Replies

“Santorum is a conservative on the issues that are most important. He is pro-life, pro-family, anti-sexual perversion posing as marriage and being subsidized by taxpayers and private employers (forced by idiot socially subversive court decisions), pro-gun, pro-military, interventionist, and is well-poised to reclaim the Reagan Democrats and Hispanic voters.”

That’s true if your “important issues” are only social issues. As for his character. At this point it’s pretty clear that he has dishonestly distorted Newt’s platform and record, while at the same time claiming to be the pure conservative, which he isn’t. He’s done this since Cain on down, but nobody notices or really cares.

He can play with his sick daughter all he wants. The guy is a political opportunist. Another reason to focus on his actual platform and realize he’s an opportunist with nothing new to offer.

We need a guy who is going to push ISSUES, and not just celebrate being himself. We don’t need a daddy. We need an attack dog who is going to help us tear down the progressive system. That is why I was so gung-ho for Cain, and why we ALL should have been. Because with Cain, it wasn’t about a celebrating of himself, it was about pushing solutions and making bold stands. This was also why I disliked Bachmann and Santorum from the very beginning. Because t hey weren’t about solutions, they were only about insulting and questioning the character of their opponents and their platforms. Bachmann, fortunately, dropped out. Santorum should have been next, but his vanity is keeping him in and could very well destroy the Republican party. At best, he’s another guy managing the decline, not fighting on the front lines, unless you think gay marriage is going to destroy the country worse than the Democrats are.

It’s time we ripped apart the foundation of the lib’s power, which is in the current tax code and in social programs. Santorum voted against the flat tax, and he distorted Cain’s 999 (which is derived from the fair tax). He has praised some social programs, while damning others. He’s wishy-washy. He isn’t committed to real reform. He is committed to promoting himself while happily ignoring or distorting the issues for the sake of political power.

Even if Saint Rick wins, I’ll always work against him, and I seriously will not vote for any more Establishment hacks or a controlled decline. I don’t care that Obama kills us faster.

Of course, it doesn’t matter. I live in Texas. We always go to the Pub. But I imagine that turnout will be low.

Get Ready to Hear All About Rick Santorum and Universal Health Services, by Erick Erickson, December 30, 20011

“The media is about to begin the vetting of Rick Santorum and I suspect we’re going to hear a lot about Universal Health Services (“UHS”). Santorum’s involvement in UHS is one of the significant bits of his private sector experience.

After his 18 point loss in 2006, UHS appointed Rick Santorum to its Board of Directors.

On May 16, 2007, Santorum acquired 10,000 options to purchase Class B common stock. On November 21, 2009, he received another option for 5,000. In 2010, it was options for 15,000 shares and another 15,000 as recently as January 21, 2011, as Santorum begin to entertain thoughts of running for President.

On June 15, 2011, Santorum resigned from the board of UHS.

On March 2, 2010, nearly three years after Santorum was appointed to the UHS board of directors, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a complaint against UHS for billing Medicaid for “ psychiatric care that was not provided.” The company received Medicaid funds to provide psychiatric counseling and treatment to boys ages 11 to 17.

According to the Department of Justice, UHS “took advantage of troubled children in order to feed their own desire for wealth.”

According to Barbara Jones, the whistleblower who brought suit against UHS, local company management encouraged employees to conduct “drive by therapy sessions” as they passed patients in the hallway and then record the brief interactions as a thirty minute individual therapy sessions to be billed to Medicaid. Jones also testified in her court filings that she was ordered by the local CEO to fabricate a Medicaid billing form and was told, after she refused to do so, that she would not be paid until the form was fabricated.

UHS tried to have the complaint dismissed not because of the veracity of the changes, but because it claimed Barbara Jones wasn’t an employee of UHS and therefore was not protected under a whistle blower statute.

In 2007 the federal government filed a lawsuit against UHS for Medicaid fraud going back all the way to 2004. It’s kind of hard to claim complete ignorance of federal charges against a company on whose board he sat for over four years.”