I think Romney is doing this to p*ss off Newt Gingrich in the hopes that Newt says something so over the line that he gets called on it. I know, Newt says outlandish things all the time, but you never know with Newt.

And nothing will upset the Newt'r quicker than Team Romney implying that Rick Santorum is more a threat than Newt.

Only the insane don't take him seriously

Head to head - Santorum and Obama are currently a virtual tie. Per PPP & Rasmussen. Romney's negative approach is hurting him and will destroy him and Gingrich in the General election. Both those boys misfire on the facts - that cannot happen against Obama.

Santorum and Gingrich aren't even on the primary ballot on all 50 states, they aren't in to win it just distract from the message Ron Paul is spreading. Looking at my W2 today I really wished Ron Paul was president, thinking of the 12,000 I wouldn't have to give to the government to use as they please through the federal income tax that Paul wants to abolish. Romney may as well be Obama, Goldman Sachs who contributes sizeable amounts of money to BOTH of these candidates does not care who wins, as nothing will change unless the one with a different philosophy on politics... Ron Paul wins.

Santorum only poses a threat if he was going to be elected president. Who cares? He would never last in a debate against President Obama. Mitt Romney should be more concerned about his asinine comments and how he keeps showing us who he really is: A rich person obsessed with being President, just for the heck of it, not to help anybody. An ego trip.

He thinks that being President would be more fun than just ripping people's money off, or sending jobs to children in China.

I wish Santorum would win this thing. I can't believe that Romney is even taking this guy seriously, but go on ahead, and I look forward to hearing about all of the gaffes both candidates make along the way.

Santorum said rape victims should think of the babies conceived during their assault as gifts from God. This Rick is Weird.

I like Mitt and Rick, they both are clearly both more honest and capable than current blame shifter.

obama has a record he will run away from and distort, but I don't think people will forget he

spend two years with majority in house and senate and did nothing about jobs, except pass

a health care bill that hurt jobs.

Romney needs to stop telling voters why they should be against the other candidates, and instead start focusing on why voters should be FOR him.

If Santorum is running for VP, who's VP? Romney needs an Evangelical from the south (but not Barbour with his pardons, or Rubio with his lie about his family exile from Cuba), and Gingrich doesn't need another Catholic from anywhere.

Patriotic American U.S.A.-- Or worse, babies from incest tend to have deformities, but like Sharron Angle says, make lemonade out of lemons, or like Santorum says, if the baby dies, take turns holding it.

RD-889126 -- Have you heard of FactCheck? Tell us about all the blame shifting and distortions from President Obama versus Romney, Gingrich, et al? Puleeze!

RD, Obama has rescued the world from a financial disaster, we've dodged a Teapug fueled depression. This recession was completely owned by "W" and the pugs. The stimulus keep us out of a depression with no thanks to the Teapugs.

Feisty,

"The very last place on earth anyone wants to be is, behind Santorum when he's 'surging'..."

I don't know about that. I think it could get very uncomfortable to be in front of him. Way too much suppression over the years.

The good people of Pennsylvania kicked Santorum out on his ass because of his very poor performance. This guy is a loser.

Derek
So you don't want t pay any income tax. Ok. Just how do yo think the government will be paid for? Do you really think Paul (or anyone else for that matter) can run a government on nothing? Do you think you won't be paying in some way at all? Or do you just want the benefits of a government for nothing?

Or maybe you think there should be no government, no laws, no police, no clean water, no safe food, etc. Maybe you think we should just go for a 'everyman for himself' type society? Be careful there, you most likely wouldn't survive.

And don't give me that bunk about 'the states can take care of it' because you will be paying for it in your state taxes anyway.

I don't care if you like Paul or not (I like some of whAt he has to say too) but you really should think your position through a bit better. Doing away with an income tax won't deliver the results you seem to think it would.

Patriotic

Santorum said rape victims should think of the babies conceived during their assault as gifts from God.

Yes he did - but he supports abortion in cases of Rape, Incest, and danger to the life of the mother.

He has a personal high standard - and isn't demanding you to follow it. I suppose that is weird, but according to the Bible that is what he should be doing - encouraging a better way and not personally failing in the higher way. Being human, you know the odds are against his successs in maintaining such a standard, but you have to respect him for the effort.

True Patriot

babies from incest tend to have deformities,

Incorrect - they have a higher chance of having deformities. I actually know of a couple kids that were born from incest - they are quite normal. BTW - there are plenty of links to groups that back up what I Wrote. Be more informed, OK?

mitt has his focus on santorum? Think about that one for a moment. You know that glazed look might good on him. That glazed doughnut look just says mitt.

He has a personal high standard...

Sure he does, and when his wife's life was endangered, she's on record as stating she would have terminated her pregnancy to save her life had she not gone into labor in her 6th month. The problem is that Rick' "high standard" would outlaw the ability to make this decision for the rest of us. What a hypocrite.

Pedestrian

Mrs Santorum worked in Neo-Natal.

The Santorum's child was identified with a congenital problem that was fixed in the womb. Within a week she contracted a life-threatening infection that would kill Mrs Santorum unless a powerful antibiotic. This antibiotic had a near certainty of causing labor within 48 hours. Mrs Santorum actually begged them (screaming at them actually) to stop the contractions (20 weeks is not viable). She and Mr. Santorum were overuled by the doctors, because it was considered too unsafe to try. What they did instead was give her something to speed contractions - beneficial to her because of the infection and also would give some opportunity to save the child.

Get the facts - not the published stories, by people who mean harm to promote their political postions.

Oh my god no Feisty, we all know you want to be in front....I mean out front!

Oh DB Akron, you poor thing. Or are you Santorum? Or his wife. Who else would defend him? Come on now, emit it.

dsb What makes you think that Paul would ever get taxes abolished he has to get thru congress. It would be good to know that there is someone in the white house that is for the principles that this country was founded upon and is willing to fight for it.

DB Akron, do you think creationism should be taught in schools? Do you believe homosexuality is equivilant to bestiality and pedophilia? Do you think that the United States is a Christian nation? Do you think the founders misprinted when they said in the constitution, "No religious test shall be required to hold office?". If you answer yes to any of the above questions, how do you justify being a fundamentalist bigot?

DB Akron

True Patriot

babies from incest tend to have deformities,

Incorrect - they have a higher chance of having deformities. I actually know of a couple kids that were born from incest - they are quite normal. BTW - there are plenty of links to groups that back up what I Wrote. Be more informed, OK?

What do you think the word "tend" means? It means a "higher chance." Try being less snippy, OK?

dsb -- The right-wing, in particular Teabaggers and the "starve the beast" crowd want anarchy. Though the tax rate has been lower the last decade than ever in history, conservatives still whine about taxes. Many of them are self-employed using write-offs to show zero income, and many have large families with $1,000 per child credit, and the rest barter and do business with cash under the table -- the 47% who don't pay taxes.

Pay your damn taxes Teapublicans, or stop collecting Social Security/Medicare, food stamps, disability, foster parent compensation, Pell Grants, survivor benefits, enlisting in the military, and all the government dole we know you're collecting. You're doing this while complaining that "well the government will just print more money," you friggin' hypocrites.

Patriot

tend -to be disposed or inclined in action, operation, or effect to do something:

tend implies - more often than not

Tolerence for permissible frequencies varies upon what you are talking about. From reading about this, deformity from incest is more of a problem when more than one generation of practice is involved - not that any is really acceptable in our time.

Mr Anon

Your questions are ridiculous and patronizing

Answer this. Why is the latest problem of our education the ability of critical thinking skills?

And how do you justify your clearly intollerant views?

Gee DSB,

I wonder how they did it before 1913. At the end of the day inflation hits us everyday with out monetary decisions and we wonder why the price of everything goes up so fast. Income tax, the Fed, money backed by nothing, and the ability of the government to raise taxes as they please. If people don't connect the dots we deserve the fate we have chosen.

DB Akron

Mr Anon

Your questions are ridiculous and patronizing

Answer this. Why is the latest problem of our education the ability of critical thinking skills?

And how do you justify your clearly intollerant views?

Why can't you answer my questions?

As for your irrelevant (and loaded) questions:

1. Quality of education is difficult for federal governments to address, as most funding comes from state and local levels. Why are students in public schools poor right now? A large reason is attributed to No Child Left Behind, which caused many schools in poor areas to focus on test preperation. Furthermore, the dogma of creationism is taught in some local schools, which clearly gives students a poor understanding of the world.
2. I am "intollerant" of bigots the same reason why groups like the NAACP, the SPLC, and the ACLU are "intollerant" of hate groups. Rick Santorum, however, is intollerant of nonChristians simply because they are not Christian enough for him, regardless of even their political views.

Now that I have answered your clearly loaded questions, which you probably did not expect me to do, I would like to point out that other than my last question, I asked what I asked for very good reasons. The reason is that Rick Santorum, the candidate you apparently support, would answer "yes" to all of my questions. He has made it very clear that a large focus of his campaign is on social issues. Don't blame me for getting religion involved in politics. He was the one who tried to, and he received the natural consequences of his action. He deserves every word of the definition that has been attributed to his last name, because he was the one who decided to focus so much of his campaign on attacking homosexuals. The only people who are perhaps undeserving of the definition are his children and those who coincidentally have the same last name. I express my deepest sympathies to them.

Why is it OK for me to call my political opponents here bigots and ridiculous for them to do the same for me? A very simple reason. The Republican party in recent times has been very adverse to minorities. Examples?

1. Strom Thurmond, a racist his entire life, was allowed into the Republican party until his death at the age of 100 in 2003, and they even elected him their President Pro Temp, third in line to the presidency. As recently as 2003, Republican minority leaders have claimed "This nation would be better if he was president". Thurmond had run for presidency back in 1948, and was considered a racist back then. He is well known for saying "I wanna tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that there's not enough troops in the army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the @!$%# race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches.

Unfortunately, I messed up my post, and I don't have time right now to put up the rest of it. But bring up any minority and I will point out how the Right is bigoted against them.

Strom was a democrat who moved to the Republicans. And Mr. Anon - you disrespect his one daughter whom he secretly took very good care of. The only reason the family kept it quite was because of the damage democrats would have done to him and his daughter. Look it up dude - it's true.

The left claims it was because Republicans they were more bigoted. The Republican party was formed by Former Whigs who were anti-Andrew Jackson and Democrats who fled the Democrat party because it was Pro-Slavery.

Yeah right, the Republicans were so racists that 89% of the Republicans voted FOR the 1964 civil rights act and barely 60% of the Democrats voted for it. The only reason the legislation came to the floor, because they were going to do something big for JFK to make his legacy come true. It was the democrats imprisoned Dr. King. It was the Democrats Whom 100% voted against civil rights legislation proposed by the republicans in 1954. The same Party that wrote ALL of the Jim Crow laws.

President Wilson segregated the White House and the military which had been somewhat desegregated since 1863.

So what was the turning point that turned the party of slavery and discrimination to the party of the minority? Was it Jesus? Was it human decency? Was it Kennedy?

The answer lies in why they want democrats want illegal aliens to get the right to vote. They don't care about any minority, they only care that they get the votes and are willing to pay anything, say anything, to any group that will gain them the votes to maintain their power.

Derek

you raise a good point, but one that may not really be a problem. Both Gingrich and Santorum have had difficulty getting on all the ballots. Part of the problem is the rules in these states and part of it is their lack of funding which has limited how quickly they could build organizations in these states.

I'll take the extreme case - Virginia. Virginia requires a minimum number of signatures to be submitted. It requires a minimum of 400 signatures from each congressional districts. Any Signatures must be collected by a resident of Virginia. What apparently was not clear was that if they failed to get enough in one congressional district, they will be barred from being on the Ballot. Even worse is that this is a primary where the people should be able to voice their own choice, they are not permitted to write in any candidate. Gingrich failed to get enough valid signatures for the state (someone resident he asked to help turned in plenty of invalid signatures) and he failed to get 400 in one congressional district. Santorum also failed by at least one district.

Santorum is not on Tennessee - but he can be written in, He is in Ohio statewide (statewide delegates) but not on 3 district ballots (district delegates) because he did not get enough signatures for those district. Santorum is not Indiana - another state where if you fail to qualify in one district you do not qualify for the state. This one was by 24 signatures - but Santorum is appealing this one.

Gingrich is not on Missouri - but is on Tennessee. Santorum without Gingrich will win Missouri (already polled at 45 - 34 over Romney) making him netting the far majority of the Gingrich support. Gingrich will probably take Tennessee.

Strom was a democrat who moved to the Republicans. And Mr. Anon - you disrespect his one daughter whom he secretly took very good care of. The only reason the family kept it quite was because of the damage democrats would have done to him and his daughter. Look it up dude - it's true.

There is a very good reason why I used the terms "recent Republicans". Republicans prior to the 1960s, in fact up to the early 1970s, were for Civil Rights, while many Democrats up until the late 1960s were racist. Strom Thurmond left the Democratic Party and became a Republican. He stayed a Republican for the rest of his 100 year life, until 2002! Unlike Roberty Byrd, he NEVER took back his racist views. Yeah, he had a black daughter, but he paid big money to keep her silent. In exchange for a college education, she kept quiet about being his daughter until after his death.

The left claims it was because Republicans they were more bigoted. The Republican party was formed by Former Whigs who were anti-Andrew Jackson and Democrats who fled the Democrat party because it was Pro-Slavery.

See the above statement I made. Republicans from Lincoln to Taft were liberals. This is a well known fact. Lincoln was famous for creating the first Income Tax, and in fact Glen Beck even acknowledges that he was a liberal. Eisenhower was also a liberal - fought to protect social security and greatly expanded infrastructure. Quite inconvenient when you look at it like this.

Yeah right, the Republicans were so racists that 89% of the Republicans voted FOR the 1964 civil rights act and barely 60% of the Democrats voted for it. The only reason the legislation came to the floor, because they were going to do something big for JFK to make his legacy come true. It was the democrats imprisoned Dr. King. It was the Democrats Whom 100% voted against civil rights legislation proposed by the republicans in 1954. The same Party that wrote ALL of the Jim Crow laws.

Once again see above. Harry S Truman, FDR, JFK, and LBJ all supported Civil Rights so much that black voters turned to the Democratic party. Do you know who also opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Ron Paul and Ronald Reagan.

President Wilson segregated the White House and the military which had been somewhat desegregated since 1863.

Wilson was a fascist. He did make some "liberal" contributions, such as the federal reserve and some anti-trust regulation, but this is countered by his extreme infringements of free speech and harsh anti-immigration policy. Liberals, by definition, are for equal rights.

Let's just look at it another way. Republicans (or rather conservatives, as there are still one or two moderates in the Republican party, though they won't last) HATE gays, atheists, and Muslims. That is a fact. Santorum has said that this is a country meant only for people of his religion. This is exactly like how people 100 years ago were saying things like "this country was meant for white people".

And when it comes to race, let's just look at the facts. There was no reason to doubt that Obama was a Christian American born in Hawaii. His opponent, John McCain, was an acknowledged Panaman American (equivilant to someone from the Philipeanes who was born before it gained independence). The one lawsuit McCain faced was immediately dropped by federal courts and was quickly dismissed by the media. Prominent Republicans, however, have repeatedly claimed that Obama was Kenyan, that he was a Muslim, and/or that he was an Arab. If Obama had the same skin color as his mother and had a "generic" name, would he face any of this? No he would not. Obama has supplied, despite no other president doing so, a mountain of evidence supporting his Hawaiian birth. Did he need to? No he did not.

One last thing I'll leave for you.

"If by a 'liberal' they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties - someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a 'liberal,' then I'm proud to say I'm a liberal." ~John F. Kennedy

Think about why he included "Civil Rights" in there, and why he was accused of being "liberal" for it.

Sorry, DB. Mrs. Santorum is on record as stating that if she hadn't gone into labor she would have aborted in order to save her life. She may have been screaming - screaming for her own life since doctors told both she and her husband that if she insisted upon continuing with the pregnancy it would kill her. The ONLY thing wrong with the decision she made in this sad situation is that her husband would prevent anyone else from being able to make that very personal and difficult decisions for themselves.

I don't care where she worked, and I also don't care that she lived with someone who performed abortions before meeting Rick. I care that when faced with certain death, she would have opted for abortion in order to save herself. She had a choice. That's the way it should be.

Sanitorium wants war,, another neo-con who was originaly brought on the scene and funded by Erick Prince,, ( Blackwaters founder) Later brought in with a couple others by Prince to hijack away the tea party movement we had started under Ron Pauls leadership before our campaign of change you can believe in could take hold. (Remember Black Rock? The ones who embarased our country for murder and stole huge extra cash piles from us through rigged contracts in early 2000s)

Mr ANON, In regards to your comment. "Let's just look at it another way. Republicans (or rather conservatives, as there are still one or two moderates in the Republican party, though they won't last) HATE gays, atheists, and Muslims. That is a fact. Santorum has said that this is a country meant only for people of his religion." How can you say this rubbish is fact? Your bigotry against Republicans could not be more obvious. I say this from my moderate sometimes liberal leading standpoint.

One more thing. It is not like there are a preponderence of moderate Democrats left either. Everyone is Washington is pushing to the extremes and THAT is where the problem lies. Nobody is willing to dialogue and compromise for the comman good.

My vote is for Mitt Romney -I don't care about his wealth or his religion. In fact, I'd rather have someone in the White House who doesn't need money and so he can't be bought. It's pretty obvious to me that he loves this country and wants everyone to Believe in the American dream.

Actually - if you want to look at babies born from incest or marrying first cousins look at the early Royals - they where all related - I believe George the IV drooled - it was common in early days to marry within until they found out they were producing imbeciles

Same as cattle - outcrossing procuced bigger and better - off topic however you get my drift

Barbara - careful, falls in line with the party of the extra chromasomes type comments. These people didn't ask for this, being elitists brought it on the "Royal" Families.

Imbecile - Psychology . (no longer in technical use; considered offensive) a person of the second order in a former and discarded classification of mental retardation, above the level of idiocy, having a mental age of seven or eight years and an intelligence quotient of 25 to 50.

There is no sense in equalling these people on the opposite side of the spectrum is there?

Pedestrian

Oh really? Here is someone who is opposed to the Santorum's position telling you what you take as fact is actually fiction.

http://oursilverribbon.org/blog/?p=188

btw this was investigated by his opponent Bob Casey, who didn't use that rumor - it would have caused Sen Casey nothing but problems.

Mr. Anon - you view of history is really sad. Lincoln wasn't the liberal you think - It took Lincoln a month - years after the war to go for the emmancipation proclamation. He did not even consider integrating the union armies until 1963.

FDR had nothing to do with integration until 1943. Before that he was rather indifferent. JFK had no political postition on the Civil Rights until 1963 - AFTER he met MLK Sr - who gained audience with JFK to secure his son's release from prison. There is even assertions that Sr promised JFK that African Americans would support democrats if he would come out in favor of his Son and Civil rights.

Tundra - the forefathers saw a government that was not ruled by religious leaders, nor the government interferring with religion. At the time the far majority were at least in name associated with a number of the christian faiths. Religion to them, meant Christianity. Religion was seen similar to a free press - a deterant to keep both politicians and society from becoming extreme.

There are plenty of writings and quotes (not just trumped up quotes) from a variety of sources that show this. What Santorum said is similar to what a number of those forefathers said and no big deal - though incovenient to those who want no part of any religion.

Mr. Anon - apparently you don't understand the difference between progressive and liberal. One of the founding principles was to use government resources to build infrastructure - that is progressive - and the anti-slavery is actually "Christian". Liberal is really a morphing of the democratic party rooted in progressivism and really became prominent in the 60's.

Also you have a "lite" understanding of Christianity. When you say Obama is a "Christian"

Let's look at Lincoln on this one. Christians like to say Lincoln was a Christian and everything he did was because he was a Christian. Lincoln himself was not a Christian, by his own words written just after the Gettysburg address, until just before the Gettysburg address.

To you, being a christian is going through all the formal motions of going to church, reading the bible, getting baptized, and gaining membership to a "christian" church. Clearly the Bible has one other Criteria, like where your heart really is. The other things can be indications, but do not guarrentee where the heart really is.

Let's consider the HCL. The current controversy is over the HCL requiring all faith based hospitals to offer and perform services that clearly violate christian principles, jewish principles, and Muslim principles. That would be a pretty good indicator that his, and for that matter most democrat representatives, see government as more important than their god.

The first principle in all three of those religions is that God is first - not anything or anyone else.

If God isn't first, you probably shouldn't be identifying yourself as one of those three.

hahahahaha grancanyon:

"...someone in the white house who can't be bought..."

omg, I am laughing so hard,...honey, he can't be bought; but he sure as hell can conduct some crony policies. Rigging the system to favor the 1% is what these folks DO!

Wake up and get real.

This is not about Santorum. Santorum may win a few states, but he won't win the nomination.

The Romney camp knows that Newt has an advantage in several of the southern states and could be a tough competitor in others. He needs every delegate he can get for the convention. They'll still be hitting Newt very hard, and hoping that some of the Santorum votes will go to Romney as delegates.

Ron Paul is a different story. Attacking him could make his base stronger, so the Romney camp will try to marginalize him as if he wasn't even in the race to keep his numbers low. Paul probably won't have enough delegates to make much impact anyway.

DB: There you go making things up again. You're citing older polling...and completely forgetting about the huge negative numbers consistent in every poll for each of the Republican candidates, including Santorum. Santorum is over 30 points back in the pack--and nothing he does in Minnesota is going to change that. According to the latest national wide poll from ABC/Wash Post, Obama has a growing lead over the presumed front runner Romney 52 to 43 percent. The president's positive numbers are now at 50%...None of the Republican candidates, especially Santorum have positive numbers above 25%.

DB, blogs aren't exactly valid news sources.

Both those boys misfire on the facts - that cannot happen against Obama.

Are you kidding? Since 2000, facts mean NOTHING to the GOP.

Mr. Anon - you view of history is really sad. Lincoln wasn't the liberal you think - It took Lincoln a month - years after the war to go for the emmancipation proclamation. He did not even consider integrating the union armies until 1963.

Your statement right here acknowledges that "liberalism" is associated with civil rights. And yes, he did not do much for civil rights immediately - that is because he didn't want more states to secede. Once he had everyone behind him, he could risk passing Civil Rights legislation. You also ignore that the black vote, until FDR, was consistently Republican.

FDR had nothing to do with integration until 1943. Before that he was rather indifferent.

Once again, he had to be very careful since many people in his own party were racist. However, he gained the black vote anyways, since the New Deal helped African Americans in poor areas.

JFK had no political postition on the Civil Rights until 1963 - AFTER he met MLK Sr - who gained audience with JFK to secure his son's release from prison. There is even assertions that Sr promised JFK that African Americans would support democrats if he would come out in favor of his Son and Civil rights.

This is true, but keep in mind that his Vice President Johnson did more for Civil Rights than any other president in the 20th century.

And you are right, I am not a Christian. But the fact that this country has had several presidents who do not constitute under your definition of "Christian" alone disproves Santorum's assertion that only Christians should have political office, which is clearly against the founding father's intent. Santorum has made this a major aspect of his campaign, and he has even accused Obama of "waging war on religion", which is ridiculous.

Santorum took a dead fetus home from the hospital to pass around so everybody could say their goodbyes. The hospital got very upset by this weird act and called law enforcement. They went to Santorums home and removed the dead fetus and took it back to the hospital. This is beyond weird.

Patriotic -

The hospital got very upset by this weird act and called law enforcement.

How about if you submit the police report on that one! That's correct, there ISN'T one.

There are many severe distortions about this story.

The ugly truth is that if you cared for you offspring - you wouldn't let the hospital take care of it. You would have a funeral by a funeral home (expensive) or take the baby home and bury it in a private service. You don't know how many men and women don't ever get closure for the loss of a desired child because some states don't permit them to see (and with a D & C you don't want to) what was to be their child.

Colmes got excoriated for his handling of this matter by many people who know and understand what the Santorums went through.

Your assertion is even more hideous than Alan Colmes - at least he appoligized - you continue to stick these sick distortions!

how sad...if you'd ever had an child who died, you'd certainly would like to at least spend a lil brief moment to see their face one "long lasting" time. The dreams you had growing with your child had just died. I don't think talking about another's baby who died should win you any likes Patriot unless someone wants to be inhuman and uncompassionate.

Akron , Seriously dude, what's your point? If any of the Republicans get in the country is done for. People aren't going to sit on there ass this time around. Republicans and the fat cats they work for will not win. But if they by some chance do win the election and @!$%# hits the fan who ya going to blame?

bern dog - isn't that the same as saying Bill Clinton was totally the most evil thing to our country. Sure he did some wrong things, but he did good things too.

And clearly you have little understanding of what a web of half truths both sides tell about things. It wouldn't even do you any good to tell you to study the economic events of 1916 - 1923 - would it?

That is the last time in history our government had bloated as bad as it is today. BTW: the economy sunk from 1920 - 1921 and recovered by 1923 - unemployment ballooned from 5% to 9 1/2% in 12 months and recover back to 5% by the end of 1923 yes in just 2 years.

Our economy dropped 2008 - 2009 from 5% unemployment to 10% unemployment. Our unemployment we are over 2 1/2 years from the bottom in June 2009 to 8.3%. That is falling pretty short don't you think. This leadership is following the theories of quick fixes and more government that kept extended the depression to 10 years.

Berndog - you are listening to the wrong people.

DB: you're nothing if not consistent---completely wrong, but consistent.

As that flaming liberal bastion the Wall Street Journal noted: in the last month of Bush’s term, the former president had the “worst track record for job creation since the government began keeping records.” And job creation under Bush was anemic long before the recession began. Bush’s supply-side economics “fostered the weakest jobs and income growth in more than six decades,” along with “sluggish business investment and weak gross domestic product growth”. Even federal jobs, the right wings favorite whipping boy (under democratic administrations only since they presume all federal workers are democrats in those years)--are now at the the lowest levels since the mid 1970's (yes that's right...you don't understand the US POPULATION grows?) Funny how your arguments about "bloat" never go to the two failed Bush wars (wise money in your mind I suppose???)

Nobody really wants Romney. So sad.

He is like the last choice for a prom date.

Correct Job 1. Earlier Romney was polled as everyone's second choice after should their first choice be eliminated. Seems many have moved him down to third choice about now.

GOP know very well Romney is a baggage. Table everything that's wrong with america and you'll find vertually everthing thing in Romney. Above all, he lies aka flip flop.

That's their bag of tea americans don't want.

The GOP Teatards are a dog & pony show, what a "Joke"

@ P A U. S. A.: Mostly dawgs.

If you could do better, why aren't you running. Any brain dead person could complain..

If he had ANY message to deliver, he wouldn't have to resort to negative campaigning. As far as I can tell, Romney's only message seems to be, "I want to be President because .... I want to be President."

Worse yet, what's he going to say? I can see it now.

Romney "I'm going to repeal Obama care"

Obama: But Romney Care was the chief Blueprint for Obama care"

Romney "That's a states rights issue"

Obama "That's flip-flopping"

I think these 'legacy' children really have something to prove to their daddys, eh? I mean W, McCain and now Romney?

I think they didn't get hugged enough in their youth. LOL

Hey Clara--I was about to say some feel "owed" the presidency because daddy didn't win!

"We have met the enemy and he is us!" Pogo by Walt Kelly

There's nothing wrong with negative campaigning, as long as you don't resort to personal attacks. For example, "Romney flip-flops on policies" is okay while "Romney's a big fat liar because he didn't invite me to dinner" isn't.

The more l watch the debates, the more l am sure to re-elect Obama, the GOP Teapugs are Clowns.

Very interesting to hear the Republicans call President Obama "The Great Divider"....Look at them tearing each other apart in this "Campaign"... As soon as Mitt Romney is done tearing Gingrich apart and pouring money into negative attacks, then he shifts his BS Rhetoric to President Obama, calling him all kind of names.

Mitt Romney deserves any name on the book....Hypocrite would be the nicest.

But just wait for the general election. The fun has yet begun! This thing is going to blow up one way or another. I wonder if Mr Obama can hold off the Israeli's. I wonder if they actually like him? Hmmmmm!Let's replay this as it stands now.....Jews pissed off, Check. Catholics pissed off, Check. Maybe Mr Romney's secret Mexican/Mormon half 2nd cousin will appear with Joseph Smiths great grand child. Im betting its more likely that Mr.Obama will piss another group or 4 off!

jolly, I am Jewish and I am not pissed,...

And for further review,...Women being represented by the Obama Administration...CHECK and MATE!

There are MORE female registered voters,...and we don't take kindly to the assault on our rights, jolly.

Hummbird

Rick, kills his own campaign, with all his no birth control nonsense, and extreme homophobia!

Only if you have Veritaphobia! Or more likely have and "I" issue.

While Rick is personally opposed to birth control, Rick has voted for every bill that contains funding for such programs.

Once again, Rick though personally opposed to homosexualty and supporting a marriage defined as a between one man and one woman, is supportive of gays right to work with legislators to pass laws to define marriage as two people.

How is that homophobic? Clearly he has more respect for other peoples opinions than you do!

"Homophobia" is the term used by pro-gay extremest to exert undo pressure on the average america to force their opinion upon the majority. People using that term are no different than the spoiled teenager who says he hates his parents when won't give the the keys to the family car.

Look, the guy is Catholic, I'm Protestant. I'm very confident he isn't going to require me to recite the Rosary & kiss the Pope's Ring!

Santorum's comments are the latest in his long fight against gay marriage, which he thinks would have dire consequences for American society. Santorum said Saturday that though friendship and familial love are important, "It's not as important for the health of society as men and women coming together, joining together in marriage, having children and raising those children for the future of society."

Last month Santorum blamed same-sex marriage for plummeting rates of marriage across the nation. In November, at an event sponsored by the Christian group the FAMiLY LEADER in Des Moines, Santorum said gay marriage could doom the U.S. "Unless we protect it with the institution of marriage, our country will fail," he said.

Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum once again touted his support for a federal ban on gay marriage, saying on Saturday that any now-legal same-sex marriages would be invalid under a constitutional amendment.

In an interview with NBC's Chuck Todd at his campaign headquarters in Iowa, Santorum said there needs to be one marriage law for all 50 states. When asked if he would make same-sex couples get divorced, he responded, "Well their marriage would be invalid

not sure how that is "supportive of gays righ to work with legislaters to pass laws".

voting for bills that contain funding for birth control proves nothing. Most funding bills fund all kinds of things, and often you vote for them because you want to approve funding in general for all kinds of programs, even if you don't agree with a small part of them.

"Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum, whose strong base of evangelical Christian supporters has thrust him into contention in Iowa, said on Monday that he believes states should have the right to outlaw birth control and sodomy without the interference of the Supreme Court."

DB and Vermontguy--Why is it that the one who makes the most rational argument supported by evidence doesn't need bold face type to make his/her point?

"The Teapugs are all about economic stagnation and blackmail"

Odd vet Okay- you asked for it!

Rick has voted for every bill that contains funding for contraceptive programs.

Is supportive of gays right to work with legislators to pass laws to define marriage as two people.

Clearly he has more respect for other peoples opinions than you do!

"Homophobia" is the term used by pro-gay extremest to exert undo pressure on the average america to force their opinion upon the majority. People using that term are no different than the spoiled teenager who says he hates his parents when won't give the the keys to the family car.

Look, the guy is Catholic, I'm Protestant. I'm very confident he isn't going to require me to recite the Rosary & kiss the Pope's Ring!

Satisified?

Why is it that the one who makes the most rational argument supported by evidence doesn't need bold face type to make his/her point?

Could it be that experience shows that certain people so adamantly opposed to a position only read the first couple of words?

BTW

Patriotic American U.S.A.

"The Teapugs are all about economic stagnation and blackmail"

How come you hate Americans so much? Your name is obviously a parody.

DB: Here's some real information for you: http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2012/02/03/gingrich-santorum-trash-planned-parenthood/. Rick Santorum opposes Planned Parenthood whose main business is birth control. As for his position on contraception, read what he said on Fox News: http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/01/05/398191/oreilly-challenges-rick-santorum-on-opposition-to-birth-control/?mobile=nc and http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/video-rick-santorum-supports-states-banning-birth-control/question-2381933/ Regarding gay marriage and gay rights, Rick supports a constitutional amendment that would invalidate gay marriages. He also said that gay marriage is no different from "man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/07/nation/la-na-campaign-20120107 and http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/01/rick-santorum-would-invalidate-gay-marriages_n_1178450.html. You don't think comparing gay marriage to pedophilia is a tad homophobic?

lol, db "answered" my posts by repeating his initial post. wow, impressive! :)

anyone who doesn't think santorum is so far right on gay marriage and birth control, well, I don't know what reality they are from, but it isn't ours. :)

Another version of "I know you are, but what am I!"

Vermont--But he didn't use bold face, so it was more logical and evidence-based. LOL.

Old vet

I am better aware of Santorum's postions. You are and others are well overblowing it.

He is correctly critical of contraception because it does encourage more unrestrained activity, but at the same time he votes for the funding of it. He is not expecting you and I to follow his standards.

Based on Planned Parenthood's treatment of the Kohmen organization and other apparently unscrupulous behaviour, they should be trashed. There have been questions about where all the money goes, that they have failed to answer.

Planned Parenthood wouldn't be under federal investigation unless they were probably doing something wrong. The Susan Kohmen organization was chartered with a high standard of use of it's funds that required them to hold funds from organizations that are under investigation. That is what they did under the annual checkup of all organizations they contribute to.

It's not lost on me that Planned parenthood provides many good services. If we want to keep such services we need to keep checking and not let bad practices continue.

DB--You really should follow the links provided. Information can be useful. Santorum voted for birth control funding because it was a part of omnibus funding bills (which may or may not have contained his earmarks). He has stated during this campaign that he would work to not fund birth control. That you don't like Planned Parenthood (and say things that aren't true about it) is irrelevant to your argument that he voted to fund birth control. He has stated that if given the opportunity, he would cut off such funding. No one overblows his stance on gays. It is what it is. And by the way, your statement "Planned Parenthood wouldn't be under federal investigation unless they were probably doing something wrong" shows how little you really know. FYI--The "federal investigation" of PPFA is being conducted by one man, Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-FL, a long-time critic of PP. The investigation is generally recognized on Capitol Hill and elsewhere as a political stunt.

"Well overblowing it"" Sorry, DB, but there is no such word as "overblowing." Contraception "encourage(s) more unrestrained activities?" What does that mean and why should its response be "correctly critical?" Does this mean that Santorum does not favor sex for reasons other than procreation? Again, DB, why is sex without procreation bad and thus subject to "correct criticism?" Because you think sex is bad if the couple doesn't want to make babies? Ya think other people might have different beliefs about this, DB?

"Based on Planned Parenthood's treatment of the Kohmen (sic) organization and other apparently unscrupulous behavior, they should be trashed." How has PP treated the Komen foundation; all PP did was protest that $600,000 funding was being cut off because of a new (not in Komen's original charter) condition for its recipients, a condition over which no recipient has any control and was inconsistent with the Komen's supposed mission of preventing, discovering, and curing women's breast cancer. So, just how did PP mistreat the "Kohmen organization?" What was the "other apparently unscrupulous behaviour" you believe has been revealed, DB? When you say "apparently," I'm betting you have nothing concrete to mention.

What exactly informs your opinion that "Planned Parenthood wouldn't be under federal investigation unless they were probably doing something wrong." That might be the most naive statement I've ever read on this blog. Republicans complained for years that Democrats would hold committee hearings for propaganda reasons only. Speaking of propaganda, why is a Republican seeking to investigate facts already well-known--Planned Parenthood spends less than .5% of its funds on abortion-related services. Why is it necessary to parade those facts in front of the public, DB? Just because your favorite politicians believe abortion is wrong and if abortion can't be barred, then the next best thing is to stop public funding abortions for poor women?

Abortion was declared a constitutional right almost 40 years ago, so extending funding for a constitutionally protected activity for poor people isn't the worst investment for our general welfare. You can choose to characterize anti-abortionist interference with the enjoyment of a a constitutional right as "a high standard of use of it's funds," but most people know it for what it is--Komen towing the anti-abortion line.

Were you aware that the "political investigation" condition is only a recently enacted provision of the Komen Foundation's rules? Were you aware that it has not stopped Komen from accepting millions of dollars from donor organizations that are under investigation for fraud by the US Congress or that other organizations under investigation didn't suffer a suspension in Komen funding? Do you understand the significance of these facts, DB? Komen installed the new condition to stop funding PP under a ruse created to placate anti-abortionists.

Abortion services are "bad practices?" So, DB, you think PP should be allowed to continue providing good services to women, you just think anything having to do with abortion is not a "good service," but instead is a "bad practice." Can you explain why actually taking advantage of one of our constitutionally protected rights constitutes a "bad practice," DB? DB, can you really be so oblivious to your own value judgments?

And, by the way, DB, when you wrote, "a high standard of use of it's funds" you spelled "its" incorrectly. There are two ways to spell the word: its and it's. The first signifies possession, as in "its funds," while the second is a contraction of "it is" or "it has." You should know the difference--you used "it's" correctly in your next-to-last sentence.

DB Akron - Congress's investigative committee run by the Republicans asked for twenty years of records - last I looked the IRS only requires seven years of retention - however Planned Parenthood complied with the request - myself I would have told them to go screw - that was six months ago and we have heard nothing

So what now - an apology - not on your life Same old same old - make these people's lives miserable because they can?

vermontguy - I wish he was running close to Obama - he would be creamed

congratulations you found his achilles heel - sort of. From what I can find most of his earmarks was in the house. They taught every new representative to submit any funding requests. And then that request bin became earmarks - and often a tool to gain votes for unpopular bills.

Santorum needs to answer this matter clearly and repeatedly.

He sponsored a bill that would raise tariffs and then given those tariff revenues to a special interest group

This too is a sticky matter, but the bottom line is, every tariff decrease (most of the tariff changes) and increases benefitted the entire industry as it should - so really no foul and actually being a good representative trying to protect jobs in his district and state - but partisans sure try to make things look really bad - don't they?

no, his "achilles" heel is that he is so far right on so many social issues that he scares normal people away.

also the country's problems are economic and foreign policy, not gay marriage. He's either clueless or scary on the important issues, and well, scary on the unimportant ones too.

Vermontguy - nice state - have relatives there, and visit upon occaision.

He is not emphacising gay marriage - the media is. I was surprised that His record is pretty balanced between all aspects of economic matters, foreign policy, and social matters. He may have "extreme" views, but his record overall is about being reasonable.

The media made athletes the millionaires and sports franchises billionaires (almost).

My 83 year old mom is a slave to media. She changes what she eats according to what the media says. She also is afraid of black people because almost all she ever sees on the TV is black people arrested for violent Crimes, even though she has probably heard about as many violent crimes over the radio and clearly understood them to be white. If she expressed her fears and said the wrong buzz word that same media would brand her a racist.

I thought a rumor was something that wasn't true ???

Or just look up the definition of the word "santorum".

There are rumors that Santorum is Bi ?

Ellis - In Ron Paul's tenure of 26 years in Congress he had one bill passed out of 100 plus, plus he submitted - how is that forcing both parties to work together?

Ron Paul Libertarian Idiocy

Friday, January 27th, 2012 | Posted by Eric L. Wattree

Ron Paul and Libertarian Idiocy

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

Ron Paul is a typical demagogue. He specializes in combining fact with fiction, and pointing out everything that’s wrong with all of the policies that are contrary to his agenda. Then he claims that his irresponsible solution is a cure for all of our problems, which is an exercise in pure fiction. Paul is quoted as saying the following:“The most basic principle to being a free American is the notion that we as individuals are responsible for our own lives and decisions. We do not have the right to rob our neighbors to make up for our mistakes, neither does our neighbor have any right to tell us how to live, so long as we aren’t infringing on their rights. Freedom to make bad decisions is inherent in the freedom to make good ones. If we are only free to make good decisions, we are not really free.”

Paul’s entire premise is flawed. Total personal freedom was clearly not the intent of the founding fathers. They had the good sense to recognized that a society, or a civilization, as it were, is defined as a “GROUP of people who have joined together to pursue a common interest or goal,” and they clearly set out their intent in the preamble of the United States Constitution, which reads as follows:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare [not just make Ron Paul happy] and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Thus, if Ron Paul doesn’t like the rules we’ve set up to “promote the general welfare,” he has the freedom to move to the wilderness and not live among us. But according Ron Paul’s philosophy, he thinks he should have the right to pee against the wall in the middle of Times Square during rush hour, and the government should be precluded from stopping him. Because you see, according to Paul’s philosophy, and his flawed reading of the United States Constitution, that should be his inalienable right, since he’s not hurting anyone else.

So in essence, Paul wants to have his cake and eat it to. He wants to take advantage of the benefits of living in an ordered society, while not having to adhere to the rules that make it a society. For example, he contends that the civil rights laws that prevent him from refusing to serve certain groups in his restaurant abridges his right to private ownership. But on the other hand, he has absolutely no problem with the fact that the group that he bans is forced to pay taxes that support “his right to private ownership.” If his business catches on fire, he’s going to expect the banned group’s tax supported fire department to come put it out. And if he’s robbed, he’s going to expect the group’s tax supported police department to come to his aid. But the fact is, he can’t have it both ways. If he’s not willing to adhere to society’s rules, he can’t expect to take advantage of the benefits of living in an ordered society.

Paul also wants to abolish the Department of Education, which is essential to maintaining a “more perfect union.” His philosophy also dictates that we should simply “trust” corporations not to grind up rats in our ground beef, or pollute our air and water. He says, “Just let the free market handle it.”

Well, that sounds like a plan, but we saw how the free market handled the Wall Street fiasco, didn’t we? The free market created it, and we paid for it – dearly. The only thing free about the free market is the freedom of ruthless and greedy capitalists to take advantage of a naive and unsuspecting public – and then they tell us we’er un-American if we complain about it.

Thus, Ron Paul’s philosophy represents the rantings of a selfish, unthinking, greedy, and totally irresponsible lunatic. Therefore, if he wants total personal freedom, it’s well within his grasp. He can vote with his feet and move to the wilderness. Then he can pee against any tree in the forest at will – but he shouldn’t expect us to come to his aid if a snake decides to latch on to his pecker. That’s the price of total freedom.

Eric L. Wattree

Barbara,

With Paul's agenda being in sharp contrast to that of both republican and democrat mainstream establishments, Paul in effect represents a third party, a neutralizer, an opposing force which will force the two major parties in Congress to team up and create a super majority in order to protect the issues each most care about, Paul will force them to compromise in order to stop him from turning the clock back 150 years.........That scenario would be a hell of alot better than the lock step gridlock we have had for the past 10 years.............think about it, three partys work better than two

Ron Paul is not going to be nominated or elected to anything. He's a hick who has shown he's a racist, a dull-witted anti-abortionist, a global warming flip-flopper and denier, and a rabid Christian who is completely ignorant of the Constitution, corrupting it to advance his personal beliefs. At the very least, Ron Paul allowed his name to be used by racists in his employ to publish racist rants like "Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls 'criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

Paul has no problem banning abortions, even though such bans were outlawed by Rowe v. Wade, but just thinks it's a state's job to do so because of his warped view of the 10th Amendment. Paul has stated that because he delivered 4000 babies, he knows that life begins at conception (this is as stupid a statement as he's ever uttered--when life begins has been, is, and will always be a question for philosophers or politicians, and certainly not some quirky physician who delivered babies when he was in the Army).

Ron Paul is also a global warming flip-flopper and now a global warming denier. In 2008, he had this to say about global warming: "It is clear that the earth experiences natural cycles in temperature. However, science shows that human activity probably does play a role in stimulating the current fluctuations." By 2009, Paul was singing a different tune: "The greatest hoax I think that has been around for many, many years if not hundreds of years, has been this hoax on [...] global warming." Even if Ron isn't being paid off by Big Oil, he's still doing their bidding. The concept that humans cause global warming is shared by the vast majority of legitimate climatologists in the world; only scientists hired by Big Oil promulgate the myth that global warming is a hoax or is not caused by human activities. Moreover, his claim that global warming has been a hoax for hundreds of years is so obviously wrong: concerns about global warming have not existed for "hundreds of years." I was around for the first "Earth Day" in 1970, and global warming or climate change wasn't an issue then. I'd say it became a topic of discussion about 15 years ago. Paul's statement about there being a global warming hoax for hundreds of years is patently ridiculous.

However, the most frightening aspect of this dogmatic old fart's belief system is his conviction that we are a Christian nation. According to Ron, "The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance." This is demonstrably wrong, according to no less an authority than the United States Supreme Court, which has consistently recognized that the purpose of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was to build or erect a wall separating Church and State, according to Thomas Jefferson, whose group crafted the clause:

"[A]t the first session of the first Congress the amendment now under consideration was proposed with others by Mr. Madison. It met the views of the advocates of religious freedom, and was adopted. Mr. Jefferson afterwards, in reply to an address to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association (8 id. 113), took occasion to say: 'Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions,-I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.' Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured." Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 164 (1878). "Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. " In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'" Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 16, citing Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. at page 164.

"This Court first reviewed a challenge to state law under the Establishment Clause in Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1, 67 S.Ct. 504, 91 L. Ed. 711 (1947).1 Relying on the history of the Clause, and the Court's prior analysis, Justice Black outlined the considerations that have become the touchstone of Establishment Clause jurisprudence: Neither a State nor the Federal Government can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither a State nor the Federal Government, openly or secretly, can participate in the affairs of any religious organization and vice versa. " In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State.' "Everson, 330 U.S., at 16, 67 S. Ct., at 511 (quoting Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 164, 25 L. Ed. 244 (1878)). The dissenters agreed: "The Amendment's purpose ... was to create a complete and permanent separation of the spheres of religious activity and civil authority by comprehensively forbidding every form of public aid or support for religion." 330 U.S., at 31–32, 67 S. Ct., at 519–520 (Rutledge, J., dissenting, joined by Frankfurter, Jackson, and Burton, JJ.); accord, Lee v. Weisman, 505 US 577, 599-600 (1992).

So what does Paul say about these court decisions: "Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity." So this arrogant twit, who is not educated in law, purports to be a higher legal authority on what the Founding Fathers intended by the religious clauses in the First Amendment than the Supreme Court, the final authority on what the Constitution means, has consistently ruled since 1878.

Just because Paul wants to eliminate federal income taxes and therby dismantle the federal government and would allow you to smoke pot (unless the states continue to outlaw it) doesn't make him a fit candidate for President of the United States. His brand of government may have worked in the 19th Century, but certainly not in the 21st. He keeps being rejected by the electorate because too many of his ideas are just plain kooky.

Michael L. Marowitz
J.D., J.S.M. (Master's Degree in Law with emphasis on constitutional law, Stanford Law School, 1981)

You are nothing more than an ignorant windbag. The fact that you chose two topics that are out of context and so far from Ron Paul's platform to attack his credibility, shows that your impressive degree from a prestigious university was a waste of money.

No Mitt will attach Rick because Rick is eating away at his nomination that he thinks he is entitled to. I don't know if Mitt saw the latest poll in PA, but Santorum has passed him by there.

But - Mitt will get hammered for using half truths in the General Election. Mitt wants people to believe Nevada was a resounding win, when he actually won it in 2008 by a larger margin. He's got 40% right now in Colorado where he got 60% in 2008.

The current road looks like a brokered convention unless one of the two conservatives drop out - taint gonna happen.

For the life of me, I can't understand why so many people like rjmj confuse contemporaneity with causality. Just because two things happen during the same time period doesn't logically mean that one thing caused the other. Was Gingrich the only one in office pushing 11 million jobs? Why should he receive credit for all of it because he was House speaker for a while, which, as I recall, ended very badly for him, as he was dispatched by fellow Republicans and was required to pay $300,000 for his ethical defalcations.

Taking food stamps and general assistance away from poor families when 39% of America's children are homeless and poverty is more rampant than it's been in 52 years because there aren't enough jobs is not caring for them, but rather it's coldly abandoning them. And it's all in the service of cutting taxes for the wealthy, who want to eliminate the federal income tax, the only progressive tax that looks for higher contributions by those who've most benefited from societal investments and institutions.

Only warped people would consider turning a cold shoulder to allow starvation, illness and death by being exposed to the elements, and family disintegration and label such inaction as a boon for poor people. Pack away your super-ego, rjmj, with all of your "shoulds" and get a heart.

Progressive, while I don't care for Romney, Gingrich, Santorum or Paul I have enough respect for them not to use silly names. Please be grown up enough to use their full names, surnames, or nick names used by them or their families not stupid stuff like Romulian or Sanatarium, etc.

Santorum has very good health insurance and, like many of his socio-economic class, cannot relate to those who are less fortunate.

Thank you, thank you, Citizens United! ROFLMAO

settersperch---who is obumbo?

based on a november poll on pennsylviania: "Obama and Romney are tied at 45% each"

with an improving economy, there is a good chance pennsylvania goes for obama.

Pennsylvania already rejected Santorum in 2006 by a whopping margin. Central and Northern PA (AKA Northern Alabama) will go Republican, because they always have. The anthracite region could go either way. Philly and Pittsburgh (which has an 'h') will go Democratic because they always do. The decision will be made in NE PA and the Philly suburbs and that will depend on the direction of the economy, which is currently up.

Is the primary actually going to reach PA? If it does I am not voting for a candidate that can not articulate why I should hire him. Shooting your mouth off about the other guy does not win my vote.

You guys have to remember that the Pennsylvania economy could also go up by the desicions made by Tom Corbett.Right now he is leading P.A.out of debt and that will probably mean more Republican votes.P.A is a swing state,but I'm betting it's going Conservative.

By the way, the "I don't care about the poor" may be an unrecoverable comment. Trying to cover it with "because they have safety nets" made it even worse.

Tom Corbett.Right now he is leading P.A.out of debt

by cutting school funding in half in some districts. Unemployment went to 8.3% in Sept as teachers and staff were laid off. Student to teacher ratios are now at an all time high.

It is possible for a Rhino to win PA. However, I am not sure anyone in the current field would be able to pull it off.

Yes,Corbett is cutting funds to schools.That is only because he had no other choice.We need to pay off our debt.Infact,school cuts were not even Corbetts fault.It is Joe Pitts who got us into this debt,now Corbett is getting us out.

Randon PA

#28 - "all rural counties will vote 100% against Obama"...

"Pennsylania will NOT vote for OBama"

#28.4 - "Im betting PA will go conservative"

Which is it? PA will NOT vote OBama or you are betting PA will go conservative?

You make less sense then most teapublicans - rhetoric, never any substance!

btw - are you willing to place any bets on "all rural counties voting 100% republican"?

First of all P.A. is going to vote for conservatives.OBAMA IS NOT A CONSERVATIVE.So by voting conservative,we are voting against Obama.Next time,look at what you type and make sure it makes sense.As for the 100% Republican,I was exaggerating,just like some of you say you are the 99%,you are not-it is more like 50/50.You are a typical"Dumbocrat".

Random--You hurt your credibility with stuff like Corbett cut funding for schools because he had no choice. Of course he had a choice. He could have done what ever other state has done and taxed the Marcellus Shale gas producers. I'm curious how you can blame Joe Pitts, a very conservative congressman, for Pennsylvania's debt. Could you tell us? I don't know if Obama will carry Pennsylvania, but he did so handily last time and, with the economy improving, may well do so again.

Old Vet,

(Corbett)He could have done what ever other state has done and taxed the Marcellus Shale gas producers

Corbett is in PA he had an easier option. Get rid of the state run wine and spirits shops (not making any money), allow stores to pay for licenses to sell wine and spirits (money in), and tax the wine and spirits sold(more money in).

Good grief I thought free markets are a Republican specialty.

Random

You are the typical teapublican...

I wrote what you wrote verbatum - then you challenge me to "make sure what I write makes sense"...

Honest to goodness - what the hell is it with you people?

Old Vet-Corbett promised all Pennsylvanians during his campaign election that he would not put on any more new taxes on us.So far he sticking true to his word.

b dune-Going conservative means that people will vote against Obama!Your making me choose a choice between voting conservative and voting against Obama-THEY ARE BOTH THE SAME THING!!!!!!You remind me of child that needs to be told something 5 times before it actually gets into your brain.

Random pennsylvanian,

Some of us PA folk would like to actually pay our good teachers well. We do not want them to leave the PA public school system out of frustration because our state does not want to pay them a decent salary. Paying the bills sometimes requires taxes.

I checked and there is no way to donate directly to the local school systems to pay teachers more. I can fund PTA events which fund equipment, but I can not give more money to a good teacher without it coming in through taxes.

Blindly cutting a school budget by 50% in some cases is just irresponsible. Claiming schools do not need repairs that they do is irresponsible as well. When cuts are made they need to be made on a case by case basis. I know it requires more work and thought but it can be done in a way that minimizes points of pain.