Santorum hesitant on more primary debates (Rick "Courage" Santorum)
Posted on 03/07/2012 3:03:08 PM PST by red flanker
Rick Santorums campaign said its not planning for any more GOP primary debates, while Newt Gingrich is calling for one to happen before next Tuesdays contests. Gingrich said on Monday he planned to attend an upcoming debate in Portland, Ore., hosted by PBS. He also said he wanted there to be more debates, possibly in Mississippi and Alabama, states with upcoming primaries in which the former House Speaker is hoping to do well. Mitt Romneys campaign wouldnt say if the former Massachusetts governor will attend the Portland debate, and the Santorum campaign wouldnt commit either.
TOPICS: Extended News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Oregon
KEYWORDS: kenyanbornmuzzie; mittromney; newt; newtgingrich; ricksantorum; santorum
In the Arizona debate, Rick "Call Me Courage" Santorum whined about being double team by Ron Paul and Romney. He had a chance to display true political courage by agreeing to attend a scheduled debate in Georgia. Even if the debate was to be cancelled, Rick would have shown that he was willing to debate Newt one on one. What Rick showed to the voters of Georgia and Ohio was that Rick the Rooster was really a political weakling and a chicken at heart. It would not be surprising if he lost Ohio and underperformed in Georgia because of his lack of courage and willingness to debate Newt one on one. 1
Dumb for Rick... he needs the free media.
posted on 03/07/2012 3:06:34 PM PST
In other news, Newt Gingrich continued to dodge his 1994 Democratic Opponent, Brian Jones aka “Cooter” of Dukes of Hazzard Fame. Jones followed Gingrich to events in Connecticut, Wisconsin, and Alabama (with hunting dogs) trying to track down Newt to debate. Newt was so infuriated that he completely ignored Cooter for the rest of the campaign, and as a result, Cooter called Newt a “wuss”.
I wonder if Newt would debate Cooter now.
posted on 03/07/2012 3:07:15 PM PST
posted on 03/07/2012 3:10:15 PM PST
In 1994, Newt helped engineer one of the greatest political wins in history for his party. We know ex-senator Fred Thompson who was elected that year gives Newt a lot of credit for his accomplishment. Even Rick "Courage" Santorum used the political tidal wave to his election in that year, but he mostly gives credit to himself...
posted on 03/07/2012 3:15:20 PM PST
I think he’s smart. The people need to see more of a candidate than soundbites on a stage.
posted on 03/07/2012 3:15:38 PM PST
Is Santorum and Romney going to dodge Obama debates? Don’t you all think this is something we should know now?
posted on 03/07/2012 3:18:02 PM PST
What informs more? Rehearsed stump speeches or debates where positions are fleshed out?
posted on 03/07/2012 3:18:39 PM PST
yeah, Newt sure did, but that wasn’t the issue here, so don’t try to change it.
Your’re trying to call Santorum out as a coward who’s afraid to debate Newt and portray Newt as someone who’s willing to take on and debate anyone, when the historical record says otherwise.
As for 1994, I agree it wasn’t necessary for Newt to debate Cooter as his district was heavily safe and there was no gain he could make from it. I would argue in the same manner it is wise for Santorum not to debate anymore either for the same reason, because even if he does well, people like you won’t give him any credit anyway. So why bother?
posted on 03/07/2012 3:19:01 PM PST
I hope you’re saving some of that sarcasm for the democrats
posted on 03/07/2012 3:21:16 PM PST
Of course neither is. What a stupid question to ask.
There’s 3 agreed upon debates set by the Commission on Presidential Debates with the agreement of the campaigns and major parties. One is usually a podium, one is a table-sit down, and one is town-hall. It’s been this way since 1996.
posted on 03/07/2012 3:21:44 PM PST
We know ex-senator Fred Thompson who was elected that year gives Newt a lot of credit for his accomplishment.
posted on 03/07/2012 3:23:40 PM PST
Don’t call me stupid jerk.
posted on 03/07/2012 3:24:17 PM PST
Some of you Newtonians should ask yourselves why Newt can’t get decent numbers without debates. The general isn’t going to be about debates and I think Newt’s threat to follow Obama around rings hollow. First of the Secret Service won’t let him “just follow” Obama. Secondly, Obama crowds won’t stick around to hear Newt if he did get on.
Gotta get over this one-trick pony thing.
posted on 03/07/2012 3:27:59 PM PST
Had to go all the way back to 1994, did you? Santorum's foibles go back all the way to..the 21st century.
posted on 03/07/2012 3:28:51 PM PST
Why in Sam Hill would Newt Gingrich debate anyone named Cooter?! I imagine Newt would draw the line at matching wits with an unarmed person.
posted on 03/07/2012 3:32:49 PM PST
I asked you a specific question. What do you think informs more? Stump speeches or debates where candidates have to take positions on issues?
posted on 03/07/2012 3:33:09 PM PST
As does Newt’s:
Sat on a couch with Nancy Pelosi promoting the dangers of Global Warming that he still won’t call junk science
Supports Big Government Solutions to Healthcare
Supports Big Tent Republicanism (Scozzafava)
Calls Paul Ryan’s Plan “Right-Wing” Social Engineering
Said “The Era of Reagan is Over”
All of this is 21st Century.
Dumb for Rick... he needs the free media. Not to mention the practice.
posted on 03/07/2012 3:36:18 PM PST
posted on 03/07/2012 3:36:26 PM PST
He vigorously criticized the TARP plan as much as anyone ever has. He only said he would reluctantly vote for it if he was in Congress because something had to be done, but if he was in charge it would have been very different.
He NEVER said “The Era of Reagan is Over.” You will not be able to produce the quote because he never said it, so that proves you’re lying.
The explanations for the rest are on his site:
posted on 03/07/2012 3:38:30 PM PST
Debates have defined the last few elections every time. They’re watched by about 70 million people, far more than watch the Republican debates. If Rick makes a jackass of himself like he often does in the debates, you can kiss his election chances good-bye.
You are seriously mentally challenged if you think the “Obama crowds sticking around” is what Newt would even want. You might want to go back and get that G.E.D. before you engage in any more debates on the interwebs.
posted on 03/07/2012 3:41:43 PM PST
Rush Limbaugh from 2008 in regards to Newt’s book.
“I dont know this. Its just a wild guess, but based on this comment, The Reagan era is over. The George W. Bush era is over. Were at a point in time were about to start redefining, as a number of people have started talking
 Yes, they are. Every one of these Republicans is starting to talk about redefining the party, and this has been going on since the early days of this, not just now.
If you recall, all during last year, I told you this was my big concern: that Reaganism and conservatism were going to be redefined so as to fit the mold of whoever these guys on our primary roster are.
One of the things that Newt said is redefine the nature of the Republican Party in response to what the country needs. Something about that rubs me wrong. Something about that sort of grates on me. The Republican Party is supposed to sit out there and I guess (slurps) moisten its index finger, stick it in the air, find out what people want, and be that?
Thats not who we are! Now, it may be who populists are. In fact, it is exactly who populists are. Even if you have no intention of following through on what you plan to do as you promise all these wonderful things to your supporters, as a populist. But this is not what the Republican Party has been. Its what the Democrat Party had been.
Figure out what the country needs and then do it? We know what the country needs already! Thats our ace-in-the-hole. One of the things Newt said in this interview was, Far beyond just how do I subsidize your heating oil, how do I make it unnecessary for you to buy as much heating oil? And there are dramatic things we can do in that conversation. Now, How do I
? He means a president, running a campaign, not him.How do I subsidize your heating oil? We Republicans are going to talk about subsidizing peoples heating oil now, and were going to call that conservatism?
If you want to talk about that, fine! If thats what you want the Republican Party to be, then be that and go ahead and say thats what you want, but dont call it conservatism.
There are dramatic things we can do in that conversation. I want to make it unnecessary for you to buy as much heating oil? Now, conservation is great, folks. Conservation is great, but conservation does not equal growth.
To sit out there and say people need to buy less and less heating oil, okay. Buy natural gas furnace, or any number of things, but if this country has always been about: You need heating oil? Its going to be there. You need gasoline? Its going to be there.
The burden is not on you to conserve so that its always there! Its economic. Capitalism is the greatest force for change in the world!
Mark Steyn has a brilliant piece today on this very subject. Its how capitalism forces major innovation and change, not politicians, not Washington, not government. They dont force any kind of change other than in primaries with perception and attitudes and make people think that theyre going to be better off, but it is capitalism that forces genuine change throughout culture and throughout society.
Newt could have just as easily said here that conservative principles dont change, that the Reagan coalition is simply looking for leadership and that we need to bring more creative policy alternatives to the table than we have in the recent past.
But thats not what he said. He said, THE ERA OF REAGAN IS OVER.
Its the end of the Reagan era. It is not.
If the Reagan era is over, if the Reagan coalition is dead, what replaced it? Could somebody tell me? Precisely nothing has replaced it, and thats why so many people are scratching their heads, why so many people are a little nervous, because there isnt any real leadership out there that causes people and inspires people to get behind it and go rah-rah and make certain things happen.
I mean, is there a Gingrich coalition that has replaced the Reagan coalition? For that matter, what is the McCain coalition? If were going to have a new era, what is the McCain era? What is the Huckabee era? What is their winning coalition? They dont have one.
You know, all this sounds like Third Way kind of talk, the triangulation of the Clinton years in the nineties. But I dont know what the McCain era would be, and I dont know what the Huckabee coalition is. They dont have a coalition. Theyre out trying to get votes of independents and Democrats. Theyre pandering to moderates and independents.
Folks, I just want you to think about this: What happens if either of these two guys happen to win, attracting the votes of independents, moderates, the Jell-Os, and Democrats? Does that not equal the demise of the Republican Party? Do you think McCains out there actually trying to get Republican votes? Is Huckabee trying to get Republican votes? Romney is. Giuliani is. Fred Thompson certainly is. But if we have a nominee that is a nominee on the basis of moderate and independent and Democrat voters, then what happens to the Republican Party?”
posted on 03/07/2012 3:47:11 PM PST
So, what do you think about Santorum being afraid to debate Newt? Think he’s got what it takes to combat Obama? When he won’t challenge Mitt, and won’t debate Newt?
posted on 03/07/2012 3:48:38 PM PST
What is the point of more debates?
posted on 03/07/2012 3:52:02 PM PST
"Even if the debate was to be cancelled, Rick would have shown that he was willing to debate Newt one on one." Total BS. Back in early December, when Rick was at the bottom of the polls and Newt was on the uptick, Rick challenged Gingrich to a one-on-one in Iowa. Newt declined, apparently because at the time he felt he had nothing to gain. Now that the tables are turned, Newt and his supporters are are going to try and paint Rick as a "chicken." Rick owes Newt the same response Newt gave Rick. No sale.
posted on 03/07/2012 3:53:12 PM PST
Santorum hasnt dodged debates. He’s been to 20 of them. What is the point of another?
posted on 03/07/2012 3:56:04 PM PST
"So, what do you think about Santorum being afraid to debate Newt?" I think Newt has no room to whine when he could have accepted Santorum's challenge to a Lincoln-Douglas debate in December but Newt chickened out.
posted on 03/07/2012 3:56:31 PM PST
posted on 03/07/2012 3:57:13 PM PST
There have been 21 debates so far, what have you been smoking? Last I checked, Santorum was at ALL those debates, plus he was the only person that agreed to debate with Newt at the Trump debate when everyone else pulled out.
You sound like what you accuse Santorum of being: Whiny “Wah-wah, mommy, Ricky won’t debate me, he’s not playing fair, wah-wah”.
Your guy had his chance and blew it.
And I don’t worry about the debates in the fall because unlike you, I understand Obama is a lightweight. We sent a guy to debate Obama last time that for the most part didn’t like conservatives or even knew the principles to stand up for in those rounds. Santorum would mop the floor with Obama. Hell, I could mop the floor with the Marxist. Not that it matters because the media will spin it for Obama anyway.
posted on 03/07/2012 3:58:01 PM PST
Supported TARP--- wihout which entire banking system was in danger of collapsing similar to depression era Sat on a couch with Nancy Pelosi promoting the dangers of Global Warming that he still wont call junk science ---Newt was wrong here Supports Big Government Solutions to Healthcare ---Huh? any real examples? Supports Big Tent Republicanism (Scozzafava) ---Newt recognized Hoffman was such a bad candidate, he did not want to lose a sure GOP seat Calls Paul Ryans Plan Right-Wing Social Engineering ---Theoretically Newt is correct since Ryan's Plan does modify entitlements which fall under the social category Said The Era of Reagan is Over ---This is stated out of context, read the whole transcript and it will be obvious
posted on 03/07/2012 3:59:49 PM PST
I can’t do this, friend.
posted on 03/07/2012 3:59:55 PM PST
Laugh you fool. Cooter is the one who help take down George Allen and other conservatives. He is a radical nutcase operative. Gawh.......
posted on 03/07/2012 4:01:32 PM PST
Rush misquoted Newt (the word "over" was not said by Newt) and then went on a rather pointless, bloviating rant, which radio hosts sometimes do to try and fill out their 3 hours a day. This was filler. Rush also conveniently ignored that Newt also referred to the George W. Bush era. What Newt said is innocuous and is quoted below with a link to the original interview. Newt was simply saying we need new policies because obviously Reagan-era policies such as dealing with things like the Soviet Union don't apply anymore. Newt was talking about doing the same thing he did with the Contract with America. http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/story?id=4128020&page=1#.Tw3KmoEeW9x TRANSCRIPT Newt Gingrich Talks with George January 13, 2008 Look, I think there are dramatic changes we need in this country. We produced a platform of the American people at American Solutions. And its at the back of our book Real Change. Its also at Americansolutions.com. Every single item on the list has a majority of Democrats, majority of Republicans, majority of independents favoring. The easiest one is making English the official language of government.Look, I think the first two things the president and the Congress can do on the economy is cut spending. If youll notice, you have a primary in Michigan, a state which artificially had a recession, because its government is so bad, its taxes are so high, its unionized work rules are so destructive, that Michigan was in a recession when the rest of the country was growing. Part of  real change focuses  a long section on Detroit. The truth is, large bureaucracies are destructive. High taxes are destructive. The system weve built discourages any business from opening up in Detroit. The schools dont deliver. They do deliver paychecks. They do take care of the union. But they dont deliver for the kids. And this is at a time when if youre an African- American male and you drop out of high school, you have a 73 percent chance of being unemployed and a 60 percent chance of going to jail. So I think we need dramatically deeper and more fundamental change. So  but lets take things the American people agree on. The American people agree you ought to make it easier to build oil refineries in the United States if you want to bring down the price of oil. The American people agree that you ought to set up prizes for major breakthroughs. And that would be very different than the system weve used since World War II. The American people, in fact, agree that we ought to have tax credits for people who are willing to go to greater conservation for their homes. I mean, far beyond just how do I subsidize your heating oil, how do I make it unnecessary for you to buy as much heating oil? The Congress and the president do have an opportunity to listen to the American people, who are saying that real change does matter, and the real change is what they want. The way the McCain/Feingold law currently discriminates against the middle class, is it sets up a system by which, you know, if youre the mayor of New York and youre Bloomberg and youre worth $11 billion, you can contemplate buying the presidency and get away with it. If you are a self-, you know, a multi-millionaire governor and you want to, you can buy a nomination. And so, I just think theres nothing unhealthy about the Republican Party having a serious discussion. We are at the end of the George W. Bush era. We are at the end of the Reagan era. Were at a point in time where were about to start redefining  as a number of people have started talking about, were starting to redefine the nature of the Republican Party in response to what the country needs.
posted on 03/07/2012 4:03:45 PM PST
I’m sick of everyone acting like Newt had his chance stolen. First of all, the FL debate helped derail Newt with his poor performance. Then he had a good AZ debate but it didn’t undo the damage.
And I personally think it’s about more than debates. I think Newt took Iowa personally and became obsessed with Romney. It wasn’t a good side of him and it stuck with many voters.
posted on 03/07/2012 4:03:54 PM PST
Santorum has made it clear that his adversary is not Romney. It is not Obama. Instead, it is Newt. What does that tell you? I doubt you could "mop the floor with the marxist". You can't even mop the floor with me.
Oh, come on. Santorum is the front running conservative even though newt is good at debates.
It’s newts big thing. If he were good at juggling, he’d want a juggle off.
At this point we need to get behind One of the conservatives, the one who can beat Romney, or else we have Romney.
Come, let’s make the RINO pundits scream. Let’s get behind santo and win. It’s not worth dying on newt hill, if it gets us Romney.
posted on 03/07/2012 4:04:36 PM PST
So, you're voting for Romney?I hate mean people.
posted on 03/07/2012 4:06:00 PM PST
I think it’s both. With Sarah, her stump speeches set her campaign on fire while the debate was a non-starter. Newt got his bumps from debates but Santorum’s numbers come from stump speeches. Depends on the candidates and their strengths.
posted on 03/07/2012 4:06:45 PM PST
Santorum may have learned his lesson in the last debate when Romney and Ron Paul formed a tag team to attack him. Now that Gingrich wants to join that tag team, Santorum would be foolish to subject himself to that.
posted on 03/07/2012 4:07:03 PM PST
Rush was way off the mark with the below comment too. He suggests Newt do exactly what Newt did. Newt didn't say he was redefining conservatism, he said he was redefining the Republican party. Rush was just talking nonsense here. He was doing exactly what Rush suggested that he do. "If you want to talk about that, fine! If thats what you want the Republican Party to be, then be that and go ahead and say thats what you want, but dont call it conservatism."
posted on 03/07/2012 4:07:32 PM PST
Shameless plug for my Uncle’s Game:
Back in the 80’s my Uncle Created the Game Called “President Elect” which was a General Campaign simulation of the Presidential Contest. Some of you may have played this game. It’s addicting because you got to manage your campaign, take trips, manage your political action points, and strategize how to answer your debate questions.
It can be downloaded here, but I don’t think it works in Windows 7 because the programming is from the 1980’s
Just to illustrate, try to challenge your opponent to a debate when your opponent has a 10%+ lead. Odds are the candidate will refuse to debate.
I’ve beaten every simulated candidate on here in this game in every time period....except Reagan. Everytime I get some kind of lead, even in a bad economy with high unemployment, Reagan takes 1 trip overseas with good press or some other good economic news and I go from 15 up to 10 down. To this day, I still can’t out debate Reagan based on the percentage of how I answer my debate questions. I should just ask my uncle what the default settings are, but where would the fun be in that?
posted on 03/07/2012 4:08:36 PM PST
The problem is that debating is not a big strength once you get in office. As long as you are smart and believe in what you are doing, you can handle pressers etc.
posted on 03/07/2012 4:09:14 PM PST
That may be all well and good. I’m just interested in nominating the man who can do the best job as President. As someone who showed he can advance good ideas, work tirelessly, reform government, and strongarm Democrats into going along with him, Newt is the best guy to solve our current problems. That’s the only criteria I ask people to look at and not irrelevant campaign or personal life minutiae.
posted on 03/07/2012 4:09:36 PM PST
Nothing to worry about there. Newt doesn’t just meet the press, he defeats the press and eats the press alive. And he doesn’t get whiny, petulant, apologetic or marble-mouthed like Rick.
posted on 03/07/2012 4:12:43 PM PST
Fair enough and you may be right about Newt being the best choice. But at some point we’re going to have to get real about where the race is before we’re stuck with Romney.
posted on 03/07/2012 4:13:36 PM PST
posted on 03/07/2012 4:13:51 PM PST
I just think it’s easier for politicians to control speeches, whereas debates force them to take positions. That having been sais MSM debates are horrible! The MSM steers the debate and candidates end up talking about things that aren’t that relevant.
posted on 03/07/2012 4:17:07 PM PST
I have no problem voting for Santorum or Newt in the general if they win. I don’t want to vote for Mitt. I think Newt has a better chance to win than Santorum, but Mitt has the worst chance of them all, because he appeals primarily to the same demographics that already make up Obama’s base. The best path to win is obviously to maximize turnout among demographics which already dislike Obama, because it’s easier to turn people out than it is to change their minds. And you need an excited base in order to make the squishy people think there’s anything good about your candidate at all.
I do think that either Rick or Newt needs to drop out sometime this month. I think we need a few more contests to determine which one that should be. Rick has been on a downward spiral and we don’t know if he’s hit bottom yet or not. If everything was proportional delegates, they might need not need to drop out, but with states that are partial or total winner-take-all, they would hand too many delegates to Romney. The fact is though, at this point we almost certainly need a contested convention to stop Romney, and both Newt and Rick need to bank enough delegates to combine at the convention to beat Romney’s count.
posted on 03/07/2012 4:22:17 PM PST
The problem is that debating is not a big strength once you get in office. As long as you are smart and believe in what you are doing, you can handle pressers etc.****************************Exactly. Teleprompters are the way to go.
posted on 03/07/2012 4:25:24 PM PST