Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans

No, calling him “much” more conservative than Romney is laughable. And no he wouldn’t have beaten Obama. He would have lost by a larger margin, maybe costing us the House.

Santorum was a poor candidate but easily beater than Romney, Newt, and Paul.


13 posted on 12/12/2015 3:48:34 PM PST by Impy (They pull a knife, you pull a gun. That's the CHICAGO WAY, and that's how you beat the rats!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]


To: Impy
No, calling him “much” more conservative than Romney is laughable.

Romney was not even conservative, but always a fraud and just a politician. Newt was and is conservative and had the best plans out of all the candidates. Saint Rick might have had plans, but you never heard about them, because he ran a campaign of kissing up to Evangelicals, even to the point that his Issues page on his website headlined the horrors of Pornography, but didn't say crap about economics or much else.

That's why he lost to Mittens.

Newt went down due to the treachery of Matt Drudge putting out all those false anti-Newt stories, all later debunked, but far too late. Hush Bimbo and the rest of the talking heads didn't raise a finger to back him up.

And no he wouldn’t have beaten Obama.

Yes, he would have. Newt was a better debater than Romney and willing to put up a fight. Mittens was doomed from the start because he was a filthy cult leader and a liar who turned off all his voters.

15 posted on 12/12/2015 3:52:44 PM PST by Greetings_Puny_Humans (I mostly come out at night... mostly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson