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

Skip to comments.

RNCís delegate count shows Gingrich ahead of Santorum (Stand down, Rick!)
WashTimes ^ | 3-8-12 | Dinan

Posted on 03/08/2012 5:47:11 PM PST by VinL

Rick Santorum may have won more primaries but the Republican National Committee's current delegate count shows former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has more bound delegates than Mr. Santorum in the race for the party's presidential nomination.

Frontrunner Mitt Romney has earned 339 delegates to the August nominating convention in Tampa, Fla., or more than the rest of the field combined, according to a chart the RNC sent to its members on Thursday.

Mr. Gingrich is second with 107 delegates, topping Mr. Santorum's 95 delegates and the 22 delegates pledged to Rep. Ron Paul of Texas.

Winning the nomination will take 1,144 delegates.

Press reports have put Mr. Santorum in second place based on projections about how delegates will be allocated in some of the caucus states where voters have cast their ballots, but where the actual delegates won't be decided until later, at county, district and state conventions.

Delegates have yet to be fully awarded in Iowa, Colorado, North Dakota, Minnesota, Maine and Washington. Mr. Santorum won the first four of those contests, while Mr. Romney won the other two.

Mr. Santorum and Mr. Gingrich are battling to be the conservative alternative to Mr. Romney in the race, and Mr. Santorum says his victories in seven primaries and caucuses gives him a leg up.

Mr. Gingrich, meanwhile, has won just two primaries — Georgia and South Carolina. But both those states bind nearly all their delegates to support the Primary winner.

Meanwhile Mr. Santorum has notched close wins in places such as Oklahoma, where he collected 14 delegates for his victory. But the Sooner State awards its delegates proportionately and so Mr. Romney and Mr. Gingrich earned 13 delegates each, making Mr. Santorum's victory gains him almost no ground on his rivals.

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


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: emptyvest; gingrich; hailsweatervest; hate4newt; itsnotaboutstates; kenyanbornmuzzie; mittromney; newt; newt4romney; newtgingrich; newthaters; newtsfuzzymath; ricksantorum; ricksfanatics; romneylite; santoromney; santorum4romney; santorumfanatics; santorumsfuzzymath; viagranewt; whatanidiot; whatasnob
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150 last
To: trappedincanuckistan

It’s about whatever measure makes it look like Gingrich is still competitive.

As soon as Gingrich starts winning states, that will be the important thing, whether he gets delegates or not.


101 posted on 03/08/2012 8:05:50 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: proudpapa

Romney has had success ONLY in the Mormon and the mind-numbed, robot like knee jerk liberal dominated NE.


102 posted on 03/08/2012 8:07:36 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

Newt needs to stay the course. He should take Alabama and Mississippi and likely Louisiana and then reap the benefits of having Gov. Rick Perry deliver a win in Texas for him. I like Newt’s strategy and the fact he doesn’t boast about it too much.

Sen. Santimonius and Gov. Mittens seem so amateurish beside Newt Gingerich.

Ron Paul can’t win the nomination, but he will have some influence at the convention on fiscal matters if nothing else.


103 posted on 03/08/2012 8:08:31 PM PST by varina davis (A real American patriot -- Gov. Rick Perry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
Roy, the Santorum super PAC adviser, said in a statement:

That's right, a flunky, independently, and contradicting Rick's orders, demanded that Newt quit. He will be fired by Santorum.

104 posted on 03/08/2012 8:08:54 PM PST by Revolting cat! (Let us prey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

No, I doubt the RNC paid attention. Seems not many Republicans voted, does it?

The elitists at RNC is made up of Globalists. They do not care about Constitutional rights or what the electorate wants, only about money and power. Romney is their choice because he will not change how Washington operates. Santorum wants back into the power center and will be happy to be VP (after reading some of his speeches, he truly doesn’t seem to have a clue concerning solutions to the nation’s problems).

The only person who the Republican power center and the Democratic Party are fearful is Newt Gingrich. THAT person is who we should all be behind.


105 posted on 03/08/2012 8:09:17 PM PST by SatinDoll (No Foreign Nationals as our President!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

I wasn’t aware there was a new provision in the nominating rules that allows candidates to clinch the nomination by winning a certain number of states.


106 posted on 03/08/2012 8:11:28 PM PST by trappedincanuckistan (livefreeordietryin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Revolting cat!

Did you know that Rick personally lobbied Newt’s co-chair in Tennessee in order to get the guy to defect from Newt’s campaign ?

Can you conceivably imagine Newt ever doing the same?


107 posted on 03/08/2012 8:13:40 PM PST by VinL (It is better to suffer every wrong, than to consent to wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

Oh, yeah, when you make a forced loan to Uncle Sam and he doesn’t pay any interest on it, that’s terminal fascism.


108 posted on 03/08/2012 8:14:32 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
"They be breakin’ them cellphones on they haids!"

Thank you for that humor.

Still, the scenario is not at all unreasonable. The system is designed to make it very easy for a landslide/consensus candidate. It's also designed to make it very, very difficult to be that candidate.

And, built in to the design is the concept of representative persuasion. Not unlike the Korean Parliament.

Yes, YOU CAN woo the other guys' girlfriend and yes, YOU CAN get your ass kicked.

109 posted on 03/08/2012 8:15:16 PM PST by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

Is this a great country or what?


110 posted on 03/08/2012 8:16:56 PM PST by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

Charles, pls see my post #29.


111 posted on 03/08/2012 8:17:08 PM PST by VinL (It is better to suffer every wrong, than to consent to wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer

Yes, that’s pretty funny, Although Gingrich did take 2nd in Nevada, because that was while he was still plummeting but hadn’t hit bottom yet. He didn’t get any delegates there.

Santorum got 4 delegates in Vermont, but while he came in 2nd in Massachussetts, he just missed taking delegates from Romney — because Gingrich got just enough votes to pull Santorum below the cut-off.


112 posted on 03/08/2012 8:18:05 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: VinL

Somebody wrote in today’s WSJ that the primaries have been a vetting process, learning more each day about each candidate. Well, it’s been quite a learning experience each day as far as Rick Santorum.


113 posted on 03/08/2012 8:18:58 PM PST by Revolting cat! (Let us prey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Mariner
Is this a great country or what?

What!

114 posted on 03/08/2012 8:20:08 PM PST by Revolting cat! (Let us prey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: RitaOK

No worries- I see from that post, you’re going viral.


115 posted on 03/08/2012 8:22:31 PM PST by VinL (It is better to suffer every wrong, than to consent to wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: RitaOK

If Gingrich was really focused on shorting ROmney delegates, he would have told some of his supporters in the Alaska Caucus to vote for Santorum, so Santorum could beat Romney and take more of the delegates.

And if he REALLY was focused on shorting Romney delegates, he would have backed off on attacking Santorum in Georgia with robocalls, beause if Santorum had gotten just 4000 more votes, it would have cost Romney 4-5 delegates.

That doesn’t even count all the other states where Gingrich votes kept Santorum from beating Romney and taking delegates — just the two that were the most obvious.

Gingrich isn’t trying to stop Romney, he’s trying to win. That’s what candidates do.


116 posted on 03/08/2012 8:24:07 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
"because Gingrich got just enough votes to pull Santorum below the cut-off.

What makes you think Gingrich voters would go to Santorum?

I believe most of them would go to Paul or Romney. This because EVERYONE knows Gingrich supporters generally want a candidate that isn't holier than they are. And, certainly, if they valued good Christian principles they would be with Santorum.

Hell, over 2/3 of the GOP electorate who cast ballots in the election so far were under the influence of the devil, surely.

What other explanation could there be?

117 posted on 03/08/2012 8:26:47 PM PST by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

It is absolutely true for some of the states. And it’s not true for a few states. And that’s why there are different counts.

But to pretend Santorum will get zero delegates from the caucuses is absurd.

For example, here are the rules for North Dakota: “The National Convention delegates from North Dakota are elected at the State Convention in such a way so that they best reflect the presidential preference of the Caucus participants.”

They aren’t “awarded” yet, but they will be, and they will reflect the votes taken on Super Tuesday, and Santorum will get those votes.

In other cases, arguing about unbound delegates is rediculous because, to the degree they aren’t bound, the problem is they will vote for Romney, not that somehow if Santorum dropped out Gingrich would get them.

In other states, the votes taken aren’t binding, but the same people who voted also voted for state delegates, and those delegates have been polled, and they will vote for the delegates going to the convention, and will vote for the candidates they support.

To pretend that the Iowa delegates are still unknown is another absurd argument. It would be like you saying you were going to vote for Gingrich, and me arguing that we can’t count that vote until you actuall cast it — like anybody here has any doubt what you are going to do.

There are cases where a candidate could ask his state delegates to vote for another candidate’s RNC delegate. And theoretically the delegates could just decide to switch allegiance, like Gingrich’s one delegate in Tennessee who jumped to Santorum and still got elected as a Gingrich delegate.

BTW, the RNC is still counting that as a Gingrich delegate — because nobody thinks the guy is going to switch his delegate vote to Santorum, even though he now supports Santorum, because unlike apparently people here at FR think, most of these delegate people are honorable people who will vote the way they are expected, even though they are not duty-bound to do so.


118 posted on 03/08/2012 8:38:10 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

Polls. They ask that question from time to time. In general, they find that slightly more than half the Santorum voters would go to Romney, while most Gingrich supporters would switch to Santorum.

Remember, I’m not arguing that anybody should drop out. That’s the person who created this thread.

I have pointed out however that in Alaska, Gingrich could have asked some of his caucus supporters to vote for SAntorum, in order to put Santorum above Romney and take delegates.

Huckabee actually did this in West Virginia in 2008, so it’s not some pie-in-the-sky voter thing like most of what people here talk about.


119 posted on 03/08/2012 8:44:04 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
"But to pretend Santorum will get zero delegates from the caucuses is absurd".

He may get none of the delegates and he may get all...or something in between.

The point is that he has none of them now and no claim on them.

His chance is exactly equal to the other three candidates.

120 posted on 03/08/2012 8:52:13 PM PST by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

CW, you get this. What is with the rabbit trail diversion?

You want to see a delegate bail coming to a polling place near you, just keep shoving.

This is a bigger battle than one alone can win. Newt and Rick are oil and water, in both style and substance.

Rick has wrecked already with the broader electorate, the Independents and dis-enchanted Democrats, and Newt is the nemesis of the RINO Establishment. Newt or Rick alone means Game Over, but for Romney.


121 posted on 03/08/2012 9:01:57 PM PST by RitaOK (LET 'ER RIP, NEWT. Newt knows where all the bodies are buried, because he buried them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: VinL

Woth noting:

“Mr. Gingrich, meanwhile, has won just two primaries — Georgia and South Carolina. But both those states bind nearly all their delegates to support the Primary winner.”


122 posted on 03/08/2012 9:10:26 PM PST by GracieOMalley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GracieOMalley

Worth noting—GA and SC bind nearly all their delegates to support the primary winner, e.g. Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum.


123 posted on 03/08/2012 9:12:04 PM PST by GracieOMalley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Rome2000

“A collection of country club blueblood Washingtonian leeches with creepy pulled back wives.”

Don’t forget the Tiffany account.


124 posted on 03/08/2012 9:13:33 PM PST by GracieOMalley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

Romney can’t win. Romney should drop out.


125 posted on 03/08/2012 9:15:33 PM PST by Bizhvywt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: LibsRJerks

He is definitely pro-marriage, just like Elizabeth Taylor was.


126 posted on 03/08/2012 9:17:38 PM PST by GracieOMalley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: VinL

Santorum withdrawing guarantees Romney wins as Romney is far and away the favorite with Santorum out of the race - Newt polls nowhere close. With Newt out of the race, Santorum still runs strong against Romney. I’m not suggesting either of them drop out - but the argument that Santorum dropping out helps Newt simply does not hold water.


127 posted on 03/08/2012 9:22:10 PM PST by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mariner; Red Steel; All

You are splitting hairs here. Even Gingrich himself isn’t claiming this to be true!


128 posted on 03/08/2012 9:35:33 PM PST by Steelfish (ui)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Republican Wildcat

I don’t want Rick to withdraw. I want him to get out of Ala and Miss-so Newt can get those delegates- as I would want Newt not to compete in states favorable to Rick.

I don’t want them to attack each other- I want them to attack Romney and the Gop-e.

Together, I hope they amass enough delegates to stop Romney- and at the least, have enough power at the convention to demand an alternate candidate acceptable to constitutional conservatives.


129 posted on 03/08/2012 9:39:21 PM PST by VinL (It is better to suffer every wrong, than to consent to wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Republican Wildcat

“the argument that Santorum dropping out helps Newt simply does not hold water.”

I keep hearing this, but as I recall, Newt was leading in Iowa until Romney carpet bombed Newt with negative ads and that is when Santorum had his “surge”. So as I see it, the Newt voters went to Santorum as the result of Romney’s negative ads.

Well if the Newt voters can go to Santorum, these voters can go back to Newt as the truth behind the lies of Romney’s negative ads comes to light and as Santorum’s record comes under more scrutiny.

And I see this happening. Newt is on message and he is leading the issues with Obama. Santorum and Romney are a couple of “me to’s”, after Newt frames the discussion on issues like domestic oil. Or they get bogged down with the Democratic Media Complex issues like contraception.

Go Newt!


130 posted on 03/08/2012 9:43:04 PM PST by Bizhvywt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Mariner; Red Steel; All

You are splitting hairs here. Even Gingrich himself isn’t claiming this to be true!


131 posted on 03/08/2012 9:48:23 PM PST by Steelfish (ui)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: FreeAtlanta

You realize that would be illegal, right ? You cannot promise a political favor/position as a condition of support.


132 posted on 03/08/2012 9:50:31 PM PST by Kellis91789 (The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Kellis91789

Really? That is stupid. One should be offered and the other accept the VP spot.

Why would that be illegal??????


133 posted on 03/08/2012 9:53:45 PM PST by FreeAtlanta (Liberty and Justice for ALL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: FreeAtlanta

Because politics decided in smokey back rooms does not result in government “by the people” ? It is considered bribery to get an opponent to drop out of a race by promising them a position in your administration.


134 posted on 03/08/2012 10:35:59 PM PST by Kellis91789 (The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: FreeAtlanta

Governor Rod Blogoyevich is in prison for trying to get promises of political support/favors from various groups, in effect trying to sell, Obama’s Senate seat.


135 posted on 03/08/2012 10:38:33 PM PST by Kellis91789 (The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: LibsRJerks
OK, props for that post! That was awesome
136 posted on 03/08/2012 10:50:19 PM PST by Fllyguy (We need a Commander-in-Chief, not a Pastor or Manager-in-Chief)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Kellis91789

It is silly in the case of President and Presidential Running Mate.

I really doubt that if the two got together and decided to team up that it would be illegal. If it really is, then that law should be changed.


137 posted on 03/09/2012 5:10:54 AM PST by FreeAtlanta (Liberty and Justice for ALL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: red flanker

“...Newt finished second in Nevada”

So this is indicative of a groundswell of support for Newt? Second place? In Nevada?

Please. Newt is not a serious candidate. He professes to be the “anti-Romney” but he’s helping Mitt through his refusal to admit that he’s got no chance.

Newt is so megalomaniacal that he’d sacrifice anything, even everything if it meant he’d have a chance of getting elected. He’s nothing more than a self-centered twit at this point.

His time would be better spent shopping at Tiffany’s hoping his wife will stick with him having lasted well past his political expiry date.


138 posted on 03/09/2012 5:30:55 AM PST by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: GracieOMalley

Elizabeth Taylor was married some 8 times.

Newt only three. This time, it seems as if it’s for good. The man is 68 for crying out loud. Not much more in the crazy swinging around department he can do now.

Have some common sense.


139 posted on 03/09/2012 6:38:48 AM PST by LibsRJerks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: lonevoice

Thanks for the great ping!


140 posted on 03/09/2012 8:45:31 AM PST by Pride in the USA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: RitaOK

I think GIngrich is in worse shape with the independents than Santorum. But both have trouble — that’s why I wish Perry was still around, he seemed to have a broader appeal and fewer negatives.

I understand the “split strategy”, but I only liked it as temporary measure to hold Romney down until conservatives could get their act together and choose a candidate, and to complete the vetting.

I hold little hope that we can get to a brokered convention, and NO hope that a brokered convention will turn out good for conservatives. The rules are made to keep the convention orderly, and to not give power to outsiders.

Even if we managed to have delegates somewhat bound enough for a 1st-round loss to Romney, The delegates that become unbound will be enough to get him over the top. And knowing that, those delegates who have only a moral obligation, but not a legal one, will be persuaded to give in to the inevitable to avoid the damage a 1st-round defeat would cause the nominee.

To stop Romney, we had to knock him out, and it seems clear now that both conservative candidates vow to press on pass super tuesday that we will have trouble with that.

I hope I am wrong.


141 posted on 03/09/2012 9:38:19 AM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Mariner
The point is that he has none of them now and no claim on them. His chance is exactly equal to the other three candidates.

That is simply not true, but if you want to believe that, go right ahead.

The fact is, in many cases the outcome is a foregone conclusion, based on the local delegates that have been chosen to go to the next round of voting, some of whom are bound to vote for a candidate, others of whom were picked because they promised to vote for a candidate.

142 posted on 03/09/2012 9:43:14 AM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer

Whatever rationalisation helps you to sleep better at night, then...


143 posted on 03/09/2012 9:52:38 AM PST by Yashcheritsiy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

I believe I agree with your grim scenario, but I still hold to creating more of a “movement” primary, rather than treating this like any other primary wherein your scenario does hold water.

We need to create a MOVEMENT PRIMARY, and that can only be done if someone can drag Sir Lancelot off his high, white horse long enough to MAKE a movement out of this together with NEWT. IMHO.

A MOVEMENT speaks louder TOGETHER with one voice and can not be so easily ignored.

Otherwise, I have no doubt that Santorum will eventually soon fall in with Romney, and the Establishment. He always has.

Every. Single. Time.


144 posted on 03/09/2012 9:56:47 AM PST by RitaOK (LET 'ER RIP, NEWT. Newt knows where all the bodies are buried, because he buried them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

>>the only calls for withdrawal I heard was Santorum’s campaign manager calling for Gingrich to withdraw.<<

“You must be listening in some alternative reality, because Santorum’s campaign has not, and will not, ask Gingrich to quit, and Santorum has publicly stated that he will not call on Gingrich to quit.

The guy who runs a SuperPac supporting Santorum called on Gingrich to quit. That’s not part of the Santorum campaign.”

All you would have had to do was wait 24 hours, watch for Rick Santorum on TV, and you would not have embarrassed yourself with your post.


145 posted on 03/10/2012 6:18:55 AM PST by ngat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: GracieOMalley; Brown Deer

Did you join FR just to bash Newt?


146 posted on 03/10/2012 11:13:10 AM PST by mojitojoe (American by birth. Southern by the grace of God. Conservative by reason and logic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: ngat

I guess you are free to interpret what is said anyway you want. If someone says it is raining today when it is sunny, and I tell them they are wrong, it doesn’t “embarrass” me if it rains the next day.


147 posted on 03/10/2012 1:58:32 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: ngat
BTW, I'm still waiting for someone to provide any links that have Santorum or his campaign manager telling Gingrich to quit.

Here's the latest from the campaign:

Senior campaign strategist John Brabender said the key for the campaign going forward will be creating an opportunity to challenge Mitt Romney one-on-one, though Brabender maintained the Santorum campaign would not directly call on Gingrich to drop out of the race.

“We’re never going to call on anybody to get out, but what we are calling is on Tea Party supporters and conservatives is to rally behind the only candidate that has demonstrated over and over again that he’s the one who can compete against Mitt Romney,” Brabender said.

Asking voters to support you and not your opponent is not at all "asking them to drop out" -- it's called beating them.
148 posted on 03/10/2012 2:03:28 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: GracieOMalley; 50mm; TheOldLady; onyx
PhotobucketPhotobucket
149 posted on 03/10/2012 3:17:03 PM PST by mojitojoe (American by birth. Southern by the grace of God. Conservative by reason and logic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

Seriously, you want want to play games with language instead of just admitting Santorum is demanding Gingrich drop out for him?

Look at what Brabender said. (and it’s not the latest) The operative word in what you quoted and put in bold is “directly”. Oh, but Brabebder said “We’re never going to call on anybody to get out,” as he calls on Gingrich to get out!

Santorum himself was on TV yesterday telling Newt he should drop out. Santorum’s SuperPac guy was telling Newt to drop out. Richard Viguerie, Santorum’s Moral Majority evangelical backer spokesman was telling Newt to drop out.

Charles, I am disapoint.


150 posted on 03/10/2012 3:21:09 PM PST by ngat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150 last

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