Romney is maneuvering this into a brokered convention and removing credible threats of third party via his dangerous ‘gentleman’ tactic. 

Romney-establishment-media-Obama are cutting this big spender, no vision-ideas, dangerous religious fanatic slack to give him national attention and sympathy.  No brutal attack ads and twisting a humane person into a crook that they never were on Santorum that Romney and media are capable of doing with anti-establishment candidates that would make changes, including to monetary system. 

Media and his congressional colleagues are remaining mum on Santorum, other than saying Romney is not likable to set the stage for a Obama-Romney likability contest where neither have to run on track record and policies.

Santorum / Bachmann are using vague platform of ‘family values’ to camoflauge what CNN calls ‘Christian Sharia Law’ or their agenda of mixing politics and faith to lethal levels.  (Bush and Obama have family that they value, and look where their family history got this country.)  This dangerous aspect of him is what leads Romney to be soft on Santorum.

Romneycare as a ‘blueprint’ for Obamacare is not being described well or how gov’t decides who gets what medical care.  If Obama was gov of MA, he would have done the same exact thing that Romney did.  Both men think alike when it comes to problem solving in government as both of their records indicate.

Santorum has only a couple of small achievements while in Congress.  He hypes up welfare reform and Syria sanctions.  What he did in Congress for healthcare is unclear, he certainly wasn’t a free market advocate at that time.  Did he really go against the Heritage Foundations’ recommendation of individual mandate to combat Hillarycare?  Other than a couple of small, fairly insignificant achievements in which he assisted, his voting record and of authoring bills is atrocious.  If someone could sum up his voting record in a few accurate, professional, non-brutal sentences that could serve as soundbites, that would take him down. 

And, like Newt and virtually all former congressman, he used his contacts to peddle influence in lobbying and lobbying type jobs and connections to get on high-paying board positions – I thought this was the Romney definition of  a crook.  Yet, I only see one or so article on his post-congress experience.  With this kind of record and contacts, I don’t know how one can be an ‘agent’ for change if there is no experience in leading a revolution or being an integral part of one or being the leading advocate for something or other in his past.  I’ve only seen one opinion piece by Ed Rollins that Santorum is simply hyping up his congressional record.  Noone in debates has taken him on when he goes on and on about something he claims he did, but didn’t, like welfare reform.

Well moron is a word to and means something as well and Santorum is the representative of the idea or the freak show of such an idea.

Yeah, right. This from the guys who support the person who said “While Roe vs Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion in all 50 states would be equally invalid”. Ron Paul is pro-choice state by state. Someone should tell him states rights do not trump human rights.

Sen.Santorum is bound by the US constitution where divine law is not directly violated and so is constrained to an extent by the “consent of the governed”, and it is permissible to tolerate a lesser evil like access to contraception without being guilty of material cooperation in its practice. It is not, however, at all licit for states to engage in slavery or infanticide. The states have no right to do wrong, they have a duty to do right, no less than individuals. 

TYT just released a video about this as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2j5Rl8YQfg

so is he for contraception or not? oh, wait…it depends on who is asking the question, who he is speaking to and who he is trying to please in that particular moment. he is just so creepy…again, why don’t people see it?

No ,the states are not little god. Duh. Better the states than the federal government though. Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Pol-Pot, Mao. Get the idea? Hello?

Although I admire Dr. Paul, I don’t think he has the hutzpah to do what you want him to do.  I wish, but he has a hard time criticizing and calling these people on the carpet in a dramatic fashion, and THAT is the only way the audiences are gonna “get it”.  They’ve had too much numbing effect from TV violence, video games, movies, everything that they are just numb and NEED to be shook up in order to “get it”.  And, I don’t know how Dr. Paul can do it. 

Not quite. I am well aware I’m talking to the author of “nullification”, Dr.Woods, but with all due respect to you, I digress. 

Especially since you’re Catholic, you should know this is about principle, and the civil law must comport with the moral law. Unless we fall into legal positivism, the States have no right whatsoever to permit child killing, and government has not merely the right, but the binding obligation to uphold so basic a tenet of natural law as the protection of children. States would have no right to permit slavery either, and government has the right and responsibility to effect that federal ban throughout its jurisdiction. “World government” therefore does not enter into the picture, but within a nation, one cannot have 50 different laws, especially unjust laws.

Don’t get me wrong, Dr.Woods, I respect you, and with some fundamental disagreements about the Faith, I am still a fan of your work, but I think you frequently overstate your case, as above. As for me, I am a traditional Catholic and I wholeheartedly accept both Casti Connubii and Humanae Vitae. But, approximately 80% of America does not believe contraception is wrong, and about 98% of couples have used it, so I’m told, with approximately the same proportion in the Catholic population. Much of Title X funding also goes to other health care centres and is used for other services. There is therefore no comparison.

Coming to their records in general, there is no comparison. What matters to me is not electability, whether of Ron Paul or Rick Santorum, but rather implementation and bipartisanship. I don’t disrespect him, but fact is, Dr.Paul has sponsored about 420 bills and passed only one. I shall say no more.

Sen.Santorum was instrumental in one of the most successful reforms in America, that of welfare. He’s been a staunch supporter of health savings accounts from the beginning, which is the best answer to the socialized medicine that is Obamacare. He was a member of the Gang of seven and the third ranking Republican in the Senate. He developed a “spendometer”. He fought for a balanced budget amendment long ago which would have prevented the current mess.

One can support one’s own candidate heartily without misrepresenting another candidate. Here is the NTU’s (which “mobilizes elected officials and the general public on behalf of tax relief and reform, lower and less wasteful spending, individual liberty, and free enterprise.”) lifetime rating 

“ On a 4-point scale (awarding 4 for an A, 3.3 for a B+, 3 for a B, 2.7 for a B-, etc.), those 50 senators’ collective grade point average (GPA) across the 12 years was 1.69 — which amounts to a C-.  Meanwhile, Santorum’s GPA was 3.66 — or an A-.  Santorum’s GPA placed him in the top 10 percent of senators, as he ranked 5th out of 50. 

Santorum was the only senator who got A’s in every year of Bush’s first term.  None of the other 49 senators could match Santorum’s 4.0 GPA over that span

Among the roughly one-third of senators (18 out of 50) who represented states that — based on this measure — were at least as far to the left as Pennsylvania, Santorum was the most fiscally conservative. 

In fact, considering the state he was representing, one could certainly make the case that Santorum was the most fiscally conservative senator during his tenure.”

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/was-santorum-senate-spendthrift_629850.html 

God be with you, Dr. Woods.

Huh? If I understood you right, Mike, you’re arguing that federal authority can be abused, therefore it’s power should be limited, yes? The problem in my view is that this understanding defies the very unity and structure of a nation.

 Why is national super-unity a desirable thing? What makes limited federal government a problem?

Santorum has an absolutely atrocious
record that is right up there in supporting big government with newt
and romney.  For anyone who claims to even care about the constitution, cutting back spending, or limited government, a vote for Santorum is just about as credible as voting for Romney.  In fact, a good case could be made that it is worse than Romney. 

The guy who voted to mandate a new entitlement program in Medicare Part D, or who voted for mandatory trigger locks at the federal level, or to explode the budget of the Dept of Education and increase its power with things like No Child Left Behind, voted to increase the minimum wage multiple times, the constant increase in tax dollars for amtrak, bigger and bigger budgets every year, constantly raising the debt limit, and on and on make it a joke for anyone to try and pretend this guy is somehow a support of limited government.   

I didn’t realize that Ron Paul had gone down the list of all 50 states and expressed his support of abortion in each case.  I must have missed that interview.  The debate, on this issue and all others, goes nowhere if the people who claim to support adherence to the Constitution can’t maintain consistency in that position.

The only reason he will get the Christian vote is because the MEDIA refuses to bring out his religious contradictions and flip-flops!  Couple that with the fact the GOP fraudulently manipulate the election and the votes, plus make sure the Republican “base” know they are not to vote for Ron Paul, as they hate him.

A CNN article points to facts that do not coincide with your overhyping up to Santorum. 

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/17/politics/santorum-senate/index.html

Santorum has only received 3 endorsements from Congress, while Romney has received 77.  When Santorum’s colleagues are asked about him, they remain mum and do not say one thing or the other.  Essentially, Santorum’s career in congress was fairly bland with not much meaningful to come out of it.  They do not want to put their reputations on the line by speaking on behalf of Santorum. 

If you fought so hard for the balanced budget amendment, why did you vote for several increases in the debt and has yet to lay out any type of economic plan?

Such a high-ranking Senator you claim and yet he lost in 2006 and since has not held public office.  But, he uses his congressional experience to land lobbying positions and lobbying type positions on boards.  Of course, virutally all former congress members do this, but in this respect, Santorum is no golden boy working on behalf of the people.

Santorums’ contribution to welfare reform was very much overhyped.  He assisted in that project and others like Gingirch and others were leads in welfare reform in the 90′s.  Other than a couple of smaller scale projects, Santorum has mainly negativity attacked to his record.  He does not have a bone in him that points to fiscal conservatism.  I don’t know where you are getting all these wierd grades/statistics from – media that is on his side for now has never mentioned it.

Vast majority of the bills Paul introduced are what the people want and why they elect their politicians.  However, it is corrupt politicians like Santorum that have limited political will that stop good legislation from moving forward.  Paul introduced legislation to counteract the Community Reinvestment Act that was one of the core causes of the 2008 financial crisis.  When so many congressman benefit from crisis, it is easy to see why Paul’s legislations do not pass. 

What I will agree on is that Santorum is a tad bit better than Romney.  Regardless, Santorum will not be the nominee – that is just the fact.

fyi – I would be interested in seeing the details and blueprint of the bible theology that he would like to see implemented as he says Obama is not ruling from the bible.

And Ron Paul prescribes birth control including the abortion pill.

Yes, like most Protestants, Ron Paul does not have any problem with birth control. Rick Santorum voted to provide funding for something that he was against (and that the government should not be stealing money to fund in the first place). Ron Paul voted against giving Planned Parenthood any money even though he had no issue with contraception. Now, which choice do you think will lead to a diminished Planned Parenthood? I’ll give you a hint; it isn’t funding them through the government. 

Also, because this irks me as well, what is the difference between the birth control pill and the morning after pill? They are both potentially abortifacients which do not allow for a fertilized egg to implant in the uterus (if Rick was truly against these things, again, he would not have given Planned Parenthood funding). If we ban one, we should ban the other. But then, I’m sure we will have to ban certain herbs that may bring about the same results. Or women with low progesterone levels should be forced to take supplements to stop miscarriage….I’m very pro-life, but I wonder where exactly you would draw the line? How about we educate people and take the state out of the issue (Planned Parenthood may have already gone out of business if not for special protections through the government (Santorum also voted to make it a federal crime to block an abortion facility)). 

That Ron Paul can’t get other representatives to follow the Constitution isn’t his fault. You want to blame the guy who is sounding the alarm for the unconstitutional behaviour of others. Perhaps it is those who vote for those other representatives (you?) that deserve the blame. You can’t justifiably expect Paul to be able to force the others to obey the law. You’ve got everything backward. It’s those who don’t support his bills that would return us to a constitutional republic that deserve the blame.

And I don’t judge legislators on how many new laws he gets passed. I give them credit for trying to repeal all of the laws already in existence. We have too many laws, and too little justice.

I’m a Mormon and I loathe Romney.  They’re both such big deals for the same reason Mormons everywhere wanted the Utah Jazz to win the NBA Finals or that one wiener to be America’s Idol.  For some it reason it validates and makes them relevant.  

That and everyone is largely state-loving President-worshipers…

Happy War Crim…I Mean Presidents’ Day
http://thelibertyweekly.com/articles/archives/997 

I’m all for a one world government as long as it includes 7 billion sovereign states and a money supply regulated by god.

 And the post has been deleted again…   Thomas Peters doesn’t seem to allow the truth to get in his way.

Most Tea Partiers now support the inept war on drugs;
many cringe at the thought of changing our foreign policy to one of peace and
friendship. Some are even ok with the patriot act, and a few would even
tolerate Obama-care as long as the title is changed to Romney-care. They seem
to be saying: “I don’t use drugs nor should anyone else, so don’t allow
it. I have nothing to hide and anyone who does should be monitored, so continue
the patriot act. I don’t want to be forced to purchase a good or service but if
I must it damn well better be a Republican doing the forcing. In essence, I
want my liberty protected but not liberty in general.” http://www.oakparkrepublic.com/2012/02/occupy-wall-street-and-tea-party-by.html

Actually, the most like Bush-Cheney is Romney.  Santorum has improved a bit with libertarian seeds, while Romney continues to spit on libertarians.

 
Yet Santorum is unique.Santorum:  Our abortion was different
“The doctors said they were talking about a matter of hours or a day or two
before risking sepsis and both of them might die,” Santorum said. “Obviously,
if it was a choice of whether both Karen and the child are going to die or just
the child is going to die, I mean it’s a pretty easy call.”

Rick Santorum is one dangerously confused denialist. The former Pennsylvania
Senator and presidential aspirant is best known for his inability to associate
his professed compassion for life at the level of the zygote, with the physical
realities of human sexuality.  He has equated loving same-sex
relationships to bestiality.  He is opposed to abortion under any
circumstance. Almost.

In October, 1996, his wife Karen had a second trimester abortion.  They
don’t like to describe it that way. In his 2004 interview with Terry Gross,
Santorum characterizes the fetus, who must be treated as an autonomous person,
as a practically a gunslinging threat, whom the mother must murder in
self-defense. Karen has had to justify her decision to save her own life by
explaining that if she died her other children would have lost a mother.

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

In the 19th week of her pregnancy, Karen discovered during a routine exam that
the fetus she was carrying had a fatal defect and was going to die inside of
her. A long-shot surgery was performed that required cutting directly into the
womb. It carried a high risk of infection and was performed not to save the
fetus, but to reduce Karen’s complication while she attempted to go full term.

:Once the Santorums had agreed to the use of antibiotics,
they believed they were committing to delivery of the fetus, which they knew
would not survive outside the womb.”

They knew the child would
not survive if Karen took the antibiotics. And they agreed to the antibiotics
which induced labor. The Santorum’s knew that the antibiotics would induce
labor and the child would die.  What is
the difference between the morning after pill which causes the child to leave
the womb and the antibiotics that Karen took? 
The fact is the Santorum’s knew that the antibiotics would induce labor
and the child would die. 

http://early-onset-of-night.tumblr.com/post/6502308112/our-abortion-was-different-when-the-anti-choice

 Karen Santorum’s had a six year love affair with abortion
doctor 40 years her senior.  Interesting side
note he was the doctor that delivered her.

Dr  Allen said: ‘Karen was a lovely
girl, very intelligent and sweet.

‘Karen had no problems with what I did for a
living.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2087812/Rick-Santorums-wife-Karen-love-affair-abortion-doctor.html#ixzz1mxRkaDVC

The detail in this story that seems
to be grossing people out the most is that Karen, whose last name was Garver
when she was living openly as the kind of fornicator she and her husband now
claim is so sinful the government should work against you, was actually
delivered by her boyfriend Tom Allen when she was born in 1960. I’m from a
small town, so that probably doesn’t have the effect on me that it does on
people who aren’t used to some of the uncomfortably close romantic
entanglements people can get in. That this detail captures people’s attention
suggests that we’ve become a little too inured to the hypocrisy of right
wingers who carry on—and Rick Santorum is the worst—about how the
government should restrict contraception access and teach abstinence-only
because sex outside of marriage is sinful and how abortion providers should be
subject to criminal penalties. It’s worth noting that when it comes to the
black markets of the sort that conservatives wish to create around abortion,
girlfriends and partners often get caught up in police stings, so if the laws
the Santorums want were in place back then, it may not just have been Dr. Allen
in danger but also a young Karen Garver. But even if not, since she lived with
him for so long, she basically benefitted materially from “abortion
money” he earned providing abortions, money that helped pay for her
housing, if nothing else.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002330023

Hey Dodo (Santorum), yeah you should be ripped for public FUNDING of this.  You claim you are a fiscal conservative, but then you go fund stuff like this?  You’re a hypocrite just like all the others.