Why I MUST Now Support Rick Santorum For President of the United States Instead of Mitt Romney

my³:

Now they can claim Republicans are against contraceptives

If Santorum were to win the nomination, that would be true.

So why shouldn't we salivate with glee and point that out (as long as we cover our mouths so you don't see drool hanging off our chin; that would be gross)?

[I hope you don't answer right away because that means you have the golf on. Awesome.]

Poor, Jazzy! Not much of a choice there, is there? :o(

Isn't it sad when some people follow politicians like lemmings, even when they prove themselves to be self serving, racist, sexist, bigoted, devoid of empathy and pretty divisive.

Good luck with your guy. He's going to need it! :o)

jfx @ 3.1

I, like Paul Ryan speaking to David Gregory, did not come here to talk about contraception;p Not biting on that bait.

Now, golf - wowie what a finish! And I was rooting for the prematurely bald young man who won it all (he's had enough disappointment). Apropos of nothing, all three in the playoff had cleft chins. And, I think I shall write a rant about golf announcers, gack.

++++

To get back on topic - you shouldn't salivate with glee because it is divisive. More divisiveness from the King of Dividers (Obama) and his sycophantic troops. The country has had enough of that. What kind of person would intentionally create more fissures in the societal fabric at a time when the nation needs to pull together?

The thing about Faith is it defies all logic =).

That might be the most profound explanation of why good folks vote Republican that I've ever read.

Wow.

The country has had enough of that. What kind of person would intentionally create more fissures in the societal fabric at a time when the nation needs to pull together?

Are you lucid???

my³:

To get back on topic - you shouldn't salivate with glee because it is divisive

So? Elections are intrinsically divisive. They're supposed to be. One side presses issues they believe will divide the public with a majority on their side, the other side presses issues they believe will divide the public with a majority on the other side.

If you want to be "non-divisive," I have a plan. Let's anoint Obama the winner by unanimous consent. No division there.

It certainly wasn't Obama who has divided rich versus poor, homosexuals versus straights, men versus women, religion versus secular. It is the Republicans (one geriatric Ninja turtle in particular) who said they will do anything to bring the President down. And by any thing they will do everything including using religion as a wedge issue, selling their country down the river to get votes. They will stoop to unimaginable depths to get back to the White House no matter that they destroy the country.

The Grand Old Party has become an embarrassment to the country, to itself, and to religion. It has become a desperate, petulant group of whiners whose members are dropping like flies thanks to all these moronic tactics the Reps. are ready to thrust upon us.

jfx @ 3.8

Being divisive over legitimately held political policy is one thing - to exploit intrinsic differences in privately held beliefs is another. He said/she said stuff. Pot stirring.

The left doesn't want anything to be private anymore. It drags everything out into the arena and throws semi-faux fits when anyone who dares not to think like they do speaks out.

Their bullying tactics and obstreperous language are on full display at this site 24/7. How someone feels about gay marriage or ethnic minorities is private - it only becomes public when someone acts against the law on subjects like this. You cannot make people think like you (that's a general you, not a specific to you you), but, with a willing media and well-indoctrinated followers at your bidding, you can sure as hell make like difficult for those who dare to disagree. This is what the Dems have brought this nation to. It's like living in a gulag.

It's like living in a gulag.

Well are you speaking from experience? If so tell us all where you did the time.

All this talk about God's plan. He will show us the way. And according to Santorum, he is the path to God. Sounds almost "christ like".

I got a theory. God is eternal. Therefore God's plan included the Constitution. Since God helped write it, He wants to stay out of politics. In other countries, where God is government the people have no freedoms and no rights. All the rights and freedoms go to the "religion" and the government.

We are free because God gave us the Constitution. Therefore God is on the sidelines. He wants us to vote for freedom.

Being divisive over legitimately held political policy is one thing - to exploit intrinsic differences in privately held beliefs is another. He said/she said stuff. Pot stirring.

What you said in the above quote, I read English, I have good comprehension skills, but I don't understand what you are talking about. Civil rights that pertain to us all are "private!" Since when? Don't Ask, Don't Tell is a private matter?? Separation of church and state is private???? Really???

newblog @ 3.13

Civil rights that pertain to us all are "private!"

In some ways they are. If someone decides not to join the military because they don't want to live with gays, so far that is a private matter. If that person was in the military and mistreated a gay person, that would be actionable under law (as a violation of civil rights) and military rules.

Separation of Church and State is a Constitutional matter and is a civil liberty.

my³:

Their bullying tactics and obstreperous language are on full display at this site 24/7.

I'm sympathetic to that. I like to have smart righties around so I can argue with them and the sheer weight of that tends to drive them away.

How someone feels about gay marriage or ethnic minorities is private

But it ISN'T private when non-Catholic women employees of non-Church entities owned or administered by the Catholic Church are forced to accept inadequate health care coverage, or when monogamous gay couples are placed at a legal disadvantage in probate or family court because of the "private view" of some old guy who lives in Italy.

I can see you want the Culture War to, if not stop, reduce to a simmer. I do, too. But it's not our choice. To paraphrase an old favorite of yours, you go to elections with the issues you have, not the issues you wish you had.

3.14 So don't join the military and if you get drafted you are going to have to learn to cope because there are gays in the military. They are legally there and guess what? your personal biases don't trump the law. Your personal dislikes and opinions are not license for you to trample other people's rights.

jfx @ 3.15

But it ISN'T private when non-Catholic women employees of non-Church entities owned or administered by the Catholic Church are forced to accept inadequate health care coverage,

But they are not "forced" to accept "inadequate health care coverage". (Using modifiers like 'inadequate' are all part of the word games.) They can pay for their own contraceptives, as so many do, or find a job with an insurance plan that will cover their contraception costs. Some people don't care a fig about health insurance, so don't buy it or use it as a criterion in their job search. (Of course, all this presupposes that Americans will be allowed to continue making choices about their health care coverage in the future.)

+++++

As for your smarty-pants last paragraph, I shall avert my eyes for now.

my³:

But they are not "forced" to accept "inadequate health care coverage". (Using modifiers like 'inadequate' are all part of the word games.) They can pay for their own contraceptives, as so many do, or find a job with an insurance plan that will cover their contraception costs.

Of course they could. And the music industry could all use covered wagons whenever they needed to get from Los Angeles to Newark for an important funeral of a beloved performer. But they don't. Because we don't live in a world of covered wagons anymore.

I have a better idea. Make women's reproductive health care a standard health insurance benefit under federal law as authorized by the interstate commerce clause.

Oh. Wait. We already did that. We had an election, the people's representatives passed a law, and now that law is in place and operating as written.

If you want to make that law an issue of contention in the next election, I'm okay with that. Except it's a little divisive.

my³

I wasn't being smarty pants. I actually would rather not have this kind of thing be an issue.

I think we can win without it. But I think don't my side's culture warriors would go for a ceasefire.

We're counting on that, Jack. We beg of the culture warriors on the left to continue.

Pat:

Ha. But our culture warriors are saying the same thing about your culture warriors.

Now, on this exact issue, it so happens that my culture warriors are beating the @!$%# out of yours.

Nevertheless, I'm concerned because of the general sentiment I just expressed--that such matters shouldn't be at the center of a general election--and because our advantage may not hold. These kinds of things sometimes go topsy-turvy like the Titanic on an iceberg.

Now, on this exact issue, it so happens that my culture warriors are beating the @!$%# out of yours.

Ain't that the truth? I can understand them wanting to run on social issues to rouse the base again, but making contraception the lead issue- in the year 2012- is just insane. But hey, I hope they don't stop:).

Now, on this exact issue, it so happens that my culture warriors are beating the @!$%# out of yours.

Really Jack. Is being "better at" cultural attacks something you want to be proud of? ;)

Nevertheless, I'm concerned because of the general sentiment I just expressed--that such matters shouldn't be at the center of a general election--

Agreed. But in a hyper-sensitive political climate filled with single issue voters, most of whom can't clearly articulate what is factually "right" with their guy or factually "wrong" with the other guy, what else would you expect?

Blame it on the disturbing societal mentality that cropped up over the last two decades that's raised a breed of political "hobbyists" who tend to bristle whenever theyre presented with an opinion that differs from theirs. And blame it on the agenda driven blogs that cater to those hobbyists.

These kinds of things sometimes go topsy-turvy like the Titanic on an iceberg.

True dat.

jazz @ 3.24

When the Dems do admit that the Repubs are now in charge of the House, they pretend that it has been for all of Obama's term, not just the past 1 year. Pay attention, you'll see what I mean. That way they can blame the Repubs for all the things that didn't go well.

jazz:

I was talking about the Culture War stuff. If I wanted to talk about the last midterms, I'd have talked about the last midterms.

You're banking on what you think might happen in August and smacking the left for fantasy?

jazz:

Oh. Really?

How have all those Wall Street analysts done predicting the future the last, oh, six or seven years?

Also, there is no line of demarcation between the Culture War and the political war as far as I can tell

That's funny. my³ tried to draw it for you further up the thread. Pay attention. What happened to that flood of homophobic military officers resigning you were telling me about if DADT repeal happened?

Im restating what oil industry people are now saying

Hmmm the oil industry people are looking for any reason to deflect any blame, and therefore you believe them.

Seriously man, crude oil prices are going up for one reason, short to medium term concerns about what is happening with Iran, which may not be a leading supplier of oil, they are a significant supplier of oil and any disruption of iranian oil into the global markets will increase the price of oil globally.

The Grand Old Party has become an embarrassment to the country, to itself, and to religion. It has become a desperate, petulant group of whiners whose members are dropping like flies thanks to all these moronic tactics the Reps. are ready to thrust upon us.

Amen to that newsblog!

Our worldviews like night and day.

While I have a total understanding of yours and how you've been deceived into belief of it.

That is where you are sooooo wrong, Jazzy, and that statement so arrogant. You do not have any understanding of mine, especially as a woman, otherwise you would know why I find the current Republican politicians repulsive dinosaurs.

You also see me as 'deceived' into my belief around them? Perhaps my friend, while you are utterly delusional in your grasp of current reality. What you still haven't got yet is that the current crop of candidates are dismal, so it really doesn't matter whom you switch to. It won't make a blind bit of difference to the outcome of a Democratic win in December.

I will be right here on the Vine in November for you to tell me I was wrong!! And I cannot wait. :o)

Jon @ 3.30

Seriously man, crude oil prices are going up for one reason, short to medium term concerns about what is happening with Iran

Let's not forget the requisite periodic strategically serendipitous oil refinery fire.

#3.9:The Grand Old Party has become an embarrassment to the country, to itself, and to religion. It has become a desperate, petulant group of whiners whose members are dropping like flies thanks to all these moronic tactics the Reps. are ready to thrust upon us.

It certainly wasn't Obama who has divided rich versus poor, homosexuals versus straights, men versus women, religion versus secular. It is the Republicans (one geriatric Ninja turtle in particular) who said they will do anything to bring the President down.

How wonderful to hear the truth! And the GOP knows that President Obama is not a dividing element or force in the country. This is a typical case of "blaming the victim"!

But this is a republican well serviced and delivered, tried and true mantra. Nothing has changed.

The GOP knows full well that their initial plan was to destroy this black President; but lo and behold who will be destroyed? I think, with all of my heart and soul, that it will be the GOP. And not a moment too soon as far as I am concerned!

Not only are they an embarassment, they are a potential danger to fair-minded people everywhere.

#3.31:You also see me as 'deceived' into my belief around them? Perhaps my friend, while you are utterly delusional in your grasp of current reality. What you still haven't got yet is that the current crop of candidates are dismal, so it really doesn't matter whom you switch to. It won't make a blind bit of difference to the outcome of a Democratic win in December....I will be right here on the Vine in November for you to tell me I was wrong!! And I cannot wait. :o)

Good morning sweetheart from the good old USA; I am always glad to hear from you- or as I like to oftentimes say "c 'ya"!

It is wonderful to see and read your response to the Seeder, because you and I are the same belief: it doesn't matter which of the repub candidates they select to get behind. All of the R's will lose handily to our Democratic President, Barack Hussein Obama.

I will salute President Obama, as well as yourself and I, when we win again in November, 2012. Take care and may you and your family continue to have a very good New Year.

(I think I congratulated you on acquiring the London Olympics position on an earlier seed. If you missed it then, here it is again).

Oops, I almost forgot, too: I can't wait!

I doubt anyone cares about Barack Obamas race.

Rather a jaundice view considering these type of things:

http://www.policymic.com/articles/3044/rick-santorum-has-questionable-rhetoric-concerning-racial-profiling

http://www.dailypaul.com/200366/i-like-rick-santorum-except-his-racist-remarks

http://africanamericanpundit.blogspot.com/2012/01/rick-santorumss-racist-comments-about.html

How wonderful to hear the truth! And the GOP knows that President Obama is not a dividing element or force in the country.

Of course he is, which is unfortunate, because he didn't have to be.

Not only are they an embarassment, they are a potential danger to fair-minded people everywhere.

I find your use of the term "fair minded people" fascinating....bordering on comical...given that I have never seen you be willing to admit that Barack Obama is anything less than perfect. A "fair minded" person would be willing to admit that their guy had made some mistakes.

Make women's reproductive health care a standard health insurance benefit under federal law as authorized by the interstate commerce clause

Jack 3.18: "Free" birth control is not about women's health care......obamacare is going to take matters of women's health down to all time lows.....think annual mammograms....regular paps and other women's reproductive health cancer screenings etc which I see falling by the wayside with Obama and his "best practices" rationing panel. As a woman--I am most outraged by that....by the loss of regular screenings that ya know could actually SAVE MY LIFE.

lisa:

"Free" birth control is not about women's health care...

Yeah. It is. A duly-passed Act of Congress declared that it was within the Administration's domain to say so as a matter of law. And they said so.

Of course, if you don't like that law, you're free to try to win enough control of the government to change that law.

Jack: "A duly-passed Act of Congress"? Sorry...I'm giving you this WOMAN'S perspective. There is much to be concerned about vis a vis the state of women's healthcare in America. Access to free birth control is not one of them.

I see the flapping about of the GOP as a lack of moral fiber.

Hear, hear! And this makes them try to control other people's lives instead in order to feel powerful.

He supports and encourages those engaged in all forms deviant homosexual behavior in defiance of God's direction that men and women should not practice such.

BULL @!$%# ALERT!

favors abortion?!?.....really??? nobody favors abortion. also, what is his motivation for encouraging homosexual behavior?? its called giving ppl the choice and not imposing his personal views on the public. u know....that whole separation of church and state thing. i dont see how that makes him any less of a christian.

No one favors abortion and the sooner you religious fanatics understand that the sooner there will be less of them.

If you don't believe in abortion, or homosexualtiy, don't engage in either. Otherwise, keep your warped extreme draconian religious fanatacism to yourself and live your own beliefs and leave others to live theirs.

He not only favors abortion, but is a strong advocate of abortion in its most heinous and unmerciful form,partial birth abortion.

Jazzy, there is none so blind as those who wish to close their eyes to what they do not wish to see. I guess accusing the President of whatever you wish is far more exciting to you, making you feel smug and self righteous, than the actual reality! Ah well, whatever floats your boat....:o(

I recall a couple of Bible passages that say "All have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God," and "judge not, lest you be judged."

Rick Santorum either has forgotten these, or he hooked Sunday School those days. If Obama's leadership has been "failed and flawed," let this man win the White House.

Then, Jazzman, you will see what a "failed and flawed' President truly looks like. Since John Huntsman wasn't crazy enough to appeal to the GOP, and is out of the race, Mitt Romney is far and away the best candidate the party has---neither Santorum nor Newt Gingrich are fit to deliver Romney's laundry.

That said...I'm STILL voting for the "failed and flawed" guy that in there now...

yes, you can choose to set your standard on something irrelevant to the job if you want. its a free country. at least so long as the theocrats dont get control.

The proof of that is Jesus waved His Faith

His faith was Judaism!

No offense, but my determination for voting for a man to hold the office of President of this nation is what I determine it to be.

No offense, but my determination for how I live my life is what I determine it to be.

The answer from God is no, because as Jesus said, Christians were put here to be "the salt of the earth, and the light of the world"

No offense, but Jesus was a Jew. Christianity didn't form until years after his death. How could he have used the term Christianity for something that didn't exist?

his belief in traditional marriage of one man to one woman,

your words, in the article, as a reason for you supporting Santorum.

yet the tradition of one man and one women is far younger than either Judaism or Christianity.

oh, and since you brought it up, if God really only created one man and one women, how was Cain able to go to another village and find a wife?

You folks sound like you are having a Scripture War...sorry I can't take sides or lob a few scriptures myself on this one.

Mormon belief allows (polygamy)

No, it doesn't, although it did at one time.

And another thing, the President doesn't "believe" in abortion- no one does. It is a legal procedure to be utilized by those who feel they want to have one. If you don't want one, don't have one. I dare say the dreaded Santorum would take away so many rights and freedoms you'd begin to wonder if you were in Saudi Arabia.

As for the President's flawed stint in office. What exactly are you talking abou?. Name one awful, rotten, dangerous thing he has done. You can't. I fear Jazzman you have become victim of some really bad propaganda.

newsblog @ 9.1

If you don't want a baby, don't get pregnant.

Frankly, it is none of your concern who gets pregnant, who uses birth-control, and who gets an abortion. I certainly don't need the likes of Rick Santorum telling me how to live my life. His job is not to be my or any one's moral compass.

Gee don't get pregnant. Sometimes it happens when you get raped! mymymy I guess if you can pray the gay away you can pray the fetus away! sarcasm

newsblog @ 9.4

Abortions because of rape represent 1% of the total abortions (13 million) in the U.S. - i.e. 13,000.

so?

If you don't want a baby, don't get pregnant.

This sort of black-and-white thinking is exactly WHY the right is rapidly losing ground. Americans are finally waking up to the fact that there are infinite shades of gray, and that overall, people should have the right to personal autonomy, i.e., to decide what they want to do with their own bodies. This includes abortion, drug use, birth control, and sexuality.

Obama 2012!

Another statement that discounts the reality of the 2010 election. Uh we won!

Yep, and now it's 2012, time to catch up and stop living in the past. 8)

And hopefully the country learned the lesson of letting a bunch of clueless tea partiers who have no clue on how to run a country take control of the agenda, promising jobs, jobs, jobs but only delivering on regressive social policies.

which many of them regret today.

Really? Who annointed you the guru of people and their regrets. Jesus, get over yourself.

But it was Independents who really voted Obama into the WH, which many of them regret today.

Oh sure that is why his poll numbers up so many regrets.

How did President Obama failed to lead the country? Bush was a sorry leader because he was on vacation for most of his TWO TERMS. All the GOP complain about is President Obama and his failed policies but CANNOT NAME ONE! Conservatives today are so full of it. Always think that their way is the ONLY way.

Here is an article on your man Santorum.

http://differnet.newsvine.com/_news/2012/02/19/10451167-santorum-45-million-american-christians-are-in-satans-control

Exactly, he's crazy, bringing home a dead baby to cuddle! Yikes!

newsblog

You really scraped the bottom of the honey bucket to come up with your comment at 11.1 to support your POV. You have just lost what ever credibility you had in this discussions.

You have just lost what ever credibility you had in this discussions.

Facts are hard to deal with sometimes.

I'm not the one who needs to worry about credibility. Santorum does and he doesn't have any!

You really scraped the bottom of the honey bucket to come up with your comment at 11.1 to support your POV. You have just lost what ever credibility you had in this discussions.

Um, it is true. His sanctimonious wife had a 19th week abortion to save her life in 1996. Then they took the deceased fetus home for the other children to play with and sing with and cuddle with even took photos. Rick Santorum, of as he is known around these parts of Pennsylvania, Ricky Sanitarium, doesn't stand a chance in his own state, or the state he says he lives in, which is here in Pennsylvania. He actually lives in Virginia.

He can never win Pennsylvania.

Oh, and his sanctimonious wife's live-in partner through most of her 20s was Tom Allen, a Pittsburgh obstetrician and abortion provider 40 years older than she, who remains an outspoken crusader for reproductive rights and liberal ideals. Dr. Allen has known Mrs. Santorum, born Karen Garver, her entire life: he delivered her in 1960.

Jazzman, I hope you get the chance to vote for Santorum. That would be my dream candidate for the Repubs. He's a delusional, hate-filled nutbag and has absolutely no chance of being president.

So, explain to me your thought process of God allowing Obama to be President in the first place......and why would God (who did allow Obama to become President) have a change of heart and now want Obama to be defeated? Did you ever even make an attempt to figure out why God chose Obama to occupy the White House?

Once again you've created this litmus test of claiming not to be able to vote for someone who denies the Deity of Jesus Christ.....but yet, there was a specific moment in time in your life in which you seriously considered voting for Mitt Romney (someone who doesn't believe in the Deity of Christ) over Obama (someone who DOES believe in the Deity of Christ). How can that be?

It's the same type of thinking that allows statements like this:

The answer from God is no, because as Jesus said, Christians were put here to be "the salt of the earth, and the light of the world"

No offense, but Jesus was a Jew. Christianity didn't form until years after his death. How could he have used the term Christianity for something that didn't exist?

No offense, but Jesus was a Jew. Christianity didn't form until years after his death. How could he have used the term Christianity for something that didn't exist?

Ha!!!.....Yeah, I thought that too when I read the original article. Like the part where Paul refers to Jewish Christians.......I kinda went, huh? Paul was one of the disciples, but the term Jewish Christian refers to the small enclaves of Christianity that had spread through out parts of the Holy Land around 300 A.D. Christ didn't distinguish between the Jewish Christians and the Gentile Christians. That came much later.

Your number of friends doesn't make you right. It just tells us that you have a lot of friends that agree with you. Here is your card.

Spike:

I won't repeat the troll comment, bad sinner that I am, but what I said was that this seems to be a place where the religious right can get together and whine about Obama. This is a great forum to lick their wounds, pat each other on the back and pretend that everything wrong in their lives is Obama's fault.

I feel so sorry for Jesus. If he only knew the travesty that has become of his life and death.

I feel so sorry for Jesus. If he only knew the travesty that has become of his life and death.

Isn't that the truth.

"They treated him so badly, how could he wish them well?" Gordon Lightfoot.

newsblog:

what I said was that this seems to be a place where the religious right can get together and whine about Obama.

So what? So what if that were the case? Ninety-five percent of the other NV threads are places where people who aren't the religious right get together and not whine about Obama. Unless they're some Green Party or Occupy nitwits, in which case, they're not religious right but do whine about Obama.

What's the problem with having a place like this?

Of course He was nailed to a Cross for doing it, just as I have no doubt He would be if He showed up preaching His Gospel in secular progressive America today.

Here's another. Jesus didn't write the gospels the apostles did years after his death. It would be quite the feat to preach something that hadn't even been written.

the apostles did years after his death.

I do not think that is even correct. From my little understanding nothing was written until after the first century.

14:12 What's the problem with having a place like this?

Nothing. If you want a pity-pot great but at least have the decency to not crap on the President. Attack his policies not the man. Isn't that the Christian way?

newsblog:

Why? Aren't there any recent Presidents that you crapped on?

Crapping on the President is the American Way.

You know I did not like Bush at all. I was really upset with the war and got depressed over the monetary crisis. I have to say despite how bad I was feeling about Bush I NEVER disrespected the office of the President nor did I disrespect the man as a person. President Obama is an intelligent, good, and compassionate man whether or not you care for his policies. He does not deserve the hostility coming from the Right Wing about him as a person.

newsblog:

He does not deserve the hostility coming from the Right Wing about him as a person.

It's in the job description.

On the other hand, as nutjobby as much of that Righty condemnation is, not only is it within the tradition of American civil discourse, but I'm convinced, truly, that it weakens, not strengthens, the Republican opposition.

If the economy remains on trend, Obama is going to blow the Republican nominee out of the water regardless of who they put up in part because of that Right-wing weirdness.

Hopefully, God will have mercy on us all, deciding we have been punished enough, and relieve this nation of the terribly flawed and failed leadership of Barack Obama.

When I first read that statement, I wasn't sure if I would qualify it as an ad absurdum argument or an ad delirium justification, but then I thought to myself that I basically felt the same irrational way about Bush Jr. When Dubya was re-elected in '04, I felt that it was God's punishment for the Clinton Impeachment/Lewinski scandal that occupied the nation for way too long......so maybe we can agree that God just must simply enjoy punishing the United States for the stupid things we do collectively.

Peace.

As far as Obama, as I stated in another comment here, his actions as President don't indicate to me he has any belief in Christ at all, Deified or otherwise.

You know what Biblical passage came to mind when I read that statement?

Do not judge, lest you too be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Matthew 7:1 - 2.

Since you've already judged Obama to not have any belief in Christ whatsoever, that same standard or "measure" will be used against you, come Judgment day. I can think of countless things that Obama has done that might be considered "Christian" or "Christlike", whereas I find it quite difficult to think of even one example of Christlike behavior for Obama's predecessor.

That I can agree with you mrsrachelm, god is in control and everything happens for a reason. But for the life of me I cannot understand why there cannot be found a better man to run for president than the sorry choice that are running on the republican ticket. Last time Palin soured the ticket, this time it is a disaster from the get go. I lost all my respect for the republican party the last election and this time it is a lot worst. Like I said before my grandfather would roll over in his grave if he knew what his party has become.

I really do not know, it seems that the ones who are reasonable are not saying much or there just are not any left or are afraid of the tea party. It is sad!

He has a solid track record of success

Really, you can say that with a straight face after he got voted out of his seat in Pennsylvania??? Seriously!

Really, you can say that with a straight face after he got voted out of his seat in Pennsylvania??? Seriously!

Do me a favor and look up how many seat turnovers there were that year. I swear, if the biggest "gotchya" the left has on Santorum is that he lost his Senate seat after over a DECADE of service and in a year when there was massive turnover nationwide, then you guys are really grasping at straws.

No, the GOP is grasping at straws entertaining Santorum as a candidate! Desperation, desperation, desperation!

Lets see here. You toss out that (GASP!!) Santorum lost his Senate seat and imply that he is somehow unqualified because of this.

When it's pointed out to you that he served for over a decade (12 years, to be exact), and lost his seat in a year when there was massive turnover, your response is essentially....

"neener-neener. Republicans are doodie-heads for entertaining Santorum"

Got it.

So does this mean you're backing of your original argument that losing his Senate seat somehow has any bearing on his performance? Or do you have something that actually supports your theory?

I live in PA and I remember the campaign against him being all about his performance and ideas.

people were upset that he voted to hurt the VA economically in favor of his Catholic friends (a property deal)

they were upset that his voting record was rare and those votes he did cast were not in PA's best interest.

they were upset he was soooo religious in his politcs

"neener-neener. Republicans are doodie-heads for entertaining Santorum"

ROFLOL Pat you always make me laugh. I'm just glad I'm not on the receiving end of your occasionally acerbic wit.

;-P

neener-neener. Republicans are doodie-heads for entertaining Santorum"

If the shoe fits...

ROFLOL Pat you always make me laugh.

If we can't laugh around this site on occasion, it isn't worth coming to. ☺

I noticed there was a punchline voluntarily supplied in 17.7 of another "neener-neener". Good golly. I couldn't have orchestrated that more hilariously than it naturally played out on it's own. and thank the poster wholeheartedly for proving my point.

We'll see who's laughing if Santorum gets on the ticket. He'll be laughed to oblivion! He is laughable, the GOP is laughable! Keep smiling after Nov.

Neener-Neener! (you forgot to put that at the end of your post again, newsblog)

newsblog...it's been fun. Much like the mindless game of hop-scotch or jumping rope. But as an adult, I tire of child's games pretty quickly these days.

Do you have anything intelligent to present on a grown-up level regarding Santorum's qualifications, track record, integrity or values? You know...the actual things that this article is about?

Well yes, his values and integrity are those of an ayatollah. We need a president not a religious leader. He has managed to insult gay people, women, religious folks, and immigrants. He is consistent about his views which are offensive to so many. He wants to bring his Catholic views into the White House and have them applied to one and all completely ignoring the fact that this is a country of ALL the people. He is a corporate whore. He cares nothing for people in crisis. He is worse than the Pope. He is making a mockery of the GOP- worse than it already has made of itself. He is hateful towards others. He is a hypocrite. I could go on but I'm getting tired.

Well yes, his values and integrity are those of an ayatollah.

Well...it would appear that you're at least making a modicum of an attempt at intelligent discourse. So I'll hold out hope and play along.

I'd be interested in hearing...specifically...what values Santorum shares with an ayatollah.

He has managed to insult gay people, women, religious folks, and immigrants.

Obama has managed to insult Catholics, military active duty and veterans, Jews, aqnd hispanics. What's your point?

He is consistent about his views which are offensive to so many.

And appeal to many. Read the Constitution lately? It doesn't guarantee you the right to not be offended.

He wants to bring his Catholic views into the White House and have them applied to one and all completely ignoring the fact that this is a country of ALL the people.

I'd like to see evidence of him saying that. Got a link from a credible source?

He is a corporate whore.

Wait. Have we switched over to talking about Obama? Solyndra? Goldmann Sachs? The $120,000,000 no bid contract he gave to Blackwater/Xe? Chrysler? GM? GE? Want me to continue?

Ok Pat you win. You keep defending Santorum the Sanctimonious. You keep polishing his halo for him and praying for him. He'll need it! If he ever gets in the White House (which you know will NEVER happen) I will be preparing for the Inquisition. I've got to go now.

p.s. read Babina's post 11.5

Really, you can say that with a straight face after he got voted out of his seat in Pennsylvania??? Seriously!

He lost by the biggest margin in a senate race in history. He can't win Pennsyalvania. Period.

Santorum and Palin in 2012 a match made in heaven, or hell depending on your preferences.

Jazzman..

Thanks for this article. It's been helpful reading through the comments. I was originally leaning towards RP, then when he fell through, I decided Romney was the best bet, although, the moderate view doesn't have as much strength, I know, but I still like him better than Newt. Santorum looked a bit interesting with his "compassionate Conservatism" approach, yet, his ordeal with Tom Delay and the K Street project was brought up as a drawback. Do you or anyone have an opinion on this issue as a major mark against him, and if not, why not? ..

Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, who served in the House before 1994, has often been described as the Senate liaison to the K Street Project, as he met with Norquist on a regular basis to review openings at lobbying firms and the leading candidates for those positions. As the Abramoff scandal broke and grew, however, he denied the extent of the role attributed to him. He claimed his meetings with Norquist were not as frequent as asserted, that he did not know Norquist that well, and that he was unaware of a file keeping track of campaign contributions by lobbyists and their firms.

He took particular umbrage at claims to the contrary by then-Senate minority leader Harry Reid, saying they amounted to libel, although he did not deny that meetings took place. He referred to them as "good government" efforts. He claimed he had not seen Norquist in years, but later the blog Crooks and Liars posted a video clip of the two of them sharing a podium at a June 28, 2005, press conference.

Norquist, however, claims that at a 2002 meeting with Santorum and lobbyists he described the project to them. A contemporary report says he described its goals and asked those present to help complete the project. He passed out a list of lobbyists the project was checking on. At that time Santorum did not comment.

Later that year, Norquist publicly commented, "(Santorum) has gotten me in to talk to all those guys."

Santorum also had publicly criticized the Motion Picture Association of America and Boeing for hiring former Clinton Administration officials, but said that was unrelated to his meetings with Norquist.

Roll Call also reported that Abramoff himself attended one of Santorum's meetings in 2001. Santorum says he might have attended but does not specifically recall that.

After the disclosures, Santorum announced the jobs list would no longer be part of the meetings.

Santorum lost his bid for re-election in 2006.

Ok Pat you win. You keep defending Santorum the Sanctimonious. You keep polishing his halo for him and praying for him.

Damn. Just when I thought we were on the path to an intelligent discussion, ya go an resort to the Beevis & Butthead *neener-neener debate strategy* again. What a bummer.

Oh well. I'll still be here when you decide to actually educate yourself about the topic before speaking. Looking forward to it.

Ok, I understand, that is what I like to do with unfamiliar commentary, as well. Thanks for replying!

Yes he does. But my voices tell me that he is wrong. Same argument. Different direction.

A different person, a different spin.

I wanted to advise them not to do it.

...because YOU have decided to play God, now? Oh..my bad...God 'spoke' to you and now YOU can advise.

This has gotten to be too ridiculous for me. Join us on planet Earth. We miss you.

because I thought there may be other Christian Conservatives who felt as I did, and were compromising their Faith and values in support of Romney, simply because polls showed he could beat Obama.

I wanted to advise them not to do it.

Jazz: Why that advice? Voting Santorum is throwing the election to obama. And as a Christian Conservative I cannot support that. Romney actually lives the values that you and I embrace as Christian conservatives. And that's damned good enough for me.

I trusting in God sweet one =)

That's always good advice, but if you set your pants on fire and expect God to send the fire department, you may be disappointed in the results.

But Marshall Santorum is fomenting war even within the Christian groups. You know, Mormon versus Catholic, versus Evangelical. His internecine wars are worse than Iraq and the entire Middle East put together.

Good to see you by-the-way.

good to see you.

I just cannot understand how anyone could support Santorum. Obama...I can understand it.......but Santorum????

it sails right over my head.

but Santorum????

it sails right over my head.

Marshall we do not usually agree but, extra kudos for that.

its the libertarian in me....it leads me to agree with you liberals on occasion.

:)

it was very well written...as is all his pieces...I just cannot understand the appeal....

They're both hard-right religious conservatives. I'm shocked that Jazzman didn't already support him.

it was very well written...as is all his pieces...I just cannot understand the appeal....

Heroin and religion are the same you can only get a separation NEVER a divorce.

jazz:

Actually, my³ got me thinking so I just checked the Group page and I'm kinda impressed. You and lisa just broke 20 votes multiple times recently and my³ went popular with her first article.

Maybe you have a Silent Majority audience?

:^{)>

So I'm saying there I have peace and accept whatever God does. Obama or no Obama, because I know He takes care of His people (meaning Christians) either way.

This is not a well written article nor a very Christian one and it will not get my vote. Jesus' people were Jews. A loving God would take care of all Its people Christians, Jews and everyone else. Christians DO NOT own God the concept belongs to all.

Go ahead and delete but the writing is not good, the content is non-sensical, the Biblical interpretations worse than usual, and it is not well thought out.

Any response to my question in 17.18??? Should that be a mark against him or not?? Is it significant regarding "character?"

Santorum, along with Coborn was also involved in the campaign finance fraud that John Ensign perpetrated (where he also potentially brought his own parents into the scheme subjecting them to potential prosecution) in regards to his cover up of an affair he had with a staffer, along with the payoff that he ran through is parents business. I am not aware of Santorum being involved with K street directly, but that K street was the organization that Ensign and Coborn were members of. That doesn't meant that Santorum wasn't part of it, just that it wasn't really an issue in terms of ethics.

It is interesting however that Santorum, for all his preaching about family integrity etc... was more than willing to help cover up and deflect an affair and the subsequent campaign fraud by John Ensign.

Gas prices predicted to hit $5 a gallon by summer are going to put the skid on any economic recovery experts say

Oh, I have no doubt people will try to use that line against him, and it might be an effective talking point if they manage to change to keep Team O. on the defensive. Given the ammunition that Dems have right now against Republicans, I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

Since you brought it up though...

Gas prices were nearly $5 a gallon in 2008, if you recall, before the crash.

Prices returning to pre-recession levels isn't unusual when recovering from a recession.

I'll pit my business degree and former career trading stocks against yours.

Those prices are driven by speculation. The economy gets better, people start speculating again.

The tiny amount of oil out of keystone isn't enough to significantly effect global oil prices. It's tiny compared to what comes from the rest of the world, where they pay their oil field workers much less money.

The only mitigating factor is shipping costs... which is rather lower if the tanker is owned by the refinery who makes all the fuel.

Jazzman, The evidence and actual events prove you wrong.

Under President Obama the the economy is improving (albeit slowly), the unemployment rate is dropping, we're paying the lowest taxes in 65 years, private sector jobs are consistently being added each month, he saved or created millions of jobs with the Recovery Act and the auto loan bailout, the stock market has doubled and is consistently up overall, regulations have been passed that will prevent another casino on Wall Street and economic meltdown, we're exiting wars we should have never engaged in, we're earning back the respect of the rest of the world, major landmark legislation has been passed that benefits millions of middle and working class Americans, e.g., LLFPRA, ARRA and the ACA, a draconian discriminatory policy, DADT, within our military was repealed, Osama bin Laden was hunted down and killed, etc., etc., etc.

All this and so much more in only 3 years despite being ham-stringed by a do nothing obstructionist republican congress who's only goal is to defeat him and see him fail no matter the cost to this nation along with the worst economic meltdown in 65 years and negative worldwide reputation due to conservative republican proven failed policies, deregulation and arrogance.

As for the Keystone XL project, well, the President and anyone paying attention to anything besides right wing propaganda, knows that the purpose of the Keystone XL pipeline is to move filthy tar sands oil from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico, where it will be refined and shipped to Asia. The construction of the pipeline will create no more than 6,500 temporary US jobs. The actual permanent positions will be held by Canadian citizens who work for the Canadian company that owns the pipeline, TransCanada. In order to build this pipeline, the US government will impose eminent domain on thousands of American land and homeowners to allow construction of a foriegn owned pipeline. The pipeline route is through the massive Nebraska Ogallala aquifer, threatening the water supplied to millions of Americans. There are several refineries in Michigan perfectly capable of refining the tar sand oil and would invole amuch sorter pipeline, mostly through Canada. You have to wonder why they don't pipeline it through their own country either to the west coast for shipment to Asia or Michigan for use in the United States.

Besides, the increase in gas prices is being caused Wall Street, i.e., Goldman Sachs, etc., who are once again gambling, this time on oil futures speculation, which drives up the price of gas resulting on them once again getting rich on the backs of the middle class.

Don't be fooled. The President isn't responsible for increasing gas prices.

Boy! the REPUB.BAGGERs are grasping an anything to spin an negative narrative against the President. Gas prices have little to do with OBAMA and more do to with market speculation and perceived tensions in the GULF. Most folks with an once of sense will know and understand this going to the voting booth. But nice try though.

Most folks with an ounce of sense will be asking why Obama killed the Keystone pipeline which would have been a great step toward getting us off foreign oil dependency.

That is total bunk. Keystone is for exporting oil NOT for domestic consumption.

jazzman,

because the routing of the pipeline was over a shallow aquifer that if there was a leak, it would have contaminated the water supply for at least 5 states and destroyed the area for use in agriculture.

So all TCPL has to do is reroute the pipeline so that it doesn't run over that aquifer, and reapply.

Jack Death.

While the current plan is for export only, that is only because domestic demand isn't high enough, due to the economic problems of the nation. Once demand increases, it really doesn't matter what the original business plan was, the refined products will be redirected to domestic sources, something that won't be done if the pipeline is rejected and a pipeline is built to the west coast of canada instead (there are NO refineries on the west coast of the US that can refine tar sands crude)

Jonathan,

We are exporting oil now from domestic production at the rate of 7 million barrels a day.

Jack Death

So what?

did you not read this:

While the current plan is for export only, that is only because domestic demand isn't high enough, due to the economic problems of the nation. Once demand increases, it really doesn't matter what the original business plan was, the refined products will be redirected to domestic sources, something that won't be done if the pipeline is rejected and a pipeline is built to the west coast of canada instead (there are NO refineries on the west coast of the US that can refine tar sands crude)

That makes NO difference it is all about controlling supply to keep the cost high.

so by not controlling the supply (not building the pipeline), you think it is going to drop the costs?

That doesn't make sense.

so by not controlling the supply (not building the pipeline), you think it is going to drop the costs?

That is not the point. Why are we selling 7 million barrels a day when we could be using it here?

We are now producing more oil here than we ever have.

Simple profit.

Jack Death

I again refer you to the quote from my previous comment, and again I bolded the appropriate part that answers your question. Did you even bother reading it?

While the current plan is for export only, that is only because domestic demand isn't high enough, due to the economic problems of the nation. Once demand increases, it really doesn't matter what the original business plan was, the refined products will be redirected to domestic sources, something that won't be done if the pipeline is rejected and a pipeline is built to the west coast of canada instead (there are NO refineries on the west coast of the US that can refine tar sands crude)

WHEN domestic demand increases, then the supply of refined products that are currently going to foreign markets will be redirected to domestic sales. Which would you rather have, the surplus product being exported, or the refineries shut down?

And by the way, that is exported REFINED products, the crude oil import ratio is still the same. The difference is that the US has far more refinery capacity than just about any single country in the world. Those exported products are generally made with imported oil.

So to make you happy I will for argument sake go along with you.

We are no ways near full refinery production.

It simply greed nothing more.

which is WHY the pipeline was to be built,

not sure what you mean by refinery production as meaning demand, because demand is for the products that the refineries produce. It is end user demand that is down.

So by using that refinery capacity to produce product for export, it creates revenues, which if you don't keep that refinery production up, it ends up just costing money.

not sure what you mean by refinery production

Capacity.

and you are right, refinery capacity isn't at peak yet. That is the point of routing the XL pipeline to texas and louisiana, to utilize the currently under capacity refineries in those two states.

But the problem at the IMMEDIATE moment is that there isn't enough domestic demand for those refined products as a result of the economic difficulties. So when the domestic demand for those products isn't reaching the capacity to produce, you have two choices:

1) decrease production

2) increase your market and thereby demand by finding new markets, meaning export.

So decreasing production means killing jobs, and increasing demand by exporting seems to be, in your mind greed. So I guess they are screwed no matter what they do.

The issue with the XL crude isn't that the the business statement indicates that the refined product will be exported, it is that people think that it can't be redirected once the domestic demand increases. It can, very easily.

Now I am still not sure what your arguments actually are. The fact is that domestic demand is currently below capacity, not sure what it is about that which is evil, or criminal or greedy?

Do you know that there are oil companies here that are closing refineries because they feel that their profits are to low to keep them open?

Supply side economics just suck.

christ would more follow Ron Paul

not offensive..and start wars of aggression...peace...prosperity.

no theft...ie federal reserve...federal income tax....welfare and warfare state.

If Christians truly thought about it...there is no way they could ever support someone like Santorum

Who cares if Iran gets 1000 nukes......what are they going to do..destroy the world so what was predicted in Revelation never happens??? and therefore would prove Christianity wrong????

if Christians believed in the bible they wouldnt be concerned with Iran at all.

its just nonsense.

Armageddon ! Isn't this what they have been waiting for? Well they are gonna get it! :)

newsblog, if it weren't for the fact that they were so fervent for their guns rights and own so many guns, I'd welcome that implosion and rebuilding. However, I get the feeling that many of the more , er..extreme right folks would not go quiety into the night.

It all depends on the person who is doing the post. Some have different objectives for their desire to be here.

Most of us are commenting on the post directly, which states that the reason one person changed their mind and is voting for Santorum is specifically because of his religious views.

Some are broadening the topic to comment on other issues and policies surrounding Santorum as a presidential candidate.

You are using the comments about Santorum to broaden the discussion even further to how Newsvine's policies relate to the comments, which is still within the COH #2 ("Newsvine's primary purpose is to provide a place for people to share and discuss topics relating to the news").

I think all are within Newsvine's purpose and COH and recommendations.

Thanks for the clarification. I did not mean to go off-topic.