Skip to comments.Santorum surges into the lead (National poll Santorum 38%, Romney 23%)
Posted on 02/11/2012 6:19:11 AM PST by Rational Thought
click here to read article
Mustering all the enthusiasm I can:
I guess I’d vote for Santorum over Obama.
Are you serious? The man writes copy for Newt’s PAC “Winning the Future.” Buy a clue!!!
In 1776, the average age of the Founding Fathers was 43.8
|Adams, John - 41||Adams, Sam - 54||Bartlett - 47||Braxton - 40|
|Carroll - 39||Chase - 35||Clark - 51||Clymer - 37|
|Ellery - 49||Floyd - 42||Franklin - 70||Gerry - 32|
|Gwinnett - 41||Hall - 52||Hamilton - 21||Hancock - 39|
|Harrison - 50||Hart - 64||Hewes - 46||Heyward - 30|
|Hooper - 35||Hopkins - 69||Hopkinson - 39||Huntington - 45|
|Jay - 32||Jefferson - 33||Lee, Francis - 42||Lee, Richard - 44|
|Lewis - 63||Livingston - 60||Lynch - 27||Madison - 26|
|McKean - 42||Middleton - 34||Morris, Lewis - 50||Morris, Robert - 42|
|Morton - 51||Nelson - 38||Paca - 36||Paine - 45|
|Penn - 35||Read - 43||Rodney - 49||Ross - 46|
|Rush - 31||Rutledge - 27||Sherman - 55||Smith - 57|
|Stockton - 46||Stone - 33||Taylor - 60||Thomson - 47|
|Thornton - 62||Walton - 27||Washington - 44||Whipple - 46|
|Williams - 45||Wilson - 35||Witherspoon - 53||Wolcott - 50|
|Wythe - 50|
..more of the same....
Right, Newt has been utterly trashed from your side, while Santorum is declared off limits. What's fair from your perspective suddenly becomes unfair when the momentum turns around.
IOW, Leave poor little Ricky alone! (But trash Newt at every opportunity!)
I really think once we conservatives can find a candidate and all get behind him (or her for that matter), then 0bambi will have reason to tremble. We can take the momentum of finding a conservative to rally behind right to the White House and clean out the trash!
Santorum is one of these guys who I have liked for years, but frankly - the more I have found out about him the less I like him. In the summer or early fall, I could have picked Santorum.
But I found him to be petty and pious and sanctimonious and a phony. He never effectively attacks Obama - he only attacks other Republicans and says he can attack Obama better - but he’s never shown me a single minute of evidence that I want him on the national stage representing my point of view.
Then I find out more about his 06 campaign and some of his pro union votes, and I am really ticked at him at that point. My opinion of Santorum does not rest with any agenda or any other person. It comes simply from finding out more about the guy, and I like him less and less every day.
That his most fervent supporters are not well informed and very selective and snarky doesn’t help either. (yes, I’m stereotyping, but it’s ok since I admit I am...)
I can’t get into all the hysterics people on here get into regarding this position or that position somehow disqualifying a candidate. The bottom line is none of these guys is perfect and the Internet world has preserved everything they have said and done for the last ten years, so someone can always “post links”. Reagan would have been screwed under this type of scrutiny.
That is why I am more into optics on the candidate. And you are correct, the dork optics with Santorum are off the charts. I am not sure how he introduces himself to the middle ground of voters, primarily younger voters, we will need to defeat Obama. He’s already been defined as some sort of fundamentalist pastor type. That isn’t going to get the votes we need to defeat Obama.
Santorum will not be any more “shamefully weak” than BO was when he ran the first time.
43 back then was about life expectancy - making it the equivalent of 75 today.
Yes, by the standards of their times, they were old.
I cant help but think we made a mistake rejecting Jon Huntsman. conservative record (more than most conservatives), family man, authentic, electable Thanks to a cast of Tea Party characters that led scared voters fleeing to Romney and right wing media that perpetuated the myth of Huntsman as a liberal. Something is seriously dysfunctional with the nominating process.
Well done sir. Give my producer your mailing address and we'll rush you a matched set of socks and sweater vests for your next chess club meeting.
Both ought to stay in, and both ought to ignore the he** out of Romney and just take the fight to Obama — We need them in the fight NOW against him, not only on the campaign, but just by keeping pressure on him in general.
Make Romney come in third, fourth — make HIM drop.
This is the danger of amateurs trying for in depth political analysis. That is a profoundly flawed analogy. Do you have any idea why?
I consult Newt’s PAC, and that’s what I BEGGED THEM TO DO back in November. Focus on OBAMA. Ignore Romney. Ignore the negative ads. Do what makes folks cheer for Newt - which is to look a liberal in the eye and intellectually smack him (or her) down. I BEGGED.
No one listened.
Yeah, the whole age thing is entirely irrelevant as people live much longer now.
Remember Reagan in 1980 was 70 years old and one of the single greatest issues in that campaign was his age and how he would be the oldest President ever elected.
Today Newt is 68 and Hillary if she ever ran would be about 70. Ron Paul is 75. Age just isn’t an issue anymore.
Memo sir: We rejected Huntsman NOT because of his policies so much - we rejected him because he made it clear he was NOT going to fight Obama hard and that he thinks Obama is a great guy who is just wrong about policy.
That kind of wimpy attitude, not to mention stunning ignorance of who Obama is and what drives him - is not needed anywhere around elected office.
I can hardly believe you said that....
And in a darkened room, Ann Coulter is sobbing, clutching her Mitt Romney photo. Evidently, so is Roger Ailes.
“They don’t love you like I do, Mitt! Somewhere, there’s a planet for us with a white picket fence. Dump your wife, though.”
Take two Breitbart video’s and call me in the morning.....
I can hardly believe anyone thinks that we are left with winners, never mind fighters.
Well. I can see flaws in Rick Santorum. But I see far more flaws in Newt Gingrich. (However, as a whole I deeply admire and respect Newt Gingrich.) What I think you have are doing incorrectly with your logic is confusing the significance of certain facts that you may have right with the signification or meaning of those facts.
How do you distinguish Santorums efforts to appeal to a wider margin of voters from Gingrich’s effort’s regarding individual health care mandates, global warming and lobbying (or whatever you call it) for Freddie Mac?
These are flaws and they are serious flaws.
Then switch from analyzing the candidates and analyze the voters.
(I have already said I admire the man, Gingrich, as a whole.) Now, do you really think that a majority or even a plurality of voters is going to stop seeing Gingrich with the ick factor regarding his past marital history? I do not think they will. I have been reading about this and praying for the person for years. It still bugs me. Nonetheless, I realized a long time ago that heroes are a construct of the people who follow them or adulate them. The people behind them are always flawed. So for me, Newt is a hero. For America? He never ever will be. It is an impossibility. I think you know this.
For me, back to Rick, I think on the whole, despite his flaws, he IS the most consistent conservative in the race. Add up the dollar value of his failing compared to the dollar value of any of the others. Or add up the instances of specific failures. Or add up what people who have served with them in the past say. Rick Santorum is the man who is most conservative and most electable at this time.
I personally admire all the men running in different ways and disdain certain things only about Romney and Ron Paul.
I worry Romney has too few deep internal convictions and is “sincerely” swayed to the argument which he thinks will win the day. That is why, more than the fact that he was one way and is now another, that I just can’t stand the idea of him winning the primary. If he did win and then went on to the White House, there is no telling where his opinions might swing to in the future. He would be just as sincere about the new opinions and feel like any decision that he makes would be OK because his heart is in the right place. (I actually think this was Bill Clinton’s problem from the other side.)
I worry about Ron Paul because he confuses so much of what the constitution actually says with the way he thinks things ought to work and vise-versa. He is very willing to make exceptions when it benefits his particular segment of Americana (shrimp subsidies anyone). Finally he fails to understand the need for America to defend American Interests ANYWHERE in the world. Our interests do not stop at our borders. Our first overseas actions were to defend our right to trade in the Arabia’s if they were willing buyers and sellers there. He fails to understand that due process is a right that the unborn have just as much as anyone else and would totally abrogate the governments responsibility to protect their lives.
Finally Newt, I laid out a few problems above and I don’t care to layout more. I think of the four left in the race, he and Santorum are the only ones who are “internally” conservative in their formation of positions and opinions. I just feel like the warnings of people who served with him like Dick Army, Tom DeLay and so forth let you know that he is a mixed bag and easily swayed and bowled over at times. I think his leadership with the Contract with America and later promotion of American renewal ideas and particular “Drill her, Drill Now!” have been brilliant and wonderful. He is a mixed bag and I think his failures to conservatism and overconfidence in his ability to manage liberals (the couch commercial with Pelosi, the Healthcare collusion with Hillary Clinton) are dangerous and detrimental far beyond a list Rick Santorum may have published to blunt an opponents reach for the middle voters.
I think Santorum is going to yank the Michigan rug out from under Romney.
We’ll never defeat the “elite”. They’re a part of every culture in every place throughout history. Every revolution replaces one group of elites with another. Keep in mind our Founders were elites. George Washington was worth about $500 million in today’s dollars and Ben Franklin was the 18th century’s version of a first tier rock star. We have to win the thoughtspace so that the elites of today are more like our Founders in outlook.
We’ve got to beat them with ideas because ideas cannot be defeated. It’s why we’re winning on abortion and guns. At the end of the day people have common sense and they’ll vote self-interest every time. It will be a balancing act between education and action. It won’t be easy, either.
And your job is what? Licking his bottom and telling him how great it tastes?
“Dump your wife, though.
Yeah, because Roger don’t swing that way....
You view this main body of America, and the Moderate, quite Liberal voting public, like it is a surrealistic extension of Sarah Pac or something.
No matter who we choose as our candidate, we have to get by this ever powerful and influential MSM. This election will prove to be the fight of our lives! This idea that all we need to do is pick a candidate, and that candidate will be crowned the day it happens, is nothing but a Grimm Fairytale.
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
It is indeed. Newt needs to stay in if for no other reason than having a fail-safe. I'm still hoping he'll build up some more steam and win AZ.
If not, I can live with Santo. I figure it'll be like Bush without the Texas twang.
You make some good points, but my calculus was this.
Newt has a lot more talent than Santorum and has the ability off the cuff to actually decisively win arguments and change minds. Santorum simply does not.
Newt’s actual legislative accomplishments are slightly more conservative but WAY MORE significant than Santorum’s.
Santorum’s whole strategy was to niche politic in Iowa and fly under the radar and gain momentum among a tiny swath of voters and then hope it gets magnified in the press. It’s worked, but it’s cynical and there is no way in hell he can mobilize large numbers of people. HIs “four states” were all tiny populations. He “niched” it. That’s all he can do.
He’d be a decent President with the right congress. He’d be a wimpy Mr. Rogers disaster as a nominee though.
I don’t think America can survive another 4 years of Obama so your rebuilding from ashes would probably be a reality in 2016.
Also with two stomachable conservatives in the race it is harder for Mitt and the main streamers to concentrate their fire.
Winners? That’s to be determined. But to say there’s not a fighter in the pack - well - explains why you were attracted to Huntsman perhaps.
You should REALLY work on taking things in context and trying to actually deal with what is written. Not the If statement leading in...
Lesson for Rick:
If you go negative, you will drop like a rock.
"The rights within our Constitution, they are not unlimited rights. There is and can be limitations on them...There are limitations to all freedoms. There are not absolute rights."
And he's no Ronald Reagan....
You Rick'sters have really screwed it up for all of us.
Wow,,,how do you explain Ben Franklin then?
Another flaw I see in your calculus - but I respect your opinion nonetheless - is that you are measuring “negatives” and not balancing them with positives.
Sure, Newt has more negatives than Santorum. He’s been in the public eye much longer and he’s written and spoken way more. He has more good, more bad, more in between. I just don’t think a total negative count is valid unless you measure it against a total positive count. Newt has way more of both, and IMO a better plus to minus ratio.
Then there’s one other thing: Newt, nor his campaign nor any Newt supporter that I’ve met has deigned to claim a mantle as pious and pure as Rick has himself claimed in the debates. It’s just phony. Thus, Rick’s capitulation to political realities is a mark against him because HE CLAIMS HE HAS NEVER DONE SO. It’s just not true.
Newt’s whole approach is more real - warts and all. Rick’s is a facade, a fake, with a good dose of sanctimony to boot. Goody two shoes are nauseating to me, especially when they ain’t that goody when you dig down.
And they rarely are.
Don’t think you need worry, Gingrich won’t take a VP slot and sit idle for four years.
No Democrat ran in ‘06 supporting the war, at least none that I can think of. To say that Santorum ran a Democrat Lite campaign is also to say that he ran against the Iraq War.
The two remaining candidates whom I could vote for are both individuals I consider decent representatives of Conservatism. You might feel more strongly about Gingrich, and that's fine. I view Santorum as being more electable.
Regardless, the truly important point of this latest poll (and others) isn't (to me) who's leading, it's who's failing, and I'm referring to Mitt Romney.
One battle at a time.
Sorry, I don’t follow.
Holy CRAP!!!!! What great news to wake up to today. I think that Rick really has a chance. Apparently, I was right about the power of Santorum’s message. I am truly excited that he really has a chance to WIN!!!!! Bob
There are ‘fighters’ in the lot but the first priority is obviously winning and he was nothing if not a principled conservative that could get things done with 100% chance to get elected.
In the meantime Santorum has raised 3 million bucks, Is double Gingrich in the polls, and is calculating his next wins. Gingrich has to stop sliding before he can start rising.
My guess is there will be a brokered convention but things could coalesce anytime around anyone of these four.
The way this is going Paul will have the next surge.
After a few months there will be a republican convention. Where they will decide to elect Rick Perry as their nominee.
Riii....ght! Mondale’s message: “I am ready to be President!” “I WILL raise your taxes!” Very, very similar to what Rick Santorum is saying today. *cough* Bob
How can you justify that statement?
He's extremely socially conservative.
He's conservative on nation defense issues.
He's conservative on gun issues.
He's not extremely conservative on fiscal issues, but he is still conservative. His AFL-CIO career rating is 13%. For comparison, through 2009, Ron Paul's was 19%.
So, yeah, he is a good conservative.