Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: darrellmaurina

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.


41 posted on 02/10/2012 9:26:38 PM PST by Toespi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies ]


To: Toespi; true believer forever; writer33; cripplecreek; CharlesWayneCT
41 posted on Friday, February 10, 2012 11:26:38 PM by Toespi: “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.”

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.

50 posted on 02/11/2012 8:58:02 AM PST by darrellmaurina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson