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 ...
...And, the voting records of all of the other ‘12 GOP POTUS candidates...
Campfield will REGRET his decision.
I guess Campfield finally got over the loyalty part. Newt is better off without that kind of loyalty.
Whar are we listening to? Good question.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lf0DF2rROWY
Maybe you can understand why some of us will go to war for him.
What did I ever do to you that would cause you to try to make me listen to 56 minutes of Rick Santorum?
You did ask, “what are we listening to?”
Now you have your answer.
I said it was a rhetorical question.
ROTFL. You take yourself much too seriously.
He has been posting that load of crap on the forum for weeks now. Now he has quit pasting the link to where he gets the information from. Evidently he did this, because I used them to find out that those charges are VERY problematic.
Here’s one instance:
Bankruptcy
Voted for a Schumer amendment to make the debts of pro-life demonstrators not dischargeable in bankruptcy.
The record here shows that Santorum signed a bill that did not allow pro-life demonstratores “WHO DERIVED DEBT FROM COMMITTING ACTS OF VIOLENCE” from discharging this debt via bankruptcy.
Antoherwords, if they bombed an abortion clinic, torched a car, shot someone dead, caused serious injury to someone, they would not be able to file bankruptcy and avoid having to be financially responsible for what they had done.
This bill DID NOT stop these people from discharging their other non-related to violence debt, if they qualified under normal circumstances.
This charge is VERY misleading.
I notified PsychoFreep that this was the case, and yet, there it is still being cast out across the forum to slander Santorum.
I think that speaks volumes about what is going on here.
Please do and pass around. It's just something that I found on the net.
THanks for the information. I occasionally research claims, and almost always find they are misleading or flat-out wrong, and it takes so much time to research that i just started ignoring them.
After all, if it takes me an hour to learn the truth about one claim, I thinking whoever is posting it didn’t take the 20 hours it would have needed to research the 20 claims they are making. So if the first one I look at is wrong, I assume they all are.
My example here to add to yours was the outrageous claim that Santorum voted FOR a pro-abortion bill, when in fact he voted FOR the motion to TABLE the bill. Someone didn’t know what the vote meant, so they just wrote a long screed about how unprincipled Santorum was. And when it was corrected on three separate threads posted about it, not ONE of the three who posted the original information apologized for misleading their fellow conservatives.
I sometimes will repeat something that turns out to be false — but I am scrupulous about correcting false statements of fact. I don’t want to win voters to my position by lying to them, and it still shocks me that others feel “by any means necessary” is an ethical, moral, or civilized way to argue.
No offense, never ever, even once, ever heard of the guy.
Couldn’t care less who he supports.
We are not too far from Holland, Mich. We live near South Haven. That’s neat that your family goes back that far in Michigan. My family came by boat from Liverpool, England to NY and then Romeo, Michigan in 1909.
Amen.
I think like you do. I developed as much information as I could about John McCain. I went to every report and tried to evaluate the truth of it. If I couldn’t make a determination, I left it out. If someone challenged a point, and I could verify their challenge, I removed it.
Here we have a guy knowingly spamming Free Republic with things he knows are untrue. Then all the while he’s doing it, folks are being asked not to be critical of Newt.
If this guy thinks this endears me to Newt, he’s sadly mistaken.
Your example sounds bad too. I checked out another charge, and the link was to a bill totally unrelated to the charge made against Santorum.
This screed against Santorum is very problematic. I agree with your take on what your thoughts are when you start seeing serious credibility problems.
"As I said earlier thank you to the 121,508 people who voted for me to be a delegate.
Now who will I be a delegate for?
After thinking about the math and legal side of it all, I was elected as a Newt Delegate and short of him releasing me I will go and vote for Newt in the first two rounds of the convention as I committed to do. It is better for both sides that way.
If I stay with Newt he knows he has me for the first two rounds for sure and if he can make a play I will most assuredly support him in it. If he releases me he loses one of his few delegats he has and with it the negotiating power.
For Rick Santorum it is better because he can appoint someone else of his choice to one of his slots he offered to me and should a deal be possibly be brokered he knows I could support him."
Both sides win. Posted by The Sen. at 10:37 PM
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.