Skip to comments.GOP's Santorum draws tea party ire in Kansas
Posted on 03/09/2012 11:00:45 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum hoped to lock down a victory in Kansas' GOP caucuses with two rallies Friday but faced grumbling from tea party activists for skipping their big rally in the state's largest city.................
Some tea party members were frustrated that Santorum wouldn't attend their rally. They spent $25,000 to rent the Century II arena in downtown Topeka and expected 1,000 to 3,000 people to attend.
"It seems like it is counterproductive to show up for an event that is going to have 300 people in an airplane hangar instead (of) 3,000 people in a nice setting where you can actually contact and really maybe sway somebody," said Craig Gabel, the president of Kansas For Liberty, which organized the Wichita event.
Gabel said Santorum skipping the gathering was a sign of tension between tea party members and Kansas GOP officials. He suggested the GOP had discouraged Santorum from attending. Santorum state coordinator Greg Cromer said it was a scheduling issue, and that tea party leaders were informed early..........................
(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...
“I just don’t think we should be tearing any one of our candidates down unnecessarily.”
I got 10K asking to get in on that action! lol
I agree with line #2, clause 1.
Hey Nap, Myth Mittens is also skipping Kansas. Ya better win those uncommitted or soft delegate in Dorothy land. ;^)
Yes, Hunter missed his timing.
Rick the RINO? Now that’s a stretch.
Former supporters, maybe.
We don’t have a Tea Party candidate. Newt ain’t Tea Party either. He supportd Cap & Trade and Healthcare mandates. A guy who is a fan of Wilson and FDR is not Tea Party.
Just because he says stuff doesn’t make it so. The last years of Newt are not Tea Party. He could change his mind on anything, anytime. That is Newt.
Practically the whole original article is a positive appraisal of Santorum's efforts in Kansas and hopeful gains...
..with one paragraph at the end about a few Tea Party organizers disgruntled with Rick's schedule.
Of course you choose to print the article highlighting the one paragraph .....
Nothing like what appears at the top of this thread.
I thought there was some rule about changing headlines.
The 'story' CW wants is contained in 2 paragraphs at the end of the article.
Looks to me like we’re screwed.....any way you slice it.
Looks to me like we’re screwed.....any way you slice it.
I don’t know if we’re screwed, but I predict that if there is a Romney Administration, about two years into it there will be very, very many disillusioned Reagan Republicans. On the other hand, do you want Hussein appointing anybody else to the USSC. Hunter should have run this time rather than last.
Precisely. And it’s just another indication of his political ineptness.
I predict that there’s no way in hell that Romney or Santorum can beat obammy.
Glenn Beck has endorsed Rick Santorum and has done so passionately. This is surprising, as Beck had been critical of Santorum in the past.
>>If the media gets it wrong on the small details, think about all the big stuff that they miss. Every time I have seen a news article, where I was involved, or had immediate knowledge of the story, the media has screwed up something - names, titles, places. Every single time.
2nd on that, and you’re lucky if it’s just straightforward stuff like that, and not something really, really material.
Was true even back in the sixties.
Time reported on one news story I was involved in. And, upon reading the article, I didn't recognize as even being the same event.
Part sensationalized, part ignorance.
I’ve been critical of Santorum in the past too. It’s not like there’s another choice.
Amazing. I've said this EXACT thing, using almost these exact words, for years.
Most of us - really probably all of us - have no personal knowledge of the veracity of much of what we read in the paper. I'm certainly no exception.
But in the late 80's I was involved in the very very early days of the cellular business. I KNEW for a fact what the market share of the various handset manufacturers was. Had the hard data that had been obtained from people maintaining the infrastructure.
But I would read articles in both the general press and even in the trade press, showing market share numbers for various manufacturers....and they didn't even APPROACH reality. Not even close.
That left a profound impression on me. Because if I knew them to be so dreadfully wrong about this, why should I assume them to be any more accurate about other subjects where I didn't have personal knowledge?
It also made me permanently skeptical of pontificating "experts." There was one guy - I remember his name, but no point in repeating it here - who made a huge name for himself as the market seer and guru for the nascent cellular business. I'd read his stuff and laugh. He hadn't a CLUE what he was talking about! But he consulted and wrote newsletters for which people paid a pretty penny!
Throw in the political bias of which we're all well aware, and you're really as likely to get reliable information from your parking attendant as your local newspaper.
“...I will not vote for that loon, Santorum.”
All of our candidates have flaws. But when push comes to shove, I’ll vote for the GOP nominee in November - no matter who it is.
It’s Kansas. ...enough said.
Another factor is the utter stupidity of most reporters. The local reporters, who are just starting out, have no idea how anything in the real world works...I mean I’d bet most of them couldn’t tell you what bread is made out of...seriously, they are that clueless.