Friday, January 27, 2012

ObamaCare Ought To Be the Key Issue

As Rick Santorum pointed out forcefully last night, Governor Romney still defends "the elimination of fundamental freedoms" in RomneyCare. Romney can't run against this BIG (>75% hate Obamacare) issue.

But who am I to tell you this?

And who is Rick Santorum? That's the way the MSM -- including most of talk radio which spends all of its time defending Newt or Mitt only -- likes it.

They do not want you to hear Santorum. Why? He's not perfect, but he can take this issue cleanly to Obama.

Why don't you back Rick Santorum? Because the feminists hate him. And most of our side are afraid of them?  That's gotta be it. "He can't win" because he's pro-life. Tell your feminist influenced friends that Santorum isn't the dictator Obama is. Santorum is not going to eliminate abortions like Obama is eliminating loads of other things. Obama is eliminating freedom of healthcare and eliminating our security with his anti-American foreign policies and eliminating jobs through dictatorial regulations at EPA and Labor and Commerce and -- need I go on?

All you conservatives just don't like that he's strongly pro-life? I must be a fool for not getting it. Someone make me an offer to sell my principles. Oh -- you have? Well, keep trying. Maybe you'll stumble on the truth.


  1. I have no issue with his stance on pro-life, as from what I can recall, he has been steadfast on it from day one. Romney, for example, has not, changing his position much like a political weather vane.

    Santorum strikes me as being "the Catholic version" of Mike Huckabee. This is not a slam against Catholics or Catholicism (I may be a lapsed Catholic, but there is no animosity toward the Church.) What I am saying is Santorum seeks to impose his moral code/view on the rest of America if such a thing is possible. His various statements seem to indicate this, in much the same fashion as Huckabee's did when he was running.

    As much as I abhor the atheist/secular humanist crowd trying to impose their value system on the rest of us, I find it just as troubling to have any ones religion becoming, by fiat, the officially sanctioned one.

    And just to be clear I am not "afraid" of Santorum following guidelines sent to him from the Pope (the same "concern" voiced during Kennedy's initial run for office), the same would be true for Romney (getting marching orders from the LDS).

    In short, I am tired of either side trying to do/impose their view of "what's right for us" down our throats, for our own good.

    1. The point I tried to make, apparently with little success, is that no matter how much you or anyone else may believe Santorum wants to impose his moral views, he's not the dictator that The Bummer has been allowed to be.

      Again, I am not for Santorum, but against all the others. Santorum is the closest of the bunch to being a consistent and rational conservative.

      What I worry about most is his spine. Actually, I think it was because he showed some spine that he was abandoned by Bush and Rove et al in 2006, so he wins some points with me just for that.

  2. I have no problem with Santorum.
    I listened to him on Bennett, and thought that he was too anxious to talk, needed take a breath and relax.
    And at the first debates, he was stiff, deer in the headlights, unlike interviews.
    If Obama was indeed unelectable, then Santorum would be my candidate. But I don't know if he could beat him.
    My opinion has no/little influence, so I'll vote for ABO as he's served.

    1. Anybody but Obama is a losing proposition for anyone who wants a real alternative to Statist growth.

      IMO, this whole charade has been operated to demoralize conservative insistence on smaller government so that we'll accept Obama lite.

      My experience in California where we got Schwarzenegger for 7 years was bad enough, I do not want to see it repeated nationally, and I'm sure you wouldn't either.

      Arnold not only ran on the Right and then governed from the Left, he actually hired the democratic chief of staff from the Dem gov who had been recalled. (That would be like Romney winning and then hiring Rahm Emanuel to be his chief of staff.)

      And if his governing were not bad enough, Arnold then went on to politically cut all CALGOP support to any conservative who dared run for any office, and would not help any Republican (even moderates) who ran for higher state offices like AG and Comptroller and Sec of State.

      I could see Romney or Newt actually doing similar things as Arnold. For precedent look for how Bush41 did such things: like in his fight for Specter against Toomey in 2004 and his later abandonment of Santorum in 2006. I'd expect the behavior of a Romney or a Gingrich to set even more egregious political precedents.

    2. That's Bush43 obviously. (So obvious in fact that I should have left off the number to begin with. And then this correction would not have been necessary.)

  3. I must have missed the point. In any case, Santorum has a few good ideas (as do, supposedly, they all), and I will also state up front; I think the whole group of candidates were flawed, to some greater (Paul/Gingrich/Romney) or lesser (Perry/Santorum) extent. The others IMHO, were never really in the race to begin with.

    I would take even money right now, that there is the very real possibility the convention will be brokered. If that is the case, we may see some smoke filled room action, the likes of which hasn't been seen since 100 years ago or more. If this does happen, could we see the emergence of a previously "unknown" get the nod...or at least the second tier on the ticket? what do you think?


View My Stats