RON MUST EXPOSE SANTORUM

[4114Liberty]

I've been working all night on the Santorum problem.

1. Santorum wants to privatize social security. Older votes care about this more than anything.
2. his primary strength is sincerity. Find an issue to attack to make him look like a quack. He did connect abortion rates to the decline in social security worker youth, supporting retirees. Not everyone would be happy with this morbid link and line of thinking.

I believe that he is weakest on social security. [note I don't care even if his position is similar in anyway to ours; we can still attack him] Most of the people that seem to be Santorum are older or at least not really young. If it's the younger votes, Romney is coming in second to us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Santorum
santorumexposed.com/


What's happening in West Iowa? I saw that in 2008 Romney and Clinton won. Is that area more religious, socially conservative? Are we preventing Romney and Santorum in the outlining areas?

 

[Elwar]

Anyone who starts a thread with "Ron Paul must" or "The Ron Paul campaign must" obviously does not understand what a R3VOLUTION is all about.

 

[Matthew Zak]

I've been saying it too. Back when Santorum was still at 2% and the media hadn't even started attacking Ron yet, I was concerned and warning about Santorum.

I guess we'll see what happens.

 

[BigByrd47119]

Another quick update on attacks on Santorum. A fellow gun owner forum member (different forum, not sure if I am allowed to name it publically) stated he received a robo-call stating Santorum is Anti-2A. He didn't indicate who sponsored the call.

Just FYI

 

[abstrusezincate]

Attacking Santorum isn't the problem. The real issue is that Bachmann collapsed a week too soon.

Evangelicals were always going to seek out their person. The good news is it means little outside IA.

 

[Emerick]

Attacking Santorum isn't the problem. The real issue is that Bachmann collapsed a week too soon.

Evangelicals were always going to seek out their person. The good news is it means little outside IA.

It doesn't mean much outside Iowa for Santorum. It means a lot for Ron. This is the point.

Of course, even if Santorum wins Iowa, he doesn't stand a chance of winning the nomination. But he is ruining Paul's chances. Remember, the campaign focused so hard in Iowa because a great result there would be huge in terms of momentum. Right now, the news is this: "Ron Paul fell to the floor and lost Iowa after being the clear front runner". The narrative that will follow will kill Ron. This is the big issue.

 

[mconder]

It doesn't mean much outside Iowa for Santorum. It means a lot for Ron. This is the point.

Of course, even if Santorum wins Iowa, he doesn't stand a chance of winning the nomination. But he is ruining Paul's chances. Remember, the campaign focused so hard in Iowa because a great result there would be huge in terms of momentum. Right now, the news is this: "Ron Paul fell to the floor and lost Iowa after being the clear front runner". The narrative that will follow will kill Ron. This is the big issue.

I agree, but I think the attack ads would be best against Romney since he is such and easy target. Nocking down Romney to a 2nd or 3rd place finish would serve us far batter after Iowa than taking out Santorum. Trust me, there are far more serial hypocrisy clips of Romney than the Grinch. It should have been easy to do. I was advocating a Roney attack a few weeks back, when something could still be done about it, but no...everyone thought it would be better to make nice nice with Mittens. Now it really is too late to do anything about. This is a huge failure of the campaign.

 

[Matthew Zak]

I agree, but I think the attack ads would be best against Romney since he is such and easy target. Nocking down Romney to a 2nd or 3rd place finish would serve us far batter after Iowa than taking out Santorum. Trust me, there are far more serial hypocrisy clips of Romney than the Grinch. It should have been easy to do. I was advocating a Roney attack a few weeks back, when something could still be done about it, but no...everyone thought it would be better to make nice nice with Mittens. Now it really is too late to do anything about. This is a huge failure of the campaign.

I don't think there's very much we can do between now and the caucus but it's worth a shot.

 

[Working Poor]

He will expose him self there is a reason he did not get any traction at all all last year he is a war monger and hates gays and probably brown people too....

 

[blazeKing]

I don't think Santorum gets more than 13% Tuesday.

 

[Emerick]

I agree, but I think the attack ads would be best against Romney since he is such and easy target. Nocking down Romney to a 2nd or 3rd place finish would serve us far batter after Iowa than taking out Santorum. Trust me, there are far more serial hypocrisy clips of Romney than the Grinch. It should have been easy to do. I was advocating a Roney attack a few weeks back, when something could still be done about it, but no...everyone thought it would be better to make nice nice with Mittens. Now it really is too late to do anything about. This is a huge failure of the campaign.

I think that would be ineffective. Here's why:

1) If you attack Romney instead of Santorum, people won't go to Ron, but to Santorum. The whole media is telling them this: vote for Santorum, vote for Santorum. If Romney's votes defect, they will probably go to the guy the media is pushing.

2) Ron hasn't taken Romney's votes when he surged. He got the anti-Romney vote. And now Santorum is been pushed as the anti-Romney in the race. Hence, if you attack Romney, you will benefit more Santorum then Ron.

3) As Santorum is taking some of Ron's votes, those are the votes we have to get back. It's easier than getting Romney's votes. If we can get our support back, then Ron will win easily.

AFTER Ron wins or takes a strong second in Iowa, then it's a two horse race, because Santorum has no game outside Iowa; Bachmann is finished, so is Perry. Gingrich is falling like a rock. Huntsmann will fight his only shot at NH, but will loose - he has no real support. When this happens, then Ron should attack Romney. But not earlier, because he won't have a high chance of getting Romney's votes. Until then, attacking Romney is giving more votes to other candidates then to Ron.

But I think one thing should be clear by now. RON MUST ATTACK ALL THE TIME! This is imperative. He will be attacked all the time. If he doesn't fight back will hard, then the media and the GOP will finish him. And this is the problem, from my point of view. After Ron finished Gingrich, his campaign relaxed and stoped attacking. One can never stop attacking. Ron attacked Gingrich - Ron dropped him down; Ron attackes Santorum - he won't stand a chance; Ron attackes Romney - Romney will have serious trouble. And when he has done enough of attacking other GOP candidates, he must attack Obama all the time.

 

[Emerick]

He will expose him self there is a reason he did not get any traction at all all last year he is a war monger and hates gays and probably brown people too....

Yes, but there is a timing problem here. That's what you're not considering. Santorum is not there to win. Right now, his job is to get votes off of Ron. If Santorum wins Iowa with 90% of votes, it doesn't matter. He doesn't stand a chance, because he has no game outside there. But, in doing so, he would hurt Ron hard. And this is the problem.

I insist: the problem here is timing. That's why Perry is attacking him. We should follow suit.

 

[hueylong]

Interesting how all these new, low-post people are always frantic that if such and such doesn't happen -- "it's over"...

We are going to finish well in Iowa, and we are one of two campaigns with the ability to go the distance. So, stop freaking out.

How about we let the campaign make these decisions? They are experienced political professionals and are doing a great job.

 

[Drivingrain]

Im having trouble understanding why this is a problem. As much as we all want the red meat of a 2-way race, the clearest path to the nomination is having a race that goes to 3 to 4 wide all the way to the stretch run. If Bachmann and Santorum both went under 5% and they both dropped...then that would be too much clearing too soon.

 

[Travlyr]

Yes, but there is a timing problem here. That's what you're not considering. Santorum is not there to win. Right now, his job is to get votes off of Ron. If Santorum wins Iowa with 90% of votes, it doesn't matter. He doesn't stand a chance, because he has no game outside there. But, in doing so, he would hurt Ron hard. And this is the problem.

I insist: the problem here is timing. That's why Perry is attacking him. We should follow suit.

That makes no sense. The winner in Iowa is electable and so is the second place guy.

 

[coffeewithgames]

Here's one from another one:

 

[Emerick]

That makes no sense. The winner in Iowa is electable and so is the second place guy.

I used what is technically called an entimema in rethoric, it's a kind of argument in which you don't present all your premisses. Why even if Santorum gets 100% of votes in Iowa he doesn't stand a chance?

1) He has no organization outside Iowa.
2) He has no money and no ability to raise money.
3) He has no strong support.
4) He has been campaigning only in Iowa for a lot of time.
5) All he has is the idea he is a strong social conservative, but his record prove otherwise. When he had to make a choice between backing a strong pro-life or a strong pro-choice candidate, he chose the second alternative.
6) He is not charismatic.
7) He is a big spender.
8) Even warmongers such as Beck - who support him - consider him too hawkish.


To win Iowa is HUGE, but only when you are a serious candidate. When you are a Santorum or a Bachmann, it doesn't mean much, because they are extremelly weak candidates. It's very different if Ron, Romney or even Gingrich or Perry win Iowa or have a strong second place.

But, specially in the case of Ron, we all know that the campaign invested so much in Iowa in order to gain momentum in the next states. Let's not forget all that has been said here. For a long time, the argument was this: "Ron is not too well nationally, but, after he wins or get a strong second in Iowa, he will gain momentum and, then, he will rise nationally". Now, some people are just ignoring all of this.

Even if Ron gets a strong second, he may not gain momentum, because, a week ago, the was the clear frontrunner. Hence, even a strong second will be spinned by the media as a great defeat for Ron. We all know that's how they are going to play it.

 

[Created4]

Anybody see Meet the Press? They definitely vetted Rick. Came across as just another flip flopper. Some highlights:

"I look back at some of my votes in Congress and say 'Why in the heck did I do that?'"

He supported Romney as a conservative in 2008, but attacks him today as a moderate.

Campaigning in Pennsylvania in 2006, he tried to portray himself as a moderate.

And the biggest one: He OPPOSES democracy, such as what happened in Egypt, if the results are an Islamic government.

 

[Jeremy]

Santorum campaigned for TREY GRAYSON. Need I say more?

 

[moderate libertarian]

However, this all stems from foreign policy and Israel.

The Social Conservative vote IS the voting block that primarily disagrees with Ron Paul on foreign policy, and Israel.

Good point.
But sand has been shifting post 2005-06 when Iraq bloodshed and costs of wars exploded.

FF to 5:15 mark in this clip, Santorum is certified war monger and allied with war hungry religious zealots. Just watch from 5:15 to 6:30, full video is 9 min long.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjMRgT5o-Ig&feature=player_detailpage#t=232s

Lieberman and aipac had tried to get US to attack Iran in 2006 but President Bush refused.