Quote of the Day - Rick Santorum Edition Part 2

"The bottom line is that we do well among people who take their faith seriously, and as you know, just like some Protestants are not churchgoing, they are folks who identify with a particular religion but don’t necessarily practice that from the standpoint of going to church and the like.” 

Presidential Candidate Rick Santorum.

Oh, my.  I really hope that there is more context to this statement, because if there is not he is essentially saying that if you don't support him you are a bad Christian. Sorry, Rick, but you don't get tell me or anyone else for that matter who is and who is not a bad Christian.

Maybe, just maybe, it is this attitude that people aren't supporting.

Romney Wins Big in Illinois - Let the VP Stakes Begin

First, I take no pleasure whatsoever saying this.  Romney will be the GOP nominee.  Santorum has run out of field.  There are not enough truly conservative states left to get him to the nomination.  Of course he will keep going in the hopes of a contested convention, but in their hearts of hearts they know it is not in the cards.  

Therefore, it is time.  VP Stakes:

There are plenty to choose from.  

Herman Cain: I don't see it.  The issues that came up about the affair would scare off any candidate in my mind.  Why deal with that distraction when you don't have to?  I give this almost no chance.  

Paul Ryan: A great choice, but very young.  He also has very young children who he doesn't want to put into the spotlight at their tender ages.  Which just makes me love him all the more.  Also, very remote chance of this happening.  

Chris Christie:  This is a non-starter as far as I am concerned.  I like many things about Christie, but he adds nothing to the ticket.  He won't bring NJ over to the GOP.  He is just as moderate as Romney is in most respects.  So I give this almost no chance.

Michele Bachman: She will excite the base, but let's be honest; she is a loose cannon.  Romney won't take the chance of her blowing his last chance at being president.  

Marco Rubio: He is dynamic and from a swing state.  He had a great deal of tea party support.  Notice I said had.  There are many in the Tea Party who have lost confidence in him.  He has some issues with a brother-in-law who has had some drug dealing issues.  Of course that has nothing to do with him, he didn't marry the guy, but the media will have some fun with that.  He also has said that he has zero intention of taking it even if offered.  Of course much easier to say no to a reporter than to the nominee.  He is also young.  He may feel he isn't ready yet.   I would give this a 50/50 chance.  

Allen West: West has been favorable towards Newt, although he never came out and endorsed him.  West has the entire package that the conservative base is looking for.  He will make an excellent attack dog on the stump.  He will pull no punches with Obama, which will allow Romney to stay above the fray and concentrate on comparing and contrasting policies with the Obama administration.  West had some issues in Iraq that will come up again.  He sometimes doesn't always filter what he is saying.  He also just moved in order to run for congress again.  I would give this maybe a 40% chance.  

Sarah Palin: Heaven knows she has been vetted.  But she is also very polarizing.  I also don't think she would accept.  Why be the small dog again when she had the chance to run for the big seat and decided to bow out?  I give this less than a 20% chance.

Rand Paul: I like Rand.  A lot as a matter of fact.  He also is another that will take on Obama without fear.  His down side is that it will add fuel to the fire to the people who accused Romney and Ron Paul of working together and Rand getting the VP seat as the payoff.  It will alienate the people who believe this.  But, it may bring in Ron Paul fans.  Not likely, but some may be willing to vote for him.  I would say this is about a 30% chance.  

I don't see him taking any of the candidates he went up against.  The blood between Newt and him is way to bad for it to be repaired.  It looks like it is starting to get that way with Rick now as well.  I would give this the least likely of the scenarios.  

My pick is Gov. Bob McDonnell of Virginia.  He is currently the head of the RGA.  Has a rising profile nationally.  He has spoken at the Reagan library recently and was received well.  His administration has been very successful.  He has increased revenues without raising taxes, VA's ratings has increased under his administration, he has kept most of his promises when he was elected, (one more year to fulfill the balance).  He is also a very good campaigner.  He is a staunch conservative, which Romney needs to excite the base.  Virginia is a swing state, and right now is trending to Obama by 8 points with Romney as the nominee.  (Which Romney was the best of the remaining candidates).  

Your predictions?  

Limited Government?

Not so much.

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.  

Rick Santorum on Fox News Sunday

Santorum talks about his recent endorsement of the Evangelic groups.  After this listening to this interview I am more convinced then ever he is a big government conservative.  It is a mute point for me as I have only two choices on my primary ballot (Paul and Romney) but there is no way I could vote for this man.

He talks about states rights then immediately turns around and says that he would push for a national right to work law.  That is a state issue that the federal government has no right to be involved in.  Truly stunning.

SNL Rick Santorum Skit

As always they go too far, but for the most part it is pretty funny.  Enjoy it for what it is, satire.

Rick Santorum's Speech in Iowa

Congrats to Senator Santorum.  He pulled out a real surprise in Iowa.  He came up a little short, but no one can take away his victory here.  I had said about a month ago he would do better than the polls were showing. He is a social conservative, the main base of GOP voters in Iowa.  He has moved himself into a position for the VP slot.  If Romney is indeed the nominee (which is looking more and more likely) he will need a conservative to balance out the ticket if he has any shot of getting the base out for him.

Fox News Google GOP 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.

The Tea Party/CNN Debate

Winners:







Newt hands down won the debate to me. He was articulate and had some great zingers too.






‘President Obama Scares Them Every Single Day’






Michele Bachmann's performance was much improved over last week. She also didn't look like she had bed head, so that was a help too. I personally think she went too far with the Gardasil attack. I think many in the country don't necessarily object to the drug, but do object to the mandatory nature of shot. Personally, my biggest objection is that he did by executive order. That doesn't sit well with me.






Rick Santorum is very good debater. He still has no shot at the nomination, but he would make a solid VP pick, especially if the worst possible scenario of Huntsman getting the nomination comes to pass.






Huntsman should be hanging his head in absolute shame when asked about how women are treated under the Taliban basically he said, it sucks to be you, now go away. Disgraceful.






As usual Romney avoided all the tough questions and did no damage. He didn't win, but he didn't lose.






Herman Cain had some very good moments. But, a Tea Party audience is tailored made for him. I dont' think it will bring him up to the next tier of candidates, but it will help with his fundraising I am sure.






Ron Paul, was well, Ron Paul. If you agree with him, you think he did great. If you are not inclined to agree with him he looked like a fool.






The biggest loser was Rick Perry. He had a hard time defending himself against the attacks that came from all angles tonight. He did especially bad on the Gardasil issue. He said he was offended that Bachmann thought he could be bought off for $5,000. It almost sounded like he could be bought off for a higher amount. (not saying that is true, but it sounded a tad like that, to me anyway). I personally agree with him on the fence issue. It would be outrageously expensive and wouldn't be all that effective. They would just dig under it, the drug tunnels are testament to that. But he will have some problems on immigration. He is perceived as weak on that issue. I met someone recently who grew up in Texas in a small town. Due to where she lived and the land her parents have she told me that like it or not, the right needs to accept a worker's visa. They are necessary. She said that people who don't live it, have a different view of the immigration problem than the governor of a border state will. She is a conservative who doesn't want to see amnesty, but has a perspective that I certainly don't understand living in the mid atlantic and in an urban setting.






Did Perry lose badly enough to lose the nomination? No. But he needs to improve if he wants to keep his frontrunner status.

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 down side 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 a 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? 

Iowa Faith & Freedom Forum

Tonight Iowa held it's Faith & Freedom Forum.  It is kind of a kick off to the presidential season.  Rick Santorum gave a very good speech.  He certainly wouldn't be my first choice for president, but I could vote for him if he gets the nomination much easier than many others.

Where's the Love for the SAHM?

There is all this blow up due to a Politco story about Rick Santorum and Sarah Palin.  Politico wrote the story in the guise that Santorum was taking a swipe at Palin and Politico said he "inferred" that she was making speeches for money.  There are rumors that she turned down the keynote speaking slot on Saturday night due to the money not being there.  Only the people involved in the negotiations know what the truth is.  But, it is well-known that she and the leader of CPAC don't get along.

His comments in part:

“I have a feeling that she has some demands on her time, and a lot of them have financial benefit attached to them,”

“I don’t live in Alaska and I’m not the mother to all these kids and I don’t have other responsibilities that she has,”

Regardless of what you think of Santorum and his voting record, the one thing that you cannot question is his social conservative cred.  He is staunchly socially conservative.  He and his wife have had eight children, one of which that passed away at birth.  His children range in age from 19 to 2.  His youngest child is special needs and was not expected to survive.  While she has many issues, she was a very happy addition to his family.  Since leaving congress he has been working as an attorney and his wife is a stay at home mom. 

Palin was interviewed yesterday by Sean Hannity and was asked about the Politico story.  Her response:

“I think the reports were much worse than what he really said. I think some things were really taken out of context. So I will not call him the knuckle dragging neanderthal that perhaps others would want to call him. I’ll let his wife call him that instead.”

She then went on to say that her children have never stopped her from doing anything. 

Santorum, as a special needs parent, has a unique perspective on the demands of the parents of a special needs child. Again, he is a social conservative and very strict Catholic.  Is it really so crazy that he views motherhood and care giving as the most important role that a woman plays in her life?  I don't think that it is.  Palin has three children at home.  Two of which are very young and one is special needs.  The demands of that are real.  It isn't something that he is making up or just throwing out there for no reason.   

For those who have not spent a great deal of time around a special needs child you may not be aware of those demands.  Change is not something that these kids handle well.  They depend on scheduling.  I once read a book written by the wife of a famous athlete and a line in that book has always struck me.  I may be paraphrasing here, but basically she said that they don't learn to live in your world, you learn to live in theirs.  It is something that has stuck with him ever since.  To give an example of what I am talking about, I know a mom who has masking tape on both her kitchen and dining room table.  The tape is labeled for where the plate, glass, fork go.  If they are not in the exact place that they are expected to be in, the child won't eat, he also won't eat if his food touches on the plate.  Special needs kids have a difficult time with time zone changes, they are not always good with strangers and are not comfortable with new situations.  They find going outside of their comfort zone difficult to handle.  Of course every child is different, but these are generalities that are pretty standard with special needs kids. 

Families of special needs kids have a much more difficult time travelling and simple things like going out to dinner can sometimes be a brutal experience.  I am in no way diminishing the gifts that these kids bring into the lives of their families, but it is a different experience than raising children without disabilities.  The point that Sarah was trying to make is that just because she is a mom doesn't mean she can't accomplish other things.  Which is a true statement. 

I came across an article written back in November.  Apparently this isn't the first time that Palin has used the word Neanderthal when commenting on what women can do.  She made this statement shortly after the 08 campaign came to an end. 

There are still the Neanderthals out there who pick on the petty, little, superficial, meaningless things – like looks, like whether you can or can’t work outside of the home if you have small children – all those type of things where I would so hope that at some point those Neanderthals will evolve into something a bit more with it, a bit more modern, and a bit more understanding that, yeah, women can accomplish much.

No one is saying that every working mother is a bad mother.  But, it wasn't all that long ago that being a SAHM was looked down upon by the "liberal elite".  I do believe that has tampered down some, but many far left woman look at almost everything in their life through the prism of being a woman and are constantly talking about fairness and get very upset when woman were not promoted.  I just recently read some comments on how the left is more than a little upset that Obama's administration doesn't have enough women, and were especially upset by the new press secretary not being female.  I personally don't view the world in this manner.  I want the most qualified person to be hired for a job.  If that person happens to be a white man or a Latino woman than so be it.  I am not believer in quotas and I certainly don't think that Obama is anti-woman simply based on the fact that his latest hire happened to be a man. 

I may be wrong, but I think that most conservatives views are similar to mine.  But, if that is so who are those statements being made to?  Political people have a tendency to talk in sound bites and usually are very careful to craft their conversation and talking points trying to reach out to certain segments of the voting public.  Palin is a politician.  She may be different than many politicians, but she is still a politician.  Because if she is trying to reach out to the people who think that woman can have it all, I think that may be a losing strategy.  Especially if it can be construed as insulting the very people who are her base supporters. 

I remember when the election was in full swing and Palin was being accused of being a bad mother simply based on the fact that Bristol was pregnant out of wedlock at the time.  I would ask the people that said that around me if their mother was responsible for every mistake that they made?  One of the people who said that actually is a single mother.  Her justification was that her mother wasn't espousing conservative values on a national stage.  I felt like saying if she had espoused them in her home she obviously didn't listen to them, but I didn't want to be rude.  But, my point is these woman aren't going to listen to this message anyway. 

It isn't that I don't believe that women can do many things, because I do.  But, what I do question is can women have it all?  I find this to be a lie that has been passed down to young women.  While we can do many things across the entirety of our lifetimes, but can we have it all at the same time?  I think that as women we have to stretch it over longer periods of time than men do.  Is that necessarily fair?  No.  But, I have found that to be true.  Some women have no choice but to go out and work, they can't survive without the additional income.  Others choose to put off having children to get their career on track and have a hard time letting go of the career track in order to raise their children.  Then we have the families that put things over the benefits of having a mom at home.  The Wii, the ipad and the larger home become more important than staying home with little Jimmy.   Gov. Palin, I don't think it is a bad thing that you would be stopped from doing different things because of issues with your children.  I actually would respect it. 

Cross posted at Pot Luck
 

Santorum V. Sharpton on Abortion in the Black Community

First, Al Sharpton never addresses the question of abortion. Second, he completely dismissed the meaning of what Rick Santorum was saying.

Rick Santorum was saying that it wasn't until the 14th amendment that U.S. recognized blacks as fully human. Once that amendment passed they were then considered "persons" under the constitution. The court case that legalized abortion in this country said that a fetus was not a person, not that it wasn't human. Science says that a baby is human life upon conception; that is not in dispute, nor was it the basis of Roe V. Wade. 

Some of the arguments to keep abortion legal in this country use the 14th amendment as the constitutionality of it; pregnancy is the same thing as slavery, therefore forcing a woman to go through with a pregnancy she is being held captive by the fetus. So, it isn't that the baby is not considered human life; it is that it isn't considered a person under the law. There is a distinction that Sharpton completely overlooks.


I also love how he completely glosses over Margaret Sanger's role in Planned Parenthood and what her intentions for the black community really was. This from the same man who called Glenn Beck a race baiter and hater because he held a rally to restore honor and faith in our country on the anniversary of MLK's I Have a Dream Speech. He doesn't even seem to understand the hypocrisy.

Al Sharpton is a man who is a Reverend and a civil rights activist and the question he was being asked is why as a black man was he ok for a fetus to be treated as not a person the same way slaves were at the time of the founding of this country, one that he would not or could not answer.  He also has sat back and allowed people to call Senator Santorum a racist when it is Santorum who is trying to stop the destruction of the black family that abortion has tried to do.  Rev. Al, you should be ashamed of yourself. 

Go and take a gander at the comments written under this video on you tube; Santorum is the racist and Sharpton is the man who is trying to help the black community.  How did their thinking get so backwards?