Posted on 03/20/2012 9:22:10 PM PDT by VinL
Edited on 03/20/2012 10:31:59 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich said Tuesday that Rick Santorum "probably didn't mean to" say that he doesn't care about the unemployment rate but that it still illustrates a broader problem with the former Pennsylvania senator.
"I know that Santorum probably didn't mean to say it, but it's what he said," Gingrich said. "And, you know, when you're going to take on an incumbent President of the United States you better know what you believe. You better be able to say it very vividly. Can you imagine a Barack Obama dealing with somebody who says he doesn't care about the unemployment rate?"
(Excerpt) Read more at wibw.com ...
Exactly. Every part of the private sector is suffering, and you are exactly right about the union factor. Santorum never shook off the union shackles his entire career in PA. he did their bidding.
You don’t seem to understand what many of us here have understood for awhile. This race is now about denying Romney delegates and forcing a brokered convention. Santorum can not win the nomination outright. Romney’s best chance to win outright is if Newt drops out because half of Newt’s support would go to Romney.
Newt probably didn’t mean to sit on a couch and shoot a global warming commercial with Nancy Pelosim but he did it, Get back to me when Santorum pulls that sort of shit.
I would like some clarification. Does the rule state that the candidate must take those delegates via an election process or that he just must have a plurality. If it is the latter then Gingrich can become a nominee legitimately after the first round of delegates votes, if the convention is brokered. The second round five states can send their delegates to him. Therefore, Gingrich could be a legitimate nominee.
He’s the GOP E’s own Joe Biden.
I understand quite well. What it seems to be coming down to is that unless Newt can win three more states, which is looking less likely, he might better stop Romney by jumping on the Santorum bandwagon. I cannot expect he would do that, nor would I ask it. He cannot seem to overcome his negatives at this point. I do not know what he can do to change that when his biggest money supporter appears to have dropped him. What do you see as his path forward from here?
“Get back to me when Santorum pulls that sort of s..t.”
Are you talking about the s...y things Santorum was doing with Hillary Clinton for censoring the internet?
Or the s...y things Santorum was doing with Barbara Boxer to tax the Americans for “clean air”?
I believe the rules are that delegates can only vote for those nominated. The nominations come before the first vote is cast at the convention, so I suspect that he cannot be nominated without five states. I will try to read the full document tomorrow.
He doesn’t have a path. Neither does Rick. Their best chance is to take delegates where they can from Romney.
If Newt stays in:
Newt delegates + Rick delegates > Romney delegates (hopefully)
If Newt drops out:
1/2 of Newt delegates + Santorum delegates < Romney delegates + the other half of Newt delegates
delegates = to date + prospective.
“They have this idea that people should be left alone, do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, that we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues.” –Rick Santorum, 08/04/2005
Newt probably didn’t mean to sit on a couch and shoot a global warming commercial with Nancy Pelosim but he did it
**********
No, I think Newt intended to do so- and to bring up global warning in that context is fair play, imo.
But, in the quote I reference (“I didn’t sit on the couch with anybody,” Santorum said. “I would only sit on the couch with my wife. Period. No other women — particularly not Nancy Pelosi.”), Rick wasn’t talking about global warming.
No, in that quote, classy St. Rick was assassinating his friend’s character in order to fortify his piety vote; for all the good it did him.
I know someone else who sat with Karen on the couch ...
January 6, 2003 Rick Santorum says that stimulus is needed during a recession, that government can create jobs, and that when the US is in a recession and fighting wars, we souldn’t worry about deficits.
Santorum is a social conservative statist. For example, he thinks the government should be in the business of charity, among other things. Charity, meanwhile, is a MAJOR aspect of Christian morality; good Christian charity encourages morality and discourages immorality. It's clear as day that government charity -- food stamps, welfare, etc. -- does the exact opposite: it encourages immorality, while Government's activist judges, punitive regulations, antidiscrimination laws and so forth -- Roe v. Wade, forced embrace of open homosexuality in schools, military, communities, and civic groups -- punish Americans who seek to live morally.
GOVERNMENT -- not "the people," not "the majority," but a minority that has illigetimately seized power of GOVERNMENT -- has made it so kids can't even pray in schools! GOVERNMENT is the single most addressable component of moral decline in this nation; cut government and enable parents to choose their kids' schools and hire or fire teachers as they see fit, and cut government so that people exercising free choice in free markets can discriminate against or cater to people who make immoral choices, and watch as morality returns to American culture. WATCH as immoral lifestyles, discouraged and rejected by the majority in terms of employment and housing, end up seeking and finding their own low level instead of being propped up and even encouraged in all corners of America by OUR TAX DOLLARS.
Two of Gingrich's main goals are to CUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT and seek to throw out activist judges, which will begin to restore both fiscal and moral freedom to the states and hence to the people.
Godspeed Newt Gingrich.
Yes, there is precedent. A selection of Dick Schweiker (R-PA, liberal), by Ronald Reagan in 1976 occurred before the rollcall of the states. Of course, Reagan, by the Convention rules could have his own name put into nomination. Fast forward 36 years later, as of tonight, only Santorum and Romney can even get their name into nomination at Tampa. Furthermore, there have been de-facto cases of the VP choice already made by the person before his official nomination, such as Nixon in support of Spiro Agnew for another term as Vice President despite not yet officially being nominated yet by the convention (he had some challenge by John Ashbrook). In 1976, there was a rule vote, which failed (to the benefit of the Ford Camp) to force him to name his own Vice Presidential candidate before the actually nomination roll call. Once that failed, it was clear the convention would nominate Ford, not Reagan—that Reagan did not have the numbers to prevail.
Please quote the official Republican Party circular through the RNC or State Parties, which has gone out to all Gingrich voters in all states which have yet to hold a primary or caucus, mandating that said voters, under penalty of punishment, must cast a vote either for Santorum or Romney, in the event Gingrich has dropped out, and that said circulars were sent out with such a 50/50 split apportioned to the Gingrich voters, ie. for every letter mandating a Santorum vote another letter for another Gingrich voter mandated a Romney vote. How can you say or predict what those voters will precisely, mathematically do? How about if 90% of them sour on Romney? How about if “Romney voters” which are not generally “the base” and not as fired up, get “Romney Fatigue” and start to dip in their turnout, but social conservatives/more conservative voters stay firm or increase in future states due to some hot button, rousing media cycle issue that surfaces? Romney is not a hot, popular commodity in the first place. I can just as easily say the indications are that if conservatives unite behind one candidate as the final “anti-Romney which had always been the plan, there is Conservative grassroots buzz again and media excitement and still time to block him, perhaps a one-on-one Super Last Chance Debate arranged, who knows? But only in trying that will we know for certain. I do know as it stands, so far, Gingrich along with Paul cannot even have his name placed in nomination (though he does have delegates he could release, and should do so urging them to vote for the conservative left standing to beat Romney).
And I intend to win the lottery, if ever I could remember to buy a ticket, which would increase my odds only slightly, but better than the odds that Newt will be president. Sad thing is I wanted him to be President when the GOPe gave us wimpy GW.
Ok what kind of jobs do you know that does not depend on manufacturing of some kind, either ours or someone else's? Manufacturing is what made us the richest country in the world, but i guess there are always jobs for Eli Whitney, but few of those are needed.
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.