Posted on 03/03/2012 6:02:33 PM PST by nuconvert
Mitt Romney has won the Republican caucuses in Washington state, according to a CNN projection.
With 43 percent of precincts reporting, Mitt Romney leads with 37 percent of the vote in Washington state, followed by Ron Paul and Rick Santorum with 24 percent, and Newt Gingrich with 11 percent. Go to the Tumblr page of the Washington state Republican Party for the latest results. CNN projected Romney as the state's winner at 5:49 p.m. Pacific Time
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Being a youngster then, I didn’t understand politics during the ‘80s, but I always knew instinctively that Reagan was someone I could trust and count on to lead the country. It didn’t hurt that his critics made even less sense than he did. ;)
Really? Looked like LeopoldvonRanke gave his own thumb a good whack with the hammer to me.
Care to explain that piece of idiocy?
Read post 97.
But that’s not true. Define conservative? Define conservative in context of the opponent...an ultra liberal like Obama.
At any rate, I hope we rally behind whomever is the nominee as Andrew Breitbart stated at CPAC. To not do so is equivalent to the Occupy movement (Andrew’s words, not mine).
If its Romney, I will vote for Romney in November.
Incidentally, the national average polls do not show Santorum closer to Obama. You can’t just cherry pick the ones you like.
Obama vs Paul..Obama wins by 6.6
Obama vs Gingrich...Obama wins by 12.4
Obama vs Santorum...Obama wins by 5.0
Obama vs Romney....Obama wins by 4.8
Those are the averages at Real Clear Politics as of right now
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html
Being a liberal State, I see Washington has weeded them out from the most despicable, to the twin semi libs, and finally left the conservative on the bottom. Patty Murray looks smart compared to the Wash voter.
Wow! That's like somebody handing you two dixie cups, one with diarrhea in it (Obamney) and another with diarrhea and on tablespoon of water mixed in (Romnabama).
Go ahead, slurp it down.
I'll write in Palin before I eat the s#!^ liberals are pushing, and make no mistake, Mittens is a leftwing masshole liberal.
So you’re supporting Romney for president?
Again, this is contrary to what the man actually wrote.
Karen’s ex-boyfriend is also an abortionist. So you’ll forgive me if I don’t trust him.
Because he comes out and states that he believes that the unborn is a person and that killing the unborn child in abortion is wrong.
That makes him prolife.
Stating that he was and is a pro-abortion Catholic is a lie.
I’m sorry, it doesn’t matter to me how many times you repeat the same thing, it keeps coming up heads. He believes and believed in the sanctity of the unborn, and we need to acknowledge this rather then claiming precisely the opposite.
A statement from Karen’s ex-boyfriend who is an abortionist is simply hearsay.
The only actual primary evidence we have is his written statement which states very clearly that he believes in the sanctity of the unborn.
We can speculate on his position prior, but without firm first hand evidence, this amounts to speculation. Do we have anything from Santorum in writing where he states a pro choice position?
Is that answer no? Then we have no primary evidence to support this conclusion.
And you conveniently ignore the part where he says that abortion kills an unborn child.
Hey - you cited the source without citing his statement. I cited his statement from your source, that proves you are wrong.
Man you have serious issues, you are making up bizarre lies. No one has done any of that.
You are so crazy that you just force your self to ignore Santorum's own statement of fact that he was pro-abortion.
I’m not sure what you hope to gain from lying about Santorum. More support for Newt?
Maybe you can explain it to me, because I’m sure not seeing it. Even your own source below the fold admits that Santorum clearly wrote that abortion kills an unborn child.
That’s the only evidence aside from hearsay that you have.
Show me something that Santorum wrote that supports your conclusion. Otherwise, it’s simply speculation on your part.
Let us see if we can unravel what is going on in your brain.
Do you understand this? “I was basically pro-choice all my life, until I ran for Congress,” he said. is Santorum explaing that he was pro-abortion for all of his life until he ran for Congress?
Do you understand that this "Abortion is such a deeply wrenching issue because it poses a conflict between essential values. The unborn child's very life is at stake; the mother's future often hangs in the balance too, as an unwanted pregnancy can be unspeakably traumatic as well as limiting her educational, personal, and job opportunities is a statement about his switch to a less pro-choice position for his Congressional campaign? In other words the switch that he is describing here? “I was basically pro-choice all my life, until I ran for Congress,” he said.
I find the fact that you cannot quote his statement that the life of the unborn child is at stake in an abortion telling.
To me that settles this issue. If you can’t even bear to write it, then conveying the truth is not the point of your reveal.
Hey, I know it sucks. You dig up dirt but sometimes people actually investigate it rather then just ignore it and letting you construct your own narrative aside from the facts.
The only hard fact we have is that in 1990 - Santorum wrote that he believes in the sanctity of life of the unborn and that abortion kills an unborn child. That’s it.
Then we have everything he’s written since then in the past 22 years all affirming the same principle.
So I think we have sufficient evidence to conclude where Santorum stands.
My caucus just outside Seattle had many Santorum supporters and they were fully allowed to participate and vote. In fact, one ran for delegate and narrowly lost. I have followed and respected your opinion for years and years, please don’t spread false conspiracies.....
You mean other than posting it over and over and over on this very thread and on other threads?
The hard fact of Santorum being pro-abortion before 1990, is him telling us straight out that he was. “I was basically pro-choice all my life, until I ran for Congress,” .
That is what you are doing right now. Posting everything else but that over and over again.
Perhaps you hope that by continually posting his statement minus the affirmation of prolife principles you can make it stick.
Good luck with that, btw. :)
I’m greatly heartened that this is the source of your allegations. I thought it might be something substantive, but I see that’s not the case here.
If he is the nominee, yes, I will support him for President.
Between Obama and Romney, are you kidding?
I’m in California, we don’t vote for months in the primary and by then, it will be too late.
I know that you have only been posting here for about 10 days, and that you are probably a retread, but you seem to be insane.
Did you read post 90 and post 114 where I quoted that portion of the 1990 switch that you keep saying I haven’t quoted?
“Abortion is such a deeply wrenching issue because it poses a conflict between essential values. The unborn child’s very life is at stake; the mother’s future often hangs in the balance too, as an unwanted pregnancy can be unspeakably traumatic as well as limiting her educational, personal, and job opportunities”
Now explain why you keep pretending that Santorum has not told us that he was pro-abortion for his entire life before he switched to run that 1990 campaign.
“I was basically pro-choice all my life, until I ran for Congress,” he said HE RAN FOR CONGRESS IN 1990, THAT IS THE CHANGE, THE SWITCH.
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.