Posted by: Pancho Villa
- [597172916] Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 11:12
Why not? With Cain, Bachmann, Perry and Gingrich having fallen by the wayside, Santorum emerges as the new "anybody-but-Romney" candidate after his impressive showing in Iowa.
Incredibly, Santorum might actually have a chance to be the GOP nominee, even though he has virtually no national organization and little money. Ironically, his chances might hinge on the whims of Ron Paul, if Romney fails to wrap up the number of delegates needed prior to the convention.
Consider the following scenario:
New Hampshire is an open primary. I look for Ron Paul to run second behind Romney. Santorum will pick up much of the Perry/Bachmann/Gingrich supporters to finish third.
Next are South Carolina and Florida, states which could bode well for Santorum, even victories, especially in SC. Momentum is followed by money and volunteers. Ron Paul continues to run strongly, gathering a sizeable number of delegates along the way.
Santorum and Paul garner enough delegates between them to deny Romney the necessary number of delegates, leading to an open convention. Paul knows can't get either Romney or Santorum delegates to back him, so Paul delegates are the key to victory.
It's not unlikely to think Paul would back Santorum against the establishment candidate.
Obviously, a lot of circumstances would have to fall into place for Santorum to come out on top. But it isn't out of the realm of possibility.
Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well. [Lengthy or complex threads may require a slight delay before updating.]
284
Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Sat, Mar 24, 2012, 13:26
I meant to say "no long-term national debt." They took on a lot of short term debt incurred as a result of their military expansion.
285
Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Sat, Mar 24, 2012, 15:46
Congrats all you stalinist meme-bots mindlessly repeating the memes of a long dead despot.
Thanks for making it crystal clear that you and your buddies are the ones who really hate America.
286
Boldwin
ID: 12214143 Sat, Mar 24, 2012, 18:53
Really, you don't want to hope for a Russian-style economy. - PD
No, of course I don't. It's the left that craves a Russian style economy. Only Russia's style of marxism couldn't even afford sterile needles in their hospitals and they went bankrupt.
America's marxists want to give away benes the old school marxists never even dreamed of and certainly never could have afforded anymore than we can.
287
Boldwin
ID: 12214143 Sat, Mar 24, 2012, 18:56
And when America's marxists aren't craving soviet style marxism they are craving european style marxism.
Something that went so broke that our FED had to bail them out a 14 trillion dollar secret loan we'll never be paid back.
American marxists can really pickem.
288
sarge33rd
ID: 4717718 Sat, Mar 24, 2012, 19:27
It's the left that craves a Russian style economy.
As long as you hold steadfastly to a falsehood like that, you will never begin to understand what a "leftist" is.
289
Boldwin
ID: 12214143 Sat, Mar 24, 2012, 19:41
Oh, that's right. According to you, Ronald Reagan was the one who craved a Russian style economy.
290
sarge33rd
ID: 4717718 Sat, Mar 24, 2012, 19:58
strawman. I never, and neither has anyone else here, said that. We said, he was far more a moderate, than a hardliner. Same with Nixon, truth be told. Look at their histories, and thats the only conclusion you can HONESTLY draw.
291
Boldwin
ID: 12214143 Sat, Mar 24, 2012, 20:09
Nixon was a CFR globalist tool. Reagan, not so much.
292
sarge33rd
ID: 4717718 Sat, Mar 24, 2012, 22:21
Do you deny, that the GOP has slid dramatically further right today, than it was 20 years ago?
293
Boldwin
ID: 12214143 Sun, Mar 25, 2012, 06:23
Nope, the candidates who win the presidential nominations have slid left.
The Ronald Reagan base has stayed the same, tho more and more desperate to achieve results as the nation gets spent deeper and deeper into bankruptcy both left and right and they can't even get their own party to listen to them and vote right.
294
Mith
ID: 23217270 Sun, Mar 25, 2012, 09:15
Funny most of the people I hear talking like that do so in support of Ron Paul. And curiously he's one Republican who doesn't join in the hero worship and openly includes Reagan's contributions to America's spending and budget problems.
295
Mith
ID: 23217270 Sun, Mar 25, 2012, 09:16
When was the last time there was a Republican budget hawk in the WH?
296
sarge33rd
ID: 4717718 Sun, Mar 25, 2012, 11:41
post 293, in response to 292...is as string a piece of evidence Boldwin, that you are ENTIRELY out of touch with reality. Even the GOP leadership, admits that the party as a whole, as moved WELL to the right. You sir, have no idea, where the middle ground lies. You are so far right, you cant see far enough to your left, to see the far right.
297
Boldwin
ID: 12214143 Sun, Mar 25, 2012, 12:34
Even the GOP leadership, admits that the party as a whole, as moved WELL to the right.
Yeah, they've been saying that down at the Woodrow Wilson country club ever since Goldwater. But country club republicans have never had even a passing familiarity with their conservative base.
298
sarge33rd
ID: 4717718 Sun, Mar 25, 2012, 18:12
I believe B, it is the extremist like yourself, that has no idea of the GOP base.
299
Boldwin
ID: 12214143 Sun, Mar 25, 2012, 18:51
I know they would have re-elected Ronald Reagan for life if they could have and they still would.
Thus the libs desperate attempts to twist the memory of Reagan.
300
Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Sun, Mar 25, 2012, 18:59
Yeah--stupid libs like the ones who actually worked with the guy. How dare they stop the deification!
301
Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Tue, Apr 10, 2012, 14:41
Santorum is getting his ass handed to him here in PA. Word is he might be suspending his campaign (he's got a press conference in Gettysburg this afternoon).
302
sarge33rd
ID: 353491011 Tue, Apr 10, 2012, 14:46
PA voters overwhelmingly rejected him the last time he ran in that state. I have never understood, what made him think this would be different.
303
Boldwin
ID: 12214143 Tue, Apr 10, 2012, 18:39
Only one stalking horse left. And that's Paul who isn't quitting.
"I don’t know if you did or not, but I did. And, my concern with the Freeh report, a lot of the conclusions in the Freeh report aren’t matched by the evidence that they presented and so I’ve been talking to a lot of folks at Penn State and they say, ‘you’re just gonna have to wait for the criminal trial of these two guys at Penn State.’ I think there is going to be a whole new line set on what really went on there. So I’m sort of sitting back and waiting for the facts to come out as opposed to at least I’m being told is a version of the facts. … Let’s get the truth. So I think we’re going to see some things come up a little different in the next six months. I just want to make sure we get it right."
305
Boldwin
ID: 18643169 Fri, Jul 27, 2012, 14:03
Since when did presumption of 'innocent until proven guilty in a court of law' become even controversial let alone damning?
306
DWetzel
ID: 49962710 Fri, Jul 27, 2012, 14:12
At least you remembered the court of law part! (That's a sincere compliment.)
It depends on what he's talking about. There's a fine line between "let the criminal process take its course before we hang these people" and "lol NCAA, we're completely innocent". Needless to say, the NCAA is not a court of law, nor should they be held to those standards. (It would, however, be nice if they held themselves to some more consistent standards, but that's a separate issue.)
308
Mith
ID: 18451815 Fri, Jul 27, 2012, 14:13
He didn't say he was presuming innocence.
Where did I say anything remotely close to that this was damning? Damning how?
Since you "asked"... I do think it's an odd position to publicly stake, politically and otherwise. And I wonder how his connections with the school might drive it beyond simple alumnus loyalty.
I've not heard anyone without a personal stake in the matter criticize the Freeh report for failing to match available evidence.
309
Boldwin
ID: 18643169 Fri, Jul 27, 2012, 14:20
I do think it's an odd position to publicly stake
Unless we are so foolish as to think it would be a good idea for our highest profile politicians to start hanging people in the media without benefit if trial...
...that is exactly the position he should be taking.
310
Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Fri, Jul 27, 2012, 14:23
Santorum's inability to stay in touch with the people of Pennsylvania is what cost him his seat in the Senate. His inability to actually shut up on this and, you know, let the process continue is continuing the trend.
314
Boldwin
ID: 18643169 Fri, Jul 27, 2012, 14:40
Between that and two or three big blue fixed cities you might be able to make Pennsylvania forget Obama hates coal.
315
Boldwin
ID: 18643169 Fri, Jul 27, 2012, 14:41
And guns, prayer and clinging.
316
Mith
ID: 23217270 Fri, Jul 27, 2012, 14:48
Call him a pedophile... ?
exactly the position he should be taking
Given what Ive seen and read of the case, I'd expect the proper "wait and see" objective position does not include openly accusing the Freeh report of drawing unfounded conclusions.
I havent read the thing so maybe there's something there but it's sure enough of a stretch to me wonder about motives.
Am I supposed to apologize for a specifically non-accusatory ponderance when a politician says something I find odd?
317
Boldwin
ID: 18643169 Fri, Jul 27, 2012, 14:53
Can't we just assume that Santorum, being a senior polititian from Penn, has had plenty of respectable grey haired sages from both camps whispering in his ear 'guilty' and 'innocent' and that he's all, "Enuff already, let's have an actual, you know, trial or something."
318
Seattle Zen
ID: 47630913 Fri, Jul 27, 2012, 15:04
"Enuff already, let's have an actual, you know, trial or something."
Both of these school officials could be found not guilty and the sanctions would still be appropriate. Those are two related but not equivalent investigations.
319
Mith
ID: 23217270 Fri, Jul 27, 2012, 15:05
It's not an assumption when you know it isn't true. He's clearly taking a side.
320
Boldwin
ID: 18643169 Fri, Jul 27, 2012, 15:07
I am also not sure if these FBI reports are the same sort of 'eyes only' reports that the FBI puts out on every political figure, such as the illegal room full of FBI reports in the Clinton WH, but if they are the same sort of reports, then they contain every last unverified piece of mud and innuendo every slung about a person.
Santorum as a practicing lawyer might quite justifiably be horrified at the idea of hanging someone on that basis.
321
Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Fri, Jul 27, 2012, 15:09
You really should take a look at the report--it'll save you from having to post things like #320.
322
DWetzel
ID: 49962710 Fri, Jul 27, 2012, 15:18
"Both of these school officials could be found not guilty and the sanctions would still be appropriate. Those are two related but not equivalent investigations."
Bingo.
323
Boldwin
ID: 18643169 Fri, Jul 27, 2012, 15:20
PD
I don't expect anyone involved to be found to have done their job properly except the early whistle-blowers.
I also don't expect you and MITH to be wondering aloud why Santorum doesn't ream them a new one before it's completely gone thru the courts.
324
Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Fri, Jul 27, 2012, 15:25
Is that your excuse for speculated on the report in such an ignorant way? Really, just 5 minutes looking at it would have answered your questions in 320.
-is this an FBI report? -does this have the appearance, anywhere, of being "eyes only?"
325
Boldwin
ID: 18643169 Fri, Jul 27, 2012, 15:37
It wasn't until six links in to MITH's original link that you could find the report.
Considering many people here think it a point of pride that they never look at my links, you maybe, I don't think you should be so shocked that I missed the sixth link into the piece. I did skim it before posting 323 however.
326
Mith
ID: 376222518 Fri, Jul 27, 2012, 15:43
I don't think you should be so shocked that I missed the sixth link into the piece.
This is reasonable. It's also reasonable that I'm not shocked that you are defending Santor's objectivity as he is very clearly taking a particular side on the matter.
327
Boldwin
ID: 18643169 Fri, Jul 27, 2012, 18:25
Well, I'm not a lawyer. I don't know exactly what he is objecting to in there.
He's not only a lawyer, but he went back to practice after leaving the Senate. ASAIK he never gave up his license when entering office, which is actually pretty impressive to me (what with CE requirements and all).
This whole thing is all about Santorum protecting the memory of his fellow Republican Joe Paterno.
333
Mith
ID: 40602716 Fri, Jul 27, 2012, 20:51
My suspicions lead more toward him doing a solid for the school while donors are dropping like flies.
335
biliruben
ID: 28420307 Tue, Dec 04, 2012, 22:33
Rick Santorum takes a position at World Net Daily.
Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318 Tue, Dec 04, 2012, 22:41
The U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities, for those who've forgotten, is a human rights treaty negotiated by the George H.W. Bush administration, which has been ratified by 126 nations, including China, Russia, Iran, Cuba, Syria, and Saudi Arabia.
But most Senate Republicans saw it as a threat to American "sovereignty," even though the treaty wouldn't have required the United States to change its laws.
The GOP's right-wing base, led in part by Rick Santorum, raised hysterical fears about the treaty