Posted on 03/18/2012 12:34:40 PM PDT by PSYCHO-FREEP
Agree with you wholeheartedly.
The Democrats voted for Santorum in those open primary states because they see him as the weakest candidate,and that’s who they want to run against. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.
There is a bit more from Rick’s speech here, although it’s still chopped up. It sounds like he was talking about trying to keep libertarian influence out of the Republican party. At that point in time, he may have thought the Tea Party was about the Ron Paul types more than anyone else. There certainly are a few of those anarchist OWS-wannabe Ron Paul libertarian kooks claiming the mantle of the Tea Party to this day, and of course Rand Paul was a Tea Party candidate. If that’s what he was talking about, I wholeheartedly agree. The Ron Paul libertarian types are in the wrong party if they’re Republicans or Tea Party people. They would destroy conservatism. Rick goes on in the speech to talk about cutting entitlements.
I know santorum will never step aside. Now, the media is
pushing the 2 weakest candidates on us. Reality- 2 Game players.
Ok, I found the article fully debunking that Santorum was bashing the Tea Party as we know it in that video. At the time he was equating the Ron Paul/Rand Paul and libertarian movement with the Tea Party. I think it’s still an issue for the Tea Party, separating the patriotic conservative Americans from the Ron Paul anarchist libertarian kooks and cranks. Santorum was explaining in this answer why he did not back Rand Paul for Senate. Good for him. Santorum is a traditional conservative, not a Paulite libertarian anarchist radical.
http://www.therightscoop.com/definitive-proof-santorum-does-not-have-concerns-about-the-tea-party/
24:05 Pennsylvania Press Club Moderator:
Should the Public Accommodations Section of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill be open for revision?
24:11-25:35 Rick Santorum:
No. Look I supported Trey Grayson over Rand Paul and there was a reason for that … I am not a Libertarian and I fight very strongly against Libertarian influence in the Republican party and the conservative movement. I don’t think the Libertarians have it right when it comes to what the Constitution is all about. I don’t think they have it right as to what our history is and we are not a group of people who believe in no government. We are a people that believes that government has a role to play: federal government has a role to play, state government has a role to play and local government has a role to play; and when there are clear wrongs in society, when there are injustices in society, sure you handle it at the local level if you can, but when the local and state level are in cahoots with the injustice, then the federal government has to step in and do something; and I’m just hopeful that is a mistake that will be corrected by Mr. Paul, but as I’ve said before, I have some real concerns about this movement within the Republican Party and the Tea Party Movement to sort of refashion conservatism and I will vocally and publicly oppose it and do my best to correct the record.
Would those be the same Republican political figures in my state who are refusing to back any government reforms or legislation that might rub the unions the wrong way in any way whatsoever? Those are not the guys to look to if you want a candidate who is going to challenge the establishment.
Great. Just what we need. One more bleeding heart social conservative holding the reins of power. Come to Bamer and get you some more of that "Compassionate Conservatism".
>Would Romney carry Michigan or Pennsylvania against Obama?
With the bad economy, the disasters in Afghanistan and elsewhere across the world, and the social issues, a Republican like Romney might win pretty easily. But, if the election is close, the crucial states will be, as usual, Ohio, N.H., Florida, Wisconsin, Iowa, Colorado, Nevada. Of all these states, Romney only really helps us in N.H. Maybe Colorado, Nevada and Florida, because of better appeal to minorities. With regard, specifically, to Michigan and Pennsylvania, if Romney doesn’t win Ohio, he won’t win Michigan or Pennsylvania.
With Santorum, there is a possibility that we will lose a percent or two to Gary Johnson as candidate of the Libertarian Party and maybe six or seven percent to Jon Huntsman as candidate of Americans Elect Party, like what happened in 1980, Again, because of the bad economy, etc., Santorum might still win even with third party siphoning, as Ronald Reagan did in 1980 (which is not to say I think Santorum is like Reagan). But, in a close election, Santorum might loss as many of our voters to libertarian and moderate independent candidates, as he plucks off blue-collar, white voters from the Democrats. Santorum would help us in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and possibly Wisconsin, and hurt us in N.H., Colorado, Nevada and Florida.
According to the following projection, based on presidential approval numbers, we should landslide in the electoral college as long as we don’t splinter our vote:
http://race42012.com/category/2012-electoral-college-projection/
As amazing as it sounds, we would win 269 to 269 with the House deciding the matter, even without N.H., Ohio, Pennsylvania, Oregon or Iowa. (Hopefully we will also take the Senate so as to elect the VP as well.)
I thought Gingrich wasn’t even on the ballot in ILL.....all my calls have been from Mitt.... Barbara Bush even called me.....just had one from Mitt’s wife. Saw a huge rally at Effingham yesterday for Santorum, nothing for Newt that I heard of.
ROFLOL, yes all two states and 14% if them.
There’s another interesting way you can vote in Illinois. You can select Newt as your presidential choice, but vote for Santorum’s delegates. The presidential pick is nothing but a straw poll that’s non-binding. The delegates you pick are what counts. If it’s true that Santorum didn’t get delegates on every district ballot, then you may also want to vote for Newt’s delegates as a substitute. You could even go nuts and vote for one Newt, one Rick, one Mitt and one Paul delegate on your ballot. A good option for the undecided voter. ;)
Thanks for the link!
2008 is a very different scenario. The night before the CA primary, where my choice was between mitt and McCain, Romney landed at a local airport and spoke, so I went to see him, decided I could live with this vote over McCain, and voted for him. So, yes, I voted for mitt. But those were different choices and I did wish to somehow cast a vote in the primary.
Rush had his people voting for Hillary in 2008, and a lot of people thought she would have been more likely to win in November than Obama. So Operation Chaos can be shortsighted and counterproductive.
The IDEA that someone can be nominated with a consistent 60% against him is so ridiculous, I can’t even think about it.
For the exact same reason the GOP-E is upset when Santorum beats Romney. These are all urban elite liberal snobs (look at Peggy Noonan for an example on the Republican side) who have disdain for flyover country and little connection to it or understanding of it. They think the candidate who appeals most to urban elite liberal snobs will win the election. They probably would have organized Operation Chaos to vote for G.W. Bush over McCain if they thought of it too.
It can be. I’m just pointing out it exists. I believe there may be some merit to Democrat strategists’ views on this.....Rick fires up their base, and re energizes a lot of swing voters that voted Obama but are dissatisfied with his performance.
There isn't a single person who should be advocating for Newt vs. Rick or Rick vs. Newt anymore. The ONLY way EITHER of them can win ANYTHING as of this point is by teaming up, probably right now during the primaries to take advantage of winner-take-all rules, and definitely if it goes to a contested convention. The infighting just doesn't make sense anymore. You either want your guy to team up with Romney, or you have to want Newt and Rick to team up with each other. No other path exists to having Newt or Rick on the ballot.
That’s valid.
THe last two polls I just read here both showed that, in their respective states, Gingrich leaving would help Santorum.
Maybe other polls show different — if you know of any, post them.
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.