... but Ricky is a proven liar, that helps how? Lies My Endorser Told Me will be the title of Mitt's upcoming book on his failed run for the Presidency.

He said he is the clear, conservative candidate.

This is just one verbal asinine comment from Santorum. All the others will come to bit him in the a***, if he has any coming election time.

Romney - "my team is the people of the United States," should have read "my team is the Koch Brothers and all those they support - I said that right guys, huh?" Romney has the ethics of an ax murderer.

It may just turn out that Mitt Romney's most important endorsement in his battle against Rick Santorum for the Michigan primary isn't Gov. Rick Snyder, or any of the host of legislators or local luminaries who've backed his candidacy this cycle, but instead Santorum himself - who supported Romney in 2008.

I just wonder whos going to be endorsing Romney after this little episode. Im sure this will come back to haunt him, since anyone with political ambitions will be keeping clear of endorsing him from now on.

Seekingsanity, no one could have said it better.

doesnt Romney know that Santorum will lie about anything so long as he can get some benefit from it .. Santorum didnt really mean that .. like everything a republican politician says .. that statement was taken out of context

How Romney is behaving is alarming even the moderate elites of the Republican party. He may win Michigan and Arizona, but his numbers may drop after this. The people of the Republican party do not respect what he is doing and should reject him for it.

Any elected president of this country, in order to follow through with the party's platform, would certainly need to unify his or her party. This now could never happen with this political blunder of Mr. Romney.

Can you imagine if either Romney or Santorum were president now?

Obama is like a surgeon on foriegn issues.

The GOP candidates (except Paul) would have us in more expensive stupid wars.

But unfortunately, Paul is an idealist. Don't put him in the whitehouse either, please!

Obama is doing a fantastic job.

Santorum's Endorsement to Romney back in 2008 was a kiss of death because Rick was a lowlife loser back than, that's why the people of Pennsylvania kicked him out of their state.

Patriotic - the 2008 group was truly Pathetic. When Santorum made that endorsement, only McCain, Romney, and Huckabee were left. Anyone could see that Romney was more conservative than McCain and that Huckabee was the least conservative of the three.

http://thekitchencabinet.us/wp-content/uploads/funny-obama-laughing-republicans-2012-elections.jpg

Let's see, he endorsed Romney as an alternative to McCain - I am assuming that in 2008 Romney was the "anti-McCain" candidate. Also, he didn't endorse Romney until late in the campaign - just before Super Tuesday - in an attempt to block McCain. If Romney wants to use the argument that Santorum once endorsed him - he cannot ignore the fact that McCain spoke so strongly against him in 2008.

This is all better than Roller Derby!

cruzin596,

"If Romney wants to use the argument that Santorum once endorsed him - he cannot ignore the fact that McCain spoke so strongly against him in 2008."

Of course he can ignore the fact that McCain spoke strongly against him in 2008! This is politics. Cherry picking the truth is legitimate as long as you're not found out. How many voters do you think are as well informed as you are?

We can do it -

I often sit in my quiet space and contemplate what life would be like today had the old man and the ding bat won the election in 2008 and for that matter any of the GOP candidates back then.

History shows clearly that Mr. Obama had no choice in raising our debt, it was that or the soup lines and a badly damaged economy. We now have a chance of repairing our economy and we should see the glass half full for that.

In my view the upcoming presidential election [given the current slate of GOP hopefuls] and voting will be like driving a car...R for going backwards and D for going forwards. As for Ricky, he might as well live on another planet and Romney not far behind.

Obama 2012!!

Couple of jimmy carter, I mean obama lovers on this site above........ 50 % more people in poverty since when he took office and the food stamp program has exploded... The biggest problem for the GOP is the changing color of america. Democrats have mostly snowed the black and hispanic vote that this creature in white house is going to give them a free lunch while at the same time endorse crony capitalism and thuggery that is loved. Its enough to win and keep the presidency. . THe reality is america is running out of money so either we have high inflation or we go under. Santorim is a complete liar and he knows it. With Romney, you folks better pray that he gets on the ballot cause the next 4 years will be a real nightmare for americans as the money runs out and more start to live under card board boxes. They tried your socialism around the world and it went under everything unless you had massive amounts of oil. If you want people working, than you need to incent, get on natural gas/nuclear and you need to get in a trade war with the chinese as because that is all they understand..

jolly - you are a joker for sure.

50 % more people in poverty since when he took office and the food stamp program has exploded.

the wheels of motion for the great recession were already turning when Mr. Obama took office January 2009. GWB signed TARP into law October 2008, what on earth do you think that was about? It was about rescuing an economy heading for the cliffs but by your account that was Obama's fault.

Those who fail to heed the lesson of history are doomed to repeat them

The great depression got started in earnest around 1928 while two Republican presidents were in office [Coolidge & Hoover] and like the current GOP policy they did nothing while banks and businesses failed. By 1933, when FDR came into office the unemployment rate was 25%. FDR raised the national debt by 100% by 1941 [the start of WWII] and lowered the unemployment rate to 9.6%.

Every president since FDR has raised the national debt but if you are taking about living according to your means you need to look at the ND as a % of GDP. Republicans [up to Obama] since WWII have raised the ND % GDP by about 38% while Democrats lowered it by 69%...that is a fact.

With 10 million people out of work Obama had no choice but to spend to keep us out of a depression. We did not go into a depression and 4 years later we are stabilized and improving. We now have a real chance of dealing with the high deficit.

Had Reagan, Bush I & 2 balanced the budget and Democrats kept doing what they did our ND would be about 15% today instead of 100%. Our ND % GDP was 120% at the end of WWII and we got it down to 30% at the end of Carters presidency, we can do it again.

History shows that we as a country did better under Democratic policies and control, it shows that what Mr Obama did and is doing is the right thing.

For Oh_no. That's why Republicans candidates think Obama is doing such a bad job. He's not magically fixing all the problems created by the previous administration in time for them to destroy things again in 4 years. You see, what they wanted was for a miracle to happen and Obama to fix all the US problems in under 4 years so they can come to power offering tax breaks and wreck things again.

Oh_no- WWII did not start in 1941 it started in 1939! You can't even get the dates right! You obviously don't know a thing about history or politics!

If the US goes to the Gold Standard, Australia will be a wealthier country than the US. A Coal Standard would be a better plan economically.

Raw milk, legal pot and heroin of everyone!!!

Ron Paul for a better stronger more peaceful America. I grew up on raw milk and even though i don't use pot it should be legal and as for heroin the states will never legalize it. DR. Paul does not want to go to the gold standard, he wants to do away with the legal tender laws and let the free markets determine the standard although i don't know what that entails if it would be good or bad.

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." He's had plenty of chances to disavow what was written under his name, but has not said a word. Dr. Paul's silence on the subject implies that he agrees with what was written.

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. Why Libertarians don't castigate Paul for his endorsement of this wholesale invasion of individual autonomy or liberty by government is beyond me. Paul has also 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.2 "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. To me, Dr. Paul resembles lots of conservatives, who rant about a variety of things being unconstitutional without knowing much about the Constitution or how it's been interpreted by the Supreme Court.

Just because Paul wants to dismantle the federal government and eliminate federal income taxes, as his fans may want, and will 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 h

What a circus. Republicans condemn condoms! Republicans praise rape as a gift from God. Republicans endorse trans-vaginal probes. Republicans hate women (and men who want to plan their families). What’s next? Republicans mandate missionary-position only? Hey, Newt was right. ‘Cause Newt and all his Republican friends SHOULD set up a moon colony.... AND GO THERE! Then, they could tell each other what to do and how to live and who to love.... while leaving the REST of us alone, here on Earth. Newt, I always KNEW that you were a problem-solver. Unfortunately, you and your Republican friends ARE the problem...

Thank you! Well done! Paul is attractive to the young who feel a deep sense of the wrongness of our actions over the years from our treatment of Native Americans to Blacks to women to Gays. Many don't have as deep an understanding of how our government works or what it was founded on. They also don;t have a clear picture of what a Ron Paul Presidency would look like. It's not to put the youth down, but we must give them good information like the above to study.

You guys are just spreading lies about Ron Paul and wasted alot space doing so. I wont waste my time debating all of it but i have researched everyone of your points and you are wrong on every one of them.By the way I am not young and i do have a clear picture of what a Ron Paul presidency would look like. It would not look like what we have now. What we have now is quickly turning into a facist socialist police state. You guys are obviously are on the establishment side which what Ron Paul is against. In the end if everybody like you believes all the misinformation that is being spread about Ron Paul, then the establishment wins. So I am wasting my time but I still have the right to my opinion at least for a little while. Oh and you guys have the right to yours as well at least for a little while.

I wont waste my time debating all of it but i have researched everyone of your points and you are wrong on every one of them.

Ted ... I suspect you have researched NOTHING. If so, you would offer coherent, reasoned rebuttal. Not just the "Paul Party Line".

I still have the right to my opinion at least for a little while. Oh and you guys have the right to yours as well at least for a little while.

You're right there. We might have that freedom for a little while. But soon, if our opinion doesn't match the extreme (not mainstream) Conservative, Christian viewpoint (a la Paul & Santorum) we may not be able to voice it.

Micheal -- Excellently researched post. I've read many of those works by Jefferson and Madison myself. I only wish the post had not been truncated ... I would like to have read what else you had to say.

Oh, come on, Ted...

Admit it, your "research" was checking the Ron Paul website or reading past issues of his newsletters, right?

I'd actually like to know what Ted and everyone thinks it would look like. I have not been able to get anyone to do so. I have not been able to imagine it myself. Given the Congress and the possible changes to it in 2012, I have a hard time seeing how President Paul would proceed. Please share what you have gleaned.

I prefer Ron Paul over any of the other idiots on the GOP rooster. But he does not stand a chance, and that is a good thing.

He is an idealist, and idealists don't make good national leaders.

As someone said, the gold standard would destory our economy.

And, as for the other GOP candidates, they stink.

GO ahead try to discredit me i do not lie and have not lied to you.Why don't you guys offer some creditable places to research if you don't like where you think i researched. Because if you can sway me i will go back and support Obama. which i have vowed i would not do. I would just like to see a president that would stand up for what our founding fathers intended for this country than have one that signed away our rights little by little in the name of fighting terrorism, and all the while doing it in the background. I am talking about the NDAA bill. So don't try to put me down just you disagree with me. I can garantee you one thing I will not vote for Romney, Santorum, or Gingrich. In the end i think that we all would like to see something better than what we have now.

Ted: open a window, calm down. If you've done you're research, you'd have plenty of reason to understand that Ron paul isn't going anywhere this time around either, and it sure isn't because he's an unknown. Find one bill that Ron Paul has sponsored that has become law. Just one, in his entire "career". There's a reason he is marginalized and it's not because of some vast conspiracy. His own colleagues won't work with him. Those racist newsletters that would have sunkk any other politician? Paul's own staff admits he saw tem and did not ask they be stopped. This really isn't hard to find out...just google the Washington Post coverage of the last six months for just one source. You might think having the government making the most private, personal decisions for each individual is "what the founding fathers intended." You're surprised that others disagree?? Seriously?

Not trying to discredit you, Ted. I get that you are unhappy, lots of us are. Can you put aside your feelings for a moment and describe how you think the Paul Presidency would look? Actually, in terms of your day to day life. What bills would you expect? What actions would you think Paul would take? How would it roll?

I had to study politics for four years to even begin to understand the system and so forth. I did well enough to earn a Magna cum Laude degree in political science, but I confess, I am continually learning as life unfolds. My opinion is that President Obama is very good at advancing a middle of the road strategy and policies domestically and abroad. I think he has had good luck and great skill as well. As a middle of the roader, myself, I'm happy with his way. I'd like to see him without the obstruction.

I studied Paul a great deal too. I even consider myself Libertarian at my core. But I can't get a fix on what it would look like. I'm pretty sure I know what a continuation of the current President will look like and I think I know what a Rom-Sant-Ich would look like. So Paul remains the great enigma.

I believe Libertarianism has become popular because not only does it attempt to justify selfishness, it goes so far as to declare selfishness a virtue.

This flies in the face of traditional Western and Christian values (where greed is considered a sin) and it undermines the cohesiveness that has been responsible for our collective prosperity in recent centuries.

Jack-1746496

I believe Libertarianism has become popular because not only does it attempt to justify selfishness, it goes so far as to declare selfishness a virtue.

This flies in the face of traditional Western and Christian values (where greed is considered a sin)

No, we just are sick and tired of so called conservatives that hate Obama the man. Obama is more conservative than Ronald Reagan. Your arguments don't make sense.

As for Christian values, you mean stoning to death a woman that is raped? Or do you mean, God commanding the Jews to kill every man, woman and CHILD so that they can occupy the "Promised Land"?

I think you interpolated waaaay more than what was justified. I didn't say anything about stoning women to death or killing children. Wow...

What I DID say is that I believe that greed and selfishness are not healthy for our culture, should NOT be valued, and have not traditionally been valued by Western/Christian morality. I'm not even advocating Christianity... I'm agnostic.

Oh, I disagree with you, Jack. Not all Libertarians are self-centered. I have a relations-based, live and let live attitude, and tho' I like pure Libertarian policies, I see that I live in a culture that is not prepared to try that experiment, thus I have no interest in pushing it for the Presidency. Perhaps the distinction is that I am Libertarian in my personal outlook, but not in political policy, where middle of the road strategies seem most amenable to the whole community of America. I don't feel my freedom is protected if my community members feel theirs is not.

That brings us to the disingenuous religious trampling nonsense going on in the rest of the field. No Christian in this land is in any way kept from practicing their faith no matter how poorly, so I have NO sympathy for those whiners. But Gay people really are having their freedoms trampled and I'm not down with that.

I respect where you're coming from, NC. I definitely don't mean to imply that ALL are attracted to it for the reasons I stated.

I do still believe that as a culture, we're becoming increasingly self-obsessed and individualistic. I believe that we are strongest and most prosperous when we consider the whole of America and not just ourselves. I've argued with many Libertarians that don't share my perspective.

But I'm behind you 100% when it comes to personal liberties. Although - I don't think historically mild taxation is an affront to personal liberties!! In fact, it's an insult for Libertarians to use such language.

Jack-1746496

What I DID say is that I believe that greed and selfishness are not healthy for our culture

Ok, message received.

But the current "conservative" is following the lead of policy leaders that actually promote greed and selfishness, and claim it is "Christian"

For example, the cry for deregulation of the banks, is a complete contradiction to what you state. The effort to beat Obama, even if it means tanking the economy, is twisted. The effort to claim that providing birth control tramples religious freedom is malarky. The notion of "american exceptionalism" is arrogant and dangerous. All people, from all countries, are exceptional. Isn't that what Jesus said?

The modern advocate of Western/Christian morality exemplifies "ugly american", and I am sick of tired of the political influence of the religious right.

There are many complex problems in our country right now. I would rather have an intellectual, curious, very educated man like Obama at the helm then any of the GOP hopefuls.

Nc open heart

I am with you. I can't honestly say what i think a paul presidency would look except that he might end up like kennedy did. I would like to see a presidency that defends the bill of rights instaed of taking away from it.

I don't have the credencials that you have. I am just a retired inronworker. I like some of what Obama has done. At the same time there alot of things i have not liked.I don't trust him enough to give him absolute power with a house and senate on his side because of things like the patriot act, ndaa, big bank bailouts,and the way he got the healthcare act passed.So I have a real problem support him for a second term.

I guess i am a middle of the roader to, but I have seen some crap from both sides of the fence that I can't support either one. Therefore if Paul doesn't get the nomination,and i don't think he will. I am going to support Gary Johnson (libertarian) for president.

Excellent discourse, Ladies and Gentlemen! As a Fellow Middle of the Road, Live and LetLive, Compassionate Conservative/Liberal(I have some of both in my POVs), it is good to see intelligence and opinions offered which are not viciously attacked soley due to the fact that not every will ever agree on everything!

If we took the very best pieces from Romney, Paul and Santorum, put them together into the Republican Borg Assimilator, and danced them out to the Voting Right, it would make no difference in the final argument as to this Combo Mombo's chance to beat Obama in November. The void in many voting Republican's ability to weigh the consequences of giving the Presidency to one of these kooks and the subsequent return to Ultra Corporatism, purely based on made up desecrations of Obama, and even more and larger gifts to the top 10% without much regard for the middle and lower classes, is undeniable. Things would be even more one-sided than continues with the Obama Administration. He has been the best Republican in office for 60 years, IMHO. I can forgive his compromises against his restraints. He has actually impressed me, and I am not a fanbois, per se.

The Republican Ticket's shot this time around? They don't have one. Chomp Chomp Chomp.

That is the sound of them eating each other up.

If the Dems can get it together in the next four years for America, without tripping on their own shoelaces, it will pretty much destroy the arguments against his Administration, except for those just hating for some odd reason. i did not like W as President, but did not hate him. Maybe Cheney a bit though...

Good Luck to Everyone in the upcoming years, and Vote! Otherwise we can't bitch if the eventual winner DOES screw up bigtime!! Even if it is the Lessor of Two Evils vote again. Until a Party entirely different than the Ones Offered us emerges, we are doing just that.

;-)

Peace

Ap

You might think having the government making the most private, personal decisions for each individual is "what the founding fathers intended." You're surprised that others disagree?? Seriously?

Thats not what i intended to say You are twisting what i said, In fact I don't agree with that at all I think that the government has no business in our personal lives. I thought that what Paul was for. As far as abortoin goes i don't agree with it except in special circumstances. But that is my personal feelings I in no way would not impose those beliefs on anyone. I believe that a women havwe the right to do what they see fit.

Austrian economics not Keynesian economics = prosperity and liberty

The "Austrian school of economics" would result in "Caveat Emptor in extremis" (Buyer beware to the max). With no regulations, it would be party time for all sorts of frauds, quacks, and unethical business practices run wild. There are very good reasons why all those regulations were put in place, but "Austrian economics" would end all consumer protections, except whatever ones the consumers themselves could construct.

no taxes not more taxes = prosperity and liberty

"No taxes" would lead to no Government and no police, which leads to the tyranny of criminal gang lords and the complete breakdown of the infrastructure needed to run any successful economy. It is no coincidence that the only places without taxes are destitute crime ridden 3rd world areas without a functioning government.

National defense not military offense = peace, prosperity and liberty

Sounds good, and our military priority should be defensive. But sometimes a good defense IS a good offense, and offensive capabilities are important to have available if needed. A "defense only" posture is not enough to stop an ambitious madman with dreams of conquering the world.

Orthomolecular medicine not Toximolecular medicine = prosperity and liberty

Orthomolecular? Toximolecular? This is one of those things skirting near the edge of quackery. "Orthomolecular medicine" is great in its concern with proper nutrition, and good with researching some therapeutic uses of vitamins, but when it leads to the rejection of other medicines arbitrarily deemed "toximolecular" it means rejecting some very important and useful medical tools.

Ron Paul is running for president against the system not against Gingrich, Romney, and Obama.

Well that certainly explains why Little Ronald is the penultimate squeaky wheel loser. He doesn't even know that this is a human-on-human race. Talk about your odd man out - jumping up and down while ranting on his rickety soapbox - and no one cares to hear his abstract drivel any more. And no, he doesn't really appeal to youngsters, except perhaps those who are far too gullible or completely lacking in age-appropriate comprehension skills...

there are literally one or two things I might agree with RP on but that a good president does not make. Michael did a lot of finger work for us on the issue of religion and state and now you have less work to do in understanding the man.

What Ron Paul's presidency would look like would be a do nothing presidency except for possibly embarrassing us to the rest of the world. People will quickly see how impractical his ideas are and nothing will get done. Paul or any of the GOP hopefuls do not represent WE the people, for them it is my way or the highway. It is about conservative values as if they are the only ones living in this country.

Actually, I think there is a fairly clear vision of what a Ron Paul presidency would look like, The isolationist, liassez faire capitalist, lack of a strong central bank or national control of the monetary system, and state sponsored terrorism supporting capitalists against labor unions presidency.

In short, the Hoover administration.

And we know how well that turned out. A national defense with obsolete equipment and training, insufficient equipment with which to drill, and an inadequate pool of veteran non-com officers to train up the services. An economy torn to shreds as small banks collapsed, rendering much of American currency worthless. (Most paper money was issued by private banks at the time. If the bank folded, its currency was worthless. And there was NO FDIC; when your bank went broke, so did you.) And the use of state militias and corrupt state courts to enforce the will of East Coast capitalists against miners, meat packers and railroad workers in states like Kentucky, West Virginia, Colorado and Montana. Unregulated and unsafe industries, like the coal industry using young boys working over moving conveyors belts to sort out over-burden rock and over-sized lumps of coal, or the meatpacking industry as described by Upton Sinclair's book "The Jungle". And our basic civil rights to medical care as WE see fit given over to religious mandates. This is disguised as protecting the moral conscience of the provider, but the actual model is seen as hospitals and pharmacies being taken over by "faith-based" organisations imposing their view on all providers who would practice through them.

Good post- Bill Marvell. Can you imagine how long anything would take to accomplish in this country without "government" ? Fishermen and hunters would have to wait for weeks or months for their licences. Construction certs and permits would be a nightmare. The Tbaggers don't stop to consider the little results that such a ridiculous and draconian action would produce. In an effort to" get their country back " from a black POTUs they would gladly bite their own noses off.

DB akron, if the 2008 repub candidates were bad, what would you call this bunch? I'd call them pitiful. At three of them, santaliban included, said that God told them to run. What, the Almighty was hedging his bets? These repubs aren't running for president, they're running for Ayatollah of the US.

Predicting what any candidate would accomplish were they elected President is like picking the exact order of a lottery drawing. There are far too may variables that limit what a President can do. Congress is the largest obstacle. Without a consenting Congress no President gets anything. World events is yet another variable that can't be controlled. Natural disasters such as flooding large parts of the Nation. Droughts, dust bowls, and so forth. Many of these won't happen, but they can. The most important variable is The Executive and the Legislative Branches of Government. As we've seen the past 3 years you get nothing done without Congress supporting a President. So, no matter the rhetoric we hear during campaigns, the majority of those promises are never fulfilled. My solution, term limits for all members of Congress as well as Federal Judges. No lobbying Congress. No Union or Cooperate money for campaigns and no PACs. And Absolutely No Religion in our Government. Religion is between the Faithful and their Lord not between a President, Senator, Representative and their Constituents. And I am a Believer, but Religion is not a part of governing. One last thing, no one, not even our highest ranking leaders should be above the laws that we all live by. When someone in Congress is found to be "unethical", criminal is my word, they should be prosecuted just like you or I would be.

...for small or dubious values of "great".

That's very true, if by great you mean despicable, and if by candidates you mean losers.

Honestly! As if this race couldn't get any sillier. Vote for me because Santorum once endorsed me. Vote for me because Santorum endorsed Specter. Let's vote for Brittney Spears because she endorsed Pepsi Cola.

"Santorum is phony as a three dollar bill"

Barbara: guess you would prefer we return to recession and what, start some new wars rather than end the two as planned? You're in for a very long second term hon. Wake up and smell the coffee.

You mean the wars that Bush had already set the time line for before Obama was elected? And I'd much rather smell the coffee than the smell that is coming out of Washington these days. Heck, that smell is stronger that the feed lots in Nebraska on a hot summer day.

That's John Boner's post-golf game, post-Congressional session armpits yer sniffin' baby! He's sweatin' like a fat man in a sauna because he just presided over the most do-nothing Congress in all of American history. But you just keep on voting in that bubble, dear, and all will be just peachy!

Yes, and it's coming from the Republican feed lot.

Don't be obdurate-it's from both parties feed lot.

Steeler: We spell that "chutzpah" ...(got to spit out that z part)

Actually, Romney is a principled conservative. It's the principle that's the problem for me. You know, him first, his buddies second, screw everyone else - willing to lie, steal and cheat to get what he wants.

ideal...., Now that's some close reading on your part. Were you an English teacher or editor by any chance?

john-537378 - SEVERELY conservative! Or severely stupid - take your pick!

Romney spoke before a crowd of over 1,000 at a conservative conference. I saw a lot of empty chairs out there. IN A STADIUM THAT HOLDS 64,000 ! ???????

His handlers were stating that he could not find a place BIG enough to hold the gathering.

How about using one of the several shuttered auto plants ? A lot of room there, but he would be throwing more salt in the wounds of the Michigan population and a nation as a whole.

All I saw were suits, ties, and fancy dresses. No Tea baggers with flags on their T-shirts, or women with "Minnie Pearl" hats with tea bags stapled onto them.

And Romney says he supports the WHOLE country. Only if you still have the fancy garb and enough cash to pay to listen to this gas bag.

Right now, there is some old tea bagger sitting in his underwear with a glowing sparkler in one hand, and flag in the other that believes his crap.

You stopped "seeing" tea baggers after they googled the meaning of the term. May still apply to many however.

If you believe in Faux News, then you're automatically a TeaBagger. Case closed.

The ASPCA should put a picture of a dog tied to the top of a car in their next periodical magazine.

TAKING YOUR PET ON VACATION. The do's and dont's.

I am sure the Mittens has the vote of all the dogs lovers in America with his vacation memories.

Just like the old saying that some things are best left unsaid.

"Mitt said dogs are mans best friend" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Wash Post carried an editorial cartoon today, with Mitt in a cage on top of the car trying to tap the window below to ask if anyone wanted to hear about his economic plan....priceless.

Thanks, AP, I'll check that out. He also said Seamus was like family. I think the reason the dog on top of the car episode will continue to haunt him is because if this guy treats " friends" and "family" that way it demonstrates a total lack of empathy. I wouldn't trust him to babysit a pet goldfish, let alone the future of this country...especially with so many people in true need right now.

no fan of Romeny but the dog thing is being blown out of proportions.

The account by those who knew the incident first hand would show that the dog was not mistreated, no more so than dogs in cages[or not] in the back of a pick-up trucks. In fact the dog liked riding in the cage on top of the car and suffered no harm as a result.

Lets be honest and move on....just the same is would be a lousy president.

As you can see, Oh_No may not like Romney, but tells the truth and doesn't listen to that gossip. He's right it is being blown out of proportions, and I'm not just saying that because I support him.

Love that one Nathan.

B dune: See my post @ 7.2

Romney is situated in the "RED ZONE" for his "invite for rich only" speech. Could this be an omen for him in Michigan?

you were spot on "doem"....

* ................................ "God can't hear you" !!!!

I agree with you Buffaloes - it would be an easy victory for Mr. Obama.

Only people who only see the surface wouldn't understand.

If Ron Pau l had made a direct pitch on cutting aid to Isreal beyond his general one he could have been formidable player in Michigan. But he hacks the organzational skills to do so.

Ron Paul is a lot more organized than you know. He has been undermining the republican conservatives since the beginning of this 2012 primary process. He has been working feverishly to get people favorable to him nominated as delegates in each state. If the convention ends up being brokered, he could win.

DB: don't bet the ranch. There'll be no brokered convention (just about impossible--and that's IF there were any candidate out there acceptable to the party)--As to your hope that the US will not abandon the only democracy in the mid-east (that'd be ISRAEL)? No chance. No way. If Paul were "organized"...somewhere in his career, there'd be some evidence of that. He will never win a single state...this time either. He may however play nice enough to win a speech...that'd be painful enough for the Republican party to endure.

Haaa !!! and I really like the avatar......

It reminds you of your stump-broke horse, eh, cowboy ?

(This comment is endorsed by your horse.) ;op

:))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))!

* ...................................... "Nice Post" !!!

To be fair, that's not what he's saying. He's using the fact that Santorum supported him and called him a true conservative, to make Santorum look foolish when he now calls him a liberal. Look, Santorum can't win, but isn't it a lot of fun just to see this playing out for so long? As for Santorum, it takes a lot for the Dutch to get angry at someone; imagine if the man were actually President!

Romney will get the nomination and lose "severely" to Obama.

Reminds me of a comment attributed to Groucho Marx. "Any club that would have me I wouldn't care to be a member of."

Actually I can see him tying them to the tops of his wife's two Cadillacs.

Abe?? The guy Ron Paul called a "dictator" who started an "unnecessary" war?? I think that guy would not recognize his party or the people in it as anything even resembling something American.