Gay Patriot Header Image

In the current crisis, Santorum would be a lousy nominee

In my early morning (GayPatriot blog time) post on civility, I mentioned a conversation I had last night with a fellow alum of America’s finest liberal arts college about my opposition to Barack Obama’s reelection.  I focused my arguments on the incumbent’s big-spending ways and his regulatory policies.  He has neither a plan, I reminded my interlocutor, to deal with the skyrocketing federal debt nor the coming insolvency of federal entitlements.

As this wavering Obama supporter acknowledged my points, he expressed concern about a Republican Party obsessed with social issues, particularly contraception.  I replied that it wasn’t the candidates so much who focused on social issues, but the legacy media which focused on statements one candidate had made.

I then brought up the ABC/Yahoo/WMUR January debate in New Hampshire when former Bill Clinton advisor, now ABC News anchor, George Stephanopolous brought up the topic of contraception; I encouraged my friend to read what the likely Republican presidential nominee had said in that forum.

Discussing that debate, I expressed relief at Rick Santorum’s loss earlier this week in Illinois because that former Pennsylvania Senator, in the words of Erick Erickson (a blogger quite sympathetic to the concerns of social conservatives), like “Dug the dog in Up getting distracted by every random squirrel, Rick Santorum loses all ability to focus when social issues come up.”  With the Senator as the nominee, we would have a more difficult time defending our party as one focused on restoring fiscal sanity.

With Romney as the nominee, however, it will be a lot easier to make the case for change to intelligent urban- and suburbanites aware of the incumbent’s fiscal failures.

As a reminder, below the jump, I provide Romney’s response to Stephanopoulos’s question about contraception.  He doesn’t say anything that would offend social moderates — or sensible social liberals — concerned about our nation’s economic wellbeing:

ROMNEY: George, this is an unusual topic that you’re raising. States have a right to ban contraception? I can’t imagine a state banning contraception. I can’t imagine the circumstances where a state would want to do so, and if I were a governor of a state or…

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, the Supreme Court has ruled –

(CROSSTALK)

ROMNEY: … or a — or a legislature of a state — I would totally and completely oppose any effort to ban contraception. So you’re asking — given the fact that there’s no state that wants to do so, and I don’t know of any candidate that wants to do so, you’re asking could it constitutionally be done?

UPDATE: Glenn reports and quips, “SANTORUM: Obama Is Preferable To Romney. No he’s not, and you just demonstrated that it’s time to end your campaign. Either you’re an idiot, or you’ve cracked under the pressure. Either way, go home.” Is this the kind of guy we want as the party’s standard bearer?

Share

52 Comments

  1. Romney doesn’t say anything to offend social “moderates” or social liberals, but if he’d said something that offended social conservatives that would be ok with you, right B. Daniel? Let’s face it. Whatever Rick Santorum’s shortcomings, the only reason you oppose him is because he’s a social conservative who unapologetically opposes gay marriage and stands for traditional marriage. If Santorum was a cheerleader for “relationship recognition” you’d have no problem with him speaking his mind on social issues. The only people you want to shut up about social issues are traditionalists. Admit it, B. Daniel. You’re a social liberal with the same contempt for social conservatives that all social liberals have. I really don’t know why you keep up the pretense that you’re not. The fact that you are is painfully obvious. Sheesh.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — March 22, 2012 @ 7:53 pm - March 22, 2012

  2. Dan, that is probably one of the most disingenuous statements made by you as Romney is the candidate of the Gay Left/Right aka progressives/libertarians. No one’s denies his ability to step into the role of Secretary of the Treasury or Chairman/Governor of the Federal Reserve. He cannot be trusted for participating in collusive litigation to impose homosexual marriage in the state of Massachusetts.

    Gay ‘marriage’ not a right, prohibiting gay adoption not ‘discrimination’: European Court of Human Rights ( A CLEAR REJECTION OF THE SOCIAL ACTIVISM OF THE APAs/ABA)

    http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/gay-marriage-not-a-right-prohibiting-gay-adoption-not-dis
    crimination-europe#

    Comment by rjligier — March 22, 2012 @ 8:05 pm - March 22, 2012

  3. Let’s face it. Whatever Rick Santorum’s shortcomings, the only reason you oppose him is because he’s a social conservative

    Or, perhaps because he’s a total fraud as a fiscal conservative.

    Comment by sonicfrog — March 22, 2012 @ 8:09 pm - March 22, 2012

  4. Seane-Anna…I respectfully disagree with you. Santorum tends to put his foot in his mouth and makes me roll my eyes (and I am a devout Catholic as well). His problem is not that he’s a social conservative…it is that he is a buffoon in his explanations of his positions. Furthermore, I wish social conservatives could grasp this little fact: when the government is empowered to legislate morality, well…it is empowered to legislate morality! And that morality may be one you happen to disagree with (abortion being case in point) because of who is currently in power. Conservative progressives in the 1920s decided alcohol, being the Devil’s drink, needed to be outlawed. Prohibition was a monumental failure and resulted in increases in crime across the nation as even Nana’s special recipe became illegal. I oppose Santorum because he still thinks the government can solve all the nation’s problems and wants to impose his view of morality unto us all. Instead of focusing on the economy, he gets distracted by shiny objects, like internet pornography and etcha-sketches (things that make you go hmmm). Don’t get me wrong, the entire field of candidates is lacking but to accuse Dan of objecting to Santorum on the basis of his social perspective fails to acknowledge that Santorum, as you put it, has plenty of shortcomings, which, in my opinion, are reason enough to not want him on the ticket. Besides, the man supported Arlen Spector, which puts him right up there with Newt for sitting on that damn couch with Nancy. I want small government…I want it out of my bedroom, out of my computer, out of my marriage (which is between me, my husband, and our God), and out of my healthcare. I want my government defending my freedoms not imposing more laws on those freedoms and I want my government defending our borders. But that is just my two cents. Cheers.

    Comment by hellocat — March 22, 2012 @ 8:14 pm - March 22, 2012

  5. Well said, hellocat.

    I think giving the government the power to legislate morality, even if I agreed with that legislation, would be worse than having the government be neutral on such matters. I am not hostile to traditional beliefs or Christianity, and I’ve always thought of Utah, for example, as a place I wouldn’t mind living (and I have no intention of ever visiting San Francisco), but I disagree with the idea that anyone knows for certain that they are right about issues of morality (with no rational argument to support them). And for someone to pretend that they do (and form legislation based on that) is to be a supercilious elitist, regardless of the brand of morality that person believes in. And I do believe that some of Rick Santorum’s positions fit that description. To be clear, I am not attacking his beliefs, just his desire to legislate based on them.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — March 22, 2012 @ 8:38 pm - March 22, 2012

  6. Or, perhaps because he’s a total fraud as a fiscal conservative.

    Comment by sonicfrog — March 22, 2012 @ 8:09 pm – March 22, 2012

    Nah …it couldn’t be that!

    Comment by The Ugly American — March 22, 2012 @ 9:17 pm - March 22, 2012

  7. Maybe it’s because of this…another case of him inserting his foot into his mouth.

    http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-santorum-etch-a-sketch-obama-romney-20120322,0,1519900.story

    Comment by hellocat — March 22, 2012 @ 9:24 pm - March 22, 2012

  8. hellocat, I want the same things you do but I’m afraid we are not going to get them with Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, Paul or Obama. Perhaps 16 or 20.

    Comment by Richard Bell — March 22, 2012 @ 9:38 pm - March 22, 2012

  9. Dan,

    You do not mention that this whole contraception “debate” was engineered by the Obama team as a distraction and that Stephanopolus played the Judas goat.

    Certainly, Santorum took the bait.

    But I find your “backgrounder” work offered in this post to be badly incomplete by not tying in the Catholic church contraception mandates I & II and the whole Sandra Fluke dog and pony show that brought Bill Maher and his million dollar Obama contribution into the limelight.

    Naturally, you wanted to get to the Romney v Santorum issue efficiently, but I question the absence of accurately framing the genesis of this issue to be verging on the edge of fabrication by omission.

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 22, 2012 @ 10:32 pm - March 22, 2012

  10. Richard…I totally agree. We are less than thrilled at what we have set before us. The only thing I can do is hold my nose and fill out my absentee ballot (which will be discounted anyway as I am a resident of WA…haven’t trusted their electoral process since Dino Rossi’s loss in 2004 when military ballots were not mailed in time. If it is not Romney care, it is Santorum’s belief the government can and should tell us how to live, Newt’s belief in man made global warming and his own uberness, or Ron Paul reminding me of Uncle Festus. *sigh* Hope the nation can make it to 2016…

    Comment by hellocat — March 22, 2012 @ 10:53 pm - March 22, 2012

  11. Seane-Anna >> Dan’s been pretty careful to weigh the candidates on their economic policies and promises. It is you who are angry that So-cons like Santorum and Bachmann are lacking in the main areas where leadership is most needed. You seem to favor strident moral dictates applied to law. I don’t hear you extolling the virtues of many Muslim countries. Perhaps you can reconcile this discrepancy.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 22, 2012 @ 11:47 pm - March 22, 2012

  12. Helio, recall that Stephanopolous tried hard to bait Romney, but the former MA governor wouldn’t bite. And now instead of having a soundbyte that works against him, as the former Clinton aide surely hoped, he has one that can help him.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — March 23, 2012 @ 5:30 am - March 23, 2012

  13. One might also bear in mind that Romney (and Gingrich as well) is also a lousy candidate; just lousy for different reasons.

    Comment by V the K — March 23, 2012 @ 6:25 am - March 23, 2012

  14. If any voter is more freaked about contraception than they are a $16 trillion dollar and rising debt, out-of-control energy costs, out-of-control DOJ, permanent high-unemployment, the rapid expansion of the Nanny-Statist State, and an appallingly weakened National Defense then no candidate is good enough such voter.

    That said; out of all the candidates in the GOP I back the candidate whom Dr Thomas Sowell (the economic genuis in the 20th and 21st century) endorses.

    Unfortunately, too many ‘moralizers’ from the Pragmatic Moderate side of the Republican Party peached their indignation at the candidate Dr Sowell endorsed.

    Same Pragmatic Republican ‘moralizers’ who, by the way, think that Sarah Palin (the best of all Conservative leaders) is too stupid for their Pragmatic snobbery.

    At the end of the day, I blame the Pragmatic Republicans for Obamas re-election; their need to appeal to Ruling Class snobs is what blinded their ability to reason.

    Comment by Susan — March 23, 2012 @ 8:57 am - March 23, 2012

  15. “As this wavering Obama supporter acknowledged my points, he expressed concern about a Republican Party obsessed with social issues, particularly contraception. ”

    If I understand your fellow alum of America’s finest liberal arts college correctly, this fellow alum is not concerned by the fact that President Obama is sending $1.6 billion over to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt so that these Radical Islamists can use America’s tax-dollars to treat women as less than sub-human dogs while executing homosexuals?

    Do ask your fellow alum from American’s finest Liberal Arts college where and how Social Conservatives in America have treated women as less than sub-human dogs while executing homosexuals?

    If I am to understand correctly, Liberals are far more freaked about a non-existent threat from Social Conservatives in America than they are about legitimate threats occurring in the real world?

    Lastly; I do not understand how you did not look at your fellow alum from America’s finest Liberal Arts college and ask the question “are you insane”?

    Comment by Susan — March 23, 2012 @ 9:24 am - March 23, 2012

  16. Actually I can provide evidence which is contrary to the freaked-out fellow alum from America’s finest Liberal Arts college-there is an instance in America in which Social Conservative women have been treated less than sub-human dogs.

    It was the last three years in which Bill-Maher-Andrew Sullivan-like Liberals from America’s finest Liberal Arts colleges and from America most noble of Hollywoodland Liberalism displayed their extremist of hatred towards Gov Sarah Palin; a woman who did NOTHING TO THEM !!!!

    These Liberals from America’s finest Liberal Arts colleges crawled up her uterus to investigate whether she is a legitimate mother, they misgynostically beat her to a pulp and at one point they even had her ‘hanging from a noose’ in sunnyside Liberal Hollywood California.

    Comment by Susan — March 23, 2012 @ 9:37 am - March 23, 2012

  17. Not to mention, the Sandra Bernhard-like assault towards Social COnservative women such as Sarah Palin.

    On a stage in Washington DC. MZ Sandra Bernhart (gay advocate, Feminist, Liberal, Hollywood Commedian) declared that if Sarah Palin stepped one foot inside Manhattan then Sandra Bernhart would ‘send her black brothers to rape Sarah Palin’.

    Yet I am to believe-according to Gay Patriot and his fellow alum from America’s finest Liberal Arts college- that I am to fear Social Conservatives?

    Comment by Susan — March 23, 2012 @ 9:45 am - March 23, 2012

  18. Why are not ‘socially moderate’ Americans not insulted by the extremist treatment of hate towards women who believe in life?

    Comment by Susan — March 23, 2012 @ 9:56 am - March 23, 2012

  19. Grammatical Correction of the double negative- to pacify the noble sensibilities of those from America’s finest Liberal Arts colleges:

    Why are ‘socially moderate’ Americans not insulted by the extremist treatment of hate towards women who believe in life?

    Comment by Susan — March 23, 2012 @ 10:00 am - March 23, 2012

  20. Both Instapundit and Gay Patriot must correct the lie:

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/23/one-problem-rick-santorum-never-said-he-would-rather-have-barack-obama-as-president/

    The only problem is…he didn’t say that.

    Here’s what Santorum actually said:

    “You win by giving people a choice. You win by giving people the opportunity to see a different vision for our country, not someone who’s just going to be a little different than the person in there. If you’re going to be a little different, we might as well stay with what we have instead of taking a risk with what may be the Etch A Sketch candidate of the future,” Santorum told a crowd at USAA.

    Seriously guys, your need to appeal to Ruling Class snobs is what is blinding your ability to reason.

    And Glenn Reynolds should every once in a while pull his head out of his porn just to clear his mind.

    Comment by Susan — March 23, 2012 @ 10:14 am - March 23, 2012

  21. Sandra Bernhard has been subjected to misogyny for decades.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 23, 2012 @ 11:37 am - March 23, 2012

  22. 21.Sandra Bernhard has been subjected to misogyny for decades.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 23, 2012 @ 11:37 am – March 23, 2012

    Link:

    And another fallacy, the “Tu quoque “.

    * Person Q makes criticism Z
    * Q has also to have been shown to be guilty of Z
    * Therefore, Q can be dismissed.

    Comment by sonicfrog — March 22, 2012 @ 7:27 pm – March 22, 2012

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 23, 2012 @ 12:33 pm - March 23, 2012

  23. You don’t defend Bernhard, ND30, so I can only assume you support the attacks on her that she’s been enduring for decades.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 23, 2012 @ 12:50 pm - March 23, 2012

  24. 23.You don’t defend Bernhard, ND30, so I can only assume you support the attacks on her that she’s been enduring for decades.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 23, 2012 @ 12:50 pm – March 23, 2012

    Nope. I fully oppose, and am happy to condemn, attacks made out of misogynist hatred against Bernhard.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 23, 2012 @ 12:51 pm - March 23, 2012

  25. [lorax]Sandra Bernhard’s a woman?[/lorax]

    Ok, seriously I never thought much of her as an actor. There’s a difference between disliking someone’s work and disliking someone for their existence.

    Back on top, I do think it’s slightly unfair, to assume that Santorum will not learn from his mistakes, and Romney would.

    Comment by The Livewire — March 23, 2012 @ 1:20 pm - March 23, 2012

  26. As I recall that debate, it was not a good night for George Stephanopolous. He opened the debate trying to get Newt Gingrich to comment on a negative comment by an ex-wife of years past. Newt soundly scolded him for opening on a personal note of trivia when there were serious issues to debate, He also didn´t take the bait on contraception. My only wish is that he would have the charisma of the late President Ronald Reagan. It looks like I will have to hold my nose and vote for Mitt.

    Comment by Roberto — March 23, 2012 @ 2:55 pm - March 23, 2012

  27. Vince,

    Sandra Bernhard has been subjected to misogyny for decades.

    I have tried to get a handle on this statement by googling around. I have come up dry. Can you refer me to a reference which will make this statement clearer?

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 23, 2012 @ 5:22 pm - March 23, 2012

  28. Oops, I forgot to add that I am trying to figure out how Sandra Bernhard ties in with Santorum being a lousy nominee in the light of the current crisis.

    Then I am wondering how NDT’s “Tu Quoque” reference leads to:

    You don’t defend Bernhard, ND30, so I can only assume you support the attacks on her that she’s been enduring for decades.

    Are you just baiting NDT to see if you can hi-jack another thread or are you so much smarter than the rest of us that we can not possibly comprehend the saliency of Sandra Bernhard’s endurance of decades of misogyny? (Here I assume that your prior reference to misogyny is the same as “decades of attacks.”)

    Why is NDT required to defend Bernhard? What is he supposed to defend her against. Why is it related to Santorum? What does NDT need to say in order to satisfy your needs, standards and ethics and morality imperatives?

    How does it follow if NDT does not defend an unknown and unrevealed decades of attacks which you reference, but do not support with evidence is, in fact, evidence that NDT engages or supports such alleged attacks?

    Are you trying to tie this into the whole Say, No! repeated misfires you squeezed off on another thread?

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 23, 2012 @ 5:36 pm - March 23, 2012

  29. All of you are finding faults with the candidates. What we need is a clean candidate who has not done anything said anything.

    Look at our President. He came out of no where with no record. He charmed the ladies and they fainted and the men twinkled down their legs. He now is in the White House.

    Comment by John R — March 23, 2012 @ 6:29 pm - March 23, 2012

  30. John R,

    I hear you. The perfect man does not exist and we should be adult enough to know that.

    It is the Democrats who found Jimmy Carter and now Obama who were promoted as pure as the wind driven snow, but but turned out to be extra heavy and extra wide rings around the bathtub, but consider themselves to be polar stars and centers of the universe.

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 23, 2012 @ 7:16 pm - March 23, 2012

  31. Why are not ‘socially moderate’ Americans not insulted by the extremist treatment of hate towards women who believe in life?

    Because being moderate isn’t a belief system, it’s a pose. It’s a passive-aggressive way of asserting that you’re smarter than everyone else because you don’t believe in anything enough to take sides.

    Comment by V the K — March 23, 2012 @ 7:20 pm - March 23, 2012

  32. Look at our President. He came out of no where with no record. He charmed the ladies and they fainted and the men twinkled down their legs. He now is in the White House.

    Second that. Would rather have a candidate who I only agree with half the time, than one who I have no idea if I can agree with him or not because he or she has kept the agenda under wraps

    Comment by Sonicfrog — March 23, 2012 @ 7:54 pm - March 23, 2012

  33. OT:

    (and I have no intention of ever visiting San Francisco)

    I did when I was about 12. It was somewhat nice. Spent Christmas and New Year’s and got to see lots of that part of CA. There’s just certain things that you sorta have to overlook or, in the case of being 12, be ignorant of I suppose. But I get what you mean. I’ve never been particularly keen on visiting NYC. Sometimes I think I’d like to visit for a day or two but that’s about it.

    I’ve spent a few weeks in Dana Point, CA. wouldn’t mind visiting there again. Dan and Leah can have LA though. One day was kinda cool After that, it could burn for all eternity for all I care.

    Comment by TGC — March 24, 2012 @ 3:41 am - March 24, 2012

  34. Santorum has the moral center; whereas, Romney has none. In the current crisis, Romney is the wrong candidate. With no moral core, Romney can become anything & that’s his problem in the Republican primary. Conservatives still don’t trust Romney.

    Comment by Sebastian Shaw — March 24, 2012 @ 10:19 am - March 24, 2012

  35. Sebastian,

    Ditto on Romney. Santorum has his flaws, too. Voted to raise the debt limit. Supported No Child Left Behind, as a team player. Supported Arlen Spector, who upon becoming a Democrat gave us, a liberal judges Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan for SCOTUS. And got the sh*t kicked out of him in 2008 by now Senator Bob Casey by 16 or 18%. As I commented on a previous thread, Santorum is no Ronald Reagan and he certainly is no Abraham Lincoln.

    Comment by Roberto — March 24, 2012 @ 2:58 pm - March 24, 2012

  36. [...] The Right Planet – Race Pimps The Razor – Crown Romney and Be Done With It Gay Patriot – In the current crisis, Santorum would be a lousy nominee The Glittering Eye -Not To Use But To SellHonorable MentionsThe Grouch – Critical Medicines in [...]

    Pingback by Watcher of Weasels » Watcher’s Council Nominations..Individual Mandate Edition — March 28, 2012 @ 2:57 am - March 28, 2012

  37. [...] Gay Patriot – In the current crisis, Santorum would be a lousy nominee [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Watcher of Weasels nominations (late March edition) — March 28, 2012 @ 3:23 am - March 28, 2012

  38. [...] Gay Patriot – In the current crisis, Santorum would be a lousy nominee [...]

    Pingback by Watchers Council Nominations – Individual Mandate Edition | Independent Sentinel — March 28, 2012 @ 10:36 am - March 28, 2012

  39. [...] Gay Patriot – In the current crisis, Santorum would be a lousy nominee [...]

    Pingback by This Week’s Watcher’s Council Results | therightplanet.com — March 28, 2012 @ 10:47 am - March 28, 2012

  40. [...] Gay Patriot – In the current crisis, Santorum would be a lousy nominee [...]

    Pingback by This Week’s Watcher’s Council Nominations | therightplanet.com — March 28, 2012 @ 11:36 am - March 28, 2012

  41. [...] Gay Patriot – In the current crisis, Santorum would be a lousy nominee [...]

    Pingback by Trevor Loudon's New Zeal Blog » Watcher’s Council Nominations… Individual Mandate Edition — March 28, 2012 @ 12:23 pm - March 28, 2012

  42. [...] Gay Patriot – In the current crisis, Santorum would be a lousy nominee [...]

    Pingback by Watcher’s Council Nominations… Individual Mandate Edition | askmarion — March 28, 2012 @ 8:24 pm - March 28, 2012

  43. [...] Gay Patriot – In the current crisis, Santorum would be a lousy nominee [...]

    Pingback by A Spring in Your Step | — March 28, 2012 @ 10:15 pm - March 28, 2012

  44. [...] Gay Patriot – In the current crisis, Santorum would be a lousy nominee [...]

    Pingback by Watcher’s Council Nominations..Individual Mandate Edition - Virginia Right! — March 29, 2012 @ 8:17 am - March 29, 2012

  45. [...] of Rhodey-As the Trayvon Martin case proceeds … Fourth place *t* with 1 vote – Gay Patriot-In the current crisis, Santorum would be a lousy nominee Fourth place *t* with 1 vote – The Glittering Eye-Not To Use But To SellFourth place *t* with 1 [...]

    Pingback by Watcher of Weasels » The Council Has Spoken!! This Week’s Watcher’s Council Results — March 30, 2012 @ 3:24 am - March 30, 2012

  46. [...] Fourth place *t* with 1 vote – Gay Patriot-In the current crisis, Santorum would be a lousy nominee [...]

    Pingback by This Week’s Watcher’s Council Results | therightplanet.com — March 30, 2012 @ 9:46 am - March 30, 2012

  47. [...] Fourth place *t* with 1 vote – Gay Patriot – In the current crisis, Santorum would be a lousy nominee [...]

    Pingback by Trevor Loudon's New Zeal Blog » The Council Has Spoken!! This Week’s Watcher’s Council Results – 03/30/12 — March 30, 2012 @ 11:32 am - March 30, 2012

  48. [...] Fourth place *t* with 1 vote – Gay Patriot-In the current crisis, Santorum would be a lousy nominee [...]

    Pingback by The Council Has Spoken!! This Week’s Watcher’s Council Results 3-30-2012 - Virginia Right! — March 30, 2012 @ 12:01 pm - March 30, 2012

  49. [...] Fourth place *t* with 1 vote – Gay Patriot-In the current crisis, Santorum would be a lousy nominee [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Watcher of Weasels — Weekly Winners — March 30, 2012 @ 12:02 pm - March 30, 2012

  50. [...] Fourth place *t* with 1 vote – Gay Patriot-In the current crisis, Santorum would be a lousy nominee [...]

    Pingback by Pieces of Brilliance | — March 30, 2012 @ 11:21 pm - March 30, 2012

  51. [...] Gay Patriot – In the current crisis, Santorum would be a lousy nominee [...]

    Pingback by Bookworm Room » The usual wonderful stuff from my friends at the Watcher’s Council — April 1, 2012 @ 7:19 am - April 1, 2012

  52. [...] Fourth place *t* with 1 vote – Gay Patriot-In the current crisis, Santorum would be a lousy nominee [...]

    Pingback by The Council Has Spoken! — April 4, 2012 @ 10:52 pm - April 4, 2012

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.