Republican Primary

[kubark]

Easily. I support Truman’s decision to drop the two nukes on Japan, even though many innocents were killed. Sometimes necessary choices aren’t happy ones. Rob

If terrorism is the deliberate slaughter of noncombatants to break the will of the enemy, were not Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki war terror on a monumental scale?

Heck, even former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, who worked with Curtis Lemay on the plans to incinerate Japanese cities, says in the documentary Fog of War, that General Curtis Lemay came to the conclusion that, “if we’d lost, we’d be prosecuted as war criminals; and I think he was right. Lemay, and I, were acting like war criminals.”

 

[kubark]

No, we have (yet another) Ron-Paul la-la-land campaign-stump fantasy off his web site, spammed by his supporters. Newsflash - Pat Toomey lost.

If Rick backs Pat Toomey he still loses, Arlen Specter doesn’t vote for Justice Roberts or Justice Alito in committee so their confirmations fail in committee on 9-9 votes, and then he bolts the party 6 years early and everybody blames Rick Santorum for hurting the party and the movement. Quick! Let’s all get into a Delorean so we can live in that awesome timeline!

Yeah, Barack Obama is definitely going to spend his money convincing people Rick Santorum isn’t a pro-life alternative.

The only people pushing this angle are Mitt Romney’s favorite proxy-warriors, the Ronulans.

• Marty Lund

Excuses, excuses, excuses. It is sad, but rather entertaining to watch the lengths to which Santorum disciples go to defend their boy.

And we don’t Barack Obama to “convince people Rick Santorum isn’t a pro-life…” For that we turn to Rick Santorum’s own record:

From 1995 through 2006, Rick Santorum VOTED 10 times to FUND Title X and International family planning services, including Planned Parenthood, that directly funded contraception and indirectly funded abortion. (youtube.com/watch?v=sB5pZqAenp4)

Rick Santorum supported and** ENDORSED **radical pro-death politicians, including former NJ Governor Christine Todd Whitman and former PA Senator Arlen Specter. WARNING!: watching the following endorsement might make you sick (youtube.com/watch?v=Y3HOb0NEJ1E)

In addition to his well-known endorsements of Arlen Specter and Christine Todd Whitman, 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

Santorum also **VOTED FOR **funding for the Legal Services Corporation, which has spent federal funds challenging parental notification laws for abortion.

In contrast to Santorum’s betrayal, we have Ron Paul’s record:

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. However, he believes regulation of medical decisions about maternal or fetal health is “best handled at the state level”. He believes that according to the U.S. Constitution states should, for the most part, retain jurisdiction. Paul’s constitutional approach **can IMMEDIATELY save lives by effectively repealing Roe v. Wade and preventing activist judges from interfering with state decisions on life by removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction through legislation modeled after his “We the People Act.” **In addition to defining human life to begin at conception at the Federal level, Paul’s Sanctity of Life Act would remove challenges to prohibitions on abortion from federal court jurisdiction. 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.

In order to “offset the effects of Roe v. Wade”, Paul voted in favor of the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. He has described partial birth abortion as a “barbaric procedure”. He also introduced H.R. 4379 that would prohibit the Supreme Court from ruling on issues relating to abortion, birth control, the definition of marriage and homosexuality and would cause the court’s precedents in these areas to no longer be binding. He once said, “The best solution, of course, is not now available to us. That would be a Supreme Court that recognizes that for all criminal laws, the several states retain jurisdiction.”

Because Paul agrees with Thomas Jefferson that it is “sinful and tyrannical” to “compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors,” Ron Paul advocates protecting the American people’s freedom of conscience by working to prohibit taxpayer funds from being used for abortions, Planned Parenthood, or any other so-called “family planning” program.

Here is Ron Paul on abortion in his own words, if you don’t believe me:

South Carolina Debate: (youtube.com/watch?v=cypg0Qvh__8)

Personhood USA Forum: (youtube.com/watch?v=Hv7wNgZWU9c)

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Easily. I support Truman’s decision to drop the two nukes on Japan, even though many innocents were killed. Sometimes necessary choices aren’t happy ones. Rob

Pope Pius XII condemned the bombings, expressing a view in keeping with the traditional Roman Catholic position that “every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man.” The Vatican newspaper Osservatore Romano commented in its August 7, 1945, issue: “This war provides a catastrophic conclusion. Incredibly this destructive weapon remains as a temptation for posterity, which, we know by bitter experience, learns so little from history.”

 

[mlund]

From 1995 through 2006, Rick Santorum …

You keep spamming the same Ron Paul Website talking points over and over again, as if you really expect them to magically become true because you copy-pasted them enough times. Sad, really.

We can’t all be Harry Reid and not pass budgets for 3 years letting spending go out of control and pretend it isn’t our fault.

We can’t all be Ron Paul and viciously smear people for supporting a Moderate Republican in a race against a Pro-Abortion Liberal Democrat.

We can’t all be Ron Paul and make misleading claims that someone “voted for abortion funding” when they never inserted the spending into the budget and never voted to protect that funding in the budget.

Santorum also VOTED FOR funding for the Legal Services Corporation, which has spent federal funds challenging parental notification laws for abortion.

And we can’t all be the colossal hypocrite Ron Paul is for accusing someone of being “pro-abortion” for voting for access to lawyers for poor people (even if they bring lousy lawsuits with that representation), and then turn around and make the Past Chairman of the Legal Services Corporation into one of our campaign spokesmen!

I mean, by Ron Paul’s own logic he supports rape and murder since he supports appointing Public Defenders who represent rapists and murders.

Of course, Ron Paul doesn’t really support rape and murder. He and his supporters just use a brazen double-standard and play fast-and-loose with the truth when copy-paste spamming attacks on all his political opponents.

• Marty Lund

 

[rlg94086]

LOL. The average is what counts. LOL.

Not at all. Polls are a snapshot in time. The most current poll shows the change in the electorate’s preferences. As Bob and ProVobis point out, polls actually don’t count at all - votes and delegate counts do.

Current delegate count is…

90 - Romney
44 - Santorum
32 - Gingrich
13 - Paul

Santorum currently has momentum, and that does matter. If he continues to rise in the polls, it will be reflected in votes in the upcoming primaries. He could very well overtake Romney. Gingrich and Romney are both faltering. Ron Paul has been pretty consistent. Being consistent ~3rd in each state isn’t going to win you a nomination.

 

[kubark]

You keep spamming the same Ron Paul Website talking points over and over again, as if you really expect them to magically become true because you copy-pasted them enough times. Sad, really.

We can’t all be Harry Reid and not pass budgets for 3 years letting spending go out of control and pretend it isn’t our fault.

We can’t all be Ron Paul and viciously smear people for supporting a Moderate Republican in a race against a Pro-Abortion Liberal Democrat.

We can’t all be Ron Paul and make misleading claims that someone “voted for abortion funding” when they never inserted the spending into the budget and never voted to protect that funding in the budget.

And we can’t all be the colossal hypocrite Ron Paul is for accusing someone of being “pro-abortion” for voting for access to lawyers for poor people (even if they bring lousy lawsuits with that representation), and then turn around and make the Past Chairman of the Legal Services Corporation into our of campaign spokesmen!

I mean, by Ron Paul’s own logic he supports rape and murder since he supports appointing Public Defenders who represent rapists and murders.

Of course, Ron Paul doesn’t really support rape and murder. He and his supporters just use a brazen double-standard and play fast-and-loose with the truth when copy-paste spamming attacks on all his political opponents.

• Marty Lund

But you have not even attempted to dispute the facts that I have presented, have you, mlund?

Who is this “Past Chairman of the Legal Services Corporation”? How do you figure it is relevant? Did Ron Paul vote for federal funding for the Legal Services Corporation when they were challenging parental notification laws?

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Not at all. Polls are a snapshot in time. The most current poll shows the change in the electorate’s preferences. As Bob and ProVobis point out, polls actually don’t count at all - votes and delegate counts do.

Current delegate count is…

90 - Romney
44 - Santorum
32 - Gingrich
13 - Paul

Santorum currently has momentum, and that does matter. If he continues to rise in the polls, it will be reflected in votes in the upcoming primaries. He could very well overtake Romney. Gingrich and Romney are both faltering. Ron Paul has been pretty consistent. Being consistent ~3rd in each state isn’t going to win you a nomination.

And those of us in Virginia only have two choices. Wish Santorum were one of them. A brokered convention could easily be a reality.

 

[kubark]

Not at all. Polls are a snapshot in time. The most current poll shows the change in the electorate’s preferences. As Bob and ProVobis point out, polls actually don’t count at all - votes and delegate counts do.

Current delegate count is…

90 - Romney
44 - Santorum
32 - Gingrich
13 - Paul

You need to remember that not one single delegate was awarded this Tuesday. The Missouri primary was a non-binding popularity contest; the contest for delegates won’t take place for another month. In Iowa, not 1 of the 28 delegates has been awarded. In Colorado and Nevada, the delegates awarded to Ron Paul will far exceed the straw poll/popularity contest numbers. In Minnesota where Paul finished second, Paul is well-organized to win the bulk of delegates there.

You have to remember the distinction between a caucus state and a primary state.

And you also have to ask yourself the following question: How Paul can be given 13 out of 13 delegates from a precinct that Santorum won in popular vote?

For the answer I will first direct you to Ron Paul’s campaign website (ronpaul.com/2012-02-08/ron-paul-winning-the-battle-for-delegates/) where one finds the following information:

"*As an example of our campaign’s delegate strength, take a look at what has occurred in Colorado:

In one precinct in Larimer County, the straw poll vote was 23 for Santorum, 13 for Paul, 5 for Romney, 2 for Gingrich. There were 13 delegate slots, and Ron Paul got ALL 13.

In a precinct in Delta County the vote was 22 for Santorum, 12 for Romney, 8 for Paul, 7 for Gingrich. There were 5 delegate slots, and ALL 5 went to Ron Paul.

In a Pueblo County precinct, the vote was 16 for Santorum, 11 for Romney, 3 for Gingrich and 2 for Paul. There were 2 delegate slots filled, and both were filled by Ron Paul supporters.

We are also seeing the same trends in Minnesota, Nevada, and Iowa, and in Missouri as well.*"

So, how did Ron Paul get all 13 delegates, even though Santorum won the straw poll? The answer is that there were 13 Ron Paul supporters there. There were 13 allowed delegates for that precinct. All 13 Ron Paul supporters ran for delegate positions and were voted in (by all the people who were in that room INCLUDING the OTHER candidates supporters). None of the other candidates had supporters step up to the plate and become delegates. Every single person in that room, regardless of who they supported as candidate, had the opportunity to run as a delegate. Some chose not to.

If more people would become aware of the election process for their state, they too could go forward to support their candidate in this way.

Now, this is how it is done in Caucus states. Primary states are different. In those states, the delegates are awarded depending on who does win the straw poll in their individual districts. 3 delegates are allowed per district. If a candidate wins in a district, they will then select 3 delegates to represent them at the National Convention (usually if you want to be a delegate in this situation, you sign up with the campaign ahead of time. Ron Paul has a link on his website that educates his supporters on how this is done). These delegates are then “bound” to vote for that candidate.

However, if a candidate wins a majority (over 50%) of the straw poll in a primary, all delegates in all districts get awarded to that candidate and are bound.

This is just a simplified explanation. Some states have variations on these rules.

The irony is that the GOP has developed a convoluted system that may effectively put Ron Paul into office.

 

[gilliam]

Santorum is surging. Santorum has a “healthy” lead in PPP’s new national poll, apparently he’s also leading in Michigan, home to former Gov. George Romney and his son Mitt. Quote: “This may be the biggest surge yet”.

 

[ProVobis]

Current delegate count is…

90 - Romney
44 - Santorum
32 - Gingrich
13 - Paul

Look at it this way. If no one has sown up the nomination by June, those 13 delegates (and how many more Ron Paul get) are going to look mighty big. If we get enough, Bernanke will be packing his bags and return to Princeton before November.

“Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes the laws.” - Rothschild

 

[ishii]

Look at it this way. If no one has sown up the nomination by June, those 13 delegates (and how many more Ron Paul get) are going to look mighty big. If we get enough, Bernanke will be packing his bags and return to Princeton before November.

“Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes the laws.” - Rothschild

Possibly a brokered convention. Interesting to speculate on who might end up being a compromise candidate at that point. Jeb Bush? I doubt it, but some have been saying its possible. His name might not help him though. Paul Ryan? He didn’t answer no when a radio host asked him if he’d accept if nominated in some kind of brokered convention. Or perhaps, you might get Romney and Santorum joining forces (and delegates) by running together. Reagan picked the moderate Bush to be his vice president after all. It will be interesting. Don’t think Paul will be much of a factor.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

You keep spamming the same Ron Paul Website talking points over and over again, as if you really expect them to magically become true because you copy-pasted them enough times. Sad, really.

No kidding. I haven’t seen this much spam since I lived in Hawaii.

Ishii

 

[LovePatience]

Her statement was false. Neither the rate of abortion nor the number of abortions increased under Bush.

The statement was not false. During the course of Bush’s second term, from 2005- 2008, the rate of abortions increased from 19.4 to 19.6. johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-unitedstates.html

Newspaper have even noted this such as the New York Times and USA Today.
usatoday.com/news/health/2010-01-26-1Ateenpregnancy26_ST_N.htm
Teen pregnancy, abortion rates rise

The teen pregnancy rate in the USA rose 3% in 2006, the first increase in more than a decade, according to data out today. The data also show higher rates of births and abortions among girls 15-19.

The numbers, calculated by the Guttmacher Institute, a non-profit group that studies reproductive and sexual health, show a clear reversal from the downward trend that began in the 1990s.

 

[Semper_Zelare]

Not at all. Polls are a snapshot in time. The most current poll shows the change in the electorate’s preferences. As Bob and ProVobis point out, polls actually don’t count at all - votes and delegate counts do.

Current delegate count is…

90 - Romney
44 - Santorum
32 - Gingrich
13 - Paul

Santorum currently has momentum, and that does matter. If he continues to rise in the polls, it will be reflected in votes in the upcoming primaries. He could very well overtake Romney. Gingrich and Romney are both faltering. Ron Paul has been pretty consistent. Being consistent ~3rd in each state isn’t going to win you a nomination.

Well, there aren’t 2 sources that actually agree on the delegate count out there.

These are how many delegates the candidates COULD have, by different counts

Mitt Romney= 88-125
Rick Santorum 4-71
Newt Gingrich 23-35
Ron Paul 5-20

Yes, I have seen those counts, and plenty in between all over the place. And, all of them have made these calculations in the same period of time after 8 contests.

The bottom line is this: you are indeed right. Not even the media can call Mitt Romney the frontrunner anymore (not without very big qualifications to that status). Right now, everyone is quietly contemplating that Rick Santorum might be the nominee.

Unlike Gingrich, Santorum is actually ALSO a goody-two shoes in his personal life just like Mitt Romney. It seems that Mitt Romney actually has LESS dirt on Santorum, than Santorum has on him.

This means Mitt Romney isn’t able to buy millions of dollars of ads and win. Because people simply aren’t gonna buy what those ads say about Santorum.

So… Romney’s only option is to win based off his platform, his charisma, as Charles Krauthammer says: “He’s gotta acually make the sell”. And, he can’t make that sell. That’s why this whole race his BEST chance was to act like he had already won, and ALWAYS mention: money, organization, electability.

Now that he can’t do that, and he has to talk about: Policy, Values, Beliefs, Message. Well, GOOD LUCK MITT. I think Santorum has a good shot of stealing Michigan and Arizona from Romney. I mean, people aren’t going to vote for someone JUST BECAUSE he has the best organization.

If he doesn’t have a compelling message like Santorum… I don’t see how having McCain’s endorsement, and being born in Michigan is gonna get him 2 wins.

 

[ishii]

Despite all Bush did, abortion rates decreased faster during Clinton’s time in office than Bush’s; they even started increasing during Bush’s second term. Why is this? Are these battles symbolic or substantial?

The battles will be symbolic until we get a supreme court that overturns Roe V Wade. And for that to happen we will need another president who nominates justices like Bush did, not like Obama does.

Ishii

 

[LovePatience]

Let me offer a different take - and I assume, rightfully or not, that you are sincerely interested in the truth about the history of that era and not just a partisan shill trying to score political points regardless of the truth. The old “Any supreme court justice nominated by a Republican should be a guarenteed vote to overturn Roe V Wade and anything short of that standard proves that the Republican party is not pro-life” argument is fallacious. I will explain this once more, and assume that you just didn’t read my previous posts. …

Bork opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act. People have different definitions or racism; for some people, anything goes except violence. The UN does not define “racism”, however it does define “racial discrimination”: According to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, “the term “racial discrimination” shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin that has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.” Anyone who opposes a Civil Rights Act should prepare to have a convincing defense against racism or indifference (if one can even exist) since it was a measure designed to bring people to equality when they did not previously have it.

This isn’t the whole story though.
Planned Parenthood vs. Casey ruled in 1992 on Roe v. Wade.
William Rehnquist - Reagan
Byron White - Kennedy
Harry Blackmun - Nixon
John P. Stevens - Ford
Sandra Day O’Connor - Reagan
Antonin Scalia - Reagan
Anthony Kennedy - Reagan
David Souter - Bush
Clarence Thomas - Bush

8 out of 9 appointed by Republicans. The five justices who took the opportunity to affirm Roe were: O’Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Blackmun and Stevens. The one Democrat appointee (Byron White) did NOT affirm Roe and joined in a dissent with Rehnquist and Scalia, while five Republican appointees did. Are you now going to blame all five of them on Bork?

LOL! your assertion that the government is “more efficient” . Government is the epitome of inefficiency. If you don’t believe me, go to the Dept. of Moter Vehicles or any other govt. agency and compare their effeciency with that of say, a privately owned members only warehouse. Or a private charity. Also, another question: what “problem” has been reduced due to government intervention?

Government is composed of people; it rises and falls with the choices made by the people who live in the state being governed. If they choose to vote for bad leaders because they are full of resentments, they will be poorly governed. Would you rather live in a failed state? Europe and Japan were rebuilt after WWII with government intervention. Government functions poorly in some places in the United States because a lot of people self righteously try to sabotage it.

86 per cent of the citizens of Norway think that their country is close to being a perfect country to live in. We are also satisfied with public services. The highest level of satisfaction is enjoyed by, among others, the public library, the state owned vine and liquor store operator Vinmonopolet and the colleges of higher learning. At the lower end of the satisfaction scale are institutions like the municipal planning and building office, the Norwegian railway NSB and the Norwegian Welfare and Labour Administration NAV. These are conclusions from the nationwide Citizen Survey which measures how satisfied Norwegian citizens are with municipal, regional and government services. regjeringen.no/en/dep/fad/press-centre/press-releases/2010/citizen-survey-shows-satisfied-users-but.html?id=590343

I would say that the GOP has a different plan to reduce poverty. It involves more opportunity and a growing economy. Wouldn’t you say that for those in poverty, a job would be a better thing than a welfare handout? Some might say Democrat party wants to keep people poor and dependent on government handouts and assistance so that they will get their votes. Those who rob Peter to pay Paul can always get the political support of Paul.

Ishii

Can you show me an example of the success of their plan? Why is it that the Republican states are the poorest in the country? Why is it that the countries that follow the same principles as what the GOP advocates are the most poor in the world?

Its really ridiculous to focus only on helping the rich; Mexico has lower taxes and richer rich. Carlos Slim is the richest man in the world, from Mexico, richer than Warren Buffet and Bill Gates. For a country to prosper, MANY people have to do well; the middle class needs to exist, and that means that safeguards should exist so that those who have the aspirations, character, and intelligence to succeed can. This means that education needs to be funded, child protective services need to exist, children need to have nutritious meals and healthcare.

 

[estesbob]

The statement was not false. During the course of Bush’s second term, from 2005- 2008, the rate of abortions increased from 19.4 to 19.6. johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-unitedstates.html

Newspaper have even noted this such as the New York Times and USA Today.
usatoday.com/news/health/2010-01-26-1Ateenpregnancy26_ST_N.htm
Teen pregnancy, abortion rates rise

So now weve went from “abortion increased under Bush” to abortions increased 2 tenths of 1 per cent in Bush’s second term. Of course this increase is only becuase they DECREASED in his first term and stayed relatively the same in his second term / And of course it does not take into account the decrease in overseas abortions bought about by his reinstituting the Mexico City policy.

 

[LovePatience]

So I deny your assertion that pro-life groups support pro-choice Republicans since you can’t give any examples.

Some of the examples are on this thread. Susan B. Anthony List revoked a pro-life award it had planned to give to Stupak after he voted for Obama’s health care legislation and ran $150,000.00 worth of radio advertisements against him, despite the fact that his amendment reduced the federal funding of abortion. On the other hand, some pro-life groups have endorsed Mitt Romney whose health care plan does MORE to fund abortion than Obama’s; it explicitly gives taxpayer funding to abortion with copays of $50, $100, or zero.

But here is a more explicit example: endorsing Steve Poizner. lifepriority.net/Governor’s%20Race%202.pdf

About the Author: Bob Cielnicky has been active in the pro-life movement since shortly before Roe V. Wade was handed down. He has participated in a broad spectrum of pro-life activities and helped organize pro-life rallies, events and projects in California, Massachusetts and Florida. He is Director of Life Priority Network. His wife, Beverly, is National President of Crusade For Life, a Christian pro-life organization that has been dedicated to protecting human life from conception to natural death since 1971.

 

[oldcelt]

8 out of 9 appointed by Republicans.

Oh no, please don’t confuse the issue with FACTS.

John

 

[snowpea]

I like Santorum and for those who think he is whiny - heck maybe he is MAD about things the way they are - he seems angry to me more than whiny and he should be

He has the spirit to beat obama-none of the others have the fire needed to get ahead and Santorum (no thanks to the media) has punked the nomination process that the media had thought was in the bag

surprise surprise-some people in this country still have a brain AND a heart.

He isn’t perfect but he is getting more support than people thought he would

Just wish he would stop bashing romney and start bashing Obama a bit more

either way I would contribute if I had the money