Posted on 03/10/2012 1:25:53 PM PST by Mr. K
Edited on 03/10/2012 3:58:29 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Rick Santorum swept to victory in the Kansas Republican presidential caucuses Saturday, marking his strongest caucus finish yet but still struggling to make a dent in Mitt Romney's delegate lead.
Kansas offers a total haul of 40 delegates, and Santorum is expected to take at least 30 of them. If Santorum can keep Romney from crossing a certain threshold, he could conceivably take them all.
With 98 percent of precincts reporting, Santorum was well ahead with 51 percent. Romney trailed with 21 percent, followed by Gingrich with 14 percent. Ron Paul was in last place with 13 percent.
However, Santorum still trails Romney by more than 200 delegates. Romney frustrated the Santorum campaign's gains on Saturday with a series of smaller victories in far-flung locales like Guam. Romney picked up at least 23 delegates over the weekend.
The candidates head next into Mississippi and Alabama for primaries on Tuesday, as well as caucuses in Hawaii.
Liar! Newt never said that.
You seem to be making a career at trashing Newt, MITTBOY!
Mitt, the KNOWN LIAR.
You said -he said states those those backwood states that no one cares about .
Keep it honest - you aren’t even trying. Is it as foreign to you as it is with Mitt?
Most voters back then, honestly, wanted someone great for America - now they are into what 'looks' good and not what 'is' good for America. So deception plays a great part in deceiving ONLY those who can be deceived.
Has Santorum and Mitt been properly vetted? NO!
It’s not time yet - the left will do it when the time is right and will do what their supporters refuse to do.
Apparently he's been keeping some secrets, since he's the only retired Marine officer I'm aware of who got away with wearing an Army uniform his whole career!
I would be happy with a Santorum/Gingrich ticket, but I would MUCH rather see Gingrich/Santorum and have Gingrich debate Obama and tear him a new one
Bingo! Things he's done recently like running ads against Santorum in MS & AL just doesn't make sense. He knows Romney's the guy with the most delegates, the guy they need to stop.
Then with that whole bit about staying in, win or lose, was just bizarre.
Wow! My mistake. As Jimmy Durante once said, I've been laboring under a misperapprehension...
“Since West is a retired Marine officer...”
_________________
Negative. LTC Allen West, now retired from the military and a Florida Congressman, was an Army Officer; although his mother was employed by the the Marine Corps as a civilian at one time.
I’m not going to far as to say he should stop. I’m only going so far as to say his supporters here should stop attacking Santorum suppoters for supposedly not being “with the program”, given that their own candidate isn’t with the program.
Heh. But I think you meant Oklahoma, not Kansas. TN and OK are two Southern states in which Santorum finished first; meanwhile, Newt hasn’t finished first in any state outside the South:
Above is the excerpt from The Washington Times article that you presented in this thread as being representative of what Newt said at his appearance on CNN’s State of the Union with Candy Crowley, 04 Mar 2012.
You are either deliberately or unknowingly passing along The Washington Times’ mischaracterization of Newt's remarks by misquoting him and insinuating that Newt was being snarky.
I watched that interview (twice) and I have attached the exact portion of the transcript w/link below. Newt actually hesitated and interjected for emphasis that Rick had used a clever strategy ...note the difference between the actual CNN transcript:
“Suddenly, he went — very cleverly went to three states nobody else went to, and he became the media darling and bounced back.”
...and what you quoted from the Washington Times:
“He stayed in, he was running fourth in every single primary, suddenly he very cleverly went to three states nobody else went to, and he became the media darling and bounced back.”
(Also, it is pertinent to note that Newt's statement was in response to a question Crowley directed at Newt asking him what he thought about Santorum’s top adviser calling for Newt to drop out of the race.)
------------------
Excerpt from CNN Transcript, 04 Mar 2012; State of the Union with Candy Crowley:
CROWLEY: We are now at a point where Rick Santorum has more delegates than you do in the delegate forecast. He's leading in the national polls. I wonder if you think it's — and, by the way, his top adviser is asking you to get out so you can consolidate the conservative vote.
GINGRICH: Sure.
CROWLEY: What's your reaction? GINGRICH: Well, you can tell his top adviser — tell his top adviser I'm taking Rick Santorum’s advice. He stayed in. He was running fourth in every single primary. Suddenly, he went — very cleverly went to three states nobody else went to, and he became the media darling and bounced back.
Link: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1203/04/sotu.01.html
How is it that voters in Kansas, could prefer Santorum, yet not too long ago select that idiot Sebelius to be their Governor? Did she win honestly or by fraud???
I obviously didn’t watch the actual interview, so I can’t say what Gingrich was inflecting. I do of course see the difference in quotes, but don’t see why you think they are important. The Washington Times seems to have removed a verbal tick; CNN trasncript doesn’t. But I don’t see how Gingrich stumbling on his words itself changes the meaning.
In fact, without hearing the actual interview, I would have preferred to use the CNN transcript over the Washington Times one to make my point, because it sounds MORE snarky when it looks like gingrich stopped to go back and insert “cleverly”.
The Washington Times isn’t one of the papers were generally have to worry about. And I presumed that they had heard the interview, and the reporter was conveying his opinion of how Gingrich said what he said.
Clearly, you took a different interpretation of what he said, and I can’t judge between them, as I didn’t hear it myself.
But yes, the entirety of the statement did suggest to me that Gingrich was being dismissive of Santorum’s resurgence — especially since it goes along with other suggestions by the campaign that Santorum isn’t really doing all that well.
The events later known as Bleeding Kansas were set into motion by the Kansas–Nebraska Act of 1854, which nullified the Missouri Compromise and instead implemented the concept of popular sovereignty. An ostensibly democratic idea, popular sovereignty stated that the inhabitants of each territory or state should decide whether it would be a free or slave state; however, this resulted in immigration en masse to Kansas by activists from both sides. At one point, Kansas had two separate governments, each with its own constitution, although only one was federally recognized. On January 29, 1861, Kansas was admitted to the Union as a free state, less than three months before the Battle of Fort Sumter which began the Civil War
Agree there’s a big difference in the times, agree there’s a critical difference between what looks or sounds good and what truly IS good.
What puzzles me is, if you have people genuinely scared to death of Obama and the Left and America’s survival, and if they are even halfway informed, why they would divert off into Santorum’s camp as opposed to continue supporting Newt...the Reagan of our time...against Romney.
Deception yes, but you have to want to fall for it, in order to fall for it, but when America is on the line, why fall for it?
I wanted Rick Perry, but just like he was able to see that Newt was the best for these times, so am I.
Because it’s one of the clearest things I’ve ever seen. Crystal clear. That Newt is our best, right now, of those running.
It isn’t rocket science.
Santorum is no where near Newt’s territory. He is a far country away.
No Charles, I wasn't the one who interpreted from something I hadn't even heard or quoted correctly. I actually heard Newt's interview on two occasions and went to the trouble of providing you with my comments and the supporting exact transcript. You, on the other hand, are the one who “interprets” things you didn't even hear!
Newt didn't “stumble” as you put it; he paused and repeated himself for emphasis. It's a common technique amongst debaters and he was actually paying Santorum a compliment.
As to your protest that you; “can't judge between them” (the actual quote and the misquote) ...sure you can; in fact you DO in the very next paragraph; when you opine: “the entirety of the statement did suggest to me that Gingrich was being dismissive of Santorum’s resurgence.”
When you consider that Newt's response was to Crowley's question as to whether he should “drop out;” as Santorum’s top aide had recently suggested, perhaps Newt would have been within his rights to be a little angry in his response. In fact, he wasn't and he complimented Rick's strategy in his reply; which you now try to characterize as both “snarky” and “dismissive.”
Charles you seem to be a person whose statements and opinions are often self contradictory and misleading at best. That reminds me very much of a certain particular candidate whom most of us here abhor and you probably secretly admire.
I guess it's safe to say that every vote counts. ; )
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.