Alabama State University poll puts Santorum in lead

posted at 12:45 pm on March 8, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Rick Santorum gets some much-needed good news from a newly-released Alabama State University poll, conducted one week ago.  The results show that the race remains close in the state as its primary approaches on Tuesday, but Santorum maintains a narrow lead over Mitt Romney — and a big lead over Newt Gingrich:

The statewide poll conducted by Alabama State University’s Center for Leadership and Public Policy showed 22.7 percent of likely Republican voters supported Santorum, who is scheduled to make campaign appearances Thursday in Huntsville and Mobile.

Former Massachussetts Gov. Mitt Romney trailed Santorum with 18.7 percent, followed by Newt Gingrich, the former Speaker of the House from neighboring Georgia, with 13.8 percent.

The telephone poll of 470 likely GOP voters showed 29.8 remained undecided and 15 percent saying they intended to support other candidates. The poll did not ask voters whether they supported Ron Paul, the Texas congressman seeking the GOP nomination.

The poll was conducted March 1, prior to the Super Tuesday vote that helped establish Romney and Santorum as leaders in the race for the nomination, with Romney holding a total of 415 delegates and Santorum with 176.

Although the latest poll data has not been posted to Alabama State’s website, one can find the previous poll data and track the trend.  One month earlier, Gingrich led the poll with 27% against only 16% for Romney and 9% for “Santorium.” By February 23rd, Gingrich and Santorum had gone into a virtual tie at 18.9/18.3, respectively.  In between, Santorum had a mediocre debate performance and lost four contests to Romney — and yet Santorum’s support rose in Alabama while Gingrich’s dropped precipitously in this series.

The Birmingham News notes another poll that puts Romney way in front in Alabama, 31.2/21.6 over Santorum, with Gingrich coming in just behind at 21.2%.  However, that poll was conducted by the Alabama Education Association, an affiliate of the NEA, the teachers union, which has its own axes to grind.  However, in both polls, Gingrich occupies third place, which puts his Southern strategy in peril almost before it gets started.  If the Alabama State poll proves accurate, Gingrich won’t have much reason to continue his bid past next Tuesday.

Update: Gingrich’s team points me to a poll result released today from Capital Survey Research Center that shows Gingrich in a close second in Alabama to Mitt Romney, 30/25, with Santorum in third at 20%.  I’ve never heard of this pollster, but that’s not necessarily dispositive, either; there are plenty of regional pollsters that don’t get national attention until state contests become national stories.  The results look fairly counterintuitive, though, and they still show Gingrich trailing by five against Romney — in the South.  I would call that an improvement over the Alabama State poll, but not by much.


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

If Romney can steal a southern state then the rationale for both Santorum and Newt is destroyed completely. Them staying in beyond that should be seen as a selfishly hurting the party. We are almost there now. Mitt got out in 2008 for the good of the party and Rick and Newt need to do the same.

For right wing pundits to be cheering on the spoilers is irresponsible and childish. They don’t like Romney because he is beating THEM. They wanted to control this race and the voters aren’t falling into line behind Santorum or Newt. This election cycle has been an eye opener in many ways. There are lots of blogs, talking heads and radio shows I won’t be listening to anymore.

echosyst on March 8, 2012 at 2:45 PM

I’ve never figured or been given a reason Santorum would make a better candidate than Romney, other than he is the last remaining non-Romney. For every comment on Romneycare, Santorum can yet explain his support for closed shop work rules (closed shop work rules is a MANDATE, and the excuse that it was right for PA, is exactly Romney’s in MA).

Our excuse in ’08 was that we ran a senator and they make lousy candidates and presidents, so Santorum supporters think this is a good idea?

Tater Salad on March 8, 2012 at 2:47 PM

ebrown2 on March 8, 2012 at 1:57 PM

Guess I’m going to have to create a new award – the FIFY Reward sponsored by ReWrite™.

Steve Eggleston on March 8, 2012 at 2:47 PM

Let’s assume that none of these three polls (only one of which spanned the Super Tuesday Divide, all taken within a week of each other) are serious outliers and average things out:

Romney – (18.7 + 31.2 + 29.9) / 3 = 29.9
Santorum – (22.7 + 21.6 + 20.1) / 3 = 21.5
Gingrich – (13.8 + 21.2 + 24.7) / 3 = 19.9

Happy? If so, let me know so I can find another way to ruin your day :-)

Steve Eggleston on March 8, 2012 at 2:58 PM

I’ve never figured or been given a reason Santorum would make a better candidate than Romney, other than he is the last remaining non-Romney. For every comment on Romneycare, Santorum can yet explain his support for closed shop work rules (closed shop work rules is a MANDATE, and the excuse that it was right for PA, is exactly Romney’s in MA).

Our excuse in ’08 was that we ran a senator and they make lousy candidates and presidents, so Santorum supporters think this is a good idea?

Tater Salad on March 8, 2012 at 2:47 PM

They don’t have a good reason to support him, it’s just bandwagon politics. Santorum gets a pass on everything because of his social issue stance. Also, most people here don’t really understand, or even support the 10th amendment. That gives both of them somewhat of a pass on State mandates, but once that’s taken care of, Santorum is left with the awful voting record in the Senate Romney doesn’t have.

1984 in real life on March 8, 2012 at 2:58 PM

Let’s assume that none of these three polls (only one of which spanned the Super Tuesday Divide, all taken within a week of each other) are serious outliers and average things out:

Romney – (18.7 + 31.2 + 29.9) / 3 = 29.9
Santorum – (22.7 + 21.6 + 20.1) / 3 = 21.5
Gingrich – (13.8 + 21.2 + 24.7) / 3 = 19.9

Happy? If so, let me know so I can find another way to ruin your day :-)

Steve Eggleston on March 8, 2012 at 2:58 PM

If you think those numbers are real then you can quite literally put your money where your mouth is and head on over to Intrade where Mitt in Alabama is still hovering around 30%. Big chance to triple your money in a week….

alchemist19 on March 8, 2012 at 3:06 PM

If you think those numbers are real then you can quite literally put your money where your mouth is and head on over to Intrade where Mitt in Alabama is still hovering around 30%. Big chance to triple your money in a week….

alchemist19 on March 8, 2012 at 3:06 PM

Did you read the beginning of my comment? Allow me to quote myself – “Let’s assume that none of these three polls (only one of which spanned the Super Tuesday Divide, all taken within a week of each other) are serious outliers….”

If I had to put any money on this, I would put it on all three polls being wrong, if only to have Wisconsin matter for at least the Next-In-Line™ race (unlike every other Republican Presidential primary I was presented with).

Steve Eggleston on March 8, 2012 at 3:11 PM

Steve Eggleston on March 8, 2012 at 3:11 PM

I wasn’t speaking to you personally and rereading my post I see I did a very poor job of expressing that. My apologies.

alchemist19 on March 8, 2012 at 3:14 PM

Here’s how I see it.

Like Alabama, Kansas (3/10), Mississippi (3/13) and Louisiana (3/24) all award delegates proportionally. The LA, KS and MS thresholds are 25%, 20% and 15%. Since it’s unlikely Romney fails to exceed the threshold in any of these states, he’ll rack delegates.

Any ground Newtorum makes up in these 3 states will be offset by a likely Romney win in Puerto Rico (3/18), a winner-take-all contest for 20 delegates.

Romney will pick up a few delegates in Hawaii (3/13), and should win Illinois (3/20). 10 delegates in IL are off limits to Santorum because he once again failed to file a full slate there. In DC (16 delegates), he’s not even on the ballot.

So Romney should be even further ahead by early April. A Santorum win in Wisconsin (4/3 39d wta) will be partly offset by a Romney win in Maryland (4/3 34d wta).

Romney’s wins in CT (4/24 25d p), DE (4/24 14 wta), NY (4/24 92d p) and RI (4/24 16d p) will offset Santorum’s sole win that day in PA (4/24 69d de).

Now we’re into May. Any gains Newtorum might make in IN, NC, WV, NE, AR and KY will be wiped out by a Romney win in winner-take-all CA.

And if he needs them, 84 delegates await Romney in winner-take-all NJ (6/5) and UT (6/26).

Can anyone tell me how this race isn’t over?

EddieC on March 8, 2012 at 3:18 PM

Since Santorum never said any such thing, your post is pointless except as an example of the Big Lie.

tom on March 8, 2012 at 1:31 PM

You’re wrong, Santorum is on the record supporting anti-sodomy laws and criticized Rick Perry earlier in the race for not being an expert on a case in Texas in which two gays were arrested and prosecuted for sodomy.

Santorum supports laws outlawing sodomy; or put a more modern way, Santorum supports the criminalization of gay sex.

There’s no way he is viable nationally.

FloatingRock on March 8, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Santorum criticized the Supreme Court throwing out state-level laws against such moral issues as sodomy, birth control, prostitution, etc. That’s a far cry from calling for such laws.

There’s a little thing called local autonomy that used to be important. That is, a community can restrict things they find to create a bad moral environment. People who didn’t like those restrictions didn’t have to live there. Now, the trend is to tell communities they can’t pass any restrictions at all, because of some mythical “right to privacy” that means whatever SCOTUS feels like it means at that moment, since it’s not written down anywhere — you know, like things in the Constitution are.

But I’m specifically calling out people who know that what Santorum said wasn’t dramatic or compelling enough to cost him votes, so they lie and say that he called for criminalization of homosexuality.

tom on March 8, 2012 at 3:18 PM

If you think those numbers are real then you can quite literally put your money where your mouth is and head on over to Intrade where Mitt in Alabama is still hovering around 30%. Big chance to triple your money in a week….

alchemist19 on March 8, 2012 at 3:06 PM

I had the Intrade Ohio page open the entire election night. I think Mitt dropped as low as 9% chance to win at one point.

1984 in real life on March 8, 2012 at 3:22 PM

For right wing pundits to be cheering on the spoilers is irresponsible and childish. They don’t like Romney because he is beating THEM. They wanted to control this race and the voters aren’t falling into line behind Santorum or Newt. This election cycle has been an eye opener in many ways. There are lots of blogs, talking heads and radio shows I won’t be listening to anymore.

echosyst on March 8, 2012 at 2:45 PM

There seems to be a concerted attempt to whip right wing pundits into line by calling them names, and implying anything less than full-throated support for Romney is a betrayal.

There have always been too many playing pundit. They’ve always gotten a lot wrong, and a lot right. It’s always a good idea to take a pundit’s observations with a grain of salt.

But Romney’s lack of support is his own problem.

tom on March 8, 2012 at 3:24 PM

tom on March 8, 2012 at 3:18 PM

You’re wrong and you’re a Statist. What you and Santorum are proposing would violate the 1st amendment and supersede the Constitution. It’s kind of like when the Libs try to get local bans on firearms and then the SCOTUS smacks them down.

The fact that you don’t support privacy from the Federal government says alot about your typical Santorum supporter.

1984 in real life on March 8, 2012 at 3:25 PM

I wasn’t speaking to you personally and rereading my post I see I did a very poor job of expressing that. My apologies.

alchemist19 on March 8, 2012 at 3:14 PM

Blame it on the solar storm. :-)

Steve Eggleston on March 8, 2012 at 3:27 PM

They don’t have a good reason to support him, it’s just bandwagon politics. Santorum gets a pass on everything because of his social issue stance. Also, most people here don’t really understand, or even support the 10th amendment. That gives both of them somewhat of a pass on State mandates, but once that’s taken care of, Santorum is left with the awful voting record in the Senate Romney doesn’t have.

1984 in real life on March 8, 2012 at 2:58 PM

That’s your supposition. It’s simpler than that. Santorum gets a pass on some of his weaknesses because the alternative is Romney.

Granted, Romney doesn’t have an awful voting record in the Senate. That’s because he lost the election for the Senate and never had a chance to vote in it. Santorum’s record is about 87% conservative. You have to cherry-pick the worst votes from his long record, which were compromise votes, in order to find votes to criticize.

And the only way it’s relevant is if you can argue that Mitt never compromised like that. Good luck with that argument.

tom on March 8, 2012 at 3:28 PM

tom on March 8, 2012 at 3:18 PM

You’re wrong and you’re a Statist. What you and Santorum are proposing would violate the 1st amendment and supersede the Constitution. It’s kind of like when the Libs try to get local bans on firearms and then the SCOTUS smacks them down.

The fact that you don’t support privacy from the Federal government says alot about your typical Santorum supporter.

1984 in real life on March 8, 2012 at 3:25 PM

So believing such issues should be left to the state and local governments because the Constitution says nothing about them is being a statist.

Believing in local autonomy is being a statist.

That’s like claiming a mandate for every person living in a state to buy a state-approved health insurance plan is a small-government, free-market solution.

tom on March 8, 2012 at 3:30 PM

Romney’s wins in CT (4/24 25d p), DE (4/24 14 wta), NY (4/24 92d p) and RI (4/24 16d p) will offset Santorum’s sole win that day in PA (4/24 69d de).

EddieC on March 8, 2012 at 3:18 PM

I do not assume Santorum will win the PA primary. I’m hoping for big turnouts for Romney in Philadelphia, Bucks, Montgomery, Berks, Delaware, Erie and even Santorum’s home county of Allegheny.

thuja on March 8, 2012 at 3:33 PM

I do not assume Santorum will win the PA primary. I’m hoping for big turnouts for Romney in Philadelphia, Bucks, Montgomery, Berks, Delaware, Erie and even Santorum’s home county of Allegheny.

thuja on March 8, 2012 at 3:33 PM

I agree. I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt.

EddieC on March 8, 2012 at 3:36 PM

I do not assume Santorum will win the PA primary. I’m hoping for big turnouts for Romney in Philadelphia, Bucks, Montgomery, Berks, Delaware, Erie and even Santorum’s home county of Allegheny.

thuja on March 8, 2012 at 3:33 PM

Essentially the Rat core of Pennsylvania.

Steve Eggleston on March 8, 2012 at 3:37 PM

I had the Intrade Ohio page open the entire election night. I think Mitt dropped as low as 9% chance to win at one point.

1984 in real life on March 8, 2012 at 3:22 PM

Exactly. Intrade’s predictive capabilities are limited and some people who recognized that made a killing that night. I was just pointing out a similar possibility exists now for any confident Romney supporters.

Blame it on the solar storm. :-)

Steve Eggleston on March 8, 2012 at 3:27 PM

If anyone or anything outside of myself is to blame then here, clearly, it’s Bush.

alchemist19 on March 8, 2012 at 3:43 PM

So believing such issues should be left to the state and local governments because the Constitution says nothing about them is being a statist.

Believing in local autonomy is being a statist.

That’s like claiming a mandate for every person living in a state to buy a state-approved health insurance plan is a small-government, free-market solution.

tom on March 8, 2012 at 3:30 PM

The tenth amendment cannot be used to make laws violating the 1st and 2nd amendments. You’re doubling down on an argument you cannot win.

1984 in real life on March 8, 2012 at 3:44 PM

I do not assume Santorum will win the PA primary. I’m hoping for big turnouts for Romney in Philadelphia, Bucks, Montgomery, Berks, Delaware, Erie and even Santorum’s home county of Allegheny.

thuja on March 8, 2012 at 3:33 PM

Essentially the Rat core of Pennsylvania.

Steve Eggleston on March 8, 2012 at 3:37 PM

Steve, I thought you were more sophisticated than this. You shouldn’t insult the folks whom we want to win over. Bucks, Montgomery, Berks, and Delaware are the wealthy Philly suburbs. They can be won by the GOP. Romney can carry them in a general election and from them he can win Pennsylvania. Santorum would never carry them in a Presidental election.

thuja on March 8, 2012 at 3:56 PM

The tenth amendment cannot be used to make laws violating the 1st and 2nd amendments. You’re doubling down on an argument you cannot win.

1984 in real life on March 8, 2012 at 3:44 PM

So, is Romneycare constitutional, or not?

JannyMae on March 8, 2012 at 4:04 PM

The tenth amendment cannot be used to make laws violating the 1st and 2nd amendments. You’re doubling down on an argument you cannot win.

1984 in real life on March 8, 2012 at 3:44 PM

Exactly right. Nor can the 10th amendment be used to violate the 9th, as Santorum supporters think.

AngusMc on March 8, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Santorum and Gingrich cannot possibly win. By staying in and draining Romney’s resources and beating him up are they not aiding Obama?

Someone please explain to me the rationale for someone who simply cannot win staying in the race?

mitchellvii on March 8, 2012 at 1:03 PM

To help keep Romney from tacking left.

JannyMae on March 8, 2012 at 4:06 PM

Exactly right. Nor can the 10th amendment be used to violate the 9th, as Santorum supporters think.

AngusMc on March 8, 2012 at 4:04 PM

So, is Romneycare constitutional, or not?

JannyMae on March 8, 2012 at 4:18 PM

So, is Romneycare constitutional, or not?

JannyMae on March 8, 2012 at 4:04 PM

You’re deflecting the issue, that has nothing to do with his argument about criminalization of bedroom behavior violating the 1st amendment.

As far as you’re question though, I don’t know, but the most you can gain out of this argument is that Romney and Santorum are both equally bad. Romney will dismantle Obamacare though, and is running to the right on most issues where Santorum continues to support his stance on criminalizing social behavior.

1984 in real life on March 8, 2012 at 4:25 PM

So, is Romneycare constitutional, or not?

JannyMae on March 8, 2012 at 4:18 PM

If I had my way, I’d have it declared unconstitutional under the 9th amendment, on the grounds that people have a right not to be coerced into buying any particular thing by the government.

AngusMc on March 8, 2012 at 4:30 PM

If I had my way, I’d have it declared unconstitutional under the 9th amendment, on the grounds that people have a right not to be coerced into buying any particular thing by the government.

AngusMc on March 8, 2012 at 4:30 PM

It was challenged on those grounds and the case was thrown out. That doesn’t make it right though and even though I’m a Romney supporter I’d probably agree with you.

1984 in real life on March 8, 2012 at 4:39 PM

So believing such issues should be left to the state and local governments because the Constitution says nothing about them is being a statist.

Believing in local autonomy is being a statist.

That’s like claiming a mandate for every person living in a state to buy a state-approved health insurance plan is a small-government, free-market solution.

tom on March 8, 2012 at 3:30 PM

The tenth amendment cannot be used to make laws violating the 1st and 2nd amendments. You’re doubling down on an argument you cannot win.

1984 in real life on March 8, 2012 at 3:44 PM

If the First or Second Amendments — or any other part of the Constitution — actually addressed such issues, you might have a point.

tom on March 8, 2012 at 4:51 PM

Santorum criticized the Supreme Court throwing out state-level laws against such moral issues as sodomy, birth control, prostitution, etc. That’s a far cry from calling for such laws.

tom on March 8, 2012 at 3:18 PM

Tom, you sound like a lousy apologist for the unelectable bigot Rick Santorum.

The basis for Rick Santorum’s support for anti-homosexuality laws (and his denounciation of the Supreme Court for striking down one such law) was not simply academic. Santorum is no constitutionalist (you have seen his horrible voting record, haven’t you?), and his concern was not about constitutional limits.

Rick Santorum clearly stated that it is a good thing to prohibit behavior that “undermines the fabric of society” (to use his words) when he was asked about his support for anti-homosexuality laws.

Now, you may say, “well, he didn’t call for the anti-homosexuality laws; he just saw they were a good thing!” and you would look like a fool doing so.

The fact is that Rick Santorum is a social issues extremist who will not win the nomination and would never be able to win a general election.

A Vote for the Unelectable Bigot Rick Santorum = A Vote for Barack Obama’s Reelection

bluegill on March 8, 2012 at 6:48 PM

Rick Santorum promoter Ed Morrissey seems to be trying to make the case that Newt Gingrich should drop out.

I hope you Newt Gingrich supporters appreciate being thrown under the bus.

I actually think that Newt Gingrich is a far more formidable opponent than Rick Santorum.

If anyone should be dropping out, it’s Rick Santorum. That man is a joke. None of his supporters here can offer any good reasons for supporting Rick Santorum.

I would feel embarrassed to have to admit that I was supporting an unelectable bigot like Rick Santorum.

bluegill on March 8, 2012 at 6:51 PM

Santorum criticized the Supreme Court throwing out state-level laws against such moral issues as sodomy, birth control, prostitution, etc. That’s a far cry from calling for such laws.

tom on March 8, 2012 at 3:18 PM

Tom, you sound like a lousy apologist for the unelectable bigot Rick Santorum.

The basis for Rick Santorum’s support for anti-homosexuality laws (and his denounciation of the Supreme Court for striking down one such law) was not simply academic. Santorum is no constitutionalist (you have seen his horrible voting record, haven’t you?), and his concern was not about constitutional limits.

Rick Santorum clearly stated that it is a good thing to prohibit behavior that “undermines the fabric of society” (to use his words) when he was asked about his support for anti-homosexuality laws.

Now, you may say, “well, he didn’t call for the anti-homosexuality laws; he just saw they were a good thing!” and you would look like a fool doing so.

The fact is that Rick Santorum is a social issues extremist who will not win the nomination and would never be able to win a general election.

A Vote for the Unelectable Bigot Rick Santorum = A Vote for Barack Obama’s Reelection

bluegill on March 8, 2012 at 6:48 PM

As a certain other poster well said,

bigot bigot bigot bigot bigot bigot bigot bigot bigot bigot bigot bigot bigot bigot bigot bigot bigot bigot bigot bigot bigot bigot bigot bigot bigot bigot bigot bigot bigot bigot bigot bigot bigot bigot bigot bigot bigot bigot bigot bigot bigot bigot bigot bigot bigot bigot bigot bigot

bluegill

Go away. You’re boring and repetitive.

Santorum’s argument was based on the Constitution. Your argument is based on calling him a bigot over and over again, and claiming he’s trying to ban homosexuality.

I remember when a troll used to be worth something…..

tom on March 8, 2012 at 7:33 PM

Santorum’s argument was based on the Constitution.

tom on March 8, 2012 at 7:33 PM

Nope, the bigot Rick Santorum made it very clear that behavior he sees as “undermining the fabric of society” (to use his words) is deserving of government bans. I suggest you take a look at his own words.

Unlike Ron and Rand Paul who obviously don’t favor slavery or racial discrimination and who have taken strict constitutionalist positions against things like the Civil War and the Civil Rights Act, Rick Santorum actually thinks bans like anti-homosexuality statutes are a good thing.

Tom, you are simply an apologist for an unelectable bigot. Face the facts. Your distinction of “he’s not calling for new bans, he’s just defending them and saying they’re a good idea!” is not a very compelling one.

“If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does.”

-Rick Santorum defending government bans on private, consensual homosexual activity between adults.

“One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. [Sex] is supposed to be within marriage. It’s supposed to be for purposes that are yes, conjugal…but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen…This is special and it needs to be seen as special.”

-Rick Santorum

“The state has a right to do that, I have never questioned that the state has a right to do that. It is not a constitutional right, the state has the right to pass whatever statutes they have.”

-Anti-birth control Rick Santorum, happily asserting that states can ban birth control

“The idea is that the state doesn’t have rights to limit individuals’ wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire.”

-Rick Santorum

Santorum Quote:

“This idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do,” Santorum complained to NPR in 2006, “that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues … that is not how traditional conservatives view the world.”

bluegill on March 8, 2012 at 8:27 PM

I would feel embarrassed to have to admit that I was supporting an unelectable bigot like Rick Santorum.

bluegill on March 8, 2012 at 6:51 PM

That is odd. I would feel embarrassed to have to admit that I was Bluegill. LOL! :) :) :)

Theophile on March 9, 2012 at 2:02 AM

Hey Alabama, WISE UP!?! Gingrich is the only candidate with a record of ACCOMPLISHMENT in DC!?! Yeah, Ok, he roughed up a bunch of sniveling little weasals along the way. Well, TOUGH!! Get over yourselves, CRYBABIES!!! Do you really want to vote for a LIAR, CHEAT, and THIEF like RINO Romney (aka Obama-Lite)??? After all, Willard (from the RAT movie of the same name) LIED and LIED about Gingrich all over Iowa and especially Florida (see “What Really Happened to the Gingrich Ethics Case?” By Byron York, Townhall.com, 2/6/2012)!?! Furthermore, Santorum may well be right about social issues, but he’s an extreme lightweight on the economy. Isn’t it “The Economy, STUPID”???? Wise Up, Alabama and Mississippi. Gingrich truly is the ONLY candidate that can wipe the floor with the J@ck@ss-In-Chief!?!

Colatteral Damage on March 9, 2012 at 5:13 PM

Comment pages: 1 2