Posted on 12/30/2011 7:13:30 AM PST by TBBT
With less than a week to go before the Iowa caucuses, it looks like the “come-from-way-behind Rick Santorum boomlet” I joked about a month ago could actually be a reality. And unlike many of the other candidate surges that have caused whiplash in this GOP primary season, Santorum’s actually makes sense. It still doesn’t mean he has any lasting potential beyond the state where he has devoted the vast majority of his time, attention, and resources. But Santorum’s placement in next Tuesday’s caucuses will be an important indicator of how strongly social conservatives feel about having a candidate of their own this year.
*snip*
For starters, Santorum has next to no organization outside Iowa. He just made his first ad buy in New Hampshire, a state where he is unlikely to medal. In South Carolina, where his social conservative credentials should sell well, Santorum currently polls at 2.7%. And those are the states in which he at least has a campaign office. After those, he’s got nada. If you can name a major party nominee who came out of Iowa with even close to this meager a field operation in other states, please let me know.
(Excerpt) Read more at swampland.time.com ...
What about Mike Huckabee, you say? His commanding victory in Iowa four years ago brought him momentum and donations. Everyone knew he wouldn’t win in New Hampshire, but the votes of social conservatives kept him in the race. Huckabee also lacked a solid campaign operation. He nearly fought McCain to a draw in South Carolina, but after taking second in that state’s primary, Huckabee’s almighty mo started to ebb and he fell to fourth in Florida, which effectively sealed his fate. With more money and a bigger organization, Huckabee might have been able to really contest McCain for the nomination. But Huckabee’s 2008 campaign looks like a well-funded behemoth compared to Santorum’s 2012 outfit. Though donations have likely picked up over the past week, as of September 30, the Santorum campaign had less than $200,000 on hand and was more than $71,000 in debt.
It’s not about anybody being a ‘savior’. People simply want a conservative on the ballot. No more, but no less.
And Santorum’s no Huck. Huck was much more of a Christian socialist.
OK gang, the Delphic oracle has spoken.
A TIME writer tells us that Santorum has no chance and only mouth-breathers would vote for him anyway.
The author also just wrote a book on how the Dems will capture the votes of the Christers. Go figger.
Any man that militant gay sex columnist Dan Savage makes a one-man crusade of hating on is a friend of mine.
Last ditch RINO rescue operation.
Santorum is not global warming, ethanol subsidy and amnesty advocate and rinos are in full panic mode.
Santorum is an actual conservative. If he pulls off Iowa, it will be either Romney or Santorum. Vote for anybody else is a vote for romney. At this point, Newt is hanging there only to help romney.
A vote for Santorum is a vote for Romney.
“Santorum is an actual conservative.”
Some say he is a big-government ‘pro-life’ statist:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2826687/posts?page=45#45
The article headline appears to indicate that he doesn’t have true social conservative positions, yet the article is really about how he doesn’t have a chance.
In reality, I think Santorum is our only hope of not having Romney.
This ain’t 2008. We won’t have another Establishment pick shoved down our throats, and Romney was no war hero like McCain.
A vote for Santorum is a vote for Romney.
A vote for Gingrich is a vote for Romney.
A vote for Huntsman is a vote for Romney.
A vote for Paulis a vote for Romney.
A vote for Bachmann is a vote for Romney.
A vote for Romney is a vote for Romney.
Vote for Rick Perry, which would be an actual vote for Rick Perry.
You have to be kidding. A vote for Santorum is a vote for Romney.
We can all play this one!
A vote for Perry is a vote for Romney.
A vote for Gingrich is a vote for Romney.
A vote for Huntsman is a vote for Romney.
A vote for Paulis a vote for Romney.
A vote for Bachmann is a vote for Romney.
A vote for Romney is a vote for Romney.
Vote for Rick Santorum, which would be an actual vote for Rick Perry.
Tell ya what. Let’s let at least one primary or caucus finish before we tell people that their candidate can’t win.
A vote for Bachmann is a vote for Perry, which is a vote for Gary Johnson, which is a vote for Paul. And a vote for Gingrich is a vote for Pawlenty, which is a vote for Cain. A vote for Cain is a vote for Thaddeus McCotter, which is a vote for Buddy Roemer. None of which can in any way be construed as a vote for Huntsman. But not voting for Huntsman is a vote for Santorum, which is a vote for Romney, which is a vote for Obama. I’ll have to check my work again, but I’m pretty sure that’s all 100% correct.
None of these candidates are going after Romney. This guy is skating to the nomination.
I tend to agree. Perry, for all his faults, is still the only viable alternative to the best Democrat in the Republican primary field (aka Mitt).
How the conservatives failed to find a solid candidate is beyond me.
At this point I’m almost resigned to the re-election of Obama and the end of the American experiment.
Incomplete editing at the end of the last one, but it makes as much sense as saying a vote for Santorum is a vote for Romney.
Perry is polling 2.7% in NH, is voting for Gingrich (who is doing considerably better) over there also a vote for Romney?
I do love the “a vote for anyone but (my candidate here) is a vote for (your worst nightmare here)” warnings. They never get old.
Now the long knives are sharpened for Santorum! God, we love to eat our own.
When do we start taking marching orders from Time Magazine, anyway?
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.