Posted on 01/13/2012 9:39:30 PM PST by Steelfish
Newt has a HISTORY of jumping in bed with much of what DUh-bama’s DUmocrats support...single-payer healthcare, Gorebull Warming, ethanol subsidies and more.
Sarah was asked about Todd’s “endorsement”....she said: “The first dude went ROGUE”. Newtie shouldn’t expect Sarah joining up anytime soon.
That’s right - especially since THIS hand-picked candidate has much more money and can outlast the rest (except RuPaul).
Newt was speaking out against cap & tax on the House floor the same day Gore was pushing it. He’s said MANY times that making that ad with Pelosi was one of the stupidest things he’s ever done.
For God’s sake, she was joking. They’re a team, and she’s prevented from personally endorsing due to her contract with Fox.
Rest assured, he certainly hasn’t learned from that “mistake” and went on to see if he could TOP that mistake many times by joining up with the worst DUmocrats.
Lately, he decided to adopt the DUh-bama premise that corporate gains automatically equate to “greed” and the campaign can’t explain away another “mistake” chalked up for Noot. The “professer” is just too smart for the lowly conservative voters!
The Evangelicals have decided Santorum is their man. It will be interesting to see if that makes a difference, or if Gingrich’s Tim LaHay trumps Santorum’s Tony Perkins et. al.
What is clear is Perry is done. I hate to say that, because on paper he’s the best of a bad bunch. But he has never shown he’d be able to compete for this nomination, and it looks like those in positions of influence have decided he isn’t worth backing.
This does extend the primary period as well as giving candidates the opportunity to become better known.
The additional debates, even those that are run by the idiots at various MSMs, enlist additional exposure to the so-called "second tier" candidates that would have never been given any exposure.
Instead of forcing candidates without mega buck supporters, to drop out (as happened in '08 with McLame) can raise some money to continue.
The establishment didn't necessarily warm up to this rule because they like and expect to pick the candidate "most likely to win" (in their opinion, i.e. Dole & McLame).
More people and more states have the opportunity to be included in the choice.
This is why the "establishment" along with their willing allies in the MSM continue to proclaim various people as "non-electable" and also why people who should know better, to accept that view - sad as those are the same people who loathe the MSM and complain about how "unfair" they are, as well as those knowing that this same group are cheerleaders for Obama and will do everything to destroy the Republican candidate. These people will still accept the premise that only Romney is "electable."
For once I find myself questioning Mark Levin's judgment for being such a Santorum fan.
Newt may be a lot of things -- a thousand times more inspiring, passionate, and eloquent than Santorum is certainly among them.
One thing Newt is NOT is sanctimonious. No one could ever call him that.
Santorum, on the other hand ...
Newt discussing his multiple affairs with CBN March 9, 2011.
I think I will take a touch of sanctimony over Patriotic Adultery any day.
Wow. That doesn't say much for Santorum.
As for me, the mud on his feet started to show first when he blamed voters for not leading the leaders, or some such mumbo jumbo, though he phrased it in happy sounding campaign-ese. Most of all, though, was at the end of the South Carolina talk (I've linked it elsewhere), when he exhorted people to keep true to their "values," to vote their "values." My business is language, and I know cryptic language-to-avoid-shooting-straight when I see it -- a big part of my job is to steer my clients away from it because it is the equivalent of junk food. I complained to a friend: "What does he mean by 'values'? That’s fuzzy bsh*t talk. WHAT DOES HE MEAN BY VALUES? Talk turkey, or don’t talk at all."
Gingrich has a lot of flaws, and he's very risky because he might go sideways at anytime, though it seems to me that he has a solid history of sticking by his campaign promises, and he's made some GREAT ones lately.
But Gingrich TALKS TURKEY. Santorum is too chicken-hearted to say exactly what he means when he urges people to vote their "values." If he means "vote for somebody who isn't on his third wife," I say Go sit on it and rotate, Rick.
Santorum is the weaker of the two.
Remember he supported mr uber rino “scottish law”
Then your priorities and your presumptions are BOTH out of order.
Looking past his despicable personal life, how about the priority of believing what Newt says? He has hitched his wagon with Hitlary on Health Care, Rev Al on education and Al Gore with Global warming over the past few years. Now he says he is a full out Conservative again now that he needs my vote to get in the WH. I don’t believe a word he says because ten minutes ago he had different positions on the same issues.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.