Presidential Candidate Rick Sanotrum with his wife Karen Santorum.

I was recently reading Rick Santorum’s page on Wikipedia. After reading it, it’s hard to believe he would have a chance in the general election. Here are some quotes I found in his Wikipedia entry:

“All of us have heard people say, ‘I privately am against abortion, homosexual marriage, stem cell research, cloning. But who am I to decide that it’s not right for somebody else?’ It sounds good, but it is the corruption of freedom of conscience.”

In reference to contraception: “a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”

In regards to Libertarians: idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do. Government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulation low and that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues, you know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world, and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone…”

In regards to the Catholic Church sex abuse scandal: “…it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.” He later added that, “no surprise that the center of the Catholic Church abuse took place in very liberal, or perhaps the nation’s most liberal area, Boston.”

From what I’ve read, it looks like liberals are more likely to sexually abuse children, sex between consenting adults (even married couples) is wrong unless they are attempting to conceive, and that individuals need the government to show them how they should live.

If Rick Santorum is the nominee, he will marginalize a wide swath of Americans and lose overwhelmingly.

Presidential Candidate Michele Bachman

If Michele Bachman were to win the Republican nomination, I would definitely vote for her rather than Barack Obama. With that said, I hope Bachmann doesn’t win the nomination. There are certainly worse choices, such as Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich, but ideally you would get to vote for someone you like rather than the lesser of all evils.

Here’s one of my problems with Michele Bachmann: She criticized Mitt Romney for not signing the Susan B. Anthony List’s anti-abortion pledge. Here’s her rationale for the criticism:

“It is distressing that Governor Romney refuses to sign the SBA Pledge, even while claiming to be pro-life. The excuses for not signing clearly continue the doubts about his leadership and commitment to ending the practice of abortion – particularly for a candidate who ran as pro-choice for the Senate and Governorship of Massachusetts. Any Presidential candidate seeking our party’s nomination should sign the SBA Pledge and vow to protect life from conception to natural death. Governor Romney should reconsider his decision not to sign the Pledge just as he reconsidered his position on the life issue during the last campaign.”

Romney claims he didn’t sign the pledge because it’s too broad. In my opinion, he didn’t sign it because it would be harder to flip-flop in the future. When I hear Romney speak, I don’t feel like I can trust anything he says. He seems interested in saying the most popular thing, while leaving room to wiggle out of a position if need be. I want someone who is principled, and Romney doesn’t fit the bill.

As for Bachmann, I really don’t understand her. I admire her support of limited government, but I have problems with politicians who preach limited-government then embrace socially conservative causes which undermine personal responsibility. There seem to be a lot of Republicans who don’t get the distinction. They’re ready to jump on the Tea Party bandwagon and use the talking points, but the underlying philosophy seems to be lost.

Michelle Bachmann will go far into the primaries, and if Sarah Palin doesn’t decide to run, she will attract her supporters. I just hope that those who vote for her realize that she isn’t truly a “limited-government” candidate.

Over the years, Nancy Pelosi has been a staunch supporter of abortion rights, gay marriage, and assisted suicide. I tend to disagree with her, but I do agree with her stances on those issues. With that said, I find it hard to believe that someone with these views could present themselves as a devout Catholic. The last time I checked, the Catholic Church was strongly opposed to abortion, assisted suicide, and gay marriage.

I’m trying to figure out if Nancy Pelosi’s inconsistency is due to her ignoring the differences between church doctrine and her voting record in an attempt to be everything to everyone, or is due to a lack of intellect. With Madame Speaker, either one is possible.

“The president’s view is that this is not the vehicle to address immigration issues…this is not the place for this, this is not the place to resolve disputes over abortion,” he said. “I believe that as the week goes on, these issues will clarify themselves…We have to resolve the larger questions, which is the status of undocumented workers…we can’t resolve it within the context of this debate.”

Axelrod’s words might have had some credibility if the health care bill weren’t being used to expand the federal government’s role in higher education. Student loans have nothing to do with health care, yet they are part of the debate. On the other hand, the debates surrounding illegal immigration and abortion concern who is eligible for benefits and what procedures are covered. The last time I checked, those were both central issues that would need to be discussed in any reform plan.

In regards to the undocumented workers illegal aliens David Axelrod referred to, his position is a harbinger of things to come. By ignoring any prohibition on illegal aliens, he’s essentially hoping to extend benefits to the law-breakers. Maybe I’m wrong, but wouldn’t health care costs be reduced if we deported the 12 million or so illegal aliens who burden the United states financially?

Nelson secured full federal funding for his state to expand Medicaid coverage to all individuals below 133 percent of the federal poverty level. Other states must pay a small portion of the additional cost. He won concessions for qualifying nonprofit insurers and for Medigap providers from a new insurance tax, and was able to roll back cuts to health savings accounts.

“I know this is hard for some of my colleagues to accept and I appreciate their right to disagree,” Nelson told reporters at the Capitol, of the many changes made at his behest. “But I would not have voted for this bill without these provisions.”

If you read this blog regularly, then you know that I strongly oppose the Senate health care bill. With that said, if I was a Senator who supported it, I would likely vote no due to the favorable treatment Nebraska’s citizens will receive. If every other state is making a contribution, then why shouldn’t Nebraska? It’s because Senator Ben Nelson is the last hold-out, so he figured he could hold the bill’s supporters hostage. There’s a lesson for U.S. Senators: Pretend you oppose a bill for a particular reason (such as abortion), then get the change you pretend to care about along with some rewards for your state that you can use at election time.

Since the rewards Senators like Ben Nelson extract will likely be brought up by him at election time to prove how “effective” he is, you could argue that he is deriving quite a benefit from his deal. His actions are unethical and go against everything a legislator should stand for. A competent Majority Leader would have made the change to part of the bill related to abortion, but not the unfair give-aways for his constituents. Then, if he continued to oppose the legislation, he could call him on it. Of course, Harry Reid’s failure to do this makes you wonder what types of goodies the people of Nevada will be receiving.

“Why are women being singled out here? It’s so unfair,” Boxer said on the Senate floor Tuesday. “We don’t tell men that if they want to … buy insurance coverage through their pharmaceutical plan for Viagra that they can’t do it.”

Will someone please tell Barbara Boxer that this isn’t an attack on women. If someone were trying to block payments for hysterectomies, then she would certainly have a point, and the Viagra comparison would be suitable. However, her comparison of of abortions to Viagra is laughable. If an abortion isn’t performed in the case of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother, then the procedure is nothing but birth control for the wreckless. Viagra is used by men attempting to restore a function that has been lost. How can she compare the two?

She could have made the comparisons due to stupidity, or intellectual dishonesty. You can make that decision. To me, she is just trying to scare her colleagues into being labeled an anti-woman sexists who is trying to take away women’s rights. Of course, this amendment wouldn’t take away a woman’s right to choose, it would merely require her to pay for her choice. I don’t see how this is a problem.

I’m strongly prochoice, yet I don’t want my tax dollars being used to pay for abortions unless they are required due to rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. I think this is a rather popular position, and Barbara Boxer knows it. As a result, she is trying to distort the argument to cover the true intent of the amendment. It’s a lot easier to demonize someone for being a sexist than it is for making sure tax dollars are not being used to pay for irresponsible behavior.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Bishop Thomas Tobin appeared on “Hardball” to discuss his decision to ask Rhode Island Congressman Patrick Kennedy to refrain from receiving Holy Communion. The funny thing is that Thomas Tobin is criticized in this clip, even though Patrick Kennedy began this nonsense by criticizing the Catholic Church’s stance on abortion, then brought up a conversation he had with the Bishop 2 years ago, when he was asked not to receive Communion.

In the interview, Chris Matthews seems thoroughly confused. Part of it may be due to him attempting to reconcile his prochoice stance with his life as a Catholic. He continually criticizes the Bishop and essentially demeans him by asking how he would write particular laws, and attempts to make him look incompetent.

Unfortunately, Chris Matthews misses the big picture. He is right in saying that Patrick Kennedy’s voting record is none of the Church’s business. His error is in not realizing that his life as a Catholic certainly is fair game. Besides being prochoice, Kennedy supports legislation that would increase the availability of abortion. These actions run counter to Catholic teachings and the Church has every right to call someone out for not following their faith. When you present yourself as a member of a particular faith, you’re essentially voicing acceptance of their beliefs.

This topic is actually quite interesting to me. I was raised as a Catholic, but I am staunchly prochoice, I support gay marriage, and I’m against open borders. All three of those views are at odds with the Catholic Church. These positions, along with theological reasons, have led me away from the Catholic Church. I don’t present myself as a Catholic, and I don’t expect the Catholic Church to conform to my world view, or to accept my views. If you don’t believe what you are supposed to believe, then how can you be a believer? This seems obvious to the Bishop and I. It’s unfortunate that Patrick Kennedy and his conflicted friends aren’t able to understand.

I’m amused by how many people present themselves as Catholics, then live their lives counter to the church’s teachings. You shouldn’t be able to pick and choose which aspects of a religion you like, and which aspects you don’t. If a particular religion doesn’t suit your particular view of the world, then find another one. For too many, their religion is nothing but a habit. If that’s the case, isn’t it better to just stop attending mass and stop living a lie?

I was raised Catholic, but I have serious disagreements with many of the church’s teachings. Unfortunately, you can often find parishioners who don’t make any attempt to be a good Catholic, they just go through the motions. Patrick Kennedy is a good example. Here’s an elected official who supports abortion rights and fights to make abortions more acessible. My problem isn’t with his views on abortion (I’m pro-choicee), it’s with people who strive to make those views consistent with their Catholic religion. Sorry, it can’t be done.

Ideally, we would see Bishop Tobin’s actions duplicated with other pblic officials. Too many politicians try to be everything to everyone. They present themselves as a religious individual, then support ideas that are in opposition to what they profess to believe. Hopefully, Bishop Tobin’s actions will be a first step in calling out the hypocrites and bringing some thought into the public sphere.

Beginning on line 7, p. 118, section 1303 under “Voluntary Choice of Coverage of Abortion Services” the Health and Human Services Secretary is given the authority to determine when abortion is allowed under the government-run health plan. Leader Reid’s plan also requires that at least one insurance plan offered in the Exchange covers abortions (line 13, p. 120).

What is even more alarming is that a monthly abortion premium will be charged of all enrollees in the government-run health plan. It’s right there beginning on line 11, page 122, section 1303, under “Actuarial Value of Optional Service Coverage.” The premium will be paid into a U.S. Treasury account – and these federal funds will be used to pay for the abortion services.

Section 1303(a)(2)(C) describes the process in which the Health Benefits Commissioner is to assess the monthly premiums that will be used to pay for elective abortions under the government-run health plan and for those who are given an affordability credit to purchase insurance coverage that includes abortion through the Exchange. The Commissioner must charge at a minimum $1 per enrollee per month.

I’m about as pro-choice as someone can be. The decision to have an abortion is a personal one, and is none of the government’s business. With that said, this individual decision requires individual responsibility. Therefore, if an abortion is obtained for reasons other than to save the life of the mother, incest, or rape, she needs to pay for it herself. I don’t want my tax dollars bailing out any more irresponsible people.

The pro-choice lobby is complaining about the Stupak Amendment on the House health care bill, saying it hampers a woman’s right to choose, but it doesn’t. It merely requires women to take responsibility for their actions. I imagine that any Senate health care bill will have to be amended to make attach similar protections. If it doesn’t, the bill won’t go any where, and rightly so.