Comments about ‘News analysis: Mitt Romney narrowly survives 'Baptist and bootlegger' coalition in Michigan’

This solidified my concerns about Santorum. Hopefully he and his disreputable methods will soon disappear. Romney is looking better and better.

Why would anyone acknowledge anything from Michael Moore, much less an endorsement?

There is something inherently wrong in allowing the opposing party to influence the choice of your party's candidate. Santorum may have used Reagan Democrats as an excuse, but you'll never convince me that he wasn't after numbers, period.

santorum:
the fat lady just sang.

Excellent analysis Mr. Shultzke. I sort of sensed this be happening when some the exit polling statistics were being discussed on television last evening, but you definitely put this in clear perspective.

Here are some additional exit statistics (not related to Baptists and Bootleggers) that does not bode well for Mr. Santorum. For those voters who viewed "what was the most important issue" that influenced their vote:

- When it came to a question on electability (defeating President Obama), 61% voted for Romney.

- When it came to who was best prepared to govern, 57% voted for Romney.

- When it came to concerns about solving the economic and unemployment problem of the country, 47% voted for Romney.

Furthermore, Santorum not only failed to carry his own Catholic vote, he failed to carry the majority (or plurality) of Women and Senior voters.

Dirty pool with Michael Moore and also what does this do with the evangelicals who put their all into Santorum. Santorum, by playing ball with Michael Moore just played right into the hands of President Obama if Santorum is selected as the Republican candidate. How is he going to tell his supporters that he is pushing for conservative principles of honesty and integrity when he has played his dirty pool game? Now that we can't trust Santorum in the future who will we trust? He definitely came up short for what he says he wants to do. He talked about the evil forces and playing this kind of game doesn't put him a very good light for the Party, whether the Tea Party, Evangelicals, Republicans or the Conservatives. This is not party of the Hoyle's rules.

So if Michael Moore and moveon.org want Santorum then there should be warning flags flying all over the place for the RNC - TEAM OBAMA WANTS SANTORUM AND NOT ROMNEY to run against!!

Sucks when religion bites, eh mitt? Maybe it should be off the table altogether, more of a personal thing. Just sayin'....

In Michigan, Santorum gave Mitt a great opportunity to turn the slogan: ÂAnyone but RomneyÂ, on its back.

SantorumÂs calling Democrats to vote for him hands Romney a great advantage -- proof that even Santorum realizes Dems would rather run against ÂAnyone but RomneyÂ. Meaning, of course, that Mitt is the more formidable candidate in the eyes of the opposition.

Why else would Santorum think they would want to vote for him -- he certainly doesnÂt carry their torch!

I hope Mitt uses this as further evidence that the Dems fear running against him in the general election. And, it will give new definition to the term: ÂAnyone but RomneyÂ.

I think even the pundits would have a great time throwing that one around!

Did anyone really believe Santorum would win the nomination? It is pretty telling that, even though Nancy Pelosi said the Democrats wanted to run against Mitt Romney, all the President's Men in Michigan tried to sway it for Santorum.

Great analysis by Eric Schulzke.

Romney makes those supporting Obama's assault on liberty AFRAID.

Given the lack of concern Romney has shown for his wife's illness (MS in remission) and the lack of concern he showed for his dog, there is nothing that would convince me he would have any concern for the people of the United States. There is nothing that would convince me to vote for him. We deserve better.

To iron&clay 4:45 a.m. March 1, 2012

RIVERTON, UT
Great analysis by Eric Schulzke.

Romney makes those supporting Obama's assault on liberty AFRAID.

------------------------

Just one problem with that -- President Obama isn't the one who is making an assault on liberty. That's the far right extremists.

Santorum called the Dems to vote for him. Say he did win...and say he makes this happen until he gets the nomination. Does he think those Democrats will vote for him in the general election against Obama? Yeah right.

If you win a primary because Democrats voted for you, that shows just how badly you will get crushed by that same party the next time around. Way to think it through, Rick.

Mr. Romney recently changed his mind in one day concerning the rights of women in our country. After he first stated that he opposed the Blunt amendment, he appears to have been punished and then coerced, to join his Republican ultra conservative brothers in the legislator who are supporting a retreat into the past.
Does our nation think it is prudent to have a man leading our country who can be so easily and quickly influenced? This is certainly Not the first time Romney has done this.
Mitt Romney has refined flip flopping and taken it to the highest level.

no fit in SG
Did you look at the question Romney was asked on the Blunt bill? He did not revese himself the question was worded poorly to get a responce that would make it look like he e=was flip loping no matter what he answered. The question asked if he supported the Blunt bill that would "ban contraceptives". His answer was that he does not support that. No he does not and NEVER has supported banning contarceptive what he supported was banning religious organizations from beingf forced to violate their religious beliefs by providing a product against their religious beliefes. Even the supposed compramise does this as most are self insured and those that are not will just have their premiums raised. So what you had was a dishonest reporter playing gotta games through question wording.

@Furry1993 said, "There is nothing that would convince me to vote for him [Romney]."

Well, so much for your claim (on other recent posts that you have made) that you are a main-stream Republican. Your statement also does not fit very well from another post that you made some time ago that you were a Goldwater conservative.

To VST (10:27) -- Please tell me why you believe a mainstream Republican should vote for an unqualified, flip-flopping candidate who would not serve well the people of the United States (and that is exactly what Romney is -- unqualified, a flip-flopper, and someone who would not serve well my country and its people). As it stands, looking at the candidates in the running for President, I'm convinced that my border collie is more qualified than all of them put together. As it stands now, Jillyan B. Collie is going to get my write-in vote.

@Furry,

You bias and bitterness against Romney is obviously showing and you are merely spouting rhetoric against him without providing any specific basis in fact. The term flip-flopper is a mere political talking point; nothing more.

True main-stream Republicans WILL vote for Romney in the General Election, if he becomes the nominee, just as they would for any of the other Republican candidates. Those who are not main-stream Republicans, usually will not vote for the Republican nominee.

Why? Because main-stream Republicans fully subscribe to the principles of limited Federal Government and fiscal responsibility that is not demonstrated by the current political party in control of the Executive Branch and Senate.

no fit in SG
I tried this before but lets try again. Are you certain it was a flip flop or a question worded to get a flip flop either way he answered? Here is the question
"[Santorum has\] brought contraception into this campaign. The issue of birth control  contraception, Blunt-Rubio  is being debated, I believe, later this week. It deals with banning or allowing employers to ban providing female contraception. Have you taken a position on it? [Santorum\] said he was for that. We'll talk about personhood in a second, but he's for that. Have you taken a position?"

Now notice it says BANNING OR ALLOWING EMPLOYERS TO BAN PROVIDING. That is not actually what the amendment does. It bans the government from forcing employers to provide a product against their religious beliefs. Had Romney said I do not support that it looks like a flip flop if he says yes it look like a flip flop because of the wording. Now here is what Romney said
"I'm not for the bill... The idea of presidential candidates getting into questions about contraception within a relationship between a man and a woman, husband and wife, I'm not going to go there,"

This is exactly the same point he made when the question was asked in a debate, when you look at the way the question was worded BANNING contraception. What you have is a reporter asking a question distorting what an amendment to a bill said to get the response he wants.