Republican Primary

[kubark]

I don’t want Paul supporters holding sway over a brokered convention.

Why not?

Only a Ron Paul led Republican ticket can beat Obama. See: freeindependentsun.com/republ…an-beat-obama/

The Neoconservative Republican establishment needs to be admonished by Ron Paul, especially on their unconstitutional and unjust foreign policy that has wasted so much blood and treasure and that has actually made us less secure in the long run.

You better hope that Ron Paul does better than a brokered convention. You better hope that he is the nominee. He is the only one that has a chance at beating Obama in a general election. And Obama knows it.

 

[The_Rock]

Why not?

Only a Ron Paul led Republican ticket can beat Obama. See: freeindependentsun.com/republ…an-beat-obama/…

He is the only one that has a chance at beating Obama in a general election. And Obama knows it.

Actually Santorum is the only one currently beating Obama in the current head to head poll…

Santorum 45% vs Obama 43%
realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_santorum_vs_obama-2912.html

Ron Paul polls the worst of the 4 GOP candidates head to head vs Obama
Obama 50% vs Paul 38%
realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_paul_vs_obama-1750.html

Obama 48% vs Romney 42%
realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html

Obama 46% vs Gingrich 43%
realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_gingrich_vs_obama-1453.html

 

[kubark]

Actually Santorum is the only one currently beating Obama in the current head to head poll…

Santorum 45% vs Obama 43%
realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_santorum_vs_obama-2912.html

Ron Paul polls the worst of the 4 GOP candidates head to head vs Obama
Obama 50% vs Paul 38%
realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_paul_vs_obama-1750.html

Obama 48% vs Romney 42%
realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html

Obama 46% vs Gingrich 43%
realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_gingrich_vs_obama-1453.html

LOL. The link that you reference (realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_santorum_vs_obama-2912.html) actually shows Obama beating Santorum, 49.8 to 41.2 in favor of Obama. That same poll shows Ron Paul doing better than Santorum, with Obama only beating Paul 48.2 to 42. Nice try, though.

Here is the poll that matters, the one showing Ron Paul surging nationally: “Reuters/Ipsos poll: Mitt Romney, Ron Paul lead” (thestatecolumn.com/articles/reutersipsos-poll-mitt-romney-ron-paul-lead/)

Here is the other analysis that matters: “What the New PPP 3-Way Race Poll Shows: Only A Ron Paul Led Republican Ticket Can Beat Obama” (freeindependentsun.com/republic/what-the-new-ppp-3-way-race-poll-shows-only-a-ron-paul-led-republican-ticket-can-beat-obama/)

 

[CMatt25]

10 potential problems for Rick Santorum in the remaining primary and general election:

1. He lost by a landslide in his most recent PA reelection bid.
2. Worked for lobbying groups.
3. Endorsed Romney in 2008
4. Endorsed Arlen Specter over the more conservative Pat Toomey for Senate in 2004.
5. Was a strong supporter of and voted for Medicare Part D, a big expansion in the size of government. Something GOP primary voters are purported to strongly dislike.
6. The suggestion he was not very popular in the Senate bringing into question his ability to work with others.
7. His words earlier in this campaign about “bLLL people”. Santorum says he didn’t mean “black” but has not been able to say what word he did mean. This may not hurt him in Republican primary circles but could come back to haunt him in a general.
8. Santorum previously offended many when in discussing homosexuality, he offered a comparison by at least saying, “It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog”.
9. He has compared same sex marriage to polygamy.
10. And last but perhaps not least, while his views on social issues suit conservatives voting in Republican primaries, they are not only far to the right of the left but appear to be also to the extreme right of the mainstream and independents and moderates who will play a key role in the general election. In short, the Obama campaign might have an easier time painting Santorum as an extremist, too conservative for a general election electorate.

politico.com/news/stories/0212/72607.html

But if the base wants to nominate him, go for it.

 

[rlg94086]

LOL. The link that you reference (realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_santorum_vs_obama-2912.html) actually shows Obama beating Santorum, 49.8 to 41.2 in favor of Obama. That same poll shows Ron Paul doing better than Santorum, with Obama only beating Paul 48.2 to 42. Nice try, though.

LOL. You are unable to read the polling data provided. RealClearPolitics provides an average, which is what you are going by. The most recent poll from Rasmussen shows the data The Rock was referring to. Opinion polls are dynamic, and there has been an obvious shift toward Santorum. Winning a few states will do that. Will he sustain it? Time will tell.

 

[Caldera]

The lengths to which Santorum supporters will go to try to whitewash the record of the pro-life-in-rhetoric-only Santorum is truly sad.

Kubark, not sure if you are aware of this, but in 2008 Ron Paul supported the Green Party’s nominee Cynthia McKinney. She was a six-term Democratic pro-abortion congresswoman with a 100% NARAL rating. She voted against the partial birth abortion ban act of '99, and voted for human embryonic stem cell research in '05. (Among a slew of other issues that make her a complete polar opposite of Paul)

Why did he support her over a pro-life candidate? Did he have other priorities?

 

[kubark]

Kubark, not sure if you are aware of this, but in 2008 Ron Paul supported the Green Party’s nominee Cynthia McKinney. She was a six-term Democratic pro-abortion congresswoman with a 100% NARAL rating. She voted against the partial birth abortion ban act of '99, and voted for human embryonic stem cell research in '05. (Among a slew of other issues that make her a complete polar opposite of Paul)

Why did he support her over a pro-life candidate? Did he have other priorities?

I already covered this 2008 issue to which you refer an on which you apparently did very little research, Caldera:

Ron Paul DID NOT endorse the pro-choice Cynthia McKinney.

Ron Paul ENDORSED the pro-life Chuck Baldwin.

The 2008 press club event was held over four issues that the three candidates that showed up agreed on: civil liberties, foreign policy, the fed, and the national debt.

Here are the relevant portions of Ron Paul’s speech during that press conference:

"…This does not mean that I expect to get Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney to become libertarians, nor do they expect me to change my mind on the issues on which we disagree. In the meantime, why can’t we be friends, respectful of each other, and fight the corrupt process from which we suffer, and at the same time champion the four issues that we all agree upon which the two major candidates won’t address [abortion was not one of those issues]?

Many practical benefits can come from this unique alliance. Our cause is liberty — freedom is popular and is the banner that brings people together. Since authoritarianism divides, we always have the edge in an intellectual fight. Once it’s realized that the humanitarian goals of peace and prosperity are best achieved with our views, I’m convinced we win by working with others. Those who don’t want to collaborate are insecure with their own beliefs…

…Principled people are not shy in participating with others and will defend their beliefs on their merits. Liberals and progressives are willing to align themselves with us on the key issues of peace, civil liberties, debt and the Federal Reserve. That’s exciting and very encouraging, and it means we are making progress. The big challenge, however, is taking on the establishment, and the process that is so well entrenched. But we can’t beat the entrenched elite without the alliance of all those who have been disenfranchised.

Ironically the most difficult group to recruit has been the evangelicals who supported McCain and his pro-war positions. They have been convinced that they are obligated to initiate preventive war in the Middle East for theological reasons. Fortunately, this is a minority of the Christian community, but our doors remain open to all despite this type of challenge. The point is, new devotees to the freedom philosophy are more likely to come from the left than from those conservatives who have been convinced that God has instructed us to militarize the Middle East…

…The Libertarian Party Candidate admonished me for “remaining neutral” in the presidential race and not stating whom I will vote for in November. It’s true; I have done exactly that due to my respect and friendship and support from both the Constitution and Libertarian Party members. I remain a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party and I’m a ten-term Republican Congressman. It is not against the law to participate in more than one political party. Chuck Baldwin has been a friend and was an active supporter in the presidential campaign.

I continue to wish the Libertarian and Constitution Parties well. The more votes they get, the better. I have attended Libertarian Party conventions frequently over the years.

In some states, one can be on the ballots of two parties, as they can in New York. This is good and attacks the monopoly control of politics by Republicans and Democrats. We need more states to permit this option. This will be a good project for the Campaign for Liberty, along with the alliance we are building to change the process.

I’ve thought about the unsolicited advice from the Libertarian Party candidate, and he has convinced me to reject my neutral stance in the November election. **I’m supporting Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate." **

 

[_Abyssinia]

Highlights of the first day of CPAC…

Rick Perry inspires Republicans to ‘keep the faith’ at CPAC 2012 - [Houston Chronicle](http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2012/02/texmessage-rick-perry-redeems-himself-sort-of-at-cpac-2012/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)

"When asked if he would run for President again, Perry replied, “Oh, sure,” but said his focus was on Texas." - [Hot Air](http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/09/perry-sure-ill-run-for-president-again/)

"House Speaker John Boehner wears the conflict that rages in the House of Representatives as a badge of honor. “When [the media] uses the word ‘tumultuous’ to describe our majority it doesn’t bother me at all,” the Ohio Republican told the Conservative Political Action Conference on Thursday. “I’m actually taking it as a compliment”" - [Houston Chronicle

](http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/201...r-takes-pride-in-admittedly-tumultous-tenure/)
Bachmann mocks her own campaign flubs at CPAC - USA Today

Herman Cain says he's not going away quietly - [LA Times](http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-herman-cain-cpac-20120209,0,4475987.story)

"Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli gave a packed house at the Conservative Political Action Conference an energetic defense of federalism on Thursday." - [National Journal](http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2012/02/cpac-cuccinelli.php)

Will the conservative grassroots accept Romney when he speaks today?

"A Romney fund-raiser described the candidate’s Friday speech… “He’s going to try to provide a holistic rationale for why he should be the guy in the fall that will be conservative, thoughtful and combative, so people can say, ‘If he acts that way in the fall, I’m for him,’ " the donor said.” - Wall Street Journal

"For more than an hour... Mitt Romney huddled with a small gathering of leaders in the conservative movement, potential emissaries to those who have so far proved most wary of embracing him as the Republican Party’s nominee." - [New York Times

](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/10/u...ves-at-cpac.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha24)
“He said he plans to use a portion of the speech to focus on something he rarely brings up on the campaign trail - his record as governor of Massachusetts.” - Politico

“Politico suggests that Romney will want to “deliver a truly conservative message in person.” My advice to the Romney campaign: be careful.” - David Frum

David Brooks: Romney needs to show his conservative core, not just talk up his business background

“If Romney is to thrive, he really needs to go on an integrity tour. He needs to show how his outer pronouncements flow directly from his inner core. He needs to trust that voters will take him as he really is. He needs to tell his own complicated individual story and stop reducing himself to the outsider/businessman advertising cliché. He needs to tell us what about his character is more fundamental than his national park patriotism and his skill at corporate restructuring.” - David Brooks for the New York Times

Santorum will use his appearance to emphasize electability

“[T]he CPAC straw poll… is up for grabs. If Santorum wins it, it will be a notch for him going into the final weeks before Arizona, Michigan and Super Tuesday - and add to the perception that he is galvanizing the base of the party that has not embraced Romney.” - Politico

"A new poll in Pennsylvania shows that Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney are running neck and neck, but Republicans in the Keystone State believe Mr. Romney has the best shot by far of beating President Barack Obama." - [Wall Street Journal](http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/02/09/santorum-romney-in-dead-heat-in-pennsylvania/)

Peggy Noonan: the American public is being turned off by politics

Maybe the story the political class is missing is not “They don’t like the Republican field,” or “They don’t like Obama.” Maybe the story is that people are tuning out altogether. Maybe they’re bored with politics, and most especially with politicians. Maybe they don’t think our government can’t solve anything. Maybe, even, our political class has done such a good job depicting the crisis we’re in that the American people, with their low faith in institutions, think nothing, really, can be done about it." - Peggy Noonan for the Wall Street Journal

Is 2012 slipping away from the GOP? - Power Line

Comment from Mark Reinbold sums up the negative article: It’s the summer of 1980. Ronald Reagan doesn’t have a snowball’s chance of winning.

 

[Caldera]

I already covered this 2008 issue to which you refer an on which you apparently did very little research, Caldera:

Ron Paul DID NOT endorse the pro-choice Cynthia McKinney.

Ron Paul ENDORSED the pro-life Chuck Baldwin.

Yes, that is correct. When I read he supported a pro-abortion candidate the first thing I did was a background check to verify where she stood on the issues, then posted.

I personally don’t follow Paul very closely, but I find it amazing how many different websites are still saying he endorsed her as recently as the past month…

 

[mary_bobo]

Nominate Santorum and you will guarantee an Obama second term.

Santorum and Gingrich have serious ballot issues. They are not even on all the ballots in all the states. They are not serious candidates.

It really shows how arrogant Santorum is for him to think that after he stabbed the pro-life movement in the back in Pennsylvania, and lost by the largest losing margin for an incumbent Republican Senator ever, that he is now somehow more electable and will have another shot at it in the general election. This man is delusional; the more so when you seperate his rhetoric from his voting records. Heck, at least Mitt Romney is honest about his past flip-flops. Santorum is in perpetual denial and excuse mode. Arlen Specter called him a liar over the 2004 Supreme Court nominee deal that Santorum insists took place. Do you want a potential liar in the White House and as Commander in Chief?

This is a two way race between Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. The national polls demonstrate this and you are going to have to decide which of them is the true conservative.

And you believe Arlen Spector after he changed parties to try for re-election? And somehow he did support (or at least not oppose) two SC nominees that he otherwise might not have.

 

[pnewton]

If voters on CAF are voting solely because they’re Pro Life, tell me, WHO IN THIS RACE IS MORE PRO LIFE THAN RICK SANTORUM?

[And, if you say Ron Paul, how is that the case, if Ron Paul doesn’t ever vote for Bills? He probably failed to vote for a bunch of pro-life bills because of this, and I bet Santorum managed to vote for them]

But I will say Ron Paul, as I see it. I do not base this on a vague guess that he voted against some bill that I don’t even know what it was, but upon his aversion to unjust war. While war may or may not be just, and we can disagree with this, Santorum, in my judgment, is too hawkish in his rhetoric.

Now if you go past pro-life and just focus on abortion, I would say they are equally anti-abortion. If Santorum wins the nomination, I will vote for him, but I will be voting for Ron Paul next month.

 

[ProVobis]

But I will say Ron Paul, as I see it. I do not base this on a vague guess that he voted against some bill that I don’t even know what it was, but upon his aversion to unjust war. While war may or may not be just, and we can disagree with this, Santorum, in my judgment, is too hawkish in his rhetoric.

Good point.

How can one call himself “pro-life” when he has no problem, for example, calling deaths caused by dropping bombs on pregnant women and other innocents as “collateral damage”?

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Ron Paul fails the pro-life test any time where being pro-life means taking an active measure. That is because he espouses the Libertarian principle of less government over protecting the dignity of life and he opposes pro-choice regulations on the same principle. Thus, while he is unquestionably personally pro-life(because I am not a mind-reader and can only go on his self-identification), he is neither publicly pro-life nor pro-choice. He is Libertarian.

He is the only candidate running who has done anything that would have had a chance of making Roe v. Wade irrelevant, and the establishment GOP ignored it…THREE TIMES. That is why I am more than skeptical about the Republican claims that they will end abortion. As far as I am concerned, it is just a pom pom that they use to get the GOP faithful all wee-weed up and then they do nothing practical.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Communism is an non-issue right now.

So you’ve fallen for that. I’m not surprised. Too many people have. That’s why we are in such a mess today.

Take the enemy lightly and you ensure a loss.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

So you’ve fallen for that. I’m not surprised. Too many people have. That’s why we are in such a mess today.

Take the enemy lightly and you ensure a loss.

I see. “The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming!”

The Communist Party is an issue in no politician’s campaign, not even the most conservative ones. The CPUSA is only a curiosity nowadays, and even in Russia, it is not the major party.

You are decades behind the times.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I see. “The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming!”

The Communist Party is an issue in no politician’s campaign, not even the most conservative ones. The CPUSA is only a curiosity nowadays, and even in Russia, it is not the major party.

You are decades behind the times.

With Obama’s current policy of “Rule by Executive Order”, who needs the Communist Party? He is single-handedly making Congress irrelevant. I just hope that Democrats don’t complain when a Republican President does the same thing when he/she gets into office.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Romney quotes from CPAC:

Romney: "And let me also be clear on this: My presidency will be a pro-life presidency.

Romney calls for reinstating Mexico City Policy, cutting off UNFPA funding and Planned Parenthood funds, save conscience rights.

Romney gets standing ovation for committing to repealing Obamacare. Says it’s “the most important spending cut of all.”

 

[ProVobis]

So you’ve fallen for that. I’m not surprised. Too many people have. That’s why we are in such a mess today.

Take the enemy lightly and you ensure a loss.

But the “enemy” (Communists in foreign countries, that is) have lent us a lot of money, which most Americans are very appreciate of. And they don’t particularly care whether you call them Communists, Socialists, or Buddhists.

 

[RACJ]

Good point.

How can one call himself “pro-life” when he has no problem, for example, calling deaths caused by dropping bombs on pregnant women and other innocents as “collateral damage”?

Easily. I support Truman's decision to drop the two nukes on Japan, *even though* many innocents were killed. Sometimes necessary choices aren't happy ones. :shrug: Rob

 

[gamewell45]

With Obama’s current policy of “Rule by Executive Order”, who needs the Communist Party? He is single-handedly making Congress irrelevant. I just hope that Democrats don’t complain when a Republican President does the same thing when he/she gets into office.

President Obama is doing what every other President has done in modern times. Just like the democrats squeal every time the Republicans do the same thing, the republicans express outrage every time the democrats do likewise; perhaps its time that both parties start to learn how to work together and knock off all of this partisan politics.