Posted on 03/20/2012 12:13:10 PM PDT by Servant of the Cross
First, here's the set-your-hair-on-fire clip about which we're all supposed to be enraged, via Rick Santorum on the stump:
"I don't care what the unemployment rate's going to be. It doesn't matter to me..."
The horror! Rick Santorum doesn't care about the unemployment rate! Except, the former Senator's sentence went on: "...my campaign doesn't hinge on unemployment rates and growth rates. It's something more foundational that's going on." What Santorum was conveying -- albeit terribly ham-handedly -- is that his candidacy is about more than mere economic issues. He's arguing that while Mitt Romney's campaign relies on harnessing and exploiting Americans' transient economic jitters, his own focus is "more foundational." You may think that's an attractive message, or you may think it's a foolish approach in an age of crushing debt, very high unemployment, and lackluster growth. In either case, it should be plainly obvious that no presidential candidate would ever utter and mean such a tone deaf statement -- of only because of the political damage it could wreak. Romney's camp quickly blasted out an email highlighting the edited quote, asking, "he said what?!" and Romney himself has started hitting Santorum over the remarks at rallies.
I understand that political campaigns try to capitalize on their opponents' gaffes. Part of the game. But you'd think the Romney campaign might be a tad more forgiving of a fellow Republican who -- oh, I don't know -- says something silly that he doesn't really believe, but is easily clippable and taken out of context:
There are plenty of elements of Rick Santorum's record and campaign messaging strategy to question and attack. This is just weak sauce.
Guy Benson isn’t Rick Santorum, and National Review isn’t the Santorum Campaign.
He wasn’t, but at this point, everybody seems to think they are entitled to their own facts.
Do you have any examples of false ads?
Or any examples of ads that ran before 1/31, which was well after Romney started running ads again Gingrich?
Gingrich was already on his tailspin at the point these ads started running.
Really. Santorum is dishing it out pretty hard too.
It’s too bad you can’t invent an alternative reality where Newt Gingrich can actually win primaries. Because it sounds like he’d be a great candidate in that universe.
Rick Santorum is a boy scout with a little bitty pocket knife. Obama has a semi-automtic machine gun. Better send someone who knows how to fight.
So far as I can tell, Newt Gingrich was intending to compete in the Missouri caucuses, so commercials run in Missouri during the primary would have made sense.
Beyond that, given that Gingrich ran ads against Santorum in Georgia where, if Santorum had gotten 4000 more votes, Romney would have lost 4-6 delegates, and I think we can all say that in the end, candidates are supposed to be trying to win elections, and the whole “I can’t believe he ran an ad against MY candidate” is a hollow complaint.
Do we need to address things you say for which there is no evidence?
Or do you have a reference for the IQ scores of Newt Gingrich, the History Major, vs Rick Santorum, the MBA with a law degree?
I certainly don’t know which has a higher IQ, but you seem rather specific with your “50 point” claim.
The problem with debating anybody here at FR is that almost nobody here actually knows what it means to debate. Most freepers are good people who want to make good arguments. But I don’t think many were trained in the actual art of debate.
“Fair “ enough.
The gist of what I said is still true, especially when applied to Santorum supporters.
Yes. You claimed he ran false ads against Newt at the same time as Romney, that made the same false claims as the Romney ads.
But you posted two truthful negative ads (factually — their opinions and conclusions are just that, and are not “true” or “false”) that were run AFTER Romney’s ads had already done their damage in Florida, two ads that were run in the next contests.
So, while they are certainly negative attack ads against Gingrich, they don’t really show either of your claims to be true. I don’t agree with the conclusion of the two ads you posted, btw. But they aren’t the same as the false attack ads Romney ran.
Meanwhile, I’m waiting for someone to explain to me how fighting over who ran what ads in January helps beat ROmney. And I’d REALLY like to know how freepers positively supporting Romney attacks against Santorum is helpful in beating Romney.
Baloney.
Neither is truthful.
Give me a break. Just support your failed priest and be happy with that moron.
And, no candidate has stuck his foot in his mouth more times -- attacking the Ryan plan, which almost killed his campaign, the attacks on Bain, the out-of-control rage at Romney in the Florida debate that allowed Santorum to look like the adult in the room.
And, let's not forget, he decided to take a cruise with the wife last summer, all but abandoned his campaign and lost his entire staff to Rick Perry.
So stop pretending like all the attacks on him have derailed the next Reagan. Get over it. Sane conservatives have known for a long time that beating Romney with someone reasonably conservative is the only thing to achievable this election cycle.
You sir have stepped out of your league. Allow me to demonstrate:
First, I agree with the mistakes. Bet you didn’t see that coming. No, I know you didn’t see that coming.
Second, that does not change my basis about Newt’s ability. It is what it is.
Third, I never pretended that the attacks are the only reason the campaign derailed. I have however pointed out that pipsqueak did participate in them however.
Now, back down to your own league..
Lots of things wrong with your statements. Newt was slammed harder in Florida than in Iowa. That's why he collapsed there. It sounds like he ran out of money after Florida, and not campaigning in every February state hurt him, and that coupled with the widespread religious endorsements for Santorum changed Santorum into the frontrunning non-Romney. Newt didn't "collapse" after Georgia. He's been doing gradually better in every state he's been campaigning in. Georgia was a bigger victory because its his home state. Adelson's money went to Newt's SuperPAC, not to Newt. We don't know how much money the SuperPAC has left now. As for Santorum, he has been raising a lot of money. That's why he can now beat Newt in states, but not Romney. He would be doing better against Romney if he could learn how to speak English at least as well as W.
Newt does not have a history of pleasing the left. He was the worst nightmare of leftists, liberals, Democrats and RINOs every year he was in the House. The speeches he gave against liberalism outdo the strongest conservative statements made by anybody since...Limbaugh, Levin, etc. Even the Reagan administration was too liberal for Newt, that’s how much of a hardliner he was. He taught a generation of conservative thinkers how to dismantle a leftist. The Pelosi ad was simply him trying to promote alternative energy sources, which he has always been for, and which it’s probably fair to say is the only position on which he isn’t as conservative as some might want him to be.
Please....winners confidently move to the right side of the room. Whiners go hand wring to the left...
Newt's comments occurred on 05.19 on MTP, and were a response to one of Gregory's typically mangled questions. A few days before, he had written an article over-the-top praising Ryan's plan... which people like you, and others, conveniently forget.. And, as per norm, Ryan has changed his plan to agree with many of Newt's tweaks... FACTS, REALITY, CONTEXT.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/does_ryan_now_agree_with_gingrich.html
Gingrich praised the Ryan plan in an article in Human Events on April 13. He called it the most serious attempt by an elected official to rethink our public finances and the modern welfare state in a generation. That is quite a compliment from a former speaker of the House to a current committee chairman. Using a golfing metaphor, Gingrich celebrated the plan, calling it a Ryan "eagle." Is that comparison a negative critique, or is it commendation? One week later, on April 20, Gingrich in the same space heaped more praise on the plan. He compared PaulRyan to PaulRevere, one of our nation's great heroes, and compared the Ryan Medicare plan with his own previous welfare reform. Why would he disparage something he would compare to one of his greatest achievements? Gingrich later said he would have voted for the plan if he had had the opportunity......
So Paul Ryan has now come to agree with Newt Gingrich about how Medicare reform should be implemented. No one should be surprised. Gingrich helped reform welfare during a Democrat presidency. He knows how to reform the whole entitlement leviathan.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/does_ryan_now_agree_with_gingrich.html
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/04/should-medicare-reforms-be-voluntary-newt-gingrich-would-tweak-paul-ryans-medicare-reforms/
"...that allowed Santorum to look like the adult in the room..."
Oh, dear, no offense, but Santorum NEVER looks like the adult in the room.
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.