Showing posts with label Rick Santorum. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rick Santorum. Show all posts

Friday, May 29, 2015

Huckabee Says Good Boy-Santorum Says Bad Boy


He said...He said, both Republicans caught up in a battle that the GOP richly deserves based on their stringent conservative standards for family values. In an earlier post I pointed out that a lot of their leaders are sure palsy with the Duggars. Josh Duggar has admitted to molesting five girls when he was younger, four reportedly his own sisters. Okay, the guy made a huge mistake and has probably already experienced  plenty of retribution, but the family's close connection with the Republican Party should be explained, particularly all the GOP Presidential candidates that consider the Duggar family close allies.

If you represent such a high standard of family values, shouldn't you know something about what these friends are doing? A story by In Touch exposed what had happened way back in 2006, and it was at that time that Jim Bob Duggar consulted an Arkansas State Trooper named Joseph Hutchens who talked to Josh but later said he was told only about one incident of molestation. It went no further. The police than halted their investigation in 2006 because the statute of limitations ran out. Hutchens is now serving 56 years in prison for child pornography.

It all comes down to living the life you preach to others or risk being brought down by the truth if you don't.


Thursday, April 12, 2012

Romney view(s) on gun control illustrate his flip-flop style in tackling serious issues

Mitt Romney on gun control
In 1994 running against Ted Kennedy for Massachusetts’ Senate seat, Mitt Romney said, “I don’t line up with the NRA” on gun control.  By 2008 he had completely reversed himself stating that if he became President, he would support the 2nd Amendment and vigorously defend the rights of Americans to defend their homes.  This was also at odds with the fact that early in his political career he was supportive of many gun control laws, particularly the Brady Act.

Today the GOP candidate is opposed to any further gun control legislation.  He called Trayvon Martin’s shooting “a tragedy” and said there should be a “thorough investigation.”  To my knowledge he didn’t mention the “stand your ground” law, nor did he comment on whether it was good or bad legislation.  It would seem to me the perfect opportunity for President Obama to come out in full force to repeal all these laws and challenge Romney to his positio


Mitt Romney on gun control 4 years ago:



In his 1994 Senate bid, Romney defied the National Rifle Assn. (NRA) by saying that he favored strong gun laws and did not “line up with the NRA.”  But in considering a run for the presidency in 2006, he signed up for a lifetime membership in the NRA.  He even praised the group for “doing good things” and confirmed “supporting the right to bear arms.”  When asked in 2007 if he was still in favor of the Brady Bill he was vague and referenced his term as Governor.

Romney said that he signed the assault weapons ban as Massachusetts’ governor exclaiming that it was a “weapon of such lethality” and poses grave risk to law enforcement.  This didn’t get him any accolades from the NRA but then that may well be put aside when he addresses the gun lobbying group at its annual meeting Friday the 13th in St. Louis, MO. 

This after the recent Trayvon Martin shooting and the earlier massacre in Tucson, AZ, injuring former U.S. Rep. Gabby Giffords and killing six.  This when the nation is still reeling from mass school shootings and a potential hate crime that left 3 dead and two injured in Tulsa, OK.  I am running a documented count of shootings across the U.S. which I started in March and will publish monthly.

While campaigning, Romney tells potential voters that we have all the gun control laws we need and about a month ago let the world know he owns two shotguns.  Not a handgun, mind you, just two shotguns and he actually doesn’t even own them.  In an interview with the Boston Globe he bragged of being a hunter and having a gun of his own.  He was corrected by the interviewer who said isn’t that your son’s gun?  Romney responded, “Um, well, yes, but so what?

The man is an enigma unto himself, making it repeatedly clear that he is swayed by the issue at hand and will switch in whatever direction necessary that will benefit his candidacy.  By the way, this isn’t Romney’s first appearance before the NRA.  He addressed them in 2008 and 2009 and sent a video message for the 2011 annual meeting.  Since charges against Martin’s killer, George Zimmerman, have been made, will this come up at the NRA’s meeting?

And finally, the dreaded link with Barack Obama in his views on gun control.  Yes, says former presidential candidate Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney does share many of President Obama’s views on guns.  He also included the issues of health care and energy policy in this forum.  Santorum sums up Romney’s apparent nomination by saying, the party shouldn’t nominate a moderate with this little contrast with the President.  But it sure looks like they will.

Thursday, February 23, 2012

Rick Santorum can eliminate Mitt Romney in Arizona…just use a gun

It’s all but guaranteed.  Mitt Romney supports the 2nd Amendment but his more moderate politics may lead some to believe it is also where he stands on gun rights.  Even if not true, his conservatism is not quite fanatical enough for Arizona Republicans, some of which think a middle-of-the-roader is a bleeding liberal.  Rick Santorum, on the other hand, goes all the way with his views, so far to the right that he almost circles the political globe back to the left.

All the polls report that Santorum and Romney are close in the latter’s home state of Michigan leading into Wednesday’s debate in Arizona, and the Christian Science Monitor reports that a new CNN/Time poll announces that Santorum may now be closing the gap in Arizona.  Romney does still have a lead prior to Wednesday. 

But all Ricky boy has to do to get the majority’s attention in Arizona is to swagger into the debate wearing a Glock 19 at his side, an AK-47 over his shoulder.  I can see it now.  With a tumultuous applause including standing ovation, Santorum tells his loving audience, I feel your pain and one of my first acts as President will be to pass a law that will make it legal to shoot illegal immigrants as they cross the border.  Forget the fence; just work on improving your aim.


Typical Arizona lawmaker

Now, of course, Rick Santorum would never do that but there are some in Arizona that would welcome a law like this.  The Arizona Republican state legislature, after hearing of this idea, is probably already checking out the concept to see how they might turn it into legislation.  And if they don’t get them at the border, just confront the first immigrant at your local bar, starting an altercation that ultimately ends up in you shooting them, illegal or not.

I know.  Purely bizarre and maybe I am pushing the envelope, but all within the realm of possibility in a state that hates a huge portion of its workforce, and loves its guns more than it does the safety of Arizona’s citizens.  I don’t want you make-believe vigilantes protecting me with your concealed weapons.  You don’t have the proper training, nothing even remotely close to law enforcement, and it is time you cowboys understood that.



The National Victims Action Council (NVAC) has an interesting illustration of how those packing heat probably would never have the chance to react, even if they had enough training.  It’s a fantasy, they say, advanced by the gun lobby, that gun owners need their weapons with them at all times for self defense.  Like walking down a street in Dodge City waiting to draw and shoot.  Doesn’t happen that way.  The criminal almost always has the element of surprise. 

Mitt Romney, Mr. 1%
In most instances a police officer would have the upper hand by most likely being in uniform, trained to spot the bad guys before they get the upper hand.  He or she can anticipate their moves and already has a strategy for almost any kind of confrontation.  Gun fanatics take notice: you don’t have any of this talent but if you do it is no doubt limited to watching TV cop dramas.  I keep bringing this up but two gun nuts almost shot each other in the Tucson massacre.

Let’s be realistic.  Because of a lousy economy law enforcement has been cut back but I’ll still wait for the police any day rather than put my life in the hands of a vigilante cowboy.

NVAC says in a 2009 study commissioned by the National Institutes of Health and published in the American Journal of Public Health, “…guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault.”  Further, “The study found that people carrying a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not carrying a gun.”  Go to the NVAC site, above, for more facts on this issue.

In the meantime, when you read this post, it will probably already be evident how both Romney and Santorum stand on gun rights from the debate last night; that is if anyone dares bring it up.  My exposition above is simply to shed light on the fact that gun rights in Arizona, and several other states, are simply insane.  I would settle for just one of the candidates saying, ‘Ah, come on Arizona and the rest of the country.  Can’t we just agree on sane gun control?’  Yeah, right.

Monday, February 13, 2012

RELIGION: How will evangelicals affect the vote in November 2012?


Thou shalt not not conceive

If the Catholic Church outburst over President Obama’s healthcare bill order for religious companies to provide birth control protection, joined now by evangelicals across the country, is any indication of the level of their impact on 2012 voting, it would appear that the White House and Democrats have a fight on their hands.  Add to this the fact that Rick Santorum is not only a Catholic but also an evangelical. 

The question remains just how much reaction there will be from voting religious beliefs if they aren’t necessarily good for the country.

California megachurch pastor Rick Warren said "I'm not a Catholic but I stand in 100% solidarity with my brothers & sisters to practice their belief against govt pressure."  I hate to break this to both Warren and the Pope but 98 percent of sexually active Catholic women practice birth control and those same figures apply to evangelicals and other Protestants.  This comes from a recent report by the Guttmacher Institute, a non-profit sexual health research organization.

What it appears the Obama administration is trying to do is keep certain factions from taking away a right for women who opt for contraception, not simply exert government pressure.

The following Bill Maher video is hilarious:



Southern Baptist minister Phil DaCosta from Atlanta says, “I vote on Jesus first.”  He is a Tea Party member whose priorities are Israel, abortion and marriage.  As a TPer he does want lower taxes and smaller government.  But these people invariably miss the point completely when their emphasis is based on their religious beliefs with no outright concern for the economy and its problems like the jobless, foreclosures, Afghan war, the state of U.S. education and the pitiable Congress some of which the religious right stuck us with.

Jaweed Kaleem, writing in the Huff Post, says DaCosta is just what Ralph Reed, a political strategist and former Christian Coalition director, is looking for.  Reed’s new organization, Faith and Freedom Coalition, wants to “…unite under his relatively new organization that aims to fuse the Bible-based value voting of traditional social conservatives with the grassroots momentum of the Tea Party to form a bloc of voters big enough to influence state and national elections.”

Ralph Reed buddy Jack Abramoff
According to Wikipedia, “in 1996, the Christian Coalition's chief financial officer, Judy Liebert, ‘went to federal prosecutors with her suspicions of overbilling by Ben Hart, a direct-mail vendor with close ties to Reed, then the coalition's executive director.’"  Ralph Reed resigned later during an investigation.  Reed wasn’t charged but the Christian Coalition later sued Hart's firm. 

In June 2005 it was revealed that Reed secretly accepted payments from Jack Abramoff to lobby against Indian casino gambling and oppose an Alabama education lottery.  Abramoff pled guilty to three felony counts in federal court.  So you have to wonder why the Tea Party would want to get mixed up with Reed unless you consider the fact that the Tea Party itself is a fraud.  The Huff Post exposes the “ugly underbelly” of the tea party movement” and the deceit of its stands on taxes and government tyranny.

Rick Santorum branded "Loser"
According to a survey from Reed’s faith and Freedom Coalition, “…32 percent of all voters in 2010 were Christian conservatives, and 72 percent of them voted Republican.”   They helped the GOP gain 63 seats to control the House.  Reed himself asks, “So it is that a presidential campaign that is largely about the economy is nevertheless deeply shaped by issues of faith and morality.”  He adds that the evangelical vote made up 44 percent of Republican primary voters in 2008.

Now enter Catholic evangelical Rick Santorum who appears to have put Mitt Romney on the defensive with his recent wins in Minnesota, Missouri and Colorado.  The comment was made that Santorum made them “swoon” at the Conservative Political Action committee (CPAC) meeting recently, even though Romney also delivered an outstanding speech. 

But one political analyst says Santorum won’t survive and the conservative crowd will eventually end up falling in behind Romney.

The GOP may very well end up tossing a coin for the nomination.

UPDATE: Romney wins Maine caucuses and CPAC straw vote.

Monday, January 23, 2012

Where were the evangelicals in So. Carolina when Santorum needed them?

Who knows?
Former senator Rick Santorum of Penn. finally won the Iowa caucuses over Mitt Romney with 34 votes when the folks in Iowa did their final count.  Sounds reasonable to me considering the high evangelical population in the state but also appears much too close when you consider Romney is a Mormon.  Like JFK’s Catholicism in the November 1960 election for President, Romney’s Mormonism has been a barrier for the religious right from the beginning.

Apparently there were missing votes in eight Iowa precincts that for some reason or other were never received and counted, blamed on the “state’s old-fashioned primary process.”  The missing votes were spread across five Iowa counties and in 2008 that area accounted for a total of 298 votes.  In one such precinct GOP chair, Karen Zander, said about the volunteers, “They had no training.  They didn’t know what they were doing.”

Pretty pathetic for an election that screams to the rest of the country each year that they are the first, and one of the most important votes in the primaries leading up to the primary nomination.  I have never understood the importance of these caucuses, and maybe the rest of the country and future presidential candidates will come to agree after this year.  But Romney’s close second does speak well of evangelical voters in that they were apparently able to put religion aside and vote with reason.



Did the same situation occur in South Carolina?  In the 2008 Republican primary there, 60 percent of the Republican voters defined themselves as “born-again-Christians,” compared with a national average of 44 percent.  Another 69 percent said that the candidate’s religious beliefs mattered in their vote.  In 2012 B-A-Cs jumped to 65 percent.  Also in 2012, religious beliefs of the candidates differed in that 59 percent said they mattered a great deal or somewhat, followed by 19 percent who said not much, 21 percent not at all.

In 2012, 97 percent were worried about the economy in South Carolina; 63 percent thought it was the most important issue compared to 8 percent for abortion.  However, 64 percent did think abortion should be illegal.  Winner Newt Gingrich was helped by the fact that 64 percent of So. Carolinians support the Tea Party and he was apparently able to garner their vote according to exit polls.  But it still isn’t clear if Gingrich can win TPers in less conservative states.

You can see the entire So. Carolina CNN Election Poll results here.

This is all somewhat perplexing since a meeting of the Christian conservative leaders in January of this year in Texas voted to back Rick Santorum, reported Family Research Council president Tony Perkins.  Some of those involved were Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, Perkins, National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference president Rev. Samuel Rodriguez and former presidential candidate Gary Bauer.  Members of the media were not allowed at the meeting. 

Newt Gingrich
Although the Christian conservative majority vote was for Santorum, individuals voted for other candidates, such as American Family Assn. founder Don Wildmon who voted for Gingrich.  For those of you who haven’t heard, Gingrich took So. Carolina with 41 percent of the vote, followed by Romney with 27 percent and Santorum trailing with 17 percent.  The winner of the So. Carolina primary has gone on to win the GOP nomination in each election since 1980.

The big question is, if Newt Gingrich wins the Republican nomination, will he be a more formidable candidate against President Barack Obama than Mitt Romney?  He is an excellent debater, but so is Obama.  Gingrich has personal life baggage with his ex-wife that doesn’t play well with religious conservatives where the President is squeaky-clean.  Both men are highly intelligent and there is no doubt in the separation of ideologies.

Like they have been saying for over a year now, 2012 is going to be one hell of an election!

Tuesday, January 3, 2012

Iowa caucus is a group of religious extremists' much ado about nothing

I lived in Iowa at one time; still have family there that will no doubt roast me alive after this post.  But I am sick and tired of seeing religion, not just making its impact on politics like any other politicking body, but in actual control of the outcome.  And that is exactly the position the Iowa evangelicals are in when it comes to caucus results.  They are able to do it because of their numbers in the state and also because of their unlimited passion over what they believe.

University of Akron’s expert on religion and politics, John Green, says, ““Relatively few people participate in the Iowa caucuses, so it’s ideal for a group of highly committed activists to have a big influence.”  The need to attend area get-togethers is a requirement, and since evangelicals thrive on sharing their devotion, it is easy for the churches to initiate this kind of participation.  And there is nothing wrong with this loyalty to their cause.

 

What is wrong is the influence the Iowa Caucus has on voters’ opinions across the country of the candidates and their qualifications to be president.  What would the evangelicals do if someday this country elected an agnostic to the highest office in the land?  He or she would believe in a God, but not share the normal Christian beliefs such as the crucifixion.  This new president would have all the capabilities to perform the necessary duties, and he or she would possess all the real values of good people.  The latter is possible, you know.

 A U. of Iowa journalism professor, Stephen G. Bloom, a New Jersey transplant, has wreaked havoc in the state with his statement: "Whether a schizophrenic, economically depressed, and some say, culturally challenged state like Iowa should host the first grassroots referendum to determine who will be the next president isn't at issue. ... In a perfect world, no way would Iowa ever be considered representative of America, or even a small part of it. Iowa's not representative of much." 

When I lived in Des Moines in the late 60s, it was a dingy place, very cliquish, and when I left, knew I would never want to live there again.  Apparently a lot of people still feel the same way as Forbes magazine ranked Iowa in the top ten states losing population in 2010.  That doesn’t mean those who stay are bad, just that it is an environment in which they feel comfortable.  Perhaps many who desert the state are just not “evangelical” enough to fit in and decide to go elsewhere.

To illustrate what I feel to be the complete absurdity of the Iowa Caucus, evangelist Pat Robertson in 1988 finished second, ahead of then-Vice President George H.W. Bush.  Now I am far from being a Bush fan but finishing behind Pat Robertson, come on!  It’s like having the big “E” before his name qualifies Robertson to be president of the United States and that is ridiculous.  But this seems to be the only criteria of the current caucusers. 


Iowa caucus GOP
 As another example, former Penn. Senator Rick Santorum’s latest surge in the polls might be explained by the fact he landed on Time’s list of America’s 25 most influential evangelicals; he is also a devout Catholic.  But as the vote becomes even more fractured, Iowa’s evangelicals have become worried that it will lessen the importance of the caucuses nationwide and have yet another trick up their sleeve. 

They are attempting to get either Santorum or Michele Bachmann or Rick Perry to drop out so as not to dilute the vote for the chosen evangelicals.

At least we have a real election to look forward to in New Hampshire a week after the Iowa fiasco.  With any luck in 2012 we’ll sweep Congress clean of conservative extremists like the lunatics of the Tea Party, and the religious right that puts faith before country, and bring in some progressives that will again concentrate on what is good for America.  Hell, we might even elect an agnostic after President Obama’s second term.

Donald Trump Says He Will Be Indicted On Tuesday

  THAT'S TODAY... Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has brought the case to this point, now looking at a possible indictment. Trum...