Posted on 02/08/2012 7:04:39 PM PST by Earthdweller
Watch the Video of Rick Santorum Campaigning With/for Mitt Romney in 2008
Yes, he is but in this case he's telling the truth! When he comes against Newt, it is with lies. Big difference.
Well, considering the choices available in 2008, Romney was .. **GAG**... one of the “better” ones.
Not this year... there seems to be far more interest in forming circular firing squads.
How so? Is it the truth or not? Supporting a pro abortion, pro homo, against the sanctity of marriage, big gov't socialist healthcare candidate. Now, a conservative candidate does that? You guys are being played big time.
And where are they this year on FR? Faux conservatives support mitt like Rick has/does.
LOL! That's being bitch slapped saying Romney is a moderate? He's saying what the media has been saying all along. And if Rick told the truth, he'd say he's NOT even a moderate. He's barry #2.
Rick Perry was the only candidate who was NOT playing the Mitt game!
I think you’ve put your finger on something.
I like you believe that Gingrich WILL get hot again.
With this new “dynamic” of “Santorum is now the new legitimate
challenger to Romney”, both Romney and Santorum are bound to fritter away more energy on attacking each other, and distinguishing themselves from one another, which is all to the good of Gingrich, who can just lay back on the sidelines, re-group, and quietly collect funds for his “big surge” which will come for real probably a month from now.
The only real contender to ROmney has been Gingrich, and that is a dynamic that won’t change.
Santorum and his supporters are experiencing a heady time right now, but the raw numbers (total votes) show
they don’t mean very much at all.
As far as Veep choices, I don’t see ANY of these three men,
regardless of who gets the nomination, picking any of the others for Veep.
If this were not so obvious or serious, it would funny! And the tragic thing is, Santorum never has been a true Conservative, and has no clear plan, or ability on how to fix this mess. You and your kind, are substituting conservative family values, for proven and competent experience.
How is the truth an attack? An attack are the lies Rick and Mitt have said about Newt and repeated by Rick's supporters!
I see nothing wrong with this video. There was no such thing as ObamaCare in 2008. Obama was still snorting coke with girlfriend Larry Sinclair when this video came out. RomneyCare had not bankrupted the state of Mass yet. About the only thing that Santorum rips into Romney about is RomneyCare and ObamaCare being the same. How can Romney say ObamaCare is bad for American when he did the same thing in Mass. That’s how Santorum explains away this video. I do think think it’s funny that Rommey was running as the “conservative” answer to McCain. The other candidates only let him get by with calling himself a conservative because he had no chance at the nomination. I’ll never forget Fred Thompson laughing in Romney face’s during the SC debate. It was about all his flip-flopping. Also Karl Rove is on record from 2008 saying their RINO choice McCain wouldn’t be seriously threatened by Romney because of the Morman factor. Of course Rove denies he ever said this.
“Santorum has won more contests than Gingrich and is the one who started winning the contests, not Gingrich”
When Santorum starts winning in the South take him as a serious candidate. It’s not going to happen unless Newt gets out and endorses him, AND campaigns with him. He’s a big spending Yankee republican and big spending Yankee republicans don’t go over well in the Southern US.
Really? What made him better in your eyes? His no patriotism? His pro homo stance? His pro gay marriage and destroyer of traditional marriage? His big gov't socialist romneycare? His pro abortion agenda? His forced catholic hospitals to go against their principles - exactly what Barry is doing now?
I just hope you can keep your rabid little jihad going for the rest of the month.
You misunderstood me: Santorum didn’t bitch-slap Romney with words, he did it with voting results.
Are you serious? I'm more pro life that Rick ever hopes to be. ANYONE who claims to be so pro life as Rick does, would NEVER have given support to Mitt. Even if he were the last candidate, he still would not support him. One would have to be a real pro lifer to understand where I'm coming from. I don't say it for an agenda, I live it.
NO HE DIDN'T - The voters did!
That describes DeDe Scozafossa perfectly. And Gingrich endorsed her, not in 2008 against two even less conservative candidates, but in an election against a solid tea-party conservative candidate who was pushed out of the republican nomination by a "rigged" convention vote.
So if you were being truthful that no person who endorsed such a candidate could be conservative, you would be condemning your candidate.
Meanwhile, I know that the popular and only accepted view here about Romney is as you describe. But solely in terms of what the candidate was SAYING and PROMISING in 2008, Romney was none of those things. Romney supporters were not basing their support on history, but on promises and hopeful thinking (or wishful thinking, or delusional thinking, if you want to be uncharitable) -- the hope that Romney would govern as he said he would during the election. I'm not here to debate whether that was a good hope or a bad hope, or in fact to defend that concept at all. This is offered to explain why many conservatives, including Santorum, Herman Cain, Jim DeMint, and Paul Weyrich; and why virtually all the top conservative talk-show hosts backed Romney over McCain, once we were into the Florida Primary. They were not throwing off their conservative principles -- they were trying to make the best of a bad situation. Judging strictly by history, none of our candidates were good, and Romney was the worst. Judging by promises made during the campaign, Romney was the best. Elections are crappy compromises, because the good people almost never run, so instead we pretend that whoever IS running ARE the good ones.
If I recall the rules correctly, delegates who are pledged to one candidate must vote for that candidate on the first ballot. On the second ballot the candidate can direct their delegates to cast their vote for the candidate of the candidates choice. IOW Gingrich could direct his delegates to vote for Santorum and vice-versa. I believe on the third ballot all delegates are released from the pledges and can vote for the candidate of their own choice.
I do know that at some point the delegates are all freed from their candidates and in such a case as that, Romney would be favored only because he is connected to the GOP-E and he also has the money to buy the delegates who are not all that committed to defeating him.
So if the convention is brokered, then Romney will most likely walk away from the convention with the nomination.
It is my understanding that Ron Paul people are surreptitiously signing up to be delegates for the other candidates. If they succeed in getting enough Ron Paul supporters in the ranks of the other candidates, Ron Paul could win this thing on the third ballot.
So, IMHO, a brokered convention is not a good idea. I don't think either Gingich or Santorum will walk away from a brokered convention with anything other than a VP slot. It's going to be Romney, or Christie or Jeb Bush or some other establishment GOP sell out.
Wouldn’t Newt and Rick prevail on the second ballot in that case? If their delegates combined totalled more than Romney’s, then when one directs theirs to vote for the other guy, they should be in like Flynn.
What is the enforcement mechanism to make the delegates vote for who they’re “supposed” to? Are their votes just not counted if they stray off, and it’s just a formality?
By the way, the delegates aren’t “pledged” in every state, so even on the first ballot some can vote for whoever they want to. I think that the candidates have some say in picking which of their delegates get to go to the convention though, so one hopes they would have some certainty they were true believers. But there is evidence the Ron Paul people are lying about who they support to get in as delegates.
Here is some info on the Ron Paul delegate-stealing plan:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2843327/posts
You can’t get a pure conservative from every part of the country. I doubt Santorum could have been elected in PA if he didn’t support the unions at that time. From his point-of-view, it’s better to cede one issue and be able to push his other policies rather than let a Democrat get in who would back 100% liberal policies.
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.