Thank you for asking.

Here is my serious answer:

The moderates in the GOP will have a conniption if Rick wins the Primary.

Which is odd, because Mitt claims to be a pro-life conservative.

"because they like what they hear from him, because they like what he stands for, because they believe he has experience that will help him be an effective president."

If the only restaurant you will go to only serves gruel and you're starving, you eat it. But that doesn't mean you "like it" or believe it's better for you than other food. There's a "uber-conservative" obsession that has people voting for someone who, while he may meet their far right criteria, has zero chance of appealing to the other half of voters who also vote in a general election.

Agreed. There's a tendency among some conservatives to excommunicate anyone who doesn't completely toe the party line. If a candidate ever did anything that isn't in accord with modern conservatism, he or she gets branded as a liberal. This is absurd, of course, because very often no liberal would ever call that person a liberal, but that's politics for you.

Santorum is so far to the right that he's unappealing to anyone who isn't ultraconservative. I couldn't vote for him, for instance. Not after he declared his intention to preach from the pulpit--er, state as President--that contraception was "not okay" and "counter to how things are supposed to be." There's an astounding combination of ignorance and arrogance in that statement as well as an unhealthy dose of tone-deafness; the overwhelming majority of Catholics don't agree with it these days. I think--I hope--that as we hear more and more from Santorum, people will increasingly realize just how much of an extremist he really is.

There are a ton of married couples that use contraception and aren't at all ashamed of it. I learned NFP, which is a form of birth control, in pre-Cana, so it's not like the Catholic Church is 100% against non-procreative sex. I don't see why using science to do what nature does, but more effectively is shameful. Should I be ashamed of driving a car instead of riding a horse? What about using a lighter instead of flint and steel?

"There's a tendency among some conservatives to excommunicate anyone who doesn't completely toe the party line."

This is funny, since what *actually* happens is that conservatives have a tendency to quiet down and do as they are told by the party when it comes time to cast a ballot.

Lorraine, so what your saying is that the fact that you will not vote for Santorum because he has an unpopular view on contraception (which he would not force anyone to follow). This is more important to you than the fact that Romney (1) enacted the blueprint for Obamacare (2) supported cap and trade (3) flip flopped on the social issues and (4) supported the global warming scam.

In light of this, I think it is funny that you accuse us conservatives of being unreasonable and quick to excommunicate anyone for disagreeing with us. In reality, there seems to be a vocal minority of socially liberal republicans who will attack any genuinly socially conservative candidate. I am sorry, but it is the socially liberal Republican who are not in the mainstream of the conservative alliance and you cannot throw social conservatism off the train. We will not sit down and accept the moderates that you want to shove down our throats any longer.

So, you for instance, are more comfortable with contraceptives being sold in vending machines on college campuses? Or maybe, you are fine with tax-payer funded abortion? Why bother with two parties at all if the Republican "Establishment" is going to always allow the pop culture and MSM decide who the nominee will be? I left the Republican Party for a number of reasons, but the biggest reason was because of their lack of backbone and floundering on social issues. How is it that Romney, "who lost to the man who lost to Obama" in 2008, is a better candidate for the Party than Santorum? Because he makes the Liberals feel more comfortable? Again, why have a two-party system? It use to be that Republican Party was the Party with a conscience (pro-life, pro-family, pro-military, pro-liberty, pro-free market), but now, sadly, it has become a floundering, fractured parody of itself BECAUSE THE PARTY IS AFRAID TO TAKE A STAND. Perhaps, we should call it the PC Party (maybe then everyone will love it).

So Rick's biggest sin is not taking the easy way out and retiring from the Senate when it was clear he could not win reelection in PA in the 2006 off-year 2nd Bush term election. That is some pretty weak tea - especially after winning in 2000 when Bush was losing PA bigtime and GOP Senators were dropping all across the nation.

In fact, in 2000 the ONLY GOP Senators to win in a state Gore carried, were Snowe, Chafee, Jeffords and Santorum....plus a couple lost races in states Bush WON

Now, Santorum may have a Senate vote or two on record that is less than pure conservative and needed to win in PA - but he DID WIN. He can brawl and bring a good blue collar story to the rust belt that Mr. Bain Capital can't bring.

And he has never been a Snowe, Chafee or Jeffords. EVER

Romney better be careful trying to make too much of the 2006 loss, given Romney chose to bail out from sure defeat than help the party by running uphill in a doomed election bid. Plus, Romney lost in 2004 when the GOP had a wave of victory around the nation and were toppling entrenched guys like Foley (for those who bring up the Kennedy untouchable aspect)

He did worse than merely lose in '06. He had the lowest approval rating out of all 100 senators in Oct. '06.

Dead last, and in a vital swing state. That may put a chill up some spines.