I don’t know what you are trying to prove to yourself by your continued failed efforts at critiquing my posts. I’ve tried to be courteous, but as I’ve indicated twice previously, you are becoming tedious.
In this instance, you have indicated that you made an extensive effort to research authority for my position on Campfield, but to no avail. Well, I just searched and immediately found that authority-
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2012/mar/04/super-tuesday-switch-gingrich-co-chairman-backs/
If you lack the intelligence to perform an elemental search, ask someone else to assist you- before attempting to impeach another poster’s credibility.
In any event, I will not reply to any of your future posts directed to me.
I don’t know why you found that so hard. I love to provide links to the news sources that confirm my statements, especially when people ask about them.
When you avoid providing links, it makes people wonder about the information, and I would think you would want to make sure people didn’t wonder about the information.
I’m not sure why you used the word “lobby”, but instead of “asked”, although I guess that’s just a semantic choice for a desired connotative effect.
I’m also not sure why, in context, you find the move to be untoward. According to the article you cited, Santorum spoke with the man and gave him a reasoned argument why it would make sense to switch. The idea that people should be “left alone” if they have already announced a candidate to support makes no sense to me, since the whole point of running for office is to change the opinion of people who will vote.
By giving me the link, you have helped all of us understand the context of your claim, and better evaluate the action, to see whether it really was as horrible as you claimed.