That’s great to hear! He’s my candidate, I lived in PA when he was Senator and I liked him then, except the endorsement of Specter, he was the most conservative and best choice.(I voted for Toomey in that election). One thing that has really not been addressed in the media about Tuesday’s primary vote in Missouri, the media did a super job of suppressing the vote for the Republicans. But the real diehards still voted, me and mine included. I will be going to the caucus on the 17th March, my voice will be heard.
I like Newt too, but he has issues. Romney really is the worst of the pack_3, not a conservative bone in his body that I can tell.
Clarification: This is coming from a fight between the Republicans and Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon over whether the Missouri nonbinding primary was a waste of millions of dollars statewide.
Virtually every one of our local Republicans was blasting the primary as a huge waste of money. In our county, which is facing the likelihood of layoffs in the sheriff's department, the primary cost the county more than $70,000. That may not sound like much in some parts of the country, but not spending that money could have saved three jobs in law enforcement that will now be lost.
I was the only local reporter who considered the primary important. Why? I've been a reporter in Iowa. I understand that a nonbinding primary or caucus is not unusual.
But I can't blame my colleagues in the media for “depressing turnout” by listening to Republican complaints about Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon's claims that the primary was a “waste of money.” The end result is my colleagues had egg all over their faces when I was the only person to show up at the courthouse and was running live election results when nobody else had them — the same Republicans who were blasting the primary as a waste of money were reading my article because nobody else had the information until the next morning.
As is often the case, there are two sides to this “depressing the voter turnout” story.