Posted on 02/27/2012 10:44:53 AM PST by RobinMasters
There’s a chance Rick Santorum may still scrape out a win in Michigan tomorrow. This morning’s Public Policy Polling survey has Mitt Romney leading him by just a few points, 39 percent to 37 percent. But the internal numbers look worse for Santorum, and his ongoing slide in the state seems to be due to his focus on social issues:
One place Santorum may have hurt himself in the last week is an overemphasis on social issues. 69 percent of voters say they’re generally more concerned with economic issues this year to only 17 percent who pick social issues. And with the overwhelming majority of voters more concerned about the economy, Romney leads Santorum 45-30. Santorum’s winning those more concerned about social issues 79-12 but it’s just not that big a piece of the pie.
Santorum’s net favorability has also taken a hit:
The last week of the campaign in Michigan has seen significant damage to Santorum’s image with GOP voters in the state. His net favorability has declined 29 points from +44 (67/23) to now only +15 (54/39). Negative attacks on Romney meanwhile have had no negative effect with his favorability steady at +20 (57/37). Two weeks ago Santorum’s net favorability in Michigan was 34 points better than Romney’s. Now Romney’s is 5 points better than Santorum’s. Those kinds of wild swings are the story of the GOP race.
(Excerpt) Read more at commentarymagazine.com ...
You have been deceived by Democratic and liberatrian propoganda. Birth control comes into this only because Catholics institutions have been commanded to provide services that they think is wrong. Obama doesn’t want the Catholic Church to have a role in providing social services and so if the regulation goes into effect, the Church will be forced out of this field as it has been forced out of adoption services. Obama is the slave of Planned Parenthood and the Gay Rights lobbies, and also of liberal Catholic groups who want to discredit the pope and conservative Catholics.
I fail to see anything good about Romney on economic issues.
Hardly an indication of his strength of character or judgment.
As for your statement that he stands for the "pricnipal of subsidarity," rather than for strict construction of the Constitution--which is the issue, here, not some philosophic substitute--that hardly recommends him.
He clearly showed his failure to recognize foundational principles--as opposed to inclinations of the moment--in his support for the Congressional intrusion into the Terri Schiavo case in Florida. See Abandoned Reason.
Frankly, I like the way Rick addresses some issues. He just does not understand what is really basic in the American context.
William Flax
I don’t understand why Santorum couldn’t manage the issues that will determine the next president, and run on those.
For the most part, he hasn't been the one to raise those issues. However, his problem is that he believes right down to his core in the immorality of some actions, and can't help but confirm them when asked. And more importantly, he doesn't even say that those kind of issues aren't the business of government, because I don't think he really believes it.
I met the guy at an event about two years ago, when he was barely a blip on the 2012 calendar and was schlepping around meeting with groups he thought would be receptive. My group was about 25 people, and he was there for a couple of hours. The one thing I got from him was the absolute core conviction that he believes this nation's crisis is fundamentally a moral one, and moral in the religious sense, not just hard work, etc.
The problem is that I'm not sure all that many Americans want to be preached to about their morality by any politician. Personally, I think the role of the government should be to set up a system that, by natural operation, rewards (or at least doesn't punish), people who engage in the "right" behaviors, and doesn't bail them out for poor moral choices. But other than that, I really don't want to hear it.
bump!!
The two are joined at the hip, you are very correct.
17% ONLY or are willing to bend?
What’s the use of having a job when your boss just came out as a fag and his wife recently had an abortion?
Bush establishment republican; kinda like Rush Limbaugh.
They never stood for taking power away from the insiders. imo
Voters always say they care more about economic issues than “social” issues.
But the majority vote for or against a candidate according to what the media says about their “social” issues stand.
The normalization of contraception -- or more specifically, recreational sex -- was the on-ramp to the superhighway to perdition. It's led to explosions in divorce rates, illegitimacy, poverty, disease and sex crimes -- not to mention the outright slaughter of 50 million American children. It obliterated the family until as we knew it. It's devoured our culture. And it turned us into a nation of brain-dead, self-serving nihilistic zombies. The poisonous fruits of the sexual revolution can be seen and felt in every aspect of our society. That includes a very real, very direct impact on the economy.
If Americans are too obsessed with getting their rocks off to have an honest conversation about how we got into this mess, then our fate is already sealed, and America will die a horrible death.
You mean you think the constitution has no underlying philosophic principles? Subsidarity is one of these. Individuals in families, in Churches, and in businesses are more fundamental than local government. Local governments are responsive to these than either state or federal government. The demand that a man be judged by his peers, that the law by which he is bound shall be written by men elected by him and his peers, is based on the idea that power should be exercised by those as close as possible the persons most directly affected.
I share the views of Rick Santorum to every crossed “t”.
I would not run on those views, understanding that the indoctrinated American voter does NOT share those views, but I would try to govern with those views where I could, where I might be able to influence direction, or, a redirection.
Why give away your location? I just don’t get it. No experienced pol’ would do that.
The only possible reason I can come up with is that Rick is simply working over the conservative electorate to smarmy them.
He seems to be laying so much extraordinarily conservative/religious smoke, hopin that it’s enough cover to hide and delay an inspection of his moderate/liberal legislative record, and his union sympathetic votes, and interests.
After all, where was all this family agenda of his when he was in office?
Crickets.
The troll that you are agreeing with and kissing up to, has already been banned.
Note to you: the Left brought the social issues up in the first place. They threw down the gauntlet and Rick was the only one with adequate cojones to pick it up.
So, it’s still his fault is it?
IBTZ(hopefully)
You do not like jokes????
PPP? Who in their right mind would believe a PPP poll?
Did Rick start that conversation, Rita? I recall George Stephanopoulos being the first to say anything at all about the entire area of discussion. Up to that point, Rick, Mitt and Newt were all about the economy. It was the President, his allies in the media and, well, anyone who chimed in, who have been making social issues the main point.
Do you disagree?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.