Hucks Army - Faith. Family. Freedom. [Grassroots] JOIN HUCKS ARMY | GET INVOLVED | FUNDRAISING | LINKS | LEADERSHIP | ABOUT
It is currently Sun Sep 22, 2019 11:20 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 38 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 8:40 pm 
Offline
MODERATOR
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 12:08 pm
Posts: 6634
Location: South Beloit, IL
Likes: 479
Liked: 152
Quote:
SC Sources: Gingrich Could Endorse Santorum

Sources within the campaign of surging Rick Santorum indicate Newt Gingrich, should he drop out of the race, plans to support the former Pennsylvania senator.


Read the whole article http://mauldin.patch.com/articles/sources-gingrich-could-endorse-santorum

I can't help but wonder if the PPP North Carolina blog and poll could have anything at all to do with it? Three way tie with NC Republicans

Closing of that article:

Quote:
The North Carolina numbers are really indicative of the fact that Romney probably can't be stopped unless some more of the candidates drop out. If they had to choose just between Romney and Santorum, Santorum wins 51-33. That's because Gingrich voters prefer Santorum 67-27 and Perry voters do by a 59-35 margin. If Gingrich and Perry left the race Santorum would really get some momentum in states like North and South Carolina. But as long as they're splitting the anti-Romney vote three ways it puts Romney in a very good position to just keep on winning.

No one else does as well as Santorum in a head to head against Romney. Gingrich leads him only 43-42, and Perry trails Romney by a 52-35 spread. If I had to guess the most likely scenario by the time North Carolina comes around is that it will be just Romney and Paul in the race, and Romney takes that one 67-21.

Romney could be stopped- but not while the field is this crowded.

_________________
Psalms 144:1 "Blessed be the LORD my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight:"


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 8:44 pm 
Offline
MODERATOR
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 12:08 pm
Posts: 6634
Location: South Beloit, IL
Likes: 479
Liked: 152
Another PPP blog article questioned Santorum's electability. Santorum electable?

Ironically they found this:

Quote:
PPP's first general election poll anywhere since Rick Santorum's surge in Iowa finds that he's the most electable of the Republican candidates in the important swing state of North Carolina. Santorum fights Obama to a 46-46 tie in the state, while Mitt Romney trails Obama 46-45. It's not a significant difference, but Romney has tended to best the rest of the GOP field by a wide margin on the electability front in our polling.

The reason Santorum does ever so slightly better is that he takes 20% of the Democratic vote to Romney's 17%. That's an interesting finding and what it suggests to me is that socially conservative Democrats might be more inclined to vote for Santorum than Romney because he provides a clearer contrast with Obama on social issues.


Click on the link above to read the rest of the article.

_________________
Psalms 144:1 "Blessed be the LORD my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight:"


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:38 pm 
Offline
Major General

Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 672
Location: Lehigh Acres,Florida
Likes: 211
Liked: 147
If Newt beats out RS will RS back Newt? If so, I think so will his supporters, to stop Romney. I think Perry will be out after SC, I could be wrong. Newt already has a ground game going in Florida. If Newt does good and RS gets behind him,I think he can win Florida.
No doubt Newt will back Rick,if he does poorly in SC. I still think he has a chance to win there. though.

_________________
Image



Post by FL4Huck has received Likes: 3 atrain3067, GAVoter4Huck, mxnwilson
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:41 pm 
Offline
Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 12:28 am
Posts: 457
Likes: 75
Liked: 56
I think the sooner they can coalesce the better...

_________________
"I've always believed the mission is greater than the man..." -Governor Rick Perry
"We're not choosing a pastor-in-chief, we're choosing a commander-in-chief." -Pastor Michael Youssef



Post by GAVoter4Huck Liked by: atrain3067
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 11:44 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 10:58 am
Posts: 3019
Likes: 0
Liked: 190
I agree that it should be Santorum and Perry who drop out and support Newt. NEwt has the credentials for the job, the debating skills to be the strongest contender against Romney and Obama. Santorum is barely more qualified that Obama was when he took office and we all know how that has turned out...



Post by nrobyar has received Likes: 3 FiscalConservative, justgrace, mxnwilson
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 12:34 am 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:21 am
Posts: 2747
Location: Arkansas
Likes: 200
Liked: 653
nrobyar wrote:
I agree that it should be Santorum and Perry who drop out and support Newt. NEwt has the credentials for the job, the debating skills to be the strongest contender against Romney and Obama. Santorum is barely more qualified that Obama was when he took office and we all know how that has turned out...


Santorum served fours years in the House of Representatives and twelve in the Senate for a total of 16 years. The last six years he was the third highest ranking Republican in leadership. He lost election in a year in which the GOP lost the House (31 seats) and the Senate (6 seats including 4 in "Red" states that George Bush had won twice; Santorum represented "Blue" Penn which last voted GOP for President in 1988.

Newt served twenty years in the House. The last five years he was the Speaker of the House. He resigned from office following the disasterous mid-term 1998 elections because for only the second time in a century (the previous being 1936 with FDR) did an incumbent President's Party (Clinton) gain seats.

The difference between 16 years in two chambers with experience in leadership and 20 years in one chamber with experience in leadership doesn't seem that great to me.

Obama served four years as a Senator none of which was in leadership.

_________________
"As for us, our days of combat are over. Our swords are rust. Our guns will thunder no more. The vultures that once wheeled over our heads must be buried with their prey. Whatever of glory must be won in the council or the closet, never again in the field. I do not repine. We have shared the incommunicable experience of war; we have felt, we still feel, the passion of life to its top."

Oliver Wendell Holmes



Post by Southern Doc has received Likes: 4 All-in-for-Mike, cschande, FirstCoastTerp, Miserere
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 12:44 am 
Offline
Lieutenant General
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 1:09 am
Posts: 1091
Location: Horry County, SC
Likes: 24
Liked: 31
I think both Gingrich and Santorum both think highly of the other, and would support the other should one drop out.

There's a new poll out in SC:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... 12744.html

23% - Romney
21% - Gingrich
14% - Santorum
13% - Paul
7% - Huntsman
5% - Perry

Newt is within striking distance of Mitt. I think it's more likely that Santorum drops out before Newt does. Santorum is pretty much staking his campaign on SC. Unless there is a clear alternative to Romney after SC, the anti-Romney vote will continue to be split, and Romney will be able to coast.

Rick Perry also is staking the bulk of his campaign in SC. After SC, you could see the field begin to thin out. If Newt can hang w/ Romney and possibly take home the victory in SC, my best guess is that Santorum drops out and endorses Gingrich; Rick Perry drops out and returns to TX; and Huntsman either drops out, or makes his last stand in FL.

As a SC voter, I like both Santorum and Newt, but if the polls continue to bear out like the one above, I'll be voting for Gingrich, in hopes that conservatives can begin to rally behind someone, and prevent Romney from becoming the nominee. I hope someone can challenge Romney in SC and beyond, because I just cannot trust Romney on the issues, especially the social issues.

_________________
"Plan your work, work your plan."



Post by atrain3067 has received Likes: 3 4Huckabee, goalieman, Grant
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 12:46 am 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 8:45 pm
Posts: 1792
Location: Pennsylvania
Likes: 208
Liked: 275
On a good note, my home state of PA. now has a conservative Republican Governor, a conservative GOP senator, both the state house and senate and 12 of 19 U.S. House of Representitive seats. We done good in 2010! :)

_________________
Most people believe what they see, the Left see's what it believes.....



Post by goalieman has received Likes: 5 atrain3067, Grant, IowaforHuckabee, Southern Doc, WhatsNotToLike?
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 3:37 am 
Offline
Lieutenant General
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 7:19 pm
Posts: 1044
Likes: 8
Liked: 208
I'm a SC voter, and I too will be closely watching the polls and momentum. To some degree I've always considered signage as a decent indicator of the strength of presence of a candidate. If that is the case then here in Greenville I saw more Newt signs pop up within the last 24 hours then all other candidates combined.

I'd still prefer Santorum and believe he has a lot less baggage than Newt, but if I see Newt with a much better chance to beat Romney, then I'll have to switch and vote for Newt.

What I don't understand about Santorum is that after the Iowa Caucus he gave one of the best speeches of the entire campaign of any candidate, and then after that it's like he just went lifeless again. My sense is Santorum is going to have to break through during the debate on Fox next Monday if he hopes to regain any kind of momentum. On the other hand if Newt has another debate night like he had in New Hampshire then he could potentially ride that to a win.



Post by WalterCan Liked by: 4Huckabee
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 8:21 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 8:03 am
Posts: 4844
Likes: 1174
Liked: 782
Southern Doc wrote:
nrobyar wrote:
I agree that it should be Santorum and Perry who drop out and support Newt. NEwt has the credentials for the job, the debating skills to be the strongest contender against Romney and Obama. Santorum is barely more qualified that Obama was when he took office and we all know how that has turned out...


Santorum served fours years in the House of Representatives and twelve in the Senate for a total of 16 years. The last six years he was the third highest ranking Republican in leadership. He lost election in a year in which the GOP lost the House (31 seats) and the Senate (6 seats including 4 in "Red" states that George Bush had won twice; Santorum represented "Blue" Penn which last voted GOP for President in 1988.

Newt served twenty years in the House. The last five years he was the Speaker of the House. He resigned from office following the disasterous mid-term 1998 elections because for only the second time in a century (the previous being 1936 with FDR) did an incumbent President's Party (Clinton) gain seats.

The difference between 16 years in two chambers with experience in leadership and 20 years in one chamber with experience in leadership doesn't seem that great to me.

Obama served four years as a Senator none of which was in leadership.


Ironically, the success of Gingrich and the Republican House to pass so many reforms came in part with their pressure on President Clinton to sign bills into law he did not really like (e.g. welfare reform and other financial reforms). Even today, many mistakenly believe these were Clinton's ideas and reforms. However, without the pressure of strong House Republican conservative leadership, these reforms and the balancing of the budget for four years under Speaker Gingrich would never have happened. Remember, too, that Clinton's own Monica Lewinsky affair and near impeachment really made him an extremely weak President who had little choice but to go along.

The difference is not in years but in what one was able to accomplish, I think. Any reforms, such as those bills that (we give him credit!) that Santorum introduced in the Senate came about because of the Republican Revolution, which Newt Gingrich crafted and pushed through, as a result of his support and coalition with President Ronald Reagan and pro-life great, Rep. Henry Hyde.

Gingrich was the mentor; Santorum the underling. I would say both of these men would agree with this assessment.
- - - -

Another note on indiscretions (which we should name as adultery!) From Wikipedia:
Quote:
Historian Taylor Branch implied that Clinton had requested changes to Branch's 2009 Clinton biography, The Clinton Tapes: Wrestling History with the President, regarding Clinton's revelation that the Lewinsky affair began because "I cracked; I just cracked." Branch writes that Clinton had felt "beleaguered, unappreciated and open to a liaison with Lewinsky" following "the Democrats' loss of Congress in the November 1994 elections, the death of his mother the previous January, and the ongoing Whitewater investigation".[46] Publicly, Clinton had previously blamed the affair on "a terrible moral error" and on anger at Republicans, stating, "if people have unresolved anger, it makes them do non-rational, destructive things".[47]


And, of course, Speaker Gingrich also had his affair that brought him down, as a result of revelations and attacks on not only him, but on other Republican leaders who had had "past indiscretions." Hyde (when he was 41) and others. I believe that Newt Gingrich is repentant, as he has told several Christian leaders. We need to not let him or any others excuse themselves for "being too busy or under too much pressure." Sin is sin and needs confessing. This shows why, yes, personal integrity is of such importance! I believe God can and will forgive when we admit our wrong. But "unresolved anger" as an excuse, Mr. Clinton? That could also excuse murder.

One lesson here is that all of us need to pray that our leaders do not fall into sin. And another wise thing for them would be to have others, a group of Christian fellow-congressmen, etc., to keep them personally accountable. Santorum has had a wonderful family relationship with his wife, it appears. But power can corrupt any person who is not on guard. And temptation is powerful and prevalent in this world. God help us all.

_________________
Image



Post by justgrace has received Likes: 2 4Huckabee, mxnwilson
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 9:09 am 
Offline
Brigadier Geneal
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 5:44 pm
Posts: 578
Location: North Carolina
Likes: 54
Liked: 99
I think the hammering that the establishment media is doing to Newt over the King of Bain attacks will hurt him again, just like Iowa. I think Santorum's biggest hurdle is that a lot of folks in SC just don't know much about him. I draw that conclusion after making lots of phone calls in Horry County. The good part about that is they don't have a highly negative opinion of him. Newt's high negatives, especially after attacks these past few days from the talking heads, will probably hurt him.

But, all in all, this race is VERY volatile. It is really changing day by day. I watched the King of Bain video and I think it is potentially lethal for Romney, thus all the protesting by his shills in the media.

_________________
http://homeschoolershearthuckabee.blogspot.com


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:27 am 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:12 am
Posts: 3819
Location: St. Augustine, FL
Likes: 194
Liked: 215
justgrace wrote:
The difference is not in years but in what one was able to accomplish
In that regard, I would give Newt the edge, but the issue is Santorum's experience vs Obama and on that count I don't know how anyone could equate the two.

_________________
Ken



Post by FirstCoastTerp Liked by: maryrae
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 2:12 pm 
Offline
Major General

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 4:01 pm
Posts: 736
Location: Lakewood, CO
Likes: 118
Liked: 147
FirstCoastTerp wrote:
justgrace wrote:
The difference is not in years but in what one was able to accomplish
In that regard, I would give Newt the edge, but the issue is Santorum's experience vs Obama and on that count I don't know how anyone could equate the two.

Totally agree. It's one thing to say Gingrich has more of the right kind of experience then Santorum does. That may be a valid argument. It's a totally different matter to say that Santorum has no more experience then Obama did when he was elected. Santorum's level of experience (both in time spent and accomplishments) is far and above Obama's was in 2008. Frankly, all of the remaining Republican candidates beat Obama by a mile in that department.

_________________
Judith Martinez
"It is true poverty for a child to die so that we may live as we wish."



Post by juditupp Liked by: 4Huckabee
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 4:18 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:21 am
Posts: 2747
Location: Arkansas
Likes: 200
Liked: 653
Concerning the idea that Newt was somehow the leader that brought about budget surplus...well

The budget "surplus" years 1998-2001 are generally attributed to the following:

A.) Peak Federal tax revenues between 1995 and 2001. This came about due to:

1.) the highest combined marginal tax rate in U.S. history 20.6% due to the implementation of the Clinton tax increase.

2.) a surge in tax revenues produced by spikes in equity and commodity markets (remember the dot com bubble? Valuations tripled in three years). Folks rolling over their portfolios generated massive tax revenues when they sold their market positions at a profit.

B.) The Peace Dividend allowed for falling Federal expenditures for defense. Clinton and both Democratic and Republican Congresses oversaw the transition of the U.S. military after the winning of the Cold War. The force stucture shrank by 25% as did the budget (in real terms not the D.C. "rate of growth" game). As a percentage of GDP the military budget in 2000 and 2001 (just before 911 awoke the nation to the threat of islamic terror) reached is lowest level since 1949 (just before the invaison of South Korea awakened the U.S. to the reality of the Cold War ahead).

C.) Boomer Productivity produced record Social Security surpluses. Revenues into Social Security and Medicare enjoyed their perfect demographic alignment in the 1995-2000 window (a disproportionately large and prosperous generation enjoyed their peak revenue productivity relative to their own health care costs). This produced the very large annual "surpluses" in the Social Security Medicare "Trust Fund." These surpluses were counted as general revenues (sorry Al Gore but there is no "lock box") thus creating "balanced" budgets even though these surpluses are double dipped to calculate the solvency of Social Security and Medicare solvency. Without these surpluses no budget would have been "balanced."

D.) Ross Perot's Third Party Run. The most successful third Party run since 1912, Ross Perot injected into the body politic the importance of the deficit. His success compelled the GOP to return to a more deficit hawk position in order to have any chance of regaining the Whitehouse. Newt's strength was in recognizing that this wave must be ridden by the GOP or they would be drowned by it. He was not alone. Individuals who had been known as deficit hawks in the GOP were all make stronger by the movement. Kasich, Army, Coburn, and Sanford were the most prominent leaders (and doers) pushing the hawk line.

I want to point out that the GOP under Newt could have been so irresponsible that they threw away all these advantages and failed to "balance" any budgets. He was part of it. But giving him the credit as some kind of transitional figure is too much for me to buy. So higher taxes, surging revenues brought by booming speculation, shrinking defense budgets, and Social Security Trust Fund surpluses can give you opportunities. Of course total outlays, entitlements, and domestic spending all still increased.

Lastly, Newt left office following the 1998 midterms. Two of the four "balanced" budgets took place after he left.

Newt was effective in many ways. But the real history is that the only thing more stunning than his swift rise from back bench bomb thrower to Speaker in 1995 was his fall in 1998.

_________________
"As for us, our days of combat are over. Our swords are rust. Our guns will thunder no more. The vultures that once wheeled over our heads must be buried with their prey. Whatever of glory must be won in the council or the closet, never again in the field. I do not repine. We have shared the incommunicable experience of war; we have felt, we still feel, the passion of life to its top."

Oliver Wendell Holmes



Post by Southern Doc has received Likes: 2 Miserere, TheValuesVoter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 6:14 pm 
Offline
Captain

Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 1:02 pm
Posts: 231
Likes: 255
Liked: 76
No one in our time has made the enormous accomplishments on the large scale that Newt Gingrich has.

http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profil ... overnment/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 8:16 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:21 am
Posts: 2747
Location: Arkansas
Likes: 200
Liked: 653
4Huckabee wrote:
No one in our time has made the enormous accomplishments on the large scale that Newt Gingrich has.

http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profil ... overnment/


Please note from your own source how the budget was "balanced." "Outlays" (the blue line) continues to grow thoughout his time as Speaker. The chart is compressed and obscures the hundreds of millions in increased Federal spending over those four years represented by the line. That means balance was not created by driving down spending. Yet even this chart clearly shows that the budget is balanced and a "surplus" is achieved by the rise of "Revenues" (the green line). That means more tax money going to the feds folks. The green line out grows the growing blue line. More money into the Federal government is one way to get a surplus. Ironically that "surplus" even between 1998-2001 was an illusion as it includes a surge in payments into Social Security Medicare.

Newt's big showdown with Clinton over budgets in 1995 to actually reduce the growth curve significantly was a tactical then strategic nightmare. He lost. He misplayed the politics and got caught in a popularity contest with Clinton. Clinton's popularity rose and he was re-elected stunning the GOP faithful. Within two months of becoming Speaker Newts popularity was:

Quote:

A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll this month found that 27 percent viewed him positively and 41 percent negatively.

The hawks were never as strong again. Most of the hawks (like Coburn) were furious with how Gingrich had been played. Coburn still is.

Gingrich then was the face of the party for Clinton's impeachment. That didn't exactly work out did it? The nation voted on Gingrich's abilities of bringing about change by punishing his party and not the Dems in the 1998 mid-terms (only the second time an incumbent President saw his party gain seats in a midterm).

Gingrich then left the scene and the GOP won the Whitehouse twice and control of both chambers in 2002 for the first time since 1928.

Gingrich has his strengths and his place among influential politicians in our times. But why folks think he is some sort of positive transformational figure is beyond me.

_________________
"As for us, our days of combat are over. Our swords are rust. Our guns will thunder no more. The vultures that once wheeled over our heads must be buried with their prey. Whatever of glory must be won in the council or the closet, never again in the field. I do not repine. We have shared the incommunicable experience of war; we have felt, we still feel, the passion of life to its top."

Oliver Wendell Holmes



Post by Southern Doc Liked by: All-in-for-Mike
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 8:58 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:12 am
Posts: 3819
Location: St. Augustine, FL
Likes: 194
Liked: 215
Southern Doc wrote:
But why folks think he is some sort of positive transformational figure is beyond me.
Not that I am defending him but I believe this is due to him being the catalyst behind the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994 after a long stranglehold by the Dems. It's an indelible positive memory for many people.

_________________
Ken



Post by FirstCoastTerp has received Likes: 2 4Huckabee, goalieman
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 9:20 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:21 am
Posts: 2747
Location: Arkansas
Likes: 200
Liked: 653
FirstCoastTerp wrote:
Southern Doc wrote:
But why folks think he is some sort of positive transformational figure is beyond me.
Not that I am defending him but I believe this is due to him being the catalyst behind the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994 after a long stranglehold by the Dems. It's an indelible positive memory for many people.


Agree. Me too. Which is why what happened under his subsequent leadership where he squandered the fruits of victory was so disappointing.

Some folks are good at arguing there way into power, but not good at using it.

_________________
"As for us, our days of combat are over. Our swords are rust. Our guns will thunder no more. The vultures that once wheeled over our heads must be buried with their prey. Whatever of glory must be won in the council or the closet, never again in the field. I do not repine. We have shared the incommunicable experience of war; we have felt, we still feel, the passion of life to its top."

Oliver Wendell Holmes


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:49 pm 
Offline
Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 12:28 am
Posts: 457
Likes: 75
Liked: 56
FL4Huck wrote:
If Newt beats out RS will RS back Newt? If so, I think so will his supporters, to stop Romney. I think Perry will be out after SC, I could be wrong. Newt already has a ground game going in Florida. If Newt does good and RS gets behind him,I think he can win Florida.
No doubt Newt will back Rick,if he does poorly in SC. I still think he has a chance to win there. though.


The article definitely has a huge slant towards Santorum. As FL4Huck asked, nowhere does it mention if RS will do the same to Newt which just shows how unbalanced it is.

_________________
"I've always believed the mission is greater than the man..." -Governor Rick Perry
"We're not choosing a pastor-in-chief, we're choosing a commander-in-chief." -Pastor Michael Youssef



Post by GAVoter4Huck Liked by: 4Huckabee
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 1:56 am 
Offline
Lieutenant General

Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 12:01 pm
Posts: 884
Location: Indianapolis
Likes: 166
Liked: 73
WalterCan wrote:
I'm a SC voter, and I too will be closely watching the polls and momentum. To some degree I've always considered signage as a decent indicator of the strength of presence of a candidate. If that is the case then here in Greenville I saw more Newt signs pop up within the last 24 hours then all other candidates combined.

I'd still prefer Santorum and believe he has a lot less baggage than Newt, but if I see Newt with a much better chance to beat Romney, then I'll have to switch and vote for Newt.

What I don't understand about Santorum is that after the Iowa Caucus he gave one of the best speeches of the entire campaign of any candidate, and then after that it's like he just went lifeless again. My sense is Santorum is going to have to break through during the debate on Fox next Monday if he hopes to regain any kind of momentum. On the other hand if Newt has another debate night like he had in New Hampshire then he could potentially ride that to a win.
I don't understand. You are willing to abandon Santorum because you think Newt is more electable. Why for, then, don't you just go along with so many others and vote for Romney who is tauted as the most electable????

Why do people treat this as some kind of game, second guessing the results? I know many Republicans voted for Obama in the primary because they thought Hilary was going to win the Dem primary and look where it got us? Why didn't they vote principle in the Repulican primary and maybe we wouldn't have had McCain.

If conservatives would vote their consciences instead of trying to influence an outcome they may not have any influence over, we might have someone other than Romney forced down our throats. This is a long long way from being over, folks. But trying to eliminate a potential candidate because you prefer electability is just plain wasted votes. And very puzzling to me. Not to mention that it disenfranchises those of us who have late primaries. So when you start thinking of settling on someone just because they seem electable, take it seriously because you may be cutting us out of a chance to vote on someone who may seem now to be unelectable. Of all people, I would think HA people would understand this electability issue and how it can unfairly treat good candidates.

Perception is very important. If you, as a Santorum fan, fold and vote for Gringrich, you may be helping the perception and condemning Santorum. Why even vote at all? To stop Romney? Many think he is unstoppable now and are voting for him for the same reason.

I am working to help get Santorum on the Indiana ballot. If I adopted your reasoning, I might as well not bother. :wall-yellow



Post by Indiana4Huck has received Likes: 2 maryrae, TheValuesVoter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 38 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
POWERED_BY