bumrejects.myfreeforum.org Forum Index bumrejects.myfreeforum.org
Open discussion on just about any topic
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   Join! (free) Join! (free)
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Rick Santorum
Page Previous  1, 2
Post new topic   Reply to topic    bumrejects.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Republican Candidates Nov 2012
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message

Joined: 19 Nov 2010
Posts: 4441
Location: Taylor Ranch, NM

PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 1:26 pm    Post subject:  Reply with quote

Presidential candidate Rick Santorum has connection to St. Johns County - Parents have lived here since the mid '70s

January 8, 2012

Presidential candidate Rick Santorum is the only presidential candidate who's ever been to Pomar's, walked Crescent Beach or navigated St. George Street.

That's because his parents, Dr. Aldo and Catherine Santorum, bought a condo at Crescent Beach back in the mid 1970s and retired to it permanently in 1990.

"Rick's spent a lot of time at the condo .... Over the years we all have. We love Crescent Beach. It's a nice quiet beach community," said Dan Santorum, who lives in Hilton Head and is CEO of Professional Tennis Registry, the largest global organization of tennis teachers and coaches. He's also brother to the man who could be the Republican nominee for president.

Get him talking about his family and the image that comes through is one of a close family proud of its Italian roots and their heritage. That heritage is one of hard work plus belief in family and God.

"My parents met at the Veterans Administration medical center in Martinsburg, W.Va. She was chief nurse and he was a clinical psychologist," said Dan Santorum during a telephone interview on Friday afternoon.

Dr. Santorum died last year, but his widow continues to live at their Crescent Beach condominium. She declined to be interviewed.

"She plays bridge at the Marsh Creek Country Club. She goes to Corpus Christi Catholic Church," said Santorum, who calls his 93-year-old mother "sharp."

In 1975, the Santorums visited Crescent Beach at the urging of Nancy Spiegel, a good friend and Realtor in Gainesville.

"She brought them over and we have pictures. The building was being made of prestressed concrete and they climbed right up using a make shift ladder to look at the view. They just bought it right then," Dan Santorum said.

The condo became a vacation spot during holidays, especially at Christmas and New Year's.

The rest of the year the family lived on the grounds of whatever VA hospital at which their father worked....

"(My grandfather) was a coal miner who worked until he was 70." Dan Santorum said....

Aldo Santorum served in the Army Air Corps during World War II. When he came home, he used the G.I. Bill to go to college, eventually earning his doctorate in clinical psychology....

"He [Rick] was a normal person.  We grew up on the VA hospital grounds at Butler, Pa., that's a steel town about 40 miles north of Pittsburgh....
Copyright 2012 St. Augustine Record. All rights reserved.
Entire article:

A couple of days ago I heard a TV "talking head" extolling Santorum's blue-collar "roots" - and thus his appeal to the "common man."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Site Admin

Joined: 18 Nov 2010
Posts: 1535

PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

from the orange county register:

Politics trumps Left's empathy


Lest you doubt that we're headed for the most vicious election year in memory, consider the determined effort, within 10 minutes of his triumph in Iowa, to weirdify Rick Santorum. Discussing the surging senator on Fox News, Alan Colmes mused on some of the "crazy things" he's said and done.

Santorum has certainly said and done many crazy things, as have most members of America's political class, but the "crazy thing" Colmes chose to focus on was Santorum's "taking his two-hour-old baby when it died right after childbirth home," whereupon he "played with it." My National Review colleague Rich Lowry rightly slapped down Alan on air, and Colmes subsequently apologized, though not before Mrs. Santorum had been reduced to tears by his remarks. Undeterred, Eugene Robinson, the Pulitzer Prize-winning Washington Post columnist, doubled down on stupid and insisted that Deadbabygate demonstrated how Santorum is "not a little weird, he's really weird."

The short life of Gabriel Santorum would seem a curious priority for political discourse at a time when the Brokest Nation in History is hurtling toward its rendezvous with destiny. But needs must, and victory by any means necessary. In 2008, the Left gleefully mocked Sarah Palin's live baby. It was only a matter of time before they moved on to a dead one.
Not many of us will ever know what it's like to have a child who lives only a few hours. That alone should occasion a certain modesty about presuming to know what are "weird" and unweird reactions to such an event.

In 1996, the Santorums were told during the pregnancy that their baby had a fatal birth defect and would not survive more than a few hours outside the womb. So Gabriel was born, his parents bundled him, and held him, and baptized him. And two hours later he died. They decided to take his body back to the home he would never know. Weirdly enough, this crazy weird behavior is in line with the advice of the American Pregnancy Association, which says that "it is important for your family members to spend time with the baby" and "help them come to terms with their loss."

Would I do it? Dunno. Hope I never have to find out. Many years ago, a friend of mine discovered in the final hours of labor that her child was dead but that she would still have to deliver him. I went round to visit her shortly after, not relishing the prospect but feeling that it was one of those things one was bound to do. I ditched the baby gift I'd bought a few days earlier but kept the flowers and chocolate. My friend had photographs of the dead newborn. What do you say? Oh, he's got your face?

I was a callow pup in my early twenties, with no paternal instincts and no great empathetic capacity. But I understood that I was in the presence of someone who had undergone a profound and harrowing experience, one which it would be insanely arrogant for those of us not so ill-starred to judge.

There but for the grace of God go I, as we used to say.

There is something telling about what Peter Wehner at Commentary rightly called the "casual cruelty" of Eugene Robinson. The Left endlessly trumpets its "empathy." President Obama, for example, has said that what he looks for in his judges is "the depth and breadth of one's empathy." As he told his pro-abortion pals at Planned Parenthood, "we need somebody who's got the heart – the empathy – to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom." Empathy, empathy, empathy: You barely heard the word outside clinical circles until the liberals decided it was one of those accessories no self-proclaimed caring progressive should be without.

Indeed, flaunting their empathy is what got Eugene Robinson and many others their Pulitzers – Robinson describes his newspaper column as "a license to feel." Yet he's entirely incapable of imagining how it must feel for a parent to experience within the same day both new life and death – or even to understand that the inability to imagine being in that situation ought to prompt a little circumspection.

The Left's much-vaunted powers of empathy routinely fail when confronted by those who do not agree with them politically. Rick Santorum's conservatism is not particularly to my taste (alas, for us genuine right-wing crazies, it's that kind of year), and I can well see why fair-minded people would have differences with him on a host of issues from spending to homosexuality. But you could have said the same thing four years ago about Sarah Palin – and instead the Left, especially the so-called feminist Left, found it easier to mock her gleefully for the soi-disant retard kid and her fecundity in general. The usual rap against the Right is that they're hypocrites – they vote for the Defense of Marriage Act, and next thing you know they're playing footsie across the stall divider with an undercover cop at the airport men's room. But Rick Santorum lives his values, and that seems to bother the Left even more.

Never mind the dead kid, he has six living kids. How crazy freaky weird is that?
This crazy freaky weird: all those self-evidently ludicrous risible surplus members of the Santorum litter are going to be paying the Social Security and Medicare of all you normal well-adjusted Boomer yuppies who had one designer kid at 39. So, if it helps make it easier to "empathize," look on them as sacrificial virgins to hurl into the bottomless pit of Big Government debt.

Two weeks ago I wrote in this space: "A nation, a society, a community is a compact between past, present and future." Whatever my disagreements with Santorum on his "compassionate conservatism," he gets that. He understands that our fiscal bankruptcy is a symptom rather than the cause.

The real wickedness of Big Government is that it debauches not merely a nation's finances but, ultimately, its human capital – or, as he puts it, you cannot have a strong economy without strong families.

Santorum's respect for all life, including even the smallest bleakest meanest two-hour life, speaks well for him, especially in comparison with his fellow Pennsylvanian, the accused mass murderer Kermit Gosnell, an industrial-scale abortionist at a Philadelphia charnel house who plunged scissors into the spinal cords of healthy delivered babies. Few of Gosnell's employees seemed to find anything "weird" about that: Indeed, they helped him out by tossing their remains in jars and bags piled up in freezers and cupboards. Much less crazy than taking 'em home and holding a funeral, right?

Albeit less dramatically than "Doctor" Gosnell, much of the developed world has ruptured the compact between past, present and future. A spendthrift life of self-gratification is one thing. A spendthrift life paid for by burdening insufficient numbers of children and grandchildren with crippling debt they can never pay off is utterly contemptible. And to too many of America's politico-media establishment it's not in the least bit "weird."

one man's terrorist is another man's folk hero
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 18 Nov 2010
Posts: 4017
Location: Cabbage Hammock

PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 3:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steyn is dead on the money, as usual.

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."
H. L. Mencken
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

Joined: 19 Nov 2010
Posts: 4441
Location: Taylor Ranch, NM

PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 10:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[Note to Readers]
Our FactCheck deputy managing editor, Robert Farley, is on the scene in Tampa at the convention center. The following story was written with the help of the entire staff, based in Philadelphia and Washington, D.C. Next week, we will dispatch our managing editor, Lori Robertson, to Charlotte, N.C., for the Democratic convention. We intend to vet the major speeches at both conventions for factual accuracy, applying the same standards to both.]

Santorum's Distorted "Dependency" Claims

August 29, 2012

Rick Santorum blames President Barack Obama for "a nightmare of dependency with almost half of America receiving some sort of government assistance." But the same could have been said of George W. Bush. In fact, the Census Bureau reported that in the third quarter of 2008, under Bush, "nearly half of U.S. residents live in households receiving government benefits."

Back then, Census reported that 44.4 percent of Americans received some sort of government benefits. That has risen to 49 percent under Obama as of the most recent figures available, and much of that modest increase is due to the aging Baby Boom generation reaching retirement age.

Indeed, Santorum is also being profoundly misleading when he refers to all "government assistance" as a "nightmare." Those receiving benefits include tens of millions of senior citizens and disabled persons on Social Security and Medicare.

Santorum also distorts the facts when he says Obama "showed us once again he believes in government handouts and dependency by waiving the work requirement for welfare."

Nothing has been waived yet, for one thing. The Obama administration now allows states to request a federal waiver from certain work requirements - if the states develop and enforce a new set of welfare-to-work rules that prove more effective.

• "Nightmare of Dependency?"

The former Pennsylvania senator, who unsuccessfully challenged Mitt Romney for the Republican nomination, spoke at the convention on Aug. 28. His speech focused on work and the American Dream - mentioning the word "dream" a dozen times and "work" (or a variant of it) 14 times.

Santorum accused Obama of turning the dream into a "nightmare of dependency."

Santorum, Aug. 28: "Under President Obama, the dream of freedom and opportunity has become a nightmare of dependency with almost half of America receiving some sort of government assistance."

But that shockingly high number - "almost half of America" - isn-t particularly new, and it hardly amounts to a "nightmare" for the 55 million persons who got Social Security retirement or disability payments last year.

The Census Bureau conducts quarterly surveys of income and program participation, and estimates the number of Americans who are enrolled in at least one government program. The four programs with the highest number of enrollees - those with at least 40 million Americans enrolled - are Medicaid, Social Security, food stamps and Medicare.

In the third quarter of 2008, when Bush was president, the Census Bureau estimated that 44.4 percent of Americans were enrolled in at least one government program. To be sure, that number has gone up under Obama. In the second quarter of 2011, it was 49 percent.

The two programs with the largest enrollments under both presidents were, in order, Medicaid and Social Security.

Under Bush, 23.8 percent of Americans were on Medicaid, and under Obama, the figure is 26.4 percent. But enrollment in Medicaid, which provides health care for low-income Americans, is driven in large part by economic factors.

Social Security, on the other hand, is driven by an aging population, and the percentage of Americans on that, too, has gone up under Obama. It was 14.9 percent under Bush, and 16.2 percent under Obama.

The point is that the increase in Americans receiving some sort of government benefit is driven by two factors: an aging population and a weak economy. Of course, Republicans blame the weak economy on Obama, and whether Obama is to blame is a matter of opinion that we'll leave to readers to decide. But it's wrong to blame Obama for being responsible for "almost half of America receiving some sort of government assistance," when the same thing can be said of Bush.

• Distorting Welfare, Too

Santorum also joined the Romney campaign's false attack on Obama for changes the president made to welfare - formally known as the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, program.

Santorum, Aug. 28: "Requiring work as a condition for receiving welfare succeeded. - And this summer he showed us once again he believes in government handouts and dependency by waiving the work requirement for welfare."

The fact is, though, that Obama is still requiring work as a condition for receiving welfare.

As we have explained before, the administration in July announced it would allow states under certain circumstances to obtain a waiver from the federal work requirements. But only if the state sets up a welfare-to-work "demonstration project" (not to exceed five years) that provides a "more efficient or effective means to promote employment."

States must set up "interim performance targets" and, if states fail to meet those, they will be "required to develop improvement plans." If the improvement plans fail, then those states will lose their waivers and return to the work rules as set by statute.

States have a financial incentive to get people off welfare and into jobs, and some states - including Republican administrations in Utah and Nevada - have urged the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to provide waivers as a way to give the states greater flexibility to improve their welfare-to-work programs.

Utah suggested that HHS relax the costly and time-consuming process of verifying and documenting that welfare recipients are meeting the work requirements. "In times of reduced funding, waivers may be the best method to allow states to find effective and efficient approaches to assist the unemployed to find and keep work," a Utah welfare official wrote.

Nevada recommended four "possible waiver opportunities" - including allowing states to exempt the "hardest-to-employ" welfare recipients from the work requirements "for a period of time (i.e., six months) to allow time for their barriers to be addressed and their household circumstances stabilized."

States could request waivers from a variety of federal work requirements, not just the requirement that states place at least 50 percent of their welfare recipients in so-called work activities. They include "definitions of work activities and engagement, specified limitations, verification procedures, and the calculation of participation rates."

As a senator, Santorum voted for the 1996 law that created TANF and the work requirements, and he claims that the program has "succeeded." That's a matter of opinion. The fact, however, is that less than 30 percent of those receiving cash assistance are engaged in work activities - far short of the 50 percent required by the law. And some states, including Republican states, believe they can do better. If not, the worst that would happen is those states would have to return to a set of rules that Santorum and others had a hand in drafting.

Romney and his Republican allies keep making these attacks on Obama's new welfare policy, even though we and our fact-checking colleagues have found the welfare claim to be bogus - or "Pants On Fire," to quote our friends at Politifact.

Why? Apparently the attacks are working. A Romney media strategist says it is the campaign's "most effective ad."

Eugene Kiely at http://factcheck.org/2012/08/santorums-distorted-dependency-claims/

"Distorting the facts" or "lying"? - does it really matter?

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    bumrejects.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Republican Candidates Nov 2012 All times are GMT
Page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Card File  Gallery  Forum Archive
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum