Skip to comments.If Obama wins in November, he should thank Rick Santorum
Posted on 04/12/2012 5:47:42 PM PDT by Engraved-on-His-hands
If and when Barack Obama wins another four years in the White House, one of the first people he should invite over is Rick Santorum.
That's because when the scholars chronicle the history of his 2012 race, it will be Mr. Santorum who will get credit for handing the victory to the Democrats. And if you don't believe it, just ask Mitt Romney.
Without his buddy Santorum in the contest, Mr. Romney could have taken a more moderate path to the nomination and would not have been dragged so far to the right in order to compete for the ultra-conservatives who didn't much cotton to Mr. Romney and were more comfy with the former Pennsylvania Senator.
The contrast between these two guys on the stump has also helped the president.
Mr. Santorum had a more down-to-earth style that his opponent desperately tried to immolate but just couldn't pull it off.
(Excerpt) Read more at mlive.com ...
The only Republican in the past 120+ years who has been able to oust a Democrat President was Ronald Reagan, and he didn’t do it by being a Romney-style moderate. He did it with bold colors, not pale pastels.
No serious person really believes that Mitt Romney will do anything to attempt the kind of reforms that we need. If anything, he’ll slow things down.
The big Republican victories of recent years — 1980, 1994, and 2010 — were achieved by running as unabashed conservatives. Candidates like Ford, Dole, and McCain lose — and that’s the kind of Republican that Romney is. Don’t believe it? Look around him — personnel is policy.
Let’s win this!
Seriously, ROTFLMAO.....giggle, snort and lol!
That poll was 9 days ago. A lot has changed since then.
Exactly right, and exactly the problem. Rick Santorum is a man of principle; Mitt Romney has no philosophical core. He'll change positions on a dime. He really is and Etch A Sketch. With Romney as the nominee, you have a man with no philosophical core as the opponent to a man with no moral core.
Exactly right, and exactly the problem. Rick Santorum is a man of principle; Mitt Romney has no philosophical core. He'll change positions on a dime. He really is and Etch A Sketch.
With Romney as the nominee, you have a man with no philosophical core as the opponent to a man with no moral core.
LOL, that's a pretty accurate description.
I would love to do whatever can be done to win it.
I like your thinking. Let’s work Pennsylvania hard.
Here on FR we will ride our ideological purity train straight into four more years of Obama.
We’d be happy with a candidate that’s conservative on 50% of the issues. Romney doesn’t cut it.
Right now, "winning it" as far as I'm concerned will be watching Obama wave goodbye as he boards Marine One next January 20th. And if Romney is the guy that makes this happen, well, I can live with that. Perry, Santorum, Gingrich and Paul certainly won't be.
I could be wrong but I've been noticing that a lot of those "I'll never vote for Romney" posters are from Freepers residing in hard blue states like California where they can "stand behind their principles" as it doesn't really matter. California will vote 60+% for Obama regardless.
Myself, on the other hand, am registered to vote in Florida. I don't have such a luxury. I want Obama out of the White House and I can't really sit on my ass come election day.
Romney is about as electable as Ford, Dole, and McCain.
His website is still asking for donations, and there is a contact person to make calls for PA. Im planning to donate.
Here are the Pennsylvania contacts:
2250 Millenium Way
Enola, PA 17025
Hours: Monday - Sunday 9 am-9 pm
Seven Parkway Center, Suite 180
875 Greentree Road
Pittsburgh, PA 15220
Hours: Monday-Saturday 11am - 8pm, Sunday 2pm - 8pm
Here is the donation page:
” . . . run the GOP elite out of town on a rail when this disaster is over.”
If Obama wins this election I would not expect there to be any more American presidential elections. Four more years of his one-man socialist autocratic rule by executive edict will put “finis” to the American constitutional federated republic.
Which is one more reason why he would STILL be a better nominee.
You think those guys lost because they were RINOs? Think again. Learn a little history.
Ford lost because he was the "post Watergate" President who pardoned Nixon. Republican fatigue. Dole? The economy was booming in '96. Reagan himself couldn't have beat Clinton in '96. We all had fat jobs. Why change captains? Of course, Clinton's "success" was largely due to Gingrich's congress forcing Clinton to the middle where he managed to take credit for not screwing things up. McCain in '08? Again, the Republican brand was so poisoned by Bush-fatigue and a crashing economy. Alvin Green himself would've won in '08.
It's a little different today. Jeez! Think about it. Put your brain into it and stop repeating these tired old memes.
In large measure, yes. They lost because they couldn't and/or wouldn't clearly draw out the difference between themselves and their Democrat opponents. The GOP needs bold colors, not pale pastels --and nobody is more pale pastel than Etch A Sketch.
We don’t need you Romneybots around FR.
The only Republican in the past 120+ years who has been able to oust a Democrat President was Ronald Reagan, and he didnt do it by being a Romney-style moderate. He did it with bold colors, not pale pastels.
No serious person really believes that Mitt Romney will do anything to attempt the kind of reforms that we need. If anything, hell slow things down.
The big Republican victories of recent years 1980, 1994, and 2010 were achieved by running as unabashed conservatives. Candidates like Ford, Dole, and McCain lose and thats the kind of Republican that Romney is. Dont believe it? Look around him personnel is policy.
Santorum has principles; Romney doesn’t.
You can blow that bullshit out of your ass right now! My posting history clearly indicates that I was a Rick Perry supporter from the beginning. After that I switched to Gingrich. Check it out if you don't believe me.
At this point, I want Obama out of the White House and I'll vote for Romney to do so. I'm not going to sit on my ass come election day so take that Romneybot nonsense and shove it!
You’re clearly a Romneybot.
You’re clearly a Romneybot. The way you abuse anyone who dares to criticize Mittens shows it.
I for one can’t wait to hear the GOP excuses once the Bishop loses like the other three pale RINOs you mention above.
OK, so what is your path to success in 2012? Regale me. Sell me. Maybe you'll have my vote!
Get ready for the establishment who forced this chump on us to turn around and blame us for Romney's inevitable defeat. Yea, Romney is so strong that just yesterday the Dems got him to endorse a law Obama signed. Romney is the guy running as Obama-lite but it's all Santorum's fault. Ha!
Reagan claimed his political heros were Franklin Delano Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy.I'm too young to remember Reagan's 1980 campaign but I've lived through enough revisionist history to believe Common Tator is correct.
Reagan spent 35 years of his life as a registered democrat and gave large sums of money and campaigned for FDR, HST, Stevenson, and JKF.
It was in 1962 or 63 that Cap Weinburger and Ed Meese thought if Reagan switched to the Republican party he could defeat Democrat Governor Brown in 1966. The problem was how to overcome the certain RINO image that Reagan was sure to get. NO RINO could get the Republican nomination.
There were few Republicans that wanted to get near Barry Goldwater in 1964. They felt he was the kiss of death. but Cap and Ed Meese decided that if Reagan contacted Goldwater and offered to give a prime time speech that a RINO coming out for Goldwater might help Goldwater pick up a few votes.
So Goldwater gave Reagan a prime time speech at the Republican convention Rather, Cronkite and Browkaw heard how good Reagan spoke and decided the way to end his life as a politician was to paint him as a Goldwater clone. So they did. And Reagan in one speech went from a far left RINO to a Goldwater Republican with out changing a view.
That gave him an easy primary victory in 1966 but he spent the 1966, 1970 and 1980 campaigns trying to convince swing voters that he was really a RINO.
Reagan in his years in office doubled the natioal debt. Had his buddy Democrat Speaker of the House Tip ONeal over the the white house weekly. Reagan after 1964 never once met with or invited Barry Goldwater to vist him.
I covered the 1980 Reagan Campaign in the mid-west. The reporters had a bet on who could get him to say the words Senator Goldwater first. No one ever did. The winner of the money was a reporter who got reagan to say The Senator from Arizona... but Reagan would not call Goldwater by name.
Reagan in his 1980 campaign stump speech claimed that he was the only candidate for president that was a member in good standing of a Union and who had been elected twice to the presidency of his local union.
Reagan claimed in his stump speech that he had no love for big business. And that he had not ever left the Democratic party.. His views had not changed from the days of FDR and Kennedy. He said the Democratic party had left him.
And Reagan ran in the industrial north as a Democrat who was still a Democrat in every thing but name. It was just that the Democratic party had changed ... not Reagan. I covered a lot of Reagan speeches in the industrial midwest. He never missed a chance to tell his audience how he had been a Democrat most of his life. He claimed that FDR was his political hero.And one more
The reason he got more than half the union vote in Ohio was his FDR speech and his pitch that his economic policy was identical to the JFK economic policy. It really ticked Teddy Kennedy off every time Reagan claimed to be a Kennedy fan. Over and over I heard him say of his economic policy, "It worked for JFK and it will work for me."
I used to do an imitation of Reagan doing his, I have no love for big corporations act. REagan would say, "When I was just a small boy My Dad was let go by a big corporation on Christmas (SNIFF SNIFF) eve (SNIFF). It was our worst Christmas ever.(sniff) I have no special place in my (sniff) heart for big corporations."
The point to be made is that to defeat an incumbent a candidate has to get some voters to change their votes. Telling them they were dumb stupid idiots the last time they voted will only harden their support for the other guy.
Reagan showed how to beat an incumbent in 1980.. He did not attack Jimmy Carter. What he did was offer plans and the impression that he would make a better president than Carter. Reagan convinced the voters that he would solve problems. Reagan knew better than to make voters defend their vote for Carter in 1980. He offered himself as a better choice in 1980. He did not try to prove that Carter was a bad choice in 1976.
If you want the boss to fire a someone and hire you in his place, first you have to convince him that you would do a much better job. Leave it to the boss to figure out the current job holder is doing a bad job. The same is true in politics.
You can see examples of how to lose when you study the attempts to defeat FDR and HST. Republicans attacked the incumbent. They were not about how to do a better job. And even in a continued depression FDR won. And in a recession and a screwed up foreign policy situation HST won. You win elections by convincing the voters that you can solve the problems.
It is far better to campaign on how to fix the problems than attack the man that holds the office. Attacks on incumbents do not work.
Actually they lie by 10% in their favor so he is only really down in CO by 2.
Actually we the people should blame the good old boy country club Republicans that gave us Mittens Romney & Juan McCain before him & Bob Dole before that. Yet these zipless f*cks keep telling us we need to be democrat lite to appeal to the democrat leaning swing voters.
Please tell me that this was a transcription error and not what Skubick actually wrote. I've always had respect for TS as a journalist (I remember his days on Lansing/Jackson TV).
“A negotiated surrender?”
I was there. I was in YAF. Volunteered for Reagan. He was no RINO. No serious person can claim he was.
Here is the speech to which you referred. (BTW, it was only after Justin Dart and Holmes Tuttle asked him several times that he agreed to run for Governor — against a genuine RINO, Mayor George Christopher. The first few times he said no, until Nancy persuaded him that the state needed him.)
This speech, “A Time for Choosing”, was written by Reagan himself (as he often did.) Listen carefully and tell me if a RINO could write or deliver this speech.
Every time I hear or read Skubic, I am reminded how idiotic he is!
I said pretty much the exact same thing a few days ago. I live in Virginia. I am in a swing state and my vote counts. Jim is both old and in California - what he does matters little.
You’re absolutely right - people who live in Connecticut, Massachusetts, California, New York, DC - their votes really don’t count. For those of us who have 60 years left to live AND who live in a swing state, I have to take what I can get now no matter how flawed he may be.
I have seen these idiotic checklists of all the liberal things Romney has done and how evil he is. The last one is something like “nominated 27 of 36 Democrat judges.” Well, even if you assume the rest of the list is true (and it’s not), I know for a fact that with Obama, that would’ve been 36 out of 36.
It’s simple. It’s either Romney or Obama.
Two things. First, there’s no way in hell FR would be happy with a candidate that’s 50% conservative. McCain was more than that, and he wasn’t welcomed.
Second, I am well aware that Romney doesn’t cut it. The problem is it’s either him or Obama. At worst, Romney buys us time.
Lots of people from industrial northern states and rural southern states would agree. Those two types of voters disagree on many things, but both found common cause in supporting Reagan.
Most of us now involved in politics have only a dim memory of the old populist anti-big-business and anti-Yankee elitist Democratic Party, which in the North was heavily Roman Catholic and in the South was heavily evangelical. It often shocks people when I remind people that William Jennings Bryan, the fiery opponent of Darwinism, was the Democratic Party's nominee for president, and was considered a representative of the **LIBERAL** wing of the Democratic Party! A position like that would today be considered far-right Christian conservatism and disowned by many in the Republican Party.
The modern Republican Party has several wings which can, in their own ways, legitimately claim Ronald Reagan's heritage.
As for me, I'm not an old-fashioned Democrat. I have serious problems with a number of items in the old Democratic Party agenda. However, I think we'd be much better off finding a way to support a consensus conservative candidate than attacking each other on areas where we can legitimately appeal to Reagan's heritage.