The Right Scoop
Santorum, the Republican Al Gore. Having a rough time winning his own state. Wow, that gives me a lot of confidence in the Guy.
Let them all stay in - especially Newt Gingrich. He articulates conservatism better than any of the candidates.
The more people hear, the more they learn.
Hopefully, Texas will stick to their guns about the Texas Republican Debate.
They probably ought to get the colleges to bus kids in to hear it. (and not let Romney buy up all the tickets)
Then the young electorate can hear and will become educated about Conservative values.
Newt staying in would be and has been disastrous that is why you see conservative leaders pressuring him to drop out.
Newt CANNOT win the nomination because he doesn't qualify for the convention. He would have to win 3 more states to qualify and that is not going to happen.
A vote for Newt is a vote for Romney.
It seems that Santorum's problems in PA have NOTHING to do with Newt. They are Santorum's own making.
In this article "Problems With the Truth: Confessions of a 22-Year Rick Santorum Observer" a Pennsylvanian who has known Rick from the earliest years, brings out the truth about his record and actions in PA.
People in Pennsylvania know Rick best.
We need Newt to stay in this race - at least one candidate has to tell the truth.
And we know that candidate will not be Romney.
You know I read the entorie article. Not sure if RS will leave it on but I found nothing really troubling. The article referennces a Pittsburg Project, Rick having two homes, which I think is legal, and his lack of charitable givng. But the one article that I found interesting and was sited as the main reason for Rick being outsed as Senator was this one:
I pull a quote from it, "In 2002, he ,Rick Santorum, incensed both liberals and many Catholics by attributing sex abuse by priests to permissive liberalism. Equally controversially, he equated gay sex to bestiality and railed against homosexuals as immoral. For good measure, in a book published during the campaign, he questioned the propriety of working women and the necessity of two-income families." Now I think Dr. Laura also question the importance of two incomes especially when we see teenage pregnacies on the rise and drug abuse. Isn't it normal to question that? I mean Rick's mother was a college graduate and a working mom so I don't think he want to keep women bare foot and pregnant. Bu, whats wrong with some women wanting to stay home if they chose to. I think doing that time many women felt pressured and beleived that they had to go to work outside the home. I don't know about most of you but I don't find this troubling. I mean Mitt supported gay marriage and even performed the ceremonies. I say what better contrast to have Rick go up against Obama.
I wonder if there is some payback for not being pro-homosexual. The following artical rails on about inconsequential crap:
I don't see how it's possible that we were reading 2 different articles with the same title by the same writer.
The point of the article is that Rick is dishonest (he "makes things up") It is centered around pushing a regional tax hike on the people of Pa for "the Regional Renaissance
Initiative"- a baseball park, football stadium, & convention center paid for by the tax payers. The democratic mayor was the main political sponsor & the main business sponsor was a group that represented large corporations that had a history of support for tax hikes, urban renewal & government-centered development projects.
It used Keynesian multiplier models to argue that this government spending would pay for itself in economic development. (sounds like Obama) When that failed, they introduced another using completely government funding.
The article also talks about the controversies with his kids' schooling, their house, a Chris Wallace interview transcript, his little daughter, Bella & the situation with Terry Madonna- the guy Rick yelled BS at.
I didn't see anything even like what you're talking about, MC. Unless it was truncated (doesn't *look* like it) for Town Hall, I don't know what to think.
People *need* to read this article. (I am reading the one at Town Hall because the Forbes one is still 404 for me)
All who accept the Lord into their hearts are forgiven.
We've let our Congress go way, way astray of what they were originally intended to do. Yes, they've all fallen prey to the temptations there & it's back to bite them when they try to run for president.
I understand where you- and all Santorum supporters are coming from. I feel the same way about Newt.
You know we all understand that none of the candidates are perfect but I am looking at the big picture here. Santorum has not done one thing to infringe on individual freedoms and he has also acknowledge that he has made mistakes. In my humble opinion he is forgiven. What I know for sure is that he will never paa any laws or policies that will significantly limit individual freedoms. From reading the articles I detect some aninous perhaps even payback, not really sure. Senators are involved in projects like this all over the country. But he didn't buy the land and then sell it back to the government to make a big profit like Dennis Hassert and Harry Reid. Mitt Romney is more dangerous because he does change his mind often and of course the biggest issue of the day, Romney care. Romney's decision making is suspect to me and I don't like that. You must remember that he did represent Pa. and the citzens there are more government centered. So, I can move forward with becasue I think he is still the brightes and sharpest to go up against Obama.
The problem I have, MC, is that, upon closer investigation, I have doubts that Rick is only claiming these are his values to sway people. I have a problem with that. Now, I don't doubt that it is partially true (that these are his values to some extent), but the record of his past actions have enough volume to raise doubt for me.
I am *very* familiar with the kind of project discussed in Bowyer's article. We've had exactly that happen- multiple times over the years, where I live. The writer described it (the details) to a T. Only the identities were changed re the people, "improvements", & places involved. Unfortunately, it's the kind of things Rick voted for in the Senate. (*if* you are interested, here is a link to the voting record. It might be useful in making Y'All's argument/ defending him
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/01/06/what-a-big-government-conservative-looks-like/
Romney hasn't brought any of this up- to my knowledge, & I don't see how the left can, but who knows.)
How much personal animus or bias is involved with anyone- for or against, is always in play. What matters, really, is the voters' perception; their feelings & memory of the events is what will make the difference. I have no idea what happened in Pa, but I have "been there" where I live & it is an accurate portrayal from that pov. All the pieces are in place & that gives it credibility to me. It looks researchable if anyone wants to debunk it.
Within the article another link was referenced and that is where I pulled the quote. These articles appear to be a smear campaign against Rick Santorum. Additionally, I really don't see any dishonesty just the authors point of view of the situation. I mean he didn't take any money, he didn't have affairs on his wife, he spoke up for his values, he didn't implement laws or policies that infringe on individual freedoms, he never supported individual mandates, he has always fought for his values, he did not support bailouts, cap & trade, and consistently fought for the defense of marriage, and he certainly did not switch parties. Ok none of the candidates are perfect and I know Rick would be the first to admit that but he as values and really he is the most articulate and knowledgeable about many domestic and almost all foreign affairs and policies which are all really important hallmarks for a President.
From the articles that I have read I wonder how in world did Pat Toomeyor Rick Santorum get elected? I didn't realize that PA had gotten so liberal. That is troubling!
You are my hero, Trust! I read that article earlier this morning & wanted to quote it but I could *not* find it in my history. Drove me nuts.
Thaaank You!
Here's a little Newt bonus:
Very thoughtful interview with Newt yesterday in NC – pure Newt brilliance despite him being ill: http://www.wral.com/news/local/politics/video/10944359/#/vid10944359
What do you think of Newt Gingrich? (two surprising personalities) http://youtu.be/x_mSxhxvDrE
Two-thirds of the GOP want NEwt to continue. http://www.politijim.com/2012/04/two-thirds-of-gop-want-newt-to-continue.html
GAME CHANGING NEWS!!!
I am emailing you to share some important news that will reset this race.
In Texas the Republican Party is moving today to change the primary there on May 29th to winner-take-all, meaning all 155 delegates will be up for grabs and awarded to the popular vote winner.
If our campaign wins Texas, and we will, the delegate gap with Mitt Romney will have closed dramatically and this campaign will head to the convention and be decided there. If we do not, our grassroots, issue based campaign together for a better America will end in the Lone Star state (hopefully nowhere near the Alamo).
Between now and the Texas we must do everything we can to make sure we win in places like Pennsylvania later this month and in states such as Kentucky and Arkansas so that we are able to sustain our momentum until Texas has a chance to vote.
Let me be clear: the final goal of our campaign is the defeat of Barack Obama. That's why I ran for President in the first place and it is why I am continuing in this race until at least Texas.
I firmly believe Mitt Romney's support for his Massachusetts health care mandate, Cap and Trade and the bailouts make him unelectable in the fall. We cannot afford a nominee that does not stand strong for our conservative principles.
We need a principled, Reagan conservative to challenge Barack Obama in the fall and nothing less.
Proud to stand with Rick,
Mike Biundo
Campaign Manager
Re: TEXAS - has Romney accepted the debate yet?
The Texas Republicans say it's NOT optional.
http://hardincountyconservatives.blogspot.com/2012/04/texas-gop-passes-resolutions-warning.html
"Don't Mess with Texas Mitt Romney!" Ha, ha! I like Texas. I imagine that Mitt wouldn't dare thumb his nose at Texas, anyway, just because he knows it's just too big a state to blow off this time. It made me mad when he an Rick wouldn't attend the other two debates.
And you assume Rick would win a head to head debate with Mitt? Texans don't cotton to whiners.
Straw polls have as much as substance as... straw. Only political hobbyists care about them.
Rick doesn't have enough money to buy media. He'll likely suspend his campaign by the Texas primary anyway.
Santorums money problems here in Texas has nothing to do with him being Catholic. Man, some of you Guy's have to really work hard to explain why rick doesn't get support and money. Its always somebody else's fault. The conspiracy against Rick. Texans don't like the Guy. Even if they want him over Romney they still don't like him. Don't blame it on Protestants if Rick doesn't win Texas. Its because he's no good.
No, we sure don't. We also don't suffer fools gladly. Before you feel too smug, Mitt got 6.6% of the vote in the Texas straw poll.
We've got his number.
I didn't know it was so bad here for Rick. Apparently, Rick has only received donations from one N Texas county. It's the least he's received from any one area & it was more than 6 weeks ago. I'm not surprised, though. There's a really hardcore Baptist swath from about Waco up to north of DFW. Whole bunch of Methodists, too. Not sure how Baptists feel about Catholics they can't convert. He shouldn't have said that about "mainline churches". I bet that went over like a lead balloon.
Okay, I've done the homework on this & it hasn't been decided or happened yet. It is being *attempted* (which, personally, winner take all is fine by me.)
This from The Texas Conservative News blog
http://hardincountyconservatives.blogspot.com/2012/04/urgent-texas-gop-winner-take-all.html
"Now it is time to take it to the next step. Now it is time to do something that we should have done a long time ago. Now is the time for Texas Republicans to have a voice and be relevant. It is time to go back to winner take all!
We need 15 members of the 62 Texas Republican Party State Republican Executive Committee members to sign a petition in order to call for an emergency meeting of the SREC to change the Texas GOP rules back to us being a Winner Take All state instead of being proportional.
We already have 15 or more members ready to sign the petition to call this emergency meeting.
Before we turn in the petition and call the meeting, we want to make sure we have enough support from all the other SREC members. Things are looking good so far! Call your SREC member and ask them to support an emergency meeting to go back to winner take all.
Once we see that we have enough support from the rest of the SREC, we will then turn in the petition and call the emergency meeting."
You guys need to stop trying to mislead people.
The REAL Count
Our current internal count that takes into account ongoing county, district, and state conventions is as follows:
Romney – 571
Santorum – 342
Newt – 158
Paul - 91
http://www.ricksantorum.com/news/2012/04/medias-delegate-math-wrong
If it's all the same to you, I believe I'll take Politico & CBS news stats over Rick Santorum's.
@Steven Thank you for for the update! (meteor fingers you got there)
Updated at 5:20 p.m. to include comments from the RNC throwing cold water on the winner-take-all effort:
A spokesman for the Republican National Committee said Texas would need — but not receive — a waiver from the national party to change its primary.
“There is no basis for a waiver. Texas will remain a proportional state,” spokesman Sean Spicer said via Twitter.
The game is afoot, then. Newt has a great organization in Texas, was second to Luap Nor in the "in person" part of the poll (Paulbots blew out the text poll by like 50+%).
Bring Y'All's lunch & a change of britches. Texas Belongs To Newt!
Newt's "landslides" aren't relevant. SC (a red state not going Democrat ever) was in the afterglow of his bullying one of the debate moderators (who can remember - who cares) and Georgia. He'll be endorsing Romney -- he is just waiting for the opening to do so in a grandiose way that makes him the center of attention and preserves his ability to command $50k for a speech.
As great a pay-per-view event a debate with BHO would be, Newt can't run his own campaign let alone the country. The only reason Newt's staying in is the notion that he and only he can debate BHO. What evidence do we have that BHO is a great debater? None -- he had a supine media and no record in '08.
The media is still supine, but he now has an (abysmal) record to defend. Oration and debating aren't the same thing.
Happy Easter to all.
I don't think this election will be close. Romney and only Romney can move the undecideds. Elections are won on the margins. Moreover he is far and away the best man for president.
You can see how desperate the dems are and BHO is digging a deeper hole by the day. Even the most stalwart libs are grasping at straws.
To the handful of passionate Santorum supporters that seem to live on this site -- your posts amount to self flagellation. (To those that say he is the same as Obama... well, you're idiots.) Your guy has no chance and is compromising his future in politics, unless he aspires to go the John Anderson/Ross Perot route.
Did you forget Newt's engineering the republicans reclaiming the House for the first time in 40 years, the Contract With America (which they kept), 4 balanced budgets in a row (the first time we had a balanced budget in our lifetime), welfare reform, & cut taxes? Millions of new jobs were created as a result of these reforms.
All under Newt's leadership. And until he did it, nobody believed he could.
Newt's the guy who DID it. The others are just wannabes.
Then why did his own colleagues run him out on a rail? Newt lacks executive disposition. Some good things were done while Newt was speaker -- but he didn't do it single handedly.
Look what happened under his successors & you'll find your answer. (they spent like drunken sailors on their first shore leave.) It's how we got to where we are today.
Same reason the GOPe is fighting him so hard. They're lazy so & sos who are addicted to our money.
Santorum is a big spender who tries to hide behind "taking one for the team". Or 10
Romney is wink wink heh heh one of them who will maintain the status quo
Paul...Paul is just nuts
We may not be able to forget all of that, but we also can't forget that this isn't the 90's. And TODAY, in the here and NOW, Gingrich is losing by HUGE margins. The only usefulness he serves at this point is to prevent the LEADING Conservative from beating the leading liberal!
He needs to put his own pride aside and bow out.
Very disappointed in your 16th century comment. I think stage9 is referring to contests won in he/she said 'leading conservative' and referring to Romney as the 'leading liberal'. I also believe neither Rick nor Newt has 100 percent records of conservatism, but most would consider them both conservatives.
This is not a a matter of pride, but principle. Newt is in it to articulate conservative issues and principles.
That is something Romney cannot do.
Romney has principal, not principle.
:-) Rick is neither leading nor is he 100% conservative.
Maybe Rick needs to remember that this isn't the 16th century.
Why does everyone think that "if only" this one or that one would get out of the race, the other guy would win? Which is smarter: to run "all out" and get to this point of having to look for ways to sustain as Rick is now ... or to run a different kind of campaign that is geared toward the second half of the process?
FACT: The ONLY two states Newt ran a full out campaign in the first half of the process were HUGE landslide victories and that was with both Mitt & Rick in the race. The rest of the states were not run that way, apparently a fact totally lost on the media.
Maybe somebody ought to be looking at what Newt's campaign actually has planned for the second half ... instead of making assumptions. Don't count Newt out just yet ...
Whoo-hoo!! Go Newt! It's downright scary when you turn on the TV, radio, or whatever, and everybody's saying, "Oh, well, it's over. Let's get behind Romney..." What a load of propaganda! The idea is for everyone to lay down their arms and surrender. THIS IS NOT OVER! What is Romney so afraid of? I think we know the answer to that. Romney could never have reached this point without the boatloads of money he threw all over, not to mention his attack machine.
Here's to the finish line!!! NEWT 2012
I agree. I am a Santorum supporter but I don't think anyone should be telling anyone else to get out. They should get out when they want as they personally feed lled. It is OK for the campaigns to contact each other privately to try to negotiate these things, but we don't need Rubios and Ryans coming out giving their diktats from on high.
I resent the RNC establishment working so hard to shape this race and trying to shove a radical lying, corrupt liberal on us.
![[EXTENDED VIDEO] Heartwarming moment when old woman finds dog ALIVE in rubble](http://www.therightscoop.com/wp-content/plugins/special-recent-posts/cache/MTI1MTAwbm9vbGR3b21hbl9mb3VuZF9kb2dfYWxpdmU=.jpg)
Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.