Conservatives4Congress

Rick Santorum Previews Fresh Attack On Mitt Romney: ‘He’s Resolutely Liberal’

2012-02-24T13:27:00.001-05:00

DETROIT — Rick Santorum’s campaign, which rarely sends out prepared remarks of their candidate’s speeches, is circulating comments that Santorum plans to weave into his public appearances between now and the Feb. 28 Michigan primary.

He will take on Mitt Romney about as forcefully as ever.

Santorum’s comments paint Romney as a “liberal” who supported “activist judges,” who granted marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples, who allowed “$50 dollar abortions” and who fought “against the 2nd Amendment” and for “radical environmental regulations.”

Santorum has made some of the points before, however several of the new lines attempt to turn Romney’s words at Wednesday night’s Arizona debate against him.

“Governor Romney described himself as resolute on that debate stage,” Santorum will say, referring to a word Romney used to describe himself. “There’s no question that he’s resolute — trouble is he’s resolutely liberal, and I have, and will continue, to fight for conservatives and all Americans.”

Notably, Santorum is also trying to have a “do-over” with some of the lines were not his strongest in Arizona like when he said he was “taking one for the team” by voting in favor of President George W. Bush’s “No Child Left Behind Policy” as a U.S. Senator. Romney took aim at Santorum over those comments at a campaign appearance in Arizona on Thursday.

“We saw, in this case, Senator Santorum explain most of the night why he did or voted for things he disagreed with and he talked about this as taking one for the team,” Romney said in Arizona. ”I wonder which team he was taking it for. My team is the American people, not the insiders in Washington, and I’ll fight for the people of America, not special interests.”

Santorum’s new retort:

“Mitt Romney has criticized me for taking one for the Republican team and we all know why, because Mitt Romney’s teammates are all Democrats. It’s pretty clear what team Mitt Romney is on when he passed socialized medicine that included $50 dollar abortions – bragged about not lining up with the NRA – appointed liberal activist judges to the Massachusetts bench, and was hanging out at Planned Parenthood events celebrating the pro-choice agenda. No wonder working with a Republican President’s team is foreign to Mitt Romney - Mitt’s whole career he’s been working for liberals.”

Santorum, who arrives in Michigan on Friday for campaign events, will use the fresh lines in media appearances as well as on the stump, according to campaign aides.

From fiscal issues to social issues, Santorum plans to attack Romney on all fronts today. Here are additional excerpts from his remarks as prepared for delivery:

While Mitt Romney was fighting for a government run healthcare that raises your health care costs, lowers quality of health care, and forces you to rely on the government - I fought to lower costs, raise quality and give people more choices and control over their own healthcare.

While Mitt Romney was pushing for the Wall Street Bailouts – I was fighting for the free-market system to work.

While Mitt Romney was fighting against the 2^nd Amendment and saying exactly ‘he didn’t line up with the NRA’ I was working with NRA and getting a A+ rating.

While Mitt Romney was supporting the confirmation of liberal activist judges to the Massachusetts court, I was fighting to confirm conservative justices Roberts, and Alito and Thomas.

While Mitt Romney was signing 189 marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples, I was traveling the country fighting for traditional marriage between one man and one woman.

While Mitt Romney was allowing $50 dollar abortions and hanging out at Planned Parenthood events, I was standing on the floor of the US Senate fighting to end partial birth abortions.

While Mitt Romney was listening to the radical environmentalists about global warming and pushing taxpayer dollars to green energy companies – I was fighting to open up drilling in Alaska and expand natural gas exploration.

While Mitt Romney was listening to his energy czar, who now works for Obama’s energy team – I was listening to you and fighting to keep coal fire plants open so energy prices would be lower.

While Mitt Romney was fighting to pass radical environmental regulations on coal fire plants – I was fighting to keep coal fire plants open so energy prices would be lower.

When he had the chance, at every turn, Mitt Romney supported his teammates – but the problem is his teammates were the Democrats.

Ohio: A Super Tuesday Preview

2012-02-24T12:59:00.001-05:00

Big Government

Ohio’s Republican primary will be held on March 6, 2012, otherwise known as Super Tuesday. Other primaries that day include Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Vermont and Virginia. Ohio’s 66 delegates will be awarded proportionally. It will be one of the states to watch and the Santorum/Romney match up should be key.

f Romney fails to win Ohio, some will begin to see a Midwest weakness casting even bigger doubts on him as a potential nominee. The latest polling as of February 15 had Santorum up by 18%, 42 – 24. Gingrich was next at 13%, with Paul at 10%.

Santorum has been campaigning aggressively in the state. The tightening of the contest in Michigan likely caused Romney to place more focus there than planned. He does not want to be perceived as having lost his home state.

COLUMBUS — Presidential candidate Rick Santorum may be in Hamilton County next week, continuing what so far has been the most aggressive effort by any of the candidates to win the Ohio primary on March 6. He spent three days crisscrossing the state this past weekend and looks to spend a few more going into Super Tuesday, when Ohio and 10 other states begin voting in primaries and caucuses.

There are 85 delegates available. In 2008, McCain won with 60% to Huckabee’s 31%. Romney had already exited the race by then.

Occupy Romney: Sounding More and More Like Obama and Occupiers

2012-02-24T09:17:00.000-05:00

Occupy Romney to cut charitable deductions because top 1% needs to pay more » The Right Scoop -

Here’s Romney already adopting the Occupy language in Arizona yesterday, saying that he would cut home mortgage interest deductions and charitable contribution deductions for the 1% because he thinks they need to pay more:

And by the way, I want to make sure you understand that, for middle income families, the deductibility of home mortgage interest and charitable contributions, those things will continue. But for high income folks, we are going to cut back on that, so we make sure the top 1% keeps paying the current share they’re paying or more.

First of all, if Romney is going to “cut back on that”, that being charitable deductions, he can’t then say “so we make sure the top 1% keeps paying the current share…” No, if you cut back on the deductions, the wealthy will pay more. It’s that simple The way he phrased it, “paying the current share they’re paying or more”, sounds more like “saved or created” language.

So that withstanding, Romney says he wants to limit charitable deductions so the 1% pay more. Hmmmmmm. Who else wanted to do that? Ah yes:

Romney is sounding more and more like Obama and his Occupy movement every day.

So why does he want to do this? Big Government had the part of the transcript right before this clip started:

I am going to lower rates across the board for all Americans by 20%. And in order to limit any impact on the deficit, because I do not want to add to the deficit, and also in order to make sure we continue to have progressivity as we’ve had in the past in our code, I’m going to limit the deductions and exemptions particularly for high income folks.

So he wants to avoid adding to the deficit, but he also wants to make sure that “we continue to have progressivity” in the tax code. Interesting. So based on that he is against a flat tax on the grounds that he believes the rich should pay higher tax rates than the “middle class”.

If this isn’t class warfare, I don’t know what is.

Sour Race Heads to Mich., Turns Off Voters

2012-02-24T09:06:00.000-05:00

by Byron York

Barbara VanSyckel is the chairwoman of the Republican Party in Macomb County, Mich., a key county in a key state with a crucial GOP primary coming next Tuesday. She was looking forward to the Republican debate from Arizona this week, eager to see the candidates outline their positions before heading to Michigan. But after watching for a while, VanSyckel actually turned the debate off, disgusted by the negativity and bad-mouthing between the candidates.

"I just got really tired," she says. "Didn't Ron Paul call Rick Santorum a fake? Are you kidding me? And what bothered me was when Romney went after Santorum about the Arlen Specter thing. ... It was at that moment that I said, you know what? I really don't want to listen anymore."

If you're a party trying to build enough enthusiasm to take back the White House, it's never a good idea to alienate your own county chairmen so much that they won't even watch your debates. But that is the situation as the increasingly sour Republican race moves to Michigan.

It's not a surprise. The days leading up to Wednesday night's debate were filled with bad feelings, and the debate itself was filled with bad feelings. Santorum found himself the target of a media pile-on after reports of old statements about -- astonishingly enough -- contraception and Satan. Santorum's advisers grew angry and frustrated, feeling he was being singled out for questions about religious views that were not also directed at Romney, Paul, and Newt Gingrich. Santorum lost precious campaign time explaining himself.

The question was whether many voters actually cared. The day of the debate, Santorum traveled two hours south of Phoenix to address the Tucson Tea Party. If you did not know about the media firestorm, you never would have gotten the impression that anything was amiss from listening to Santorum's speech.

Santorum spoke at length about the Obama administration's policies on Iran, Syria and Israel. He discussed his proposal to cut taxes for manufacturers and the more general issue of jobs. He talked a lot about immigration, both illegal and legal. He went into quite a bit of detail about energy -- shale oil, the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, oil sands, the Keystone pipeline, fracking, and more. He talked about values and families -- "This is what I know gets everybody on the secular left bonkers about my campaign: I say America is at heart a moral enterprise" -- but he did not revisit the battles of the previous 48 hours.

It was, in other words, an entirely normal and wide-ranging campaign speech, full of substance. When it was over, Santorum took two questions. The first was about the health of his daughter Isabella. The second was about Social Security. No contraception, no Satan.

Talking to Tea Party voters afterward, it was clear that most didn't think the flare-up of culture war was a big deal. "I tune it all out," said Marti Slowik, of Tucson, "because I think it doesn't have anything to do with what is important to our country."

It's not clear how many voters, particularly in Michigan, share her view. A few hours later, the race fell back into negative mode as the candidates took the stage for a debate full of bickering and finger-pointing. Afterward, Santorum suggested Romney and Ron Paul have some sort of agreement in which they both attack Santorum but lay off each other. "Clearly there is a tag-team strategy between Ron Paul and Mitt Romney," said top Santorum strategist John Brabender.

"Mitt Romney is trained as an attack dog," Brabender added. "It's Pavlovian."

In response, Romney strategist Stuart Stevens called all the talk "whiny silliness."

Meanwhile, a spokesman for Newt Gingrich said the former speaker would make no effort in Michigan, in the hope that a Santorum win there would weaken Romney. "Whatever means we can use that are to our advantage to get rid of Mitt Romney ... we're happy to have that happen," spokesman R.C. Hammond said.

So with the Arizona debate over, the increasingly contentious campaign moves to Michigan, where Romney has been running ads attacking Santorum, and on Thursday Santorum introduced two new ads attacking Romney. The first hit Romney for supporting Wall Street bailouts and "turning his back on Michigan workers." The second simply featured Romney statements from the past like, "I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose" and "I'd have been embarrassed if I didn't ask for federal dollars every chance I had."

All in all, it's been enough to make even a party chairwoman turn off the TV. What will it do for GOP voters?

AGU: Grizzly Fest; Sat Feb 25 1pm ET

2012-02-24T00:25:00.001-05:00

Tired of Crony Capitalism? Want to get the inside baseball scoop from some Corruption Busters?

This Saturday February 25, 2012 tune into the Grizzly Fest Winter Online Summit from 1-4pm EST.

You can tune in LIVE to listen to the corruption busting Grizzlies HERE:

GrizzlyFest.com Conservatives4Palin.com US4Palin.com MarkAmerica.com RodericDeane.com

(A Podcast will be made available after the summit)

Grizzly Fest is a quarterly, online summit created so you can become better informed about grassroots action at the local, state and national levels.

The theme for this saturday's online summit is: Corruption Busters.

Here's a few of the Sudden and Relentless Reform Line-up:

Sarah Nuckles, transportation commissioner who blew whistle on $344 million vote-buying scam in So. Carolina

Adam Andrzejewski, founder of For The Good Of Illinois, a watchdog group putting government checkbooks online.

Peter Schweizer, Stanford fellow, author of Throw Them All Out

Luigi Zingales, Univ. of Chicago professor and co-author Saving Capitalism From the Capitalists

Rebecca Kleefisch, Lt. Gov. of Wisconsin, facing recall election for challenging public sector unions

Plus: On-the-Ground Update from American Grizzlies United and Thomas S Schmitz

Join your friends in the Grizzly Movement to hunt for real reformers!

Learn more about our Grizzly Fest guests here.

Choose your favorite website from the list above to listen LIVE this Saturday February 25, 2012 from 1-4pm EST.

Our work continues...

Thomas S Schmitz

American Grizzlies United; Chairman

American Grizzlies United Website: http://americangrizzlies.com/

Follow AGU on Twitter: @AGUGrizzlies

Follow O4P on Twitter: @O4Palin

Follow S4P on Twitter: @_Students4Palin

Follow Thomas on Twitter: @ThomasSSchmitz

Follow AGU on Facebook: American Grizzlies United (AGU)

Subscribe to the AGU You-Tube Channel: AmericanGrizzliesU

AGU: 2012 Primary Candidates

2012-02-23T21:14:00.000-05:00

American Grizzlies United (AGU) is a grassroots organization dedicated to organizing, educating, and training volunteers for American political elections.

AGU does not endorse candidates. We focus our efforts on providing volunteers and the general public with information, ideas, and guidance so that they can choose which candidates to give their support to.

Our free online resources: The Grizzly Doctrine; A Crib Sheet, AGU Citizen Activism Guide, and Grizzly Delegates all contain information collected by AGU to help you become politically active in your community and get real electoral results.

Our project Organize4Palin (O4P) had a 67% success rate in the 2010 mid-terms.

O4P helped Governor Palin elect: 1 Secretary of State, 2 Attorneys General, 6 Senators, 7 Governors, and 37 House Reps.

Because of our organizations achievement and the favorable outcome of the 2010 election cycle, AGU has received many calls, emails, and tweets from candidates seeking your help again in the 2012 primaries.

Here is a list of the candidates running for office in the 2012 GOP primaries who have reached out to us asking for your assistance.

We encourage you to use our free online resources to vet these candidates, and decide which candidates you would like to help.

Ann Marie Buerkle

NY-25 US House

Website, Facebook, Twitter

Primary Date: June 26, 2012

Gabriela Saucedo Mercer

AZ-7 US House

Website, Facebook, Twitter

Primary Date: August 28, 2012

Mark Neumann

WI-US Senate

Website, Facebook, Twitter

Primary Date: August 14, 2012

Sarah Steelman

MO-US Senate

Website, Facebook, Twitter

Primary Date: Aug 07, 2012

Peter Konetchy

MI-US Senate

Website, Facebook, Twitter

Primary Date: August 07, 2012

Charlotte Bergmann

TN-9 US House

Website, Facebook, Twitter

Primary Date: August 02, 2012

Zach Poskevich

TN-US Senate

Website, Facebook, Twitter

Primary Date: August 02, 2012

Mia B Love

UT-4 US House

Website, Facebook, Twitter

Primary Date: June 26, 2012

Jamie Radtke

VA-US Senate

Website, Facebook, Twitter

Primary Date: June 12, 2012

Bette Grande

ND-41 US House

Website, Facebook, Twitter

Primary Date: June 12, 2012

Anna Little

NJ-US Senate

Website, Facebook, Twitter

Primary Date: June 05, 2012

Matthew Lin

CA-49 State Assembly

Website, Facebook, Twitter

Primary Date: June 05, 2012

Mark Reed

CA-30 US House

Website, Facebook, Twitter

Primary Date: June 05, 2012

Josh Mandel

OH-US Senate

Website, Facebook, Twitter

Primary Date: March 06, 2012

Ilario Pantano

NC-7 US House

Website, Facebook, Twitter

Primary Date: May 08, 2012

Frank Palombo

NC-3 US House

Website, Facebook, Twitter

Primary Date: May 08, 2012

Renee Elmers

NC-2 US House

Website, Facebook, Twitter

Primary Date: May 08, 2012

Pat McCrory

NC- Governor

Website, Facebook, Twitter

Primary Date: May 08, 2012

Dan Forest

NC- Lt. Governor

Website, Facebook, Twitter

Primary Date: May 08, 2012

Dan Bongino

MD-US Senate

Website, Facebook, Twitter

Primary Date: April 03, 2012

Danielle Rowe

IL-52 State Assembly

Website, Facebook, Twitter

Primary Date: March 20, 2012

Lennie Jarratt

IL-31 State Senate

Website, Facebook, Twitter

Primary Date: March 20, 2012

Ben Lange

IA-01 US House

Website, Facebook, Twitter

Primary Date: June 05, 2012

Stephen Flanagan

NY- State Senate

Website

Primary Date: June 26, 2012

Carl Wimmer

UT-52 US House

Website, Facebook, Twitter

Primary Date: June 26, 2012

Martha McSally

AZ-8 US House

Website, Facebook, Twitter

Primary Date: August 28, 2012

George Faught

OK-2 US House

Website, Facebook, Twitter

Primary Date: June 26, 2012

Joe Kaufman

FL-20 US House

Website, Facebook, Twitter

Primary Date: August 14, 2012

JD Miniear

IN-7 US House

Website

Primary Date: May 08, 2012

Thomas S Schmitz

American Grizzlies United; Chairman

American Grizzlies United Website: http://americangrizzlies.com/

Follow AGU on Twitter: @AGUGrizzlies

Follow O4P on Twitter: @O4Palin

Follow S4P on Twitter: @_Students4Palin

Follow Thomas on Twitter: @ThomasSSchmitz

Follow AGU on Facebook: American Grizzlies United (AGU)

Subscribe to the AGU You-Tube Channel: AmericanGrizzliesU

Rick Santorum Talks Economy, Controversy, and Faith

2012-02-23T19:59:00.000-05:00

GBTV – Glenn Beck

On GBTV Thursday night, Rick Santorum joined Glenn in the Dallas studios for a one on one interview. Many of the questions came from viewers, who submitted their questions via Facebook and Twitter.

Glenn’s goal was to ask the questions that the mainstream media was missing. He started off on the economy, what will likely be the biggest issue in the next election.

Glenn asked him about The Fed, cutting entitlements, and spending cuts in the age of Occupy Wall Street. You can watch Santorum discuss the economy in the clip below:

Santorum said that one of the main ways in which he would cut spending and the size of the federal government would be to cut entitlement programs, especially Medicare and Medicaid. He said the two programs have become bloated and corrupt, and Santorum proposed bringing them into the competitive free marketplace.

Santorum later added that the one area of government he would not cut is military and defense.

Proposals to cut entitlements are highly controversial, so Glenn asked Santorum how he would handle the inevitable backlash from progressives who are already deeply upset with government, such as the protesters on Occupy Wall Street.

(AUDIO) Rush Limbaugh on the Ron Paul - Mitt Romney Liason

2012-02-23T19:44:00.001-05:00

Rush Limbaugh Theorizes That Mitt Romney And Ron Paul Are Secretly Working Together | Mediaite

On his radio show today, Limbaugh theorized that Paul’s only staying in the race as part of a partnership with Mitt Romney.

Duh duh duuuuuuh!

Limbaugh read an email he sent to his close friends last month in which he theorized that Romney has struck up a deal in which Paul would agree not to run as an Independent an may even be helping the front runner in exchange for political favors for his son, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul.

“I’m just beginning to see huge advantages to Romney if Ron Paul stays in. I can see Romney offering a plum to Ron Paul’s son (every father cares about such things.) I can see Romney offering a plum to Paul’s son and to not run third party to set his son up for the future. If you’ve noticed, Ron Paul never rips Romney, which I know Romney appreciates. In fact, Ron Paul joins the chorus of those defending Romney sometimes.”

Limbaugh used as proof the fact that Paul and Romney don’t seem to go after each other as much in the debates. He’s not the only one who’s pointed this out and there is some credence to his Rand theory. Still, I think the tons of die-hard Ron Paul supporters would have a very hard time believing that the candidate famous for sticking by his ideals no matter how unpopular was actually in cahoots with someone else. I doubt this will be much of a popular theory in Paul Country.

Besides, there was this comment. That sure doesn’t sound like BFF talk…or is that just what they want us to think?!

Listen to the clip below:

Review Puts Rick Santorum on Indiana Primary Ballot

2012-02-23T19:09:00.001-05:00

The Indianapolis Star
Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum will remain on Indiana's presidential primary ballot.

While the Marion County Board of Voter Registration had earlier fallen eight signatures short of the necessary 500 in the 7th Congressional District, officials there said a review of the petitions that Santorum's campaign submitted confirmed he had enough.

Candidates must get the signatures of 500 registered voters in each of the nine congressional districts. The Indiana Election Commission is holding a hearing at 9 a.m. Friday in the chambers of the Indiana House of Representatives to hear challenges to Santorum's ballot access and to a slew of other candidates, including President Barack Obama, Sen. Richard G. Lugar, and both Republican gubernatorial candidates, U.S. Rep. Mike Pence and Fishers businessman Jim Wallace.

The commission will weigh all the challenges, including those to Santorum, but with Marion County officials now saying he did turn in enough petition signatures there is no chance he would be ejected from the ballot.

LaDonna Freeman, the Democrat member of the Marion County voter registration board, said that a similar review of Wallace's signatures show he remains at least 14 petition signatures short in the 7th District.

Challenges filed against Pence also allege he does not have enough signatures, though counties in every district have certified he does have the required number.

Lugar is being challenged by some voters because his home address is in McLean, Va., and Obama is being challenged by voters who do not believe he is a "natural born citizen."

Polls: Kinzinger Leading Manzullo, Jackson Jr. Beating Halvorson

2012-02-23T18:22:00.000-05:00

The Hill Ballot Box:

Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) has a 13-point lead over Rep. Don Manzullo (R-Ill.) in their primary match-up, according to a new poll.

Kinzinger holds a 47-34 percent lead over Manzullo, according to the poll, conducted by pollster We Ask America.

Kinzinger won his seat convincingly in 2010, but his district was dismantled by redistricting. He decided to run in a new district that included some of his old territory as well as much of longtime Rep. Manzullo's.

The pollster also surveyed the Democrat-on-Democrat primary between Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (Ill.) and former Rep. Debbie Halvorson (Ill.), and showed Jackson Jr. with a 54-32 percent edge. The district is heavily African-American and covers much of his old territory, but Halvorson was banking on Jackson's ongoing ethics issues to make the race close.

Both polls were conducted in the last few days. The GOP poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 2.6 percent, while the Democratic poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 2.7.

The Illinois primary is about one month away.

Two Romney Endorsers Correct Mitt

2012-02-23T15:46:00.000-05:00

Now, Two Romney Endorsers Calling Out Mitt On Two Different Issues:

Heck of Nevada endorsed Romney.

Heck: Romney wrong on foreclosures

Upton endorsed him in Michigan.

Romney Endorser Corrects Mitt On Auto Rescue: ‘No One Could Have’ Saved The Industry Except The Government

This is what happens when you have a guy who talks out of both sides of his mouth. Even people that endorsed him didn't know what they were getting into. And the issues are significant enough for them to speak out about it. But the GOP expects us to vote for him? No sale.

BTW, did you know Romney was involved with the Olympics in 2002? As I tweeted last night, Romney's tried to get more mileage out of those games than all the Gold Medal winners combined. Besides that, he hasn't done anything significant in public life for a decade besides lose an election, or two. What the hell has he been doing all these years that's been truly productive? The resume he's touting hasn't been updated in over ten years.

New Santorum Ad Hits Romney’s Record … With Romney’s Own Words

2012-02-23T15:16:00.000-05:00

by Tina Korbe

This qualifies as an attack ad — but it’s difficult to critique it as unwarrantedly negative or particularly unfair, given that it consists entirely of quotes from other sources. No context is provided for the quotes, but it’s a 30-second ad, so that’s what you’d expect.

Depending upon the political persuasion of the audience, it might make a viewer or two think more favorably of Mitt Romney. The anybody-but-Mitt audience will watch it, nod their heads sagaciously and walk away from the TV reinforced in their unwavering faith that Mitt Romney is a flip-flopper who should not be at the helm of the Republican Party. Whether it resonates with the undecided crowd will depend upon whether undecideds care about the particular issues highlighted in this ad.

The bigger issue is whether the brief, “I’m Rick Santorum and I approve this message” at the end will be enough to inform viewers who the ad is for. Presumably, anyone following the primaries will know from the first frame that it must come from the Rick Santorum camp, but not everybody who randomly catches the ad will know that.

Romney’s campaign (and especially his Super PAC) has proved it’ll attack anyone who poses a threat to Romney and Romney himself proved that again last night. Conventional wisdom suggests Santorum is right to hit back. If that’s the case, this isn’t necessarily the best he could do. Santorum’s attacks are at their best when they focus narrowly on Romneycare and Romney’s support for the Wall Street bailouts, and this ad jumps around a bit from issue to issue. Nevertheless, I’m sure it makes Romney rue — yet again — the sentences he uttered thoughtlessly when his stated political aspirations reached no higher than the Massachusetts governor’s mansion.

Personally, though, I’d like to see an ad of a different nature come from the Santorum campaign. One of the biggest differences I see between Romney and Santorum — and it’s a difference that works in Santorum’s favor — is Santorum’s willingness to acknowledge and accept responsibility for his past mistakes. For example, last night, he said flat-out that he regretted his vote for No Child Left Behind. That takes an inordinate amount of humility that Romney has never demonstrated. Romney has been given ample opportunities to disavow Romneycare and he has never once done it.

Why not a Santorum ad with the theme, “The Courage to Say ‘I Was Wrong’”? If nothing else, it would resonate with girlfriends and wives across the country who particularly appreciate a man who can say, “I was wrong and I’m sorry.” And aren’t folks always saying Santorum needs to do something to appeal to the gals he supposedly keeps alienating with his anti-contraception, pro-stay-at-home-motherhood talk?

Santorum, Rice Excel in PJ Media Presidential Poll

2012-02-23T14:43:00.000-05:00

Roger L. Simon » Santorum, Rice Excel in PJ Media Presidential Poll

PJ Media doesn’t get frequently into the polling game, but slightly more than two years ago we commissioned polls in the Massachusetts senatorial race and were the first to show a growing gap in favor of Republican candidate Scott Brown.

Now, given the so far indeterminate nature of the Republican presidential contest, we decided to poll again. This time, mindful of the interest of some in a brokered convention, we extended the number of potential candidates beyond those presently competing, pitting all of them against President Obama. (For this polling we added Mitch Daniels, Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Sarah Palin, and Condoleezza Rice. Others may be added subsequently.)

This poll, like the Massachusetts poll, was conducted for us by CrossTarget using Interactive Voice Technology (IVR), the same method used by Rasmussen and now widely adopted. The poll was of 800 registered voters and was held on February 21 and 22, largely before the most recent debate. The margin of error is +/-3.46%.

What follows here are topline results. The detailed cross tabs from the poll are quite interesting and we will publish and analyze them starting tomorrow.

What’s interesting on quick evaluation is that no Republican seems to have made his or her way to a substantial lead. Rick Santorum and Condoleezza Rice are the only candidates, potential or otherwise, narrowly defeating Obama at this moment.

But the news is not good for the President either. Besides the fact that several candidates (Romney, Chris Christie, and Jeb Bush) trail him only within the margin of error, as you will see in the cross tabs tomorrow, Obama scores abysmally among independent voters.

And now the poll:

Santorum New Michigan Ad

2012-02-23T12:26:00.000-05:00

Rick Santorum releases new Michigan ad » The Right Scoop -

This is actually a great ad. It hits Romney a little, but mostly focuses on what Santorum will do for Michigan and the country. I like how he emphasized his manufacturing plan in this ad too:

"Santorum is Running For The Top Slot, Not a Seat on The Back Bench"

2012-02-23T12:17:00.000-05:00

by Dan Riehl:

Santorum has his faults, but some of this type of criticism of him strikes me as rather simple-minded piling on, little more than checking off boxes on some voting score card. Does it really take an analyst to do that? Given all the other things we know about Santorum, should it really be surprising to find out he would be more, or less loyal to a Republican president when in the Senate? And since when did being loyal become only a bad thing?

I may not like some of these votes more than other conservatives; however, a little context doesn't change them. It can inform them, which is what I thought analysis was supposed to do. Klein also seems to think it's a negative that Santorum was more likely to speak his mind when out of the Senate. To me, that only highlights how much some of his votes were out of loyalty and we can't know how much he lobbied, or pushed back behind the scenes, before putting up a good front in the cause of unity in the end.

Santorum is running for the top slot, not a seat on the back bench, which he didn't exactly occupy even when he was in the Senate and House. I get it, the votes don't thrill me, either - but they're a damn sight better than Mitt Romney embracing and praising Ted Kennedy for his invaluable help in passing Romneycare. It's getting close to crunch time and there may not be any perfect horses in the race. Let's not simply pile on, or shoot one because some of his actions demonstrated what one might call character at times. That is what loyalty is, after all, is it not? Or, does that somehow not count in the whole values equation?

Santorum's biggest blunder on this front came in how he described his vote for Bush's expansion of the federal role in education, saying "It was against the principles I believed in. But when you're part of a team, sometimes you take one for the team, for the leader." This gets at the heart of the problem with Santorum, which I wrote about the day he announced he was running for president -- he was the quintessential Bush era Republican. As the number three Republican in the Senate, he was a loyal soldier and went along with Bush's big government policies, from NCLB to the Medicare prescription drug law. The very problem with the Bush era was precisely that too many Republicans decided to be team players rather than push back against the president when he was violating conservative principles. It's this very "team player" mentality that the Tea Party movement, in part, was created to combat. Santorum spent the early part of his debate touting his opposition to the Wall Street bailout, but his argument tonight about taking one for the team leaves little doubt that he would have voted for the bailout had he still been in the Senate in 2008. It was much easier for him to sit back and criticize the policy when he was out of office. Santorum's comment about his unwillingness to stand up for his principles when they clashed with Bush on NCLB was especially ironic, because it came moments after he used the word "courage" when he was asked to describe himself with one word.

Texas: Ted Cruz Talks Senate Race [AUDIO]

2012-02-23T09:53:00.000-05:00

News/Talk 790 KFYO

On Wednesday’s edition of Lubbock’s First News, U.S. Senate candidate Ted Cruz talked with Chad Hasty and Rex Andrew about his run for senate and other hot-button issues in politics.

Concerning recent poll numbers, Cruz said he is “surging” in the senate race, and that the race has effectively become a two-man race between him and Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst.

“If the election were held today, according to the latest poll numbers, there’d be a run-off between me and David Dewhurst, and that presents a clear, straightforward choice…between a timid career politician in David Dewhurst, or a strong conservative fighter.”

Cruz said that people want a strong conservative who can take on President Barrack Obama, and compared his own campaign to that of Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum.

Chad Hasty also asked Ted Cruz about his views of U.S. Senator John Cornyn in connection with a Dallas Morning News story from today that is headlined: Cruz Surprises Senate Analysts by Hesitating to Back Cornyn for Top Post. Cruz disagreed with the Morning News reporter’s interpretation of his comments, “John Cornyn is a good man, he’s my friend and I like and respect him. What I told the (Dallas Morning News) reporter was very simple. Which is that I think it would be presumptuous for me to talk about who I’m going to support in (Senate) leadership until I’m elected. I’ve got a primary to win and then an (general) election.”

Cruz continued, “What I told the reporter is look- the decision of leadership in the Senate, is the decision for the conference to make, and I’m not committing to any leadership votes because I’m trying to win a primary.”

Cruz also shared his views on the payroll tax, Social Security benefits and affirmative action.

For more on Ted Cruz and his campaign for U.S. Senate, visit his website at tedcruz.org.

Debate - Newt Won, Santorum "Escaped Without Any Major Harm'

2012-02-23T09:40:00.001-05:00

Have the Deciders Decided? Examining the Post-Debate Examinations : by theRobert Stacy McCain

This morning, I woke up and switched on Fox & Friends and watched them bring on Mitt Romney’s proxy Chris Christie to lead the 8 a.m. hour. Steve Doocy’s first question to Christie — this is from memory, but close enough to an exact quote that I’ll put it inside quotation marks — was: “All the conservative blogs say Mitt Romney won and Rick Santorum had a bad night.”

Really? Of course I’m prejudiced by my pro-Santorum sentiments, but this seemed an odd way to start the morning’s schedule at Fox News, as if they were delivering the Official Message.

My general impression of last night’s debate was that Newt Gingrich had the best performance, and that Santorum escaped without any major harm. That was important, because this was the debate where Santorum could expect to be required to answer for everything “controversial” he has ever said, and he never really got cornered.

But if you watched CNN before the debate, you noticed that some of their commentators — particularly Ari Fleischer — were trying to raise expectations: Santorum needed to clearly win the debate, or else he would be judged the loser. And when it was over, Fleischer and others on CNN (including Erick Erickson, who hates Rick Santorum with the heat of ten thousand suns) were declaring Romney the winner on the basis of such calculations. (For some reason, CNN didn’t book Dana Loesch as a commentator on the Arizona debate.)

In general, it seemed to me that coverage of last night’s debate was over-hyped, that political junkies were underestimating the degree to which regular people have become jaded after 20 debates. Here’s the lead of the New York Times article:

Mitt Romney challenged Rick Santorum’s credentials as a fiscal conservative in a fiercely combative debate on Wednesday, trying to redefine Mr. Santorum as part of the problem in Washington and regain his footing in the fight for the Republican presidential nomination.
With the Arizona and Michigan primaries only six days away, followed quickly by a dozen more contests, Mr. Romney arrived here at a critical moment of his candidacyarmed with a detailed indictment of Mr. Santorum’s record in Congress. Mr. Romney sought to dismantle his rival’s claim to be the authentic conservative in the race. . . .

“Fiercely combative“? Were they watching the same debate I saw? And does this description of Romney’s political goal in the lead suggest that the reporters were in Romney’s corner?

Trying to avoid such spin can be difficult, and sometimes the spin becomes a story unto itself. At any rate, here’s my own take on it:

The debate was into the second hour, and Mitt Romney had just played the Arlen Specter card against Rick Santorum, blaming Santorum’s 2004 endorsement of his fellow Pennsylvanian for the passage of Obamacare in 2010. Santorum responded by playing the Dukakis card against Romney.
“Yes governor, you balanced the budget for four years,” Santorum told Romney during the Arizona debate televised by CNN. “You have a constitutional requirement to balance the budget for four years. No great shakes. I’m all for — I’d like to see it federally. But don’t go around bragging about something you have to do. Michael Dukakis balanced the budget for 10 years. Does that make him qualified to be president of the United States? I don’t think so.”
As highlights go, it wasn’t spectacular, but Wednesday’s debate — the 20th nationally televised meeting of Republican candidates during this long campaign — was generally lacking in highlights. There were no dramatic gaffes or stumbles, and few memorable zingers. While the commentators on CNN afterwards offered their own “what did it mean” analyses, it is unlikely that the debate changed many minds. . . .

Please read the whole thing at The American Spectator.

Mark Levin - Is Ron Paul A Stalking Horse For Mitt Romney Because Rand Paul Is A Possible VP Pick

2012-02-23T09:26:00.000-05:00

Rand Paul Says 'It Would Be An Honor' if Romney Asked Him to Be VP

Mark Levin - Is Ron Paul A Stalking Horse For Mitt Romney Because Rand Paul Is A Possible VP Pick

Downer Debate - Obama Wins

2012-02-23T09:20:00.000-05:00

Downer debate « Hot Air

Perhaps it’s fitting that the last debate of the season — we all hope and pray — ended up in the hands of the one candidate who mastered the format during the entire cycle. Newt Gingrich learned his lesson in Florida that his formula for debates was what worked, and that means staying positive, remaining “cheerful” rather than angry, and attacking only Barack Obama and the media. That formula allowed Gingrich to mostly steer clear of the internecine arguments that cropped up between Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, and Ron Paul, while speaking at length to the little in substance that actually came up at the depressingly repetitive debate.

That’s the trouble with holding 20 debates; they tend to look like repeats. The only topic of actual substance for the 2012 cycle that got discussed at any length was Iran, and it was a replay of the 15 or so arguments between Ron Paul and everyone else. Otherwise, the debate mainly focused on what everyone else has said about each other, and who voted for what in 1992 or 2001 or 2006. No one discussed Fast and Furious, no mention was made of Solyndra or LightSquared as examples of corruption in the current administration. Bare mention was made of anyone’s economic plans.

Some of the review was rather fresh, though, since this was Rick Santorum’s first debate as a solid frontrunner. Unfortunately Santorum seemed almostoverprepared for the fight. Instead of providing a brief response and refocusing attention on current issues like the economy, Santorum kept explaining, and explaining, and explaining, and added an apology or two along the way. There is an axiom in politics: Explaining is not winning. Save the explanations for your web page, not for debates. Santorum came across as measured, honest, and open, but ended up sounding defensive almost all night long.

Mitt Romney didn’t do much better. While he scored points against Santorum, he had to twist himself in knots to do it. Santorum pointed out, for instance, that while Romney attacked him on earmarks as wasteful spending, Romney balanced his RomneyCare budget on the backs of federal taxpayers to the tune of $400 million, and that Romney certainly liked earmarks enough to ask Congress for a few during his Olympics rescue. This led to the odd e-mail moment when I received simultaneously a message from Team Mitt blasting Santorum over earmarks and another praising Romney for his rescue of the Olympics, which was only possible through Congressional intervention Mitt was busily condemning at the moment I received it. It fell to Gingrich, though, to concisely slap Romney by noting that his position seemed to be that Romney opposed earmarks he didn’t like but supported the earmarks that he himself got. Romney never got around to discussing his new tax plan in any detail (about which I’ll be writing later today), and ended up on the defensive himself a few times, especially on RomneyCare. He seemed almost desperate to get into a fight with Santorum all night long, and desperation is as much a political aphrodisiac as explaining is.

Ron Paul joined in the attack on Santorum, which prompted Santorum to imply that Paul and Romney are colluding to some degree:

Rick Santorum suspects something is up between Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. Santorum had a tough night at the 20th, and likely last, Republican debate, held here at the Mesa Arts Center. He took a lot of attacks from Romney and a few from Paul, and he noticed that Paul and Romney didn’t seem to go after each other. When it was all over, and Santorum met reporters, he didn’t try to hide what he was thinking.

“You have to ask Congressman Paul and Gov. Romney what they’ve got going together,” Santorum said. “Their commercials look a lot alike, and so do their attacks.”

“They’ve got something going on?” a reporter asked Santorum.

“You tell me,” Santorum said.

Er … no. Paul was simply Paul last night, attacking Santorum on all of the normal issues on which Paul would attack. There are two facts to keep in mind. First, Santorum got the brunt of the attacks because Santorum is the front runner. He also ended up with the most air time last night for the same reason. Second, it was Santorum who attacked Paul a lot in the earlier debates over Paul’s position on Iran, and who scored a lot of points on those attacks, showing Paul to be on the fringe when it comes to foreign policy. Last night was Paul’s chance for some payback, and it doesn’t take collusion to explain what happened in the debate.

Does this debate move the needle for anyone? I doubt it. Gingrich had a very good debate but not a real gamechanger, and his position in the polling has dropped so low nearly everywhere that he’d practically need the other three men on stage to declare themselves Kennedy Democrats in order to get out of that hole. Santorum may have rattled the confidence of some new supporters and give undecideds less reason to join his column, but it wasn’t a terrible performance such as Rick Perry’s debates in September and October, and Santorum did have some good moments as well. Romney spent the night attacking his opponents (mainly Santorum but also Gingrich on a couple of occasions) rather than talking about himself, which is exactly the complaint that Republican voters have had about his entire campaign. His line, “I don’t mean to be critical,” was a laugh line for all the wrong reasons, and it encapsulates Romney’s insincerity about his campaign style in six easy words.

All in all, this was a depressing and mostly useless debate. Byron York sums it up well:

After all the recent controversy, who would have bet that the topic of contraception would not come up until well into the debate, that Santorum would answer it with restraint and grace, and that Romney would immediately adopt Santorum’s position as his own? It wasn’t at all likely, but it happened. And it was one of the best moments in a debate that had very few really good moments.

Let’s hope it’s the last of the debate moments, too.

Immense Bad Blood Between Santorum and Romney

2012-02-23T09:09:00.000-05:00

In Arizona, GOP debates end on low point | Campaign 2012 | Washington Examiner

Rick Santorum suspects something is up between Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. Santorum had a tough night at the 20th, and likely last, Republican debate, held here at the Mesa Arts Center. He took a lot of attacks from Romney and a few from Paul, and he noticed that Paul and Romney didn't seem to go after each other. When it was all over, and Santorum met reporters, he didn't try to hide what he was thinking.

"You have to ask Congressman Paul and Gov. Romney what they've got going together," Santorum said. "Their commercials look a lot alike, and so do their attacks."

"They've got something going on?" a reporter asked Santorum.

"You tell me," Santorum said.

Santorum's aides have long suspected that Romney and Paul have some sort of deal by which they attack other candidates but not each other. "Clearly there is a tag-team strategy between Ron Paul and Mitt Romney," top Santorum strategist John Brabender told reporters after the debate. "There've been 20 debates, right? Why don't you go back and see how many times Ron Paul has ever criticized anything Mitt Romney has done."

"Ron Paul has for all practical purposes pulled out of Michigan," Brabender continued, referring to next Tuesday's primary. "Anybody see him up in Michigan? And yet where is he running negative ads against Santorum? Michigan."

A few feet away, Romney aides dismissed the accusations as "whiny silliness."

"Oh, please," said key Romney strategist Stuart Stevens. "The notion that Ron Paul would do anything but speak his mind is -- if ever there was an iconoclast who got up there and said what he believes, it's Ron Paul."

Stevens pointed out that a number of candidates and committees that have run ads attacking Romney. "The President of the United States' political action committee is now running ads that are just like Rick Santorum's," Stevens said. "Is Rick Santorum coordinating with the President of the United States? I don't think so. I think that's a sort of whiny silliness."

The bad blood in the spin room was just a continuation of what took place in a mostly negative and downbeat night on stage. After the introductions, Romney's first opportunity to speak came when the moderator, CNN's John King, invited him to attack Santorum. Romney accepted the invitation. And the first thing he attacked Santorum for was "voting for raising the debt ceiling five different times without voting for compensating cuts."

Having lost his run for Senate in 1994, Romney has never had to vote for or against raising the debt ceiling. But he has many present and former members of the House and Senate who speak on his behalf in this campaign, and they have voted to raise the debt ceiling. And there aren't many Romney observers who don't believe that, had he served for years on Capitol Hill, he too would have voted to raise the debt ceiling. After the debate, a top Romney supporter here, Arizona Republican Rep. Jeff Flake, explained that in the most recent debt debate Romney, had he been in Congress, "would have insisted on some kind of spending cuts" to go along with a debt limit increase. Flake, a solid fiscal conservative who has nonetheless sometimes voted to raise the debt ceiling, conceded there have been such spending-restraint deals in past debt ceiling increases, but none worked very well.

Romney also attacked Santorum for voting for earmarks. When Santorum pointed out that Romney, as head of the 2002 Olympic Games in Utah and again as governor of Massachusetts from 2003 to 2007, asked for lots of federal earmarks, Romney defended the Olympic request and ignored the part about his record as governor.

The earmark debate went on for a long time, with Santorum explaining in perhaps too much detail how the process worked. When Santorum said to Romney, "I suspect you would have supported earmarks if you were in the United States Senate," Romney responded by broadening his attack to include Gingrich, saying "the 6,000 earmarks that were put in place under the speaker's term, for instance, were often-times tagged on to other bills."

The crowd began to boo, leading to Romney to say, "I'm sorry. I didn't mean to be critical." It was one of the debate's few funny moments.

Gingrich had his say a few minutes later when he defended Romney's request for Olympic spending but ridiculed Romney's attempt to criticize Santorum for doing what Romney had himself advocated. "I think it was totally appropriate for you to ask for what you got," Gingrich said to Romney. "I just think it's kind of silly for you to then turn around and run an ad attacking somebody else for getting what you got and then claiming what you got wasn't what they got because what you got was right and what they got was wrong."

Afterward, Stevens suggested it was up to Romney, as a governor, to ask for money, and it was up to Congress to say no. "I think it's a laughable argument to say that governors are supposed to end earmarks, when Romney has never voted for an earmark, never been in Washington," Stevens said. "Governors are going to ask for funds from the federal government. It's up to Congress to decide how they allocate the money." When it comes to earmarks, Romney's argument was that it was perfectly fine for him to ask for the money and absolutely outrageous for Congress to give it to him.

Some Romney attacks were even more audacious. For example, he blamed the passage of Obamacare on Santorum because in 2004, "the senator you supported over Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania, Arlen Specter, the pro-choice senator of Pennsylvania that you supported and endorsed in a race over Pat Toomey, he voted for Obamacare," Romney said.

That accusation is based on supposition that Toomey might have won the general election that year had he defeated Specter for the Republican nomination. Putting that aside, in the year Romney blamed Santorum for supporting the "pro-choice" Specter, 2004, Romney himself was pro-choice, having run for governor in Massachusetts in 2002 on a strongly pro-choice platform. But that didn't stop Romney from slamming Specter as pro-choice and Santorum for supporting him.

Santorum had an off-key moment, followed by an awful moment, when moderator King asked the candidates to describe themselves in one word. Ron Paul said "consistent," Romney said "resolute," and the sometimes famously angry Gingrich brought the house down when, with perfect timing, he answered "cheerful." And Santorum? He chose "courage," which is not only not an adjective but is also the kind of word you want somebody else to use to describe you but which you shouldn't use to describe yourself.

To make matters far worse, Santorum's weakest moment came a few minutes later when he described an un-courageous moment in which he voted for George W. Bush's No Child Left Behind initiative. Santorum was deeply apologetic. "I supported it," he said. "It was the principle priority of President Bush…I have to admit, I voted for that. It was against the principles I believed in, but you know, when you're part of the team, sometimes you take one for the team, for the leader, and I made a mistake."

The crowd began to boo. Santorum didn't stop. "You know, politics is a team sport, folks," he continued. "And sometimes you've got to rally together and do something." It was an almost self-flagellating moment for the former senator.

Later, Brabender tried to put the episode in the best possible light. How did a vote against his principles show that Santorum was courageous? "Let me tell you, it takes a lot of courage to stand up there and say, 'I made a mistake,' which is what he did," Brabender answered. "I think that does take a lot of courage." It remains to be seen whether voters will view Santorum's performance as weak, or whether they will see it as refreshing in its honesty.

One last word. After all the recent controversy, who would have bet that the topic of contraception would not come up until well into the debate, that Santorum would answer it with restraint and grace, and that Romney would immediately adopt Santorum's position as his own? It wasn't at all likely, but it happened. And it was one of the best moments in a debate that had very few really good moments.

CNN Arizona Debate - Live Blog

2012-02-22T22:05:00.000-05:00

CNN ARIZONA DEBATE : The Other McCain

9:27 p.m. ET: Newt Gingrich talks Iran and Ahmadinejad.

9:25 p.m. ET: Santorum reminds us that we have civilian control of the military for a reason. He escapes damage on a question that was specifically aimed at him.

9:23 p.m. ET: Remember when “Your mother wears combat boots” was a put-down? I’m just sayin’ …

9:18 p.m. ET: Another commerical break.

9:12 p.m. ET: Newt talks about border control.

9:10 p.m. ET: Mitt is an E-Verify evangelical.

9:08 p.m. ET: Newt talks fences and illegal immigration.

9:04 p.m. ET: Santorum: “RomneyCare!” Romnney: “Arlen Specter!” That was good, wasn’t it?

8:58 p.m. ET: When Ron Paul accuses Santorum of voting for Planned Parenthood funding. Santorum explains that this was actually a vote for the appropriations bill for the entire Department of Health and Human Services.

8:56 p.m. ET: Newt Gingrich sounds an awful lot like Ron Paul on this “government coercion” stuff. So how come when Ron Paul says it, he’s treated like a radical extremist?

8:54 p.m. ET: Mitt Romney sounds an awful lot like Rick Santorum on this “family values” stuff. So how come when Santorum says it, he’s treated like a radical extremist?

8:50 p.m. ET: Rick Santorum name-checks Charles Murray and talks about out-of-wedlock births.

8:48 p.m. ET: Mitt defends the right of conscience against Barack Obama.

8:46 p.m. ET: CNN asks about contraception and gets booed. Newt takes on the elite media and gets cheered.

8:45 p.m. ET: We’re back from commercial, during which here in Ohio we saw another Rick Santorum commercial.

8:40 p.m. ET: Santorum defends himself, and then Newt slams UAW. So if you’re UAW . . . vote Santorum!

8:38 p.m. ET: Mitt slams the UAW.

8:36 p.m. ET: Rick rips Mitt on bailouts. Mitt begins his response, “First, let’s look at the facts.” Which means he’s about to lie.

8:32 p.m. ET: Newt just made Mitt look like an idiot.

8:28 p.m. ET: Mitt admits that he sought earmarks for the Salt Lake City Olympics, which he compares to the “Bridge to Nowhere.”

8:27 p.m. ET: Rick Santorum defends earmarking.

8:24 p.m. ET: Newt Gingrich takes a question and turns it into a lecture.

8:22 p.m. ET: Mitt Romney defends his claim to be a “severe conservative.”

8:20 p.m. ET: Santorum mentions this Weekly Standard article that defends his record as a fiscal conservative.

8:17 p.m. ET: John King lobs a softball to Ron Paul, inviting him to repeat his attack-ad arguments against Santorum.

8:16 p.m. ET: We’re a quarter-hour into the debate before Newt gets a chance to speak. He wants to balance the budget by opening federal lands to oil exploration.

8:14 p.m. ET: Santorum comes right back at Romney, which means Romney gets a chance to rebut.

8:12 p.m. ET: On his first question, Santorum draws cheers for saying he wants to end ObamaCare. Then it’s Mitt Romney’s turn, and he opens with attack-ad chatter against Santorum.

8:06 p.m. ET: National anthem sang by Arizona State University symphonic chorale. Classical, not all Whitney Houston-like.

8:04 p.m. ET: Moderator John King introduces the candidates. I heard a rumor today that the Romney campaign was trying to pack the audience with their supporters.

LIVE STREAM - CNN Arizona Republican Party Debate

2012-02-22T19:31:00.000-05:00

CNN and the Arizona Republican Party will co-host a debate with the GOP presidential candidates tonight at 8pm ET ...or click the image.

Michelle Malkin: 'Frame Off, Game On'

2012-02-22T17:20:00.000-05:00

Framing Rick Santorum | by Michelle Malkin:

They say a picture is worth a thousand words.

But in politics, it’s the picture frame that makes all the difference in the world.

The secular media hounds (as well as GOP rivals) have framed Rick Santorum as a THEOCRAT! — and they’ll say and do anything to lock him in. He’s a God nut! A GOP mullah! He’s coming after your birth control! He “plays” with dead babies! He’s obliterating the wall between church and state! Run for your lives!

While the headlines trumpet Santorum’s 2008 remarks about Satan (gasp! a man who believes in God also believes in the devil! shocker!) and stir up anti-religious bigotry, Santorum has been zeroing in on the White House messiah’s destructive government policies.

Santorum recently delivered a scathing, detailed speech on government health insurance mandates that received scant national attention:

Santorum, who has touted free market health principles like health savings accounts as an alternative to the Affordable Care Act, defended insurance industry practices the law eliminates, like setting premiums based on people’s health status.

Santorum’s point: Every time you add consumer protections — even the popular stuff — you make the health insurance more expensive.

In a speech that tied Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts health plan to the federal health care reform law, Santorum also blasted Massachusetts and the federal law for eliminating lifetime and annual caps on health insurance coverage, something that will effectively end bare-bones insurance plans known as “mini-meds.” While consumer advocates have questioned the value of these plans, Santorum said doing away with them will boost insurance costs.

“Under Obama and Romney, they eliminate annual caps and therefore everybody’s insurance rate goes up,” Santorum said.

Santorum argued that consumers should take responsibility for preventive benefits, while the federal health care reform law eliminates cost-sharing for some. A recent Kaiser Family Foundation tracking poll found that 53 percent of Republicans and 65 percent of Independents favored the health care reform provision. However, Santorum made the point that auto insurance doesn’t cover basic car maintenance.

“How much more would you pay for your [car] insurance” if it covered oil changes and new tires, Santorum asked.

“If you have an accident, that’s what auto insurance is for,” he continued. “You have an accident and you have a cost you may not be able to pay.”

Santorum also blasted the health care reform law’s “guaranteed issue” provision, which bans health insurance companies from denying coverage to people with health problems. Santorum said the law’s penalty for not purchasing insurance isn’t strong enough to encourage young adults to buy it, meaning they’ll wait until they’re sick to actually seek coverage.

“That’s something that everybody thinks is so popular,” he said. “But it also leads to enormous cost.”

While the liberal media plays up Santorum’s “social conservatism,” he reiterated his core opposition to the bipartisan federal auto bailout in Michigan:

Rick Santorum stood by his opposition to the auto industry bailouts Thursday as he made a pitch to Michigan voters at the Detroit Economic Club.

“If we had just stayed out of it completely and let the market work, I believe the market would’ve worked,” Santorum said, adding that if the industry had just been left alone, it would’ve been “alive, and I believe, better.”

Santorum also drew a contrast with rival Mitt Romney, who he said opposed the auto bailouts while supporting the rescue of Wall Street.

“My feeling was that the government should not be in support of bailouts, period,” Santorum said.

The GOP presidential hopeful said President George W. Bush and President Obama set the “wrong precedent” with the bailouts of Chrysler and General Motors, decisions that he said would have negative “long-term consequences” for the country.

And as my column pointed out today, Santorum has been hitting the Democrats’ anti-science green cult hard on everything from Keystone to fracking and oil exploration. Along with Obamacare, this is a key policy issue where Santorum’s record rises above the Romney/Gingrich troublesome flirtations with eco-nitwittery.

This, not the hyperventilating of Beltway bigots, is resonating with voters in the heartland:

Although Obama has disappointed many in the environmental movement, and has expressed support for the controversial practice of hydraulic “fracking” for oil in shale rock, Santorum has been going after him in recent days for being a “radical environmentalist,” especially over the president’s decision to postpone approval of the Keystone Pipeline from Canada.

Two days ago, Santorum was quoted as saying that Obama adheres to “some phony theology,” remarks that were interpreted by some as an attack on the president’s faith. Santorum has since explained that he was referring to Obama’s views on the environment, which, he said, put more importance on the earth than on humanity.

He repeated that Monday, and criticized the Obama administration for recently imposing new environmental regulations on coal-fired power plants, causing some to close. He said the administration’s actions were based on “phony studies” and “a lack of scientific evidence.” He added: “I refer to global warming as not climate science, but political science.”

That line brought lusty cheers from the crowd, packed into a large banquet hall in a downtown restaurant.

Among them was Linda Kessler, a 62-year-old retired bus driver who recently signed an oil and gas lease to allow fracking on her family’s land. She said she could never vote for Obama, in part because of his energy policies. Of Santorum, she said, “He’s the one I like so far.”

Look for the liberal CNN debate “moderators” tonight to force their frame around Santorum.

And look for Santorum to cheerfully cast off their narrow-minded narrative and do the same thing he’s done successfully to challenge Mitt Romney’s front-runner status:

Offer no apology for his social conservatism, while sticking to his core fiscal conservative attacks on the Obama White House:

Rick Santorum offered no apologies Tuesday for a controversial speech he gave in 2008 when he talked about the threat of Satan in America.

“I’m a person of faith. I believe in good and evil,” Santorum said in response to questions from CNN.

…”If they want to go ahead and dig up old speeches to a religious group they can go right ahead and do so. I’m going to stay on message. I’m going to talk about the things Americans want to talk about,” Santorum said to CNN.

When pressed further if he believed Satan was attacking America, as he said in his 2008 speech, Santorum insisted the subject is not on the minds of voters.

“Guys these are questions that are not relevant to what’s being discussed in America today,” Santorum said.

“What we’re talking about in America today is trying to get America growing. That’s what my speeches are about. That’s we’re going to talk about in this campaign,” he added.

With Santorum now leading several national polls and moving within striking distance of two game-changing victories in next week’s Arizona and Michigan primaries, the rising GOP contender has seen his recent speeches subjected to increased scrutiny.

In a speech to a small crowd of supporters in Phoenix Tuesday evening, Santorum said he can handle the pressure.

“I’ll defend everything I say,” Santorum said.

Frame off. Game on.

Santorum vs. Romney - A Debate Preview

2012-02-22T17:12:00.001-05:00

(VIDEO) Santorum on Romney’s new tax plan: Welcome to the party, Governor

This is a short highlight reel from Santorum’s speech in Arizona today that emphasizes a few great things he said in his speech (thanks in part to @ByronYork’s tweets). And it starts with Santorum acknowledging the similarity in Romney’s new tax plan to his own:

I just saw today that Governor Romney announced that he was gonna be lowering the tax rates to, well, the tax rates I proposed. Welcome to the party, Governor, it’s great to have you along.

Sounds like a debate preview right there. And there’s other good stuff in the clip below, including a nice smack-down of the intolerance of the statists and a jab at the ‘secular media’.

Here’s the full clip:

New Field Poll: Santorum Surges In California

2012-02-22T16:56:00.000-05:00

New Field Poll: Santorum surges among California GOP voters - San Jose Mercury News

SACRAMENTO -- California's Republican voters have warmed up to the surging candidacy of Rick Santorum but also are expressing growing dissatisfaction with the field of GOP presidential candidates, according to a Field Poll released Wednesday.

The former Pennsylvania senator is preferred by 25 percent of the state's registered Republicans, a turn-around that has come partly at the expense of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, whose support in the state has plunged.

Santorum was supported by just 2 percent of California GOP voters in a Field Poll taken last November. His growing popularity since then has been driven in part by those who said they identify with the tea party or classify themselves as strongly conservative.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney remained Republicans' top choice, getting support from 31 percent.

The survey's timing was key. Field interviewed Republicans Feb. 2-18, a period that included Santorum victories in Missouri, Minnesota and Colorado.

Just as significant as Santorum's ascent is the growing unease among Republicans about the entire GOP presidential field.

A September Field Poll, taken when more candidates were in the race, found that 66 percent of Republicans were somewhat or very satisfied with their choices. That dropped to 57 percent in the most recent poll, with those saying they are very satisfied dropping from nearly one-in-five to just 10 percent....