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

Skip to comments.

Santorum wins Kansas GOP caucuses, gains blunted by Romney's island victories
FOX ^ | 3/10/12

Posted on 03/10/2012 1:25:53 PM PST by Mr. K

Edited on 03/10/2012 3:58:29 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]

Rick Santorum swept to victory in the Kansas Republican presidential caucuses Saturday, marking his strongest caucus finish yet but still struggling to make a dent in Mitt Romney's delegate lead.

Kansas offers a total haul of 40 delegates, and Santorum is expected to take at least 30 of them. If Santorum can keep Romney from crossing a certain threshold, he could conceivably take them all.

With 98 percent of precincts reporting, Santorum was well ahead with 51 percent. Romney trailed with 21 percent, followed by Gingrich with 14 percent. Ron Paul was in last place with 13 percent.

However, Santorum still trails Romney by more than 200 delegates. Romney frustrated the Santorum campaign's gains on Saturday with a series of smaller victories in far-flung locales like Guam. Romney picked up at least 23 delegates over the weekend.

The candidates head next into Mississippi and Alabama for primaries on Tuesday, as well as caucuses in Hawaii.


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: getoutnewt; kenyanbornmuzzie; mittromney; newtgetout; newtgingrich; newtsplittingthevote; ricksantorum
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-106 next last
To: parksstp

I thought if you won a majority of the vote you get all the delegates?


51 posted on 03/10/2012 3:00:39 PM PST by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

lol.

I certainly hope Newt doesn’t really think that way, although some of his fervent supporters here seem to


52 posted on 03/10/2012 3:03:01 PM PST by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K; fwdude

Sweaterites, the others left because they didn’t care. This is a non-binding thing and most people don’t even vote in it. The actual delegate selection is a later event.


53 posted on 03/10/2012 3:11:17 PM PST by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

If you go to Tennessee, don’t make the mistake of calling any one of them a Yankee. But then you “Virginny” types would not know that. LOL!


54 posted on 03/10/2012 3:18:16 PM PST by Waryone (Mitt Romney, dangerous homosexualist and lying socialist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
Saturday 10 March 2012: All 40 of Kansas' delegates to the Republican National Convention are allocated to presidential contenders based on the results of the voting in today's Precinct Caucuses. Caucuses begin at 10:00 AM CST. [Section II. 1.] Each voter casts 1 ballot for the candidate of his or her choice. [Section IV. 2. B.]

National Convention Delegates are bound unless released by the candidate. [Section VI. 1.]



55 posted on 03/10/2012 3:19:24 PM PST by deport (..............God Bless Texas............)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: livius

This is a non-binding thing and most people don’t even vote in it. The actual delegate selection is a later event.


Check the following link for a little knowlegde on the Kansas Caucuses.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/KS-R#0310


56 posted on 03/10/2012 3:21:29 PM PST by deport (..............God Bless Texas............)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT; onyx

As Gingrich says, anybody can win in backwards middle-america states that nobody gives a damn about.
_____________________________________________
Gingrich didn’t say that. I dare you to provide a link showing he said that.


57 posted on 03/10/2012 3:33:38 PM PST by mojitojoe (American by birth. Southern by the grace of God. Conservative by reason and logic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Utmost Certainty
He projects an image of being a good little Christian family man, which makes them feel good inside and that’s enough.

Oh, so the character of the candidates doesn't matter to you

Santorum is a good family and it is absurd to attack him or conservatives for finding that to be an admirable quality.

Your comments sound a lot like the one Obama made about conservative voters clinging to their Bibles and guns. It's absurd these sort of comments are being made here.

58 posted on 03/10/2012 3:37:42 PM PST by Kazan (Mitt Romney: The greater of two evils)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Lazlo in PA

It seems that there is a few anti-christians among the freeper ranks. Their motto is anybody who is immoral.


59 posted on 03/10/2012 3:42:07 PM PST by freedomfiter2 (Brutal acts of commission and yawning acts of omission both strengthen the hand of the devil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Toespi; CharlesWayneCT

While I think CW’s sarcasm was obvious to anybody that’s not wrapped too tight, I think it’s fair to say that he captured the tone of Newt’s dismissing the MO primary as a “Beauty contest” when asked why he didn’t participate there.


60 posted on 03/10/2012 3:42:17 PM PST by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

“Not like Gingrich, who only competes in the states with important people. As Gingrich says, anybody can win in backwards middle-america states that nobody gives a damn about.”

You said “as Gingrich says”. Spin it any way you want, it was uncalled for and absolutely written to be misleading. I am a proud Gingrich supporter and I knew beyond any doubt this is not something Gingrich would have ever said, but there are those who believe whatever they read. Don’t know if you have a career but I hear MSNBC and CNN are looking for employees.


61 posted on 03/10/2012 3:47:16 PM PST by Toespi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Utmost Certainty

Utmost Certainty wrote:
<<
Whatever policy stances and ideas Santorum might actually have are probably irrelevant to his average voter. He projects an image of being a good little Christian family man, which makes them feel good inside and that’s enough.
>>

**************************************************************

You say “being a good little Christian family man” like it’s some kind of pejorative. Are you suggesting that in and of itself is a bad thing???


62 posted on 03/10/2012 3:52:50 PM PST by DestroyLiberalism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
Kansas and Tennessee don’t count as actual southern states;...

This former TN farm boy might have to take issue with that statement (dusting off my "rebel yell").

63 posted on 03/10/2012 3:55:20 PM PST by The Duke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: dforest

dforest wrote:
<<
The problem with the “good little Christian family man” is the word “good”. A serial adulterer who talks real good is far better, dontcha know.
>>

**************************************************************

What on earth is THAT supposed to mean???


64 posted on 03/10/2012 3:56:11 PM PST by DestroyLiberalism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: freedomfiter2

freedomfiter2 wrote:
<<
It seems that there is a few anti-christians among the freeper ranks. Their motto is anybody who is immoral.
>>

**************************************************************

I know! When I read that comment, I had to double check the URL to make sure I hadn’t wandered onto the Democratic Underground site!


65 posted on 03/10/2012 4:01:32 PM PST by DestroyLiberalism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Kazan
Oh, so the character of the candidates doesn't matter to you

Of course character matters, but there's more to good character than simply being a Christian and having a family—I am not attacking those qualities, just pointing out that they're an insufficient standard by themselves.

For instance, I'm not exactly keen on the leadership character of a person who staunchly boasts about being a "principled conservative", and then simultaneously makes excuses for inconsistencies in his 'conservative' record by saying that, "well, sometimes you have to be a team player." Not admitting to one's own hypocrisy is a characterological defect in my view. Whereas if he'd just came out and said, "yes I did this, it was a mistake" I'd have respected him for owning up to it.
66 posted on 03/10/2012 4:02:32 PM PST by Utmost Certainty (Our Enemy, the State | Gingrich 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT; All

Kansas is NOT a Southern state.


67 posted on 03/10/2012 4:02:55 PM PST by j.argese (FR is a Newt-ist Colony, not a Romney Room, Paul Pavillion or Santorum Sanctum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: DestroyLiberalism; Utmost Certainty

He can answer for himself; however, I read quite well and all he said was, that was enough for some people, when voting for a President.

I was raised in a good Christian family with a wonderful father.

My father wasn’t Presidential material.

THose who think Santorum isn’t, don’t for a nanosecond deserve the suggestion that they oppose Christianity or good fathers.

The word “little” was sarcastic, in my view, but beyond that he said nothing against Christian or father.

“Little” likely crept in as a Santorum diss...not as a person but as a President.

I completely agree with the notion that Newt Gingrich is a President, like Reagan was and Carter wasn’t.


68 posted on 03/10/2012 4:04:46 PM PST by txrangerette ("HOLD TO THE TRUTH...SPEAK WITHOUT FEAR" - Glenn Beck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: DestroyLiberalism; dforest

dforest is on your side.

He’s summing up the totality of the life and person of one Newt Gingrich as “a serial adulterer who talks good”.

Rejoice. /s


69 posted on 03/10/2012 4:08:53 PM PST by txrangerette ("HOLD TO THE TRUTH...SPEAK WITHOUT FEAR" - Glenn Beck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack

he captured the tone of Newt’s dismissing the MO primary as a “Beauty contest”


Agreed. Here in MO Gingrich is DOA in the caucus because of him blowing us off...look for Santorum to pull a significant vote.


70 posted on 03/10/2012 4:11:55 PM PST by magritte (Gladys Knight: Mormon Siren?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette
He can answer for himself; however, I read quite well and all he said was, that was enough for some people, when voting for a President.

Yes, this exactly.

“Little” likely crept in as a Santorum diss...not as a person but as a President.

Right. I kept thinking of the euphemism "Little Ricky" as I was writing it.
71 posted on 03/10/2012 4:12:31 PM PST by Utmost Certainty (Our Enemy, the State | Gingrich 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: mojitojoe

He didn’t say that. It was sarcasm, sorry it has to be explained multiple times.

I provided the quote which formed the basis of my parody, where Newt mocked Santorum for his victories: “suddenly he very cleverly went to three states nobody else went to, and he became the media darling and bounced back.”

So you take Newt’s actual quote, you step back, and you think “why did “nobody else” go to those states? And you speculate that maybe nobody thought they mattered. Nobody cared. Gingrich obviously didn’t care to go to those states. Hence, the parody of his words, that anybody can win the backward states that nobody goes to, if they go there when nobody else does.

Maybe Newt’s statement is funny enough on his own. I brought it up because Kansas was another state that Gingrich was essentially ignoring, even though he actually did OK there. Worse, if he had actually competed there, he might well have kept Romney from getting any delegates, which is the real point right, to stop Romney? And yet time and again, Gingrich does things that help Romney get delegates.

In Alaska, a caucus state, he didn’t ask his caucus supporters to switch to Santorum to beat Romney. In Georgia, where Santorum only needed 3600 more votes to break 20% and take 4 or more delegates from Romney, Gingrich actually ran Robocalls not against Romney, but against Santorum, denying him the 20% and throwing more delegates to Romney.

In Kansas, by staying out, he made it easy for Romney to get 20%, and get delegates. In other states, it wasn’t Gingrich’s fault, but his supporters didn’t get the imaginary memo about stopping Romney, and voted for Gingrich who won nothing, but allowed Romney to win and take more delegates.


72 posted on 03/10/2012 4:15:47 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Waryone

Most people apparently knew I was doing a parody. But the few that weren’t sure, half are yelling at me for “claiming” Tennessee isn’t in the south, while the other half understood the parody but therefore are upset that I called Kansas a “southern state”.

I would have hoped the “states bordering Georgia” might have been a better clue, but one nice Freeper simply reminded me that Tennessee has a border with Georgia.

And more than two people are upset at my parody of Gingrich’s “States nobody went to”.


73 posted on 03/10/2012 4:18:36 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Utmost Certainty

And I keep thinking of Ronald Reagan and the stark contrast with Jimmy Carter.

That is important.

I don’t get what keeps people from seeing that.

They ignore it at our country’s peril.


74 posted on 03/10/2012 4:20:29 PM PST by txrangerette ("HOLD TO THE TRUTH...SPEAK WITHOUT FEAR" - Glenn Beck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

Tennessee may be in northern part of the South. But imagine the shame and stigma of second class status we who come from North Carolina must bear as we are the only southern state with the word north in the state’s name. LOL!


75 posted on 03/10/2012 4:34:55 PM PST by Waryone (Mitt Romney, dangerous homosexualist and lying socialist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette
And I keep thinking of Ronald Reagan and the stark contrast with Jimmy Carter.

That is important.


Had a similar juxtaposition running through my mind.

I don’t get what keeps people from seeing that.

They ignore it at our country’s peril.


I figure if people generally had the capacity to see and discern such substantive distinctions, someone like Obama never would've ended up in office in the 1st place. But there he is, ferreted into the White House in '08 based on a fuzzy feel-good narrative about what a great person he was…
76 posted on 03/10/2012 4:36:42 PM PST by Utmost Certainty (Our Enemy, the State | Gingrich 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Utmost Certainty

Yes.

People who were susceptible to voting Democrat...I am not among them...blurred and glossed over every other consideration, in favor of “Mr Feel Good”.

They no doubt felt good voting for the guy.

Thought they were doing “a good thing”.

Exceptions would be the far Left such as Ayers and others, who had conspired for many years to get someone like Obama in there, and who knew what he was up to.

I’m talking about Mr and Mrs and Ms America, and a ton of young skulls full of mush.

Now we are stuck with the horror.

It will take someone beyond the ordinary with a nice, big family and very religious, to unstick us with this menace going forward.

(Not even to mention what it will demand being President in these times!)

That’s what your post meant to me.

The only someone like that I see, right now, is Newt.


77 posted on 03/10/2012 5:12:08 PM PST by txrangerette ("HOLD TO THE TRUTH...SPEAK WITHOUT FEAR" - Glenn Beck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeNewYorker
“Santorum/West !!!!!

Watch the libs heads explode...”

If West has been properly vetted it may not be a bad idea.

78 posted on 03/10/2012 5:38:20 PM PST by cjmae (Sanity was not equally distributed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: cjmae
If West has been properly vetted it may not be a bad idea.

Since West is a retired Marine officer, I'm inclined to think he's been vetted.

79 posted on 03/10/2012 5:49:39 PM PST by okie01 (/i>On Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

I would think that the six Romney delegates in KS are in some ways old timers casting a parting vote for their Bob Dole.


80 posted on 03/10/2012 5:50:30 PM PST by Theodore R. (Mathematically, it's all over, says Mittens.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

Liar! Newt never said that.


81 posted on 03/10/2012 6:41:06 PM PST by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

You seem to be making a career at trashing Newt, MITTBOY!

Mitt, the KNOWN LIAR.


82 posted on 03/10/2012 6:49:56 PM PST by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

You said -he said states those those backwood states that no one cares about .

Keep it honest - you aren’t even trying. Is it as foreign to you as it is with Mitt?


83 posted on 03/10/2012 6:54:38 PM PST by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette
I don’t get what keeps people from seeing that. They ignore it at our country’s peril.

Most voters back then, honestly, wanted someone great for America - now they are into what 'looks' good and not what 'is' good for America. So deception plays a great part in deceiving ONLY those who can be deceived.

84 posted on 03/10/2012 7:05:39 PM PST by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: cjmae

Has Santorum and Mitt been properly vetted? NO!

It’s not time yet - the left will do it when the time is right and will do what their supporters refuse to do.


85 posted on 03/10/2012 7:09:25 PM PST by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: okie01
"Since West is a retired Marine officer, I'm inclined to think he's been vetted."

Apparently he's been keeping some secrets, since he's the only retired Marine officer I'm aware of who got away with wearing an Army uniform his whole career!

86 posted on 03/10/2012 7:13:55 PM PST by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: raccoonnookkeeper

I would be happy with a Santorum/Gingrich ticket, but I would MUCH rather see Gingrich/Santorum and have Gingrich debate Obama and tear him a new one


87 posted on 03/10/2012 7:29:57 PM PST by Mr. K (Were the Soviet-Era propagandists as gleefully willing as our Lame-stream Media?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
And yet time and again, Gingrich does things that help Romney get delegates.

Bingo! Things he's done recently like running ads against Santorum in MS & AL just doesn't make sense. He knows Romney's the guy with the most delegates, the guy they need to stop.

Then with that whole bit about staying in, win or lose, was just bizarre.

88 posted on 03/10/2012 7:36:03 PM PST by Kenny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack
...the only retired Marine officer I'm aware of who got away with wearing an Army uniform his whole career!

Wow! My mistake. As Jimmy Durante once said, I've been laboring under a misperapprehension...

89 posted on 03/10/2012 7:37:07 PM PST by okie01 (/i>On Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: okie01

“Since West is a retired Marine officer...”
_________________

Negative. LTC Allen West, now retired from the military and a Florida Congressman, was an Army Officer; although his mother was employed by the the Marine Corps as a civilian at one time.


90 posted on 03/10/2012 7:47:54 PM PST by Ozymandias Ghost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Kenny

I’m not going to far as to say he should stop. I’m only going so far as to say his supporters here should stop attacking Santorum suppoters for supposedly not being “with the program”, given that their own candidate isn’t with the program.


91 posted on 03/10/2012 7:51:01 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

Heh. But I think you meant Oklahoma, not Kansas. TN and OK are two Southern states in which Santorum finished first; meanwhile, Newt hasn’t finished first in any state outside the South:


92 posted on 03/10/2012 7:52:37 PM PST by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll protect your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
“He stayed in, he was running fourth in every single primary, suddenly he very cleverly went to three states nobody else went to, and he became the media darling and bounced back.”
_________________
Charles-

Above is the excerpt from The Washington Times article that you presented in this thread as being representative of what Newt said at his appearance on CNN’s State of the Union with Candy Crowley, 04 Mar 2012.

You are either deliberately or unknowingly passing along The Washington Times’ mischaracterization of Newt's remarks by misquoting him and insinuating that Newt was being snarky.

I watched that interview (twice) and I have attached the exact portion of the transcript w/link below. Newt actually hesitated and interjected for emphasis that Rick had used a clever strategy ...note the difference between the actual CNN transcript:

Suddenly, he went — very cleverly went to three states nobody else went to, and he became the media darling and bounced back.”

...and what you quoted from the Washington Times:

“He stayed in, he was running fourth in every single primary, suddenly he very cleverly went to three states nobody else went to, and he became the media darling and bounced back.”

(Also, it is pertinent to note that Newt's statement was in response to a question Crowley directed at Newt asking him what he thought about Santorum’s top adviser calling for Newt to drop out of the race.)

------------------

Excerpt from CNN Transcript, 04 Mar 2012; State of the Union with Candy Crowley:

CROWLEY: We are now at a point where Rick Santorum has more delegates than you do in the delegate forecast. He's leading in the national polls. I wonder if you think it's — and, by the way, his top adviser is asking you to get out so you can consolidate the conservative vote.

GINGRICH: Sure.

CROWLEY: What's your reaction? GINGRICH: Well, you can tell his top adviser — tell his top adviser I'm taking Rick Santorum’s advice. He stayed in. He was running fourth in every single primary. Suddenly, he went — very cleverly went to three states nobody else went to, and he became the media darling and bounced back.

Link: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1203/04/sotu.01.html

93 posted on 03/10/2012 8:54:13 PM PST by Ozymandias Ghost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: raccoonnookkeeper

How is it that voters in Kansas, could prefer Santorum, yet not too long ago select that idiot Sebelius to be their Governor? Did she win honestly or by fraud???


94 posted on 03/10/2012 8:58:49 PM PST by Frank_2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Ozymandias Ghost

I obviously didn’t watch the actual interview, so I can’t say what Gingrich was inflecting. I do of course see the difference in quotes, but don’t see why you think they are important. The Washington Times seems to have removed a verbal tick; CNN trasncript doesn’t. But I don’t see how Gingrich stumbling on his words itself changes the meaning.

In fact, without hearing the actual interview, I would have preferred to use the CNN transcript over the Washington Times one to make my point, because it sounds MORE snarky when it looks like gingrich stopped to go back and insert “cleverly”.

The Washington Times isn’t one of the papers were generally have to worry about. And I presumed that they had heard the interview, and the reporter was conveying his opinion of how Gingrich said what he said.

Clearly, you took a different interpretation of what he said, and I can’t judge between them, as I didn’t hear it myself.

But yes, the entirety of the statement did suggest to me that Gingrich was being dismissive of Santorum’s resurgence — especially since it goes along with other suggestions by the campaign that Santorum isn’t really doing all that well.


95 posted on 03/10/2012 10:14:44 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: The Duke
This former TN farm boy might have to take issue with that statement (dusting off my "rebel yell").

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6jSqt39vFM
96 posted on 03/10/2012 11:10:11 PM PST by HoneysuckleTN (Where the woodbine twineth...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT; Steelfish
errr. hot flash...Kansas is NOT a southern state... though before the war it was hotly contested

The events later known as Bleeding Kansas were set into motion by the Kansas–Nebraska Act of 1854, which nullified the Missouri Compromise and instead implemented the concept of popular sovereignty. An ostensibly democratic idea, popular sovereignty stated that the inhabitants of each territory or state should decide whether it would be a free or slave state; however, this resulted in immigration en masse to Kansas by activists from both sides. At one point, Kansas had two separate governments, each with its own constitution, although only one was federally recognized. On January 29, 1861, Kansas was admitted to the Union as a free state, less than three months before the Battle of Fort Sumter which began the Civil War

97 posted on 03/11/2012 5:14:15 AM PDT by Vaquero ("an armed society is a polite society" Robert A. Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name

Agree there’s a big difference in the times, agree there’s a critical difference between what looks or sounds good and what truly IS good.

What puzzles me is, if you have people genuinely scared to death of Obama and the Left and America’s survival, and if they are even halfway informed, why they would divert off into Santorum’s camp as opposed to continue supporting Newt...the Reagan of our time...against Romney.

Deception yes, but you have to want to fall for it, in order to fall for it, but when America is on the line, why fall for it?

I wanted Rick Perry, but just like he was able to see that Newt was the best for these times, so am I.

Because it’s one of the clearest things I’ve ever seen. Crystal clear. That Newt is our best, right now, of those running.

It isn’t rocket science.

Santorum is no where near Newt’s territory. He is a far country away.


98 posted on 03/11/2012 7:06:34 AM PDT by txrangerette ("HOLD TO THE TRUTH...SPEAK WITHOUT FEAR" - Glenn Beck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
“Clearly, you took a different interpretation of what he said, and I can’t judge between them, as I didn’t hear it myself.”
________________

No Charles, I wasn't the one who interpreted from something I hadn't even heard or quoted correctly. I actually heard Newt's interview on two occasions and went to the trouble of providing you with my comments and the supporting exact transcript. You, on the other hand, are the one who “interprets” things you didn't even hear!

Newt didn't “stumble” as you put it; he paused and repeated himself for emphasis. It's a common technique amongst debaters and he was actually paying Santorum a compliment.

As to your protest that you; “can't judge between them” (the actual quote and the misquote) ...sure you can; in fact you DO in the very next paragraph; when you opine: “the entirety of the statement did suggest to me that Gingrich was being dismissive of Santorum’s resurgence.”

When you consider that Newt's response was to Crowley's question as to whether he should “drop out;” as Santorum’s top aide had recently suggested, perhaps Newt would have been within his rights to be a little angry in his response. In fact, he wasn't and he complimented Rick's strategy in his reply; which you now try to characterize as both “snarky” and “dismissive.”

Charles you seem to be a person whose statements and opinions are often self contradictory and misleading at best. That reminds me very much of a certain particular candidate whom most of us here abhor and you probably secretly admire.

99 posted on 03/11/2012 7:20:00 AM PDT by Ozymandias Ghost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Marguerite
Less than 1% of the Kansas population.

I guess it's safe to say that every vote counts. ; )

100 posted on 03/11/2012 9:36:57 AM PDT by EGPWS (Trust in God, question everyone else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-106 next 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