Posted on 02/07/2012 10:36:59 PM PST by Steelfish
Santorum Delivers a GOP Stunner Former Senator Wins in Minnesota, Missouri; Romney Campaign Plays Down Nonbinding Contests
By NEIL KING JR. And DANNY YADRON
DENVER—Rick Santorum jolted the Republican presidential race Tuesday by winning nominating contests in Missouri and Minnesota, puncturing Mitt Romney's claim to be the unstoppable front-runner.
Mr. Santorum, a former Pennsylvania senator, was running neck and neck with Mr. Romney in preliminary returns from Colorado, a state Mr. Romney won by a wide margin in 2008.
With about 70% of the Colorado vote counted, Mr. Santorum had 38%, to 36% for Mr. Romney. Four years ago, Mr. Romney carried Colorado with 60% of the vote.
Mr. Santorum's twin victories in the Midwest will give his campaign a much-needed burst of momentum and may stir doubt about Mr. Romney's abilities to woo conservatives to his side in important electoral states such as Missouri. So far, Mr. Romney has won in states where he has devoted significant campaign time and advertising dollars.
Mr. Santorum won 55% of the Missouri vote, while Mr. Romney followed with 25%. Texas Rep. Ron Paul was trailing with 12%. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich wasn't on the Missouri ballot.
Mr. Santorum's Missouri victory margin of almost 75,000 votes over Mr. Romney was nearly 29,000 more than Mr. Romney's combined Iowa and Nevada total.
While the Tuesday results didn't directly award any of the delegates needed to claim the GOP nomination, they showed voters rejecting Mr. Romney even in states where he had performed well four years ago.
Mr. Romney had carried Minnesota in 2008 but placed third there on Tuesday. With 85% of precincts in, Mr. Santorum had 45% of the vote, while Mr. Paul had 27%. Mr. Romney had 17% of the vote and Mr. Gingrich claimed 11%.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
“A hardcore liberal would even be better than 0...
Hell I’d rather have hillary than 0.
This guy sickens me to my core.”
It takes guts for honesty like yours on this forum as of late. But you are dead-on right.
Hillary may be a socialist to her core, but Obama is an out-and-out communist through and through.
When the chips are down, I sense that even Hillary Clinton would come down “on the American side”.
Obama will ALWAYS be “on the OTHER side”.
What really frosts me is to hear one poster after another claim that “there’s no difference between Obama and Romney”. This is delusional, plain and simple.
BTW, I -AM NOT- a Romney supporter. I actually don’t “have a candidate”. I’ve found myself leaning towards Newt early on, and will probably vote for him when the primaries roll ‘round to my state (which will be too late to really make a difference, and my state will “go democratic” in the general election, anyway). I can happily mark the spot on the ballot for Rick Santorum.
A good friend and one of the most conservative guys I know said that he didn’t care who wins the primary contest, just get Obama out of there.
I agree.
While the RINO 'elite' would definitely be out in force in the case of a brokered convention, very few of them, if any, would be actual delegates, with voting power. They would have to somehow convince the delegates to support Romney, and if he can't get that support from the voters *now*, how will they be able to secure it in the event of a brokered convention?
Not so easily done. An open (as in no clear frontrunner) convention doesn't help Romney, or his backers in the left wing of the GOP at all, and in fact, demonstrates palpably Romney's electoral weakness as a candidiate. In fact, an open convention could see an eventual nominee who isn't even currently in the race, depending on what the delegates themselves decide...
the infowarrior
Newt does say he has a problem in that he can't beat a 'dishonest' opponent in a debate. But that shouldn't be a problem with Obama will it? Would Obama refuse to fight fair?
Of course Obama would not fight fair. In fact, with the MSM in his pocket, he may not even have to *fight* at all, if by that you mean a debate. Much has been said about Newt's debating skills, and perhaps too much emphasis placed upon them. Such too easily give the appearance of "a one trick pony", and if the opposition ducks out, the trick would never be performed in any meaningful way. We are going to need more than that to prevail, I fear.
I am currently uncommitted as to nominee preference, barring only both Romney, and Paul, who are completely unacceptable to me, so I have no axe to grind, either for Santorum, or Gingrich. I would find either acceptable, if not particularly palatable...
the infowarrior
I admit to limiting my time here because there are those with whom I disagree, and don’t want to tangle with them.
You aren’t one of those. I’ve always respected your opinion, even when we disagree.
“We trash the GOPe for not listening to the rank and file Conservative party loyalists, and then watch as some folks do their damnedest to emulate them here on the forum.”
That is a very good point. When I said that I limit my time here, it’s between, approximately, 11 pm and 1 pm.
I’ve found that it’s tough to get the dander up when answering mail and pings...and, occasionally, posting on a thread.
But, that’s just me. ;o)
You will always be aces in my book.
Fear?? It's called common sense which appears to be lacking of more than a few here. At most there will be two or three POTUS debates and recently Newt has also said that he would refuse to debate Obama if a MSM is moderating, after claiming he will challenge Obama to 7 debates as his secret to beating him. His flaws have been so obvious all along, just review all the Newt threads here from spring to early summer and the comments on them.
Thank you DixieChick2000. That was nice of you.
“Who knows what will happen next.”
You got that right!
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.