That’s as good a spin for Santorum as can be hoped, but the GOP electorate has decided that the most electable candidate is the one that takes Obamacare, energy production and the HHS mandate off the table.

I know Santorum can recover. In an interesting development, he won southern Macomb County’s congressional district, home of the Reagan Dems.

But I continue to be stunned by the unexamined assumption that Mitt is the most electable. I guess those folks assume gas will be at $5 a gallon and Romney will somehow wave away his cap-and-trade law.

Here’s hoping Ohio has better critical thinking skills.

Currently Santorum is doing well in Washington, which has its caucus on Saturday.

Two things… Saturday is just at the precinct level. Then we have the county level on 3/31. Then state is somewhere down the line from there. The WSRP is notorious for going for the safe choice. Also, WA is a rather left wing state, so a moderate is about all I expect to get WA’s delegates.

Donald,

CNN has an interactive delegate calculator that lets you look at various options. I’ve played around with it a fair amount. Romney currently leads Santorum by 100 delegates, and has another 140 all but guaranteed in Massachusetts (his real home state), Virginia (where Santorum isn’t even on the ballot), and Utah (self-explanatory). If we assume on the other side that Santorum will win Pennsylvania (which is winner take all), that still leaves him with a 168 delegate deficit to Romney. Given that the delegates in most of the remaining states are allotted proportionately, the only way that Santorum can come back from this delegate hole is if Romney collapses completely, which is not going to happen.

There were better conservative options, in my opinion then.

You mean like Romney?

T Shaw,
Secret Service and secured planes (not poulette au reisling) are the expense in Presidential vacations. Just war theory requires success as possible. That rules out the Afghanistan fiasco. If you owed Visa $14 trillion, would you spend another one trillion rearranging but not changing two unbaptized populations one of whom will be farming opium until Elijah returns? Look at the mountains there…impossible to police. One in five vets has PTSD. That comes from risking for no gain.

“Play it safe is always the motto of the GOP establishment, the same type of people who backed Ford in 1976, Dole in 1996 and McCain in 2008”

Agreed.

Now, what’s interesting in this crazy election cycle is who has been added to this mix. No conservative in my little corner of the world that supports Romney today was a McCain supporter of yesteryear. Such is the difference in this election.

Disagree Art. I vividly remember the “Win” buttons which was his strategy against inflation.

The WIN buttons were an odd public relations campaign. The actual results were as follows:

Increase in the Consumer Price Index,

August 1973-August 1974: 10.8%
January 1976-January 1977: 5.2%

I think Steve Forbes would have been far better as a candidate Art than Zombie Dole.

Whether or not he had been a ‘good candidate’, he was running for public office, which he had never before held.

I was backing Steve Forbes Art

The three candidates who actually won delegates and more than a scatter of votes were Gov. Bush, Sen. McCain, and Dr. Keyes. I like Keyes, up to a point. Wrong job for him, though.

And Ford had as much to do with that Art as his silly WIN Buttons. Inflation went down after the ending of the Arab oil embargo and the economy adjusted to higher energy prices. That inflation had not been cured by Ford’s ministrations was dramatically illustrated during the tenure of his successor.

I had no idea you had studied the intricacies of monetary policies as followed during the years running from 1973 to 1979. In any case, these are the core inflation figures (price increases during the calendar year with food and energy prices excised).

1973: 3.6%
1974: 8.3%
1975: 9.1%
1976: 6.5%
1977: 6.3%
1978: 7.4%
1979: 9.8%
1980:12.4%
1981:10.4%
1982: 7.4%

During the Ford Administration, the core inflation figures began to decline around about March of 1975 and continued to do so (not quite monotonically) until he left office. During the Carter Administration, they began to escalate around June of 1978 reaching their peak in June of 1980.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes this data.

Month-to-month headline inflation figures bounce around quite a bit. The core inflation figures have the volatile food and energy prices removed so fluctuate less. The month-to-month core metrics were on a downward trajectory from March of 1975 to the time Mr. Ford left office and for some months thereafter. Specifically, core inflation was running at an annualized rate of 11.7% in February of 1975 and at one of 6.3% in July of 1977. The country was not in a recession at that time either. The recession ended in early 1975.

I do not see how that qualifies as poor performance, no matter how much milage comedians got out of the WIN program. All administrations are messy and make errors. In my lifetime, we have had three administrations (Nixon’s, the younger Bush’s, and the current one) which made far more severe errors than any Gerald Ford ever contemplated without incurring severe intraparty challenges, one administration which incurred a challenge for reasons irrelevant to its actual flaws (Mr. Carter’s), and two administrations among the least problematic of the post-war period who were badly injured by intra-mural party squabbling (Messrs. Ford and Bush the Elder). The only occasion where truly wretched performance met with a relevant challenge (albeit a challenge with poor prescriptions) occurred in 1968.

What a contrast from “Dreams from My Father”. I’m voting for Rick tomorrow, May his tribe be blest.

I completely agree. If I was judging Santorum based on his books and speeches, voting for him would be trivial. The problem is his voting record does fit with what he says. Correction, doesn’t fit enough with what he says.

“22 Blessed are you when men hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man. 23 Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their fathers treated the prophets.” St. Luke

Love them with Christian charity. Instruct them. Admonish them. Counsel them. For as long as they live, and we pray and set good examples through good works and prayer, they may come to a better “mind.”

They are infallibly ignorant. We will annoy them!

Iam one of the faithful but I also am becoming a Militant Catholic tired of the Bidens Pelosi,, Sebilius, Mathews,Kerry, and any other that publicly denounces the teachings of our faith.Heres a thought find another Religion one moe to your liking if you dont like the churches teachings LEAVE by the way why are they not EXCOMMUNICATED!

Wilkins, you will enjoy this comic…
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-jxFOkjVH4i4/TzKPmmkZDqI/AAAAAAAABPI/hvo0CVI4sp8/s1600/Bad%2BEggs.jpg

Ann Coulter’s latest column, entitled “What’s Their Problem With Romney?”, disparages the other candidates including the “crusading Catholic who can’t seem to move the conversation past contraception”.

Here’ a bit from Nancy Pelosi talking about how the Church should not complain about the mandate as there has been no enforcement by the Church of the ban on contraception. There is a logic to her heresy. Let this awaken the bishops from their long slumber.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/pelosi-catholic-church-has-not-enforced-its-teaching-contraception

Grandpa Dave, I like your ideas. Also Dave Hartline, great post! You are always so on target.

“many Catholics and other Christians voted for the present administration, despite their then-obvious hatred of the faith, of this nation, and of civilized discourse. Why, why, why?”

Well, in 2008 the current administration-to-be’s “obvious” hatred of all things good may have been obvious to committed Catholics, evangelicals, and conservatives who frequent blogs like this and make it a point to judge all candidates by their record on moral issues. However, it was NOT so obvious to people outside of our traditional/conservative circles who had to rely upon the mainstream media for most of what they knew. We cannot assume that what is obvious to us is obvious to everyone else.

That said, I think THIS time around the situation is much more obvious to everyone. When EVERY single U.S. bishop speaks out against the HHS mandate and a long procession of noted evangelical Protestants joins the effort, it’s pretty hard to ignore that. Plus there is an actual record of what Obama has done as an executive (rather than a legislator) to point to.

I will concede that it MIGHT have been possible for a sincere (but not conservative) Catholic who wasn’t involved in the pro-life movement to persuade themselves in 2008 that voting for Obama (with McCain as the alternative) wouldn’t be so bad. I DO NOT think they have that excuse this time around.

I see by the comments here that mutual masturbation is not considered a sin among the faithful.

Another great post, Donald, that I just had to share. Thank you!

We’re going to find out if America is capable of electing a man who not only knows the difference between right and wrong, but is willing to act upon that knowledge. I, too, never thought that Santorum had a chance…now, he clearly does. We’ll see what happens.

” I think that what really disturbs the press is the raw courage of Santorum in that he does not quiver in fear that his views may prove unpopular. He is holding to them no matter what. That simply is not how the political game is played! Judging from the polls, maybe, just maybe, political courage, honesty and forthrightness will prove a winner this year. ”

He is refreshing and I hope he can stay strong because he ‘s so in for it by the bullies’ soundbites on TV. Was thinking about media effects (not to mention societal) on people after I read Foxfier’s “Sin is Poison” because the tv was on also.

Last night, after the news, I didn’t get to the remote before I heard Jay Leno going on about him and Satan jokes – really mean spiritedly. Same type last week with Letterman monologues and insinuations on daytime talk. On and on. These are the mainstream voices that mainstream voters/parents hear daily and it occurred to me that, all this finger pointing and bullying for laughs and money is what kids see as making their parents laugh. In recent time, anti-bullying laws were passed for school behavior and social networking due to a tragedy in a town near where I live. Huge news topic. Kids were brought to court, but this election year noise has our leaders and press applauding one another for slamming others. Schizo politics.

Bill Maher was a guest on Craig Ferguson, who entertains without political affiliation. The guest was dying to get going on RS, NG, and MR, but couldn’t draw complicity out. More refreshing moments than most. Anyway, there has to be a correlation between the phenomenon of bullying kids (and the mentality in many other stations in life) and the effects of behavior in the political, sports, and entertainment arenas. I like b & w TV shows and movies for relaxing.

Mentality of liberals acting offended after their own offending becomes offensive to some people. They aren’t happy unless there’s an underdog. Moral relativism and the culture of death – not fun or healthy. Hope he survives.

Update: Santorum said when challenged on that issue by Ron Paul (even Ron Paul does something right every now and then), he now says that he simply voted for a larger appropriations bill that included Title X and that he always opposed Title X. He also says that he proposed Title XX for abstinence ed to counteract Title X. If that’s true, that’s acceptable. However, I think Ron Paul is right about the giovernment shouldn’t be invovled in either in terms of funding. But I think Santorum’s position as stated is certainly valid given the circumstances. I agreed with Ron Paul twice in one paragraph. I think I’m gonna get sick.

However, Santorum is now defending his endorsement of Specter due to the SCOTUS issue whereas he says elsewhere as cited by CMR that “inretrospect, it was a mistake”. Mitt missed a golden opportunity to embarass the hell out of Santorum.

I love the Belloc quote!

PS: anyone know who he will be selecting as his VP?

Thank you for your excellent analysis of Santorum’s challenge to a liberal bias. I heard a woman (in a panel of citizens) say that considering his “pious attitude” and his constant talk of his “religion,” his vote for Title X which included Planned Parenthood support showed how insincere he was. I was several issues with her statement, but the point I want to make is that the values he espouses were more the norm among mainstream Americans not too very long ago. It shows how successful the liberal bias toward gays and abortion has been through the media and through entertainment of all kinds. Family values have been corrupted and now are a matter of apology and/or criticism. What is gratifying to me is that without all the money, the glitz, and the mealy-mouth attempt to keep from offending, he has succeeded to such a degree. I know that ultimately the victory is God’s, and I don’t presume to know his timing (now or years from now), but I wonder if I am seeing the power of God at work in opening hearts to his message. Let’s keep praying for God’s will in His way and His time.

It might be really interesting to get the whole perspective after the last debate. Mark Levins radio show on 2/23/2012 revealed alot that none of the other media picked up on, including the idea of the Paul/Romney tag team. Think about it. Does Paul EVER question Romney about anything? No, he bashed all the conservatives, Bachman, Gingrich, Cain, Perry, & now Santorum. Why does he have all of these negative ads in Michigan against SANTORUM when he’s not even campaigning there? Realy, check it out!

Hear, hear!

No area of ConLaw is more messed up than those dealing with human sexuality. Whatever else can be said of the Church’s teaching, at least it is cohesive.

Scalia ripped the “reasoning” in Lawrence precisely because Kennedy sought to dodge the logical extensions of the Court’s meddling. The Court isn’t alone of course in its refusal to drive logic out to its conclusion. We see the same lack of insight or honest acceptance of responsibility for consequences in Obamacare’s creation of an enforcable right to contraceptive drugs.

I also enjoy reading Justice Black’s dissent in Griswold. A good excerpt:

My Brother GOLDBERG has adopted the recent discovery that the Ninth Amendment as well as the Due Process Clause can be used by this Court as authority to strike down all state legislation which this Court thinks violates “fundamental principles of liberty and justice,” or is contrary to the “traditions and [collective] conscience of our people.” He also states, without proof satisfactory to me, that, in making decisions on this basis, judges will not consider “their personal and private notions.” One may ask how they can avoid considering them. Our Court certainly has no machinery with which to take a Gallup Poll. And the scientific miracles of this age have not yet produced a gadget which the Court can use to determine what traditions are rooted in the “[collective] conscience of our people.” Moreover, one would certainly have to look far beyond the language of the Ninth Amendment to find that the Framers vested in this Court any such awesome veto powers over lawmaking, either by the States or by the Congress. Nor does anything in the history of the Amendment offer any support for such a shocking doctrine. The whole history of the adoption of the Constitution and Bill of Rights points the other way, and the very material quoted by my Brother GOLDBERG shows that the Ninth Amendment was intended to protect against the idea that, “by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power” to the Federal Government, “those rights which were not singled out were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government [the United States], and were consequently insecure.” That Amendment was passed not to broaden the powers of this Court or any other department of “the General Government,” but, as every student of history knows, to assure the people that the Constitution in all its provisions was intended to limit the Federal Government to the powers granted expressly or by necessary implication. If any broad, unlimited power to hold laws unconstitutional because they offend what this Court conceives to be the “[collective] conscience of our people” is vested in this Court by the Ninth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, or any other provision of the Constitution, it was not given by the Framers, but rather has been bestowed on the Court by the Court. This fact is perhaps responsible for the peculiar phenomenon that, for a period of a century and a half, no serious suggestion was ever made that the Ninth Amendment, enacted to protect state powers against federal invasion, could be used as a weapon of federal power to prevent state legislatures from passing laws they consider appropriate to govern local affairs. Use of any such broad, unbounded judicial authority would make of this Court’s members a day-to-day constitutional convention.

Welcome, Paul!

Glad to put my conlaw teaching moments to work for a good cause.

Also, I am thoroughly enjoying seeing the various photos which you, I, and Donald use as our “avatars”.

I graduated from Duke Law in 1983 and was taught Con Law by the truly great Wm. Van Alstyne. While very much a pro choice liberal, he expressed disdain for Roe and discomfort with Griswold. Back then there were more honest liberals. Jonathan an Paul, I suspect you would have aced his course — not easy to do. He was (and still is) a masterful and entertaining teacher. He would have made a terrific Supreme Court Justice, but alas he was known by Republicans as a liberal Dem and by Dems as a honest constitutional scholar. Not a chance.

I did not study law at all in college, so my legal acumen is somewhere between my ability to speak Chinese (non-existant) and my ability to play basketball (laughable.)

So, to the learned members of the impropmtu panel here assembled, I would pose the following question, which has bothered me for some time:

Is it at all noticable that an overmuch amount of the secular/humanist/progressive/leftist effort at diluting Constitutional substance is in the areas having to do with sex and/or marriage? Between the current administration’s HHS “mandate,” Roe v Wade, the cases mentioned above in the OP and an assortment of other notable instances, sex seems to be the favorite weapon swung by the Godless fascists.

The reasons I note this are A) it’s also the main topic of much of the Gospels, Paul’s letters and Scriptural treatises on righteous behavior – singled out for reasons well-known but too many and deep to go into here, and B) because it seems to escape the grasps of much of the high-level legal community.

Those who attack our republican system of civic self-government with limited Federal oversight use sex as the main assault vehicle in undermining the very origin of rights as informed by the Constitution; granted by God. They attack faith in God by appealing to fleshly desires; by saying “it’s OK, times have changed, be free!” they render obedience to God moot, and then God Himself becomes little more than an archaic cartoon charcter. With that degeneration, the philosophical ability to withstand the humanist/totalitarian onslaught becomes at best arguable and at worst meaningless.

It’s deliberate, generational and caustic. I just wonder why there’s never been any broad-brushed recognition of this avenue of attack. But, then again, I’m not a lawyer.

Your last paragraph is a good prayer for Lent – I won’t limit it to women though.
Having read the Left in Tatters from 1/25/10 link, I saw that Fr. George Rutler commented; and think you would enjoy his 2/19/12 column on the Church of Our Savior site.

They need to demagogue-to-death any GOP nominee.

Until there is nothing left for them to steal, they must distract us from the fact that the entire population is going to the poor house.

I’m an independent (small i).

The only potential candidates for whom I will not vote are the useless POSes currently destroying our country and our way of life, i.e., the ones with (D) behind their names.

Thank you, Mr. Zummo! It’s refreshing to see a look at Santorum that’s not attempting to paint him as crazy or creepy.

Nicholas, not only are his points on good theological grounds, but also on simple logical grounds, which I think speaks to more people ultimately. He seems to know the boundaries of the office and he seems to be articulating them well. While I don’t like the fact that he has and will vote to fund contraception from a Federal level, as I don’t believe that anybody truly needs free contraception, and I would hope that he would make a push to make sure that no Title X funding goes to abortion providers, his reasoning is sound and I think will resonate with a great number of voters. Let’s just hope he is successful in communicating his position. That is, let’s hope the media allows him the platform to accurately communicate his position.

Obumbler and his minions have nothing to run on except to attack the opposing candidate. They have nothing, NOTHING to run on regarding Obumbler’s record. Obumbler is an extremist left wing hack and is surrounded by the same. if empty headed “independents” are put off by some of Santorum’s social views, which have no chance of being enacted into Federal law or as a Constitutional amendment, then they are as guilty of ruining this country as the political Left.

I know what would be pure political gold. Pittsburgh Steelers owner Dan Rooney, a former daily communicant at St. Mary of Mercy in downtown Pittsburgh – I know this because I saw him at nearly every 7:30 AM Mass – supported Obumbler in 2008 and was rewarded by being appointed Ambassador to Ireland. I know not what Mr. Rooney thinks of Obumbler now, but Mr. Rooney would be required by protocol to submit his resignation to a President-elect Rick Santorum – who would certainly ask Mr. Rooney what he found so attractive about Obumbler.

So many people seem to think of Santorum as a right wing social extremist and a big spender – just check Red State, who blames Santorum for Rick Perry’s demise as a candidate. Obumbler is the social extremist, not Santorum. Oh, and Rick Perry’s demise was due to Rick Perry. Perry jumped in far too late, debated terribly and allowed Michele Bachmann to beat him up over Gardasil. Erick Erickson would do well to remember that.

Santorum’s problems have nothing to do with policy matters on balance. As a unabashed conservative I just don’t want him selling my brand. He has courageously taken up the fight but there’s nothing in him which inspires confidence.

BTW, my last note was in reply to Paul Zummo, not Paul D.

Sorry for any confusion!

“Imagine going to see a Red Sox vs. Yankees game…”

Or worse yet, imagine going to a Cubs-Cards game at Wrigley where the Cubs have a 10 run lead going into the 6th or 7th inning and they STILL find a way to lose…. that’s what I fear the election may end up being like.

Thanks American Knight for your commentary. The vitriol unleased against Newt speaks volumes…he is feared. Newt is a visionary who can accomplish the ” rebuilding of America.” All forward thinkers are marginalized in their day precisely because they are ahead of their time. Why do people laugh because he envisions America to take the leadership role in space? China and Russia want to own the moon! What kind of world will this be if China and Russia are the global authority and power? We need a forward thinking president who identifies faith in God to be central to leadership. As a recent convert to the Catholic Faith (2009), Newt (not Santorum) proclaimed “marriage is a sacrament” and he was the first to identify religious liberty as a core issue. Like Wayne, my conern with Santorum “Mr. Family Man,” is that he will vote to Federally fund contraception. This, to me, reveals his lack of authenticity. Genuine faith informs decisions- it does not leave it on the doorstep!

Paul Z: As I said, Newt is not so bad. It’s just that he’s not as conservative as Rick Santorum, not as electable as Rick Santorum, and has a much more checkered personal life.

Paul, it is probably safe to say that people of good will like both Newt and Rick; however, I see many people of faith overlooking some of Rick’s problems (whether real or merely rhetorical). I tended to think he is more ‘conservative’ than Newt, but I am beginning to think he is not as politically confident, which renders him less likely to stand against the Obama machine. As for ‘electability’ (whatever the heck that means), I have spoken to many liberals and liberal-leaning independents who think more fondly of Newt than any other Republican because of the success he built with Clinton, whom they love. I think that makes him more appealing and therefore more electable.

As for the checkered past, I think that makes him more real and easier to relate to, we must also remember that God prefers to use imperfect instruments. We know that sinners who are aware of their fall are more likely to see the good and humbly accept their role. We live in cynical times and a candidate with previous falls that he has overcome can be more attractive.

The real difference is in the potential effectiveness. Newt has a strong record here. He has the skill-set to not only articulate conservative principles in a pithy and down-to-earth manner, but he is also willing to break with Republican dogma and express his convictions. He was the first to come out in defense of religion and the Church and he applies the doctrine in a practical manner that appeals to non-Catholics. I think we can do well with either Rick or Newt, but it seems that from a practical perspective, Newt can get more done and sooner. Rick can continue to grow and may very well be the one to sustain the turn-around that Newt can bring.

We need different men at different times. Often, the visionary who starts a new enterprise is not well suited to continue the work after start-up and rapid growth. I think this may be the same for us now. We need big, radical and effective change and Newt is more capable of that than Rick. There is no question that Newt can mop the floor with Obama and that is the most important step for without that nothing will change.

I think this discussion says a great deal. It is easy to idealize a candidate before they run and then act disappointed in the options. The fact is we have two really good choices and I suspect that most of us would be happy with Rick or Newt. I give a nod to Newt, you give a nod to Rick, but none of us are that invested one way or the other and not because of lukewarmness or mediocre candidates, but because both are strong.

I think Newt has done very well in the debates. I agree that he was derailed by Romney in Florida because I don’t think Newt was expecting Obamaesque lies out of a ‘colleague’, peer, or whatever. Do debates make a president? No. But, it certainly will play when Obama and the Rep nom go head to head. Romney loses, Paul has a minority appeal (fervent as it is), Santorum will look angry and combative – Newt will reveal Obama for the hollow fool that he is.

As for show, well, this is a celebrity obsessed and fickle culture, so that has some play; however, Newt backs it up with substance and he has delivered in the past. Additionally, his ouster was orchestrated by Republicans who could not handle the necessary negotiation with Clinton and the RINOs who did not want to be restrained. Look what the compassionate conservatism that is Republican policy after Newt was discharged has cost – sickening.

He does not only lay out a big picture that is conservative, American, faithful and probably populist; but he tells us HOW he is going to get it done, which I suspect is something professional campaign managers detest. The simple fact is that America is headed toward severe decline unless big changes back toward our principles happen and happen now. I am hopeful that we will come out better for it. The Roman Republic’s battles between the populares and optimates preceded a period of Republican stability long before the rise and fall of the Empire.

I think we can agree that Romney is useless, Paul, although he has some merits, is ideologically a libertarian materialist (doomed to eventual failure) and Obama is extremely dangerous (incompetent as he is). Gingrich/Santorum works for me, and I accept Santorum/Gingrich. I suspect that is the case for most of us.

As for the checkered past, I think that makes him more real and easier to relate to,

I seem to recall his lieutanant William Paxon, who had been in politics his entire adult life, said he was motivated to seek a career change due to listening to Dr. Gingrich yapping about himself one evening. Mr. Paxon did not actually use the term ‘narcissist’, to be sure…

It is overly simplistic to make the inference that the number of children one has renders a concrete understanding of the sacramentality of marriage. Santorum correctly identifies a core problem affecting America’s society today- the destruction of the family. Contraception destroys confidence in God because it says that we do not trust God to design our families. Contraception has the potential to destroy human life that is just beginning in the womb. Santorum, in supporting federally funded contraception, is sanctioning its use.
The funding of contraception services by people of faith is the way that the HHS mandate is attacking religious liberty. It is by no coincidence that contraception services is the instrument chosen to destroy religious liberty. John Paul II wrote in his Encylical “The Gospel of Life,” “Here though we shall concentrate particular attention on another category of attacks, affecting life in its earliest and its final stages, attacks which present new characteristics with respect to the past and which raise questions of extraordinary seriousness. It is not only that in generalized opinion these attacks tend no longer to be considered as ‘crimes’; paradoxically they assume the nature of ‘rights’, to the point that the State is called upon to give them legal recognition and to make them available through the free services of health-care personnel. Such attacks strike human life at the time of its greatest frailty, when it lacks any means of self-defence. Even more serious is the fact that, most often, those attacks are carried out in the very heart of and with the complicity of the family-the family which by its nature is called to be the ‘sanctuary of life’.”
This is the very crossroads we find ourselves in today with this current HHS mandate… the legislation of reproductive rights. Most all other Christian faiths have embraced the contraception mentality. The rejection of “Humane Vitae” by prelates in the American Church is the issue that is rearing its ugly head. It is not an issue to relegate to the back. In my opinion, it needs to be front and center for the survival of this country. Finally, we export the contraception mentality to poor nations by attaching contraception services as a requirement for them to receive essential assistance such as food and medicine.

I dunno.

It seems an Iowa poll has Obama beating Newt Gingrich 51 to 37. However, pharaoh loses to the others, including Ron Paul.

I’m shocked.

Where is the corn belt gratitude for keeping ethanol in 10% of all US gasoline and running up the prices of farmland into the stratosphere?

Paul:

One major problem from a purely political perspective:

One wants the GOP nominee to be able to rally the relevant camps within the GOP “big tent.”

One of those is the libertarian-leaning portion, which at last look was about 15% of those who typically vote Republican.

Now, the GOP-leaning libertarians are pro-life libertarians, largely. The Bill Mahr (or however that clod’s name is spelled) kind of “libertarians” define libertarianism so as to make it identical to libertinism, and all all going to vote for Obama in the end because they care only for sexual libertinism and not a whit for the liberty of the unborn or the infirm or for free markets.

So it isn’t Santorum’s pro-life credentials that will turn off the libertarian-leaning portion of the GOP. Indeed, being pro-life is a requirement of libertarianism, if one is well-informed enough to know that a fetal human is a human.

But Santorum has twice now stated his opposition to libertarians and libertarianism by saying they (and I quote) “believe in having no government.”

This is a problem. It is basic ignorance of libertarianism.

Libertarians don’t believe in no government. Libertarians believe in government’s use of violence or the threat thereof — which is to say, all government’s activity — to be limited to those areas of policy in which violence or the threat thereof is morally justified. And Libertarians believe that the only areas of policy in which violence or the threat thereof is morally justified are those involved in deterring, halting, or punishing the violation of one innocent person’s life, liberty, or property rights by another person or persons. Libertarians believe that policies directly involved with such violations offer clear and sufficient justification for violence or the threat thereof; policies indirectly or tenuously involved with such violations offer only tenuous justification for government action; and policies not even tenuously involved with such violations offer no justification for violence at all and therefore no justification for government activity.

That’s it, in a nutshell.

And it’s a view which resonates well with Catholic teaching in at least some ways. It recognizes that violence (whether done by an individual, or the armies of a nation-state, or by the police) is always something requiring extraordinary justification — like the requirements of a Just War. (It is morally nonsensical to have a very high threshold of justification for holding prisoner another nation’s soldiers captured at war, but a very low threshold of justification for arresting a man captured in peacetime activity.)

I don’t think Santorum knows that this is the libertarian view. At least, his public pronouncements show no recognition of the existence of pro-life libertarians (not a majority, but a large minority). He shows no recognition of the distinction between libertarian and libertine. He shows no understanding of what libertarians think.

And he shows no recognition of the notion that maybe something being a morally wrong thing is not, by itself, sufficient justification for outlawing it. Since outlawing it requires empowering government to use violence (to lock up those who do the morally wrong thing, and to shoot them if they try to escape), it must not merely be morally wrong, it must be morally wrong and of a character for which forcible opposition is fitting.

Generally, that means a moral wrong which is, itself, forcible. Rape may be opposed by force; it is forcible. Theft may be opposed by force; it is forcible. Fraud may be opposed by force; it is forcible (for to make someone, through trickery, do what they otherwise would not have done is to wield intellectual force over them). Violation of legitimate contract is fraud and is therefore forcible.

Libertarians support strong government to oppose all these kinds of evils. Santorum’s comments suggest he’s unaware of this.

So I fear that 15% of the GOP electorate, if Santorum is the nominee, will be turned off and possibly turned away for no better reason than that Santorum is ignorant about them, and consequently believes statists’ popular libel against them.

And libertarians (and libertarian-leaning conservatives) consequently begin to believe Santorum is a statist, who hopes not only to outlaw abortion (which he should) and Federal funding for Planned Parenthood (which he should) but also sales of condoms…all while caring not a whit about crony capitalism and corporate welfare. They begin to suspect that Santorum is fine with government using its compulsory power to pick winners, as long as they’re supporters of conservative causes.

I don’t think a GOP nominee can win the general election, if he shows utter disregard for that whole arm of the Reagan coalition. (An increasingly larger and more youthful segment, please note.)

So that’s a political problem. A very solvable one, I think, if the man would just show himself aware of libertarian concerns and sensitive to the moral limits of government activity, instead of just repeating ignorant misunderstandings about libertarians.

If the media can paint Santorum as a guy who wants to take away everyone’s pills and condoms, not only libertarians but many, many Protestant social conservatives (who make up the majority of socons in this country) will stay at home or vote against him. Do you think a married Baptist in Alabama who uses the Pill and sees nothing wrong with that is going to read Human Vitae or the Theology of the Body and come around to the Church’s position on BC? Heck, while I don’t believe the Guttmacher figures stating 97% of Catholics use artifical BC, let’s be honest – many, many of them do. Outside of the Tridentine Masses, I don’t see a lot of families with more than 3 kids.

I agree that Ace willfully ignored evidence which shows Santorum is not going to ban BC; however, remember that just last week he wrote a great critique of the HHS directive. And I believe the man is pro-life as well. He’s way overreacting here, but I wouldn’t call him a heartless Randian.

We are falling right into the trap being set for us by leftists, who want to turn the discussion away from the violation of religious freedom and make it into a debate about “ooooh, my, scary, weird Santorum wants to take your birth control pills away! The Catholics want to impose a theocracy!” That keeps the focus off of Obama’s dismal economic record.

“I’ll gladly admit some cynical amusement– as long as I’ve been politically aware, fiscal conservatives have been haranguing the “SoCons” about how they need to accept candidates who don’t agree with them on social issues to fight the liberals. Time for some Gander Sauce.”

Yep. What you said, Foxfier.

I agree with Donna. The American people aren’t going to elect a guy President if he runs as an anti-contraception candidate. Saying that he only wishes to use the bully pulpit to speak out about the dangers of contraception is not, repeat not, going to reassure voters on this score. That’s not to say that Santorum is wrong on the issue. He’s not. But it’s still a view held by only a small minority of Americans. My hope is that Santorum understands this and that the comment Ace quoted was/will be an isolated lapse. Otherwise we could be in real trouble.

Let’s see., he says he stands by the Church teaching on contraception, but supported government funding of contraception. Sorry, Rick can’t have it both ways.

Mac, that would be a good politician.

Santorum doesn’t have a chance.

Obama can point to $1.81 gasoline prices the day before he took over and tout today’s $3.50 (earliest date gas hit that level)! It’ll probably be $5 a gallon by Summer. Yeah, that ought to him re-elected.

Santorum doesn’t have a prayer.

Obama can sing about improving unemployment rates when tent cities are rapidly expanding. That’ll get Obama re-elected.

Hey, if they live in tents they don’t count.

Walter Russell Mead: WH flubs BC compromise: “First the Obama administration managed to alienate both its liberal supporters and its religious critics by pushing and then pulling back its HHS contraception mandate. Now the White House has succeeded in hitting the political sour spot yet again by producing a compromise designed to placate the Catholic bishops…without consulting the Catholic bishops.”

Briliant!

The American people aren’t going to elect a guy President if he runs as an anti-contraception candidate.

Depends on who he is running against, and what the ambient circumstances are.

Oh, Don, you may accpet the teaching on divorce, but you certainly don’t understand it if you gonna go with that ridiculous line of reasoning. You see, the Church allows civil divorce. Look it up in Catechism if you don’t believe me. Not the same with contraception. I was not talking about leading an effort to criminalize contraception, but voting IN FAVOR of forcing taxpayers (many of whom are Catholics) to pick up the tab for people’s contraceptive use. This is really not much difference in substance with what the Obama administration’s HHS mandate.

wE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT CONTRACEPTION BAN. We are talking about the funding of contraception. On some level people using “the pill” know that it is wrong. It seems to me that they want to blame Santorum for their addiction to the pill. If they are honest, and Santorum removes funding for BC, they need to feel relief. It would not hurt if they realized that Obama’s math is different from their arithmetic. Funding for BC involves ten for Obama and one for the taxpayer. In this way, they could buy eleven times the BC for the cost of one from Obama. SANTORUM DOES NOT WANT TO BE AN ACCOMPLICE TO THEIR EMBOLISM.

Don, because civil divorce does not invalidate sacramental marriage, a civil dorce is morally permissible under certain circumstances.

“2383 The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law. If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.”

Sacramental marriage is indissoulable whereas non-sacramental marriages can be dissolved, hence the Pauline privilege. Strictly civil marriages do not carry sacramental weight.

This citation you provide proves my point. Now, iunless you can provide something that says the same for contraception, I’ll save you trouble because you can’t, then your shilling for Santorum on this has absolutely no basis. Whereas my calling him out does.

As to JPII’s urging attorneys to refuse to take divroce cases, notice the qualifer “should’ as opposed to “must”. THat’s the operative word there.

Really Don, if you are gonaa accuse me of misunderstanding Church teaching on anything, please at least take the time to learn the difference between prudential judgments and doctrinal imperatives.

Paul Z.,

What kills me is that he’s doing the same purity nonsense he’s accused others of. If you don’t agree with his brand of conservatism you’re a dirty statist. His comments to you were pretty out there and he went off on the poster Y-not as well; he gave her both barrels for supposedly trying to force him to convert to Catholicism. It was bizarre.

The thing is, even though he wrote a really good piece about the contraceptive mandate the other day, I think his disdain for whoever is not currently his candidate- in this case the target is Santorum- is so palpable right now that he’s going way over the top in his attacks implying things that were never actually said. And in the comments section- and apparently on twitter- today he even went down the Karen-Santorum-is-creepy route, using her personal past to bash the both of them, which has been off limits as far as Mrs. Obama goes over there. Because, racism. So yeah, I think it’s got a lot to do with him being angry that Perry never took and now his next candidate of choice is faltering as well. It’s a gigantic temper tantrum. On a blog.

Here is what Benedict XVI actually says. From page 119 of Light of the World:

Question from Peter Seewald:

“Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed to in principle to the use of condoms?”

Answer from Pope Benedict XVI:

“She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or thast case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.”

And since condoms are the only form of contraception that even have the prospect of preventing disease, the idea that contraceptives, the idea that contraceptives are a morally permissible means of preventing sexually transmitted diseases even as deadly as AIDS, is not consistent with Church teaching.

Now, Don please find a more reliable source than the NY Slimes if you are going to try and argue with me on matters of Catholic morality. Okay?

Don,

None this argues for the justification of the use of contraceptives even to prevent disease. Contraception is an intrinsic evil, whereas civil divorce is not. To equate the two as you have done is flat out intellectually dishonest.

Well I guess I owe NR a half a mea culpa. I still think their hit job on gingrich was over the top but it sems their suport for Santorum was more than a smokescren. In fact the Romneybots that comment there swear NR is in the bag for Santorum while the rest of think they are in the bag for Romney.

NRO has been against Newt since day 1. They have always had Santorum on their viable candidate list. Of course, supporting Santorum does not necessarily mean being against Romney. The theory is Santorum is Romney’s stalking horse.

From Dr. Jack Wheeler…
http://rowdypulpit.com/rickperry/article/2012-01-15/santorum-revealed-romneys-stalking-horse-brenham

I don’t think he was saying Santorum was in the race to be Romney’s stalking horse, but that his candidacy was being used as Romney’s stalking horse.

Speaking only for myself….I need to do more fasting and prayer so that Santorum wins this year. Oh, the schadenfrude I would enjoy from the likes of the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, the Pittsburgh Tribune Review and the Lame Stream Media would be icing on the cake, but that cannot be the primary reason.

A life preserver has been thrown our way. Will enough Americans recognize it?

Santorum still has to answer for his throwing Pat Toomey, a very electable conservative, under the bus when he endorsed Arlen Specter in the 2004 GOP senate primary. It, for one, shows he can be bought off by the GOP establishment. And no, this “We have to support our incumbents’ BS won’t fly. Santorum did a very bad thing then and that’s that!

The base needs to hold him accountable for it and he has to do a mea culpla. Period!

“Santorum already has expressed regret over his endorsement, and conservatives have certainly have held his feet to the fire on it. What more exactly needs be done?”

Paul can you provide examples of both? I have followed this pretty closely and haven’t heard conservatives say much about this or Santorum express regret. If you can provide suffcient examples I wouild galdly stand corrected.

I saw it as wrongheaded at the time. What help was Arlen Specter in getting SCOTUS nominees confirmed that warranted his being endorsed over Toomey? After all, Specter’s relibiality in that area was doubtful at best. Just ask Robert Bork. And by 2004, this was clearly 20/20 hindsight. No, Santorum did this for purely selfish reasons, hoping his endorsement of Specter would help him in an uphill fight with Casey, which of course, he lost by an 18 point drubbing.

But think about it. If you’re Romney, this would be his best trump card. He can play this to hilt in painting Santorum as an establishment sellout. And those of us who don’t want Romeny can’t say a damned thing about it because it is true.

What more can be done?, you ask Paul. Well, for starters, Santorum can actually man up and admit he was selling out to curry favor with Bush and the rest of the GOP establishment and stop insulting our intelligence with that lame excuse he gave. I say this as someone who wants him to get the nomination.

As far as conservatives holding his feet to the fire, so what if a bunch rather obscure conservative blogs talk about it. Nowhere in any real national venue, like talk radio for example has this been dealt with in any substative way. Mark Levin, who is probably Satorum’s most vocal supporer in national talk radio, hasn’t said boo about it as far as I know and I have listened to him rather regularly. Hugh Hewitt talked about it in passing on his show with Byron York, I think it was.

So, I stand by my original assertion.

Now, Paul, Specter’s being slated to become judiciary chair was actually all the more reason to primary him, given his suspect reliability. You mean to tell me that there weren’t already more suitable and reliable republicans availible to fill that post? And that Santorum didn’t know it? Sorry, I’m not buying it. At the very least Santorum should have stayed out of that. He didn’t have to endorse anyone. Based upon the facts we do know, the reason I cite is far more plausable than the excuse he gave.

Oh goodie. Conservatives are all ga-ga over another neo-con puppet who can’t wait to start another war. By all means, let’s ignore that pesky little idea known as a Just War. No thanks. Warmongering and the lies that form the basis of such criminal activity is why God will not bless this nation until a leader can be found who possesses discernment. One more reason among many the US is headed for Divine chastisement.

Mr. McClarey, thank you for dismissing the gentleman with the rather old Cleveland Browns related name.

Greg, you have to get over the endorsement of Specter by Santorum. We are not electing Christ to the presidency. Santorum has expressed his regret in helping Specter. Do you live in Pennsylvania, Greg? Did you know how much help Specter gave Santorum in getting elected to the Senate – twice? Specter helped Santorum compete in the Philly suburbs.

Specter switched parties when it was apparent to Specter that Toomey would wipe up the floor with Specter in 2010 – this was not the case in 2004.

I do not, did not and will not like Arlen Specter. I wish he would have quit years before losing in 2010. So Romney wants to attack Santorum for Specter?

There’s plenty to go after Romney for. I remembere the Massachusetts Senate debate in 1994 on CSPAN. Romney was slightly leading Kennedy. Romney was asked about the Contract with America – the means by which Newt Gingrich and Company wiped out the most corrupt Democrat leadership in the House of Representatives. Romney turned tail and verbally hid from the moderator. Kennedy moved in for the kill.

Romney will attack Santorum, but Romney is still a well tailored, well-spoken ninny. Santorum can roast him about Romneycare, and Mittens knows it.

Thank God! Indeed, the liberals hate Santorum as much as thy hate unborn babies.

It is time to go “all in” for Rick.

Jay – Very good point. Beating up on a guy like Newt is just karma (if you’ll forgive that word on a Catholic site). Beating up on a good family man – a Mormon beating up on a good family man – well, that’s gonna backfire. The biggest weaknesses of Santorum are his 2006 loss and his strong anti-gay stand (which I agree with, but by the time the press tells the story, it’s going to hurt him). So, what can Romney’s people do? Beat up on Santorum for being outside the religious mainstream?! Move to the left on gay rights?! It’s a nightmare for them. They’ll have to go clean, stressing Romney’s business experience, because there’s no other difference between the Romney package that they’re trying to sell and Santorum.

Do I need to unpack the phrase “the Romney package that they’re trying to sell”? I hope it’s obvious. Romney is running as an experienced, likeable, electable conservative.

OK, there’s one other angle I just thought of, but it’s going to be a doozy to pull off. Paint Santorum as a moderate. Attack him for the Bush deficit and the expansion of Medicare. It’s really the only move.

Although not my first choice, I could certainly vote for Rick easier than I could for Romney.

Maybe this is a topic for a different blog post, but Paul Z. stated, “Even right-wingers are falling for the spin that Santorum wants to ban contraception or enact sodomy laws.”

Why shouldn’t contraception be banned and why shouldn’t anti-sodomy laws be enacted? They are intrinsic evils. So why not make them illegal? Is the reason, “Well, the non-Catholics don’t agree, nor do even a majority of Catholics.”? Since when is truth determined by opinion? Oh yes, I will be accused of wanting a theocracy. Well, one way or another, we’re going to get a theocracy. The theocracy of today’s society is atheism (yes, I realize that is a contradiction in terms and that’s why it’s called “liberalism”.) But Jesus Christ will return and establish His theocracy with a rod of iron. No voting allowed. And that’s bad because?????????

Santorum is the doctor this country needs to make it better.
1. $ is more a vehicle for Mitt Romney than a god, so, in a way (not- counting- the- neg.- ads- which- may- hurt- him- in the end), he is for the USA.

2. Please don’t be quiet though, Newt Gingrich. People on both sides hear you and learn both manners and thinking with minds.

3. He could save $, the O’s will have that covered.

4. Santorum could do it on a shoestring in a better world, but he need to continue becoming known. Ads are forgotten rushes of images.

5. … now if RPaul wants to defeat O., he could cooperate and support RSantorum.

Romney/Santorum? a hope for GOP unity, one trait of Dems that works for them.

“The other arrow they might try would be the Specter/Toomey affair. But that would be rather difficult for the Weathervane to pull off with any credibility. It could come from other quarters allied with the Weathervane.”

I don’t see how that could work in the primaries. Who would be persuaded to back away from Santorum because of it? Party faithful respect party loyalty; newcomers would have no strong feelings about it. Moderates would admire him for his willingness to compromise; conservatives wouldn’t flock to Mitt or Newt because of it, since those two candidates have had to work with moderate Republicans plenty of times. The only portion of the party that could have a problem with it are the Ron Paul supporters, who already have their man in the primary. They’d be less likely to be loyal to Santorum in an Obama/Santorum general election. Otherwise, the only people who would take offense at it are consummate insiders who would distrust Santorum’s political instincts.

Santorum ideas are linked with that “old” oppressive Church– out of date– needs to get with the time- modern and…liberal. People who don’t understand why Santorum appeals, don’t understand that the Church is really always young, and just right for the times.
We are so over the 70’s, 80’s, 90’s…. Santorum is more with the times than Madonna– how long has she been doing that same schtick? black and silver, smoke and lights and bumping and grinding— Young people I know, when asked about her performance the other night said, “Meh.” That is what they are saying to Romney, Gingrich and Obama. Santorum is doing great because his old ideas are new again.

LIke I said before, if Santorum can go from an 18 point drubbing as an incumbent senator in 2006, a long shot at the GOP nomination to winning the nomination and then the presidency, it would be one of the most miraculous of all political miracles in history. I’d love to see it because I don’t think much of Romney and rather detest Newt. But it’s still a long shot.

Oh, and you can bet his endorsement of the hideous Arlen Specter in 2006 GOP senate primary over Pat Toomey is now gonna be an issue. That’s one thing I have passionately disliked about Santorum.

I am pleased with Santorum’s victories. However we must remember that Santorum added little to his delegate total.

Red State had a temper tantrum at Rick Perry’s failed Presidential run and they took it out on Santorum. What Erick Erickson et al have failed to realize is that Santorum is far more conservative than Romney and would go farther in reigning in the government than Romney would – given a Congress that would work with him.

There is some significant dirt on Mrs. Santorum and what her career was prior to her marriage and her personal conversion. Be forewarned. Romney and the Obama attack Machine will attempt to shred Santorum over it. It matters not to me, as there is no force on earth that would cause me to vote for Obama or any Democrat.

I think its awesome that Senator Santorum is finally getting the attention he deserves. I’ve been saying right along that Santorum knew how to stay alive, and he’s done so – all along proving that money and sparkle aren’t the only measures of a presidential candidate – or a president, for that matter.

I worry that this support of earmarks is going to bite him in the rear, though. I mean, the truth is that he’s got a LOT less baggage than Gingrich generated in a good year, and the fact is that he resonates with the sort of voters who don’t necessarily watch TV or listen to what a slick city politician has to say. So I think that the Midwestern base which he’s developing is now all but permanently in the Santorum camp.

The question is whether or not he can play in other parts of the country – he needs some strong showings in the South, like Texas or North Carolina, to solidify his candidacy. If that happens, he could very well be our nominee, which would be fantastic. It’s about time.

Penguins Fan, may God bless you and your nine week old son!

We’re electing a president, not a savior, so absolute perfection is not required. The trick is separating weaknesses (for example, poor performance in debates) and past mistakes that will not be, or are not likely to be, repeated (e.g. a “wrong” endorsement of another candidate) from fundamental character flaws and bad policy ideas that could cause real harm to the country. Unfortunately, the MSM and excessively rabid partisans tend to put all of these flaws on the same level and hold them up as equally valid reasons why a candidate cannot win or should be disqualified from consideration.

What’s wrong with Romney? Let me count the ways.

1. Search YouTube for “Romney flip flops.”
2. Minimum wage indexed to inflation.
3. Supporter of socialized medicine, which is what put the U.S. Church in the place its in.
4. Supporter of government bailouts.
5. Milquetoast

For those of you who would vote for Romney in the general election, I suppose the silver lining is that the man is willing to fight dirty.

Nope. Romney fights dirty only against Republicans. If he gets the nomination, he won’t campaign that way against Obama.

If Rick Santorum can go from getting an 18 point drubbing as an incumbent senator. being a long shot for the GOP nomination to winning the nomination and the presidency, it will one of the most miraculous miracles in American political history. I’d love to see it, but it’s still a long shot.

The question is, how does Santorum make it a one-man race. I think the only way to do that is to bomb Tokyo. The not-Romneys have been calling for each other to drop out of the race for a long time now; Santorum needs to win Michigan and call for Romney to drop out of the race. Make the narrative going into Super Tuesday that the Republicans have rejected Romney. I think Santorum needs to win Michigan to make the case.

“I really wish people would stop writing garbage like this and trying to sway peoples’ opinions. No, it’s not your job to do that. ”

Now you’re not trying to sway our opinions, are you?

Ken,

Last poll I saw had Rick over pharaoh 45 to 44.

That was before Steve Urkell’s imbecile cousin pissed off the Pope.

Are you minimally brain damaged? Did you eat too many lead chips as a toddler?

The mainstream media has asked all of the questions of Mitt and Newt. They have chosen the candidate for you and you will like it. YOU WILL COMPLY!!!!!

I will pray a decade of the Rosary every day from now till November for the defeat of Barack Hussein Obama. I prefer Santorum. But I would accept either Gingrich or even Weathervane. I hope Donald’s optimism is justified.

“Whoever wins Ohio, will be our next President. If you live in Ohio, Florida, Iowa or New Hampshire, your electoral efforts in this presidential cycle are critical.”

If so, then it’s critical that the GOP nominee is someone for whom I’d be willing to vote (i.e. NOT Dullard Flip Rino).

I agree with TomD.

Also, can someone tell me what makes Iowa or New Hampshire particularly decisive in the GENERAL election as opposed to the primaries?

Y’all will never convince me to vote for Romney, so save your keystrokes. If mine was the single deciding vote in Ohio, I still wouldn’t vote for him.

“Since 1950”

“If mine was the single deciding vote in Ohio, I still wouldn’t vote for him.” Jay, if enough voters think like you do, Obama will be re-elected. In the key battleground states, a few thousands votes COULD be the difference. Again, it is YOUR choice.

Elaine, while Ohio and Florida are decisive in terms of the number of electoral votes, Iowa and New Hampshire are critical, not so much for the actual electoral outcome, but as indicators of who is going to win. Even though Michigan can be classified as a “swing” state, no one would be surprised if Obama carried Michigan, for example, but if the Republican nominee is leading in the polls in Iowa and/or New Hampshire, then that is a very good indicator for the general election.

So, the first tier of critical states is: Ohio, Florida, Iowa and New Hampshire.

The next level is: Virginia, North Carolina, Indiana, Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico.

Missouri is probably the only state in serious play that McCain won in 2008. The 10 critical battleground states, leaving out Missouri at number 11, were all won by Obama in 2008. That is where every vote counts as to the actual outcome in the electoral college. I think it is most likely that the election will be won or lost in Ohio.

Oh, and here’s the link:

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/06/romney-turns-guns-on-santorum/

Bill99, any Obama supporter who is reading our exchange is smiling right now. I also do not understand what you believe you are going to accomplish with words like “weak-minded,” “elitist,” and “pompous.” Do you think this will help to coalesce conservatives against President Obama?

All your explanations and personal condemnations aside, I am stating a simple fact. If you do not vote for the Republican candidate, you will help to re-elect Obama. This is especially true if you live in Ohio or Florida, and true to a lesser extent in Iowa, New Hampshire, Indiana, Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, or Missouri. If you live in California or New York, Mississippi or North Dakota, your individual vote will most likely not make a difference. If you live in any of the “battleground” states, and do not vote for the Republican candidate, you will help to re-elect President Obama. THE CHOICE IS YOURS.

Democrats clearly understand that in order to exercise political power, you must obtain it first. When it comes down to it, the American people are a fickle lot; they want smaller government in the abstract, but ask them about individual government programs and they want those funded. Too many Americans want a limited government that provides them with everything that they believe government should provide. Republicans are caught in the cross-fire of this incompatible objective. And Democrats smile.

We Republicans squabble over ideology, and even though the majority of Americans self-identify as conservatives, we often snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. I hope that this is not such an election, but it is increasingly looking as if 10 or 20 electoral college votes could be the difference.

Since I am a Pennsylvanian and my vote doesn’t actually matter (our primary isn’t until April. I suppose it makes sense to someone, somewhere that New York and Pennsylvania – pivotal to the existence of our nation – should be cut out of the primary system) I am resolved to vote for Santorum.

I will not be bullied and I certainly feel like the GOP Establishment has been acting like a playground bully in this Primary. Why can’t they get it: I may vote for Romney over Obama but I don’t like him. Forcing me to choose between Obama and Romney is irritating and, if the stakes weren’t so damn high, I would probably vote for every position on the ballot except that of the presidency.

I will not be bullied and I certainly feel like the GOP Establishment has been acting like a playground bully in this Primary.

Just out of curiousity, which individual is bullying you? Has the Governor of South Carolina or some editor at Commentary been sending you threatening letters?

As a wag on Ace put it, and I tweaked a bit:

“Romney 2012: Because He Appeals To Everyone Else But You.”

“Just out of curiosity, which individual is bullying you? Has the Governor of South Carolina or some editor at Commentary been sending you threatening letters?”

Bullying comes in many forms.

Pulling out all stops to support the establishment candidate and to marginalize all others qualifies in my book. Dole, McCain, and now Romney – all establishment candidates who’s “turn” it was to run for President.

We’ll see if this round turns out differently.

Obama has run the most powerful country in the world for 3 years. I suppose that makes him more “qualified” than Romney, who only ran a state for 4 years. Both did a crummy job in their respective positions, governing as big-government-health-care-mandating-religious-liberty-trampling-gun-grabbing-pro-abort liberals. But if the “executive experience” is all that matters, I suppose Obama wins on that account.

The fact that states like Pennsylvania, Texas and others basically have little say in the process is astoundingly absurd.

The Republican National Committee could set aside two Saturdays in June for states to hold their caucuses and declare delegates selected at any other time and in any other manner to have no standing. Not holding my breath.

Leftist is leftist. You’re just negotiating how slowly you want to be strangled to death.

Agreed, but with the current choices, I see little difference.
Sadly, my opinion is that Rick can’t do it- I watched the Dems KILL, completely demolish his senate re-election chances, and that was just for PA Senate. They are already accusing him in a column today in Phila of “using his 3 year old daughter” for sympathy votes. Trust me, they would become even more evil with time, if he were to get the nomination.
Until we slowly-one candidate at a time, change the culture in DC, we will never have a true conservative in the White House.

Trish,

I don’t know how much more evil Democrats can be given that they openly support (even encourage) the murder of the unborn and the filth of homosexual sodomy.

If we say “Oh, the person I’d REALLY like to vote for is conservative candidate X, but I think he could probably never get elected” and then at the same time say “I don’t like it, but I’d vote for moderate-to-liberal RINO stiff Y as long as he’s one tick to the right of the Democrat”, is it any wonder that every 4 years starts to look like the movie “Groundhog Day” with the same crappy scenario repeating itself over and over again?

If we concede that we believe the conservatives we want can’t win, and admit right off the bat that we’ll support whoever gets the nomination as long as he’s marginally better than the Democrat alternative, aren’t we conditioning the GOP to give us just that? If that’s the signal we send to the party establishment, it’s no wonder that the establishment lines up in lockstep behind the squishiest, least objectionable candidate available (“least objectionable” in the sense that they stand for nothing and are thus, in theory but not in actual practice, less likely to draw enemy fire).

Forget about complaining that the choice of candidates has already been winnowed down for us by the time our particular state’s primary rolls around – we’ve already narrowed the choices from the get-go just by buying into the assumptions and narrative of the party establishment. And then we tell them we’ll vote for their guy no matter what. We’ve been played for suckers time and again, and yet so many conservatives will line up on election day and pull the lever for yet another nominee who doesn’t represent their interests. Rinse. Repeat.

See ya again in 4 years when we’re once more crying after a measly 3 primaries and 1 caucus that our choices have already been made for us, and act “shocked, shocked” that yet another RINO squish is being shoved down our throats.

Let me put this question out there: who would you have rather seen run / get the nomination? I know it’s easy to complain about the starting quarterback, but who’s the backup you’d rather see in the game?

Oh, yeah! Talk about unelectable!

Ron Paul is polling but few points below drone-killer Obama (of OBL and Guvmint Motors notoriety), and Paul can’t pull 23 percent in a primary or caucus.

that yet another RINO squish is being shoved down our throats.

‘Another RINO squish’? I think it is a reasonable proposition that the succession of people who have won the Republican presidential nomination define the Republican type, not random combox denizens. You may not like what the dynamic of Republican politics serves you, but that is what it is. (And, much as you dislike it, the only people shoving things down your throat are Republican voters and campaign contributors).

Dole, McCain, and Romney – all likely to get swept aside like so much chaff by their Democrat opponents while our best and brightest don’t even get placed before the very rank-and-file that are likely to vote for them.

I am tired of repeating myself on the unreasonableness of this sort of handicapping, so won’t do that again. I might note that John McCain managed to garner 46% of the vote in a most challenging set of circumstances (the banking crisis, for one). Adlai Stevenson did not do this, Michael Dukakis managed it only with a much more agreeable milieux, and assessing Hubert Humphrey’s capacity to do this requires counterfactual speculation.