CBS News/New York Times GOP Nomination
Among Republican Primary Voters
• Rick Santorum 30% (16%)
• Mitt Romney 27% (28%)
• Ron Paul 12% (15%)
• Newt Gingrich 10% (21%)Among Conservative Voters
• Rick Santorum 38% (24%)
• Mitt Romney 24% (25%)
• Newt Gingrich 12% (25%)
• Ron Paul 5% (10%)(Results from January survey in parenthesis)
This poll was conducted by telephone from February 8-13, 2012 among 1,197 adults nationwide. 1,064 interviews were conducted with registered voters and 331 with voters who said they plan to vote in a Republican primary. Phone numbers were dialed from samples of both standard land-line and cell phones. The error due to sampling for results based on the entire sample could be plus or minus three percentage points. The margin of error for the sample of registered voters could be plus or minus three points and five points for the sample of Republican primary voters. The error for subgroups may be higher. This poll release conforms to the Standards of Disclosure of the National Council on Public Polls.
February 14th, 2012 at 8:34 am
Gingrich has hit his floor and Santorum STILL can’t take a substantial lead on Romney.
February 14th, 2012 at 8:36 am
Not for long. Debates and vetting coming. Chuck Norris is coming.
February 14th, 2012 at 8:38 am
Santorum will start to come back down. Romney isn’t going to blow the rest of the field out of the water anymore, unfortunately, But Santorum is just about at his peak: Prior to vetting, he gets about 1/3 of the electorate. Romney starts campaigning in Michigan tomorrow, so things should start to turn around for him.
February 14th, 2012 at 8:38 am
“Not for long. Debates and vetting coming. Chuck Norris is coming.”
Great- then the Santorum support heads back to Newt, and we end up in a mess even worse than the one we are in now.
February 14th, 2012 at 8:39 am
Mr. Kilburn makes about the most honest observation I’ve read in a while from a Romney supporter in our comments section.
February 14th, 2012 at 8:41 am
MassCon,
Come now, you’re an honest broker.
How could you possibly know that Newt can’t drop any more? And how can you be so dismissive of Rick’s non-”substantial” lead considering where he was just a week ago? And how can you be so certain of both that you would go all bold?
Seems to me that you’re trying to convince yourself.
February 14th, 2012 at 8:41 am
#4. That’s assuming Newt could get the momentum back again. The moon man thing killed him. Regardless of what happens to Santorum, Newt will benefit very little.
February 14th, 2012 at 8:43 am
#4 Tommy,
“Great- then the Santorum support heads back to Newt, and we end up in a mess even worse than the one we are in now.”
No problem, as long as they keep spliting the Conserv vote Mitt will cruise to the nomination. I admit it gets more difficult if either Newt or Rick drop out but both are to thick headed to do that. After Mitt wins the nomination he will pick a “severely” conservative VP, one that will fire up the GOP and all will be forgotten….then we can start to focus on Obama and taking the Whitehouse.
February 14th, 2012 at 8:44 am
#6 Nope, Mass Con is just recognizing repeating patterns. Surge and fall. The national public hasn’t been really looking at nor heard Santorum open his mouth and spout his gaffes, nor has anyone really vetted Santorum. Sympathy for Bella will only last so long.
Pattern: Surge then don’t survive the vetting and public scrutiny.
February 14th, 2012 at 8:48 am
If the GOP runs Santorum, a guy who can’t even get on the ballot in key states during the primary, and who can’t raise much of any money to compete against Obama, then we are asking to just basically concede the election.
Santorum will be taken out by huge ad campaigns that he will not be able to respond to long before the voters focus on the race (much like Bob Dole 1996 was hammered with campaign commercials from Clinton and could hardly fight back).
Good luck with that one. See you in 2016…
February 14th, 2012 at 8:50 am
I guess we’ll see. The Anybody But Romney folks have been desperate to find “somebody else.” All their hopeful candidates proved to be entirely unacceptable as POTUS. While one can debate the merits of Mitt over Santorum or vice versa, I don’t know of anything that completely disqualifies Santorum–so the ABRs may have found their man “for reals” this time.
Of course he hasn’t been vetted yet, but even as he is, will those revelations truly dissuade voters who are determined not to vote for Romney no matter what?
February 14th, 2012 at 8:50 am
6
Gingrich’s floor, EVEN DURING his collapse in the summer, was 8-12% in every RCP average.
Every candidate has a floor, some have a floor higher than others. To know someone’s floor, look when they collapsed.
Mitt’s floor is 17-20%, when Rick Perry entered the race and took the nomination – for 3 weeks.
Santorum’s floor is 10-15%, when he fell back down to earth after “losing” Iowa (it was not known until it was too late that he had won), New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida.
Gingrich’s floor is 8-12%, look at his “right wing social engineering”/tiffany’s/book scam revelation/mandate support on MTP/staff resignations/etc period during the summer.
February 14th, 2012 at 8:50 am
I expect Newt to have a Strong debate in a week, and for it to confuse the field enough for Mitt to win MI and AZ.
Mitt will debate strongly too.
Rick will whine, and bray like a Jackass.
February 14th, 2012 at 8:51 am
6
And to add confirmation, Noot hit 15% after losing IA and NH and making a fool of himself for going nuclear.
February 14th, 2012 at 8:51 am
Combine that with the fact that it was the Santorum Congress that spent the surplus and grew spending more than 8% annually and you have a candidate with no credibility on spending and deficits one of the most important issues in this campaign.
And he is supposed to be a tea party candidate?
The three other candidates running all have far better fiscal records.
February 14th, 2012 at 8:52 am
Ironic. the man with the ‘highest’ polling today, is NOT the man with the most delegates! Nor is the man on EVERY states ballot!
Sumthn’s not quite right
February 14th, 2012 at 8:54 am
By far the most effective issues against Obama is spending and deficits. Easily. We need a credible candidate on those issues.
February 14th, 2012 at 8:55 am
Santorum is not on the ballot in Virginia or Indiana, two states he would win if he were on the ballot. That’s rough.
February 14th, 2012 at 8:55 am
Mitt needs to start running a lot of ads attacking Mrs. Santo, as many a wise and perspicacious Rombot pointed out in an earlier thread.
February 14th, 2012 at 9:04 am
I predict that cooler heads will prevail once the Santorum vetting begins and Romney’s conservative message starts hitting home. This lull over the next few days is a plus for Romney. Money and organization will take a toll on the others unless the DNC secretly funds the career politicians haha (Ron Paul is fine with cash). Romney will win AZ and MI and then Super Tuesday will come and it will be back to Romney taking this home. Romney has already proven that he will do what’s necessary to vett his opponents. Too many in this party have underestimated his resolve and grittiness. There is really only so much the media (conservative and MSM) can do to ignore the jobs they should be doing to vett candidates.
February 14th, 2012 at 9:04 am
#19 MarqueG
You have to be the biggest moron on this board….geeez
February 14th, 2012 at 9:06 am
The competition is stiff, but I’m not ready to concede just yet.
February 14th, 2012 at 9:08 am
22 – Then you should have a better argument for your guy then what you just blurted out in 19. You can only go so far with the arguments AGAINST the other guy named ROMNEY. Career DC politician, or PURE conservative isn’t gonna cut it.
February 14th, 2012 at 9:08 am
Mitt needs to contrast himself with Santorum not attack negatively.
Romney the candidate who fought to keep spending growth below the rate of inflation in Mass (at 2.2% annually according to the CFG)with more than 800 vetoes (most of which were overridden)
or vote for the candidate that was part of the GOP class that lost their way during the Bush years – Santorum the candidate who with the help of Congress spent the surplus of the 1990′s, grew spending more than 8% annually, ran up massive deficits and then were drummed out of office in 2006 because of it.
Your choice Tea Party, what is it going to be?
February 14th, 2012 at 9:09 am
Marque,
“Mitt needs to start running a lot of ads attacking Mrs. Santo, as many a wise and perspicacious Rombot pointed out in an earlier thread.”
I dunno’. I think maybe Mitt should go after Rick’s religion (just to show us what the left would make of it…. of course) as other sagely circumspective Rombots have hinted.
February 14th, 2012 at 9:11 am
Marque,
“The competition is stiff, but I’m not ready to concede just yet.”
Don’t drop out yet!
Anything can happen, especially if there is a brokered convention. The Rombots are split about 8 different ways, so anything can happen, as long as they’re divided.
February 14th, 2012 at 9:12 am
#22 MarqueG
“The competition is stiff, but I’m not ready to concede just yet.”
LOL, Great point!…One moron regurgitating what another moron says still makes you a moron….Keep posting, I’m sure you’re at the top of the moron leader board
February 14th, 2012 at 9:12 am
25
It seems you take far more pleasure out of pointing out Rombot hypocrisy than you do from analysis or pro or anti-candidate spin.
February 14th, 2012 at 9:12 am
Dream on Rombots… dream on. Romney is goin down and Santorum is going up and this trend will only continue. Romney’s day is done as most conservatives are finally just ‘saying no’ to the ‘Man with a Thousand Faces.’ It’s over folks. Nothing Romney can do can change that fact. No bounce from CPAC, no momentum carried over from Maine, no amount of money spent on attack ads, no endorsements…nothing can help Romney now. For Romney there awaits only an ever-increasing spiral downward to oblivion… Goodbye Mitt Romney…we hardly knew ye. God bless you.
February 14th, 2012 at 9:13 am
#25 Romney is too classy for that, unlike some other un-sagely souls here on this forum.
February 14th, 2012 at 9:14 am
2012 Republican Presidential Nomination
Polling Data Trends
Poll Date Sample MoE Santorum Romney Gingrich Paul Spread
RCP Average 2/6 – 2/13 — – 30.2 28.6 16.4 12.0 Santorum +1.6
CBS News/NY Times 2/8 – 2/13 331 RV 5.0 30 27 10 12 Santorum +3
Pew Research 2/8 – 2/12 552 RV 5.0 30 28 17 12 Santorum +2
Gallup Tracking 2/8 – 2/12 1200 RV 4.0 30 32 16 8 Romney +2
FOX News 2/6 – 2/9 407 RV 5.0 23 33 22 15 Romney +10
February 14th, 2012 at 9:15 am
You wish Jerry!
February 14th, 2012 at 9:15 am
29
LOL!
February 14th, 2012 at 9:15 am
MassCon,
I see what you mean by “floor” now. But floors and ceilings were made to be broken. What the previous floors lacked was repeated electoral failure by Newt, and repeated electoral success from a Not Romney rival.
I don’t think there is good enough reason to assume Newt can’t/won’t completely collapse. And even if he doesn’t, there’s no good reason to assume Rick can’t get more votes from Romney. Mitt’s shrinking support in Gallup is going somewhere, just like his ’08 voters in MN, CO, MO, and ME.
February 14th, 2012 at 9:16 am
#29 On top of “biggest moron” is there a competition for village idiot, or did that die out with Craig? Which one were you going for?
February 14th, 2012 at 9:16 am
25 – Yeah that’s funny go after Santorum’s religion. No one has a problem in this party with specific religions right? Romney doesn’t wear his on his sleeve to pander to others. He tried to get them to understand that he’s no different from them Socially and that he’s come their way politically. They liked that he was kissing their a**es, but there are a select few who get to have hands laid on them on national TV on a Sunday from this party. But again, let’s not let the details of that get in the way of conservatism Socon style. Hypocrisy on full display. Let’s not be so smug there MWS.
February 14th, 2012 at 9:17 am
22.
MG,
You’ll have to step up your game, pal..
I Shall NEVER give up that hard earned badge of honor from the Rombot Libs without a fight!
February 14th, 2012 at 9:17 am
#31
Is that Craig in drag? Thought he crawled back under his rock when Newt disintegrated….but post #31 reeks of Craig for losers
February 14th, 2012 at 9:18 am
MassCon,
“It seems you take far more pleasure out of pointing out Rombot hypocrisy than you do from analysis or pro or anti-candidate spin.”
It depends on my mood. Today, I’m enjoying the sublime contemplation of the ever-expanding limits of hypocrisy.
But who knows? In an hour or two, the muse may depart, just as swiftly and unexpectedly as she came.
February 14th, 2012 at 9:18 am
Ray,
Craig returned after Rick’s romp last week.
February 14th, 2012 at 9:20 am
Mom,
“Romney is too classy for that, unlike some other un-sagely souls here on this forum.”
I know. I was just sending a message to Those Who Know Who They Are.
February 14th, 2012 at 9:20 am
Mitt’s inevitability campaign is in tatters. He’s proving to be the right guy at the wrong time.
He’s been hoping to run as Mr. Conservative Businessman, which most folks will find to be either redundant or, for those on the Left, repugnant. He’s loaded when the sitting president wants to run against fat-cat one-percenters. His economic plan offers up 59 points of moderatism. He has run to the left with Mediscare and to the right on immigration. Now that Sibelius has made ObamaCare into an issue, Mitt’s doubling-down on RomneyCare is proving to be an Achilles Heel.
For a general election match-up that be about broad ideals and principles, Mitt offers nothing. Santo, in contrast, has articulated the ObamaCare issue as a First Amendment issue and an issue of unconstitutional government overreach. Santo’s budget proposals appeal to working class folks and business owners, neutralizing O’s attempts to pander there, while Mitt offers little in the way of unqualified specifics. Now that Iran is all over the news, Santo can point to a record of Senate leadership there.
It looks to me that Santo is probably turning out to be better positioned for a general election fight than Mitt, whose sole argument has been that he won’t scare away indies, where his own negative campaigning have put him deep underwater.
Too bad, Mitt. Try again in 2016 or 2020.
February 14th, 2012 at 9:21 am
#39 MWS
Still, one cannot miss that both the pot and the kettle are black.
February 14th, 2012 at 9:22 am
ConGlad,
Please complete the following statement:
It is perfectly legitimate to attack Santorum’s religious beliefs because……….
February 14th, 2012 at 9:22 am
#40
Thanks Matt, I wasn’t aware that he has reappeared…..Did he officially endorse Rick? If so then Santorums fate is sealed.
February 14th, 2012 at 9:24 am
42
Um, that’s not going to happen.
And if it did, the mouth-breathing froth-drinkers (yes, Santorum froth) will still be angry with Mitt for becoming pro-life 15 years prior. He will never be forgiven for becoming pro-life.
February 14th, 2012 at 9:24 am
Ray,
Not officially, thank God. But in just about all other ways.
Intrade now closely tracks the degree of his endorsements. Currently it sits at “Strong, but unofficial” on the carefully monitored, color coded chart. This prompted heavy selling of Santorum.
February 14th, 2012 at 9:25 am
MWS,
Please complete the following statement:
It is perfectly legitimate to attack “__________” religious beliefs because……….
You’re one of the least legitimate souls to harp on this point.
February 14th, 2012 at 9:26 am
Among Conservative [Hey, that's music to my ears!] Voters
• Rick Santorum 38% (24%) ..
• Mitt Romney 24% (25%) ..”Have you ever heard of Sununu, O’Donnell, Cris?… Morons”
• Newt Gingrich 12% (25%) ..
• Ron Paul 5% (10%) ..MPC, eat your heart out!
February 14th, 2012 at 9:26 am
At this point, Mitt’s only hope of being accepted by the goalpoast-movers is to run for governor of New Hampshire and govern more Conservatively because he would be able to there.
February 14th, 2012 at 9:26 am
#47
LMAO!
February 14th, 2012 at 9:27 am
Mom,
If you are calling me a pot or a kettle, please remind me of any time I suggested that Mitt’s religion should be attacked (except in the context of exposing hypocrisy).
February 14th, 2012 at 9:28 am
48.
Isn’t ir to early in the morning to play your daily Mormon card on a political forum?
It’s 7:28 here in California, the land of sunny Mormons, Catholics, and Me!
February 14th, 2012 at 9:28 am
MarqueG,
Comment 42# is one of the greatest post ever written. I’m not being sarcastic. You have completely nailed the state of the race as it sits currently. You wrote exactly what I have been trying to say for three days, but I don’t have the skill level to do so.
I thank you for your comment, although it leaves little room for SMACKDADDY to make any valuable contributions today at RACE42012.
For anyone who missed it, please do yourself a favor and read comment 42#.
Brilliant!
February 14th, 2012 at 9:29 am
*it too ..told ya [...yawn...]
February 14th, 2012 at 9:30 am
42. I take the longer view. Mitt to grow the economy and Rick to grow the base, (natural consequence of successfully reducing use of contraceptives). Mitt could be the President, Rick could be the anti-vice President, a new post he has been preparing for all of his life.
February 14th, 2012 at 9:31 am
Romney needs to be using the latest news out of Europe to show the US is headed down the same path. He is the only one with the leadership and turn around background. He has consistently fix things throughout his career. He needs to be specific and bold with the hints he would do to keep this from happening here and point out why the others aren’t up to the job. Santorum/Gingrich have been part of the problem. Mostly though, he needs to get people to understand he is the only one that can keep the US from facing the same fate as Europe and turn this country’s economy/finances around.
February 14th, 2012 at 9:31 am
RayinRI Says:
No problem, as long as they keep spliting the Conserv vote Mitt will cruise to the nomination.
===
I love honest Rombots. So rare..so refreshing
February 14th, 2012 at 9:34 am
45 and 47 – No you’re wrong. Here is Craig’s official obituary:
1.Real (I’m talkin’ SEVERELY!) Conservative Says:
February 13th, 2012 at 6:50 pm
Norris and I are both Hucknuts AND Newtnuts.
Go So-Cons!
Santorum/Newt
or
Santorum/Huck
and
Willard never gets near the White House EVER!
Win/Win/Win
February 14th, 2012 at 9:35 am
54.
True, Smacks!
MG has more writing talent in his big toe than a dozen hardcore Rombots combined at Race42012!
February 14th, 2012 at 9:35 am
42
That’s ludicrous. You’re pointing to Mitt’s failures and ignoring his successes, and pointing to Santorum’s successes and ignoring his failures. That is not how you should be making assessments.
Take, for instance, the idea that Santorum is well-positioned against Obama on Iran. Are you kidding me? Santorum claimed he FOUND weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, for God’s sake. The last thing we need is a candidate who not only beat the drum for the Iraq war (and war with Iran) for years, but would still continue to defend it in high-profile interviews and debates. RomneyCare can be explained away, but Santorum’s ridiculous failures to understand foreign policy and/or make himself seem reasonable are deadly.
And then there’s his remarks on man-on-dog sex and blacks having no business telling us who are people and who are not. Those remarks would be in ads all over the land, and are much worse than out-of-context remarks about wanting to fire insurance companies who offer poor service, which can be easily explained away.
February 14th, 2012 at 9:35 am
MWS, no one is attacking his religious beliefs unless I missed it. I spoke specifically about the way he flaunts it self righteously. He speaks without thinking of those he may offend whether they are a part of that group or not. It’s a big turnoff for a lot of people. He comes off preachy and intolerant and guess who he represents? You and I as conservatives. The best way to approach Socon issues is through persuasion. To think that you can use the gov’t to create legislation is just as bad and worse as those on the left who are using it to create “tolerance”. In a culture war we lose that argument all the time. Which side do you want to be on? Tolerant or intolerant? How do you fight legislators who push things like gay marriage? By denegrating people? Or do you work legislatively to take it back to the people for a vote? There are better ways to fight for Socon issues. Eventually you win when you persuade and believe in the American people and what they know to be true.
February 14th, 2012 at 9:36 am
I got one right.
Willard never gets near the White House EVER!
February 14th, 2012 at 9:37 am
That’s the thing… Romney is winning his Conservative voters on the ground. Rush, Fox, et al. are hitting Romney at the national level, but when people start to research Romney, go to his events and actually hear his passion, they realize Rush, Fox, et al. are full of hogwash.
Only in SC did the Conservatives not go for Romney in respectably large numbers.
February 14th, 2012 at 9:38 am
62.
I know conservatives, my friend.
ConGla, you are NOT conservative especially when you pick on a good Catholic like Santorum and my man, Newt
February 14th, 2012 at 9:40 am
Thanx, Smacks.
February 14th, 2012 at 9:41 am
64.
Hmmmmmmmm…… New day!
Among Conservatives NATIONALLY
• Rick Santorum 38%
• Mitt Romney 24%
February 14th, 2012 at 9:44 am
ConGlad,
One Who Knows Who She Is has started to sound the alarm on Catholic doctrine lately, and characterizing the Church in very unsavory ways (“inhuman and mean” among other epithets). It is couched in terms of role play, but is coming with such frequency and vigor lately that it’s getting harder to know if she’s still playing the role of Hypothetical Spokeswoman for the Left, or perhaps is playing a different angle.
February 14th, 2012 at 9:45 am
65 – You my friend are a bigot and bigots aren’t conservative. You just hate. Again, I never attacked Santorum’s Catholicism, I attacked the way he flaunts it as if he’s a perfect man. I also decry Gingrich because of his hypocrisy as well and those who support him for POTUS. It’s great he’s asked for forgiveness but you do your sh** and then ask me to let you be the POTUS? As if I owe him something? Nope, I don’t trust him. He can come to you. You’re much more forgiving then I am but then again you’re a bigot so it’s a wash.
February 14th, 2012 at 9:45 am
If Santorum gets the nomination, we all know that his favorables will dive, and he will become particularly unappealing to female voters . . . 53% of the electorate last time.
Smack, and MG, you’ve got it wrong. Rick is the guy who wants to make you feel guilty for wearing a condom. If he gets the nomination, is there even a small chance the media lets him off the hook on that? There’s no chance the MSM does.
To win the Presidency our nominee has to be able to split the women’s vote 50/50 with Obama and get a 1% win among men . . . very doable. But not with Rick.
February 14th, 2012 at 9:46 am
mach,
“That’s the thing… Romney is winning his Conservative voters on the ground. Rush, Fox, et al. are hitting Romney at the national level, but when people start to research Romney, go to his events and actually hear his passion, they realize Rush, Fox, et al. are full of hogwash.”
Did you happen to catch the returns from Minnesota, Missouri, and Colorado last week?
February 14th, 2012 at 9:46 am
My WAG is still that Mitt has the only chance of winning the nomination with a majority of delegates. His campaign is best built for the long haul. Otherwise, either Mitt, Santo, or (less probably) Newt could win a plurality.
But if Mitt wins the nomination, he should throw out his tepid plans in favor of Santo’s while hiring Palin to write all of his speeches. Mitt just seems incapable of talking the ideological talk and walking the conservative walk.
February 14th, 2012 at 9:49 am
Matt “MWS” Says:
February 14th, 2012 at 9:24 am
Ray,
Not officially, thank God.
===
I’m praying to Him about it daily though
February 14th, 2012 at 9:49 am
70
No, we don’t need to split women 50/50. It’s impossible to do that. 45-55 is more likely, and still impossible for Santorum to do.
February 14th, 2012 at 9:51 am
35.
LOL, just speaking the truth. Romney’s day is done, it’s as simple as that. Bye Bye Mitt Romney.
February 14th, 2012 at 9:51 am
It’s hard to go against a born and raised Lutheran like Newt though.
Even though he backslid after he remarried.
February 14th, 2012 at 9:53 am
75.
I like this Jerry dude. He always speaks the truth about Willard the Lib.
February 14th, 2012 at 9:53 am
Craig,
Which remarriage?
February 14th, 2012 at 9:55 am
I too agree with #42 and I wish Romney and his supporters would not take it as a criticism as much as a critique – one that has been made since 2008.
Romney has never run for office as himself; he has always run as what he thought voters wanted. What is scary is that I think we are witnessing yet another conversion. He is now trying to compete with Santorum as the “everyman.”
February 14th, 2012 at 9:56 am
69.
Newsflash, Rombot moron! There are no perfect men today.
Not one.
But there was ONE about 2000 years ago. And HE’s calling you.
February 14th, 2012 at 9:57 am
MWS,
Let me put it to you this way. If I want to battle with the left on issues important to me socially this is what I do. I take it to the people and help them understand why it’s wrong for America. Do you believe that a majority won’t agree with you if you framed it with concern and care? Then I take it to those I voted for in gov’t. Obviously many don’t listen but let’s take Christie in NJ who’s facing a gay marriage battle that he’s sure to veto. What’s the next step? Take it to the people. Get them behind you. The majority of people in the past have voted against gay marriage. It may or may not happen now but the problem is conservatives have not been fighting this the right way. They’ve depended for too long on career politicians to take the fight to the left for us. The left have labeled these people and you know what happens after that – they cave. We’ve depended too long on people like Santorum in all their self righteousness. They don’t fight when they’re there. They cower to keep their positions in gov’t. I see them for exactly who they are. They aren’t stalwarts of religion as much as they want us to think they are.
February 14th, 2012 at 9:58 am
Matty,
To that pretty blond petite Catholic lady, whatshername
February 14th, 2012 at 9:59 am
80.
Amen. Jesus is the sweetest Name I know.
February 14th, 2012 at 10:03 am
Watchin’, Rick has addressed the so-called contraceptive mandate from HHS by making it about religious liberty and about overly intrusive government inherent in the ACA. Mitt, by contrast, is burdened by RomneyCare and its coverage mandates inherent in insurance policies written by central government committees, i.e., bureaucrats. This problem is tied around Mitt’s neck like a bell on a alpine cow because he refused to dump RomneyCare as a bad idea and telling a compelling story about lessons learned.
February 14th, 2012 at 10:04 am
80 – Did I touch a sensitive spot? Yes, you’re right about our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. And for the record, neither Santorum or Gingrich are the “saviors” of the conservatives. They are career DC politician hacks. By the way can someone with honesty on the ABR side get Santorum to submit his tax returns? Maybe he’ll be a little better in his donations as the other career DC politician.
February 14th, 2012 at 10:05 am
85 – Santorum and Gingrich AREN’T the “saviors” of the conservatives. Sorry I was still thinking of my Savior Jesus Christ.
February 14th, 2012 at 10:05 am
ConGlad,
First off, I think the notion of Santorum as a self-righteous, sanctimonious a-hole is overwrought. Mitt would give his kids’ trust fund to have Rick’s favs right now, and people don’t usually heart people they consider self-rightious a-holes.
Secondly, there have been many people who have criticized Rick’s tone on this board, and that’s perfectly legit. But She Who Knows Who She Is has been breaking new ground, repeatedly referring to the Catholic Church as “inhuman and cruel” and beginning to drop the pretense that she’s role playing the left in the general election.
February 14th, 2012 at 10:13 am
The case against the so-called contraceptive mandate is manifold. Tom Coburn pointed out one aspect just a few days ago when he explained that the federal government already spends billions to community free-health clinics which dispense contraceptives nationwide. The only reason the Bamster backed this HHS policy, aside from the fact that it’s part of his ideology, was to pander to feminist groups like NARAL and Planned Parenthood.
If you listen to administration rhetoric in defense of their policy, they’re claiming that providing contraceptives that include abortifacients and sterilization is a women’s health issue, and that those prophylactics prevent disease. Unless I’m mistaken, Santo is one of those who have pointed out the obvious: The administration considers a pregnancy to be a disease that is best treated by prevention. It’s such an outrageous world view that it should make everyone’s hair stand on end.
February 14th, 2012 at 10:14 am
Michigan is shaping up to be critical, especially for Santorum and Newt.
If Santorum loses Michigan, all of the ABR support will go back to Newt. If Santorum wins, Newt is probably out of it. I would think that Romney would want to go up against Newt again rather than Santorum, so he will work hard to win Michigan. Santorum has baggage but it is nowhere near what Newt has. Newt is already thrice damaged goods.
So I look for Newt, Mitt, Chuck (Norris) and maybe even Ron to pound Santorum good in Michigan.
Again, I look for Mitt’s secret weapon, Ann, to put him over the top in Michigan.
February 14th, 2012 at 10:17 am
Marque,
Absolutely. It’s stunning how many people implicitly treat pregnancy and fertility as a disease. They consider destroying fertility to be “health care.” By that reckoning why not call breast augmentation and face lifts “health care” and make everyone pay for those?
February 14th, 2012 at 10:18 am
MWS, do you wonder why Santorum’s favs are high right now? Has he sufficiently been vetted? Has his unsavory quotes about the lame and the poor in Spirit been plastered about in every newspaper and media screen? It hasn’t my friend so I don’t think Romney really cares that his favs are where they are. He has to do what others aren’t willing to do and people like us have to say what we see ahead otherwise as the great Sarah Palin said we won’t be “tough and ready” for the general. By the way “She Who Knows Who She Is” which in my case is the left (not sure who you’re referring to) is playing the Catholic Church like a fiddle unless they can get their sh** together and understand how to better fight what’s before them. Santorum is not the answer.
February 14th, 2012 at 10:19 am
Dr. J,
“If Santorum loses Michigan, all of the ABR support will go back to Newt.”
I doubt that, given Newt’s string of 3rd and 4th place finishes, especially if he finishes as far behind as he is polling there now.
I’m pretty confident Rick is now the last RomNot standing (Paul is in his own, parallel universe).
February 14th, 2012 at 10:19 am
“people don’t usually heart people they consider self-rightious a-holes”
It’s nice to see his numbers so high even after the extensive media, DNC, and ad campaigns highlighting his record, his statements, and his past.
What’s that, you say? No one has vetted Santorum yet? The DNC hasn’t done a daily press release attacking him as they have Mitt? No ads have been run yet against him? No serious media scrutiny on his statements has happened yet?
Wow, the way you framed it you made it sound like Santorum had been through all of this and came out with high favorables. I wonder what his numbers will look like after all of this.
February 14th, 2012 at 10:21 am
earlier in the contest I used to dislike Santorum, because he kept attacking all the people I liked. But now that he is attacking Romney, Santorum is growing on me
February 14th, 2012 at 10:22 am
I’ve been following politics of differents countries for over two decades but i swear i’ve have never see a most stupid party than the GOP, the so-called conservative movement only seems capable of helping the democrats to win elections. British conservatives know what they want and so are the members of the PP of Spain, PAN from Mexico, UMP from France, CDU/SCU from Germany. Only republicans could had manage to lose to Harry Read and only republicans can manage lose to Barack Obama.
February 14th, 2012 at 10:22 am
Ahh, Obama vs. Santorum, an election about gays, abortion, condoms, more gays, women in the workplace, pre-marital sex, and even more gays.
Axelrod and Messina couldn’t have scripted this better if Sarah Palin were running right now while wearing a t-shirt with crosshairs on it.
February 14th, 2012 at 10:24 am
94 – Sure he is. Keep running with that one all the way to the General.
February 14th, 2012 at 10:24 am
89,
It is critical for all parties involved, but especially for Romney. Winning MI would be akin to Romney holding serve, and I’m a Romney supporter. I think the polls will fluctuate and tighten before MI, there is too much time before that contest and there might be several momentum swings between now and then. Still, Romney HAS to win MI. Maybe not literally, but in my mind it is a must win for him. People will argue all day on here about the ‘reality’ of the situation. Forget the reality, it’s all about the perception. And the perception is Romney should win MI.
Could Newt re-emerge again. It’s not likely, but stranger things have happened this cycle. I think it’s between Santorum and Romney at this point, with whoever grabs the momentum in MI and AZ having the decided advantage going into Super Tuesday
February 14th, 2012 at 10:28 am
Watching the Tea Party claim to be outsiders while backing the former Speaker and a member of the Senate Leadership is just another in the long list of hilarious hypocrisies that make up the modern GOP base.
February 14th, 2012 at 10:28 am
MWS, it’s true. And I hope all of our candidates hammer away at that aspect of the issue.
Just think of the perverse bean-counting in the administration’s claim: Pregnancy is something of a treatable disease, and is more expensive than preventing it. This is obviously true, but the costs of bringing a child into the world have been made increasingly expensive by government and litigation overreach. This is not to say that pregnancies carried to term would ever be cheaper than condoms or the Pill.
And by the way, if the government has the power to mandate insurance plans offer free contraceptives, what’s to say that government won’t require MDs to push contraceptive use in order to cut insurance costs?
In that vein, what’s to say that it doesn’t make more sense from a central bureaucrat’s bean-counting perspective to require parents have their kids spayed and neutered before puberty? While ludicrous, it’s the type of stuff young leftists like to put forth: You could save a lot of government money for worthwhile collective goals by requiring those who go on Social Security and Medicare in retirement to consider the benefits of euthanasia.
February 14th, 2012 at 10:29 am
#97 My #1 priority is to destroy Mitt Romney and send him back to planet Kolob so a real conservative (anyone else that ran practically) would be our nominee
February 14th, 2012 at 10:29 am
I mean if someone can show me where Santorum strayed from Mitch McConnell and Trent Lott while in the Senate, I’d love to see it.
February 14th, 2012 at 10:30 am
101
By destroying Mitt Romney, you help rebuild the Democrat super majority, and you lose everything. Wonderfully ironic in a way, your hatred of Mitt ends up giving the left everything it wants. Bravo.
February 14th, 2012 at 10:30 am
If Santorum is the nominee and loses, social Conservatism will have been dealt its final blow. Do I want that to happen? Hell no. Don’t throw the whole movement out by discrediting it with Santorum running on it.
February 14th, 2012 at 10:34 am
ConGlad,
Rombots have been joyfully anticipating the coming Vetting of Rick for two months now. And stuff has come out. That’s how you know about it. But so far, it isn’t sinking him. You need to assume it’s because people haven’t noticed, because that gives you more hope. And maybe people haven’t noticed. But maybe they have, and aren’t as freaked out about is as you think they ought to be.
BTW, when has Rick ever said any “unsavory” things about the lame or poor in spirit?
February 14th, 2012 at 10:34 am
Oh the Lib Dems and their Harvard elite degrees. Damn them! They see every opening in the GOP and right now they’re salivating at the prospects ahead of them. With all of the resources they have outside of money, they are prepped to take this to another level of battle and warfare. It’s even more specific and minute in it’s delivery. They’ve just about won the war on free enterprise and class. The final drive of the nail will be additional taxes on the rich. Now they’re prepping for the culture war shooting across the bough. F’ing career politicians.
February 14th, 2012 at 10:41 am
92- Matt, perhaps, but that was my trying to get into the mind of Newt. Santorum was left for dead after NH, SC, FL and NV yet he came back. I’m thinking that the only way Newt thinks he can survive to super Tuesday is if Rick loses MI and he takes Rick’s place as the anti-Romney.
February 14th, 2012 at 10:41 am
105
People don’t know about it. Only political junkies do. The media is ignoring all of it thus far. Mitt will have to run it in ads.
Funny, how it works. Most candidates can get Fox to do their bidding for them, but Mitt has to pay for ads.
February 14th, 2012 at 10:44 am
Marque,
#100 Indeed. When taxpayers pay for most (and eventually all) of healthcare, the government begins to start making more and more of those “healthcare” decisions, in the name of fiscal stewardship, of course.
Could our great-grandparents have imagined the day when the government would subsidize the killing of unborn children? Is it such a stretch to imagine a day when the government says “We won’t pay for your new hip (or let you pay for it yourself), but we will pay to put you into blissful, eternal rest.”
February 14th, 2012 at 10:44 am
108
Fox won’t vet Santorum. Murdoch has already crowed his approval of Santorum. Murdoch has never liked Mitt. It’s a Mormon thing.
February 14th, 2012 at 10:45 am
Dr J,
“Matt, perhaps, but that was my trying to get into the mind of Newt.”
Don’t.
I did that once. Barely made it out alive.
February 14th, 2012 at 10:45 am
MWS,
What do you define as lame and poor in Spirit? According to what I’ve read it’s anyone who doesn’t follow the teachings of Christ. I appreciate your sunny disposition regarding Santorum’s vetting but has he REALLY been vetted by the MSM? Let’s take your sunny disposition and assume that the GOP doesn’t care. They should because not everyone is the GOP. You see we’re fighting a battle with old weapons. The left is fighting in stealth using new technologies and patiently waiting for the biggest moment where they can get the best bang. It’s all coming together for them. They knew that the economy would be our last hurrah. They also know that we’re becoming weak as free enterprise stalwarts. Many in our party use class warfare now so they’ve won essentially. They’ve pushed us now toward the other side of the ship as they’ve shot a Socon torpedo across the bough. It’s tactical and we’re losing sight of a lot of things. This back and forth will go on and if we’re not careful they’re going to come out on top. They’re close.
February 14th, 2012 at 10:49 am
I still haven’t been shown by any Santorum supporter where he strayed from Lott, Frist, and McConnell while in the Senate leadership.
You see, Santorum’s whole schtick was to be as loud and rigid on social issues as possible to deflect and distract from his from his big spending, big pork, big government republicanism.
But he’s not Mormon, and that’s really all that this race is boiling down to, Anybody But Mormon.
February 14th, 2012 at 10:50 am
ConGlad,
“What do you define as lame and poor in Spirit? According to what I’ve read it’s anyone who doesn’t follow the teachings of Christ.”
Reread the Sermon on the Mount. Christ said “Blessed are the poor in Spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven.”
He didn’t mean, “Blessed are they who don’t follow my teachings.” That would be kind of self-defeating.
February 14th, 2012 at 10:51 am
74. Yes, I did actually. I noticed that I stated Romney is doing it on the ground – he’s winning support locally. He came in 2nd in MO… he didn’t even step foot in the state. He came in 3rd in MN… he stepped foot once, maybe, in that state while Santorum and Paul spent their whole time.
CO was a disappointment, but he was still 2nd, and a close 2nd. From all of my friends who live in CO, they said they and their Romney supporting friends were surprised at the CO outcome. Of course, inevitability only works when people show up to vote. And therein lies the problem. Every time someone thinks it is inevitable, they fail to show up and the event is not.
Romney, taking in the total of all caucuses and primary votes, has a majority of self-described Conservatives and a large number (but not majority) of TEA Party supporters.
February 14th, 2012 at 10:52 am
Max,
Seriously, you’re getting as repetitive as ol’ “greg.”
February 14th, 2012 at 10:53 am
mach,
“CO was a disappointment”
You don’t think Minnesota was a disappointment, where he shed over 60% of his voters from 2008?
February 14th, 2012 at 10:54 am
We’re about 3 weeks away from abolishing the concept of the anti-Romney. There won’t be any left….and the Troglodytes will have to adjust or sit it out.
Mitt should be able to win Arizona and Michigan….in Arizona, he will be campaigning beside John McCain and Jeff Flake. It’s a caucus that should appeal to the 400,000 Mormons in the state. Mitt came in a respectable 2nd to McCain last time there. Should be fun.
In Michigan, the Republican Party will do everything it can to get him the Caucus win. He won there last time by 10 points. He’s headed there tomorrow, and will invest what it takes to win it.
Coming off those victories, and the one in Maine, he will head to a friendly Washington. He should have the Big Mo going into Super Tuesday, where 5 of the 10 states are a lock, and most of the others are winnable with some effort.
Then, no more anti-Romneys.
February 14th, 2012 at 10:55 am
116
That’s a stretch.
February 14th, 2012 at 10:55 am
BINGO. BINGO. BINGO. BINGO. BINGO.
February 14th, 2012 at 10:56 am
116,
Lol….do not demean our good, predictable friends. I must admit I rather enjoy getting to ‘know’ the amusing characters on this site. And with some it takes considerably less work.
February 14th, 2012 at 10:58 am
119,
Indeed, “greg” really is unmatchable in that regard. Oone repeats themselves verbatim post after post. At least the other mildly repetitve ones switch some of the words around to make it seem like they are saying something different.
February 14th, 2012 at 10:59 am
Post 122 should read “only one”
February 14th, 2012 at 10:59 am
MWS. “Poor in Spirit”. I guess in your interpretation the poor in Spirit inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. There is a little more to that in inheriting the Kingdom of Heaven, wouldn’t you agree?
Isaiah 66:2
For all those things hath mine hand made, and all those things have been, saith the Lord: but to this man will I look, even to him that is POOR AND of a CONTRITE spirit, AND TREMBLETH at my word.
February 14th, 2012 at 11:07 am
ConGlad,
“I guess in your interpretation the poor in Spirit inherit the Kingdom of Heaven”
Yep. That’s what Jesus said. (Matthew 5:3)
February 14th, 2012 at 11:11 am
I’m no spox for the Santoids, but it seems like a clear opportunity to delineate items where Senate leadership was right and items where “I’ve learned my lesson,” with the latter being an example of what is now no longer available to Mitt ever since he took full ownership of RomneyCare.
February 14th, 2012 at 11:12 am
125 – I guess He’s not our Lord in Isaiah then. Well then I guess we shouldn’t be arguing about the poor in Spirit if that’s what it means to you. The gays and the prostitutes and everyone else who’s at least “poor” in Spirit will be fine and will get their Kingdom in Heaven.
I think I’ll adopt your very narrow view of the Bible. It’s much easier to live that way. Christ may have something to say about it but I can point to you for your interpretation, right?
February 14th, 2012 at 11:14 am
Someone is overdue for a talking points tuneup. The traditional refrain from the Choir Rombotic is that Mormonism isn’t an electoral negative, c.f. also Jeff Flake, Harry Reid, Orrin Hatch, countless Udalls, etc.
February 14th, 2012 at 11:16 am
MWS. Also, your narrow interpretation of the Bible will give a lot of “religious” liberals peace of mind that they’re doing just fine in their defense of all things you hold dear to you regarding Socon issues.
February 14th, 2012 at 11:17 am
ConGlad,
Isaiah isn’t contradicting Christ. And Christ isn’t saying those who reject him are blessed. The “poor in spirit” are those who depend on Christ, and not their own strength.
February 14th, 2012 at 11:18 am
“The meek shall inherit the earth.”
Jesus said, “In this world ye shall have tribulation…” Nobody skates. We are designed to have trials, and we are designed to die, and suffer what we couldn’t know what was coming. To understand this, and understand that God loves us, is to be poor in spirit.
To be humble is to be teachable. To endure until the end is to love the Lord, while recognizing what we gain from trials….and even from death.
February 14th, 2012 at 11:20 am
MWS
To see you fall from a proud Huck supporter to an apologist for an Arlen Specter endorser is quite simply…..not surprising at all.
February 14th, 2012 at 11:23 am
Max,
Thems the times. The folks in Vicksburg weren’t dining on caviar and prime rib either.
But I don’t shill for him, and I’ve made my differences with him known, as well as the fact that I don’t plan on voting for him.
February 14th, 2012 at 11:27 am
2 things i find interesting in scanning thru posts. first is that you all waste ALOT of time demonizing Craig….its some funny stuff though. I like seeing you all get your panties in bunch.
2nd, it makes NO sense that anyone thinks Santorum has hit his ceiling. First, you make the assumption that Newt stays in forever. I know he has ego problems, but the dude isnt going to drop to 8%, in 4th place, and poll under santorum in georgia (all of these are coming) and stay in the race. Once he is out his entire voting block goes to santorum, or maybe paul if they just want to try out another ABR candidate for a bit.
Also, we are currently less than 7 days since a 3-state sweep for santorum. That news is going to continue to set in and if Santorum wins michigan (and especially if he somehow also wins AZ) then the polls are really going to move.
Santorum is no where near his ceiling. I’ll take all 8 of newts 10 points and another half dozen from willie after the 28th and give him a 43-22 lead.
Finally, this poll doesnt mention one thing: in a strong 3rd place is still “none of the above/someone else”…..21% of the vote goes to none of these guys. Brokered convention anyone? If there was a spot on the ballot i am convinced it would win.
February 14th, 2012 at 11:29 am
What’s sad is that even if Santorum wins Michigan, Romney will win more than 2/3 of the delegates allocated on 2/28 and will win the most votes that day as well.
And it will be ignored, spun, and lied about. The Stop Mitt/Save Obama Express keeps on rolling, fueled almost entirely by the ignorance of the bagger brigade.
February 14th, 2012 at 11:33 am
conglad is wrong as usual….MWS is correct. Poor in Spirit, from every legit commentary out there, refers to the humble and those who rate themselves as insignificant (according to the greek). This is in opposition to those who are prideful. Another way or looking at it according to Barnes is that our opinion of ourselves is low enough to realize we are nothing by ourselves and only through the grace of Christ can we have salvation. So literally our spirits our poor = nothing of value, without Christ.
MWS, dont waste your time. Conglad and I went around and around yesterday. He has no understanding of Christ’s teachings.
February 14th, 2012 at 11:33 am
“Santorum is no where near his ceiling.”
This operates on the assumption that Santorum will remain unvetted by the press, by the GOP, and will avoid being hit with ads.
Romney will scorch the earth, payback Santorum and the baggers for what they’ve done to him, and leave the GOP with 0 chance against Obama.
And no, a brokered convention won’t save the baggers from their fate. They will be remembered as the fools who nominated Angle, O’Donnell, and Santorum.
February 14th, 2012 at 11:34 am
Ah, there’s good ol MAXy pad TWAIN spouting his favorite line about “the baggers”….your candidate is going to lose. Get used to it.
February 14th, 2012 at 11:37 am
138
Oh, I’ve excepted it. This party is a lost cause. I’m hopping on to my life raft and fleeing the sinking ship just as soon as Santorum secures the delegates.
February 14th, 2012 at 11:39 am
MWS. I’m glad that you clarified that for me because for a minute there I thought you were trying to defend the things that Santorum was saying about those who are “poor” in Spirit, because he did say things that only harden the hearts of those who are “poor” in Spirit.
I understand what is said by the Lord in Matthew and interpret it as Dave put it in 131.
But I stated earlier what “poor” means where the Spirit is concerned. It is those things that keep one from Christ and His teachings. We may know they’re “poor” in Spirit but they don’t and if they do know, they don’t care.
Dave. You’re right and according to God, those tribulations include those very things that keep one from Him. In my opinion they include homosexuality, and the other socon ills that we try and fight everyday. The only way to fight and combat it is to be humble and persuade others to be teachable and then help them to endure. This isn’t the way Rick Santorum has been going about things though has it? His way and many others in this party who think like he does will only make things worse. This is my point.
February 14th, 2012 at 11:50 am
140….actually it isnt the only way to fight in. In fact, sitting back and being humble and “persuading others to be teachable” might work with 5 year olds, but it doesnt work with Americans. Santorum knows that. Bush knew that and made sure to put an end to late term abortions WITH LAW. I dont think Santorum or anyone will stop homosexuals from practicing, but he will go a long way to appoint SC justices that will overturn roe v wade and appoint appelate court justices that will make sure things like the personhood movement arent overturned when they get passed at the state level. Conglad, I understand your point of view…a little more every day. And I might have even found a way for both our views to mesh: on an individual level we should use your view. Deal with the individual humbly. Get to know them. Show them the love of Christ. Let them see Him in our lives. But at the national level you wont convince individuals to do anything differently simply by living a good life or respecting them. This is why your approach, that you are trying to push off on politicians and world leaders, just wont work. The POTUS is not going to change anyone’s mind or actions with kindness, respect, etc. He changes it by getting laws passed. So I show my homosexual friends the love of Christ, but i vote for a marriage ammendment as soon as possible. I love the mothers who have been through the trama of abortion, but i vote to cut off all funding to anyone providing that “service”. So, maybe we can co-exist.
February 14th, 2012 at 11:53 am
Ahhh Huckarubio. I forgot what we were going in circles about but I’m glad you jumped in with your wisdom about words and God. I’m also glad to see that you solidified my position in 140. I do have a problem with your “grace” comment because you don’t go far enough. It’s one thing to recognize your nothingness, it’s quite another to go that extra step and stop doing what you’re doing that’s keeping you from truly following Christ’s teachings and in the end inheriting God’s Kingdom. You do after all want homosexuality, gay marriage, and abortions to stop, right?
February 14th, 2012 at 11:54 am
ConGlad,
You said the poor in spirit is “anyone who doesn’t follow the teachings of Christ”.
Dave said it’s those who humble themselves before God.
So how are you two agreeing????
February 14th, 2012 at 12:04 pm
Huckarubio, we can co-exist but look you can go the Santorum route and beat your chest about it forcing legislation or you can approach the opposition by saying this is what I’m going to do and this is why. I respect your freedom to choose but we must also respect the majority. If we fight this continually on a political level alone we’ll never win. You have to take it to the people and let them work it out through the majority. Everyone respects freedom even those who don’t think like you or I do. If it’s seen that the government usurp’s it’s power one way or the other the majority wins. Sure there is legislation that can stem the tide but that’s all it will do is slow things down. I’m talking about reversing things here. The country is too far along to worry about those who are already here. We are talking about the future generations and you’re only going to create a further hardening of those you’re trying to stop if you don’t take the persuasive route. I understand the Rushes of the world who want to fight straight up mono y mono but libs don’t fight that way.
February 14th, 2012 at 12:12 pm
Yes, the poor in Spirit are those that don’t follow the teachings of Christ. However, in order to accept and follow the teachings of Christ one must first be humble enough to see and know that they are poor in Spirit. Hopefully after that they’re then willing to follow Christ. From my perspective and what I’ve read and understand, it’s a process.
February 14th, 2012 at 12:15 pm
To those who think Obama is “winning” the public relations battle with the Catholic Church:
60% of Catholics now disapprove of Obama’s performance. He got 54% of the Catholic vote in 2008.
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/6-10-catholics-disapprove-obama/374661
February 14th, 2012 at 12:22 pm
MWS, it’s almost four years later and there is a long way to go in this battle. It’s encouraging but again I’m not talking about what looks good so far. I’m talking about the battle itself and if we approach this the wrong way we’re going to lose, I’m telling you.
February 14th, 2012 at 2:06 pm
Marque (42): I think this is a very good analysis of the situation. I agree with most of it, especially about Romney’s inevitability and electability arguments being in tatters. This part I disagree with, however:
I don’t think Santorum is any more electable than Romney. He is just too extreme on social issues, and his extremism will allow Obama (with the full support of the press, of course) to divert attention from the economy. Santorum will get killed in the midwest suburbs, which will prevent him carrying those states.
February 14th, 2012 at 2:38 pm
Bob, I agree that there’s a lot of inflammatory material for the Dem side to work with against Santo. Yet I think he’s very good at modulating on the SoCon stuff and making it about being pro-family. He’s very good at tying his social stances to economic and fiscal issues in a broad package. I’m not a big fan, but his Friday fill-ins on the Bill Bennett show were usually very good and wide ranging. If others assume him to be a one-note wonder, they will discount him at their peril.