Rob: How can people accuse you of  being a RINO when you are obviously such a shameless capitalist. (And that's not a criticism, by the way.) BRAVO!!!!!!

Dr. Paul: You are in my prayers and I wish you a successful surgery and very speedy recovery.

This is great news. Congratulations, John, and thank you, Peter, for bringing this to our attention.

People may be nervous but in fact Santorum said he would not try to impose his views on contraception through public policy, so I don't know what all the hype is about, other than that is so easy to demonize outspoken Christian conservatives these days.

This is a fascinating subject and one that has intrigued me for some time as I've feared potential schisms in the conservative movement, or should I say "on the right?" I understand the concern some people have about Santorum's emphasis on social issues and I've watched some of the clips wherein he appears to be taking issue with Libertarians. I think all he is saying is that he doesn't want Libertarians to be the dominant force in the conservative movement; not that he wants them out of the movement. I happen to believe that most Tea Partiers -- not all -- also happen to be sympathetic to social conservative concerns, though the TP's driving emphasis is on fiscal issues and constitutional ones. I just think Santorum is a guy who is a strong social conservative; it's who he is and he is open about it. I don't believe he wants Libertarians out of the big tent. I'm sure he doesn't. I also don't believe they have any reason to be too concerned about his policies -- he's not a theocrat -- except possibly those who agree with Ron Paul on foreign policy.

The Second Amendment, along with many other of the rights in the Bill of Rights, have been incorporated by the Court into the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment and thus made applicable to the states. In fact the 2nd Amendment was apparently incorporated in a case involving Chicago -- McDonald v. Chicago (2010). The mandate is being challenged under the Commerce Clause -- which is an enumerated federal power -- and so has nothing to do with the states. I'm not an expert, but thats my take

Tom -- and others -- I just ask you to consider the REAL possibility that Romney actually doesn't think he committed an error with Romneycare, which I think is the most likely choice, and what that says about his political orientation. Pride is a problem, but liberalism masquerading as conservatism -- if that's the case -- is much worse. Romney baffles me but my radar senses problems. In the event he becomes the nominee, I hope I can get more comfortable with the idea that he's a) authentic in general and b) an authentic conservative.

Yes, and I want to repeat a point I earlier made: Romney doesn't limit his defense to: "It was the best I could do against those darned MA libs." He stands by Romneycare as if it were the Kemp-Roth tax bill

I might add one other thing that comes to mind both because a) Dr. Rahe, as usual, urges us to return to first principles and I agree,  and b) people have responded to this post on Twitter saying, simply, "Romney is a fiscal conservative."

Here again, I think it's important that we get beyond the superficialities. Being an economic conservative involves more than just a commitment to getting our budgets in balance and opposing oppressive, growth-stifling taxes. It also involves a commitment to freedom -- an opposition to coercive government. Theoretically, liberals can favor a balanced budget (though none seem to do so today),and still not share the conservatives' view of limited government and how that is critical to ensuring we will enjoy our God-given rights and liberties.

In a sense, this is even more basic than constitutionalism because while the Constitution enshrines these ideas, the ideas precede it -- they are, according to our founding, liberty tradition, from God.

To amplify and clarify my previous post "by 10th Amendment doesn't save it," I only mean that even if the State of Massachusetts had the constitutional right to implement Romneycare, that doesn't insulate it from the criticism that it is still a statist program. Prof Rahe provides an added bonus in also addressing the constitutionality of the program under Mass law. But for my purposes -- assessing Newt Romney's desirability as a GOP nominee, what matters most is that it's a statist notion and he nevertheless steadfastly and stubbornly defends it behind the excuse that his constituents like it. Besides, don't forget that he goes much further than that, acting like his program is darn near the best thing since sliced bread. That's very troubling to me and hard for me to get past and one reason I am much less favorably disposed to Romney than in 2008 when I hadn't studied this particular matter as much.

I love this post -- and just tweeted it, because I have been arguing for months with Romney supporters that Romneycare is noxious and tyrannical on a state level and that the 10th Amendment doesn't save it. The federal government is not the only governmental entity capable of tyranny and this is an example of it.

When they have responded with, "It's largely irrelevant anyway because Romney has promised to repeal Obamacare," my response has been:

"In the first place I don't believe his heart is in that pledge and one of his advisors -- I think it was Norm Coleman -- said he probably wouldn't honor it." But more importantly to me, his steadfast commitment to Romneycare is not as troubling as an indicator that he might not repeal Obamacare as it is as evidence that he is not, at heart, a conservative."

Like Prof. Rahe, I too, have been mystified by Mitt's stubborn, defiant refusal to admit his mistake here, which means that he is either too proud to admit it -- not a good sign -- or truly has statist proclivities (which is worse). Great, great post.

Claire: You were great: poised, thoughtful and persuasive. You are very good on TV.

Peter: I agree with both of your points, and had made the same point re good debate skills not being a condition precedent to presidential qualifications, though he did so poorly he caused much doubt. That should be explored. I also thought Will made some good points, but his criticism WAS over the top and it sounded personal, just as when he mocked the notion that Newt is a historian on TV a few weeks ago. I think Scott Reusser in the post following yours makes some good points about Newt.

And, yes, I accept your invitation to join the Podcast; just let me know.

Yes, he admitted as much in his column.

That is an interesting and valid point. To paraphrase Barack Obama, it took us 70 years to get into this mess, but we can't afford to take 70 years to get out of it. That said, I think students of political conservatism would agree that it is not action they oppose, but radical action. But no conservative would have a problem with radical action if it were the only way to preserve the founding principles and if the longer we postpone remedial action, the less prospect we have of doing this in a careful, orderly, traditionally conservative way imho.

There you go again, Peter, trying to stir the pot :-). My question to you is: do you agree with George Will's scathing condemnation of Newt, with his opinion that Rick Perry's poor debate skills don't mean he would be a poor leader, both, or neither?