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

It’s too bad y’all can’t listen to WJR (Detroit) – okay, you can’t …

ALL of the major players, candidates, and pundits even M. Malkin (an early Rick S. supporter) have been interviewed. Santorum is getting great reviews from the people who count.

It’s the only thing that Mittens has in common with Led Zepellin.
LOL

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on February 16, 2012 at 11:19 AM

besser tot als rot on February 16, 2012 at 11:11 AM

If Obamacare is upheld, you will see the public sentiment swing dramatically and repeal will be nearly impossible. I that event the fiscal issues will be of importance. That is what Romney has positioned himself to handle it irrespective of the outcome. Repeal, waive, defund.

csdeven on February 16, 2012 at 11:20 AM

What happens if SCOTUS finds Obamacare constitutional? Romney has based his whole argument on repealing it on the fact that it is unconstitutional. Does Romney roll over if SCOTUS saying that it passes constitutional muster? I’m sure he does. besser tot als rot on February 16, 2012 at 11:11 AM

I know, I know… it’s campaign speak, so take it as you will… but here is his oficial position:

(from MittRomney.com)

Mitt’s Plan
On his first day in office, Mitt Romney will issue an executive order that paves the way for the federal government to issue Obamacare waivers to all fifty states. He will then work with Congress to repeal the full legislation as quickly as possible.

In place of Obamacare, Mitt will pursue policies that give each state the power to craft a health care reform plan that is best for its own citizens. The federal government’s role will be to help markets work by creating a level playing field for competition.

Restore State Leadership
Restore to the states the responsibility and resources to care for their poor, uninsured, and chronically ill:

• Block grant Medicaid and other payments to states
• Limit federal standards
• States will experiment and learn from one another
• Flexibility to deal with uninsured: e.g., charity, exchanges, subsidy for private coverage
• Flexibility to deal with chronically ill: e.g., high-risk pools, reinsurance, risk adjustment

Empower Individual Ownership
Give a tax deduction to those who buy their own health insurance, just like those who buy it through their employers:

• End tax discrimination
• Greater consumer choice—can buy what you want, not only what your employer wants
• Promote portability
• Help control health care costs

Focus Federal Regulation
Focus federal regulation of health care on making markets work:

• Correct common failures in the insurance market
• Ensure that individuals with pre-existing conditions who are continuously covered for a specified period may not be denied coverage
• Empower individuals and small businesses to form purchasing pools
• Eliminate counterproductive federal constraints
• Remove barriers to the sale of insurance across state lines
• Allow providers to design plans that meet consumer needs

Reform Medical Liability
Reduce the influence of lawsuits on medical practice and costs:

• Cap non-economic damages in medical malpractice lawsuits
• Innovation grants for state reforms: health courts, alternative dispute resolution, etc.

Introduce Market Forces
Make health care more like a consumer market and less like a government program:

• Unshackle HSAs—e.g., permit HSA funds to be used to pay insurance premiums
• Promote “co-insurance” products
• Encourage “Consumer Reports”-type rating of alternative insurance plans
• Facilitate IT interoperability
• Promote alternatives to “fee for service”

RightWay79 on February 16, 2012 at 11:20 AM

If Obamacare is upheld, you will see the public sentiment swing dramatically and repeal will be nearly impossible. I that event the fiscal issues will be of importance. That is what Romney has positioned himself to handle it irrespective of the outcome. Repeal, waive, defund.

csdeven on February 16, 2012 at 11:20 AM

Not good enough. I don’t care what he has “positioned” himself to do. I don’t trust him, and the truth of everything you’ve asserted about him hinges on whether one trusts campaign rhetoric or not.

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 11:21 AM

National pollsters have already released surveys showing Rick Santorum taking a lead over Mitt Romney in Romney’s native state of Michigan.

Ouch!!

That’s gonna leave a mark!

Tim_CA on February 16, 2012 at 11:22 AM

Why should Romney, who still brags on the monstrous government healthcare bureaucracy he created in Mass., be trusted to completely repeal Obamacare, when he and his people have told the press that they want to “keep the good parts” of it?

I have seen a legal study of it. There are no “good parts”.

kingsjester on February 16, 2012 at 11:24 AM


an we will have polygamy legal, just for mormons of course…. :)

nathor on February 16, 2012 at 10:52 AM

But the only candidate with many wives is…..NEWT

Natebo on February 16, 2012 at 11:25 AM

But you can’t force a brokered convention. There is no way to do it, by your own explanation. You can only vote.

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 11:15 AM

Of course I can’t and it would probably take an agreement between at least two of the three contestants to free their delegates. It’s grasping at straws but if the current comedy plays out with either Ricky or Willard as the candidate you should get to Grant Park in Chicago at least two weeks before the vote to get a good place for the Hussein victory party.

Annar on February 16, 2012 at 11:25 AM

Not that anyone cares :) Just expressing myself Hotair, if they are even listening.

I can’t come here anymore. Romney might be a train wreck but so is Santorum. The love fest going on at Hotair has made me not only question your judgment but find your writing less entertaining.

The blog comments have been insulting and irritating, although I know blog commenting typically is emotional.

For all your writing about PEU reform, you are picking the most pro PEU GOP candidate ever. Other blogs are posting Santorum’s voting record, old quotes, problems ect…Hotair is silent.

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

I am just writing to tell you I have been put off too much, I am taking a majority of my traffic to ace.mu.nu, Blaze, and Breitbart’s media outlets, at least I get more “opinion” and a decidedly more conservative/libertarian feel.

*I will vote for the sweater vest wearing train wreck Santorum when the time comes, if it comes.

cya.

ConservativeLaw on February 16, 2012 at 9:03 AM

Yeah, it’s probably best you take a break. You’ve gotten a bit hysterical lately. You will be back though. You see, HotAir is simply the best conservative blog out there, but you’ll find out for yourself. Til later . . . :)

KickandSwimMom on February 16, 2012 at 11:26 AM

I am not attempting to be provocative or offensive, but in all honesty, I think supporting Santorum is akin to following the Rev. Jim Jones lynncgb on February 16, 2012 at 10:18 AM

Give everyone a heads up when you do attempt being provocative, I bet it will be a dozy.

Cindy Munford on February 16, 2012 at 11:30 AM

I think we need to be careful about not chopping out off our nose to spite our face. The SCOTUS hangs in the balance. We either defeat Obama in November or we say goodbye to what is left of the US as we know it.

Voter from WA State on February 16, 2012 at 11:20 AM

Oh, I agree…it’s crucial that Obama lose. Judicial appointments alone make that a necessity. But, I think what someone else said yesterday is spot-on…defeating Obama has become secondary to beating Romney. That’s not a recipe for success in November.

changer1701 on February 16, 2012 at 11:31 AM

if santorum wins, atheist like me will be illegal. how is that for overblown fearmongering?
nathor on February 16, 2012 at 10:16 AM

.
That’s the idea.

As soon as Rick takes over the White House, I’m going to join forces with him in instituting the Santorum Inquisition.
.
Once I’ve been deputized, I will ride far and wide, all across the fruited plain, hunting INFIDELS.
BTW, did you know atheists are considered INFIDELS, by most major religions? WELL THEY ARE ! And they can’t escape from ME; I’ll catch ‘em ALL.

Yes, I can see it now . . . water-boarding? HAH!
I’ll begin . . . . . . . with the SOFT CUSHIONS. And if that doesn’t work, then . . . . . . the COMFY CHAIR !
.
That’s as far as it goes, ’cause NO ONE survives the “chair”.

So, be afraid nathor . . . be VERY afraid . . . . . . . . . . . . .

listens2glenn on February 16, 2012 at 11:33 AM

an we will have polygamy legal, just for mormons of course…. :)
nathor on February 16, 2012 at 10:52 AM

But the only candidate with many wives is…..NEWT

Natebo on February 16, 2012 at 11:25 AM

Bigot! He’d surely let the Muslims have their four wives too, it’s still part of their religion whereas the Mormons will need a new revelation (these things do seem to happen when needed).

Now what was that ceremony that Catholic nuns go through when they take their final vows?

Serial wives don’t count, you have to be married to them at the she time so Newt don’t count unless you make divorce illegal with retroactive effect..

Annar on February 16, 2012 at 11:36 AM

don’t –> doesn’t in last post.

Annar on February 16, 2012 at 11:38 AM

“WHY DO YOU HATE DONNY OSMOND — ?!?”
/Team Mittens
Kent18 on February 16, 2012 at 10:30 AM

Cause I’m a heterosexual MALE.
Marie, on the other hand . . . . . : )

listens2glenn on February 16, 2012 at 11:38 AM

That’s the idea.

As soon as Rick takes over the White House, I’m going to join forces with him in instituting the Santorum Inquisition.
.
Once I’ve been deputized, I will ride far and wide, all across the fruited plain, hunting INFIDELS.
BTW, did you know atheists are considered INFIDELS, by most major religions? WELL THEY ARE ! And they can’t escape from ME; I’ll catch ‘em ALL.

Yes, I can see it now . . . water-boarding? HAH!
I’ll begin . . . . . . . with the SOFT CUSHIONS. And if that doesn’t work, then . . . . . . the COMFY CHAIR !
.
That’s as far as it goes, ’cause NO ONE survives the “chair”.

So, be afraid nathor . . . be VERY afraid . . . . . . . . . . . . .

listens2glenn on February 16, 2012 at 11:33 AM

nooo, I would be tied to a couch “mechanical orange” style and forced to see the a video of the pope reading “human vitae” , over and over again! oh my, the horror, the horror!

nathor on February 16, 2012 at 11:55 AM

Serial wives don’t count, you have to be married to them at the she time so Newt don’t count unless you make divorce illegal with retroactive effect..

Annar on February 16, 2012 at 11:36 AM

santorum would make divorce illegal too by the way. its another catholic thing…

nathor on February 16, 2012 at 11:57 AM

R

omney’s opinion. On everything. Twice. ;)

Kent18 on February 16, 2012 at 11:14 AM

only twice ??/ r u sure ??? that is 9 months away ….. only twice ya say …. hmmmm

conservative tarheel on February 16, 2012 at 12:04 PM

nathor on February 16, 2012 at 11:57 AM

Oh, we should make all marriage legal and divorce illegal. Could be interesting!

Cindy Munford on February 16, 2012 at 12:09 PM


an we will have polygamy legal, just for mormons of course…. :)
nathor on February 16, 2012 at 10:52 AM
But the only candidate with many wives is…..NEWT

Natebo on February 16, 2012 at 11:25 AM
Bigot! He’d surely let the Muslims have their four wives too, it’s still part of their religion whereas the Mormons will need a new revelation (these things do seem to happen when needed).

Now what was that ceremony that Catholic nuns go through when they take their final vows?

Serial wives don’t count, you have to be married to them at the she time so Newt don’t count unless you make divorce illegal with retroactive effect..

Annar on February 16, 2012 at 11:36 AM

Bigot!!! Indeed. Well if you do not see the hypocrisy of those that slam Mitt Romney as a Mormon who has had been devoted to the same woman his whole life and overlook the disgusting trainwreck that is Newt’s personal life…then there is nothing more to say to you and those that are ABR because of social issues.

Natebo on February 16, 2012 at 12:10 PM

That’s the idea.

As soon as Rick takes over the White House, I’m going to join forces with him in instituting the Santorum Inquisition.

listens2glenn on February 16, 2012 at 11:33 AM

Santorquemada!

steebo77 on February 16, 2012 at 12:11 PM

Why should Romney, who still brags on the monstrous government healthcare bureaucracy he created in Mass., be trusted to completely repeal Obamacare, when he and his people have told the press that they want to “keep the good parts” of it?

I have seen a legal study of it. There are no “good parts”.

kingsjester on February 16, 2012 at 11:24 AM

Bingo.

SparkPlug on February 16, 2012 at 12:11 PM

ConservativeLaw on February 16, 2012 at 9:03 AM

.
HA has become a bit of a Wind Mill to be going after. The media has controlled the tone from the outset and being liberally motivated – they have tried to make Rs look like clowns, and want nothing less than a chaotic cut throat RNC convention to validate their corruptible influence.
.
Its just gonna be all fluff and bluster until Tampa anyway.

FlaMurph on February 16, 2012 at 12:12 PM

Santorum could win MI. Nice. Not wild about some of his views.

SparkPlug on February 16, 2012 at 12:12 PM

I think we need to be careful about not chopping out off our nose to spite our face. The SCOTUS hangs in the balance. We either defeat Obama in November or we say goodbye to what is left of the US as we know it.

Voter from WA State on February 16, 2012 at 11:20 AM

I agree.

Elisa on February 16, 2012 at 12:17 PM

That’s the idea.

As soon as Rick takes over the White House, I’m going to join forces with him in instituting the Santorum Inquisition.
.
Once I’ve been deputized, I will ride far and wide, all across the fruited plain, hunting INFIDELS.
BTW, did you know atheists are considered INFIDELS, by most major religions? WELL THEY ARE ! And they can’t escape from ME; I’ll catch ‘em ALL.

Yes, I can see it now . . . water-boarding? HAH!
I’ll begin . . . . . . . with the SOFT CUSHIONS. And if that doesn’t work, then . . . . . . the COMFY CHAIR !
.
That’s as far as it goes, ’cause NO ONE survives the “chair”.

So, be afraid nathor . . . be VERY afraid . . . . . . . . . . . . .

listens2glenn on February 16, 2012 at 11:33 AM

nooo, I would be tied to a couch “mechanical orange” style and forced to see the a video of the pope reading “human vitae” , over and over again! oh my, the horror, the horror!

nathor on February 16, 2012 at 11:55 AM

You guys are funny. Thanks for the laugh. I am getting so sick of hearing about birth control.

About that “comfy chair.” Is that going to be next to Santorum’s “candy desk?” Yes, Rick is someone to be feared. 10 years at the candy desk. And he upgraded it to Hershey’s chocolate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candy_desk

Elisa on February 16, 2012 at 12:20 PM

Santorquemada!

steebo77 on February 16, 2012 at 12:11 PM

he already labeled porn as heretic:

http://www.ricksantorum.com/issues

nathor on February 16, 2012 at 12:21 PM

Sooooooooooo…

… How’s the blood sport today?

/

Seven Percent Solution on February 16, 2012 at 12:23 PM

test

gumbyandpokey on February 16, 2012 at 12:36 PM

Voter from WA State on February 16, 2012 at 11:20 AM

I agree.

Elisa on February 16, 2012 at 12:17 PM

That and Obamacare and administrative branch federal regulations.

Three major reasons to be ABO.

cozmo on February 16, 2012 at 12:40 PM

That and Obamacare and administrative branch federal regulations.

Three major reasons to be ABO.

cozmo on February 16, 2012 at 12:40 PM

I’d rank Obama’s callous and thinly veiled disdain for the American constitution right up there.

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 12:47 PM

I say Romney wins in a squeaker and the ONLY reason why is because MI is an open primary and I read on Drudge that Kos has already called out the dogs for them to launch “Operation Hilarity” based off Operation Chaos” the vote in MI. So basically Dems will be signing up to vote FOR Santorum because they want to see us continue to bloody each other up instead of focusing on Obama. So how real are these numbers for Santorum?

As far as AZ, where I live, Romney will win that by at least 10 points.

g2825m on February 16, 2012 at 12:50 PM

hen there is nothing more to say to you and those that are ABR because of social issues.

Natebo on February 16, 2012 at 12:10 PM

Actually, I’m part of the ABSR crowd. Monogamy does not necessarily make good presidents nor does the contrary imply one would be a bad one.

Annar on February 16, 2012 at 12:53 PM

I think we need to be careful about not chopping out off our nose to spite our face. The SCOTUS hangs in the balance. We either defeat Obama in November or we say goodbye to what is left of the US as we know it.

Voter from WA State on February 16, 2012 at 11:20 AM

I agree.

Elisa on February 16, 2012 at 12:17 PM

And you know that Santorum voted for Sonia Sotomayer, right?
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/which-republican-presidential-candidate-supported-sotomayor/

So while Santorum also supported Specter in his bid…
Among those supporting Toomey’s primary challenge to Specter: a certain Massachusetts governor named Mitt Romney.

g2825m on February 16, 2012 at 1:00 PM

g2825m on February 16, 2012 at 1:00 PM

Old argument. The president gets to pick supreme court justices. The dems started to filibuster them. They are wrong. Just as republicans are when they do the same.

It part of that whole “elections have consequences” thing.

cozmo on February 16, 2012 at 1:04 PM

g2825m on February 16, 2012 at 1:00 PM

Old argument. The president gets to pick supreme court justices. The dems started to filibuster them. They are wrong. Just as republicans are when they do the same.

It part of that whole “elections have consequences” thing.

cozmo on February 16, 2012 at 1:04 PM

cozmo…the point is HIS VOTE for Sotomayer. Read the article and you will see that from Rush on down people were saying DO NOT VOTE for this person as she will eventually end up on the SCOTUS…and yet Santorum did and followed that up the next year with his backing of Specter and then again in the 2000′s which he lost (actually both did during that few years of timespan).

g2825m on February 16, 2012 at 1:20 PM

g2825m on February 16, 2012 at 1:20 PM

Part of the constitution is that the president gets to appoint judges. Once the congress gets to decide, its all over. If you want the good, that means you must also accept the bad.

She was constitutionally qualified. I don’t like it. You don’t like it. But, it is what it is. When dems are in office, we are not going to get Roberts, Scalia or Thomas.

cozmo on February 16, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Give everyone a heads up when you do attempt being provocative, I bet it will be a dozy.

Cindy Munford on February 16, 2012 at 11:30 AM

Yeah, a little too brutally honest? I need to work on that diplomacy thing.

lynncgb on February 16, 2012 at 2:48 PM

Hey, RightWay79, your boy, RINO Romney (aka Obama-Lite) LIES about other candidates’ records now. Don’t you think that the Wall Street bought-and-paid-for Willard (from the RAT movie of the same name) will also LIE his way into the oval office, and LIE to the American public (in favor of his Wall Street BFFs) once he’s there???? Don’t give a crap about what a candidate puts on their stupid website!?! And I don’t really give a crap about some 100,000 $9.00/hr jobs RINO Romney SUPPOSEDLY created!?! Look at the RECORD for Willard!?! It’s FRIGHTENING!?! And another thing, WAIVERS DO NOT EQUAL REPEAL!?!?!

Colatteral Damage on February 16, 2012 at 3:02 PM

ED, Give people time to get to know the real Rick Santorum and I wonder if his numbers will stay up there.

After all, if he was all that great..where was everyone 6 months ago.

Hey, RightWay79, your boy, RINO Romney (aka Obama-Lite) LIES about other candidates’ records now. Don’t you think that the Wall Street bought-and-paid-for Willard (from the RAT movie of the same name) will also LIE his way into the oval office, and LIE to the American public (in favor of his Wall Street BFFs) once he’s there???? Don’t give a crap about what a candidate puts on their stupid website!?! And I don’t really give a crap about some 100,000 $9.00/hr jobs RINO Romney SUPPOSEDLY created!?! Look at the RECORD for Willard!?! It’s FRIGHTENING!?! And another thing, WAIVERS DO NOT EQUAL REPEAL!?!?!

Colatteral Damage on February 16, 2012 at 3:02 PM

Speaking of Rino just today I saw a link to an article that is starting to make the rounds where Santorum called himself a progressive Republican..his words.

He also voted against Right to Work..Evirify and voted for the earned income tax credit for illegals who had not gotten their citizenship yet..He voted for earmarks and Amtrac and he vocally dissed not only the libertarian movement but the Tea Party as well.

Santorum is not some strong movement conservative and in spite of that the people who are longing for a brokered convention are supporting him. That is what this is about..a brokered convention so that the people in the smoke filled rooms can pick the candidate.

Romney is more conservative than Santorum is and he is not half as weird.

Only time will tell if Santorum will crash and burn like the other ABRs..but if he does not crash now..he certainly will later.

Terrye on February 16, 2012 at 6:38 PM

BTW,when you look at those polls remember what happened in Florida..I don’t know if Romney can pull it off again, but Gingrich’s lead went away really fast..Ricky’s might too.

Terrye on February 16, 2012 at 6:40 PM

This is a nightmare. The anyone but Romney crowd has really lost it.

At least Newt was a good speaker. At least Cain was amusing. At least Bachman was for a smaller government. They may not have had a chance either but they had something going for them. We are just choosing to lose.

V7_Sport on February 16, 2012 at 6:44 PM

This is a nightmare. The anyone but Romney crowd has really lost it.

At least Newt was a good speaker. At least Cain was amusing. At least Bachman was for a smaller government. They may not have had a chance either but they had something going for them. We are just choosing to lose.

V7_Sport on February 16, 2012 at 6:44 PM

LOL….!!!

Sundress!!….Your shift finally started…..see you’re still packing that girlish charm!

Howzit hon??

Tim_CA on February 16, 2012 at 8:31 PM

Maybe some Republicans really want to lose..in the CBS poll that had Santorum 2 points ahead of Romney, there was also this:

Now when asked who has the best chance of beating Barack Obama, these where the results:

Mitt Romney 55%
Newt Gingrich 15%
Rick Santorum 14%
Ron Paul 3%

So they want to lose, right?

Terrye on February 16, 2012 at 9:50 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4