Click a Kitty Thank you, JoeProBono
Sweet Young Dragon Adopts Some Orphans
Lend a helping hand
Donate monthly
Sponsors will contribute $10
For each new monthly sign-up
Posted on 02/10/2012 9:57:42 AM PST by Steelfish
Fox News Poll: Santorum Surges Nationally After Three-State Sweep By Dana Blanton February 10, 2012
Rick Santorum has surged nationally in the race for the 2012 Republican nomination after his three-state sweep this week, while Mitt Romney has lost ground among GOP primary voters. In addition, most GOP voters say the nomination race isn’t over -- someone other than Romney could still win. That’s according to a Fox News poll released Friday.
The new poll was conducted over four nights this week -- Monday through Thursday -- so it provides a unique opportunity to compare Santorum’s support before and after his wins in Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri. And the results are striking.
Click here to view full Fox News poll results.
In interviews conducted on Monday and Tuesday nights -- immediately before the news of his victories -- Santorum received the backing of 17 percent of GOP primary voters. That was well behind Romney (35 percent) and Newt Gingrich (26 percent), and slightly ahead of Ron Paul (14 percent).
In interviews conducted on Wednesday and Thursday nights -- after his wins -- Santorum’s support nearly doubled, which put him tied at the top with Romney for those two days at 30 percent. That’s an increase of 13 percentage points. Over the last two nights, Romney also received 30 percent, a drop of 5 points. Gingrich came in at 16 percent, down 10 points. Paul’s support held steady at 15 percent.
Looking at the results from all four nights of this week’s interviewing, Romney retains his frontrunner spot with 33 percent, followed by Santorum at 23 percent, Gingrich at 22 percent and Paul at 15 percent.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
What am I talking about?
Read what went back and forth.
If you get it, fine. If not, please, don’t badger me about it.
Thanks.
This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. You know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone. That there is no such society that I am aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.
Anyone who understands the core of our Founders know that to a man, our Founders would be appalled at the anti-individualism of such a statement. It's amplified because it was spoken by someone active in the political arena.
I can never imagine Reagan speaking in such terms. Rick has an authoritarian streak. I have no doubt that he would use the power of the State to ends that would be disturbing.
Rick voted for No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part-D and other laws that would make a real conservative cringe. Make no mistake none of the candidates running are Conservative as Reagan.
It is laughable that some people would push Rick as this stalwart Conservative. Rick's record is not one of someone who believes strongly in the Constitution and limited State Power. That said, he or Newt would be infinitely better than Mitt.
Actually, you're almost right. "Lunatic fringe" comes in because when the majority of people think of Santorum, they think of babies, and abortion rights, and evolution and gay marriage. ONLY! But, you disagree. Good for you.
But, if "they" can take out a true, honorable conservative with the word "macaca" --- don't watch what they're about to do to Mr. Santorum. It won't be pretty, but it will be effective.
Just saying.
Right_in_VA... stay the course...you are making good points that logically have to be considered. Whether people want to acknowledge it or not Rick’s social conservatism is not necessarily an asset for the massive independent vote. It opens him up to widespread criticsim and if he is the nominee he will spend a great deal of time defending these positions rather than moving forward with a fiscal conservative message.
I can't tell much of a difference between Romney and Santorum, if one were to look at their actual roles in their former government positions. If they both were as great as some of their supporters claim, then they would not only have been reelected repeatedly, they would be the standard for what Conservatism is, like Reagan was.
Santorum is so far removed from that definition that it would be a disgrace to Reagan to even remotely align him with the greatest Conservative of our time.
Oh look, it’s Annie Coultergeist!
Thank you.
And that's what scares me so much.
Yes, the delay of the Texas primary may hurt Newt because he has Rick Perry’s support.
But in this election, who the heck knows?
Only when it was true.
“We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the Party over to the so-called moderates wouldn’t make any sense at all.”
~~~ Ronald Reagan, 1965
The very definition of society precludes personal autonomy. Without knowing the context of the answer, I have no idea what specifically Santorum was dealing with.
Being NPR, I can guess they took a rational small-government position, and asked some bizarre questions about how everybody should be left to fend for themselves.
We have government, at the local, state, and federal level, precisely because our founding fathers, and the history of humanity before them, understood that we need a society to thrive.
You don’t get to decide for yourself exactly how you will live your life. Your choices have boundaries, and those boundaries are the necessary and proper purview of the people as a whole, expressed through the elected representatives of the people.
This is how we keep one neighbor from ruining the lives of all the people in a community. This is how we ensure that property rights are maintained, that the weakest do not need to fear having their possessions taken by the strongest.
This is how we ensure that our children grow up in an environment that will make them productive members of society, by encouraging family units which are the building blocks of society. This is how we provide common resources that are beyond the reach of the individual, but which enhance all of our lives — like fire departments, roads, and police.
This is how we provide for the common defense, and secure our individual liberties.
I wish it would be that easy. It's almost surreal, that so many here think that whom ever is nominated will automatically become the next President. That could not be further from the truth. I do believe that Newt would have a chance against the MSM, but not Santorum. No way, no how!
Not to mention he was for health care mandates.......Oh wait that was Newt, never mind.
It sounds not like a conservative view, but rather like a totalitarian one. "The government knows better than you how to make you happy. The government will control your life for the "good" of all". It's such a despicable attitude, as despicable as Obama's.
This is the man had no problem with big government if it helped his own campaign contributors in Big Pharma. Santorum supported Medicare Part D, a prescription drug plan for the elderly, which added hundreds of billions of dollars to the federal deficit. Santorum defeat in 2006 was considered "a big loss in Wa.DC" by the the drug giant GlaxoSmithKline.
Santorum is the guy who was soaking in lobbyist culture during his stay in Washington. He was the Senate's "point man" on the K Street Project and he met with Norquist to discuss how to make sure that lobbyists get well-paying jobs in firms that were seeking to then access and influence Republican Congressmen...
to paraphrase, “This Santorum that sails against us,
carries in its heart the Inquisition.
God forbid it succeeds,
for then there will be no more liberty in America
of conscience or of thought.”
Santorum is a dullard. He’s Perry Como without the sleeves. Italian. Mediocre. Air of moral superiority.
D@mn straight, there is still time to grasp defeat from the jaws of victory.
I’m trying very hard not to say anything critical about Santorum although I very much favor Gingrich.
But better Santorum than Romney.
It’s either the guy who couldn’t hold his PA seat, the guy who couldn’t hold his Speakership, the guy who couldn’t hold the Governor of MA job, or crazy Uncle Paul. Take ur pick...
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.