Santorum's (R) last debate performance

[Peach]

Santorum's debate performance was poor in terms of persuading people that he could be trusted on matters of actual principles to conservative issues.

He gets minor positive points, however, for at least owning up to his record. Honesty should count for something.

yeah but he was more making excuses.

I do not disagree. He kind of confessed that he voted contrary to his stated political philosophy, but couched the confession in terms of, "but it had to be done at the time due to the 'needs' of the Party . . . . "

Well, no. You did it, Senator. But you didn't HAVE to do it at all, much less for those petty "reasons." MAYBE what the Party actually needed was a person with a bit more spine.

MAYBE that's what the Country needed. And MAYBE it's what we are looking for. MAYBE you aren't the right guy to be looking AT.

And yet ... honestly, he'd still be a VAST improvement over the incumbent.

At least he admits his priorities; PARTY before COUNTRY.

 

[Liability]

yeah but he was more making excuses.

I do not disagree. He kind of confessed that he voted contrary to his stated political philosophy, but couched the confession in terms of, "but it had to be done at the time due to the 'needs' of the Party . . . . "

Well, no. You did it, Senator. But you didn't HAVE to do it at all, much less for those petty "reasons." MAYBE what the Party actually needed was a person with a bit more spine.

MAYBE that's what the Country needed. And MAYBE it's what we are looking for. MAYBE you aren't the right guy to be looking AT.

And yet ... honestly, he'd still be a VAST improvement over the incumbent.

At least he admits his priorities; PARTY before COUNTRY.

I don't think that's what he admitted. But it does seem to be the message underneath what he DID say.

I will acknowledge that he at least was honest enough to admit that he had failed to live up to his political-philosophical beliefs. But I still say that admitting such a serious failure gets fewer points for honesty than it costs him in terms of constancy.

If the question EVER boils down to, "who deserves it more for having his votes correspond with his (quasi) conservative positions?" then the answer is probably Gingrich.

 

[Dot Com]

There may have been a candidate or two who wisely decided to sit this one out as it isn't easy running against a successful incumbent President

"successful"

Thats right. He's a proud, decisive, African American President

 

[Sallow]

Obama hasn't either

69 million Americans would disagree

Sort of, but let's break that down. There's 309 million americans. So 22% of americans like Obama enough to vote for him, but how much of that 22% is just voting for the lesser of 2 evils? How much of that 22% know what Obama has done in office?

So roughly somewhere between 10-20% of americans actually support Obama and what he's doing.

Some 46% of Americans that can vote..do.

And that's a travesty.

 

[Sallow]

and that many disagreed when Bush was President, yes? or are you just playing the role of Obama's concubine again?

Actually, Bush had it too. A certain country boy charm that voters say....this is a guy I would like to sit down and have a beer with

Looking "presidential" is an indefinable characteristic that voters say....I would be comfortable with this guy as president

JFK had it, Reagan had it, Clinton had it, Obama has it
Guys like Dukakis, Mondale, Dole didn't

None of the current GOP field has the charisma to be considered presidential

Newt has the charisma, but it does not help a slime mold like him much.

Newt has the same charisma I use to see in college professors on the make for young chicks. I even had a film class where we would have wine and cheese along with the viewings. Lots of girls would hang around with the guy giving the class after it was over.

I didn't see the debates..but from what I see in the clips..it looks as if they have began to coalesce around Mittens. Even Newt was friendly.

Guess they either got..or are getting the memo. Santorum still thinks he's got a shot.

 

[elvis]

Actually, Bush had it too. A certain country boy charm that voters say....this is a guy I would like to sit down and have a beer with

Looking "presidential" is an indefinable characteristic that voters say....I would be comfortable with this guy as president

JFK had it, Reagan had it, Clinton had it, Obama has it
Guys like Dukakis, Mondale, Dole didn't

None of the current GOP field has the charisma to be considered presidential

Newt has the charisma, but it does not help a slime mold like him much.

Newt has the same charisma I use to see in college professors on the make for young chicks. I even had a film class where we would have wine and cheese along with the viewings. Lots of girls would hang around with the guy giving the class after it was over.

I didn't see the debates..but from what I see in the clips..it looks as if they have began to coalesce around Mittens. Even Newt was friendly.

Guess they either got..or are getting the memo. Santorum still thinks he's got a shot.

I think Santorum has a shot for sure. It's insane.

 

[Liability]

There may have been a candidate or two who wisely decided to sit this one out as it isn't easy running against a successful incumbent President

"successful"

Thats right. He's a proud, decisive, African American President

So, to summarize:

He's President. Check.

He's proud? Ok. Arrogant is more like it, but it's baseless anyway.

He is African American. Yep.

He's decisive? No. Not really, but let's pretend that was even true.

What the **** do any of those items on that check list of yours have to do with being "successful?"

Answer: Nothing at all.

 

[Peach]

I do not disagree. He kind of confessed that he voted contrary to his stated political philosophy, but couched the confession in terms of, "but it had to be done at the time due to the 'needs' of the Party . . . . "

Well, no. You did it, Senator. But you didn't HAVE to do it at all, much less for those petty "reasons." MAYBE what the Party actually needed was a person with a bit more spine.

MAYBE that's what the Country needed. And MAYBE it's what we are looking for. MAYBE you aren't the right guy to be looking AT.

And yet ... honestly, he'd still be a VAST improvement over the incumbent.

At least he admits his priorities; PARTY before COUNTRY.

I don't think that's what he admitted. But it does seem to be the message underneath what he DID say.

I will acknowledge that he at least was honest enough to admit that he had failed to live up to his political-philosophical beliefs. But I still say that admitting such a serious failure gets fewer points for honesty than it costs him in terms of constancy.

If the question EVER boils down to, "who deserves it more for having his votes correspond with his (quasi) conservative positions?" then the answer is probably Gingrich.

I would say Paul; Newt has changed positions. Here is his PRIOR view on abortion:
****************************************************
Digging up quotes from as far back as 1984, '12er dumps the oppo doc on the Georgian, argues he "has failed to meet a consistently pro-life standard."
Read the extensive press release below.

Newt Gingrich Has Failed to Meet a Consistently Pro-Life Standard
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has failed to uphold a consistently pro-life stance throughout his career in public life. Gingrich has positioned himself as open to watering down the Republican Party’s commitment to the inalienable right to life and failed as the leader of the U.S. House of Representatives to stem the flow of taxpayer dollars to Planned Parenthood, the largest U.S. provider of abortions.
Two decades ago, Gingrich portrayed himself as a moderating force on the Republican Party’s staunch pro-life position:
A March 1990 column describes Gingrich as “clearly backing away” from the pro- life plank in the Republican Party platform, with Gingrich stating, “there is a continuing evolution of this issue.” “The GOP platform states that the ‘unborn child has a fundamental right to life which cannot be infringed’ and supports a constitutional amendment to outlaw all abortion. ... Senate Minority Whip Alan Simpson, who is pro-choice, is the first major GOP figure to predict that the 1992 platform will abandon the current inflexible pro-life rhetoric. ... His House counterpart, Newt Gingrich of Georgia, is pro-life but is clearly backing away. ‘We will draw the line to permit fewer abortions than the Democrats,’ he says, shifting the emphasis from banning abortions to merely limiting them. ‘There is a continuing evolution of this issue,’ Gingrich admits.” (Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 3/16/1990)
********************************************
This came from Bachmann by the way.

Read more: The Page by Mark Halperin | Bachmann Blasts Gingrich on Abortion

 

[Liability]

At least he admits his priorities; PARTY before COUNTRY.

I don't think that's what he admitted. But it does seem to be the message underneath what he DID say.

I will acknowledge that he at least was honest enough to admit that he had failed to live up to his political-philosophical beliefs. But I still say that admitting such a serious failure gets fewer points for honesty than it costs him in terms of constancy.

If the question EVER boils down to, "who deserves it more for having his votes correspond with his (quasi) conservative positions?" then the answer is probably Gingrich.

I would say Paul; Newt has changed positions. Here is his PRIOR view on abortion:
****************************************************
Digging up quotes from as far back as 1984, '12er dumps the oppo doc on the Georgian, argues he "has failed to meet a consistently pro-life standard."
Read the extensive press release below.

Newt Gingrich Has Failed to Meet a Consistently Pro-Life Standard
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has failed to uphold a consistently pro-life stance throughout his career in public life. Gingrich has positioned himself as open to watering down the Republican Party’s commitment to the inalienable right to life and failed as the leader of the U.S. House of Representatives to stem the flow of taxpayer dollars to Planned Parenthood, the largest U.S. provider of abortions.
Two decades ago, Gingrich portrayed himself as a moderating force on the Republican Party’s staunch pro-life position:
A March 1990 column describes Gingrich as “clearly backing away” from the pro- life plank in the Republican Party platform, with Gingrich stating, “there is a continuing evolution of this issue.” “The GOP platform states that the ‘unborn child has a fundamental right to life which cannot be infringed’ and supports a constitutional amendment to outlaw all abortion. ... Senate Minority Whip Alan Simpson, who is pro-choice, is the first major GOP figure to predict that the 1992 platform will abandon the current inflexible pro-life rhetoric. ... His House counterpart, Newt Gingrich of Georgia, is pro-life but is clearly backing away. ‘We will draw the line to permit fewer abortions than the Democrats,’ he says, shifting the emphasis from banning abortions to merely limiting them. ‘There is a continuing evolution of this issue,’ Gingrich admits.” (Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 3/16/1990)
********************************************
This came from Bachmann by the way.

Read more: The Page by Mark Halperin | Bachmann Blasts Gingrich on Abortion

One can change one's mind.

In the past, Gingrich was not a Catholic, either.

The question is not whether one has ever changed one's mind.

The question is whether one's actions are in conflict with one's claimed belief system.

Gingrich promised a Contract with America. HE delivered.

 

[Sallow]

Newt has the charisma, but it does not help a slime mold like him much.

Newt has the same charisma I use to see in college professors on the make for young chicks. I even had a film class where we would have wine and cheese along with the viewings. Lots of girls would hang around with the guy giving the class after it was over.

I didn't see the debates..but from what I see in the clips..it looks as if they have began to coalesce around Mittens. Even Newt was friendly.

Guess they either got..or are getting the memo. Santorum still thinks he's got a shot.

I think Santorum has a shot for sure. It's insane.

It's a real small one. Romney's catching up in Michigan and he's got the money to lock it up even if he loses there.

If Newt and Paul aren't focusing on Romney..Santorum's day is just about done.

 

[JoeB131]

Obama won the debate last night

None of the candidates look close to being presidential

Obama hasn't either

Probably not. But Obama already has the job.

 

[JoeB131]

my own thought. Santorum (whom I like) didn't step up to the moment. So I suspect his moment is going to pass soon enough.

It was never really about Santorum to start with. It was about the fact that the GOP establishment wants Romney, and the GOP rank and file has gone from one "NotRomney" to another. We've had five so far- Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Gingrich and now Santorum, who let's not forget, was polling at 4% back in December.

Incidently, I am announcing my legal name change to "Joe NotRomney" and announcing my candidacy.

Most of these GOP folks will "take one for the team" and support Romney. I won't. Ever. Some will stay home. Some will support third parties, a few might even creep over to Obama.

This is not how you defeat an incumbant. It's how you lose with dignity, and I guess if you're John Kerry or Bob Dole, that's good enough.

 

[Peach]

I don't think that's what he admitted. But it does seem to be the message underneath what he DID say.

I will acknowledge that he at least was honest enough to admit that he had failed to live up to his political-philosophical beliefs. But I still say that admitting such a serious failure gets fewer points for honesty than it costs him in terms of constancy.

If the question EVER boils down to, "who deserves it more for having his votes correspond with his (quasi) conservative positions?" then the answer is probably Gingrich.

I would say Paul; Newt has changed positions. Here is his PRIOR view on abortion:
****************************************************
Digging up quotes from as far back as 1984, '12er dumps the oppo doc on the Georgian, argues he "has failed to meet a consistently pro-life standard."
Read the extensive press release below.

Newt Gingrich Has Failed to Meet a Consistently Pro-Life Standard
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has failed to uphold a consistently pro-life stance throughout his career in public life. Gingrich has positioned himself as open to watering down the Republican Party’s commitment to the inalienable right to life and failed as the leader of the U.S. House of Representatives to stem the flow of taxpayer dollars to Planned Parenthood, the largest U.S. provider of abortions.
Two decades ago, Gingrich portrayed himself as a moderating force on the Republican Party’s staunch pro-life position:
A March 1990 column describes Gingrich as “clearly backing away” from the pro- life plank in the Republican Party platform, with Gingrich stating, “there is a continuing evolution of this issue.” “The GOP platform states that the ‘unborn child has a fundamental right to life which cannot be infringed’ and supports a constitutional amendment to outlaw all abortion. ... Senate Minority Whip Alan Simpson, who is pro-choice, is the first major GOP figure to predict that the 1992 platform will abandon the current inflexible pro-life rhetoric. ... His House counterpart, Newt Gingrich of Georgia, is pro-life but is clearly backing away. ‘We will draw the line to permit fewer abortions than the Democrats,’ he says, shifting the emphasis from banning abortions to merely limiting them. ‘There is a continuing evolution of this issue,’ Gingrich admits.” (Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 3/16/1990)
********************************************
This came from Bachmann by the way.

Read more: The Page by Mark Halperin | Bachmann Blasts Gingrich on Abortion

One can change one's mind.

In the past, Gingrich was not a Catholic, either.

The question is not whether one has ever changed one's mind.

The question is whether one's actions are in conflict with one's claimed belief system.

Gingrich promised a Contract with America. HE delivered.

More like a "hit".

 

[Peach]

my own thought. Santorum (whom I like) didn't step up to the moment. So I suspect his moment is going to pass soon enough.

It was never really about Santorum to start with. It was about the fact that the GOP establishment wants Romney, and the GOP rank and file has gone from one "NotRomney" to another. We've had five so far- Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Gingrich and now Santorum, who let's not forget, was polling at 4% back in December.

Incidently, I am announcing my legal name change to "Joe NotRomney" and announcing my candidacy.

Most of these GOP folks will "take one for the team" and support Romney. I won't. Ever. Some will stay home. Some will support third parties, a few might even creep over to Obama.

This is not how you defeat an incumbant. It's how you lose with dignity, and I guess if you're John Kerry or Bob Dole, that's good enough.

Your party has no Bob, nor Liddy, Doles, or I would change my registration to campaign for him OR her.

 

[JoeB131]

my own thought. Santorum (whom I like) didn't step up to the moment. So I suspect his moment is going to pass soon enough.

It was never really about Santorum to start with. It was about the fact that the GOP establishment wants Romney, and the GOP rank and file has gone from one "NotRomney" to another. We've had five so far- Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Gingrich and now Santorum, who let's not forget, was polling at 4% back in December.

Incidently, I am announcing my legal name change to "Joe NotRomney" and announcing my candidacy.

Most of these GOP folks will "take one for the team" and support Romney. I won't. Ever. Some will stay home. Some will support third parties, a few might even creep over to Obama.

This is not how you defeat an incumbant. It's how you lose with dignity, and I guess if you're John Kerry or Bob Dole, that's good enough.

Your party has no Bob, nor Liddy, Doles, or I would change my registration to campaign for him OR her.

True enough.

And here's the thing about Bob Dole. Mitt Romney isn't fit to carry his suitcase.

I think the Dole and Romney have a lot in common. They've both been running for the presidency for a while now, but neither one can really tell you why.

I remember in 1996, when Bob Dole resigned from the Senate to get some attention for his campaign, when it was broke and he was relying on matching funds to continue.

He spent his speech bragging about all the legistlation he passed and all the ways he made government bigger.

So what was his rationale for unseating Clinton again?

Yes, I respected the hell out of his service to our country (A lot more than Mittens did annoying French people with the Book of Mormon while John McCain was being tortured in a bamboo cage), but he wasn't giving us a compelling reason why he would be an improvement over the current guy.

 

[JimH52]

I was disappointed with Santorum. I assume that he is the annointed Tea Party candidate, which now appears to be a weakness. Romney is probably one of the more devious candidates that I have ever seen. He has a certain way of attacking anyone who challenges his dominance, while smiling and playing the innocent Mormon part. His handlers are not pulling punches. He will hold his own in a debate with Obama.

 

[JoeB131]

I was disappointed with Santorum. I assume that he is the annointed Tea Party candidate, which now appears to be a weakness. Romney is probably one of the more devious candidates that I have ever seen. He has a certain way of attacking anyone who challenges his dominance, while smiling and playing the innocent Mormon part. His handlers are not pulling punches. He will hold his own in a debate with Obama.

I don't think he will. Romney is dominating feeble opponents because of three reasons-

1) His abilty to outspend them by huge ratios.

2) His willingness to slime them openly, knowing the press by and large won't call Shenanigans on him for doing it.

3) Having far more organization and support. Such as being able to stack the hall last night with Mormons to boo Santorum on cue.)

(Great example of the second point, hitting Santorum for voting for a budget that had money for Planned Parenthood when he himself donated DIRECTLY to the organization.)

He will not be able to get away with these against Obama. Obama will have more money, more organization and if Romney tries the sliming, the Media is going to pounce on him and probably imply he's racist, which will be a great point to remind everyone his "church" didn't admit black folks as members until 1978.

As for Santorum being the "TEA Party" guy. NONE of these guys is the TEA ideal. They've all voted for bigger and more government at some point. (I exclude Ron Paul, because he's a bad joke.)

The TEA Party is a 3 year old movement trying to change a political party that is 160 years old. I think it's a bit much to expect them to do it all in that short an amount of time. NOw it might well disappate. Or it might become the dominant force in the GOP years from now.

 

[Toro]

I was disappointed with Santorum. I assume that he is the annointed Tea Party candidate, which now appears to be a weakness. Romney is probably one of the more devious candidates that I have ever seen. He has a certain way of attacking anyone who challenges his dominance, while smiling and playing the innocent Mormon part. His handlers are not pulling punches. He will hold his own in a debate with Obama.

It's going to be a depressing election - a President with no record against a candidate with no reason to vote for. The attack ads are going to be off the charts.

 

[Liability]

I was disappointed with Santorum. I assume that he is the annointed Tea Party candidate, which now appears to be a weakness. Romney is probably one of the more devious candidates that I have ever seen. He has a certain way of attacking anyone who challenges his dominance, while smiling and playing the innocent Mormon part. His handlers are not pulling punches. He will hold his own in a debate with Obama.

It's going to be a depressing election - a President with no record against a candidate with no reason to vote for. The attack ads are going to be off the charts.

Even more depressing. The clearly established failure -- dangerously inept failure -- might win his bid for re-election.

 

[Liability]

I would say Paul; Newt has changed positions. Here is his PRIOR view on abortion:
****************************************************
Digging up quotes from as far back as 1984, '12er dumps the oppo doc on the Georgian, argues he "has failed to meet a consistently pro-life standard."
Read the extensive press release below.

Newt Gingrich Has Failed to Meet a Consistently Pro-Life Standard
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has failed to uphold a consistently pro-life stance throughout his career in public life. Gingrich has positioned himself as open to watering down the Republican Party’s commitment to the inalienable right to life and failed as the leader of the U.S. House of Representatives to stem the flow of taxpayer dollars to Planned Parenthood, the largest U.S. provider of abortions.
Two decades ago, Gingrich portrayed himself as a moderating force on the Republican Party’s staunch pro-life position:
A March 1990 column describes Gingrich as “clearly backing away” from the pro- life plank in the Republican Party platform, with Gingrich stating, “there is a continuing evolution of this issue.” “The GOP platform states that the ‘unborn child has a fundamental right to life which cannot be infringed’ and supports a constitutional amendment to outlaw all abortion. ... Senate Minority Whip Alan Simpson, who is pro-choice, is the first major GOP figure to predict that the 1992 platform will abandon the current inflexible pro-life rhetoric. ... His House counterpart, Newt Gingrich of Georgia, is pro-life but is clearly backing away. ‘We will draw the line to permit fewer abortions than the Democrats,’ he says, shifting the emphasis from banning abortions to merely limiting them. ‘There is a continuing evolution of this issue,’ Gingrich admits.” (Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 3/16/1990)
********************************************
This came from Bachmann by the way.

Read more: The Page by Mark Halperin | Bachmann Blasts Gingrich on Abortion

One can change one's mind.

In the past, Gingrich was not a Catholic, either.

The question is not whether one has ever changed one's mind.

The question is whether one's actions are in conflict with one's claimed belief system.

Gingrich promised a Contract with America. HE delivered.

More like a "hit".

Gee. Nobody ever thought to make the play on words of Contract On America before.