Just wondering who's won a red state so far...
Posted on 02/09/2012 8:36:53 AM PST by Michael van der Galien
Rick Santorum — a man who lost his last election in his home state by eighteen points — is suddenly threatening the frontrunner status of Mitt Romney for the Republican presidential nomination. He, not Newt Gingrich, is emerging, at least for the moment, as the conservative alternative to Romney, having won decisively in three state contests this week.
I say “for the moment,” because only a dopey pundit like me would assert that this race is over, as I did immediately after the Florida primary.
Nevertheless, things are looking good for Santorum. Events, again “for the moment,” are swinging his way, with Obama coming under heavy, and justifiable, criticism from conservatives and some liberals for crossing the line on religious freedom. The Obama administration issued what amounts to a diktat to Roman Catholics to toe the liberal line on birth control, even to the extent of paying for the contraceptives their faith finds immoral. For shame.
Santorum, the candidate most associated with religious faith, should profit from this execrable policy, especially in the short run. But definite perils are ahead for the Republican Party if it allows Santorum-style social conservatism to dominate the election. And those perils go well beyond the obvious that the campaign will be largely about the economy.
The greatest danger is that Rick Santorum will be singled out as the spokesperson for extreme right-wing religiosity and made to look like a bigot to the largest voting group in our country — the independents. This is particularly true in the area of gay rights, but not because those people favor gay marriage. The majority of them probably don’t. But most people these days have homosexuals among their friends, family, or work colleagues and don’t appreciate even the whiff of bigotry. It’s become a big no-no.
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
that's Mitt - THE LOSER , who lost to McCain -THE LOSER, who lost to Obama
(Just to clarify who lost what to whom)
Yes, and if Romney did have more love for our country, he would drop the hell out and go back to the private sector where he should be...not in our party trying to water it down with left leaning ideals!
Anyone who has ever watched NASCAR, ran a marathon or played a game of sports, knows that during any competitive event, there may be several times various people take the lead. Very seldom do you see a leader emerge, and remain ahead of the pack for the duration of a race, marathon or any multi-team event.
So, what matters is not who is ahead now; what matters is who is ahead when the contest reaches it’s conclusion. The only people who are truly ‘out’ are people like Cain, who threw in the towel (unfortunate, IMHO)
Just wondering who's won a red state so far...
I agree completely that Santorum will likely become increasingly more popular. It was somewhat surprising to see so many conservatives suddenly support Gingrich. Most of us, I’m sure, realized he wouldn’t quite make it; he too has a progressive past and he’s got too many skeletons.
But Santorum? Well, compared to the other candidates, he’s a model conservative.
It’ll be interesting to see where this goes.
Amusing, laughable, comical …
Regards,
-Geoff
Yes, and that's why Santorum will probably ultimately be defeated much to my chagrin since I support him. The view that homsexuality is a sin is now considered an invention by men - "extreme right-wing religiosity", but those of us who still read the Bible know otherwise. Still, I think the country will be presented with a candidate that adheres to the truth this year, and we'll see what it chooses. It may be its last opportunity to make such choice.
This reminds me of a football game, where you have actual team “momentum,” and what I call “announcer momentum,” where the announcers start getting all excited about a losing team’s prospect for a comeback.
Of the 24 most conservative states according to Gallup, only South Carolina has voted so far. Of course that one went to the Newtster.
I thought Newtster was going to unveil a new Contract with America? IMO what he needs to do is focus his campaign down to 3 or so specific ideas and repeat them over and over. He’s had all these good ideas, but keeps jumping to different ones in different states, and they’re not sticking in people’s minds. The only ones that stick are the ones the media decides to ridicule.
Newt governed more conservatively than Rick did. He knows how to inspire people to get out to the polls. Once he has the money to go toe-to-toe with the opposition as any general election candidate will, he is the most likely to win decisively, as he did in SC and in the ‘90s with the takeover of the House. All the candidates have negatives. Rick’s closet has been opened now and everything’s beginning to fall out. Bush had a drunk driving conviction and still won twice. What we need is a candidate who has great positives and that is Newt. No one has the record of conservative achievement, the knowledge of government and American history and the communication skills that he has.
It's pretty obvious that, as one would expect, Roger Simon is still shilling for the Establishment Candidate, so he puts this right up front as a way of telling the reader that Santorum cannot possibly win--so let's go back to the "electable" candidate, Mitt Romney.
Let's keep in mind WHY Santorum lost that race.
In the first place, he never won any of the earlier races by very much, because it is not a conservative state. The voters prefer Democrats, usually, or "moderate" Republicans like Specter used to be. The only reason Santorum ever won before was that the religious right turned out for him in greater proportion than the lazy middle.
In the second place, by 2006 Bush had grown extremely unpopular. He had offended his base as well as the left, and especially he had offended the Evangelicals who turned out for him in droves in 2004 and then were disappointed by his failures to do what he had promised. The 2006 election was a tidal victory for the Democrats and Nancy Pelosi, who rode to leadership on that wave. Numerous Republicans were thrown out in that election.
In the third place, Bob Casey's father had been a very popular Blue Dog Democrat. And Bob Casey ran on a pro-life plank and claimed to be a war hero as well. He lied, but the voters didn't expect that. And he had the usual sympathy vote because his revered father had died.
Then Bush and Rove pretty much forced Rick to endorse Specter. They said that Toomey had no chance, and they needed Specter to help confirm their SCOTUS appointments. AND THEY MAY HAVE BEEN RIGHT. Toomey got elected later, but that was in a conservative tidal wave. Would he have gotten elected in year where there was a Democrat tidal wave? I doubt it. If he had run, he probably would have lost and killed his future chances.
In the fourth place, Specter promised to push pro-life Justices into office--and he did, before he went back to his old ways.
In the fifth place, Specter had endorsed Santorum in earlier races, without which he might not have won, since Specter had influence on the "moderates." So Rick was returning a favor.
Finally, Rick really needed Specter's endorsement in return, because 2006 was a lousy year for conservatives. Typically, Specter never returned the favor, because he didn't want to be seen as tainted with any conservative connections that year. As he calculated, Specter won, and Santorum lost.
The result of his endorsement, of course, was that all the religious and social conservatives stayed home, and Bob Casey won in a landslid. At the time, I wrote that Freepers were making a big mistake writing Santorum off and letting Casey win, but nobody was in a mood to listen. Not even when that disgusting passage of incestuous pederasty was revealed in one of his lousy war novels.
You can blame Bush and Rove for causing millions of conservative Evangelicals to stay home that year, who had voted in 2004. Or you can blame the voters who got in a snit with Santorum for giving in on that one thing, and effectively gave the Senate seat to Bob Casey--who predictably turned out to be a corrupt pro-abortionist willing to back Dingy Harry whenever his vote was needed.
I don’t think opposing gay marriage is a losing issue. The Dems were trying to keep that vote off the ballot a couple years ago because they were afraid it would increase conservative turnout. As long as Santorum keeps the “hate the sin, love the sinner” attitude then it won’t be a negative except to people who were going to vote for Obama anyway. Santorum seems to be one of the few politicians who knows how to argue these moral issues without using religious language, which is important to not alienating voters. Getting up there and saying, “I can’t support this because my religion is against it” is a loser. Explaining why it’s bad for society and culture is the right message. IMO, once you shy away from running on an issue in a presidential campaign, you may as well give up on the issue completely and give the other side what they want. A presidential campaign is not the right place to surrender on the issues you care about.
I don't think that's true, even now. The people have never voted for gay marriage, it's always been the politicians and judges who have imposed it on them. No one likes to openly say that homosexuality is a "sin," but the majority still think that real marriage is between a man and a woman.
It's like the right to life. The media and the pundits are very much in support of a "woman's right to choose." But defending the right to life is still a winner at the polls, which is why the abortion lovers need to use all that fake language about "rights" and "choice," and to deliberately confuse rejection of the sin with rejection of the sinner.
I couldn’t agree more. Having said that, I don’t think he’ll be able to run a good, professional campaign. The reason that his campaign is chaotic, is that HE is chaotic. He can’t stick to any one thing.
I’ve noticed the same thing. Santorum-supporters seem to be more civil, than supporters of others (let’s not even mention Obamaites). That’s indeed probably due to Santorum himself; he too is polite, civil, calm. Unlike, say, a Gingrich.
Wow. I attended the Santorum rally last night in McKinney not knowing what to expect. It was a packed crowd 800 lets say and my first impression of him was calm and patient. He talked for an hour and a half went to interview with Hannity and RETURNED for another hour and a half. Who does that? I was impressed.
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.