Posted on 02/07/2012 10:36:59 PM PST by Steelfish
Actually, my assertion, by explanation, was: it’s easy to win when you’re not running against anyone else competing for the same voters. But mostly it was just a dash of reality: if Newt had won when Sanctimonium wasn’t competing for the same voters, I’d only feel marginally positive, and realize it was a fluke... but I also understand Sanctimonium’s supporters have been a long time in the desert... I spent quite a bit of time there myself, I support Newt.
I am not encouraging anyone to drop out and I have been a Santorum fan from the beginning.
Each candidate has the ability to shape the others and make a stronger candidate emerge at the end of the process.
I am just not in any hurry to see this process brought to a early conclusion. When the primary ends too soon, before the process plays out, too many primary voters are disenfranchised and then it is very difficult to win their support in November.
Remember McCain? I know, if we didn’t get McCain, it would have been Romney, but it is unlikely that the Democrats would have rammed through Obamneycare, for a Republican president.
Yea, sure...that's why 134,000+ came out in Missouri to vote for Santorum in a caucus election that "didn't matter".
Romney wins with a divided conservative vote. Without Gingrich, Santorum can once and for all deal Romney a knock-out punch in MI and with the wind at his back grab Texas- the big enchilada- on Super Tuesday. We need to end this nomination process early and gear up for Obama in November
Great first comment! Welcome to FR. You should post this in it’s own thread.
I was responding to a post about Newt being unpopular with women.
My statement is my personal opinion that women don’t tend to care much for the “other woman”...referring to Newt’s affair with her while he was still married.
It would have been Newt 36 - Sanctimonium 19... [with Newt on the ballot]
Based on some mythical calculation.
That is laughable.
Actually, my assertion, by explanation, was: it’s easy to win when you’re not running against anyone else competing for the same voters.
But all 4 candidates were on the ballot in MN and CO and Santorum won there as well, and while Newt wasn't on the ballot in Missouri to take his 15%, Santorum dominated the voting by a huge margin. Except in your mind.
IF the candidate is courageous enough to really get there and call him out, great things can happen. You have to talk about him the way Kerry used to talk about Bush, except that everything that you’d talk about would be painfully obvious to everyone except for the emperor and his flying monkeys. Then you’d start TALKING about the denial they are in, the crime, the corruption, the racism, favoritism, cronyism, communism, muslimism, birtherism, and build a case that he belongs in a jail cell, not occupying the black hut.
Not only are you deficient as a mind-reader, you seem to have a reading comprehension problem, because I also said, in that same post you quoted from, this:
"CO and MN - true Sanctimonium wins, and props on those! Anybody who beats Willard Your Worst Nightmare - in any way - gets applause from me..."
You Sanctimonium supporters seem to have a real problem with when it comes to telling the truth about, and misquoting, others. But, I guess when your candidate is called by God, as Tricy Ricky stated a few days, those human conventions like honesty can be dispensed with...
Man, that was just an outright lie - totally taken out of context - and conveying a meaning about me that was patently false... sound familiar? learn to defend your candidate without lying about others in the process...
I didnt realize that thanks, but W pulled it off as a virtual unknown with a speech impediment and minimal charisma but political savvy, I didnt realize Santorum has Zero charisma and zero savvy , that could be a problem. A presidential candidate needs to be a good actor
I know what you wrote - I was pointing out the internal inconsistency of Santorum’s resounding win in 3 states with your belief that in an alternate universe Newt really would have won Missouri and crushed Santorum in the process.
God bless! Thank you for the kind words.
Please don't misinterpret my words, I said:
"Using the past election totals in the other states - I have - as clearly as I could with what I considered reliable figures..."
It would have been Newt 36 - Sanctimonium 19...
I was commenting on 1 race, MO, based on past election totals, and applied some valid math to it, which you snarkily called, mythical - and applying those parameters to what Newt's win would have been in MO...
Nobody knows if CO and MN are flukes, real game changers, or just the usual shift, that remains to be seen. The past results are already in the fabric of this race...
The CO and MN results were clearly available, and I actually congratulated Sanctimonium on them, which you conveniently forgot to post.
You know, Sanctimonium supporters are just as duplicitous, rigid, and humorless as he is... People like you, and your candidate, with your dishonesty, judgmental holier-than-thou attitudes, are not going to be very well received in the general by normal human beings. But keep chugging away...
I congratulated you, I postulated some math, which I happen to be fairly good at, which you snarkily called mythical... and you quoted me out of context - Just another day with the Sanctimonium campaign... not gonna work. Not gonna work. People recognize true love and humility... even when they aren't Christians.
ping
A used car salesman is a good choice against obama. In my book, he'd have more credibility.
I'd vote for (almost) anyone opposed to obama.
Yes, you're right, that is where I started laughing.
I postulated some math, which I happen to be fairly good at, which you snarkily called mythical...
Yup, that too... I'd love to see you post your calculations.
Thanks for the ping to those links. That is a good ad. I would love to see Santorum take the nomination. It’s nice to see common sense spring up in Colorado again too. It has been a while since there has been much sign of it.
Well, back in 2008, people didn’t know Romney as well. I was among the Freepers who pointed out his major failings while governor of Massachusetts. But a lot of Freepers weren’t up to speed on him yet. And it was a fairly common delusion that he was an experienced businessman who could fix the economy. He was still boasting about being the man who rode in and fixed the Salt Lake City Olympics, and people were fooled by that.
It took quite a lot of doing to convince people that he was pro-gay marriage and pro-abortion, because he was saying the opposite, and his record wasn’t as widely known back then.
Anyway, there was quite a fight over Romney here in FR, with quite a few Freepers insisting that he was a good guy. So, I can understand why Rick may have spoken well of his business sense back then, and not known that he was an abortion lover.
You are really mean, you know that?
I threw my calculations away, and don’t plan to do them again for the likes of you..
If you truly do support Sanctimonium, and I’ve no doubt you do, you might be better off not letting people know, you aren’t exactly the kind of advertisement he needs... unless you are trolling for pharisees...
Just a little reading material you might enjoy.
A real look at the behind-closed-doors Sanctimonium v. perfect-public-persona Sanctimonium.
And, re Newt’s moonbase folly - all he is really trying to do is keep America safe and competitive... but you- and your candidate - woule have to be aware of the state of the world to know that:
http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpps/news/russia-us-moon-base-nasa-dpgonc-20110119-to-_17194074
“Russia is talking with the US and Europe on plans to create a manned research base on the moon, the head of the Russian space agency Roscosmos said Thursday.
Roscosmos is discussing the possibilities for a permanent moon base with officials from NASA and the European Space Agency, the agency’s chief, Vladimir Popovkin said.
“We don’t want man to just step on the moon,” Popovkin told Vesti FM radio station, according to the Ria Novosti news agency. “Today, we know enough about it, we know that there is water in its polar areas ... we are now discussing how to begin [the moon’s] exploration with NASA and the European Space Agency.”
He said the plan was either to set up a base on the moon or launch a station to orbit around it.”
Russia also is planning to send two unmanned mission to the moon by 2020, Popovkin said.
China moonbase 2002:
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/5/22/181737.shtml
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.