Three new MI polls show Santorum with lead

posted at 8:40 am on February 16, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

National pollsters have already released surveys showing Rick Santorum taking a lead over Mitt Romney in Romney’s native state of Michigan.  Today, three state-based polls concur, showing leads from just under four points to ten points in the key battleground state.  The Detroit News poll shows the tightest margin (via Politico’s Morning Blast e-mail):

Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum has a slim lead over Mitt Romney, an indication the Michigan native son has yet to convince state voters he should be the Republican nominee for president, a Detroit News poll shows.

Santorum leads Romney 34 percent to 30.4 percent among likely Republican primary voters, but the gap is within the margin of error of 4.4 percentage points.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich had support from 11.6 percent of respondents, former U.S. Rep. Ron Paul had 8.9 percent and 12.4 percent was undecided.

USA Today reports on the other two polls, which show leads of nine and ten points:

The MRG Michigan Poll shows Santorum, a former U.S.senator from Pennsylvania, with 43% of the support to 33% for native son Mitt Romney, who has long been considered the front-runner in Michigan.

In the MRG poll, former House speaker Newt Gingrichcame in at 11% and Rep. Ron Paul of Texas had 8%. …

Mitchell Research, a polling firm in East Lansing, Mich., also has a new survey out showing Santorum with a 9-point lead over Romney in the Feb. 28 presidential primary in Michigan.

The Mitchell poll was done for MIRS, the Michigan Information & Research Service, and shows Santorum at 34% to Romney’s 25%. Less than two weeks ago, Romney was at 31%, with a 15-point lead over former Gingrich (16%), trailed by Santorum (15%) and Paul (15%).

In the new poll, which has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.6-percentage points, Paul trails Santorum and Romney with 11% and Gingrich is behind them with 5% of the survey respondents.

The MRG poll was conducted among 800 Republican voters, which might be problematic if USA Today means registered Republicans only.  Independents can vote in the GOP primary in Michigan, and the wording implies that the poll was conducted among registered rather than likely Republicans without any independents.  The Mitchell poll, however, surveyed 455 likely voters in the primary, which is a better sample — and one that came up with essentially same result.   The Detroit News poll surveyed 500 likely voters, similar to the Mitchell poll, but with somewhat more divergent results.

Clearly, Santorum has momentum in Michigan, and as Tina noted yesterday, in Arizona too, although he still trails in the latter.  One question that arises is that of timing.  Both of these contests are still almost two weeks away, which is plenty of time for Romney to spend a lot of cash to slow Santorumentum down, and possibly reverse it.   The danger for Santorum is peaking too soon and raising expectations in Michigan before the Super Tuesday contests.  If Santorum ends up losing Michigan after getting leads across the board in all these polls, it will be difficult to regenerate momentum in a single week to take on Romney in ten states.

Santorum’s fundraising has picked up and he’s trying an attack strategy on Romney designed to undercut Romney’s credibility by painting him as a mudslinger, but the effectiveness of that strategy has yet to be tested.  The four candidates return for another debate on February 22nd, and Santorum can expect the hot-seat treatment from Romney and perhaps Gingrich as well, a new role for Santorum in these debates. Romney has already gone after Santorum as a big-government, big-spending Washington insider, but the Weekly Standard defends Santorum on those charges:

The National Taxpayers Union (NTU) has been rating members of Congress for 20 years.  NTU is an independent, non-partisan organization that — per its mission statement — “mobilizes elected officials and the general public on behalf of tax relief and reform, lower and less wasteful spending, individual liberty, and free enterprise.”  Steve Forbes serves on its board of directors.

For each session of Congress, NTU scores each member on an A-to-F scale.  NTU weights members’ votes based on those votes’ perceived effect on both the immediate and future size of the federal budget.  Those who get A’s are among “the strongest supporters of responsible tax and spending policies”; they receive NTU’s “Taxpayers’ Friend Award.”  B’s are “good” scores, C’s are “minimally acceptable” scores, D’s are “poor” scores, and F’s earn their recipients membership in the “Big Spender” category.  There is no grade inflation whatsoever, as we shall see.

NTU’s scoring paints a radically different picture of Santorum’s 12-year tenure in the Senate (1995 through 2006) than one would glean from the rhetoric of the Romney campaign.  Fifty senators served throughout Santorum’s two terms:  25 Republicans, 24 Democrats, and 1 Republican/Independent.  On a 4-point scale (awarding 4 for an A, 3.3 for a B+, 3 for a B, 2.7 for a B-, etc.), those 50 senators’ collective grade point average (GPA) across the 12 years was 1.69 — which amounts to a C-.  Meanwhile, Santorum’s GPA was 3.66 — or an A-.  Santorum’s GPA placed him in the top 10 percent of senators, as he ranked 5th out of 50.

Across the 12 years in question, only 6 of the 50 senators got A’s in more than half the years.  Santorum was one of them.  He was also one of only 7 senators who never got less than a B.  (Jim Talent served only during Santorum’s final four years, but he always got less than a B, earning a B- every year and a GPA of 2.7.)  Moreover, while much of the Republican party lost its fiscal footing after George W. Bush took office — although it would be erroneous to say that the Republicans were nearly as profligate as the Democrats — Santorum was the only senator who got A’s in every year of Bush’s first term.  None of the other 49 senators could match Santorum’s 4.0 GPA over that span.

I’ve been seeing a lot of comments and tweets about Santorum’s supposed profligacy as Senator, but that doesn’t match his record vis-a-vis the NTU scoring.  People have honest differences with Santorum on the emphasis of social issues (although Santorum himself has emphasized his economic plans in this campaign), and I wrote that I have a few disagreements with Santorum’s positions, DADT among them.  He’s not a perfect conservative, to be sure, and questions about how he would stack up against Barack Obama in the general election are legitimate concerns.  However, the alternatives are the person who signed an individual health-care mandate into law in Massachusetts, and the man who both backed individual mandates until 2010 and sat on a couch with Nancy Pelosi to push global-warming alarmism a few years before that, and both of whom also spent three or four weeks sounding more like an Occupier on Bain Capital and Freddie Mac work than a Republican.  Those issues occurred  more recently than any sins committed by Santorum while in the Senate, which is why I’m not buying the idea that Santorum is the big-government candidate about which I should be worried.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

I don’t believe it. Romney will be the nominee

liberal4life on February 16, 2012 at 9:32 AM

I eagerly await your weeping and gnashing of teeth.

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 9:33 AM

However, the alternatives are the person who signed an individual health-care mandate into law in Massachusetts, and the man who both backed individual mandates until 2010 and sat on a couch with Nancy Pelosi to push global-warming alarmism a few years before that

Don’t forget that Romney bragged about Massachusetts being the first state to implement carboon caps:

Governor Mitt Romney today announced that Massachusetts will take another major step in meeting its commitment to protecting air quality when strict state limitations on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from power plants take effect on January 1, 2006.

AJsDaddie on February 16, 2012 at 9:33 AM

And that’s why he’s leading the Rasmussen poll by 12. Oh, wait…He isn’t, is he. Is that Charlie Sheen’s WINNING!#. you’re talking about?

kingsjester on February 16, 2012 at 9:22 AM

Polls are just a snapshot in time. I’ve lost track of all the former frontrunners, there’s been so many. They come and they go. The only constant is Romney because he’s clearly the best of a bad bunch.

Go RBNY on February 16, 2012 at 9:33 AM

flyfisher on February 16, 2012 at 9:01 AM

Thanks for that. I am Scots-Irish, so of course I found it very interesting. You’ve also given me another idea about where to go if everything goes horribly wrong and Obama is re-elected- LOL

Night Owl on February 16, 2012 at 9:13 AM

You will probably enjoy that book as much as I did. It helped make sense of my family history. Our Scots-Irish traits remain obvious.

flyfisher on February 16, 2012 at 9:33 AM

No, I was referring to Santorum, who coined him self a progressive republican in 1990, and stated he was not a Reagan republican. Some conservative. LOL.

rubberneck on February 16, 2012 at 9:30 AM

I was quite aware he said that. I’m also aware that Romney still brags about the monstrous state-run healthcare bureaucracy he created in Mass.

He’s no Conservative. You, neither.

kingsjester on February 16, 2012 at 9:33 AM

We really might end up with Santorum, huh? Someone with no executive experience, whose main claims to fame are basically limited to far-right social views and a landslide loss in his last run.

This isn’t ending well.

changer1701 on February 16, 2012 at 9:34 AM

He’s not a perfect conservative, to be sure, and questions about how he would stack up against Barack Obama in the general election are legitimate concerns. However, the alternatives are the person who signed an individual health-care mandate into law in Massachusetts, and the man who both backed individual mandates until 2010 and sat on a couch with Nancy Pelosi to push global-warming alarmism a few years before that, and both of whom also spent three or four weeks sounding more like an Occupier on Bain Capital and Freddie Mac work than a Republican.

And this is what has me shaking my head. Rick Santorum’s winning because “he’s all we have left”. He’s not only an imperfect conservative, he’s another Bush. Maybe that’s not really true, but that’s what Team Obama will almost certainly paint him as, if not as yet another backwards bluenose nanny-statist. I’m sorry, but I’m not seeing many independents voting for him in the general election.

TMOverbeck on February 16, 2012 at 9:34 AM

This nomination process will leave Romney BROKE

liberal4life on February 16, 2012 at 9:33 AM

Couldn’t happen to a more deserving guy.

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 9:34 AM

Mitt has already wont

kingsjester on February 16, 2012 at 9:22 AM

Unintentional, yet hilariously all the more accurate for it! ROTFLMAO!!!

Kent18 on February 16, 2012 at 9:34 AM

It wasn’t more than two weeks ago I had read The Washington Post saying a defeat in Michigan for Mitt would be a “fatal blow”. I’m sure that thinking will change or be re-written. By The Washington Post.

Marcus on February 16, 2012 at 8:56 AM

And the AP and the NYT. We just today got a love letter form the AP on how the economy is picking up and everyone is hiring!

AJsDaddie on February 16, 2012 at 9:35 AM

Polls are just a snapshot in time. I’ve lost track of all the former frontrunners, there’s been so many. They come and they go. The only constant is Romney because he’s clearly the best of a bad bunch.

Go RBNY on February 16, 2012 at 9:33 AM

If he’s the best, why isn’t he leading?

kingsjester on February 16, 2012 at 9:35 AM

I’m sorry, but I’m not seeing many independents voting for him in the general election.

TMOverbeck on February 16, 2012 at 9:34 AM

I’ll say it again. If this is true, then we only have ourselves to blame as nominal “conservatives” for pissing the nomination process right down our collective leg.

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 9:35 AM

Not really a Conservative, are you?

kingsjester on February 16, 2012 at 9:28 AM

in fiscal issues, I am very conservative, even in some social issues like being anti polygamy.
but santorum, no way! between a social liberal statist and an extreme social conservative statist, i will pick the first.

nathor on February 16, 2012 at 9:35 AM

ajacksonian on February 16, 2012 at 9:29 AM

Very nicely written. Excellent analysis.

kingsjester on February 16, 2012 at 9:30 AM

Hear, Hear!

Naturally Curly on February 16, 2012 at 9:36 AM

It would not been as bad if a few writers here took opposite positions, but everyone has seemingly choreographed a Santorum apology tour.

ConservativeLaw on February 16, 2012 at 9:03 AM

Count all the ABR’s on Hot Air, multiply by 10, and Romney has 1000 times more raw votes in the primary. He also has three times the delegates.

These unprincipled Santorum supporters (as opposed to the principled ones like Ed) are mostly St Palin the Victimized worshipers who are feeding the sick hate they have in their souls for Romney (mostly religious bigots). He has defeated EVERY candidate they have switched to and by gosh, they are going to exorcise their demons upon his soul. They represent the tiniest portion of the smallest iota of the most miniscule minority of the GOP that they are statistically unmeasurable. Have some fun…..I suggest you treat them as such.

csdeven on February 16, 2012 at 9:37 AM

in fiscal issues, I am very conservative, even in some social issues like being anti polygamy.
but santorum, no way! between a social liberal statist and an extreme social conservative statist, i will pick the first.

nathor on February 16, 2012 at 9:35 AM

If you have to use an paragraph of three sentences to answer a yes/no question, you’re working entirely too hard to justify your statist tendancies.

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 9:37 AM

nathor on February 16, 2012 at 9:35 AM

So, you compartmentalize your Conservatism. You’re not Conservative, then.

kingsjester on February 16, 2012 at 9:37 AM

They should talk to the people who defeated him for reelection in Pennsylvania by near historic margins.

Marcus Traianus on February 16, 2012 at 9:24 AM

NOTE: This is Santorum’s version of Palin’s Tina Fey’s “I can see Russia from my house.”

Wanna have fun? Do as I did yesterday (KJ saw my left column of the blog with all the candidates’ logos) linking to their official websites to donate, contribute. Why? I am trying really, really hard to be fair. To be ABO is really, really hard. To put that banner ad to Romney’s PAC to contribute when he’s filthy stinkin’ rich was really, really hard.

When you look at the Ron Paul’s official website, if you donate your name scrolls right up front is really, really funny. Like a gold star from your teacher for a job well done. LOL!

Newt has a picture kinda kewl kinda mafia/bully type with all his backers, Cain included. I almost put that one up but it looked just too bad; I had to dig around the Net for his logo/banner. I believe that if anybody takes the time to read through newt.org and it’s a LOT to read-his approval would go up. I find it really interesting how people split Newt into a multiple personality disorder.

I wish my blog looked like Santorum’s but I am not gonna buy a domain to get the flashy images, especially if it’s with the name it has right now.

ProudPalinFan on February 16, 2012 at 9:38 AM

There are three types of lies: Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

On such scorecards as NTU employs, a vote for a favored bill (or against an opposed one) counts, even if there is no chance of success. Amounts being spent or taxed are equalized, although voting for one bill like a new entitlement (Medicare-D, for example) commits to more spending from now on than all the other bills on the scorecard combined. So a vote for or against spending trillions counts the same as one over a couple of billion.

If you look at anyone’s record through rose-colored glasses you can find him pleasant enough, just as looking for reasons to dislike someone will always be successful. So, having endorsed Santorum already, it is understandable you search for ways to stand back and squint at his record so you can say, “See! Not so bad!”

But Lincoln understood the tendency to bend the facts to an argument, and used to confound with the question: “How many legs has a dog if you call his tail a leg?”

When the answer came back, “Five,” he would reply, “No, he has four – calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it one.”

But it’s good spinning in any case.

Adjoran on February 16, 2012 at 9:39 AM

People have honest differences with Santorum on the emphasis of social issues (although Santorum himself has emphasized his economic plans in this campaign), and I wrote that I have a few disagreements with Santorum’s positions, DADT among them.

It isn’t just differences on social issues, Ed. It’s the emphasis on social issues. Talking about the finer points of Catholic opposition to contraception while the country hangs over a Greek-style economic precipice is downright surreal. And Santorum as the conservative alternative to Romney? On what basis could anyone make that claim? Santorum himself has repudiated the idea that he is a Reagan Republican, just as he has heavily criticized the ‘leave me alone’ libertarian streak that has been an aspect of the GOP since its founding.

I read an article recently–can’t remember the author and so can’t cite the source–where he thought a Santorum nomination would be a good thing insofar as the far-right conservative base would finally get a candidate of its choosing even though that candidate will almost certainly lose the general election.

Maybe he’s right. So here’s a deal: We who stress the importance of defeating Obama by winning the somewhat moderate independent vote will drop our support of the candidate with broader appeal in the general election, allowing you erstwhile members of the Conservative Purity Brigade to finally succeed in nominating the unelectable social conservative of your dreams. In exchange for submitting ourselves to a humiliating electoral beatdown of historic proportions, you in turn agree to stop acting like self-righteous drama queens every four years.

In fact, we’ll continue to offer up unelectable, Santorum-like candidates every few decades as a sacrifice to Koalemos, the Greek god of stupidity, the only pagan deity never out of work.

troyriser_gopftw on February 16, 2012 at 9:39 AM

I’m sorry, but I’m not seeing many independents voting for [Santorum] in the general election.

TMOverbeck on February 16, 2012 at 9:34 AM

I’ll say it again. If this is true, then we only have ourselves to blame as nominal “conservatives” for pissing the nomination process right down our collective leg.

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 9:35 AM

Which I guess the “true conservatives” will be happy about, so long as they stick it to the Establishment (“rage against the machine”), eh?

Syzygy on February 16, 2012 at 9:39 AM

He is the first Republican in a generation who has even TRIED to speak the language across the region and it shows a fertile ground left untouched since Reagan. It is half of ‘flyover country’ and if you want to speak the language you need to drive through it, stop and visit at small towns or grow up in it.

ajacksonian on February 16, 2012 at 9:29 AM

I agree with this. Few candidates in recent times understand these people. Having lived in other parts of the country (but returning home as fast as possible each time), I know that it’s not just the candidates who don’t understand these people.

flyfisher on February 16, 2012 at 9:40 AM

..respectfully, as long as it can be reliably be shown that Santorum can beat Obama in the general election, then this is fine with me.

The War Planner on February 16, 2012 at 9:00 AM

Precisely my feeling as well. As soon as a few of these gleeful ABR’s convince me that the general election will not be about contraception, DADT and abortion if Rick gets the nod, instead of gloating over Santorum’s current surge, I might feel somewhat more optimistic. Ed tries here, but doesn’t really make the case for Santorum, other than that he was not as bad as the rest of the feckless big spending Republicans in the Bush administration.

Priscilla on February 16, 2012 at 9:40 AM

Count all the ABR’s on Hot Air, multiply by 10, and Romney has 1000 times more raw votes in the primary. He also has three times the delegates.

These unprincipled Santorum supporters (as opposed to the principled ones like Ed) are mostly St Palin the Victimized worshipers who are feeding the sick hate they have in their souls for Romney (mostly religious bigots). He has defeated EVERY candidate they have switched to and by gosh, they are going to exorcise their demons upon his soul. They represent the tiniest portion of the smallest iota of the most miniscule minority of the GOP that they are statistically unmeasurable. Have some fun…..I suggest you treat them as such.

csdeven on February 16, 2012 at 9:37 AM

No, I take that back-now THAT’s Jenga!

ProudPalinFan on February 16, 2012 at 9:40 AM

ProudPalinFan on February 16, 2012 at 9:40 AM

That’s…something…

kingsjester on February 16, 2012 at 9:41 AM

To the Santorum supporters – how do you explain his loss in 2006? I’d really like to know why you think voters who previously supported him, changed their minds. He says it’s because he was the main target of the Dems for defeat.

Paddington on February 16, 2012 at 9:42 AM

Well, y’all can criticize me all you want with the “A vote for Santorum is a vote for Obama” fallacy, but I guaran-damn-tee you, a vote for Obama really is a vote for Obama. Enjoy dying on that hill Nathor, ya douchebag.

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 9:30 AM

tell me why a libertarian minded fiscal conservative with moderate social views should vote for santorum? really, tell me? excuse me if I see obama just like any other liar polititian that we are forced to choose from instead of hating him like a good “conservative” should.
I am serious here, be warned, I will vote vote for the O.

nathor on February 16, 2012 at 9:42 AM

Amazing, the absolute certainty of the Mitt crowd, that nobody can win,… except their personally selected annointed one.

I do remember the rending of clothes and pulling out of hair when Reagan won the nomination. The establishment, or country club republicans were astonished,.. completely gobsmacked, that that,… that ACTOR, was the nominee..

oh lord help us…

You Mitt supporters would do better to shore up the party, than whine endlessly about how you, and only you are correct,.. because you do not know that,.. not for certain.

no one does..

and Reagan won, big…

mark81150 on February 16, 2012 at 9:42 AM

Which I guess the “true conservatives” will be happy about, so long as they stick it to the Establishment (“rage against the machine”), eh?

Syzygy on February 16, 2012 at 9:39 AM

My desire is to return to the constitutional republic our founders envisioned for us and which we no longer are. “Sticking it to the establishment” is gravy.

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 9:42 AM

Priscilla on February 16, 2012 at 9:40 AM

So, expanding upon the converse corollary to your logic….is Mitt going to make us all wear “Holy Garments”, if he wins?

kingsjester on February 16, 2012 at 9:43 AM

To the Santorum supporters – how do you explain his loss in 2006? I’d really like to know why you think voters who previously supported him, changed their minds. He says it’s because he was the main target of the Dems for defeat.

Paddington on February 16, 2012 at 9:42 AM

First…explain why Mitt did not have a 2nd term.

kingsjester on February 16, 2012 at 9:44 AM

tell me why a libertarian minded fiscal conservative with moderate social views should vote for santorum? really, tell me? excuse me if I see obama just like any other liar polititian that we are forced to choose from instead of hating him like a good “conservative” should.
I am serious here, be warned, I will vote vote for the O.

nathor on February 16, 2012 at 9:42 AM

I didn’t say you should vote for Santorum. And that’s not what I’m intimating here. But don’t piss away your vote and criticize me for doing the same thing. Especially since I would vote AGAINST Obama in the general regardless of who the candidate turns out to be. Start spewing that sanctimonious “I’d rather vote for Obama” crap, and you’ve crossed the line into “unserious.”

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 9:44 AM

It’s clear that Santorum is at the peak before the fall. His support as of today is 10 yards wide and a half inch deep. I cannot imagine the feeling of dread that is gripping the ABR cabal watching this play out just as it has five times previous.

Romney has been fully vetted for 5 years and the disturbing facts concerning Santorum’s zealotry and his desire to mix it with legislation is just now coming to light. The facts aren’t so bad. What is bad is that he is no better than Romney and is unelectable. And that is why he will fail just as all the others have and he will be the GOP nominee and GOP on to defeat Obama in November.

csdeven on February 16, 2012 at 9:45 AM

Of course Santorum’s ahead.

Michigan is a deeply conservative, Southern, bible-belt state and 90% of Michiaganers are evangelical rednecks and anti-mormon bigots.

CorporatePiggy on February 16, 2012 at 9:45 AM

I am serious here, be warned, I will vote vote for the O.

nathor on February 16, 2012 at 9:42 AM

If you vote for Obama after Solyndra, and Fast and Furious, and Keystone, and the contraception mandate, then you aren’t a conservative and I won’t miss your vote, because you would have voted for the man anyway.

AJsDaddie on February 16, 2012 at 9:46 AM

tell me why a libertarian minded fiscal conservative with moderate social views should vote for santorum? really, tell me?
nathor on February 16, 2012 at 9:42 AM

Because he is a million trillions $$$$$$$$ less spent better than Obama.

cozmo on February 16, 2012 at 9:46 AM

tell me why a libertarian minded fiscal conservative with moderate social views should vote for santorum? really, tell me? excuse me if I see obama just like any other liar polititian that we are forced to choose from instead of hating him like a good “conservative” should.
I am serious here, be warned, I will vote vote for the O.

nathor on February 16, 2012 at 9:42 AM

Why should a fiscal conservative with conservative social views vote Romney? Why should I believe he wouldn’t sign “reasonable” gun control measures in the spirit of reaching across the aisle? Why should I believe he will fight for personal liberty when he has a history of tyranny?

flyfisher on February 16, 2012 at 9:46 AM

If he’s the best, why isn’t he leading?

kingsjester on February 16, 2012 at 9:35 AM

Were all of the former frontrunners the best because they once lead? It’s about consistency and, you’ll love this, electability. That’s why Romney has been at the top or in second place the whole time while the others have come and gone.

Go RBNY on February 16, 2012 at 9:47 AM

Especially since I would vote AGAINST Obama in the general regardless of who the candidate turns out to be. Start spewing that sanctimonious “I’d rather vote for Obama” crap, and you’ve crossed the line into “unserious.”

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 9:44 AM

Impressive, people change. Maybe nathor is capable.

cozmo on February 16, 2012 at 9:48 AM

Were all of the former frontrunners the best because they once lead? It’s about consistency and, you’ll love this, electability. That’s why Romney has been at the top or in second place the whole time while the others have come and gone.

Go RBNY on February 16, 2012 at 9:47 AM

News flash, Skippy: If he continues to be in second place as these real votes start coming in, he will not get the nomination. And if he is in the first place out of three or more candidates, that doesn’t necessarily mean that anyone has an actual majority of delegates necessary to secure the nomination. But I like your optimism. You’ll need it when the general rolls around, I’m sure.

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 9:49 AM

However, the alternatives are the person who signed an individual health-care mandate into law in Massachusetts, and the man who both backed individual mandates until 2010 and sat on a couch with Nancy Pelosi to push global-warming alarmism a few years before that, and both of whom also spent three or four weeks sounding more like an Occupier on Bain Capital and Freddie Mac work than a Republican. Those issues occurred more recently than any sins committed by Santorum while in the Senate, which is why I’m not buying the idea that Santorum is the big-government candidate about which I should be worried.

Very good points.

Ukiah on February 16, 2012 at 9:49 AM

That’s why Romney has been at the top or in second place the whole time while the others have come and gone.

Go RBNY on February 16, 2012 at 9:47 AM

Mass. did not think he was so electable after his only term as Governor. What’s changed? Besides his stances on issues, back and forth…several times?

kingsjester on February 16, 2012 at 9:49 AM

My desire is to return to the constitutional republic our founders envisioned for us and which we no longer are. “Sticking it to the establishment” is gravy.

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 9:42 AM

That’s my desire, too. But that’s not going to happen if we nominate someone who can’t win in the general.

Frankly, I think Romney would be doing a whole lot better if he didn’t have the “establishment” in his corner. There seems to be a sizable number of GOP voters who are ABR solely for that reason.

Syzygy on February 16, 2012 at 9:50 AM

Impressive, people change. Maybe nathor is capable.

cozmo on February 16, 2012 at 9:48 AM

I didn’t change, douchebag. I still think we deserve Obama and I still wouldn’t shed a single tear if he got re-elected. But I also believe in the golden rule which is the opposite of “give people what they deserve.”

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 9:50 AM

If you have to use an paragraph of three sentences to answer a yes/no question, you’re working entirely too hard to justify your statist tendancies.

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 9:37 AM

I really dont care about labels. my positions should be explained for you to understand that they are opposing santorum’s own positions.
look:
fiscal:
santorum voted for deficitary budgets, medicaid, unpaid wars. not a fiscal conservative champion i dream of.
small goverment: santorum explicitly said he IS against the libertarianism
social issue: I am moderate prochoice and atheist. santorum is… you know.

now really, why should I vote for him?

nathor on February 16, 2012 at 9:50 AM

csdeven on February 16, 2012 at 9:45 AM

Oy. That’s why we gotta let this thing play out! As far as Romney after the election, 2008, were you following up with what he was up to? I wasn’t; I was focused on the meltdown.

If Rick Santorum starts to take a dive, Newt will/would catch ‘em. So perhaps we’d have a Newt rebound *ducks and hides.* What, you don’t think he’s not counting on it? I wonder if Chuck Norris will do interviews and go round the networks like Herman Cain did. Unfortunately, most of the focus goes to character assassination and not what the candidate brings to the table-hence we focus on all the negatives and whine “why did he do this, why did he say that, oh no way he’s too vanilla!”

ProudPalinFan on February 16, 2012 at 9:51 AM

That’s my desire, too. But that’s not going to happen if we nominate someone who can’t win in the general.

Frankly, I think Romney would be doing a whole lot better if he didn’t have the “establishment” in his corner. There seems to be a sizable number of GOP voters who are ABR solely for that reason.

Syzygy on February 16, 2012 at 9:50 AM

It’s not going to happen if we nominate Romney, either. And that’s the choice as far as I’m concerned. Do we want a not-Obama who might follow the constitution, or do we want a not-Obama who DEFINITELY won’t, as I believe Romney wouldn’t? I absolutely do believe that the “establishment,” such as it is, is led by blueblood statists. But that’s not the prime motivating factor in my principles. Those guys aren’t evil because they’re wealthy and well-bred. They’re evil because they want to curtail my freedoms (the bluebloods, I mean; in both parties).

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 9:53 AM

So, expanding upon the converse corollary to your logic….is Mitt going to make us all wear “Holy Garments”, if he wins?

kingsjester on February 16, 2012 at 9:43 AM

No, but your snarky reply does reveal your own narrow mided view of conservatism and of Romney. I mentioned the hot-button social con issues that always come up when Santorum is discussed – and , frankly, Santorum BRINGS them up, because he truly is a committed social conservative. These views of Santorum -anti-contraception, DADT, forcing women to bear the children of incest and rape – are what will be put out there for discussion in the media and in the general election debates. Whether you like it or not – that IS how average voters view Santorum, and the Dems and MSM will exploit that to the hilt.

You hate Rommey’s Mormonism, it is clear, but that is an underlying issue with evangelicals, not a nationwide meme that can be reliably exploited against him.

Priscilla on February 16, 2012 at 9:53 AM

I still think we deserve Obama and I still wouldn’t shed a single tear if he got re-elected.
gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 9:50 AM

Never mind, you are still a nutball.

cozmo on February 16, 2012 at 9:53 AM

Naturally Curly on February 16, 2012 at 9:36 AM

I saw borntoraisehogs get banned yesterday.
I saw the thing from Ed on More TeaPlease getting banned Tuesday.
I heard xxessw or whatever got banned but I don’t know for sure if that is true.

Night Owl on February 16, 2012 at 9:53 AM

now really, why should I vote for him?

nathor on February 16, 2012 at 9:50 AM

I’ll try to convince you that you should vote for him when you try to convince me there’s anyone else better.

/stalemate

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 9:54 AM

I still think we deserve Obama and I still wouldn’t shed a single tear if he got re-elected.
gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 9:50 AM

Never mind, you are still a nutball.

cozmo on February 16, 2012 at 9:53 AM

And you are still a douchebag who partially quotes my posts to leave out the context.

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 9:55 AM

News flash, Skippy: If he continues to be in second place as these real votes start coming in, he will not get the nomination.

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 9:49 AM

Thank you. I was beginning to wonder if I was the only one here unaware, up until now, that there was a silver medal being awarded at some point during the process, along with the gold. ;)

Kent18 on February 16, 2012 at 9:55 AM

Lets be clear, if the weekly jobless claims keep coming in at 348k, or something similar (granted they will probably be revised up next week), and the unemployment rate keeps falling because of gimmicks, it wont matter who the nominee is.

But it really is beginning to worry me that even if the numbers start slipping again (likely), Santorum will be the nominee, and convervatives will manage to pick the one candidate who has as much chance of beating Obama as I do (and I am clearly not running for President).

milcus on February 16, 2012 at 9:56 AM

I am serious here, be warned, I will vote vote for the O.

nathor on February 16, 2012 at 9:42 AM

The only candidate that makes me feel like staying home in November is Gingrich. He has violated the sacred public trust and was sanctioned for it. To vote for him in the primary, when I have three other candidates who have served honorably to choose from, would make me as corrupt as he is. But I am going to vote in the primary. I am still trying to work out how to vote against Obama if Gingrich is the nominee.

But as for the rest, I will gleefully fight for them as our nominee. Santorum and Paul are unelectable. But both are honorable even if I disagree with their positions. I have as many problems with Romney, but he is electable.

So, remember there are different values one can adhere to and voting for Santorum simply because he has served honorable (as far as we know) is honorable in itself.

csdeven on February 16, 2012 at 9:56 AM

I didn’t say you should vote for Santorum. And that’s not what I’m intimating here. But don’t piss away your vote and criticize me for doing the same thing. Especially since I would vote AGAINST Obama in the general regardless of who the candidate turns out to be. Start spewing that sanctimonious “I’d rather vote for Obama” crap, and you’ve crossed the line into “unserious.”

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 9:44 AM

“Especially since I would vote AGAINST Obama in the general regardless of who the candidate turns out to be.” you are just unimaginative about discovering worst options. I would vote for obama if the other candidate was cynthia mckinney.

in due honesty, I would probably vote third party, but forced between santorum and obama, I take obama. and that is serious.

nathor on February 16, 2012 at 9:57 AM

You hate Rommey’s Mormonism, it is clear, but that is an underlying issue with evangelicals, not a nationwide meme that can be reliably exploited against him.

Priscilla on February 16, 2012 at 9:53 AM

Waitasecond, sister. Why is it okay for you to trash Santorum’s Christianity, and when I bring up a very well-known aspect of Romney’s faith, making fun of your assumption, I’m a hateful bigot?

That garbage ain’t gonna fly. And I ain’t gonna take it.

kingsjester on February 16, 2012 at 9:57 AM

These views of Santorum -anti-contraception, DADT, forcing women to bear the children of incest and rape – are what will be put out there for discussion in the media and in the general election debates. Whether you like it or not – that IS how average voters view Santorum, and the Dems and MSM will exploit that to the hilt.

You hate Rommey’s Mormonism, it is clear, but that is an underlying issue with evangelicals, not a nationwide meme that can be reliably exploited against him.

Priscilla on February 16, 2012 at 9:53 AM

This.

troyriser_gopftw on February 16, 2012 at 9:57 AM

in due honesty, I would probably vote third party, but forced between santorum and obama, I take obama. and that is serious.

nathor on February 16, 2012 at 9:57 AM

“Serious” is in the eye of the beholder. But go ahead and do whatever you feel like doing. It’s not like you need my permission to be a moron. That’s what true freedom is. ;)

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 9:58 AM

This.

troyriser_gopftw on February 16, 2012 at 9:57 AM

Wrong Please refer to Mr. Jackson’s eloquent post, earlier in this thread.

kingsjester on February 16, 2012 at 9:59 AM

I eagerly await your weeping and gnashing of teeth.

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 9:33 AM

LOL !!!

conservative tarheel on February 16, 2012 at 9:59 AM

The Daily Kos would like you to vote for Santorum, and is urging Democrats to do so in open primary states.

Announcing Operation Hilarity: Let’s keep the GOP clown show going!

“It’s time for us to take an active role in the GOP nomination process. That’s right, it’s time for those of us who live in open primary and caucus states—Michigan, North Dakota, Vermont and Tennessee in the next three weeks—to head out and cast a vote for Rick Santorum.”

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/15/1065052/-Announcing-Operation-Hilarity-Let-s-keep-the-GOP-clown-show-going-

claudius on February 16, 2012 at 9:59 AM

And you are still a douchebag who partially quotes my posts to leave out the context.

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 9:55 AM

The whole context was just a couple posts up. I left in the time stamp. You too have written that you prefer Obama to some of the candidates.

Since you and nathor are nutball versus nutball…carry on.

cozmo on February 16, 2012 at 10:00 AM

KM!…What do you think of the Nerd giving the Mitt the nod?
I think the Nerd is starting to repair the damage THE MOLE did to the lawn in our state…but, I think the nod may hurt Mitt!

KOOLAID2 on February 16, 2012 at 9:09 AM

What’s worse is that both L. Brooks Patterson (Oakland County Exec. – contiguous to Wayne County home of Detroit and Oakland the wealthiest County in Michigan) AND State AG Schuete have endorsed Mittens too.
That is downright bizarre. Both Patterson and Schuete are staunch conservatives with the records to prove it. Patterson is a bonafide pit bull (trust me), the guy keeps slapping Detroit down six ways from Sunday.
‘Tis indeed gobsmackingly strange.

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on February 16, 2012 at 10:00 AM

That garbage ain’t gonna fly. And I ain’t gonna take it.

kingsjester on February 16, 2012 at 9:57 AM

Total BS on that one jester. I have never trashed Santorum’s Christianity. I have said that he will be typecast and attacked as an extreme social conservative and that that will be the overriding theme of the general election capmpaign. YOU were the one who brought up religion and YOU are the one who claims that Romney’s Mormonism is an issue for you and other “heartland evangelicals.”

So get off your high horse and calm down, jester.

Priscilla on February 16, 2012 at 10:01 AM

To the Santorum supporters – how do you explain his loss in 2006? I’d really like to know why you think voters who previously supported him, changed their minds. He says it’s because he was the main target of the Dems for defeat.

Paddington on February 16, 2012 at 9:42 AM

How do you explain Romney not running for election after having 28% approval rating?

Deval Patrick would have destroyed him

liberal4life on February 16, 2012 at 10:02 AM

The fact that Santorum is now pulling ahead of Romney really doesn’t surprise me one bit. People are now catching on to the fact that Romney embraces the weird, bizzare, cult belief called Mormonism. Romney is merely an extension of the cult he’s a member of. Strange. Very strange, indeed.

jfs756 on February 16, 2012 at 10:02 AM

claudius on February 16, 2012 at 9:59 AM

this is why the RNC needs to close the primaries to GOP only ….

I am a registered independent …. in NC this allows me to vote in either primary
and I still support a GOP closed primary ….

if someone wants to help pick the nominee … they need to be part of that party … where is the RNC chair …..

conservative tarheel on February 16, 2012 at 10:03 AM

The whole context was just a couple posts up. I left in the time stamp. You too have written that you prefer Obama to some of the candidates.

Since you and nathor are nutball versus nutball…carry on.

cozmo on February 16, 2012 at 10:00 AM

Um, I just said I’m voting against Obama regardless of who the Republican candidate is, primarily since I don’t believe in retributive justice or cutting off my own nose to spite my face. But whatevs.

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Total BS on that one jester. I have never trashed Santorum’s Christianity. I have said that he will be typecast and attacked as an extreme social conservative and that that will be the overriding theme of the general election capmpaign. YOU were the one who brought up religion and YOU are the one who claims that Romney’s Mormonism is an issue for you and other “heartland evangelicals.”

So get off your high horse and calm down, jester.

Priscilla on February 16, 2012 at 10:01 AM

As soon as a few of these gleeful ABR’s convince me that the general election will not be about contraception, DADT and abortion if Rick gets the nod, instead of gloating over Santorum’s current surge, I might feel somewhat more optimistic.

About your assumption, you were saying?

kingsjester on February 16, 2012 at 10:04 AM

Why should a fiscal conservative with conservative social views vote Romney? Why should I believe he wouldn’t sign “reasonable” gun control measures in the spirit of reaching across the aisle? Why should I believe he will fight for personal liberty when he has a history of tyranny?

flyfisher on February 16, 2012 at 9:46 AM

Because the alternative is Obama, plain and simple.

Ask yourself, what would you rather see:

A. Barack Obama nominating liberals to the Supreme Court, Appellate Courts, and District Courts, while pursuing liberal policies, and seeking to raise taxes on everyone, while taking the deficit to 20 trillion OR

B. Mitt Romney nominating a mix of conservatives and moderates to the Supreme Court, Appellate Courts and District courts, while pursuing convervative and moderate policies, not seeking to raise taxes, and maybe just maybe giving a crap about the deficit.

To me, option “B” might not be perfect, but if we are being serious, those are the choices, and I pick “B” over “A” hands down. And that is why a fiscal conservative with social conservative views should vote for Mitt Romney. Because voting for Santorum is like voting for A, because Santorum simply has no shot at beating Obama when his rpesence takes the focus off the economy and Obama’s record and makes this a campaign about social issues, and likability.

milcus on February 16, 2012 at 10:04 AM

Why should a fiscal conservative with conservative social views vote Romney? Why should I believe he wouldn’t sign “reasonable” gun control measures in the spirit of reaching across the aisle? Why should I believe he will fight for personal liberty when he has a history of tyranny?

flyfisher on February 16, 2012 at 9:46 AM

i am for paul, but I can tolerate romeny social views, because they are none. In social issues he is nothing but a panderer with no core. and amazingly, I am quite ok with it. maybe you should too, because its the best compromise we can get.

nathor on February 16, 2012 at 10:05 AM

milcus on February 16, 2012 at 10:04 AM

Romney’s not a Conservative. Why would he nominate them as judges?

kingsjester on February 16, 2012 at 10:06 AM

Santorum is a guaranteed loss anyhow. Seriously, I would never vote for anyone who thinks contraception should be illegal. That’s nuts.

rubberneck on February 16, 2012 at 10:06 AM

I don’t believe in retributive justice or cutting off my own nose to spite my face. But whatevs.

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 10:03 AM

That wasn’t your tune just a few short months ago. That’s why I gave the benefit earlier. Then you went all nutball again.

I figure if there is hope for you, maybe there is hope for nathor.

Then again, maybe not.

cozmo on February 16, 2012 at 10:07 AM

This Just In …

Via WJR Radio, the latest poll has Santorum up by ELEVEN!
There are a LOT of we “anyone but Willard” voters out here in the hinterlands.

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on February 16, 2012 at 10:07 AM

News flash, Skippy: If he continues to be in second place as these real votes start coming in, he will not get the nomination.

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 9:49 AM

Check your calendar, real votes have been coming in since January and he’s leading the pack comfortably. How do you like Reverend Rick’s chances in NY? CA? PA? (rick wont even win there) NJ? MA?

When that’s over, come back and explain to me how “real votes” work.

Go RBNY on February 16, 2012 at 10:08 AM

jfs756 on February 16, 2012 at 10:02 AM

I believe it is more like the ppl are seeing Mittens as someone who can not tell ppl why he is the best candidate … just trying to destroy everyone else … last man standing …. oh and Romneycare … Gobalwarming believer … Gun grabber … tax fee raising Dem light ….

conservative tarheel on February 16, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Of course Santorum’s ahead.

Michigan is a deeply conservative, Southern, bible-belt state and 90% of Michiaganers are evangelical rednecks and anti-mormon bigots.

CorporatePiggy on February 16, 2012 at 9:45 AM

In what way does Michigan qualify as a southern state? South Dakota, I can see, because it has “South” in it./ Michigan, not so much. If it were up to you, we would have to choose between being called an anti-mormon bigot if we don’t vote for Romney, or racist if we don’t vote for Obama. What to do, what to do…

Night Owl on February 16, 2012 at 10:08 AM

That wasn’t your tune just a few short months ago. That’s why I gave the benefit earlier. Then you went all nutball again.

I figure if there is hope for you, maybe there is hope for nathor.

Then again, maybe not.

cozmo on February 16, 2012 at 10:07 AM

No, because quite clearly Nathor DOES believe in retributive justice. Or at least he believes he occupies the moral high ground with a vote for a third-party candidate. He’ll sleep pretty well thinking he actually mattered worth a shit.

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 10:09 AM

Any “conservative” who says he/she/it will vote for Obama in 2012 is no conservative. If he wins a second term, say goodbye to the USA. Hotgas here will become illegal by 2015.

either orr on February 16, 2012 at 10:09 AM

kingsjester on February 16, 2012 at 9:26 AM

Hmm, not that I am his fanboy for sure. But I believe it had something to do with being too Republican in a blue state.

So too Republican in a Blue state vs. unable to get reelected (crushed actually)in an arguably purple state that often leans Red?

Wait, I am being too logical.

Marcus Traianus on February 16, 2012 at 10:10 AM

Marcus Traianus on February 16, 2012 at 10:10 AM

Or, perhaps…he was just unpopular.

Bresden got elected in the Red state of Tennessee.

kingsjester on February 16, 2012 at 10:11 AM

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 10:09 AM

Looks like y’all are sharin’ that horse.

cozmo on February 16, 2012 at 10:11 AM

milcus on February 16, 2012 at 10:04 AM

This won’t make sense to a lot of people, but I am one of those stiff-necked people jester mentioned above. I take a stand for what I believe in and vote my conscience. Accordingly, I will never cast a vote for Romney. If he is the nominee, I will vote third party or write-in an acceptable conservative. My trust is in the Lord, not the U.S. President. Do not put your trust in princes, in mortal men, who cannot save. (Psalm 146:3)

flyfisher on February 16, 2012 at 10:11 AM

It’s clear that Santorum is at the peak before the fall. His support as of today is 10 yards wide and a half inch deep. I cannot imagine the feeling of dread that is gripping the ABR cabal watching this play out just as it has five times previous.

csdeven on February 16, 2012 at 9:45 AM

It’s probably something only a Buffalo Bills fan could sympathize with.

Go RBNY on February 16, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Oy. That’s why we gotta let this thing play out! As far as Romney after the election, 2008, were you following up with what he was up to? I wasn’t; I was focused on the meltdown.

If Rick Santorum starts to take a dive, Newt will/would catch ‘em. So perhaps we’d have a Newt rebound *ducks and hides.* What, you don’t think he’s not counting on it? I wonder if Chuck Norris will do interviews and go round the networks like Herman Cain did. Unfortunately, most of the focus goes to character assassination and not what the candidate brings to the table-hence we focus on all the negatives and whine “why did he do this, why did he say that, oh no way he’s too vanilla!”

ProudPalinFan on February 16, 2012 at 9:51 AM

I have no problem letting it play out.

Romney was fully vetted in 2008. I know this because nothing new has surfaced in the five years since. And they have been digging into Romney’s past because everyone knew Romney would be the presumptive nominee. Romney’s biggest weakness is Romneycare. But it is a bigger issue in 2012 because of Obamacare. However, Obamacare will be decided by November. If it is ruled constitutional, the only issue will be the fiscal impact. If ruled unconstitutional, it is off the table as an issue and Romneycare will be irrelevant by election day. Which removes Romney’s biggest hurdle as expressed by his opponents within the GOP. So when you are evaluating Romney’s chances against Obama, factor in the only two outcomes for the Obamacare issue.

All our candidates need to be vetted. I disagree that Gingrich can rebound again. His meltdown after Nevada was a sad thing to see. I absolutely despise him because of his long history of lying, corruption, and adultery, but I was totally embarrassed for his family.

Running against Obama, who has very, very high personal favorable ratings, will require a candidate with very little personal baggage. For that reason I believe character is an important issue to include in the vetting process. I am perfectly fine with the remaining three. Although I am cautious about Santorum because he has not been thoroughly vetted yet.

csdeven on February 16, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Check your calendar, real votes have been coming in since January and he’s leading the pack comfortably. How do you like Reverend Rick’s chances in NY? CA? PA? (rick wont even win there) NJ? MA?

When that’s over, come back and explain to me how “real votes” work.

Go RBNY on February 16, 2012 at 10:08 AM

You must define “comfortably” a little different than I do. From a strict mathematical standpoint, this thing won’t be over until some time after Super Tuesday. Between now and then, Mitt could clinch up all the delegates in the non-binding caucus states, and he would still have a realistic shot at losing. Not to say he necessarily will, but Newt and Rick are both legit players and will be for the foreseeable future.

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 10:12 AM

But as for the rest, I will gleefully fight for them as our nominee. Santorum and Paul are unelectable. But both are honorable even if I disagree with their positions. I have as many problems with Romney, but he is electable.

So, remember there are different values one can adhere to and voting for Santorum simply because he has served honorable (as far as we know) is honorable in itself.

csdeven on February 16, 2012 at 9:56 AM

I think you have a point. and I give to you that Santorum is more honorable than obama, but, Santorum is only truly honorable in issues where I take the opposite view. ugh!

nathor on February 16, 2012 at 10:12 AM

It’s not going to happen if we nominate Romney, either. And that’s the choice as far as I’m concerned. Do we want a not-Obama who might follow the constitution, or do we want a not-Obama who DEFINITELY won’t, as I believe Romney wouldn’t?

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 9:53 AM

With any of the candidates, it’s a matter of believing what they say, even when their prior actions suggest otherwise. I know I’m probably in the minority here, but I put more faith in Romney in that regard. That’s partially because I too have become more conservative as I’ve gotten older. Like Churchill famously said: ““If you’re not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you’re not a conservative at forty you have no brain.” And I’ve seen no evidence that Romney wouldn’t follow the constitution.

Syzygy on February 16, 2012 at 10:12 AM

It’s probably something only a Buffalo Bills fan could sympathize with.

Go RBNY on February 16, 2012 at 10:12 AM

lol.

csdeven on February 16, 2012 at 10:13 AM

Santo has a short shelf life.

Just like the other not Romneys.

Moesart on February 16, 2012 at 10:13 AM

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 10:09 AM

Looks like y’all are sharin’ that horse.

cozmo on February 16, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Whatever helps you sleep, bub. I don’t do what I do or say what I say because I think it’ll make me popular with some anonymous internet douchebag.

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 10:13 AM

Bresden got elected in the Red state of Tennessee.

kingsjester on February 16, 2012 at 10:11 AM

He’s also more conservative than Romney.

flyfisher on February 16, 2012 at 10:14 AM

With any of the candidates, it’s a matter of believing what they say, even when their prior actions suggest otherwise. I know I’m probably in the minority here, but I put more faith in Romney in that regard. That’s partially because I too have become more conservative as I’ve gotten older. Like Churchill famously said: ““If you’re not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you’re not a conservative at forty you have no brain.” And I’ve seen no evidence that Romney wouldn’t follow the constitution.

Syzygy on February 16, 2012 at 10:12 AM

You’ve become more conservative, so you put more trust in Romney, all evidence to the contrary? You know, I think that’s the real damage Obama has been doing. He sets the bar pretty damn low for what constitutes “conservatism,” and that scares me as much as any of his toxic policies do.

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 10:15 AM

Let’s try that link again:

Liberty Counsel Action Vice President Matt Barber said Romney’s appointments were constitutional “living document” poster children. “Many of Romney’s appointments were not only liberal, not only Democrats, but were radical counter-constitutionalists.”

Kent18 on February 16, 2012 at 10:14 AM

I’m glad someone is finally making that point. Thanks for the link.

flyfisher on February 16, 2012 at 10:16 AM

Any “conservative” who says he/she/it will vote for Obama in 2012 is no conservative. If he wins a second term, say goodbye to the USA. Hotgas here will become illegal by 2015.

either orr on February 16, 2012 at 10:09 AM

in santorum wins, atheist like me will be illegal. how is that for overblown fearmongering?

nathor on February 16, 2012 at 10:16 AM

This nomination process will leave Romney BROKE

liberal4life on February 16, 2012 at 9:33 AM

Couldn’t happen to a more deserving guy.

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 9:34 AM

Not going to happen…But thanks for caring.

rich801 on February 16, 2012 at 10:17 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4