Romney vs. Santorum; It's ON!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
601

[quote]Sloth wrote:

How is Obama going to have a field day with Medicare Part D? Is he going to argue against it? Or, demonstrate that Santorum’s non position of repealing part D is simply primary talk?[/quote]

Because Medicare Part D is barely distinguishable from Obamacare in terms of the arguments the GOP is trying to use against Obamacare? It’s a sprawling federal health care entitlement that explodes the deficit.

So, how does Santorum attack Obamacare? Because the federal governement shouldn’t intrude in health care to that extent? Well, he can’t say that - his votes say that is ok. Because it irresponsibly adds to the deficit? Can’t say that either - for all its flaws, ObamaCare was not completely unfunded, as was Part D. Part D didn’t even pretend to pay for itself - it was nothing but a giant credit card purchase.

And Obama can easily say “he was for it before he was against it - if Medicare Part D is good enough to remain on the books - and it must be because Senator Santorum ain’t trying to repeal it - then so is ObamaCare. He’s just playing politics.”

I think Romney can, thought it will be riddled with weakness, but at least Romney has the federalist argument. Santorum doesn’t even have that.

But that is precisely the same predicament Santorum finds himself in - he believed in massive federal intrusion into the health care sector that exploded the deficit, until he didn’t.

Difference is, Romney knows the subject. He’s expert on it. Is he behind the 8 ball because of RomneyCare? No doubt. But Santorum is in the same pickle re: “inconsistency”, and in a tie, the tie goes to the runner who knows health care. That person is Romney.

But I’d also say that the GOP is running against more than ObamaCare, or should be. The argument has to be in a larger context of which ObamaCare is a dreadful part. Cast in these terms, Romney again has the edge. Santorum’s track record won’t allow him to be the champion for entitlement reform, which has to be the theme, not just ObamaCare.

602

They all suck,

Mufasa errrrr Tiribulus, sorry

603

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
They all suck,

Mufasa errrrr Tiribulus, sorry[/quote]

Best laugh I’ve had all day Trib.

Zebfasa

604

Romney’s ‘federalist’ position is a very recent invention, though. As will be demonstrated in political ads, and a media blitz, that not even Romney can keep up with. edit: Indeed, getting to where he is now has horribly strained his gargantuan money advantage as is. As late as 2009 he offered Robama-care as a model. Robama-care, which got it’s seed money through federal tax dollars. The anti-lobbyist, anti-pork barrel guy who can now be seen on video boasting about getting federal dollars, and imploring others to do the same.

Santorum made a decision as to how to deal with paying for pharmaceuticals instead of, for example, surgical interventions later. Insulin now, instead of paying for amputations, infections, emergency room visits, etc., that would be paid for by medicare later. Nobody was reforming medicare then. Romney birthed a new paradigm, the mandate.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/romneycare-making-a-fool-of-every-republican-it-touches-since-2006/

605

How about TARP? What’s he going to do, argue some nuanced position (blah, blah, to the television audience) about how he would’ve done it better? The only thing the public will hear is that they both supported TARP. Which is such a wonderful gift to Obama. The Wall Streetish/finance guy believes in fat-cat bailouts, but not for those blue-collar autoworkers.

Or, for anyone struggling to keep their home. Disarmed. Is he going to differentiate himself on his ‘tough’ 2nd amendment stance? Hardly. Will he attack Obama on energy? Cue up the videos of Romney and man-made global warming.

I wasn’t looking for the perfect when I settled for Santorum. But I was trying to avoid an absolute disaster, which Romney will be.

606

Through the most recent disclosure, the Romney campaign has spent $55 million to date. The Gingrich campaign has spent $16 million. The Paul campaign has spent $29 million. And the Santorum campaign has spent about $5 million.

So how much has the entire Romney campaign spent per vote received? $17.14, which is a lot more than the $2.54 that Santorum spent, or the $9.05 that Gingrich has spent, and topped only by the $31.55 that Paul spent.

Read more: Mitt Romney Is Paying a Lot for Each Vote: $17.14 | TIME.com

And he still might not be able to outright win the nomination until the convention…

THAT is screaming weakness.

607

[quote]Sloth wrote:

I wasn’t looking for the perfect when I settled for Santorum. But I was trying to avoid an absolute disaster, which Romney will be. [/quote]

Pointing out Romney’s weaknesses is perfectly legitimate, and I don’t even disagree with them necessarily,

But again, how does Santorum deal with his? How does he hold up the banner as the champion of “repeal ObamaCare” and “reform entitlements” with his very recent track record?

What is he going to say? Seriously?

I don’t care if Romney’s federalism argument is of recent vintage - it’s a legitimate argument. What are Santorum’s?

608

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

I wasn’t looking for the perfect when I settled for Santorum. But I was trying to avoid an absolute disaster, which Romney will be. [/quote]

Pointing out Romney’s weaknesses is perfectly legitimate, and I don’t even disagree with them necessarily,

But again, how does Santorum deal with his? How does he hold up the banner as the champion of “repeal ObamaCare” and “reform entitlements” with his very recent track record?

What is he going to say? Seriously?

I don’t care if Romney’s federalism argument is of recent vintage - it’s a legitimate argument. What are Santorum’s?[/quote]

That attempting to determine how, what for, and when an already existing program (that was, at least then, not going anywhere) pays and deals with illness it is already going to pay for, one way or another, is not equivalent to introducing a new power to mandate health care insurance. Which, in turn provides another avenue to walk all over other liberties. See the current contraception debate.

609

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Through the most recent disclosure, the Romney campaign has spent $55 million to date. The Gingrich campaign has spent $16 million. The Paul campaign has spent $29 million. And the Santorum campaign has spent about $5 million.

So how much has the entire Romney campaign spent per vote received? $17.14, which is a lot more than the $2.54 that Santorum spent, or the $9.05 that Gingrich has spent, and topped only by the $31.55 that Paul spent.

Read more: Mitt Romney Is Paying a Lot for Each Vote: $17.14 | TIME.com

And he still might not be able to outright win the nomination until the convention…

THAT is screaming weakness. [/quote]

It should be no secret to you that the best funded candidate often wins. Reagan outspent Bush(41). Bush(43) outspent McCain in 2000.

Part of politics (sometimes the most improtant part) is having a credible well funded organization. (shrugs)

This is what we want when we face Obama. What I don’t want is an underfunded Rick Santorum running all over the country getting baited into arguing social issues with reporters.

He’s just not ready for prime time. Not in money, organization or presentation. But he will be…he will be.

610

“…He (Santorum) is just not ready for prime time. Not in money, organization or presentation. But he will be…he will be…”

I agree with this Zeb…to a point.

Romney certainly came back four years later a much more polished and ready candidate. He learned.

The question would be can Santorum learn temperament and come off much less snarly and in control of his frustration and anger.

A President has to have the ability to take a lot of head and body shots. If one can’t seem to do this and you’re only half-way through a PRIMARY…then the Presidency is probably not the place for you.

Again; Santorum can learn from this experience and become a much better candidate in 4 years…but we’ll just have to see.

Mufasa

611

I agree that at this point Santorum is not ready for the Presidency.

Mufasa

612

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

The question would be can Santorum learn temperament and come off much less snarly and in control of his frustration and anger.

[/quote]

Could you elaborate on this and give some examples mufasa?

613

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

The question would be can Santorum learn temperament and come off much less snarly and in control of his frustration and anger.

[/quote]

Could you elaborate on this and give some examples mufasa?[/quote]

It’s impressions and perceptions based on his overall public performance…from debates to speeches…to his replies to reporters (like this past weekend).

Impressions and perceptions are not “right” or "wrong’ because they are based on ones own personal perspective. So your impressions of Santorum will most likely be much different from mine.

Mufasa

614

The GOP race is over.

Where is Santorum going to win among the upcoming primary states?

Maryland-Washington DC-Wiconsin-Colorado-Wyoming-Minnesota-Missuri-Connecticut-Delaware-New York-Rhode Island and of course PA.

Santorum obviously wins PA, he may win Wisconsin as well. If he picks up one more out of the above 12 where does that get him? He could get another 114-150 delegates. The math is not there for him to win. Whereas Romney will most likely pick up somewhere around 400 more delgates. Add those to his current 503 and that gives him about 900 by the end of April.

If you combine Gingrich and Santorum’s delegates Romney still has more. Santorum accuses Romney of not exciting the base. Well, if Romney has not excited them then I guess Santorum must have put them to sleep because Romney has gotten over 1 million more votes than Santorum.

Santorum needs to tone it down and knock it off he’s only helping Obama at this point. Someone should tell him this is not the road to the 2016 Presidency.

615

It’s not over until someone has the required delegates.

616

[quote]Sloth wrote:
It’s not over until someone has the required delegates.[/quote]

And that’s the reason I don’t blame Santorum for hanging in there. I do blame him however for his viscous and damaging attacks on the party’s future nominee. All Santorum needs to do is re-register democrat and I would understand. At this point Santorum could be blamed for Romney’s defeat should he fall to Obama in a close race. And if that is the case the republican party will have a very long memory!

617

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
It’s not over until someone has the required delegates.[/quote]

And that’s the reason I don’t blame Santorum for hanging in there. I do blame him however for his viscous and damaging attacks on the party’s future nominee. All Santorum needs to do is re-register democrat and I would understand. At this point Santorum could be blamed for Romney’s defeat should he fall to Obama in a close race. And if that is the case the republican party will have a very long memory![/quote]

Good, they’ll remember not to run another Romney.

618

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
It’s not over until someone has the required delegates.[/quote]

And that’s the reason I don’t blame Santorum for hanging in there. I do blame him however for his viscous and damaging attacks on the party’s future nominee. All Santorum needs to do is re-register democrat and I would understand. At this point Santorum could be blamed for Romney’s defeat should he fall to Obama in a close race. And if that is the case the republican party will have a very long memory![/quote]

Good, they’ll remember not to run another Romney.[/quote]

LOL…Or Santorum again!

619

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
It’s not over until someone has the required delegates.[/quote]

And that’s the reason I don’t blame Santorum for hanging in there. I do blame him however for his viscous and damaging attacks on the party’s future nominee. All Santorum needs to do is re-register democrat and I would understand. At this point Santorum could be blamed for Romney’s defeat should he fall to Obama in a close race. And if that is the case the republican party will have a very long memory![/quote]

Good, they’ll remember not to run another Romney.[/quote]

LOL…Or Santorum again![/quote]

If the Grand Old Party wants to commit suicide, who are we to stop it?

Apparently, and you certainly must agree, it knows best?

620

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

The question would be can Santorum learn temperament and come off much less snarly and in control of his frustration and anger.

[/quote]

Could you elaborate on this and give some examples mufasa?[/quote]

It’s impressions and perceptions based on his overall public performance…from debates to speeches…to his replies to reporters (like this past weekend).

Impressions and perceptions are not “right” or "wrong’ because they are based on ones own personal perspective. So your impressions of Santorum will most likely be much different from mine.

Mufasa[/quote]

Sure our perceptions of him would be different. But I was a little surprised to see him described as ‘snarly’ and having uncontrolled ‘frustration and anger.’ That’s why I was interested in seeing the specific incident. Perhaps you mean this:

I’ve seen Bill Clinton getting angry and poking his finger at reporters as well - many times. But Bill shouts and intimidates to silence legitimate questioning - like he did about his handling of OBL(can’t remember the interviewer.) Surprised that this incident alone in context would define Santorum as having uncontrolled frustration and anger.