Just curious, would any of you vote for Santorum
 

I couldnt.
I've heard him respond to questions and I believe that he truly believes his moral character is superior because he is religious. He believes he is better because he is christian. Im fine with people being religious but I believe he crosses the line Im not comfortable with.

Others?

I think a lot of people that are Christians (or Jewish) are better - on average - than those that are not but it is no hard and fast True/False And/Or rule that must be obeyed. Just on average.

I think a lot of what he says has merit with regards to Good -v- Evil if applied in the non religious context. I don't think Satan and God are gearing up for a steel cage match and this election is the ring of death.

I do think that Hollywood / Popular culture has created more problems than it has solved.

I do think that having more kids born to non married parents than married parents is not the trend we should want to see in this country.

All that said, I cannot see me voting for Santorum, certainly in the primaries, nor can I see me voting for Obama in the General. Unfortunately I see Romney as the least miserable choice between Mitt, Santorum, Obama, or Paul.

In a time of a completely destroyed economy, massive unemployment, an administration that hints more and more about increased action against Iran and tax law that is complete nonsense, Santorum chooses to focus on birth control, teaching creationism in schools and the government getting further and further involved with our personal lives.

I've said this before... Santorum is a front runner because he appeals to the religious fringe. Religious people in the US are passionate about their religious beliefs, not as much as those psychopathic Islam followers in the Middle East the riot and kill over a burnt book, but still passionate. That religious passion is the only reason Santorum is relevant today, but it's also the reason he would be completely destroyed in a general election.

More people are declared Independents now than either Dems or Repubs. Elections are won in the middle. Romney used to appeal somewhat to moderates but his lack of a spine has him pandering to the fringe and boasting "hey look! I can be conservative too".

:love:

And thus is the problem. Romney's lack of Spine or Obama's awful lack of focus.

So while Santorum works the extreme right, Romeny works all sides, Obama panders to the Left and puts "election" in front of doing what's best for the country. So while we are talking about contraceptives at religious organizations being paid for by insurance companies
for free, we are instead ignoring the 1.5 TRILLION per year Pachyderm in the room. That we are going into further and further in debt by 1.5 TRILLION per year should be the NUMBER ONE PRIORITY of this country. There will be NOBODY to bail us out in a short few years.

To quote my favorite Glassmaker: We. Are. Screwed.

I feel that Obama has been ineffective on the domestic front. It concerns me that two of the most effective members of his Cabinet would leave if there was a second term (Clinton and Geithner). However there is nothing that would get me to vote for Santorum because the man's position on social issues.
An Obama v. Romney decision is a much tougher choice for me but I think the public has come to the conclusion that Romney is out of touch with the poor and middle class and that may be too tough of a hurdle to overcome.

As with the above poster, I don't agree w/his view on social issues (abortion, same sex marriage, women's issues). I also have no respect for some of the insults he spews at our pres. There is a way to criticize the president w/o disrespecting the office or the president. He also should have shown some back bone (like McCain did 4 years ago) when someone at one of his rallies said Obama was a Muslim. Santorum didn't say a word.

He prob. needs to give more to charity as he has the lowest % among all the cand.

I did get a kick of his winning his seat by claiming the former holder was out of touch and had moved his fam. to Washington. Then when he got caught doing the same thing he said that the promises he made when he was running for the house didn't count for the senate.

The only God is the Almighty Dollar. The religious wackos who are costing the republicans elections should be lined up and summarily shot.

Santorum is as crooked as his nose.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's the democrat's ace-in-the-hole: The profound stupidity of the religious litmus test for republican candidates.
Now look what you got. A Mormon on one side, and a faith healer on the other. They'll lose, but at least they won't lose their principles - that only they are concerned with.
Some fiscal conservative should just stand on the highest pulpit and proclaim once and for all, "We just want to keep our wallets shut! We don't even go to church!"

or the Dems could stand up and say Open Your Wallets!

:rotf2:

Reasons not to vote for Santorum:

HE BELIEVES HE'S SUPERIOR. Hmmm . . . isn't a big ego sort of a requirement for political office. Obama abundantly drips with superiority and he won in a landslide. I guess you just have to know how to flaunt it. Disqualified.

HE APPEALS TO A RELIGIOUS "FRINGE." Hmm . . . shouldn't the Pres appeal to as many as possible? Probly better not to appeal to religious folks, though, especially fringe types like Catholics, Evangelicals, Christians. That would mark him as quite unsuitable for POTUS. He couldn't possibly appeal to those folks and take care of every other problem that each of the rest of us has. He must somehow be everything to everybody, and yet not appear to be for anybody in particular.

HE'S TALING ABOUT CONTRACEPTIVES WHILE THE U.S. BURNS. He, along with a host of others, objects to Obama's infringement of the first ammendment guaranty of religious freedom, then is constantly grilled about it. Yup, talking about the Constitution is rather stupid nowadays. Hasn't he noticed what it's done for Ron Paul? Nobody wants to hear that stuff--especially not politicians--that's not how the government is run anymore. He's obviously not qualified for political office if he is concerned with that outmoded Constitution stuff. Disqualified.

HIS POSITION ON SOCIAL ISSUES. Hmmm . . . most of which are in accordance with the majority of Americans. Yeah, but, those positions ARE quite polically incorrect. Disqualified.

HE INSULTS OBAMA. Omigosh, a politician insulting another politician! On this count he is, along with the rest of the pols, disqualified!!

HE IS AS CROOKED AS HIS NOSE. Yeah . . . good observation. His nose is llittle crooked. So he must be a little crooked. That's just too ordinary. We need outstanding qualities for POTUS. Just a little crooked won't do. He must have to be a big hoodwinker and liar like most of our recent and present Presidents. Disqualified.

HE IS PASSIONATE ABOUT WHAT HE BELIEVES. Good God Amighty . . . oops . . .sorry about that God stuff . . . but, come on, doesn't he comprehend the first principle of politics --INSINCERITY!! Disqualified.

You forgot: he is either insane or a good liar

Sex for procreation only :rotf2:

but some of the repubs. seem to take it to a whole new level. Is there anything worse than calling him un-America, a socialist, a Muslim, saying he isn't born here?.

President Reagan could call up Tip O'Neill, and though the ideological gap between them was a chasm, they could privately hash out a negotiation that had some gains for both sides, and get stuff done in a timely fashion.
People with intractable belief systems, who won't budge or negotiate - shouldn't be in government, because that's how business is done. Ironically, these are the same people who hold Reagan up as their model. Reagan was a negotiating pragmatist, above all things. He would have told them they were nuts if they were not willing to engage in the give-and-take of government.

That not my list, but based on Santorums very candid and open marks - he's not mainstream at all.
I was raised catholic, catholic private schools my whole life - every single catholic I know has/had pre-maritial sex and uses birth control. every single one.
No media spin - i heard the live interview on 96.9 Micheal graham (a conservative) interview Santorum . Graham asked him if he was a Jesus guy and responded -
Dont you need a Jesus guy? Dont you need some with morals? and went on to say how his religion will make him a better president.

I believe in morals but dont beleive that always tie to religion. I'll bet my salary Sandusky went to chuch each week. I believe Santorum crosses the line with religiion and politics. If the majority of people disagree, so be it, he gets the vote. I dont agree with him and dont want him to dictate what I do in my bedroom.

Gosh, you're right! I forgot about that very important point. Of course, this falls under the "HE IS AS CROOKED AS HIS NOSE" reason for disqualification, which might make me have to change my vote from disqualified to qualified. If he is a really good liar, rather than just an ordinary fibber, then he would actually be QUALIFIED.

As for the insanity, why do you suppose nature, or God, or whatever accident you believe created us, made sex so pleasurable. IN ORDER TO MAKE US PROCREATE. If sex was not so maddeningly desirable, would men want to be tied down to the responsibilities involved in raising children or taking care of spouses? Would women go through with childbirth? Of course, we can develope cloning to the point where the old-fashioned way of procreation can be discarded, and sex can just be pure fun.

Yeah, you can call him a perjurer. When he swore to defend and protect the Constitution, he either lied or was secretly referring to some alien constitution.

of course, all that was before internet porn

Most Presidents probably have had their personal code of morality. Those codes were, probably, not all the same. The presidency is not yet a dictatorship. It is not possible, at this time, for the President to dictate what you do in your bedroom. This is only an "issue" because Santorum is not politically wise enough to keep his moral code to himself. That he has "worn his heart on his sleeve" has given his oponents ammunition to fuel the media with a drumbeat. It has, apparently, worked with you. Focusing on his moral beliefs relieves one from talking about the policies that he, as President, would actually be dealing with. If you are that concerned with government in your bedroom, focus on the form of government you want, in which direction toward government control of our lives has government grown, and what needs to be done and who best to do it to reverse that direction. If you feel that Santorum's religious beliefs are so strong that he cannot separate them from his duty as President, I can understand your reluctance to vote for him. But, again, ALL presidents must rise above their personal code to govern, but that should not mean that they cannot have such a personal code. I don't have or feel a strong desire to vote for Santorum. But if he winds up being the nominee, he'll have my vote, not because of his personal religious beliefs, rather in order to stem, slightly, the tide in the direction we are heading in the way we are governed.

Even tho I'm an independant......

Republican all the way!!!!!!!!!

Is Daffy Duck Republican? :) :)

bingo

We have a difference of opion, I think anyone who calls a pres. un American is scum as that to me is the worse.

X 2 :hihi:

The nut job, who couldn't even get re-elected to the senate in PA, claims he only has sex when he is trying to make a baby. He doesn't promote the rhythm method, which is the accepted form by his church. it is "immoral to have sex for reasons other than procreation." He is nuts. I do have to say, it is almost good if he becomes the candidate, then maybe some Reagan Republicans like Huntsman will have a chance in the future when the pendulum swings back. Santorum is so far off the charts radical on almost every front that he makes Newt look like a bleeding heart liberal. You want government to not impinge on peoples freedom, Santorum is not your candidate.

But if you want them to mandate ultrasounds via their lady parts, he might just be your candidate....

This is my #1 issue with Santorum. Having a lot of Libertarian-type views, there is no candidate worse than Santorum. If it were up to him, we'd all have those surveillance monitors in our homes like in 1984 so that Santorum can be sure all of our thoughts and actions are in line with his definition of socially acceptable.

Wow!!! I realize the power of the President has grown well outside the bounds of the U.S. Constitution, but I didn't realize it has gotten that bad. If it is up to the President whether we have surveillance monitors in our homes or not, the gig is up.

Our difference of opinion may lie at the heart of what each of us think it is to be an American. There may be millions of different opinions or shades of opinions on it, but, critically, there is now a major one in terms of how we are governed.

There are those that believe the Constitution is the blueprint. And there are those who believe the Constitution is an impediment to how we should be governed.

The Constitution was written as a structure for a free people to govern themselves with a limited power granted by those people to a central government which would be a cohesive force to bind us together and make us powerful against outside forces and against an internal tyranny.

Those who oppose the Constitutional system believe we are a product of historical progress and we have arrived at a historical place where we need not fear old tyrannies, and that the best mode of government is an all powerful benevolent administration which will do for us whatever is necessary for our well being.

Which type of government you believe in will inform what you think it is to be American. Those that believe in the Constitutional framework would consider those that trash it as being unAmerican.

If you are going to take his word that what he claims to be his personal religious tenets are who he really is, then why will you not take his word that he will not impose his personal beliefs on others via government force as, he says, the Democrats do? He has stated personal beliefs on morality to groups of like minded people not as political doctrine to be implemented, but as like minded reasons for the deterioration of society. Is there a record of his imposing religious beliefs rather than ethical practices through legislation? Is he not allowed to have personal beliefs outside the political arena? Are those who are opposed to so-called conservative litmus tests for politicians in favor of such tests to weed out religious folks who actually believe their faith? How many polliticians have we accepted, even praised who have been outside the norm in their personal behaviour? Barney Frank is praised for his politics, not his sexual preferences. Bill Clinton is a major hero, but not for his sexual preferences. How is it that we can accept that great number of politicians in our history who have led disreputatable personal lives, yet a Santorum is a threat? Is it that others have preferred not to openly speak of who they really were or are? Does that comfort you to not know? If they lie or hide who they are, what else do they hide? Can you trust that the pretty words in which they couch their policies and legislation are the truth, or just expedient to get your vote? Whatever threat he presents is not in how he leads his own life or in his opinions on social mores, but in what he will support (i.e. the Constiltution).

Maybe because as my state senator, he tried to pass a federal bill to require the teaching of creationism in science classrooms. That is imposing his religious beliefs through government force.