didn't look like anyone was living there, and then he had a residency problem very similar to the walgren problem which the casey campaign used very effectively. and the second problem was his kids were going to a pennsylvania cyberschool collecting tuition as though they were pennsylvania residents for that, and that also became part of the controversy. so in conclusion, he ran into, you know, about four of these areas that i just articulated that simply were overwhelming, and by his loss by 18 percentage points by bob casey, that was the single biggest loss by any incumbent in the history of the state since the civil war. >> so as you look at what happened in 2006 and what the romney campaign has been saying thus far and likely will say moving into michigan, what political ammunition do his opponents have in 2012? >> well, i think -- first of all, they can hope that one of the things that santorum has done, look, he's a very bright guy, he's articulate, he's savvy, he's -- understands politics. he's ambitious, he's aggressive. he's done extraordinarily well in these debates which indepe

then he had a residency problem similar to the walgren program which the casey campaign used effectively. the second problem was his kids were going to a pennsylvania cyber school collecting tuition as they were pennsylvania residents. that became part of the controversy. in conclusion, he ran into about four of these areas that i just articulated that simply were overwhelming. his lost in 18 percentage points to bob casey, that was the biggest single loss for an incumbent in history of the state since the civil war. >> as you look at what happened in 2006 and what the romney c campaign has been saying thus far and moving into michigan, what political ammunition do his opponents have in 2012? >> they can hope that one of the things santorum has done. he is a very bright guy. he is articulate. he is savvy. he understands politics. he is ambitious. he has done extraordinarily well in the debates which independent analysts ranked him among the best of the debaters in the year which debates have mattered. he does have a tendency to get unplugged. to say things recently about women and emotio

from the first time i heard about this guy running in congress and using the residence issue against walgren, saying he was living in virginia and knocking him off with that charge. he was a right-to-lifer to the core. this was a big part of his motive. here's a guy who keeps hitting the political sweet spot. even contraception. issues that go way back to the '50s and '60s. is it just a coincidence that what he believes deep down, this old church basic philosophy is working for him or is he missing a point? is he smart to keep hitting these points over and over again? contraception, questioning women's role in the world today in many ways, working outside the home. going back to the old verities. are they winners or mistakes? >> it's a double-edged sword. that's where he's most comfortable. that's where his space is. there's a big part of our primary people listening to that and cheering him on. it's his comfort zone. >> that women should stay home. how is that? women shouldn't be going into the workplace to win the prizes they don't need because basically they are needed at home. that kind