PDA

View Full Version : RON MUST EXPOSE SANTORUM




Emerick
01-01-2012, 08:29 AM
I said this some days ago and, for me, it was just plain obvious. If the media is just proping up frothy, then Paul must change the narrative. They can't just ignore it. Ron MUST expose Santorum, or it's over.

When I said that we are delusional if we think all these attacks from the media, the GOP, and ALL other candidates wouldn't hurt Ron. Some people said that he was rising. Now, DMR just showed that Paul is, in fact, in third (because what matters is the TREND!).

When did Ron Paul rise? When he attacked Gingrich. Paul rises when he attacks. Now, he must attack Santorum, expose what all the media is hiding. Show that Santorum voted 5 times to raise the debt ceiling, show he supported a pro-choice candidate, instead of a pro-life one, let people know he voted for No Child Left Behind etc. etc.

My main point is this: IF RON DOESN'T EXPOSE SANTORUM, NOBODY WILL. Because they are all anti-Paul. And, now, Santorum is their way to fight Paul. It's as simples as that.

And, remember, if Ron gets a third place in Iowa, it's just over... Don't fool yourself!

bluesc
01-01-2012, 08:34 AM
I hear this every time someone surges.

BigByrd47119
01-01-2012, 08:34 AM
As I heard this morning, Perry is apparently running attack ads on Santorum. Will they work? I dont know.

**EDIT**

Found it:
http://www.youtube.com/user/RPerry2012?feature=watch#p/a/u/1/XApvbISkJeE

orenbus
01-01-2012, 08:37 AM
As I heard this morning, Perry is apparently running attack ads on Santorum. Will they work? I dont know.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XApvbISkJeE

Slacker
01-01-2012, 08:37 AM
The MSM has manufactured his surge after the debates and before any Ads can seriously expose him. Might be too late...

Philosophy_of_Politics
01-01-2012, 08:38 AM
I actually agree with his sentiment. 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.

anewvoice
01-01-2012, 08:39 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XApvbISkJeE

Good to see the 2nd tier is fighting back against Santorum. Ron Paul should not punch down.

BigByrd47119
01-01-2012, 08:40 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XApvbISkJeE

Thanks!

Emerick
01-01-2012, 08:40 AM
You don' need ads to do the job. This is the point. Ron has some interviews ahead. Attack him directly in the interviews. You know, Santorum attacked Ron's age, said he was ultra-left, that he would be dangerous etc. etc. Now, it's time for Ron to do the same.

They just can't ignore it. He just has to say some facts about Santorum's record.

anewvoice
01-01-2012, 08:40 AM
I actually agree with his sentiment. 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.

Response - Under a Ron Paul Presidency, Congress is responsible for declaration of war. Ron Paul will fix the fiscal house and if there is a threat, he will execute a properly declared war to completion. Period.

TheDriver
01-01-2012, 08:40 AM
I don't think anyone will be worrying about Ricky when the dust settles Tuesday night.

Emerick
01-01-2012, 08:47 AM
Of course, Ron's problem is foreign policy. As lots of people here said, he should have done a better job clarifying his positions. Lots of people suggested foreign policy ads. The campaign didn't do it. Now, it's too late for that.

But, remember, Santorum's support is the most soft one. In fact, he has no genuine support. His rise shows that. It's based only on this: "some evangelical leaders told us to vote for him, Beck supports him, the media is now telling he's the one to win etc. etc."

If you ask anyone about his voting record or about his policies, people just don't know. That's why his support is so weak. And that's why an attack against him would have great effect. Ron just must expose the facts, nothing more than that. The media won't do it by itself, because Santorum's is answer to their prays now, because he takes votes away from Paul. That's his job right now. And, if they do it successfully, then Romney gets the nomination by Super Tuesday.

Ron's strategy was based on winning Iowa and gaining momentum. If he doesn't get at least a strong second, Santorum will gain momentum and it's over for Ron. We all know this. Hence, he doesn't have a choice: he must expose Santorum. This is just a fact, as I said some days ago.

pauliticalfan
01-01-2012, 08:57 AM
Santorum's taking our votes guys. Just saw the DMR graph on C-Span. Don't like what I'm seeing.

anewvoice
01-01-2012, 09:02 AM
Santorum's taking our votes guys. Just saw the DMR graph on C-Span. Don't like what I'm seeing.

MOE 5.6%, it's a statistical tie with an error rate that high.

pauliticalfan
01-01-2012, 09:04 AM
MOE 5.6%, it's a statistical tie with an error rate that high.

No... the graph had us going from 29% to 16% over the course of last week, and Santorum going from third to second. Romney was staying steady. If we don't take Santorum down over the next two days, we're getting third. It sucks but you have to look at the trends.

Bama Boy
01-01-2012, 09:11 AM
I hear this every time someone surges.

Haha! So true.

QWDC
01-01-2012, 09:18 AM
Kind of afraid of that happening. The crosstabs did say Santorum was a popular second choice among Iowa RP supports if I remember correctly.

ProBlue33
01-01-2012, 09:28 AM
And, remember, if Ron gets a third place in Iowa, it's just over... Don't fool yourself!

I agree, it means Americans have yielded to the scare statics and lies, it will be over before it even started.

odamn
01-01-2012, 09:30 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XApvbISkJeE
LoL,
That's the best thing Rick Perry has ever done ...

milo10
01-01-2012, 09:31 AM
Of course, Ron's problem is foreign policy. As lots of people here said, he should have done a better job clarifying his positions. Lots of people suggested foreign policy ads. The campaign didn't do it. Now, it's too late for that.

But, remember, Santorum's support is the most soft one. In fact, he has no genuine support. His rise shows that. It's based only on this: "some evangelical leaders told us to vote for him, Beck supports him, the media is now telling he's the one to win etc. etc."

If you ask anyone about his voting record or about his policies, people just don't know. That's why his support is so weak. And that's why an attack against him would have great effect. Ron just must expose the facts, nothing more than that. The media won't do it by itself, because Santorum's is answer to their prays now, because he takes votes away from Paul. That's his job right now. And, if they do it successfully, then Romney gets the nomination by Super Tuesday.

Ron's strategy was based on winning Iowa and gaining momentum. If he doesn't get at least a strong second, Santorum will gain momentum and it's over for Ron. We all know this. Hence, he doesn't have a choice: he must expose Santorum. This is just a fact, as I said some days ago.

+rep. What I would suggest is that Rand go after Santorum directly and openly. He would be absolutely perfect for that role.

4114Liberty
01-01-2012, 09:41 AM
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
01-01-2012, 09:42 AM
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
01-01-2012, 09:49 AM
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
01-01-2012, 09:56 AM
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
01-01-2012, 10:24 AM
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
01-01-2012, 11:03 AM
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
01-01-2012, 11:28 AM
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
01-01-2012, 11:32 AM
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
01-01-2012, 11:40 AM
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
01-01-2012, 11:44 AM
I don't think Santorum gets more than 13% Tuesday.

Emerick
01-01-2012, 11:46 AM
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
01-01-2012, 11:49 AM
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
01-01-2012, 11:50 AM
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
01-01-2012, 11:52 AM
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
01-01-2012, 11:56 AM
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
01-01-2012, 12:13 PM
Here's one from another one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1Em-Wh943E

Emerick
01-01-2012, 12:17 PM
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
01-01-2012, 12:18 PM
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
01-01-2012, 12:18 PM
Santorum campaigned for TREY GRAYSON. Need I say more?

moderate libertarian
01-01-2012, 12:20 PM
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.

Emerick
01-01-2012, 12:22 PM
Here's one from another one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1Em-Wh943E

Is this from her campaign? Is Bachmann playing this in Iowa?

Brick-in-the-Wall
01-01-2012, 12:35 PM
Unlike Ron Paul, Santorum is a homophobic bigot and we have direct quotes from him to back this up.

If you bring up the things he has said about gays, if people still support him after that, they're a lost cause.

Canderson
01-01-2012, 12:46 PM
Its too late for Ron to attack, the grassroots have to do what they can but we won't see him fall in 2 days. We simply have to cool down, work on future states and hope our enthusiasm and organization will out perform Romney supporter's lack of inspiration and the Santorum campaign's terrible organization and lack of funds.

Emerick
01-01-2012, 12:59 PM
Its too late for Ron to attack, the grassroots have to do what they can but we won't see him fall in 2 days. We simply have to cool down, work on future states and hope our enthusiasm and organization will out perform Romney supporter's lack of inspiration and the Santorum campaign's terrible organization and lack of funds.

There is time, because Ron can do it in an interview. If he does that today, it will appear in the news until the caucus.

He could just say something like this: "I distinguish myself from all the other candidates because I have a very consistent conservative voting record. My actions speak for themselves. Other candidates only have their rethoric. Romney will say whatever a voter wants to hear in order to get a vote; Santorum has a very good rethoric when it comes to abortion. I agree with almost all of that. But, you see, when he had to make a real choice, when he could choose to endorse the liberal pro-abortion Specter or the conservative pro-life Toomey, what he did? He supported Specter, one of the strongest supporters of abortion in America, who was fundamental in passing Obama Care. That's the big difference between me and other candidates."

That's all he has to do.