Posted on 02/08/2012 1:44:57 PM PST by VinL
Rick Santorum is about to see the kitchen sink up-close. So far he hasn’t been a threat, so he hasn’t faced much harsh scrutiny, much less the attacks that are about to come his way. His candidacy is for real, and Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney both know it.
While Gingrich thought he could isolate Romney and become his lone real competitor, yesterday’s results, combined with a deflating Gingrich campaign, have allowed Santorum to leapfrog Gingrich as the more viable Romney alternative today.
It’s not in Gingrich’s nature to give up. Attacking Romney hasn’t gotten him to where he thought he would be, but at least he was still in the race. Now he must remove Santorum if he has any viable chance at the nomination. I assume his campaign still has some money, and he still has the power of his own lacerating speech.
Romney has developed a tried-and-true formula for the 2012 primaries: Whenever someone presents themselves as a threat, he blasts them with television rating points. It’s the cynical political equivalent of Colin Powell’s “overwhelming force” battle plan. There is no reason to believe Romney won’t use his well-established attack methods on Santorum.
Unfortunately for Santorum, much of what we will learn in the next couple of weeks will appear new — contracts with clients in Washington, his routine dialogue with K Street while he was in the Senate, his particularly vocal anti-gay positions and the reasons for his 17-point reelection defeat in 2006 that amounted to being summarily fired by the voters in his home state.
But Santorum is not naive. He’s been around the big leagues for a long time. So he will do the best he can to be ready. He won’t be defenseless, and he won’t be shy about delivering a counterpunch.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
“Unfortunately, the attacks have to be responded to.”
Disagree, on several counts. First, one is defined by what one resists. If Santorum is or becomes defined by the sheer volume of Mittsers’ attacks, which we anticipate as massive, then he allows it, he walks into that trap. He CAN’T win in a tit-for-tat. This is a known known. Thus he shouldn’t even begin to play that game.
Second, what we want is for Mitt to swing wildly, like a punchdrunk bully...and never connect. If Rick never gets drawn into an insult-fueled fray, then he acquires the stature of a Romney (in terms of being a powerful front runner) just by being in the same ring; but without being *defined* by Romney. It’s IMO an important strategic distinction. Let’s face it, Rick has somewhat of a “backwoodsy” vibe about him, Mittney has this urban, slicker-than-poop image about him. >>>IF he plays it properly, Rick will ultimately end up being better defined by Mitt being unable to land punches than he will playing rope-a-dope or swinging back, punch-for-punch. Mark my words on that point.<<< And then, at some point, Mittster will acquire an image of being the hateful, spiteful, ineffective one. And that could be game, set, match.
Finally, if he simply ignores Mittney enough, Mittney, being the single-strategy mastermind that he is, who is big on the personal attacks but light on the resume, will have to resort to harsher and harsher attacks in an effort to gain traction, and I will tell you now, there will come a point where people will have had enough of that crap and will soundly reject Romney, not just “develop a preference” for the other guy. Romney has been quite remarkable in the stealth organization he has apparently built up on the ground. A direct attack isn’t gonna cut it. But it can be undermined by refusing to play. Mitt ain’t ready for that. He sees himself as the front runner, Rick figures out a way to ignore Romney, and it will scramble Mitt’s brain.
As a Santorum supporter I honestly don’t know the answer to that question but I certainly hope he will give as good as he gets and more without whining about it.
Interesting!
Well that tactic didn’t work out for Newt in Iowa, where he lost a 20 point lead under a multimillion dollar assault of unanswered negative attacks in a 2 week period, did it?
By together, I mean, the 1st thing is to stop Romney. So, they attack him and defend from both flanks. If Romney goes negative on Rick, Newt attacks Romney— and vice versa.
Some of Rick’s supporters are really over-reacting to his wins yesterday. They don’t make him immune from negative attacks. Sarah, Cain and Newt could not withstand them-—Now, I know Rick’s people are pumped up— but, Rick won’t withstand them either- not without help.
“By together, I mean, the 1st thing is to stop Romney. So, they attack him and defend from both flanks”
Okay, so they refrain from attacking eachother and team up on Romney. That may help in a card game, but here they’ll still be splitting eachother’s votes. I don’t see it as any kind of solution.
You can certainly have an issue with who someone endorsed for a race. My issue with your post was that you crumpled up all your hatred for Santorum into a big ball and some how connected Ricks support of Spector in ‘04 as the reason Obamacare passed in ‘10. Rick was long gone from the scene when the party switch and support of the Rat agenda happened. You cannot hang that on Rick. It doesn’t make any sense looking at the timeline.
Many people supported that toad through the years because in a pinch, he would come through with important party votes. It was the best we could do in a generally Blue state like PA.
I think it is entertaining that there is so much indignation about Toomey getting the shaft in ‘04 even though if he were elected then, he would have actually been able to vote for the repeal of DADT, not just talk about it.
Well, just like in a card game, the mark ends up losing- and the grifters end up splitting the pot. Newt and Rick just have to decide how they are willing to split the take.
Is there anyone here that has such a strong attachment to one of our illustrative go-getter GOP candidates (who has no major faults)?
Really, there is no one running now that can generate any enthusiasm for the GOP. Either they are anti-Conservative, big government statists, or anti-Tea Party that they are going to be a dead weight to the Conservative wing of the party. Without their support - they can NOT win!
No, point taken. But Rick is not Newt. Newt is “all baggage, all the time” and has tremendous negatives, simply vast. I also think his peak lead over Romney was not at all sustainable and may well have been a planted story.
Perhaps I’m wrong, but I don’t think Rick has that kind of vulnerability, and I also believe the electorate is getting damned tired of the relentless negativity. Pick whomever you want, I seriously doubt GOP’ers of any stripe want their primaries run that way. Regardless, I most strongly believe that if Rick allows himself to be defined by whatever poop Mitt throws at him, that’s a guaranteed loss.
Against Obama in the general, Wrong Paul would sweep the south and TX. Admittedly in that case I'd suggest investing in nose plug rentals. Rick might not win Newt's southern strongholds by as much as Newt, but I believe he'd still win them. The south is a great base, but it's not enough. You need to win a few electoral votes beyond it. None of them are likely to win any deep blue states. Newt's ability to win even GOP votes beyond the south remains unproven. Santorum's wins have all been in purple states with Newt running 3rd or 4th, suggesting Rick has a better chance to pick up wins there in the general.
You really don’t have much to offer. “Catholic Hater”? I’ve promoted guys like Michael Voris a great deal in my time. I merely stated in response to some Santorumbot proclaiming “Who can stand against God?” that I’m not a Catholic, so his Catholicism “I’m a Holy Christian” pitch is utterly nullified. Your dishonesty is as bad as Santorum’s.
The bottom feeding is in Santorum’s constant distortion and attacks on other conservatives since the Cain days. For example, his distortion of 999 for the sake of political points, or even taking the time to call Newt “crass”, irresponsible, pandering, and big government due to his Moon Colony statement.
It was this stuff that I noticed back when Cain suddenly started surging. Since I was supporting Cain, I noticed right away how Santorum and a few of the others did their best to distort and mock Cain’s platform.
Mind you, Bachmann was guilty of this too. She even did it against Santorum, talking about his endorsement of Arlen Specter as if he had betrayed his pro-life credentials. (Nowadays, the Santorum folks like to use a similar attack on Newt Gingrich!)
The lack of objectivity and honesty in this campaign has been stunning, and I cite Santorum as being one of the people who have engaged in it heartily. It is for THAT reason, and not for any of his platforms, that I developed my dislike for him. I dislike anyone who is willing to throw former collegues under the Bus just for the sake of power. I dislike anyone who can’t look at a good idea, or any idea for that matter (good or bad), and knee-jerk insult it and distort it into something it is not. It is dishonest, or it is desperation, or it is something that completely blinds the individual from being able to think clearly about the world. That isn’t what I want for a President.
The great thing about Newt is that he is indeed a megalomaniac with his vision to change the world, to lead the conservative reformation of society, which he writes on little sticky notes just for fun. I find it far superior to have a guy who has grandiose visions FOR THE COUNTRY, as opposed to having grandiose visions for his own personal benefit.
Of course, none of this will mean a thing to you, as you are more than happy to trash conservatives who disagree with this yourself!
So you percieve a candidate taking on legitimate policy issues in an election against another candidate "bottom feeding"? I guess you will not be voting for any candidate this election cycle. BTW, Newts space program will cost more money when we are broke.
As for your Catholic hating, if you want me to put your response to me yesterday on the issue, I can bother digging up and reposting it here for all to see. Personally, I would be embarrassed to have that sign of bigotry and irrational attack on Ricks family and claims of wearing make up pop up again. I guess it wouldn't matter. I generally find people with 5 minute old sign ons trading in that filth eventually ride the lightning.
Have fun trashing Rick.
“So you percieve a candidate taking on legitimate policy issues in an election against another candidate “bottom feeding”? I guess you will not be voting for any candidate this election cycle. BTW, Newts space program will cost more money when we are broke.”
No, I perceive deliberate deception about legitimate policy issues in an election against another candidate bottom feeding.
And yes, I will NOT be voting for Santorum. With all the baggage of Newt, he has never touched a hair on a conservatives’ head.
As for the Moon Colony. No one advocated another billion/trillion dollar government program. This inability to even acknowledge what the other person said is part of the problem. You share the same disease as Santorum.
“As for your Catholic hating, if you want me to put your response to me yesterday on the issue, I can bother digging up and reposting it here for all to see. Personally, I would be embarrassed to have that sign of bigotry and irrational attack on Ricks family and claims of wearing make up pop up again. I guess it wouldn’t matter. I generally find people with 5 minute old sign ons trading in that filth eventually ride the lightning.”
Post whatever you want. I explained my comment twice, one here, and one there, and you choose to call me a liar. You are fortunate to say this over the internet, rather than right next to me in person.
And I just realized you accused me of “attacking Rick’s family”. You are lying about me and turning this about me, rather than about the things I’ve written about Santorum. This is truly dispicable.
You know, I used to have this sense that conservatives were more honest than liberals. But then this campaign cycle started, and suddenly realized that conservatives were as wicked as any other group of people in the world.
It’s been a depressing eye opener.
Google Dede Scozzafava and special election.
The extent to which people weight the Specter endorsement is utterly insane.
Honestly, people need a speck of perspective. Specter was extremely supportive of Santorum when he first ran for Senate, and anyone with a shred of loyalty or gratitude would have been willing to pay that back.
Yes, Specter was a piece of work, and when I lived in PA I always voted against him in the primary. However he did do some important votes (ask Clarence Thomas) so there was some reason to tolerate him.
If the best real argument people have against Santorum is endorsing Specter, then people who are pushing Newt (I’d like to state I like both of them) must be wearing some pretty amazing blinders to forget Pelosi on the couch and working for Fannie.
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.