PDA

View Full Version : Santorum shakes up GOP race with three-for-three finish



txradioguy
02-08-2012, 07:15 AM
http://a57.foxnews.com/www.foxnews.com/images/root_images/0/0/020812_santorumnew1_20120208_040714.jpg

The Republican presidential contest is a two-man race no more.

Rick Santorum proved that the 2012 primary election still has a few surprises left, after he went three for three in Tuesday’s contests and once again shook up the GOP nomination battle.

Santorum, in perhaps the biggest upset of the night, was declared the winner of the Colorado caucuses -- a contest Mitt Romney had been leading in recent polls and won in the 2008 race. The former Pennsylvania senator also won the Minnesota caucuses and the non-binding Missouri GOP primary.

The candidates head next into Maine, and later in the month to Arizona and Michigan. Santorum’s performance stokes questions about Romney’s appeal in some corners of the Republican Party but also puts the pressure on Newt Gingrich – as he challenges Santorum’s claim to be the “conservative” alternative to Romney.

Santorum, though, said Tuesday night in Missouri that he wasn’t looking to be the alternative to Romney.
"I stand here to be the conservative alternative to Barack Obama,” Santorum said.

The three-for-three finish marked the best night of Santorum's campaign since Iowa, in which he was belatedly declared the winner.

Santorum said at his victory rally in Missouri that the night's results showed conservatism is "alive and well."

Santorum used the victories to build his case that the Republicans need a nominee who can demonstrate "sharp contrasts" with President Obama -- something he claims the other candidates cannot do.

Santorum went after Romney, accusing him of holding the "same positions" as the president on several issues, but largely glossed over the other GOP candidates in his remarks.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/07/santorum-romney-gingrich-paul-colorado-minnesota-missouri-republican/#ixzz1lmuoC2mv

TooManyChiefs
02-08-2012, 07:47 AM
At the risk of sounding like a Paulista, which I'm not, I'm a little disappointed in Minnesota. There was a real shot Ron Paul won that state. I'd like to see ole Ron get some more political energy to continue his campaign and work more of his platforms into the right's narrative. Shame he'd be such a lousy president with some of his nuttiness, but I guess if he compromised he wouldn't be as compelling to his followers.

A very real potential consequence of Santorums sweep is him and Gingrich cannibalizing each other's "anyone but Romney!" votes and paving Mitt's way to the nomination.

fettpett
02-08-2012, 09:51 AM
At the risk of sounding like a Paulista, which I'm not, I'm a little disappointed in Minnesota. There was a real shot Ron Paul won that state. I'd like to see ole Ron get some more political energy to continue his campaign and work more of his platforms into the right's narrative. Shame he'd be such a lousy president with some of his nuttiness, but I guess if he compromised he wouldn't be as compelling to his followers.

A very real potential consequence of Santorums sweep is him and Gingrich cannibalizing each other's "anyone but Romney!" votes and paving Mitt's way to the nomination.

either that, or the TEA Party and other Conservatives will jump behind Santorum and leave Newt in the dust. If they do and Santorum picks up some decent delegate numbers over the next few primaries, he'll give Romney a run.

Problem with both Newt and Santorum is the lack of money and organization. Though I can see Santorum picking up a lot of funding after last night and over the next couple of weeks. He just needs to get a bit of passion while debating and not seem so stiff.

swirling_vortex
02-08-2012, 11:06 AM
At the risk of sounding like a Paulista, which I'm not, I'm a little disappointed in Minnesota. There was a real shot Ron Paul won that state. I'd like to see ole Ron get some more political energy to continue his campaign and work more of his platforms into the right's narrative. Shame he'd be such a lousy president with some of his nuttiness, but I guess if he compromised he wouldn't be as compelling to his followers.

A very real potential consequence of Santorums sweep is him and Gingrich cannibalizing each other's "anyone but Romney!" votes and paving Mitt's way to the nomination.
I'd say the bigger problem with Paul is his base. He sounds nice, but I think a lot of people get turned off from the constant conspiracy rants that come out of him. Plus, I don't think people want to fight the Civil War again.

But I got to hand it to Santorum, this was a big win for him. He certainly blew away Gingrich, despite hardly getting any airtime and fundraising.

Molon Labe
02-08-2012, 11:16 AM
http://i.qkme.me/35w2p7.jpg

Janice
02-08-2012, 11:24 AM
He just needs to get a bit of passion while debating and not seem so stiff.



I agree he could use some coaching on how to "loosen up" a bit (as defined by todays TV, movie, media, instant gratification obsessed culture). But I will definitely take a "stiff" conservative (defects and all) any day over a polished, high gloss, silver tongued dem light with nice hair. And if you think he "sounds" conservative now, wait till the general election and he moves back to the middle. Some here on this forum, will become quite ill.

I admit Im a bit biased. I never quite finished my indoctrinate, pc, pop culture schooling demanded by most of the general public today. As an example, I voted for Steve Forbes over Bush 43 in his first election. Thats how "out of touch" I am. But, unfortunately I must agree .. "appearances" obviously do win out over substance these days .. in spades (a little pinochle lingo there).

Dont believe it? Just look at who or what is in the White House today. Its disgusting. Makes me beg the question ... how do you pick up a turd by the clean end?

But in the end ... anybody but 0bama will have to do.

AmPat
02-08-2012, 11:25 AM
http://i.qkme.me/35w2p7.jpg

Why are you skirting the issues? You should just come out of the closet already for your champion, O Blah Blah The Magnificent.:rolleyes:

fettpett
02-08-2012, 11:56 AM
I agree he could use some coaching on how to "loosen up" a bit (as defined by todays TV, movie, media, instant gratification obsessed culture). But I will definitely take a "stiff" conservative (defects and all) any day over a polished, high gloss, silver tongued dem light with nice hair. And if you think he "sounds" conservative now, wait till the general election and he moves back to the middle. Some here on this forum, will become quite ill.

I admit Im a bit biased. I never quite finished my indoctrinate, pc, pop culture schooling demanded by most of the general public today. As an example, I voted for Steve Forbes over Bush 43 in his first election. Thats how "out of touch" I am. But, unfortunately I must agree .. "appearances" obviously do win out over substance these days .. in spades (a little pinochle lingo there).

Dont believe it? Just look at who or what is in the White House today. Its disgusting. Makes me beg the question ... how do you pick up a turd by the clean end?

But in the end ... anybody but 0bama will have to do.

agreed...it's less about looks for him, just more about passion in his beliefs while on stage...he says some good stuff, but it's hard to remember him when there is nothing to make him stand out.


I was an Allan Keyes guy back then

fettpett
02-08-2012, 11:56 AM
http://i.qkme.me/35w2p7.jpg

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Arroyo_Doble
02-08-2012, 12:23 PM
:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Liberty is more than light bulbs, fett.

BadCat
02-08-2012, 12:56 PM
Liberty is more than light bulbs, fett.

And which of your "liberties" is in danger if Rick is elected?

Novaheart
02-08-2012, 01:01 PM
And which of your "liberties" is in danger if Rick is elected?

The liberty to have a president who doesn't kiss the ring of the pope and his minions.

Rockntractor
02-08-2012, 01:13 PM
The liberty to have a president who doesn't kiss the ring of the pope and his minions.

Bigot!

Molon Labe
02-08-2012, 01:18 PM
Why are you skirting the issues? You should just come out of the closet already for your champion, O Blah Blah The Magnificent.:rolleyes:

Dude...lol.....I've never voted for a Liberal in my life.

Maybe you get duped into voting for liberals cause the GOP serves them up with a fancy "R" by their name, but don't hate on those of us who haven't. :)

Molon Labe
02-08-2012, 01:22 PM
And which of your "liberties" is in danger if Rick is elected?

Well. His talk about regulating the internet doesn't exactly thrill me. SOPA, and PIPA aren't exactly conservative legislation. The thought of the government controlling another area of society should make everyone pause, since they do such a good job at all the other areas they've gotten involved in.

This is also one of the reasons the author of that legislation is in trouble in his bid for reelection in his district.

AmPat
02-08-2012, 01:42 PM
Dude...lol.....I've never voted for a Liberal in my life.

Maybe you get duped into voting for liberals cause the GOP serves them up with a fancy "R" by their name, but don't hate on those of us who haven't. :)

I just view side line clowns who poo- pooh every counter to O Blah Blah as little more than the odoriferous, slimy dog crap on my shoe. Either vote for somebody who can beat O Blah Blah or you are for him. Don't try to quibble out of that fact.:cool:

AmPat
02-08-2012, 01:43 PM
Well. His talk about regulating the internet doesn't exactly thrill me. SOPA, and PIPA aren't exactly conservative legislation. The thought of the government controlling another area of society should make everyone pause, since they do such a good job at all the other areas they've gotten involved in.

This is also one of the reasons the author of that legislation is in trouble in his bid for reelection in his district.

Yet another NON ANSWER. You were asked a direct question, are you going to continue the liberal play of avoidance or will you answer the question?:rolleyes:

Novaheart
02-08-2012, 01:44 PM
Bigot!

You rang?

http://www.tvacres.com/images/greeting_lurch2.jpg

Novaheart
02-08-2012, 01:46 PM
Bigot!

Speaking of which, this morning on the radio call in show, I said that the Catholic Bishops were felons as unregistered agents of a foreign government. The hippie who runs the show said, "That's sounds like what the KKK was saying in the 1920's." to which I replied, "Yeah, well, even a broken clock." I was surprised that he didn't hang up on me.

RedGrouse
02-08-2012, 01:53 PM
This is going to be really close to call. It could be any of them.
Romney-Has an edge with most delegates.
Gingrich-Won South Carolina and they get nominated if win in that state.
Santorum-Had the surprised wins.

fettpett
02-08-2012, 01:57 PM
The liberty to have a president who doesn't kiss the ring of the pope and his minions.

ever heard of JFK?

fettpett
02-08-2012, 02:02 PM
Speaking of which, this morning on the radio call in show, I said that the Catholic Bishops were felons as unregistered agents of a foreign government. The hippie who runs the show said, "That's sounds like what the KKK was saying in the 1920's." to which I replied, "Yeah, well, even a broken clock." I was surprised that he didn't hang up on me.

:confused: wtf dude...I don't agree with the Pope or much of the RCC but to call them felons is just asinine.

Rockntractor
02-08-2012, 02:19 PM
Speaking of which, this morning on the radio call in show, I said that the Catholic Bishops were felons as unregistered agents of a foreign government. The hippie who runs the show said, "That's sounds like what the KKK was saying in the 1920's." to which I replied, "Yeah, well, even a broken clock." I was surprised that he didn't hang up on me.

Tinkerbell is getting tiresome!

Zathras
02-08-2012, 02:20 PM
Tinkerbell is getting tiresome!

What do you mean "getting"? Nova's been tiresome since his first day here.

Rockntractor
02-08-2012, 02:28 PM
What do you mean "getting"? Nova's been tiresome since his first day here.

Same old butt hurt sodomite talking shit day after day!
If the writers of the constitution had wanted sodomite marriage they would have stated that, it isn't even implied as the logic of it is ridiculous.
If you want sodomite marriage, go through the process to amend the constitution or shut the hell up!

AmPat
02-08-2012, 02:38 PM
Tinkerbell is getting tiresome!


What do you mean "getting"? Nova's been tiresome since his first day here.


Same old butt hurt sodomite talking shit day after day!
If the writers of the constitution had wanted sodomite marriage they would have stated that, it isn't even implied as the logic of it is ridiculous.
If you want sodomite marriage, go through the process to amend the constitution or shut the hell up!

I can take the expected knee-jerk defense of all things stupid yet liberal from the usual suspects like AD, Nova, Wei Wei, Lanie,,,,

It's the arrogant, superior than thou, fence sitting poo-flingers like Melon Lube and Feeble-minded that irritate me. They bring nothing but smugness and a false air of superiority, yet add nothing to the content of the issue.

It must be nice to feel comfortable as a non-contributing poo-flinger from the cheap seats.:cool:

NJCardFan
02-08-2012, 02:42 PM
The liberty to have a president who doesn't kiss the ring of the pope and his minions.

However your president kisses the asses of every third world despot he can find.

noonwitch
02-08-2012, 02:42 PM
Speaking of which, this morning on the radio call in show, I said that the Catholic Bishops were felons as unregistered agents of a foreign government. The hippie who runs the show said, "That's sounds like what the KKK was saying in the 1920's." to which I replied, "Yeah, well, even a broken clock." I was surprised that he didn't hang up on me.


The only way you can make that case stick is if you could prove that the Vatican is plotting with it's Bishops to undermine the US government.

NJCardFan
02-08-2012, 02:44 PM
:confused: wtf dude...I don't agree with the Pope or much of the RCC but to call them felons is just asinine.

Well, the catholic church isn't for teh gays(unless they're priests) so to him they are felons.

Elspeth
02-08-2012, 02:58 PM
Well. His talk about regulating the internet doesn't exactly thrill me. SOPA, and PIPA aren't exactly conservative legislation. The thought of the government controlling another area of society should make everyone pause, since they do such a good job at all the other areas they've gotten involved in.

This is also one of the reasons the author of that legislation is in trouble in his bid for reelection in his district.

AMEN!!!

But will the other other candidates succumb to the temptation to sign this thing once they get in office? I really fear for our freedom on the internet, which is the only place to get actual news and real information.

txradioguy
02-08-2012, 03:00 PM
The liberty to have a president who doesn't kiss the ring of the pope and his minions.

You've developed a sudden hatred for the Catholic Church Novatwit.

What's the matter...get turned down for the Priesthood again.

Bailey
02-08-2012, 03:03 PM
You've developed a sudden hatred for the Catholic Church Novatwit.

What's the matter...get turned down for the Priesthood again.

Just my guess he is against any religion that speaks against his lifestyle.

Elspeth
02-08-2012, 03:33 PM
The only way you can make that case stick is if you could prove that the Vatican is plotting with it's Bishops to undermine the US government.

The Vatican certainly wants to undermine certain US laws. Like laws extending the statute of limitations for sex abuse cases, considering that children often never tell anyone about the abuse when they are actually children. The Catholic church has spend much time and money fighting to keep molesting priests out of jail and free to molest again.

In 2010, the Catholic Church fought Connecticut's attempt to remove the statute of limitations on child sexual abuse. (http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/11/connecticut.abuse.bill/index.html?hpt=T1)

Right now, many states are trying to remove such statutes of limitations but the Catholic church is fighting it. (http://www.npr.org/2012/01/03/144614948/states-reconsider-sex-abuse-statutes-of-limitation)

Such states include: Hawaii (http://verdict.justia.com/2011/06/30/hawaiis-battle-over-its-statutes-of-limitations-for-child-sex-abuse), Nebraska (http://religiouschildabuse.blogspot.com/2011/03/nebraska-senate-considers-bill.html), Delaware (http://www.sol-reform.com/Pages/bin/ChildVictimActBrings170Lawsuits-DE.html), Wisonsin (http://www.madisoncatholicherald.org/news/state/1003-bills-would-remove-statute-of-limitations-for-sexual-abuse-cases.html), and Pennsylvania and New York, where Catholic bishops are strong enough to have prevented votes on such laws (http://ncronline.org/blogs/examining-crisis/time-now-childhood-sexual-abuse-and-statutes-limitation), among many others. In all of these cases, the Catholic church is working hard to prevent their molesting priests from having to do time and/or to prevent the church from having to pay out settlements to abused children.

When a global institution actively works against the interests of justice in one's own county--and justice for the most innocent--then I'd say they are working to undermine the government of the people, by the people and for the people.

Molon Labe
02-08-2012, 03:39 PM
. Either vote for somebody who can beat O Blah Blah or you are for him.

Let me see If I have this about right.


The American political establishment has done a super keen job keeping our country prosperous and our liberties protected, so Iím sure whatever candidate they push on me is probably a good one. - AmPat (paraphrasing)

Molon Labe
02-08-2012, 03:43 PM
AMEN!!!

But will the other other candidates succumb to the temptation to sign this thing once they get in office? I really fear for our freedom on the internet, which is the only place to get actual news and real information.

See people think I'm trolling because Santy actually has said he want to try to regulate the internet. Yeah we really need more government control of the only viable source of decent information and the last vestige where people can freely meet and talk about stupid politicians without recourse.

fettpett
02-08-2012, 03:56 PM
The Vatican certainly wants to undermine certain US laws. Like laws extending the statute of limitations for sex abuse cases, considering that children often never tell anyone about the abuse when they are actually children. The Catholic church has spend much time and money fighting to keep molesting priests out of jail and free to molest again.

In 2010, the Catholic Church fought Connecticut's attempt to remove the statute of limitations on child sexual abuse. (http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/11/connecticut.abuse.bill/index.html?hpt=T1)

Right now, many states are trying to remove such statutes of limitations but the Catholic church is fighting it. (http://www.npr.org/2012/01/03/144614948/states-reconsider-sex-abuse-statutes-of-limitation)

Such states include: Hawaii (http://verdict.justia.com/2011/06/30/hawaiis-battle-over-its-statutes-of-limitations-for-child-sex-abuse), Nebraska (http://religiouschildabuse.blogspot.com/2011/03/nebraska-senate-considers-bill.html), Delaware (http://www.sol-reform.com/Pages/bin/ChildVictimActBrings170Lawsuits-DE.html), Wisonsin (http://www.madisoncatholicherald.org/news/state/1003-bills-would-remove-statute-of-limitations-for-sexual-abuse-cases.html), and Pennsylvania and New York, where Catholic bishops are strong enough to have prevented votes on such laws (http://ncronline.org/blogs/examining-crisis/time-now-childhood-sexual-abuse-and-statutes-limitation), among many others. In all of these cases, the Catholic church is working hard to prevent their molesting priests from having to do time and/or to prevent the church from having to pay out settlements to abused children.

When a global institution actively works against the interests of justice in one's own county--and justice for the most innocent--then I'd say they are working to undermine the government of the people, by the people and for the people.

hey, guess what? that's not close to being felons, it's called freedom of speech. They have every right to try and stop it.

Does it make it the right and moral? probably not, but on the other hand does it make it right for the states to change the statue of limitations JUST to go after priests? no.

AmPat
02-08-2012, 04:47 PM
Let me see If I have this about right.

Lemme see if I got this right:


I realize we have the worst, most freedom robbing, big government progressive and radical president in the history of the USA, but I am dedicated to digging in my ass for colon product to throw at whoever is aligned against him- Molon Labe

Molon Labe
02-09-2012, 04:00 PM
Lemme see if I got this right:


I realize we have the worst, most freedom robbing, big government progressive and radical president in the history of the USA, And I won't vote another one just because he wears a Republican jersey - Molon Labe


Fixed....:)

AmPat
02-24-2012, 07:17 PM
Fixed....:)


I realize we have the worst, most freedom robbing, big government progressive and radical president in the history of the USA, but I am dedicated to digging in my ass for colon product to throw at whoever is aligned against him-And sitting on the sideline while the country is taken over by a gas-bag, Marxist president in his second term, because I was too stupid to realize that my ideology that all are supposed to bow and fawn over actually enabled a worse choice to get elected. Molon Labe (http://www.target.com/p/Molon-Labe-Paperback/-/A-11702434)
Now it's fixed!:thumbsup: