We need to take a sober look at our options and ask one question:  "What is the best possible alternative to the re-election of Obama?"  It is Romney.  For all his flaws, it is Romney. 

To say that all Romney will do is to slow down the socialist drift in the country is to badly miss the point.  Once we have slowed the socialist drift we can begin to focus on reversing it, which is a tall order.  But we must first slow before we can reverse. 

I cannot agree with those who want to take their balls, go home, and vote for Gary Johnson this November.  A small improvement over Obama is nevertheless an improvement.  Man up, folks.  Vote smart.  That means stop banging your high chairs and vote for Romney.

Dittos, Thelonious.  Leftists take offense as a way to empower themselves and shut down all opposition as in, for example, the speech codes predominant on college campuses (campi?) these days.  If we can eliminate the "right" to not be offended, that elimination will have to extend to all phases of human interaction, not just politics, as Maher would apparently have it.

Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, agoraphobic, caligynephobic, claustrophobic,  - heck, wanting freedom is downright un-American!

I agree wholeheartedly with your post.  The only good example of pushback that I have seen was Newt's appearance on Meet the Press, a clip of which was posted on the main page on Sunday.

I think that Rush's comments went too far, but as many have noted the icons of civility on the left have done, and routinely do, much worse.  Each of the candidates and every Republican should, when entreated to condemn Rush's comments, reject the premise that it is an important topic of conversation, point out that the real issue at stake, free exercise of religion, was not addressed by Ms. Fluke, and condemn the questioner for disserving the country by disingenuously flogging the administration's narrative.

In other words,  fight.

The operative verb is "ran."  To say that Romney "ran" to the left of Kennedy is not to say that Romney IS to the left of Kennedy.  Santorum is accusing Romeny of unprincipled opportunism rather than liberalism. 

Dig it.

Without a doubt, if you have to bet the farm, you bet that it will be legal.  The cultural left will continue assaulting and destroying every important social institution in the country until there are none left recognizable and the Leviathan rules without significant opposition (see Europe).  Sooner or later enough judges will concern themselves with seeming "modern" that they will impose gay marriage by judicial fiat, just as they imposed abortion on demand.

As to the broader point, I do not agree that social conservatism necessarily kills Republican chances at the ballot box.  But clearly the message needs a better messenger than Mr. Santorum.

Being reflexively anti-Santorum is paying off for Rubin.  I saw her on cable news (CNN, I think) the other day badmouthing Santorum. 

BTW, that 2/20 entry decrying Santorum's alleged "attack on the President's faith" is an extremely irritating repetition of a left-wing meme. 

Yeti, can we do this:   produce Left Coast/Right Coast podcast in stereo so we can just listen to Mickey's channel and turn Rubin's all the way down.

Si si puede!

Come on, folks, you're missing the real question!  Which would-be competitor for the V.P. slot leaked this story to Buzzfeed in order to torpedo Rubio's chances?  

Enquiring minds want to know.

Good news, but that is hardly the point.  The HHS mandate was a conscious decision by the administration to provoke a fight with conservatives so that left-wing bloviators like Paul Krugman could prattle on about a "Republican war on contraception."  As of now, Obama's strategery appears to be working. 

Not sure I agree.  If the Supreme Court upholds Obamacare, it will mean that the Anthony Kennedy court no longer recognizes any limits on federal intrusion into all aspects of our lives.  Federalism, already on life support and about to receive Last Rites, will expire.  Much better that the Supreme Court overturn it than a transient Republican majority in Congress repeal it.

Let's posit an explicit tradeoff that many posters have already hinted at:  Supreme Court overturns and Obama is reelected or Supreme Court upholds and Republicans take the Senate and the presidency and hold the House.  Which is the preferable outcome?

Yes!  The whole Obama program has been focused on giving more taxpayers' money to people who will vote for the "liberal project" in order to keep the goodies coming.  People (well, 90% of them) will not vote for a candidate who might pull the plug on the freebies.  We are probably doomed now.  After four more years of Obama, we surely will be screwed.

Just so.  "Homophobe" is a term invented to tar every person opposed to the radical gay agenda with a psychological disorder.  The use of the word displays contempt for fellow Ricochet members.

That said, I share some of Fred's concerns.  The media and democrats will absolutely brand Santorum as an anti-gay religious nutbag.  Obama has already signalled that he wants to wage culture war with his decision on free contraceptives for all.  We nominate Santorum we fight on Obama's turf.

As my wife likes to say, "WASS!"  (We Are So Screwed).

Ginsburg ain't supposed to be making law.  You put your finger right on the problem.

Aha!   Ruthie thinks the U.S. constitution sucks!  No wonder she pays no attention to it!

 What?  There's no anti-nepotism rules in the Ricochet C of C?  Welcome Jim, and here's hoping that your dot com is always unbusted.

Nailed that, P. in O.  As a father, I can't comprehend criticizing (or giving any thought to) how another grieved over a dead child.  Their conduct is sickening.