Tagged: Santorum Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • just a conservative girl 4:33 PM on 03/19/2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , limited government, Santorum   

    Limited Government? 

    I think not.

     

     

     

     
    • Don 7:54 PM on 03/19/2012 Permalink | Reply

      Very disappointing.

      • just a conservative girl 8:32 PM on 03/19/2012 Permalink | Reply

        What I find disappointing are the people who after listening to this will still say he is a fiscal conservative. He clearly is not. He is a big spending, big government social conservative.

  • just a conservative girl 12:54 PM on 03/10/2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , Santorum, 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.

      *just

    • 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 10:33 AM on 02/09/2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , Santorum,   

    CPAC Day One – Part 1 

    The security is overwhelming. I have never seen it like this. They are checking each and every pass at the door for every speaker and event. That has not happened in the past. I guess they are taking the occupier protests seriously and doing their best to protect the speakers and the attendees. I am sure that they have had to hire additional people.

    AFL-CIO has decided to up the game and has rented rooms here, so it will be impossible to throw them out, as they are guests. Lovely.

    I just met Victoria Jackson from SNL fame. I ran into Stacy from the Other McCain and The DaTech Guy earlier this morning. They were both telling me I need to support Santorum.

    Santorum stickers are everywhere. He seems to have a great deal of support here. I would venture to say he could win the straw poll.

    Romney has a plan to use this conference to “woo” conservatives. Good luck with that venture.

    The Citadel has 31 cadets here. Nice to see people who not only willing to serve in the military, but also politically active at such a young age.

    Jim DeMint gave a great opening speech. I believe that CSPAN covers the event and will have videos.

    Herman Cain’s bus is here. I have not yet seen Mr. Cain himself, but the bus is at least here. He is due to speak after 4 today.

    The blogger bash is tonight, that should be a good time.

    It is still early, so not much more to report.

    But, I have to say, I always love it when conservatives are in town. They are in short supply in this neck of the woods.

     
  • just a conservative girl 12:06 PM on 01/03/2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , Santorum   

    Quote of the Day – Rick Santorum Edition 

     ‘I KNOW ALAN IS A VERY GOOD PERSON AT HEART’

    Rick Santorum on Alan Colmes apology regarding his comments on how he mourned his child.

    I am glad that you think so Senator.  Does Mr. Colmes really have a heart?  After those comments I have to wonder.  You are a class act Mr. Santorum.  I wouldn’t have been nearly as kind.

     
  • just a conservative girl 9:51 PM on 01/02/2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , horror show, Santorum   

    How Low Can We Go? 

    It seems pretty darn low.  Lower than we should be going.  The day started out the news that the ever sensitive Mr. Alan Colmes went after Rick Santorum about how he and his wife decided to mourn the loss of their newborn baby, Gabriel.  So of course the press has jumped all over it.  I have been reading some different news accounts of the back and forth between Colmes and Rich Lowry who rightly pointed out that Colmes hit way below the belt bringing this up.  Let’s take a look at who our voting public is:

    Santorum has been playing his fetal corpse shtick in front of audiences for years. He thinks it works in the polls. Others think it shows he is too unstable to govern. Besides, he couldn’t let Newt get away with performing the only crocodile tears act in Iowa this year.

    I don’t understand why Santorum didn’t have it stuffed so he could use it as a prop on the campaign trail. Why not keep it home for a week, or a year, or celebrate Christmas with it?

    I’m not picking on the poor little baby, but on his father who shamelessly exploits the tragedy for political gain instead of talking about the issues, like why he endorsed pro-abortion Arlen Specter in 2004 who voted for ObamaCare or why he endorsed pro-flipflop-anti-abortion Mitt RomneyCare in 2008.

    Rick tried to keep it at home longer, until he caught his housekeeper, Margarita, vacuuming the dust off of it.

    “Lowry called Colmes’ description of the ordeal and bringing it up “a cheap shot”
    so now pointing out irrational behavior in the candidates is wrong – this was a psychotic act – taking a dead baby home to “prove” something to little children is sick –
    if some welfare mother did this – they would take her kids & lock her up –
    the santorums are sick –
    infected with XIANITY = god delusions !!

    Oh my God! Imagine if Obama brought his dead newborn home and him and Michelle cuddled with the cold corpse for a few hours! The decision to elect the president is dependant on one thing above everything else (not including those who will vote for someone just because he is a republican), his ability to act rationally in hectic crises. If this weird and demented act of affection proves anything at all, it is that Santorm obviously breaks very easily. Americans this is not the dude you want with his fingertip over the red button in the oval office.

    We are so screwed in this country.  People are just evil.  Look, I would not have handled it the way the Santorum’s did, but I am not going to judge them.  They did the best that they could in an extremely difficult and painful situation.  There is no greater pain than the loss of a child.  Leave the man and his family alone about this topic.  You want to go after him, ask him about his backing of The Patriot Act and No Child Left Behind.

    This is why I don’t like candidates that have young children.  His littlest children have no way of dealing with this horror.

     
    • SignPainterGuy 10:33 AM on 01/03/2012 Permalink | Reply

      A.C. is a despicable person, very representative of many on the left; I take it that is his purpose in FOX`s “Fair and Balanced” approach to news coverage. He disgusts me !

      People act in a wide variety of unusual ways in times of mourning; let`s not hold that against them as long as it doesn`t cross the line of legality and common decency ! They needed some time and privacy that only there home could provide; anywhere in a hospital would have had some element of “could ya hurry up, we need to use this room !” Fer cryin` out loud !

      Many, many good potential statesmen refuse to run for political office and for good reason; they don`t want to endure (as Rush puts it) “the public anal exam” !

      Recently, I saw a letter to Dear Abby in which the writer asked her how to have a family tree search done without incurring the high cost. Her reply; “Run for political office as a Republican !” Yep, that`ll do it !

    • zillaoftheresistance 7:27 PM on 01/03/2012 Permalink | Reply

      People used to have their dear departed loved ones lie in state inside their homes, sometimes for days, so that friends and family could pay their final respects and reminisce about the person’s life or pray over them, it was called a “wake” (or in the case of my ancestors, you drank a lot of booze while doing any or all of the above and it was called an “Irish wake”) and it was a common practice. In fact, we still do these things, only they are now mostly done inside of funeral homes (at HUGE expense to the grieving family, BTW), but it is still called a wake. Has Alan Colmes never heard of a wake? There were other children in the family who loved their new baby brother long before he was born, the hospital said it might help the children to process their grief if they could see and spend some time with their little baby brother before he had to be buried. The only thing “sick”, “twisted” or “crazy” about any of this is the evil and disgusting way that the leftist ghouls are beating up on the Santorum family for how they mourned their dear beloved little baby who passed away. They did not do anything illegal, the hospital allowed them to do this, maybe the hospital thought it better this way than to bring all of the children to the hospital, I don’t know, but the fact of the matter is that people do spend time with their departed loved ones, it was NOT that long ago when it WAS traditionally done IN THEIR HOMES, it is only fairly recent that wakes for the dead have been held more usually in funeral homes. Alan Colmes and the leftist d-bags who are saying such disgusting things are ghouls, they are monsters, and they are hardcore jackasses. Fox News sucks because they won’t fire the pig.

  • just a conservative girl 2:19 AM on 12/25/2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , Santorum,   

    Some Thoughts on Virginia’s Primary Ballot Failures 

    As a resident of Virginia I will say that I am not at all pleased to have two choices and only two choices.  That said, there are very clear rules in place and every candidate had the same access to those rules.  Three candidates never even bothered to put in signatures for review.  I suppose they just never got enough to make it worthwhile.  One of those candidates, Rick Santorum, lives in Virginia.

    Now, our Lt. Governor Bill Bolling is one of the Chairs for the Virginia for Romney campaign.  That has led to some charges that he was rooting for this and possibly there was corruption involved.  Anyone involved in the republican party in Virginia could have gone to help verify the signatures.  I myself was sent an email with an invitation to attend and volunteer to help verify all the signatures.  There is no proof whatsoever that Bolling had anything to do with the outcome.  It is very unseemly to make these charges without any evidence to support them.  Bolling has already announced his bid for the Governorship in 13, I don’t think he would take the chance of ruining his chances to help Mitt Romney get elected.  He has had his eyes on the governor’s chair for quite some time.  The ballots were verified by mainly volunteers.  The likelihood that all of them were corrupted to push the outcome in any one direction is very hard to believe.

    Gingrich has made the following statement:

    The Gingrich campaign responded that “only a failed system” would disqualify Gingrich and other candidates. It said Gingrich would pursue an aggressive write-in campaign in Virginia.

    The law is very clear in Virginia, there is no option for a write in campaign.  While I am sure that people can still write in a name, it will not be counted.  This law has been in place since 1999.  This will be the fourth presidential election since these laws have been implemented.  In this time no other major candidate has failed to get on the ballot.  Here is a list of people who qualified for the Virginia ballots in the past:

    2008 – Barack Obama, Dennis Kucinich, Hillary Clinton, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, John Edwards; Ron Paul, John McCain, Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney.

    2004 – Al Sharpton, John Kerry, Wesley Clark, Howard Dean, Joe Lieberman, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, Dick Gephardt, Lyndon Larouche.

    2000 – Alan Keyes, Gary Bauer, George W. Bush, John McCain, Steve Forbes.

    So Newt wants me to believe that the system is broken even when the like of Lyndon Larouche or Al Sharpton can get the necessary signatures?  That doesn’t pass the smell test to me.   Does it to you?

    This comes down to one thing and one thing only.  They lack the organization necessary to run a national campaign.  Running for president is very difficult.  As it should be since it is a very difficult job.  Even Jill over at Pundit and Pundette; a huge Perry supporter, asked if he was just winging it.  Perry turned in sheets that were not notarized.  A very simple and free thing to do.  It is also is clear indication that no one on Perry’s staff bothered to look at the sheets when they were turned in by the volunteers.  I will give Perry credit here as he is not making himself into a victim as Newt appears to be doing.  So far he seems to accept the inevitable.  He will not be on the ballot for one of the biggest prizes of Super Tuesday.

    Look, getting people to sign these petitions is not easy.  I am not saying that it is, but they were only required to get less than barely over one tenth of one percent of qualified voters.  But the fact that it is difficult is the reason that an organized campaign is vital.  You must have the staff to organize the volunteers.  Another thing to remember is Virginia has off-year elections.  We had an election last month.  Every campaign has access to the information on where the voting locations were and what the past numbers of voters showing up to those locations are.   This is low hanging fruit, everyone showing up is a registered voter.  I volunteered on election day.  I only saw people out for Romney, Newt, and Obama.  I asked the other volunteers at the results party that I went to and none of them saw any for any of the other candidates that I listed.  I personally signed for Cain, Newt, and Rick Santorum.  I wouldn’t sign for Romney and was never asked to sign for any other candidate.  I am also on the email list for virtually every candidate and was only asked to collect signatures for Romney and Cain.

    Newt would like to change the rules because he is unhappy with the results.  That is a leftist tactic.  I find it abhorrent that Newt is now looking for a way around the rules.  While I do feel cheated that I only have two choices on my ballot.  The people who cheated me were the candidates themselves.

    Now, I am going to get back to celebrating Christmas.

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

    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 9:25 AM on 08/13/2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , mccotter, , , , Santorum, 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.

  • Jill 9:06 AM on 08/05/2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Santorum   

    Video: Santorum family vacation 

    I can relate:

     
  • just a conservative girl 10:31 PM on 06/13/2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , presidential race, , Santorum   

    The CNN Debate 

    Just some quick thoughts as I don’t have a great deal of time. 

     I think that Michele Bachman did a great job.  She sometimes has a habit of getting her facts a little mixed up, but not tonight.  She showed that she is able to stay on topic and answer questions with quick soundbites that get to the point. 

     I think that Tim Pawlenty was the big winner tonight.  He came across as likable, knowledgeable, and a good conservative.  Job well done. 

     Newt showed why he has been described as the brain or the idea guy.  He is in his element in a debate format and tonight was no exception.  The big downside was that he outright lied in my opinion.  He is sticking to his ridiculous story that what he said about Paul Ryan was taken out of context.  It was a live interview Newt, we ain’t buying what you are trying to sell with this one.  You just made yourself look dishonest. 

     Herman Cain I think was one of the biggest losers.  Not because of his answers, just that he wasn’t given much of a chance to speak.  The questions went mainly to Romney, Newt, and Pawlenty.  I guess these are the three that CNN has deigned the viable candidates for the nomination.  Overall his performance was strong, just not nearly enough face time. 

     Ron Paul was Ron Paul.  I agree with much of what he would do on fiscal policy, but he loses me on social issues and foreign policy. 

     Romney was doing his somersaults about Romneycare or as Pawlenty’s newest phrase Obamney Care.  Not happening Mitt.  I am not buying it, you seem unwilling to sign an all out repeal and nothing less is acceptable.  Screw this waiver idea of yours. 

     Rick Santorum also did pretty well, he showed he can debate with the rest of the field.  Santorum is out for me, I will not vote for him even if he is the nominee so I don’t really care what he has to say. 

     What I did find refreshing is that they talked about some of the third rail topics.  Ethanol and entitlement reform.  We need to open and honest to the American people, we are broke and it is time we take on the tough and scary subjects.  We are almost out of road and can no longer just the kick the can.  The right needs to talk openly and honestly about these topics and not allow the media and the left to turn this into throwing granny over the cliff scenario.  Oh, wait they already did that. 

     What are your thoughts? 

     
    • zillaoftheresistance 7:14 AM on 06/14/2011 Permalink | Reply

      What do you have against Rick Santorum?

      • just a conservative girl 9:33 AM on 06/14/2011 Permalink | Reply

        Nothing against him. I won’t vote for anyone who has young children. I seriously question the judgement of anyone who would purposely put their young kids in that fishbowl. Not a healthy environment for them to grow up in.

        Old fashioned idea, yes. Out of the mainstream, yes. But it is a principle I believe in. No young kids in the White House.

        • zillaoftheresistance 8:07 PM on 06/14/2011 Permalink | Reply

          So if he were the nominee would you not vote, vote for Obama, or go 3rd party? I’m voting to get Obama out of the White House, even if I have to hold my nose to vote for a GOP ticket that I don’t like. Obama is too danged destructive, we can’t survive another 4 years of him.

          • just a conservative girl 8:48 PM on 06/14/2011 Permalink | Reply

            I wouldn’t vote for Obama. 3rd Party is pretty hard in Virginia, so I guess I wouldn’t vote. I have the luxury of it being a red state. Yes, it went to Obama last time but that was an abhorition. So I am not all that worried about it.

            But I will NOT bend on this principle. Family is the bedrock of our society and should be only second to God. If someone doesn’t put the well being of their child first, than they don’t deserve my vote.

            • zillaoftheresistance 9:22 PM on 06/14/2011 Permalink | Reply

              So no Sarah Palin for you then. Are Cain’s kids grown? What about Bachmann? I know she’s got a lot of kids but I don’t know their ages.

              • just a conservative girl 10:36 PM on 06/14/2011 Permalink | Reply

                Palin is out. Cain is grandpa so his kids are older. Bachmann’s are all grown as well. The only other one that may be an issue for me could be Pawlenty. I think his kids are right at the age that I would vote for them. I think they are all teenagers. Which to me is still a little young, but at least they have a better comprehension of things at that age.

    • Obi's Sister 8:26 PM on 06/14/2011 Permalink | Reply

      I was pleased that they didn’t attack each other. Obama MUST BE A ONE-TERM PRESIDENT.

      • just a conservative girl 10:37 PM on 06/14/2011 Permalink | Reply

        Me too. Pawlenty got quite a bit of pushback today for not going after Romney, but I think there is still time for that. Especially since you consider that Romney is wimping out for the Iowa straw poll.

  • Jill 11:55 AM on 02/09/2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , Santorum,   

    Politico spins Santorum 

    Politico‘s Andy Barr tries to stir up some drama on the right, accusing Rick Santorum of attacking Sarah Palin in the interview below. Santorum responded with an unambiguous, and accurate,  “This article is garbage.”  But Barr stands by his distorted reading, hoping, I guess, that no one will actually watch the video:

    Cross-posted at P&P.

     

     
    • just a conservative girl 9:59 AM on 02/10/2011 Permalink | Reply

      Plenty on the right are saying the same thing. Another Palin drama that is created from nothing.

c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel