Republican Primary

(CNN) - Mitt Romney may lay claim to home field advantage in Michigan, but according to a new poll released 12 days before the state’s Republican primary, Rick Santorum is on top of the field in the race for the GOP presidential nomination.
According to a survey out Thursday by the Detroit News and CNN affiliate WDIV, 34% of likely Republican primary voters say they’re backing Santorum, the former senator from Pennsylvania, with 30% supporting Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who’s making his second bid for the White House. Santorum’s four point margin is within the poll’s sampling error.

The survey indicates that 12% back former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, with 9% supporting Rep. Ron Paul of Texas and 12% undecided. The poll was conducted entirely after Santorum’s victories over Romney, Gingrich and Paul last week in caucuses in Colorado and Minnesota and a non-binding primary in Missouri. Santorum’s sweep of the February 7 contests sparked his surge in national and state polling, and cemented the perception that Romney was having a hard time locking down support of core conservatives.

Republican candidates should promote thoughtful discernment of the issues to the general public rather than the shallowness of the rah-rah left’s hope and dreams, as dependency continues to worsen. A prime emphasis should be placed on women, and the alarming rise of single parenthood from 10% decades ago to near 50% now. Split parents pay twice as much in rents/morgages, insurance policies, beaurocratic paperwork, etc. Less women would be abandoned to raise the kids on their own if we would bring back a romantic conservatism that just turns off this secular world that is toxic to true love, marriage, and family. Women are the ones who Republicans should be wooing away from this far left culture which is weakening men into the growing habit of abandoning too many women and kids.

There has been some discontent that every single political news story (about the Republican nomination admittedly) is then put into this thread.

Well, I say we have an opportunity to nip this thread in the bud and to stop it now before it gets off the ground.

All I have to say, is who becomes the next President of the United States is a BIG NEWS STORY. So, why does the Republican nomination get consigned into one thread? Which then results in a lot of bickering, arguing, endless back and forth, and promoting candidates.

Why can’t we have monthly poll threads about who Catholics support?

Why can’t we react to big news items as they happen? Because, hardly anyone sees the Republican nomination news when it’s posted as post #336. Doesn’t that defeat the purpose of the World News forum… people reacting to NEWS.

When 1 thread is predicated on a piece of News that… lasted for 16 days. It was new on Feb. 1… but it was certainly old on Feb. 16th, if not Feb. 2nd people. 24 hour news cycle people.

Why can’t news be NEW about the Republican nomination where people are actually going to see it… posted as their own sovereign thread. There are threads about an internet law in Eastern Europe, Citigroup, GM, and a video put out by Planned Parenthood. And, threads about doctors, Iran, a judge, Sen. Boxer, and there are FIVE THREADS on the first page about Obama.

Well… a Republican President could change all of those things. He could support the european internet law, stop giving money to Citigroup and GM (seroiusly 2 separate threads?), he could defund Planned Parenthood, increase pay to doctors, bomb Iran, impeach judges, and disagree verbally with Sen. Boxer.

And a Republican President could undo all 5 things that Obama did that caused there to be 5 threads about things Obama did.

So, the Republican Nomination is HUGE NEWS. It matters more than the actual elections of most countries. We’re talking about the leader of the World’s Only Superpower. Why only one thread?

Its also the thread with the shortest name “Republican Primary”… who wants to see what that’s about? sounds boring.

You’d be blissfully ignorant of all the hundreds of exciting headlines that people made individual threads before they got merged in the “Republican Primary” one. Not to mention all the hundreds submitted by Abysinnia and Gilliam.


Hopefully this will be my last post in this thread… doubtful though.

Hey Everyone,

I was just reading this article about a strange comment a billionaire backer of Santorum’s made about birth control. I’m not sure what he meant by the comment, but this part of the article struck me:

“Conservative reporter Matt Lewis wrote yesterday that Santorum’s earlier comments about birth control will make trouble for Santorum’s campaign, and suggested that the candidate might need to have a “contraception speech” to clarify his position. “It’s not okay because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be,” Santorum said in October about contraception,** though he has also said that he supports individuals’ choice to use it**.”

Is it true that Santorum support individual’s rights to use birth control? It seems to soften his stance on birth control doesn’t it? What do you think?

By the way, sorry if this has already been a topic of discussion. If so, could someone link me to the previous discussion.

Here is the article:

He can support one’s right to do so (that is, legally) without supporting the act right?

In other words, I think we would all agree here that white supremacist groups are doing something immoral, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they should be charged with a crime for it (1st amendment).

Is it true that Santorum support individual’s rights to use birth control? It seems to soften his stance on birth control doesn’t it? What do you think?

He knows that it is impossible to force someone now to not use contraceptives. It’s like trying to stop people from smoking pot, only contraceptives are much more evil. You would create more evil trying to ban contraceptives than leaving it be. It’s a moral problem, just like abortion and divorce.

No. Rick Santorum knows it is wrong to use the government to force people to not use contraception. It is wrong, but it is a personal decision that does not impact anyone else’s liberty.

That’s a huge, stark contrast with abortion, which is a form of murder - someone deliberately taking an innocent life. That’s exactly the kind of thing just law is supposed to prevent.


  • Marty Lund

link to article:

Apparently, as far as I can tell, the only “real” jobs Santorum ever held were: politician, lobbyist, Fox News contributer.

…and theft, and murder, and extortion, and…

All of these are moral problems, but some are of greater evil and require laws to enforce the prohibition of them.

As compared to the virtue-laden occupation of “community organizer”?

VIDEO: New Santorum ad bills him as “Proven Conservative”

The truth about Obama’s stimulus and unemployment

“I have written many times that inefficient spending cannot create jobs. Rather, wasteful spending destroys wealth and thereby destroys jobs, too. That thesis is amply borne out by the experience of recent years.” - PowerLine

 Unemployment has been higher for longer under Obama than since the Great Depression - [Pete Wehner]("")

Rick Synder, Governor of Michigan, endorses Romney

“Our country has never elected a president born and raised in Michigan. Mitt Romney was born in Detroit. His father served with distinction as governor. Before that, he was president of American Motors. Mitt grew up with the prospects of the auto industry and of Michigan discussed around the dinner table. He has deep ties to our state. Mitt understands the challenges confronting Michigan as few Americans do.” - Synder in the Detroit News

Rick Santorum challenges Michigan to be 'game-changer' - [LA Times](",0,6405913.story")

Santo's uncompromisingly conservative platform has finally been rewarded in the polls and the voting, but the arithmetic still favors Mitt Romney - Doyle Mcmanus in the [LA Times](",0,6952613.column")

 The more Romney explains his opposition to auto-bailouts the more he confuses - [National Journal]("")

Romney isn’t sinking because of the flip-flops. He’s sinking because of his robotic reasonableness. Michael Tomasky on how Mitt became the Al Gore of the GOP - [Daily Beast]("")

Elections expert Larry Sabato calls the Feb. 28 Michigan Republican primary a “must-win” for Mitt Romney - WSJ

Don’t lurch right; Don’t unveil a new Mitt, Don’t stop attacking - Michael Crowley’s advice for Romney in TIME

Santorum could beat Gingrich in his home state of Georgia - RCP

Gerson: Santorum is Romney’s most serious challenger

“Santorum combines a deeply held social conservatism with an authentic blue-collar appeal. Romney has trouble competing in either category. While Santorum is very conservative, he avoids being a conservative caricature. He was one of the Senate’s main advocates of global health programs and a champion of faith-based anti-poverty efforts.” - Mike Gerson in the Washington Post

The 18% question: Why did Santorum lose his Senate seat by 18%?

“The reasons for Santorum’s defeat are too complicated for a 30-second ad or a brief answer at a debate. He can blame a lot of factors, but in the end he was most responsible for his own fate. Now, if Santorum’s presidential campaign continues to soar, he’ll likely have to discuss the '06 defeat more. The Romney campaign will point to it as proof that Santorum can’t win the White House. Santorum’s job is to tell voters – and prove to them with his actions – that he has learned from his loss, and that he’s a better candidate for it.” - Byron York for the Washington Examiner

The uncharitable Santorum?

“The Santorums actually gave less than two percent of their income to charity, a smaller percentage than the average for people in their income group though not extremely so. The average is slightly more than three percent.” - NPR

Rick Santorum, whose humble coal-country biography is central to his political message, made more than $3.6 million in recent years as a Washington consultant” - Washington Post

Could Ron Paul come to Romney’s rescue?

“In a Republican presidential contest known for its angry rivalries, the Romney-Paul relationship stands out for its behind-the-scenes civility. It is a friendship that, by Mr. Paul’s telling, Mr. Romney has worked to cultivate.” - New York Times

 Is Romney giving Trump the cold shoulder? - [Daily Caller]("")

 Huntsman disagrees with Romney's statements on China - [MSNBC]("")

The Mormon card is now being played against Mitt Romney - [Toby Harnden]("")

Republicans in Washington need to stop acting like Democrats, says … Mitt Romney - HotAir

“The small fraction of Americans who are trying to pick the Republican nominee are old, white, uniformly Christian and unrepresentative of the nation at large” - Timothy Egan at the New York Times

Obama approval drops to 43% in latest Gallup poll - Fox

CNN Poll: Americans Oppose HHS Mandate 50% to 44% - [Weekly Standard]("")

There is no need to make that comparison.

Santorum needs to stand on his own and needs to stand for more than simply defeating the “community organizer.” That is a losing strategy. - on how the spirits of the Founding Fathers had visited a Mormon 'prophet ’ , to be baptised , to become Mormons , how it is a celebrated occasion - from an article in 1987 , by an LDS authority !

Thus, if they can claim that the very Founding Fathers themselves are now Mormons , what would keep them from wanting the ways/teachings of Jospeh Smith , to be also given authority of Constitution - the laws against plural marriages , if made to be rule , with the mandate of having to have them in churches , there is one more tool , against The Church , from a group that already denies the autheniticity of scriptures and even the very revealed nature of God ,…which have been made to better suit tastes of fallen nature .

The very history of these lands too has been pretty much divorced from its very real and relevant Catholic connections and contributions , to be replaced by words of one individual !

if we think Obama has been daring ,against the constitution , may be we need to see the pattern here even more clearly !

By our choice of someone who clearly contradicts The Church , in so many ways ,esp. in the critical areas ,yet, insisting that it is everyone else who does not agree that is in error , are we thus choosing for someone who has very little respect for who we are !

True, God can make all things work well , for those who love Him …and may be , in these choices , we get to know , if we love God …or something else !

Good things that we are getting that lesson from Obama already !

Especially for the community organizer.

There’s nothing wrong with Mr. Santorum or anyone else making a living, no matter the amount of compensation he receives.

What a Catholic voter should consider is a candidate’s ethics in *how *he earns his living. While politics is filled with corruption, much of it also tries to make something good for its citizens. If a candidate’s earnings stem from organizations which support actions that are deal-breakers in Catholic teaching, I would be concerned. I see nothing that points to this for this particular candidate.

How a candidate behaves with his money, from the sanctity of life, to compassion for others through programs that aid the poor and victimized through charitable contributions (at the least) are more meritorious pursuits than suggesting to readers of this thread to envy (dare I say, covet?) another man’s money.

Santorum needs to wrok on his principles. He backed a bill limiting compensation to $250,000 for malpractice. Oddly enough his wife sued her chiropractor for $500,000. Rick was a witness and his wife received a settlement for $350,000.

Nice of you to define “real” jobs. Since there is no such thing, this is a pointless topic.

He must be a really good consultant. :slight_smile:


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit