Posted on 03/03/2012 12:20:39 PM PST by Elvina
State Sen. Stacey Campfield, co-chairman of Newt Gingrich’s campaign in Tennessee, announced today he is quitting that position to support Rick Santorum in the Republican presidential race.
The Knoxville Republican made his announcement in a post on his blog. In an interview, Campfield said he believes that conservatives need to unite behind a single candidate and that Santorum is best positioned to defeat “establishment Republican” candidate Mitt Romney.
Campfield’s decision comes after a conversation with Santorum earlier this week.
In his blog post, Campfield said he was “twisted inside because of my loyalty to Newt, my loyalty must first lie with my country and getting a country with a conservative leader must take precedence to my own personal whims of fancy.
(Excerpt) Read more at knoxnews.com ...
Rick has a comfortable lead in NC and a double digit lead in Ok.. so ? so much for the South rising up to crown Newt and sweeping Rick out... BTW ? Rick Santorum was born in a Southern State...
I wrote it myself, researched it myself, put it together myself. It is not clearly manufactured, except to someone like you, who doesn’t read stuff because it has funny fonts. You make me tired.
I have no problem answering your question. I guess he left because he liked the offered made to him. I don’t think he necessarily left for political reasons, but I think he might well have. Or he may have left for the exact reasons he said he did. Politicians are known to be dishonest alot of the time. Either way, I don’t think it matters.
If I have any gripe with him, it would be you don’t leave someone who inspires you, whom you’ve believed in, because it looks like they can’t win. I am one of those go down with your captain and the ship people. I would have stayed with Newt - but the guy seems to think that Santorum and the American people needed him to do the right thing or he was doing it for the good of the country...or something like that...
Waterloo
Not personally, but I know OF him. He strikes me as a shoot-from-the-hip, "put mouth in motion before brain is in gear" kind of guy.
Oh my gosh, if you took the time to read the links about her, she is a believing professing Christian... and like a lot of Christians, she finds Santorum’s pharisaic self-righteous pose an apostasy.
So now, you’ve accused her, and me, of being anti-catholic or anti-christian. And just to be consistent, you threw in the jews too. I hate to upset your bigoted view of the world, but jews aren’t anti-christian. Like alot of us, though, they are anti-ignoramus.
I wonder how many of them will slink away after Super Tuesday?
Ms. Hamilton sounds like a garden variety liberal to me, and anti-religion.
She clerked for Sandra Day O’Connor, a liberal Supreme Court Justice.
And her book was attacked by conservatives:
(from Wikipedia)
Media Appearance and Scholarly Controversy: Hamilton appeared on The Daily Show in 2005 to discuss her book God vs. the Gavel.[4] She advocates for the removal of religious exemptions[5] for medical neglect, where Christian Scientists and others are permitted to only pray for children who are dying of easily curable diseases.
However, God vs. the Gavel also drew stern academic criticism from Professor Douglas Laycock of the University of Virginia Law School. Laycock is well known for defending religious liberty before the United States Supreme Court, including his successful defense of the Santeria religion in Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993) against city ordinances that discriminated based on religion (the so-called “chicken sacrifice” case) and of a religious school in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church v. EEOC (2012) against the EEOC’s attempt to apply federal anti-discrimination law to a ministerial employee, where Hamilton participated as an amicus curiae in opposition to Laycock’s prevailing position. In a law review article entitled A Syllabus of Errors, Professor Laycock wrote: “Occasional errors are inevitable, but [in God vs. the Gavel ] the extraordinary number of errors, often with reference to famous cases and basic doctrines, implies a reckless disregard for truth. I document these errors for a reason. No one should cite this book. No one should rely on it for any purpose. You might use its footnotes as leads to other sources, but take nothing from this book without independent verification. . . . Legal scholars may be advocates, and they may reach out to nonscholarly audiences, but every scholar has a minimum obligation of factual accuracy and intellectual honesty. God vs. the Gavel does not come close to meeting either standard. . . . Its many footnotes offer the patina of scholarship, but there is no substance of scholarship. This book is unworthy of the Cambridge University Press and the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law.” Douglas Laycock, A Syllabus of Errors, 105 Mich. L. Rev. 1169, 1187-88 (2007).
REPEAT: She advocates for the removal of religious exemptions! Limits to the First Amendment. Government mandates superceding religious liberty.
You picked yourself some heckuva heroine!
What load of crap. I was defending Newt from attacks when he was the one with the chance to beat Romney.
It's time for you get your head out and realize Newt just finished a distance fourth in Washington state. He's finished. Santorum is the only one with a chance of stopping Romney. Attacking Santorum is helping Romney finish off the nomination.
This IDIOCY has been going on for months as the not-so-bright gang up on one Romney alternative after another, clearing the path to a Romney nomination.
Someone pointing out the truth. You hate Santorum so much you'd rather tear him down rather than face the reality he is the only candidate with a chance of beating Romney.
This stupidity going on for months as non-Romney alternatives have ripped to shreds by those seeking the perfect candidate.
And, I was saying the same thing to those attacking Gingrich when he appeared to have the best chance of beating Romney.
Unless Newt pulls off a minor miracle he'll be under pressure to drop out, so the more obnoxious of his supporters here will have only four alternatives - switch to Romney, start pimping for Paul, change parties or just stop posting.
This wouldn't be a problem for them if they just resisted the urge for playground taunts.
I didn’t pick her as a heroine, she was the attorney the veterans got to represent them. What was I supposed to do, not mention her? I posted facts, she represented them, and I quoted her to quote the case made against the CUA. I wanted to present the positions of the case made for the veterans.
If Rick Santorum had representd them, I would have posted him and his case against CUA... you started and now continue the name calling. And the really really sad thing for America is people like you can read about the corruption of Rick Santorum, and instead of pondering that, and what it means about him and YOU, you go into a bigoted tirade, and accuse me of having as a heroine a person simply involved in the case I was citing.
Oh wow, please get a grip. Somewhere please get a grip... have you ever made an argument for santorum that wasn’t a bigoted personal attack? ever?
These people are so predictable.
Thanks for the explanation. That makes sense. I was just kind of shocked when I read the first several responses.
Would that be like losing Oregon?
Glad I could help.
It's important to remember that sometimes the loudest voices may be loud because they have the least support. I'm not saying that's the case here, but I do think the volume levels are not reflective of the ratios of support for Gingrich and Santorum.
BTW, I see from your profile page that you're a Michigander. I was born in Michigan and both sides of my family had lived in that state since shortly after the Civil War. My mother went to Michigan State University's journalism school; after getting out of the military, my father became a Republican politician though he's long since retired and left politics. I grew up in Grand Rapids and then lived in Holland before moving to Iowa many years ago, followed by a few other moves before ending up outside Fort Leonard Wood in south-central Missouri.
Since you clearly didn’t cause it to appear by magic, I presume you manufactured it. As opposed to something people just throw together, which don’t have fonts and stuff, just words put in a post.
I find his move odd. It seems clear Santorum is faltering, and if so, Gingrich is our only hope. Of course, Santorum supporters are pretty upset with all the trash being thrown at Santorum, and so it’s a hard sell, but it just seems odd to jump from a sunken ship to a sinking one.
Santorum looks like he’ll have trouble taking 2nd in the Washington caucus. Gingrich is once again mired in 4th place, where he has been for most of February — he hasn’t had a top 3 finish since Nevada, where he was a distant 2nd.
So I don’t see anything good coming from Super Tuesday, and I see no point in needlessly trashing either of the candidates, although I doubt that trashing them here is what is causing them trouble.
Well, I know Mark Levin is pushing for a Gingrich - Santorum alliance. And I know Santorum actually said 2 nice things about Newt at a rally the other day. And I’m not sure what to make of any of that.
Levin is having Thomas Sowell on next week, who has endorsed Newt, and I know Levin supports Santorum outright. So he is building little bridges.
I think everybody is getting tired - including Rick and especially Newt. And I think romney and the establishment are counting on that - conservatives fighting between themselves til they’re exhausted, while he moves ahead.
That is why I specifically wrote that post about Rick, footnoted it to death, and made sure nothing but facts were in it, to try to start talking to Santorum supporters with respect for their intellect and character. I have a very busy life, it took me a long time to pull it all together, but I just wanted to plant a seed of facts, undeniable, verifiable facts, and then let people decide based on that.
The little writing at the end was my appeal, and I tried to keep it sensible, and remind the the tea party of their initial fervor and the evangelicals and christians of their ethics and morals. I have gotten a lot of response on it, and maybe we can start talking to each other a little.
I am also praying God will soften our hearts to one another. I know we all have the same hopes for this country - and they are not the hopes of romney or barack - and that should be plenty to unite us.
I must sign off now, I have much work to do for the next President of the United States, Newt! And I will try my best to keep all funny fonts out of my posts to you in the future :) Have a restful evening. God bless.
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.