Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
October 01, 2014, 09:26:09 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Romney will lose to Obama.  (Read 685 times)
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8846


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« on: February 08, 2012, 07:09:15 PM »

White House: Birth Control Mandate ‘Virtually Identical’ to Romney’s Massachusetts Policy
Cybercast News Service ^ | 2/8/12 | Fred Lucas
Posted on February 8, 2012 8:22:09 PM EST by Nachum

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney scoffed at Republican primary candidate Mitt Romney’s criticism of a new rule that will require all health insurance policies – except for people working directly in a church or seminary – to cover sterilization and FDA-approved contraceptives, including those that induce abortions, saying that Romney backed a near-identical policy as governor of Massachusetts. The new policy, part of Obamacare and due to go into effect on Aug. 1, has been denounced by the U.S. Catholic of Conference Bishops (USCCB) as a violation of religious liberty that would force

(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8846


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #1 on: February 08, 2012, 08:28:05 PM »

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/romney-compulsory-health-insurance-i-mandates



What a friggin albatross.
Report to moderator   Logged
Purge_WTF
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5525


Constitution Party forever.


« Reply #2 on: February 08, 2012, 08:29:42 PM »

  Romney=white Obama with magic underwear.
Report to moderator   Logged

Psalm 23.
MM2K
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 1401



« Reply #3 on: February 09, 2012, 12:30:54 AM »

33, the article says that Romney vetoed the Employer Mandate, but was overruled by the Mass. Legislature.
Report to moderator   Logged

Jan. Jobs: 36,000!!
Hugo Chavez
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 31873


« Reply #4 on: February 09, 2012, 01:00:15 AM »

33, the article says that Romney vetoed the Employer Mandate, but was overruled by the Mass. Legislature.
Don't get in the way of 333's hate for Mitt with facts.  The dumb son of a bitch would rather have absolute disasters like Newt or Santorum.  333 spends all of his time on this board bitching about Ron Paul but oddly pretending he supports him... Roll Eyes

If we can't have Ron Paul, Mitt is the next best choice down the line and that's far down the line.  Newt and Santorum are bottom scum--fuck that.  I'll vote Obama over Newt or Santorum.  I fucking hate Obama but I hate Newt and Santorum way more.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8846


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #5 on: February 09, 2012, 03:58:24 AM »

Don't get in the way of 333's hate for Mitt with facts.  The dumb son of a bitch would rather have absolute disasters like Newt or Santorum.  333 spends all of his time on this board bitching about Ron Paul but oddly pretending he supports him... Roll Eyes

If we can't have Ron Paul, Mitt is the next best choice down the line and that's far down the line.  Newt and Santorum are bottom scum--fuck that.  I'll vote Obama over Newt or Santorum.  I fucking hate Obama but I hate Newt and Santorum way more.

The issue is that mitt can't attack Obama on obamacare , which is still the biggest issue going.   The mandate is anti American and I will post clips later from 2006 from myth that will make your head spin.   And the only reason he vetoed it was the same outrage due to it's initial inclusion.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8846


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #6 on: February 09, 2012, 04:04:30 AM »

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/romneycare-worth-getting-worried-about_626370.html


Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8846


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #7 on: February 09, 2012, 04:34:48 AM »

Don't get in the way of 333's hate for Mitt with facts.  The dumb son of a bitch would rather have absolute disasters like Newt or Santorum.  333 spends all of his time on this board bitching about Ron Paul but oddly pretending he supports him... Roll Eyes

If we can't have Ron Paul, Mitt is the next best choice down the line and that's far down the line.  Newt and Santorum are bottom scum--fuck that.  I'll vote Obama over Newt or Santorum.  I fucking hate Obama but I hate Newt and Santorum way more.

Lmfao.    Alex jones and celente said exactly the same thing about paul as I have as late as this week asshole.   Don't blame the messenger, I was and a right, Ron Paul is not trying and does not even want to win. 
Report to moderator   Logged
howardroark
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 2523


Resident Objectivist & Autodidact


WWW
« Reply #8 on: February 09, 2012, 06:59:28 AM »

Mitt is still more electable than Santorum or Newt, IMO. And less worse, to boot.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8846


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #9 on: February 09, 2012, 07:10:54 AM »

 Smiley
Mitt is still more electable than Santorum or Newt, IMO. And less worse, to boot.


I really don't even know why myth is running.  On almost every issue he is the same as obama. 

We are not even getting a fucking choice this election cycle most likely.    Mccain is better than romney.   
Report to moderator   Logged
howardroark
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 2523


Resident Objectivist & Autodidact


WWW
« Reply #10 on: February 09, 2012, 07:18:26 AM »

Meh... The thing about Mitt is that he's devoid of having his own ideology. That's better than these other folks:

McCain has this bizarre collectivist streak about him that's really disturbing. That collectivist streak drove him to be against steroids, against the UFC specifically and against MMA in general, etc.

Same applies with Santorum; the guy has explicitly argued against true individual liberty. And he's not devoid of his own odd stances, e.g. supporting anti-gun pro-choice pro-Big Government Arlen Specter.

Same thing goes with Newt, who is intellectually tied to FDR, the Rockefeller Republicans, and statism in general. That's why he gets absurd ideas like building Moon bases. He's simply never seen a government program he hasn't liked.
Report to moderator   Logged
240 is Back
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 83637


Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com


WWW
« Reply #11 on: February 09, 2012, 07:20:16 AM »

Mitt is still more electable than Santorum or Newt, IMO. And less worse, to boot.

I USED to agree with that.  Now, I dunno.

Mittens has $ and organization over newt and santorum - I mean, those 2 have zilch for money and organization in comparison.  And he's won 2 of 7 states lol!

Mitt is justifying it with "Well, mccain lost 19 states in the primary and he did fine"... No, he didn't - He lost to obama because he had terrible GOTV effort, among other reasons.  Mocking community organizers didn't work out so well there.

So Mitt's in trouble against broke ass extremists like santorum.... what happens when he's up against a billion dollars and a shrewd obama?  Mitt can't win lol.  Santorum should be the one repubs are scared of at this point.  MSNBC kneepadding romney again today.  "Is mitt stronger now"  LOL... he won 2 of 7 races so far.
Report to moderator   Logged

240 is Back
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 83637


Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com


WWW
« Reply #12 on: February 09, 2012, 07:34:05 AM »

Mitt just has SO MANY advantages.   And he's won 2 of 7 contests.

Obama's gonna wreck romney in swing states. 
Report to moderator   Logged

LurkerNoMore
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 12803

Tossing sand in your Va-Jay-Jay


« Reply #13 on: February 09, 2012, 07:53:13 AM »

Mitt just has SO MANY advantages.   And he's won 2 of 7 contests.

Obama's gonna wreck romney in swing states. 


No he won't.  He's dropping out and resigning remember.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8846


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #14 on: February 09, 2012, 09:00:54 AM »

FLASHBACK: Romney Does Flip-Flop and Forces Catholic Hospitals to Distribute Morning-After-Pill
by LifeSiteNews.com
Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:00 EST
Comments (0)



By Gudrun Schultz

BOSTON, December 9, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In a shocking turn-around, Massachusetts’s governor Mitt Romney announced yesterday that Roman Catholic and other private hospitals in the state will be forced to offer emergency contraception to sexual assault victims under new state legislation, regardless of the hospitals’ moral position on the issue.

The Republican governor had earlier defended the right of hospitals to avoid dispensing the “morning-after pill” on the grounds of moral dissent. The Boston Globe reported that Romney’s flip on the issue came after his legal counsel, Mark D. Nielsen, concluded Wednesday that the new law supersedes a preexisting statute related to the abortifacient pill.

The pill, a high dose of hormones, can act as an abortifacient by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine wall, thereby causing the death of the child.

The Department of Public Health issued a statement earlier in the week allowing hospitals to dissent from the new law, under a previous statute that protects private hospitals from being forced to provide abortion services or contraceptives.

Daniel Avila, associate director for policy and research for the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, said yesterday in an interview with the Boston Globe that Catholic hospitals still have legal grounds to avoid providing the pill, despite the new legislation. The new bill did not expressly repeal the original law protecting the rights of Catholic facilities.

“As long as that statute was left standing, I think those who want to rely on that statute for protection for what they’re doing have legal grounds.” (Boston Globe)

The Conference has been fighting this new legislation for several years. In 2003, in a statement to the Joint Committee on Health Care, they outlined their concern over the proposed Emergency Contraception Access Act (ECAA), stating: “It will force Catholic medical personnel to distribute contraceptives even in cases involving the risk of early abortion. It also furthers a national strategy ultimately directed towards coercing Catholic facilities to provide insurance coverage for, and to perform, abortions.”

The governor’s turnaround is especially unexpected since Romney has been presenting himself as a conservative on social issues in anticipation of a possible run for the presidency in 2008. This decision will certainly undermine the credibility of his conservatism with Republican Party members that may have been inclined to support him up to now.

For the complete document see: http://www.macathconf.org/03EC%20Mandate%20Testimony%20Judiciary%206-11.pdf


Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8846


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #15 on: February 09, 2012, 09:11:14 AM »

Romney shifted on 'conscience' issue
’05 contraception stance similar to Obama’s now
 C.J. Doyle of the Catholic Action League said Mitt Romney has a ‘very mixed record’ on the contraception issue. 

By Tracy Jan
Globe Staff / February 3, 2012




WASHINGTON - Mitt Romney accused President Obama this week of ordering “religious organizations to violate their conscience,’’ referring to a White House decision that requires all health plans - even those covering employees at Catholic hospitals, charities, and colleges - to provide free birth control. But a review of Romney’s tenure as Massachusetts governor shows that he once took a similar step.

Care about the campaign? Click to write to the candidates.In December 2005, Romney required all Massachusetts hospitals, including Catholic ones, to provide emergency contraception to rape victims, even though some Catholics view the morning-after pill as a form of abortion.

He said he was acting on his legal counsel’s interpretation of a new state law - one passed by lawmakers despite his veto - but he also said that “in his heart of hearts,’’ he believed that rape victims should have access to emergency contraception.

Some Catholic leaders now point to inconsistency in Romney’s criticism of the president and characterize his new stance as politically expedient, even as they welcome it.

“The initial injury to Catholic religious freedom came not from the Obama administration but from the Romney administration,’’ said C.J. Doyle, executive director of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts. “President Obama’s plan certainly constitutes an assault on the constitutional rights of Catholics, but I’m not sure Governor Romney is in a position to assert that, given his own very mixed record on this.’’

Other Catholic leaders say they are inclined to give Romney the benefit of the doubt and have faith he will uphold his promise to overturn federal health regulations that they say impinge on religious organizations’ rights.

Romney’s more recent position on the issue - as reflected at his Tuesday night victory party in Tampa, where he vowed to “defend religious liberty and overturn regulations that trample on our first freedom’’ - is echoed by many Republicans. Among them is House Speaker John Boehner, who yesterday called upon the Obama administration to reconsider the decision to make most religiously affiliated employers cover contraception in their health plans.

Romney’s campaign has touted endorsements from prominent abortion foes such as Mary Ann Glendon, a Harvard law professor and founder of Women Affirming Life.

But GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, a Catholic, has accused Romney of trampling on “religious liberty’’ at Catholic hospitals, apparently for his 2005 decision as governor.

“You want a war on the Catholic Church by Obama?’’ Gingrich said at a rally earlier this week in Tampa. “Guess what: Romney refused to allow Catholic hospitals to have conscience in their dealing with certain circumstances.’’

The Romney campaign, asked this week about his past actions on the issue, issued a statement Wednesday noting that he had originally vetoed the bill giving rape victims access to emergency contraception.

“The governor’s position on this law was that it never should have gone into effect in the first place, which is why he vetoed it,’’ the statement said. Asked yesterday to explain his 2005 comments in a Globe interview about believing in his “heart of hearts’’ that rape victims were entitled to emergency contraception, the campaign did not respond.

The series of events in 2005 involved several legal and political turns at a time when Romney was shifting from moderate positions on social issues he had taken when running for governor to prepare to run for president in a Republican Party that is far to the right of the Bay State electorate.

Romney had angered reproductive rights advocates in July 2005 when he vetoed a bill to make the morning-after pill available over the counter at Massachusetts pharmacies and to require hospitals to make it available to rape victims, even though he had supported emergency contraception during his 2002 campaign for governor. He justified his veto in a Globe op-ed article in which he clearly accepted the view of some opponents of emergency contraception that it can be a form of abortion. Nonetheless, the Legislature overrode his veto.

In December of that year, days before the law was to go into effect, Romney’s public health commissioner determined that a preexisting statute saying private hospitals could not be forced to provide abortions or contraception gave Catholic and other privately run hospitals the right to opt out of the new law on religious or moral grounds.

That ruling sparked widespread criticism, including some by Romney’s lieutenant governor, Kerry Healey. Days later the Romney administration reversed course. His legal counsel concluded the new law did not provide any religious exemptions.

Further confusing voters on his position, Romney said he supported the use of emergency contraception by rape victims. “My personal view, in my heart of hearts, is that people who are subject to rape should have the option of having emergency contraception or emergency contraception information,’’ he said.

Doyle, of the Catholic Action League, said that Romney should have fought harder to reinstate the religious exemption and that he now doubts Romney’s sincerity in advocating for religious freedom if he becomes president.

“Governor Romney afterwards lamented that and campaigned around the country as someone in favor of religious freedom and traditional morality,’’ Doyle said. “He is very consistent at working both sides of the street on the same issue at the same time. His record on this issue has been one of very cynical and tactical manipulation.’’

Other Catholic leaders praised Romney’s evolution.

Matt Smith, president of Catholic Advocate, a national grassroots organization with the goal of motivating Catholics to support policies and candidates consistent with church teachings, said that although he has not endorsed a candidate, he applauds Romney for his “progression on these issues’’ over the last seven years and “for recognizing that you’ve got religious organizations being forced to violate their conscience.’’

“I try to be charitable in this regard,’’ Smith said. “You better hope that he’s going to stay true to his word.’’

Anne Fox, president of Massachusetts Citizens for Life, also said she does not doubt Romney’s evolution and does not fault him for the 2005 position his legal counsel recommended. She plans to back whoever ends up being the Republican nominee.

Senior Obama administration officials said yesterday their decision to require Catholic institutions to provide birth control in their insurance plans struck the appropriate balance. It both respects religious beliefs and ensures women have affordable access to birth control, given that 98 percent of Catholic women use contraception. Churches are exempt from the requirement.

A spokeswoman for the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities, whose members include the College of the Holy Cross and Boston College, said yesterday that the association does not support the White House mandate.

The decision “violates a basic right of religious freedom,’’ the association said in a statement. “For our Jesuit faith-based institutions, this regulatory mandate violates the very essence of our mission and deeply held beliefs.’’

Other Catholic-affiliated organizations, including the six former Caritas Christi Catholic hospitals in Massachusetts, offer birth control as a part of their employee health insurance plans.

The six hospitals, now owned by Steward Health Care System, also provide emergency contraception to rape victims following a pregnancy test to ensure they are not already pregnant, said Chris Murphy, spokesman for the hospital system.

Tracy Jan can be reached at tjan@globe.com.

Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8846


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #16 on: February 09, 2012, 09:45:38 AM »

Newt Gingrich hits Mitt Romney on gun-rights issues
boston.com ^ | 8 February, 2012 | Shira Schoenberg




Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich previewed a new line of attack against former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney: hitting him on gun rights.

In a new web site, romneyguns.com, Gingrich poked fun at Romney for his much-ridiculed 2008 comment that he hunts “small varmints.” The site features a graphic of a suit-wearing Romney holding a gun and wearing a hunting cap.

The site charges that Romney supported the Brady Bill, which mandated federal background checks on gun buyers, raised fees for Massachusetts gun owners, and supported tough gun laws in Massachusetts.

A Gingrich video shows a series of news clips, including one from Romney’s 2002 gubernatorial race of Romney saying he supports Massachusetts’ gun laws. “We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts. I support them,” Romney says. “I won’t chip away at them. I believe they help protect us and provide for our safety.” The site lets supporters download Facebook icons featuring pictures of “Deer for Romney” and “Quail for Romney.”

The fee hike Gingrich referred to came in 2003, when Romney raised numerous fees and closed tax loopholes to plug a budget deficit. He proposed raising the fee for gun licenses from $25 to $75, and the Legislature increased it to $100. Romney also worked to increase the duration of a gun license from four to six years, mitigating the fee increase. Romney supported the Brady Bill during his 1994 Senate race against Massachusetts Senator Edward Kennedy.


(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8846


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #17 on: February 09, 2012, 01:40:05 PM »

On birth control, Romney mirrored Obama
An antiabortion leader in Massachusetts recalls an "injury to Catholic religious freedom" under Mitt Romney
By Patrick Tracey .
In church  (Credit: AP/Charles Krupa)



 
Cracking down on contraception was never the way for Mitt Romney to ingratiate himself with voters in Massachusetts, even the Roman Catholics who mostly see it as a moral neutral. Now that that position is coming back to haunt Romney like the ghost of Christmas past, he’s taking cover with the religious right. And after last night’s surprising three-state sweep by social conservative Rick Santorum he’ll need all the cover he can get.

Some Catholic leaders in Massachusetts are already (finally) speaking up against what they see as Romney’s politically convenient about-face in the emergency contraception debate. C.J. Doyle, executive director of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts, told Salon he didn’t want to “let Romney off the hook because the initial injury to Catholic religious freedom came not from the Obama administration but from Romney’s administration”; he explained that there was a preexisting exemption for religious institutions already in the Massachusetts law that was stripped out on the advice of Romney’s gubernatorial legal counsel. “President Obama’s plan certainly constitutes an assault on the constitutional rights of Catholics, but I’m not sure Governor Romney is in a position to assert that, given his own very mixed record on this.”

Doyle said Romney was “very consistent at working both sides of the street on the same issue,” but his record on this has been “one of cynical and tactical manipulation.”

He agreed that Romney’s old pro-choice agenda has been somewhat overlooked by his conservative religious brethren. Romney can only pray that they hold off, and they may do so just as long as he continues to kowtow to them. Coming out in favor of the Susan G. Komen Foundation’s decision to pull the funding plug on Planned Parenthood covered his right flank this week, though evidently not well enough for conservative voters. Romney said, unequivocally, that the government should follow suit, but yesterday’s election results could complicate his well-documented problems motivating conservative voters.

It all seemed to reach a crisis point in the campaign as voters spent yesterday coalescing around Santorum, the staunchest social conservative in the race. Santorum won first in the Missouri primary, then in Minnesota’s caucuses and, finally and most impressively, in Colorado, which Romney had dominated with 65 percent of the vote four years ago.

None of these contests award delegates, but the results are gloomy for a candidate looking to consolidate his lead. Newt Gingrich’s best showing for the day was a third in Colorado but, with Santorum, he’s giving Romney a fright.

Romney is suddenly now so opposed to contraception that he vowed this week to eliminate all funding for federal family planning and make women pay out of pocket for birth control. That’s a long way from what’s on offer in the Bay State thanks to our former governor.

Going way back to 1994, when he backed abortion rights as a Senate candidate, Romney’s wife, Anne, made a $150 gift to Planned Parenthood on their joint checking account. The Boston Globe published this photo, which shows Romney at the fundraising event for Planned Parenthood in Cohasset, Mass. By 2002 he was back on the campaign trail again, this time as a gubernatorial candidate promising to maintain the family-planning status quo in Massachusetts.

Caught back-footed, Romney just issued a petition attacking the president for “using Obamacare to impose a secular vision on Americans.” He said that “this kind of assault on religion will end if I’m president of the United States.”

His strategy has been working, sort of, because leading conservatives have largely laid off. James Dobson, a leader of the religious right,  declined a request for comment on Romney’s reversal of the emergency contraception exemption or, going back further, his run for the Senate as a pro-abortion candidate. So did his former group, Focus on the Family.

Romney’s campaign had no comment.
.Patrick Tracey, author of "Stalking Irish Madness: Searching for the Roots of My Family's Schizophrenia," is a writer in Boston.More Patrick Tracey



Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8846


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #18 on: February 13, 2012, 09:51:41 PM »

Skip to comments.

Romney signs off on permanent assault weapons ban (2004)
IBerkshires ^ | 7-8-2004
Posted on February 13, 2012 11:54:11 PM EST by Darren McCarty

Governor Mitt Romney has signed into law a permanent assault weapons ban that he says will make it harder for criminals to get their hands on these guns.

'Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts," Romney said, at a bill signing ceremony on July 1 with legislators, sportsmen's groups and gun safety advocates. "These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people."

Like the federal assault weapons ban, the state ban, put in place in 1998, was scheduled to expire in September. The new law ensures these deadly weapons, including AK-47s, UZIs and Mac-10 rifles, are permanently prohibited in Massachusetts no matter what happens on the federal level.

"We are pleased to mark an important victory in the fight against crime," said Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey. "The most important job of state government is ensuring public safety. Governor Romney and I are determined to do whatever it takes to stop the flood of dangerous weapons into our cities and towns and to make Massachusetts safer for law-abiding citizens."

.....

"Never before has there been such bi-partisan cooperation in the passage of gun safety legislation of this magnitude in this nation," said John Rosenthal, co-founder and chair of Stop Handgun Violence. "I applaud the leadership of the Governor, Senate President, House Speaker and entire Legislature for passage of this assault weapons ban renewal. They have shown that Massachusetts can continue to lead the nation in protecting the public and law enforcement from military style assault weapons."

(Excerpt) Read more at iberkshires.com ...
Report to moderator   Logged
240 is Back
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 83637


Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com


WWW
« Reply #19 on: February 14, 2012, 04:38:23 AM »

Romney signs off on permanent assault weapons ban (2004)


imagine a smug obama... smirking and saying "Well, at least I[/i} never signed an assault weapons ban."

What a nightmare.  Obama has risen from 51% to 60% on Intrade - in just 3 weeks.
Report to moderator   Logged

Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8846


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #20 on: February 16, 2012, 07:36:10 AM »

CNN Poll: Romney's likability fading

Posted by
CNN Political Unit




(CNN) - Mitt Romney's overall favorable ratings have dropped, while Rick Santorum's standing has jumped among Republicans, according to a new national survey.

A CNN/ORC International poll released Tuesday indicates Romney's popularity has especially taken a tumble among Republicans, with a 13-point decline in positive reviews from his own party.

See full results (pdf)

In the new survey, 54% of Republicans said they hold a favorable opinion of Romney, while 67% said the same in January. Among all Americans, 34% described the candidate as likable, down from 41% last month.

Meanwhile, Santorum's recent victories have boosted his standing among Republicans, 56% of whom had a good opinion of the former Pennsylvania senator, up from 49% in January.

The survey was conducted Friday through Monday, the tail end of a big week for Santorum with three contest victories followed by a spike in fundraising and poll numbers.

But among all Americans, Santorum's favorable rating has remained flat. Thirty-two percent held a good opinion in the new survey, while 31% said the same in January.

Texas Rep. Ron Paul and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich received positive reviews from roughly half of all Republicans.

But those numbers declined when Americans of all political affiliations were surveyed. In that case, Paul came in at 42%, ahead of Romney and Santorum, and Gingrich's favorable rating fell to 25%.

That leaves only one presidential candidate in the race with a national favorable rating above the 50% mark: President Barack Obama.

Among all Americans, Obama received positive reviews from 53%, with the poll suggesting he may have grown more popular in recent months.

Asked about issues, Republicans see Romney as the candidate most suited to handle the economy, taxes, health care and the deficit.

Gingrich, meanwhile, has a major advantage on foreign policy and illegal immigration, and Santorum is viewed as most equipped on abortion issues.

The CNN poll was conducted by ORC International from February 10-13, with 1,026 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey's overall sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points.

The sample also includes 937 interviews among registered voters, with a sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

– CNN's Ashley Killough contributed to this report.

Also see:

Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8846


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #21 on: February 16, 2012, 09:02:57 AM »

Romney Struggling to Attract White Working Class
AP ^ | February 16, 2012 | Alan Fram

Posted on Thursday, February 16, 2012 9:34:18 AM by C19fan

Republican Mitt Romney is faltering with white working-class voters crucial to his party's drive to capture the White House, even as he tries to fend off a rising GOP challenger, Rick Santorum, who wields strong blue-collar appeal.

The wealthy former Bain Capital chief has led his rivals by comfortable margins among white college graduates, according to combined polls of voters in the first five states that held presidential nominating contests. But the exit and entry surveys showed only a modest Romney advantage among whites who lack college degrees, the yardstick analysts typically use to define the working class.


(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...











I want to vomit at the thought of Romney being the front runner.   He offers nothing to us but an obama victory.   
Report to moderator   Logged
240 is Back
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 83637


Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com


WWW
« Reply #22 on: February 16, 2012, 09:32:48 AM »

a brokered convention would really get GOP voters EXCITED too.
Report to moderator   Logged

howardroark
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 2523


Resident Objectivist & Autodidact


WWW
« Reply #23 on: February 16, 2012, 09:35:14 AM »

a brokered convention would really get GOP voters EXCITED too.

You really think so? I feel like it would leave EVERYONE pissed off.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8846


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #24 on: February 16, 2012, 09:39:08 AM »

You really think so? I feel like it would leave EVERYONE pissed off.

not me!   i would love a convention - at least we have a chance to then get someone other than RS or Myth or NG.   

RP better start uping his game or a convention is out only hope to avoid the other train wrecks.   
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!