Political & Elections

We all look at issues through the prism of our own life experiences. And I can tell you that mine is from the perspective of someone who had to leave her child with a babysitter for most of the first two years of his life. My husband was deployed shortly after his birth, and I was sent out on trips constantly...two weeks gone, two days back, three weeks gone, three days back. There are many days that I wonder if the issues that still plague him today could have been completely avoided had I been there. I couldn't have chosen not to go (you go to war or you go to Fort Leavenworth prison), but if I'd had the sense, I could have gotten out of the military before I gave birth. I made the choice to stay in, things in the world were peaceful, then Desert Storm started. I completely regret handing my baby over to the babysitter and watching him call her husband Daddy, and having the little guy cry when I picked him up (the few days I was home) because he didn't know who I was. So I feel very strongly about parents not leaving their children for long if they have a choice, especially an ill one. I always wonder, are the problems he has (and our other son doesn't) all my fault? And they just might be.

Then I see so many guys I work with go through a divorce....and zappo, off they are, leaving their ex-wife and kids for a multiple year assignment in Hong Kong. You get to make more money, get a better position, have the excitement of international travel. And see your kids once or twice a year. They always don't seem to get why their kids are angry at them and having problems. Now maybe those kids still would be angry and have problems if Dad was around, but I will never be convinced that it is better or neutral if a father is gone for long periods of time. Especially if the child is ill, and mom is having to deal with it all. Unless of course, the father is abusive or a criminal influence.

Here's the reason why Santorum ran, according to wiki:

"On January 15, 2010, Santorum sent an email and letter to supporters of his political action committee, saying, "I'm convinced that conservatives need a candidate who will not only stand up for our views, but who can articulate a conservative vision for our country's future". He continued, "And right now, I just don't see anyone stepping up to the plate. I have no great burning desire to be president, but I have a burning desire to have a different president of the United States".^[116] He formed a presidential exploratory committee on April 13, 2011. Santorum has also referred to his grandfather's historical encounter with Italian fascism as an inspiration for his 2012 presidential campaign.^[117]"

Winchester, I don't often read this forum and post less, but I had to post to express my sympathy for you and your child.  No parent can read about a dad's listening to his child's crying at night, every night, and not have their heart wrung.  My deepest sympathy to you, and most heartfelt wishes for a better future for your child.

And while I'm here, I think I will say that I think you all misunderstood Santorum if you think he's doing this just for his own selfish reasons or his personal family ambitions.  I don't know what he's thinking, and can't be in his head, but I understood the comment about doing it for Bella to refer to his supporting pro-life over abortion. 

He's not using her as a prop, but as his motivation.  He believes that all children, including those with birth defects and congenital impairments like his Bella, have the right to a chance at life.  What I heard is a dad saying, not in so many words, that he loved his daughter, and she deserved to be loved and cared for, regardless of how long she has on this earth; and that all such children deserved to be loved and cared for, and for however long God gives her.  I believe he wants to run in order to fight for all childrens' right to be born and be loved, as he loves Bella.  At least, that's how I understood his comments.

In answer to you, churchmusicmom, I would hazard the guess that he doesn't think he's abandoning his child, since he knows she's loved and cared for all the time.  I believe he feels called to pursue his pro-life work in order to see that other children get the same chance as Bella has to be loved and cared for.

If someone is in a heterosexual marriage with a kid, then realizes that they are really attracted to people of the same sex and get a divorce, do you judge those people too?  After all, they aren't putting their family first.  They are putting themselves first.

Speaking for myself...Hell, yeah. 

-- Edited by hope on Wednesday 1st of February 2012 08:56:23 PM

busdriver11 wrote:

---

Count me in as disgusted. And I am judging him. Not surprised, though. I know SO many men that put their desires and careers ahead of their family.  

For me, it's family first. Both moms and dads. Maybe that sounds hypocritical, as I could have never worked and maybe my kids would have been better off with the mom at home all the time. Then again, it took the load off my husband when he got laid off or felt his job was threatened, and allowed him to work alot less than he could have.

 

 

Are you disgusted at Obama too?  Or is his family unique and they don't need their father around while he is playing President?  Families make sacrifices all the time and have to weigh the pros and cons of decisions.  As long as they are all committed to the decision and it is the right decision for them, I don't understand why you think it is right for you to judge their lifestyle.

 

If someone is in a heterosexual marriage with a kid, then realizes that they are really attracted to people of the same sex and get a divorce, do you judge those people too?  After all, they aren't putting their family first.  They are putting themselves first.

 

Even you admitted that you put your own career ahead of your kids.  (For the record, I don't that both parents working is selfish at all.  I think it is the smart decision if the parents are capable, but obviously you don't feel that way).

-- Edited by soccerguy315 on Wednesday 1st of February 2012 08:43:25 PM

Bummer about that freedom thing, isn't it, Winchester? Freedom to say, judge and think what we want. You can rail about it all you want, but you just might have a different opinion when you're a father. What would you do with a very sickly child? Go on a couple of months hike in the Himalayas? Maybe a long sailing trip over the Atlantic? Request extra deployments to the Middle East? Go on that months long business trip to China when you got the offer? Shoot, I wouldn't go on an extended trip voluntarily if one of my dogs were very sick. Then again, I really love my dogs.


You don't know me. You don't know what I have or have not been through. I'm speaking from a lot more experience than you know. Even though it's none of your business, I HAVE had a sickly child. The issues were no where near as bad as what Santorum is faced with, not by a long shot. But it is something I had to see with my own eyes every day for years. And every day it broke my heart. What does one do when their child cries themselves to sleep every night because of something they're going through, an affliction they have, and all they wish for is to be normal like the other kids? And it will never go away. And the child will, in all liklihood, have to deal with it later in life as an older adult. And through it all, the child pays for decisions WE make. And both of us, the child and myself, have to live with the consequences of those decisions for the rest of our lives, and find a way to cope with things that we wish never happend, or we'd done better, or differently. So don't you dare preach to me about what I'll do when I have a sickly child, or insult me with your cruel, condescending, sanctimony about loving your dogs. That is truly beyond the pale, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Winchester--I am very surprised at your reaction. Didn't the founding fathers believe that citizens have every right and should be encouraged to take character into account when choosing their leaders?

Also, don't either of you hide behind the disingenuous smokescreen of the "freedom thing" or the founders or anything else about politics. That in itself is sanctimony of the cheap shot variety.

This is not about the founders, or politics, or character. This is about empathy for another human being. This is about realizing that not one of us - not one - is the automaton of reason and virtue and character that modern culture seems to have set us up to expect from one another. What's been squeezed out of that picture of our so-called "enlightened" culture, as a result of those expections, is our humanness, our humanity. And it's displayed right here in this thread.

This is about respecting humanness; that we're all - every single one of us on the planet - doing the best we can to make it through each day. This is about realizing that on some of those days, and even in some of those weeks and months and years, we are given more than we have the capaicty to absorb, to undertand, to process, never mind deal with in a way that the rest of the world would approvingly pass judgement on from the cool convenient luxury of our computer keyboards. And it's many times worse, infinetly worse, when the one who is doing the suffering is someone we love, and we wish to God that we had a magic wand we could use to make it go away, or we pray to God to give it to us so our child does not have to suffer, or we wish we had a time machine so we could go back and do things better.

This is about realizing that at some periods of our lives we're stretched beyond our very human capacity to live up to the unrealistic, idealized, and in the final analysis sadly mistaken, notions that our modern culture has about who and what human beings really are. This is about having some common human decency, and a little empathy, toward a fellow human being, and cutting them a little slack.

But apparently, that's too much to ask of some people. It's my turn to be disgusted, and angry, but it's not with Santorum, I'll tell you that.

It's possible he made the statement when his defenses were down after a sleepless night or nights, and in a somewhat emotional state. I guess we will see if he drops it or continues on this tack. I do know Bella was not brought out front after his South Carolina triumph, but was backstage.

Winchester--I am very surprised at your reaction. Didn't the founding fathers believe that citizens have every right and should be encouraged to take character into account when choosing their leaders?

Poor guy.

Good points on both sides.

Busdriver, can you provide a link to the statement you quoted about how Santorum wants to "win the nomination" for Bella? I too found Palin's dragging Trig around like a prop offensive and "disgusting." Same here with Rick if he actually made that statement, or intimated in any way that he is willing to use his daughter's illness to gain political support.

I have not been able to find a link.

Has there ever been an article in the newspaper about a particular issue or topic that you are intimately familar with? How much of that article was perfectly accurate? In my experience, it's very little. As a matter of fact, in my experience, mostly what happens is that the reporter is finding the background material and "facts" to support the "story" that he has already decided to tell, and it's nothing like the story that I know to be true. Keep that in mind, too, as you rail against Santorum from your high horse.

Do you know the definition of "sanctimony"?  I don't see anyone being sanctimonious.

He has said that God called him to run so I guess God hasn't called him to quit yet.

The disorder that the baby has relegates her to a life filled with infections, pneumonia, various forms of cancer, etc. No doubt she has been gravely ill several times. This may seem unusual to us but is that family's normal.

My oh my. Such sanctimony in this thread.

-- Edited by winchester on Wednesday 1st of February 2012 06:51:44 AM

bus, if what you're saying is true (that he wants to win it "for his daughter") then I do find that disgusting. She, unfortunately, is not likely to even be around when the next president is elected and therefore he is completely full of **** if he's doing this "for her". What he SHOULD be doing "for her" is being with HER, not talking about her on national tv.

Now that I've thought more about this: Santorum is young. He has decades ahead of him to run for political office. His daughter has months, *maybe* (a HUGE maybe) a year or so to live. Spend this time with HER. I really don't think I could vote for someone (anyone) who puts their own ambitions above the precious little time they have with their child/family in a situation like this where time is limited by weeks, months, a few years if you're extremely lucky.

Yes, I'm flip flopping on this issue now that I've had time to consider it more. The longer I thought about it, the more angry I became.

Count me in as disgusted. And I am judging him. Not surprised, though. I know SO many men that put their desires and careers ahead of their family. I was also not impressed by Sarah Palin running for VP because "the country just needed her so badly," with 5 kids, one of them being a baby with Down's syndrome.

For me, it's family first. Both moms and dads. Maybe that sounds hypocritical, as I could have never worked and maybe my kids would have been better off with the mom at home all the time. Then again, it took the load off my husband when he got laid off or felt his job was threatened, and allowed him to work alot less than he could have.

But when I heard Santorum going on about how he's trying to get the nomination for his daughter? Disgusting, he lost my respect, because I know this kind of guy. Little kids, especially DYING little kids, need their Daddy.

"I don't see the problem. If others are caring for the girl, she is ok."

I hope you change your mind about this when you have a child. It changes everything. You don't want to be one of those "all about me" sort of fathers.

The problem is, only a very small percentage of people with this condition live past the age of 1. She is three. She is essentially living on borrowed time.

I don't know what the right answer is, but on a personal level- if it were MY child, I would want the father of the child there every single day especially considering how short the lifespan is expected to be. I would also want to be around my child every day and pretty much everything else possible in my life would be on hold. I would also want my father with me.

But I will not judge his decisions- it's not my place. He never had my vote in the first place so obviously this doesn't change anything. I just hope he is making the right decision and not putting his own ambitions above the well-being of his family.

OK, so I did not know that his daughter has trisomy 18. This little one has been hospitalized over the weekend but is now doing better. He did take one day to be with her.

 

But the reality is that a child with this disorder is not expected to live a normal life span. And what time she does have will be medically challenging. 

I was impressed wtih Santorum in the last debate. But this is a deal breaker for me. I could not trust the judgement of a man who makes this kind of judgement. 

 

Any thoughts from others on this??? I read an editorial in one of the Washington newspapers that was very careful not to criticize his judgement in this. The writer did, however, point out that difficult decisions like this are usually reserved for those politicians or officials who have a realistic chance of obtaining the office for which they are running. It does not looke like Santorum has that chance, though one never knows. But I cannot imagine being his wife or that sweet little girl who needs her daddy.