Yes! The low information voters are part of the problem. But the control of the senate might actually depend on whether the GOP guy wins in Kansas and I guess many of the true believers would rather have the abortion party control the senate rather than vote for an imperfect Republican that they only agree on 80% of the time.
I think there are many voters out there who find abortion not to be a priority for them; some may find gun control, the environment, health care or immigration policy to be a bigger priority when it comes time for them to cast their ballot. For everyone there is usually a maker or breaker on how they’ll vote.
I am not a fan of Mitt Romney — BUT he is a thousand times better man than Barack Obama. Romney would not have been on a mission to diminish and destroy America and its Constitution, and he actually respects the people who take risks and help America succeed. Rob
Romney would have hurt the poor with his calloused job killing free trade policies, and his RECORD of supporting gay marriage and no action on abortion made him the top RINO candidate in 2012.
So, in order to avoid supporting the “lesser of two evils” (as you see it) you will support the greater of them.
Well said. Jeb Bush is not my first choice, but I would definitely vote for him, and I think he is a decent honorable man.
I heard he will not run if Romney decides to run again. In any event, I think he’s a smart man who would be a good president, if not the best candidate.
Your whole case is based on a smear of a good, decent man. Pretty hard to prove one is solid on abortion if you don’t get elected. Romney did choose a strong pro-life running mate in Ryan, and a contructionist stalwart - the enemy of the abortionists - in Robert Bork. And, as Ridgerunner said, Romney, being a smart man, would know that had he won the election and then not governed as a pro-life president, he would not have kept the support of social conservatives - which he would have needed for re-election.
How I wish ANY of those three were President today.Good news. What about a Santorum/Cruz ticket? I could vote for that.Finally a poll with results I like.
Santorum, Cruz and Ryan lead?
Here’s a link to a (softly anti- in my opinion) story on Santorum.
politico.com/story/2014/09/rick-santorum-returns-111408.html
The writer betrays her bias to the inevitability of (yet another) establishment Republican as the eventual GOP candidate - but give her credit - dutifully enumerates some of the pro-s that a Santorum candidacy enjoys … especially vs. last time (2012).
It is interesting to hear the takes by former Mc Cain and Romney campaign leaders on Santorum’s advantages and challenges.
Also interesting is writer Anna Palmer’s story finale. Santorum is irrelevant (my take on her take … she doesn’t really use THAT word ) because Ted Cruz is sucking the air out of the Evangelical vote.
Begging the question … if Santorum is so clearly irrelevant, why waste a story on him? To me it came off as another of these “conventional wisdom” stories aimed at influencing the easily influenced.
One thing not mentioned much is that Santorum’s geographical base, which he even did well in when he lost in the 2006 midterms - is western Pennsylvania, bordering eastern Ohio and the West Virginia panhandle. Could he take his home state as a favorite son … and add critical Ohio in a national race? He knows the territory and that Blue Collar Conservative campaign he is presenting is at least an interesting strategy for getting moderate voters to switch to the GOP after Obama weariness hits its peak.
Well … in Latin and Spanish that would translate to Holy Place/Cross. Hard to live up to those altitudinous religious sentiments, but all in all, not a bad lyrical entry. Or a substantial entry come to think of it.
I would vote for either of them over Hillary Clinton or any likely Dem candidate. But they wouldn’t be my first choices for the ticket because I don’t think they can win.
Hello Captfun. Here is my take on Santorum: he came in 2nd in a primary battle between flawed candidates (or was he 3rd behind Gingrich). It is incorrect to take his showing among a weak field of contenders in 2012 (I mean, Rick Perry, Ron Paul, Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, Jon Huntsman, Gary Johnson?) and apply that to 2016 which has a much stronger field of candidates - Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, Paul Ryan Bobby Jindal and Mike Pence to name a few. Take Walker - he is in a position to be a strong contender if he wins his battle in Wisconsin. On the other hand, Santorum lost his last election and it wasn’t close. Walker has shown that he can appeal to a wide variety of voters - not just traditional conservatives or the GOP base - and win in a purple state. Santorum has not proven he can appeal to swing voters, moderates, or independents. Based on that, I would judge Walker to be the stronger potential candidate. One other thing to consider are the potential negatives: even if Santorum could win over a few blue collar conservatives, how many moderates or independents would he alienate or scare off in the process? Fair or not, his candidacy would be torpedoed faster than you can say, “war on women.” I wouldn’t regard the race as Santorum vs. the GOP establishment - unless you’re talking Santorum vs Romney or Jeb Bush. The other guys aren’t really the GOP establishment, not even Christie.Finally a poll with results I like.
Santorum, Cruz and Ryan lead?
Here’s a link to a (softly anti- in my opinion) story on Santorum.
politico.com/story/2014/09/rick-santorum-returns-111408.html
The writer betrays her bias to the inevitability of (yet another) establishment Republican as the eventual GOP candidate - but give her credit - dutifully enumerates some of the pro-s that a Santorum candidacy enjoys … especially vs. last time (2012).
It is interesting to hear the takes by former Mc Cain and Romney campaign leaders on Santorum’s advantages and challenges.
Also interesting is writer Anna Palmer’s story finale. Santorum is irrelevant (my take on her take … she doesn’t really use THAT word ) because Ted Cruz is sucking the air out of the Evangelical vote.
Begging the question … if Santorum is so clearly irrelevant, why waste a story on him? To me it came off as another of these “conventional wisdom” stories aimed at influencing the easily influenced.
One thing not mentioned much is that Santorum’s geographical base, which he even did well in when he lost in the 2006 midterms - is western Pennsylvania, bordering eastern Ohio and the West Virginia panhandle. Could he take his home state as a favorite son … and add critical Ohio in a national race? He knows the territory and that Blue Collar Conservative campaign he is presenting is at least an interesting strategy for getting moderate voters to switch to the GOP after Obama weariness hits its peak.
So could I. But it would likely be a vote for the losing team. The debates would be entertaining though.
Good observation.
You know why your’e usually wrong, Ishii? Because you make sense you’re woefully outnumbered!
Are you kidding us, RG? Obama loves the poor so much, he has made millions more of them.
Hi Bob. Yjanks for the previous ACA (Affordable Care Act) explanation.