Skip to comments.Santorum, Gingrich Two Man Debates
Posted on 03/07/2012 9:06:52 AM PST by GulfBreeze
click here to read article
The moment I woke up this morning and took a hard look at the statistics, reality came on like a double espresso!
And, what is that reality? I’m serious; I’d really like to know. Please don’t say the reality is that Romney WILL be the nominee.
-——This is the way it happens almost every time. The Conservatives spilt the Conservative votes in the Primaries and the lone Moderate ends up with the nomination. (John McCain comes to mind.) One of them (Rick or Newt) needs to GO!!! I like Newt, but hell, its time they drew straws or something.-——
If Newt doesn’t win any of the southern states coming up, he better drop out, or he will have a lot to answer for.
What were the statistics... I trust your judgment... but then is all this bogus or irrelevant? I mean sincerely?
PRIMARY: Popular Vote/Soft Pledged/Soft Unpledged/Soft/ Hard Total
Rom: .3,242,740, 39.20% (314)17.36% (72)15.09% (386)16.89% .(302)13.21%
Santo: 2,087,454, 25.23%/(92) 5.09%/(67)14.05%/(159) 6.96%/(79)3.46%
Ging: 1,818,548, 21.98% /107)5.91%/(13) 2.73%/(120)5.25%/(96)4.20%
Paul: .,927,348, 11.21% ... (35)1.93%.......(38)7.97%......(73)3.19% ..(16)0.70%
Gingrich Senior Advisor Randy Evans Explains Delegate Math
Here are some reasons against Rick Santorum:
1. He voted to confirm Sonya Sotomayer to the 2nd Circuit, fast tracking her to the Supreme Court where she was Obama's First Choice. Consider McCain did not. Is this a conservative judicial record?
2. He proposed and voted for $550 million on top of a $900 million Amtrak budget. Is this fiscal conservatism?
3. Headed "The K Street Project" with felon Tom DeLay to recruit for and build ties between the GOP and career Beltway lobbyists. This is the swamp the Tea Party wants to drain; it's the foundation of crony capitalism. This Medicare Part D supporter was so important to "Big Pharma," a internal memo at pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline said his loss "creates a big hole that we need to fill." Is this a reformer?
4. 18-point loss in Pennsylvania, the worst for an incumbent senator in over 25 years. The voters who knew him best, his constituents for a dozen years, wanted him gone for good. He lost 61% of women. Is this electability?
5. He's does Big Labor's bidding voting against national right-to-work and for every federal minimum wage increase. Is this conservative?
6. His own miniature Solyndra, he helped secure a $100m loan guarantee for a mutli-national oil company's PA coals-to-liquids plant that's never been built. He was lobbied by Bob Ashner, PA's top GOP power broker, who earned $1m for his work. Is this crony capitalism? 7. Santorum bilked a Pennsylvania school district out of $72,000 to pay for home "cyberschooling" of five of his kids ... in Virginia. This scandal and his legalistic defense of hit contributed to his 2006 loss. While ruled legal, is this moral or crass self-interest?
8. His charity Operation Good Neighbor (2001-07), illegally never registered with PA, doled out just 36% of income as grants, far less than the 75% of responsible causes. I'm sure it's coincidence the charity which spent most of its money on lobbyists, aides and fundraisers closed after he was defeated for reelection. Is this what Tea Party activists want?
9. His "leadership PAC" called "American's Foundation" also played funny money games. Only gave 18% made it to candidates, far below similar PACs.
10. A $500,000 mortgage for his Leesburg mansion came from a private bank run by a big campaign donor. The program was only for high-wealth investors in the trust; how did Santorum qualify?
11. He is dishonest about healthcare mandate history. In 1992, his "medisave accounts" House bill required individuals buy high deductible insurance coverage. As a senate candidate in 1994 he supported healthcare mandates for individuals and for employers. As recently as last night he claimed he's never supported mandates while saying he was "honest with the American People."
This list just starts to look at Santorum's record and vet him as he should be. Many of these are all things well covered by the PA press during his senate career and you know Democrats will exploit them effectively as they did in 2006.
Let’s look at it this way (and I would prefer Newt over what’s left right now), if you take the view that the two ‘conservatives’ should have been given a good opportunity and sufficient time to make their case to the public, well...
I think that 8 months, and 22 state primaries should be sufficient to allow for one of these guys to make their case to the conservative side - considering that you have to keep the RINO out. YOU DON’T NEED TO BE OUT THERE FOR THE ENTIRE THING THRU JUNE IN CALIFORNIA & NEW JERSEY TO MAKE YOUR CASE!
So, based on the cold hard facts, I hate to say it, but my guy has lost the battle up to this point, and has only ‘won’ 2 states (Rick 6) and is behind in the ‘total vote’ count to Santorum.
Newt, you have a great plan, and are an excellent intellectual debater, but you have lost the ‘trial’ period, and are now the one on the losing end helping to split the vote.
Newt, you have to get out now!
You can say all you want about Santorum, but Newt is not winning, and Newt has to get out!
He he he. When I see your handle I think of a drug addict Kiwi. No offence, just a funny.
For those interested, Newt and Santorum already had a Lincoln/Douglas debate.
Ping to post #30 for the links.
He said to the press at one of his appearances that if one of his staff did make that statement, they did so without his knowlege or approval. He went on to say that each one should stay in until they decide otherwise.
The article is somewhere on FR.
Thank you. I watch one section so far and really enjoy it. Those two are great together. If they were smart they would DEFINITELY make a Gingrich/Santorum ticket. It would be a wipe out for Obama.
You’re welcome. I’m watching it in the installment plan, and I also like it very much.
I’ve said it before that IMO, Newt would make a great Veep because of what he could accomplish in the Senate. For starters, I think he would deflate that “collegiality” bs in 60 seconds or less. :-) I also see him in a Cheney type adviser role, in which he’d excel.
Pay attention. These two already debated together. Rick was not creamed in it.
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.