Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rick Santorum looks ahead to Super Tuesday; Sens. Graham, Blumenthal talk Iran, Afghanistan
Fox New Sunday ^ | 3/4/2012 | Chris Wallace

Posted on 03/05/2012 4:22:14 AM PST by Acton

WALLACE: Rush Limbaugh has now apologized to the Georgetown law student who said that her student health plan should cover birth control. But your party is still pushing this issue. In the Senate, they offered a Blunt amendment this week which said that any business, any insurance company could decide on moral grounds not to offer birth control coverage as part of the health insurance plan.

Do you really want to be campaigning on contraception in the year 2012?

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: alteredtitle; faketitle; mediabias; sandytheslut
Chris Wallace tried to snare Rick Santorum with a run-on question that cannot be characterized as "fair or balanced." In a question that should have been about personal beliefs -- if that is important -- or objections on grounds of conscience or personal belief -- which has never been an issue in America until this week -- or something else, Wallace associated all the evils of the world -- objections to contraception, those evil Republican legislators, and Rush Limbaugh -- in a sandbag question. Then he proceeded with other "gotcha" questions -- "You supported this in 2001, but said you didn't later, and yet your website said in 2006 ..." My goodness, can no one rid of this opinionated blowhard who keeps trying to be relevant and presents himself as "fair and balanced?" This is the same Wallace who used the word "flake" to refer to Michelle Bachmann. He keeps at it, and yet tries to make the right think he is "balanced." He is about as unbalanced -- in at least two ways -- as any host out there.
1 posted on 03/05/2012 4:22:20 AM PST by Acton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Acton

I saw the interview, it was hard-hitting, to be sure, but I did not think it was unfair. Santorum could have handled his answers better, but all in all I thought he did a decent job fielding tough questions.

I don’t think that Chris Wallace deserves your criticism as you have stated it regarding Santorum - maybe for going easy on other candidates - but not for this interview.


2 posted on 03/05/2012 4:26:59 AM PST by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Acton

the “gotcha” from conservative Catholic radio show talk host Bill Cunningham was even more strident and attacking.


3 posted on 03/05/2012 4:28:21 AM PST by mission9 (It is by the fruit ye shall know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Acton

Do you really want to be campaigning on contraception in the year 2012?

No. I want the politicians to campaign of the constitution. No government involvement in health care.


4 posted on 03/05/2012 4:28:50 AM PST by freedomfiter2 (Brutal acts of commission and yawning acts of omission both strengthen the hand of the devil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Acton
If Chris Wallace ever asks Administration officials or Democrat leaders about Sheriff Joe's findings:

then and only then will I consider Wallace "fair and balanced."

5 posted on 03/05/2012 4:35:47 AM PST by eCSMaster (Conservative patriots, Rise up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Acton
Chris Wallace is the son of Mike Wallace (CBS). They don't get any more liberal than Mike.
I am sure Chris has some liberal tendencies.
Most of the time I like Mike. Sometimes though he does get off the reservation. . .
6 posted on 03/05/2012 4:38:33 AM PST by DeaconRed (Cold War Veteran. . . . US Army Security Agency 1964-1968)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer; Acton
I agree with Acton......what kind of fair and balanced interview was that?

All Wallace did was try to nail Santorum to personal beliefs & accuse him of being out of the norm.

If Santorum's personal beliefs are out of the norm then this country is in sad shape, and I suspect it is!

Santorum was quite ill with the flu or something (which Wallace admitted to in a segment an hour later) yet still held his own & answered Wallace's 'gotcha' questions graciously and soundly.

7 posted on 03/05/2012 4:39:18 AM PST by Guenevere (....We press on.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Voter#537
Most of the time I like Mike.Chris.

It's early. . . .

8 posted on 03/05/2012 4:43:01 AM PST by DeaconRed (Cold War Veteran. . . . US Army Security Agency 1964-1968)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Acton

If the eventual nominee of any party can not handle Chis Wallace, that party is in deep, deep, trouble


9 posted on 03/05/2012 4:43:12 AM PST by Kakaze (Exterminate Islamofacism and apologize for nothing....except not doing it sooner!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer
Why not, Wallace is a liberal butt hole.
10 posted on 03/05/2012 4:43:31 AM PST by org.whodat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mission9

I listened to most of that Cunningham interview last night. I am NOT a Santorum supporter by any means, but what was up with those questions? He kept saying he was praying that Santorum would win but that he didn’t have a chance. His questions were almost attacks. Santorum couldn’t help but sound defensive and argumentative. Then there was some kind of silly dustup where Santorum supposedly hung up on another host. The interview made this Newt supporter actually feel sorry for Rick!


11 posted on 03/05/2012 4:43:41 AM PST by Mangia E Statti Zitto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Acton

Why the hell does Rick let himself get dragged into these issues that are not the determining issues of this race? He never wins the “debate” in those instances. Why the hell didn’t he say: “Hey Chris, wanna talk about he Economy or Foreign Policy or rising gas prices?” No, he keeps walking right into the media’s trap. Hey Rick, STFU!!! And, as far as Chris Wallace: FOX News has been in the tank for Romney for months.


12 posted on 03/05/2012 4:45:13 AM PST by no dems (No RINO-Rom, no Kook-Daddy and no "out of touch" Rev. Rick........Gingrich.... YES!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer

Christy peddled the Demoarty / media matters talking points word for word and you defend this crap .
The issue is religious freedom not the dem party line !
And not contraception and the entire scan is a Soros media matters lie !
Christina orives once again is she is
another Soros media operative.


13 posted on 03/05/2012 4:45:55 AM PST by ncalburt (NO MORE WIMPS need to apply to fight the Soros Funded Puppet !H)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: no dems

Exactly


14 posted on 03/05/2012 4:46:40 AM PST by ncalburt (NO MORE WIMPS need to apply to fight the Soros Funded Puppet !H)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Acton

And this is news precisely why?

Those of us that actually pay attention have known this for years.


15 posted on 03/05/2012 4:50:25 AM PST by sauropod (You can elect your very own tyranny - Marc Levin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Acton; All

Rick opened himself up for this type of crap. He needs to learn when to SHUT UP!!!


16 posted on 03/05/2012 4:50:37 AM PST by no dems (No RINO-Rom, no Kook-Daddy and no "out of touch" Rev. Rick........Gingrich.... YES!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eCSMaster

Christina attacks are line by line the Media Matters play book .
The fraud is sad Dem party operative .


17 posted on 03/05/2012 4:50:46 AM PST by ncalburt (NO MORE WIMPS need to apply to fight the Soros Funded Puppet !H)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Acton
Wallace, like O’Reilly and a number of others at numerous networks are political commentators.

Fair and Balanced would be Fox's (or any news network's) straight news programs, not commentators.(whether or not they actually accomplish this...as they mostly don't)

not backing Wallace (the spawn of his leftist father, Mike....they seem politically opposed)...not crazy about him...just saying, he is a commentator not an anchor.

18 posted on 03/05/2012 4:53:19 AM PST by Vaquero ("an armed society is a polite society" Robert A. Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kakaze

Old Chrissy is one of the mist vile leftist snakes on TV and GOP hater from day one .
He track record is Soros talking point moron .


19 posted on 03/05/2012 4:53:35 AM PST by ncalburt (NO MORE WIMPS need to apply to fight the Soros Funded Puppet !H)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Acton; All

The national socialists and their propagandists are getting a lot of mileage/converts/useful idiots out of the mini-Reichstag moment. Stage the event. Amplify the lie.

“Everything about socialism is sham and affectation.” - 23.11 Ch23 Evil; Economic Harmonies; Frederic Bastiat 1801-1850

Whiney crybaby sluts for socialists are very effective.

Sandra Fluke is the white, upscale version of Peggy (”I won’t have to worry about puttin’ gas in my car...”) Joseph...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI

Pay for my stuff BUMP!

DEFUND socialism. You can do it. Live large.

DEPOPULATE socialists from the body politic. C’mon November. Live free.


20 posted on 03/05/2012 4:54:14 AM PST by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Acton
Wish media would mention
1. Fluke could have started a Mutual Aid Society for female students at Georgetown. A society like that would empower women, not INFANTILIZE them. Here's an example of a mutual aid society

2. Fluke could have directed impoverished law school students to Wal-Mart or Target, where they could by birth control for $9 per month.


21 posted on 03/05/2012 5:03:10 AM PST by syriacus (Irony: BO's childhood pres, Suharto, used free bc to reduce Catholic population in Indonesia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Acton

I used to have respect for Wallace and watched his show every week, but, now, realizing what he really is, I almost never watch.

I watched an interview he did with Santorum some weeks back. All he wanted to talk about was homo “marriage”. It was annoying and creepy.

Then, yesterday, I gave him another shot because I wanted to see Santorum. Wallace made all but one question about birth control. It was sickening.

I was disappointed in Santorum for not changing the subject. The Obamunists want to keep the conversation about birth control and how conservatives are just spoilsports who want to keep everyone from having sex.

It’s a pretty smart strategy, given our culture’s obsession with sex, as it keeps everyone from paying attention to the deliberate Obamite destruction of the economy.


22 posted on 03/05/2012 5:08:58 AM PST by Bigg Red (Pray for our republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: no dems
Because people like you would probably say....
'Why didn't Rick answer Mike's question....what does he have to hide?'....

Just like O'Reilly continues to rail...."Why doesn't Rick change the subject when they ask him the social, moral or subjective type questions....why doesn't he talk policy?"--(O'Reilly wants to show Rick how to deflect debate questions & give policy answers)

HOWEVER...O'Reilly,....when he had Rick on his show just last week.... asked the deeply penetrating policy quesion of ....

'Rick what do you think of Obama'.....

And when Rick gave him a gracious answer & started talking policy...

..O'Reilly repeated...'but Rick, I want to know what you think of Obama'....and Rick AGAIN started talking policy...

..and the 3rd time O'Reilly started in the 'but I want to know what you really think of Obama'....

..and Rick finally says...."He's a good husband and father"....and then tried to talk policy.

Yeah, O'Reilly, you really had your chance to ask some great policy questions............BUT YOU DIDN'T

Some of you would rather continue with 'Why didn't he'.....instead of appreciating or expressing support for Santorum's gracious & honest replies.

23 posted on 03/05/2012 5:09:07 AM PST by Guenevere (....We press on.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Bigg Red
"...It’s a pretty smart strategy, given our culture’s obsession with sex, as it keeps everyone from paying attention to the deliberate Obamite destruction of the economy..."

What Elephant?

≡≡8-O

24 posted on 03/05/2012 5:19:09 AM PST by Does so ("What elephant?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: freedomfiter2

Do you really want to be campaigning on contraception in the year 2012?

&&&
Of course not. Do you not see that it is the leftists who are trying to make it about birth control? This keeps Santorum from discussing Obama’s deliberate efforts at causing economic collapse.

If you recall, Little Georgie Stephanopoulos (sp?)brought the birth control question seemingly out of nowhere — now, we know better — in one of the earlier GOP debates. Then, a few weeks later, the WH brought the battle to the Catholic church about providing abortion-inducing substances, sterilization, and birth control for its employees.

At first, I was puzzled and wondered why the WH would want to go to war with the Church right now. It soon became crystal clear that this was a brilliant way to 1) direct attention away from the economy and 2) paint Santorum as a killjoy conservative who wants to poke around in everyone’s bedroom.

Wallace is guilty, IMO, of advancing the Obama agenda.


25 posted on 03/05/2012 5:19:21 AM PST by Bigg Red (Pray for our republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: no dems

Why the hell does Rick let himself get dragged into these issues that are not the determining issues of this race? He never wins the “debate” in those instances. Why the hell didn’t he say: “Hey Chris, wanna talk about he Economy or Foreign Policy or rising gas prices?” No, he keeps walking right into the media’s trap.

&&
Exactly. His people need to work on this with him.


26 posted on 03/05/2012 5:22:48 AM PST by Bigg Red (Pray for our republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Acton

(Do you really want to be campaigning on contraception in the year 2012?)

On my paying for it for lost people?
Yes, if we are to have any hope of saving our Nation....
Not all of us want to be sluts, whores, pimps, and assclowns destined for Hell Mr Wallace. That may work for you, Mr Wallace but I’ll pass.............


27 posted on 03/05/2012 5:37:18 AM PST by SECURE AMERICA (Where can I sign up for the New the media American Revolution and the Crusades 2012?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bigg Red

But, but, but, but, but, the FRingrichers say it’s all Santorum’s fault. He should just shut up. Never mind that Wallace only had questions on this one topic. It’s Santorum’s fault.
It’s Santorum’s fault.
It’s Santorum’s fault.
It’s Santorum’s fault.
It’s Santorum’s fault.
It’s Santorum’s fault.

What part of “it’s Santorum’s fault” don’t you understand?

The solution, FRingrichers believe, is for Santorum to refuse all free media. Then he’d not have to answer these gotcha questions.

He’d also lose the one form of media he has to have in order to compete with Gingrich’s Las Vegas billions and Romney’s Bain Billions.

But it’s Santorum’s fault. It’s Santorum’s fault. It’s Santorum’s fault.

Repeat after me: It’s Santorum’s fault.

Must be true if it’s repeated so often.

I


28 posted on 03/05/2012 5:53:33 AM PST by Houghton M.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Acton

I quit watching fox news.


29 posted on 03/05/2012 5:55:22 AM PST by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Acton

How is it that its the default of the MSM that its the GOP attacking free birth control??

seriously?


30 posted on 03/05/2012 6:00:39 AM PST by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Acton

Chris Wallace has finally become MIke Wallace. Time to get him a segment on 60 Minutes.


31 posted on 03/05/2012 6:11:10 AM PST by EQAndyBuzz (Most Conservative in the Primary, the Republican Nominee in the General.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Acton
If Wallace wants to be “fair and balanced” he needs to have Romney on and quote the book of Mormon passage that says Indians and blacks have darker skin because they have been cursed by G_d with dark skin because of their unrighteousness. Then he can ask Romney if he holds to that “scripture”. If you're part of a church that believes that contraception is a sin, then surely everyone’s church's beliefs should be on the table. It's not a matter of what you report so much as what you don't report.
32 posted on 03/05/2012 6:15:44 AM PST by throwback ( The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Guenevere

“I agree with Acton......what kind of fair and balanced interview was that?”

Sorry, I didn’t see anything out of line. It was a tough interview, so what?

I didn’t see any attack on religion, I saw a politician being questioned. I support Santorum by default.

The modus operandi any more around here is to whine when your candidate gets questioned, or when all the other candidates don’t drop out.

When did following politics become like parents watching their 6 year old playing soccer on Saturday morning after junior gets kicked in the shin by another player?

Why are supporters of individual candidates such babies?

(only a semi-rhetorical question.....I really am curious why supporters of every candidate whine so dang much this cycle!)

Politics is supposed to be a contact sport.


33 posted on 03/05/2012 6:30:20 AM PST by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ncalburt

Sorry, I don’t see a Soros conspiracy. The tough questioning only works to Santorums advantage.

Even if there was bias in this interview - and I don’t think there was - any politician who isn’t ready to handle the inevitable curveballs from a biased media is out of their league.


34 posted on 03/05/2012 6:34:40 AM PST by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat

“Why not, Wallace is a liberal butt hole.”

I didn’t think Santorum was blindsided. I think he did OK, not great, but he did OK.


35 posted on 03/05/2012 6:37:10 AM PST by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer

You don’t think it was unfair of Wallace to show Obama giving 14% of his income to charity last year while he and his cheap wife gave less than 1% to charity before he hit it rich with his dumb book and government connections? I though that was as dishonest as one could get.


36 posted on 03/05/2012 6:40:53 AM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: no dems
Rick opened himself up for this type of crap. He needs to learn when to SHUT UP!!!

Rick loves to have an audience and he has not learned how to say, " You want to talk about ________, I want to talk about gas prices, Iran and the threat to Israel, the Keystone pipeline, the EPA, the price of electricity and the shutdown of coal plants, so Chris, stop axing me about free rubbers and ax me about everything I've just described. Asshole.

37 posted on 03/05/2012 6:42:36 AM PST by USS Alaska (Nuke the terrorists savages.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Acton

Do not change titles.


38 posted on 03/05/2012 6:46:57 AM PST by Admin Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

“You don’t think it was unfair of Wallace to show Obama giving 14% of his income to charity last year while he and his cheap wife gave less than 1% to charity before he hit it rich with his dumb book and government connections? I though that was as dishonest as one could get.”

Santorum resisted the urge to say “Those guys have more money than me.....” He have a great answer. It worked to Santorums advantage, I think. “Hey, I got 7 kids and one of them needs exceptional care”

He was putting the candidate on the hotseat. I didn’t have a problem with it. It wasn’t unfair, in my opinion. It was an opportunity to knock it out of the park. Santorum got, maybe a double. Not bad - not as good as he could have done.


39 posted on 03/05/2012 6:48:51 AM PST by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer
Wallace brought up his charitable contributions. What insight into Santorum’s stance on public policy does that shed light on? It would be like asking Romney about strapping his dog to the roof of his station wagon. Have we seen that question yet? I understand we're not going to get a conservative out of this race, but don't pretend any part of the media is fair to conservatives.
40 posted on 03/05/2012 6:52:37 AM PST by throwback ( The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: throwback

“Wallace brought up his charitable contributions.”

So? Why is this a problem?

“don’t pretend any part of the media is fair to conservatives.”

I’m not. I just don’t see that the questions were unreasonable. Do you want your candidate to get softball questions on interviews of this sort? Of course not - not if you want your candidate to advance.

Tough questions - even unfair questions - work to a non-front-runners advantage, if they are nimble enough to take the opportunity. Santorum sort of did that, but could have done better.

I just don’t see where whining over this interview is necessary.


41 posted on 03/05/2012 6:57:09 AM PST by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer

So having castigated Santorum on his contributions going back to 2006 which is 6 years prior to his running for POTUS he fails to mention that Obama was a cheap bastard before he ran nationally and you’re just fine and dandy with that? Tell me is that fair, balanced, objective? Which criteria did Wallace meet when he mentioned the one year where Obama actually made substantial donations to charity?


42 posted on 03/05/2012 6:57:09 AM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

“Tell me is that fair, balanced, objective? Which criteria did Wallace meet when he mentioned the one year where Obama actually made substantial donations to charity?”

He gave Santorum an opportunity to address the difference that will surely be part of a presidential race should Santorum get the convention nod. He’s a politician. Hit him with whatever you got, see what happens. He did ok. Do you object to your candidate getting hit with tough questions? How would it have helped Santorum to pitch softball to him?


43 posted on 03/05/2012 7:01:16 AM PST by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer

LOL, you joking? I’m all for tough questions but I am just as against shilling for Obama. Do you think Wallace gave an objective view of Obama’s charitable giving before anybody was watching? Knowing the answer to that question I’ll simply move on to the next question. Why did Wallace hide the fact from the viewer that Obama and his wife wwere cheap bastards before he ran for national office and had Bill Ayers write him a book to cash in?


44 posted on 03/05/2012 7:07:42 AM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer

The interview was a joke, and was scripted on Democrat talking points — there is no need to be talking about contraception, but we should be talking about the Constitution — BIG TIME. The original hearing that Ms. Fluke was not invited to speak at was about the Constitutional underpinnings of the Obama regulations on the conscience clause as applied, to be sure, to Catholics only. But the Democrats had to hold their own mock “hearing” to make this issue an issue that would give Chris Wallace the cover for his questions. They are undermining the Constitution, guys, little by little, by using ever means at their disposal. And when Rush makes a point by being absurd, the entire Republican “establishment” is ready to throw him under the bus. I will never use a sponsor that drops Rush because of this matter.


45 posted on 03/05/2012 7:13:41 AM PST by Acton (Federal Money is a Trojan Horse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

“Do you think Wallace gave an objective view of Obama’s charitable giving before anybody was watching?”

No. But he was interviewing Santorum. I didn’t read it as shilling for Obama.

“Why did Wallace hide the fact from the viewer that Obama and his wife wwere cheap bastards before he ran for national office and had Bill Ayers write him a book to cash in?”

You wanted him to state that in a question to Santorum? The interview was of Santorum. Again, I think he did Santorum a favor allowing him to address the difference in charitable giving, however it was analyzed. Santorum did ok.

Santorum could have addressed the difference in Obamas charitable giving - but that wouldn’t have been a good approach. He went with the right approach.


46 posted on 03/05/2012 7:14:32 AM PST by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer
It's like repeating the “flake” charge against Bachmann. Rather than treating her as a serious candidate and asking her policy questions, he resorts to Jon Stewart speak. Fox isn't a serious news channel. That's the point. You can call it whining to diminish the validity of any claim against them, but it's time to just turn them off as a serious news channel.
47 posted on 03/05/2012 7:28:49 AM PST by throwback ( The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Houghton M.

Wallace is a total jerk, but I do wish Santorum had not been so polite. Gingrich would have taken charge of the situation, I suspect.

Santorum is a gentleman, but sometimes it hurts him. But we are seeing him get a little more feisty, so there’s hope....


48 posted on 03/05/2012 1:27:25 PM PST by Bigg Red (Pray for our republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: throwback

“You can call it whining to diminish the validity of any claim against them”

I have no interest in defending Fox News. I just didn’t agree that the interview was unfair and I thought it an overall positive for Santorum - so why whine about it?


49 posted on 03/05/2012 2:11:51 PM PST by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson