Click the Porcupine Thank you, JoeProBono
Baby Dragon Makes a New Friend
Don't you be prickly!
Donate monthly
Sponsors will contribute $10
For each new monthly sign-up
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 ...
Actually, I was just being tactful.
The fact is, his point was very clear, despite your missing it. He was ably expressing his concern that the nature of men to be protective of women would muddy their ability to impartially pursue the mission.
The statement wasn't crafty or vague. It was very clear. And it is a genuine concern.
No flames from me. I’m fine with Newt staying in. He stands the best chance of taking those southern votes.
>> I’ve always thought he was a decent, intelligent human being. I don’t understand the vitriol directed at him by so many on this site.
He’s a wonderful person and family man. There’s no justification for any personal attacks made against him.
Concerning POTUS, Santorum does not have the character to lead this nation notwithstanding his moral disposition. He is a humorless, big government statist who visibly expresses anger and disbelief when the situation warrants poise and patience. His paternalism is also at odds with the rhetoric concerning Liberties. I would be more interested in seeing him on the 2020 ballot with some more wisdom under his belt.
I saw the interview, and I did not hear him criticize women’s emotions. He was talking about men’s emotional inclination to protect women and how that could compromise the mission. This is an argument I have heard for many years, and one that I completely agree with based upon my 23 years of service in a sexually integrated Army.
Having said all that, I am no fan of Saint Rick the Sanctimonius. Sadly I am also no big fan of any of the other three either. I will, however, enthusiastically support the eventual nominee against Obama(even if it is Romney).
Which is what he should have said and his point would have been succint and clear. Instead, he opted for vague references to emotions, naturally, compromising missions. I have been corrected several times by military guys on this thread, and I defer to you and them regarding women and combat. However, believe me when I say, most women who hear this comment from Santorum, will only hear one word, “emotions” and to women that has hormones written all over it. We hear it all the time and I still think there is a good chance that is what he was alluding to.
Ok, I’m done here. You guys will have to forgive me, my hormones and emotions are raging. Lol.........
So you are saying women are poor listeners. Actually I think most people are poor listeners and that includes you if you didn’t hear the part about (paraphrasing now) we already see that happening due to the camaraderie of the men. Of course everyone should try to be articulate, especially when the media are involved, but sometimes it is hard at the spur of the moment. Anyone, male or female, who takes umbrage at those remarks is just looking for a reason to criticize.
Failed lawyer? Documentation please?
I'm not saying you're wrong but I'd like to see the evidence.
I can completely agree with that. It will be important for Santorum to surround himself with names and faces that have had executive experience. I think that's the big difference between what he'd do and what Obama did.
Newt has actually praised Sanctimonium on stage about his foreign policy experience. He never returned the favor or the respect to Newt, his mentor, however. Little things mean a lot...
I figure on a Joe Kennedy (or HW Bush and W Bush) kinda thing with Romney and his late father. Daddy issues.
Funny thing, if Romney had chosen to be a democrat he may already have been President. Mormon democraps can’t seem to stop getting elected.
You might notice that the media has chosen their winner again and wants to stop talking about other candidates.
First is Romney’s winning the straw poll at CPAC which has a nasty habit of catching the Soros infection.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1575157/posts
Second is Romney’s huge victory in non binding Maine which for some reason they aren’t calling a beauty contest.
Sen. Santorum is as big-government a Republican as they come. He’s all about state intrusion into our social and economic lives.
Yeah, I’d still vote for him over Romney or Paul, but it is criminal that we may come down to that in this very important election year.
Sen. Santorum is as big-government a Republican as they come. He’s all about state intrusion into our social and economic lives.
Yeah, I’d still vote for him over Romney or Paul, but it is criminal that we may come down to that in this very important election year.
A one-year MBA from a third-tier school and a Penn State law degree are more signs of doggedness with modest intelligence than anything.
Considering all, including that he’s clearly an insider, go-along-to-get-along kind of pol, you could say he’s done well with his gifts—if you don’t mind the cronyism.
We agree that little snide slips mean a lot, and often are intentional.
Are you sure that Santorum never returned the favor or respect to Gingrich, or just didn't do so on stage in that particular debate? A pattern over an entire campaign of deliberate omissions carries weight, but we don't necessarily know what they say off-stage or via telephone. My impression is Santorum and Gingrich generally have been civil to each other in public, and Gingrich has reserved his fire for Romney.
He’s right.
Well santorum ran an ad that said there was no difference between Newt and barack...
and in one interview Sanctimonium said Newt was “running around” taking credit for stuff others did in Congress...
And in a debate, used a spate of adjectives to describe Newt, while he was making the sanctimonious case for himself... he described newt as erratic, unstable, never knew what he would say next... and other things I don’t explicitly remember, so dont’ want to list them..
I have never know someone to speak of a mentor this way... never... you can never think too little of Rick Sanctorum as far as I am concerned.
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.