What you are showing is consequential of Santorum’s ground game. No question he hit the bricks very hard in Iowa and earned his win by being positioned to benefit at the time of the Romney / Paul carpetbombimg crusade against Newt. All of Newt’s lost votes went to Santorum, not for anything earthshaking Rick did, but resulting from noxious attacks against the then-leader Gingrich.
Rick Santorum is a very decent guy and has a bright future. One of his drawbacks is that he is a senator but he has not been a leader of anything. Yes he had a senior spot in the senate caucus, but he’s not like Newt, who served as Speaker. This is big because the Speaker is second in line of presidential succession after VP. There is that term ‘gravitas’ that the liberals loved to use against W in 2000 vs. Gore. Bush lacks gravitas, blah, blah, etc. The liberals, Soviet-style removed any trace of that word in ‘08 when a certain messiah figure entered the scene.
Leaders have a way of drawing people’s attention when they speak, and they inspire people to push themselves forward. They articulate a real cause and tend to draw interest with the force of their personalities, sense of resolve, and credibility drawn from quantifiable accomplishments.
When comparing Santorum against Gingrich, even with Newt’s negatives thrown in, Newt looks far more like a real president among a lot more people than Rick. Newt’s conservative history of accomplishment really has ‘gravitas’. If you take away all the millions spent on destroying Newt or gave him the resources in Iowa to properly respond, Rick Santorum never would have climbed as he did. He was the beneficiary of all that attack money. It doesn’t mean Rick’s bad, but people are responding to the truth that we are fighting for the future of our country, and we need the strongest fighter if we really are to have a chance.
Romney would love to face Rick. He is afraid, very afraid of Newt. Following the money clearly shows that. Some year I may be shoulder to shoulder with you, supporting Rick Santorum for higher office. This is not that year.
“What you are showing is consequential of Santorum’s ground game. No question he hit the bricks very hard in Iowa and earned his win”
Okay.
“All of Newt’s lost votes went to Santorum, not for anything earthshaking Rick did, but resulting from noxious attacks against the then-leader Gingrich”
Sour grapes. Your argument makes no sense. This arguement does. Santorum hustled for those votes, earned those votes, and won in Iowa because he hustled and earned those votes.
Newt - sat around and gave up.
NH - Santorum drove out there, hustled. Went from 1 percent to close to 10. Didn’t get all the way there, but again, beat out Newt.
Newt - sat around and gave up. “Prepare for South Carolina!” After a 4th and 5th place finish.
Now - Newt has taken a state that he once lead by 20, that was supposed to be a slam dunk, and is losing by 5.
“Santorum supporters need to get out and back Newt so that Newt can finally beat Romney”?
No. If Newt wants us, he’s going to have to EARN the votes, like Santorum did in Iowa.
“Rick Santorum is a very decent guy and has a bright future. One of his drawbacks is that he is a senator but he has not been a leader of anything.”
And Newt is a Congressman. Point Santorum.
“he’s not like Newt, who served as Speaker.”
Again, point Santorum. Senator > Congressman.
“This is big because the Speaker is second in line of presidential succession after VP.”
VP > speaker? Really? That makes no sense. And neither does the argument that congressman > senator.
Factual evidence - only one man has ever been elected president after serving only as a congressman. I bet you can’t name him.
“Leaders have a way of drawing people’s attention when they speak, and they inspire people to push themselves forward.”
Ok. And leaders also articulate a vision. Voting for someone because he articulates irrespective of what his is articulating sounds like Obama to me. No substance.
“They articulate a real cause and tend to draw interest with the force of their personalities, sense of resolve, and credibility drawn from quantifiable accomplishments.”
What cause does Newt support?
“When comparing Santorum against Gingrich, even with Newt’s negatives thrown in, Newt looks far more like a real president among a lot more people than Rick.”
An entirely subjective assessment. Rick’s conservativism is the best of those left standing.
“Newt’s conservative history of accomplishment”
Newt, prior to 2007, supported Cap and trade, supported the individual mandate, the list goes on.
I don’t want his ‘history of accomplishment’ anywhere close to the White House.
“If you take away all the millions spent on destroying Newt”
Uh, why are you whining? This isn’t exactly tiddlywinks, untwist.
“Rick Santorum never would have climbed as he did.”
Like you said, Rick EARNED it through old fashioned shoe leather. Just like he EARNED my support.
“we need the strongest fighter if we really are to have a chance.”
Sounds like Santorum to me.
“Romney would love to face Rick.”
Uh, no. Santorum crushes Romney in the head to head polls. 20+ point lead. Why are we screwing around with Newt when we can blow Romney out of the water?
That's it, in a word.