Louisiana Loves Rick

YouTube Preview Image

Santorum needed a big victory today in Louisiana, and he got it.  The polls closed at 8:00 PM and the networks called the Pelican state for Santorum immediately.  According to the exit polls Santorum won every demographic except those earning over 200k who went for Romney.  Vote percentages look like they will be in the range of 46-28, with Romney taking the 28.  As in Illinois, Gingrich was a non-factor. This race is supposed to be all over according to most pundits, but I guess someone neglected to tell the good voters of Louisiana.

YouTube Preview Image

Update I:  At 99% of the vote counted, Santorum beating Romney by a whopping 22 points:  49-27.

64 Responses to Louisiana Loves Rick

  • Romney will still likely be the nominee, but maybe this will signal to him that conservative values do matter.

  • Hey, but Newt did beat Ron Paul out for third place. So at least he’s got that going for him. Which is nice.

  • Just more proof that the South is full of anti-Mormon h8ters!

    /typical Romneybot

  • Camp Romney, so full of class:

    But Romney aides were on the job Saturday night. In Green Bay, a Romney spokesman, Ryan Williams, showed up at the bar where Santorum was holding his election-night event, to make a few disparaging comments and put the Romney campaign’s spin on events. “This is the saddest, most pathetic victory party I’ve ever seen,” an AP reporter quoted Williams saying. “Where are all the supporters?”

    Yeah, they are so unconcerned about Santorum that they are now crashing his events in an effort to belittle him. Sure signs of a confident frontrunner.

  • God bless you Rick!

  • Still holding on to the barest of hopes. Hang tough Santorum. Some of us dissident Catholics, from the right, are pulling for you.

  • The hope and a likely one is that Romney will be blocked from 1,144 and this goes to Tampa. However, the question remains, Rick or Newt?

    Rick Santorum is happy that the Republican Party violates the principle of subsidiarity: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-WezrKqUBQ&feature=player_embedded

    One Catholic wants to oppose those who want to reign in the profligate spending; the other Catholic wants the spending reigned in. What is the Social Doctrine about stewardship again? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8smmN5QWf8&feature=related

    How Catholic is it to frivolously spend other people’s money when in a position of trust? It seems the only time Rick was against spending was when Newt was Speaker: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kd_2E4ILxPw&feature=related

    Private manipulation of the money supply at a whim based on nothing is usury. What does the Church teach about usury? This video is hard to hear, but Rick says that we want inflation!!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9l124ellWdY

    Voting for Title X may not be avoidable because it is embedded in larger bills; however, should a Catholic be proud of funding contraception, especially through the largest abortion provider? This is on Tom Woods’ website (although it is a clip from Fox News.) Woods is a libertarian, which is a problematic materialist ideology for Catholics; however, Dr. Woods is a faithful Catholic and as regards this issue there is no conflict with CSD. http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/santorum-boasts-of-funding-planned-parenthood/

    Me thinks perhaps Rick’s personal Catholic faith does not translate into his politics. This is probably a lack of aptitude; rather than a flaw in principle. Do you want a candidate who lacks capacity as a leader? Rick seems to be easily swayed by Washington politics. I think we may be better off with proven leadership. Newt has the record, the capacity, the leadership and since his last time in office, he has come into full communion with the Church. Think and pray hard, before supporting Santorum.

  • The media have already explained that this victory in Louisiana doesn’t mean a damned thing. They’ll say the same thing about any other electoral success Santorum may have.
    And if, God forbid, his campaign ever does show signs of growing vitality, they will ask him about abortion or some such thing. He will answer honestly, and they will then jump all over him for lack of focus, for not giving proper attention to the Real Issues that Concern the American People.

  • AK, your dedication to Gingirich is admirable. The man has won two states, and is basically battling Ron Paul or third place in most of the rest. He set up camp in Louisiana for a week, and he won about 16% of the vote. He has as much of a chance to be the nominee as I do. Even if it comes to a convention battle, the rules would actually prohibit Gingrich (and Paul) from being on the the ballot, and I doubt that a guy who won 2 states during the entire process is somehow going to come out of a brokered convention as the nominee.

  • God bless Mr Santorum!

  • Paul, there is no need to admire my dedication, as a Catholic I am committed to lost causes, after all, at the request of the Sanhedrin, the Romans killed my God – what could be more hopeless than that?

    Newt needs to win three more states and we are only at half-time – it is possible, although not in the primary, but at Tampa. The fact is that until he is out, he’s the one. I will consider Santorum (despite the problems I posted above) and then I may have to move on to Goode, assuming he wins the CP nomination. I pray it does not come to that. Stranger things have happened in past conventions.

    Nevertheless, no one can discount Newt’s commitment and service to this country and as long as he fights for us, I will support him. My naturally skeptical temperament, leads me to think voter manipulation is going on. Why are Romney and Santorum so afraid to debate Newt? Why should I have confidence in either of them to debate and defeat Obama when they cannot even stand on a public, unscripted stage with a colleague?

    I fear Santorum is being set-up as a patsy and for that matter Romney is probably just another Dole/McCain. As Obama sets-up an anti-Church, it seems those who fear organized religion have never been Catholic, we are far from organized.

  • There is a lot of interest in the Republican primary. Although turnout was very low (at my polling place, the workers were delighted to see someone show up), it was in fact a record turnout for a Republican primary in the state. If voter interest remains this high, and turnout follows, I don’t see how Barack Obama will win.

  • Romney’s turnout is less than McCain’s.

    Santorum’s turnout is 20% Democrats (op: hilarity)

    Newt’s turnout, when he is given a chance to speak, is high.

    If we want to beat BHO, we need to have more debates and let Newt speak to the people instead of hearing him on the Mitt Romney News Network formerly known as Fox News.

  • Santorum’s turnout is 20% Democrats (op: hilarity)

    ….Kinda like Limbaugh’s?

  • I didn’t know Limbaugh was in the race.

  • I didn’t know the race was won by who put on the best show when he talks.

  • Newt needs to win three more states and we are only at half-time – it is possible

    Newt is not going to win three more states. He’s not going to win one more state. His main base of support was in the southeast, and he has now failed even there with two exceptions.

    If a man walks into the convention having won two states and somehow is selected as the party’s nominee, then the primary process should be disbanded post haste. I say this as someone who far prefers Gingrich to Romney. But Gingrich has shown absolutely no ability actually win votes. It would be a grave injustice for him to be the nominee barring a miracle comeback, a comeback that would merely distance him from Ron Paul.

  • Paul, you have a right to political pragmatism, I am far more hopeful and I know the outcome is God’s, but I have to account for my actions in this moment. I don’t know that Romney will win, reason indicates that is likely, but not inevitable. If I relied on reason alone – I’d have a tough time being Catholic.

    Newt is right and he’s in the fight – I will support him until there is a winner. Victory or death!

  • Wow. The overall sarcasm and ignorance that permeates this site is astounding. Santorum is by no means a “perfect candidate.” It seems to be that the consensus here is: “Oh, look. Santorum. He is Catholic. He prays. He has seven kids. He goes to Church and receives the sacraments. He is a homeschool daddy. Hey, we want him running our country.” Oh yes, these are the necessary qualifications for a presidential candidate.

    It appears as if there is an unwillingness to look at our options on the other hand. Here we have two candidates, both are Catholic. Neither one of them is lily white. Everyone has their own collection of weaknesses and flaws for every person is human, and last I checked, no such being is perfect (Blessed Mother aside, dear Catholics). Sure, it just so happens that Gingrich’s past has the appearance of being quite contrary to the ideal moral code as projected so wonderfully by Mr. Santorum. Sure, he has had a number of wives and perhaps a few mistresses. But who said that there is no forgiveness for sinners? Are any of you, dear Catholics, aware of the fact that Gingrich has repented of his past and his marriage is validly sanctioned by the Church? When questioned on the issue of gay marriage, Gingrich was the FIRST and ONLY candidate to say that marriage is a SACRAMENT between a man and a woman. Hey, and aren’t there two Catholic candidates out there? Hmm… Last I checked there was.

    The mere fact that a man is Catholic, has a large Catholic family, and a lovely Catholic wife does not make him the ideal man for the job as President of the United States in 2012 when the world is in this state of turmoil. And yes, dear Catholics, there is more at stake in this insane world at this insane time then prolife issues (of which, by the way, Gingrich also has proven to be a valiant defender). The world looks to the United States for its leadership, and we need a man of character who is not afraid to stand up for Liberty and Justice for all.

  • American Knight, well said. Kudos!

  • I continue to support Romney for President as do many of my fellow Catholics. Obviously as a Catholic, I wish Romney would convert to Catholicism. And as a hard-working American, I wish Rick Santorum would find some honest work that he can do well and go do that.

  • , you have a right to political pragmatism,

    If this were about pragmatism, I would not be voting for Rick Santorum and refusing to support Mitt Romney.

    The overall sarcasm and ignorance that permeates this site is astounding.

    Followed by an endless stream of sarcasm.

    Newt’s previous marriage peccadilloes are not the main reason I have chosen to support Santorum, and certainly not the reason he’s being rejected by 80+ percent of the GOP electorate. So that entire paragraph is rather beside the point.

    The mere fact that a man is Catholic, has a large Catholic family, and a lovely Catholic wife does not make him the ideal man for the job as President of the United States in 2012 when the world is in this state of turmoil.

    That’s true. It’s a good thing that’s not the principle reason people are supporting Santorum.

    And as a hard-working American, I wish Rick Santorum would find some honest work that he can do well and go do that.

    Ah, the arrogance of Romney supporters. Totally working to change the minds of would-be Republican voters across the land. Maybe one day one of you guys will provide an actual, substantive reason to support this man in the general. Until then, yawn.

  • Geeze, Paul, don’t you realize the only possible reason folks would pick Rick over Mittens is religious bias? It can’t be that folks actually agree with Santorum, or think Romney would lose, is unreliable or doesn’t really believe a lot of what he claims…..

    Also, it’s very unkind of you to ignore the hard work that so many of our commenters put into making their strawmen! Like they say… it’s not so much what folks don’t know, as what they know that just ain’t so.

  • To support Romney for President is to tell your only daughter that her $15,000 wedding dinner is Wonder Bread and mashed potatoes.

    It’s like saying “We went on the celebrity-spotting vacation of a lifetime to North Dakota (with apologies to that fine, booming, independent state.)

    It’s like saving up to get the car you’ve wanted ever since you were a kid – an ’86 Buick Regal.

    It’s like believing that Barbie and Ken really are the representation of what ideal neighbors should be, anatomy and all.

    Enough with all this Bald Eagle business! The national symbol is The Sheep! See how powerful our nominee is!

    “Well, Bob, who’s our guy?” “Well, Bob, we can’t have anybody who doesn’t walk, talk, comb, smell, spend or dress exactly like we do, eh?” “Well, Bob, that’s right, because difference is bad.” “Well, Bob, truer words were never spoken, because being different and thinking indpendently lead to questions of authority.” “Well, Bob, you got that right, and we sure don’t want our authority questioned.” “Well, Bob . . .”

    The reason Romney supporters like his press so much is because they and newspapers are basically informed the same way. Copy after copy after copy after copy after copy . . .

    Vote Romney, because thinking is for wigged-out non-conformists!

    The nominee should be Romney. After all, the current White House occupant is the exact opposite of what all moral, freedom-loving Americans would want as the chief executive, and the GOP still believes in a fair fight.

    Ahh. That’s better.

  • True, Foxfier. Perhaps if I just blamed the media they would understand my point better.

  • Paul, I figured sarcasm would convey the message effectively as it seems to be the language used here.

    Although you claim not to vote for Santorum based on his Catholic background, the truth is that Santorum uses his “Catholicity” as a primary reason why America should elect him. Listen to what he says. Tell me this not so.

    80+ percent of the GOP electorate has rejected Newt? Gee, I wonder why. The media has been trashing Gingrich from the start. Voters have been convinced that the only way to not get Romney as the nominee is to give Santorum their support. And it is not just the media, but the Republican establishment as well.

  • When asked, most people state they would love to see Gingrich bring truth and clarity to debate Obama, exposing the lies and hypocrisy of this Administration. it seems to me that Gingrich is doing just that…speaking truth directly to the Obama Administration and exposing their tactics and lies. Gingrich has been given talents and gifts from God to use for Gods’ glory. Often, though not perfectly, Gingrich anticipates the direction of the Left. (I think he has learned from the sitting on the couch with Pelosi incident). Two recent examples are energy and Trayvon Martin. Gingrich began articulating the facts about the current energy supply situation and followed with providing a clear plan about how to change direction resulting in decreased energy cost. His speaking Truth to Power brought President Obama out of the White House on a Green Energy Speaking Tour to defend his position. Newt then goes to expose the falsity of the Presidents’ position with FACTS…history. “Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it,”- Winston Churchill. The second example pertains to the tragic Trayvon Martin death. The President stated that if he had a son he would look like Trayvon Martin. Gingrich immediately responded recognizing that the agenda of the White House was to exploit this tragedy in the name of Racism. (Remember how the word racist was used to describe those who would not vote for Obama. In fact, many Catholics also used the racist label.) Gingrich stated that the President is trying to make this into a racial incident. He further added “It is not a question of who the young man looked like….any young American of any ethnic background should be safe, period. We should all be horrified, no matter what the ethnic background.” Santorum before knowing the facts (which is not acceptable for a Presidential Candidate in this stage of the game) stated of Zimmerman that he “has a very sick mind” and a “malicious” motive. More pandering? More superior rhetoric? (Santorum has a history of pandering and of compromising life positions to be a team player.) Has any one viewed the recent comments by the Black Panthers? Please do, it will send chills down your spine. The Black Panthers are now calling for the death of Mr. Zimmerman and Presidential Candidate Santorum played right into the set-up. (Remember the incident in on Election Day when the Black Panthers were involved in voter intimidation through violence?) I wonder if that is why Obama needs 1 Billion dollars to spend on his re-election campaign? Perhaps Acorn needs a little financial motivation to ensure Obama has another 4 years in the White House? THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES! Wake up Catholics!!! Examine all the facts and examine current behavior. If you don’t, we are doomed to repeat history at the cost of liberty and lives.

  • Although you claim not to vote for Santorum based on his Catholic background, the truth is that Santorum uses his “Catholicity” as a primary reason why America should elect him. Listen to what he says. Tell me this not so.

    It’s not so.

    He’s a SoCon/FisCon that seems to truly believe his own rhetoric, is idealistic without being unwilling to try to be realistic, and isn’t willing to disavow his religion just to get votes.

    Heaven forbid we have an unapologetic believer– must attack, claim that the only reason people support him is the religion! Even though, oops, Newt is Catholic as well….

  • Yeah…

    Foxfier, it is so nice to know that you “agree” with Santorum. And yeah, I guess when a post makes sense it has to be the result of “hard work.”

  • …and oops! The world knows Newt is Catholic. He just runs on more substance than this mere fact.

  • Don’t worry, Boston, when you start making good sense, we’ll let you know. Try making arguments with facts and avoid making up stuff about why others would support a candidate you don’t prefer.

  • Perhaps if I just blamed the media they would understand my point better.

    80+ percent of the GOP electorate has rejected Newt? Gee, I wonder why. The media has been trashing Gingrich from the start

    Yup.

    Voters have been convinced that the only way to not get Romney as the nominee is to give Santorum their support.

    Yes, Santorum is just loved and revered by the establishment and the media.

    Look guys, is it time to consider that maybe, just maybe, the reason that voters have rejected Gingrich is because they have evaluated him and found him wanting? I know it’s easier to just chalk Gingrich’s failure – and yes, with 3/5 of the primaries in the books, we can call him a failed candidate – up to media negativity or some dark conspiracy, but the fact is the man just has failed to demonstrate that he is more than just a one trick pony.

    By the way, I say this to Santorum supporters as well. If Mitt Romney wins the nomination he will have done so with the aid of establishment support, of course. But at some point we actually have to hold voters themselves to account for their decisions, and a plurality (though nowhere near a majority) of GOP voters have expressed their support for Romney. There’s no use throwing a hissy fit about it. Accept it, though we don’t have to accept the candidate they give us.

  • By the way, Gingrich fans have officially become as shrill as Paulistas.

  • Foxfier,

    Ha… Oh of course I don’t make sense. I’m presenting another point of view. We must dismiss people who disagree as…well…stupid people who “make stuff up.” Haha hey, sorry, I’m laughing at you.

  • No Boston, you’ve just failed to offer any substantive rebuttal to anything anyone has said.

  • Hey, Beantown:

    It seems to be that the consensus here is: “Oh, look. Santorum. He is Catholic. He prays. He has seven kids. He goes to Church and receives the sacraments. He is a homeschool daddy. Hey, we want him running our country.” Oh yes, these are the necessary qualifications for a presidential candidate.

    Next time you want to discuss the merits of a particular candidate, how about letting the proponents of that candidate explain why they support him? Instead of, say, handing them risible talking points that you think *really* explain why they want to vote for him?

  • I like that some state that Boston makes no sense and fail to state why. Brilliant! Boston seems quite cogent to me. Of course, I am Newt-bot in the mold of Paul-bots. Right? Could it be that those with no moral grounding and a natural thirst for liberty are attracted to Dr. Paul because he presents a consistent, principled position (despite that it is strictly materialist and therefore flawed). Could it be that those of us with a moral grounding support Speaker Gingrich for the same reason? May we be wary of flexible candidates and yes, I include Rick, although not as significantly as the snake-oil salesman Myth RINO-Money.

    The fact is that Romney is a terrible candidate and the only chance he has of winning is because BHO may be his own worst enemy. Good job Republicans put up a milquetoast, deceitful candidate and hope that Obama’s ineptitude takes on Bidenesque proportions (needs be in order to overcome the Fourth Estate’s commitment to severe progressivism.) The same media that is tuned in the other direction against Newt (that may tell you something if you think about it, especially when you throw in the Mitt Romney Network formerly known as Fox News.) Speaking of Biden, no not Joe ‘BFD’, Rick ‘right-wing Biden’ Santorum. He is almost as terrible a candidate as Romney, in a different way.

    I do not call into question Mr. Santorum’s faith or the personal practice of it, I am merely saying that he may have failed to discern his true vocation because he is an awful public representative. The record is clear, he is not very effective at accomplishing authentically conservative policies without glaring compromise and he actually articulates strong and proud support for policies contrary to Catholic Social Doctrine. Newt on the other hand, before he came into communion and while he was a vile sinner (like most of the rest of us) was more effective at actuating Catholic Social Doctrine in public policy and now he is a proud defender of Holy Mother Church and quite pithy and articulate (No BS.)

    There are two Catholic men in this race – there is only one Catholic candidate and his name is Newt!

  • The record is clear, [Santorum] is not very effective at accomplishing authentically conservative policies without glaring compromise and he actually articulates strong and proud support for policies contrary to Catholic Social Doctrine. Newt on the other hand,

    Welfare reform rebuts the first half, and rather thoroughly.

    With respect to the second, what was Newt’s record on Title X, and if he voted in favor of it, has he repudiated it?

  • And to call Rick a “right wing Biden” is…well, it refutes itself.

  • I refer to Santorum’s Bidenesque gaffes, most recently Bovine Scatology.

    Welfare reform was part of the Contract with America and that was clearly a Gingrich-lead initiative and in some ways against the party that ousted him shortly after the success. Title X is an insidious evil and I think most pro-life reps have had to vote for it within the larger appropriations bills; however, Newt has never said he is proud for having done it, Rick has (rather Bidenesque, no?)

    Again, Rick may be a moral guy and faithful Catholic, I have no reason to suspect otherwise, but as a candidate he is sorely lacking and his victories are coming from blind support due to his religiosity, Democratic sabotage and a natural impulse for traditional people to strongly dislike Myth RINO-Money, but the media/pundit bombardment has convinced them that Newt can’t win. The fact is that Romney and Santorum can’t win, else why are the both afraid to debate Newt?

  • I refer to Santorum’s Bidenesque gaffes, most recently Bovine Scatology.

    How is that a gaffe? Or is it that only Newt is permitted to express contempt for the media?

    Welfare reform was part of the Contract with America and that was clearly a Gingrich-lead initiative

    Speaking of bovine excrement, the Gingrich hagriophers would have you believe that Newt single-handedly carried the day on this issue, and no other Republicans had any input. Not exactly the case.

    but as a candidate he is sorely lacking and his victories are coming from blind support due to his religiosity,

    He’s sorely lacking as a candidate? Unlike your guy, he’s actually winning elections. He’s connecting with the voters in a way that Gingrich has been unable to. And it’s not his religiosity so much as the fact that he’s the only candidate to present a consistent conservative platform – not just fiscal, but social issues as well.

    but the media/pundit bombardment has convinced them that Newt can’t win

    Could be that the fact that he hasn’t, you know, actually won anything (other than SC and GA).

    The fact is that Romney and Santorum can’t win

    Yes, except for the 25 of 27 states that they’ve won between them, there’s no way these two could win.

    else why are the both afraid to debate Newt?

    You mean other than the 30+ times they’ve debated him?

  • The fact is that Romney and Santorum can’t win, else why are the both afraid to debate Newt?

    Yeah, why won’t they go up against the third place guy who’s really good at talking?

    If they lose, they’re hurt, and if they win… um… who cares?

    I like that some state that Boston makes no sense and fail to state why.

    Really?

    1) I’m the only one that mentioned sense and Boston, and I said he didn’t make good sense, in direct response to his unsupported claim that making sense is why we don’t like his claims. (Part of his attempt to put his own arm out of socket while patting himself on the back. Complements really should be offered by others….)
    2) If you read back, you should find that the stated problem is he makes flatly false claims and doesn’t bother to use facts or good arguments.

  • You mean other than the 30+ times they’ve debated him?

    I took it to mean a one-on-one event.

    Because “Newt can’t argue his way out of a paper bag” is part of why folks don’t like him. *cough*SARCASM*cough*
    Most folks I’ve heard talk about Newt will even specifically mention how good he is at talking, and especially admiring that he challenges the assumptions that the overwhelmingly liberal debate leaders offered.

    And it’s not his religiosity so much as the fact that he’s the only candidate to present a consistent conservative platform – not just fiscal, but social issues as well.

    Ding ding ding.

  • No, Santorum wrote the welfare reform bill.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/rick-santorum-and-welfare-reform-fact-checker-biography/2012/01/12/gIQAmmUTtP_blog.html

    And, seriously–blowing up at an Obama suck-up (this is the same guy who asked the President what he found “enchanting” about the job) reporter at the NY Times is disqualifying now? Bush called Adam Clymer an “a–hole”–quite accurately. Recognizing that the media is not your friend is a good attribute in a GOP candidate.

    his victories are coming from blind support due to his religiosity

    Repeating this over and over doesn’t make it true.

    Finally, the splinter of Title X support is rather less than the beam of supporting embryonic stem-cell research:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/283696/gingrichs-stem-cell-history-ramesh-ponnuru

  • They won 25 of 27 states amongst themselves, not against Obama – that’s like winning in a team scrimmage, and expecting that to be a predictor of your chances at the Super Bowl.

    Right now, it seems the best thing the GOP has going for it is Obama, and Obama the GOP. How that will play out, who knows (my guess is it depends upon the price of gasoline in October).

  • Why do you assume that Boston is a woman?

    Santorum the consistent conservative, hmmm?
    He is proud that the Republicans moved away from smaller government that does less. That sounds pretty progressive, not very conservative.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-WezrKqUBQ&feature=player_embedded
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8smmN5QWf8&feature=related
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpy9BqEoi64
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv_Fp8tSlVs&feature=endscreen&NR=1

    Newt is not winning because he fails to connect, but we are accused of having Paul-like support for Newt. Whatever you think of that, it is a strong connection. Of course with no more debates (hey do you think new information has come to light, new issues, new problems since the last debate that we may want to know where the future president stands before we put him up as the standard bearer), the entire media establishment and 15-1 spending against, that it may be a little difficult to win with an electorate that thinks with its feelings, rather than seeking facts – not to mention the organized (DNC Chair) Democratic support for Santorum? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NapDB_lwv9U

    The Cheerful Warrior has been fighting on principle for over years: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhm6-NSk92k&feature=related

  • Did Newt’s position on embryonic stem-cell research change after he came into full communion with the Church?

    Me thinks some people are behaving like the prodigal son’s older brother.

  • It is important for us to have vigorous debate, but let us remember that on the following we can all agree:

  • Why do you assume that Boston is a woman?

    ???
    That’s left-field… I was expecting the usual “what makes you think Boston is a man” response, since I only said “he” about five times in a single sentence, since the name “Boston” doesn’t indicate a sex and there’s no icon or link to a bio. Even had the quote from the Iron Lady about ‘in language, as in life’ ready.

    Interesting how when claims are refuted, they just get dropped for a new target, eh?

  • I mistyped, I meant to write, “what makes you think Boston isn’t a woman?” It is an aside, I wasn’t deflecting. Feel free to ignore, but the rest of my post, that is a little more difficult to ignore.

  • Feel free to ignore, but the rest of my post, that is a little more difficult to ignore.

    Not really, I never watch videos when folks can’t be bothered to state exactly what they’re trying to show. It requires first having the time to set and watch, then figuring out exactly what they’re targeting, then researching the context, and then laying it all out. No, thanks, not building someone’s argument for them just so I can then do the work of responding to it.

    Speaking of showing, interesting that before the block’o’vids you mention sounding conservative or progressive.
    Talk is cheap, especially with politicians, and it’s rather funny for someone supporting Newt to say he wants to be sure where a politician stands.
    (Or should that be sits, and next to Pelosi?)

  • It is your prerogative to prevent those inconvenient facts from getting in the way of your preconceived notions. I think this discussion is over.

    Pray for guidance before blindly supporting a candidate. I am glad most are supporting Santorum over the others; unfortunately, I think he is a bad candidate, but at least he is a good man. I can’t say that about the others (save perhaps Dr. Paul.)

  • It is your prerogative to prevent those inconvenient facts from getting in the way of your preconceived notions. I think this discussion is over.

    That is quite a dishonest take-away from my refusing to watch a bunch of out-of-context clips a that you couldn’t even be bothered to do more than link to, figure out what argument you’re trying to make– “he sounds progressive!” isn’t an argument– find out the context, and then refute whatever argument I just read out of your vague claims.

    Pray for guidance before blindly supporting a candidate.

    You go ahead and blindly support a candidate– I prefer to take things in context, with information and good arguments, and support the one that I think is the best of what’s available.

    Have fun playing martyr, though.

  • Did Newt’s position on embryonic stem-cell research change after he came into full communion with the Church?

    If you’d read the link, apparently not.

  • AK–great links. Santorum, God bless him, he is in no way as articulate as Newt, nor is he able to speak truth to power with the same clarity as Newt. Yesterday he even was caught going on and on accusing a reporter of playing “got ya politics”. In my view it was Santorum trying to play “got ya politics” – knowing full well the cameras were rolling he wanted to prove he is a man and can handle the media with his daughter snickering in the background.

  • Thanks Tess. It is sad but true about Rick. God guy, bad candidate. He probably did not discern the right vocation for his talent. I’m thinking prize fighter or attorney, oh wait.

    I find it so odd, that Catholics, especially at a time of persecution, are so easy to dismiss the guy who has been leading the charge for decades.

    Tweet #250gas #withNewt and get as many people as you can to give something. $2.50 and prayer – there are allegedly 65 million of us. Just dump your anti-marriege Starbucks that costs $4.05 and give to Newt. Come on people.

  • Santorum, God bless him, he is in no way as articulate as Newt, nor is he able to speak truth to power with the same clarity as Newt.

    Hogwash. Long before I supported Santorum and had decided which candidate to support, I found Santorum to be a much more persuasive speaker. Newt is good at bluster, and therefore I understand why he appeals to who he appeals to. But in terms of going beyond the surface and explaining first principles, Santorum is far preferable to Gingrich.

    By the way I find it hysterical that Gingrich supporters are calling out Santorum for his treatment of the press when the only reason Gingrich ever rose in the polls in the first place was because he berated the media. When it’s not your guy doing it, suddenly it’s unprofessional. Right.

  • Better than Gingrich—are you serious? The confederacy of dunces has risen against us all!!!!!!!

  • “How is it that so many persons, even Catholic persons, are now clairvoyant, able to read the heart of of others?”

    By their actions Tess. Anyone who seriously contends that Newt does not have a giant ego simply has not been paying attention to his career.

    As faithful readers of this blog know, I have written several posts praising Gingrich for his attacking the media and highlighting their double standards. I am not blind to either Newt’s considerable strengths or his considerable weaknesses. In regard to the campaign he had his moments and now his time as a serious candidate has ended. He is doing nothing of a positive nature now by staying in on what has become a pointless vanity tour.

  • Better than Gingrich—are you serious? The confederacy of dunces has risen against us all!!!!!!!

    Ah, that delightful go-to– “nuh-uh, you’re a dummy!”

  • Donald M. Thank you for your polite response. Agreed , each candidate possesses strengths and weaknesses. Your characterization of Newt’s continued candidacy as being merely a vanity tour both saddens and complexes me. Am I to understand that if a person is endowed with intelligence and has the experience and skill set to lead, then that person should pretend he doesn’t ? Aren’t we instructed by Christ Himself to use our God given talents and gifts for the glory of the Father? Pretending one does not possess certain talents, isn’t that false humility?

    Newt realizes he is not able to obtain the required delegates. His intention it appears to me is to keep bringing the debate to Obama, thereby helping the Republican cause whomever the nominee may be. With the current Obama media bias and blackout, Newt is bringing out into the open things the media and Obama would rather be shrouded in confusion and darkness. Also, are you really sure Santorum is ready for prime time considering his recent gaffes?

Follow TAC by Clicking on the Buttons Below
Bookmark and Share
Subscribe by eMail

Enter your email:

Recent Comments
Archives
Our Visitors. . .
Our Subscribers. . .