I much prefer Mitt Romney’s foreign policy or Obama’s foreign policy.

Santorum’s comments about euthanasia in the netherlands for example are unacceptable, not because if the factual scenario were true we shouldn’t agree with Rick, but because the scenario has no basis in fact.

Santorum is too orthodox catholic for my taste, and probably way out of line with his “puke” comments about seperation of church and state.

But it is a free country, and I know which issues are controlled by the courts and which ones are controlled by the president. Even if Rick Santorum could find another lawyer as “crazy” as Rick Santorum (they exist), such a legal mind would never be deemed qualified to be a federal judge.

Some of the things Rick says are good for entertainment value, and a reflection of the idiocy folks post on right-leaning blogs. You will have some of that, and sometimes the right mood and stress on the campaign trail will trigger that. Not a big deal most of the time.

But once you sign on to AIPAC, you better be ready to be serious when you talk about policies which exist in foreign countries.

You can be an informed and intelligent “neocon”, but you aren’t allowed to play games with facts on foreign policy… EVER AGAIN.

Bravo to the catholics, who are taking this “borderline deranged” stance. Very few americans pay attention to foreign policy, which is why we get in such trouble. It may even be best policy to pick a single issue study it closely, and vote only on the basis of this issue.

Again, why should I care what Rick thinks about contraception?

No rational human being can be worried that the election of Rick Santorum would reverse Roe, much less Griswold. Let the guy preach his faith, a lot of good folks sincerely share it.

The same cannot be said of an ill-considered war with Iran.

Rick is entitled to moral opinions, but he should be warry of mixing these opinions with facts, especially when it concerns foreign policies.