[newzjunkey]

Santorum was RATED F by Numbers USA just a few months ago based on his actual voting record.

Shame on NumbersUSA for not highlighting these changes over time. Is he suddenly more believable on what he says late in the campaign than how he voted?

If you compare the archived page linked above to the ratings in this thread, you'll all notice Santorum is the only candidate to move dramatically in their grade except ... Mitt Romney.

Heck, even Mitt only moved from D to C+.

They look like two peas in an establishment pod from here.

[cripplecreek]

And Newt is on his knees for every pro amnesty group in the country.

[SharpRightTurn]

“Santorum was RATED F by Numbers USA just a few months ago based on his actual voting record. Shame on NumbersUSA for not highlighting these changes over time. Is he suddenly more believable on what he says late in the campaign than how he voted?”

I haven’t looked back at NumbersUSA earlier records, but I do not doubt for a moment what you say. I don’t know if Santorum is believeable or not on his changed immigration positions; it may be a typical election year conversion on his part for all I know.

I think that NumbersUSA does have a policy of giving office holders the benefit of the doubt when they make a public statement that they are changing positions. Your point is well-taken, however, that it would be more convincing if he had pushed these positions while he was in office.

At any rate, it is beneficial to finally have candidates taking these kinds of positions publicly (even if they are insincere). In the past, it has either been (i) pro-mass immigration positions (Jorge Bush and Juan McCain) or (ii) silence.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Actually, a lot of his bad ratings from then were because he hadn’t spoken about it since leaving the Senate, and they give bad marks unless they get good information.

I assume that since that time, they’ve gotten him to answer questions, and they like the answers he is given.

I went to the July stuff and clicked around and found the reasons for their negative look then, and only a couple of time (like in the “reduce legal immigration”) did they cite legislation as the reason for his bad marks.

[dangus]

Actually, newsjunky, if you actually READ NumbersUSA's web page, you'll see that MOST of the bad grades he received back then were simply for not (yet) stating any positions on the campaign trail.

Santorum's grade as a Senator was a B-, not an F. http://www.numbersusa.com/content/my/congress/683/reportcard/CAREER/