidate for expediancy at this point is foolish.
I think that a win for Santorum in MO will change the narrative about him.
RE: SO WHAT? Can Santorum run an administration and take on the necessary reforms to rein in government?
What makes you think the answer to the above question is “NO”?
Also, what makes you think the other GOP alternatives can do it?
I get that you are upset about Santorum's shortcomings but I think it hinders your objectivity when discussing his 2006 race. Casey Jr's favorability ratings as a legacy and statewide officeholder and appeal for center-right social conservatives (again, partly due to his father) made him unbeatable.
Any objective observer would agree that you can't beat a Democrat in Pennsylvania who has high favorables, almost no unfavorable rating, strong appeal to culural conservatives, plus support of MontCo social liberals & the Democrat base. It's absolutely impossible.
Would Santorum have lost against, say, Ed Rendell? Probably - 2006 was a bloodbath nationally and PA leans Dem - but not by 18 points.
As a Senator representing a state which had long opposed “right-to-work”, Santorum voted against a FEDERAL LAW that would force the state to adopt right-to-work against it’s own desires.
That would be a state’s rights argument.
He has said that, as President, he would sign such a bill, which is not a state’s rights argument. But his argument is that, as President, he represents the country, not Pa., so he would not be obligated to vote for the interests of the state he represented.
You can disagree with his reasoning of course. I over it to show that it wasn’t a love for unions, or opposition to right-to-work (which he pushed at the state level), that led to this vote, but a desire not to have the federal government force it’s will on his state which opposed that will, even while he personally supported right-to-work.
And since the federal budget expenditures increased every year Gingrich was speaker, it’s hard to argue that Gingrich was against big-government spending while Santorum was for it. The biggest big-government spending item Santorum voted for, the medicare prescription plan, only passed the house because Newt Gingrich was called in and personally twisted the arms of opponents to get them to vote for the bill. Santorum was an unneeded vote in the senate — Gingrich is the reason we have that law today.
I would expect both Gingrich and Santorum to sign any bill supported by conservatives in congress to cut spending, so I don’t see it as a big issue. They are both campaigning on cutting spending.
My gut. It's a moot point anyway because Santorum isn't going to be nominated. If he was, the Obama machine would destroy him. Santorum isn't a fighter.
Also, what makes you think the other GOP alternatives can do it?
I don't know. Romney has administrative successes as governor and could handle the presidency but he would do so from a liberal Democrat perspective. Not acceptable.
Newt is an unknown as an administrator but he was quite successful at leading the conservative revolution and as Speaker. At least he has a record of accomplishment. And he is speaking the closest to tea party principles.
Because of what I want to see accomplished in DC, I still want Palin for president. But for now, I'll back Newt because of the character of those who are backing him.
I don’t know where people got this idea that Newt Gingrich is so intellectually superior to others. Well, I mean, he tells us that all the time, but where is the evidence?
He’s bright enough. He has a Phd, but it’s in European History, not a real field like science or engineering.
Rick Santorum has a degree in political science, and a masters in Business Administration, and then he graduated Law school, and passed the bar. He is no slouch intellectually. He has excellent debating skills, and a firm grasp of the issues, and isn’t prone to gaffes.
He’s not as self-promoting as Newt, and he wasn’t the darling of the media for a few years like Newt was when he was undermining conservative positions on global warming, cap-and-trade, health care mandates, and the budget, so we don’t know about his intelligence.
Newt is smart-mouthed. He has a lot of facts at his disposal. He’s an idea guy, a free thinker. But Santorum isn’t some country hick.
I don’t know if I would vote for Newt or Santorum. I can’t vote for either in Virginia, so that’s one decision I don’t have to make.
Especially given that the conservatives abandoned Santorum to punish him for endorsing Arlen Specter. They wanted Santorum gone. They still hate him for that one endorsement, and it’s a good way to tell if you should listen to an argument.
There are good arguments against Santorum. But if someone leads off with something like “Arlen Specter — enough said”, you can guess that this is a person who simply hates Santorum and will spin any facts they can to attack him, and won’t give you an honest evaluation.
That’s a good argument, unfortunately that’s the argument pro-Romney folks are using for why we need to vote for ROmney; he’s the only one who has “executive experience”.
If we are arguing between Gingrich and Santorum, neither has experience running a city, state, or country. Gingrich got to run an elective body of 435 people, and he did it well enough to accomplish things, but poorly enough they “voted him out” after 4 years. I guess marginally Gingrich has more experience in leadership, but it’s not a deciding factor relative to, say, Sarah Palin’s experience as Mayor and Governor.
Unfortunately, we might need her, but she’s not on the ballot.
And who voted Newt out? Weak kneed Republicans who were cowed by the media. What that tells me is that Newt was on the right track. He was bucking the “establishment” back then. I believe he would do fine IF the American people stay engaged and defend those who are willing to take on that establishment. We need to be on offense and defense all the time.
Yeah, it's pretty sad. I find myself slamming all three of the potential nominees right now after hopping off the Newt bandwagon with the space colony idiocy.
And on electability, I see Santorum as a disaster. He's very conservative on social issues but moderate to liberal on economic ones. I think that is a losing combination in most elections. And what favorable polls may characterize as "steadfastness", others may perceive as rigidity and dogmatism.
Somebody wake me when it is over.
Hinders my objectivity?
I don’t think so, unlike you, I actually LIVE IN PA, and was paying attention to Santorum during that time, believe me, I am being completely objective. Don’t try to lecture me about what Casey’s name is worth, I lived in PA was Casey was a governor, and still do today, so don’t give me that parroting talking point Santorum backing nonsense.
Santorum has no chance at winning a national campaign, and the dillusion that he lost PA because simply, he was running against a Casey, is nonsense... total and absolute nonsense. Only someone who wasn’t involved in PA Politics at that time could be remotely make the claim that Casey’s name carried the day by nearly 20 points and that Santorum was merely a victim of circumstances. To portray Santorums routing, and make no mistake, it was a ROUTING, as nothing more than that is insane, and complete denial.
Santorum didn’t just lose, he was spanked, and you don’t get spanked EVEN in PA by those sorts of margins as a sitting Senator just because your oponent, who literally no showed the campaign, has a certain name. Had Casey won by a few points you could make that sort of argument, but that’s not what happened, not even close.
Not only did Santorum lose PA, he would have lost it by a wide margin to MICKEY MOUSE that year, and yes, had it been Rendel, it would have been by a very large point spread. The mere fact you believe it would be otherwise tells me two things, one, you certainly were not in PA during the campaign, and 2 you don’t know Santorum or his history nearly as well as you believe you do.
Santorum, not only cannot win a national campaign, if he would wind up the nominee he would not be able to win PA or OH, let alone the rest of the nation. He’s at VP candidate on his BEST POLITICAL day, the idea he could carry a banner at the top of the ticket is patently laughable.
His a big government “compassionate conservative”, with a bent toward social conservatism. Which gives him play with a certain amount of the electorate, but it also makes him an easy target to be painted as extreme, as the left did very successfully to him in his last election. He had no counter for it, had alienated his would be allies and donors over time because of his two faced actions and he didn’t face a millionth of the attacks he would face if he were the top of the ticket. He is a non started are a Presidential nominee, and anyone who’s seen this guy campaign first hand can tell you that.
Casey’s name probably got him points on election day, but to believe that alone got him 18 points is nonsense. His name probably got him 3-5 points at most, and that could have been easily handled had not Santorum been such a complete mess. Casey literally no showed the campaign, and Santorum was easily painted as a radical extremist, was caught in a multitude of “honesty lapses”... particularly ones he had attacked previous opponents for priorly etc etc etc.. He just didn’t have it... Santorum was voted OUT of office far more than Casey was voted in.. if you think otherwise, you are drinking way too much Kool Aid.
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.