Republican Primary

  • Thread starter Thread starter ringil
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
People rightly focus on abortion when considering their vote, but there is another huge life issue – climate change and its harm to humans and others of God’s creatures. On that score Santorum in exceedingly bad, compared to Huntsman, John McCain, Romney, Gingrich, and Obama. Santorum’s climate change denialist position is so contrary to an authentically pro-life postion, that it is hard to take him seriously on abortion.

See “Santorum goes after Romney on energy, climate change”
thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/209983-santorum-goes-after-romney-on-energy-climate-change

That’s a deal-breaker for me; I just cannot vote for annihilation of life on earth, even if it IS a very effective way to end abortion by just killing everyone.

We could be headed for climate hysteresis that could go on for over 100,000 years, such as happened during the end-Permian extinction 251 million years ago, when 90%+ of life on earth died; or even runaway warming and total annihilation of life on earth – see esp pg. 24 of columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/AGUBjerknes_20081217.pdf .

I surely hope Santorum does not get the Republican nomination.

I know all the climate change denialists on CAF are going to jump on me, but I do truly accept what the real climate scientists are saying, that anthropogenic climate change is happening, and that it will likely entail tremendous loss of human life, perhaps even annihilation of life. That’s my view; others can vote for Santorum and risk their children’s and grandchildren’s future. I won’t.
 
It’s going to be Romney. The GOP has known this for months. I have never been in doubt. 100% it will be Romney or I will eat my socks. If it is another candidate, the humble pie I consume would be immense, but it ain’t gonna’ happen. It will be the Mormon.

I have been writting this on CAF for months. The primaries are a charade.
 
ringil said:
It’s going to be Romney. The GOP has known this for months. I have never been in doubt. 100% it will be Romney or I will eat my socks. If it is another candidate, the humble pie I consume would be immense, but it ain’t gonna’ happen. It will be the Mormon.

I have been writting this on CAF for months. The primaries are a charade.
Click to expand...
I may just vote Santorum or Paul, so you can eat your socks. 😃
 
mary_bobo said:
Correct me if I am wrong (and I am sure you will be happy to) but now that RvW is law,does not the right case have to come before the court before anything meaningful can be done? And did not the GOP offer proposals to end partial birth abortion? And funding of abortions in foreign countries? Are you asking for something that cannot be accomplished by the wave of a hand?
Click to expand...
You are right, Mary bobo, but don’t expect the Paul supporters to admit it. Think about it: the strongest argument for supporting a Romney, a Santorum or a Gingrich is the fact that Obama will give us only justices who keep Roe V Wade the law of the land (which it is now). The others will likely try to nominate justices who are constructionist - Romney has said that his model is Scalia or Alito - and Roe V Wade stands a good chance of being overturned. I think its obvious that Santorum would do the same. So for a Ron Paul supporter, it makes sense to argue that it doesn’t matter which justices we get, because all we have to do is pass a bill in congress that would in effect overturn Roe V Wade. In order to believe this to be true, you have to basically think that all of the pro-life congressmen now and over the years - Henry Hyde, Santorum, and all the others - are (or were) either stupid or worse, fraudulent pro-lifers who only talk about the issue to get votes. We also have to believe that the right to life groups out there lobbying for good justices are also stupid or frauds - and only Paul and a group of enlightened Paul supporters understand this. In making this argument, they take a page from the secular left, which also basically says conservatives are stupid rednecks (“clinging to their bible and guns”) or they are evil. So I wouldn’t expect a real response from them. They don’t respond to reason.

Ishii
 
mary_bobo said:
Correct me if I am wrong (and I am sure you will be happy to) but now that RvW is law,does not the right case have to come before the court before anything meaningful can be done? And did not the GOP offer proposals to end partial birth abortion? And funding of abortions in foreign countries? Are you asking for something that cannot be accomplished by the wave of a hand?
Click to expand...
Ishii is wrong, above.

Under Article. III. Section. 2., the Constitution gives to the Congress of the United States the power to hold rogue courts in check and to overturn outlandish rulings such as Roe v. Wade.

Ron Paul has introduced and reintroduced the Sanctity of Life Act. If passed, this Bill would recognize the personhood of the unborn by declaring that “human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.” The Bill also recognizes the authority of each State to protect the lives of unborn children. In addition, this Bill would remove abortion from the jurisdiction of the Court, thereby nullifying the Roe v. Wade decision. The Bill would also deny funding for abortion providers. In plain language, the Bill would overturn Roe v. Wade and end abortion-on-demand.

Unfortunately, marybobo, certain “leaders” in the pro-life movement and certain “leaders” in the Republican Party (Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum come to mind) have REFUSED to support Ron Paul’s initiatives.

Under Ron Paul’s strategy, there is a very high probability that abortion would ALREADY be illegal in many of the 50 states.

Under the Santorum/Gingrich/Romney approach, abortion is CURRENTLY legal in all 50 states.
 
The_Rock said:
A well reasoned response to the why the Paul strategy on life is flawed:

dennyburk.com/abortion-strategy-and-last-nights-debate/
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link. And I would repeat what Denny says about respecting each other in the pro-life movement:

Before doing that, however, let me clarify that I view this dispute as a disagreement among pro-lifers regarding strategy and constitutional interpretation. Pro-lifers can disagree over these issues and still be pro-life. It is counterproductive, therefore, to make arguments that begin with, “If you were really pro-life, then you would [adopt my point of view].” As pro-lifers, we can stipulate that we all believe that human life begins at conception and that legal abortion-on-demand is a grave evil that needs to end. Our disagreement is not about the morality of abortion but about constitutional interpretation and the best strategy to end legal abortion.

Of course its impossible for Paul supporters to respect anyone else, because to be a Paul supporter is to believe that everyone else in the GOP who doesn’t support Ron Paul is a fraudulent pro-lifer or merely stupid. And they wonder why they don’t convince anyone of their point of view. It amazes me the level to which some of the Paul supporters will stoop in order to advance their candidate. Sad.

Ishii
 
ishii said:
Thanks for the link. And I would repeat what Denny says about respecting each other in the pro-life movement:

***Before doing that, however, let me clarify that I view this dispute as a disagreement among pro-lifers regarding strategy and constitutional interpretation. Pro-lifers can disagree over these issues and still be pro-life. It is counterproductive, therefore, to make arguments that begin with, “If you were really pro-life, then you would [adopt my point of view].”

Ishii***

Advice that Santorum seems to have missed. See: youtube.com/watch?v=cypg0Qvh__8

Advice that certain “pro-life” organizations that give Ron Paul somewhere around a 50% pro-life rating over a “disagreement…regarding strategy and constitutional interpretation,” seem to have missed.
Click to expand...
 
votesmart.org/candidate/evaluations/27054/rick-santorum/2

That’s Rick Santorum’s REAL record when it comes to being Pro-life.

Out of 23 times, he failed only twice to get a score of 0% by the pro-choice ratings people, and he NEVER FAILED to get a 100% score by the pro-life ratings people.

Now, before you attack him and say that just proves he voted occasionally pro-choice bills. Think about what I just told you: only the pro-choice people give him ratings of being in their camp (one is 5%, the other 20%). Well… the pro-life people don’t rate him 95% or 80% during those votes. They calculate the same votes as Santorum being 100% pro-life.

So, I’m just not going to trust the pro-choice people. And, furthermore… importance of numbers. Look, I know you’re going to jump on the TWO TIMES that Santorum didn’t get a 0% pro-choice. But, don’t forget about the TWENTY ONE OUT OF TWENTY THREE TIMES that he got either 0% pro-choice, or 100% pro-life.

Moreover, you should consider this: “Ron Paul 2001 NARAL Pro-Choice America Positions 35%”
FROM: votesmart.org/candidate/296/ron-paul?categoryId=2

Ron Paul only got 3 ratings from these agencies anyways. One of them was 35% pro-choice. But, the fact that he’s rated only 3 times proves he never votes for bills… INCLUDING PRO LIFE ONES. It looks like he only voted for a pro-life bill in 2009 (based on the ratings)… Whereas Rick Santorum voted for pro-life bills in:
**
Years Rick Santorum voted pro-life ------------------------------------ Year Ron Paul voted pro-life
1996 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2009
1997
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004**

So, who are we going to trust with pro-life issues? A man who was made a Knight of the Order of Malta by the Catholic Church (and his wife a Dame), who attends daily Latin Mass in Washington D.C. A man who chose life in the case of 2 of his own children (one of whom died, and one of whom is a living miracle with an illness that should’ve killed her 2 years ago). OR a Baptist Libertarian who may speak pro-life words but doesn’t carry out pro-life actions in his voting record.

I cited the voting records of Santorum and Ron Paul on abortion… those are the gold standard on this issue. That’s game, set, and match. Everything else is just mud from the Ron Paul campaign. These are the facts.
 
kubark said:
Under Ron Paul’s strategy, there is a very high probability that abortion would ALREADY be illegal in many of the 50 states.

Under the Santorum/Gingrich/Romney approach, abortion is CURRENTLY legal in all 50 states.
Click to expand...
And what are your beliefs about the approach of the Catholic Bishops?

That’s right, I DARE YOU to say that the strategy of the Bishops is worse than that of Ron Paul.

The Bishops (as evidenced in the Mississippi Personhood Amendment) are not in favor of challenging the law, IF during the time that challenge takes place… the challenge will be met with Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and 4 other liberals on the court to enshrine into law anything they want to (because they hate the Constitution, and would sooner look to French law than the Constitution).

I’m fairly confident that all Catholics are compelled to support the Bishops. And, I fully support the Bishops in their strategies to end abortion.

Do you?
 
Semper_Zelare said:
And what are your beliefs about the approach of the Catholic Bishops?

That’s right, I DARE YOU to say that the strategy of the Bishops is worse than that of Ron Paul.

The Bishops (as evidenced in the Mississippi Personhood Amendment) are not in favor of challenging the law, IF during the time that challenge takes place… the challenge will be met with Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and 4 other liberals on the court to enshrine into law anything they want to (because they hate the Constitution, and would sooner look to French law than the Constitution).

I’m fairly confident that all Catholics are compelled to support the Bishops. And, I fully support the Bishops in their strategies to end abortion.

Do you?
Click to expand...
What “strategy” of the Bishops “as evidenced in the Mississipi Personhood Amendment” are you refering to? I DARE you to document your assertions.

We are obliged to follow the Church in issues of faith and morals. Particular political **strategies **espoused by “the Bishops” are a matter of politics, NOT faith and morals.

When it comes to politics there is this little thing called the Constitution that has been ignored by both parties. As a result, abortion remains legal in all 50 states. The only political “strategy” that will end abortion is one that obeys the Constitution.
 
Semper_Zelare said:
votesmart.org/candidate/evaluations/27054/rick-santorum/2

That’s Rick Santorum’s REAL record when it comes to being Pro-life.

Out of 23 times, he failed only twice to get a score of 0% by the pro-choice ratings people, and he NEVER FAILED to get a 100% score by the pro-life ratings people.

So, who are we going to trust with pro-life issues?
Click to expand...
You ask, “who are we going to trust with pro-life issues?” Certainly not Rick Santorum. He does** NOT **have a 100% pro-life record. Any so-called “pro-life” organization that would give Rick Santorum a 100% pro-life rating is either incompetent or lacks credibility.

The reasons Rick Santorum is NOT 100% pro-life are simple:

Between 1995 and 2006, Rick Santorum voted 10 times to fund Title X family planning services, including Planned Parenthood, that directly funded contraception and indirectly funded abortions. No one with that kind of voting record could be considered 100% pro-life. Ron Paul never voted** FOR funding Title X family planning services, yet somehow he is the one that is less **pro-life than Santorum? Unbelievable.

Here is Rick Santorum in his own words affirming that he has indeed voted** for **“birth control, contraception, and Title X”: youtube.com/watch?v=sB5pZqAenp4

In 1997, Santorum campaigned for the pro-abortion, anti-gun governor of New Jersey, Christine Todd Whitman who had deep associations with radical abortion supporting groups like Republicans for Choice and The Republican Majority for Choice. Whitman was even an active proponent of partial birth abortions. In 2004, Rick Santorum endorsed pro-abortion Arlen Specter over the social and fiscal conservative Pat Toomey in a senate race. Santorum’s ease in walking away from his alleged social values was unforgivable to many Pennsylvanians. It has been speculated that Santorum was repaying a favor to Specter for having provided Santorum with important political staff during his first Senate race. Ron Paul never endorsed pro-abortion candidates, yet somehow he is** less **pro-life than Santorum. Inexcusable.

Here is Rick Santorum in his own words endorsing the pro-abortion Arlen Specter: youtube.com/watch?v=Y3HOb0NEJ1E

As a side note to the Specter endorsement, in 2010, at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference, six years after his endorsement of Arlen Specter, came the revelation from Santorum that, “the reason I endorsed Arlen Specter is because we were going to have two Supreme Court nominees coming up.” “I got a commitment from Arlen Specter that no matter who George W. Bush would nominate, he would support that nominee.” (pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2010/04/santorum_i_endorsed_specter_ag.html)

Arlen Specter immediately denied that such a Supreme Court nominee “deal” ever took place: “I never made any promise to Senator Santorum about this. I would never make a promise on a vote like this under any circumstances. I’m sorry his support for me has caused him trouble in his efforts for the Republican nomination for president. He’s had six years to make this charge and he hadn’t said anything about it,’’ Specter said. (pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2010/04/specter_denies_endorsement_dea.html)

And then you have the inconvenient fact that Rick Santorum’s Leadership PAC, America’s Foundation, financially supported candidates who have supported pro-abortion positions, including:

Rep. Charlie Dent (R-PA) $9,500 between 2004 & 2010
Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) $10,000 in 2002
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) $10,000 in 2004

Yet, somehow Rick Santorum is** MORE **pro-life than Ron Paul!!?? It doesn’t make sense.

You also have to consider the fact that the establishment, status-quo, big-goverment “conservative” Republicans, like Rick Santorum, controlled the entire federal government for a span of six years between 2000 and 2006, and yet at the end of those six years abortion was still legal in all 50 states. The GOP has controlled the U.S. Supreme Court since 1973. That means GOP appointments have dominated the Court for over thirty years, and yet abortion-on-demand is still the law of the land.

In 2005, 2007, 2009, and 2011, Paul reintroduced the “Sanctity of Life Act,” which would have life defined as beginning at conception at the Federal level. Ron Paul’s Sanctity of Life Act would remove challenges to prohibitions on abortion from federal court jurisdiction. If passed, this Act would recognize the personhood the unborn by declaring that “human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.” The Act also recognizes the authority of each State to protect the lives of unborn children. In addition, this Act would remove abortion from the jurisdiction of the Court, thereby nullifying the Roe v. Wade decision. The Act would also deny funding for abortion providers. In plain language, the Sanctity of Life Act would overturn Roe v. Wade and end abortion-on-demand.

In 2005, Paul also introduced the “We the People Act,” which would have removed “any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of … reproduction” from the jurisdiction of federal courts.

If made law, either of these Acts would allow states to prohibit abortion,** IMMEDIATELY**. The only problem is that neither of these Bills is very likely to pass, not because of anything Ron Paul has failed to do, but for the reason that establishment Republicans like Rick Santorum (who have plenty of time to vote** FOR **Title X and plenty of time to endorse pro-abortion politicians) have no time to support Ron Paul and his Sanctity of Life Act.

Yet somehow Rick Santorum is 100% pro-life?

Not a chance.
 
Rick Santorum on Abortion Click here for 25 full quotes on Abortion OR other candidates on Abortion OR background on Abortion.
  • Gingrich’s abortion stances compared to Santorum’s. (Jan 2012)
  • States have the right to ban contraception, but shouldn’t. (Jan 2012)
  • No abortions even in cases of rape; one violence is enough. (Aug 2011)
  • I’ve not only taken the pledge; I’ve taken the bullets. (Jun 2011)
  • FactCheck: Under 1/4 of pregnancies end in abortion, not 1/3. (May 2011)
  • FactCheck: No, female suicide & crime not worse under Roe. (Feb 2011)
  • Plan B morning-after pill is abortion, and dangerous. (Sep 2006)
  • Exception for rape & incest ok, even though they take a life. (Sep 2006)
  • Partial birth abortion is not used only for abnormalities. (Apr 2006)
  • Scientifically, an embryo is human from moment of conception. (Apr 2006)
  • 93% of abortions are post-conception birth control. (Apr 2006)
  • Partial birth abortion allows killing baby if only toe is in. (Apr 2006)
  • There is no federal right to privacy. (Apr 2003)
  • Responsible stem cell research doesn’t destroy embryos. (Aug 2001)
  • Protect any child born alive from botched abortion. (Jun 2001)
  • Partial birth abortion should shock your conscience. (Dec 1995)
  • Voted YES on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
  • Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
  • Voted YES on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
  • Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
  • Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
  • Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
  • Voted YES on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)
  • Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
  • Supports the Pro-life Presidential Leadership Pledge. (Jan 2012)
issues2000.org/Rick_Santorum.htm

http://www.issues2000.org/images/s000_090.gifRick Santorum is a Hard-Core Conservative.
Click here for explanation of political philosophy.
Click here for VoteMatch quiz.
 
From the pro-Abortion group NARL (looks like they think Santorum is very strongly anti-abortion)

On Santorum:

Former Sen. Rick Santorum is an extreme anti-choice politician.
  • During his time in the U.S. House of Representatives, Santorum cast 27 choice-related votes. All 27 were anti-choice. 1
  • As a U.S. senator, he voted anti-choice 72 times out of 73 opportunities. 2
  • As senator, Santorum authored the Federal Abortion Ban, a law that criminalizes some abortion services and carries a two-year prison sentence for doctors. 3
Former Sen. Santorum is a champion of the extreme anti-choice movement:
  • He stated “I would advocate that any doctor that performs an abortion should be criminally charged for doing so.” 4
  • He made an outrageous comparison of abortion to slavery, saying, “For decades certain human beings were wrongly treated as property and denied liberty in America because they were not considered persons under the constitution. Today other human beings, the unborn of all races, are also wrongly treated as property and denied the right to life for the same reason…” 5
  • At an anti-choice forum, Sen. Santorum claimed credit for every extreme attack on choice that passed the Senate in the last 20 years, boasting “I’ve been in the foxhole on the front line.” 6
Former Sen. Santorum even opposes women’s access to birth control:
  • He pledged to repeal all federal funding for contraception. 7
  • He stated that “One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.” 8
I would say that Santorum passes the test of being anti-abortion
 
Palin hints that Romney might be a flawed candidate in a matchup with Obama - WSJ

Santorum still surging

Santorum moves ahead of Gingrich and is 5.8% behind Romney in national poll of polls - RCP

Team Santorum is confident that they can beat Romney if they can get race down to a one-to-one - Politico
Code: 
"Romney has been painting Santorum as a long-time Washington insider who pursued home-state projects. Santorum on Sunday described Romney's recent criticism as "desperate." "You reach a point where desperate people do desperate things," said Santorum, who represented Pennsylvania during his 16 years in Congress, first in the House and then in the Senate." - [USA Today](http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-02-12/santorum-romney-michigan/53060592/1) | [WSJ](http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/02/12/santorum-sees-two-person-race-with-romney/)
Romney wins Maine, beating off strong Paul challenge…

“In Maine, Romney won 39 percent of the poll votes; Texas Rep. Ron Paul took 36 percent of the vote, while former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum captured 18 percent. Former House speaker Newt Gingrich won 6 percent.” - Washington Post

“It was a smart decision for Mr. Romney to pay a late visit to the state, without which he might have lost.” - Nate Silver

But Paul campaign disputes Romney’s Maine victory - MSNBC
Code: 
Santorum hints CPAC poll was rigged - [LA Times](http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-santorum-working-women-cpac-poll-20120212,0,6757136.story)
Jennifer Rubin predicts the right-wing blogosphere will downplay Romney’s CPAC and Maine victories: “Standing on the floor of the ballroom, I remarked to a conservative journalist after the speech that I was surprised by the robust greeting (given all the harrumphing in the right-wing media). He waved me off: “It doesn’t matter what he says.” Well, yes, to many in the right blogosphere nothing Romney says makes any difference, but voters, even very conservative activists, are a different matter.”

Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell urges GOP activists to back Romney - USA Today

For a candidate running against the entrenched interests of Washington, Romney keeps an awful lot of lobbyists around - New York Times

NRO: Romney must set out his agenda

“Romney is a transactional politician rather than a charismatic one. Maybe he should make the most of it: Tell conservatives what they will get out of a Romney presidency. Entitlements brought under budgetary control. A more market-oriented health-care system. Judges who know their place in the constitutional architecture. Fannie and Freddie extinguished. The defense budget protected. Tax reform, and tax relief for families.” - NRO Editors

Romney mocked for describing himself as “severe” conservative

“As Molly Ball of The Atlantic pointed out, Mr. Romney “described conservatism as if it were a disease.” Indeed. Mark Liberman, a linguistics professor at the University of Pennsylvania, provided a list of words that most commonly follow the adverb “severely”; the top five, in frequency of use, are disabled, depressed, ill, limited and injured.” - Paul Krugman in the New York Times
 
Gingrich campaign in need of cash

At RCP Michael Barone thinks last week’s results were serious for Gingrich: “The one candidate who took a clear loss was Newt Gingrich, who failed to get on the ballot in Missouri, finished a miserable fourth in Minnesota and beat Ron Paul by 1 percent in Colorado. Those are dreadful results 16 days after his big win in South Carolina. It’s not clear how he maintains the visibility he needs to recover.”
Code: 
 In need of cash, Gingrich is forced to focus on donors rather than voters -[ New York Times](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/13/us/politics/gingrich-money-hunt-faces-obstacles.html?_r=1&ref=politics)
Al Cardenas, head of the American Conservative Union, has said that Republican turmoil might lead to a brokered convention in which Jeb Bush, former Florida governor, would emerge as a “possible alternative” party nominee - Toby Harnden

2012 primary race is increasing voter dislike for GOP - Washington Post

Republicans have become “nattering nabobs of negativism” - Dana Milbank for the Washington Post

Republican National Committee prepares “The Big Fail” briefing highlighting Obama’s record on unemployment, housing, national debt, poverty, ethics and negative advertising - Daily Caller
 
Semper_Zelare said:
I’m fairly confident that all Catholics are compelled to support the Bishops.
Click to expand...
This is not true. The bishops should only expect obedience on matters of Church law and discipline. Catholics are compelled to follow them in matters of canon law. However, in politics, Catholics need follow Church doctrine, as taught by their bishop, with the freedom to consider the best way to follow Church teaching.
 
ProVobis said:
That may be but when I go to the polls they only give me candidates to vote for. I refuse to vote for a party and I refuse to be labelled.
Click to expand...
Same here, although this is actually a change for me. I ceased calling myself a Republican four years ago after a life time of party activity. I would reconsider if the party changes, but I don’t see that happening soon. In fact, I think it would be easier to raise a new third party to eclipse it than it would be to restore the party. However, I respect those that remain to help change it, as I do those Democrats for the same reason.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top