Talk:Rick Santorum 2012 presidential campaign/Archive 1

Archive 1

resource

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)

Super PAC resource

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)

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)

resource

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)

reasonable person test

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)

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

Endorsements

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)

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)

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)

RS' remarks re Obama's "different theology"

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)