Oh, there are a few touchy ABRs on this site, believe me!  (Katievs is not one of them, BTW)

Endorsing Arlen Freaking Spector over Pat Toomey is close.

I actually don't care if the editors or contributors publish pro-Romney threads as much as I am concerned about the lack of threads critical of Santorum or Newt.

I'll make it easy for you guys - whenever I or another member creates a thread on the member feed critical of Santorum or Newt you can bump it up to the main feed.  Problem solved!  And I'll quit complaining.

That's a good point.  Unfortunately it fuels the charicature the media is trying to paint of Santorum.

He needs to change the subject when this stuff comes up but I think he feels it helps him in the primaries so he may not be willing to do so.

Does that mean that Ricochet is in Santorum's back pocket since the editors and contributors refuse to publish anything negative about him?

I can guarantee you that Romney believes the same thing as an integral part of Mormon doctrine is that Satan's purpose if to oppose everything good and decent, which would certainly include the United States.

However, given the suspect nature with which most people view us Mormons there's no way he can come out and say that.  Romney is constrained to avoid religious topics so as not to spook the evangelicals and others.

Santorum has no such constraints but it might help him if he did.  I don't believe it's wise for presidential candidates to talk about religious subjects except in broad terms such as a belief in God and the Judeo-Christian ethic upon which our nation was founded, etc.

Our country is too diverse to get into specific doctrines like Satan, birth control, etc.  Santorum certainly isn't doing himself any favors by doing so.

Or, to put it another way, "Lotteries - the tax for people who are bad at math".

I've never played the lottery but have consoled myself with the fact that my chances of winning are virtually the same as those who do play.

I readily admit that Romney is not a movement conservative.  However, unlike Rick Santorum he is a proven budget cutter as evidenced by his work in Massachusetts, the Olympics and the private sector (few people know that after starting Bain Capital he went back to Bain Consulting and saved it after the founders had run it aground).

I'm not sure how much can be cut from the federal budget in our current political climate but I am convinced that Romney can be the most effective budget cutter.

Interesting.  Do you know where they were found and by whom?

The country will be gone by 2016 if Obama is reelected.  Obamacare will be firmly entrenched and the supreme court will be decidely leftist for the next 15 years.  We will be a European socialist democracy and there's no coming back from that.

I basically agree with your point here and I've said essentially the same thing myself here on Ricochet in the past.  However, unlike you I don't think we are going to ever elect anyone who will significantly reverse the leftward drift of our country.  Why?  Because there aren't enough people left in our country who understand constitutional principles.

My disagreement with you original thread is that I believe that Santorum is cut from the same progressive cloth as Bush, Dole, etc.  While not a movement conservative, Romney stands a much better chance of making budget cuts because he has done it everywhere he's been whether it's the Olympics or in private enterprise or as governor of Massachusetts.  Santorum has no such record of budget cutting but he does have a lengthy record of spending.  He also wants the federal govt to pick winners and loser in the marketplace.

If you believe that Santorum is the great conservative saviour you have definitely not been paying attention.  Your willingness to vote for a big spending career politician pretty much undercuts your entire thread.  The man endorsed Arlen freakin' Spector for heaven's sake!

Romney is the end of the Republic but Santorum is okay?  Oy!

Very good post, Duane, which points up many of the challenges/problems with running for POTUS these days.  Is it any wonder that so many potential candidates decided to sit it out?

As you state, Romney is clearly not a natural politican and he needs to get better.  The extent to which he improves will largely determine whether or not he gets the job.  I take hope in the fact that GW Bush wasn't really a natural politican either but still managed to get elected twice!

I think this whole rich get richer meme is overblown as it seems to focus on the uber rich like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet.  Those are the guys who are wealthy enough to manipulate the system in their favor but they are very few in number compared to the population as a whole.

My guess is that this country still cranks out a significant number of new millionaires who make their money in a variety of businesses and professions.  And it cranks out a ton of sixfigure-aires as well.

There may be some segment of the middle class that is stagnant but that is probably due more to a changes in technology and shifts in the economy than to some permanent gulf in our culture.

Where we are hurting is in the lower middle class on down where the degradation of our culture has had devastating consequences.  The collapse of the family makes it much more difficult for people on the lower end to improve thier conditions.

No.  Even if Mitt wins MI and AZ he still needs to do well on Super Tuesday.  I'm not sure that Mitt can wrap this thing up before April unless Santorum self destructs somehow.

I think Mitt was simply saying that he would fight - do whatever is necessary - to make sure he didn't lose. 

Again, a sentiment perhaps not expressed in the most eloquent manner possible but not a statement of arrogance either.