Posted on 02/22/2012 8:27:14 PM PST by detective
Rick Santorum’s front-runner status in the GOP presidential race is predicated on the idea that he is the consistent conservative alternative in the field.
And that image had some serious holes poked in it at Wednesday’s debate in Arizona.
Mitt Romney and Ron Paul tag-teamed the former Pennsylvania senator much of the night, calling into question his conservatism on issues ranging from earmarks and fiscal policy to his endorsements and even what is often considered Santorum’s most solidly conservative credential — social issues.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Mainline Protestants are only 15% of the adult population. I think you are confused, regarding the term Mainline Protestants.”
Mainline Protestants are by and large Marxists/Socialists.
I watched the debate and I do not buy the media conclusion about those who performed the best.
Again, the star of the show was the moderator who intentionally stirred attacks against candidates with “flame questions” such as the “fake” question to Ron Paul.
For the most part, Santorum did as well as anyone for the major part of the debate EXCEPT for the omnibus bill questions.
Gingrich did well on every question and was not touched at all by anyone.
Romney answered his questions well EXCEPT for the Romneycare questions really get him visibly flustered. There is a huge dishonesty about the man regarding conservatism, and every time he pretends it I see his actual past rather than his rewritten past. The most telling dishonesty was signaled by Gingrich’s “are you kidding” look at Romney and then Gingrich reemphasizing his point about Romney’s deceit by quoting an article written on the issue.
Paul always seems hesitant every time he answers anything. It might just be a voice quirk. I also sense a basic dishonesty about his responses such as getting troops off the Pakistan border and putting them on the US border.
Gingrich was the best.
Santorum has to better explain why an omnibus bill with some evil mixed with some good and a lot of average in it must be supported. There needs to be a clincher argument on that one, and not just a passable answer.
Romney is an unrepentant liar, but a good one.
Paul’s quavering voice hides something wrong, but I’m not sure if it’s a touch of uncertainty about is positions or a touch of instability.
But, I saw no knockout blows yesterday at all.
I thought Santorum did fine *shrug*
I did not watch the debate last night out of two reasons. #1 was that I already have my candidate for whom I will vote in our primary. #2 I knew the CNN moderator would not ask the questions that are on the American people’s minds like the high prices of gas and the Fast and Furious scandal
And can we all admit that Paul is NO kind of conservative? Did you notice last night that the only times Paul even said the word conservative he did so as a pejorative? His right leaning libertarian shtick is a lie. He's a leftist libertarian and should not even be in our peimary.
I wonder what it cost Mitt to bus in that audience last night? What a bunch of goons.
That's the stupidest, most unfair and dishonest thing I've read so far today.
F***ing troll!
Romney has successfully called his own conservatism into question, for many years now.
Wrong. The majority of truly Christian Episcopalians, Lutherans, Methodists and Presbyterians sadly agree that their denomonations have left Christianity. Many on this forum say so forcefully.
Those 'mainline protestant' denomonations are dwindling in membership because they are so involved in the communist, pro gay, pro abortion, anti-freedom agenda that they've forgotten all about Christ.
You need to do a little more research.
You're absolutely right. I'm disappointed that he wasn't better prepared for that line of attack from Romney...of course having that evil little troll at your elbow screeching out "see I told you...that's how evil congress is'...at every answer wasn't helpful for Rick's responses. There was a Romney-Paul tag team aat play last night.
All it comes down to is an effort by the GOP-e to take out another conservative.
I strongly disagree. I admit the Romney campaign set up the atmospherics well. The Washington Post had a prewritten article that attacked Santorun. Drudge was doing Romney's dirty work all week, smearing Santorum.
In the actual debate Romney had his supporters in force and very vocal in the audience. He had Paul as his attack dog. In fact, Romney should have given Paul some puppy treats and said “good doggie” after the way Paul repeatedly attacked Santorum every time Romney ordered Paul to sic him.
But on the substance Santorum did fine. Romney's attacks were answered intelligently. Santorum did not lose control when he was deliberately provoked over and over again by Romney, Paul and the crowd.
Could Santorum have done better? Yes, of course he could. But he took the best Romney and his attack dog could dish out. He was ganged up against 2 against 1 but he stood his ground.
Overall he came across as a decent man beset upon by a pair of bullies.
Newt sat composed and happy as he watched his chief opponent being shredded by the two other candidates. He said he felt happy or cheerie or something. How much better for Newt could it have been.
Santorium was shown to be a false prophet and Newt did not have to lift a well-informed muscle.
Also The deal about Spectre, who turned coat and allowed the winning vote for Obama Care, makes his attacks on Romney more hollow. Fatc is Toomey would have been a better Senator and no (behind the scenes deals) will counter that. Made him look like a scheming pol, making deals with the devil.
Finally, he has indicated he was steadfast on no bailouts, then it was revealed he did vote for the bailouts of the airlines and his explanation there was more political talk...somehow it didn't count when he did it, when he had just slammed Romney on his voting for the Wall Street but against Detroit. He let Romney suck him in and score there.
Bad night for Santorum. I still believe he is the most conservative...but he was successfully (IMHO) portrayed as another go along to get along Washington insider Pol last night, and that did not do him well.
The idea of Romney and Paul tag teaming him is nothing more than people picking on and going after the front runner as they always do. No need for "plots" or conspiracies to explain that. It's just primary politicas and Santorum has gotten to the top and can expect it. He needs to man up and not make excuses or come forward with these "plot" claims. Makes him look less than Presidential.
He needs to stick on message, counter with his conservative credentials which are better than the others, and keep after Obama. IOW, do the things he did to get to the top and let the sniping go while he keeps going after Obama and naturally touting his conservative victories and accomplishments.
In agreement 100%
Rubio used to attend a Mormon church... it seems the Paul/Romney tag team theory may have some truth to it.
Thank you for your 180 degree wrohg version of reality. I am a Santorum supporter and a practicing, Catholic (Marianist)educated man through high school (McBride, gone 40 years but we still remember).
We were the school the brainiacs whose parents couldn’t afford the Jesuits attended.
We were roughed up in the halls when we needed it.
We rode the public bus, hitchhiked or drove ourselves.
We love our Faith, and our traditions.
You couldn’t have made it into my school.
Santorum is far from perfect, but I’ll take him over either of those losers.
“Thats if you think installing an American Ayatollah is conservative.”
###
The very word “religion” burns you in your sensitive parts, doesn’t it?
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.