Posted on 02/10/2012 3:59:14 PM PST by GraniteStateConservative
While billionaire casino mogul Sheldon Adelson may have rescued Newt Gingrichs campaign in its early days, today, he may have just buried it.
Bloomberg News reports that Adelson, who has donated $11 million to Gingrichs Super PAC, does not plan to send any more money Gingrichs way. Bloomberg is citing an anonymous source familiar with their deliberations, though an Adelson spokesman declined to comment.
The move seems to be weeks in the making. After poor showings by Gingrich in the last several races and the re-resurgence of Rick Santorum, the former House speaker has once again been pushed to the back of the Republican field. And Adelson may be shifting his focus. According to CNN, Adelson met with Mitt Romney in Nevada last week and assured Romney that he will be behind him 100 percent should he become the nominee.
What may be more alarming though is as money seems to be flooding out of the Gingrich camp, it appears to be heading into to Santorums, no doubt helped by his three-state sweep Tuesday.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
Meanwhile, you're attacking Santorum supporters out of bitterness and spite.
One of us may be a troll, but it sure as heck ain't me.
greeneyes, I think you are right. Unbelievable what the media and Romney did to Newt. Heard Newt say yesterday that the establishment went after his campaign because they view him as a morbid threat to their grip on Washington.
If Romney wins..I feel sure Santorum will gain something IF Romney beats Obama. I am praying for a miracle to help Newt. There were a lot of people impressed with his speech at CPAC. Once the vetting comes out on Santorum and it will before Super Tues...there may be a turn around
Whereas I gave clickable links to your past posts to illustrate the substance of my accusations.
N00b troll.
The fail is strong with you.
Oh, by the way -
Speaking of fail -
Massive fail -
Embarassing fail -
Disgustingly incompentent fail -
My post said:
Yes, it is troubling because I am certain that such people do not part with their own money in that manner. Whether it be Adelson or Soros, their money must be laundered in some way or it is coming from other people’s money.
This is Ron Paul:
Can you tell the difference?
Someone woken up at 3:00 AM by his wife's coughing, who couldn't go back to sleep.
Fatigue affects comprehension -- even for FReepers.
Thanks for posting those pics: as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words.
But we still have the issue of you using the word "slavishly" to describe Jim Robinson's warning not to trash conservative comments.
Cheers!
Well, I didn't agree with his Gingrich endorsement, or that criticizing Gingrich is forbidden but demonizing Santorum is allowed -- but it's his site, his rules, and I'm abiding by them.
I'm just tired of being attacked by Gingrich supporters because I prefer Santorum, so therefore I must be part of some vast Romney-wing conspiracy. I try to remind the Gingrich-backers that the immediate goal is stopping Romney and the long term goal is beating Obama, and neither of those involves trashing Santorum.
Yup. Santorum is a big spender. Bono? World AIDS? Raise the minimum wage? Um, No.
Thanks!!
America likes a winner, especially a winner who’ll make Obama a loser.
I prefer Newt because he knows DC knife fighting and has actually held a position of power and visibility in the past; that, and his ability to take out hostile questioners intellectually.
Santorum has all the personality of watching paint dry; and he doesn't look like a very strong (dominating, stalwart) personality.
I'd prefer Palin/Gingrich (but he's too old to be the underling, so make it Gingrich / Palin); then either Gingrich / West or Gingrich / Santorum.
Cheers!
1998- WOW-14 years.... should have zipped it and not gone all nutso on Newt. His past posting history for 14 years looks perfectly fine. Wonder what set him or her off?
Boo-hoo.
Santorum said in his book (It Takes a Family)...
In an interview on CNN
HENRY: You write in the book — you basically compare abortion to slavery and say that you feel that the mother has more rights than the child, just as a slave-owner had more rights than a slave.
A lot of people hit you over that. You have a chance now to say, what did you mean by that?
SANTORUM: Here’s what I say. And if you look at slavery, what we did was say that the slave was property, wasn’t a person, and therefore didn’t have constitutional rights.
I am confused by both statements...what is he talking about?
Mother >>> Abortion >>> Constitution >>> Slavery >>> Rights?
I’m voting for Gingrich...at least he makes ‘some’ sense (even though I am getting tired of his interpretation of history and going to history classes). I need a plan from him...for the future and I wish he would come up with something ...ANYTHING other than paleolithic Conservative verbal masturbation when they turn on the cameras. Speak less Gingrich! Give us three useful things. Then shut-up and rip the throats out of the opposition.
Santorum is not being honest to himself and it speaks volumes.
Waaaaay early in the race for picking between Newt and Rick.
.
Thank You for the pings TOL! :-)
Thank you very much for all the posts about public vindications of Newt—expecially in the areas where Romney lied about him so viciously!!!
I have to admit that I did NOT know about many of those vindications. Somehow the enemydia didn’t cover those with anywhere near the slobbering glee they did the lies.
RygelXVI is gone now. Just happened upon this thread. You were perfectly correct!
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.