When I say Democrats are not idiots, I'm talking about party leaders and office holders. No one who has given the issue five seconds of study can possibly believe the minimum wage does not displace unskilled workers. So yes, what I'm saying is that they are lying -- quite effectively -- while cynically pursuing political gain and additional power. They are not the stupid party; they're the evil party. The GOP's status as the stupid party remains unchallenged.

Boy, I've about had it with the disingenousness and dirtiness of these primaries.

For Santorum to call himself a reliable conservative, and to characterize Romney as "to the left of Ted Kennedy" is offensive.

Hey Rick, reliable conservatives don't endorse Arlen Specter. Especially when he says he's running for president to show that pro-lifers have hijacked the R party (Specter did exactly that, and Santorum endorsed him). Nor when Specter jumps ship to the D's and a real conservative is running on the R ticket, and every vote in the Senate counts as Obamacare hangs in the balance (Specter did, and Santorum endorsed him).

Reliable conservatives aren't proud of their earmarks and their pork.

All this is kind of sad, because frankly, there is a lot to like about Santorum.

In a way that Romney is clearly not, Santorum is comfortable talking to us conservatives.

But when he was voted into power, he clearly did whatever he felt availed his own pocketbook and his own (i.e. personal) power, even when it came at the cost of principle.

Romney did the same to get elected in ultra-liberal Mass.

Neither of these candidates have the standing to hurl allegations of conservative apostasy at each other.

I wish they'd stop doing so.

It's really demoralizing to us, and it's really sapping our enthusiasm.

As a result of which, the only real effect of all this ridiculous name calling has been that BHO's re-election chances have increased.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the Republican party: they never fail to fail.

I can guarantee that Romney understands the economics of the minimum wage. So would you rather have a sincere but ignorant Santorum or a knowledgeable but pandering Romney? (Of course either would still be a huge improvement over our current president.0

To be clear here, was it pandering or was it something else when Rick Santorum GLEEFULLY and PROUDLY voted to extend government largess, in the form of free prescription drugs, to the wealthiest demographic in the country?

I have problems with both candidates(no one is perfect) and with Medicare in general. But I do think it was silly that Medicare would cover ulcer surgery but not ulcer medication. Clearly, changes in general are needed but having different guidelines for paying one form of medical expense and another seem, well, silly. Maybe someone can explain it but not me.

Both. Neither. Some percent of either. X as a lifetime Amount toward either. Almost anything would be better than what it was from any reasonable point of view.

Note he doesn't really explain or defend his own lack of fiscal conservatism, just turns the attack back. Isn't that his complaint against Romney?

Santorum spent his career in congress voting against ethanol subsidies, but when he was trying to win the Iowa caucus suddenly he was for ethanol subsidies... if that is not pandering I don't know what is.

Funny I think Ricky boy had exactly the right response to Mitt Romney saying he Santorum legislated like a Democrat...

Outright laughter.

If Rick Santorum is a Democrat, Mitt Romney is a Socialist and they don't even have a term to describe Barack Obama.

Santorum: “When the minimum wage drops below a certain level, it’s usually a floor of about 7 percent of wages at minimum wage, I’ve supported increasing it back it up to make sure it stays above that level so there is in fact a minimum wage.”

So the bottom line is that Santorum favors indexing the minimum wage. His formula may be a bit different from indexing it directly to inflation, but the effect is the same. It's just that his approach is subject to a lot more political grandstanding and larger jumps in the minimum wage than simply indexing it to inflation.

If you're in favor of a minimum wage, you're in favor of tying it to inflation somehow, eventually. Anyone who doesn't admit that is a liar or ignoramus.

So Santorum loses this little squabble in terms of principle -- he favors the same result as Romney, but acts like the particular technique makes a hill of beans of difference.

Both Santorum and Romney are probably on the winning side of this issue politically -- the minimum wage is very popular -- but both are on the wrong side of the economics.

The minimum wage doesn't magically make people at the bottom end of the wage scale suddenly worth more; it simply says that employers are not allowed to hire people and pay them less than that. So employers make the only reasonable choice: they choose not to hire people if they have to pay them more than they're worth.

That hurts the poor. But it enables politicians to act like they care deeply about the poor. And that's what really matters, after all -- to act like you care.