Delegate tally approximately
Romney 51 Newt 45
when FL vote divided per RNC rules!
CLICK TO DONATE TO NEWT
website@nrcc.org
Washington DC 20003
FAX: 202-863-8820
Play by the rules!
Posted on 02/07/2012 12:34:18 AM PST by AmericanInTokyo
DENVER — The Republican presidential race could be headed for another reshuffle Tuesday as Rick Santorum, who has lagged behind since his surprise Iowa victory, is once again challenging the dominance of front-runner Mitt Romney.
Polling over the past week shows Mr. Santorum statistically tied with Mr. Romney in Minnesota, besting him in Missouri, and running second to him but ahead of rival Newt Gingrich in Colorado, all of which hold contests Tuesday.
Mr. Romney’s camp took notice, firing the kinds of broadsides it generally has aimed at Mr. Gingrich. Romney surrogates on Monday accused Mr. Santorum of pork-barrel spending. The Romney campaign also tried to blunt Mr. Santorum’s attacks by pointing out that the former senator from Pennsylvania endorsed Mr. Romney in 2008.
“Typical Romney,” Mr. Santorum said on the campaign trail, dismissing the criticism.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Just about ALL conservative Republicans endorsed Romney—the alternative was by far worse. John McCain. Dems crossed party lines to vote for McCain.
The dems crossed over to vote for McCain in the primaries.
“What alternative do you mean? 2008 we lost republicans to Obama. Who were the democrats that voted for McCain?”
I think they may mean Dems crossed party lines in the primaries to vote McCain. I know I remember a lot of independents that went for McCain 4 years ago, and we were all fed the lie that McLame had the best shot to beat Obama cause he was a “moderate”. Heck, he even had Joe Lieberman’s endorsement.
It should be said also about Romney in 2008 that conservatives (myself included) went for him for 3 primary reasons:
1. As already stated, the alternatives were McLame and Huck. Enough said there.
2. There was no Obamacare yet, so no one really paid much mind to Romneycare in Mass. I don’t think it ever even came up as an issue in the campaign.
3. Romney ran as a conservative. His campaign was completely different last time around. He was positioning himself as basically a down the line conservative. In addition to that, many of us didn’t know his record as well as we do now. We knew he’d flipped on abortion, but at the time I guess I thought that was his only real conservative transgression. Now we’ve been well educated about his past support of gun control, cap & trade, gay rights, and socialized medicine. Not to mention that Romney (for reasons I cannot understand) has done NOTHING to reach out to pro-lifers, tea partiers, and other conservative elements of the GOP, and he’s done this in an election cycle following one of the greatest mid-term congressional shellackings in history, powered mainly by Tea Party conservatives.
The strategy Willard is running this time is mystifying. It’s like he’s got a bunch of Saul Alinskyites advising him. It’s the same strategy Obama has used in every campaign he’s run-take the other guys out and clear the field. He may have succeeded with destroying Newt (jury’s still out on that) but I have my doubts if this kind of thing will play against Santorum, cause whatever Rick’s flaws are (and there are some), one thing he has established a reputation for is having personal integrity and sticking to his positions. If Romney presses too hard with the politics of personal destruction on Santorum, I think it has a good chance of backfiring.
Huckabee is a populist but he was clearly better than the other two, and I would argue even McCain was better than Romney.
2. There was no Obamacare yet, so no one really paid much mind to Romneycare in Mass. I don’t think it ever even came up as an issue in the campaign.
Of course it came up. But you're right, some people didn't pay attention to the signature 'achievement' of their candidate or are willing to buy into it as conservative reform, just as people rush to defend Newt's more egregious statements because he's their chosen one.
3. Romney ran as a conservative.
There's a sucker born every minute.
We knew he’d flipped on abortion, but at the time I guess I thought that was his only real conservative transgression.
The info was plastered all over the interwebs, especially on FR.
We all make mistakes in endorsements, but the late rush of short-sighted conservatives to get behind Romney gave him enough of a boost to set him up as the candidate to beat in 2012. Truly an unfortunate, though forseeable, result.
“We all make mistakes in endorsements, but the late rush of short-sighted conservatives to get behind Romney gave him enough of a boost to set him up as the candidate to beat in 2012. Truly an unfortunate, though forseeable, result.”
I’ll take partial responsibility for that. I should have done more homework on the guy. I guess McCain was so much better known and disliked by conservatives, and Huckster just appeared to me petty and mostly just running interference for McCain and sabotaging Romney, so I never really took his candidacy too seriously.
I just hope we can atone for our past mistakes and help stop him this time around.
Like I said, hindsight is 20/20 ... when Tom Gallagher and Charlie Crist were running for Florida Governor I initially favored Crist as the better conservative - until he started running Left and Gallagher ran Right. Then I didn’t know what to think. Of course now we know all we need to know about Charlie Crist.
Good info. Thanks
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.