Santorum: Cruz hurt the GOP

Former Sen. Rick Santorum said on Sunday that Sen. Ted Cruz had harmed the Republican Party in his crusade to defund Obamacare that helped bring about the government shutdown.

“I would say in the end, he did more harm. I think it was not his objective,” the former Republican senator from Pennsylvania and GOP presidential candidate said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “I think his objective was a laudable one. I think he didn’t do a very good job of planning it out. I think it’s one thing to have a goal and another thing to have a plan to get you to that goal.”

Santorum said Texas senator is not the face of the Republican Party.

“Unlike the Democratic party who has a leader, has the president, there isn’t a leader in the Republican Party right now. That’s part of the problem. That’s part of the mess and the confusion,” Santorum said. “But that’s always the way it is with a party out of power. You have lots of different faces and those faces, as we’ve seen, they come and they go.”

politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2013/10/santorum-cruz-did-more-harm-176010.html

I voted for Santorum in the primary, but this is coming from a guy who talked about banning hardcore porn. If he ever got elected and did that, the court would throw it out immediately.

The strategy, it seems, was to make the base, which apparently didn’t fully show up in 2012, happy. Whether or not it worked remains to be seen and it’s already clear that traditional strategies don’t work as well against Obama/Biden.

During Cruz’s filibuster and afterwards, the line that we were told was that Cruz was doing this so that people would know that the Republicans were against Obamacare. Now I realize that most people aren’t as in tune with politics as we are here but I would wonder if most people wouldn’t already know that.

It was pointed out that what Cruz did was “symbolic” as there was no way that Harry Reid and the Senate would ever okay it and then you have the President saying he would veto it as well.

If this law falls apart then all bets are off as to Hilary and who knows who could be the next President. It could be Cruz. Look at Obama, nobody had ever heard of him 5 years ago much less thought he could dethrone Hilary.

I think Santorum’s mistake was talking about birth control. He should never have discussed that in a Presidential election.

With O-care and hyperinflation in the horizon, I don’t see Hispanics and Asians going 3:1 Hilary if its her vs Cruz.

People in the USA vote in large part on appearance and Hilary looks old, tired and has lots of baggage.

I agree with Nate Silver that “her numbers will keep dropping as she engages in policy”.

I expect the GOP to win back the Senate in 2014, keep the House and shortly after Hilary will announce she’s running and will get a temporary boost in the polls.

Clinton was running even with Christie more or less, but more recent polls only account for 24% republicans and do only registered, not likely voters.

The right will say that Biden wouldn’t get much, the left is saying the same for Cruz and Palin. But the truth is all of them if they ran would get at least 42-45% of the vote, if not more.

Ted Cruz is a dark horse if there ever was one.

That’s right. She was all but sworn in until the Nevada caucases. And, in all, she got more popular votes than Obama did.

I could be wrong, but if Obamacare turns out to be a complete and rolling disaster with new horrors unearthed repeatedly, I’m not sure any Dem candidate could win in 2016.

Obamacare is designed to carve out a segment of the middle class for the Democrats, based on dependency. But the Democrats also depend on other groups in their coalition, and not all of them are dependent.

I agree; birth control and, to a lesser extent, divorce, destroy you among the Republican Protestants. Look at how bad Cuccinelli is polling in Virginia now as proof. Heck, none of the Republican newspapers in the state will endorse him, opting instead to endorse Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling, who isn’t even running.

That’s actually not true. Out of the 48 states both candidates were allowed to participate in via party rules + several territories, Barack Obama won by a landslide. Giving him zero votes from Michigan and near-zero votes from Florida and then saying she “won” the popular vote is a joke.

He didn’t bring it up. The first person that brought it up was George Stephonopulos in the first debate.I remember it quite well because we all were wondering where that question came from. Since it previously had not been part of the campaign. The left used Santorum’s faithful Catholicism as way to play him as scary.

And that’s why the “left” voted him out during the primary? :rolleyes:

I agree with Santorum in spirit on most issues, but on some level we need to have a good strategy. Not doing so makes it that much easier for the other side to win, which is what we will see in the VA governors race shortly as a libertarian candidate with zero chance of winning will sink the pro-life candidate.

I have said on here to both the pro-life and pro-marriage movement that we lose the arguments because of economics and bad strategy.

They don’t like to hear it and chide me about praying in front of clinics or ask me if I REALLY oppose so-called gay marriage. :rolleyes:

The public needs more than “for the Bible tells me so”. I’ve seen that kind of thinking get steamrolled in debates.

Besides, that is what Protestants do. We Catholics also have principles of natural law fundamental to our teachings.

The religious arguments will NOT win presidential elections and that’s exactly why Harry Reid runs the Senate and why Obama will be in the White House until January 2017.

It’s problematic when we can’t even get a personhood amendment passed in Mississippi or when all these “moral” Muslims, Orthodox Jews and Midwest farmers vote for radical democrats.

Former Clinton advisor Dick Morris said it best: “Short of losing a major foreign war, Americans will vote with their wallets”.

Either the pro-life and pro-marriage movement can wake up and get that or they can continue to lose the culture war.

In 2014 there are many more Democrats up for reelection in the Senate. However in 2016 there will be many more Republican seats up for reelection. Just a bit of caution there.

He was sent to Washington to be the senator from Texas, not the face of the Republican party. These entrenched politicians are always forgetting who they work for. This statement from Santorum is the attitude that drove me out of the Republican Party.

Noted, however, beating incumbents is usually not so easy. 2014 maybe the exception to some extent because Bush and the Iraq War are long gone from voters minds.

Especially when they are republican and the economy stinks.

The symbolism must have been lost on all the people who were hurt by the government shutdown, which cost the economy $24 billion dollars.

If Ted Cruz wanted to do something “symbolic”, he should have tattooed “End Obamacare!” on his butt and streaked naked across the Senate floor. That would have gotten people’s attention and done about as much good as the shutdown without hurting anyone.

Nominating Ted Cruz for POTUS would be a disaster for the GOP. Why don’t you nominate somebody like Jon Huntsman? Seriously. I would like to have a choice come election day.

She got the greatest number of actual votes if you count Michigan, more if you count the estimated votes in the caucus states. Obama beat her in the caucuses. realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

Again, Michigan (and Florida) don’t count. They weren’t ALLOWED to compete there. Just because she broke party rules doesn’t mean she “won” the popular vote. She would have lost the popular vote with Michigan and Florida included had Obama been allowed to compete there, just as she did without them since they weren’t allowed to compete there.

Obama won the popular vote in 2008 against Hillary.

This isn’t exactly Clinton-esque tactics. Heck, these ads make me LIKE Cuccinelli more. But they scare Protestants half to death:

youtube.com/watch?v=q-55aPMOcBE

youtube.com/watch?v=8ehaQ4pkRb4

youtube.com/watch?v=Cg5BtFeuV9A

They’ve been running all over the DC airwaves.

Cuccinelli is polling badly for a vareity of reasons. Politico goes through this

politico.com/story/2013/09/ken-cuccinelli-virginia-governors-mcauliffe-96834_Page2.html

From your article:

A significant number of Republicans remain on the sidelines in the race. A nonpartisan poll released last week by Purple Strategies, which had Cuccinelli trailing by 5 percentage points overall, found that only 77 percent of self-identifying Republicans currently support him.
Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling, who dropped out of the race for governor after the state GOP changed its nominating procedure to ensure Cuccinelli would win, said Friday he still isn’t comfortable endorsing Cuccinelli.
“Clearly, this is not just the most conservative, but the most ideologically-driven ticket that the Republican Party has ever put forth,” Bolling said in an interview. “There are a lot of Republicans, like me, very concerned about the direction of the party. We believe for the Republican Party to be a viable party in Virginia, we’ve got be a more mainstream party and communicate a more mainstream message.”

I don’t care if you live in Mississippi; if you are only polling at 77% in your own Party, you won’t ever win.

According to Politico, the top two reasons Cuccinelli is doing so badly are that:

  1. He’s a crook
  2. He’s too right-wing
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.