Posted on 03/20/2012 9:22:10 PM PDT by VinL
Edited on 03/20/2012 10:31:59 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich said Tuesday that Rick Santorum "probably didn't mean to" say that he doesn't care about the unemployment rate but that it still illustrates a broader problem with the former Pennsylvania senator.
"I know that Santorum probably didn't mean to say it, but it's what he said," Gingrich said. "And, you know, when you're going to take on an incumbent President of the United States you better know what you believe. You better be able to say it very vividly. Can you imagine a Barack Obama dealing with somebody who says he doesn't care about the unemployment rate?"
(Excerpt) Read more at wibw.com ...
Santorum always has an excuse. Never admits a mistake. He is no fiscal conservative.
Please back this up and show me you're not jumping to unwarranted conclusions.
It's a publicly known fact that Rick Santorum didn't support national right-to-work legislation. Okay, that mostly proves he's from Pennsylvania and cares about what his constituents want. If you don't agree, that's a fair point.
Was Rick Santorum’s law office unionized? Did Rick Santorum ever encourage non-union private companies to move to Pennsylvania? Did Rick Santorum ever try to force non-union companies to accept unions, as opposed to saying companies where a majority of the employees wanted a closed shop could have a closed shop?
I think the answers to those three questions will go a long way toward answering whether Rick Santorum “just wants unionized jobs.”
Also, don't misinterpret me as being a fan of modern unions. I believe they once performed a valuable role, and sometimes still do, but I strongly believe workers who don't want to be part of a union should have the right not to join. In other words, capitalism and free choice work; if unions do their jobs, workers will want to join, and if they don't do their jobs, it's their own fault if workers vote with their feet by walking out. Other issues are much more important to me, and although there's a good chance that I disagree with Rick Santorum on this issue, I do not believe it is accurate to say that Rick Santorum "just wants unionized jobs."
There are very many delegates yet to make their choice since there are many states yet to have their primary. By June it will be much more clear as to who has the most delegates....and the most BOUND delegates.
I believe this race is far from over.
http://electad.com/videos/newt-gingrich-town-hall-ruston-louisiana-march-20-2012/
Violent rebellion would be squelched violently, so that leaves more tedious methods like secession and third party movements. It’s almost funny but I think secession would be tolerated, if we Constitutionalists could just agree on the where!
Good and true point!
This would seem to restrict the VP nomination to a candidate that won at least 5 states as well. As of now wouldn’t that make the only possible tickets Romney/Santorum or Santorum/Romney?
I read that as Presidential nomination. I intend to read the document completely later today.
What Santorum says now has to be understood by the general public, not you or me, who may be more attuned to his thinking. Every word out of his mouth is analyzed, spun, twisted. He’s not Joe Blow, he’s a candidate for POTUS. What he says should be so clear that neither he nor anyone else has to interpret, apologize for, retract, or otherwise amend his comments.
Santorum has been dogged by only social issues only, from abortion to contraception, since he emerged as the leading conservative. He’s been pigeonholed. Finally, he gets a chance to talk about economic issues that most people care about, and he blows it. Who in God’s name is advising him? He was a U.S. Senator for two terms, and Representative before that: he should know better.
Santorum should have spoken to the fact that the unemployment rate put out by the feds means nothing since it doesn’t include those who’ve given up looking. Or he could have spoken about sustaining a healthy employment rate by reducing regulations and taxing enterprise.
Rick always struck me as petulant and sanctimonious, then there the right to work /union BS.
Sorry... no sale Rick
Problem is (for you) is that it is either Rick or Romney. That is it. I mean you are free to vote for Newt but I don’t see anywhere that he can win. It is bad enough that Santorum will have a tough time from here on out (after Louisiana, Pennsylvania, and Texas). There are a ton of blue states coming up. It pains me to think of Romney being our candidate. How depressing.
What happens if Santorum / Newt go ahead and decides to become P/VP? What then?
I heard it is “illegal” to announce VP which is why candidates have only said, “I will consider such and such.” Rules sure do “suck” in the primaries.
Santorum never shook off the union shackles his entire career in PA. he did their bidding.
He was doing the bidding of the voters who voted down “Right to work”. Santorum BETTER listen to the voters of his state.
Each candidate for nomination for President of the United States and Vice President of the United States shall demonstrate the support of a plurality of the delegates from each of five (5) or more states, severally, prior to the presentation of the name of that candidate for nomination.
This pretty well hoses a dark horse late entrant at the convention as well, I believe.
After the first round of votes, if no candidate has greater than 50%, then any names for candidates can be thrown in the hat for the next round of votes.
There are proportional decisions to be made, particularly in Florida, that will advantage Newt, before an unknown number of Newt’s delegates will want to bale for Romney.
Don’t you think we should delay that as long as possible, until Rick snaps out of it to form together with Newt, an alliance against Romney?
I’m pretty sure this is just an additional requirement on top of the 1,144 delegates. I think any names can be offered, but to actually win the nomination, they would need 1,144 delegates plus at least 5 states where they had the most delegates.
There is a caveat that could allow Gingrich to slip through. RNC press secretary Kirsten Kukowski told NBC News that a candidate may still be nominated at the convention if they are able to garner a plurality of five states on the floor. The only real road toward accomplishing that would involve capturing unbound delegates, who will be few and far between come August.
I should also add that delegates become unbound after the first vote. That’s when a floor fight becomes possible. And anyone should be eligible for getting whatever delegates they need to move forward at that point.
It doesn’t make sense if this rule as people are interpreting it applies to the first vote. If a delegate is bound on the first vote to who their state nominated, then who does the bound delegate vote for if that candidate isn’t allowed to have his name in play on the first vote because he didn’t win five states?
If Rick was just a moderately capable communicator, I’d be working for him, but I cringe every time I hear him speak.
....if you want to get elected President, you can’t be standing there shaking your head while you think of what to say.
“if they are able to garner a plurality of five states on the floor.”
After the first Vote, ALL delegates will be unbound. They could throw in Sarah Palin, Chris Christie, or Jeb Bush.
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.