Posted on 02/10/2012 7:23:34 PM PST by writer33
I am amazed at how, every four years, many otherwise sane human beings want to become president of the United States. Harry Truman, our 33rd president, is reputed as having said: "If you want a friend in Washington, buy a dog."
Usually, a president is inaugurated with great pomp and jubilant celebrations followed by a brief "honeymoon" period. After the honeymoon ends, however, he pleases practically no one and disappoints nearly everyone. Why anyone would wish that upon himself or herself is beyond me.
Minus a few exceptions, Ronald Reagan being one who comes to mind, the men who have occupied the Oval Office have aged at a far faster rate than their peers in Congress or the Supreme Court.
With that understood, I gleefully celebrated Rick Santorum's three-state win. Finally, a real Republican conservative - someone who understands and loves the Constitution -has taken Mitt Romney to the woodshed. Hopefully, it will happen many more times.
(Excerpt) Read more at ibtimes.com ...
I am not well informed about a woman’s ability in combat, but have always felt it should be limited. Santorums delivery was the issue to me. He is going to have to be far more agile than standing there like a deer caught in the headlights, groping for words and decides the best approach is to attack a womans emotional state in combat. Not a good day for Mr. Rogers in his neighborhood.
That's what liberals say about all conservatives. He is a intelligent man with common sense, which is something liberals lack, among other things. Newt is smart, but lacked common sense in his decisions.
Some one needs to find the video Rush played on his old TV show, showing the women in bunkers trying to put a ladder up. There are probably some women that can carry a 200 pound person to safety, but those two were not among them.
It is a shame that we are trying to make a unisex world in a place occupied by hetrosexual humans. If you want a clue how that turns out take a little trip down market street on gay pride day in San Franisco.
Valerie Jarrett saw Starship Troopers on HBO and thought having Women in Combat was a really progressive idea.
She really liked the coed shower scenes. (hubba hubba)
Santorum’s a failed lawyer and with no business experience. He’d be nothing without his political career. Oh wait, he lost that.
The statement was right on (not fully on the Rick bus yet, but that's a different topic). You cannot remove the natural instincts from men and having women in combat will cause many men to start to focus on protecting them. I believ there are also in-bred instincts that say women should not be in harm's way - If you have a few men and a lot of women, you can repopulate with a vengeance. if you have a few women and a lot of men, the species is in danger of failing.
You got a hole in your glove, FRiend. Somehow you missed catching the fact that many, if not most of those referring to him as "St. Santorum" are God-loving Christians. They're hardly "putting down the man's faith" -- they're putting down his sanctimonious tone and trumpeting of his own righteousness.
Did you bother to read my post? I will do it again...I am not well informed regarding women in combat, I feel it should be limited. NO, I DO NOT BELIEVE WHAT LIBERALS BELIEVE. Unless they believe that Santorum’s delivery on this was ridiculous and amateurish. If he wants to be the CIC to men and women in the military, he better get a hell of a lot better than insinuating women can’t make good judgement because of hormones. If I was a woman in the military right now, I would tell him to kma.
I'm not sure we disagree. Perception can become reality, and delivery can destroy an otherwise good message.
You may want to read my comments on the other thread, which say more about the women-in-combat issue.
I do believe that due to President Obama’s bad reputation with the military, Santorum’s negatives on this issue will not be as problematic as they would be if he were running against a Democrat like Sen. John Kerry with military experience. Obama cannot say certain things without sounding foolish, and while retired female generals who support him could speak up on his behalf, it will be hard for him to respond effectively.
Imagine this: “Mr. President, you think I want to limit promotion opportunities for women in the military. You're wrong about my views on women in the military. But even if you were right, you have already said you want to cut more than a hundred thousand troops, and that will hurt both men and women. I think you've cut short lots of military women's careers already.”
Or this: “Mr. President, you want to talk about supporting the troops. I grew up as the son of an Veterans Administration psychologist. Which of us do you think knows more about the pain, suffering, and struggles of soldiers?”
Or this: “Mr. President, as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I tried to keep our last Democratic president from gutting the military. I understand what Reductions-in-Force look like. I've seen the pain of communities with closed bases. You want to repeat that pain. I want to build our military. So don't talk to me, after just a few years in the Senate, about what it means to support the troops when I've walked the walk and you just talk the talk.”
Long term, I think that foreign policy and military issues are ways that Santorum can break out of his perceived “social issues rut” in a way that will be credible and on which he can legitimately say he's been saying the same thing for his entire political life.
Patricia Schroeder is the scum that pushed this nonsense, now we have to live with it or change it. Women do not belong in front line combat anymore than men need to carry babies for nine months. (They are actually trying to accomplish that by the way)
Terrific insights. Frankly I don’t think Rick could think that quickly. He is a horrible choice against Obama and good guy he may be, but he will make a wishy-washy president. He is way out of his league in this thing and I am stunned that, faced with what we are, we are entertaining the thought of Rick Santorum. He is going to be swallowed whole.
Things that would have been laughed out of the room twenty years ago are now being taken as serious issues. The idea that Men had a responsibility to care for and protect women disappeared when LBJ's Great Society took hold.
That's funny. I didn't read it the same way you did at all.
To me, he was asserting that men will behave differently on the battle lines in the presence of women. He talked about the "camaraderie of men" causing them to do "things that may not be in the interest of the mission."
I read it as an assertion that men on the battlefield will be more concerned with the welfare of the women in their unit than they are in completing the mission.
“But I do have concerns about women in front-line combat, I think that could be a very compromising situation, where people naturally may do things that may not be in the interest of the mission, because of other types of emotions that are involved,” Santorum continued. “It already happens, of course, with the camaraderie of men in combat, but I think it would be even more unique if women were in combat, and I think that’s probably not in the best interest of men, women or the mission.”
Here we go again, attempting to interpret what a crafty politician is “trying” to say. Just explain to me what types of “emotions” that “naturally” happen could affect a mission. This was a stupd, inexperienced statement and I suspect it is going to be the first of many. One thing about that negative newt, he is clear, concise, does not parse words, and we know precisely what he said. But then again, newt tells it like it is, speaking to his base, not creating riddles.
So you think women in combat is just hunky dory?
This is ridiculous. I have said it at least three times. I would prefer women were not in combat. Get that? Now read it again just to be sure. My point was with Santorum and how he delivered his response. No wonder Obama won the election and will probably get a second term.
Thank you; I appreciate it.
52 posted on Saturday, February 11, 2012 12:56:03 PM by Toespi: “Frankly I don’t think Rick could think that quickly.”
You may be right about Santorum’s ability to think on his feet. As the son of a military veteran and career VA psychologist, I think Santorum understands the importance of drill, drill, drill, and more drill. He needs to have stuff like this prepared in advance and ready to go when Obama fires at him.
Much of military training is repetitive drilling so when chaos hits, you don't need to think about what to do — you just do it because you've thought it through long ago and reflexes take over.
That's not the way college professors or academics are trained... not by a long shot. That shows a crucial difference in how Santorum was raised in his home life and how Gingrich was trained in his academic life.
I readily grant that Gingrich is good on his feet; no doubt about that. He's also gotten a reputation as the absent-minded professor who comes up with new ideas regularly without enough follow-through. I'm not saying that's a fair criticism, just saying that we've got one guy who is careful, methodical, and plans stuff long in advance, and another guy who shoots from the hip and often but not always hits his target.
52 posted on Saturday, February 11, 2012 12:56:03 PM by Toespi: “He is a horrible choice against Obama and good guy he may be, but he will make a wishy-washy president. He is way out of his league in this thing and I am stunned that, faced with what we are, we are entertaining the thought of Rick Santorum. He is going to be swallowed whole.”
I have been saying for a very long time here on Free Republic that I am very unhappy with our choices of candidates.
Executive experience counts. Most of our candidates with experience as governors dropped out before the race started, and those who were left have mostly dropped out or flamed out.
Even many of those without executive experience have either chosen not to run or have flamed out.
With the way the polls were looking in 2009 and 2010, we should be looking at a 1979-1980 type of race with scared Democrats trying to unseat Barack Obama to avoid losing the White House. Instead, we have a whole field of candidates who are either second-string players or who have major baggage.
I've got major concerns about what's going to happen in November. I think we share many of the same concerns.
The question is which of the four guys we have left (actually, as conservatives, it's down to only two choices) is best to go up against President Obama.
I've made my choice. I've made it very reluctantly, and with a tremendous amount of hesitation. I can respect people who choose Newt Gingrich as well, and have caused serious damage to my reputation in my own ecclesiastical circles for arguing that Newt Gingrich is a viable option and no conservative evangelical should ever vote for Mitt Romney. I don't like having to defend Newt Gingrich's bad behavior one bit, but I think he may be electable if nominated.
The short-term goal is stopping Mitt Romney and the long-term goal is defeating President Obama. That's my focus. For now, I think Santorum is our best shot at doing so, but I sure wish we had a better candidate, preferably a current or former state governor.
Right now I'm planning on voting for Santorum here, but realize that if Santorum were to knock Newt out, Mitt would have only one person to take down with all his money. I really don't think Santorum could handle the kind of barrage the big money PACs would give him if he were the only non-Mitt standing.
Flame away, but Newt needs to stay in until the end and the two of them may need to cut a deal so Mittens doesn't win.
So Rick should Kowtow to the PC crowd? Or just to please you, somebody who is disingenuous to say the least?
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.