I don't think Santorum will endorse Spector again.

Will Romney support socialized medicine again?

Only decent candidate in the race, and I've been saying it for some time. His endorsement of Specter was tactical, and in no way, shape, or form compares to Paul's insanity, Perry's stupidity, or Romney's brazen liberalism.

Will Romney support socialized medicine again?

@7 - Listened to a political junkie once describe a brutal takedown of Santorum by a college kid at a forum in Georgia.  RS was going on ad nauseum about adhering to principles.  When Q&A time rolled around,  the kid stood up and asked why he supported Arlen the Spectre.

RS mumbled that he had to go along with it to toe the party line.

The kid then says, "So principles go out the window when the party says jump?

RS got quite red-faced and walked to the other end of the stage.  It was far from his best moment.

I find his rise in the polls disturbing, really guys? we wanna become that stereotypical angry middle age white guy who hates gays? THIS guy is polling better then Perry? in some polls better then Newt? really?

Id also add his part in the instalment of Medicare Part D and of course on the electability front, his loss in his home state to a guy who makes Mitt Romney look like the life of the party by a whopping 19 points in a state that McCain lost by 10 in an 08 Dem wave year.

Hey, I'm the only one who should be able to talk trash about Gays. I'm from Texas, damnit. You know, the state that had that court case about--derrr, umm, what was I talking about?

Oh yes, he doesn't have a heart if he doesn't support an endless supply of cheap labor for my donors.

Posted by: Truman North at December 30, 2011 05:02 PM (I2LwF)

Did it not occur to you that Ace has, in fact, NOT taken the day off?

I get the urge to slap him whenever he speaks during the debates. This upsets me because I am a nonviolent person. No rechecks of Santorum for me.

I get the urge to slap him whenever he speaks during the debates. This upsets me because I am a nonviolent person. No rechecks of Santorum for me.

Posted by: snowcrash at December 30, 2011 05:20 PM (w3YD7)

he comes off to me like the guy you bring the party who says things you agree with but chooses to say them so offensively and angry that you decide to hide the fact thats the guy you brought with you to the party

He looks like Chris Wallace.

Did it not occur to you that Ace has, in fact, NOT taken the day off?

Yeah, no kidding.  But that's his prerogative!  I'm not sore, just snakebit.

Posted by: Truth Serum at December 30, 2011 05:22 PM (ucERL)

Im saying his image comes off that way, never said he actually said such a thing, but nice try

EXACTLY, and I dont look at most conservatives that way but when Santorum talks he comes off w/ that image

Santorum scolded Bachmann, Paul, and the rest of the crowd at Ames for daring to give lip service to federalism.  Santorum expressly called for a national "morality" to trump state law.  He rejects the Tenth Amendment. This is the biggest cocksucker on the stage, and anyone who thinks Santorum is a "conservative" is a fucking idiot.  The guy is pro-life, and anti-SSM.  Woop-dee-fucking-doo. That does not make him "conservative" when he runs around giving the finger to the entire small government and federalist crowd.

Santorum wants DC morality to trump states' rights.  He somehow thinks that DC morality can be brought in line with Christian values... which shows Santorum to be both naive as well as retarded.

Comes off that way to who? You? And if Santorum never said such a thing why would he have that image? 

Posted by: Truth Serum at December 30, 2011 05:29 PM (ucERL)

google Santorum buddy and then tell me that image is just for me

Santorum wants DC morality to trump states' rights. He somehow thinks that DC morality can be brought in line with Christian values... which shows Santorum to be both naive as well as retarded.

Posted by: wooga at December 30, 2011 05:28 PM (vjyZP)

+1

Posted by: chris at December 30, 2011 05:28 PM (dX5s2)

If you want to get rid of sodomy, ban lube- cuz it's like toxic or kills bunnies.

Posted by: mama winger at December 30, 2011 05:30 PM (P6QsQ)

someone hasnt been watching the debates

Posted by: Y-not at December 30, 2011 05:34 PM (5H6zj)

from idiots like GLADD and shit? of course but when he comes off as an evangelical w/ a vandetta to some independents that's where I worry. I dont' care to please GLADD types but I dont care to scare off indys either.

Thank God.

Good belated Christmas gifts from the Big Guy are always welcome.

Posted by: darii at December 30, 2011 05:36 PM (duihQ)

you can find the debates on youtube in their entirety and in other media sites, you can make your decision when you watch him go off angry at how Perry wants to keep states from making their own decisions

http://tinyurl.com/10thAmok
“This is the 10th Amendment run amuck,” Santorum said, “Michele Bachmann says that she would go in and fight health care being imposed by the states, but she wouldn't go in and fight marriage being imposed by the states. That would be OK. We have Ron Paul saying, whatever the states want to do under the 10th Amendment that's fine, so if states want to pass polygamy that's fine, if the states want to impose sterilization that's fine. We are a nation that was built on a moral enterprise and states don't have the right to tramp over those because of the 10th Amendment.”

And Czech, great news and I'm so glad for you.

...RS got quite red-faced and walked to the other end of the stage. It was far from his best moment.

I'll have to keep my eyes peeled for that one.

Heh. Truth = Brutality, but only to a politician.

We are so boned...

Posted by: Y-not at December 30, 2011 05:39 PM (5H6zj)

yeah I did, I learned that while I agreed w/ the rejection of prop 8 the fact a bunch of pussies like GLADD and other extremists decided to get in a hissy fit that they lost and blame it on christians instead of the fact the whole state (including Dems) said no shows that a majority of gay rights groups are douchebags. My worry is that Santorum, while any other nominee will deal with the gay rights folks' BS, will add more fuel to the fire then any other nominee and cost us chances to win in good looking states for us like NH where there's more of a liberterian bent there.

Posted by: mama winger at December 30, 2011 05:39 PM (P6QsQ)

1. Slavery is prohibited by the 13th Amendment.  So, anyone who argues that Paul (or Perry/Bachmann/ZombieReagan) would allow states to reintroduce slavery is Constitutionally-illterate.

2.Where in the Constitution does it authorize the feds to prohibit states from enacting their own marriage laws?  Santorum says that exists in the mystical "national morality" clause. Which, of course, doesn't really exist.

Posted by: phoenixgirl... all in for perry at December 30, 2011 05:42 PM (ynIQr)

again I dont believe he hates gays, he's been on record bashing Iran for their treatment of gays which I give him kudos for, my point is that the image of his, whether wrong or right, is as a anti-gays bigot. I cant even google the man's name w/o disgusting gay propoganda hitting me in the face from the 1st page.

Bachmann

Perry

Cain

Gingrich

Santorum

Heh, my time to shine, rubes.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at December 30, 2011 05:43 PM (hO8IJ)

wait, when again did I call the man evil? Im making statements of my worry of the image he has not the man's personal chracter. really Heather? 1st you got in a hissy fit ages ago because I said I liked rock music like Shinedown and now your saying that im calling a man evil because I worry of the unfair image portrayed on him? really?

Santorum is exactly the type of d-bag that C.S. Lewis warned us about:

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. "

Posted by: mama winger at December 30, 2011 05:45 PM (P6QsQ)

Where in the Constitution does it allow the feds to ban polygamy? The reason the US required Utah to renounce polygamy BEFORE gaining admission to the Union is because the feds had no ability to ban it afterwards.

116 113
What part of his legislative record shows he is some sort of moral legislating nut.
Oh that's right, none of it.
Posted by: Big T Party at December 30, 2011 05:50 PM (hC5jI)

1. When has Santorum had the ability to legislate jack squat?  He's like Ron Paul, in that all of his craziness are in his words, not legislative action.

2. Most laws are a form of legislating morality. Santorum (correctly, IMO) agrees (ChristiantyToday magazine):

Q: How do you respond to those who might accuse you of attempting to legislate your morality on others?
A: I would say that everyone does. The idea that when you make decisions that have moral implications, you're not legislating morality! When you're going to allocate funds for contraceptive services, are you legislating morality? Of course you are. Now the question is, what moral code are you applying, or what values or virtues are you applying to the situation? What worldview do you see?

3. Santorum's spokesman, when attacking Perry for saying states should be able to legalize drugs or SSM -- unless an SSM amendment was passed (which Perry backs) -- said the following to the WashingtonExaminer:

"states do not have the right to legalize moral wrongs"

Posted by: Big T Party at December 30, 2011 05:57 PM (hC5jI)

Fuck you.  Just accuse all of his who oppose him of only doing so out of anti-Catholic bias.  Just like fucknuts accuse us of opposing Romney out of anti-Mormon bias, and you fuckers accused us of opposing Huckabee out of anti-fat-christian bias.  Hey fucker, I'm a believing protestant, and I think Newt's Catholic conversion is a positive attribute. I don't oppose anyone for holding Christian beliefs.

If you want a guy with (1) a good moral compass, but (2) no respect for the limits of government and (3) no recognition that the inherent evil of man cautions against over reliance on cetralized government planning... well then you should have backed Huckabee.  At least Huckabee wasn't a douchebag.

I collect a lot of things...never once would I consider building a harem, though.

"states do not have the right to legalize moral wrongs"

Perry, Gingrich, Romney, Bachmann and Paul's flaws are all built in. They are known figures now.

That doesn't mean Paul's support is real, just that it isn't ignorant. Paul's real base - of which, each being one or more of truther/racist/bircher/teenager make up 75% - in the GOP is about 9%. That is what Paul pulls, that's what he always pulls. That's for being Paul.

When you see him riding 23%, that's 9% to him for being Paul, and 14% to him for being not any of those other fucking republicans.

Not that those people are leftists mind you. They'd have no use for Paul if they had any tolerance for democrats.

Santorum still hasn't really faced a 'vetting', which he is getting up the ass right now. Most people will be suprised by his negatives, and it will eat into his support.

Polling numbers for the other goobers are, IMO, more realistic in terms of what support they actually have. Numbers for Santorum right now are reflecting the latest (and last) new flavor of the month.

Doesn't mean he'll go away when people do hear his flaws. Does mean his bump doesn't mean anything until after we all know he rapes children and prays to Gozer the Gozarian and has previously supported banning all forms of urination.

Things are just getting started.  

What Iowa does is irrelevant. Always has been. Huntsman is right, they pick corn in Iowa. Individual states do not pick presidents. Thanks to it's freakshow caucii, Iowa almost never nominates the winner.

Very plausible Santorum wins it, and winds up cratering and withdrawing in 2 months, and when that happens, everyone will say "Now it's a 3 man race" and somehow, someway, they'll probably still be fucking wrong.

"Rick Santorum?"

Pass.

Posted by: Vic at December 30, 2011 05:58 PM (YdQQY)

Come on Vic, you know that Scalia already identified that Reynolds was bad law after Lawrence v Texas rejected the Bowers sodomy law ("State laws against bigamy, same sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers' validation of laws based on moral choices.")

@41: "Post a quote where Santorum says he "hates" gays or STFU, Mendez."

"I" "hate" "gays" "."

-Rick Santorum

Or did you mean all at once?

 My (unattractive) secretary just left...

Your interview process needs amending.

Posted by: CoolCzech at December 30, 2011 05:10 PM (niZvt)

I suspect neither you or your wife realized how much you were worrying until you found out you didn't have too.

Hold her close, life is too short to do anything else.

Me either. he's not arguing that the constitution has ome "morality clause" but that the basic founding principles of the nation preclude certain things. He's not arguing for a legal ban, but a moralone. He's saying its wrong.

And yes, Lawrence vs Texas requires legalizing polygamy, among other behaviors presently considered horrible and reprehensible. They just haven't been challenged yet.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at December 30, 2011 06:01 PM (nEUpB)

I think the game plan is to play them against each other.

Good luck with that. Even if somehow you managed to doit, all you get is a house full of angry, frustrated women. That's not going to be very fun for you. Remember Jeff Foxworthy: If she's not happy... you're not happy.

Posted by: mama winger at December 30, 2011 05:52 PM (P6QsQ)

Okay, last comment. You certainly admire Obama's use of the strawman.  Just because I oppose Santorum does not mean I am against candidates having a moral compass.  You do realize that people can be strong, moral Christians without mandating a strong centralized government, right?  Do you think Rick Perry, for example, is a moral degenirate? What about Bachmann, or Paul (ignoring his crazy)?  Are they not as moral as Santorum?  Are they any less pro-life? Are they any less pro-marriage?  Does their willingness to pursue pro-life and pro-marriage laws through the Constitutional process, rather than a Santorum's Obama-style nationilzation bullshit fiat, make them less conservative in your mind?

BTW, I'm supporting whoever actually wrote Perry's book "Fed Up!"

BTW, I'm supporting whoever actually wrote Perry's book "Fed Up!"

Posted by: wooga at December 30, 2011 06:17 PM (vjyZP)

Fed Down!!

@81: "Are we really this stupid?  Its becoming obvious the people 'at the top' are just careerists who are in it for the money.  They don't actually believe anything they say.  Its all a joke to them."

They are also statists looking to amass more power, too.  The palaver that they throw to the voters about conservative values, limited government, fiscal responsibility - yeah, they think that is a joke.  They are deadly serious when talking about expanding the reach and control of the gummint, though.  They're just collectivists who believe in a less-unbalanced budget than the Democrats.

Posted by: CoolCzech at December 30, 2011 05:40 PM (niZvt)

Great to hear!

Compared to the SCAOMF he's George Washington Abraham Freakin' Lincoln, but he's definitely not a guy you would have a beer with.

_{fixed by a lunatic}

@130: "Actually in Reynolds vs United States the supreme court ruled laws against polygamy were constitutional"

For now.

@137: "1. He was a Senator. In. The. United. States. Congress."

And while in Congress, he won the not-quite-coveted "No Rocket Scientist" Award, meaning that he was a stand-out ignoramus amid 535 half-wits.

CC give her a big motorboat hug from the morons.

_{submitted for approval}

The problem isn't solved by choosing any of these Rino's over another, its solved by hiring in legislatures that won't send him shit sandwiches for lunch. Santrum would be better than SCOAMF. And he puts a serious hurt on SCOAMF when he critiques his presidency.

Is this really supposed to be any worse than Perry's "heartless" comment?

Posted by: Clarence at December 30, 2011 06:34 PM (z0HdK)

I haven't been around much today but I'm guessing that was the stupidest comment so far.

Posted by: Jeremiad was a Bullfrog at December 30, 2011 06:39 PM (7GfKM)

No there are some State laws as well as federal laws. Federal law actually banned the old cherry bombs and M-80s. 

Another one of those "do-gooder" nanny things not covered by the Constitution.

Good luck with that. Even if somehow you managed to doit, all you get is a house full of angry, frustrated women. That's not going to be very fun for you. Remember Jeff Foxworthy: If she's not happy... you're not happy.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at December 30, 2011 06:16 PM (r4wIV)

I believe the harem game plan is to keep them angry at each other - not at you. Pimps seem to be really good at that. Of course if you are anything other than purely evil it is not going to work out - but there are a lot of things in life that are that way. For example nobody here could be Eric Holder; our hands would involuntarily strangle our own throats out of revulsion if we even tried.

Posted by: Clarence at December 30, 2011 06:42 PM (z0HdK)

Huntsman won't get within a pubic hair of 1 % of the vote for the rest of the primary season. We know Huntsman, he's a fucking plant by the Dems. Run along Clarice or Clarence or whatever the fuck your name is.

Everyone outside of Texas:  Rick Santorum, yeah he's pretty conservative relative the rest of the bunch.

Texans:  Rick Santorum is threatening the coronation of Rick Perry therefore he is a liberal.

GOP establishment:  Rick Santorum might hurt Mitt Romney therefore we better start digging stuff up in his past to start making his numbers go down.

@214

The thing is that he does have flaws, but they are pretty darn similar to any of the other candidates in the field. So why the pile on in comparison to someone like Huntsman or Bachmann?

Doesn't matter.  Using the new 'Perry Rule' that we can only blame candidates for doing dumb things if we don't do dumb stuff occasionally ourselves, Santorum is flawless.

---

The truth is that Santorum has no experience running anything, which should disqualify him to be President of the frickin' US of A.

Of the three guys that do have experience running big stuff, one acts like he doesn't want to be President and the other two act like they don't want to be Republicans.  So, yeah.

I flunked out of Kind Words. 

Good News OTOH, feel free to keep hittin' me bruddah.

_{I could get enthusiastically into a remedial course in that stuff. It's been awhile.....}

Posted by: Jumbo Jogging Shrimp at December 30, 2011 06:53 PM (qjUnn)

You bet it is! -LSM

Romneys in for it.

I guess it's because I can be pretty ascerbic and stand my ground in the face of popular opinion on issues I care about in the face of popular opposition (more so than is usual): I like Santorum's personality. Always have.

I think he's a smart, sincere man, hardworking, etc.

I DON'T like his religious fundementalism, which far excedes Rick Perry's. But overall I'd be happier with Santorum than Bachman or Romney, and I think people make too much of Santorum losing in PA during a horrible year for Republicans (2006).

So my feelings on Santorum are mixed, yet I always thought he should be considered a credible candidate even though I was apparently near alone in this.

(what a horrible opening sentence: should proofread: oh well)

Posted by: chemjeff at December 30, 2011 07:01 PM (s7mIC)

Yeah, so you have a bunch of proponents for same sex marriage going to try and use polygamy as a club against Romney. Figure that one out.

Posted by: Hollowpoint

Because if you're sane, you don't add any.

Pinto beans, meat, onions, green chile, red chile, salt.  Done.

@240

I think the bigger thing about this is that can Ace really say with a straight face that he thinks anyone else in the field if they were in Santorum's shoes would have endorsed Arlen over Toomey? Would Toomey have even endorsed a GOP challenger over an incumbent if Toomey was a sitting US Senator?

@251

You obviously know nothing about grieving over a stillbirth or miscarriage.

Posted by: chemjeff

We prefer men to settle down and get married, even if they aren't rich.  A society where the rich and powerful have several wives and the young and mediocre are left out in the cold isn't all that stable or awesome.  At least not if the Middle East and Sub-Saharan Africa that I know is the same one you are familiar with.

Posted by: Clarence at December 30, 2011 07:09 PM (z0HdK)

Clarence wants to live in a state where it's legal for him to get his ass fucked by a male horse. Gee, sodomy and bestiality in one state, how Progressive.

Posted by: Malcolm_Tent

He supports Perry.  I wouldn't call Ace picky.

Posted by: Lincolntf at December 30, 2011 07:10 PM (hiMsy)

----

Where do you see that?  All I saw was a question asked and answered. 

Incidentally, the Mormons I know are quite open about their polygamous ancestors.  And obviously Mitt isn't ashamed of it.  So why are you? 

Yeah, the fact that Romney had a polyg great-Granddad won't and shouldn't matter to anybody.

Everybody has polygamists in their family tree.  Some of just know their names and dates is all.

Posted by: Clarence at December 30, 2011 07:15 PM (z0HdK)

Hey Clarice, I'm heterosexual, married, and very conservative. My wife and I do engage in sodomy in the privacy of our own bedroom and I have never complained yet.

Because if you're sane, you don't add any.

Pinto beans, meat, onions, green chile, red chile, salt.  Done.

Wow, that's a highly idiosyncratic view of chili. For one thing, mixing red and green chiles is like wearing brown shoes with a blue suit. For another thing, beans are optional, and prepared separately.

Perhaps your tastes are dictated by a very specific local tradition?

Posted by: Y-not

That's not why Mormons do genealogy.  I think you'll find that Mormons are pretty proud of all their ancestors, not just the illustrious ones.  Most of us don't have illustrious ancestors, frankly.  Most of mine were Scotch-Irish brawling ne'er-do-wells.  And polygamists, of course.

Posted by: Y-not

Of course its strong.  The fact that Perry may (or may not) have had slaveholding ancestors a few generations back has no bearing on Perry.  The fact that Romney had polygamist ancestors has no bearing on Romney.  The end.

Posted by: mama winger at December 30, 2011 07:43 PM (P6QsQ)

Heh, well played, mama! 

Does that mean we should, too? I mean, if you're going to argue that if your dogs do something that makes it okay....

Yeah, so you have a bunch of proponents for same sex marriage going to try and use polygamy as a club against Romney. Figure that one out.

Posted by: lowandslow at December 30, 2011 07:05 PM (GZitp)

B Hussein is the one whose DIRECT family was polygamous.  He's got half-brothers and half-sisters living in cardboard boxes all over the world.  That would be a cool debate ... if any of the conservatives had the guts to even mention Barky's polygamous muslim family ...

Of course, seeing how not one person has ever seen fit to even mention this truly weird fact until now doesn't nurture much hope ...

Why is that whenever a thread degenerates into talk of sodomy and bestiality, the old "butt weld pipe" spambot shows up? 

It's like the "butt weld pipe" spambot and the "lace wigs" spambot are the arbiters of good-gay versus bad-gay.

Posted by: Lick at December 30, 2011 08:30 PM (E8wxM)

The word "No" hadn't been invented, yet, nor the concept of numeric age, so they were perfectly legal couplings.

Posted by: Lick at December 30, 2011 08:36 PM (E8wxM)

Maybe the left should just take their self-loathing, loony, nihilism to some other country (as just about every nation on Earth is closer to the left's ideal than the US - which is, of course, why the US was the greatest nation to have ever existed)?  

Why is that your problems with your father have to be expressed as hate towards everything that reminds you of him, including yourself?  That's kind of pathetic, you know ... which is exactly how you folks are going to be recordd in history - as the most pathetic generation to have ever existed on Earth.  Thanks for dragging us down with you.

Posted by: nickless at December 30, 2011 08:53 PM (MMC8r)

Does your car disprove the existnce of the interstate highway system?  I think not.  THerefore it proves the existence of the interstellar highway system.  Q.D.E.

Oh, I'm sorry I thought you were a rational and sane human being. My mistake, I'll stop poking the looney.

www.genset-china.com

happy  everyday

Rick Santorum endorsing Arlen Spector? Death.

Rick Perry supporting Al Gore? WHO CARES??!!! EVERYONE DOES THAT IN THE SOUTH!!!

Santorum - the room temperature IQ candidate!!!

What could go wrong?