Spokane7
59°
January 5, 2012 in Nation/World
Seeking NH buzz, Romney, Santorum run at Obama
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. listens at left as Republican presidential candidate former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney speaks at a Boys and Girls Club, Thursday in Salem, N.H.
(Full-size photo)(All photos)
SALEM, N.H. — Each trying to sound every bit the nominee, Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum looked past each other to run down President Barack Obama’s economic policies Thursday as they jockeyed for support in New Hampshire and reached out to voters in conservative bellwether South Carolina.
Newt Gingrich and Jon Huntsman were happy to level their criticism at Romney, casting the front-runner as too timid to take on Obama and bring about needed change.
Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, is reaching for a decisive victory next Tuesday in New Hampshire to solidify his standing. At a morning stop in Salem before heading to South Carolina, Romney labeled Obama a “crony capitalist,” invoking a theme that Rep. Michele Bachmann had used before dropping out of the race.
Santorum, under new scrutiny after a strong showing in Iowa’s kickoff caucuses, offered himself as “the conservative alternative” to Romney and claimed he’s got the momentum to propel his campaign beyond New Hampshire.
“Our office is buzzing,” Santorum said after an appearance in Manchester. “We’re the folks that people are getting excited about.” He dismissed Obama as “a president who doesn’t understand us.”
Gingrich, the former House speaker, kept up his campaign to pull down Romney. In his first TV ad aimed at Romney, Gingrich sizes up his rival’s economic plan as “virtually identical to Obama’s failed policy” and goes on to say that “timid won’t create jobs and timid certainly won’t defeat Barack Obama.”
Gingrich also gave a dismissive assessment of Santorum when asked to size up the former Pennsylvania senator, saying that “in historical terms, he would be a junior partner.” Speaking at a senior center in Plymouth, N.H., Gingrich questioned whether Santorum has a “track record” for running a large-scale national campaign, as Gingrich did when he engineered the Republican takeover of the House in 1994.
Huntsman, the former Utah governor who skipped the Iowa caucuses, also hammered at Romney, casting him as a captive of Wall Street who won’t bring about the change the nation needs. Hoping for a breakout, Huntsman offered himself as the underdog for New Hampshire voters to take “from the back of the pack” and move to the foreground.
Romney pocketed a big endorsement Wednesday from Arizona Sen. John McCain, who argued Thursday that it’s time for Republicans to coalesce around Romney and “get into the main event” — defeating Obama. McCain won New Hampshire’s primary in 2000 and 2008 and remains popular with Republicans and independents, who can vote in the primary.
The Arizona Republican, who spoke Thursday on CBS’ “The Early Show,” was set to appear with Romney and South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley at campaign events in that state later in the day.
Romney, keeping his focus on the president, has a new TV ad in South Carolina that criticizes Obama for adopting “un-American” economic policies that hurt workers in the state and faults him for packing a government labor panel with “union stooges.”
Romney’s Republican rivals had no intention of heeding McCain’s calls for a quick end to the GOP nomination fight.
The Iowa caucuses did little to clarify what has long been a fractured GOP field, with Romney and Santorum battling almost to a tie in that state and libertarian Texas Rep. Ron Paul placing third. The result demonstrated anew the difficulty Republicans have had in choosing between Romney, a former business executive who governed as a moderate, and a more dynamic, conservative alternative.
For now, Santorum has taken on that role.
The former Pennsylvania senator lost by just eight votes to Romney in Iowa, a strong showing due to a socially conservative message and dedicated politicking across the state’s 99 counties. His challenge now is to raise money and build a strong enough organization to cement his status as a durable challenger to Romney.
“We’re the candidate that’s on the rise,” Santorum declared Thursday.
Santorum aides reported raising $1 million Wednesday alone, largely through a surge in online donations, which crippled his campaign’s website shortly after the Iowa results were announced. Campaign manager Mike Biundo has said the campaign’s fundraising pace tripled over the last week.
At a rally Wednesday in Brentwood, Santorum urged supporters to keep the faith.
“Don’t settle for someone who can win but then can’t do, won’t do and has no track record of doing the big things that are necessary to change this country,” he said.
In TV interviews after his Iowa victory, Santorum was challenged on his conservative views and record in Washington.
On CNN, he was asked about past comments equating homosexuality with bestiality.
“One can have desires to do things that we believe are wrong, but it’s when you act out on things, that’s the problem,” Santorum said.
He also defended so-called earmarks — congressional spending designed to benefit lawmakers’ home-state projects.
“When you go to Congress, you fight to make sure that when taxes go from your state to Washington, D.C., you fight to make sure you get your fair share back,” he said, adding that he now opposes earmarks.
Santorum also suggested he had been misinterpreted while discussing Medicaid when he appeared to single out black recipients for criticism.
Paul is taking some time off at home in Lake Jackson, Texas, where he has been resting, riding his bike, and preparing for two debates this weekend. He will return to New Hampshire on Friday and stay through Tuesday’s primary. As recently as this week, Paul said he could not see himself becoming president.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry also went home after saying he would reassess his candidacy following a weak fifth-place finish in Iowa, but he later announced he would carry on. He planned to test his sputtering candidacy in South Carolina, which holds its primary Jan. 21, and was expected in New Hampshire for two debates this weekend.
© Copyright 2012 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Salmonella linked to chicken handling 
Diana on January 05 at 8:58 a.m.
“Santorum also suggested he had been misinterpreted while discussing Medicaid when he appeared to single out black recipients for criticism.”
Rick Santorum is lying. The video is readily available of him saying to his Iowa audience, “I don’t want to make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money; I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money.”
I wonder why Mr. Family Values would single out blacks, since 86% of welfare recipients in Iowa are white, while 9% are black.
BlondeSquawker on January 05 at 9:27 a.m.
Mitt is unelectable because he’s a Mormon and Santorum is a blatant racist A$$face who can’t beat Obama in a debate. This is going to be fun to watch. Woo Hoo!!!
OBAMA ‘12
Bruce (aka thatoneguy) on January 05 at 11:17 a.m.
^ 1111: We already know that’s no reason he won’t be re-elected =D
Shadedmuse on January 05 at 11:42 a.m.
These republican-tea-baggers are just embarrsing them srlfs for the way they act, their speeches on Tuesday were a joke and just plane sad.
Romney is a stuff shirt and is all what is wrong with this country Romney will lose come november because he is the poster child of the wealth 2 percent greedy corperations, when he ran Bain capitol he cut and eliminated jobs not create them. so when he says he a job creater he is just blowing smoke up your you know what.
greenlibertarian on January 05 at 12:29 p.m.
As recently as this week, Paul said he could not see himself becoming president.
Wow.
I watched the video of that exchange. It’s not out of context.
Where’s the Ron Pauluons to refute/explain that statement.
pmbrown49 on January 05 at 12:34 p.m.
You guys all act like Obama has been a GREAT President when he has been one of the worst since Carter. Romney won’t be stellar either, but seriously who is the worst between he and Obama? I can’t say Romney would be any worse than Obama. And the being owned by the Corporations argument is bogus particularly in light of the fact that Obama is owned by corrupt Big Labor.
Housecleaning needs to occur in Congress…vote all the bums out…both sides. We need term limits for Congress: 4-term maximum for the House and 2 terms for the Senate. If 8 years is enough to have a President serve, Congress should be no different.
pmbrown49 on January 05 at 12:40 p.m.
Post Script (clarification): I think 2 terms in the Senate (12 years) is too long, but 6 years isn’t enough to get anything accomplished either.
Diana on January 05 at 1:49 p.m.
“As recently as this week, Paul said he could not see himself becoming president.”
Greenlibertarian, perhaps he was just setting up the conspiracy theory to keep them busy when he loses.
johnclarke on January 05 at 2:47 p.m.
pmbrown49 on January 05 at 12:34 p.m.
You guys all act like Obama has been a GREAT President when he has been one of the worst since Carter.
I’d ask you to back up that stupid statement with a little evidence, but we all know where that would get us. Obama is only about one zillion times better at the job than the last guy. You have to look pretty far back in history to find a President that could eff up a country half as much as GW Bush. I figured about 3 years for the economy to right itself, in spite the Republican efforts to block everything. Obama is going to coast to an easy victory. Just accept it now. The other thing to accept is there is going to be a HUGE backlash against the Republicans.
pmbrown49 on January 05 at 4:11 p.m.
johnclarke, you are drinking the kool-aid and thinking America is behind the brainless Occupy movement lock, stock and barrel. The only thing I agree with you on is Bush was terrible. Obama hasn’t made the economy better. The jobs being created right now are mostly minimum and entry-level wage. If he had really made the economy better, explain why most of his economic braintrust left at the mid-terms mostly out of frustration? Explain to me also why he is a shoo-in with a 40% approval rating?
Reagan and Clinton were far better Presidents, primarily because they knew how to work with Congress, not bash them in the media at EVERY opportunity. Clinton’s 2nd term may be one of the best performances in the last 25 years because he KNEW how to work with an all-GOP Senate and House. Obama possesses none of those skills and both Harry Reid and John Boehner are engaged in an all-or-nothing partisan battle on EVERY issue.
Which brings me to…when is Harry Reid going to put a budget up for vote in the Senate? Aren’t we going on 2 years without an approved budget?
Oh, and I hope we don’t have any more assinine “anthems” sung by schoolchildren praising Obama this time around like it was 1960s Red China all over again.
detroitdude on January 05 at 5:47 p.m.
It really is the flavor of the week with these folks in the GOP. Mittens will end up running against Obama.
“The jobs being created right now are mostly minimum and entry-level wage.”
Right, and your solution is to go and vote for candidates whose rhetoric is all about busting unions and reducing the power of collective bargaining and letting fat cats dictate exclusively “what wage is best for the worker”.
“That is why you fail.”
-Yoda
Diana on January 05 at 6:02 p.m.
“The jobs being created right now are mostly minimum and entry-level wage.”
You might want to ask Congress about that.
pmbrown49 on January 05 at 8:00 p.m.
“You might want to ask Congress about that.”
You might also want to ask Obama why he won’t sign the bill to build an oil pipeline down from Canada that would create good UNION jobs and energy independence. Even the Labor Unions are po’d at Obama over that.
Traveler on January 05 at 10:02 p.m.
pmbrown49: “… ask Obama why he won’t sign the bill to build an oil pipeline down from Canada that would create good UNION jobs and energy independence.”
Right off the top, I gotta ask: How would getting our oil from Canada make us independent? They are a whole different country, ya know.
But even beyond that, oil companies will sell to whomever gives them the most money — that’s capitalism for ya. America’s “energy independence will only come when we outbid every other country for our own natural resources that we “sell” to Big Oil.
And the pipeline’s purpose isn’t to bring oil to the U.S.; it would go all the way through America to the refineries in the Gulf of Mexico, ready for easy shipment to Europe and other parts east. If the pipeline is blocked, the oil companies will just sell it to China — their already-threatened fallback.
And as for the “good union jobs,” you don’t strike me as someone who’s too worried about unions, but I’ll respond anyway and say that it would only be a few thousand jobs during construction (nslopeofw’s assertions notwithstanding); after that, there would be a few hundred monitoring jobs.
greenlibertarian on January 05 at 10:52 p.m.
No sense wasting facts and logic on pmbrown49.
/Sigh. Another conservative poseur.
Aren’t there any conservatives left with even a tenth of the scholarly knowledge, adept logic, and clever humor of William F. Buckley?
Nothing but carnival barkers, chest puffer-uppers, and mindless talking point repeaters?