Tagged: presidential hopefuls Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • just a conservative girl 12:54 PM on 03/10/2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: presidential hopefuls, , social engineering   

    Rick Santorum – My View 

    I got into a twitter debate yesterday with a big Santorum supporter.  It is very difficult to share your feelings 140 characters at a time.  I think many know that I don’t like Rick Santorum.  Or I should say I don’t want him to the nominee, let alone be president.  I only met the man once and that was at the Virginia Tea Party Convention when I was sitting at the bloggers table and got a chance to talk to him.  I did not really take that chance since there were others with him at the time that I wanted to speak to more.  He probably is a very nice man, he seems like he is.  But we are not voting for prom king.  We are voting for someone who has a great deal of influence on the direction of our country and with the ages of some of the justices on the supreme court they could have a legacy that will last decades.

    Rick Santorum’s voting record speaks for itself.  He has voted for expanding government time and time again.  He said he took one for the team on No Child Left Behind.  I am not naive, that happens in politics all the time.  I don’t like it, but it does.  The real problem that I have is that he later said he thought it would work.  Why?  No Child Left Behind was just one more big government, one-sized fits all overreach that never had a chance of helping our broken educational system.  Dismantling the board of ed should have been the focus, not increasing it.  No one that voted for that boondoggle ever bothered to consider very rural school districts in such places as Alaska.  They don’t have another school down the street to go if their local one fails.  Are we supposed to bus children 100 miles a day to the next closet school?  Ridiculous.  NCLB was, and continues to be, unconstitutional.  So please don’t tell me that he votes based on the constitution, clearly he doesn’t.

    I have had conversations with a few other bloggers about him.  Some are willing to admit that he has a big government record.  One of the bloggers here, Fuzzi, and Pete over at the DaTech Guy have said as much.  I admire that they are not denying it.  DaTech Guy and I had a back and forth over it at CPAC.  His take is this, that Santorum realized that is part of the reason he lost his re-election bid, realizes he made a mistake, and learned his lessons.  OK.  That is great if you believe that.  I just am not buying it.

    Lets move onto one of his debate performances.  Many of which were displays of defensiveness and whiny behavior.  I was told by his supporters that was due to him being ignored in many of them.  True enough, but that didn’t seem to change once he was being taken more seriously.  Romney was hitting him on his support for the unions.  I actually loved his answer. He said that his state was a pro union state and he was representing the people who sent him there.  While I think that those people are wrong, he was doing his job.  Then he had to keep on going.  This is where he lost me.  He then went on to say as president he would have a different role.  He would support national right to work laws.  Really?  Where in the constitution does it say that is a federal issue?  No where.  He would have an even lesser role as president than as a senator.  While I would love to see all 50 states have right to work laws, it isn’t the place of the federal government to make it so.  Those are decisions that should be left to the states.  If you don’t like living in a state that isn’t right to work, move.  That is how the framers set things up, we get to make decisions with our feet.  If we don’t like the government in one particular state we can move to another.  I am huge supporter and defender of the 10th amendment.  I don’t see that he is.

    His passion on social issues is commendable.  He is very much in love with this wife and that shows.  I like that.  That shows stability to me.  There is no doubt that the media is especially focusing on his social views.  He has complained that the media keeps bringing things back to his social views. I am not buying that either.  In a speech that he was giving he brought up Obamacare’s mandates in regards to prenatal testing; specifically having amnino’s being covered.  First and foremost, I don’t think there is a rash of women unable to get the test if it is deemed medically necessary.  So why the mandate is necessary I don’t fully understand.  There are some that say the reason is a push for abortions on babies that are found to have Down’s. The media didn’t bring up this topic; he did.  It was done for one reason and one reason only, to bring the topic back to abortion.  Obamacare is nothing but 2K plus pages of mandates.  We all know that, even the people who are for it know that.  I will admit that abortion is not a push button issue for me as it is for some.  I personally believe making it illegal won’t solve the problem.  Of course it will cut down on the numbers, but it won’t change hearts and minds.  Only promoting a culture of life will do that.  Demonizing women who make the choice to end their pregnancies is not the way to go about it.  Many on the pro-life side seem to disagree with me and say and do things that to me, are a demonization. (Such as holding up signs of bloody babies)  You can disagree, but that is my view.  But back to the amnio.  There are studies done of the abortion rates of babies with Down’s are very small, but most importantly are very localized.  There is a doctor who moved from one region of the country to another.  Her original practice had very high rates of these babies being aborted.  When she moved to another location in the country (Pittsburg) the rates went down dramatically.  There is a great deal of evidence that one of the factors in the decision in ending the pregnancy has to do with the support systems and the resources that are available to the families in their local communities.  Apparently in the Pittsburg area there is a higher population of Catholics and more resources for special needs children and adults.  Limiting access to the test will do nothing to stop those numbers.  When asked about this test again he said something like well of course they can have them.  Well, gee thanks Rick.  But I don’t think you get make my medical decisions for me or for anyone else.  Isn’t that what we are fighting for about Obamacare?  Yeah, if it were up to him that test would be done away with, and that scares me.  That scares me as a woman and as a special needs mom.  That test gave me time to prepare for what I was going to be facing and more importantly what my little man faces.  I was able to look into therapy and educational options. But even more importantly if that test is not widely available it will actually increase the amount of abortions not decrease them.  The blood work that is done as a normal course of pregnancy has a very high rate of false positive results; almost 50%.  If a woman is pre-disposed to ending that pregnancy she may well be ending the life a perfectly healthy baby due to some spike in blood work that nothing to do with the health of the baby.  I know someone who went through a week of hell after having a blood test coming back with a positive result.  Her son is perfectly healthy.  More information is a good thing, not a bad one.  There are also life saving surgeries performed on babies in utero as result of finding about health issues after this test.  Yes, there is bad with it, but there is also good.  The issue of mandating the coverage of the test is a completely different issue.  You want to decrease the amount of abortions performed on special needs children, then work in local areas to increase the amount of services available to the families.  You also need to lift the stigma that goes along with these babies.  People are afraid.  Not just of the costs, but of what is going to happen to that child after they are gone.  It is frightening as a parent to think about not being able to protect your child and not knowing if there will be someone to care for them when you are gone.  Parents also wonder how will affect their other children.  The issues that run through your mind when you are told this are numerous and overwhelming.  Help parents deal with those issues.  People need to see for themselves what joy a special needs child brings into their lives as well as the lives of their families.  That test does more than just cause abortions.   As a parent to two special needs children, one of which did get surgery in utero he should be well aware of it.

    Another statement of his that I find frightening:

    “We say to Mom that you tell us the wrong name, and we’ll bring that guy in and we’ll do a blood test and that’s not Dad, you lose your welfare benefits,” he said at another event that same day in New Bloomfield. “You lose your welfare benefits … Not till you tell us another name, but till we find out who Dad is, we establish it.

    This is a quote from an article on lefty website in an attempt to smear him.  So, I went and found three other sources that have it quoted the exact same way and done at the time that he said it.  What exactly is conservative about forcing people to give blood to the federal government?  Sorry, no way, no how.  I believe in welfare reform.  I think that welfare has hurt families.  It has institutionalized poverty for many in this country.  Does he think that forcing men to give blood to the federal government is going to stop that?  You want to know why so many young girls from welfare families have babies at such a young age?  They don’t see another way out.  Welfare is a system that is set up to fail and to keep you living that way.  It isn’t designed to help you get out.  The original purpose was to be a safety net until people could get back on their feet and it has failed miserably.  You want to help people get off welfare then one of things we need to do is prorate the benefits so they can get a better paying job without losing everything.  I went on a tour of the Capital with Congressman Gohmert of Texas several months back.  He used to be a judge.  He told us that one of the reasons he decided to run for congress was because of all the welfare fraud he saw.  Young women who didn’t see any other way other than to commit fraud to get more money.  You can live on welfare.  You have what you need when it comes to the basics.  You can even afford some of the little extras, but not very many.  But you won’t be able to do is save enough money to get yourself off.  Of course there are exceptions, but generally speaking welfare will keep you in the same place that you started in.  We need to give these families, especially young women, other alternatives; such as a better education and the belief that they can go to college and start a career that will lift their families out of poverty.  All this statement does is make them feel that are being demonized.  Demonizing people will rarely bring about the desired result you are seeking.  I do agree that if you bring a child into the world you should be responsible for it.  I do agree that fathers need to step up and help raise their child both financially and emotionally, but to require blood work is way over the line.  Just think about what else that dna info could be used for.  Sorry, I pass.  This is big government run amok.

    I could go on, but I am out of time.  Bottom line is this, yeah I think he believes in right-wing social engineering.  (Yeah, Fuzzi, I know you hate this term) but I do.  I firmly believe that he thinks that the federal government has a role in raising families, deciding morality, and making decisions that are to me, none of their darn business.

    Convince me I am wrong.  And if you decide to use the really ineffective tactic of calling me names, your post will be deleted.  I am not brainwashed, stupid, or unable to see the truth.  I have my own set of values, and by the way, I didn’t get them from the federal government nor would I want to.  It isn’t their role.

    • Teresa Rice 3:31 PM on 03/10/2012 Permalink | Reply

      “When asked about this test again he said something like well of course they can have them. Well, gee thanks Rick. But I don’t think you get make my medical decisions for me or for anyone else. Isn’t that what we are fighting for about Obamacare? Yeah, if it were up to him that test would be done away with, and that scares me. ” Untrue. You are drawing conclusions without any basis of proof to back up your claims. He stated that Americans should not be forced to subsidize amniocentesis under Obamacare, not that parents don’t have a right to have this done.

      What is so wrong with a president vying for Right To Work Laws? Since you stated “laws” that would indicate that he could be advocating for them to be instituted at the state level, not the federal level.

      He supported No Child Left Behind in an effort to try and improve our educational system. He thought this may be beneficial to the school kids and work? So, what? He supported a national standard to test students abilities. How is this unconstitutional? He was working with what Jimmy Carter left us, the destruction of our public school system. Santorum admitted that he made a mistake. This is one of his great qualities I like about him. He is willing to admit when he has made a mistake. He believes that decision related to education should be returned to the states and local communities.

      He is a proponent of welfare reform. Personally, I think you are purposefully not looking at his statements in a charitable manner and espousing false, negative conclusions to certain statements that he’s said. Taking it out of context. It is unclear whether he is advocating this or not. In essence, you are putting words in his mouth that he didn’t say. I believe when he says “we” he is referring to government at the present, not what he would do. I need to see the whole speech to know the whole context though.

      “You want to help people get off welfare then one of things we need to do is prorate the benefits so they can get a better paying job without losing everything.” I am in full agreement.

      Does he believe the government has a role in promoting morality but not forcing morality requirements upon the people? Probably. As he should. Our Founders believed in the promotion of morality and the belief in God so he is just following in their path.

      If you think that Newt didn’t vote to expand government control over our lives, or in favor of big government programs, you are kidding yourself. He has a much worse track record of supporting big government policies than Rick Santorum.

      • just a conservative girl 4:03 PM on 03/10/2012 Permalink | Reply

        Teresa, you and I went back and forth about this before. Why bring up that test? Obamacare is all about mandates. He brought up this specific test for reason. Why pull out this mandate as compared to all the other mandates? I will see if I can find a link, but he was asked about this mandate the day of or day after his appearance on Face the Nation. He doesn’t like this test. Fine that is his right. But why bring it up at all. It is a medically necessary procedure in some cases. Politicians use words very carefully, bring up topics very carefully. He did it for a reason. He is not a doctor, he shouldn’t be advocating against this test and yes that is what I heard. If I heard that, so did millions of other women.

        NCLB had been a huge failure. It has increased costs by close to 70% in some states has had little effect in bringing about improvement. The federal government has no role in education, none. This is a state issue. As is right to work laws. The tenth amendment is very important to me. Much more than to him. As president he has no role in those laws, none. Not his business and not his purview. If he wants to work on right to work laws, then run for governor or state legislator.

        I think they all suck. Every last one of them. I voted Ron Paul last week. So this has nothing to do with Newt. This has to do with him.

        • Teresa Rice 5:35 PM on 03/10/2012 Permalink | Reply

          Rick Santorum has a correct view of the tenth amendment. Ron Paul has a distorted view of the tenth amendment. He philosophies are too close to being aligned with antiamericanism so I could not support him. While education is done best at the local level the constitution does not forbid the federal government in having some role in education. Yes, NCLB has been a failure but no one finds out whether something is going to be a failure or not if they don’t try something. Bush tried to help the education system. Santorum has admitted that NCLB is a failure and advocated for the control of educational programs to lie with in local communities. Are you saying that no president should be able to advocate for anything? Even when working with governors to accomplish something beneficial for the American people? So, there just supposed to lock there beliefs away in a closet? Education is a national issue since there is a department of education at the federal level. Until there is no dept. of Ed Could it be that both Rick and his wife have researched the topic of amniocentesis and its relation to the number of abortions which may occur as a result of this procedure? They do have a special needs child ya know. Could they not be just as passionate as you on this subject? He didn’t deny that you and other women have a right to get the procedure done if you so choose. So, what’s the big deal? Didn’t you say that you went to Newt headquarters and made phone calls? That’s why I thought you supported Newt. Rick Santorum is the best choice out of all the candidates. He is a moral, consistent conservative.

    • Teresa Rice 7:10 PM on 03/10/2012 Permalink | Reply

      I was using that whacky new reply box so I missed seeing that I didn’t finish this sentence on education” Until there is no dept. of Ed then education is a federal issue. You may not want the federal government to have a role and neither do I or at least as minimally as possible but the fact remains when Carter instituted the Dept. of Ed he made it a federal issue. Education does need to return to the states.

      • just a conservative girl 7:53 PM on 03/10/2012 Permalink | Reply

        And voting for no child left behind made that harder. That is exactly my point. It increased the size and scope of that department. We all have out push button issues. Education is one of mine. I have spent a great deal of time working with the inner city kids in the DC area trying to get them into better schools with the voucher program, I see the difference it makes in real people’s lives when they get into a better school then the failed ones that they are stuck in all too often. Anything that increases the federal footprint on education to me is evil. So his vote supporting this is something that I just can’t overlook. I truly get the taking one for the team. What bothered me was his comment afterwards that he thought it would work. Makes my skin crawl that he said that.

    • Don 7:54 PM on 03/10/2012 Permalink | Reply

      In the event that Santorum is the nominee, I am more concerned with the fact that I do not think he is strong enough, or possessed of the ability to quickly think on his feet to sufficiently beat Obama in the debates.

      Don’t get me wrong, Rick Santorum is a good man and I don’t think of him as a RINO. I just think of him as a social Conservative that has some big government tendencies. A good Tea Party coalition in the House and Senate could keep him on track – a whole hell of a lot easier than it could if Obama gets another term.

      All of this is why I support Newt. His knowledge of history dwarfs Obama’s, his debating skills are on a higher level than Obama’s are and, say what you will about some of the stances he has explored as a private citizen, he has done more for the Conservative cause than all of the other candidates put together.

      Great post, juist!

    • Don 7:56 PM on 03/10/2012 Permalink | Reply

      My apologies for spelling your name wrong in the my above comments.


    • Teresa Rice 8:10 PM on 03/10/2012 Permalink | Reply

      One last thing – Santorum supported and still supports school vouchers/school choice. Look here http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/Senate/Pennsylvania/Rick_Santorum/Views/Education/

      Yes, he has a mixed record on education but I just see some blind hatred of the man coming from you all over one issue. An area where he agrees with you more than you disagree with him.

      • just a conservative girl 8:39 PM on 03/10/2012 Permalink | Reply

        It isn’t one issue. It is a pattern of behavior that I see. Those are just the issues that I pulled out. I have others as well. I could have made that post twice as long as I did, but I can’t stand long posts. As president he will have no say over school choice with the exception of DC. So his support of it doesn’t matter. Vouchers can only be done on the state level. As it should be.

    • Teresa Rice 8:52 PM on 03/10/2012 Permalink | Reply

      Yeah, but Santorum supported vouchers so he supports your position on that educational issue. You specifically talked about vouchers in your 7:53 comment so I pointed out that Santorum also has supported and still supports school vouchers. You stated “We all have out push button issues. Education is one of mine” but you and he don’t disagree on the majority of educational issues. It just seems that since he has announced his candidacy that you have used one excuse after another in order so that you could withhold support for him. Plus, you keep on changing your story as to why your not supporting Santorum. I feel sorry for you, that you don’t support Santorum for quite a few reasons.

      • just a conservative girl 8:57 PM on 03/10/2012 Permalink | Reply

        Feel sorry for me? Wow. One of the reasons that I don’t like Santorum is that is he comes across as holier than thou. So do many of his supporters. You don’t get to decide for me what my morality is, and you just tried to do just that.

    • Teresa Rice 9:02 PM on 03/10/2012 Permalink | Reply

      I figured as much, that you have a problem with morality or the promotion thereof. You obviously can’t handle me pointing out your own words. I did not try to dictate your morality to you. So, your acting like a liberal with false accusations because I pointed out your own words. This was on education, not morality but maybe you aren’t able to decipher the difference. Oh boy…… Praying for you.

      • just a conservative girl 8:02 AM on 03/11/2012 Permalink | Reply

        His support of vouchers is meaningless as president. The president has no role in school choice, it is a state issue. The only thing that president will have a role in the depart of ed; something that he voted to increase the size and scope of. The increase of that department makes it much less likely that states will push for vouchers with more federal money pouring in.

        I don’t have a “problem” with morality. Whatever that means. I have a problem with the federal government trying to dictate what morality is. You cannot legislate morality, you just can’t. Do you believe that people on the left believe that they are immoral? They don’t. There are some who truly believe that they have a moral obligation to save the planet. They then push that “moral” belief on everyone else. It is no more attractive or welcoming when the right tries to push their morality on everyone else.

        Morality is something that comes from within, based upon your own experiences and worldview. Not what the government says it should be.

    • Teresa Rice 9:10 AM on 03/11/2012 Permalink | Reply

      Rick Santorum does not try and impose his views on others. He advocates for certain moral actions. He does not force any person to follow his views (except his kids and that’s part of a parent’s job). He is outspoken on the issue of abortion and believes no person has a right to murder an innocent human being. The Roe v. Wade case was a travesty, a misrepresentation of private property or privacy, and the Left used ” Jane Roe” to advance their cause. That case made abortion a federal issue just like the states enacting legislation for gay “marriage” is going to eventually become a federal issue when that case lands on the Supreme Court. He is very religious but he doesn’t force anyone to follow his Catholic beliefs. If by “right wing social engineering” you mean he would reverse a Hitleresque law which says another human is not worthy of living or fighting to keep progressives from perverting the definition of marriage, maybe your right. But he and others like myself are not the ones who made this a fight by trying to distort a definition in which the true definition has been with us which since the time of Adam and Eve. We did not impose an unjust law legalizing the murder of innocents. Even then you can think being gay is okay. Santorum sees homosexuality as a disease. Not the person. He loves the person as God does. But the acts are wrong or immoral, like a disease. Just like you love the alcoholic and try to get him/her to change that destructive behavior to their health. If you think trying to right a wrong such as Roe v. Wade is considered social engineering you are sadly mistaken. He has high standards of morality and I agree with them. You obviously don’t. Or you have a problem with being challenged to be a better person, a better moral person. At least that’s how it seems. Rick Santorum is against contraception but he has never proposed mandating a ban on contraception. You are highly mistaken that Rick Santorum tries to impose or legislate his morality on you or anyone else. And if you feel bringing justice to the unborn, righting a wrong such as Roe V wade is considered to be “right wing social engineering” then you can’t be pro-life or have a skewed view as to what constitutes being pro-life because that is the pro-life movement’s end game. This is why I feel sorry for you. Pro-lifers want to end abortion and reversing Roe v Wade is one means to do so. He is for the states enacting pro-life laws also. Abortion is not safe, legal, and rare as the pro-choice crowd has falsely claimed. You think of morality or the promotion of the truth to be an imposition when it isn’t. It is just right and in accordance with the good of society. But at least you finally admitted honestly as to why you don’t support Santourm. You, sadly, don’t believe in his brand of morality. We need a fighter for the moral cause such as him just like we needed a fighter for conservatism such as Andrew Breitbart.

      • just a conservative girl 10:50 AM on 03/11/2012 Permalink | Reply

        This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this 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 regulations low, keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues.That is not how traditional conservatives view the world. There is no such society that I’m aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.”

        His words.

        The government doesn’t belong in our bedrooms and if that makes me a radical, then so be it.

    • joyannaadams 9:58 PM on 03/11/2012 Permalink | Reply

      Good piece…well thought out.

  • just a conservative girl 10:47 PM on 01/01/2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , presidential hopefuls,   

    Video – Jon Huntsman Hits Ron Paul with Twilight Zone Label 

    I have actually enjoyed many of the Huntsman Videos.  I will miss them when he drops out shortly.

    • Beowulf 1:34 AM on 01/02/2012 Permalink | Reply

      Huntsman, alongside Gary Johnson, are the most successful GOP candidates among their peers in this nomination season.

      Rather than wax lyrical about what they will do, these two men have actually led their states successfully, and are both conservatives at heart; though to some, they remain not conservative enough – some mighty bloggers even accuse them of being liberals, leading to the sheeps also labeling them as such.

      I simply do not understand why these two men are not given the time of day, and have to suffer the indignity of being overshadowed by talkers like Santorum, Newt, Bachmann, Palin, DeMint, etc.

      Is the GOP looking for the best candidates, or are they looking for an antonym of Obama?

      • just a conservative girl 10:30 PM on 01/02/2012 Permalink | Reply

        I am not sure about Johnson, but I think that Huntsman would have been a very viable candidate in another cycle. But this cycle is very much guided by the grassroots and Huntsman’s working for Obama is something that the grassroots didn’t look kindly upon.

  • just a conservative girl 1:24 PM on 12/06/2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , presidential hopefuls, ,   

    Quote of the Day – Michele Bachmann Edition 

    “Gingrich is the same as Mitt Romney. You’d think these guys had been the standard-bearer for the conservative movement and the Republican Party, but they’re great pretenders — they’re frugal socialists, people want something that’s very bold and very different, they won’t get it in either Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich.”

    Michele Bachmann on Newt and Mitt.

    I don’t understand her strategy here.  This isn’t going to help her win.

    • SignPainterGuy 3:45 PM on 12/06/2011 Permalink | Reply

      If she articulates well what “frugal progressive” means, perhaps it will help her. She`s right !

      • just a conservative girl 3:48 PM on 12/06/2011 Permalink | Reply

        She didn’t say progressives, she said socialists. Not the same thing, nor do I think that either of them are socialists.

        • SignPainterGuy 8:43 PM on 12/06/2011 Permalink | Reply

          Glenn Beck this morning clarified the term to “frugal progressive” since Newt isn`t a socialist in Glenn`s way of thinking. Following his thought, Michele is correct.

          • just a conservative girl 10:16 PM on 12/06/2011 Permalink | Reply

            Why exactly does she need Glenn Beck to clarify her statements for her? I am not trying to be a wise guy, just asking.

            • SignPainterGuy 1:01 PM on 12/07/2011 Permalink | Reply

              I doubt she “needed” it; it`s just what Glenn does. I agree with him. I agree with Michele (after the term change). Mostly.

  • just a conservative girl 6:57 AM on 12/04/2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , presidential hopefuls, states rights   

    Huckabee’s Candidate Forum on States Rights 

    I just watched the re-run of the forum and I enjoyed it.  States rights is a big issue for me, so the answers that they gave were of great interest to me.  

    Rick Santorum stuck up of for the Patriot Act.  He says that it doesn’t affect our civil rights.  Huh?  Ok, I don’t make many oversees calls and when I do the people I speak to are not well-known terrorists.  But to say that the federal government should have this type of power is scary to me.  

    Rick Perry is a 10th amendment purist.  I really appreciate that and that makes me want to vote for him.  That is until he opens his mouth about executive orders.  Very troubling.  He seems to think he can solve problems in this fashion.  Does he really believe that he should be outlawing legally passed laws by executive orders?  If so, I find that very troubling.  How is that different from what Obama is doing with the EPA?  This is no different from Romney saying he would give waivers to Obamacare.  Obamacare will not go away unless it is repealed.  That is the only answer.  Is he willing to sign a repeal?  If not, I don’t know why any conservative would vote for him.  

    Michele Bachmann dodged questions and is championing a national solution to tort reform.  I want tort reform. But she is willing to bypass the states in order to do it.  Uh, no.  Tort reform is a state issue and the federal government has no role in it at all.  It is hypocrisy for her talk about the constitution then make a statement like that.  Her answer on the EPA was confusing.  She seems to be championing legislation for individual instances of issues between the states.  Huh?  How would that work?  She isn’t going to win any fans with her performance last night.  

    Mitt Romney did his usual by standing by Romneycare.  He didn’t mention the facts that insurance premiums have risen for them.  He didn’t mention that hospitals in the state are going broke because of the mandates.  He didn’t mention that half of the uninsured are still uninsured.  He also talked about NCLB.  Huh?  No Child Left Behind is yet another federal boondoggle.  Just because it was done by a republican president doesn’t make it right.  

    Newt Gingrich handled it well.  I think he got some of the toughest questions.  Which, as one of the front-runners, that was fair.  I really liked his point of the how the president can lead without passing legislation that forces states to do things.  Wouldn’t that be refreshing?  

    Ron Paul seems to believe that terrorism needs to be handled as criminal matter.  I suppose there is an argument for that, but I am not fully on board with it.  I did really like his answer on getting rid of unconstitutional mandates, such as medicare and social security.  He is 100% correct, it cannot be done in one fell swoop.  It has to be done in steps to make it easier for the people who have become far too dependent on them.  We can’t just get rid of things quickly.  This is going to be a process that is going to take time.  

    I enjoyed the format.  I think we learned a few things about the world views of the candidates when it comes to the constitution and the rights of the states.  If you are looking purely on the issues of states rights, Rick Perry came out on top with the big exception of the executive orders.  

    • Teresa Rice 9:36 AM on 12/04/2011 Permalink | Reply

      The Patriot Act is the primary political position in which I disagree with Santorum. As far as the rest of his positions on issues, I agree with him wholeheartedly. Family is connected to economics, or interconnected with one another. There both connected to the breakdown of our society so to leave one out of the equation would be detrimental to our country.

    • SignPainterGuy 1:16 PM on 12/04/2011 Permalink | Reply

      I missed it; can you provide a link to the vid Please ? Thanks jacg.

  • just a conservative girl 6:23 AM on 11/29/2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: affairs, , presidential hopefuls   

    The Cain Train has Derailed 

    “Mr. Cain has been informed today that your television station plans to broadcast a story this evening in which a female will make an accusation that she engaged in a 13-year long physical relationship with Mr. Cain. This is not an accusation of harassment in the workplace – this is not an accusation of an assault – which are subject matters of legitimate inquiry to a political candidate.

    Rather, this appears to be an accusation of private, alleged consensual conduct between adults – a subject matter which is not a proper subject of inquiry by the media or the public. No individual, whether a private citizen, a candidate for public office or a public official, should be questioned about his or her private sexual life. The public’s right to know and the media’s right to report has boundaries and most certainly those boundaries end outside of one’s bedroom door.

    Mr. Cain has alerted his wife to this new accusation and discussed it with her. He has no obligation to discuss these types of accusations publicly with the media and he will not do so even if his principled position is viewed unfavorably by members of the media.”

    It seems to me that the Cain campaign is all but outright admitting to a 13 year affair.  Any conservative that would consider voting for a man who was carrying on a 13 year affair just prior to deciding to run for the presidency of the United States better never, ever utter another word about John Edwards or Bill Clinton again.

    Unlike Sharon, the woman making these accusations seems credible and has phone and text records.  While she has a past (and who amongst us doesn’t?) that past doesn’t mean that what she is saying isn’t true.  Cain’s interview with Wolf Blitzer didn’t help him any.

    This is how I view extra marital affairs.  Sadly, they are common place in today’s society.  They are hurtful to the entire family.  You are not just cheating on your wife, you are also cheating your children.  If a person who runs for office says that they want to be trusted with the nation’s business but cannot treat his own family with respect, I have hard time believing that they will treat me with respect since I am just a stranger.

    Now, Newt is no better in this department.  He cheated on two of his wives.  But, he has admitted his mistakes, made amends with his daughters and seems to be in a stable and happy marriage now.  It doesn’t make what he did OK, because it doesn’t.  But as a Christian, I believe in the power of redemption and forgiveness.  Newt has seemed to find that in his own life.  So, I don’t believe that I am in a position to judge.  It would seem that Mrs. Cain is learning about this today.  If that is true, he has publicly humiliated his wife, something that did not have to happen.

    The true blue Cain fans are going to hold on and blame the woman and the left for these accusations.  That is their choice, but again no more talk about how they judge democrats who find themselves in a similar situation.  If you can still vote for him after this has come out, you can’t hold it against anyone else either.

    I like Mr. Cain.  I was a big fan as regular readers know.  I can rest easy because I came to the conclusion that he wasn’t up for the job long before any of this unpleasantness was made public and my judgements are based solely on qualifications for the job, or in this case, the lack of qualifications.



    • Sherry 8:08 PM on 11/29/2011 Permalink | Reply

      You said it as it should be:

      This is how I view extra marital affairs. Sadly, they are common place in today’s society. They are hurtful to the entire family. You are not just cheating on your wife, you are also cheating your children. If a person who runs for office says that they want to be trusted with the nation’s business but cannot treat his own family with respect, I have hard time believing that they will treat me with respect since I am just a stranger.

      If we cannot trust our President to be faithful to his marriage covenant then we should not trust him to be faithful with domestic and world affairs.

  • just a conservative girl 11:08 AM on 11/23/2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , presidential hopefuls   

    The CNN GOP Debate 

    CNN held another debate last night in Washington, DC just a short walk away from the White House.   The topic was foreign policy.

    We all know that Herman Cain has a real weakness on this topic, and unfortunately for him that did show.

    Newt showed his knowledge of history and world events.  This is his strong point.

    Romney had his weakest performance yet.  He had moments of where his temper showed and his usual unflappable demeanor became flapped.

    Santorum got much more face time than in previous debates, too bad he was unable to use that to his advantage.  At one point he called Africa a country on the brink.  (And Cain seemed to agree with him).  Does he realize that Africa is not a country?   He did well for the most part, but not well enough to change the fact that he will not be president this cycle or any other for that matter.

    Ron Paul had some very good moments.  One thing he did skillfully was bring the conversation back to finances.    He got a great deal of support from the crowd at different points throughout the debate.  There is no way that Campaign for Liberty was able to get a large amount of tickets.  There were very few available for the general public.  You had to have connections to get in.

    Michele Bachmann also had some good moments.  Again, too little too late.

    Perry made some red meat to the base comments on different issues, such as Iran and Israel.  But it is doubtful it will take his numbers out of the tank.  He has money so that will allow him to stay in until South Carolina I would think.  I guess if he can get good numbers in Iowa or New Hampshire you never know what could happen from there.

    The biggest surprise was Huntsman.  He came across as very knowledgeable on foreign policy issues.  He did himself some good last night.  Not with the conservative side of the party, but with the moderate/independent types he gained some fans last night I am sure.  I won’t vote for him, but I think he made himself look much more credible.

    Now, onto Newt’s immigration statements:

    I happen to agree that is highly unlikely (virtually no chance) that we will round-up every illegal in this country and deport them.  I don’t think we have the money, the manpower, or the will to do so.  I think what Newt says makes sense in some ways.  But, without securing the border first, he will not get support from the right.  He won’t get support from the far right at all.  They want them all deported.  But, I personally believe that IF they secure the border first and keep it secured the country will accept some sort of visa program to people who speak fluent English, have no criminal records, are willing to pay back taxes and a fine, and go back to their country of origin to apply. This is the reality, we are not deporting these people, so we should get them on the books and have them paying the full taxes that the rest of us are paying.   But unless the border is secured it is all academic.  Newt did not go as far as Perry did and call people heartless for not wanting to give illegals in-state tuition.  So we will see how much this hurts him moving forward.


  • just a conservative girl 6:40 AM on 11/11/2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: letterman, , presidential hopefuls   

    Rick Perry Does Top Ten on David Letterman (Video) 


    A little self deprecating humor is a good thing.

  • just a conservative girl 9:05 AM on 11/10/2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: cnbc, , presidential hopefuls   

    CNBC GOP Debate 

    Well I think it is only fair to start with the moment that everyone is talking about today, Rick Perry’s brain fart.  He couldn’t remember the name of the third federal agency he wants to see dissolved.  It really isn’t a big deal, we all have things like this happen from time to time.  The problem is it is just another reason to not want this man anywhere near a debate with Obama.  I realize that people have very strong feeling about Perry, going in both directions.  I personally am wishy-washy when it comes to him.  There is good and bad.  But for me the death knell is his inability to put more than a few coherent sentences together in a debate setting.   Had he gotten it after making a joke he would have been OK, but ooh.   Not pretty.  I feel sorry for him.  It was very embarrassing.

    Herman Cain came out prepared and on fire.  The audience being behind him when the questions of the sexual harassment charges inevitably came up certainly helped him.  He did what he said his campaign wanted to do; get back on message.   His zinger about princess Nancy was priceless.  Sorry unable to find video.

    Michele Bachmann had a great performance.  I am not sure it will do any good at this point.  But she has shown that she understands tax law very well.  Her tax attorney training shined.

    Newt was also on his game.  He is a master debater and by far the smartest on the stage.  His questioning of the media about Occupy Wall Street and the economy was a sight to behold.

    Romney did his job, he did no harm.  Which I believe to be his plan.  He is still polling well and has plenty of money behind him.  He just needs to make as few mistakes as possible and he could do just enough to get the nomination.  Or  at least that is his team’s hope.

    I don’t understand why Jon Huntsman is being included in these debates and Gary Johnson is not.  Both of them are polling horribly, but it doesn’t seem fair to include one and not the other.

    I actually liked the moderators.  They pushed them to answer the questions and that is a good thing.

    The winner of the debate to me was Newt, with both Bachmann and Cain slightly behind him.   Most talking heads are putting Romney in that list as well, but I don’t think just because he didn’t hurt himself makes him a winner.  Isn’t that the same as everybody gets a trophy?

    Paul also helped himself.  Economic issues are his strong point and that showed.

    The clear loser was Perry.  Even if you are big fan, you had to see how much his gaffe is going to hurt him.

    I also think that it is time for Santorum to go.  He is a bleep on the radar and just taking more time away from the candidates who have a realistic shot at the nomination.  It is time we start winnowing down the field.  No more invites for Santorum or Huntsman.  You may want to include Bachmann in that as well.


  • just a conservative girl 10:12 PM on 10/21/2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , presidential hopefuls, pundit press   

    The Case Against Herman Cain 

    I remember listening to Herman Cain speak about 18 months ago.  After his speech, he walked off the stage only to return a few seconds later and mentioned that a “dark horse” just may be running for president.  I told everyone and anyone who would listen; Herman Cain was the man to be POTUS. 

    When he officially announced his candidacy, I drove all night to get to Atlanta to watch it live.  Again, I told everyone and anyone; Herman is the man.  Well, time has passed and I realize just how wrong I was. 

    The majority of his appearances on Fox News Sunday have been a disaster.  At the time I was willing to give him a pass on not knowing or understanding the Palestinian desire for the right of return to agree to a two state solution.  I was thinking, I didn’t understand how he didn’t know what it was, but OK, it was one gaffe.  You fix it, then you move on. 

    We then can move onto another gaffe of his saying he wouldn’t allow a Muslim in his cabinet.  I do understand what he meant, but he certainly didn’t make it clear that he was specifically referring to people who believed that bringing forms of Sharia to the United States was a good thing.  His actual statement made him sound like a bigot.  Again, you fix it and you move on. 

    Then he starts talking about the mosque in Tennessee that some are opposed to building.  He stated that communities can decide for themselves if they want to allow a mosque to be built.  He even went as far as to use a liberal talking point to make his case.  During this interview with Fox News Sunday he went to say this is how he would solve problems as president.  The problem is that he never spoke to those in the community that were not opposed to building of the center.  We already have a president who surrounds himself with people who agree with him and tell him what he already believes.  Do we really want another one? 

    We now can move onto this latest statements on abortion.  I personally don’t vote based on the abortion issue.  But, many in the conservative base do.  For some, it is a deal breaker.  Rick Santorum made his view on Herman’s statement very clear.  He either believes that life begins at conception or he doesn’t.  You don’t get to say it is not life if it is conceived during rape or incest but life all the rest of the time.  Life is life.  There is no other way around it. 

    We also have heard that he would entertain trading Gitmo prisoners for a captured soldier like Israel sometimes does.  Really?  How many soldier’s lives would be put into danger if the U.S. started to dealing with terrorists in this fashion?  Is KSM one he would trade?  This statement is so incredibly stupid, I can’t even come up with the words to describe my disappointment. 

    I have met Mr. Cain on several occasions.  I think he is a good man who truly has the best interests of this country at heart.  He wants to see his children and grandchildren to have the same opportunities at the American dream that he was able to have.  He is a very smart man who possess very good business skills.  But, that does not make him capable of being President of the United States.  He isn’t even really capable of getting the VP nod.  There are plenty of cabinet positions that he would be very well suited for. 

    The conservatives can not and should not entertain the idea of putting a man on the ticket who doesn’t have the proper qualifications to do the job, especially when one of the main arguments against Obama is that he isn’t up to the task.  The American people deserve  better.  We deserve a president that is capable.  Sadly, Herman Cain is not that man. 

    Cross Posted at Pundit Press and just a conservative girl

    • Ralph 10:40 PM on 10/21/2011 Permalink | Reply

      You are absolutely wrong. Yes Herman has made a few mistakes – nothing serious and certainly nothing worse than any other person who has run or been president. He will also get better as he gains more experience. Compare him to Obama who makes gaffe after gaffe and he has been president for three years. Shall I list them? How about just one. There are not 57 states. How about all of Al Gores gaffes? He was the king. Cain, and all of the candidates should refuse to answer many of the stupid questions that those idiot “reporters” ask them. None of us know exactly how we would react under hypothetical situations (grandaughter being pregnant from rape for instance).

      • just a conservative girl 9:04 AM on 10/22/2011 Permalink | Reply

        This is not about verbal gaffes. As you say, anyone who is talking as much as someone who is running for president will make them. This is about being capable of doing the job. His understanding of foreign policy is so thin that he cannot be trusted to make the right choices. Do you really want a president that is willing to trade Gitmo detainee’s? I don’t think the military folks will be lining up to vote for him.

        • Ralph 11:33 AM on 10/22/2011 Permalink | Reply

          Herman violated one of his own basic rules on the Gitmo deal. He should not have answered the question. He clarified it later when he said that he needed all of the information before making a decision. I don’t fault any of the candidates for changing their ideas after they are elected. Candidates are not privy to much information that elected officials are and that info can make a big difference in their decisions. I have the utmost confidence in Herman Cain’s ability to make the right decision. Nobody could be worse than Barak Obama. All of the candidates should refuse to answer many of the baited questions that the so-called “newspeple” ask. I have less respect for “reporters” than I do for most politicians. They seem to think that their job is to catch a candidate in a mistake and they ask leading questions and try to bait them into misstatements. They are disgusting.

          • just a conservative girl 4:19 PM on 10/22/2011 Permalink | Reply

            The fact that he would consider negotiating with terrorists is enough to disqualify him in my eyes. I can’t imagine that not being a game ender for anyone. Do you really want a president who would consider negotiating with the likes of Zwahiri? America does not negotiate with terrorists. End of statement. It was a very easy question to answer.

    • SignPainterGuy 11:04 PM on 10/21/2011 Permalink | Reply

      You make some good points in the negative for Herman, they disturb me as well. I too have seen him as my fave since spring at least. He has tried to explain or explain away his “mis-statements” and I want to mark them up as proof that he is not a politician, certainly not one so polished as Romney, for instance.

      Here`s where I am; we have all been disgusted with biz as usual from all the beltway insiders. Herm is an outsider, biz whiz, a problem solver and a quick learner.

      Cain, Bachmann and Santorum are the only true conservatives in the mix. Two are polling abysmally low. Bachmann just lost her entire NH staff. Looking bad for her. I don`t know why Santorum`s numbers are so pitiful, I like and agree with most of his ideas and record. Cain is leading in the polls and scaring the crap out of the left ….. and the RNC too ! That speaks volumes and I just told them so on their plea for money thinly veiled as a “survey”.

      I`m sayin` I`m not ready to give up on Cain yet, warts and all, `cause that leaves rinos Romney and Perry, both bother me greatly, and the libertarian loon masquerading as a republican – Paul. No. Thanks. !

  • just a conservative girl 5:43 PM on 10/17/2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: presidential hopefuls, , snl   

    SNL’s Take on Last GOP Debate 

    You must be able to laugh at yourself.  This is pretty funny.  Enjoy.


    • rawfulnews 11:43 PM on 10/18/2011 Permalink | Reply

      NBC Universal blocked it on copyright grounds. But the skit was a pretty funny one. Rick Santorum was all butt hurt about his views on homosexuality being made fun of. The discriminators are always first to get mad about being discriminated themselves.

  • just a conservative girl 11:27 PM on 09/22/2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , , , , presidential hopefuls, ,   

    The GOP Fox News Google Debate 

    Ok, first, the debate was way toooooooooo long. 

    I personally feel that Perry did better.  I am not sure that is a popular belief though.  He still did some damage to himself tonight with his answers on in-state tuition and immigration.  I feel that as a governor of a border state his view is different from others.  He has a very long border with Mexico and the economy of his state is very intertwined with immigrants be it legal or illegal.  I do not agree with in-state tuition for illegals.  Is it a deal breaker? Not really because that is not a federal issue, that is a state issue.  So as president it wouldn’t have anything to do with him.  I also do agree with him that the policies that will lead to fixing our porous borders have to be done on the federal level and will require boots on the ground. 

    Newt is a smart man and a good debater.  But I do feel this was his weakest performance yet.  He could potentially be a good VP candidate.  Can you imagine him debating Joe Biden?  That would be classic.

    Michele Bachmann did a better job with her answer on Gardasil this time around, but too little too late.  She did nothing to help herself today and her candidacy will not lead to the nomination.  She does look fabulous in red though. 

    Ron Paul did a very good job tonight.  I agree with him on many fiscal issues and the rights of the states.  He didn’t answer many questions on foreign policy so that is a help with many in the republican gop base, as that is where he loses much of his support. 

    Rick Santorum is another very good debater.  He also would make a strong VP candidate.  But he did nothing that will bring him to the upper tier of candidates. 

    I was happy to see that Fox decided to include Gary Johnson.  I have felt is was very unfair to include Huntsman and leave out Johnson.  He did nothing to help himself.  He will fade into oblivion after Iowa, if he makes that far. 

    Romney again proved that he can debate on the issues.  I don’t like his answers on Romneycare, mainly because they are not even truthful.  To me he really hurt himself with the GOP base by going back to his answer about an executive order to give waivers on Obamacare.  That will not solve the problem.  It must be repealed on the legislative level otherwise the feds will still be required by law to fund it.  But part of his plan in these debates is to do no harm, and he did accomplish that. 

    Huntsman gave some good answers, but he does stray from conservative principles and that is a deal breaker for me.  But he held his own tonight. 

    Hands down the winner of tonight’s debate was Herman Cain.  He sharpened his answers, he has done his due diligence on the issues and his 9-9-9 plan is something that I could get behind.  I don’t like everything about it, but it is a start.  He will get more people to notice him and will more than likely drive some cash flow to his campaign.  He is a likable man and has a compelling and very human life story.  General election voters like that.  I looked up the stats on the blog and see that some hits have come in where he stands on the issues, so he did himself some good tonight.  I personally believe that the best he can hope for is the VP slot and I do believe that he would fill that role well.  I firmly believe that the job of the VP during a general election campaign is to be the attack dog, and he will do that very well.  He is an articulate man who can draw a crowd in.  I have seen him speak three or four different times and it is something to watch live.

  • just a conservative girl 9:56 PM on 09/19/2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , gardasil, , presidential hopefuls,   

    Michele Bachman’s Candidacy is Now Over 

    Michele Bachman has decided to use the Gardasil issue to hammer Governor Perry on.  While I am in full agreement with the congresswoman on the fact he did this by executive order.  Bad governor, bad.  I am also in agreement to point out the fact that he received some financial benefit from Merck, the manufacturer of the vaccine, in the form of campaign contributions.  What I don’t agree with is her continued claims that the vaccine caused at least one case of mental retardation. 

    In her latest statement during a presser today she says:

     “All I was doing is relaying what a woman had said, I relayed what she said. I wasn’t attesting to her accuracy. I wasn’t attesting to anything.”

    This is disturbing on quite a few levels.  She is admitting that she didn’t bother to fact check this statement before she made it. 

    I realize that there are many people in our country that have very strong feelings against vaccines.  I personally was talking to a woman last week who told me that flu shots are designed to kill you slowly, so she refuses to get one.  Jenny McCarthy has been very outspoken about her belief that her son’s autism was a result of his childhood vaccines.  But the fact remains that people who believe this are considered to  be on the “fringe”.  Most people in this country will need a great deal more proof before they jump on the no vaccine bandwagon.  I am making no judgement either way.  But, the no vaccine crowd is considered a fringe group. 

    I live in a state where Gardasil is “mandatory”.  The reason that is made mandatory is so that it will be covered by most insurance policies.  There is an opt out for the parents.  The numbers in this state have shown that most parents are not getting the vaccine.  Less than 20% of parents in Virginia have decided to give the shot to their child.  I personally believe that an opt out is the way to go.  It gives parents the choice. 

    Congresswoman Bachmann making the statement was bad enough, but she kept repeating it for days and refusing to back away from the comment gives me a great deal of pause about what type of leader she will be.  I like most of the Congresswoman’s message.  I have met her on a few occasions and she was very gracious.  But that isn’t enough.  We are at a crossroads in this country.  The next election quite literally will be deciding which way this country decides to go.  Are we going to become a nation where more and more people are dependent on the government, or are going to start the long road back to constitutional principles? 

    This country is in desperate need of a strong leader with principles.  One that can admit when things are not working and change course.  Congresswoman Bachmann has shown she is not that leader.  It is time for her to wrap it up and get back to her job as congresswoman.

    • Teresa Rice 11:06 PM on 09/19/2011 Permalink | Reply

      I don’t understand why she has made this such a big issue or has been obsessing on this issue. There are much more important issues on the table like immigration and the economy. I am not saying that the Gardasil issue isn’t worthy of discussion but I just think she’s blowing the whole situation out of proportion. I especially don’t like the fact how she brushed aside Perry’s “I’m sorry” statement. I mean what if she would happen to make a mistake and said I’m sorry?

      • just a conservative girl 11:17 PM on 09/19/2011 Permalink | Reply

        The really confusing part Teresa is that she has him on the executive order part and the Merck donations. She muddied the waters so much with that statement that people won’t even remember that part of the story. It just makes me scratch my head in disbelief.

        It really makes me doubt her leadership abilities.

        • fuzislippers 3:57 AM on 09/20/2011 Permalink | Reply

          Agreed. She did fine in the debate, may have even gained some ground. But all this has eclipsed that. She’s done.

    • zillaoftheresistance 10:00 AM on 09/21/2011 Permalink | Reply

      I’m with y’all, she went about it the wrong way. I don’t know if Gardasil can make offspring retarded, and clearly neither does she, but Gardasil HAS caused serious adverse reaction in some young girls, a few of who have even died from it. She should have stuck to facts, not rumors, like the fact that the thing had not been tested for very long for possible negative effects before it was implemented in addition to all the other stuff.
      My grandma survived Polio, and endured horrible teasing even from her own father because she had to wear those “Forrest Gump” style leg braces. My great uncle had Polio too, and he spent his entire life paralyzed from the waist down because of it. I vaccinate my kids, but I will not subject them to experimental vaccinations tat have no documentation of long term effects. I declined the h1n1 vaccine because it was not properly tested before being given to the public and I didn’t buy into the hysteria over that flu strain anyway.
      You can’t catch HPV the way you can other diseases that immunizations exist for, it is only transferred through sexual contact. Not all strains of HPV cause cancer or are even permanent and the Gardasil does not protect against all the strains of HPV that have been linked to cancer, so you are giving your child a potentially dangerous vaccine that has not been tested for long term effects that may not even do what it is supposed to do anyway, which may give your child a false sense of security and reduce the likelihood of resisting risky behavior.
      I would much prefer to see the candidates confront Rick Perry for his islamocoddling, which is a far greater danger to this country than HPV or Gardasil.

      • fuzislippers 5:40 PM on 09/21/2011 Permalink | Reply

        But that’s the thing, Zilla, it’s not about HPV or Gardasil. It’s about the role of government, once she left that, she lost.

      • just a conservative girl 8:07 PM on 09/21/2011 Permalink | Reply

        Under what Perry had done you wouldn’t have been forced to give your daughter the shot, you could have opted out. Which is perfectly fine, the problem is that he did with executive order. That is what she should have concentrated on instead of going off on some tangent that makes her sound nutty.

  • just a conservative girl 9:25 AM on 08/13/2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , mccotter, presidential hopefuls, , , , straw poll   

    Ames Straw Poll Predications 

    Michele Bachmann will win by a small margin

    Ron Paul will come in second or third.  He is an expert at getting people to vote in straw polls

    Mitt Romney will do better than most people think. 

    Herman Cain will place in the top 6, but it will not be enough to give him the momentum he needs to raise his profile and much-needed cash

    Pawlenty really hurt himself the other night and he fill finish very poorly and will be dropping out of the race before the real vote is cast

    Gingrich will finish close to the bottom, he won’t be too far behind Pawlenty in calling it a day

    Huntsman won’t even register

    Rick Perry will have a very good showing even though he is a write in

    Sarah Palin will do remarkably well for someone who has not announced her candidacy

    Santorum I think will do better than originally predicted, he had a good showing at the debate last night, he is also beloved by social conservatives for his strong and outspoken voice for the voiceless on abortion

    McCotter may actually have a bit of an impact in the poll.  He has a wonderful dry sense of humor and is a Midwesterner  Some votes of his are suspect, but overall a good solid conservative

    I read in the paper today what the candidates are serving in their tents – i.e Cain is serving Godfather Pizza of course, Bachmann is doing B-B-Q and Funnel Cake, Paul wouldn’t announce what he was serving, but the funniest part is that almost every candidate is having Mike Huckabee playing his bass.  He will be making the rounds for the party tomorrow in Ames – I suppose he need to fill his one hour show on Fox

    Who do you think will win? 


    • SignPainterGuy 5:51 PM on 08/13/2011 Permalink | Reply

      If the current trend holds sway, Ron Paul will continue to win, though it makes no sense to me whatsoever ! The poll cards were surely printed by someone from deep inside the Twilight Zone !

      If I look at the view of the pundits after the debate, Romney will win, but again, how does someone win by virtue of simply “not losing” ? That`s the best I can say about his performance, because his debate responses were middling at best.

      Who do I want to win ? Cain, Santorum and then Bachmann, in that order. They`re the only candidates who have at heart what America really needs !

      Who do I think actually WILL win ? There are too many variables at play for me even to try to guess.

  • just a conservative girl 5:22 PM on 08/11/2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , presidential hopefuls,   

    It’s Getting Interesting Now – Rick Perry for President 

    Rick Perry will be putting his hat into the ring and run for the GOP nomination confirmed today by a spokesman for the Governor.  Perry who is not on the ballot for the Ames Straw Poll on Saturday, but already has legions of fans working to get people to write his name in.  This was being done before the announcement today. So it will be interesting to see how he places this weekend. 

    Perry’s announcement is bad news for Michele Bachmann.  Perry has a good relationship with social conservatives.  He is also very strong on 2nd and 10th amendment issues.  The Tea Party will be feeling some hominess with the Governor on his constitutional stances.  He and Bachmann will be going after the very same pool of voters.  Perry should win that race as he has tons of executive experience to Bachmann’s very thin experience.  I believe this year, experience will be of up most importance.   The last two plus years has shown electing someone without experience leads to nothing but bad things. 

    Another loser in this announcement is Sarah Palin.  While she has still not announced what her decision to run is, since her and Perry are buddies, this could throw a monkey wrench into her plans for a run.  Again, Perry will beat Palin in the experience department.  It will be interesting to see if Palin will join the race now.  She is getting in very late (although name recognition and fundraising are non-issues for her), she has repeatedly said she wouldn’t join the race if there were other true conservatives (Cain, Perry, Bachmann and Santorum are true conservatives) in the race, and she has a professional relationship with Perry that was very friendly. 

    The biggest loser in this would seem to be Mitt Romney.  Perry can pull in the big cash donors.  The rumors circulating earlier this week was that Perry was making sure he had commitments on donations before he would throw his hat into the ring officially.  Since he is announcing two days earlier than originally thought, someone must have opened their wallets.  Perry will be able to compete financially against Mitt, he has more executive experience in the government sector than Mitt, and most importantly, Governor Perry didn’t sign Romneycare into law.  Another rumor floating around is that this was Mitt’s biggest fear. 

    I am not very familiar with Perry’s record, I do know that Paulites consider Perry to be part of the new world order and Romney is afraid of his candidacy.  Then my reaction has to be Welcome Aboard Gov. Perry.  Glad you decided to play in GOP presidential politics.  If the Paulites and Romney don’t like you, you may be someone to take a look at.

  • just a conservative girl 10:28 PM on 05/17/2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , hewitt, presidential hopefuls   

    Hugh Hewitt – Another to Add to the List of People Who Don’t Respect the Voices of the People 

    This is why the GOP needs to rethink its debate schedule and why the RNC should take over the operation of the debates and exile Cain, Johnson and Paul as well as every other candidate without a prayer of winning.  (Santorum is a long shot, but he has a realistic though small chance of winning the nomination, while the others do not.)  The seriousness of the fiscal crisis requires the GOP and its candidates to act seriously, and allowing marginal candidates to eat up time and distract from the enormous problems facing the country is not serious.

    Gingrich and Romney sensed this and wisely avoided this event.  Governor Pawlenty who needs to build name ID and a donor base probably has no choice but to attend them all.

    I really like Hugh Hewitt and I generally agree with most of what he says.  This I absolutely don’t agree with.  It is not up to the RNC who gets into the race.  It is up to the individual following the laws and the rules to enter.  If a candidate files the paperwork and pays the fee, he has every right to enter the race.  We should never be shutting down speech.  We need to encourage as much free speech as possible.  We also need to give the voters as many different points of view so we are sure we are picking the right person.  On top of the fact that he putting Gingrich in a higher level than Santorum or Cain is simply laughable.  Cain was the winner of the debate by most standards. 

    I don’t want the RNC making the decisions on who can enter a race, especially for president.  One of the reasons that we are in the mess that we are in is because of the establishment GOP supporting people like Lindsey Graham.  We get to decide who wins a primary.  The RNC should be doing nothing to interfere with this process.  We all know that they do, but they shouldn’t be. 

    Shame on you Hugh.

Compose new post
Next post/Next comment
Previous post/Previous comment
Show/Hide comments
Go to top
Go to login
Show/Hide help
shift + esc