Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Who would the Dems rather run against in the election, Romney or Santorum? (Vanity)
Self | 1/4/2012 | Self

Posted on 01/04/2012 9:33:07 AM PST by Signalman

Just a question I'm throwing out for the FR gang. When I watched Fox News last night, it was humorous to see the two Democratic pundits, Joe Trippi and Kirsten Powers so obviously minimize Romney's results while falling over themselves boosting Santorum. I almost had the impression that these two partisan Democrats (especially Powers who's as transparent as they come) were a cheering squad for Santorum and can't wait to run against him. Or at least they believe he will be an easy opponent to beat.

Powers even let her guard down a moment and implied that the Dems' strategy against Santorum would be to paint him as a far-right religious zealot.

Anyway, that's my impression.

Disclosure. I'm a Rick Perry supporter.


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: powers; romney; santorum; trippi
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last

1 posted on 01/04/2012 9:33:14 AM PST by Signalman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Signalman

They would rather run against Romney due to the fact that there isn’t a clear distinction between he and Obama.

Besides, I don’t really care what the democrats want.


2 posted on 01/04/2012 9:35:55 AM PST by cripplecreek (Stand with courage or shut up and do as you're told.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Signalman
Romney or Santorum would be ideal for Obama to run against. Romney for reasons already explained before, Santorum because he's a decisively weak on fiscal matters (see voting record who runs on tired old social conservative zealotry that most people don't care about right now.
3 posted on 01/04/2012 9:37:32 AM PST by Utmost Certainty (Our Enemy, the State | Gingrich 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Signalman
Romney or Santorum would be ideal for Obama to run against. Romney for reasons already explained before, Santorum because he's decisively weak on fiscal matters (see voting record) who runs on tired old social conservative zealotry that most people don't care about right now.
4 posted on 01/04/2012 9:37:52 AM PST by Utmost Certainty (Our Enemy, the State | Gingrich 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Signalman
Powers even let her guard down a moment and implied that the Dems' strategy against Santorum would be to paint him as a far-right religious zealot.

That could backfire, I've already seen talking point responses on that pointing out Kennedy was also Catholic.

5 posted on 01/04/2012 9:40:05 AM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Signalman
Romney. Obama is weak and if the economy doesn't improve or if Iran blows up he might lose to whoever is the GOP candidate. So they want someone who, even if he wins, doesn't cost them much politically.

Look at it this way. Would you rather run against Obama or Zell Miller if the GOP had a weak candidate. Obama might be easier to beat, but with Miller you wouldn't mind losing nearly as much.
6 posted on 01/04/2012 9:41:17 AM PST by GonzoGOP (There are millions of paranoid people in the world and they are all out to get me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Signalman

The democraps are probably going to GOP primaries to vote for Romney, just like they did for McCain.

The are HOPING he wins.

And the endless drivel about how he is our strongest candidate and how he is the only GOP who can win against Obama is all “Please don’t throw us in that briar patch”

(does everyone know what I mean about the ‘briar patch’ reference?)


7 posted on 01/04/2012 9:43:14 AM PST by Mr. K (Physically unable to profreed <--- oops, see?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Signalman

BELOW IS THE RAT PARTY VIEW ON MITT.... I can’t say that I agree as I don’t think he has my support. But the RATS are concerned about him.....

Jim Messina the rat fundraiser for Obama said!

1) The extremist Tea Party agenda won a clear victory. No matter who the Republicans nominate, we’ll be running against someone who has embraced that agenda in order to win — vowing to let Wall Street write its own rules, end Medicare as we know it, roll back gay rights, leave the troops in Iraq indefinitely, restrict a woman’s right to choose, and gut Social Security to pay for more tax cuts for millionaires and corporations.

2) We’ll be facing an onslaught of unprecedented spending from outside groups funded by corporations and anonymous donors. In Iowa alone, so-called “super PACs” spent $12.9 million on almost exclusively negative ads. These groups will turn their fire even more directly on us in the weeks ahead to prove that their candidate is the most anti-Obama.

This race is officially on — and if we want to win, the only way is to out-organize them on the ground.

So the path ahead for Romney — or whichever of the Republican candidates is going to emerge from this process — is sadly and starkly very clear: to run even further to the extreme right, and make even more dangerous promises that threaten not only the progress we’ve made but the fundamental fabric of American society.

We also know that candidates who take these extreme positions can, in the right circumstances, win not only a primary but also a general election in just about any state.

Just ask the Tea Party senators from Pennsylvania and Kentucky, and the Tea Party governors in Florida and Wisconsin.

Watching the circus on TV, it’s tempting to think it’s almost funny — but this is not a joke.

We’ve got to be ready.

END OF RAT MESSAGE....


8 posted on 01/04/2012 9:43:14 AM PST by ncfool (The new USSA - United Socialist States of AmeriKa. Welcome to Obummers world or Obamaville USSA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Signalman

Santorum. By a mile.

The God haters and social liberals would shrink from him
like vampires from garlic.


9 posted on 01/04/2012 9:43:24 AM PST by RitchieAprile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Signalman

I don’t give a damn what Democrats want.


10 posted on 01/04/2012 9:43:58 AM PST by SaxxonWoods (....The days are long, but the years are short.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Signalman
My wife and I where watching the same show and saw that the people of Iowa thought Ron Paul was the most conservative by 48% to 38% mitt. My wife asked me why they would think Paul was conservative. In my opinion: Republicans and Democrats nowadays are really not different except a few tag lines or appointees. con·serv·a·tive    [kuhn-sur-vuh-tiv] adjective 1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change. By the first definition its Paul. Return to old values. Neither Mitt or (I dont know his first name) are returning or limiting either. I am from SC and cant wait to see some adds. Besides Obama might have to worry about a third party cause Dems are not happy with him.
11 posted on 01/04/2012 9:45:36 AM PST by Baseballguy (If we knew what we know now in Oct would we do anything different?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Utmost Certainty

Romney/Obama -

Obama wins because in a contest between moderate socialism and real socialism, real socialism wins every time. Obama wins, but it’s close.

Gingrich/Obama

Gingrich loses because he supports global warming, has no connection to the base of the party, and makes Obama look good in being married to one woman and staying married to her, etc.

Obama wins in a landslide.

Santorum/Obama -

This is Obama’s worst matchup. Why? Santorum is Catholic and has support from evangelicals. Santorum gets the vote out in the heartland. This we saw last night. The folks who voted for Bush and voted for Reagan are willing to back Santorum.

This is why the knives are going to come out against Santorum by the Axelrod folks. Because they absolutely must have Gingrich/Romney as the nomination ‘contest’ because either way they win.


12 posted on 01/04/2012 9:45:56 AM PST by BenKenobi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Signalman

The irony is conservatives want to nominate anybody but Romney because they do not view him as conservative while Dems want Republicans to nominate anybody but Romney because they think Romney will give Obama the toughest time. Conservatives and Dems have the same wish for polar opposite reasons.


13 posted on 01/04/2012 9:46:22 AM PST by chuckee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SaxxonWoods

**** the dims!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

LLS


14 posted on 01/04/2012 9:46:54 AM PST by LibLieSlayer (ONWARD CHRISTIAN SOLDIERS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: RitchieAprile

Uh, newsflash, Obama’s already got that vote locked up.


15 posted on 01/04/2012 9:47:33 AM PST by BenKenobi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Signalman

Romney is their man and their insurance policy. They correctly see him as the most liberal republican. They will do their damnest to beat him, but if Obama loses, they believe Romney will do the least damage to their liberal policies.


16 posted on 01/04/2012 9:48:37 AM PST by iontheball
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Signalman

Whomever becomes the GOP nominee will be branded as unacceptable for any one of countless reasons. Do not wrestle with the pig in the pig sty. This election is not about their description of the GOP nominee. IT IS ABOUT THEIR MISERABLE, WRONG-HEADED, LARCENOUS, DESTRUCTIVE POLICIES THAT HAVE WRECKED THIS COUNTRY. DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE IS A PROVEN FAILURE, AND NOT ALL OF THE DISASTROUS CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR LEGISLATION AND REGULATION HAVE HIT HOME YET.

Stay on message and repeat it over and over and over and over again. Conservatism brings back sanity.


17 posted on 01/04/2012 9:49:32 AM PST by RatRipper (I'll ride a turtle to work every day before I buy anything from Government Motors.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Utmost Certainty

•Eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood and use half of the dollars to support adoption instead.

•Cut in half the number of State Department USAID employees and US funding for United Nations programs.
•Eliminate funding for implementation of Dodd/Frank regulatory burdens.
•Eliminate funding for implementation of ObamaCare.
•Cut funding for National Labor Relations Board for decision preventing airplane factory in South Carolina.
•Eliminating funding for United Nations’ agencies which oppose America’s interests and promote abortion and cut the US contribution to the UN in half.
•Commit to cut $5 trillion of federal spending within 5 years.
•Immediately reduce federal (non-defense discretionary spending) to 2008 levels through across the board spending cuts.
•Freeze defense spending levels for 5 years and reject automatic cuts.
•Freeze spending levels for social programs for 5 years such as Medicaid, Housing, Education, Job Training, and Food Stamps, time limit restrictions, and block grant to the States like in Welfare Reform.
•Repeal and Replace ObamaCare with market based healthcare innovation and competition to improve America’s and Americans health, control costs, improve quality and access, and to keep and create jobs which provide resources for healthcare.
•Pass a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution capping government spending at 18% of GDP so that Congress and the President will need to balance the budget like Governors are required to do.
•Pass legislation to reform the Congressional Budget Process and support legislation to require Congress to pass constitutionally required spending bills on time or not get paid the next fiscal year.
•Implement Medicare Reforms and Innovation proposed by Congressman Paul Ryan and speed up their implementation to control healthcare costs and improve quality.


18 posted on 01/04/2012 9:49:37 AM PST by BenKenobi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Signalman

Shouldn’t you ask democrats?


19 posted on 01/04/2012 9:50:39 AM PST by stuartcr ("In this election year of 12, how deep into their closets will we delve?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Signalman

This goint to be great from a horse race point of view, I can’t find Santorums campaign web site, there seems to be a google road block. Gingrich is pissed, and when someone like him gets pissed he gets even. RP has done his job by helping destroy Gingrich, but gingrich blames Romney.
Ron Paul had the foresite to have his people hang around and get elected as delegates after the caucus. Bachman is out, Perry isn’t sure what to do, Huntsman Who? NH will not vote for Santorum, McCain the man with his finger on the pulse of America, endorses Romney ‘sic’.
This is getting really interesting!!!


20 posted on 01/04/2012 9:51:05 AM PST by qman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Signalman

I’ve been praying for godly men of firm principles to rise up and take control of the House and the Senate and also the White House and then I will trust God to give those people the money and support to take back our nation.

I don’t really care who God chooses. I just want it to be His choice. So, if it’s Perry or Santorum or Gingrich or Cain, it makes no difference to me. I have my preferences but I don’t know the future the way God does. I do know Obama is only His instrument of punishment, not of mercy or glory. This is what I am praying for and I will leave the details up to Him.


21 posted on 01/04/2012 9:51:05 AM PST by OrangeHoof (Obama: The Dr. Kevorkian of the American economy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

Sure Brer Rabbit


22 posted on 01/04/2012 9:51:35 AM PST by clamper1797 (Hoping to have some change left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Signalman

They’d rather run against Romney. First tipoff? They love Romney.

1. They’ll pretend that he’s not that bad . . . just like they did with McLame.
2. Then when he gets on the ticket, all hell will break loose.
3. They’ve had years to go through his garbage cans, toilets, and . . . don’t forget . . . the Hitlary stolen FBI files, from which Lord only knows what garbage that beast has had on him for all these years.
4. The RINOs just love this libtard and all his mandatory health care crap and, don’t forget, his unadulterated love affair with all things homosexual.

He’s a stinking democrat and should get the hell out of our party.


23 posted on 01/04/2012 9:51:45 AM PST by laweeks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Signalman

If Santorum comes out with a big name running mate, he may be ok.


24 posted on 01/04/2012 9:52:44 AM PST by goseminoles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi
Gingrich doesn't support global warming; see testimony here. It's also idiotic to presume that electability is contingent on how consistently one stays married to the same person.

I think you overrate the significance of the evangelical voting bloc.
25 posted on 01/04/2012 9:53:05 AM PST by Utmost Certainty (Our Enemy, the State | Gingrich 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Signalman

Who does the media always says who is winning? Then vote for the other person.


26 posted on 01/04/2012 9:53:05 AM PST by bmwcyle (I am ready to serve Jesus on Earth because the GOP failed again)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Signalman

I’m more concerned with who I want to run against Obama.


27 posted on 01/04/2012 9:53:27 AM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

Rick Santorum

- Voted for Perscription Drug Benefit mandate.
- Endorsed Arlen Spector.
- Agreed with Newt on illegal immigration when Newt mentioned his limited amnesty.
- Voted for the Gun Manufacturers Liability Act of 1994 prohibiting the sale of hand guns with safety devices.
- Voted against Death Tax repeal in 2003.
- Voted for the federal regulation of farms requiring that large farms construct animal waste treatment facilities.
- Voted for Bushs' No Child Left Behind and other national testing initiatives.
- Voted for afirmative action (later voted against it).
- Voted for Minimum Wage increases (Flipped on this several times).
- Voted for federal funds for military operations in Bosnia.
- Voted to cut Trident II D-5 missles several times.
- Voted against the elimiation of the National Endowment for the Arts funding numerous times.
- Voted to seize private property to designate 7 million acres of Cal. desert as a wilderness area.
- Voted against the first amendment and for lobbying restrictions and regulations.
- Voted for the Motor Voter law several times.
- Voted to limit Striker Replacement of union thugs.
- Voted on the FY 94 Clinton budget, which contained at that time the largest tax increase in U.S. history.
- Voted against SDI several times.
- Voted against Hunter amendment that sought to require the Defense Department to ask individuals entering the armed forces if they are homosexuals. (He later switched to the more conservative position on this).
- Voted against school choice early in his career. (He later switched to the more conservative position on this).
- Voted against both the 1991, 1992 spending freeze and voted for numerous large Bush II Budgets.
- Voted for tabaco tax increases (1998).
- Voted against the exemption of banks with assets of less than $250 million from the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (1998).
- Voted for the Chemical Weapons Treaty of 1997 that the ACU said, "violated U.S. constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure, ceded U.S. national sovereignty to international agencies, and threatened U.S. defense forces".
- Voted for Kassenbaum amendment to the Ryan White Reauthorization which allowed for funds to be used to promote homosexuality or intravenous drug use.
- Voted for the 2005 highway bill that included thousands of wasteful earmarks, including the Bridge to Nowhere.
- Voted to continue funding the Bridge to Nowhere rather than send the money to rebuild New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.
- Sponsored a bill to extend milk subsidies in 2005, which he claimed he did to “save countless Pennsylvania dairy farmers.”

Some additional points from here:

- A prolific supporter of earmarks, having requested billions of dollars for pork projects in Pennsylvania while he was in Congress. Perhaps recognizing the sign of the times, Santorum finally reversed his position in 2010, saying that he was opposed to them , but one must remain skeptical about his sincerity. As recently as 2009, he said, “I’m not saying necessarily earmarks are bad. I have had a lot of earmarks. In fact, I’m very proud of all the earmarks I’ve put in bills. I’ll defend earmarks.”

- An examination of his scores in the NTU rating of Congress shows that Santorum compiled a very strong record on taxes and spending in the first four years of each of his two Senate terms, then a sharp swing to below the Senate Republican average in the Congress before his reelection campaign.

- In the 2003-2004 session of Congress, Santorum sponsored or cosponsored 51 bills to increase spending, and failed to sponsor or co-sponsor even one spending cut proposal. In his last Congress (2005-2006), he had one of the biggest spending agendas of any Republican -- sponsoring more spending increases than Republicans Lisa Murkowski, Lincoln Chafee and Thad Cochran or Democrats Herb Kohl, Evan Bayh and Ron Wyden.

- Santorum also supported raising congressional pay at least three times, in 2001, 2002, and 2003.

- He voted NO on raising the minimum wage in 1995 and 2005. But on the same day he voted NO in 2005, he sponsored an amendment that would increase the minimum wage, which he later boasted about to skeptical voters in a 2006 campaign brochure he released called “50 Things You Didn’t Know About Rick Santorum.”

- In the same “50 Things” campaign brochure, Santorum boasts about sponsoring a bill to regulate “price gouging and unfair pricing by the big oil companies.” This contradicts his opposition to a “windfall profits tax” that Democrats tried to impose on oil companies in 2005. He also voted YES on Sarbanes-Oxley, which was an overreaching bill that tried to tighten accounting regulations following the Enron scandal.

Also see: Rick Santorum the Pro-Life Statist
28 posted on 01/04/2012 9:54:25 AM PST by Utmost Certainty (Our Enemy, the State | Gingrich 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Signalman

I think they fear Romney’s money, but for that reason, they have been preparing for him for years now. I think if it’s Romney they have a war strategy built from extensive historic research on his every flaw.

Santorum could have the benefit of surprise but he’ll have ot raise big bucks.


29 posted on 01/04/2012 9:55:56 AM PST by elvis-lives
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: iontheball

That pretty well sums it up in my mind.


30 posted on 01/04/2012 9:57:31 AM PST by Calliecat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Signalman

ANY Republican or even the Antiestablishmentarian will suit the likes of the Gramsci-Alinskyites just fine.

They’re not running against a PERSON, they are running against a perceived IDEOLOGY.

They are going to poison the GOP waters no matter who runs. And they’ll Occupy Ron Paul like they did in Iowa.

If the GOP had any gonads they’d drop Ron Paul and distance themselves from him. They do not ‘need’ him for votes in the House and he’s an obnoxious prick, as are most of his antiestablishmentarian supporters.


31 posted on 01/04/2012 9:59:18 AM PST by HighlyOpinionated (I am Roman Catholic, US Citizen, Patriot, TEA Party Alumni, Oath Keeper, Voter, Auburn Fan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Signalman

They’ve been planning on Romney all along. The “Occupy Wall Street” street theatre was cooked up by Obama as a perfect vehicle to motivate the youth vote against the Wall Street Insider - Mitt Romney. Plus, Romney as the nominee means an unmotivated base.

Santorum, on the other hand, would mean a motivated conservative base and Obama genuinely fears a fired-up conservative base on election day.


32 posted on 01/04/2012 10:01:24 AM PST by Buckeye Battle Cry (Mittt Romney - he lacks the courage of his absence of convictions .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: elvis-lives
Santorum could have the benefit of surprise but he’ll have to raise big bucks.

True enough but money tends to go to the leader no matter who it is. Santorum's website crashed under the weight of new traffic this morning and his twitter following has grown by leaps and bounds.
33 posted on 01/04/2012 10:01:45 AM PST by cripplecreek (Stand with courage or shut up and do as you're told.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: RitchieAprile

Blabbermouth-Schultz was labeling Romney in the same vain last night. We should be very careful at trying to pick a candidate that God-haters and vampires like.


34 posted on 01/04/2012 10:03:16 AM PST by HapaxLegamenon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Utmost Certainty

Utmost, who are you supporting?


35 posted on 01/04/2012 10:04:43 AM PST by Buckeye Battle Cry (Mittt Romney - he lacks the courage of his absence of convictions .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Utmost Certainty

“Gingrich doesn’t support global warming”

Yes, he does. He has supported anthropogenic global warming in the past and his voting record confirms it.

“It’s also idiotic to presume that electability is contingent on how consistently one stays married to the same person.”

Apparently it does matter to the folks in Iowa who were not impressed.

“I think you overrate the significance of the evangelical voting bloc.”

Given that they seem to have fallen in with Santorum in Iowa (he won 62 of 99 counties), and almost all the rural ones, yes, that’s not good news for Newt.

What that tells me is that the voting bloc he needs to win and do well in the south is breaking for Santorum, not him.

Gingrich failed to win a single county. The ones that he did beat out Santorum were 5, of which all were in eastern Iowa. Again, Gingrich won in less conservative areas of the state over Santorum. This tells me that conservative folks when given the choice of Santorum vs Gingrich were coming out in support of Santorum. This is bad news for Newt.

Newt’s not going to win the Catholic vote, and Santorum did better among Catholics. Newt has to win the evangelical vote if he hopes to take the nomination.


36 posted on 01/04/2012 10:08:57 AM PST by BenKenobi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Signalman

Romney; simply because he would depress the conservative vote (rather than rally it-which Santorum has a chance to do)!

~J.S.


37 posted on 01/04/2012 10:08:57 AM PST by JSDude1 (https://transaxt.com/Donate/PTWALC/RickSantorumforPresident)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye Battle Cry

It should say in my tagline.

Was a Cain supporter, then went over to Newt after Cain dropped out.

I can’t stand Rick Santorum because I think he’s a duplicitous weasel, and I don’t want Mitt Romney because he’s a RINO supreme. So, if it comes down to either one of those, I’ll be sitting 2012 out.


38 posted on 01/04/2012 10:12:56 AM PST by Utmost Certainty (Our Enemy, the State | Gingrich 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Utmost Certainty

Shall I pull out Newt’s record?

Supported the bailouts.
Supported Medicare part D.
Supported the individual mandate.
Supported cap and trade.
Supported increased funding to the department of education.


39 posted on 01/04/2012 10:13:38 AM PST by BenKenobi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Utmost Certainty

You show up on every thread to bash Santorum. Obviously you aren’t very confident in Gingrich if you feel the need to continue to rip Santorum every chance you can.


40 posted on 01/04/2012 10:13:38 AM PST by Pinkbell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Utmost Certainty

Whoa. Long list that’s not pretty.

That’s the trouble with senators: their votes.


41 posted on 01/04/2012 10:15:51 AM PST by onyx (PLEASE SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC:DONATE MONTHLY! Sarah's New Ping List - tell me if you want on it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi
Supported the bailouts. As did Santorum.
Supported Medicare part D. As did Santorum.
Supported the individual mandate. Not the same individual mandate per Obamacare. His position on that also changed quite awhile ago.
Supported cap and trade. Apparently you didn't watch the video I linked where Gingrich slaughters Cap and Trade.
Supported increased funding to the department of education. Link? Would be nice if you'd source at least some of this if you're going to spew allegations.

42 posted on 01/04/2012 10:21:55 AM PST by Utmost Certainty (Our Enemy, the State | Gingrich 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Utmost Certainty

Newt’s second largest contributor is Poet, the largest
ethanol producer in the country. Jeez!


43 posted on 01/04/2012 10:24:39 AM PST by NWHawk (No Texans this time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

That’s what he needs. That and professionals who can build organizations in the remaining states (he won this victory by a hair). He’s been thrown into the big leagues overnight. Until last night he had to focus on one single state. Now he has to worry about them all.


44 posted on 01/04/2012 10:33:04 AM PST by elvis-lives
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Signalman

Those 2 believe that American only elect moderate republicans contrary to the evidence.


45 posted on 01/04/2012 10:36:24 AM PST by chris_bdba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Utmost Certainty
Your solution is the RINO establishment candidate or bust...?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1402316/posts


46 posted on 01/04/2012 10:38:22 AM PST by RasterMaster ("To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men." - Abraham Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Signalman

Either Romney or Santorum would be a dream come true for Team Obama.


47 posted on 01/04/2012 10:49:27 AM PST by Jim Noble ("The Germans: At your feet, or at your throat" - Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Baseballguy

Paul base was 83 percent Dem party in IA.
Only 17 percent were actually Dems .
So these Paulbot responders were Dems.


48 posted on 01/04/2012 10:51:43 AM PST by ncalburt (NO MORE WIMPS need to apply to fight the Soros Funded Puppet !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Signalman
Democratic pundits, Joe Trippi and Kirsten Powers so obviously minimize Romney's results while falling over themselves boosting Santorum. I almost had the impression that these two partisan Democrats (especially Powers who's as transparent as they come) were a cheering squad for Santorum and can't wait to run against him.

Dems lie.

obama and the SRM want romney to win. If he does, obama's surrogates will savage romney as a Mormon. They also know that a romney nomination will signifcanty suppress republican voting in the general election. There are some republicans and conservatives who simply won't vote for romney. Also, a romney nomination could cause a third party conservative to run (obama's dream).

49 posted on 01/04/2012 11:25:54 AM PST by matt1234 (Bring back the HUAC.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Utmost Certainty
>> Endorsed Arlen Spector <<

I wonder who this "Arlen Spector" guy is. I don't recall him running for any office yet you continually post about him. Does former U.S. Senator Arlen Specter know him?

P.S. Can you explain to me again why it's perfectly OK that Newt Gingrich endorsed the even more liberal Dede Scozzafava ? None of the freepers foaming at the mouth about "Arlen Spector" seem to be able to explain their selective outrage. But I thought endorsing RINOs is "unacceptable"?? One would think you hold Newt to a different standard. Shocking, I know! I'm sure there's a really good reason why it's OK for Newt to support candidates WORSE than Specter.

50 posted on 01/04/2012 11:30:14 AM PST by BillyBoy (Illegals for Perry/Gingrich 2012 : Don't be "heartless"/ Be "humane")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson