Posted on 02/09/2012 8:03:54 PM PST by true believer forever
Thank you. I too am interested in what Santorum said.
First off, I’m a she and not a he, I don’t know why everybody around here always assumes I am a guy..
I don’t want women in the military in ANY frontline combat positions, so I guess that means I called my ownself an idiot...
My point was, why even talk about it at all... it is not any kind of pending policy, or change, it is just some sort of weird pandering he does... and my point was, everyday people, including lots of republicans, will consider him a neanderthal for saying these kinds of things... I consider him a neanderthal, but for different reasons. Okay, “guys”?
Found at Politico
Rick Santorum: Sarah Palin skips CPAC for C-notes
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49124.html
See #63
Actually, that wasn’t so much a defence of the attacks, as a complaint about one of Newt’s tactics. You can actually oppose something Newt did, you know, like maybe having robocalss saying that his opponent forced Holocaust survivors to eat non-Kosher food, when nothing of the kind ever happened?
I know you don’t have a problem saying bad things about other candidates.
Presidential? Not gonna happen.
He’s right. Men protect their mothers, sisters, wives, daughters. There would be more emotion in the mix with women in the trenches.
Some men want to wear skirts and pantyhose and sell cosmetics. Some women want to be on the front lines in war. You can’t always get what you want.
Tonight on the news they showed women in combat training.. Running with rifles with bayonets..Most could barely poke a decent hole in the cardboard or whatever was mounted in the hanging tires...
My thought was, if most of these women are ever in a close combat situation, they are so dead or captured..
I took such great offense of Santorum talking about his mentor that way, also:”running around taking credit for things the congress did, like a CEO trying to say he built the cars in a car company” - that’s very close to an exact quote (I have one of those memories). I have had many mentors in my life, still do, and next to my parents, I respect them greatly.
If you have time, all three links below, are worth your while.. for someone like me, who doesn’t know anything about 1994 or all those landmark years, I never could understand why people kept saying Newt was “erratic” and I was always looking for some explanations or clarity...
These links are quotes from Lindsey Graham, and really quite compelling... and make a whole section of the puzzle make sense to me... It has really changed a lot of minds of people I know, who really like Newt, but keep hearing all these words, phrases and garbage repeated. These are what I used to finally close the deal with them... I guess everybody takes different things to feel satisfied.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/02/lindsey-graham-gingrich-coup_n_1249641.html
excerpt:
What I’m saying about Newt, why did we lose confidence in him? Because he was changing the game plan. The last group to talk to him sort of won the day. But I can’t imagine his job. The first time Republicans had the congress in 40 years, trying to lead a revolution, taking people like me that came here to burn the place down and govern the country and deal with Bill Clinton — a good politician.
Looking back, I appreciate how hard his job was better than I did in 1997. And I’m here to say, as the guy who was in the coup, that looking back we were too hard on him and if he got to be the nominee I think he could win.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is6Ovf2NBk4 - the actual interview on GretaWire
Graham really hits Sanctimonium here:
“Being a backbencher throwing bombs because you’re not pure is a lot of fun, but governing the country is a lot harder,” he said.
The South Carolina Republican said he believes the country now needs someone like Gingrich to “embrace big ideas and take political risks”
“The one thing about Newt that is compelling is that I don’t think he looks at politics in terms of the next election cycle. He looks at politics as a generational issue,” said Graham.
True believer forever is highly anti Santorum. His kind of energy could power a Prius all weekend.
I find that when people want to really try to influence, rather than simply stir up trouble, they don’t usually use childish name-calling like “sanctimonium”.
Santorum said he was “the “go-to guy” when it came to getting things done during his time as U.S. senator from Pennsylvania” not in the coup to remove Gingrich. If you have a link to his saying that I would like to see it.
If you are actually trying to convince people here you are right, I think you don’t know your audience very well, or you wouldn’t be using Lindsay Graham as your character witness.
Actually, the term “go-to-guy” is accurate, and it was in the Senate, but not the coup. But doncha know? Sanctimonium was the person everybody went to, to get things done... he was the reliable, stable, nonerratic, nongrandiose one... and still is. Except for when he’s telling his followers, “God called me to run.”
IMO Gingrich and Santorum are the only two candidates running for president that are acceptable and I don't really have much preference for one over the other. I just hope it's one of them. For that reason I have no interest in tearing either one down.
Then it wasn't accurate because that is not what the poster said. You like to try to twist things any way that suits your agenda don't you? Dishonest.
Oh my gosh, Satin Doll, you have just opened up a new little goldmine... thank you for finding this...
“Santorum — the father of seven children — also said that Palin has “other responsibilities,” such as raising her children, that he doesn’t.
“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,” he said.”
So, I guess Sanctimonium is saying his approach to marriage and parenthood, is to basically let the woman do all that women’s work... while he’s out with the posse doing important man’s work in DC... what a jerk!
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49124.html#ixzz1lxPKXBik
WOW! I guess Senator Graham has had a wake-up call in South Carolina, hasn’t he?
The establishment is scared to death of Gingrich, because he has said he will change Washington, D.C. He tried before, and he wants to try again, but this time the stakes are far higher - our nation’s very survival.
For forty years the Democrats held power. The Republicans occasionally were thrown a bone, given cover and some pork to keep their constituents quiet. Meanwhile the congress was enriching themselves at the expense of the nation. The centralized government kept growing and growing...then Reagan was elected President and things began to change.
As Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich managed to put together the 1998 budget. It was scheduled for a $1 Billion cut and congress saw the gravy train leaving the station. No more getting rich at the public’s expense.
So it became “get rid of Newt Gingrich”, a coup Rick Santorum participated in. This grew even to the extent of manufacturing lies about Gingrich. Those phony ethics charges that were ALL dropped, but the media continues to smear him year after year after year.
And now, older and wiser, he is back. And the corrupt in Washington, D.C., are AGAIN trying to save the status quo. The question is, what are WE going to do?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.