Posted on 03/31/2012 12:43:50 PM PDT by PSYCHO-FREEP
By the time Mitt Romney arrives in Wisconsin Friday – his first campaign stop in the state before its GOP primary on Tuesday – his challenger Rick Santorum will have already become a familiar face. Mr. Santorum has been in Wisconsin since last weekend and has dined, bowled, and played shuffleboard with residents in every pocket of the state. He’s even tossed a football at Lambeau Field, home of the Green Bay Packers.
Santorum’s once-generous lead in Wisconsin is eroding. In February, the former US senator polled at 34 percent among the state’s likely Republican voters, while Mr. Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, trailed far back at 18 percent, according to a Marquette University Law School poll.
Current Wisconsin polling shows Romney leading, 39 percent to Santorum’s 31 percent.
What happened? The easy answer is money. The Romney campaign is armed with seemingly unlimited campaign resources to flood local airwaves and phone banks, resulting in the candidate not necessarily having to step foot in the state until just before its voters head to the booths.
By early this week in Wisconsin, combined spending by the Romney campaign and Restore Our Future, a pro-Romney “super political-action committee,” totaled about $2 million in television advertising, much of it negative. By contrast, Santorum’s campaign had spent under $100,000 by last Sunday, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, and the Red White and Blue Fund, a super PAC backing Santorum, had spent about $300,000.
(Excerpt) Read more at csmonitor.com ...
Put Rubio on the ticket and its a slam dunk win.
I would not cast YOUR vote for crackpot Ron Paul, or leftist Jon Huntsman... Santorum is the closest thing to a viable non-Romney left. Paul is nuts. Gingrich now trails even Paul. We are down to Romney or Santorum.I wholeheartedly agree with your remarks about RP. Huntsman is RP-lite.
I’m all for going to a convention. Although I think it will result in a Romney nomination, your premise might mitigate things somewhat.
I think it is more than possible that Newt and Rick have joined forces behind the scenes to accomplish that goal. They have known each other a long time and have worked together before. I don’t think anything is transparent in politics.
I’ll very interested to see the ruling on ObamaCare. That could change the complexion of the whole thing.
Call me eccentric but I far prefer candidates who say what they mean and mean what they say. If a candidate does not keep his word, he has nothing and he won't get my vote or that of anyone I can influence.
I’m all for going to a convention. Although I think it will result in a Romney nomination, your premise might mitigate things somewhat.
I think it is more than possible that Newt and Rick have joined forces behind the scenes to accomplish that goal. They have known each other a long time and have worked together before. I don’t think anything is transparent in politics.
I’ll very interested to see the ruling on ObamaCare. That could change the complexion of the whole thing.
Dang it...I hate the echoes we have sometimes!
None of them are perfect. None are Sarah Palin. None are Ronaldus Maximus. They are/were more perfect but not perfect either.
God bless you and yours.
My pleasure.
One thing that I have not researched is that, in the absence of a severability clause, specifically stating legislative intent in the bill, providing that the legislature wants a court to retain the rest of the entire act if it finds ANY specific provision of it invalid, courts normally feel compelled to reject the entire act because most legislation results from compromise to obtain votes. Obozocare originally had the Cornhusker kickback for Senator Ben Nelson's vote, a Florida sweetener for Senator William Nelson, (supposedly) concessions to Congressman Bart Stupak and other Democrats and many other deals before it passed so that it cold be read as Facelift Pelosi memorably put it. Probably no bill has had more special interest bribes in recent history. SCOTUS may prove me wrong but I think it will be all or nothing. My best guess is 6-3 to throw it out. The majority: Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, Breyer. Opinion of the Court will most likely be written by Kennedy to make sure the drama queen stays on the reservation. Next most likely is Breyer to buy or firm up his vote. I am betting on each one of that group to write a concurring opinion if he is not writing the opinion of the SCOTUS. My guess on Breyer is based on the fact that, whatever his drawbacks (and they are many), he is the sole liberal with functioning brain cells and some degreee of integrity and he displayed serious skepticism during oral argument. Scalia, Thomas and Alito are likely to be tough and, if, against likelihood, they lose, they will be colorfully abusive of the judges voting to uphold Obozocare. Varying minority opinions: Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan. Ginsburg and Kagan will write seperate dissenting opinions to have history read what they write. Sotomayor will not embarrass herself except to concur with Ginsburg and Kagan because Scalia will ruthlessly punish her and her opinion in his opinion (as he used to do regularly with Sandra Day O'Connor) if she tries. Remember my breakdown when the decision is announced. I hope I am right.
Obozo would respond to being beaten in SCOTUS by the usual cloud of class warfare rhetoric and lies and by sending a symbolic new bill to Congress featuring single payer to replace the federal mandate and he will whip up his base over the claim that the GOP wants poor grannys to die in unspeakable pain and suffering along with newborns and other children and women and all poor folks, etc., etc., etc. After the ritual defeat of his new proposal he will work other left populist strategies to address the more affluent and less socialist parts of his base: The urban and suburban airhead voters.
Lay in a BIG supply of popcorn for the very last Monday (last in June or first in July) of the SCOTUS term for the greatest SCOTUS circus of the decade.
God bless you and yours!
I won’t vote for either of them. There is no meaningful difference on issues that count.
My choices were Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, and Rick Santorum.
A lot of them are now Santorum guys.
Thats because they were the ones jumping all over heartless.
My fear is that Obama will plead (or rather have the lawyer plead) to allow the rest of the law to stand on the condition that the federal mandate is replaced with a state mandate, by Congress.
I know that isn’t the way the court is supposed to work, but I’m betting that they try it.
Anyway, I really think that we have to delay the nomination of Romney until the convention to either push him to the right on RomneyCare, or nominate someone else.
If only they could get us to voluntarily step into the Soylent Green machine like Edward G. Robinson, then they would not have to get all messy.
“You didn’t vote for McCain in 2008.....are you voting for this dufus Romney in 2012??????”
Are you voting for the pseudo-Christian BO then? God save America.
Your post #143 is right on target. Thank you. Bob
It may not be the smartest thing to talk about at this point in time in a political campaign (which he didn’t, actually, since the quote was from last year), but the wisdom of contraception is not “long ago settled”; it’s actually one of the chief factors killing off Western Civilization.
The West will have to face the issue at some point, or it will disappear. What will replace it will not be as accomodating to the mores of modern cosmopolitan culture. See: Iran.
I think the main reason Santorum is fading is that he just doesn’t have the money to compete.
Agree on pretty much all your post. Santorum is not my first (or even second) choice, but he’s a heck of a lot better than Romney.
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.