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

Skip to comments.

Why Newt May Be More Unelectable Than Santorum
vanity ^ | 02-18-2012 | OrangeHoof

Posted on 02/18/2012 12:25:54 PM PST by OrangeHoof

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last
Santorum's favorables are already higher than Gingrich's and his unfavorables are at least 20% less. A lot can change between now and November but, at this point, I'd rather be rallying behind the conservative with 30% negatives than the one with 60% negatives.
1 posted on 02/18/2012 12:26:10 PM PST by OrangeHoof
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: OrangeHoof

Since the links didn’t come out:

Gingrich: favorable/unfavorable

http://polltracker.talkingpointsmemo.com/contest/us-favorability-gingrich

Santorum: favorable/unfavorable

http://polltracker.talkingpointsmemo.com/contest/us-favorability-santorum


2 posted on 02/18/2012 12:28:28 PM PST by OrangeHoof (Obama: The Dr. Kevorkian of the American economy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OrangeHoof

3 posted on 02/18/2012 12:30:20 PM PST by conservative98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservative98

What a great rebuttal! How about some facts next time? Or is that above your level of discourse?


4 posted on 02/18/2012 12:33:35 PM PST by OrangeHoof (Obama: The Dr. Kevorkian of the American economy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: OrangeHoof

How much money has it taken to get Newt’s unfavorables so high? Think about it and include Drudge.


5 posted on 02/18/2012 12:41:10 PM PST by Irish Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservative98

I don’t know why, but your response is priceless. I laughed pretty good.


6 posted on 02/18/2012 12:41:38 PM PST by Apollo5600
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: OrangeHoof
Probably doesn't matter. I think that it's pretty likely that the choice will boil down to these two:






7 posted on 02/18/2012 12:46:04 PM PST by Engraved-on-His-hands
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OrangeHoof

As one of the greatest, most effective leaders in conservative history, Gingrich got the full Palin treatment, I used to keep a collection of all the news magazines on my bar and I would splay them out when Gingrich came up during discussions, every one of them were like horror magazine covers, with Speaker Gingrich as the monster.

Those magazines were from the first 6 weeks of Gingrich becoming a national figure, they were his very first “introduction” to the public, they were not from a year or two down the road. After saturating the public with that poison, the media then started polling on the Speaker, and creating news on that negative polling.

We had never seen approval polling on Speakers before that I recall. How does a Speaker effect his national approval rating? He is only a Congressman, and the work he does as Speaker cannot move national polls up or down, he isn’t a President that can make dramatic national decisions, and disperse huge funds and make decisions to go to Mars, or invade a country.

Every true conservative is going to start out with terrible poll numbers with the general public, because until he becomes the nominee, he is simply a punching bag for the GOP-e and the media, and the Democrat party, but once the general starts, then suddenly the Republican Presidential candidate is on equal footing, suddenly he represents the Republican party, and 100s and 100s of millions of dollars will be spent to sell him to the public.

The window when it becomes about campaigning and mass advertising is the time when the old polling data becomes meaningless, because it is a several months window, when the conservative becomes equal with the media.


8 posted on 02/18/2012 12:46:36 PM PST by ansel12 (Romney is unquestionably the weakest party front-runner in contemporary political history.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OrangeHoof
"What a great rebuttal! How about some facts next time? Or is that above your level of discourse?"

OK , YOU asked for it, here's your "facts":


9 posted on 02/18/2012 12:46:43 PM PST by musicman (Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Engraved-on-His-hands

I’m going with Santorum.


10 posted on 02/18/2012 12:48:10 PM PST by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Oh yes, poor downtrodden Newt.

Gingrich ‘Deeply Upset’ That Scozzafava Endorsed Democrat After He’d Supported Her (ROFL)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2376848/posts

Newt: “I am, however, deeply dissapointed that she has chosen to back Owens over Hoffman.”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2376172/posts

Jarrett: Dems want Scozzafava nod (Newt? Newt?)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2375959/posts

Right To Work Prez Calls Out Newt’s Hypocrisy

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2375483/posts

Group Calls on Gingrich to Rescind Endorsement of Scozzafava

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2374566/posts

Who Lied to (RINO) Newt Gingrich?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2373633/posts

Newt Gingrich - “King of the RINOs”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2373107/posts

Gingrich: A Vote for Hoffman Is a Vote for Pelosi

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2373068/posts

Farewell To GOP’s Squishy Gingrich Wing

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2372160/posts

Are you kidding me?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2372078/posts

Gingrich calls GOP support for Hoffman a ‘purge’

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2371959/posts

Newt on Greta talking about Scozzafava

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2371587/posts

Newt Gingrich: Doug Hoffman support a ‘mistake’

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2371188/posts


11 posted on 02/18/2012 12:50:59 PM PST by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: OrangeHoof
Now, the media and Mitt Romney are taking their shots at Rick Santorum but, for now, his polling is much better.

I am not going to trash either Newt or Santorum, but needless to say, Santorum has not been yet subjected to the full force of the Romney attack machine the way Newt was during Florida. After that happens (and you know it will), we'll see how Newt and Santorum's favorables and unfavorables stack up. Until then, it is pretty much pointless to try and look at such now as any kind of predictive indicator of Newt versus Santorum as the best choice against Romney and then Obama.

12 posted on 02/18/2012 12:51:55 PM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OrangeHoof

How much did obamney’s $18M spent on negative Newt ads contribute to unfavorable? How unfavorable is $4 and $5 gas which Newt will reduce to under $2.50? What’s favorable about obamney? Santorum has just started to be on the receiving end of obamney negative ads. Newt has the day one platform to start changing back everything the commie usurper put in place.


13 posted on 02/18/2012 12:52:43 PM PST by biggredd1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
I’m going with Santorum.

Apparently, so are many others.


14 posted on 02/18/2012 12:52:44 PM PST by South40 (Mitt is full of Shtt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: musicman

That really is a lame line of attack on Santorum. The choices sucked across the board in 2008. I don’t begrudge anyone’s 2008 endorsement, given the options.


15 posted on 02/18/2012 12:53:33 PM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: OrangeHoof

Santorum’s favorables are already higher than Gingrich’s and his unfavorables are at least 20% less. A lot can change between now and November but, at this point, I’d rather be rallying behind the conservative with 30% negatives than the one with 60% negatives.
*******************
I don’t care who has what numbers. I had wanted Perry as a first choice and Gingrich was my second choice. Perry stepped out, so that leaves me 100% behind Gingrich.

I do not like Santorum and I don’t care how good his numbers are or may get. For me, if Gingrich quits—I no longer support any candidate—I will only be voting against Obama.


16 posted on 02/18/2012 12:53:56 PM PST by Irenic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: South40

He’s my third choice line in the sand candidate after Bachmann and Cain. I go no further than this.

After that, the GOP is on its own.


17 posted on 02/18/2012 12:56:28 PM PST by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: OrangeHoof

We’re well past the point where any particular President could resuscitate America.


18 posted on 02/18/2012 12:56:28 PM PST by gorush (History repeats itself because human nature is static)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OrangeHoof

They’re going to spend a billion dollars demonizing whoever is the eventual republican nominee.

The current numbers are just a fluke of how much focus fire they’ve gotten so far in the media.


19 posted on 02/18/2012 12:56:39 PM PST by Mount Athos (A Giant luxury mega-mansion for Gore, a Government Green EcoShack made of poo for you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
The choices sucked across the board in 2008. I don’t begrudge anyone’s 2008 endorsement, given the options.

It depends on when those endorsements came. Rick Perry endorsed the liberal cross-dressing, pro-abort Rooti Giuliani at a time when conservatives Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter were still in the race.

20 posted on 02/18/2012 12:57:31 PM PST by South40 (Mitt is full of Shtt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
Stick With Rick

(Rick on a Stick)

21 posted on 02/18/2012 12:59:04 PM PST by musicman (Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: South40

Really. Hunter had no traction and Thompson had no fire in the belly. We learned the hard way that both are fatal for a presidential candidate’s chances. Others might well have seen what we didn’t at the time.


22 posted on 02/18/2012 1:00:25 PM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: OrangeHoof

14 in my family have decided on Santorum. They don’t trust the Newt.


23 posted on 02/18/2012 1:02:05 PM PST by dforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OrangeHoof

I can answer that one.

Your average American would rather have an acknowledged, fallen sinner, a la Bill Clinton, than an uptight, preachy moralizer in chief, a la Jimmy Carter.


24 posted on 02/18/2012 1:03:04 PM PST by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OrangeHoof

There are a lot of negatives for Newt. Liberals and non-thinkers will believe that he is a right wing extremist, because the media can make that case. He also has done a number of things to trouble conservatives. And there are those women problems, which will trouble women voters and the religious right, when they are reminded of them.

But I don’t think this is a good time for conservatives to be attacking Newt OR Rick. I’d like to see both of them stay in the race until we see what happens.

A few months ago, everyone thought that the others should drop out and make way for Cain. Where would we be now if that had happened? I assume that the motive of this thread is to remind the Newt supporters that they shouldn’t keep attacking, and even passing liberal lies about, Rick’s electability, because their guy is vulnerable to similar attacks.


25 posted on 02/18/2012 1:03:44 PM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

And that, in your mind, is reason to endorse a cross-dressing, pro-abortion liberal? If so I couldn’t disagree more.


26 posted on 02/18/2012 1:03:53 PM PST by South40 (Mitt is full of Shtt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

Comment #27 Removed by Moderator

To: OrangeHoof
The word "electable", in Republican terminology. has come to mean "RINO". "Electable" Republicans pander to the Left and reach across the aisle to the Democrats. "Unelectable" Republicans fight for what is right and stand on principle. Ask someone who uses the term "electable" to provide an example. They will name a Republican who has never been elected President and whose government experience has been marked by big government. They will cite Goldwater as an example of an "unelectable" Presidential candidate. You won't hear them talking about Reagan, since he was not an establishment Republican, yet he won the Presidency twice.

So when you hear the word "electable", think "loser".

28 posted on 02/18/2012 1:06:28 PM PST by Kennard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: South40
And that, in your mind, is reason to endorse a cross-dressing, pro-abortion liberal? If so I couldn’t disagree more.

As opposed to Mitt? Huck? RuPaul? The choices sucked. I didn't agree with the endorsement, but it wasn't like there was a clear conservative candidate with a chance in the field.

29 posted on 02/18/2012 1:07:13 PM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: OrangeHoof
Most voters know who he is and their minds are made up.

Evidence?


30 posted on 02/18/2012 1:10:23 PM PST by Revolting cat! (Let us prey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Irenic

“For me, if Gingrich quits—I no longer support any candidate—I will only be voting against Obama.”

Which is how most people feel, and you know what that means? Whoever it is may get a vote but noooooo moola. Exactly what happened with McCain.


31 posted on 02/18/2012 1:10:35 PM PST by Toespi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

I can’t imagine someone who lived through the history making 1994 conservative revolution, forgetting that incredible national onslaught against it’s leader, Newt Gingrich, until Palin, we had never seen anything like it.

I still have boxes of publications and newspapers from the time, the rage from the left was terrifying, people died, were destroyed, the federal government was killing people and burning them out in the Midwest, and in what had previously been “flyover country”, the heartland.
The left was sending a message to middle America, that they were not outside the reach of Government and the new policies. Middle America was to be taught that their God, and guns, and tax complaints, and conservative rebellion would not be tolerated, the 1990s became a dark period of open war by the hard left as led by the Clintons, and the conservatives led by Newt Gingrich.

The media was as radical as it has ever been, and Newt as the opposition leader, was one of it’s biggest targets.


32 posted on 02/18/2012 1:11:51 PM PST by ansel12 (Romney is unquestionably the weakest party front-runner in contemporary political history.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

“Oh yes, poor downtrodden Newt.”

The problem with posting negatives about a candidate is that they are always in endless supply — for all candidates.

Newt’s record of achievement, for all his personal and political liabilities, blows his competitors’ achievements away.

Rick was just one of 100 senators. He often voted the right way but what are his biggest accomplishments and how do they stack up against Newt’s?

Rick sponsored a number of pro-life bills and was a leader in Congress for the fight for social issues. That’s good stuff and yes, I can vote for Santorum without holding my nose but how does that compare to:

Contract with America
Welfare Reform Act
Paying down the national debt by $400 billion
First tax cut in 16 years
Orchestrating the first Republican takeover of the House in 40 years

All done under a Democratic President.

That’s far more impressive in my opinion. Without going negative, what else has Santorum done that I am missing?
Convert me!


33 posted on 02/18/2012 1:21:02 PM PST by FerociousRabbit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: OrangeHoof
I would hate to live in a mindset in which the tainted media is guiding my thoughts. Newt/Palin (true refomers)
34 posted on 02/18/2012 1:33:32 PM PST by Christie at the beach (I like Newt and would love to see political dead bodies on the floor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OrangeHoof

I hope Obama doesn’t know who his rival is until fall. That will make him nuts.


35 posted on 02/18/2012 1:41:16 PM PST by ez (When you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
The choices sucked across the board in 2008.

Some are saying the choices suck this year also. I'm beginning to sense a pattern forming here.

36 posted on 02/18/2012 1:45:27 PM PST by ez (When you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ez

I think the problem is, the process as it currently works ensures that anyone qualified for the office is utterly unwilling to subject themselves to the process to win the office. That’s basically what happened with Fred, IMO.


37 posted on 02/18/2012 1:50:59 PM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Unfavorable/favorable ratings don’t mean much. The Pope probably has a high favorable rating, but wouldn’t be elected president. And Dick Cheney never had a high favorable rating, but people were confident in his ability to lead the country if he had to. People may “like” someone but not think they’d make a good president. No doubt by the fall, most people will still like Obama. They aren’t suddenly going to be convinced he’s the spawn of Satan. We’re not running a campaign on likability, we’re running a campaign based on who would make a better president.

Besides, poll numbers now mean nothing with regards to a November election. Where where Obama’s, Rick’s, Mitt’s and Newt’s poll numbers back in May, 2011? That was 9 months ago, and the election is 9 months from today. Why don’t you stop reporting the poll numbers from today and go back and report the May, 2011 numbers, since by your logic, the polls today must be exactly where they were 9 months ago.


38 posted on 02/18/2012 1:54:38 PM PST by JediJones (Just say NO to the MittRick system! Disenfranchise the establishment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: FerociousRabbit
.


Michigan Republicans and Tea Party Conservatives …

Defeat “Barack Hussein Obama”, and Mitt Romney and his GOP E-RINO Gang of "Usual Suspects" (including 1279 AM radio host Todd Schnitt) and reclaim America for George Washington, Thomas Jefferson ... Neil Armstrong, and the Heroic Challenger and Columbia Men and Women !



Newt Supporters: Send this Free Republic link to Your Family, Friends across Florida and America ...

Let American Voters hear Newt's message directly !

Contact "CEAI@Engineering-Excellence.US" for an e-mail version of this Free Republic post that you can personally forward to your Family and Friends ...






Nancy Reagan (1995) : Ronnie turned that Torch over to Newt





====== NEWT GINGRICH'S GREAT 2012 CAMPAIGN SPEECHES ======




"America's Space Renaissance" in Florida !


Newt Gingrich -- Vision for America in Space Again




Why is Newt Gingrich So Angry ?


Newt Gingrich : South Carolina Victory Speech (2012-01-21)


Newt Gingrich : Christmas Day in 1776 George Washington's "Victory or Death"




Newt Stoutly Defends the Second Amendment (Right to Bear Arms)


Newt Gingrich – Constitutional Removal of Radial-Liberal Federal Judges




Newt Slams an "Increasingly Radical" EPA




Newt Defends Israel and Shows how the Palestinians are an "Invented" people !


Newt Warns against the Proposed 9-11 NYC Islamic Mosque and Islamic Sharia Law


Gingrich Compares Radical-Isalmics Muslims To Nazis


Newt Gingrich On The Threat Of Radical Islam


Newt Gingrich – America’s Defense of Judea-Christian Ideals and Defense against Islamic Fascism


Gingrich: Aggressive Prosecution of Radical-Militant U.S. Muslim Groups




Newt Gingrich: Response to CNN’s John King “Divorce Question”


Newt Gingrich to Juan Williams: Americans Want Paychecks, Not Food Stamps


Gingrich BLASTS Chris Wallace for his "Gotcha" Questions at Iowa Debate




Newt Destroys Ron Paul's Foreign Policy Vis-à-Vis Killing Osama bin Laden




Gingrich: My Credential Is 4.2% Unemployment


Newt Slams Obama's Stupidity on the Keystone Pipeline


Gingrich attacks Federal Reserve (Bernanke and Geitner) Deception and Corruption


Newt Discusses Job Creation and Dismantling Federal (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac)




Newt: No American President Should Bow to a Saudi King


Newt Gingrich: Super PAC Committee Is Washington's Dumbest Idea





=============================================



Newt Gingrich is a conservative revolutionary, with the COURAGE to stand-against President Bush (41) when Bush foolishly broke his "Read My Lips, No New Taxes" promise.

Future President Newt Gingrich includes these promises in his "21st Century Contract with America":



1) Abolish the EPA
2) FIRE Federal Reserve Banker Bernanke
3) Actively protect America against Islamic Jihad


4) Prayer in the Public Schools -- RETURNED
5) Liberal (Activist) Federal Judges REMOVED


6) Business Corporate Tax Rate LOWERED to 12-percent
7) Individuals to have FLAT-TAX option at 15-percent


8) Promote U.S. Energy Independence -- DOMESTICALLY


9) Build EFFECTIVE U.S. Border Protection by 2015
10) Illegal Immigrants (especially violent gangs) DEPORTED


11) "English" established as the ONLY official language of the U.S. Government


12) U.S. Military "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" ... RE-INSTATED
13) U.S. Military weapon design-procurement cycle reformed


14) Democratic "Dodd-Frank" Legislation REPEALED
15) Democratic "Sarbanes-Oxley" Legislation REPEALED




=============================================



Patton-at-Bastogne, (CEAI@Engineering-Excellence.US)

Conservative, Evangelical, Pro-Life Christian Patriot

Free Republic member since 1998



.

39 posted on 02/18/2012 2:01:26 PM PST by Patton@Bastogne (Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin in 2012 !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
I assume that the motive of this thread is to remind the Newt supporters that they shouldn’t keep attacking, and even passing liberal lies about, Rick’s electability, because their guy is vulnerable to similar attacks.

My motive is to question why Newt supporters are so certain that Santorum can't be elected and their man can when the numbers would appear to be just the opposite. To beat Obama, at the very least, Newt would need to drop his negatives down to 45%. Perhaps he can do that but there's very little evidence that he can. He's only beaten Romney one time so far while Santorum has beaten Romney four times and is poised to do it again in Michigan.

I simply don't understand the venom thrown at Santorum when he is catching the party's attention while Newt appears to be fading.

40 posted on 02/18/2012 2:04:46 PM PST by OrangeHoof (Obama: The Dr. Kevorkian of the American economy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Kennard
So when you hear the word "electable", think "loser".

When that word is uttered by the GOP elite and the media, I agree with you but I am neither and that wasn't the context I was using. On another thread, a Democrat senator complained Santorum was "uncompromising" which is just the opposite of your typical McCain/Romney/Rove RINO.

When I say "electable", I don't mean RINO. I mean "getting elected".

41 posted on 02/18/2012 2:10:29 PM PST by OrangeHoof (Obama: The Dr. Kevorkian of the American economy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: OrangeHoof
I mean "getting elected".

Of course, he has a better chance of beating Obama than Romney, which is what you meant.

That word "electable", however, is a RINO code word for cave, retreat, wimp out.

42 posted on 02/18/2012 2:17:41 PM PST by Kennard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: OrangeHoof

Bachman, Perry, Cain, Newt, Rick and heck even my second tier choice Mitt are all far superior to 0ero!


43 posted on 02/18/2012 2:22:50 PM PST by ChinaGotTheGoodsOnClinton (Go Egypt on 0bama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OrangeHoof
I simply don't understand the venom thrown at Santorum when he is catching the party's attention while Newt appears to be fading.

Part of it is presumably the delusion that attacking Rick will help Newt. I call that a delusion, because for the most part all that sort of negative approach will do in a forum like this is get people angry at Newt for having followers who do such things.

Part of it is the divide between conservatives and libertarians, which we have always had in this forum. I don't know how many times I have said that, if we want to win, social conservatives and libertarians need to work together. But there are a fair number of libertarians in the forum who just don't seem to get it. conservatives need to support the economic issues--especially now--and libertarians need to support the "social" issues, such as the right to life, decent marriages, and stable families. You can't have one without the other. But the libertarians just reply, "Ain't nobody gonna tell me what to do!"

Well, as we saw in 2006, if the Evangelicals or other members of the conservative coalition stay home, then you can kiss victory goodbye. You'll never have a stable society that allows, or even requires, baby killing and gay marriages. If you want to cut back big government and lower spending, you need to get the social conservatives on your side. And I will say that I think that's one area where the Catholic bishops, and many pastors, have gone off the rails. It's not Christian charity to build a big government that redistributes money from the productive to the feckless, and keeps more and more of that tax money for their own use.

44 posted on 02/18/2012 2:31:43 PM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

Personally, I support most conservative social issues but I wouldn’t make them the boilerplate of my campaign. In many cases, it is Democrats and the media who bring up the topic in order to create wedges.

Were I running, I would try as often as possible to change the subject to the economy and Obama’s failure at it. That’s the #1 reason independents will cross over - it’s frustration with the economy and, frankly, any time spent on other topics is time wasted.


45 posted on 02/18/2012 3:02:55 PM PST by OrangeHoof (Obama: The Dr. Kevorkian of the American economy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: OrangeHoof; RitaOK
You posted the thread and now you ask “why” Newt supporters aren't following your line of thinking or as you inelegantly put it, “attacking” Santorum?

LOL.

46 posted on 02/18/2012 3:14:48 PM PST by onyx (SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC, DONATE MONTHLY. If you want on Sarah Palin's Ping List, let me know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: FReepers
The funds raised in these FReepathons go to pay our current quarter expenses. But we're also going to try to replace some of our older servers and failing equipment this year so we're going to add a little extra to our FReepathon goals. John is estimating ten to fifteen thousand to do this and I'd like to get it all in place and working before the election cycle is fully heated up, so we'll try to bring in a little extra now, if we can, and the rest next quarter.

Jim Robinson



Click to Donate!

47 posted on 02/18/2012 3:16:05 PM PST by onyx (SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC, DONATE MONTHLY. If you want on Sarah Palin's Ping List, let me know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: OrangeHoof

Is your Church of Saint Pollster affiliated with Scientology? Its dogma seems similar and as credible.


48 posted on 02/18/2012 3:23:44 PM PST by Revolting cat! (Let us prey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onyx

They don’t have to follow my line of thinking. I’m not the person who generated these polls. I’d just like to see some acknowledgement that Santorum isn’t the unelectable one in the race as I so frequently see.

If Candidate A has 60% negatives and has won 1 primary out of 8 while Candidate B has 35% negatives and has won 4 primaries out of 9, why are the fans of Candidate A so sure that Candidate B is a loser and that Candidate A can win? If you took the names out of it and just viewed this as A vs B, you’d think either the fans of Candidate A are delusional or simply unable to process facts.


49 posted on 02/18/2012 4:07:01 PM PST by OrangeHoof (Obama: The Dr. Kevorkian of the American economy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: OrangeHoof
If Candidate A has 60% negatives and has won 1 primary out of 8 while Candidate B has 35% negatives and has won 4 primaries out of 9, why are the fans of Candidate A so sure that Candidate B is a loser and that Candidate A can win? If you took the names out of it and just viewed this as A vs B, you’d think either the fans of Candidate A are delusional or simply unable to process facts.

I guess it is asking too much for you to process the concept that Candidate A has been sujbect to the full force of the Romney slime machine while Candidate B has not yet been subject to such.

As such, it makes your analysis that of a partisan, not an objective observer. Which is why it is silly for you to whine about being attacked by partisans from the other side.

50 posted on 02/18/2012 4:19:40 PM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 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