I really do not see the issue here. Clearly, Rick Santorum is a man of deep convictions. That is a quality that most of us want in a president. By suggesting he would use the bully pulpit of the office to deliver a moral message, he makes me proud. Obviously, he could not and would not outlaw birth control. But he could help bring back the taboo that once led to better behavior. If only President Obama would use his bull pulpit to preach against out of wedlock births. He would be a national hero.

Let's get down to the nitty gritty. What exactly is Mr. Santorum against? The sexual urge? Probably not. Surely there needs to be some context in human animals to figure this out. After all what are our brains for? However it is a societal issue not a legal one. In prior times and even now the male half of our species has been encouraged to have multiple sexual conquests as a sign of real manhood. However get out the scarlet letter for any female that has the audacity to also participate. So the real issue here is reasserting male dominance over women. Forget about the quasi-moral or political cover up, this is where the tire meets the road. Any woman or the men who love and respect them should think twice about who they vote for. REMEMBER A PRESIDENT IS THE ONE WHO SELECTS CANDIDATES TO THE SUPREME COURT. These judges as definer of our laws it can impede social progress or bring us back to an earlier time when women's very private decisions could be taken away. This is enough reason for a citizen to pull the lever to reelect our current President, Barack OBama.

Long engagements prior to marriage prevent some horrible mistakes. For liberals, former Senator Santorum has justified the belief that the term conservative is packed in the same bag that carries his rants and raves that spiral through the air like a bad wind. It may sound vitriolic to scream, at least internally, that this candidate needs to return to Pennsylvania and leave the rest of the nation to try to heal its wounds and restore its economic well being. It is not unreasonable to express the hope that Americans will reject this ideologue and elect an experienced, reasonable person to lead our country.

Now here is a column that needed to be written. Some of us are old enough to remember Eisenstadt v. Baird, the U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down a Massachusetts law prohibiting the distribution of contraceptives to unmarried people. I recall my outrage at learning, when I moved here, that after my divorce I could not buy birth control pills (with my own money, not insurance). Not a reason, OETKB, to vote for Obama, just a reason to not choose Santorum to run against him.

Isn't it amazing to think that that was the case in our own lifetime, Barbara? It's just staggering. I also wonder if the sex-only-inside-marriage folks live in the real world, where many young people for career reasons don't marry until their late 20s. Profox: I take your point there, but why don't more conservatives stand up and say, look, Senator Santorum, this is not the kind of conservatism we're for? Scot

Scot, By your reasoning, why didn't more liberals stand up to Barack Obama, and demand a more moderate candidate? His extremism on the left is at least as bad as Santorum's is on the right. 1. Supported leaving abortion surviving babies to die. 2. Attended Church of Jeremiah Wright for 20 years. 3. Began his political career in the home of left wing terrorist William Ayers.....shall I continue?

Richmond, I think you are rerunning the failed campaign from 2008, no? The idea that Obama is an extremist just doesn't withstand scrutiny.

Obama practices leftward extremism? Not hardly. Richmond, you are playing the politics of paranoia. You should focus on economic arguments; you had greater strength there. The President is not as moderate as I'd like him to be but he's still very much in the middle range. As to the topic of the article, Santorum has also learned to play the politics of paranoia. If someone asks you a tough question you accuse them of beign out to 'get' you. Welcome to the world of grown-ups, Senator.

Scot, I think you have helped me make my point. Your attacks on Santorum are identical to those that were levelled against Obama in 2008. Every president must moderate to some extent.

Most liberals understand that Obama has been way too moderate. He has for his entire presidency, run to the right of Ronald Regan. Obama has been very much middle of the road. Democrat voters are not at the moment locked in a primary fight. We had our fun back in 2008.

Rick Santorum is what happens when religion and politics get too mixed up. I was rooting for him and am sad he lost in Illinois. Scott, although articles like this tend to make the rich pro big-business, pro big-polluter guy look better and tend to hurt Obama's chances overall, I appreciate your honesty.

So, Niedermeyer (Santorum) feels sex has to involve procreation. Another sign the guy is a barrel of laughs. He gets that frustrated attitude when someone asks about his stated position, which always sounds somewhat embarrasing.

Obama extremism? Only you could try and make that case Richmond. Most progressives feel that the President needs to be more and not less extreme. Is this opinion piece about Santorum? Yes. None of the "points" that you make above have had any impact on the Obama presidency, except maybe in the eyes of right wing conspiracy theorists. Wright and Ayers are ancient history; what Santorum is preaching is how he feels right now and consequently how he would govern if elected. Think about that.

"Attacks on Santorum"? All Scot did was point out the sleight of hand and "inconsistencies" in Santorum's public statements and how he fidgets when confronted with past statements. Santorum is the extreme candidate here, not Obama. You need help for your Obama obsession.

Two opinion pieces on Santorum today? What gives? His candidacy is heading to the irrelevancy dumpster with his thumping in Illinois, but no let up from the Globe. He is Huckerbee with a SuperPac, nothing more, nothing less. Yet the Globe treats him as if he were the presumptive Republican nominee. The niche candidate has (as the word suggests) no widespread appeal, but the Globe will not stop harping, nevertheless. Sad, very sad.

I don't think the news story and Scot's column are necessarily connected, Statist-quo. It IS interesting that he has gone as far as he has. But any entity that wants Obama to win wouldn't be discouraging the candidacy of Santorum. As I recall, it was Huckabee's candidacy that stopped Romney's in 2008, when he might have won when as the economy moved onto center stage. So it's relevant to today's debate that the religious right candidate could be impacting the ability of Republicans to win the presidency as he creates an image of Republicans in general that isn't real, but seems real to some independent voters.

When you open your mouth and insert your foot so many different times, it's easy to have multiple opinion pieces on the guy. When you have an extremist like Santorum, it's even easier! I agree with you that he is a "fringe" candidate; however, he is also garnering a great deal of support from conservative Republicans which is quite frankly, very scary. The fact of the matter is that many conservatives, particularly in the South, actually like the guy and think his views resonate with their own. And he is running for President. So everything he says, or doesn't say, will get reported ad nauseum. And his views are certainly "ripe" for opinion pieces from all sides. Having said all that, Scot offers a very objective, balanced piece critiquing Santorum for literally speaking out of both sides of his mouth and then squirming when reminded of past statements. And for someone said to detest government, he would certainly use it to legislate and further his beliefs upon the rest of the country. That is say, very sad indeed.

"It's a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to . . . how things are supposed to be.'' Wow. Keep talking, Rick. The alternatives look better and better.

I think my fears about Obama have been right on track. His presidency has been a disaster, and his left wing schemes have failed. I think it is hypocritical to call out Santorum as being extreme, and to ignore the past of Obama. That was my point.