Q-poll: Santorum up 9 over Romney

posted at 9:50 am on February 22, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Rick Santorum’s momentum on a national level continues in the new Quinnipiac poll conducted among 1124 Republican primary voters.  The news is not so good among the larger sample of 2,605 registered voters, where Mitt Romney scores within the margin of error against Barack Obama, but Santorum trails by 10:

Former Pennsylvania U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum leads the Republican presidential field with 35 percent, followed by former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney with 26 percent among Republicans and independent voters leaning Republican nationwide, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today. In November matchups, President Barack Obama edges Santorum, while the race with Romney is too close to call,

Santorum leads Romney head-to-head 50 – 37 percent.

Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul score in double digits, but still fall far off the pace at 14% and 11%, respectively. Santorum’s strength comes from Tea Party supporters and evangelical Christians, but the surprising demo for Santorum is women. He beats Romney 34/28 among women, just as Gallup found yesterday.  If Santorum’s attention to traditional conservative values and comments on the HHS contraception mandate damage him among women, it’s certainly not true among those women voting in the Republican primaries, at least according to this poll.

In the general election?  There’s actually not that much difference between Santorum and Romney:

Although this is Quinnipiac University’s first national poll this year, all of the numerous surveys of key states this year, including Florida, Ohio and Virginia, show Romney doing better against Obama than Santorum.

In this national poll, the president benefits from his 46 – 41 percent lead over Romney and 49 – 39 percent margin over Santorum among independent voters.

Obama wins women head-to-head against Romney in this poll by eight points, 49/41. He also wins independents 46/41, but loses Catholics by a huge margin of 35/56 — a big contrast to his 54/45 win in that demo against John McCain in 2008. However, Santorum loses women only by one point more, 50/41, but does worse among independents, losing by twice as much at 49/39. The Catholic vote stays the same, but Santorum does better with seniors (52/40) against Obama than does Romney (48/41).

The sample seems to be a little off, however, although not exactly tilted. The weighted D/R/I is 30/28/33, but another 8% are “other.” In other polls, those would go into the independent column, which would make this 30/28/41, a little too tilted toward the independents.  (The 2010 midterms produced a 35/35/30 split, for comparison.)  The sample doesn’t account for the R/I mix in the Republican primary polling, so it’s impossible to know whether Republicans were oversampled for that purpose (which would tend to help Santorum) or undersampled (which would tend to help Romney).


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

John Hitchcock on February 22, 2012 at 1:37 PM

My point was that many social conservatives cannot resist the temptation to allow the economic issues to take a back seat when social issue hot buttons are pushed, thus giving the media ammo they need to deflect away from Obama’s track record and reinforce the image of socons as one or two issue voters. Just look at the direction, tone, and tolerance of most HA threads when religion enters the discussion.. Santorum’s negativity regarding U.S. values bears some slight resemblance to Obama’s Blame America First speaking tour overseas a few years ago. Ditto for his promise to use his bully pulpit to speak out against contraceptives. I would prefer sunny and cheerful optimism, but that apparently doesn’t sell well nowdays to certain groups.

a capella on February 22, 2012 at 2:07 PM

In these threads, I constantly see the use of terms like truecons, socons, fiscons, but that seems like a label employed in a disagreement in order to have the final word. It doesn’t really lend much to a discussion if you are seeking to come to some point of clarity or understanding. I am politically conservative and for me that means government policies limited by the constitution, (not just by personal preferences) a moral foundation for our society (as found in a Christian world and life view), and sound fiscal restraint (unlike the liberal viewpoint of tax and spend and borrow). Simple labels don’t really define what a person believes

I am concerned that we have lost the right to true private ownership, often through taxation laws, that the federal government has taken over duties left to the states by the constitution and has far too much power now, and that we seem to not care about the integrity of our elected and appointed officials. I do feel Rick Santorum comes closest to representing my views politically, but not perfectly.

Constance on February 22, 2012 at 2:07 PM

4)Used Santorum’s dead child as a joke and used it against supporters who have lost a child

*raises his hand*

Yep, at least one of them did that to me in a previous thread. And I’m an either/or guy. I’ll vote for either Santorum or Gingrich in the General. But I won’t vote for the insane Nor Laup or the lying, baby killer mandate, Left-of-Center Mitt Romney, who supports all three sides to each critical issue, depending on the audience at the time.

John Hitchcock on February 22, 2012 at 2:10 PM

How dare you call me a heretic? You don’t know the first thing about me. There’s a word for people like you as well.

V7_Sport on February 22, 2012 at 1:02 PM

You’ve trolled around on a thread about polling and tried to make it all into a religious war against Santorum. Yes, you are a heretic. Or perhaps you’d prefer the term rabble rouser. In any case you’ve managed to demagogue the entire discussion. You’ve made statements that are outright lies. Your claim that Santorum views users of birth control as non-Christian is downright absurd.

And again, to qualify for the Presidency one needs to be over 35 and natural born citizen of the United States. There is no religious qualification so for you to base your hatred of Santorum solely on his faith and the tenets of that faith is a pretty poor way to decide which candidate deserves your support. Given that the jug-eared idiot spent twenty years in a racist church is far more troubling to me than a Catholic actually living by his faith.

Most importantly, I don’t need to know the first thing about you to understand that there is only one being that is in a position to decide who is and who is not a Christian and you are not Him.

Happy Nomad on February 22, 2012 at 2:11 PM

That being said, R.S. comes across very poorly to those of us who aren’t keen on having a president who warns about “sensuality” and has a unique view of constitutionally enshrined “liberty”. There are plenty of moral issues which are fiscal issues, and I wish he’d stick to that playbook instead of constantly assuming the role of scolding us as Moralizer-in-Chief.

Buy Danish on February 22, 2012 at 2:00 PM

I do agree Santorum should have a tighter focus in his soundbites, but it is kind of refreshing to see someone actually say what they mean. I get that it’s politics, but some posters who are fretting about media spin given today’s media seem to be worrying about the inevitable no matter who the candidate is.

Mitt comes across poorly because while I’m sure he has concrete viewpoints, anything he says is filtered before a committee and a focus group before he says it. It comes across as untrustworthy. And the Romneycare thing is still hanging around his neck like a stone.

Are you for Romney or are you a Newt person? I will be the first to admit that this election cycle is like picking between spoiled fruit. Which apple is the least moldy this time around?

BakerAllie on February 22, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Buy Danish, this is a Christian nation. The Constitution is wholly inadequate for any other. — Paraphrase of the Father of the Constitution, John Adams.
John Hitchcock on February 22, 2012 at 2:06 PM

What’s your point?

Buy Danish on February 22, 2012 at 2:11 PM

I am concerned that we have lost the right to true private ownership, often through taxation laws, that the federal government has taken over duties left to the states by the constitution and has far too much power now, and that we seem to not care about the integrity of our elected and appointed officials. I do feel Rick Santorum comes closest to representing my views politically, but not perfectly.
Constance on February 22, 2012 at 2:07 PM

Santorum voted with the unions against Right to Work. Few things are more of a threat to our liberties, to “true private ownership”, than forced union membership and the power these rules confer to them.

BakerAllie on February 22, 2012 at 2:11 PM

I am a Romney supporter. Georgia’s Attorney General, Sam Olens, is among those arguing to the Supreme Court that ObamaCare is unconstitutional. He is also the co-chair of Mitt’s Georgia campaign. I have no worries whatsoever about Romney’s will to overturn ObamaCare.

Buy Danish on February 22, 2012 at 2:18 PM

A capella, the birth control pill has been linked to breast cancer in scientific studies, due to the unnatural level of various hormones and suchlike. All IUDs are abortifacients, at least in part. The “Pill” is also an abortifacient in part (step three of its three-step process to prevent “pregnancy”). All “morning after” drugs are abortifacients.

And beyond that, stygmatizing people who choose to “do the do” while not married and with the spouse is also Fiscally Conservative. It prevents huge amounts of cash flowing from tax-payers, through government which takes a cut, to government teat-suckers. Welfare, Medicaid, CHIP, WIC, etc, etc, etc. No, Social Liberals will always sacrifice their supposedly Fiscally Conservative postions, so long as they can keep their Social Liberalism. The one is anathema to the other.

(And I’ve never made more than 35k in a single year in my life, mostly under 25k, just to prevent other random irrelevant falsehoods.)

John Hitchcock on February 22, 2012 at 2:18 PM

re.John Hitchcock

Oh? Which person who declared he or she is a Protestant did you say Santorum thinks that person is a Christian?

OK, this is what you wrote:
Hey, irrational thought, weren’t you one of the ones who lied and claimed Romney declared all Protestants not Christians? I know that V7_Sport did indeed push that lie.
Firstly I think you are confusing Romney with Santorum, secondly I have quoted what Santorum said a half dozen times.
“We look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country and it is in shambles, it is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it.”
OK, mainstream Protestantism is not a part of Christianity according to the way he sees things.

That’s not the quote I’m looking for, but that is an out-and-out lie on your part, just to serve your Master.

I don’t like liars and I stand by what I wrote. When you have someone who is setting themselves up as the arbiter of what is and what isn’t a Christian and who has declared that mainstream (mainline) Protestants are not, that’s a problem. If you don’t think that mainstreem Protestants are Christians that’s your issue, I wouldn’t vote for you either.

to push your absolutely dishonest and absolutely hateful agenda.

Did you read what he said? You don’t see anything wrong with that?

“Santorum doesn’t think” Flora Duh’s “a Christian.

She’s a protestent who has used birth control by her own proclamation. A mainstream Protestant.

But you have yet to provide any positive evidence for a Protestant your lying mouth..

It’s fun to say things on the internet to people that you wouldn’t say to their faces, isn”t it?
Read it.

V7_Sport on February 22, 2012 at 2:22 PM

There are plenty of moral issues which are fiscal issues, and I wish he’d stick to that playbook instead of constantly assuming the role of scolding us as Moralizer-in-Chief.

Buy Danish on February 22, 2012 at 2:00 PM

It was a speech from 2008 to Catholics…that is hardly “scolding you”…good grief,were you even in the audience? The same city? The same state? The same venue?
He is answering questions regarding that speech, and he wants to move on…but gossip seems to be much more interesting to most of the “political experts” than politics.

Remember….2008 and you were not there being “scolded”, it’s a fantasy in your mind.

right2bright on February 22, 2012 at 2:25 PM

V7_Sport on February 22, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Is a speech to Catholics, in 2008 really that important to you…or is his 12 years of receiving an A grade from the National Taxpayers Union, of more interest?
Gossip or fact…let’s see which one is of more interest to you…

right2bright on February 22, 2012 at 2:27 PM

I am a Romney supporter. Georgia’s Attorney General, Sam Olens, is among those arguing to the Supreme Court that ObamaCare is unconstitutional. He is also the co-chair of Mitt’s Georgia campaign. I have no worries whatsoever about Romney’s will to overturn ObamaCare.

Buy Danish on February 22, 2012 at 2:18 PM

And Rick is a proven conservative fiscal, with a voting record (A grade as noted), and the only straight A grade during the last 4 years of Bush, in the Senate…it’s not talk, it’s actually action, that has been documented and analyzed by an independent source.
Mitt’s record does not come close…and glad you have faith in him that he will overturn ObamaCare…all of the candidates say that.

right2bright on February 22, 2012 at 2:31 PM

Buy Danish, this is a Christian nation. The Constitution is wholly inadequate for any other. — Paraphrase of the Father of the Constitution, John Adams.
John Hitchcock on February 22, 2012 at 2:06 PM

You took some gigantic liberties with that paraphrase. Adams said the Constitution was made to religious and moral people, not specifically Christian. Maybe he was right, maybe he was wrong. I agree with the “moral” part, not sure about the religious.

joana on February 22, 2012 at 2:36 PM

Is a speech to Catholics, in 2008 really that important to you…or is his 12 years of receiving an A grade from the National Taxpayers Union, of more interest?
Gossip or fact…let’s see which one is of more interest to you…

right2bright on February 22, 2012 at 2:27 PM

What part of the speech is gossip? Haven’t you listened to the audio?

Those scoreboards don’t mean anything to me. It’s easy to score well by simply voting on reducing taxes and bills that won’t go anywhere. Voting to reduce taxes is easy – no political cost. What matters is cutting spending – that’s the proper measure of taxation. Cutting taxes without cutting spending is merely passing the taxes to future generations. Santorum voted for increased spending consistently – including the biggest expansion of entitlements since Lyndon Johnson, funding to Planet Parenthood and plenty of pork to his donors – and never sponsored a spending cut bill.

Santorum isn’t a tax’n’spend socialist. He’s a borrow’n’spend socialist.

joana on February 22, 2012 at 2:40 PM

right2bright on February 22, 2012 at 2:31 PM

One. More. Time. The Attorney General Sam Olens, who is arguing in front of the Supreme Court, is his fracking co-chair. Short of a trip forward in a time machine, I don’t know what more you want or need to rest be assured that these are not just idle words on his part.

As for Santorum’s fiscal creds – he is a legislator. I’m not a big fan of legislators moving into the White House. Moreover he supported affirmative action for federal hiring, and there’s the aforementioned right to work issue. Neither of those are fiscally conservative…

Buy Danish on February 22, 2012 at 2:41 PM

Happy Nomad

You’ve trolled around on a thread about polling and tried to make it all into a religious war against Santorum.

I am amazed that anyone is expected to be fine with a presidential candidate sating that as far as he is concerned mainline Protestants are no longer Christian. Whether they be Catholic or Protestant it ought to be upsetting that this jerk is dismissing the bulk of the largest religious movement in the USA as heretics.

Yes, you are a heretic.

Yes, I’m mainstream Protestent. A Presbyterian turned Baptist to be specific. So I’ve been called a heretic twice today.

Or perhaps you’d prefer the term rabble rouser. In any case you’ve managed to demagogue the entire discussion.

Here are his words: “We look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country and it is in shambles, it is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it.” If you think that mainstream Protestants are not Christian you are a bigoted jackass.

You’ve made statements that are outright lies.

Bull.

claim that Santorum views users of birth control as non-Christian is downright absurd.

Harmful to women, harmful to society, but in the mainstream of acceptability among us heritics. Re read what I wrote.

There is no religious qualification so for you to base your hatred of Santorum solely on his faith

I don’t hate Catholics. Not even a little. I object to being told I am not a Christian because I don’t believe what one of them thinks I ought to.

Given that the jug-eared idiot spent twenty years in a racist church is far more troubling to me than a Catholic actually living by his faith.

Not setting the bar all that high, are you?

Most importantly, I don’t need to know the first thing about you to understand that there is only one being that is in a position to decide who is and who is not a Christian and you are not Him.

Well then, seeing as you have called me a heretic I guess you think you are God.

V7_Sport on February 22, 2012 at 2:41 PM

right2bright on February 22, 2012 at 2:25 PM

It is absurd that a speech (at a Catholic college) has been taken out of context. Funny how the same thing wasn’t done when Obama spoke at Notre Dame and talked about the dignity of life even though he did not vote against an Illinois law that requires medical care to be witheld from aborted children who have the audacity to still be viable despite the Planned Parenthood butcher’s best efforts.

Happy Nomad on February 22, 2012 at 2:42 PM

“We look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country and it is in shambles, it is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it.”

OK, mainstream Protestantism is not a part of Christianity according to the way he sees things.

“Mainline” is not identical to “mainstream” and is not interchangeable. And a great many Protestant “churches” have most definitely rejected the Truth in the Bible for their own non-Christian whims, as the church in Ephasus according to Revelation (which is a prophetic Book, and Ephasus refers to today).

The rest of your “refutation” is based around your above premise I already proved to be unsound and invalid; therefore, by the rules of logic, the rest of your “refutation” is likewise unsound and invalid.

Or are you going to admit you forgo logic in order to use your wholly illogical, rhetorically flawed attacks against millions of people?

If you would at least be honest in that one point, which is wholly obvious to any rational-thinking individual, then everything will be much easier. We can ignore you outright as the irrational person you would then be admitting you are.

John Hitchcock on February 22, 2012 at 2:45 PM

Is a speech to Catholics, in 2008 really that important to you…or is his 12 years of receiving an A grade from the National Taxpayers Union, of more interest?
Gossip or fact…let’s see which one is of more interest to you…

right2bright on February 22, 2012 at 2:27 PM

This is important and it’s not “gossip”. I wasn’t going to support Santorum anyway, he sided with the public sector unions, he’s a statist, a big government so-con which I see as just the obverse of the liberal nanny state, etc. However this shows a bigoted mindset and an undisciplined mouth which are both attributes that we should avoid n a president.

V7_Sport on February 22, 2012 at 2:47 PM

Ha! right2bright, this is for you:

However, Santorum’s record on food stamps does not quite match his rhetoric. At Verum Serum, Morgen details how then-Sen. Santorum blocked a 2005 attempt by the Bush Administration to close a loophole that allowed states to confer automatic eligibility for food stamps by simply handing out an informational pamphlet to potential beneficiaries, bypassing the means testing required under normal program rules. The change would have resulted in a reduction in spending of only three tenths of one percent — but a $574 million reduction over five years would have set an important precedent. Santorum, then a member of the Agricultural Committee, not only helped block this reform, but bragged about it. Apparently, magically making people eligible for food stamps by handing them a pamphlet was much less fascist and did not breed dependency just a few short years ago.

and

….In the 2003-2004 session of Congress, Santorum sponsored or cosponsored 51 bills to increase spending, and failed to sponsor or co-sponsor even one spending cut proposal. In his last Congress (2005-2006), he had one of the biggest spending agendas of any Republican — sponsoring more spending increases than Republicans Lisa Murkowski, Lincoln Chafee and Thad Cochran or Democrats Herb Kohl, Evan Bayh and Ron Wyden.

Buy Danish on February 22, 2012 at 2:48 PM

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. The Santorum folks are calling people “heretics” — and they wonder why their guy in unelectable?! I am truly LMAO right now. How can people be so clueless, so insular, so fanatical, so far removed from their fellow Americans that they do NOT understand that calling people heretics makes them look positively nuts? What’s next? “I saw Goody Proctor with the devil! I saw Goody Osburn with the devil! I saw Bridget Bishop with the devil!” Oh my gosh. This is freakin’ hilarious! Where is Judge Hathorne when you need him!

Rational Thought on February 22, 2012 at 2:48 PM

You took some gigantic liberties with that paraphrase. Adams said the Constitution was made to religious and moral people, not specifically Christian.

Joana:
1) Study the definition of “context”.
2) Discover the meaning of “historical context”.
3) Learn American History.
4) Apply your new-found understanding of “context” and “historical context” to your new-found knowledge of American History.
5) Admit to yourself that I took no liberties at all with that paraphrase. (Because I didn’t.)

John Hitchcock on February 22, 2012 at 2:50 PM

“We look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country and it is in shambles, it is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it.”

V7_Sport,

It is clear in the greater context that Santorum was talking about the way mainline Protestantism has strayed from traditional tenets of faith and into areas like embracing homosexuality as a normal lifestyle choice. I can’t say that I fully disagree with him that too many denominations are in shambles and not reflective at all of scripture. How you get that he is calling you a non-Christian is something that only makes sense to you.

And for the record, I’m a life-long Presbyterian and have seen what the leadership of the PC(USA) has done to its faith in the name of political correctness and “inclusiveness.” PC(USA) is indeed in a shambles.

Happy Nomad on February 22, 2012 at 2:51 PM

John Hitchcock

Mainline” is not identical to “mainstream” and is not interchangeable.

I actually looked it up before I started down this road.

Definition of MAINLINE
: being part of an established group; also :
being in the mainstream

The rest of your “refutation” is based around your above premise I already proved to be unsound and invalid

??? All you have proven that you don’t have the class to apologize to someone that you called a liar who was telling the truth.

V7_Sport on February 22, 2012 at 2:52 PM

right2bright on February 22, 2012 at 2:31 PM

Is it an “A” he has?

Then why do all the deficit fighters attack him?

I love the guy but question Saint Orium’s Grades

He might do wonders for the rust belt and manufacturing. Clearly part of our real problem..but how?/strong>

I find it odd that Rick has an “A” today in fiscal matters when he was graded below Congresswoman Bachmann, Congressman Paul, and Speaker Gingrich as recently as last December.

http://www.ntu.org/governmentbytes/1221republican-presidential.html

Did you give him an “A” or did he?

IlikedAUH2O on February 22, 2012 at 2:55 PM

However this shows a bigoted mindset

Please.

The Left have stolen so many words and redefined them to their benefit.

Liberal
Gay
Queer
Bigot
Extremist
Hater

That’s just a quick six which have been redefined and demented to serve Leftist agendae. So-called “Conservatives” or so-called “Libertarians” should not make use of the Leftist redefinition. (So-called “Libertarians” can if they are in actuality Libertines, because I have no use for Libertines.)

Too many fools have confused liberty with license. And that’s because they have lost the Judeo-Christian heritage upon which the US was founded, and upon which the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written.

John Hitchcock on February 22, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Pssst…Rick played for the A.

IlikedAUH2O on February 22, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Buy Danish on February 22, 2012 at 2:48 PM

Ouch! Maybe that’s why his supporters would rather discuss social issues.

a capella on February 22, 2012 at 2:59 PM

O’Donnell and Angle were sabotaged by the Republican establishment.

That won’t happen in the general.

listens2glenn on February 22, 2012 at 10:02 AM

Oh please. O’Donnell was a weirdo and one of the worst candidates ever. Her personal life was a mess as was her campaign. There was no help for her. Angle and her campaign were inept. She got millions of dollars and enormous support from people all around the country, but she just plain blew it. Maybe if she had listened to some professional advice, we wouldn’t still be stuck with Horrible Harry. I got no love for the “Republican establishment,” but they didn’t “sabotage” O’Donnell and Angle. Those two ladies sabotaged themselves. Both were poor choices for Tea Party support. As is Rick Santorum.

SukieTawdry on February 22, 2012 at 2:59 PM

Santorum had…(drumroll)..a good solid, B+!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IlikedAUH2O on February 22, 2012 at 2:59 PM

Mainline Protestant Churches are not necessarily mainstream. Nor do they necessarily house the majority of Christians. In fact, since many mainline Protestant Churches have rejected large portions of Scripture, I suggest most mainline Protestant Churches have an infinitesimally small number of Christians, and definitely don’t have Christians at the top.

John Hitchcock on February 22, 2012 at 3:01 PM

SukieTawdry on February 22, 2012 at 2:59 PM

I have it on good authority that John Boehner wants no witches in his caucus. None.

They already have Nancy, so give them a break.

IlikedAUH2O on February 22, 2012 at 3:02 PM

Happy Nomad

It is clear in the greater context that Santorum was talking about the way mainline Protestantism has strayed from traditional tenets of faith and into areas like embracing homosexuality as a normal lifestyle choice.

That’s not really mainstream Protestantism and that’s also not what he said.

How you get that he is calling you a non-Christian is something that only makes sense to you.

I’m a Protestant, and I’m pretty mainstream.

And for the record, I’m a life-long Presbyterian and have seen what the leadership of the PC(USA) has done to its faith in the name of political correctness and “inclusiveness.” PC(USA) is indeed in a shambles.

It depends on the church, but that is admittedly why I attend a Baptist church today. Regardless, while you may be content sweeping this under the rug, the Obama campaign can add it to the the list of things they can use in the general if we are stupid enough to nominate him.

V7_Sport on February 22, 2012 at 3:02 PM

Senate might be different.

IlikedAUH2O on February 22, 2012 at 3:03 PM

Re.John Hitchcock

Please.

Not even close to an apology.

V7_Sport on February 22, 2012 at 3:04 PM

You know a sure-fire way to exponentially increase government spending while at the same time stealing a person’s Providence-given Liberty?

ROMNEYCARE

The funny thing about RomneyCare? While huge chunks of the cost was handed over to the Federal Government (that means the tax-payers in the other 49 states), Health Insurance costs for Massachusetts residents rose at a faster rate than the rest of the country.

Not only did RomneyCare cost every single tax-payer in the US, it also cost MA residents in higher premiums than they would have had without it.

Fiscally responsible? Romney? It is to laugh.
Socially Liberal? Romney? Well, DUH!
Constitutional Conservative? Romney? If you bet on Sham to win the Belmont, I’ll give you 500-to-1 odds. So, please put up a few K on that race. I know your foolish enough in other parts of your life.

John Hitchcock on February 22, 2012 at 3:09 PM

John Hitchcock

Mainline Protestant Churches are not necessarily mainstream.

The words are synonymous.

Nor do they necessarily house the majority of Christians.

Just the majority of Protestants, who are evidentially no longer Christian.

In fact, since many mainline Protestant Churches have rejected large portions of Scripture

Cute. Good thing there’s nothing to take issue with with the way modern Catholics practice their faith.

I suggest most mainline Protestant Churches have an infinitesimally small number of Christians, and definitely don’t have Christians at the top.

So If we are going tofollow your lead it’s going to come down to insult trading between religions. Wonderful. Vote Santorum! because the USA doesn’t look enough like Ulster in the ’70s.

V7_Sport on February 22, 2012 at 3:13 PM

Re.John Hitchcock

Please.

Not even close to an apology.

V7_Sport on February 22, 2012 at 3:04 PM

Interesting lack of desire to be honest in your hidden claims.

No, V7_Sport, you won’t get an apology out of me until you repent of all your lies (and that means confession plus an absolutely true desire to never do those things again, which is, at this point, beyond your capacity).

You’re a dishonest hack and, contrary (and nearly a polar opposite) to my views of a capella, I have never, under any circumstances, considered you worthy of any respect. You gotta earn my respect. And so far, with your absolute hackery, and your absolute revisionism regarding Santorum’s actual, you know, words and stuff and their, you know, meanings, I don’t expect to ever have any respect for such a dishonest person as yourself.

John Hitchcock on February 22, 2012 at 3:15 PM


3) Learn American History.
4) Apply your new-found understanding of “context” and “historical context” to your new-found knowledge of American History.
5) Admit to yourself that I took no liberties at all with that paraphrase. (Because I didn’t.)

John Hitchcock on February 22, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Yeah. Good advice. You should take it.

United States Constitution, Article VI, paragraph 3:

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

HTL on February 22, 2012 at 3:21 PM

Cute. Good thing there’s nothing to take issue with with the way modern Catholics practice their faith.

Non-sequitur.

You were talking about how Santorum thought no Protestants were Christians. I called you out on your inferred lie. The vast majority of mainline Protestant churches (lower-case for a reason) have rejected large portions of Scripture, thus are not Christian. The vast majority of attendees in those churches will also be not Christian. It is the nature of the Beast (capitalized for a reason). Preach a lie in the pulpit, formulate a lie in your bylaws, reject Providence’s commands in your bylaws, and don’t find many (if any) true converts to Christianity. Just to a counterfeit version of Christianity.

Them’s the facts. And that’s what many mainline Protestant churches do, contrary to the Church.

And I’ve repeated myself enough for anyone with any sense to know I’m a Protestant. And my proclamation to my Protestantism (and my declaration that I’m a Christian well ahead of my Protestant denominationalism) has been well documented on more than one blog prior to 2010 (and I entered the blogosphere in 2009, having just found it).

John Hitchcock on February 22, 2012 at 3:24 PM

John Hitchcock

Mainline Protestant Churches are not necessarily mainstream.

The words are synonymous.

Nor do they necessarily house the majority of Christians.

Just the majority of Protestants, who are evidentially no longer Christian.

In fact, since many mainline Protestant Churches have rejected large portions of Scripture

Cute. Good thing there’s nothing to take issue with with the way modern Catholics practice their faith.

I suggest most mainline Protestant Churches have an infinitesimally small number of Christians, and definitely don’t have Christians at the top.

So If we are going tofollow your lead it’s going to come down to insult trading between religions. Wonderful. Vote Santorum! because the USA doesn’t look enough like Ulster in the ’70s.

V7_Sport on February 22, 2012 at 3:13 PM

Mainline and mainstream Protestantism are not synonymous: the mainline denominations include the United Methodist Church (UMC), the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) (PCUSA), the Episcopal Church, the American Baptist Churches, the United Church of Christ (Congregationalist), the Disciples of Christ, and the Reformed Church in America. Note that the Southern Baptists and the Missouri Synod Lutherans, among others, are not mainline, but may well be considered mainstream.

I am thoroughly put off by Santorum’s remarks, and by his u l t r a m o n t a n e Catholicism as well. I think he would be an absolute disaster as a candidate.

The notion of a conservative Catholic having anything to say about the state of Protestant churches in America is risible – certainly has no place in our political discussions. Similarly, Protestants of any stripe should not weigh in on the evils of Rome in the face of the scandals involving homosexual priests.

Santorum may well be nominated. It’s going to be worse than 1964, and anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding him- or herself

CatoRenasci on February 22, 2012 at 3:25 PM

HTL on February 22, 2012 at 3:21 PM

Hello, moron. I have loudly and proudly endorsed Mia Love for US Congress out of Utah. And she is, as far as I know, a Mormon (which, by definition means “not Christian”). I am not the one here doing a “religious test” against my opponents. That would be the Mittbots.

John Hitchcock on February 22, 2012 at 3:28 PM

John Hitchcock

No, V7_Sport, you won’t get an apology out of me until you repent of all your lies (and that means confession plus an absolutely true desire to never do those things again, which is, at this point, beyond your capacity).

Stay classy you smart, smart fellow.

V7_Sport on February 22, 2012 at 3:29 PM

By the way, ignoramus who issued forth the restriction on Government from any religion tests (tied to the First Amendment, by the way), there is no restriction on We the People from deciding a person of a certain religious belief cannot get our votes.

But, hey, why not give false interpretations of Laws while you’re falsely interpreting the Constitution and US History?

If I were to use “religion” as my key in this upcoming Primary, Newt, Romney, Santorum, Paul, Obama would all get “no” votes from me.

Newt and Santorum are Catholic, while I am Protestant.
Obama, Romney, and Paul are not Christian, at all.

Yet I, an outspoken Protestant (who hates that category as it is exceedingly secondary to Christianity), have declared I would vote for either of the two Catholics, one of whom dropped his Protestantism for Catholicism.

So, moron, you are not only barking up the wrong tree, you’re not even in the right forest.

John Hitchcock on February 22, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Re John Hitchcock

You were talking about how Santorum thought no Protestants were Christians.

Not what I wrote, so that’s a lie.

The vast majority of mainline Protestant churches (lower-case for a reason) have rejected large portions of Scripture, thus are not Christian.

It’s not for you to say that the vast majority of mainline Protestant churches are not Christian, nor is it up to Rick Sntorum.

The vast majority of attendees in those churches will also be not Christian.

You have a hell of a nerve.

And I’ve repeated myself enough for anyone with any sense to know I’m a Protestant.

No you are not. I have decided this. You are not a Christian. I can declare these things because you and I have a difference of opinion. Sorry, in order to get into heaven you have to have a triple digit IQ, so have a good time in that lake of fire.

And my proclamation to my Protestantism (and my declaration that I’m a Christian well ahead of my Protestant denominationalism) has been well documented on more than one blog prior to 2010 (and I entered the blogosphere in 2009, having just found it).

Yeah, it’s irrelevant. You are “gone from the world of Christianity as I see it”. Hope you like brimstone.

John Hitchcock on February 22, 2012 at 3:24 PM

V7_Sport on February 22, 2012 at 3:43 PM

It was a speech from 2008 to Catholics…that is hardly “scolding you”…good grief,were you even in the audience? The same city? The same state? The same venue?
He is answering questions regarding that speech, and he wants to move on…but gossip seems to be much more interesting to most of the “political experts” than politics.
Remember….2008 and you were not there being “scolded”, it’s a fantasy in your mind.
right2bright on February 22, 2012 at 2:25 PM

Sorry, missed this. I’m not talking about this speech to Ave Maria University. I’m talking about his demeanor and tone every time he speaks. He is dour, scolding, a sour lemon, lecturing, judgmental and whiny – really unattractive traits for a Pres candidate. I’ve been saying this for weeks – well before Satangate, and it’s not even limited to when he’s talking about morality. This is why he fared so badly in debates until the last one…

Buy Danish on February 22, 2012 at 3:44 PM

Out of all the possible candidates,God chooses Santorum to save America from Satan. I don’t like to question God but c’mon man. How about somebody with a little more charisma and eloquence like Reagan. But I guess many people said the same thing about Moses too. God works in mysterious ways.

Mr. Neaux Nonsense on February 22, 2012 at 3:47 PM


Buy Danish, this is a Christian nation. The Constitution is wholly inadequate for any other. — Paraphrase of the Father of the Constitution, John Adams.
John Hitchcock on February 22, 2012 at 2:06 PM

and


I am not the one here doing a “religious test” against my opponents. That would be the Mittbots.

John Hitchcock on February 22, 2012 at 3:28 PM

Dear Mr. Hitchcock. What a pleasant fellow you are. My point, since you seem to have missed, it, is that your paraphrase of John Adams is irrelevant, when considered in the “historical context” you seem to value so highly. Based on, you know, the wording of the actual Constitution.

HTL on February 22, 2012 at 3:52 PM

It’s not for you to say that the vast majority of mainline Protestant churches are not Christian

Actually it most definitely is. As I previously linked my very long article with plenty of Biblical references (including the context) to prove.

The vast majority of attendees in those churches will also be not Christian.

You have a hell of a nerve.

Nope, just the Bible to back me up, as it declares such is the case. And Revelation, talking about today’s churches (lower-case for a reason), backs me up on that.

If you are fed a false doctrine and you put your faith in that false doctrine, you are by no means a convert to the True Doctrine. QED.

No you are not. I have decided this. You are not a Christian. I can declare these things because you and I have a difference of opinion.

And that’s where you and I disagree. I refer to the absolutely only sanctioned rule-book, and you play footsie as you play fast-and-loose with your inanity. Logic cannot be found at all in any of your fool’s-game rantings. My delineations are not my own, but Providence’s through his Holy Word, which is inerrant. While yours are the whims of those with itching ears who will listen to any who tell them what they want to hear.

Sorry, in order to get into heaven you have to have a triple digit IQ, so have a good time in that lake of fire.

Yup, got that covered. 31 composite on the ACT (prior to its increasing its max and dumbing down its tests), partial Academic Scholarship to a Quaker College, National Honor Society inductee, yada yada yada. But I already knew you were rejecting all intellectual honesty when you wrote that and were instead trying the sort of rhetoric failures that would have gotten you executed in ancient Greece. (Learn your history.)

John Hitchcock on February 22, 2012 at 3:59 PM

“But 10 back of Obama.”

Yep, and that would be pretty much the result on election day. Santorum would lose by 10 points. He would lose by even more if some more of the whacky stuff he has said in the past is released to the public.

Not a viable candidate to go against Obama, in my opinion.

He’s great if you are just interested in “someone who isn’t a Mormon”, though, and aren’t really worried about beating Obama in the fall.

crosspatch on February 22, 2012 at 4:00 PM

John Hitchcock

Actually it most definitely is. As I previously linked my very long article with plenty of Biblical references (including the context) to prove.

That’s right, don’t do things half way. It’s not enough to be a boob, you ought to be a megalomaniacal boob. Whelp, sorry, Rick and I have decided that you are “gone from the world of Christianity as I we see it”.

V7_Sport on February 22, 2012 at 4:09 PM

God works in mysterious ways.
Mr. Neaux Nonsense on February 22, 2012 at 3:47 PM

No kidding:)

Buy Danish on February 22, 2012 at 4:22 PM

Santorum voted with the unions against Right to Work. Few things are more of a threat to our liberties, to “true private ownership”, than forced union membership and the power these rules confer to them.
Buy Danish on February 22, 2012 at 2:18 PM

I am not supporting Santorum on unions, but Romney abridges our economic/private rights and our consciences with his policies. He required religious hospitals and universities to provide the following:

“In his 2006 Massachusetts health care law, Mitt Romney embraced a virtually identical contraception coverage mandate as President Obama recently has, experts say, and as a result expanded access to birth control for hundreds of thousands of women. And Democrats really want you to know that.

“They are practically mirror images or each other,” John McDonough, a professor of public health at Harvard, said on a conference call organized by the Democratic National Committee. “They completely reflect each other.”

Romney has embraced the shocked, shocked tone of leading Republicans on this issue in recent days, and Democrats have acted swiftly to flag up inconsistencies in his position.” from TPMDC Talking Points, 02/09/2012

Constance on February 22, 2012 at 4:39 PM

Whelp, sorry, Rick and I have decided that you are “gone from the world of Christianity as I we see it”.

V7_Sport on February 22, 2012 at 4:09 PM

There you go again, lying by hidden premise, about what Rick Santorum said and what he meant. Just face the Truth (capitalized for a reason): You have to lie about what Rick Santorum said in order to smear him, hiding what he actually said. If you cannot win an argument based on Truth, you will never win with me.

HTL on February 22, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Ravi Zacharias had lots to say about you post-modernists, absolutely none of it good.

John Hitchcock on February 22, 2012 at 4:55 PM

These polls just add to the seemingly overwhelming evidence that Mitt would be a stronger general election candidate than Santorum. Thus, if we live by The Buckley Rule, the choice is easy … http://bit.ly/qVdDUt

ombdz on February 22, 2012 at 5:19 PM

“In his 2006 Massachusetts health care law, Mitt Romney embraced a virtually identical contraception coverage mandate as President Obama recently has, experts say, and as a result expanded access to birth control for hundreds of thousands of women. And Democrats really want you to know that.

“They are practically mirror images or each other,” John McDonough, a professor of public health at Harvard, said on a conference call organized by the Democratic National Committee. “They completely reflect each other.”

Romney has embraced the shocked, shocked tone of leading Republicans on this issue in recent days, and Democrats have acted swiftly to flag up inconsistencies in his position.” from TPMDC Talking Points, 02/09/2012

Constance on February 22, 2012 at 4:39 PM

You’re using unnamed “experts”, the DNC and TPMDC as your source? RU kidding me?! What’s next? The Ministry of Truth and Pravda?

Buy Danish on February 22, 2012 at 5:22 PM

This is for Constance, who is either the most gullible commenter ever or a Democrat plant:

[Romney] vetoed a bill on pro-life grounds that would expand access to emergency contraception in hospitals and pharmacies[155] (the veto was overridden by the legislature).[156]

Buy Danish on February 22, 2012 at 5:28 PM

These polls just add to the seemingly overwhelming evidence that Mitt would be a stronger general election candidate than Santorum. Thus, if we live by The Buckley Rule, the choice is easy … http://bit.ly/qVdDUt

ombdz on February 22, 2012 at 5:19 PM

Excellent post.

bluegill on February 22, 2012 at 7:32 PM

Santorum supporters need to come up with an explanation of why Santorum has the gall to hit Romney for flipflopping on social issues after reading this: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=_t4cAAAAIBAJ&sjid=3GMEAAAAIBAJ&dq=santorum+progressive&pg=6015%2C5485825

MadJayhawk on February 22, 2012 at 11:22 AM

You’d have a good point if Santorum had been wavering in the middle of his public career, because he should have already thought through those issues by then.

But this was his first run for Congress, and I don’t think anyone has any credible evidence that he ever changed his position once he came to it.

Contrast with Romney, who placed himself on either side of the abortion issue throughout his political career, depending on where exactly his ambitions lay at that point.

tom on February 22, 2012 at 7:33 PM

RINO Romney (aka Obastard-Lite) will have his head handed to him even before his acceptance speech: Axelrod and the MSM with non-stop stories about Racism/Cultism In Morminism, the EVIL Soros and his many minions attack the quintescential 1%er, and Obastard just puts his hand on Willard’s (from the RAT movie of the same name, even kinda looks like him) shoulder and just says “Thank You for RomneyCare.” GAME OVER!?!?! Wise Up All You Folks With MHIT-For-Brains!?!

Colatteral Damage on February 23, 2012 at 5:29 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3