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 education 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 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 that 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.  You can disagree, but that is my view.  But back to the amnio.  There 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 I 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.  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 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.