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 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-106 next last
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]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-106 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