Political News and Commentary with the Right Perspective. NAVIGATION
  • Front Page
  • News
  • Multimedia
  • Tags
  • RSS Feed

  • Advertise on RightMichigan.com


    Get the RightMighigan.com toolbar!



    Who are the NERD fund donors Mr Snyder?

    Raise the curtain.

    Santorum Brings Michigan Into The Mix

    By JGillman, Section News
    Posted on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 09:46:15 AM EST
    Tags: Michigan, Santorum, Trifecta, Primaries, Republican, Tea Party, Conservative President (all tags)

    By golly we DO matter!

    Trips.  Trifecta. Three times the fun last night for Republican contender Rick Santorum as he CRUSHED the competition in MN, MO, and with Fox News beating to death the "beauty contest" meme, CO. Santorum might see some trophies for his wins in those states in the form of a revitalized campaign account and new tires for his pick up.

    The big losers? Mitt and Newt.

    Particularly Mitt.  Polling had put Mitt in the lead in CO, and conventional wisdom proved wrong for some counties.  The presumed leader having those counties pulling for Mitt 60% against McCain in 2008, give the Mitten State's son a 20% finger. A bad night for Romney, as even "non binding" votes show a trend that should scare the bejeezuz J. Smith out of establishment Romney supporters.

    He has high negatives.  Very high.

    But Michigan Santorum fans have wins for yet another reason (below the fold)~

    Newt screwed it up for Romney.

    The man who has already missed being on the ballot in a couple states decided to avoid Michigan politics.  Conceding Michigan, Gingrich had decided at the end of Jan to minimize his resources here. According to CNN:

    As for Michigan, he said: "If we are looking at the six February states right now and we are going to rank them, we are not putting Michigan first."

    And now the positive dynamics for Rick Santorum in this state look very real.

    In CO, where the presumed frontrunner was expected to do well, he met the kind of resistance that conservatives can rally around.  A lesson that money is effective, but not automatically the author of big political wins. A lesson that can be translated forward to the general as well, where the Occupier In Chief is raking in the 1% fund of a Billion Samoleans.  And with Newt's reduction of resources allocated to Michigan, its possible Santorum could pull an unexpected coup.

    Romney, who has a built in negative base will essentially be facing down many voters who might otherwise be voting Gingrich.  Santorum's ability to pick up the not-Romney vote has been enhanced by his now revitalized campaign with those "beauty contest" wins.  Added to his Iowa contest, Rick Santorum cannot at all be tossed aside as irrelevant, perhaps to the chagrin of Romney or Gingrich.  His against-the-odds perseverance reflects again the Tea Party nation demonstrating once again a very real strength in the process.

    Michigan is in play now, and could tilt the presidential race permanently with a solid win for any one of the candidates.  No more guarantees, eh?

    Oddly enough we matter.  Thanks to Rick Santorum.

    < Tuesdays Divertere: I Was Never Taught That Knowledge | Oink Oink, Candi >

    Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

    Display: Sort:
    I was not (none / 0) (#1)
    by grannynanny on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 10:55:59 AM EST
    a fan of Santorum but in light of the Newt/Rommney dueling spats about everything not conservative and bashing free market enterprise, I have come away with a new respect for Santorum and he may get my vote.

    Santorum has a lot of positives (none / 0) (#2)
    by Bruce on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 11:05:56 AM EST
    ... but he has some potential political blowbacks of his own creation that are sure to become more widespread in the news if he continues to gain traction as a candidate:

    1. "But Santorum wasn't always so opposed to government-run schools--especially one Pennsylvania cyber charter school that offered students free computers, internet service, and online classes. Between 2001 and 2004, that online school allowed the Santorum family to live in Virginia, while sticking Pennsylvania taxpayers with a $100,000 bill."

    2. Many GOP voters also want a nominee they believe can defeat President Barack Obama, a factor that is perceived to be Mr. Romney's area of strength. In 2006, Mr. Santorum's fiery brand of social conservatism turned off voters in Pennsylvania, and in particular in the Philadelphia suburbs, the sort of swing areas key to any candidate's 2012 efforts.  "Anytime someone is rejected by home-state voters, it will give other voters pause," said Jim Roddey, chairman of the GOP in Allegheny County, Pa., who called 2006 "a real liability." Voters "will say, 'What do they know about him that we don't?' " he added. Mr. Roddey has worked with Mr. Santorum and considers him a friend, but is backing Mr. Romney.

    3. "But there's at least one blemish on Santorum's conservative record: his vote for the Medicare prescription drug entitlement in 2003 -- the biggest expansion of the program since it was created in 1965 and a bill that the Congressional Budget Office said would add nearly $400 billion to cumulative budget deficits over the first ten years after its enactment.  Fiscal conservatives such as Paul, DeMint and Santorum's fellow Pennsylvanian Pat Toomey voted against the Medicare prescription drug bill, as did Sen. John McCain of Arizona."

    No doubt Santorum is the most issue-based conservative when compared to Romney and Gingrich.  The question is whether he is open to real criticism regarding apparent hypocrisy and whether he has higher negatives in a general election than the others.

    His recent victories will make the GOP campaign far more interesting.  Just hope it yields positive instead of chaotic results come November.

    Santorum (none / 0) (#7)
    by Rougman on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 02:26:32 PM EST
    As true conservatives either decided not to run or dropped out earlier in the campaign, Santorum has become, to me at least, the non-Romney left standing.

    As was pointed out, the prescription drug benefit is a problem as far as this conservative is concerned, and in that same line of thought, so is his support of No Child Left Behind.  These are big government compassionate conservative (ie. not conservative at all) and well intended programs that are as destined to fail as they are to cost way too much.

    While I wish he would repent of those particular votes and say a few Hail Marys, he is by far the most conservative candidate left standing.  He did not support TARP.  He is not a cap and trade guy.  He supports tax cuts and reining in the size of government.  He is more tough minded on the debt ceiling than the others left.  He would nominate conservative judge candidates.  He is anti-Obamacare and would try to repeal it.  

    I am curious . . . (none / 0) (#10)
    by Kevin Rex Heine on Thu Feb 09, 2012 at 01:51:42 PM EST
    . . . as a matter of record, as to how Rick Santorum intends to constructively address some questionable items on his voting record.

    Just asking.

    And while I'm at it . . . (none / 0) (#13)
    by Kevin Rex Heine on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 10:27:33 AM EST
    . . . please permit me to point out some additional bad calls by Rick Santorum, as pointed out in a commentary by Chuck Norris, who is a member of Newt's Conservative Dream Team.

    • Good looking team. by JGillman, 02/13/2012 11:48:42 AM EST (none / 0)
      • Basics... by Corinthian Scales, 02/13/2012 12:42:54 PM EST (none / 0)
    395 to 28 (none / 0) (#15)
    by Corinthian Scales on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 11:07:22 AM EST
    From Judicialwatch.org

    The folk over at Judicial Watch definitely are no Lefty leaning org, and interestingly enough 'ol Newton made their Dishonorable Mentions list for 2011 along with Edwards, Frank, Big Sis, Rangel and his Greentard sofa buddy, former Speaker Blinky.

    It all becomes dripping with irony around here on RM when considering the Yobbite Super Bowl Ad send up piece...

    "Newt has done some things that have embarrassed House Republicans and embarrassed the House," said Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.). "If [the voters] see more of that, they will question our judgment."


    To answer . . . (none / 0) (#19)
    by Kevin Rex Heine on Wed Feb 15, 2012 at 05:11:09 PM EST
    . . . the questions/challenges posed by Scales here and here (thus consolidating two potential comment threads), let me start with a philosophical point:

    You may recall from this article that I'm a big believer in second chances.  Yes, if someone's committed a criminal offense, then they should suffer the appropriate consequences.  However, once that time has been served (including any restitution being paid in full), then people ought to be allowed to prove that they've learned their lesson and cleaned up their act.  And I know of no one more qualified to deal with malefactors than someone who's learned the hard way.  (Why do you think it is that computer criminals make the best IT security experts?)

    Jesus Christ, himself the only perfect person to ever walk this earth, once admonished a crowd of self-righteous Pharisees: "If any of you have never sinned, then go ahead and throw the first stone at her!" (John 8:7, CEV).  The warning should be clear; yes, it's fair to examine someone's record when doing so is relevant, but those who have no interest in showing mercy or allowing for redemption in this life should expect to receive none at The Judgment.  We are commanded by that same Savior to remain open to forgiveness while we seek evidence of true repentance.  To NOT forgive hurts the soul of the unforgiving, not the unforgiven, as Christ has surely already forgiven:  "Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more." (John 8:11, ESV)

    With regard to Italia Federici, what about her?  Yeah, she's had ties to Jack Abramoff, and served what appears to be a felony sentence because of it.  According to the article you've cited, her time has been served, her restitution has been paid, and for all we know those ties are cut.  (I've heard that Santorum has even stronger ties to Jack Abramhoff than this, but somehow he's escaped the noose for his misdeeds.)  As I said, she's served her time and paid her debt to society, so what's the issue here?  Why all the hurry to brand her with a scarlet letter?

    None of the four candidates that we have in the republican presidential primary are clean.  (Need I remind you of this list on Liberty Counsel Action or this list on World Net Daily?)  Unlike the other three, Newt is at least being upfront with his negatives.  Evidently, however, others aren't being quite so upfront about when he's cleared of accusations:

    So all that fuss and fluff about ethics charges (Newt was cleared on 83 of the 84 charges) and alleged tax fraud, and . . . O . M . G . !  . . . Newt is ultimately cleared of all wrongdoing.  Somehow I missed seeing that in all of the smear attacks against him.

    It's no more complicated or problematic than this:  Are any of us the same people we were 20 years ago?  Ten years ago?  Two years ago?  We all grow and change and have formative events and experiences happen in our lives.  Newt Gingrich is no different.  Has he screwed up in the past?  Yes, the record is very clear on that point.  What of it?  I look at the reality that every single one of the four candidates still in this race is deeply flawed, but Gingrich at least has the common decency to devote an entire page of his campaign site to constructively addressing these issues. That includes a means to contact his campaign team with additional or follow-up questions.

    I'm also looking at the reality that, of the three not-Romney candidates still in the republican primary, I see only one as able to beat both Romney and Obama.  Like it or not, forcing both WMR and BHO to run on their records is going to be the key to actually beating them, and I just don't' see Paul or Santorum as being able to pull that off.  Gingrich, on the other hand, already has Mittens on the defensive, and I'm convinced that he'll put Barry on the defensive in short order . . . and keep him there.

    The socialist-progressives (regardless of party stripe) and liberal media elites actively slime the candidate that they're most afraid of.  Even though WMR is going negative against Santorum in Michigan, it's focused on his senate record.  And as much as the C4L likes to carp about it, REP can't get any significant media play to save his own hide.  But there's a reason that Romney went so personal and so negative in Florida; it's because Gingrich is actually a threat to derail the Romney Coronation Train (as opposed to just slowing it down, ala Paul and Santorum).

    Yeah, Gingrich has an ego.  Like it or not, ego is part of the political campaign playing field.  The important question on that fact is whether or not the candidate in question understands a critical difference:  Ego (tempered by genuine humility) has a useful purpose in dealing with men, but is completely useless before God.  I'm firmly convinced that neither Obama nor Romney understand that distinction; but I am comfortable that Gingrich knows that distinction all too well, because his own life-choices have forced him to learn that distinction the hard way.

    There was once a man well known as being a fearfully zealous persecutor (violently so) of the Christian church.  This man was so committed to the eradication of Christianity that any mention of him as a leading missionary was met with skepticism at best.  Yet the Apostle Paul (formerly Saul of Tarsus) became such an effective missionary that he was personally responsible for the spread of Christianity throughout the entire Mediterranean Basin.

    For all that we might have some legitimate skepticism about the candidacy of Newt Gingrich, the reality is that he has clearly demonstrated that he has the ability to handle a multitude of issues and political attacks simultaneously (without the benefit of a teleprompter), and has the necessary gravitas to directly and decisively take on the multi-headed hydra of progessiveist big government.  And quite frankly, the best way to keep Gingrich on the conservative straight-and-narrow is to load the House and the Senate with a conservative critical mass (at least 40% of the seats up for election, assuming a Republican numerical majority in both chambers). Or did we forget that, by design, the legislative branch is the most powerful of the three federal branches?

    Has Gingrich pandered politically in the past?  Yes.  Is he pandering to us now?  I see no evidence of it.  Can we trust him?  I'm willing to take that chance.  I don't view Ron Paul as being capable, I'm convinced as a fact that we cannot trust Mitt Romney, and I'm still not sold on a guy who thought that Romney was a good idea four years ago:

    Display: Sort:


    Make a new account

    Tweet along with RightMichigan by
    following us on Twitter HERE!
    create account | faq | search