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

Skip to comments.

Gingrich Worries About 'Committing A Santorum'
CNN via wibw.com ^ | March 20, 2012 | Reporter: CNN

Posted on 03/20/2012 9:22:10 PM PDT by VinL

Edited on 03/20/2012 10:31:59 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-103 next last
To: Ingtar

He doesn’t have a path. Neither does Rick. Their best chance is to take delegates where they can from Romney.

If Newt stays in:

Newt delegates + Rick delegates > Romney delegates (hopefully)

If Newt drops out:

1/2 of Newt delegates + Santorum delegates < Romney delegates + the other half of Newt delegates

delegates = to date + prospective.


51 posted on 03/20/2012 10:59:14 PM PDT by trappedincanuckistan (livefreeordietryin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: All

“They have this idea that people should be left alone, do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, that we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues.” –Rick Santorum, 08/04/2005


52 posted on 03/20/2012 11:02:55 PM PDT by Marguerite (When I'm good, I am very, very good. But! When I'm bad, I'm even better)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: OrangeHoof

Newt probably didn’t mean to sit on a couch and shoot a global warming commercial with Nancy Pelosim but he did it
**********

No, I think Newt intended to do so- and to bring up global warning in that context is fair play, imo.

But, in the quote I reference (“I didn’t sit on the couch with anybody,” Santorum said. “I would only sit on the couch with my wife. Period. No other women — particularly not Nancy Pelosi.”), Rick wasn’t talking about global warming.

No, in that quote, classy St. Rick was assassinating his friend’s character in order to fortify his piety vote; for all the good it did him.


53 posted on 03/20/2012 11:11:27 PM PDT by VinL (It is better to suffer every wrong, than to consent to wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: VinL

I know someone else who sat with Karen on the couch ...


54 posted on 03/20/2012 11:13:53 PM PDT by Marguerite (When I'm good, I am very, very good. But! When I'm bad, I'm even better)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: All

January 6, 2003 Rick Santorum says that stimulus is needed during a recession, that government can create jobs, and that when the US is in a recession and fighting wars, we souldn’t worry about deficits.

http://youtu.be/RZKuHhYNqjA


55 posted on 03/20/2012 11:16:28 PM PDT by Marguerite (When I'm good, I am very, very good. But! When I'm bad, I'm even better)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Marguerite
Good posts, Marguerite! Atta girl!

Santorum is a social conservative statist. For example, he thinks the government should be in the business of charity, among other things. Charity, meanwhile, is a MAJOR aspect of Christian morality; good Christian charity encourages morality and discourages immorality. It's clear as day that government charity -- food stamps, welfare, etc. -- does the exact opposite: it encourages immorality, while Government's activist judges, punitive regulations, antidiscrimination laws and so forth -- Roe v. Wade, forced embrace of open homosexuality in schools, military, communities, and civic groups -- punish Americans who seek to live morally.

GOVERNMENT -- not "the people," not "the majority," but a minority that has illigetimately seized power of GOVERNMENT -- has made it so kids can't even pray in schools! GOVERNMENT is the single most addressable component of moral decline in this nation; cut government and enable parents to choose their kids' schools and hire or fire teachers as they see fit, and cut government so that people exercising free choice in free markets can discriminate against or cater to people who make immoral choices, and watch as morality returns to American culture. WATCH as immoral lifestyles, discouraged and rejected by the majority in terms of employment and housing, end up seeking and finding their own low level instead of being propped up and even encouraged in all corners of America by OUR TAX DOLLARS.

Two of Gingrich's main goals are to CUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT and seek to throw out activist judges, which will begin to restore both fiscal and moral freedom to the states and hence to the people.

Godspeed Newt Gingrich.

56 posted on 03/20/2012 11:51:00 PM PDT by Finny ("The rules are made for people who aren't willing to make up their own." -- C. Yeager)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: berdie

Yes, there is precedent. A selection of Dick Schweiker (R-PA, liberal), by Ronald Reagan in 1976 occurred before the rollcall of the states. Of course, Reagan, by the Convention rules could have his own name put into nomination. Fast forward 36 years later, as of tonight, only Santorum and Romney can even get their name into nomination at Tampa. Furthermore, there have been de-facto cases of the VP choice already made by the person before his official nomination, such as Nixon in support of Spiro Agnew for another term as Vice President despite not yet officially being nominated yet by the convention (he had some challenge by John Ashbrook). In 1976, there was a rule vote, which failed (to the benefit of the Ford Camp) to force him to name his own Vice Presidential candidate before the actually nomination roll call. Once that failed, it was clear the convention would nominate Ford, not Reagan—that Reagan did not have the numbers to prevail.


57 posted on 03/21/2012 12:07:55 AM PDT by AmericanInTokyo (If Free Republic morphs into a supportive site for Romney, I'll conclude my 13 year participation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: trappedincanuckistan

Please quote the official Republican Party circular through the RNC or State Parties, which has gone out to all Gingrich voters in all states which have yet to hold a primary or caucus, mandating that said voters, under penalty of punishment, must cast a vote either for Santorum or Romney, in the event Gingrich has dropped out, and that said circulars were sent out with such a 50/50 split apportioned to the Gingrich voters, ie. for every letter mandating a Santorum vote another letter for another Gingrich voter mandated a Romney vote. How can you say or predict what those voters will precisely, mathematically do? How about if 90% of them sour on Romney? How about if “Romney voters” which are not generally “the base” and not as fired up, get “Romney Fatigue” and start to dip in their turnout, but social conservatives/more conservative voters stay firm or increase in future states due to some hot button, rousing media cycle issue that surfaces? Romney is not a hot, popular commodity in the first place. I can just as easily say the indications are that if conservatives unite behind one candidate as the final “anti-Romney which had always been the plan, there is Conservative grassroots buzz again and media excitement and still time to block him, perhaps a one-on-one Super Last Chance Debate arranged, who knows? But only in trying that will we know for certain. I do know as it stands, so far, Gingrich along with Paul cannot even have his name placed in nomination (though he does have delegates he could release, and should do so urging them to vote for the conservative left standing to beat Romney).


58 posted on 03/21/2012 12:27:28 AM PDT by AmericanInTokyo (If Free Republic morphs into a supportive site for Romney, I'll conclude my 13 year participation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: VinL
If you’re asking me what Newt’s rationale might be, I suspect he intends to be President.

And I intend to win the lottery, if ever I could remember to buy a ticket, which would increase my odds only slightly, but better than the odds that Newt will be president. Sad thing is I wanted him to be President when the GOPe gave us wimpy GW.

59 posted on 03/21/2012 12:48:31 AM PDT by itsahoot (Tag lines are a waste of bandwidth, as are my comments.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: trappedincanuckistan
What about jobs for everyone?

Ok what kind of jobs do you know that does not depend on manufacturing of some kind, either ours or someone else's? Manufacturing is what made us the richest country in the world, but i guess there are always jobs for Eli Whitney, but few of those are needed.

60 posted on 03/21/2012 12:54:47 AM PDT by itsahoot (Tag lines are a waste of bandwidth, as are my comments.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Marguerite

Santorum always has an excuse. Never admits a mistake. He is no fiscal conservative.


61 posted on 03/21/2012 3:19:53 AM PDT by katiedidit1 ("This is one race of people for whom psychoanalysis is of no use whatsoever." the Irish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: trappedincanuckistan
27 posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2012 12:16:26 AM by trappedincanuckistan: “What about jobs for everyone? Oh I forgot. Rick just wants unionized jobs.”

Please back this up and show me you're not jumping to unwarranted conclusions.

It's a publicly known fact that Rick Santorum didn't support national right-to-work legislation. Okay, that mostly proves he's from Pennsylvania and cares about what his constituents want. If you don't agree, that's a fair point.

Was Rick Santorum’s law office unionized? Did Rick Santorum ever encourage non-union private companies to move to Pennsylvania? Did Rick Santorum ever try to force non-union companies to accept unions, as opposed to saying companies where a majority of the employees wanted a closed shop could have a closed shop?

I think the answers to those three questions will go a long way toward answering whether Rick Santorum “just wants unionized jobs.”

Also, don't misinterpret me as being a fan of modern unions. I believe they once performed a valuable role, and sometimes still do, but I strongly believe workers who don't want to be part of a union should have the right not to join. In other words, capitalism and free choice work; if unions do their jobs, workers will want to join, and if they don't do their jobs, it's their own fault if workers vote with their feet by walking out. Other issues are much more important to me, and although there's a good chance that I disagree with Rick Santorum on this issue, I do not believe it is accurate to say that Rick Santorum "just wants unionized jobs."

62 posted on 03/21/2012 3:49:11 AM PDT by darrellmaurina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: AmericanInTokyo

There are very many delegates yet to make their choice since there are many states yet to have their primary. By June it will be much more clear as to who has the most delegates....and the most BOUND delegates.

I believe this race is far from over.


63 posted on 03/21/2012 4:06:01 AM PDT by seekthetruth (I want a Commander In Chief who honors and supports our Military!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Finny
Folks are asking questions and getting answers from Newt! Listen hare:

http://electad.com/videos/newt-gingrich-town-hall-ruston-louisiana-march-20-2012/

64 posted on 03/21/2012 4:16:20 AM PDT by seekthetruth (I want a Commander In Chief who honors and supports our Military!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: achilles2000

Violent rebellion would be squelched violently, so that leaves more tedious methods like secession and third party movements. It’s almost funny but I think secession would be tolerated, if we Constitutionalists could just agree on the where!


65 posted on 03/21/2012 4:21:45 AM PDT by Lady Lucky (Gingrich 2012: Open Throttle for America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: seekthetruth

Good and true point!


66 posted on 03/21/2012 4:42:35 AM PDT by Guenevere (....Whom God calls,... He equips......Press On Santorum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Ingtar

This would seem to restrict the VP nomination to a candidate that won at least 5 states as well. As of now wouldn’t that make the only possible tickets Romney/Santorum or Santorum/Romney?


67 posted on 03/21/2012 5:09:13 AM PDT by Hugin ("Most time a man'll tell you his bad intentions if you listen and let yourself hear"--Open Range)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Hugin

I read that as Presidential nomination. I intend to read the document completely later today.


68 posted on 03/21/2012 5:50:37 AM PDT by Ingtar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Marguerite
"“I came to the House as a real deficit hawk, but I am no longer a deficit hawk. I’ll tell you why. I had to spend the surpluses. Deficits make it easier to say no.” –Rick Santorum, 02/5/2003"
69 posted on 03/21/2012 6:58:27 AM PDT by duffee (NEWT 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Sun

What Santorum says now has to be understood by the general public, not you or me, who may be more attuned to his thinking. Every word out of his mouth is analyzed, spun, twisted. He’s not Joe Blow, he’s a candidate for POTUS. What he says should be so clear that neither he nor anyone else has to interpret, apologize for, retract, or otherwise amend his comments.

Santorum has been dogged by only social issues only, from abortion to contraception, since he emerged as the leading conservative. He’s been pigeonholed. Finally, he gets a chance to talk about economic issues that most people care about, and he blows it. Who in God’s name is advising him? He was a U.S. Senator for two terms, and Representative before that: he should know better.

Santorum should have spoken to the fact that the unemployment rate put out by the feds means nothing since it doesn’t include those who’ve given up looking. Or he could have spoken about sustaining a healthy employment rate by reducing regulations and taxing enterprise.


70 posted on 03/21/2012 6:59:37 AM PDT by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: mylife

Rick always struck me as petulant and sanctimonious, then there the right to work /union BS.
Sorry... no sale Rick

Problem is (for you) is that it is either Rick or Romney. That is it. I mean you are free to vote for Newt but I don’t see anywhere that he can win. It is bad enough that Santorum will have a tough time from here on out (after Louisiana, Pennsylvania, and Texas). There are a ton of blue states coming up. It pains me to think of Romney being our candidate. How depressing.


71 posted on 03/21/2012 7:03:08 AM PDT by napscoordinator (A moral principled Christian with character is the frontrunner! Congrats Santorum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Bailee

What happens if Santorum / Newt go ahead and decides to become P/VP? What then?

I heard it is “illegal” to announce VP which is why candidates have only said, “I will consider such and such.” Rules sure do “suck” in the primaries.


72 posted on 03/21/2012 7:06:19 AM PDT by napscoordinator (A moral principled Christian with character is the frontrunner! Congrats Santorum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: duffee
“I came to the House as a real deficit hawk, but I am no longer a deficit hawk. I’ll tell you why. I had to spend the surpluses. Deficits make it easier to say no.” –Rick Santorum, 02/5/2003 As if I didn't have enough reasons to support Newt over Santorum. What kind of twisted logic is this? This is a big part of what happened to the bounty Newt left us with, spent by the Republicans. I want someone who will balance the budget, not just spend less than the democrats. I left off my reply, I don't know what I did?
73 posted on 03/21/2012 7:07:20 AM PDT by duffee (NEWT 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: true believer forever

Santorum never shook off the union shackles his entire career in PA. he did their bidding.

He was doing the bidding of the voters who voted down “Right to work”. Santorum BETTER listen to the voters of his state.


74 posted on 03/21/2012 7:33:19 AM PDT by napscoordinator (A moral principled Christian with character is the frontrunner! Congrats Santorum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Ingtar; AmericanInTokyo; VinL
What he refers to is rule 40 (b):

Each candidate for nomination for President of the United States and Vice President of the United States shall demonstrate the support of a plurality of the delegates from each of five (5) or more states, severally, prior to the presentation of the name of that candidate for nomination.

This pretty well hoses a dark horse late entrant at the convention as well, I believe.

After the first round of votes, if no candidate has greater than 50%, then any names for candidates can be thrown in the hat for the next round of votes.

75 posted on 03/21/2012 7:42:24 AM PDT by meadsjn (Sarah 2012, or sooner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: AmericanInTokyo

There are proportional decisions to be made, particularly in Florida, that will advantage Newt, before an unknown number of Newt’s delegates will want to bale for Romney.

Don’t you think we should delay that as long as possible, until Rick snaps out of it to form together with Newt, an alliance against Romney?


76 posted on 03/21/2012 8:29:36 AM PDT by RitaOK (LET 'ER RIP, NEWT. Newt knows where all the bodies are buried, because he buried them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Ingtar; AmericanInTokyo; VinL; berdie; caww; Thunder90; Hugin; meadsjn

I’m pretty sure this is just an additional requirement on top of the 1,144 delegates. I think any names can be offered, but to actually win the nomination, they would need 1,144 delegates plus at least 5 states where they had the most delegates.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/21/10793350-rnc-rule-means-hurdle-for-gingrich-convention-strategy

There is a caveat that could allow Gingrich to slip through. RNC press secretary Kirsten Kukowski told NBC News that a candidate may still be nominated at the convention if they are able to garner a plurality of five states on the floor. The only real road toward accomplishing that would involve capturing unbound delegates, who will be few and far between come August.


77 posted on 03/21/2012 8:58:01 AM PDT by JediJones (The Divided States of Obama's Declaration of Dependence: Death, Taxes and the Pursuit of Crappiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Ingtar; AmericanInTokyo; VinL; berdie; caww; Thunder90; Hugin; meadsjn

I should also add that delegates become unbound after the first vote. That’s when a floor fight becomes possible. And anyone should be eligible for getting whatever delegates they need to move forward at that point.

It doesn’t make sense if this rule as people are interpreting it applies to the first vote. If a delegate is bound on the first vote to who their state nominated, then who does the bound delegate vote for if that candidate isn’t allowed to have his name in play on the first vote because he didn’t win five states?


78 posted on 03/21/2012 9:04:24 AM PDT by JediJones (The Divided States of Obama's Declaration of Dependence: Death, Taxes and the Pursuit of Crappiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: VinL

If Rick was just a moderately capable communicator, I’d be working for him, but I cringe every time I hear him speak.

....if you want to get elected President, you can’t be standing there shaking your head while you think of what to say.


79 posted on 03/21/2012 9:13:08 AM PDT by cookcounty (Newt 2012: ---> Because he got it DONE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JediJones

“if they are able to garner a plurality of five states on the floor.”

After the first Vote, ALL delegates will be unbound. They could throw in Sarah Palin, Chris Christie, or Jeb Bush.


80 posted on 03/21/2012 10:05:08 AM PDT by Bailee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot

Are you a complete idiot? There are lots of jobs that don’t depend on manufacturing. This is about writing preferential treatment into the tax code. Social engineering. “If you behave the way we want you can have a tax cut.”


81 posted on 03/21/2012 11:28:29 AM PDT by trappedincanuckistan (livefreeordietryin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: AmericanInTokyo

Grasp at straws much? It’s pretty well known that all Gingrich supporters wouldn’t jump on Rick’s bandwagon. Are you one of those “head in the sand” people that believes Rick is gonna smoke Romney in places like California, New York, New Jersey and Delaware. Good Luck. You should be putting your effort into preparing for a brokered convention not chasing rainbows.


82 posted on 03/21/2012 11:34:33 AM PDT by trappedincanuckistan (livefreeordietryin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: darrellmaurina

There are plenty of articles detailing his attempt to write preferential treatment for manufacturers into the tax code. It’s pure social engineering. The government allowing you to keep your money as long as you do things they like. His big labor record is common knowledge. Minimum wage hikes etc.

http://double-taxation.com/2012/03/12/is-mcdonalds-a-manufacturer/


83 posted on 03/21/2012 11:43:56 AM PDT by trappedincanuckistan (livefreeordietryin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Marguerite
“I came to the House as a real deficit hawk, but I am no longer a deficit hawk. I’ll tell you why. I had to spend the surpluses. Deficits make it easier to say no.” –Rick Santorum, 02/5/2003

What an idiot!

84 posted on 03/21/2012 11:45:42 AM PDT by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator
He was doing the bidding of the voters who voted down “Right to work”. Santorum BETTER listen to the voters of his state.

Mr. Rick could have led a reform movement, as unions represent everything conservatism objects to... Seems to me that would have been a principled stand, albeit one that might have cost him his job. That would have been truly courageous.

85 posted on 03/21/2012 11:52:34 AM PDT by true believer forever (If Newt is good enough for Sarah, he's good enough for me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: caww

[What an idiot!]

I know! And his brain dead following has no clue, as to who or what he is.

(Ship of Fools)


86 posted on 03/21/2012 11:52:59 AM PDT by PSYCHO-FREEP (If you come to a fork in the road, take it........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Guenevere
Santorum has less than a 10% chance of winning......... "So you are telling me, there is still a chance!".......
87 posted on 03/21/2012 11:58:54 AM PDT by PSYCHO-FREEP (If you come to a fork in the road, take it........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: PSYCHO-FREEP
I know! And his brain dead following has no clue, as to who or what he is.

Right...and they really don't care....they swallowed the bait and pride will stand in the way now. Nobody wants to be a fool...even if they are just that.

88 posted on 03/21/2012 11:59:01 AM PDT by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: PSYCHO-FREEP

LoL....lol...


89 posted on 03/21/2012 11:59:54 AM PDT by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: VinL

Either Santorum or Romney’s fine with the WH...Obama can run the same campaign against either.

either will wind up looking like Warren Jeffords of the FLDS on a good day when the MSM are done with them by mid-October....


90 posted on 03/21/2012 12:01:29 PM PDT by mo (If you understand, no explanation is needed. If you don't understand, no explanation is possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: caww

Santorum all the way! He’s gonna smoke Romney in New York, New Jersey, California, Delaware....... :)


91 posted on 03/21/2012 12:01:29 PM PDT by trappedincanuckistan (livefreeordietryin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: trappedincanuckistan
And in PA as well as Texas, (Texas, closed proportional) which by then, Newt will have dropped out. And they can learn exactly what it means in regards to Newt staying in and doing Santo and us a favor.
92 posted on 03/21/2012 12:14:40 PM PDT by PSYCHO-FREEP (If you come to a fork in the road, take it........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: PSYCHO-FREEP

Rick has a shot to take some remaining states, but from all the analysis I have seen he has to sweep a bunch of very moderate/liberal states (not just win either; win big) in order to just come close to Romney.


93 posted on 03/21/2012 12:22:10 PM PDT by trappedincanuckistan (livefreeordietryin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Ingtar
That is what the rule says.

Not quite.

It says that the candidate must have a plurality from 5 states before he can be placed in nomination. It does not say that such a plurality must come from the primary process.

To wit: if there is no winner on the first ballot (and for the sake of argument, let's assume that Newt isn't on that first ballot), and delegates are freed from previous commitments, it is possible for the math to change in such a way as to make Gingrich eligible before a subsequent round of balloting.

94 posted on 03/21/2012 12:31:55 PM PDT by kevkrom (Note to self: proofread, then post. It's better that way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: VinL

Santorum is genuine, conservative, and a good Person. Newt speaksbetter. Santorum still has a chance. Newt doesnt


95 posted on 03/21/2012 12:36:23 PM PDT by Yaelle (Santorum 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom

Except, the nomination process happens before the first round of voting. I really need to read the rest of the rules. It sounds like they created a nightmare in their ivory towers.


96 posted on 03/21/2012 1:06:49 PM PDT by Ingtar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom

I finally had time to translate rule 40 from politico speech to English. Anyone can be a candidate if they can get the plurality of each of five states to support their candidacy. It does NOT preclude Newt, or even Palin, from being nominated if they can get five state delegations to support them. It has nothing to do, that I can see, with who the delegates might be bound to support. That was the piece I could not find last night.


97 posted on 03/21/2012 1:15:07 PM PDT by Ingtar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: VinL

Newt’s in right now in my opinion. And he is correct about always speaking in a presdiential manner.


98 posted on 03/21/2012 1:17:09 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yaelle

Rick has little chance to win the primary process- Newt has no chance.

Their only real hope at the nomination is to extend the process beyond the primary process- and pray Romney implodes.

And given that reality, Rick is better served with Newt in the race— because like him or not, Newt has an idea a minute— and one of those ideas just might mortally wound Romney. Yes, it’s a long shot- but the only one available to Rick and Newt now.


99 posted on 03/21/2012 2:44:27 PM PDT by VinL (It is better to suffer every wrong, than to consent to wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: trappedincanuckistan
There are lots of jobs that don’t depend on manufacturing.

Yeah you said that before.

I asked you to name some of them. you didn't.

So I will give you one. Mountain man living on bear meat could actually live with the aid of a knife he pounds out of a rock, but it would be a lot easier if he had a steel knife.

He could forge one himself I suppose if he knew how to build the smelter and a forge and a hammer, but then I guess he would be in the manufacturing business himself.

100 posted on 03/22/2012 10:43:49 AM PDT by itsahoot (Tag lines are a waste of bandwidth, as are my comments.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-103 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