« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Femi-regulars for Rick Santorum

From the diaries

Left-leaning elitist pundits are scratching their heads.  After two weeks of liberals trying to convince women that Rick Santorum wants to rip the birth control out of their hands and put them in the kitchen, more and more women are supporting Rick Santorum.  “How could this be?” they ask.  Answer: We are smarter than you think.

Let me offer a little primer on American women to the liberal elitist folks who spend too much time in New York and Washington DC and not enough time where Femi-regulars live.  “Femi-regulars” is a term I coined during the 2008 election when leftists just couldn’t grasp the appeal of gun-toting Sarah Palin. Palin, I explained, like most women, was a femi-regular, not a femi-nazi (a tag coined by Rush Limbaugh to label rabid, man- hating feminists).

Most women are femi-regulars.  They are strong women who are too busy accomplishing important things to worry about the divide and conquer strategies of leftists. They are more interested in voting for principled, honest, strong, America-loving folks who will stand up to evil, advance liberty and let our free enterprise flourish—all things that they see in Rick Santorum.  They don’t vote as women; they vote as Americans.  Sure it doesn’t hurt that Santorum is obviously a loving and supportive husband and father, but they are voting for the person who will get the job done–they are not picking a husband.

Liberals constantly underestimate, ignore or demean such women—women like those I knew growing up in Michigan.  I am proud to be the daughter and granddaughter of strong women who loved their husbands, nurtured their children, served their community and loved their country. The kind of women who had a spirit of giving and selflessness those elitists might deride, but that those who truly love their fellow citizens would applaud. The kind of women who didn’t feel it a sign of weakness to put others first and the kind of women who don’t feel that they must put men down in order to build themselves up. The kind of women who realize time spent whining is time wasted.

Femi-regulars are the kind of women who are smart enough to know the difference between a fight about religious liberty (the Obamacare mandate on religious institutions offering abortifacients) and a cocktail party discussion about the benefits of birth control.  And the lefties and elitists will be shocked to know that more than a few femi-regulars like Rick Santorum because of his A+ rating with the National Rifle Association.  You see, femi-regulars like me are not always easy to spot. My evening dress may not be hunter orange or camouflage, but don’t assume I don’t love the Second Amendment… or that I’m not a damn good shot.

They are also smart enough to know that it is the elites who have let down the country while regular folks have been doing their part. The cocktail party elitists with their Ivy League diplomas and matching egos got us into this mess, while the majority of Americans would do just fine if the high-brow economists and Washington and New York brains would stop meddling with the free enterprise system and redistributing our hard earned wealth.

Elitists (Republican and Democrat) always trash the leaders who emerge who connect with the regular folks. They trashed Reagan and Palin and now Santorum. They probably thought we were too dumb to notice, but we “commoners” out here are on to the fact that the so-called intellectuals don’t generally look out for us. Oh, they pretend to, but it is all for show so that they can be puffed up with pride for their work on behalf of the common man…and get our vote.  Then they turn around and demean our values, diminish our freedoms and steal our money.

Every once in awhile we regular folks rise up and storm the establishment and try to sneak in one of our own. Yes, sometimes we support someone who is (gasp) not an Ivy League graduate, not a member of a political power family, and not a power-hungry egomaniac who thrives on the sound of their own voice. Sometimes we get the real deal—like Ronald Reagan.

They said his view of the world was too simplistic because he had a concrete belief in good and evil. Even the Republican elitists didn’t like him. But regular folks loved him.  And regular folks are increasingly flocking to Rick Santorum. And so they are mocked. And in the case of femi-regulars, the elites imply that they are just too dumb to know any better.  Liberal elitists seem to think that women should choose the leader of the free world based on whether they support abortion and, if male, are willing to do their share of the dishes and take care of whatever baby the woman decides not to abort.

They might want to think twice before they continue to insult the bulk of the electorate. In most of America, having grit is more important than being slick. Speaking your mind is more important than rehearsing your lines. Living by your principles is more important than parroting the principles your high paid consultants put in your talking points. This is why elitist pundits cannot understand femi-regulars. And why many femi-regulars are supporting Rick Santorum.

Lori Roman is the founder of RegularFolkUnited.com

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • Repair_Man_Jack

    From another one of those crazies who believes in both God and Perdition. Thank you.

    • mikelindell2

      It’s the Romney campaign’s dream to have Santorum as their main competitor and it will result in a Romney nomination. Or if by some awful miracle Rick is the nominee, the Republicans will face losses that have not been seen in a long time. Santorum is the least principled guy (“I voted for it even though I didn’t believe in it,” “politics is a team sport folks!”) The guy who has said that Protestants are corrupted by Satan, that Christians are wrong for using contraception, and that states have the right to ban contraception. The Big Labor enthusiast who says that states have the right to mandate union requirements, and the guy who never met a spending bill he wouldn’t vote for. His current tax plan even calls for government to pick winners and losers by manipulating tax rates for different industries. If the only thing you care about is social issues, I guess Santorum is your guy. If fiscal issues matter to you at all, Rick is the last guy to pick. Maybe there’s someone in the field who is strong on fiscal AND social issues (cough, Newt, cough)

      • wantthegopback

        but he aint polling close to Romney anywhere. Santorum is. Newt needs to do what Perry did, have some class, drop out, and let Santorum close the deal.

        • jon11

          boy, must admit i cringed when i saw Reagan mentioned alongside these two.

          Anyway, Romney’s got all the momentum in michigan and he’ll win.

          The only threat he really faces there is the UAW getting out their minions for santorum. WSJ and others have noted they’ve done it before…although in early voting most dem votes have gone for paul so hopefull “operation hilarity’ as its known over at the Daily Kos will either not work or backfire.

          Santorum will never be the nominee but he can drag the race out, which i’d prefer he didn’t do but its his right.

          eventually we’ll get on with things and start taking it to obama. I just hope it isn’t too late. He’s vulnerable and i hate to see him get a pass.

          thats what im ready for. the real fight. this fight with the GOP establishment is an unfortunate distraction.

          obama and his cronies are the real establishment and thats the fight we need to be having ASAP

          • littlehouse18

            though I will admit he doesn’t have the same presentation skills. I think they will be enough, though, and if he gets the nomination he will get extra organiztional support and I predict he would greatly develop his image.

        • jenniferjmilleresq

          The Democrats and media and establishment types seriously underestimate us!

        • mikelindell2

          Newt’s way up in GA and is well within striking distance in Ohio. He will most likely do very well in southern states on Super Tuesday and has been campaigning in Washington state as of late as well.

          • lapert

            He is 12 points out of second place – how is that striking distance?

            And as for doing well in the southern states on super tuesday – Georgia is the only southern state he can do well in. The only other southern state on super tuesday is Virginia and he isn’t on the ballot – maybe you can include Tennessee as southern though I don’t think it really is but in the only recent poll I have seen there he is in fourth 25 points behind Santorum.

            You might need to rethink his path.

          • tomrt

            giving Newt a chance to rise again as the non-Romney. If he does win MI, then Romney and his thug-PAC will likely unleash an avalanche of negative attacks on Santorum in super-Tuesday and subsequent states (of the kind and scale of pulverizing Newt took FL), and it’s not clear what shape Santorum would end in up after that. The race is so fluid that anything can still happen, but MI primary’s outcome should prove to be pivotal.

          • lapert

            I think the more likely scenario is that Michigan will be marginal plurality for Santorum or Romney and will have little impact on the outcomes elsewhere. Santorum will continue to do well in enough states to justify staying in including wins in Washington, Oklahoma, Tennessee and maybe Ohio, Newt will win Georgia and that is it – and drop out – and Romney will continue to have the most viable path to a delegate majority (though certainly not an inevitable one).

            But at least you aren’t trying to ground your opinion in made facts – just a simple assertion.

          • tomrt

            even though Santorum beat Newt in Iowa (thanks to the $5mn Romney spent hammering Newt), his support nationally remained lower than Newt’s for the most part. I think that the reason for that was the perception that Newt was more viable than Santorum despite the former’s IA loss.

            That perception changed after Santorum’s triple win day following Newt’s loss in FL (thanks to Romney’s and his thug-PAC’s $17mn an 13K attack ads) and NV. Since Santorum still hasn’t shown that he can win a hotly contested large state primary with delegates, if he fails to win MI having had all the resources and good starting position in polls, the idea that he’s more viable will go by he wayside, and then it becomes time for Newt’s revival.

          • lapert

            In post-Iowa national polling Gingrich and Snatorum were pretty identical – a stark shift from December where Gingrich was out polling him. Gingrich didn’t rise again in the Polls until after the SC debates and that rise lasted for about two weeks till he was back even with Santorum. Santorum then pulled away post-Nevada and Gingrich hasn’t had any traction in national polls in the few weeks since.

            Romney also did not campaign heavily against Newt in Iowa (maybe you are thinking of Florida).

            The rest is spinning some narrative that isn’t really connected to what drives voters decisions. You really think primary voters are doing calculations on whetehr Missouri was a primary that awarded delegates and weighing its relative importance as a signal to South Carolina based on that? That is a convenient story for those who need to make a story out of events but it isn’t how real decisions are made.

            The best evidence to look at is polling in states once active campaigning is going on there – at this point the polls in Super Tuesday states are pretty indicative of likely outcomes and there is no magical shift coming from a 2 point swing in Michigan between Santorum and Romney.

          • demsaresatanic

            that’s telling them. You go girl.

          • lapert

            Notice how I do not argue from authority in making my points. Notice how you have nothing to say on said points. Notices Dr. Satanic how you contribute nothing at all.

          • demsaresatanic

            there isn’t much more left to be said, “there is no magical shift coming from a 2 point swing in Michigan between Santorum and Romney,” pretty much nails it. There is no room for magic here at RS, you go girl.

          • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

            By clicking on the Help link at the top of every page (or for the first time).

            You’re treading on thin ice. Best if you keep to content and back of the ad hominem (or should that be ad feminam?) approach.

          • lineholder

            by Romney’s Super PAC (and also Ron Paul) directed at Newt in Iowa. That’s when Santorum got his first change to break through the group of Not-Romney candidates.

            http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-12-19/news/30535887_1_newt-gingrich-gingrich-support-mitt-romney

            That’s just one source, but there are plenty of others all stating the same thing.

            He’s also correct in stating that Newt’s polling remained high nationally for a few weeks after Iowa.

            The same type of events are occurring now in MI with Santorum on the receiving end, but this time, it isn’t working to Romney’s advantage as well as it did in Iowa. Part of that may be due to Newt’s very publicly calling Romney out on the tactics that were used.

            http://blogs.ajc.com/jamie-dupree-washington-insider/2012/02/27/romney-struggles-in-michigan/

          • Repair_Man_Jack

            on what happens to candidates if candidate A goes negative on Candidate B. You’d suppose it would suck to be Candidate B, but does C pop up in the polls in a predictable manner?

          • lineholder

            not text

          • lapert

            I don’t know if there is anything good more recent. But in the Journal of Politics, November ’07 issue there is a thorough review of the literature by Lau, Sigelman and Rovner which concludes that there is no evidence that negative campaign ads don’t work in any reliable fashion – if that still holds I think it would be quite difficult to have any predictable effect in multi-candidate situations.

            But I’m sure a political consultant can make a pretty penny selling the ‘answer’ to campaigns.

          • JSobieski

            nt

          • kowalski

            When we’re relying on the analysis of Markov Chains to tell us whether or not it’s better to run the kinds of advertisements we’ve been running, you already know this is not a decision of ordinary people in their homes. It’s a manipulative game of people who are making lots of money.

            I have no doubt that the we’re going to find that really advanced technologies in anger creation will succeed in moving voter opinions but what is it really that anyone is doing?

            And I don’t think it so easily applies. You could run negative ads against Ron Paul all day long, and it wouldn’t make a dent in his True Believers.

          • kowalski

            Has not run very many negative ads against Ron Paul and there is a mini-conspiracy that the two of them are in cahoots somehow. But it has nothing to do with them being in cahoots: it has to do with the fact that Ron Paul voters are *unusually* committed. They have an extraordinarily strong bias toward Ron Paul and virtually nothing anyone could say would make much of an impact on that.

            Ron Paul could get up in front of his supporters and drink a pint of warm goat’s blood while pounding a stake through the heart of a virgin and his supporters would say: “See! He’s an Independent Thinker!”

            Not going to get through to them no matter how much money you spend.

          • johninohio

            I like your style. I would like to believe what you say is completely true. However, if women are so rational and idealistic in their voting, why did Slick Willy Clinton not only get elected once, but twice, even after we all learned of his scandals? Men hated him. So who were on the other side of the ledger?

          • lapert

            I didn’t recall the advertising earlier in December.

            But on the national polls, if you check on realclear politics – of the 11 polls they have from after the Iowa 1/3 primary until the first SC debate on 1/16, with the exception of two Gingrich is between 14-18 points and with the exception of 1 Santorum is between 13-16; a virtual tie. And with a single outlier for Romney he ranged from 27-40.

          • mikelindell2

            ??Romney campaigned extremely extensively in Iowa against Newt. Are we talking about the same election year? $5 million was spent against Newt in Iowa by Romney and Co., and for Iowa that is a huge sum that can pretty much flood TV for weeks. Also, you say Santorum and Gingrich pulled even after FL, but Santorum got half the votes that Gingrich did in NV.

          • lapert

            Yes, I was wrong on the spending in December.

            I said they pulled even after Iowa until the SC debate – see the numbers above. And he did pull away after NV in the national polls – I don’t care how he did in NV it doesn’t impact anything about the race, I was just commenting on the broader picture.

      • http://ronontheright.com Ron On The Right

        …is broken. Can you fix it? Here’s the correct link:

        http://regularfolksunited.com

      • Creedo

        Gingrich doesn’t play up in Washington State at all. I don’t know a single person here who would vote for him over Romney. I wish Gingrich would do the honorable thing and drop so that Santorum could shut Romney out, and we could start working on party unity and rally.

        • jamesm

          Tweet from Public Policy Polling a couple of hours ago

          Started today’s Michigan calls at 4 and so far seeing encouraging things for Santorum. Tomorrow may be a long night

          • redmymind

            n/t

        • tomrt

          before one can consider asking Newt to drop out to be a sensible proposition.

          Speaking of ‘doing the honorable thing,’ Santorum didn’t exactly follow that credo in Florida, did he? Instead of getting Newt’s back (as Newt honorably did in the AZ debate by coming to Rick’s defense on the specious earmarks attack that Romney was leveling against the latter, as you’ll recall) when Romney was attacking him, he chimed in to take a few shots at Newt himself. Newt, I remind you, is the man to whom Santorum owes, in his own words, his elective career and whom Rick considered himself a disciple of. Is that the way one repays for tutelage? Not in my Bible.

          Anyways, at the latest, if after Super Tuesday we find that Rick still hasn’t won a single contested large primary state and Newt has won GA, then the time would be absolutely ripe for Rick to step down, endorse Newt, and campaign with him to help defeat Romney.

          • znjs

            “Michigan Democrats can vote in the Republican primary on Tuesday,

          • jamesm

            Very very bad for Romney

      • Juggernaut

        so get over. He will never be accepted because he’s a fake! You little romneybots seldom do more than repeat the same old threats fearmongering as if we care.

  • wantthegopback

    , he is surging with conservative women. Guys, we need to remember this…. when he wins we need to thank and appreciate the conservative women who made it happen by thinking for themselves and fighting through the BS from Romney and the left.

    • Bob_Frazier

      Well written! My great hope is that more and more people see though the games of the democrat party, the drive- by media, and our home grown RINOS.

      • swi2522

        the above groups have yet to figure out they have zero influence on the thinking electorate

      • 10ab

        I would find him amusing but for the fact that he is a divisive zealot and blatantly pandering to the most extreme of the GOP base. His latest blast against education is hilarious given the man has impressive college degrees himself…those same degrees that have aided him nicely in supporting his family and will continue to do so after he loses the nomination. It would be very wise to remember that to win a general election we need to appeal to more than the “regular folk” as you put it…whom I would assume by your posting are God fearing gun toting fundamentalists. I believe in the GOP’s “big tent” aspiration…not the fear mongering anti education “revival tent” for those “real Americans” as Palin quipped with a sneer.

        • littlehouse18

          He’s merely stating the truth – not everyone needs to go to college. There are many types of gifts that are important to society but do not get developed in college. In fact, college can actually divert some folks from pursuing their true talents.

          Clearly, college was the right thing for Santorum and many. He’s just not presuming that everyone should follow the same path he did. And he is absolutely right in asserting that Obama and his ilk want to form young people in their own image, and also that colleges have become the incubators for corrupting minds and developing good little Marxists.

          • littlehouse18

            Santorum speaks the truth straight out but many just can’t stand to hear it. The left in this society wants to deny truth, nature, and reality to build their dystopia. We conservatives (myself included) sometime suffer from learned helplessness and recoil from the truth as well.

          • rogsterling63

            You’re smart enough to develop the critical thinking skills to get past the liberal bs the profs throw at you…that’s the important part of getting that higher education

          • littlehouse18

            The proof is in what we have coming out of our colleges today.

            I went to a very elite college full of people with high IQs. Yet the vast majority were fully indoctrinated.

          • acat

            and decades of liberals graduating who aren’t smart enough (or, my actual guess, who recognize that it’s a career-threat to publicly disagree with the liberal party line .. see also AGW) to see through the smoke don’t help.

            Mew

          • znjs

            Point out that it’s not for everyone, and that by pushing it for everyone Obama is pushing it while ignoring the debt it places on those aren’t cut out for it. Maybe make a comment about people who live their lives in academia world without ever facing real life.

            But instead he demonized the entire process, claiming that wanting people to go to college is little more then wanting to brainwash people into becoming leftists. Given the large number of people who have survived college without becoming Marxists, including himself (and myself for that matter), this comes across as more then slightly ridiculous, and has the added benefit of pushing the conservatives are anti-fact meme.

          • aesthete

            He can’t stop himself at a reasonable statement — he always has to be cute, and go that extra mile of stupidity.

            He could have said about mainline Protestantism that some of the denominations were worldly, or starting to endorse anti-Biblical practices — but instead he casts them out from Christianity proper.

            He could have said about homosexuality that it was something that shouldn’t be funded with his tax dollars or endorsed by government and society… but he had to go that extra mile, and state his undying support for anti-sodomy laws.

            He could have said about contraception that he is for the First Amendment guarantee of religious expression, and for freedom of conscience — but he just had to start yammering about “national conversations” concerning Santorum-approved ways of making one’s sex life “special”.

            He could have said about libertarians that he and they disagree on some issue and agree on others, and left it at that — but he just had to start talking purge like Maximilien Robespierre at a Jacobin Club meeting.

            He could have said about fiscal conservatives concerned with spending that he shared their concerns, and left it at that — instead, he berated them for reducing conservatism to dollars and cents.

            See, Santorum’s a guy who goes along with leadership and put lots of emphasis on penny-ante issues, and on finding cute ways of “winning” arguments that no one else has the energy or inclination to care about. In the process, he does a great job of alienating allies and turning off independents. Pawlenty recently gave a speech at the CA GOP convention regarding how to grow the party — IMO, it’s the kind of basic politics that should be knocked in the brains of our candidates until they finally Get It.

          • littlehouse18

            But you have a good point about the debt people take on, and about academia.

            I have a close family member who is a college professor, and he can absolutely verify that colleges these days are in the business of indoctrination, particularly in the humanities but in science as well (for example, AGW). Being on the faculty of these departments is like living in the Soviet Union. In many you will lose your job if you do not demonstrate in word and deed your complete devotion to lefty causes.

            As a physicist, not much politics entered my major classes, but I recall that Reagan’s missile defense initiative was completely derided in lecture as being technically impossible. I’m sure that if global warming had been in vogue back then, I would have received a hefty dose of it, as happens today.

            Now if you are a young college student, brought up to respect your teachers and having little to no background yourself in what you are studying, these professors have the aura of ‘experts’. Most kids will be hard pressed to dispute what they say and will believe them.

            Based on this perspective, the first thing I thought of when Obama said everyone should go to college was that he wants to make sure everyone completes the indoctrination process begun in grade school. Maybe it was just a politician’s soundbite, but Obama is much more than just another politician.

          • myron_j_poltroonian

            As a poor, but proud Life Member of the NRA, allow me to remind you all of one hard fact. Without the second amendment, all the rest are useless. And Obama, Clinton and Reid are all angling to have the UN’s Agenda 21 circumvent the constitution by treaty. Clinton, Feinstein, Boxer, Shumer, et al, are all busily trying to disarm “We, the People” (but only the “little people” of course) by hook and/or by crook – and mostly under the MSM’s radar. Thomas Jefferson said

        • myron_j_poltroonian

          It’s not the “God Fearin’ “, or “Gun Totin’ ” you have to worry about, ol’ son. It’s a’whar’ them Gun Totin’, God Fearin’ Fundamentalists are a’ aiming’ at that may concern you. “Sneer at your peril”, my dear friend, sneer at your peril.

        • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

          Sounds as if you beileve in the “big tent” as long as it doesn’t include us gun-totin’, God-fearin’, Bible clingin’, extremist regular folk. Good luck with that. It’s usually those “moderates” and independents you can’t depend on for the votes because they bend whichever way the wind blows. There’s a vast difference in the platforms and philosophies of the Democrat platform and the Republican platform. It’s really not that difficult to pick a side.

          The “base” for the most part are straight shooters, and I mean that literally and figuratively, who turn out and vote even if we have to hold our noses.

  • Justin_Case

    I have many women friends and family who represent a broad spectrum of beliefs and convictions.

    However, I am most comfortable with and more likely to share serious thoughts with those you label “femi-regulars”.

  • fnbrown

    American women have a lot more common sense than the media gives them credit for. This is a perfect case in point.

    • kestrel

      He understands this is about freedom and has done his homework thoroughly. The other candidates are basically silent, uttering “repeal” platitudes only. Here is a must-read piece that talks about this:

      http://spectator.org/archives/2012/02/27/santorum-and-the-silence-of-th

      Among other things, I have recently been watching Rick’s ads on-line. The one called “Family” was one of the last I watched because the title made me think it would consist of “family values” pablum. But it is quite profound. You couldn’t ask for a more well-grounded candidate.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7LyoAEIskw

      • rogsterling63

        But if he wins how much of Congress does he lose to negate the effort?

        • kestrel

          Santorum would be a drag on down-ticket races, I think you’re wrong. It’s Romney who would be a drag on the ticket. His presence as the nominee will kill so much enthusiasm that I’m not even sure he can win against Obama, let alone bring other Republicans with him.

          What’s Romney going to run on? He can’t run against ObamaCare because it’s modeled on Romneycare, his record in business is the equivalent of being a coroner rather than a pioneering heart surgeon (no offense to coroners), he doesn’t understand free-market capitalism (such as that the minimum wage depresses hiring), he doesn’t connect with people, and he’ll be destroyed by Obama in the general election as a 1 percenter born with a golden spoon in his mouth.

          If Romney’s the nominee, he’ll be lucky if the down-ticket candidates can drag him across the finish line.

          • sophillyjimmy

            I have kept quiet as far as who will win to be the Republican Candidate running against Obama in November since whoever it is, he has my vote.
            When I watched the Daytona 500 and saw a car sponsored by Rick Santorum I thought it was a stroke of genious to spend so much money for one day of advertising. With NASCAR being the largest fan based sport and so many Southerners that love stock car racing, not to mention that Santorum picked a Ford the company that didn’t sell their soul to Obama, he picked up more votes in both the primaries and then the general election then any other wanna be.
            Sure Romney was at the race but he could afford to not only go to the race and sit in air conditioned, open bar and buffet box seat, he could have sponsored all 43 cars for the entire Nascar series which would be chump change to him.
            Since Rick Santorum made such a bold move by sponsoring a Nascar, and a Ford at that which showed a respectable finish, he has my vote both in the primaries and in the General Election.
            I also respect the 5 drivers that didn’t accept the invitation to the White House, they all showed moxy to decline the invitation, I do love people that won’t sell their souls to the antichrist that sits in the White House and of course I salute all of the Nascar fans that booed the First Lady and the Vice Presidents wife that made an attempt to get the white vote that comprises NASCAR fans.

          • rogershru2

            That’s a good, logical rationale for deciding the next president. Personally I’m waiting to see who is the first to be on Wheaties because that’s my favorite cereal.

      • littlehouse18

        I urge everyone to read Rick’s book “It Takes A Family: Conservatism and the Common Good”. It is not another collection of platitudes about ‘family values’. It is a deeply thoughtful argument for why family, faith, and private social interactions are the bedrock for our society and the crucial institutions for guarding our freedoms and giving life to a country which is truly great. It’s a VISION for our socety more profound and fundamental than anything I’ve heard from the other candidates, especially Romney and Paul.

        I’ve not finished the book yet, but it is truly compelling.

        Romney is prepared to treat symptoms, and he would achieve some success. Santorum’s approach to the economy would do likewise.

        But what is vitally needed is a cure. That cure can only be accomplished with a vision, and Rick Santorum has it.

  • http://pocketchangeproductions.net/ anotherindyfilmguy

    Now when they try to vilify it tends to end up backfiring somewhat.

  • annie54

    raised in the Tri-State area, which is Michigan, Ohio and Indiana. You’ve identified my up-bring very well. I watched the McCarthy Hearings with my dad, who always had a flag extended from his tailgate. I helped my brothers with their ‘trap line’ – yes! trapping furry animals in the creek, then selling the hides. We hunted and ate squirrels, quail, pheasants, rabbits and deer. But wait . . . we would NEVER tie our pet dog on the roof of our car in freezing temperatures to travel anywhere!

    I had a new baby and an 1-1/2 year old in 1960 when JFK made that speech about keeping faith out of government. After that, came the question concerning prayer in schools. The Catholic Schools were safe, but not the public schools and we’ve been fighting that issue eversince. I’m not a Catholic.

    I cried when I attended one of Santorum’s rallys, because I identify with what he is addressing. He’s bold and intelligent and unafraid. I was in Perry’s Posse, but I can’t go with Newt and WON’T with Romney or Paul. Santorum is the only candidate who can beat Obama and the Republicans had better wake up to that fact.

    I know I won’t agree with everything he will say, but that’s just fine. He comes closer to my beliefs than any candidate since Reagan.