Talk:Rick Santorum 2012 presidential campaign

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

resource[edit]

Romney Narrowly Wins Iowa Republican Caucuses by Catherine Dodge and John McCormick - Jan 4, 2012 2:37 AM ET Bloomberg.com regarding Iowa Republican caucuses, 2012 of the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012. 99.181.147.68 (talk) 08:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Super PAC resource[edit]

from four days ago ... Big change in '12: Big GOP money from 'super PACs' by Jack Gillum Associated Press; excerpt ...

Other super PACs, including Rick Perry-leaning Make Us Great Again, have also spent millions of dollars in Iowa and South Carolina this primary season. E ven the Red, White and Blue Fund, supportive of Rick Santorum, has already spent $200,000 in South Carolina and is expected to spend more.

99.19.45.64 (talk) 05:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some details ... PAC Men: Following the Super PAC Soft Money Jan 13, 2012 2:14pm; excerpt ... "The Red, White and Blue Fund Spent: $727,200. Treasurer: Christopher M. Marston, an Education Department assistant secretary in George W. Bush’s administration.
Leaders for Families Spent: $218,411. Treasurer: Charles Hurley, a “pro-family” leader in Iowa.
99.181.140.39 (talk) 08:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

resource[edit]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/16/us/politics/santorum-seeks-evangelical-vote-in-south-carolina.html?ref=todayspaper Santorum Capitalizes on Evangelical Endorsement section A - page 14 by Katharine Q. Seelye NYT 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

reasonable person test[edit]

Yankee, Fat and Happy also edited it off the Gingrich page. Both of you commented that it doesn't apply to the candidate. No worries. For me at least I'm sitting comfortably aboard my yacht..but for the candidates and those making these type of candidate specific donations via a candidate specific super PAC...I guess Federal court rulings don't matter and FECA doesn't either till... Reporting the fact candidates as late as Feb 2012 still didn't believe the Jan 31 2012 ruling demonstrated how they "slit their throats" according to attorney James Bopp Jr has been so amusing.Pbmaise (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:No original research.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsements[edit]

I noticed that Glenn Beck is not included under the endorsement list. He was one of the earliest supporters of the Rick Santorum campaign, as well as co-host Pat Gray. A quick sweep of his websites (www.GlennBeck.com or www.GBTV.com) will show this to be true on many accounts, as evidenced by numerous interviews held in January and February.

While he is included under Iowa endorsements, he is missing from the main list and should be added.

Sincerely, Guest

(P.S. Rush Limbaugh has also indicated support, but has not necessarily endorsed him at this time.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.78.76.6 (talk) 17:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also has he had a single House colleague endorsement? If not then the latest DeWine edit is slightly misleading. Hcobb (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of the three House endorsements that Santorum received (Lou Barletta, Glenn Thompson, Tom Marino), none served in Congress during Santorum's tenure. —Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 08:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RS' remarks re Obama's "different theology"[edit]

As CNN notes, "It left some wondering whether he was implying that Obama subscribes to a religion other than Christianity." Emphasis on "some." Less than an undisputed certainty, in other words. Santorum himself denied the implication: "Asked if he believes the president is less of a Christian than someone such as himself, Santorum said that 'no one is suggesting that.'"--Brian Dell (talk) 11:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I took it as a stealth stab against somebody else in the running who adds an additional book to the traditional Christian bible. Hcobb (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think this edit is somewhat POV driven. The edit summary regarding defences for Santorum is different from my purpose. You may say that Savage is "out there." He has a large audience which makes him notable. Many voters hear him. Neither your opinion of him nor mine is relevant to his notability. I would like to see the Savage quote back in. Badams5115 (talk) 01:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Citations to WorldNetDaily generally require more justification than citations to the NY Times, WSJ, The Economist, etc as per discusssions elsewhere. Bloggers and tabloids may have a large audience but that does not mean they are preferred sources. Your opinion versus mine is relevant here because it means deleting the opinion of the Economist columnist (we cannot have everyone's opinion here). We want to present how Santorum is perceived by a range of authoritative pundits, not just talk radio, and we've already got the opinion of a popular radio show host here (Limbaugh). The fact is that the Wikipedia community feels that Michael Savage's views on matters like birtherism with regard to Obama, are WP:FRINGE. If the Economist quote is too pro-Santorum, that's another issue, but the solution to that would be have a more critical tone surrounding the presentation of Santorum's comments, not throwing in Michael Savage's "I think Santorum is right" opinion, which doesn't add much analysis or insight.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You've given me some WP lore to consider on WND and Savage that provide reasons for your edit other than POV. I find it notable that Savage sees Santorum as a fellow traveler, and I doubt I'm alone. Badams5115 (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should add this[edit]

Because it tells something about how he handles with foreign countries http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yn-eejMcmuA http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-rachel-maddow-show/46520567#46520567 RoestVrijStaal (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Santorum not endorsed by Alabama Governor Robert Bentley[edit]

Rick Santorum's presidential campaign did not recieve an endorsement from Alabama Gov. Bentley but the governor stated that he was voting for Santorum. Bentley wrote on his Facebook page that he views Santorum as "the most conservative candidate" in the primary but that he's chosen not to endorse anyone [1]. Here is a link to a CBS news story which further confirms the governor did not endorse Santorum [2]

Who gets his delegates[edit]

Don't tell me no one gets them, someone must, unless he will remain on the ballot but stop campaigning. Also Who is he actually endorsing? That's what I want to hear. Is he really going to endorse Romney while he and Gingrich entire campaign was anybody but Romney. Is he going to listen to gingrich and know endorse Gingrich and actually give life to Gingrich? Any info would be awesome and very beneficial for educational purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.3.250 (talk) 18:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since Santorum is only technically suspending his campaign instead officially ending it, he keeps the delegates already awarded to him.--Southronite (talk) 18:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many decisions still remain for Republican leaders in each of the states. There will still be a "first ballot vote" at convention—a formality. Some delegates are bound to Santorum and some aren't. To answer your question, Santorum support will be divided. Does it seem doubtful Santorum will suggest his delegates support someone else? Truly doubtful, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Latest thinking in some quarters is a 'brokered' convention is highly likely (no certainty in the First Vote), in which case, Santorum gets the votes of Santorum. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the state rules if delegates that are already elected will continue to be bound to a candidate with a supended campaign. Some states keep them bound others release them. But have a look on the Colorado Convention. They have actually elected bound delegates to Santorum after he suspended his campaign :) Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For most states, his delegates must vote for him on the first pass at the convention, even though they are guaranteed wasted votes. This is true even if Santorum tells his delegates to vote for Romney or someone else. If they do not get to the magic number the first try, then they become uncommitted and may vote as they please. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of remarks made on withdrawal from campaign[edit]

Instaure has asked for an explanation of a deletion I have made of content describing remarks made at the time of Santorum's withdrawal from the race.

The section prior to my edit included the following, wich I deleted: 

In his remarks in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania that day, he said, "We made the decision to get into this race around our kitchen table, against all the odds," Santorum said. He reflected on his campaign, calling it "as improbable as any race that you will ever see for president."[83] He said, "It was a love affair for me, going from state to state, seeing the wonder of the people of this country who care deeply for it."[84] He thanked "all of you across this country for what you have given...which is a voice to those who are, in many cases, voiceless. And we have tried to be a witness not just for your stories and your voice, but to provide a positive and hopeful vision, not a negative campaign."[85] He vowed that he would "continue to fight for those voices".[85]

In a campaign stop that day, Romney said, "[Santorum] has made an important contribution to the political process, has brought forward issues that he cares very deeply about, and is able to gather a great deal of public support and interest in those issues and in himself. He will continue to have a major role in the Republican Party and I look forward to his work in helping assure victories for Republicans across the country in November."[86] He also issued a statement calling Santorum "an able and worthy competitor" and saying, "He has proven himself to be an important voice in our party and in the nation. We both recognize that what is most important is putting the failures of the last three years behind us and setting America back on the path to prosperity."[86]

This material consisted solely of pro forma remarks made by Santorum and Romney concerning the withdrawal. Nothing either of them said was remotely memorable — or, more to the point, noteworthy. The deletion is based on Wikipedia's guidelines on notability for events and "not a newspaper". The fact that Santorum withdrew from the race is notable and warrants mention. The specific remarks he and Romney made on the day of the announcement of the withdrawal are not notable and are inappropriate for inclusion. Dezastru (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation, that's a fair rationale. Instaurare (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rick Santorum presidential campaign, 2012. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rick_Santorum_2012_presidential_campaign&oldid=1208331787"