yeah, and when he brings up the Alabama immigration law, the other candidates can jump on him that he supports amnesty for those illegals that have managed to break the law the longest (20+ years).
No amount of strategy will ever help Newt with his real problem which is lack of trust and likeability. He can talk conservative things out of his mouth all day long, but there will be SUBSTANTIAL numbers of people who will not TRUST him.
TRUST and LIKEABILITY are REQUIRED to get Elected President. No one has EVER been elected without the General Electorate believing the candidate possessed those 2 traits. Newt doesn’t have them. It’s a fact. Santorum does. It’s a fact.
Rick Santorum campaigns on family values, but legislates to the unions and WITH the RINO Establishment, never doing anything for those family values in office when in a position to do so. Every. Single. Time. Check the record.
Newt started a revolution and brought the Republican Party and Congress into a majority after 40 years in the desert and has the record to prove it.
IF RECORDS still trump sniffing around one’s personal stuff while out of office or at home.
Wait until Romney resurrects Santorum’s wife’s personal business again, and Rick’s comment that he was a nominal Catholic up until his campaign.
It’s disgusting to ride a ballot with your nose in the air on false rightousness against candidates when the record of actual accomplishment is different as day from night.
I see you can't separate fact from opinion. It makes sense you'd be for Santorum.
Santorum's "likability" factor benefits from his being the nearest thing to "generic Republican" since he's not widely known compared with Clinton nemesis Newt or past contender Romney.
Santorum uses chest-thumping moralism to cover his Big Labor, big spender, crony capitalist, sabre-rattler, eventual Obama Supreme Court pick-confirming record.
He has been fundamentally dishonest in several debates and appearance about his own dalliances with mandates in '92 & '94 and is happy to take cheap shots at opponents no matter how much he's exploiting and depending upon voter ignorance.
His attack last fall on Perry's "binational health insurance" study is a prime example. By suggesting it was so outrageous even Obama wouldn't propose it, Santorum was either reflecting his own ignorance or simply, shamelessly wicked. I knew better because I found the study. I read the study. I found the legislation that lead to the study. I read that too. I even posted them on FR for others to make up their own minds. (Side note: it was Perry's inability or unwillingness to defend his record that lead me to conclude he was not in to win.)
Santorum talks a good game about faith and family but it's a smokescreen for who and what he is. I am angered and indignant to see voters good faith and good will exploited by a career lawyer-politician the way Santorum does it. It buys him trust he has not earned.
We know Newt's failings. We know what Romney is. In the sense that they are known knowns, neither hucks snake oil as successfully as the 'sainted' senator. In that sense they are more honest men.
The galling thing is, Santorum doesn't have to use these tactics to succeed. It's just in his nature to exploit faith, family, goodwill rather than win on the battleground of ideas. And for this reason, he's the last candidate we need as the nominee.
That's my opinion drawn from facts and observations.