« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Santorum VS Gingrich

By: dimondintherough (Diary)  |  February 11th, 2012 at 10:17 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Contrary to popular belief, I am beginning to think the race could come down to these two. Romney is one more gaffe (poor, severely etc) or disappointing finish from being done. I continue to wonder where his votes are coming from in the first place. He seems to garner very little enthusiastic support beyond the electability argument and that is starting to fade fast.

So if it it does become Newt V Santorum, I believe this is how Newt gets his mojo back. Newt clearly had the stronger speech at cpac yesterday and seemed to have more support from the crowd. Santorum, will have a hard time standing up to Newt in stature, experience and electability.

I would really like to see Newt make some public statements about electability and speak directly to his critics and to women. I think he can make himself much more popular with the religious base and with married women by having a frank discussions about his mistakes, his rebirth, and his new vision as a father and grandfather.

Rick S can easily be isolated as a little to extreme for a general election and is showing that daily with comments on contraception, women in combat etc.

Newt needs to stay positive, but should be more acknowledging of his negatives and address them head on rather than hope people just ignore them. His redemption story could be very compelling to many.

Let’s dispatch with Romney quickly and get the real 2 man race we need, Santorum V Gingrich. Though, I clearly have a preference for Newt, both men would be strong candidates to make a conservative case in the general.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • dimondintherough

    I noticed a couple interesting things. 1. in a 2 man race Newt and Mitt are virtually in a dead heat. 2. Newt is the leading 2nd choice candidate. 3. Santorums negatives are almost non existent, which is almost certainly a result of him not really being attacked yet, this will change. There is no doubt that Santorum is surging but I doubt he has the staying power to remain at these levels.

    • Common_Cents

      It amazed me that people would assume the support Romney got was permanent.

      There are plenty of people who capitulated and started supporting Romney w/ the split non romney field.

      Once it is down to Gingrich and Romney, the dynamic changes and that non romney support that capitulated to romney will flow to Gingrich. When you give people a 2 person choice rather than a splintered field they are more empowered to make a principled decision and less about inevitable electability stuff that was crammed down their throat.

      • Dave_A

        You are absolutely right…

        As someone who started with Perry (until he quit the race), then moved toward Romney out of disgust for Gingrich & Paul and a lack of faith in Santorum’s ability to be a conservative rather than a populist…

        For me, the breaking point was the minimum wage proposal, as it indicated that Romney would never stand for anything except his own poll numbers – kind of like Clinton…

        He saw poll numbers and press casting his comments about ‘the poor’ in a bad light, so he felt he needed to ‘throw the poor a bone’ – never-mind that raising the minimum wage for any reason is and always will be an anathema to conservative economics….

        When I first made my choice WRT ‘Which of Romney, Gingrich and Santorum’, I was hoping that Romney’s career at Bain Capital would force him to stake a conservative position on economics – to defend Wall Street, Venture Capital and TARP, to differentiate between TARP and Govt Motors, and to explain why a former private-equity exec is the perfect man to be president at this time!

        I also have a very strong preference to ‘Win at Any Cost’ over ‘it’s better to be ideologically pure and lose every election, than to make a single compromise’…

        However, apparently Romney has no pride in himself & will even bash his own past to look good in the polls – the man is the consummate spineless weasel… Rather than defend Bain & explain the critical role of private equity in the markets, he ducks… Rather than run to the right and take a position favoring equal oppertunity over equal outcome, he throws out liberal sops to the poor….

        Now, I’m left hoping for Santorum discover the wonders of post-manufacturing economics & modern capitalism (a/o his reflexive populism), because I can’t support Romneys new pander-nomics, can NEVER vote for Newt in the primary due to his personal life and abjectly horrible chances against Obama, and I can NEVER vote for Ron Paul in any election against any opponent.

  • Dave_A

    Given that he is merely supporting the default position of the DoD.

    Women are not allowed in the Army’s ‘hard’ combat MOSes – series 19, 18, 11, and those 12 and 13-series jobs that work with the other 3 (13B, 13M, 13F, 12B).

    They have seen combat in this war simply due to the lack of a front-line, and the use of some ‘support’ MOSes (MPs, truck drivers, etc) in combat roles. That doesn’t change the official policy of keeping them out of ground combat, however….

    And from personal experience in said fields, it should stay that way.

    I’m not against women serving, but they don’t belong in Infantry, Armor, SF, etc… It’s part a culture issue, and another part an issue of the special accommodations we have to provide them, and thus the places/missions they can’t go on….

    It’s not an ‘extreme’ position in any sense…

    • runner12

      agree with you 100%.

      For me, it is purely a biological and physiological issue. Women do not build the same kind of muscle mass as men which gives us a disadvantage in strength. We also do not grow in stature as men do. We would never expect a woman to line up across a slew of NFL linebackers and try to compete, that would be suicide for the woman. Why would we send women into the front lines of combat?

      There are many athletic activities that women can be competitive in against men. Endurance sports tend to be a place where women can excel, but even in these sports the elite men’s times are faster than the women’s. It is not bias nor discrimination, it is human biology.

      My fellow women need to quit being emotional about this issue and look at things from a logical perspective. I might also add, that when we accept the lowering of standards in order for us to “get in” or achieve a job or position we do a great disservice to our gender.

      • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

        involved, I’d say let them have at it for a couple of months. Put them on the front line and see just how long they want to keep it up.

        It makes me sick that people in this country aren’t grateful enough to those serving to let them decide what’s best with regard to practical matters and how they can best do their job, whether it’s DADT, women in the trenches or what have you.

        • runner12

          I just wish that people could accept that men an women are different. Different does not mean weaker nor inferior.

          Women excel at some things, men excel at some things, and in others we are equal in competency.

          I am grateful for how far women have come. However, I fear if we keep trying to pretend that physiology does not play a part in keeping women out of certain activities (ie combat, Monday Night Football, etc) we risk looking foolish.

    • Finrod

      … he’s about to make a serious gaffe no matter what he says.

      • aesthete

        …he’s about to make a serious gaffe no matter what he says.”

        FTFY

        • demsaresatanic

          Just love the difference and take the bad with the good.

      • znjs

        If he stuck with what Dave had said he would’ve been fine. But he specifically mentioned emotions as the reason for him being against it. That’s where the uproar is coming from.

    • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

      “It?s not an ?extreme? position in any sense?”

      Of course not, but your not a sanFran liberal, waiting to pounce on Santorum, opposing taxpayer funded abortions and sex-change operations for all is ‘extreme’.

      Surely he will be attacked for saying basic normal common-sense things. What Santorum will have to do is be very disciplined and talk only about the economy and try hard not to stray into the kinds of side-issues like the ABC debate brought up (“What about that Griswold decision?”).

  • nepanyrush

    Newt did well in one state. He is, as someone above pointed out, radioactive. He has high negatives, which seem to increase the more exposure he has. By the end of just 4 years as speakers, he was at about 13% favorability.

    Santorum has won 4 states and beat Newt in New Hampshire and always seems to be more popular the more people know him. He won the Reagan Democrats in Pennsylvania. I live in Pennsylvania and do not remember his opponents painting him as extreme. They targeted the elderly (PA has the 2nd highest proportion of elderly after Florida) because he promoted personal retirement accounts and raising the retirement age by 2 years, but now everyone understands SS is in trouble and his position does not seem extreme. He never forced his views on abortion or contraception on people, just affirmed his own beliefs. Regardless, if social issues becomes a general election focus, it is likely to help Santorum, not hurt him. His opponent in 2006, Casey, took the Reagan Democrats back because he presented himself as pro-life, something that Obama cannot do.

    Romney has also won 4 states (Maine results just in) and won the vote at CPAC. He is not going anywhere.

    In all the votes before and since South Carolina, Newt was well behind Romney. There is no way he is a competitor to Romney. Only Santorum is a true competitor.

    Interestingly, polls show that if Newt drops out, his voters go to Santorum, but if Santorum drops out, his voters go almost evenly to Romney and Newt. This is because Santorum attracts values voters, who have a very hard time stomaching Newt.

    Thus, If people want a true competitor to Romney, it is Newt that needs to leave the scene. Romney is not leaving and Santorum is doing too well (2nd at CPAC, way ahead of Newt) to think about leaving, and even if he does, it will not benefit Newt much, if at all.

    • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

      “polls show that if Newt drops out, his voters go to Santorum, but if Santorum drops out, his voters go almost evenly to Romney and Newt. This is because Santorum attracts values voters, who have a very hard time stomaching Newt.

      Thus, If people want a true competitor to Romney, it is Newt that needs to leave the scene”

      Note also that santorum beat newt in IA, NH, and last 3 states, Newt did better in SC, FL and NV. Gingrich is a Southern candidate, Santorum wins the Midwest, And Romney the NE. Santorum winning in swing states is a good portent.

      • acat

        that there are enough of these values voters to win the general.

        Based on the miniscule turnout in the States Santorum has won, I look forward to the statistical gymnastics you’ll resort to.

        Mew

        • demsaresatanic

          Newt bad posts and I think that in many ways the supporters reflect the candidates. The Santorum people (with a few exceptions) avoid the sleazy personal attacks. This is a welcome change from the Romneybots.

          • acat

            Consider the diaries on Red State that Sen. Santorum (well .. his campaign, anyway) wrote. They’re riddled with inaccuracies!

            I don’t miss the mittenheads but .. the problem I had with them wasn’t the sleaze, it was the same thing I dislike in the Santorum folks – I have little patience for those who try to win arguments by lying.

            Mew

          • demsaresatanic

            and I enjoy reading your posts.

          • acat

            Santorumites vs. the Rombots is kind of a toss-up to me, though.

            Mew

  • bobguzzardi

    Rick “Elmer Gantry” Santorum is a Pro Life Democrat who cannot win his erstwhile home state Pennsylvania and there are good reasons for that.

    Rick Santorum’s 21 Negatives http://thelibertyblog.org/tag/rick-santorum/

  • elizaliza

    … is that his wife shacked up for six years with an abortion doctor, who was much older than her.
    I suspect they will forgive him for that, and that Obama won’t attack him for it, but Moveon might ridicule him.

    And Romney might attack him on that one.

    santorum’s is strongly anti-gay marriage, while the majority of American don’ t really give a rats a… posterior. His plus here is that with Prop 8, a majority of largely liberal Californians were convinced that gay marriage was bad for them, and it won even by convincing the most liberal group, black people

    • Uma Richie

      I am not following you around on RedState on purpose. Your comments just seem to stick out like a sore thumb.

      You are posting here under the assumption that pro-lifers are judgmental church ladies. That may be what you see in your emails from Moveon, but nothing is further from the truth.

      We have 2200 pregnancy crisis centers around the country to help women overcome the underlying problems in their lives that are leading them to consider aborting their children.

      One percent of the protesters at any pro-life rally or prayer function are directly, and out of the closet, post-abortive. That means that they have lost a child to abortion. They have the love and support of everyone around them.

      The pro-life movement includes Rachel’s Vineyard, which is a healing group for people who regret their abortions, and Silent No More, which is a group of post-abortive men and women who want to make other people aware that having an abortion destroys your life worse than any live baby ever could.

      Then there are the silent and sorry pro-lifers who are plagued every day by having or paying for an abortion, or pressuring someone to do so, but have not come to terms with it.

      Finally, there are the pro-lifers who have a daughter, son, husband, wife, sister, brother, or friend who is directly post-abortive. We love those people so much, and it hurts us to know that they hurt, every single day. I can’t quantify the percentage of pro-lifers who fit this description, but with 20 to 33 percent of American women having had abortions, I am sure it is a large number.

      None of this is common knowledge, but it is well-known among people who use abortion position as a litmus test for candidates.

      Abortion aside, what do we care if Moveon makes fun of our
      candidate? Is their audience going to vote for the Republican nominee? If Obama’s supporters start going after the dating history of candidates’ wives, they will have reached a new low, even for themselves.

      I also take issue with your stereotype of skin color’s relationship to liberalism. Just because Democrats take the black vote doesn’t mean that people with more beautiful brown tones in their skin than others are liberal on social issues. I am so impressed with the culture of life in the black churches, between taking care of the babies of single moms, to providing medical screening for the elderly people in the entire community. It is exactly what I want my America to look like.

      • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

        God bless

        • Uma Richie

          He died and rose to save us all. He will come again. God bless you too!

  • elizaliza

    i agree with some of what you said, I merely tried to point out some santorums problems

    I would really like to see your basis for saying that 20-33 percent of American women having had an abortion. that’s a wide spread. so it’s either 1 in 5 or 1 in 3 of all American women having had an abortion? That would be appallingly high.

    Considering I got spat on by pro-lifer activist for going into a clinic only associated with Planned Parenthood it being the closest medical facility for miles around, I don’t have such benign view of them you seem to have.

    Aside from abstinence, condoms seem a good way to reduce abortions. morning after pill, idk, but im against all abortion inducing drugs.

    And of course Moveon doesn’t matter much. But it would or could be a great motivator for their base.

    • znjs

      At the end of every post. That’s how you reply, not using @username

    • Uma Richie

      but according to the Guttmacher institute, the organization with the greatest access to abortion data because they started as Planned Parenthood’s research arm, it is true (they cite 30% by age 45). Here is the link:
      http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
      Guttmacher has become a government funded research organization, so their numbers are usually used for public policy discussions.

      I’d hate to think someone spat on you, and I apologize on behalf of that person. Given today’s laws regulating the distance between protesters and clinic entrances, I am guessing that this took place a long time ago, or that it was a crazy loner completely unrepresentative or the pro-life movement, or that you innocently walked through the demonstration and unintentionally provoked some sort of response.

      If there was a large pro-life contingent there, you might want to research the background on the clinic you were visiting. There aren’t many people who have the time to demonstrate outside clinics. They wouldn’t waste their resources on preaching to a choir of compassionate healthcare workers.

      Thank you for being honest about your feelings regarding the pro-life movement. I appreciate your coming clean instead of pretending to be one of us. It makes addressing your concerns much easier. I hope I can change your mind.

  • Wayne

    not to chime in on this subject even thought there have been many good posts. I didn’t read any opinions regarding the independent vote which most would agree will be the deciding factor in the general election.

    One can see that Obama is moving to the center as part of his election campaign strategy and when you couple that with his well financed backings, it’s clear unless true conservatives come out to vote in droves, we will have another 4 years of an Obama Presidency.

    Assuming that to be correct it is clear to me at least that the Republican Party needs to drop their blind support of Romney and get behind Newt. Santorum will not win the independent vote. It couldn’t be clearer in my mind. I am an unshakable Newt supporter!

  • carolynr

    We all know Romney’s political history on the board…no sense rehashing it. However, here are some observations on my part. Not only was Romney rattled with Perry three times…Santorum got to him also. Romney does not handle confrontation well and he appears weak with his replies…because he stutters…something Mark Levin also points out frequently. This is a snapshot in the mind of voters. Secondly even though the story of Bain’s ruthless takeovers of companies (that is how the media/opponents painted it)…people remember that and many people have experienced it. How he won the straw poll at CPAC is beyond me. I read that the person that brought down the house was Sarah Palin…and it appears that she does not like Romney…although she will back him in the GE. That whole scene is conflicting. Here’s something else…on the UK Online…the overwhelming comments were anti-Romney. They went like this “WTF…maybe C in CPAC stands for confused”.
    This troubles me quite a bit for two reasons: The base is not behind him and he does not appear as a strong defender of…well anything, including Conservatism, wherein he had to describe himself as “severely” Conservative…too many times to mention. See what I mean here?

    Meanwhile…when the sheeples finally get involved…clips of this will be played repeatedly not to mention that OWS, along with Obama PACs will be out in force.

    Gee…I wonder if Obama’s phony unemployment numbers will go up or down for the sake of his election?

    I realize that Santorum has faults…believe me he does. His issues have to go beyond Social Conservatism and his “aggressive” support of wars…that the Americans are tired of. They’d rather see our border secured than Iraq’s. I believe you know my objections to Santorum…this compassionate conservative bs that equates to SPENDING…not to mention his pipe dream of bringing back manufacturing to America with no costs to we, the American people. HOWEVER….Santorum has a trait that Romney does not.

    He is tenacious and he was very good at debating Romney, wherein he let Romney hang himself. He’s a good attorney and he’s called Romney on his lies.

    I believe that Newt is superior in this category…but as many posters have pointed out…Newt has a likeability factor…not with me…but with other people, especially women. Somehow…they are not able to look at the whole picture..but focus rather on past personal experiences in their lives that they pin onto Gingrich. That’s right…I am a woman…and I do recognize this. The press has done a “job” on his wife….very, very subtly…but they did it. Gold Digger, mistress, etc. Gingrich is the guy with the big ideas…and it is a shame because of his likeability.

    In debates….I give Santorum the edge over Obama. Not only that…I don’t think that WILLARD is all that smart…he does not think things through but reacts. Santorum is calculating.

    So…what say you?

  • Creedo

    As a supporter of Santorum, I’m pretty concerned about what is happening in Maine right now. With 84% of the vote counted and less than 200 vote difference, they STOPPED counting the votes and declared for Mitt Romney – despite the fact that Paul heavy counties are where they stopped the vote. Meanwhile, Mitt wins the CPAC vote – something I’m disappointed about because I felt going into the thing that Santorum had all the conservative energy and momentum. I’m not saying that the CPAC vote was rigged – I have no doubts about the Republican establishments ability to organize around a straw poll like that – but he wins the CPAC straw poll and then they immediately call the Maine election without actually finishing the count? That’s the appearance of some dirty politics right there.

    I’m not wild about the idea of Paul winning Maine, but come on – shouldn’t we care about counting the votes?

  • Pingback: Stan Benzee

  • Pingback: Errol Christensen

  • Pingback: Automobile Forum

  • Pingback: Reverse Number Lookup

  • Pingback: SEO Services Australia

  • Pingback: alcohol distillery

  • Pingback: portal randkowy za darmo

  • Pingback: Mining

  • Pingback: Έλληνες σκηνοθέτες

  • Pingback: randka

  • Pingback: umow sie na randke

  • Pingback: randki za darmo

  • Pingback: odszukaj milosc swego zycia

  • Pingback: steel strapping

  • Pingback: serwis randkowy

  • Pingback: distilling alcohol

  • Pingback: busco coche

  • Pingback: wedding planner toscana

  • Pingback: Epping

  • Pingback: Visit This Website

  • Pingback: Navigate To This Site

  • Pingback: Browse This Site

  • Pingback: You Can Look Here

  • Pingback: Why Not Find Out More

  • Pingback: breast active program

  • Pingback: igra karos online

  • Pingback: madam lux

  • Pingback: online jobs uk

  • Pingback: desain interior rumah

  • Pingback: biaya bangun rumah

  • Pingback: Morton Faries

  • Pingback: Justa Andrews

  • Pingback: Kira Sturdy

  • Pingback: Store Fixture Installations

  • Pingback: aloe vera juice for hair

  • Pingback: curriculum vitae

  • Pingback: wzór cv

  • Pingback: spirits drink

  • Pingback: sofy rozkładane

  • Pingback: call center in California

  • Pingback: kids bikes

  • deVere

    Santorum 38 Romney 23 Gingrich 17 Paul 13 ;

    http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/blog/

    The Santorum boom as “not-Romney” is in full flower. It remains to be seen if he has any more staying power than Cain, Perry, and Gingrich.

  • quill67

    Or U.S.

    Santorum might be more electable than Gingrich based upon his appeal to rust belt voters and his plan to help manufacturing is likely to be popular in these key states. But Gingrich could better articulate the conservative view (although Santorum has an every-man appeal) This is the race I want to see.

    But if Gingrich does lose to Santorum, it might be interesting for him to be the VP.

    While I do not believe having Gingrich as VP would help (and it might hurt) I do like the idea of Gingrich taking over leadership of the Senate. I believe he could knock a few heads around in there. And that might be worth supporting him for VP just for that reason.

  • redmymind

    goes on the dump cycle again. The folks are catchin’ on to this pattern of abuse.

  • trickamsterdam

    That is to say, Romney is hated now. In the poll you posted (thanks for it, it confirms a lot of things I suspected), even as recently as a month or two ago Romney had a favorable/unfavorable rating of 60/30 w/ Republicans. Now it’s 44/43.

    So while people may have preferred a Cain or a Perry, many were basically OK w/ Romney. Any problems they had w/ him were almost entirely political. Some said they wouldn’t vote for him in the General, but not many.

    Now he’s personally hated, and this has led people to discover something else…he’s not electable. That’s because everyone who has even the slightest grasp of political strategy knows that the idea of a candidate who has a 44/43 popularity rating w/his own Party, beating an incumbent President w/ a 80/10 approval rating w/ his, is sheer lunacy.

    People have rightly concluded that while Santorum will be a heavy underdog against Obama, so will Romney. So why compromise? Also many of us have a personal disgust for Romney that some seem to feel for Newt because of his personal life. I know I do. Romney has run maybe the most revolting campaign I’ve ever seen in my life. And if it’s not the most, it’s certainly right up there.e

    Going back to Romney is simply not an option for me, until the General. Even then, I’ll really be voting straight Republican ticket, not for him.. That way I’ll never even have to physically pull the lever for him..

    I still think a brokered convention is best, but I can more than live w/ Santorum.. His “liberalism” is exaggerated. An 88% ACU rating from a Senator from a purple state is not bad at all. He also has a significantly better chance of taking PA and OH than the other three (IMO). That alone makes him more electable than Romney.

    I like Newt, but Romney destroyed him.. Fortunately, it appears he destroyed himself at the same time. If Romney goes onto lose (I think he will) his over-kill of Newt in FL will go down as one of the stupider mistakes in modern political history.

    Romney could have won w/out that, and in a winner-take-all state winning by five points is the same as winning by 15. To destroy your reputation over it made no sense. It almost reminds me of Nixon and WaterGate…trying to fix an election you were already going to win in a landslide.

    BROKERED.CONVENTION.NOW.OR.OBAMA.AGAIN.SOON. (but Santorum may be OK, lol)

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    Every other not-Romney has had serious issues to contend with in one way of another.

    For santorum, the ‘he’s not electable’ hinges on the hatred the secularist anti-religious left has for him and the religious right in general. The liberal take on Santorum is usually the social issues baiting that the left has engaged in. Santorum’s main flaw is not his personal life, or his massive non-wealth, its simply: He’s a conservative.

    Despite this, Santorum polls as well as Romney.

    Conclusion: We get a better conservative and not worse in electability w/ Santorum vs Romney.

    That is the real reason Santorum is a more durable not Romney.

  • dimondintherough

    Would be very interesting, not sure if his ego would allow it, but he would be great in the president of the senate role, a throwback to John Adams maybe. If not he needs a vocal role in the campaign as he could really dish out the case against Obama.

  • redmymind

    n/t

  • jamesm

    Attacking Gingrich will help Santorum. Attacking Santorum will help Gingrich. This guy is a horrible candidate. Santorum and Gingrich are conservatives. They will come together. Conservatives back conservatives just like when Perry or Cain have done.

  • redmymind

    Romney attempting to attack these conservatives . . . FROM THE RIGHT!!!

  • haners

    are conservatives.

    Anyone who votes against Right to Work and against repealing Davis-Bacon is automatically not a conservative. He is merely a religious union Democrat.

  • jaykali

    I think Santorum is better at redirecting attacks and this contraception issue is like MANNA FROM HEAVEN, I mean if we get into a social issues war we all of a sudden have a HUGE weapon to attack back with. That issue alone makes him alot more viable.

    I think Gingrich is a joke, I don’t like how touchy he is, just like Obama everything is ABOUT HIM. I am glad to see that Santorum is taking the non-Romney vote.

    If it does come down to Santorum v. Romney then ya I still have concerns. Romney has money and is more independent friendly but the activist-types hate his guts. I think run of the mill conservatives are not nearly as hostile. Santorum obviously is so far right on social issues that is a concern but he has a good message. I don’t really like legislators as presidents, I’d much rather have a governor. I don’t have any idea if Santorum can raise money or not. But I like his overall message. It’s resonating alot better than Romney’s right now.

  • Dave_A

    Sorry, but ideological purity only works when you live in an ideologically pure state.

    Similarly, it would have been absurd to support Pat Toomey in 2004 or 2008 – but not in 2010.

    You purity folks will never get the man you are looking for – even Reagan would not meet your standards.

  • JSobieski

    You overstate your case.

    Omniscience is above everyone’s pay grade.

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    from 1994 to 2006, Santorum was the most conservative Northeast Senator.

    PLEASE PLEASE, all you folks who think Santorum isnt a conservative, go to the NYTimes website and explain to those libs who call Santorum an utra extreme conservative …

    I am sure they think of him as “severely conservative” LOL.

    Despite a few pandering votes, he managed a 85% conservative rating overall.

    And yes, Santorum is as cosnervative as Reagan was.

  • lastgopinillinois

    I want limited government with enumerated powers as called for in the constitution.

    Santorum is a big govt politician with morals. I like his morals, but I want someone in the WH who will aggressively work to implement changes in policy which would effectively destroy the socialist movement in this country. Gingrich has plans to diminish the govt role in our lives and he may just be the narcissist to pull it off. I want somebody with balls and brains in the WH. I dont care that he used to be a tail-chaser. I dont care that he is a populist. I like the way he is using democrat party tactics in an attemp to attract voters to him, (although I would argue that conservatism benefits everyone, thus you shouldnt need to pander). I dont care that he is grandiose or hot tempered. He still doesnt hold a candle to LBJ on temperament. LBJ was the biggest jackass of a POTUS in history.

    Given the choice between Santorum and Gingrich, I have to ask, which one do you think is most likely to SUCCEED in shrinking the size of govt and give power back to the people ?

  • Dave_A

    04 was the year before I joined the Army – and I spent the election season working for the Bush campaign…

    I remember a fairly dicey road until the Dems overplayed their hand with the falsified memos & the focus on Kerry’s war-record vs SBVT….

    In that environment, Specter was the ‘safe’ candidate – we didn’t know that the worm would turn & the GOP would have a strong showing across the board…

    And we all know 08, although thanks to 6 year terms Arlen wasn’t up for election….

    2010 was expected to be a strong GOP year, and since Toomey wasn’t a ‘bad news bear’ candidate, replacing Specter would make sense – although Specter made that choice for us by going Dem.

    Basically, the number of (R) seats held counts more than the views of the individual seat-holders, because if you sacrifice chamber-control for ideological purity (As we did in 2010) you end up with the present string of weak showings….

  • Dave_A

    At best, a Gingrich victory would result in 4 to 8 years of abject deadlock in Congress, similar to how the GOP handled Obama’s win. No one wants to work with a bomb-chucker, and shutting down govt worked SO WELL for him in 95….

    More likely, he would get his ass kicked in the general, as Obama would use Newt’s personal baggage to avoid any need to campaign on the issues… It would be the dirtiest, most mud-covered campaign in recent history, but Gingrich would collapse under the incoming fire & probably not get a word in edgewise…

    I do not see Gingrich as electable, and if elected I do not see him as capable of working with his own party, much less the Democrats (since we WILL NOT have a Senate supermajority, and they WILL filibuster everything) to reduce government one bit…

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    “Santorum is a big govt politician with morals.”
    Unless you are an anarchist or ultra-libertarian, this statement is simple wrong… Santorum has the most freemarket oriented healthcare proposals, wants to reform all entitlements, supports cut/cap and balance.

    Santorum has plans to diminish the govt role in our lives – lower spending, less taxs, repeal Obamacare, replace it with health savings accounts, end the mandate. stop CO2 regs. etc.

    ”
    Gingrich has plans to diminish the govt role in our lives ”

    Yet Gingrich supported healthcare mandates (Santorum never did) .

    “Given the choice between Santorum and Gingrich, I have to ask, which one do you think is most likely to SUCCEED in shrinking the size of govt and give power back to the people ?”
    Santorum. He’s more likely to win.
    Gingrich is great, but he is volatile, unpopular with indies, and has some progressive leanings.

  • deVere

    http://www.escapetyranny.com/2012/02/11/santorum-now-leads-romney-in-michigan/

    If Romney loses his birth state of Michigan he’s toast.

  • jamesm

    Oh no!! Mitt must be saying FFF when he sees PPP poll

  • JSobieski

    I am not unrealistic. Many people here took me to task for pointing out that O’Donnell was not a good bet.

    Toomey may have been a long shot. It may even have been ill advised. It was NOT “absurd” to support Toomey.

    Nobody knows for sure what would have happened. Politics is dynamic, and so are campaigns.

  • demsaresatanic

    Do you really think women could fight men if only we changed the culture? How about playing in the NFL if only we changed that macho culture? With all due respect, have you ever been in actual combat in an actual war? You speak of MOS’s like you have served but your “culture issue” rationale is pure nonsense, it is biology, not culture.

  • deVere

    Another advantage Santorum has is that his major political weakness, his extreme abortion position, cannot be safely attacked in a Republican primary. Obama will be under no such constraints.

    If Romney’s attacks against Santorum’s earmarks are the best he can come up with, then Romney is in very serious trouble.

    I don’t agree that Romney “destroyed” Gingrich. Newt took a serious hit, but may still bounce back.

    From a policy standpoint I like Gingrich the best of the three. From a standpoint of electability I’m uncertain. I guess Santorum may have an edge.

  • cheetah2

    “Also many of us have a personal disgust for Romney that some seem to feel for Newt because of his personal life. ”

    I always wonder if the fact that Romney and Santorum both have clean personal lives will cause votes to flow between those two rather than to Gingrich.

    I always was a Perry supporter but I looked on Romney as my back up as he has the executive experience that I think is very important. As time went on and I saw his deceitful attacks on first Perry then Gingrich I liked him less and less. I guess I am not the only one. Now if he starts on Santorum his likeability will just keep going down.

  • redmymind

    And we’ll no doubt witness the Romney smear/carpet-bombing machine cranking up some serious horses against the “Italian Stallion.” If the so-called “conservatives” are dumb enough to fall for his skin-deep trickery, they’ll be nominating someone they absolutely DESERVE.

    He must have paid good dollars to haul in the establishment drones that wanted to make sure he won the CPAC straw poll. Before this poll, he was a Massachusetts liberal. Now AFTER this poll, he’s a Massachusetts liberal WITH a straw poll win. The folks that matter see him for what he really is. Changes nothing.

    Anyway, cheetah, hope you’re doing well!

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    Romney.

    Santorum is a cheap empty suit. He’s never,ever held an executive or even a leadership position. He’s nothing but a pasty white Obama in a sweater.

  • cheetah2

    Though I don’t agree with your similes. (a cheap empty suit when he’s not wearing a sweater vest? I do despise the sweater vests, BTW.)

    However, I am concerned about his lack of relevant experience. It doesn’t make me like Romney any better though.

  • trickamsterdam

    So, w/ all do respect, if you want some advice (I’m sure you don’t) what your mind is telling you is Santorum’s “empty suit” is really that you can sense that Romney is more (maybe even much more) intelligent than Santorum..

    But that doesn’t make Santorum an empty suit. In fact, it’s almost the exact opposite. Romney is the empty suit, trying to figure out how he can get elected the Tribune of the Plebs. Santorum’s suit is all too filled (trust me, I grew up in PA, and he has plenty of ideas. Most of them aren’t good ideas, but he’s got plenty).

    The problem w/ Romney is we have a Nixon on our hands…super-intelligent, but basically a moron also. Nixon, paranoid that his enemies were plotting against him….yet also so in love w/ himself he recorded every word of his own conversations, even when he was plotting crimes…very, very Romney…

    Romney wanted to prove he was so inevitable, he crushed Newt in FL, in a way that guaranteed he’d be anything but…

    I think Santorum’s more electable than Romney, but that doesn’t mean I think Santorum’s actually electable. I just think that confirmed political junkies, even intelligent ones (e.g., you, acat, aesthete) can kind of miss the point at times. Romney is damaged goods after FL. Period.

    Two months ago I could never have imagined voting for Santorum….over…well any of the other Rs, let alone Romney. Now I’d sing while I voted for him over Romney!

    I’m OK w/ Santorum, but maybe if anti-brokered convention people think he can’t win?…They should become pro-brokered convention people!

    The only thing is, I’m not sure about Paul Ryan or Rubio anymore. Some wanted exec experience, fine, but for me it’s that I don’t want to waste them against a resurgent Obama. Mitch Daniels is perfect. He’s got a chance, would be good, if he fails we have the great triple A team ready against Joe B (or whatever mook they run out there in 2016).

    Whatever. But any Romney supporter (who isn’t being paid by him) better listen to this: If I, have grown up in PA, and having been as convinced as anyone that Santorum was a laughing stock, can prefer him this strongly over Romney…I’m telling you: ROMNEY.IS.DAMAGED.GOODS.

    BROKERED.CONVENTION.NOW.OR.OBAMA.AGAIN.SOON. (but Santorum over Romney, period)

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    And frankly I just saw a headline relating to Romney that I not only liked, but makes me somewhat calmer about the idea of Romney as both candidate and President (I’d still rather have Daniels or Perry or Newt).

    The headline said something on the order of Romney lays down a vicious attack on anybody who threatens him. I honestly really like that. It says the guy really wants the job and is seemingly willing to undertake the dirty work that Bush refused to do and Santorum won’t do, fight back and fight to the death.

    I like that a lot.

  • demsaresatanic

    try to find the video.

  • lineholder

    as being “ruthless” in the manner that he went after Gingrich. I think he does have that kind of potential. That particular human quality can be a double-edged sword….positive in some ways, negative in others.

    If elected, do you think he would apply that quality with the same degree of intensity we’ve seen of late in focused efforts to move this nation back towards the right end of socio-political spectrum? Would he possess the same drive to succeed in doing this that he has displayed in pursuing the Presidency?

  • cheetah2

    In my heart I am sure we will end up with Romney, so I would love to be able to believe in him. If he goes after Obama the way he has gone after his fellow Republicans that would help me be much more happily resigned to him as our nominee. Beating Obama is the thing that matters most, and he MUST be fought ruthlessly.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    And I don’t care how it get’s done as long as it gets done.

    Frankly, I can’t wait to see if Romney will really turns the guns on Santorum. I really hope he does. Then we’ll see what the two of them are made of. If Romney really goes after Santorum my bet is that Rickie boy folds like a rayon sweater.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    Jonathan Last in The Weekly Standard

  • demsaresatanic

    that headline says “Taking aim at Santorum, the Romney campaign misfires.”

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    It linked to this story. I like the story. Rather heartless of the Romney team. If he’ll attack Obama and the Democrats (sounds like an off key do wop group) like he’s gone after Newt, et al, he’ll get the 908 seal of approval.

  • acat

    The one thing this race has confirmed for me is that polling is kind of limited in what it can tell us.

    Mew

  • demsaresatanic

    for trying.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    But you can bet your last dime that Santorum will be Mr Go Along to Get Along.

  • krish

    This is view is not new – everyone who follows Romney knows that he does Not have the courage to call Obama, a socialist! Only thing he can say is that Obama is above his head!

    All his bravado is against other republicans! It will be another McCain campaign – with the same result!

  • demsaresatanic

    Newt never supported Romneycare or Obamacare type mandates, he supported some sort of penalty for people who didn’t buy insurance and then stuck the taxpayers with the bill, and so btw did Santorum in a Senate vote ( I read this in some lamestream source, so I can’t vouch for it) and the idea of penalties for those who soak the taxpayers when they could have purchased insurance is a conservative position.

  • demsaresatanic

    a rightwing source which confirms what I said earlier about it. Also you might want to take a look at Santorum’s idea about letting felons vote, which is on the same page. He is really not as conservative as you think.

  • krish

    If both go to Super Tuesday, there is a good chance, Romney might win a few states that he is not supposed to win since conservatives in South are likely to vote on both fiscal & moral issues – Newt & Rick might split the votes.

    Who can tell Newt to step down? – may be Mike Reagan! If he does not step down,then the conservatives have to aviod voting for him & throw their support behind Rick.

  • demsaresatanic

    Senator, but as I recall guys like Specter could get in the 80′s fairly easily in those ratings by merely voting the party line most of the time.

    As for what NY libs call him, let’s be serious.

  • acat

    Fiscally? Ummm.. no.

    Defense? Well .. you *could* make the case based on his cheerleading for taking on Iraq and Afghanistan, but .. did he do squat to increase funding for the VA?

    Socially? Sure… but that’s just one leg of the conservative movement, and it’s *not* the leg that wins general elections .. as Santorum himself found out in 2006.

    Mew

  • lineholder

    The days of allowing the marginal left to dictate the guidelines for our entire society to live by has to be stopped. 2012 is just the first step in the process. This is the first battle-stage in what is likely to prove to be a long war.

    There are certain rules and analogies that apply to war activities. “Know your enemy” being one such rule. Stay focused on the end-goal. And always stay positively engaged, with the last one meaning that the war has to be taken personally.

    IMO, of the three we have in race, Newt has the broadest understanding of the enemy and refers to them as such. Santorum has some understanding, but it just seems to focus more on the social issue side of the war rather than the entire war. He just seems to have a narrower view of the battlefield than Newt does.

    For either one of them, I could believe they take the war personally. But where Romney is concerned….I’m just not all that sure he’s personally invested in this war of ours, becker, much less to choose to apply the qualities he does have in a way that contribute to our chances of winning the war.

  • snowshooze

    I mean really…

  • demsaresatanic

    right on the head with “Newt has the broadest understanding of the enemy and refers to them as such.” We are in a civil war with the Left, the Left is winning, and the Left is indeed the enemy in every sense of the word. The Left will destroy this country if they are not defeated; Newt understands this, I don’t think the others do.

  • aesthete

    and had positions in his life where he had to make decisions. Mostly he punted on these in his only elected position, but as a corporate guy he was responsible for the success or failure of his decisions, and had to make decisions.

    Santorum, on the other hand, has always been a party man before anything else: with the exception of the things that really get him riled up (basically, social issues that he can’t have much effect on, anyways), he has a habit of doing whatever his party wants him to. He’s not quite an empty suit, and has more ideology guiding his beliefs than Romney — but was a man with very few accomplishments for conservatives or independence at a time when both would have helped the conservative movement.

  • deVere

    He’s pragmatic and ruthless, and to the extent he has an ideology he’s a Liberal, hence his minimum wage proposal. But I don’t think he has any strong convictions other than that he ought to be President.

    Santorum is attractive and energetic, but he doesn’t have a good grasp on the proper role of the federal government. He does have a chance to win in November, if he can handle Obama’s attack on the abortion issue.

    If no primary candidate gets a majority of the delegates, the party should simply make Sarah Palin the convention keynote speaker. It may go just like the 1896 Democratic convention, though hopefully with a better result in November.

  • acat

    His record, in 2008 and 2012, is not superior…. he has significantly outspent the entire rest of the field … and has not done as well this time as he did in 2008!

    Mrs. Romney needs to ask him to find a less expensive hobby, like building full-scale replicas of famous naval vessels.

    Mew

  • snowshooze

    Kind of a roll of the dice there, but I would guess Santorum would get the lions share do to being a Christian, and more aligned with the establishment. I don’t see many of them defecting to RP..

  • demsaresatanic

    for example the one about women in combat being a cultural issue (as opposed to biological), concern about Muslims being “Islamophobia,” now Newt the “bomb-thrower” who “shut down the government.” These are lines out of a New York Times editorial.

    I don’t recall your saying who you supported for Pres, is there anybody non-confrontational enough for you?

  • acat

    Perhaps he should have depended on showing some leadership skills instead.

    Michigan, like New Hampshire, isn’t just a “must win” for Romney, it’s a “must *clearly* win”. An “Asian F” victory will not cut it.

    Mew

  • acat

    I don’t see any going to Ron Paul. There just isn’t overlap between Romney and Paul’s positions.

    I see the “pick a winnah!” types – the ones who support Romney now because he’s “most electable” – will go to Santorum.

    I see the “fiscal reform” types being more comfy with Gingrich, since his record on fiscal issues is more verifiable, while Santorum only became a fiscal hawk after losing in 2006.

    That is, of course, a guess.

  • snowshooze

    I mean he IS the guy that want’s ti FIX Obamacare..maybe his feelings got hurt because they don’t call it Romneycare.. and he could fix that. I guess.
    And I know he was a corporate raider, but I don’t get any feel that he actually does anything himself.. always sends the hatchet men out to do the dirty work.
    But any fiscal reform types would best be served by Newton.
    ” Pick a winner ” that always makes me think of the tee shirt with the kid picking his nose…
    I think that exemplifies Romney’s followers to a tee…
    Anyway.. it bugs me when these people say.. ” We should just consolidate now and all you other people are the spoilers”
    Which has gone on from the outset.
    Romney is the fattest chicken here to pluck! Why don’t you Romneyaks take yer ball of string home so we can consolidate behind something with a spine in it?
    No disrespect to the jellyfish…
    Yeah… Romney has money, and the GOP loves that because they won’t have to shell out of their fiefdom piggybank…
    So that is the definition of a winner.
    Ah well. just having fun.

  • acat

    back before Pawlenty dropped out.

    Mew

  • snowshooze

    I found a pick a winner image… I can’t figure out how to paste it.
    dang.

  • Dave_A

    Yes, I’ve been in actual combat. I’m presently deployed with the 45th Infantry (Oklahoma Guard), having spent the past 8mo patrolling eastern Afghanistan (Paktiya). I’m a tanker, deployed with an infantry line company….

    I do not think women could fit in to an infantry or armor unit NO MATTER WHAT we try to change. It was posted in response to someone knocking Santorum for his attitude on the subject.

    The post I posted was OPPOSED to women serving in combat units, and the ‘culture’ statement reflects the fact that the culture of an infantry unit is not compatible with the ‘PC’ that Army females bring with them. It’s one of many reasons – including physical/biological limitations, and so on…

    Women in the military, sure… In combat arms? Oh hell no.

  • demsaresatanic

    a squishy response. Women can’t fight men because they aren’t built like men and no culture can change that. I was a groundpounder and there is no way a woman could carry the pack, let alone fight.

  • Dave_A

    Perry to start with (would be ‘still’ if he had not quit), then briefly Romney over ‘electability’ (the minimum wage sop ended that), now Santorum.

    I use the 1995 government shutdown, and the Obama vs Ryan race, and a long list of other historical examples to point out how Newt would be a disaster.

    And I never said that women-in-combat wasn’t among other things a biological issue… There’s a long list of why that’s a bad idea.

  • demsaresatanic

    and I hope you go back and read the replies on the “Islamophobia” post. You have good firsthand information and I hope you consider other perspectives which were presented.

  • demsaresatanic

    http://thelibertyblog.org/tag/rick-santorum/page/2/

  • sulmak

    The minimum wage proposal actually goes against Keynesian monetary policy, completely conflicts with it.

    So Romney truly reached across the isle here and found a proposal that both sides would think is stupid.

    Overall though I think you have both Romney and Santorum pegged.