« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Rick S Campaign…a short note for you

I think Rick is great.
Really strong candidate.  Not a
perfect candidate, none are.  Problem is
I think Newt is just a stronger candidate this time around and he has gotten
both my money and my time.  One of the
two really needs to get out or we will all lose by nominating a very liberal Republican who
can’t beat Obama.  As it stands Rick has
less delegates and is well behind in the polls.
If anyone is to get out of the race, it seems like it should be Rick.  Like I said, Rick is great and if we do end
up with Romney and ending up losing, I’m sure Rick will be a first choice
candidate for me in 4 years, but just doesn’t seem like now is the time for him.  If we can win he will surely get a nice roll
in a Gingrich or Romney administration.
This needs to be a 2 man race or we have no chance.  Respectfully,  I am begging you Rick to do the right thing
for conservatism and step aside.  Your
future is brighter that way from where I sit.

COMMENTS

  • mike57

    if the GOP were to unite behind him. Part of that process will need to be acceptance on the part of Governor Romney of at least some of the more conservative positions of the true conservatives in the GOP.

    If we don’t unite behind our eventual front runner, we get 4 more years of straight Fascism under President Obama…not what any of us want. Mussolini defined Fascism as a combination of business and government, and we have certainly seen that in the government takeovers of the insurance and auto industries.

    But perhaps Gov. Romney will alter his positions to allow the GOP to follow him through to the election; there was a good article in the Washington Post this past week about a possible future alliance between Governor Romney and Congressman Paul, and I am hopeful that the Congressman will persuade Romney not to be such a liberal spender, but to reign in spending in a potential Romney administration.

    Thanks for letting me rant. I certainly don’t know everything, as you have just seen. If you have another perspective on this, I am all ears.

    Mike

  • Pingback: Salvatore Capek

  • Pingback: Auto Forum

  • Pingback: Welcome to My Blog

  • Pingback: alcohol distillation equipment

  • Pingback: randki

  • Pingback: SEO Services Australia

  • Pingback: แทงบอลออนไลน์

  • Pingback: wielu ludzi w jednym miejscu

  • Pingback: super randka

  • Pingback: portal randkowy

  • Pingback: steel strapping

  • Pingback: umow sie na randke

  • Pingback: distilling rum

  • Pingback: consejos

  • Pingback: organizzazione matrimoni toscana

  • Pingback: Upgrade

  • Pingback: Try These Guys Out

  • Pingback: dig this

  • Pingback: I thought about this

  • Pingback: breastactive cream

  • Pingback: skachat karos nachalo

  • Pingback: madamlux

  • Pingback: working from home uk

  • Pingback: biaya bangun rumah

  • Pingback: Darwin Glatt

  • Pingback: Store Fixture Installers

  • Pingback: aloe vera juice for hair

  • Pingback: wzór cv

  • Pingback: curriculum vitae

  • Pingback: Luanne Courtney

  • Pingback: Emanuel Swim

  • Pingback: Learn More Here

  • Pingback: sofy rozkładane

  • Pingback: green coffee and weight loss

  • Pingback: John Markin

  • Pingback: John Markin

  • Pingback: Car Forum

  • Pingback: how do you look up phone numbers

  • Pingback: mitsubishi PLC Programming

  • Pingback: payday loan cash advance store

  • Pingback: payday loan stores oregon city oregon

  • Pingback: bmx bikes

  • Pingback: randka przez internet

  • salj

    Newts did great things for this country while he was sinning.Newt repented of his sins and his plans for this country are inspiring.

  • kipling

    The family, since the birth of written history, has been the foundation of every society in the world. When it suffers the society suffers.

    Since the Protestant Reformation and the Catholic Counter-Reformation, the family has been the building block of western civilization and the democracy. The family was to be the place where basic education, values, and citizenship were taught. It promoted literacy, critical thinking, and respect for legitimate authority.

    Newt may make an excellent President and I have no problem with redemption. But let us not pretend that family values do not matter. We do not need to sacrifice those on the altar of a Newt candidacy.

  • cheetah2

    However the fact that Gingrich has 2 ruined marriages in his past does not mean he is unable to be a supporter and promoter of strong family values. If he regrets his past wrong doings and is doing his best now to be a good husband, father, and grandfather, then he quite likely understands very well the importance of family values.

  • Vegas_Rick

    I think he means that family values issues should not be the primary reason we choose or reject a candidate. How that person governs is of paramount importance.

  • aesthete

    Undoubtedly.

    Do they play much of a role in the day-to-day governance of a nation?

    Not really.

    Should they?

    In some specific cases, such as adoption laws and K-12 education, they should at the margins. In the vast majority of cases, not really.

    Finally, are family values enforceable at the federal level?

    Not at all. Indeed, what a democratic republic that guarantees rights to the citizenry can do to mold culture is limited and counterproductive.

    Government is a trailing indicator for several reasons, and democratic government is fickle. Trusting it to harbor or defend timeless cultural values is a losing move.

  • demsaresatanic

    nobody has argued that family is not the foundation of society. Nobody has argued that family values do not matter. You say you have no problem with redemption but you don’t act like it.

  • kipling

    Do they play much of a role in the day-to-day governance of a nation?

    You better hope they do. Where else does a person learn character and citizenship? To say that they do not play a role in the day-to-day governance of the nation is to attribute too much power to Washington and the federal government.

    Your question as to whether family values are enforceable at the national level misses the point and the context.

    The federal government is currently in the process of destroying family values and the family at the national level. The tax code makes it financially lucrative to not marry and penalizes those who do marry and create the traditional two parent household that has always been the foundation of a successful society. Numerous studies exist that point out the economic and educational benefits of the two parent home. Yet the government marches on to the destruction of the institution that could reverse the decline.

    The relationship between culture, morality, and government is a lot more complex than you state. The federal government goes a long way to shaping both the culture and morality. Welfare has led to the destruction of the black family. The NEA continually demeans religion and traditional values while using our money to do it. Federal regulations impact both morality and culture. In many areas we have actually legislated and then subsidized immorality.

  • fightnright

    …guess who will be left to raise the children; from the physically pliable brain in infancy through early childhood, through sexual and gender education in adolescents, and finally philosophical indoctrination of the young pre-voting mind as to which is the ‘correct’ way to think?

    yep, thought you’d guess. It’s no accident that one of the primary goals of the left is the end of the concept ‘family’ – by *all* means necessary.

  • kipling

    salj said that we do not need a president to represent family values. I argued that it is essential we do because they are the foundation of our society. If our leadership represent the values we do not hold then we end up with a Republican Obama.

    I have said nothing for or against Newt. All I have said is that I do not intend to compromise my belief in family values to elect someone who has clearly not lived out those values.

    If Newt has sought forgiveness for his sins and repented of his past infidelity, then good. But I am not going to pretend that we do not need a president to represent family values. There are some things I will not sacrifice on the altar of any candidate.

  • demsaresatanic

    and went back and read the other one again. The first is a straw man argument, as I previously stated, the second merely repeats the first. You demonstrate no belief in redemption that I can see, nor any willingness to forgive. No matter how carefully I read it, I can’t see what is not there.

  • littlehouse18

    Not sure how, but Rasmussen has Santorum beating Obama 45/44. Don’t think Newt is there. If Newt were to drop out, I think the result for Santorum would be spectacular. Vice versa, not so much. Too many are really turned off by Gingrich.

    I believe Santorum as nominee could galvanize our turnout in a way neither Mitt nor Newt can. Both Mitt and Newt have been divisive candidates, and Rick has been right on more issues in this campaign. He has more common sense, energy and passion than the others. They are both looking tired lately. He comes from a modest background and connects more with blue-collar types. And he’s quite bright and gets to the heart of things.

    I’d love to see him rise so we can see how well he handles the media onslaught. Mitt and Newt have shown they are both very vulnerable. Santorum deserves a chance.

  • kipling

    All I said is that I am not going to pretend that family values do not matter to get Newt elected.

    You obviously see something that is not there.

    But go ahead, please convince me to vote against Newt in the primary. Supporters for Newt and Romney need to chill or you will end up driving more people away from your candidates. Romney-bots claim everyone who is not a supporter is a bigot. You Newt-bots push the must not believe in redemption angle. Please. Try a little objectivity.

  • WillWong

    Kipling was responding to the first post that said something like,”this country does not need a President to represents family value” which is not true.

    K said that Newt may make a great president but we do not need to sacrifice family values on the altar of a Newt candidacy.

    Most of us Newt supporters do not think that family values will be sacrificed at the altar of Newt’s candidacy. It may not be the most crtical issue in 2012. In my opinion, it should be one of the top issues but where I differ is that Newt does not need to cede any ground to Santorum. A scripture comes to mind…he who is forgiven much loves much. Newt if his repentance is genuine is certainly someone who is forgiven much and we can count on him loving his country and fellow men much to give his last ounce of enery for the country. That is why he ended his Florida speech with his pledge to give his life, wealth, and sacred honor to the country.

  • kipling

    I have said nothing about Newt or his claim on redemption from his past. If so, then quote it or move along.

    Redemption or the belief in redemption does not mean that family values do not matter. I have not even said anything about Newt lacking family values. All I said is that they do matter and I refuse to believe otherwise just so Newt can be the candidate. Nor, as WW said, does a Newt candidacy require me to do so.

  • demsaresatanic

    the less sense you make. Now you are off on a new tangent with another straw man argument. I did not say that you rejected redemption; to the contrary, I pointed out that you said you had no problem with redemption. I concluded with the observation that your acts do not demonstrate any belief in redemption nor show any willingness to forgive. Your last post simply underscores my prior observation.

  • kipling

    We do not have to say “this country does not need a President to represent family values” in order to justify a Newt candidacy.

    Christianity is all about redemption and God using the redeemed to achieve His purposes on earth. However, that does not mean that family values do not matter and we do not have to pretend like they don’t matter.

  • clowngirl

    The present day Newt well understands the importance of family ( witness his daughters enthusiastic support) and he has promised to immediately reinstate the Mexico city law outlawing federal funding for abortions in other countries, and to make it a priority to stop the government from meddling with churches and the free exercise of religion.

    So I agree that supporting Newt doesn’t mean deserting family values.

  • WillWong

    Rick has no vision for the country. He does not fully comprehend the challenges we faced as a nation. The only thing he got going for him is his religious faith. Take that away, what has he got! I have listened to him several times on Focus on the Family with James Dobson and to be quite honest, he came across as a typical politician who plays to his religious base and nothing more. This is not to put his faith down. I have no reason to doubt his faith but that alone is no justification to elect him President.

    We just need to be like the sons of Issachar in 1Chron 12:13 to be able to understand the times and elect a person for a time like this!

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    I’ve been pointing this out for WEEKS now.
    Alas, Redstaters turned their nose up at the guy who beat Mitt in the first caucus. Newt is ‘stronger’ only in having a better hold on conservative base, but he is less conservative AND less electable. The reason to support Newt was if/when Newt was the only way to stop Mitt. Well, its not happening.

    Newt’s not making it, the conservative vote remains split, and Rick S. is playing the role Huckabee played in 2008.

    We need NEWT to withdraw, and endorse nobody and let Rick S. have a valiant long-shot effort vs Romney.

  • clowngirl

    Santorum hasn’t really been vetted yet, is getting favorable press and is getting ro present himself as he chooses too without much argument. (Romney likes having the non-Romney field split, Newt likes to treat the campaign as a two man race)

    He certainly hasn’t taken anything like the attacks he would face in a general election or even if Mitt Romney came to regard him as a mortal threat.

    With vetting and attacks his numbers would more than likely go down.

  • WillWong

    Sorry wrong verse!

  • littlehouse18

    nt

  • littlehouse18

    I don’t think you’ve been listening to Santorum in the debates or his speeches. Or you’ve tuned him out after the first couple debates when all he got were questions related to religion.

    BTW, I would expect that if he were on Dobson’s show, he would be asked religious questions and would ‘focus’ on that.

  • Common_Cents

    at the expense of everything else. He has been in free fall since then.

    Rick is a great guy but he’s effectively handing the nomination to Romney. He must have some deal in place already or he’s just a self entitled moron who is excited about winning a worthless MO contest coming up. He thinks that is going to give him a jump start? Santorum is just doing America a disservice by not allowing a fair head to head battle between Gingrich and McRomney

  • WillWong

    So what would have happened in 2008 if Huckabee had withdrawn? A straight fight between Romney and McCain, right? And who would you have preferred to be the nominee back then?

    With all due respect, Gov Huckabee is a much better candidate than Santorum. I like Huckabee but i am quite sure the Establishment will be out with their long knives if he ever tried to run. Santorum has gotten a pretty much free pass because the Establishment don’t feel he is a threat to Romney, notwithstanding the fact that he is spliting the conservative vote.

  • demsaresatanic

    you are off on yet another silly straw man argument. I never claimed that you “said anything about Newt or his claim on redemption from his past.” Why don’t you “quote it or move along.” You are about as forgiving as Newt’s ex-wife and obviously quite an authority on all things moral.

    I can hardly wait to see what you will come up with next. Don’t bother to stay on point and address my observation that you demonstrate no belief in redemption or forgiveness, just insist that I find some quote of yours that I never accused you of making in the first place. And be sure to toss in some clever insults.

  • kipling

    Your words: “address my observation that you demonstrate no belief in redemption or forgiveness”

    No show me where you I gave you that impression.

  • WillWong

    Over and over, i hear people and Rick himself making the point that he is the family values guy.

    But in the back of my mind, there is clearly a dissonance. The man has 7 kids with one having special needs. I can’t imagine how being the POTUS would help him being a better father with his kids. I have two special needs kids and between my wife and I, we have been burning our candles on both ends. We have made the conscious decision to put our careers and ambitions on hold to make sure the boys get their best shot in life. They only get one shot.

  • kipling

    No need to reply. It is clear you intend to make an issue out of something that is not there. Your zealousness for your candidate will do Newt no favors. My guess is that you are either an really bad ambassador for Newt, a closet Romney hack, or simply a liberal troll.

    Either way, no need for me to respond to you further.

  • demsaresatanic

    I knew that you wouldn’t let me down. Why don’t you make a list of all the things that you want me to show you and give them to me all at once? And be sure to never point out anything in your posts that demonstrate forgiveness or a belief in redemption.

  • acat

    If, after having Santorum wander around their State for a year, they didn’t understand that he can’t win – the independents will never line up for someone that hard-right on social issues – they’ve very clearly proven their lack of discernment, and deserve to lose their first-in-the-nation status.

    Santorum can retire now and make it a two-man (and one quack) race .. or he can stay in and remove all doubt.

    Mew

  • clowngirl

    I actually think the ideal scenario would be for Santorum , Gingrich and Ron Paul to collaborate and choose different states to campaign hard in — therefore winning as many states as possible away from Romney.

    But that doesn’t seem to be what is happening. Santorum is currently leading (though within the margin of error) Romney in Minnesota. (Santorum 29, Romney 27, Gingrich 22)

    I would like him to take that as a reason to focus heavily on Minnesota now to maximize his chance of an actual win there and leave Colorado alone (he’s been campaigning quite a lot in Colorado, Newt hasn’t come here yet -he’s having a couple events during the day tomorrow which I hope will strengthen his support)

    Right now — after spending a lot of time in CO while Newt was in Nevada (which he needed to do to keep himself in the running for second -which it looks like he’ll get- and to prevent an even bigger Romney win which would generate and insufferable level of “Romney is inevitable” narrative ) PPP has Santorum in second place, 14 points behind Romney but ahead of Newt.

    This is what’s frustrating to me:

    As an anti-Romney, and trying even to leave aside my pro-Gingrich bias – the worst case February scenario would be for Romney to win almost all of the states and for their to be confusion about who represents his main challenge.

    So when winning Colorado looks obviously out of reach, and winning Minnesota looks very likely – why would you give equal (actually it seems like more attention) to Colorado. Even if I’m wrong and he’s spending a little more time in Minnesota, why not go all out for the state you might actuallly win?

    Maybe Rick just doesn’t have his own pollster and didn’t know the lay of the land?

    (Santorum made a really odd comment that Colorado was “wide open” because “no candidate has a natural advantage here” apparently unaware that Colorado is part of the “Mormon belt” and Mitt Romney won with 60% of the vote in 2008)

    It’s hard sometimes not to think that Rick Santorum is competing more for second place than first..

    He attacks Newt in paid ads while conspicuously avoiding hitting Romney – and it seems clear that Newt is his primary target.

    That might have made sense at some point but surely Senator Santorum has noticed that some members of the press started referring to Mitt Romney as the presumptive nominee after he won NEW HAMPSHIRE.

    It’s unfortunate, but the media narrative is something that needs to be dealt with and doing everything possible to hurt Newt more than Romney can only increase the likelihood that Romney wins enough states that it will be extremely difficult for ANY other candidate to be taken seriously.

  • acat

    that’s a little like saying chicken pox is better than smallpox.

    As for 2008, I was hoping we’d get Nominee Romney for a time. The problems on the horizon were largely financial, his background was a very good fit.

    This is no longer the case – we need someone now who can roll back federal over-regulation, something Romney has never in his life shown any skill at.

    Mew

  • clowngirl

    So him staying in effectively changed nothing.

    Unless he were to back out and endorse Fred Thompson before South Carolina (and, as the better positioned candidate why would he? )

    I guess you could argue that Fred Thompson dropping out and endorsing Huckabee before SC might’ve mixed things up. (but whose to say Thompson would’ve even preferred Huckabee to McCain)

  • WillWong

    It was a perfect storm….Iraq War, financial meltdown, Tarp, and GWBush’s willingness to let the media define his legacy!

  • acat

    was a GOP candidate who could actually bring some heat to the campaign trail.

    Palin did so on McCain’s behalf, and look at the reaction.

    I don’t much like Romney, I think I’ve been clear about that, but he wouldn’t have put his campaign in neutral and jumped out the way McCain did.

    Mew

  • WillWong

    and after that it was a painful decline as the McCain campaign allowed the MSM to skewer her. I still like her but it seems that she’s damaged as a candidate. Hope she will be rehabiltated in time.

  • demsaresatanic

    a better candidate could have won that race. McCain didn’t run a tough campaign, he let the business with Rev. Wright just sit there, for example, Hannity did a good job on that but he was preaching to the choir. A few ads with Wright videos, “GD America” and the like, would have gone a long way in demonstrating Obama’s radicalism. I’m not convinced that Romney would have been much tougher, though. Establishment types run for the hills when they are called racist, and Romney is already talking about how he will fix the holes in the welfare safety net after his brilliant “poor” comment.

  • WillWong

    He was just reiterating that Family values do not need to be sacrificed on the altar of Newt’s candidacy. Nothing that I have read indicates to me that kipling is of the opinion that Newt is incapable of standing up for family values. Can we fight the real enemy now?

  • acat

    The question, again, was whether Romney could have defeated Obama.

    My answer is yes, in part because Willard is a devious campaigner and would not have allowed Candidate Obama to remain undefined, although the attacks would have been – as Romney’s 2008 and 2012 runs show – via proxies.

    Mew

  • WillWong

    But Romney would not have selected Sarah Palin. He could have campaign harder and Obama’s religion, middle name, Bill Ayers, Rev Wright will not be off the table. He would have done better but beating Obama would still be a bridge too far imho! But knowing what we know today, i would have preferred Romney in 2008. That way, perhaps, Romney would not be the establishment’s front runner as he clearly is today!

  • WillWong

    Tells us that this point is not lost on most of us despite the endorsement of Santorum by the group of 150 major Evangelical leaders! Unfortunately, i have quite a few women Christian friends who absolutely would not even consider voting for Newt. Those guys in my circle are mostly Newt guys.

  • clowngirl

    It’s not hard to see why he would want to stay in. After all he’s getting a ton more support than he was 6 weeks ago or anytime before that.

    He’s getting a national platform – and a chance to attack the other candidates (and sometimes raise some good points) at debates without (generally) any uncomfortable questions or any of the other candidates attacking him or his record.

    The press is being rather nice to him..

    And most all of us have a fair amount of self serving bias— his recent comments about how he’s the guy who can beat Romney because Newt couldn’t win Florida (despite the fact Newt beat Santorum by nearly 20 points while being viciously smeared) seem to indicate that Senator Santorum is not immune.

    I was disappointed to hear that the Senator said that he would be staying in to the convention.

    He didn’t even campaign the last couple days in Florida (even after little Bella was out of the woods and he was back on the campaign trail) because he’d given it up as a lost cause.

    His new plan seems to be to go after the caucuses that Gingrich and Romney aren’t paying attention to.

    He’s starting to sound less and less like somebody who is running to win and more and more like someone mounting a Ron-Paul style – get the message out candidacy.

    Presumably he’s hoping for something to happen where Newt implodes. But realistically that doesn’t seem likely — after as much fire as Newt has taken and as many mistakes as he and his campaign have made — he’s still competing much more strongly than Santorum who hasn’t really been vetted or taken nearly as much heat from the press or Mitt Romney.

    And he should realize that hanging around on the off chance Newt goes down will very likely help only Romney and Obama.

    I saw Senator Santorum speak here in Colorado and he said that Romney was the “weakest candidate” to send on to face Obama.

    Assuming he was sincere about that (and I do assume he is) I hope Senator Santorum seriously considers whether his continued presence in the race, his attacks on Newt and not Mitt, etc. are likely to greatly increase the chance of Romney being our nominee.

    I can certainly imagine a lot of reasons it would be hard to quit right now when he has a certain kind of momentum . And I would imagine that campaigning as hard as you can to try and do your best in every state and going through a health crisis with a beloved daughter — might not leave an optimal amount of time to reflect.

    I also can imagine that when you’re the kind of person who has the determination to win as a committed social conservative in a purple state – the knee jerk reaction to calls to get out is likely to be a digging in of the heals.

    But in private reflection, I hope Mr.. Santorum considers it much more seriously.

  • clowngirl

    is how effective a united effort — with him endorsing and campaigning for Newt – could be in stopping Mitt Romney.

  • littlehouse18

    I disagree with Santorum that Romney is the weakest to send up against Obama. I would give that distinction to Ron Paul, with Newt after that. There is no chance either can win the general. Women in particular will not go for Newt, despite some primary results.

    Romney and Santorum do have a chance, and I wish this process would come down to those two. Romney’s chances are less than they were, however, after all this mudslinging and gaffes. Plus Santorum is dead-on when he says that we need a candidate who can make a sharp distinction on Obamacare.

    It does remain to be seen how Santorum’s chances would fare if he received more attention. I would like a chance to find out, The latest Rasmussen has him defeating Obama. I think that merits a second look at this candidate.

  • littlehouse18

    But she had Todd to help handle things and Rick S. has Karen, a nurse. I think his kids are in good hands, and most of them are older and able to help run the family. Not to mention finances are probably not an issue.

    These politicians are certainly a different sort and seem gifted with extraordinary amounts of energy.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    I think so

  • clowngirl

    His current strategy seems to be to make the most of his second tier status (and of the media and the Romney campaign seeing his continued candidacy as helpful)

    He doesn’t take fire.

    He doesn’t seriously take on the candidate with the resources to pummel him in an air war/ media attack.

    He competes in the lower profile contest that the (current) top 2 candidates don’t give nearly as much time or priority.

    Spending more time in a state than others seems to be his main strategy and it works to a point.

    But – even if he wins a couple of February caucuses – I don’t see how he goes on to win the nomination.

    He supposedly got boost coming out of the Iowa caucuses but he still lost South Carolina by 23.4 points (and that’s a state with a lot of social conservatives, where – according to NRO he physically spent more time than anyone else, and where Newt’s ex wife bashed him in a super hyped interview less than 48 hours before voting started)

    He’s competed in 3 primaries and is yet to get out of the teens.

    As I posted elsewhere Ron Paul has also periodically polled favorably against Obama so I disagree with you. I don’t think that alone (or anything else Santorum has done, frankly) warrants a second look.

    But as you seem fine with Romney winning the nomination we clearly have very different priorities.

  • WillWong

    I thought traditional family values include the dad being around!

  • clowngirl

    so it would seem that an imploded Newt is still a stronger candidate than a surging Santorum.

  • clowngirl

    Not NH or IA.

  • WillWong

    Based on the last 5 states, Santorum is 1,4,3,4, &4 while Newt is 4,3,1,2,&2.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    Huckabee voters were. And they’re the same batch of idiots supporting Santorum.

  • clowngirl

    Maybe I should’ve put those labels in quotes to better express my POV.

    But in a way I think those labels are actually accurate. Newt is at something of a low point and needs to regain momentum – Santorum seems at the peak of his momentum and has things going as well for him as they probably are ever going to.

    Yet Newt is still ahead in national polls – and is only behind by single digits in states where he hasn’t yet been at all and where Santorum has already spent a fair amount of time.

    And yes, Newt has come out well ahead of Santorum in the last 3 contests.