A "moderate" Republican law professor (she supports a strict separation of church and state AND thinks Bush v. Gore was rightly decided; she clerked for Justice O'Connor) is upset:
Females / moderates have one credible choice: vote Obama.
Truth be told, had Santorum not jumped into the presidential race, all of these somewhat hidden agendas likely would not have been revealed, and we might now just be talking about our disastrous debt situation and the economy. It used to be that the Republicans were the go-to folks on those issues. But at least while Santorum was on the national stage, their righteous focus was on their social religious agenda. It is a sad fact that the Bush Administration undermined the Republican reputation for fealty to economic issues when it engaged in runaway spending, a good portion of which was to appease religious groups demanding federal funding. Where does that leave female moderates like myself who are concerned about what the future will be like for our children, both socially and economically?In effect, and Rachel Maddow noted this once perhaps to justify covering them so gleefully, Santorum along with others served a purpose (maybe, Huntsman should have staid in longer too?): they brought to the forefront what the ugly underside of the party is thinking. "Gotcha" moments like this doesn't change that. I think you are not quite the people to talk when referencing a somewhat misspoken tidbit of her wider remarks.
Disgusted.
Females / moderates have one credible choice: vote Obama.