Gallup has released their 1/27 daily tracking poll. As usual, the graphics are courtesy of Gallup:

Gingrich clicks up a point to 32%. It has to be a welcomed return to positive momentum for the former Speaker of the House after stalling at 31% for a couple of days.

The news isn’t so good for Romney. The former Governor of Massachusetts continues his slide by dropping a point to land at 24%. That gives Gingrich an eight point lead. That has to be discouraging for Mitt after he has been doing so well in Florida.

Paul has ticked back up a point to match his previous high water mark of 14%. He now claims sole possession of third place.

Santorum pushes. He remains at 13%. With Paul’s upward movement, he is left all alone in fourth place. He has been in last place — either in a tie, or sole possessor of it — for the last nine days. Coupled with his equally abysmal numbers in Florida, I don’t see how Rick can reasonably continue past the Florida Primary next week unless some miracle happens Sunshine State.

Heh…

Here he goes again.

With Florida and perhaps his presidential hopes in the balance, Newt Gingrich turned in an oddly passive debate performance that left his supporters scratching their heads and illustrated his unpredictable and even whimsical style.

It served as a reminder of the essential trait of the Gingrich campaign: It is entirely dependent on the candidate’s impulse or mood.

And the Gingrich who lit up a pair of moderators last week in South Carolina on his way to a thumping win didn’t show up here Thursday evening.

The former speaker never once portrayed Mitt Romney as a “Massachusetts moderate,” his preferred gibe, or ever even tied his chief rival to the “establishment” Republican voters in this state decisively rejected two years ago. He seemed more consumed with litigating the unfairness of Romney’s attacks against him than driving his own message.

All told, Gingrich’s performance was more a throwback to the last days of his Iowa campaign — a floundering, listless, message-free affair — than an extension of his Palmetto State victory tour.

Be sure to Read the rest here.

Obviously, it wasn’t just Martin and Burns as Romney surged to over 90.0 to win Florida on Intrade during last night’s debate.

The Huffington Post reports (emphasis added):

WASHINGTON — Members of Newt Gingrich’s campaign accused Mitt Romney’s campaign of packing the audience for the Republican presidential candidate debate on Thursday night in Jacksonville, Fla., with its own supporters to ensure that the dynamics would be favorable to Romney.

“They definitely packed the room,” Kevin Kellems, one of Gingrich’s senior advisers, told The Huffington Post early Friday morning. “The problem for them is their candidate, at several junctures, couldn’t remember what he had said before on an issue or what the fundamental truth is on a given topic. TV viewers tend to notice and remember things like that.”

A more junior member of the Gingrich campaign said in an email that it was “obvious” that the Romney campaign had worked to make sure the audience was overly favorable toward the former Massachusetts governor.

…

(more…)

Sunshine State News (R) Florida 2012 GOP Primary Poll

• Mitt Romney 40% (46%)
• Newt Gingrich 31% (20%)
• Rick Santorum 12% (12%)
• Ron Paul 9% (9%)
• Other 1% (1%)
• Undecided 6% (8%)

Which Republican candidate has the best chance of beating Barack Obama in November?

• Mitt Romney 45%
• Newt Gingrich 33%
• Rick Santorum 8%
• Ron Paul 5%
• Other 1%
• Undecided 7%

Survey of 865 likely Republican primary voters was conducted January 24-26, 2012 by VSS. The margin of error is +/- 3.33 percentage points.Click here to view crosstabs.  Results from the poll conducted January 11-14, 2012 are in parentheses.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

Quinnipiac Florida 2012 GOP Primary Poll

• Mitt Romney 38% (34%) [37%] {36%} (22%) [21%] {22%} (24%)    
  
• Newt Gingrich 29% (40%) [26%] {24%} (35%) [17%] {8%} (5%)
• Ron Paul 14% (6%) [15%] {10%} (8%) [3%] {6%} (10%)
• Rick Santorum 12% (11%) [15%] {16%} (2%) [1%] {2%} (1%)
• Don’t know 6% (7%) [7%] {7%} (12%) [16%] {13%} (19%)

Is your mind made up, or do you think you might change your mind before the election?

• Mind made up 67%
• Might change 32%

Among Voters Whose Minds Are Made Up

• Mitt Romney 25.46%
• Newt Gingrich 20.30%

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Rick Santorum 53% (60%) [56%] {59%} / 19% (13%) [12%] {8%} {+34%}
• Mitt Romney 61% (70%) [72%] {73%} / 28% (21%) [16%] {14%} {+33%}
• Newt Gingrich 50% (66%) [54%] {59%} / 38% (23%) [31%] {29%} {+12%}
• Ron Paul 35% (33%) [41%] {34%} / 42% (42%) [38%] {47%} {-7%}

Survey of 580 likely Republican primary voters was conducted January 24-26, 2012. The margin of error is +/- 4.1 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted January 22-23, 2012 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted January 19-21, 2012 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted January 4-8, 2012 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted November 28 – December 5, 2011 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conductedOctober 31 – November 7, 2011 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted September 14-19, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted July 27 – August 2, 2011 are in parentheses.

-–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

Dear Conservatives,

In the last three letters, I’ve taken a look at how I see Rick Santorum being able to win the presidency, his vision for America, and his steadfastness. In this section, I take an honest look at some of the concerns that have been raised about Senator Santorum.

There is no candidate with which I can agree 100 percent of the time. The question that must be asked is how important those disagreements are. Usually when fly by night opponents offer up these attacks on a candidate, the attacks are presented ripped from context-both the context of the issues and what motivated the votes and the greater context of what the problems with other candidates are.

In the case of Rick Santorum, the issues with his record are either: a) not relevant to the main problem facing this country and/or b) his opponents have similar or worse problems. I believe Senator Santorum not only has the best qualifications, but far less negatives than other candidates.

Of course, there are some things that will be considered faults by others that I won’t consider problems. For example, Senator Santorum is opposed by some under a thinly veiled cloak of anti-Christianity and anti-Catholicism by radical secularists on both the right and the left as has happened with several other candidates in recent years. I obviously don’t consider his faith and defense of the family to be a negative.

Some supporters of Congressman Ron Paul take issue to the fact that Santorum said the U.S. should not have objected to Mossad killing an Iranian Nuclear scientist who was helping to develop a nuclear program that threatened Israel and the stability of the world. Quite frankly, the job of the President of the United States is to keep us safe, not to keep safe terrorists who threaten the lives of millions.

The issue of earmarks has been raised against Senator Santorum. Senator Santorum did request earmarks (which funds specific local projects) in appropriations bills.

It must be noted that Congressman Paul also requested earmarks and Speaker Gingrich began the process of the massive growth of earmark requests during his speakership as a way to help members get re-elected. Governor Romney in Massachusetts sought federal funding through earmarks for his state.

Earmarks are a concern because there are many .wasteful and corrupt earmarks (i.e. pork). However, as a portion of the federal budget, they amount to 0.5%. That’s not what’s bankrupting us. What’s bankrupting us is the high costs of entitlements, and entitlement spending is an area that Santorum has been a stalwart on. In addition, looking at broader fiscal issues, during Santorum 12 years in the Senate, he received an “A” rating from the National Taxpayers Union seven years, a B+ rating three times, and a “B” rating twice. This indicates a very fiscally conservative voting record on issues of taxes and spending.

Another issue that has been raised is Senator Santorum’s opposition to a national right-to-work bill while he was a member of the Senate. Senator Santorum made clear that the reason he opposed this was because it would impose right to work on every state in the union and he was representing the interests of the State of Pennsylvania, which does not have a right-to-work law and doesn’t want to be forced to have one by the federal government. Santorum said if he were president, he would sign such a bill.

It we’re truthful, right to work is not the big issue facing our country at the moment. Senator. What could be a big issue is if Santorum were a minion of big labor as has been alleged by those who have tried to take this vote and extrapolate that Santorum was beholden to the interests of Big Labor.  One commenter suggested that Santorum was a “Union Social Con.” In reality, Santorum had a career AFL-CIO rating of 13%. For comparison, through 2009, Ron Paul had a career rating of 19%. If Rick Santorum is beholden to big labor, then Ron Paul must be Jimmy Hoffa.

The fact of the matter is that Rick Santorum is a strong fiscal and social conservative. The record shows that clearly from ratings and actual votes in context.

The issue of Senator Santorum’s endorsement of the re-election campaign of Senior Senator Arlen Specter in 2004 has come under attack. Specter was being challenged by a Conservative Congressman named Pat Toomey, who six years succeeded Specter, but with Santorum and President Bush endorsing Specter in 2004, Specter won renomination by a 51-49% margin in the GOP primary and then went on to win the General Election.

The context of this endorsement was that Senator Santorum was concerned about Toomey’s prospects to win a general election. He was rightly concerned that one or more Supreme Court justice would retire (as indeed they did.)  At the time of 2004 elections, the GOP held a 51-49 margin in the U.S. Senate. Even with a Bush win, successful presidential often offer no coattails for the Senate. In Reagan’s 1984 landslide, for example, Republicans lost a seat in the Senate. With other liberal GOP Senators such as Lincoln Chafee being even less likely to support a conservative judge for the high court, Santorum believed that Republicans could not spare a seat and could not risk nominating Toomey.

While Santorum admits that endorsing Specter was a mistake, he may have been right about Toomey’s inability to win in 2004. In the greatest GOP Congressional Victory in two generations, Toomey managed to eek out a 51-49% illustrating the challenges conservatives face in Pennsylvania. In 2004, the odds would have been far less favorable for him, and he probably would have lost given the power and influence of big labor in that State. On the other hand, Santorum was wrong about the need to keep Specter. Even if Toomey had lost, the GOP picked up four Senate seats and would have been able to move its judicial nominees anyway.
While Santorum’s endorsement wasn’t one I agree with, it was not out of the ordinary. Santorum endorsed a fellow senator of his own party for re-election in home state. Compare this to Newt Gingrich’s strident campaigning for liberal Republican Dede Scozzafava with bitter attacks on conservatives who supported Conservative Doug Hoffman. Gingrich, like Romney could have stayed out of race as the Georgian’s involvement was hardly required in an upstate New York House race. For the record, in that race, Santorum endorsed Hoffman.

Finally, there’s the issue of Santorum’s big re-election loss in 2006. Santorum had won as a fairly conservative member in a blue district in the House and then in a Blue State. However, a perfect storm came together in 2006. Santorum had been a strong supporter of President Bush on issues like Social Security and the War on Terror and the President was quite unpopular in Pennsylvania. 2006 was an incredible year for Democrats, many conservatives were sore over Santorum’s endorsement of Specter, so money and resources didn’t come as freely. In addition, even Republicans who may have wanted to come to Santorum’s aide were challenged by the numerous Republican incumbents in trouble who appeared to have a better chance of survival than Santorum.

In the fall, Santorum faced the son of a famous and well-regarded state political family who apparent shared Senator Santorum’s pro-life views and picked up a quarter of pro-life voters. To top that all off, the full force of organized labor came out against him, and Senator Santorum lost by a wide margin.

However, he wasn’t the only one to go down in a land in 2006. In Massachusetts where Republicans had held the Governor’s Mansion for sixteen years Mitt Romney endorsed his own Lieutenant Governor to succeed him. She lost by twenty-two points, which may be suggestive of the opinion the people of Massachusetts held of her boss.

Of course, making extrapolations from one of the most anti-Republican elections in history about viability in national election is unwise and unfair. The one election Santorum lost in the midst of a perfect storm in favor of his opponent should not cause us to forget how he was able to survive and thrive in a political environment that was very difficult for a conservative Republican.

Every candidate will have negatives and issues with which we disagree with them on, but we ultimately must weight positive and negatives to render a fair judgment on a candidate. Not only with Senator Santorum, but others in this race. In the next letter, we turn our attention to the former Speaker of the House and the question of character.

NBC/WSJ 2012 Presidential Poll

REPUBLICAN NOMINATION

• Newt Gingrich 37% [40%] {13%} (8%) [5%] {8%} (6%) [11%] {13%} (10%)
• Mitt Romney 28% [23%] {28%} (23%) [23%] {30%} (30%) [21%] {21%} (19%)
• Rick Santorum 18% [3%] {2%} (1%) [3%] {3%} (4%) [3%] {2%} (3%)
• Ron Paul 12% [9%] {10%} (11%) [9%] {9%} (7%)

Now, if you were voting today in the 2012 Republican primary for president, and the candidates were Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, which one would you favor?

• Newt Gingrich 52% [59%]
  
• Mitt Romney 39% [36%]

(more…)

Hat-tip: The Argo Journal

The Morning Call Story that’s been quoted so much does not directly quote Senator Santorum. However, video of Senator Santorum talking about his views on health care does exist thanks to C-Span. It’s also not embeddable (again, thanks to C-Span.) However, I’ve selected the  relevant portion of the debate (watch here) where Santorum discusses his views on what health care reform should look like. He says, “You can’t force every American to do something they don’t want to do,” and argues for choice and health savings accounts, pretty much the exact same position he holds today.

Well, what do we make of this quote from the Morning Call:

Santorum and Watkins would require individuals to buy health insurance rather than forcing employers to pay for employee benefits.

There are no quotes and its very unclear as to what policy exactly was advocated here by either candidate. Most likely, the candidates appear to have opposed forcing employers to provide health insurance with people responsible for their own health care. Certainly, Santorum will need explain it for certain, but all the Santorum opponents hooping and hollering over this  are truly making much ado about the fact that the Morning Call had a reporter who turned in a sloppy report back in 1994.

PPP (D) Minnesota 2012 Presidential Poll

• Barack Obama 51% [51%] (47%)
• Mitt Romney 41% [36%] (42%)

• Barack Obama 52%
• Rick Santorum 40%

• Barack Obama 51%
• Ron Paul 38%

• Barack Obama 54% [54%] (51%)
• Newt Gingrich 39% [36%] (38%)

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Rick Santorum 30% / 50% {-20%}
• Ron Paul 29% / 53% {-24%}
• Mitt Romney 29% [29%] (32%) / 56% [53%] (42%) {-27%}
• Newt Gingrich 27% [17%] (30%) / 60% [65%] (52%) {-33%}

Do you approve or disapprove of Barack Obama’s job performance?

• Approve 49% [51%] (49%)
• Disapprove 45% [44%] (46%)

Survey of 1,236 Minnesota voters was conducted January 21-22, 2012. The margin of error is +/- 2.8 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 36% [38%] (37%) Democrat; 33% [31%] (34%) Republican; 32% [31%] (29%) Independent/Other. Political ideology: 29% [29%] Moderate; 22% [25%] Somewhat conservative; 22% [20%] Somewhat liberal; 16% [15%] Very conservative; 11% [11%] Very liberal.  Results from the poll conducted May 27-30, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted December 4-5, 2010 are in parentheses.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

BOOM:

Rick Santorum supported the idea of “requir[ing] individuals to buy health insurance” when he ran for U.S. Senate in 1994, according to a local feature article comparing the candidates during that election cycle.

“Santorum and [his opponent] would require individuals to buy health insurance rather than forcing employers to pay for employee benefits,” The Morning Call (Pa.) reported in 1994. The Morning Call noted that Santorum had also called for a MediSave account and had opposed so-called “sin” taxes.

If true, the distinction between requiring people to buy health insurance and an individual mandate might be lost on the voters who have heard Santorum excoriate Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich for their support of the individual mandate — which, in Gingrich’s case, dates back to the early 90s.

Hat-tip to Beltway Confidential.

Here is an excerpt from the original report dated May 2nd, 1994:

Santorum and Watkins would require individuals to buy health insurance rather than forcing employers to pay for employee benefits. Both oppose abortion services and support limits on malpractice awards. Santorum says non-economic damages should not exceed $250,000, adjusted annually for inflation, and lawyers’ contingency fees should be capped at 25 percent.

Hat tip: Massachusetts Conservative

Here’s the teaser:

When it comes to debates, which have had an outsized effect on polls and on primary and election results, it was a role-reversal for Gingrich and Romney, and something that Gingrich needs to remedy Thursday night.

“Voters can smell fear and they can smell confidence. Newt has been displaying confidence, strength, even having fun in these debates. He needs to continue that. That’s the mark of a leader,” says Alex Castellanos, a GOP strategist and CNN contributor.

With five days to go until the primary, the CNN/Time/ORC poll indicates that a quarter of likely primary voters say they may change their mind on which candidate they are backing, which makes the debate a final chance for the candidates to reach a statewide audience, as well as viewers across the nation. The economy — and jobs in particular — the housing crisis, which is particularly acute in Florida, illegal immigration and health care reform are topics likely to be debated during the showdown.
But undecided voters might be tuned into more than just the issues.

“There is only a smidgeon of difference between Gingrich and Romney on issues. That means they are going to draw differences on personal qualities and character: Who is the stronger leader? Who is a flawed vessel for the nation’s hopes and fears?” added Castellanos, who was a top media adviser for Romney’s 2008 nomination bid but who is not taking sides this cycle.

“Voters don’t know what tests a president will face, but they do know he’ll be tested. When picking a president, how a leader reacts under pressure is more important than issues. Romney should not appear stressed or uncertain on the attack. He needs to display confidence and be a joyous warrior, like Gingrich.”
Gingrich’s campaign was left for dead after early stumbles in May and June, but he came back and soared to front-runner status in polling in late November and early December. But he faltered again, with poor showings in the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, before mounting a second comeback in South Carolina.
That made Romney’s path to the nomination a lot tougher now that it was a week ago.

“Romney must think these debates are ‘The Night of Living Dead,’ ” Castellanos said. “Newt Gingrich keeps rising from the grave every few weeks to challenge him. And every time he does, he’s a little harder to dispatch. Wooden stakes and silver bullets don’t seem to stop Gingrich. He keeps coming back.”

Need to watch the debate online? Watch it on CNN.com/Live or CNN’s mobile apps.

And as always… Have at it in the comments!

Hat-tip: The Argo Journal

One of my favorite Congressmen, Rep. Erik Paulsen, announced his support for Mitt Romney today. Here’s a snippet from the press release:

“It’s an honor to receive Congressman Paulsen’s support,” said Mitt Romney. “He has served Minnesota well, both in Congress and in the State Legislature. He understands business and job creation, having spent many years in the private sector. I am proud he’s joining my team and I look forward to working with him to bring my message to all Minnesotans.”

Announcing his support, Congressman Paulsen said, “These are tough times for our country. We need a president who will lead on key issues like tax reform, energy, spending, and, most of all, getting Americans back to work. Mitt Romney has the proven leadership and experience to put our country back on the path toward economic certainty and stability. I look forward to working with Mitt Romney over the next year to ensure his victory in November.”

Congressman Erik Paulsen was elected to the Minnesota State House in 1994, served as Majority Leader from 2003-2007, and in 2008 was elected to the United States House of Representatives. He is a member of the House Ways & Means Committee where he serves on the Select Revenue, Oversight, and Human Resources Subcommittees. Erik and his wife live with their four daughters in Eden Prairie.

There has already been some discussion in the various media concerning Newt’s principal source of SuperPAC support.  Las Vegas casino magnate Sheldon Adelson is reported to have already contributed $10+ million (with more likely to come) to the Gingrich effort in one way or another.  Regardless of what anyone thinks about the merits, or the free-speech rights, of the SuperPAC’s, when one individual (or individual and spouse) contribute $10+ million to a presidential campaign effort attention is warranted.  This is not to suggest that there is anything illegal or unethical, rather it is that in politics money buys influence regardless of party, philosophy or whatever—it’s just a fact.  Yesterday, CBS News profiled Newt’s largest contributor, and because some might suggest that he is largely responsible for the Gingrich campaign’s viability, the profile is worth a look:

Rasmussen 2012 Daily Presidential Tracking Poll

• Barack Obama 46% (46%) {46%} [45%] (44%)
• Mitt Romney 43% (43%) {43%} [43%] (44%)

• Barack Obama 48% (48%) {49%} [48%] (47%)
• Newt Gingrich 41% (41%) {40%} [39%] (40%)

Survey of 1,500 likely voters was conducted January 23-25, 2012.  The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points.  Daily tracking results are collected via telephone surveys of 500 likely voters per night and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. To reach those who have abandoned traditional landline telephones, Rasmussen Reports uses an online survey tool to interview randomly selected participants from a demographically diverse panel. Results from the poll conductedJanuary 22-24, 2012 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted January 21-23, 2012 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted January 20-22, 2012 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted January 19-21, 2012 are in parentheses.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

David Brody reports:

[Newt Gingrich] goes on to say that, “it may make me more normal than somebody who wanders around seeming perfect and maybe not understanding the human condition, and the challenges of life for normal people.” (Dig at Romney???)

Yup, Mitt Romney is definitely the odd one. Just imagine being 100% faithful to your one and only wife. That’s just plain weird.

Come to think of it, Rick Santorum has the same problem, doesn’t he? So does Ron Paul. It would seem then that according to Newt Gingrch, the only truly “normal” person running for President is good ol’ Newt himself.

Wasn’t this the same guy who declared that he only cheated on his wife because he was working so hard for his country?

Hat-tip: The Argo Journal

Gallup has released their daily tracking poll for 1/26. As usual, the graphics are courtesy of Gallup:

Newt Gingrich is still in the lead holding steady at 31%. After rising 18 points in nine days, he hasn’t budged an inch in two days.

Mitt Romney resumes his slide with a three point drop to 25%. That is a 12 point drop in ten days, and it leaves him six points behind Gingrich.

Ron Paul and Rick Santorum remain tied for third place. They do manage to increase their support by one point apiece. That brings them both to 13%. That is within 18 points of Gingrich and 12 points of Romney.

Monmouth University Florida 2012 GOP Primary Poll

• Mitt Romney 39%
• Newt Gingrich 32%
• Rick Santorum 11%
• Ron Paul 8%
• Undecided 7%

(more…)

It appears that many conservative activists are now having to look themselves in the mirror and ask:  Do we want to win, move the ball and actually accomplish something constructive; or, do we want to just emote, fight, make a lot of noise, and lose.

Many in the Conservative Media, and assorted other activists, have decided it’s time to speak out and tell what those of us who have seen him up close know to be the real Newt.  A nice summary can be found at the following link to Politico.  There are several pieces to this story, together with sublinks, that make for interesting reading.  The links to related stories as reported by Drudge can be found here.

For obvious personal reasons, I find some of the accounts by former Reagan Administration officials to be particularly notable since, according to Newt, he was the Right Hand of Reagan coaching him on the development of the strategic policies that revived the economy and won the Cold War.  Yet, here is what former Assistant Secretary of State and former National Security Council senior staff member, Elliott Abrams, had to say in National Review.  Abrams’ account is consistent with my own recollections of Newt during the ’80s.

If the most recent trends in Florida polling are accurate, folks are once again catching on to “The Great Manipulator.”   At times a British perspective on things American can be both amusing and accurate such as this recent quote from The Economist.

That Mr Gingrich is a cartoon of a corrupt demagogue doesn’t seem much to matter. Not only do conservatives believe Mr Gingrich feels their pain, they believe he seeks their revenge. That’s thrilling.  Mr Romney’s challenge tonight is to talk conservatives down from the ledge without worsening his position by insulting them for climbing up there with Newt in the first place.

Race42012′s CNN/Republican Party of Florida Presidential Debate Open Forum will go live at 7:30pm EST. The debate can be watched online at CNN Politics.

Quinnipiac Florida 2012 Presidential Poll

• Barack Obama 44% [46%] {43%} (42%) [42%] {40%} (44%) [46%]
• Mitt Romney 44% [45%] {46%} (45%) [45%] {47%} (44%) [41%]

• Barack Obama 47% [51%] {45%}
• Rick Santorum 41% [40%] {43%}

• Barack Obama 47% [52%] (46%) [45%]
• Newt Gingrich 40% [39%] (44%) [42%]

• Barack Obama 46% [47%]
• Ron Paul 38% [41%]

(more…)

Romney lead confirmed:

Rasmussen Florida 2012 Republican Primary Survey

• Mitt Romney – 39% (32) (41)
• Newt Gingrich – 31% (41) (19)
• Rick Santorum – 12% (11) (15)
• Ron Paul – 9% (8) (9)
• Undecided – 7% (9) (8)

This Florida survey of 750 Likely Republican Primary Voters was conducted on January 25. The margin of sampling error is +/-4%. Numbers from the Rasmussen polls conducted Jan 22 and Jan 11 are in parentheses.

Dear Fellow Conservatives,

Having examined in the last letter, Senator Santorum’s proposals, we turn to the issue of Santorum’s character and capacity to be President.

The Senator made a remarkable case for himself on Monday. Using an absurd question from moderator Brian Williams, Santorum reminded the audience of big picture issues that separate the candidates in the race. Both Gingrich and Romney had spoke up for Cap and Trade, and the Wall Street bail out. Gingrich spent twenty years advocating for an individual mandate and RomneyCare served as a template for Obamacare.  Santorum has been right from the beginning on all three vital issues and reminded voters:

Again, huge, huge differences between my position and where President Obama is, but not so on two major issues. You go down and you look at the Wall Street bailouts, I said before, here’s one where you had folks who preach conservativism, private sector, and when push came to shove, they got pushed. They didn’t stand tall for the conservative principles that they argued that they were for. And as a result, we ended up with this bailout that has injected government into business like it had never been done before.

They rejected conservativism when it was hard to stand. It’s going to be hard to stand whoever this president is going to be elected. It’s going to be tough. There is going to be a mountain of problems. It’s going to be easy to be able to bail out and compromise your principles.

We have gentlemen here on the three issues that got the Tea Party started, that are the base of the conservative movement now in the Republican Party. And there is no difference between President Obama and these two gentlemen. And that’s why this election in Florida is so critical, that we have someone that actually can create a contrast between the president and the conservative point of view.

It’s worth remembering more just our angst against Obama, but what has caused the rise of the Tea Party movement, and that is the mass betrayal of conservative values, which set the stage for the massive growth of government we’ve seen in the past four years. We must have a President who will stand firm and not shrink in the face of adversity.

Santorum described himself in another debate, “I’m not the most flamboyant, and I don’t get the biggest applause lines here. But I’m steady. I’m solid.”

Steady, solid, and steadfast may not be the words that create great excitement, but they are exactly the character traits we need in a President in these times.

Santorum, once he commits to an effort is relentless in the fight, regardless of the personal cost to him. The typical political advice to a swing state Senator would be told to avoid going to bat on social issues, as if God wanted him to speak out on social issues he would have been elected in Texas.

Santorum didn’t come to Washington with the intent of leading the fight against partial birth abortion. When he delivered his first speech on the issue in 1995, it was his first time giving a major speech on abortion. He would spend the next eight years leading that floor fight, often standing alone in the wee hours of the night debating an emotionally difficult issue.

He stood firm for the rights of the unborn and for traditional values, and for it he and his family have been subjected to the vilest attacks from the far left on him and his family, but yet he stands firm. He has done the same thing on other issues including Social Security Reform where his advocacy of necessary changes has not made him popular with the AARP.

Santorum’s experience in standing firm is relevant because he was right because that’s what we need. Fundamentally, the solutions to our country’s problems are not hard to solve. But it’s hard to pursue these solutions in the case of a strong headwind. We need a President who can stand firm in the face of savage opposition to purse the changes that our necessary to preserve our country’s economic future.

Santorum is the only candidate in this race with a proven record of political courage.

He’s also a straight shooter, who doesn’t play political games in the truth. Quin Hilyer of National Review wrote, “It strikes me that Rick Santorum is about the most determinedly anti-political top-level politician I’ve ever witnessed. No matter what state he is debating in, he refuses to find some wiggle room on issues where his position is at odds with a deeply held local position.” Rick Santorum is the same person and the same candidate whether he’s speaking in Iowa or Florida.

Long time conservative activist Dennis Mansfield followed Santorum through his rise to power and to his defeat and happened upon him in a lobby of a hotel standing alone and unrecognized, an uncomfortable state for many ego-driven politicians. Mansfield observed, “It did not seem to bother him at all. He looked like a man at peace with himself – not caring if anyone recognized him at all.” You can be at a piece, even with a lost, when  you have stood firm and fought for what you believed to be right,

Supporters of Speaker Newt Gingrich have championed the idea that the Speaker’s greatest strength is his ability as a debater. I will concede that Newt would win the debates on points, but political debate wins on points are not decisive, A.J. Nolte pointed out recently, Alan Keyes won all three of his debates with Barack Obama was swamped by more than forty points.

We’re not electing a debate club champion or America’s top talk show guest, we’re electing a President. Having a nominee that will smackdown and disrespect the sitting President of the United States on national television is viscerally appealing to conservatives, but it won’t help win the election or change the country. It doesn’t look presidential to those voters who will pick the president.

In the course of the primary debates, Santorum has been steady, knowledgeable, and principled with no major errors. He’s been steady and consistent. He can deliver firm and clear answers and offer Americans a clear choice in the general election.

Mr. Gingrich and many other candidates have played taken turns playing the role of the hare in the classic Aesop fable, while Mr. Santorum has been the tortoise, consistent and steady in the face of long odds. I can only hope that real life lives up to the fable.

Of course, no candidate is perfect and Senator Santorum is no exception. In our next number, we’ll examine some of Senator Santorum’s negatives.

In Florida, a very boisterous large man, spoke passionately about going to the moon:

Oops, wrong video.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

In all seriousness, this illustrates one of Newt’s many problems: lack of focus. As Herman Cain said, “First, make sure you’re working on the right problem.” With crushing annual deficits of more than $1 trillion, impending failure of entitlements, and large trade deficits with China, the lack of lunar colonies would not appear to be the problem we should be working on. This belongs on the list of, “Things that would be nice if we weren’t up to our necks in debt.”

You know those personal friends Newt offered to ABC who were willing to go on the record and say Newt didn’t ask Marianne for an open marriage…ABC was never offered anything other than the daughters from the first marriage, who were used in the story. It’ll be interesting to see if its brought up in tomorrow’s debate. Somehow, I doubt it. It’s old news now.

Warning: This is a lengthy piece and Beck pads it bit. Keeping to FDR, Wilson, and maybe Teddy Roosevelt would make sense (after all John McCain also declared himself a Teddy Roosevelt Republican.) Going into Andrew Jackson was just a little bit silly, but Glenn is a bit ADD and admits it.

What the clip illustrates is how Gingrich has redefined himself to appear more conservative. These shifts, when also coupled with shifts on carbon emissions and individual mandates for health care suggests an image remake almost as dramatic as Mitt Romney’s. Romney supporters often point out that Romney’s past statements were made while seeking office in one of the country’s most liberal states. While I don’t like the excuse, it’s something.

How does Newt serving as a Congressman from Georgia and running for leader of House Conservatives require him to take such viewpoints? Gingrich has decided quite intentionally to deceive the primary electorate about what his belief and record is and try make us believe its something else.

Meanwhile Stu, the show’s producer, has an interesting blog post in which he ponders Newt supporters who allege Gingrich is the most electable candidate notes that Gingrich not only has the lowest favorability rating in the field, but has ratings lower than Pelosi and Reid, and loses to Barack Obama by the highest margin. Notes Stu:

To me, this is how the race shakes out:

If you want the most libertarian, vote Paul.

If you want the most conservative, vote Santorum.

If you want the most electable, vote Romney.

Where exactly does Newt fit in?