March 23, 2012

Rick's lost it

I reacted strongly when Santorum went on his porn jihad. Nothing bothers me more than censorship emanating from the right.

Glenn is right. After this, Santorum is an unacceptable candidate.

Posted by lance at March 23, 2012 10:08 AM


Posted by: nick at March 23, 2012 10:19 AM

So much choice, after all.

Posted by: dizzy at March 23, 2012 10:23 AM


Posted by: Soccermom at March 23, 2012 10:23 AM

I would argue he lost it when he decided that birth control was an issue.

Posted by: Candace at March 23, 2012 10:25 AM

Both the DemoncRats and the RINO's are just vote pandering whores,but I would prefer Romney pandering to Wall Street than the Zero/Santorum pandering to Islamofacists/fem-nazis.

Posted by: Justthinkin at March 23, 2012 10:31 AM

After this? He was loopy long before this and you don't have to be a donkey (dem) to see it. In fact, I bet the dens will be unhappy if the GOP rids itself of the guy.

Social conservatives loose the centre and the libertarians. They're at most 15% of potential voters.

Posted by: Jason at March 23, 2012 10:37 AM

I stopped caring after Herman Cain left the race. The rest of them are all career bureacrats. The US needs change, not more professional government mouthpieces.

Posted by: orwellian mothercorp at March 23, 2012 10:46 AM

"Let's take it as read that Rick Santorum is weird. After all, he believes in the sanctity of life, the primacy of the family, the traditional socio-religious understanding of a transcendent purpose to human existence. Once upon a time, back in the mists of, ooh, the mid–20th century, all these things were, if not entirely universal, sufficiently mainstream as to be barely worthy of discussion. Now they're not. Isn't the fact that conventional morality is now "weird" itself deeply weird? The instant weirdification of ideas taken for granted for millennia is surely mega-weird — unless you think that our generation is possessed of wisdom unique to human history. In which case, why are we broke?" - Mark Steyn

Posted by: pok at March 23, 2012 10:51 AM

Who hasn't gone too far in an argument? Too late to step back now though.
Santorum had some good stuff and helped form Mitt's platform.
All is good.
Who becomes the VP on the ticket is everything now.

Love the dog on the roof story at the LA Times link.
I'd leak more stuff like that if I were his staff.
Going for the Clark Grizwald, everyman vote is genius.

Posted by: richfisher at March 23, 2012 10:54 AM

The trick here is to do your best to win the candidacy without poisoning the well if you don't. Romney showed considerable class in 2008 when he bowed out to allow McCain to concentrate on the Democrats. He did what was best for the party.

Posted by: rabbit at March 23, 2012 11:01 AM

He has no clue how to deal with the national lamestream media. He would have gone from lamestream scandal to lamestream scandal. Complete and utter disaster campaign waiting to happen.

Posted by: james at March 23, 2012 11:08 AM


Yeah I recall the LIBRANOs making a big deal about Manning, Day and Harper (gasp) being regular church goers....oh the shame.


It's not like they were Grand Dragons in the KiloKiloKilo........

Posted by: sasquatch at March 23, 2012 11:21 AM

Whiskey Golf Foxtrot anyway these guys are both clowns. Obuma will win guaranteed.

Posted by: jimbob at March 23, 2012 11:33 AM

All this is high profile public theatrics for the rubes. The way the numbers roll out now the convention will come down to a 2, possibly 3 ballot vote this time and the RINO GOP brass are trying to avoid it because a multi ballot final vote puts Ron Paul in a king maker position. So they are cutting the throat of a major contender to make it a presumed one man race before we even get to convention.

Theatrical, scripted, typical shadow democracy.

Posted by: Occam at March 23, 2012 11:36 AM

Unless you really want the flip flopper, also known as the white O, everyone of them will stay in the race so the republicans can have a brokered convention and a shot at nominating a real conservative. The show is getting sickening, I tire of discovering the fraud that has been perpetrated in the primary, it shows that the DEMs and the REPs are actually the same group presenting 2 faces to the world.

Vote for DOCTOR PAUL or get used to the idea of living in a FEMA camp.

Posted by: FREE at March 23, 2012 11:45 AM

As a fiscally conservative voter I'd say this Mitt Romney comment has poisoned the well of small-government, free-market principles more than Rick's 'choice' comment:

"I keep hearing the president say he's responsible for keeping the country out of a Great Depression," Romney said in front of around 200 people at an American Legion post. "No, no, no, that was President George W. Bush and Hank Paulson."

So Romney thinks that George W Bush- whom most every middle-right blogger hated with a passion for being the Progressively-Liberal Big Government-spending President and who had to "abandoned free-market principles in order to save the free-market system"

is THe One who Saved America from The Great Depression?

As a fiscally-conservative voter who believes in free-market principles, limited government, personal responsiblity I am finding it impossible to GOTV for the Republican candidate who thinks Presidents have the authority and right to abandon free-market principles in order to save the free-market system.

Abandoning free-market principles in order to save the free-market system is like Government MANDATING every citizen buy Health Insurance in order to preserve the Health Care system.

Of course, as a fiscally-conservative voter I think both Romney and Bush's intrusive government action is JIHAD upon the free-market system.

BUT, since pop culture dictates are force me to say to say "Romney is better than Obama" this will be my only GOTV campaign.

"Romney is Better Than Obama" will be all that I say because I won't lose my integrity by lying to help a Ruling Class Republican candidate get into the White House.

Posted by: Susan at March 23, 2012 11:48 AM

What, Rick Santorum wants to ban Car and Driver magazine?

Posted by: Larry at March 23, 2012 12:23 PM

"Romney is Better Than Obama" will be all that I say because I won't lose my integrity by lying to help a Ruling Class Republican candidate get into the White House.

You won't even have to say that.
As lame as each of the GOP candidates are, people will be going to the polls to vote against Obama because of the purposeful damage he has done to the American economy and it's institutions.

Will Santorum go on a porn jihad?
Who cares?
The President is the nation's CEO, he doesn't have the power to censor anything without Congressional/Senate approval.
His greatest powers are the veto pen, the ability to appoint Supreme Court Justices to the bench for life, the bully pulpit, and the ability to send U.S. military forces into battle for 90 days without congressional approval.

If there are any questions answer them with these questions: "Has any President since FDR ever used executive extra-Constitutional powers the way Obama has?"
"Do you want Obama to be appointing new Supreme Court Justices for the next 4 years?"

Posted by: Oz at March 23, 2012 12:24 PM

"I favor giving each of the 50 states the resources and the responsibility to craft the health care solutions that suit their citizens best." Mitt Romney.

Oh goody. 10th amendment speaking of course, how will President Romney give the 50 states the resources and responsiblity which Constitutionally are resources and responsibilities which already resides in each of the 50 states and the people?

Will he Government Mandate, techocratically top-down from his desk in the White House, to the 50 states the resources and responsibility?

"A key question is how to provide care for the poor, the uninsured and the chronically ill."

So George W Bush's expansion of LBJ's The Great Society's Medicare system for the poor, his expansion of the governmental CHIP program for the poor's children, the permanent governmental Planned Parenthood free health care for poor is failing to provide care for the poor, the uninsured and the chronically ill?

So even with a plethora of Government programs spending hundreds of billions of dollars per year providing care for the poor we need ways to provide health care for the poor, the uninsured and the chronically ill?

(At this point I with regret I will say that there is no way we will ever restore America to her Constitutional foundation, the people have lost their will to be Free. I am thankful I haven't children and grand-children who will live enslaved Serfs to a Monsterous Government created By The People who loved their government goodies more than they loved Freedom)

Posted by: Susan at March 23, 2012 12:34 PM

@pok - I hate to say that Steyn is wrong but I don't think he understands the issue with Santorum: it isn't that what he believes is "wierd". First, his focus on social issues is off-track with the primary concern of most voters at the moment who are concerned about their job, their house and their families. Not that we can't talk about several issues at once but people want to talk about jobs and their livelihoods and not whether Jon next door should be watching porn.

Second, he seems to have a real issue with individual liberty. That bothers a lot of Americans.

Third, he's a scold. My mom and dad get to lecture me about morals. A career politician (is there anythone more greasy than such a creature) doesn't get to lecture me about morality.

Posted by: slaw at March 23, 2012 12:41 PM

What Slaw said, especially point 2 and 3.

Posted by: lance at March 23, 2012 12:45 PM

Santorum was being urged to step down since he could never win the nomination anyhow.

Rather than doing so gracefully, he adopted a scorched earth policy to destroy the Republican candidate, and the US.

I love it when politicians reveal their sociopathic underpinnings.

Posted by: Dystopian Optimist at March 23, 2012 12:48 PM

slaw...Steyn is right on. The point is that family and moral values are condemned.
I will add that I cannot agree with top legislation of morals.(Santorum) I would rather see individuals have a change of heart, 2 parent families encouraging morally responsible behaviour, and a freedom to worship, and teach faith in the home.
That is what we are losing.
And the 'government' will not be able to get it back. Laws don't change the human heart.

Posted by: bluetech at March 23, 2012 12:49 PM


Your extreme line of thinking puts BamBam back in the White House, and that's what the extremists in the other camps are up to, whether they know it or not.

Romney ain't Reagan, but he's not McCain. it's time to let go of extreme ideology, and remember the Prime Objective

Remove BamBam from the White House!

Posted by: DanBC at March 23, 2012 12:52 PM

I'm a Christian conservative, but I've never warmed to Santorum. On a personal level, I agree with him on moral issues. However, as a candidate, he's not at all attractive to me. The “scold” aspect of his character certainly isn't a winning tactic.

I’d vote for any Republican over Zer0, and I’m hoping for a really good VP candidate.

Posted by: lookout at March 23, 2012 1:05 PM

Truth is Santorum is no more conservative than Romney. His ACU voting record was 87 - middle of the road for Repub senators at the time. If you isolate money votes from social issues, he's far left fiscally. He's a big union, big government guy. His tendency to scold is based on the fact that he believes government should be involved in everything.

Posted by: Greg at March 23, 2012 1:14 PM

With his focus on MAKING the dumb-@ss people Do The Right Thing, Mr. Santorum reveals he IS Obama.

This is the same old Left/Right false dichotomy that statists have been dining out on since the 1920's. Obama is all about using the power of government to make people behave. Santorum is also all about that. The two of them differ in the details about what they're going to make you do, is all.

The truth is Romney can be included on that bandwagon. What we are being allowed to chose from here is which of these putzes are going to show up like the smallest problem for us.

Sadly, Romney is showing up like the least bad option Americans are going to get this time out.
Go Tea Party.

Posted by: The Phantom at March 23, 2012 1:16 PM

I agree with bluetech and the Steyn supporters.

And I haven't invested emotion in any of the candidates since Cain left.

I do find it strange that nobody linked to the video to show what Santorum actually said.

Santorum is echoing Reagan (and Coulter in former times) in saying that we need a true conservative. Whether or not Santorum is that person, is another discussion. Why no discussion of the Etch-a-Sketch comment made by Romney's assistant?

If the MSM have convinced the majority of SDA readers

Posted by: WalterF at March 23, 2012 1:29 PM

the phantom nails it

people in here are just waking up to the fact that bible thumpers are as much about shoving their ideology down your throat as socialists are???

morals and religion are personal things, and should be delt with as such, and you thumpers do your thumping for your own benefit, and do not try and "CONvert" me, thank you very much, as I have my own beliefs, I don't need yours

Posted by: NME666 at March 23, 2012 1:45 PM

Enemysixsixsix, are you saying the government should enforce no moral values, or only the ones you agree with? Is it ok of I borrow your car for the next few months? Your credit card too?

Posted by: WalterF at March 23, 2012 2:02 PM

One can only hope (and it isn't looking good) that the GOP fails to endorse any one of these candidates and they end up picking one at the convention. One that can take out the Kenyan hitch hiker.
I agree with Steyn that people don't know what the hell they believe in anymore, they have embraced every goofball idea that came along.
In a contest to potentially lead the U.S. is it appropriate to focus your campaign on moral issues? Wouldn't you simply state at the outset that you have a family, go to church and pay your taxes and then move on to oh lets say jobs, jobs, jobs?

Posted by: abtrapper at March 23, 2012 2:04 PM

666, I don't see too many thumpers shoving their christian ideology down anyones throat. Now, you take the LGBT Community, the Greenies, the Enviromentalist, PETA, the Femi-Nazi's, Liberals, Socialist and Democrats these folks live to shove their agenda in your face and in some cases get the Courts to do it for them. Especially the Socialist Liberal Democrats who think they know how to spend your money better than you do and while they are in the majority think of nothing but legislative ways to take it.

Voting for Ron Paul tomorrow morning in the Loiusi-Yana General and will vote for that damn Mormon in the Primary.

Romney/Paul 2012 can beat Baraka Hussien Obama.

Posted by: Ratt at March 23, 2012 2:08 PM

I think Rick is being misrepresented by the press. I just wish I could fish in Lake Santorum, because every piece of bait they put out, he bites at.
He is NOT for expanding any laws against pornography. He is for enforcing some of the laws against the really egregious stuff that is already on the books.
He did NOT bring up the contraceptive issue, George Stephaofalous did, followed by Obama forcing religious institutions to pay for it.
Romney did a complete flip-flop on whether english is needed for statehood. He used to be a staunch supporter and then for the primary told Puerto Rico no, no english needed.
Santorum talks about the economy during his stump speeches,but the only thing the press is interested in social issues.
Buzzfeed has a new tape out of Romney saying his only connection to the Republican Party is his registration. Of course that was when he was running for Gov. of Mass. I guess he was just lying to them then, and is telling us the truth now, right?

Posted by: Anotner Kate at March 23, 2012 2:22 PM

Fear of the "Christian Right" as they love to call it is straw man up there to distract your eyes from the Lefties picking your pocket.

Religion is not the business of governments. The business of governments is keeping the peace, defending the nation and enforcing contracts.

Its a Christian country, so the laws are based on Christian morality. Which is different than having the government spend zillions trying (with utter futility) to block pr0nz from the web because its "morally wrong".

I don't even want to have the moral argument, so lets just say it IS wrong and bad for you. So is smoking. So is booze. So are a lot of things, including sitting on your butt in front of the TV doing nothing all day.

Is it the job of government to ban smoking and pr0n? Is it the job of government to make you go to church? Or to recycle? Or to shift your 350lb @ss to go for a walk?

Liberals say YES, Conservatives say NO. That's how you can tell one from the other.

Smaller government that does less, not bigger government that makes sure you floss and stay away from feeelthy pictures. That is the Conservative way. Santorum is not a Conservative. QED.

Posted by: The Phantom at March 23, 2012 2:33 PM

Romney is a better conservative than McCain, Dole, HW Bush, Ford or Nixon.

Romney is probably better than W Bush, who spent too much (though he did it to shore up support for his security concerns.)

Romney is probably worse than Reagan, who won the cold war and restored Hayek's ideas to public discourse (though he couldn't match Romney's fiscal record while governing a blue state.)

Obama, meanwhile, is worse than Carter, who was worse than Kerry or Clinton.

Second best candidate in 40 years vs the worst candidate in 40 years. Relax. The choice is not complicated.

Posted by: Pete E at March 23, 2012 2:38 PM

Why is lying to win wrong? Do you think Obama will lie to win? I think he will. Apparently now Solyndra was all the Republican's fault or something. Anyway I hope Romney lies his face off to win the election. It's time to start playing by their rules.

Posted by: james at March 23, 2012 2:45 PM

Clinton won the campaign in '92 with the slogan,
"it's about the economy, stupid."

Clinton was right then and it still applies today. Santorum can't be a credible candidate because he can't keep his eye on the ball.

This campaign is not about porn, it's not about birth control. It's about jobs and the economy and getting Obama out of office. To say that Obama is better than Romney simply shows how unfit Santorum is as a Republican.

Posted by: cgh at March 23, 2012 2:57 PM

No wonder he's not worried about the unemployment rate, as he recently stated - he's too obsessed with Americans' sex lives.

Posted by: Barbara at March 23, 2012 3:06 PM

This post summarizes, better than most, why we will never have another Reagan. If he were to come along, you'd say "people don't care about that" or "we could never win with that guy".

Without context, those who long for a true conservative will parrot what the left is saying and printing. America deserves the next president it gets.

Posted by: Gen. Lee Wright at March 23, 2012 3:21 PM

By the way, I think Santorum or Newt or Romney can take Barry in a landslide. The Republicans could run Mickey Mouse on a write-in and win. "None of the above" could beat Barry.

Barry's done like a Christmas turkey.

Posted by: The Phantom at March 23, 2012 3:46 PM


Anyone conversant with basic statistics knows that virtually every "black/white" issue involving people follows some sort of "normal" distribution - a big hump in the centre, falling off at either side. Take abortion - some people think it's always right, some people think it's never right, and the vast majority fall somewhere in the middle. Capital punishment - same thing, some people think it's never right, some people think we should do it to all murderers, and the vast majority fall between those extremes.

So it is with politics. Only about 10% of Americans consider themselves either "very" liberal or "very" conservative; most consider themselves in the middle, regardless of party affiliation. Your contention that the middle only represents 15% is not supported by any research. You might consider:

Beyond Red and Blue

Posted by: KevinB at March 23, 2012 3:58 PM

Proscription of obscenity does not qualify as censorship, now or in the past. Serious conservatives are generally strongly opposed to the river of filth engulfing our culture, while simultaneously remaining strongly against ACTUAL censorship.

Posted by: Steve Macdonald at March 23, 2012 4:17 PM

ANY Republican candidate will be dragged by the heels to repeal Obamacare - how else do you explain the Republican Congressional leadership in both houses making this the official policy of their respective house?

The leadership on the Republican side operate by consensus, and this shows you how deeply frightened the rank and file are of the tea party. Ditto on the leaderships almost total turnabout on illegal immigration.

Agree that Santorum is a loser. No wonder the Republicans were destroyed in the 2006 election with big spending frauds like Santorum in their ranks.

Posted by: small c conservative at March 23, 2012 4:23 PM

Jeff, 'proscription' is a strong word. Sort of like my judicious use of 'jihad'.

Posted by: lance at March 23, 2012 5:09 PM

Santorum has been outspoken on some things, but what I don't fully understand is the reluctance to call a spade a spade, and go after Obama as a Marxist and globalist with a dangerous fixation on green economic balderdash. That's where the GOP could drive a stake into the heart of the beast, but pornography? That tends to turn off half the base -- I agree with Santorum's general theory that America's moral foundation is eroding at a dangerous pace, but all that politicians can really do is to provide the necessary conditions for economic vitality and national security, and leave moralizing to the churches and philosophers at large. Once they have done their part, politicians should probably spend more time fixing their own personal morality rather than worrying about ours.

I still think Gingrich is the best choice because he comes closer to articulating the truth about the situation, but he has a lot of baggage, and seemed to injure himself earlier this year with his strange ramblings about a moon base (perhaps he's looking for a place to store Calista, if that's her name, another reason he's having trouble as she blows big chunks).

Posted by: Peter O'Donnell at March 23, 2012 5:15 PM

What Phantom said at 2:33.

Posted by: Jethro at March 23, 2012 5:38 PM

james at 2:45 writes, "Do you think Obama will lie to win?"

WILL lie? He's been lying for decades. He's a serial liar.

Posted by: lookout at March 23, 2012 5:43 PM

Porn may not be an important issue - I agree - but the serious decay of morality in all western nations definitely is.

The over abundance of porn is a symptom of a much bigger problem.

Western nations are sick and in serious and rapid decay.

Posted by: Canadian Friend at March 23, 2012 5:53 PM

Meh, the porn jihad wasn't anything except spin/smear.

If you read the policy position put forward by him, it was that they seek to use enforce the currently existing laws, not make new ones or anything of the sort.

Secondly, around the same time frame, ALL of the other current GOP runners put forth policy statements that were nearly identical. To whit: "there are laws in place, and we'll enforce them". Where's the shock and horror about Romney's nearly identical statement, or Gingritch's one?

You've been handed a politically spun story, one without basis, to frame Santorum as one of those pesky godbotherers.

My favorite complaint about the issue is folks who have said that only Santorum's policy statements bother them, as they "know the other candidates don't actually belive them."

Posted by: Chris S. at March 23, 2012 5:58 PM


With all due respect...

there was no liquidity in the market. Do you get that?

There was a need for an influx of capital in the system or EVERYONE would have paid the price. Without capital, the banks can't lend money; therefore, employers CANNOT MAKE PAYROLL OR PAY INVOICES. This would have killed businesses all over North America. They cannot afford to be paid for their services, nor can their employees. The reality is, almost all business runs on a line of credit. They do not pay their bills out of a stash of cash.

GWB jr was correct in his assessment that the system needed the cash from TARP #1. Unfortunately, the unintended consequences, although predictable, is it has given cover for the Obama administration’s spending spree because people like you cannot see the difference.

Posted by: Indiana Homez USA at March 23, 2012 6:44 PM


They cannot afford to *NOT* be paid for their services, nor can their employees


Posted by: Indiana Homez USA at March 23, 2012 6:53 PM

Proscription of obscenity does not qualify as censorship, now or in the past. Serious conservatives are generally strongly opposed to the river of filth engulfing our culture, while simultaneously remaining strongly against ACTUAL censorship.

The current laws against pronz are ipso facto censorship. It is not government's place to lead your holy war against teh bad pronz.

There was a need for an influx of capital in the system or EVERYONE would have paid the price.

NO. Wrong. Yes, there would have been a very brutal and short recession followed by a nice bounce-back and a banking system with a lot of corruption and poison removed. See 'Iceland'.

At this point, there is only Ron Paul left to support. Barring his unlikely victory, the US presidential outcome does not matter. It's not even an event.

Posted by: LAS at March 23, 2012 8:30 PM

The best response I saw on the subject was this comment left on Althouse

March 16, 2012

"Santorum Promises Broad War on Porn."

prairie wind said...

War on Poverty led to more welfare, and more poverty. War on Drugs led to more drugs and more drug-related violence. What the hell do they think the war on porn would do?

Posted by: Dave in AB at March 23, 2012 9:12 PM

Santorum was quoted only in snippets. He said "IF" Romney is no more conservative than Obama, that would be a problem.

As to Internet porn, don't blame Santorum the next time your phone call is dropped because some bandwidth hog is streaming porn.

Posted by: John at March 23, 2012 10:33 PM

I disqualified Santorum a month ago, after he mused about banning birth control. And I had Perry disqualified earlier. Gingrich is another big spender with loony ideas. None of these clowns understands the proper function of government, which is to protect individual rights through police, military and courts. They all just want to spend, spend, spend, to buy votes, buy votes, buy votes. Bribe taxpayers with their own money. Rob Peter to pay Paul. No thanks!

The real Paul looks like the best choice, at least on domestic and economic issues. But I worry about his foreign policy, or lack thereof, and it's a serious worry.

I'm hoping I could live with Romney.

Re: "... the traditional socio-religious understanding of a transcendent purpose to human existence ..." (Mark Steyn quote)

Religions can believe what they want, but in my opinion there is no "transcendent purpose to human existence". We're here to live our own lives. A "transcendent purpose" outside oneself ultimately equates to slavery.

Posted by: nv53 at March 24, 2012 1:34 AM

Ion Cannon both legal and illegal internet porn, stop relying on the political & law enforcement establishment to do it for you. Because they won't, it's not in their best interests to do so. Too much campaign money to be lost if it's even considered.

The power to do the right thing is in your hands

Posted by: Ever Vigilant at March 24, 2012 2:51 PM

Oh, nuts. Romney is Obama dressed up in a Republican suit. PERIOD.
He is the choice of the Republican Elite.
Tea Party conservatives do not like him because they see that he is the elite's answer to Obama and they actually think they can win this with Romney.
Perhaps , in part, because Romney has the money to go the distance.

If they really want to defeat Obama as they claim (and I have my doubts about their claims, else John 'boo hoo' Boehner would bloody well SPEAK UP or nudge Mitch McConnell awake every once in awhile and fight what Obama is doing RIGHT NOW!)

As actions speak louder than words, I take it they do not really want to win this thing, or if they do, they want THEIR guy to win it so all stays 'cush' there in Washington, D.C.

I find them all just despicable-especially when the seriousness of the situation continues to worsen.

I listen to Newt Gingrich and, frankly, I don't care if his 'baggage' is the size of a BOXCAR, I think he has what it takes to be the one to take out Obama. Superior mind with millions of pertinent facts at hand and a real down to earth ding dong dangit plan to actually bring back the economy and other really important social issues under the auspices of the CONSTITUTION.

Posted by: Snowbunnie at March 24, 2012 10:02 PM

The 'powers that be' and the puppets of the same (msm) ignore Dr. Paul in the hope that he will just shut up about fraud and the Constitution and go back to Texas. That fact should be ringing alarm bells in every American household. If the msm does not like a public figure, that public figure is worth a second look - I have given Dr. Paul a second look and I like what I see...I always liked the American Constitution since I was not born into the elitist class. It would be a no brainer, IMO, for any person with no vested interest in nanny state...even a far sighted peon of nanny state who fears Dictatorship/tyranny/famine/gulags...any self respecting citizen would vote for the man who has a track record of following the Constitution in all state matters and the Bible in personal matters. Censorship and prohibition always lead to loss of Liberty (stating the obvious). My vote would go to Dr. Paul, with enthusiam.

Posted by: Jema 54 at March 25, 2012 11:10 AM


Posted by: Jema 54 at March 25, 2012 11:12 AM

It wasn't the birth control musings specifically that disqualify Santorum (which is what I said above), it was the callous and contemptible use of the word "gift" to describe a child conceived by rape. This shows a collectivist rather than an individualist mindset.

Get him out of there.

Posted by: nv53 at March 26, 2012 1:17 AM

Why is it impossible to understand the simple fact that in a Federal Government that stuck to its enumerated powers, Santorum's social beliefs would be as relevant as those of the Queen of England, even if he were to become president?

These are not Federal issues. The government is broke and going further into debt at an accelerating pace. The press would tell us what Marie Antoinette had for dinner while the mob stormed the gates.

Posted by: MarkD at March 26, 2012 10:14 AM