The American Spectator : Santorum Doesn't Pander

Text Size

Santorum Doesn’t Pander

By David N. Bass on 1.10.12 @ 6:08AM

He remains himself in gay-marriage approving New Hampshire.

Rick Santorum’s round of verbal fisticuffs Thursday with college students in New Hampshire again proves that he won’t shift his socially conservative views to match the state he’s running in. That mark of virtue will cost him votes Tuesday.

It’s no surprise that Santorum has faced a barrage of criticism in the Granite State for his support for traditional marriage. New Hampshire is one of three states that have legalized same-sex marriage by legislative vote rather than judicial intervention. The Republican primary electorate’s libertarian instincts is significantly different from that of Iowa and South Carolina, where evangelical Christians carry more clout.

Even so, Santorum didn’t hold any punches last week when he engaged in a back-and-forth with students over same-sex marriage and polygamy. His adversaries in the crowd contended that Americans’ right to pursue happiness means that government must recognize same-sex unions. Santorum took that line of reasoning a step further: If happiness is the basis of state-recognized marriage, what’s the practical difference between homosexual marriage and polygamy?

It’s a legitimate point that gets to a core issue of the marriage debate: What constitutes marriage from a societal standpoint? Supporters of traditional marriage often point to factors beyond love, such as procreation. Love is obviously a critical part of any good marriage, but from a societal standpoint, it’s secondary. One of the primary reasons for the state to recognize marriages in the first place is that heterosexual marriage produces children. Even in situations where a couple can’t procreate — or choose to not do so — the biological mechanics are there for the perpetuation of the human race.

Because supporters of same-sex marriage can’t make that same claim, they resort to basing the core fundamental of marriage on love. Fine. But what if a polygamist loves his partners? What if he is in a committed, long-term relationship with them? If homosexuals’ right to pursue happiness is infringed by government’s refusal to recognize their unions, then polygamists’ right to happiness also is abridged.

The trouble for liberals is that the idea of polygamy gives them pause. They feel comfortable with same-sex marriage, but polygamy is a bridge too far. That could very well change in a few decades. Years ago, the idea of same-sex marriage was foreign even to many on the left. For now, though, they don’t like the concept, or at least don’t like the political unpopularity of it.

The frustration over Santorum’s point — and the frustration was obvious, as the college student struggled to answer — doesn’t change its legitimacy: If legal recognition for same-sex relationships is required, the same standard must apply to polygamy in order to maintain a coherent line of reasoning.

That said, it’s a nuanced point that most people won’t take the time to understand. And leftists’ narrative — denouncing Santorum for comparing homosexuals to polygamists — obviously will play better with the media, and with many voters in New Hampshire.

Despite his socially conservative views, a CBS News Poll puts Santorum in the top-three tier of candidates, a few percentage points behind Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. Santorum’s current standing of 14 percent is a huge jump since mid-September, when he polled at only 1 percent.

The RealClearPolitics polling average puts Santorum in second place, though barely. Romney will win New Hampshire, but second and third place showings Tuesday will go a long way in deciding whether Santorum will be the Mike Huckabee of 2012 — a socially conservative Republican who surprises in Iowa, then fades in New Hampshire and South Carolina — or a different force altogether.

Regardless of the results, it’s refreshing to see a national Republican candidate stick to his guns on positions he cares deeply about, even if they aren’t as popular with primary voters in New England.

About the Author

David N. Bass is a journalist who writes from the Old North State. Follow him on Twitter.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (78) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Clint| 1.10.12 @ 6:30AM

Big Government Ricky Santorum's Record On Voting For Earmarks, Even The Bridge To Nowhere, His Support For The Lobbyist "K-Street Project" , His Tariff Votes, Medicare Prescription Drugs, No Child Left Behind,Etc. Is Gonna Sink Him With Tea Party Patriots.

Social Conservatives Won't Be Able To Carry Santorum ,The Big Government Statist.

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To The East Coast.

Jack in Wi.| 1.10.12 @ 7:24AM

Santum is a phoney on the issue of pro life. He backed some of the worst pro aborts around Spector and Christie Todd Whitman. His blood thirsty warmongering is a disgrace to the rest of us pro lifers.

Mark MacInnis| 1.10.12 @ 10:07AM

You need to take a chill pill, homes.....

Stammon| 1.10.12 @ 11:14AM

They need to get a room.

Mike Rogers | 1.10.12 @ 11:44AM

When's the wedding?

Oldefarte| 1.10.12 @ 8:55PM

Are you pro-lifer Paulistas willing and able to correspondingly ADOPT all of the illigetimate children that would be born as a result of the elimination of abortion [or are you instead willing to allow them to simply die of starvation, abuse, and the mental illmesses associated with same]?????????

JR| 1.10.12 @ 11:34PM

Most ridiculous statement I've ever heard. Since your an oldfart why dont we just let you starve, or abuse you till your dead. Then we can save an innocent human being instead of having to listen to your bullshit.

Appleby| 1.10.12 @ 7:02AM

When will people start asking Romney his views on polygamy? After all, when he gets to Heaven, he and his polygamous wives will be God and Goddesses, creating worlds and populating them with worshippers of themselves. Okay, so God retracted official polygamy just in time for Utah to become a state (they would not be admitted until He did so), but as anybody ought to know by now, there are plenty of people calling themselves Mormons who are practicing polygamists. Is this going to be another One Of Ours Is In The White House moment?

As for Santorum, I admire him for standing up for his beliefs and for not pretending that his religion can be put in the safe and ignored except on state occasions -- so far.

D. Singh| 1.10.12 @ 7:58AM

Sir

'... If legal recognition for same-sex relationships is required, the same standard must apply to polygamy in order to maintain a coherent line of reasoning.'

The left-liberal can go to bed with bad logic but not with bad emotions.

Increasingly, for the 'Progressive', emotion trumps reason.

nister| 1.10.12 @ 9:03AM

Marriage commits you to your partner. Polygamy commits you to more than one partner; by definition a non-starter.

TrueBlue | 1.10.12 @ 4:56PM

If it is just as stable, or more stable, for some where is the problem? I'm not a fan, but I'm trying to understand your logic. Why is it a non-starter because multiple people are involved?

D. Singh| 1.11.12 @ 2:48AM

TrueBlue

If polygamy, then why not beastiality?

Quartermaster| 1.10.12 @ 9:40PM

Just postmodernism at work Singh. I wouldn't expect anything else out of a moonbat.

Abdiel| 1.10.12 @ 8:24AM

Santorum has moral courage. Honestly, the idea of homosexual marriage is such an extreme, radical position, he really doesn't have anything to lose by taking a firm stand against it. Only a fringe minority in the country as a whole is fool enough to believe in it, and many of them are young and simply repeating what their teachers and professors have beat them over the head with for years. Realistically, why would he want anyone who believes in something so irrational and fundamentally unsound supporting him? Marriage is by definition one man and one woman for life, and the attempts to "redefine" it are really attempts to replace God and morality with bureaucrats and courts. Nobody has the authority to trump God.

KateS| 1.10.12 @ 9:00AM

In reality he wasn't so morally courageous while in congress. Talking is one thing...do is another.

Nominating a Catholic who bases every decision on the RCC's position would cost the republicans the election. Can you imagine a debate with Obama where Santorum AGAIN talks about contraception? Really Rick...that is an important issue in the world today? Really?

Dai Alanye | 1.10.12 @ 9:27AM

Really, KateS, haven't we already gone through that a long time back with John Kennedy? I doubt the Pope will control the US if a Catholic becomes President, any more than the Elders of the LDS will run Washington if Romney or Huntsman get the nod.

Let's simply elect a moral individual, not fear any specific doctrine. (Excluding, of course, Scientologists, Muslims, and radical libertarians.)

kf451| 1.10.12 @ 9:56AM

Yes, Santorum wasn't so courageous in congress. But it's OK, because he has excuses for all his liberal votes!

I'm a practicing Catholic, strongly pro-life and traditional marriage, and I think Santorum is too extreme. I don't think the church is going to control Santorum anymore than any other Catholic politician. I just think he's creepy.

nister| 1.10.12 @ 9:06AM

Marrriage is a sacrament to you. It is a civil institution to me, and many others.

Paul Kotik| 1.10.12 @ 11:42AM

Marriage existed long before the state made a civil institution of it.

The state can legislate square wheels, but they will not roll.

nister| 1.10.12 @ 1:52PM

Marriage existed before states existed, Paul. My point is that the sacrament should be tended by the respective churches, the civil institution by the civil authority.

TrueBlue | 1.10.12 @ 5:01PM

The state's version of marriage (a SPIRITUAL AND RELIGIOUS ACT) is the civil union. Please do not sully the spiritual act of marriage by getting the two confused. It's pretty pathetic that the gay/lesbian community could not accept the civil union right they already had in nearly every state and instead felt the need to usurp a religious activity.

Of course, it's kind of like what the fanatic athiests do every year in trying to screw with various religious celebrations or shows of faith...

Mender| 1.10.12 @ 6:00PM

"Only a fringe minority in the country as a whole is fool enough to believe in it"

Erm, maybe, but the duly elected state government and governor of New Hampshire approved it. Supported by opinion polls showing around 80% of New Hampshire voters support legal gay unions.

Redatheart| 1.10.12 @ 8:36AM

Granted, Santorum does not pander or flip on his family values. However, there is a very different story being told about his actual, documented, undeniable record of voting as a Senator. Erick Erickson of Redstate, posted a laundry list of those votes yesterday and there is little conservative about Santorum's true record.
www.redstate.com "What a Big Government Conservative Looks Like" posted on Jan. 9

Take a look; there's alot Mr. Santorum isn't talking about regarding his record and has been stealth in running on his values. This election, BOTH count.

Ivan Ivanovich| 1.10.12 @ 8:38AM

None of this matters as Rick has a uninviting face. He strains to smile and he tends to smirk or frown. I was happy when he showed a joyfull face for a few days when he surged a Christmas time, but he's bad to being the nerd he was before. I'll be happy to vote for him, but I'll be surprised if it gets that far.

TrueBlue | 1.10.12 @ 5:07PM

Yea, God forbid we have a nerd in office...

Wordmonger| 1.10.12 @ 8:46AM

"That said"? What does that trite phrase clarify in your scribbling, Mr.Bass?

Quartermaster| 1.10.12 @ 9:43PM

It's a transitional phrase. Wordmonger. I would expect anyone that takes on such a moniker to understand that much about English Composition.

William Z| 1.10.12 @ 8:50AM

I will state it again, I would vote for Santorum, because I know he respects the Constitution.

KateS| 1.10.12 @ 9:02AM

If he can't beat Obama, the Constitution is lost anyway. I don't think he can beat Obama.

kf451| 1.10.12 @ 9:58AM

Exactly. He'll be way too easy to caricature.

Quartermaster| 1.10.12 @ 9:45PM

I don't think any of the midgets running for the GOP nod are capable of being the midget in the WH right now. Given what I see in these threads and on teh campaign trail, you'd better steel yourself for 4 more years of the Obummer.

Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin.

irish19| 1.10.12 @ 11:09PM

That makes it all the more important to take the Senate and put more conservatives in the House. That means staying home because your candidate isn't the nominee is not an option this time around.

David| 1.10.12 @ 8:59AM

As I have said many times on this site, if homosexual marriage is allowed, then logically and fairly to all others, any number of consenting adults and in any combination whatsoever will have to be allowed.

. Yes, that includes incestuous relationships. Remember, the only objective reason for not allowing members of the same family to marry is they would produce hideous offspring. That problem is solved as long as we allow abortion on demand for any or no reason at all.

Good job Santorum.

KateS| 1.10.12 @ 9:05AM

We need to get away from personal issue like contraception and homosexual marriage. The republicans will have another miserable failure if these are the important issues and talking points. What do you not understand about what most Americans believe...stay out of people's bedrooms. Besides, there are more important issues like saving the Republic.

O Tamandua| 1.10.12 @ 9:26AM

Kate, I don't think so. When you have a breakdown in the moral (and consequently social) fabric you will inevitably have breakdowns in the fiscal and governmental firmament as well. This may sound oversimplified but it's how we humans work...we're only as good our morals.

PolishKnight| 1.10.12 @ 9:57AM

The most significant social problem today for families and also generating voters like crazy for the Democrat party is unwed mothers. Unwed motherhood is produced by a variety of mostly leftist initiatives but also some supported or even advocated by the right including the welfare state, "child" support for unwed mothers (which rewards women for sleeping around but is no guarantee the man won't be a deadbeat anyway!), feminism including women's so-called workplace equality which really means preferential treatment, IMBRA, sexual harassment legislation, and last but not least, so-called "family" court which rewards women for filing for divorce and reduces children to chattel. Oh, and I almost forgot: so-called "safe" havens because rather than crack down on women abandoning children and killing them, they outright legalized infant abandonment for women.

Look at that list, folks. That's modern femininity in America. It's no wonder that gay marriage now seems somewhat normal but conservatives have let this happen by giving the "ladies" white glove treatment.

JR| 1.10.12 @ 11:45PM

You are exactly right. Polish Knight, I couldnt have said it better myself.

Derek Leaberry| 1.10.12 @ 1:07PM

You are exactly right. Is the semi-permanent $ 1.5 trillion deficit not a sign of moral breakdown? Of course it is.

Quartermaster| 1.10.12 @ 9:46PM

The amorality of the US electorate is the core of the problem we have now. There was a spate of religiosity right after 9/11, but that's all it was.

Redstateboy| 1.10.12 @ 9:13AM

Good for Santorum and I will support him.

O Tamandua| 1.10.12 @ 9:28AM

Did you see Santorum and his entourage get swarmed last night? Wow...it concerns me how dangerous our president (who tacitly supports opposition like last night's group, which I believe was part of one of the "occupy" brigades) may let this campaign season become.

Seriously.

Fredx| 1.10.12 @ 9:28AM

This whole "gay marriage" thing is a gay mirage. I'm 70 and until just a couple of years ago, no gay guys were talking about marriage, unless you count 20 minutes in the bushes as marriage. This is just a way to annoy the hell out of straight people and it's working. However, this article inspired me to coin a new word: polygaymy.

irish19| 1.10.12 @ 11:12PM

Is that word Wordmonger approved?

Vern Crisler| 1.10.12 @ 9:45AM

You guys who are supporting Santorum, did you argue in the last election that Obama shouldn't be president because he lacks executive experience?

I think many of you did. So the question is: why are you supporting Santorum? He doesn't have any more executive or leadership experience than Obama did.

When are Republicans going to offer a consistent view of politics?

Paul Kotik| 1.10.12 @ 11:44AM

I think the argument was the Obama's total lack of executive experience and near-total lack of legislative experience were among the many reasons Obama shouldn't be President.

Among the many, many reasons.

TrueBlue | 1.10.12 @ 5:10PM

As Paul said, it was the combination of no executive AND legislative experience. Typical sound bite attempt (it's even more impressive when it works in writing!).

tadcf| 1.10.12 @ 9:54AM

Like most religious zealots, Santorum doesn't pander because he brings forth the unblemished word of god.

Michael Tomlinson| 1.10.12 @ 9:59AM

Rick Santorum has two major problems that are to the left of center. Like jobs killing Obama he's pro big labor unions and like Pork King Ron "Enemy of Taxpayers" Paul loves earmarks.

Until he disavows labor unions and condemns them for the jobs killers they are and admits his error on earmarks can we really believe Rick Santroum's conservatism goes beyond social and foreign policy issues?

TrueBlue | 1.10.12 @ 5:16PM

Social issues are based in the morals of the society. Morality is the biggest issue we have, it's the reason for people not wanting to take responsibility for their actions, which leads to people not wanting to improve thier own lives because government says it'll take care of them, etc. It's why sleeping around is perfectly accepted regardless of the emotional scars (or deadening of the emotions). If we could somehow manage to fix our financial situation it wouldn't be permanent without fixing the moral issues we face as well. Going from moral responsibility to financial responsibility isn't that hard, financial to moral not quite so easy to do.

Quartermaster| 1.10.12 @ 9:50PM

The problem with your position on earmarks is the entire budget is earmarked, even if individual congresscritters haven't placed one for themselves in it. The problem sis not earmarks, but the entire immoral over spending. Spending,as Milton Friedman pointed out, is the real level of taxation. Either it will be balanced by taxation, or by inflation. The political class has chosen the latter. Santorum was a part of that nonsense.

bill| 1.10.12 @ 10:52AM

Santorum oppossed "Right to work" law, favoring big labors in the expense of free-enterprise and workers.
He also supported:

-raising debt celling 8 times
-NCLB
-Arlene Spector
-oppossed free trade

Santorum is a "big government RINO." He cannot win SC with his staunch support for big labors, whereas SC is a "right to work."
Santorum is another Huckabee.

TrueBlue | 1.10.12 @ 5:24PM

Labor unions... correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't PA a pretty labor heavy state? Wasn't Santorum sent to represent that state? Wouldn't that kind of mean he was actually doing his job by support labor unions?

Do I agree with unions? Not really, but at least he was doing what he was sent to Congress to do, unlike many politicians who speak a good line when it's election time and then do whatever the heck they want once they are in office.

Raising the debt ceiling to prevent a government shutdown, which the entire country was ready to pin on the Republicans as being their fault, yup that was a horrible decision...

NCLB - Won't argue on that one. Heart was in the right place, but the whole Dept of Education needs to go.

Arlen Spector... wow, really? Do you not read history? Incumbents have a MUCH better track record of remaining in office compared to new candidates. We needed as much support as possible to get Alito on the Supreme Court, and there was a much smaller chance that Toomey would have been elected when having two non-incumbents running against each other.

Opposed free trade... Guess what, tariffs (taxing imports) are actually listed as one of the ways for the federal government to raise revenue in THE CONSTITUTION. Free Trade is also HORRIBLE for US industry, especially when you combine it with the overregulation problem we have.

Quartermaster| 1.10.12 @ 9:52PM

A congresscritter is sent to represent constituents in the decision s that are to be taken by the legislature within the bounds set by the constitution. Padding the beds of labor unions does not fall under that mandate.

Mike Rogers | 1.10.12 @ 11:47AM

The Santorum surge is real, he has great campaign staff, even if they are low key, and his biggest challenge will be getting on the ballot in enough primaries. He has the potential to surprise.
Even if you don't agree with him on everything, it is refreshing to have a candidate to sticks to his guns, both literally and figuratively.

TrueBlue | 1.10.12 @ 5:25PM

Speaking of getting on the ballot, Huntsman totally failed in Arizona. He forgot to sign his own ballot registration form to get into their primary. So much for being a serious candidate.

David| 1.10.12 @ 11:57AM

Kate S, people long ago have stopped getting in the homosexuals bedrooms. Don't you understand that was never their ultimate goal. Their goal is to demand that government say that what they is normal by allowing homo marriage. They demand that we all ACCEPT and RESPECT them. They used to claim all they wanted was to be TOLERATED. Now they demand that we use the public schools to teach our children that what they do is okay!!!

fmm| 1.10.12 @ 12:12PM

The only two consistent conservatives who have the best interests of the country and not themselves in the GOP primary race have been Bachmann and Santorum. If you want to judge the one left in the race, try listening to him instead of parroting some meaningless commentary by people who are afraid of him and want to take him down just like was done with Cain. I know it is difficult to think for yourselves, but it is necessary if we are to again become a nation of laws and decency. Try going to Santorum's and all the other candidates websites and do some reading for a start.

talkradio200| 1.10.12 @ 2:45PM

Bachmann, Santorum, and Cain were the conservatives in this race and Santorum is the only one of the three left. If people want to make their decision based on shills for other candidates, then we will be stuck with another RINO. We've taken all the conservatives out of the running by listening to what are obvious lies by others. Look at all the lies that were spread about Cain and how gullible people on our side were. If we're not careful, the same will happen to Santorum and it will be our own fault.

TrueBlue | 1.10.12 @ 5:26PM

I still haven't been able to find anything on the resolution of the various charges against them. They just kind of evaporated when he suspended his campaign. That's not suspicious at all!

David| 1.10.12 @ 12:47PM

Okay folks, I have been a big Santorum supporter and checked out his position on the National Right to Work Act. He did in fact oppose it. I am very disappointed by that. Unions have been very destructive to this nation. They may have done some good 70 or so years ago, but are not worth the havoc they wreak.

That said, the National Right to WOrk Act that everyone is so critical of Santorum for opposing was an issue in 1995. 1995. I am curious to know what Santorum has to say about it now - 17 years later. Does he support the new National Right to Work Act?

And to those of you who give Romney a pass on his record because he was governing in LIBERAL MA, then I think Santorum's position 17 years ago in heavily democratic and heavily union PA should also be given some consideration.

TrueBlue | 1.10.12 @ 5:27PM

Thou shalt not bringeth logic to the table of emotion!

Mike McLaren| 1.10.12 @ 12:58PM

When you can change the meaning of marriage to be anything you want it to be, it ultimately will mean nothing.

Mistral| 1.10.12 @ 12:58PM

Now David, you are like most of the liberal and republican media here in pretending a certain candidate Ron Paul does not figure at all in any of this. It is time you faced up on this one. Ron Paul is a main contender whether you like it or not.

albert constantine jr| 1.10.12 @ 1:33PM

I think lost somewhere in the debate is the notion that an individual should be able to marry whomever they desire to achieve “happiness”.

While this might be a primary motivator in why people agree to be wed to each other during the last century or so (at least in Western Civilization), it certainly hasn’t been the case throughout history.

While marriage is a sacrament in the church, it also serves civil or other functions such as to strengthen families (the primary social welfare originator of first resort), assist in the division of property through inheritance and other derivative rights, to form or fortify alliances, etc.

The problem with linking the desire to marry someone based on one’s sense of “happiness” is that when one ceases being happy in the marriage, the obligations attendant to the vows one takes (which serve as the cement to these structures) often assume less importance than individual happiness, and much social upheaval can follow.

I think as a society, we all would be better off if we considered marriage (and pro-creation, for that matter) less of a way to indulge our own current whims of personal happiness, and gave more consideration to our posterity.

One of the major problems we face as a culture, though, it is difficult for us as individuals to postpone almost any form of gratification.

As a result, we will erode to a point where order can no longer be maintained, and we will be vulnerable to tyranny.

Whether it takes the form similar to contemporary Cuba or is more Biblical in its manifestation is what I hope we are not all forced to endure.

Stan Redmond| 1.10.12 @ 2:39PM

Soon to be 2 trillion per year deficits. North Korea is saber rattling under a new untested unknown leader. Iran working on nukes and destabilizing South America with Chavez. The "Arab Spring" is in fact a muslim brotherhood / extremist revolution. A US president ignoring the constitution. Mexican drug war and an invasion on our southern borders. Czars and administration officials violating court orders and constitutional duties.

What's most important? Gay marriage.

Pathetic. Each day I get more and more hopeless for the future of this country.

David| 1.10.12 @ 3:21PM

Mistral, I am not pretending he doesn't exist. I simply don't support him and don't believe he has a chance to win. I don't have anything to say about him one way or the other. I can't figure out from which candidate(s) he takes votes. In other words, when he drops out, I don't have a clue as to which candidate(s) his supporters go.

Ron| 1.10.12 @ 3:30PM

Why is it that everyone wants to say Mr. Gingrich has matured over the years, but Mr. Santorum has not?

So he voted in some controversial issues the way most of us has perceived as incorrect...Maybe he has learned his lesson? Same thing with supporting Arlene, excuse me, Arlen Specter for office...Specter claimed one party allegiance and then threw that one under the bus, IIRC.

As long as Mr. Santorum can admit that he made mistakes when asked about that, I see some hope for him...Does it mean I will vote for him? Maybe, maybe not. However he should be afforded the opportunity to admit he was wrong and move on. if he does not, then he is probably not going to be the correct conservative to watch or vote for.

I think his response to the questions about marriage was slightly apples and oranges, but not far off. The answer he gave shows insight...What about the guy who wants to marry his dog, cat or horse? Some on the left claim all life is equal, so why should marriage not be extended to two beings, or more, if they are "committed?" The lefties are even claiming the right to sue on an animals behalf, so when is that going to be addressed? There has to be a moral stance at some point on marriage, and Mr. Santorum has shown his.

bill| 1.10.12 @ 3:57PM

Santorum is a fluke. He did well in IA because MSM caused his surge. He voted against "right to work state" law. SC is a "right to work state", no way Santorum can convince SC voters his love towards big labors, his campaign is sinking and he is a dead man campaigning in SC. He cannot win in SC. He should not.

David| 1.10.12 @ 4:20PM

Hey bill, who do you support?

bill| 1.10.12 @ 4:45PM

Hey David,

I support Rick Perry. He supports "right to work state" , and helped TX become a "right to work state." SC is a "right to work" state. Santorum voted against it, and he will be ditched in SC, along with another "liberal RINO" Romney.

Santorum and Romney must end their campaign after SC, because they both will lose big time in SC.

Rick Perry will win in SC, and Newt will be in the 2nd place.

bill| 1.10.12 @ 4:50PM

Hello SC,

please help defeat Mitt Romney. (RomneyCare, Pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, for gun control and climate change

please help defeat Rick Santorum.(opposed "Right to Work" law, and voted against it)

please VOTE Rick Perry. (pro-life, opposes gay marriage, pro-gun rights, supports "Right to Work", opposes cap & trade)

David| 1.10.12 @ 5:07PM

Perry is my governor. I like him, BUT his lack of knowledge on too many issues caused me to support Santorum. And again bill, as I pointed out before, Texas has always been a right-to-work state. Perry had nothing to do with it - period.

Perry is just not quick enough to debate Bam Bam. The prez throws out so much BS that we need someone who can call him out on it when he does it. Only two I know of are Santorum or Gingrich, and I can't support Gingrich. If Perry had his shit together, I could support him. He does not................so I can't.

bill| 1.10.12 @ 8:26PM

Between Santorum and Gingrich. I would prefer Gingrich.
Santorum lost his senate bid by 18 points in 2006, and he thinks he can conquer America. I don't think so.
Gingrich is far better candidate than Santorum.

-engineered the 1994 GOP revolt
-balanced the budget 4 straight years
-reformed welfare
-passed the crime bill
-impeached Bill Clinton

Romney unleashed a barrage of smear campaign on Gingrich, and stole IA, and bought NH. Gingrich will be a real threat for Romney because Romney will be vulnerable in SC, and Gingrich is from neighboring state, GA.
I'm betting Rick Perry to win in SC.
Game on !

rangerdave| 1.10.12 @ 6:18PM

If the state recognizes homosexual marriage, what authority is there to ban polygamy? Or incest? Or beastiality? Or pederasty or pedophilia? The slope is always downward, and if our society survives long enough, the above are all coming to acceptance.

Oldefarte| 1.10.12 @ 9:05PM

Even though IMO abortion should not be a subject of discussion regarding the presidency or government, I do agree with Santorum on this matter. Marriage is a sacrament instituted by the Almighty mostly for the pruposes of procreation, and as such is a religious/moral issue, not one upon which the government has any business or legal concern. Man's laws were/are derived from the natural law of the Almighty, and as such should not stray from same on moral/human matters. If homosexuals wish to co-habit, that is their right and priveledge, but government does not have the right to be involved in instituting marriage laws for same. This imbicilic students are testamony of their youthful brainwahing by college professors via propagandist textbooks etc [California's schools were recently involved in a lesbian, gay etc school instruction curriculum issue, which is absurd given that taxpayers are funding public schools to teach minor children homosexual history etc]. This immorality has simply got to stop. Homosexuals have the right to practice their immorality, but don't expect the government to sanction same by instituting gay marriage laws!!!!!!!!!

POST American| 1.10.12 @ 10:23PM

---------------------FINAL WORD-----------------------

---Santorum?

Sorry, 'On board' Globalist
COOL-WHIP 'CON-servatism'
will never, ever do.

---------WE'RE DEALING WITH TREASON--------

Mike M| 1.11.12 @ 1:51PM

Reproduction is THE most fundamental characteristic of life itself. There happen to be two genders for our species and the only biologically complimentary combination is one of each of them to continue life. It can't be any simpler than that.