Posted on 02/23/2012 7:00:12 PM PST by SeekAndFind
In a GOP primary in which all four GOP candidates face the rare prospect of a home-state loss, Rick Santorum looks like he might be able to pull off a win in Pennsylvania, after all. Washington Wire calls attention to a new Franklin and Marshall College poll that has good news for the former senator from the Keystone State:
Mr. Santorum [now leads] former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney 45 percent to 16 percent. The other two candidates are in single digits: Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich comes it at 9 percent and Ron Paul at 7 percent.
Mr. Santorum’s victories in Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri in early February could be prompting Pennsylvania Republicans to take another look. His favorability rating has soared to 63 percent from 46 percent in January. Mr. Romney’s favorability, meanwhile, has dipped slightly, to 40 percent from 46 percent.
Tellingly, Republicans in the state cite a strong moral character (36 percent) or the right experience (23 percent) as the most important qualifications for a presidential candidate to possess. Just 18 percent cite a candidate’s ability to beat Obama and an even smaller percentage — just 13 — say it’s most important that a candidate be a true conservative.
The poll was conducted from Feb. 14 to Feb. 20, though, so it doesn’t take into account reactions to last night’s debate, which probably hurt more than helped Santorum. Then again, just 13 percent of those polled cited the prior GOP debates as a reason for their choice of whom to support. Twelve percent said the debates made no difference at all.
Franklin and Marshall’s findings on the general election are less hopeful for Santorum — or the GOP, in general. Barack Obama leads all the GOP candidates in hypothetical head-to-head match-ups. Both Romney and Santorum — the president’s closest challengers — trail by eight points. Since January, Santorum’s chances against the president have improved in the state, but the president’s job performance and reelect ratings have improved, too. Pennsylvania will definitely be a state to watch in the general election; it was a hard win for Obama in 2008 and it will be again in 2012.
Update (Allahpundit): Speaking of losing on your home turf, I’m thinking this might finish Newt off if it happens:
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich leads the pack in the first Rasmussen Reports survey of the Republican Primary race in his home state of Georgia. A new telephone survey of Likely Georgia Republican Primary Voters shows Gingrich with 33% support, followed by former Senator Rick Santorum at 28%. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney runs third with 20% of the vote, and Texas Congressman Ron Paul trails with nine percent (9%).
Georgia is one of three southern states scheduled for Super Tuesday, but Newt’s not on the ballot in one of the others (Virginia) so he needs to win at home and in Tennessee to prove that he’s still a regional force. If Santorum bumps him off in his home state, it’s hard to see why he’d go forward. All it would do is help Romney by siphoning off conservative votes from Sweater Vest and there’s no reason for Newt to want to do that.
Here’s another view of Santorum’s OVERALL Senate record. Instead of focusing on a few trees, let’s see the overall FOREST of his votes.
Remember, if we focus on some of the TREES of what Ronald Reagan did as governor ( and even as President ), e.g. He signed a pro-abortion bill, he raised taxes in California, and as President, he gave us AN AMNESTY LAW, we would then conclude that Reagan is no conservative ( missing the overall forest ).
Excerpts From the Weekly Standard:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/was-santorum-senate-spendthrift_629850.html?page=1
TITLE : Was Santorum a Senate Spendthrift?
_________________________________________
So, is Romney’s claim true? Was Santorum a spendthrift in the Senate? Fortunately, credible third party analysis is available to help us answer this question, so we need not merely accept the Romney campaign’s verdict as the final word on the matter.
The National Taxpayers Union (NTU) has been rating members of Congress for 20 years. NTU is an independent, non-partisan organization that — per its mission statement — “mobilizes elected officials and the general public on behalf of tax relief and reform, lower and less wasteful spending, individual liberty, and free enterprise.” Steve Forbes serves on its board of directors.
For each session of Congress, NTU scores each member on an A-to-F scale. NTU weights members’ votes based on those votes’ perceived effect on both the immediate and future size of the federal budget. Those who get A’s are among “the strongest supporters of responsible tax and spending policies”; they receive NTU’s “Taxpayers’ Friend Award.” B’s are “good” scores, C’s are “minimally acceptable” scores, D’s are “poor” scores, and F’s earn their recipients membership in the “Big Spender” category. There is no grade inflation whatsoever, as we shall see.
NTU’s scoring paints a radically different picture of Santorum’s 12-year tenure in the Senate (1995 through 2006) than one would glean from the rhetoric of the Romney campaign. Fifty senators served throughout Santorum’s two terms: 25 Republicans, 24 Democrats, and 1 Republican/Independent. On a 4-point scale (awarding 4 for an A, 3.3 for a B+, 3 for a B, 2.7 for a B-, etc.), those 50 senators’ collective grade point average (GPA) across the 12 years was 1.69 — which amounts to a C-. Meanwhile, Santorum’s GPA was 3.66 — or an A-. Santorum’s GPA placed him in the top 10 percent of senators, as he ranked 5th out of 50.
Across the 12 years in question, only 6 of the 50 senators got A’s in more than half the years. Santorum was one of them. He was also one of only 7 senators who never got less than a B. (Jim Talent served only during Santorum’s final four years, but he always got less than a B, earning a B- every year and a GPA of 2.7.) Moreover, while much of the Republican party lost its fiscal footing after George W. Bush took office — although it would be erroneous to say that the Republicans were nearly as profligate as the Democrats — Santorum was the only senator who got A’s in every year of Bush’s first term. None of the other 49 senators could match Santorum’s 4.0 GPA over that span.
This much alone would paint an impressive portrait of fiscal conservatism on Santorum’s part. Yet it doesn’t even take into account a crucial point: Santorum was representing Pennsylvania.
Based on how each state voted in the three presidential elections over that period (1996, 2000, and 2004), nearly two-thirds of senators represented states that were to the right of Pennsylvania. In those three presidential elections, Pennsylvania was, on average, 3 points to the left of the nation as a whole. Pennsylvanians backed the Democratic presidential nominee each time, while the nation as a whole chose the Republican in two out of three contests.
Among the roughly one-third of senators (18 out of 50) who represented states that — based on this measure — were at least as far to the left as Pennsylvania, Santorum was the most fiscally conservative. Even more telling was the canyon between him and the rest. After Santorum’s overall 3.66 GPA, the runner-up GPA among this group was 2.07, registered by Olympia Snowe (R., Maine). Arlen Specter, Santorum’s fellow Pennsylvania Republican, was next, with a GPA of 1.98. The average GPA among senators who represented states at least as far left as Pennsylvania was 0.52 — or barely a D-.
But Santorum also crushed the senators in the other states. Those 32 senators, representing states that on average were 16 points to the right of Pennsylvania in the presidential elections, had an average GPA of 2.35 — a C+.
In fact, considering the state he was representing, one could certainly make the case that Santorum was the most fiscally conservative senator during his tenure. The only four senators whose GPAs beat Santorum’s represented states that were 2 points (Republican Judd Gregg of New Hampshire), 10 points (Republican Jon Kyl of Arizona), 25 points (Republican James Inhofe of Oklahoma), and 36 points (Republican Craig Thomas of Wyoming) to the right of Pennsylvania in the presidential elections. Moreover, of these four, only Kyl (with a GPA of 3.94) beat Santorum by as much as a tenth of a point. It’s an open question whether a 3.94 from Arizona is more impressive than a 3.66 from Pennsylvania.
So, if Santorum was among — and perhaps even topped the list of — the most fiscally conservative senators during this period, who were the least fiscally conservative? That prize would have to go to the two North Dakota senators, who despite representing a state that voted 23 points to the right of the national average in the presidential elections, managed to achieve GPAs of 0.08 (Democrat Kent Conrad) and 0.00 (Democrat Byron Dorgan). Honorable mentions would have to go to Max Baucus (D., Mont.), who got a 0.84 GPA in a state that was 18 points to the right of the national average; Harry Reid (D., Nev.), who got a 0.08 GPA in a state that was 4 points to the right of average; and Utah Republicans Bob Bennett and Orrin Hatch, who each barely cleared a 3.0 (3.11 for Bennett, 3.08 for Hatch) despite representing the state that, in the presidential elections, was the nation’s most right-leaning (38 points to the right of average).
As for Santorum’s potential opponent in the fall, Barack Obama’s three years in the Senate (2005 through 2007) overlapped only with Santorum’s final two years. (In 2008, Obama effectively left the Senate to campaign for President and therefore didn’t cast enough votes for NTU to score him that year.) In both of the years that the two men overlapped (2005 and 2006), as well as throughout Obama’s three years’ worth of preparation for the presidency, Obama’s GPA was 0.00 — a rock-solid F.
Now that’s acting like a Democrat — something Santorum has never done.
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.