Santorum Doesn't Fall For Gregory's Bait On Banning Working Mothers From His Administration

NewsBusters ^ | Mark Finkelstein

[governsleastgovernsbest]

On today's Meet The Press, "moderator" David Gregory gave a good preview of how the MSM/Obama industrial complex will try to cariacture and demonize Rick Santorum should he become the Republican presidential candidate.

Gregory asked Santorum whether, if elected president, he would only permit single women without children to work in his administration. That's right: Gregory was actually wondering whether Santorum would prohibit mothers from serving. Santorum didn't rise to Gregory's absurd bait, giving a smiling and good-natured response to the effect all women would be welcome in a Santorum administration.

View the video here.

[nascarnation]

And tell some of these elderly 1 percenters like Ann Compton and Bob Schieffer to retire and let the network hire a couple of recent Ivy League journo grads with 200 grand in student debt.

Wouldn’t you love to hear that comment?

[Mr Rogers]

“Those conservatives who disliked his support of Specter would not have jumped to a democrat...”

No...but did they fight for Rick? Did they talk with their neighbors about the Democrat Party & its record on abortion, regardless of what someone named Casey says? Did they point out what happens to gun rights when democrats take power? Did they volunteer for Rick, make phone calls and donate?

Or did he get their vote, and darn near nothing else?

What will Mitt get from conservatives in a general election? Do you think I’m going to man phone banks for him, or look for chances to talk about him with my neighbors?

Social conservatives, as William Safire said, should get to the back of the bus and let the adults drive - but those adults seem pretty good at driving us to defeat. I prefer Newt to Rick, but either one will face incredible attack from the media & from a campaign that runs on foreign donations with impunity. But I think conservatives WILL fight for either of those men.

Mitt? Hope he has a billion dollars minimum in his general election campaign chest. He’ll need every dollar...

[newzjunkey]

1. His charity "Operation Good Neighbor" doled out less than 36% of its funds; it didn't register with the state of PA as required by law either. Instead the money went to lobbyists, aides and political fundraisers.

2. His “leadership PAC” disbursed just 18% of its funds to candidates, far less than any other “leadership PAC.”

3. Santorum's Leesburg mansion was bought using a mortgage from a private bank run by major campaign contributor. Santorum was not eligible for their program.

4. Pennsylvania tax payers shelled out $72,000 to pay for his kids "cyberschooling" from Virginia. The effected PA school district failed to get their money back.

5. Working with felon Tom DeLay, Santorum worked the senate side of the "K Street Project" to create and improve ties between GOP lawmakers and lobbyists. Twenty-three Santorum staffers became K Street lobbyists and when he was fired by PA voters, Santorum joined them.

6. When he was defeated, an internal memo at drug giant GlaxoSmithKline said his loss "created a big hole that we need to fill."

These things don't even start to scratch the surface. He needs to be vetted on his record and compared to the standard he tries to sell on the campaign trail. If that happens, I think there will be plenty of disappointment.

Source

[itsahoot]

If Santorum is the nominee, Obama will win at least 45 states and at least 58% of the vote.

Thank God, you have save us from making a horrible mistake Mariner, unless of course you are full of it, as I suspect you are.

Maybe we should listen to Sarah's admonition, yesterday, to not do the Lamestream Media's job for them.

[capydick]

The official talking heads have but one mission: destroy Republicans.

With the exception of Newt fighting back on these ridiculous questions - our guys just smile good naturedly and refute it. The question is posed not to get an answer from the candidate but to set the meme and stereotype of Republicans. Until the candidates fiercely and consistently refute the question and questioner, we will always be playing catch up.

[ClearCase_guy]

NPR had an aggravating segment today. They interviewed Charles Murray about his new book (topic: social breakdown in America today).

First couple minutes: NPR host explaining that Charles Murray is a controversial guy with crazy ideas.
Next five minutes: Ivy League Liberal "expert" explaining that Charles Murray thinks funny, has nothing new to say, and is wrong about almost everything.
Next minute: NPR host agreeing with the Liberal.

Time for callers!
Caller #1: Inarticulate in the extreme, hinting that Charles Murray is wrong to call poor people immoral.
Caller #2: Woman from WV who points out that personally, she does not feel isolated, as Charles Murray claims her to be.
NPR Host: praises both callers for insightful comments.

Okay. We are now 10-15 minutes into the Charles Murray segment, and it's now time to hear from ... Charles Murray!

Murray: You people are mischaraterizing my book and --
NPR host: Wait a minute! Wait a minute! On the issue of poor people being immoral, how would you respond??
Murray: Well, I never said that, and --
NPR host: Our callers brought up good issues. I think you should respond to what they said.

Murray then manages about a 1 minute's worth of response.

NPR host: Let's take a call!
Caller #3: I think Mr. Murray is wrong to say that there is a genetic component here and that all rich people are genetically superior to poor people.
NPR host: Excellent point!! We will let Mr. Murray respond ... right after this commercial break.

My conclusion: The only way not to lose is to not play the game.

[capydick]

Good Lord! I think you’re right in alot of cases but when our guys go on the Sunday shows - they really need to grow a pair and fight back hard putting the lib hosts back on their heels. When it’s been done in the past they squirm as they are not used to being challenged.

[Mr. Lucky]

Alright; now that right there was funny.

[Leclair10]

Mariner I live in PA Santorum lost cause the state had become toxic to republicans in 2006 George Bush had about a 30 percent approval rating in the state and his opponent just wrapped him around Santorum’s neck on top of that fast Eddie was running for reelection on top of the ticket and because his campaign was in the bag by about April of that year Eddie spent alot of his time campaigning for Casey....Romney would have lost by a similar margin had he actually run for reelection in mass and Newt is Newt good luck finding soccer moms for Newt