Posted on 03/17/2012 7:04:37 PM PDT by Steelfish
Rick Santorum: If I Win The Illinois Primary, I Win The Nomination
By Andrew Rafferty EFFINGHAM, Ill. -- Rick Santorum on Saturday guaranteed that a win in the Illinois primary will result in his nomination as the Republican presidential nominee.
"This is a primary, and turnout is everything. You do your job, you do your job, then this is the pledge," Santorum said. "If we're able to come out of Illinois with a huge or surprise win, I guarantee you, I guarantee you that we will win this nomination."
Illinois has largely been predicted to favor Mitt Romney for Tuesday's primary. The vote is expected to be driven by Chicago and its surrounding suburbs, pegged as unfavorable territory for the former Pennsylvania senator's brand of conservatism. But in areas like Effingham, hours south of the Windy City, Santorum hopes to fire up a Republican base that is often overshadowed by its Democratic counterparts to the north.
"You know you don't get a chance to out-vote your friends up in the Chicago-land area very often, but this is a primary and turnout is everything," he said, standing in a warehouse of a local business specializing in kitchen equipment. While stumping in the Land of Lincoln, Santorum said he feels like he's already running in the general election.
“People ask me why I’m the best candidate to run against Barack Obama," said Santorum. "It’s because I feel like, in many respects, I am running against Barack Obama here in this primary because Mitt Romney has the same positions as Barack Obama in this primary.”
The health care bill that Romney signed as governor of Massachusetts is the issue Santorum has been hammering him on most frequently. Santorum says the legislation laid the groundwork for the health care bill Obama signed in 2010....
(Excerpt) Read more at firstread.msnbc.msn.com ...
But are they true Freepers or plants. Just asking because I don't ever remember this level of hate and anger on Free Republic in the past. Oh there have been arguments and passion but not hate and not personal attacks.
Instead, it appears to be a plan to have a seat at the table when we get to the convention without a nominee. Whereas Ron might "make" Mitt, Newt might "make" Rick.
What’s frustrating, is that many people voted for Romney, even though they didn’t like his politics, only because they thought he was the one who could beat Obama.
Now polls in key states are showing that Rick Santorum is ahead of Obama, but Romney is behind Obama.
I hope conservatives in upcoming primary states get the message, and will vote for Rick, the one who can REALLY beat Obama.
Based on the posting dates and the posting histories, I think many and perhaps most of the people virulently attacking Santorum are legit. While I'm sure there are trolls, I suspect many of those have been zotted. I'm thinking, for example, of a professed libertarian conservative with two years of posting history who made the mistake a few days ago of defending a woman's “right” to abort two of her three unborn children and got zotted. I'm sure we have libertarian pro-choicers on Free Republic, but if they were sincere about their views they would at least respect the position of the site owner against advocacy of such views and would focus instead on points where they agree with other Freepers.
I think American in Tokyo is right. Santorum’s Christian convictions rile some people up because his comments are perceived as judgmental of people's personal lives, and we're kidding ourselves if we think that won't be a factor in the general election as well as the primary going on now. I understand why liberals hate Santorum, and have been bashing him for at least a decade and a half. However, there are lots of political conservatives who are just as deeply involved in the sinful behaviors that Santorum opposes, sometimes openly advocating them as libertarians but more commonly quietly participating in them in private.
The Republican Party's conservative movement has, for a very long time, been divided into social conservatives, economic conservatives, and military/nationalist conservatives. Some people, myself included, feel comfortable in all three camps, but that is definitely not the case for the people whose primary goal in life is to get government out of people's personal lives. To such people, Santorum’s conservative Christian views raise red flags.
I get it. I really do. If I were a secular conservative I wouldn't like Santorum very much, either.
But for the life of me, I cannot figure out why a forum which was once filled with Sarah Palin supporters is now filled with people attacking some of the most important parts of Palin’s political views. If even Sen. John McCain understood that he had to placate Christian conservatives by nominating Palin, why can't the secularists on a strongly conservative forum like Free Republic understand that? Are some secular conservatives here unable to see what even John McCain saw clearly? Antagonizing Christian conservatives is not a recipe for winning elections as a Republican.
We're not a proportional-representation European parliamentary democracy. In American politics, we need to get to 50 percent even to have a seat at the table. I know that Christian conservatives need secularists to get to 50 percent, and that means I'll support secular conservatives if they win the primaries and agree not to be virulently anti-Christian. It's a huge part of why I have been saying for months now that Christians need to be prepared to back Newt Gingrich if he becomes the nominee, since Romney and Obama simply must be defeated.
On top of that, Newt Gingrich isn't really a secular conservative. We have good reason to believe his repentance may be genuine, and I've repeatedly linked to Free Republic posts of a letter by the pastor of Skyline Wesleyan Church in San Diego. Examples are here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2835639/posts?page=272
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2837165/posts?page=33
It is crystal clear that Newt Gingrich believes in the importance of the Judeo-Christian tradition to Western civilization, and views Islam as an existential threat to the West. That's enough for me to support him if he becomes the Republican nominee.
I think Gingrich and Santorum get along much better than some of their supporters. Let's keep our eyes on the goal of defeating Romney.
That list is doing serious damage.
It needs to be responded to not only line-by-line (which others have done to some extent) but also by somebody compiling a list of Santorum’s key legislative accomplishments and posting it whenever the other list shows up.
There are always two sides to every story. Right now only the anti-Santorum side is getting crossposted all over Free Republic. What Santorum supporters need to do is create an equivalent list of Santorum’s legislative leadership and post it just as aggressively.
Let's give the Gingrich guys credit — they're doing a good job getting out their message that Santorum has cast some bad votes in the past. So has Gingrich, and so has every elected official who has spent enough time in office to be qualified for president.
The goal isn't to elect a candidate with a perfect voting record, but rather to post the voting records on key issues and decide which candidate best reflects our values. The only way to avoid casting lots of bad votes is to run for office when you haven't served very long, and I don't think most Republicans want to win the presidency the way Obama did by running with a minimal record behind him.
116 posted on Sunday, March 18, 2012 9:06:19 AM by Right_in_Virginia: “So, what specifically are you telling me? I don’t care that he was the Republican Conference Chair.....what leadership did he exhibit vis-a-vis spending cuts, jobs, national defense, judges. He was in the Senate for YEARS. Where’s his fingerprint? Please, .... help me understand the man beyond contraception and porn. I’m begging you. Thanks.”
143 posted on Sunday, March 18, 2012 3:11:32 PM by Right_in_Virginia: “I was hoping to get some solid evidence on Santorum’s leadership experience. And since the only real job he's had is in the Senate, I assumed that was where the evidence would be found. Can't anyone speak to Santorum’s leadership experience and what he accomplished there without pointing fingers at everyone else? Just a simple answer would be so refreshing.”
No more "holding our noses". If Romney is the Nom, Obama will win in a huge way. Romney simply will not obtain the votes by the key voting blocks. I will never vote for Romney and I'm surely not the only one.
Of course I will wholeheartedly support Newt if Santorum bowed out and vice versa! I am a conservative and know too well that we need a conservative POTUS. I pray that Romney is not the nominee but IF he is (and I’m sure I will get crucified by other FReepers for saying it), I will hold my nose and vote for him. Simply put, this country cannot withstand another Obama term.
No he doesn't.
If you are the leader in a legislature, it is less likely -- not more -- you will sponsor significant legislation.
It is like asking why a quarterback doesn't lead the team in rushing.
Here is a link to the bills sponsored by Santorum in his last session. From it you can browse to previous sessions
Now, compare it to this list of bills sponsored by Newt in his last term. Noticed only one became law and it was to honor a deceased Capitol police officer.
Here is a list of bills Harry Reid sponsored. Nothing special there.
Here is a list of bills Chuck Schumer -- who holds equivalent spot to Santorum in the Dem party -- sponsored in the 111th Congress when the Dems held everything. Notice Obamacare is not on it. You think Schumer was not involved in getting it passed?
BTW, Nancy Pelosi did not sponsor Ocare either
Leadership does not equal sponsoring or writing bills.
It is silly to think so.
You have a valid point.
By legislative accomplishments I was not meaning just a list of bills sponsored. Santorum has been called the “go to guy” who got things done for conservatives in the Senate, and unless my memory has failed me, I believe comments like that were being made years ago by conservatives when it looked as if he was in serious trouble in his Senate re-election bid. I believe it would not be that difficult to compile a list of things Santorum did which warranted that reputation.
Somebody needs to create a list of legislative accomplishments to respond to the list being circulated by Santorum’s critics on Free Republic. I realize that his campaign staff is stretched beyond the breaking point and is operating with virtually no money, but that's what “crowdsourcing” is for. I hope some of the Santorum supporters on Free Republic can generate such a list.
Santorum's biggest problem is that the Senate during his leadership was not conservative on fiscal issues. That probably had less to do with himself than with the president and the leadership of the House. Just the same it is a legitimate criticism.
He was obviously good on social issues i.e. fetal farming etc. and of course the judges approved were generally good ones.
Of the four Republicans running, I think Newt would make the best president. None of these guys are perfect though and it mind-numbingly stupid to run Santorum down.
After reading through all the pages of “temporarily suspending duty on (fill in the blanks”), I came to this on page 4 and had to stop:
S. 1560 (109th): Congressional Commission on Expanding Social Service Delivery Options Act
Sponsor: Richard Santorum
Introduced: 2005-07-29
Last Major Action: 2005-07-29: Introduced
One or two proposals went to “committee” and all other stopped at “Inroduced”.
Thanks. I’m glad I didn’t miss anything in his record.
Have a blessed day.
Why? (I could guess but, I'd rather hear it from you.) I'm curious; did you also favor Obama over McCain? Clinton over Dole and Bush I? Gore and/or Kerry over Bush II?
An Obama-Sanctimonious runoff would be the worst disaster for the GOP (and the nation as a whole) since 1964. Given all the whining Ricky has done over the Romney Super-Pac, he ain’t seen NOTHING until he sees what the Chicago Thuggery machine would do to him.
What really worries me, though, about such a November match-up is how this would affect the DOWN TICKET voting. If you thought 2009-2010 Congress was bad, imagine what it would be like with a pResident who doesn’t have to face the electorate again!
Can he really do it?...
I'm a Newt fan. Go Newt! (anyone but Romney!)
Santorum does have an optis problem, the left treats him like he’s running for pope and incessently talk about birth control etc. accusing him of being a theocrat.
On Hannity, though, he was clear about “there are matters that are personal issue”, and is manifestly not about imposing values but about pointing out the importance of family. If you actually listen to him, he makes sense and is nothing like the charicature.
Whether he can brave the blizzard of media bias remains to be seen. He’ll have it as bad as Palin, Newt, Quayle, and other conservatives.
So, Willard is a devoted, radical, racist Marxist Alinskyite who absolutely loathes the Constitution and everything it stands for? Really?
I mean, I always figured him for a neo-con socialist but, wow, I had no idea.
My bad. Thanks for the heads-up.
If Willard ends up the nominee, I do hope you'll put an Obama 2O12 sticker on your bumper and make a sizable contribution to his re-election campaign. This is too important to leave it to chance.
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.