I need no reminding about Newt’s history.
Imperfect as it is, it stacks up great against Romney and Santorum.
There is no contest.
That you have chosen sides and chosen to try to make your weaker one appear better than Newt’s, history wise and performance wise, hurts your credibility with me.
Not that you care about that.
I say this to say, your horse is weaker than mine, by far. Not in polling and votes right now, but on the merits and the substance.
Imperfection with Newt, compare to imperfection with R or S, even with low numbers?
I’ll take that stand.
As we used to say, any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
I haven’t chosen sides, nor am I trying to make Santorum look “better” than Newt.
The argument was made that Santorum is a bad choice BECAUSE he said something that is being used against him. I’m pointing out that Gingrich has done the same thing, and in reply, another example of Gingrich doing the same thing was pointed out.
These are facts. You can draw your own conclusions. Your reaction suggests you find this particular fact about Newt to be negative, but I didn’t say it was negative, I just said it was an example of the same issue that was being highlighted regarding Santorum.
Since I don’t seem to think Santorum’s statements are a big deal, you shouldn’t be surprised that I don’t think Newt’s statement about Medicare was an issue either — I supported what he said, and defended him back when he said it.
This is a recurring conversation. People point out things they claim are bad about Santorum. I, not thinking they are bad, point out that the same things apply to Newt. Then I am accused of attacking Newt, when I don’t think the things I am pointing out are actual negatives.
But like I said, you can draw your own conclusions.
It all seems to be a moot point anyway. Newt isn’t going to win, so who really cares if he’s “better” than Rick Santorum. You could just argue Santorum isn’t going to win, but if we are so certain that neither Newt nor Rick is going to win, why are we attacking anybody?