Romney wins Michigan and Arizona primaries

DETROIT, Feb. 28 (UPI) -- Mitt Romney was a double winner Tuesday, capturing the Michigan and Arizona Republican presidential primaries, results showed.

The Detroit Free Press declared Romney the victor over his GOP rivals in Michigan.

With about 74 percent of the precincts counted, Romney had 317,258 votes (41 percent) to Rick Santorum's 286,530 (37 percent), results posted by the Free Press showed. Ron Paul was third with 88,521 votes (12 percent) and Newt Gingrich followed with 50,726 votes (7 percent). Another 2 percent voted "uncommitted" and a handful of votes went to several other Republicans who are no longer contenders.

CNN called Romney the winner in Arizona. With 71 percent of the vote counted, Romney had 191,182 votes (48 percent) to Santorum's 101,232 votes (25 percent). Gingrich was third with 65,182 votes (16 percent), with Paul bringing up the rear with 33,505 votes (8 percent).

Exit polls in the two states Tuesday had indicated electability was the top priority among Republican primary voters.

Thirty-three percent of Michigan voters said beating President Obama is the top priority when selecting a GOP nominee, while 38 percent of voters in Arizona said the same, CBS News exit polls indicated.

Romney and Santorum slashed at each other ahead of the Michigan primary, which was too close to call. The contest in his home state is seen as crucial to Romney and his claim of the front-runner's mantle.

Despite the closeness of the Michigan race, the Post said Romney was expected to win about three times as many convention delegates as Santorum Tuesday. Arizona is a winner-take-all primary. Michigan's 30 delegates are allotted proportionately to the primary winner in each of the state's 14 congressional districts. Arizona's winner picks up all of its 29 delegates.

The Washington Post said Romney was expected to garner 45 delegates from both contests, with Santorum picking up about 15.

Gingrich and Paul were not expected to win any delegates, and did not seriously campaign in the two states.

Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, and Santorum, a former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania, have been shooting fireballs at each other in recent days.

Romney blasted Santorum's use of robocalls urging Democrats, who can vote GOP in Michigan, to vote for Santorum.

"I know why [President] Obama doesn't want me to face him but I just think it's outrageous and a terrible dirty trick at the last hour, by the way, late in the afternoon on the day before the election, maybe hoping no one would notice, they start sending out calls to Democrats, union members telling them to go into the Republican primary and vote against Mitt Romney," Romney told Fox News.

Santorum told Fox News Monday night he's just trying to attract the Democratic voters he'll need in November.

"When he runs a robocall of my voice from four years ago saying good things about him, that's not a low moment, and when I run a call basically saying, calling Democrats that are eligible to vote here, to vote for us, that's a low?" he said.

Well, you prove my point. The election, as the electorate has been screaming, is hinged on jobs, the economy, the debt, etc.

Okay, then it's your opinion that Santorum never talks about jobs, the economy or the debt. Good to know.

Yet, that is what you ignore. Instead, you focus on issues that are, while important, not on the radar of the voters at this time.

LOL, who focused on those issues? You did. I responded on point, but it was your point.

Santorum does actually talk about other things. You dispute that?

Furthermore, you are so focused on these issues that you render everything else irrelevant. So you focus on the candidate who is the best on that, regardless of how bad he may be on other conservative issues.

Wrong. Nice try though.

That monomania blinds you. You support a candidate that is great on social issues, middlin’ on defense, and poor on fiscal/small government issues.

The only person expressing monomanie, and thus requiring a response on point, is you. You honestly can't see that?

Whereas I look at them all, with special focus on pushing small government.

You haven't even expressed that you looked at Santorum fully.

According to you he doesn't care about unemployment, doesn't care about government spending, and is only moderately concerned with our military status.

Monomania? Look at your focus here.

And Newt is an 80% type of candidate. 80% of what I want on both social and fiscal conservatism... which means he's good in all the areas, not just one.

Newt has been making a new promise every few days. Gotta admit, that if you're easily gullible, he's the go-to man. I think the guy is desperate, and he's trying to tell you anything you want to hear.

I have a very high level of disbelief, because it doesn't gel with a guy who is perfectly happy to join Nancy Pelosi to drive a Leftist Globalist world view.

But your monomania on solely social issues keeps you from looking at the rest of the complete conservative package. And that's specially bad when the election climate isn't focused on those social issues.

As with Newt's promises, you only hear from Santorum what the media spoon feeds you and what you want to hear. I don't think you have a reasoned filter engaged.

I personally think you need to be more discerning. You're convinced Newt is the second coming, and I am not.

"I do believe our culture is destroying itself, and promiscuity given cover by the availability of contraceptives is part of the problem."

I understand your point, and it is part of the problem. However, nowadays, I don't think contraceptives is what's really lowering our standards. I'm somewhat of a libertarian when it comes to that, Harvard Law "students" notwithstanding...har. I believe that our pop culture that we are bombarded with daily by the MSM, Hollywood, acadamia, and advertising to be the real culprits in lowering the bar.

Personally, I don't think we will ever get back to the moral equivalence of the Founding Fathers. You know how hard I've tried (VetsCoR), but I've given up of late. I'm awaiting 4 more years of bambi and hope he pisses Joe-six-pack and Soccor-moms off enough to open their eyes and join us in a new, hopefully peaceful, revolution. Unless that happens, our great experiment in self-determination is going to end.

On an up note. Some European countries are starting to refute their socialist political systems. Maybe, when Greece, Italy, Spain, et al learn their lesson, they can provide some insight to the average American how socialism will just not work. But then, we have some 49% of Americans who don't pay fed income taxes and want more stuff so who knows how long the above would take?

If the average Joe/Josephine doesn't wake up soon, I will be looking to move to Arizona (cutting edge 2nd and 10th amendment state), or maybe even out-country to Costa Rico and hopefully escape the failure of the western political system.

Yes, there are places that even the most powerful will not interlope...Costa Rico, Cayman Islands and others. There are many that the regional/world fights would not affect, due to elites needing safe havens for their money.

Sorry for the rant, but I'm done if bambi gets another term. I'll fight against that SOB, but I believe he will get 4 more...the gimmes want him and they grow by the day.

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.