I vote and have supported birth control because it is not the taking of human life. But I’m not a believer in birth control and artificial birth control. I think it goes down the line of being able to do whatever you want to do without having the responsibility that comes with that.
~ Rick Santorum
By Gary P Jackson
When Rick Santorum said “Freedom’s not absolute. What rights in the Constitution are absolute?” I wrote that I was extremely concerned about Santorum’s threat to Liberty and Freedom. The more I look, the more alarmed I become. Rick Santorum is an extremist in his views, to say the least.
As I have often said about Rick, he is more interested in being the bedroom police, than a Senator or President.
I want a man of good character in the White House, which is why people like Obama and Gingrich are completely unacceptable, but good character doesn’t include being a Statist. It doesn’t include being an extremist.
Let’s break down what Santorum is saying.
First he flat out says “artificial” birth control doesn’t work. That’s patently false.
From the website Kid’s Health, which thankfully recommends abstinence for teens, comes this:
The most effective way to prevent pregnancy is abstinence. However, within the first year of committing to abstinence, many couples become pregnant because they have sex anyway but don’t use protection. So it’s a good idea even for people who don’t plan to have sex to be informed about birth control.
Couples who do have sex need to use birth control properly and every time to prevent pregnancy. For example, the chart below shows that the birth control pill can be effective in preventing pregnancy. But if a girl forgets to take her birth control pills, then this is not an effective method for her. Condoms can be an effective way to prevent pregnancy, too. But if a guy forgets to use a condom or doesn’t use it correctly, then it’s not an effective way for him to prevent pregnancy.
For every 100 couples using each type of birth control, the chart shows how many of these couples will get pregnant within a year. The information shown is for all couples, not just teenage couples. Some birth control methods may be less effective for teen users. For example, teenage girls who use fertility awareness (also called the rhythm method) may have an even greater chance of getting pregnant than adult women because their bodies have not yet settled into a regular menstrual cycle.
I highlighted the last part, because from what I know the rhythm method is what some Catholics use. It’s also why these same Catholics always seem to have a house full of kids! It’s not a reliable method.
The website provides a chart for all of the popular methods of birth control, and how effective they are. Check it out here.
Next Rick says birth control is “harmful to women” and “harmful to society.” Now like any medication, there are side effects, and some birth control methods are riskier than others, but that isn’t what Rick’s talking about.
This is a guy who thinks it’s morally wrong to have sex out of marriage, and that having sex, outside of marriage, harms women and society at large. That’s a pretty extreme view of things, and quite alarming.
Now one could successfully argue that promiscuous, indiscriminate sex is harmful to society, especially if birth control is NOT used, and an unwanted child is born. We do know that children born to unwed mothers, when the father isn’t present, have a high risk of being a problem to society at large. This is why the use of contraceptives is encouraged.
But what of committed couples that, for one reason or another, simply don’t want to get married. I think most of us know at least one couple like this, if not more. They are the ones who have been together seemingly forever, have children, and function as a family. Would Rick not want this happy, well adjusted couple to have sex? Are these sort of couples harmful to society?
Something that puzzles me about Rick and this extreme position. Rick also said that he supported Title X, a program that directly funds Planned Parenthood. Of course, now that he is running for president, he says he wants to repeal the sections that fund the abortion mill. Seems like a typical politician who has had an election year conversion.
There’s more from ABC News: [emphasis mine]
With Rick Santorum’s surge has come renewed scrutiny of his record, particularly on some social issues such as contraception.
It is an issue on which Santorum is personally conservative and on which his policy position has crept to the right in recent years.
In a 2006 interview with a Comcast program and posted by the YouTube user “Santorumexposed,” which has existed for years, Santorum, amid an ultimately unsuccessful run for re-election in purple Pennsylvania, says he supports a legal right to access contraception, which he says he doesn’t think is effective and is “harmful to women” and “harmful to our society.”
“I vote and have supported birth control because it is not the taking of human life. But I’m not a believer in birth control and artificial birth control. I think it goes down the line of being able to do whatever you want to do without having the responsibility that comes with that. I think it breaks that … this is from a personal point of view of, from a governmental point of view I support that Title X,” he said.
“I guess it is and have voted for contraception, although I don’t think it works. I think it’s harmful to women. I think it’s harmful to our society to have a society that says that sex outside of marriage is something that should be encouraged or tolerated …, particularly among the young and it has I think we’ve seen very, very harmful long-term consequences to the society. Birth control to me enables that and I don’t think it’s a healthy thing for our country.”
That 2006 interview was the subject of a column by conservative columnist Jennifer Rubin, arguing in the Washington Post today that Santorum is wrong.
“The impression that Santorum finds the prevalent practice of birth control ‘harmful to women’ is, frankly, mind-numbing,” Rubin wrote.
Santorum’s policy position has moved to the right since 2006. He now endorses repealing Clinton-era sections of Title X, the federal grant program that promotes family planning and provides funds to Planned Parenthood, according to his campaign website.
And his personal position against contraception has solidified. In October, he said in an interview with the Christian blog Caffeinated Thoughts that contraception use factors into “the whole sexual libertine idea.”
He said that as president, he would seek to repeal the Obama health care and get rid of any kind of idea that you have to have “any kind of abortion coverage, any kind of contraceptive coverage.”
And he said he disagrees with others in the Christian faith who believe that contraception is OK.
“It’s not OK because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be,” he said. “They’re supposed to be within marriage, they are supposed to be for purposes that are, yes, conjugal, but also, but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen. We take any part of that out, we diminish the act. And if you can take one part out that’s not for purposes of procreation, that’s not one of the reasons, then you diminish this very special bond between men and women, so why can’t you take other parts of that out? And all of a sudden, it becomes deconstructed to the point where it’s simply pleasure. And that’s certainly a part of it—and it’s an important part of it, don’t get me wrong—but there’s a lot of things we do for pleasure, and this is special, and it needs to be seen as special.”
He later added, “I know most Presidents don’t talk about those things, and maybe people don’t want us to talk about those things, but I think it’s important that you are who you are. I’m not running for preacher. I’m not running for pastor, but these are important public policy issues. These how profound impact on the health of our society.”
Contraception was an issue earlier in the campaign when George Stephanopoulos asked Mitt Romney if he supported Santorum’s position that states should have the ability to ban contraception. Santorum has said he doesn’t support such a law, but he supports a state’s right to enact it. The Supreme Court guaranteed a right to contraception via a right to privacy in the 1965 Griswold vs. Connecticut decision.
“George, this is an unusual topic that you’re raising,” Romney said at the time. “States have a right to ban contraception? I can’t imagine a state banning contraception. I can’t imagine the circumstances where a state would want to do so, and if I were a governor of a state or – or a legislature of a state – I would totally and completely oppose any effort to ban contraception. So you’re asking – given the fact that there’s no state that wants to do so, and I don’t know of any candidate that wants to do so.”
It was a protracted and tense moment in the debate that ended with Romney declaring, “Contraception, it’s working just fine, just leave it alone.”
Despite Romney’s assertion that it’s working “just fine,” he has said that eliminating Title X would be one of the ways he would cut spending when he released his fiscal policy plan in November.
His suggestion to “eliminate Title X family planning programs” was an example of a program Romney “we don’t need or can’t afford.”
Most Americans agree with Romney that its working just fine. The Obama administration came under fire from the Catholic Church and Republicans for a mandating last year that Catholic charities and hospitals cover contraception in their health insurance plans. That mandate was tweaked last week to put a wall between the religious organizations and the insurance companies. But employees of those groups will still have access to contraception coverage.
That mandate evenly split Americans in a recent poll, but contraception generally enjoys a vast majority of support.
I don’t usually agree with Jennifer Rubin, but this truly is mind blowing stuff.
Santorum, in so many words, is saying sex, outside of marriage shouldn’t be tolerated.
Extreme is putting it mildly.
Let’s look at this again:
“It’s not OK because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be,” he said. “They’re supposed to be within marriage, they are supposed to be for purposes that are, yes, conjugal, but also, but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen. We take any part of that out, we diminish the act.
And if you can take one part out that’s not for purposes of procreation, that’s not one of the reasons, then you diminish this very special bond between men and women, so why can’t you take other parts of that out? And all of a sudden, it becomes deconstructed to the point where it’s simply pleasure. And that’s certainly a part of it—and it’s an important part of it, don’t get me wrong—but there’s a lot of things we do for pleasure, and this is special, and it needs to be seen as special.“
That is so far out of the mainstream it’s unreal.
This goes back to the point I was trying to make when I talked about Rick’s distaste of internet gambling, and how he has fought to stop it. Rick doesn’t like gambling because in his mind, it harms society, just like having sex for any other purpose than for making a baby. I keep searching for a better word, but extreme is the one that keeps hitting me upside the head.
America was founded on individual Liberty and Freedom, and of course, individual responsibility. Ronald Reagan is spinning in his grave at the thought of a “little intellectual elite in a far distant capital”, who would deem he knows better than you and I do, especially since this little elite claims to be a Conservative.
I’ve always considered myself pretty Conservative, socially. Santorum is just so far out of the mainstream it’s impossible to fathom.
Of course, Rick’s supporters will squeal about the need for a moral society, and I completely agree. The collapse of the family unit has been very destructive, but that has nothing to do with sex, it has to do with the way people are raised. Being responsible for one’s actions is no longer something required.
There are many ills in our society, but none of them can be fixed by government. None.
Rick Santorum is a Statist. Someone who thinks government IS the answer, and should be the moral authority that protects citizens from themselves. There is an inherent evil in this sort of thinking.
There is no difference between Rick Santorum, and the progressives who run around banning salt because it’s supposedly bad for you. The folks who make you buy a toilet that you gotta flush two or three times to get the job done. The folks that dictate what kind of shower head you gotta use. What kind of light bulb you must have. The sort who want to tell you what to eat and when to eat it.
People like Santorum are totalitarians. They want to micro-manage your life. They know better than you do what is good for you. They are the absolute enemies of Liberty and Freedom.
Sarah Palin says this election will come down to a battle between the “ Freedom Party” and the “Government Party” Rick is a card carrying member of the Government Party.
Now as we look at all of this, consider how all but the fringe of society will look at Santorum’s extreme views when it comes time to vote. If Santorum is the Republican nominee, he will lose independents in droves, and as independents outnumber both Republicans and democrats these days, that’s not good. Santorum would lose spectacularly against Obama and his media partners.
The Obama regime won’t even have to smear Santorum as an extremist, they’ll simply point out his actual record and his actual positions.
Folks supporting Santorum, especially those who think all of this extreme views are OK, need not only a big dose of reality, but a bigger dose of real conservatism, courtesy of Ronald Reagan:
Gary, you’re the one going off the deep end again! Santorum is a statist?? Newt is a Marxist???
Perhaps you should look up these words and actually learn what they mean before tossing them out there the way you do.
Did you even read what you wrote?? You even stated that Santorum had voted to fund contraception even though he personally disagrees with it. So what??? He’s not going to ban contraception. It’s stupid to even bring this up. It’s leftist talking points. Instead of talking about real issues like the economy being in the tank, Obamacare, drilling for oil, Iran..etc we’re talking about ridiculous things like this.
I’m very disappointed to see you doing the same Gary. I wished Sarah was running too, but she’s not. Seems like it’s your mission to destroy every other candidate.
Santorum would be our best President since Reagan. Wake up and stop trying to tear him down over trivial BS. Also, there’s plenty of more important issues to worry about, I doubt he’s going to push through a bill as President to ban internet gambling.
Santorum actually has a great fiscal record. That’s why the NTU gives him a 3.66 GPA which puts him in the top 5% of Senators:
http://www.therightscoop.com/dear-santorum-bashers-read-this-and-weep/
He’s much better than Mitt Romneycare, the same guy you seem to be defending lately. Mittens takes Obamacare off the table, has supported cap and tax (had John Holdren as an advisor to implement carbon caps), supported TARP, and has a terrible record against the 2nd Amendment. Mittens has flip flopped on every position known to man. He’s the Establishment pick and is a wimp who won’t even call Maobama a socialist. Mittens even gets rattled by a Bret Baier interview being pressed about Romneycare!
On the other hand, Santorum called out that hack Charlie Rose for the outrageous double standard in the media. He’s a real conservative who deserves our support.
Rick Santorum is the anti-Reagan, and the anti-Palin. This guy is so far out of the mainstream it’s unreal!
You need to go back and read what I wrote. Wouldn’t hurt to watch the Reagan video either. Ronnie would lose his mind thinking Conservatives are supporting a Big Government Statist like Santorum.
I said nothing about Santorum voting to fund contraception, that’s excepted from the ABC News report. What I said is he voted to fund Tittle X, and had no problem with it, even though it funds Planned Parenthood. It only seems to bother him now that he is running for president. Santorum is nothing more than the typical beltway politician. Just another member of the permanent political class.
It’s interesting that folks, such as yourself, think pointing out FACTS, using a person’s own words, somehow means you are “out to destroy them” If these candidates don’t want to be hammered for doing and saying stupid shit, they should do or say stupid shit.
I’ve been pretty neutral on Santorum, but always concerned about his per-occupation with sex. He definitely would rather be the nation’s bedroom police more than anything else.
If this nimrod is nominated Obama won’t even have to campaign to win in a landslide. Santorum is an extremist and an absolute enemy of Liberty and Freedom.
Oh, and those various ratings mean nothing. Hell, Mike Castle, an out and out socialist carried a high rating. All of these weasels know how to make it look good. Especially Senators. They have 6 year terms and tack left until around election time. That effects their ratings. Ratings are for lazy people. I’ve been pouring over Santorum’s actual voting record. It’s horrible.
As for Romney, I’m no fan, but if anyone has been hysterical it’s been the “Anybody But Mitt” faction of the party. He’s not nearly as bad as he has been made out to be. Oh, he’s bad, but next to Santorum and Newt, he’s looking pretty damned good!!
ObamaCare will not be an election issue. The Supreme Curt will likely have ruled on it one way or another before then. If it’s ruled unconstitutional, then no worries. If they rule it IS constitutional, the America, as we know it, is finished anyway.
This election will be about the economy, national security, and energy.
I suggest YOU look up what a Statist is. Both Santorum and Newt fit that description. Both think GOVERNMENT, not the people, is the answer. Both think THEY, not the people, know what’s the best.
As far as Marxist, Newt is a Toffler Marxist. Obviously you know nothing of Newt’s 20 year association with his mentor Alvin Toffler, a Marxist who advocated the complete overhaul of our government, including the Constitution. Toffler’s idea was to create a Marxist utopia. Not only did Newt, when he was Speaker, recommend his fellow congresscritters read The Third Way, he actually wrote the foreword the follow up book that tells you HOW to overthrow the current government.
Men like Santorum and Newt are dangerous. The very fact they would LIKE to impose their will on the American people is enough to write them off.
Santorum is someone I would fight to my last breath to make sure he never gets a chance to go back to Washington, as an elected official of any sort. The more I find on this guy, the less I trust him. He is a BIG Spender, and a nanny stater. He’s simply unacceptable.
I used to be an “anybody but Romney” guy and of the others I, for a while, I used to be an “anybody but Romney guy” and previously supported Newt. But as I learn more about Newt the less I trust him. Your post about the Newt interview by Charlie Rose crystallized an uneasy feeling I had about him. As you have already alluded to: Newt makes a lot of careless remarks. This would kill him on the world stage. Remarks by world leaders are parsed to the Nth degree. Careless remarks are, by their nature, ambiguous and any ambiguity will be resolved by one’s enemies in their favor and to their advantage.
This is Newt’s Achilles Heel. And, now, in spite of my personal distaste for the man, my alternate choice was Santorum but, increasingly, his values and actions will not withstand scrutiny.
Crikey, what a mess this is.
Gary you’re so full ot it.
What in Santorum’s record suggest he’s going to legislate what goes on the bedroom? He gave his views on the subject but has repeatedly said that he will NOT seek to pass any laws that influence sexual practices. Again, you’re doing a major disservice to your readers by repeating Leftist talking points.
Check out this speech Santorum gave, particulary this part:
Santorum said…
At 14min. 58sec. – video 1 -
… “and you can’t force people to do things they don’t want to do, or are irresponsible.”
And, we shouldn’t have government there to force people to cover things and do things that cost everybody more just because there may be some irresponsible people who don’t do what the right thing is.
http://www.therightscoop.com/rick-santorum-on-michigans-off-the-record/
Also, the fact that he did support Title 10 for funding of contraceptives shows he’s NOT the extremist that you paint him out to be. I wish he hadn’t done that, as I disagree but for someone who’s supposedly going to “ban contraception” or “tell us not to have sex outside marriage” those are pretty open views. He’s not extremist at all in this regard.
When you hear Santorum speak, he’s not pretending to be someone he’s not like Romney. When Santorum articulates conservative positions he’s being real. He doesn’t flip flop and you always know where he stands.
Pretty amazing to which a Palin supporter start shilling for Mittens. Pathetic really.
And you’re doing alot more than vetting. You’re spreading leftist garbage with the “he’s against you having sex” nonsense. Sounds like something right out a Romney SuperPac.
When I hear people talk about what we, as a society should and should not “tolerate”, when talking about legal, wholesome, NORMAL activity, my ears perk up.
By the way, how in the hell is posting video of Santorum, IN HIS OWN WORDS “spreading leftist garbage”?
When you start to think someone someone posting the TRUTH backed up with the candidate’s own words, words that you can hear with your won ears, is some how “leftist garbage” Then it’s time for you to put the Koolaid down and back away, because you have become a full on cultist.
Why is this nut job even creating this conversation?
Santorum’s views are so far out of the mainstream they are unacceptable in a free society. This man actually says contraception doesn’t work, which we know is an absolute lie, and then says people shouldn’t use it.
He thinks sex should only be used for making babies, and you better be married if you are doing it. Now if he believes that, fine, but I don’t want anyone in a position of authority spewing that nonsense.
It’s not just sex, he’s got the same totalitarian attitude about other supposed vices as well.
I have a suggestion, if Santorum is all that worked up, maybe he should run for Pope.
Santorum is an extremist. He’s also an absolute threat to Liberty and Freedom.
If you haven’t read this from the Daily Caller, maybe you should.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/18/catholic-santorum-in-2008-protestantism-in-shambles-gone-from-the-world-of-christianity/
Now I sorta get where he’s coming from and the decay of society, but man he comes off like a raving lunatic.
It’s pretty easy to see communists and socialists as agents of the devil. Hell, Saul Alinsky dedicated “Rules for Radicals” to the devil:
Thing is, you can also see the planned decay in culture in this Soviet era document:
http://www.rense.com/general32/americ.htm
All I know is all kinds of this lunacy is going to come out, and while it might excite the fringe, it will have the rest running away as fast as humanly possible.
I consider myself a strong Conservative, and a Christian, and I find Santorum’s extremism repulsive.
If your a person of faith it is not EXTREME to believe having sex outside of marriage is wrong. That act does harm society with unwanted pregnancies, disease etc.. Political words like “moral police” are simply inflammatory. Moral core is a more appropriate term. Rick Santorum is correct on these issues. Who cares if a Catholic has ten children in the context of marriage.
Contrary to your attempted subversion of Santorums ideologgy on this particular issue, he’s in line with true hardcore conservatism, not the convenient style you embrace.
Santorum isn’t in line with anyone but the fringe elements of society. There is nothing mainstream or Conservative about these views.
Now if as person doesn’t want to use contraception, or has a house full of kids, and can afford it, I don’t care.
Problem is, this nimrod is preaching contraction doesn’t work, which is bullshit, and basically says we, as a society, shouldn’t TOLERATE sex between unwed couples, or even sex that isn’t for the purposes of procreation. That’s beyond extreme, it’s fascism. There’s a lot of things we shouldn’t tolerate, but what people do in their bedrooms is their own business. Government has NO place in the bedroom.
Santorum preaching contraception doesn’t work is far more harmful to society. Some poor kid is going to hear that nonsense, believe it, and end up pregnant. Then what? She has an abortion? Abortion is one of the most evil things there is. A little bit of common sense, and birth control, is the solution.
Conservatism is about Liberty and Freedom, people like Santorum are the enemy of both.
Sex isn’t cause of society’s ills. Lack of responsibility, looking to Big Government nanny staters for the answers is the problem.
As for “convenience” what are you talking about?
All I know is I don’t want anyone like Rick Santorum in power. His type of fascism we don’t need. It’s not just sex this whack-job wants to save us from, by forcing his morality on us all.
I’m a Conservative. Always have been. Always will be. This ain’t Conservative.
Again Gary,
Santorum IS NOT going to sign any legislation banning any kind of sex. Just because he believes in something for his own personal life doesn’t mean he’s going to impose it on America. He has said so repeatedly.
That’s NOT Facism.
What you’re doing is smearing a good man. Someone who is our best hope at this point.
I’m not even religious at all. Been to church once in my life, but I’m supporting Santorum b/c he IS a conservative. He’s not a RINO, another big gov’t corporatist like Romney. I don’t fear him imposing any views on sex onto society. It’s all left wing scare tactics.
You say you’ve been vetting Santorum? Where’s all the good things he’s done? Santorum spent 4 years in the house, 12 years in the Senate and got stuff done like getting Partial Birth Aborton banned, helped do some of the heavy lifting to get the welfare reform act passed, brought the balanced budget amendment to to a vote (if he had gotten one more vote it would have passed).
And no one better understands the threat of Iran than Santorum. He’d put in place a peace through strength foreign policy and restore Ameican Exceptionalsim.
How come you haven’t mentioned any of this? Surely you know about the good things he’s done as well right?
Finally, compare the proposals of Santorum and Romney.
Santorum wants to reduce the corporate tax to 17.5%, Romney will only reduce it to 25%. Santorum will cut it to 0% for manufacturing.
Santorum will institute tax rates of 28% and 10% while Romney had a broad and vage 59 point economic plan. Santorum has plans to cut $5T in 5 years. Romney’s plans have been rated as barerly better than Obama’s by the Wall Street Journal.
And you’re completely wrong about Obamacare not being a major issue. Regardless of the Supreme court ruling, Obama will not give up on his signature leglislation. Romney takes this issue off the table. His own ADVISORS WENT TO THE WHITE HOUSE to help implement Obamacare!! What more do you need to know about Mittens?? His defense is that it’s ok on state level. So socialism is ok as long as it’s on the state level??
Santorum always has been and always will be a conservative. Romney never has and never will be. Romney can’t get any major support in the primary despite his vast resources and his SuperPac ad smears. The base will not support him.
Santorum can and will mop the floor with Obama as real conservatives will be excited to support him no matter how blog posts you make smearing the guy.
Are you serious. Santorum would lose to Obama worse than Goldwater did to LBJ. It would be EPIC. And again, put the Koolaid down and explain to me how publishing Santorum’s OWN WORDS is somehow “smearing him” The truth is the truth, no matter how people wish it wasn’t.
Santorum can talk about 28 point plans till his teeth bleed, the only thing the media will cover is his insane beliefs 24/7.
Santorum will get the full Palin treatment, except no one will be able to defend him, because unlike Palin, the left won’t have to make a damned thing up. There hours and hours of Santorum in his own words!
Why do you think the democrats plan to cross over on super Tuesday in droves? Obama would think he died and had his 72 virgins waiting for him if the Santorum was the nominee! Obama could just phone it in!
One more thing….
You can’t lose focus of the biggest issue in Obamacare.
I really don’t think Mittens will repeal Obamacare:
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/17/romney-on-obamacare-in-2010-lets-repeal-the-bad-and-keep-the-good/
Mittens has never been a reformer, never challenged the status quo. I doubt he’ll fight make the reforms we desperately need. I don’t think he thinks things are all that bad, why do you think the Establishment backs him??
And there is no doubt in my mind that Santorum WOULD repeal Obamacare, do you agree with that Gary?
ObamaCare really ISN’T the biggest issue. It’s a BIG issue, but not the biggest.
By the time the election rolls around, the Supreme Court will have weighed in. If ObamaCare is declared unconstitutional, the entire subject is moot, because it’s over. Of course, it’s also all over if it’s upheld as good to go. America, as we know it will cease to exist, and no one will be able to repeal it.
Look, at this point I’m praying HARD for a brokered convention, or for the Mayans to have been right all along. NONE of these mutts are worth a damn. NONE. I think this is why Sarah Palin has been on the warpath for days. She’s just as frustrated as the rest of us.
Past that, the president can’t repeal a damned thing. Congress does that. I can’t feature any scenario where Willard would veto any bill repealing ObamaCare. None.
This is why we gotta start concentrating on House and Senate races. We gotta make sure we have a congress that can get things done. If Santorum is the nominee, we will be in peril of losing one of the best opportunities in a generation to make up big ground in the Senate and add to our numbers in the House. Rick’s extreme views will fire up the left like nothing you have ever seen!
As for not being a reformer, that’s simply not true. Now he’s no Sarah Palin [who is?] but he made some sensible reforms. I quite like how he reformed the way judges are nominated in Massachusetts. Romney took politics completely out of the process. I’ve written about it. Romney also took a pretty aggressive stance against illegal aliens. I wish Rick Perry, my governor, was as tough. Newt wants amnesty and Santorum is somewhere in between.
One thing people forget about Romney and RomneyCare, his state was going to get some form craptastic government run system. Remember, the elected officials are predominately hard left. Romney stopped some more dangerous elements of the bill, and would have done more, had his vetoes not been overridden by his legislature.
Mitt is no prize, but I think his biggest mistake was trying to be a conservative leaning squish, in one of the most socialist states in the country.
I tell you what Mitt has though, he has EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE, both as a private citizen, and in government. The only other person, who could realistically run and win, who has that qualification, is Sarah Palin.
I’m reading Santorum’s bio, and the man has never had a real job in his life. He was a lawyer for 4 years, part of that time he spent lobbying Congress on behalf of the World Wrestling Foundation. Since then he’s either been in Congress, or worked in Washington somehow benefiting from his years in Congress.
Santorum has never run a city, never run a state. Never created a job. Never turned a failing company around. Hell, even I have done that, on more than one occasion.
There’s nothing in Santorum’s resume that says he’s qualified to be president. That he has the skill set needed to govern. There’s a reason why, as a general rule, we don’t elect congresscritters. Governors have the right skill set to be president.
Look, I am not happy where we are. We don’t have a single Conservative running for president. Not a single one. But without divine intervention, it is what it is. Newt and Santorum are completely unacceptable, and Ron Paul is insane.
Like I said, I’m starting to hope the Mayans were right.
You’re hoping that the Mayans were right yet Santorum is the extremist??
Nice try making excuses for Romneycare. Yes, before it was implemented, MA had the highest health care costs in the nation. After it’s implementation, it still has the highest health care costs in the nation!! Instead of fighting for free market solutions like a conservative would, Romney implemented a gov’t run healthcare program that’s an absolute disaster. Tell me what conservative would’ve done something like this? And Mittens STILL defends it to this day!
Again, this issue will not be off the table. Even if the Supreme Court does the right thing and rules it unconstitutional, do you really thing Obama will give up? He’ll do everything he can to try to tweak it to get implemented. And if the Supreme Court does the unthinkable, then we need someone we know will repeal it. Maybe Mittens does sign a repeal bill that’s put on his desk, but I don’t see him fighting or pushing Congress to get it done. Plus, if this whole issue is a moot point as you claim, then why do you give Newt grief for supporting the mandate the past? Why the double standard?
Finally, Mittens nominated the most liberal judges in MA state history. Some record of reform there! MA was also 46th in job creation under him. The guy is an absolute joke. The only two people I’d ever vote Mittens over them are RuPaul and Maobama.
I was JOKING!
My best advice is for you is to take a step back and calm down. I’m not promoting Mittens, but I’m also not one going around acting hysterical about him. It’s almost comical, in 2008 Mitt was considered the most Conservative left standing, as everyone hated McCain. Now 4 years later, Mitt hasn’t changed, but somehow he has become the Great Satan™.
Sorry, but if ObamaCare is declared unconstitutional, it’s all over. Obama can fight all he wants, but as Congress has the power of the purse, good luck with that. Besides, Obama does NOT want that fight while he tries to get elected. He DOES love the insanity that Santorum is spewing though. It keeps people from talking about the economy, national security, or what a massive failure he’s been.
As for the mandates, I give Newt hell because he lies about it. Lies about his intentions. He acts like he’s been against it from the start, when in fact he’s been for it for at least 20 years, and as late as LAST MAY, was pushing it as hard as he possibly could. He’s also collected $37 million from Big Pharma and Big Insurance for his trouble. He wasn’t giving them history lessons!
What Mitt did is wrong, but he owns it. He doesn’t sit around lying about it. Newt is a con man who has far two many people fooled.
Santorum is a nut job, and as you can see by his record, not even a Conservative. Rick is just another life long government insider. He is not a man of principle.
I see that producing his record, and even his own campaign commercial, BRAGGING about raising the minimum wage, something you were hyperventilating about because Willard MIGHT do it, hasn’t helped you one bit. I don’t support Mitt, but like far too many, you’ve let your irrational hatred for the man cloud your judgment. People did the same thing with Newt, until he did what he always does, and let his alligator mouth overrule his hummingbird ass. He imploded.
Trust me, I’ve just touched the surface on Santorum. I thought Backstabbing Bachmann was crazy. Santorum even makes her look palpable.
Santorum is not fit to serve. Past that, the democrats would have a field day, and the independents won’t want anything to do with him.
We need a solid leader not someone like Santorum.
Executive experience is not the important thing. It’s ideology. Mittens is a big gov’t corporatist.
His record in MA flat out sucks. If if was so good he’d be running on it instead of smearing everyone else in the race.
Yes, executive experience matters. If you’ve never run a city or never run a state, you damned well better have a lifetime experience at running Fortune 500 countries.
Think about this. Santorum has never run a city, never run a state, never even run a hot dog stand.
You know who else that describes? Barack Obama. And we all know what a bang up job he’s doing.
Santorum has been a lawyer for four years and then entrenched himself in government for the duration. He is not qualified to be president. He doesn’t have the skill. There is absolutely nothing in his resume that suggests he has the ability to even do the job. Period.
As for Willard, I know his record well. I was talking about it long ago. It’s why I don’t bother to rehash it now. EVERYONE knows his record.
The problem is, few know Santorum’s, and it as every bit as troubling as Romney’s. It will just take time for it to sink in.
Face it, NONE of the candidates are any good and there isn’t an actual Conservative in the lot. None.
Thankfully, our democrat friends are going to “help” as many will cross over and vote for Santorum to keep this all going. I sorta hope he beats Mitt in Michigan, where the democrats are looking to help him big time. That will cause panic among The Establishment™, give Santorum a false sense of hope so he’ll say more stupid things, and make Newt even madder. With these three nimrods, you can BET they will all fight to the bitter end! That will make a brokered convention even more likely.
Gary
Your comment box needs work. I just about abandoned my previous comment because I could not go back and edit my copy. The comment box would not let me return to the end of my comment in order to continue.
A preview box would be a good thing.
I would hate to think that there are readers out there who are attempting to comment on your excellent posts but give up in frustration.
Must be a glitch of some sorts. Unfortunately with these WP sites I’m at the mercy of their techies. I’ll look into it though.Thanks for reporting this.
Gary, I wish I had time to read all that is published here, and it is an easy read. Please note form me. “… a housefull of kids”. I am among those that are a product of a housefull of kids. We all paid our own way.
Aside – Please say something about the support of the son of Saul Alinsky, Neo-Marxist Saul Alinsky (now deceased).
“True revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism, Alinsky taught. They cut their hair, put on suits and INFILTRATE THE SYSTEM FROM WITHIN. Alinsky viewed unions and political parties …” Quote from a paper by a young Hillary.
Leftist view: “… Hillary is simply following Alinsky’s counsel to do and say whatever it takes to gain power.”
Abortion, same sex marriage, clergy, educators, newspapers, et al.
Oh I have no problem with large families. I think they are the strongest. I was just trying to make a point about Santorum’s idiotic notion that birth control not only doesn’t work, but shouldn’t be used!
I wonder if the Republican primary candidates are playing into the hands of the Neo-Marxist strategies.
Enough veting. Now is the time to turn to where your energies, and time, need to be spent – your opponent is President Obama.
No, not really. I think all of these candidates must be vetted. You think the democrat operatives don’t already know all of this stuff? Santorum is a “celebrity” on Google. There’s a gold mine of juicy craziness there. Problem is two fold, the dems already know it, and his supporters refuse to face reality.
If Santorum, Paul, Willard, or Newt can’t hold up under our vetting, which is pretty mild, how long do you think they would last against Obama and the media?
Besides, these candidates are running against each other right now.
I know no one wants to hear this, but Romney has spent more time going after Obama than the rest. So there you go.
All I’d say is that there will be no candidate who is perfect for everyone (I personally didn’t see much wrong with what you put in your post, but it’s a matter of opinion). Numbers show that Santorum’s the most conservative candidate in the race. With all due respect, do you really think that Romney has a more conservative record than Santorum?
Bethany, there is no Conservative in the race. None. Not even a tiny little bit of one. There are three Big Government statists of varying degrees, and Ron Paul, who is a problem all to himself.
We’ve only just begun to vet Santorum. Not only are his social views far outside of normal, wholesome society, his record in Congress ain’t nothing to write home about.
I’ve been going through his record on major issues, verifying the votes before I publish. One you see it, you’ll realize he is at least as bad as Romney, if not worse. Frankly, listening to his old campaign videos and reading his quotes, he sounded EXACTLY like Mitt Romney while running for the Senate.
I don’t know why everyone is defending this guy. He’s a sexist, and an extremist, and Obama would win re-election without breaking a sweat if he was the nominee!
Let’s try this one more time:
By going off the deep end making it sound like Santorum is going to tell us when and how we can have sex you’re using leftist talking points. Sorry but that’s the truth. Yes you used Santorum’s own words. It was him describing HIS OWN PERSONAL views. Santorum has said repeatedly that he’s NOT going to push for any legislation on sex or contraception. The whole thing is a moot point. Who cares??? He’s not going to pass laws to tell anyone what to do. Yet, the Left wants to push this since they don’t want the election to be about Maobama. Why do you think there’s been so much discussion on contraception? Sadly, you’re falling into the same trap as the Left.
Again, I’m a Palin supporter. Its a shame she didn’t run. However, I realize that no candidate is perfect. The two worst are Mittens and RuPaul. Politicis is often about picking someone who’s not as bad as the other guy. That’s why I went from Cain to Bachmann to Santorum. I’ve seen you Gary, trash everyone one of those people. And by trash, I mean doing the same thing you did to Santorum. Take some leftist talking points and go overboard scrutinizing a relatively minor part of their record.
For Cain you kept saying how he lacked experience. Yes that’s true but the main point is that he brought up changing our broken and progressive tax code. Experience is not the most important thing, ideology is.
For Bachmann you kept talking about the lesbian nuns story. You sounded like Media Matters here. Nevermind that she had the best record of sticking to her principles of anyone in the race.
Now with Santorum you’re doing it again. I don’t know if Santorum can knock off the Establishment and Mittens, but I guarantee we have a better shot at beating Maobama with Santorum than Mittens. You’re afraid of how the Left is going to portray the nominee. The truth is they will try to smear and destory any of these candidates. If Mittens is the nominee, you don’t think they’ll use some of the more questionable parts of the Mormon religion to bash him? That they won’t paint Mittens as a detached rich, white, CEO who doesn’t care about the poor? What do you think Occupy Wall Street is about?
The point is the we need a leader who’s not afraid to articulate conservative values and to fight the Left head on. That person is Santorum. Look at how he so eloquently spoke up for income inequality and how we hopefully always have it. Just yesterday he criticized Maobama for being motivated by a different kind of theology, for using religion to push for socialism. When’s the last time Mittens has done this? The sad truth is that Mittens is a gutless wimp. He won’t even call Maobama a socialist, just says he’s in over his head.
And you can keep “vetting” Santorum all you want. The truth is his record is much better than Mittens. The grassroots and real conservatives have already realized that. You should take a page out of Palin’s book realize this as well. There’s a reason she’s spoken pretty fondly of both Santorum and Newt. Sarah realizes that we must defeat the Taxachussetts Moderate.
You are wasting your time. Santorum is a BIG GOVERNMENT Progressive, not as bad as Newt but worse than Romney.
You are one of those kind that can’t handle the TRUTH, especially about “your” candidate. That’s on you, and no one else.
I am a lot more concerned about the lies Santorum tells, and the fact people are too stupid to look at this guy’s record of big spending and Big Government.
The rest just goes to why he is unelectable. The man is NOT of the sort we need in office.
As for Bachmann, hell, the stories were true. There’s plenty of police records to prove it! I think Bachmann proved on the campaign trail that she was mentally unstable.
Here’s what I realize. Newt Gingrich is a corrupt insider who should be run from politics FOREVER. He’s a liar, a cheat, and a Big Government PROGRESSIVE. I also realize that Rick Santorum is a Big Government Progressive. The more you look into his record, the less you like it. He’s in the Union Thugs hip pockets, and loves to spend money on boondoggles. His insane rants about not using contraception and the evils of gambling, make him unelectable.
BTW, you seem to conveniently leave out the fact that Sarah has some nice stuff to say about Romney as well. You better be ready because if he is the nominee, she will support him fully.
I’m not a Romney guy, hell, I don’t want any of these slugs. If I had my way we’d start all over again with new candidates. That said, the insane hatred for Romney is making you overlook just how crappy Newt and Santorum are. Neither are electable and neither are fit for office.
You are wasting your time trying to convince anyone any different.
I do agree that we definitely got left with a lack of real conservatives this time around. I supported Perry and even in October I was really curious as to whether Palin would get in. When Perry dropped out, I saw Santorum as the most conservative candidate left. I’ll definitely be following and reading what else you post about Santorum’s record. I’ve vetted all of the candidates’ records, and while all of them have a few questionable things in them, I didn’t see the things in Santorum’s record that you did, I guess. I’ll have to check it out!
Thanks for replying!
I’ve been away for a few days, but will be posting Santorum’s voting record. It’s just what you’d expect from a northern progressive. NOT what you’d expect from a C0onservative.
I hope to God that you are wrong.
Stomp on Santorum, stomp on the Catholics, same thing. Maybe no one should have voted for Reagan because he was pro-life from a biblical standpoint. Disraceful anti-faith reporting.
It’s not “anti-faith” I voted for Reagan, BTW, and I am pro-life.
I’m am NOT pro-fascist though, and people like Santorum are not of the quality we want. Santorum is a Big Government Statist, and quite the hypocrite on many issues, including abortion.
Maybe instead of blindly following someone because they talk about God, you look into who and what they are.
Sorry, But I want a Conservative to be our next president, sadly, none are running.
In reply to those that rely on R. Regan. Originally he was a Democrat. Originally, when he married actresss Jane Whyman he was a practicing Catholic.
Yup. Reagan became a Republican in the early 60′s. As he said, he didn’t leave the party, the party left him.
This isn’t about being Catholic, it’s about being a loon. All of these antics by Santorum may gin up some, but it’s also a ploy to keep people from talking about Rick’s actual voting record which is horrific.
We need a leader who has actually run something, like a city or a state, and done it as a Conservative. Santorum fails on every level.
Reply to your comment … need someone who has run a city and/or state. Yes, and they all said no. Why?
You got me. Probably because their guy hasn’t got that experience that is so richly needed. It’s quite comical how blind allegiance to a candidate will effect one’s brain.
I think Santorum showed himself in last night’s debate.
RE: Last nights debate, Santorum showed himself. Mitt has been practicing for 7 years and is older, he should be making a good show.
But, I still like to read your comments. I should sign “Not the Troll”.
Huh? Age doesn’t make a difference in ability. Santorum got hammered in last night’s debate because he’s a liar and a hypocrite. He’s also a Big Government Establishment Republican. He’s not a Conservative. None of these candidates are.
The man is a commited Catholic and you have challenged his faith. Any book I ever read on Reagan (a Sunday School Teacher) stressed his deep abiding religious faith and how it shaped his views. He was not outspoken about it on tv or speeches as much because, in being smarter than Santorum is in this area, he knew people like yourself would constantly take him to task. You voted for Reagan who was pro-life because Reagans convictions, based in FAITH, made him pro-life. You just contradicted yourself. Catholic teaching is that sex outside of marriage is unacceptable. I get it though, you don’t like those Catholic teachings on sex. So it follows that you hold Santorums faith against him.
Yeah I challenge Santorum’s notions. I also challenge his stability. What Santorum preaches isn’t mainstream America.
Also, we don’t need this distraction. We should be talking about the economy, jobs, domestic energy production, and so on.
Of course, Santorum likely needs the distraction, as his actual record as a politician is abysmal.
As for the Catholic Church, people are free to worship as they wish. Something that Santorum and more than a few of his fans don’t seem to want. Santorum is one of those “my way or the highway” type of Statists. He’s openly attacked Protestants, blaming them for society’s ills.
If Santorum wants to be part of the clergy, then he should go for it. But we don’t need a hypocrite such as he lecturing us on anything.
The man isn’t qualified to be president, as his record shows. His rants are just pissing people off and making him even more unelectable.
Comparing Santorum to the great Ronald Reagan is like a sick joke. Reagan believed in individual Freedom and Liberty. A concept Santorum knows nothing about.
TO SAL.G. THANK GOD FOR YOUR REPLY TO GARY. EVERYTHIG YOU WROTE WAS WELL PUT AND I THINK YOU COVERED THE MOST IMPORTANT BASES. KEEP IT UP SAL. I THINK THAT GARY WILL EVENTUALLY SEE THE LIGHT. HE USED TO THINK I WAS A TAROLL. HI GARY.
Sorry, but Santorum is not someone I will ever support. He’s part of the problem, not the solution.
The comparison was with faith and how it shapes views. There was no other connection made. A very poor attempt at deflection indeed. What notions do you challenge? Santorums verbal beleifs in the Catholic faith? Yes. I don’t view your articles much but you seem to have a desire to advance conservatism.
I see claming up Santorums right to speak freely about his faith as a very liberal position. Had the faith been removed from Ronald Reagan, an empty shell of zero accomplishment would have remained. Faith is contained within the concept of liberty and freedom. Very foolish connections have been made on your part.
Now, taking up the issue of distraction is a better debating point. That is where you should make your case. Not on the faith itself. Santorum is far from the first one to make a mistake on a vote.
With all you elevation of Mr. Reagan, you should consider he was a Democrat for a good period and had alternate views. The “great Ronald Reagan” was a man, not born in 1980. Take off the idolizing blinders and see that Santorum is a good man with flaws as Reagan was flawed in his early days, for years I might add.
Catholics are not free to worship as they want. This is made evident by your ranting againts it’s age old doctrines aspoused by a candidate you don’t prefer. Outside of Ron Paul, Santorums record is better than the two others. But, vote for Ron Paul if you like blaming America for 911.
Some people don’t like outspoken Catholics and you appear to be one.
You make a lot of assumptions. All incorrect.
I have strong faith myself, but I don’t go around trying trying to shove it down other people’s throat.
I love how all of you fringe people assume that anyone who doesn’t bow before Santorum MUST be a Ron Paul supporter. For the record, I think Herr Doktor Paul is a phony and a fraud. He’s also a loon.
I actually gave Santorum some benefit of the doubt for quite some time. But I always knew he would rather be the bedroom police rather than president. We don’t need that kind of nonsense.
Reagan’s faith is indeed what sustained him, made him a great leader. Same can be said of Sarah Palin. Faith sustains us all.
That said, great leaders lead, they don’t preach.
Santorum is no leader, and his record as a Senator is troubling, at best. The guy is a big spending, Big Government Statist. He has a totalitarian view on issues that are none of his business.
He’s also a huge hypocrite.
He’s not fit to serve.
Where’s my reply from yesterday or are you too much of a coward to post it??
No, just tired of your rant. You keep saying the same stuff over and over. If it’s boring me, I know it’s boring our readers.
Calling Catholicism fringe is an extreme position to say the least. Aspousing faith on moral issues does not equal “bedroom police.” The left has been using that term for years. The pro-life position stems from faith (in the scriptures). I’m pro life. The left always tells us we are ramming our faith down their throats. Your admitedly pro-life with your strong faith. Why are so you so outspoken about that position? And why do you attempt to sway others based on that faith driven position?
Your doing exactly what Rick Santorum does.
Great leaders don’t preach? That is an awful statement. Tell that philosophy of yours to the family of Dr. King. Or, you may tell it directly to George W. Bush who was accused of having a “messiah complex” by the left because he invoked his faith so much. It may have hurt Bush politically for doing so, but he stood fast. Rarely if ever have I seen such a shocking level of incompetence in the area of faith by a professed conservative. Appauling.
Great leaders LEAD. Period.
Dr King LED. Did he give many profound speeches? Of course, but he also got out and LED.
Santorum preaches, but can’t even live the life he preaches everyone else should. Santorum is no leader. He’s also not qualified to be president.
Oh, and there’s a difference between standing strong in your faith, and using the campaign stump as if it was a church pulpit. Especially when the one doing it is as big of a hypocrite as Santorum.
Santorum is a BIG GOVERNMENT progressive. His voting record is horrific. He’s only pretending to be Conservative NOW because he’s running for office. He’s no different than the rest of the Establishment Republicans™.
Santorum has never had a real job in his life. He spent 4 years as a lawyer, then went right into politics, where he has squatted since. Just like Newt Gingrich, ever since Santorum has been out of office, he’s been using his access as a former member of congress to make money. Like Newt, he’s basically a lobbyist. In other words, part of the problem.
I don’t care how much lipstick you put on that pig, it’s still a pig.
Santorum and Gingrich are both the sort of sleazy politicians that should be run out of politics forever.
If Rick wants to preach, maybe he should get him one of those TV shows for that. America needs a solid leader who can get something done. Someone who can inspire the nation. Santorum can’t do either.
Dr. King LED with speeches overflowing with faith and you must know that. You are misinformed about Santorum’s work experience. As often as you site research as key you are most definitely lacking in this area. Leave your faith at the door when you enter a job? No, that is the leftist view.
You want our secular society to line up with the presidency. Keep it all “mainstream” as to not offend the anyone (including you it seems). Abe Lincoln would have been sickened by such writings. I like Sarah Palin, but if she was a leader in these perilous times, she’d lead, and not as a pundit or a king maker, but as a candidate. It seems you will eventually pull the lever for Romney (or no one) so that the Republicans can have a moderate leaning nominee just like McCain. All the best, and thanks for your feedback. Sal.
Sal, my problem with Santorum has a lot more than his totalitarian religious views. His record as a Senator is horrible. He’s a big spending Big Government progressive. [something he has called himself before] He’s also in Big Labor’s back pocket. He once voted AGAINST a national right to work law.
Plus Santorum has made many, many statements over the years that show he is no friend to Liberty and Freedom.
Here is what Santorum told NPR about the role of government in 2006:
“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 … [that] government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. … Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone.”
Actually traditional Conservatives DO value individual Liberty and Freedom. A whole lot more than Santorum does.
People forget that a Statist is a Statist, no matter what party they come from. Same goes for progressives. In fact, one of the first progressive presidents, Teddy Roosevelt, was a Republican.
Past that, Santorum as the nominee would insure a landslide loss. I’m not the only one turned off by his insane rants. There’s a reason why the democrats are begging people in Michigan to cross over and vote for him. Obama would win in a walkover against Rick.
Hello, Gary,
New to your site. Just wanted to say a quick “you’re absolutely CORRECT, sir!”
I wish every thinking conservative would read you, and this article in partc. I used to a Dem, but have reverted to my background & how & I was raised (rural, and we have a much better grasp on reality than any lib/prog.). However, while leaning strong right, I’m still one of those Indies; I simply cannot commit to being a Repub. Y’all don’t WANT me b/c I don’t support every single, solitary plank of the party. Time for Repubs to stop the “purity” tests, and expand the tent. Get behind the most electable, & that’s Romney.
Neither I nor my husband (who IS Repub. btw) will ever vote for someone like Santorum b/c he IS an extremist (and a scary liar).
It’s ironic that it’s a Repub. who, if nominated, will be the kind of cand. that excites fears of how a Catholic pres. would govern. Like a Dem – JFK, showed he would NOT (and didn’t).
And no, I don’t have a prob. with just about ANY religion a cand. professes. But this election is SO important, we must overthrow Obama & his minions. To that end, you’re also right we must start focusing a lot of time/energy/$$ to senator & rep. races. That ensures no matter WHO is pres. they will be kept in check (I hope!). It’s about political ideology, NOT who’s the most socially conservative. Santorum IS a statist. I want no more of EITHER stripe telling me what I can/must do “for my own good”!
Thanks.
Santorum is simply wrong on every level. Besides his overbearing social stance, he’s NOT a Conservative on fiscal matters, where we need one the most!
Santorum is merely the latest “not Mitt Romney” candidate, and nothing more.
The sad fact is, we don’t have a real Conservative in this race [yet]None of our candidates are ideal. None are talking about Liberty and Freedom the way they should be.
Obama is so bad he must be defeated, and we aren’t going to do it with Rick Santorum.
I have seen others question if posts are removed as one did recently. I write you only as I have noticed my recent contribution has not been displayed. Is this a regular practice? It does appear so. I belong to many on line reader response groups and have not seen posts removed due to disagreement. Nor have I seen them not posted because the writers points are so clear that they are disregarded due to embarrassment or the inability to respond. Most often vulgar comments would be the only exclusion, and even those are posted.
My aforementioned words appear to be the case. Very revealing. I fear this shall not be printed but it may serve as an awakening of the conscience. Conduct a forum that respects all views, no matter the rant. The tact seems to be, if you, the article writer, can’t have the last “important” word, toss someone elses view out entirely. A most incompatible approach to a supposed exchange of ideas. “Boring the readers” is your assumption.
Change your post rules to include “we have the right to remove your pots if we just don’t agree with them or have trouble answering them factually.” “Vulgarity is something we just put here to make it look good.”
No, I’ve been away for a few days and just now catching up on moderating comments.
Gary, I’ve watched Rick in action up close for his entire career and you (and the media for that matter) are way off base. He’s definitely not the image of what you’re painting here. That said, I also don’t think he’s presidential material at this point in his career. Maybe someday, but not now. All of these debates are only proving Sarah should’ve been the one. I fear all we’re doing is weakening weakening these already weak candidates and handing it over to Obama. *shudder*
I’ve watched him too. Frankly I was giving him the benefit of the doubt on social issues, as I always thought he would rather be Pope than president, but I was right all along. He’s simply too far out for my tastes.
And don’t get me started on his Senate record. Big Government all the way.
He’s probably a nice man, and I know he’s a good father. That doesn’t make me want to support him though.
I sure agree with you about Sarah, but I also agree with her. Just like in racing, or any other sport, competition only makes one better. These candidates needed the workout because they are so weak.
This long drawn out fight is also ensuring there will be no “October surprise” waiting for whoever our nominee is. That’s one of the reason’s Sarah weighed in and did what she could to make the campaign go longer, rather than just see voters coronate Mitt Romney.
I wish we could have a do-over. Or a brokered convention.
I think Sarah palin disappointed alot of people who were expecting her to run. it seemed like the best time for her and folks were let down. If someone like romney goes against Obama trheres not enough of a differance. Ronald Reagan always said run the most consrvetive person and right now theres none. Santorem is not perfect but he is so far from Obamas stances that i think it just seems right. Romneyis like MCain in a alot of ways. Seems like a losing candidate.
Santorum is a corrupt Big Government Statist. Period.
You know Rick was the bag man for the corrupt “K-Street Project” don’t you?
It amazes me how so many voters absolutely REFUSE to do even the most basic of research into these candidates.
All of these candidates suck, but taking a page out of Reagan’s book, more or less, Romney sucks the least, and doesn’t have the baggage that either Santorum of Gingrich have.
I know Sarah Palin disappointed a lot of people, including myself, but there were factors at work that precluded the run. She did what was best.
That said, if these losers keep going the way they are, we may see something happen. If it does, don’t be surprised to see Sarah play a significant part in it.