Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

In Iowa, Santorum to Push Back on GOP Shifts
RCP ^ | April 12, 2013 | Scott Conroy

Posted on 04/12/2013 4:46:41 PM PDT by yongin

Ever since Rick Santorum ended his presidential campaign a year ago this week, he has acted as if that defeat was just a brief setback in his running quest for the Republican nomination.

Almost three years out from the 2016 Iowa caucuses, the former Pennsylvania senator is set to return Monday to the nation’s first voting state, where he won a come-from-behind battle against Mitt Romney by 34 votes in January 2012.

Having witnessed the perils of underestimating him, Santorum’s potential rivals next time around aren’t likely to discount another strong challenge on his part, particularly in the Hawkeye State.

(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Politics/Elections; US: Iowa; US: Pennsylvania
KEYWORDS: pennsylvania; ricksantorum; santorum; santorumtruthfile

1 posted on 04/12/2013 4:46:41 PM PDT by yongin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: yongin

He was my last choice but he really ended up impressing me.


2 posted on 04/12/2013 4:52:03 PM PDT by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yongin

oh yea early debate stages of 2012 retreads.

Maybe they will bow out early. Not a one of them was THAT steller a candidate then or now.

But even the new names are leaving much to be desires — from someone else. Rubio is turning into McCain-lite with this amnesty push. Paul isn’t far behind. Ryan is on board. Jeb is right there among them. As is Christie.


3 posted on 04/12/2013 4:59:28 PM PDT by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yongin

In 2008 he was calling Romney Reaganesque when Romney only had a single term in office, an office that he left with 34% approval and then going on to lose the 2012 election, an election that republicans couldn’t lose, against a Jimmy Carter disaster.

Santorum himself, as a two term incumbent Senator, made the history books by being tossed from his office in a 17.4% landslide loss from his own people in 2006, so I guess that makes him a natural for a presidential run in 2016.


4 posted on 04/12/2013 5:12:39 PM PDT by ansel12 (The lefts most effective quote-I'm libertarian on social issues, but conservative on economics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
We were Santorum groupies all the way... :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JNsPCNAi60
5 posted on 04/12/2013 5:14:52 PM PDT by mlizzy (If people spent an hour a week in Eucharistic adoration, abortion would be ended. --Mother Teresa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Impressed by Santorum’s take on George Zimmerman?

“It’s chilling to hear what happened and of course the fact that law enforcement didn’t immediately go after and prosecute this case [against Zimmerman] is another chilling example of you know obviously horrible decisions made by people in this process.”

“[Zimmerman]...has a very sick mind...”

“This is clearly a heinous act.”

“...we need to focus on being there to be supportive and, for the [Martin] family that is going through this tragedy.”


6 posted on 04/12/2013 5:24:00 PM PDT by jjotto ("Ya could look it up!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jjotto

I’m tired of you people. You’re nothing but moral cowards yourselves.

You latch on to what another candidate says but ignore virtually the same thing when it comes out of the mouth of your own. (and yes, they ALL did) You are no better than the media scum who look the other way on Kermit Gosnell.

Now go lay down somewhere.


7 posted on 04/12/2013 5:28:52 PM PDT by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

FWIW, I supported Santorum in the Iowa caucuses.

Moral cowardice is failing to call evil ‘evil’.

Santorum’s just another pol always ready to embrace his inner liberalism.


8 posted on 04/12/2013 5:32:05 PM PDT by jjotto ("Ya could look it up!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: jjotto

To me the Zimmerman position is typical Santorum, not because he came out for Trayvon, but because your instincts tell you that he doesn’t care, he just wanted to sound morally decisive and powerful and in this case he guessed wrong, I think that he was just guessing about which side was the best to take, and that the real importance was in sounding a particular way, to always sound like he is taking the moral high ground (unless Specter is involved).

I think Specter is a connection to the Santorum behind the facade, to the original Santorum in politics, when Santorum was a pro-abortion rino, mocking Reagan supporters as right wingers and running as a “progressive conservative”

“”On “Face the Nation” Sunday on CBS, Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum explained that his view of the Trayvon Martin shooting differed significantly from the one held by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

Gingrich was critical of President Barack Obama’s reaction, but Santorum placed the blame on accused shooter George Zimmerman’s mental state.

“Well, you know, obviously, I’m not privy to what’s going on in someone’s mind,” Santorum said. “Obviously, in my opinion, someone … has a very sick mind who would pursue someone like this. This is clearly a heinous act. You know, there are a lot of people who have a lot of distorted views of reality. It’s a tragic, tragic case.”

“And my heart goes out to the parents, too. I can’t imagine what they’re suffering, losing their son in such a horrific way. All I would say is that, whatever the motive is, it was a malicious one, and a very, very tragic one.”

Santorum suggested the politics weren’t as important as the need to “be supportive” of Martin’s family in the wake of his tragic death.

“All I can say is that, again, there are a lot of people who have very perverted views of reality and obviously have, as we see, people who do horrible things for seemingly senseless reasons,” Santorum said.””


9 posted on 04/12/2013 5:38:45 PM PDT by ansel12 (The lefts most effective quote-I'm libertarian on social issues, but conservative on economics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: yongin

The loser never learns. He soaks up money that could support a real candidate. He distracts from those who are electable.

Rick is a loser that needs a very strong kick in the ass, a kick off the stairs leading up to the stage.


10 posted on 04/12/2013 5:41:59 PM PDT by bert ((K.E. N.P. N.C. +12 .....History is a process, not an event)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jjotto

that’s pretty bad. I am appalled that Santorum, whom I admire, leapt to such absurd conclusions about Zimmerman. Just as he did about Specter.


11 posted on 04/12/2013 6:13:42 PM PDT by heye2monn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: yongin

It was very impressive that Rick Santorum came in 2nd with so little money.

Reagan lost before he won BIG TIME, and the same could happen to Santorum.


12 posted on 04/12/2013 11:29:11 PM PDT by Sun (Pray that God sends us good leaders. Please say a prayer now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy
oh yea early debate stages of 2012 retreads. Maybe they will bow out early. Not a one of them was THAT steller a candidate then or now. But even the new names are leaving much to be desires — from someone else. Rubio is turning into McCain-lite with this amnesty push. Paul isn’t far behind. Ryan is on board. Jeb is right there among them. As is Christie.

Let's get an early start for the next defeat.

Here's a list of candidates who just won't do:
Anyone who has ever showed any imperfection, had a sinful thought, made a stupid comment, admitted they believe something that "real" conservatives would ever believe (but did add that personal beliefs were no reason to upset the Constitution), stole a piece of candy (even if only 6 years old at the time), or anything else a 'pious" person might consider some sort of sin or faux pas.

Here's a list of candidates that might be acceptable:
Jesus never mind - He went easy on a "hooor"; Ronald Reagan never mind - he did that amnesty thing and was taken by the duplicitous lefties. Dang - can't think of even one for now because even Ted Cruz will likely do/say something that torques someone off.

Here's the likely winner:
Anyone the Dims put up because they will rally round and we will be so split and angry at having to choose between shades of gray that we will flail, pave the way for the most evil candidate, and then pat ourselves on the back for not 'caving".

Have I missed anything?

13 posted on 04/13/2013 3:53:24 AM PDT by trebb (Where in the the hell has my country gone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: heye2monn

Just like with Rick Perry. People sweat the small stuff rather than look at the main issues we value. Trayvon would not have even been a national news story had Obama and sharpton not demogoged and race baited the issue. Our bottom line should be a strong stance on God, guns and country, life, liberty and a growing economy. Rick Perry campaigned on all those things. He wasn’t a smooth talker. Well I’ve had my fill of those from both sides.


14 posted on 04/13/2013 4:13:40 AM PDT by jersey117
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: trebb
Have I missed anything?

Yes you have. Do you want to win or another year of a dozen also-rans?

2012 had:

the guy who couldn't get his wife's permission,
the one who was actually kind of flakey,
the one who was going to get rid of 3 departments, but could only remember two of them,
the guy who lost his own senate seat after 2 terms,
the talkshow host who apparently had zipper problems,
the guy who was forced out of his House speakership,

yeah, a real stellar line up. So the GOP went with the guy who in 2008 lost to the guy who lost to Obama, when Obama was one of the weakest pres_ents of the last 40 years to seek reelection.


15 posted on 04/13/2013 5:49:03 AM PDT by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy
yeah, a real stellar line up. So the GOP went with the guy who in 2008 lost to the guy who lost to Obama, when Obama was one of the weakest pres_ents of the last 40 years to seek reelection.

I guess the real question is, "Who do we have that can get on the ticket and meet the requirements that will cause us to rally for them. It's easier to nay-say everyone in sight than it is to come up with a viable candidate who won't have enough warts to turn off a number of voters for a diverse variety of reasons. If we don't gel as a voting bloc, we will continue to lose ground and Freedom - some thought some dude named Virgil Goode was worthy of their vote and others had write-ins that they thought were the answer. All they did was bleed votes that could have been used to unseat/de-throne Obama. Romney was not the premiere candidate, but reality is that the world has a streak of Black at one end of the spectrum, a non-existent, in this world, band of White at the other end (we're still waiting for Him to return) and a whole lot of shades of Gray in the middle. If no shade of Gray can ever be acceptable, we might as well bow to the Blackness we are willing to leave in charge of us and stop complaining about tyranny at the top...

I'm just as frustrated as anyone, but I also understand that, if you can't bring in some new parts, you have to work with what you have available. Some folks still claim that keeping Obama was the "best course of action" because it makes them feel justified in helping to keep him in power - the problem is that we have no idea of the additional behind-the-scenes damages he has wrought and how much more damage will be done before it's over. if we let another Dim in when he's gone, we'll have to come up with a new set of excuses as to why it's also "for the best". Classic cut your head off to spite your body tantrum posing as a "plan".

I understand all the negativism, but that cannot result in positive action - how do we proceed an the reality that exists?

I don't give my opinions and ask my questions to irritate others - I believe we need to keep the conversation alive instead of slamming folks who offer other points of view. If we censor/censure ourselves, we embrace the Left and all that it means.

16 posted on 04/13/2013 6:40:55 AM PDT by trebb (Where in the the hell has my country gone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: trebb
I just posted in another thread that the primary wannabes and their debates are irrelevant for my state. My primary is held so late that the nominee (2008 and 2012) was already determined weeks before.

Thus, it made no difference whether I jumped on Santorum’s or Perry's or Bachmann’s bandwagon.

The GOP is trying to make the selection process even more pro-GOPe and more prohibitive for non-GOPe selectees.

Related thread: Rand Paul forces suffer setback vs. GOP establishment

17 posted on 04/13/2013 6:58:12 AM PDT by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson