Santorum wins in Colorado, Minnesota, Missouri

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

mikemac1

With a good cover of states and the different support he's picking up, is Santorum a likely choice for VP?

Just from my uninformed opinion it looks an obvious tactic. Can pull in the conservative votes that Romney doesn't get and is getting support that the New Englander has not won

Suryavarman

mikemac1 wrote: »

With a good cover of states and the different support he's picking up, is Santorum a likely choice for VP?

Just from my uninformed opinion it looks an obvious tactic. Can pull in the conservative votes that Romney doesn't get and is getting support that the New Englander has not won

I don't think so. For every conservative that Santorum could get on board it would cost the ticket at least one Independent/Democrat vote.

southsiderosie

Damn you, Permabear, you beat me to it!

It's patently obvious that the GOP base does not like Romney - the question is, will enough GOP voters hold their nose and vote for him given that he has the best chance of beating Obama in November? Romney tends to do well in situations where he can carpet-bomb the airwaves with attack ads - which he would presumably be well-positioned to do in a national election - but he doesn't seem to connect with voters as an individual. If you can't do that with your party's base, how can you reach beyond it? I will be very interested to see what happens in Ohio.

Also, the states in question are kind of weird. Colorado has a huge base of evangelical Christians, but also a strong anti-government element. Minnesota is very civic-minded, and I think there is still a strong New Deal streak amongst some older voters, but the exurbs also have a strongly evangelical population. There are also a lot of independent voters. Missouri is...Missouri.

I don't think there is any way in hell that Santorum is on the national ticket this fall. He is a consumate Washington insider and a social conservative busybody - both are generally anathema to independent voters.

Finally, as a lifelong Democrat, it's been very interesting to see how the GOP struggles with being a 'big tent' party. I think it highlights the problems of being a voter in a winner-take-all two-party system, as opposed to a multi-member district or PR system. The appetite is there for a third (and forth and fifth) party, but the political institutions are not, and given how difficult major reforms are in the American system, I don't see that changing anytime soon.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

southsiderosie

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The sad thing is, I think that Johnson could ride roughshod over Obama in a general election if he could get past the Republican base, and if Paul wasn't sucking up all of the libertarian-wing oxygen. Hell, I'm a democrat, and other than his fair tax proposal, I don't see much to argue with on his electoral platform. However, I think a lot of folks like myself wouldn't cross over for a GOP moderate in a general election - not because of the candidate themselves, but because of political extremism within the party that the candidate would bring into the White House.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

RichieC

I really don't get what's strategic about aligning with republicans. They have proven time and again their small government mantra only goes as far as their socially conservative values extend.

Will the republican candidatate dare talk about ending big ticket items like Social security, medicare/cade, military spending while campaigning the general?

They end up voting in socially regressive candidates who at the end of the day won't put a dent in the debt and infact will probably be ever more gungho with that military spending and aid...

Do they seriously think the second bailout wouldnt have happened under McCain?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

RichieC

So the democrats are just one big unified group of "tax and spend" liberals?

I question that....

southsiderosie

RichieC wrote: »

So the democrats are just one big unified group of "tax and spend" liberals?

I question that....

No - the broader point is, the 'big tent' problem has long plagued the Democratic party, whereas until fairly recently the GOP has been relatively more disciplined when it came to the nomination process. But with the shift of Southern Democrats into the GOP since the 1960s, and the wholesale entry of evangelical voters into electoral politics in the 1980s, suddenly the GOP has to manage multiple constituencies that are often in conflict - the same way the Democrats have had to balance working class, unionized white voters with ethnic minorities, environmentalists, etc.

Jonny7

Oh sweet jesus I thought this guy was out of the race.

Well, at least its getting very interesting now. Obama must be loving this.

Memnoch

The tea party are really shooting themselves in the foot.

Either Romney has to push more to the right (which he's already tried to do resulting him in being labelled as a flip-flopper) which will hamstring him vs Obama.

Or this whole smear and attack is going to go on and on.

Not to mention Romney is going to keep spending money in the primaries while Obama can continue to preserve his war chest.

I've never been so grateful for a bunch of hard liners.

timesnap

I have tried to follow the debates,primary's,caucuses as much as possible.
it is frustrating at times because of the time difference and lack of good sources.
other than your good selves who post on the US politics forum of course who astonish me with your level of knowledge and well argued points from whatever affiliation you may have.
thank you for that.

i like playing a little game of being completely open minded about the candidates even though i would vote Democrat and support Obama.

Up to now of all the candidates Santorum was the one i could never figure who he would appeal to, that was until i heard a clip of his victory speech yesterday morning on an Irish current affairs show.

possibly the most devastating attack on Obama i have heard from any candidate and very strong words against Romney too.
he vocalised exactly how i and many lost faith in Obama during his second year in office when he seemed way too aloof(the mid-terms changed that imo)

The relavent part of the speech begins just after two minutes into the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNhMjhtcfVI

kev9100

If you want proof of just how awful this field is just look at Santorum. This is a guy who lost re-election in Pennsylvania (a state the GOP needs to win imo) by a huge 17.4%. Ignoring the fact that I think he's a little nuts, how can someone who lost Pennsylvania by such a margin be a genuine contender for the nomination?

timesnap

kev9100 wrote: »

If you want proof of just how awful this field is just look at Santorum. This is a guy who lost re-election in Pennsylvania (a state the GOP needs to win imo) by a huge 17.4%. Ignoring the fact that I think he's a little nuts, how can someone who lost Pennsylvania by such a margin be a genuine contender for the nomination?

I agree if it has to be a Republican the field is awful.
on paper Obama should walk it but the Eurocrisis might throw up any amount of banana skins that could reverse the fragile buds of recovery in the US economy.

Greece will i suppose eventually agree to the bail-out terms,may'be today?.
but it seems Germany and France are willing to let it default at this stage,surely that will trigger an economic tsunami that will have a hugh knock on effect for not only Europe but also the US.
this week it is Greece and it seems next week it could be something or somewhere else.
it is so precarious i would not be putting any $10.000 bets on Obama just yet.

irishh_bob

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

romney will still get the nomination , what i think will prove interesting is that while romney will get lukewarm half hearted support from GOP voters ( who dont see him as pure republican ) as the nominee in november , he will be perfectly acceptable to independants and a good chunk of democratic voters , i cant see thier being that much difference between what a romney presidency would bring and what obama is doing and would continue to deliver , thier both middle of the road people , you could say mc cain was a bit like this in 2008 in that he was a relativley liberal republican but america is in poor shape and obama is generally seen to have underperformed to put it mildly

obama will cruise to victory against anyone bar romney however , all the rest frighten the horses , gingrich is a neo con with an unquenchable war lust and santorum is the ned flaners canditate , ron paul would get taken out by either AIPAC or the arms industry were he to get near the white house

southsiderosie

irishh_bob wrote: »

romney will still get the nomination , what i think will prove interesting is that while romney will get lukewarm half hearted support from GOP voters ( who dont see him as pure republican ) as the nominee in november , he will be perfectly acceptable to independants and a good chunk of democratic voters , i cant see thier being that much difference between what a romney presidency would bring and what obama is doing and would continue to deliver , thier both middle of the road people , you could say mc cain was a bit like this in 2008 in that he was a relativley liberal republican but america is in poor shape and obama is generally seen to have underperformed to put it mildly

I can understand independents, but why do you think that Dems will cross over to Romney?

irishh_bob

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

you ( a libertarian ) would appear to have little if anything in common with two factions of the GOP , why then could you ( and your colleagues ) not form an alliance with the democrats , surely libertarians are closer to the democrats when it comes to social issues , you would also presumabley be closer to them on foreign policy , as for economic policy , bernie sanders is hardly a typical democrat

irishh_bob

timesnap wrote: »

I agree if it has to be a Republican the field is awful.
on paper Obama should walk it but the Eurocrisis might throw up any amount of banana skins that could reverse the fragile buds of recovery in the US economy.

Greece will i suppose eventually agree to the bail-out terms,may'be today?.
but it seems Germany and France are willing to let it default at this stage,surely that will trigger an economic tsunami that will have a hugh knock on effect for not only Europe but also the US.
this week it is Greece and it seems next week it could be something or somewhere else.
it is so precarious i would not be putting any $10.000 bets on Obama just yet.

no european country is going to default and the euro is not going to fall , thier are too many important players who would get hit ( usa , china ) for that to be allowed to happen , the markets are much less free and chaotic than we are led to believe , add to that the fact that the media potrays every single summit - meeting as D day and you quickly realise that the end result will be some kind of a middle of the road compromise , thier is no appocolypse coming this year or next year for that matter

irishh_bob

southsiderosie wrote: »

I can understand independents, but why do you think that Dems will cross over to Romney?

disapointment with obama mainly but also the fact that he ( romney ) isnt particulary idealogical and appears to be a run of the mill politican type

southsiderosie

irishh_bob wrote: »

disapointment with obama mainly but also the fact that he ( romney ) isnt particulary idealogical and appears to be a run of the mill politican type

...at the top of a ticket for a party which, from the view across the aisle, appears to have been taken over by crazy people. Being disappointed with Obama doesn't mean that registered Democrats are going to vote for a Republican; the more likely outcome is that a lot of people will just stay home.

irishh_bob

southsiderosie wrote: »

...at the top of a ticket for a party which, from the view across the aisle, appears to have been taken over by crazy people. Being disappointed with Obama doesn't mean that registered Democrats are going to vote for a Republican; the more likely outcome is that a lot of people will just stay home.

i wasnt really refering to card carrying members of the democratic party , i meant voters who traditionally leaned that way but were centrist in outlook , i suppose that means independants

timesnap

irishh_bob wrote: »

no european country is going to default and the euro is not going to fall , thier are too many important players who would get hit ( usa , china ) for that to be allowed to happen , the markets are much less free and chaotic than we are led to believe , add to that the fact that the media potrays every single summit - meeting as D day and you quickly realise that the end result will be some kind of a middle of the road compromise , thier is no appocolypse coming this year or next year for that matter

A slight conspiracy theory by me perhaps, but i think much is going on behind the scenes by all the players you have mentioned to let Greece sink.
of course you know the Greeks have agreed to all today but brought it down to the wire as they have a GE within weeks,France in April.
the Greeks and others are suffering austerity and ridiculous hardship for what in the end will lead to nothing for them.
the sins of the few being paid for by the innocent many.:mad:

suggesting that letting Greece fail is now not being considered and planned for is like suggesting the titanic would not sink no matter how big an iceberg may come its way.

irishh_bob

timesnap wrote: »

A slight conspiracy theory by me perhaps, but i think much is going on behind the scenes by all the players you have mentioned to let Greece sink.
of course you know the Greeks have agreed to all today but brought it down to the wire as they have a GE within weeks,France in April.
the Greeks and others are suffering austerity and ridiculous hardship for what in the end will lead to nothing for them.
the sins of the few being paid for by the innocent many.:mad:

suggesting that letting Greece fail is now not being considered and planned for is like suggesting the titanic would not sink no matter how big an iceberg may come its way.

if it waddles like a duck , quacks like a duck , chances are its a duck , greece is defaulting but its been called something else , as for the greeks suffering , most of globes population suffer far worse than the greeks , the powers that be dont care about greek suffering

timesnap

irishh_bob wrote: »

if it waddles like a duck , quacks like a duck , chances are its a duck , greece is defaulting but its been called something else , as for the greeks suffering , most of globes population suffer far worse than the greeks , the powers that be dont care about greek suffering

Why are we arguing when we agree irish_bob?:)

yes poverty is relative and even the poorest of greeks never had to walk thousands of miles for food and water.
i am nervous about going off topic,sometime hopefully we can discuss that on another thread.

cheers!

Fr Tod Umptious

irishh_bob wrote: »

romney will still get the nomination , what i think will prove interesting is that while romney will get lukewarm half hearted support from GOP voters ( who dont see him as pure republican ) as the nominee in november , he will be perfectly acceptable to independants and a good chunk of democratic voters , i cant see thier being that much difference between what a romney presidency would bring and what obama is doing and would continue to deliver , thier both middle of the road people , you could say mc cain was a bit like this in 2008 in that he was a relativley liberal republican but america is in poor shape and obama is generally seen to have underperformed to put it mildly

obama will cruise to victory against anyone bar romney however , all the rest frighten the horses , gingrich is a neo con with an unquenchable war lust and santorum is the ned flaners canditate , ron paul would get taken out by either AIPAC or the arms industry were he to get near the white house

I totally agree

Romney could give Obama a good run for his money.

Obama will find it hard to hold on to the voters that voted for him in 2008.

The novelty about Obama will be gone so those who voted for the first time in 2008 may not return.

He will no longer be able to talk about 'Hope' and 'The change we need is coming etc', and he can't blame things on the Bush administration.
He will be judged by what he has achieved or failed to achieve over the past 4 yaers.

Romney on the other hand IMO will still have the support of the 'red' states that McCain won. Even though he does not appeal to the Republican hard core he still appeals to lots of republicans, who ceratinly would not vote for Obama.
He will then also take a lot of that independent vote that may have voted for Obama in 2008 but are now disillusioned with him.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Manach

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

In regard to the second of the world wars, thank God for FDR getting embroiled in that.

irishh_bob

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

im surprised at that really weak reply

the republicans are just as big on interfering with peoples lives as the democrats and much bigger on social issues , they oppose pornography , same sex unions and abortion to a much higher degree than democrats , they are also much more in favour of stiff prison sentances for personal drug use , the republicans are also much more hawkish when it comes to foreign policy and taking millitary action and im not saying the democrats are jane fonda

as for your claims about democrats and unions , the democrats are to the right of fine gael , its not the irish labour party we are discussing here

to conclude , im even less convinced now that libertarians are closer bedfellows with the GOP when you weigh up everything , that is unless you the kind of libertarian for whoom economics is an eight and social freedom is a two

Denerick

timesnap wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNhMjhtcfVI

Thats just mindless rhetoric. 'Did Obama listen to the American people when he did X, when he did Y?' He is deliberately exploiting the innate stupidity of the electorate in order to achieve political gain (Which is what all politicians inevitably do, those few politicians who refuse to appeal to prejudice or idiocy usually end up working for think tanks or as academics) Obama was elected on a mandate of broad scale change. For the first two years of his term he tried to reform the inhumane and exploitative healthcare system. The Republicans won a landslide in the midterms. THus the Obama agenda was rejected. This is democracy in a modern Republic. Don't take Santorum's rhetoric as gospel.

timesnap

Denerick wrote: »

Thats just mindless rhetoric. 'Did Obama listen to the American people when he did X, when he did Y?' He is deliberately exploiting the innate stupidity of the electorate in order to achieve political gain (Which is what all politicians inevitably do, those few politicians who refuse to appeal to prejudice or idiocy usually end up working for think tanks or as academics) Obama was elected on a mandate of broad scale change. For the first two years of his term he tried to reform the inhumane and exploitative healthcare system. The Republicans won a landslide in the midterms. THus the Obama agenda was rejected. This is democracy in a modern Republic. Don't take Santorum's rhetoric as gospel.

Hi Denerick,you have reproduced only the video from my post,none of the text which makes it appear that i do not see through rhetoric.
i don't agree that the electorate are innately stupid ,but they would have to dedicate their lives to seeing through the agenda ridden media to get even a semblance of the truth,most people cannot spare that amount of time.

Obama is living proof that rhetoric goes a long way,behind his rhetoric i agree is a fine intellect,all the more reason i was annoyed at his aloofness in not trying harder to sell his ideas to the people which cost him control of the house in the mid-terms.
on other threads i have said that from day one congress has seemed more concerned with obstruction and destruction of Obama and all he stands for than looking out for America.

to put the video in context i intended it for,i said that i could understand who might find, Romney,Gingrich and Paul's message attractive, but never Santorum until that clip.
His attack on Obama and Romney was a fine and effective piece of rhetoric.
anybody who has not listened to it the section of the speech i am referring to starts from about 2mins 30 secs and runs to just after the eight minute mark.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

irishh_bob

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

im of the opinion that libertarians should have no truck with either of the main parties but your posts seemed pretty adament that libertarians had more in common with republicans and that they usually throw thier lot in with them due to great compatibility with libertarian ideals

Denerick

irishh_bob wrote: »

im of the opinion that libertarians should have no truck with either of the main parties but your posts seemed pretty adament that libertarians had more in common with republicans and that they usually throw thier lot in with them due to great compatibility with libertarian ideals

The Republicans have an active libertarian wing with a rich tradition (Goldwater was the Republican candidate in 1964) Libertarians need to go somewhere, and they've traditionally been more welcome in the Republican party. Besides, even the social conservative nominally believe in a smaller state, less welfare etc. (Even though social conservatives are essentially hypocritical and hyperventilate if the government threaten social security or medicare)

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

irishh_bob

Denerick wrote: »

The Republicans have an active libertarian wing with a rich tradition (Goldwater was the Republican candidate in 1964) Libertarians need to go somewhere, and they've traditionally been more welcome in the Republican party. Besides, even the social conservative nominally believe in a smaller state, less welfare etc. (Even though social conservatives are essentially hypocritical and hyperventilate if the government threaten social security or medicare)

all that is true if your the kind of libertarian who places economic freedom way above social and moral freedom , not to mention pacifism , as i said earlier , libertarians might be blood brothers with republicans when it comes to the right to become a billionaire but on almost every other score , they are chalk and cheese

heard a libertarian in one of those fox news audience debates last week say she wanted democrats out of her wallett and republicans out of her bedroom , she was a ron paul supporter

irishh_bob

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

i agree with your descision not to vote for either party but ive also looked back over your earlier posts , its pretty clear that you believe libertarians ( in general ) natural home ( if thier is one ) is with the GOP rather than the democrats

Valmont

irishh_bob wrote: »

i agree with your descision not to vote for either party but ive also looked back over your earlier posts , its pretty clear that you believe libertarians ( in general ) natural home ( if thier is one ) is with the GOP rather than the democrats

It's been the case in the past* that libertarians would vote Republican if only to stop a division of the non-democrat voting block; call it damage control, if you will.

Why would you call the GOP the 'natural home' of libertarians?

*edit: past being the operative word with the now limited choice of the Republicrats or the Republicrats.

irishh_bob

Valmont wrote: »

It's been the case in the past* that libertarians would vote Republican if only to stop a division of the non-democrat voting block; call it damage control, if you will.

Why would you call the GOP the 'natural home' of libertarians?

*edit: past being the operative word with the now limited choice of the Republicrats or the Republicrats.

i dont think libertarians natural home is in the GOP , permabear earlier pointed to a great similarity between libertarians and republicans than between libertarians and democrats , i made the point that on two out of three core issues , libertarians had absolutley nothing in common with republicans and that on balance , they had more in common with democrats although truth be told , thier a very different beast than either

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

southsiderosie

Too much libertarianism.

Not enough Mittens.

Let's get back on topic, please.

SSR

amacachi

Denerick wrote: »

He is deliberately exploiting the innate stupidity of the electorate in order to achieve political gain

Change!

:pac:

Romney wins again in Maine, plenty of press will confirm him as the Republican nominee.

southsiderosie

amacachi wrote: »

Change!

:pac:

Romney wins again in Maine, plenty of press will confirm him as the Republican nominee.

Maine held a non-binding straw poll that less than 2% of voters took part in. I don't think any of this matters until Super Tuesday - that will separate the wheat from the chaff.

I did think this was interesting though (from the above article):

As it was, Mr. Romney also won the annual straw poll of activists at the Conservative Political Action Conference on Saturday. He took 38 percent of the 3,408 votes cast, compared with 31 percent for Mr. Santorum, 15 percent for Mr. Gingrich and 12 percent for Mr. Paul of Texas, who won the last two years but did not attend this time.

I think the results are kind of indicative of the position of the base right now: Romney has the best chance of beating Obama, but Santorum is by far the truest social conservative (note - NOT small government conservative). Gingrich had his chance and blew it when he was Speaker of the House, and Paul is too socially liberal and doveish on foreign policy.

amacachi

southsiderosie wrote: »

Maine held a non-binding straw poll that less than 2% of voters took part in. I don't think any of this matters until Super Tuesday - that will separate the wheat from the chaff.

I did think this was interesting though (from the above article):



I think the results are kind of indicative of the position of the base right now: Romney has the best chance of beating Obama, but Santorum is by far the truest social conservative (note - NOT small government conservative). Gingrich had his chance and blew it when he was Speaker of the House, and Paul is too socially liberal and doveish on foreign policy.

It is, as people pointed out many months ago, a case of just having to pinch one's nose when voting. Barring a massive trolling effort Romney will win most states and a higher proportion of delegates than states.

It's not just the different ideological factions screwing the GOP, it's the local parties, whatever they're called. Obama was well and truly on the ropes last year, a short, quick primary season with a clear frontrunner was the way to go. Instead they couldn't pick one out of 3 and the primaries are ridiculously spread out giving even more chance for people to realise just how few people actually want Romney running 4 prez.

jackiebaron

Jonny7 wrote: »

Oh sweet jesus I thought this guy was out of the race.

Well, at least its getting very interesting now. Obama must be loving this.

We agree on one thing J7.

Isn't this clown going to make it illegal to shag your wife/girlfriend/boyfriend in the ass even if she/he begs for it?

Biblical law and all that crap. Yet one of God's top 10 no-no's, adultery, will still be A-O-K.

southsiderosie

From the NY Times:

A New York Times/CBS News poll released Tuesday morning showed Mr. Santorum surging among Republican primary voters nationwide, lifted by support among conservatives, evangelical Christians and Tea Party supporters.

In the new poll, 30 percent of Republican primary voters say they support Mr. Santorum, compared with 27 percent for Mr. Romney. While Mr. Santorum’s lead is essentially a tie with Mr. Romney because it is within the margin of sampling error, it reflects a significant jump for him from earlier polls.

The two other major candidates are further behind, at 12 percent for Ron Paul and 10 percent for Newt Gingrich. Mr. Gingrich’s numbers have fallen sharply since his win in South Carolina on Jan. 21.

Given that pretty much every candidate in this race (barring Paul, I think) has had their moment in the sun as a front-runner, I guess I shouldn't be surprised by this, but the fact that someone as far to the right as Santorum continues to do so well is a bit frightening. That said, I don't think he can win a national election, so I would be delighted if he got the GOP nod.

Amerika

southsiderosie wrote: »

but the fact that someone as far to the right as Santorum continues to do so well is a bit frightening. That said, I don't think he can win a national election, so I would be delighted if he got the GOP nod.

Rick opposed the auto bailout, the Freddie and Fannie bailout, and Obama’s crony capitalism bills. He opposed individual health care mandates, opposed cap and trade, and was in favor of drilling in ANWR. He is a strong advocate on border security, national security, and defense. He not only touts traditional family values… he lives them. I think more and more Americans wish we would have followed him on these.

Now he has had his problems. He was a big government republican under Bush, supported the prescription drug benefit entitlement, steel tariffs, and earmarks. And there was the Terri Shiavo thing.

But overall he seems to be the kind of leader we need right now. Except he might not appeal to independents at the moment, but that could change. So what is so wrong with him? If it has to do with social leanings, please elaborate, as I think much of what he favors... Obama does also.

I’ve been approached to work on his campaign in my state (which is also Rick’s home state). I’m a Romney guy right now, but Santorum does have appeal to me. I might consider it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Dr Galen

I've moved some posts dealing with the recent contraception and religious organisations/workplaces into their own thread

Cheers

DrG

southsiderosie

Amerika wrote: »

Rick opposed the auto bailout, the Freddie and Fannie bailout, and Obama’s crony capitalism bills. He opposed individual health care mandates, opposed cap and trade, and was in favor of drilling in ANWR. He is a strong advocate on border security, national security, and defense. He not only touts traditional family values… he lives them. I think more and more Americans wish we would have followed him on these.

Now he has had his problems. He was a big government republican under Bush, supported the prescription drug benefit entitlement, steel tariffs, and earmarks. And there was the Terri Shiavo thing.

But overall he seems to be the kind of leader we need right now. Except he might not appeal to independents at the moment, but that could change. So what is so wrong with him? If it has to do with social leanings, please elaborate, as I think much of what he favors... Obama does also.

I’ve been approached to work on his campaign in my state (which is also Rick’s home state). I’m a Romney guy right now, but Santorum does have appeal to me. I might consider it.

Based on his comments, the proposed level of government interference into what I would consider private bedroom matters would be completely unacceptable. I frankly don't agree with Obama on a lot of social issues (most notably gay marriage), but Santorum is 100 times worse. And I cannot even begin to imagine the kinds of political appointments that would be made under his watch - that is even scarier than the idea of him as President. NO THANKS.