[WorkingClassFilth]

I agree with you and wouldn't want government to ram morality down my throat either. Suppose, as you say, that Santorum is at least a supporter of the status quo. Who, then, is the front runner for the small government vote? Personally, I don't see any of them meeting that criteria and all of them have strong evidence of being equally tainted to the side of big gub’mint solutions. In the end, no matter who gets the nod, you'll still be faced with a status quo congress and federal bureaucracy; not to mention a leftis media, leftist funding (via the fed bureaucrats), leftist think tanks and our leftist academies.

It seems to me that candidates that blather about small government at this time (and do nothing at others) are as useless as tits on a bull. What we really need is a bull in the china shop because things are bound to get broken (need to) one way or another.

[C. Edmund Wright]

This is how I see the candidates:

Santorum: not nearly as conservative as most people think on issues of limited government - as people are fooled by how strident he is on social conservatism.

Newt: much more conservative as legislator than he has been in his books and his other wanderings. Has a very conservative platform.

Mitt: all of both, and all over the place.

Huntsman: more conservative than people think, but will run a puke “cant we all just get along” campaign and would never win.

Perry: not as conservative as we’d hoped on issues of limited government, but as a tenth amendment guy, might be in the Federal position.

Paul: way right fiscal, way left on some other stuff.

The key is someone who could beat Obama and work with what I think will be the most conservative congress we’ve had maybe in my lifetime.