Republican Primary

[ishii]

Bork opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  People have different definitions or racism; for some people, anything goes except violence.   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.

William F. Buckley was against the Civil Rights Act, as was James Jackson Kilpatrick - a one-time segregationist who later became a respected syndicated columnist in mainstream newspapers. Yes, and Robert Byrd was once a grand master of the Klu Klux Klan but good liberal catholics voted for him because he was a liberal Democrat. I guess people can change. The opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights bill is sort of the modern conservatives’ original sin, for which they’ve been atoning for years. Barry Goldwater opposed it, but in later years (during the era of Bork’s nomination) he was a senator respected on both sides of the aisle. No, the opposition to Bork wasn’t because of fear that Bork would usher in a new era of racism, but rather, endanger abortion rights - the single most important special interest of the Democrat party. It is no coincidence that the catholic Teddy Kennedy in his speech on the Senate floor, said " Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters…" The first issue for Kennedy is abortion. Bork threatened legal abortion and so he was defeated by the Democrat senate. Now if you can say what you want about Bork, but atleast he didn’t find a “right” in the constitution for a mother to kill her unborn child. I am willing to forgive one’s stance on an issue in 1964 - which is now a moot point anyway. What do you think?

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?

You are either twisting history in order to deceive, or you are merely “historically challenged.” Either way, you are wrong, and its obvious you didn’t read any of my posts. I wouldn’t really list the justices nominated by presidents from the 70’s as any kind of proof of anything. Abortion didn’t really become a national presidential issue until Reagan. And his pick of Sandra Day O’connor is certainly fair game for criticism. I will give you that, if you’ll stop twisting history and saying that Richard Nixon’s and Gerald Ford’s nominees of the 1970’s are proof that the GOP of 2012 is not authentically pro-life. Deal?

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.

You’re missing the point. Of course government operated by enlightened, virtuous people can do good things - the Marshall Plan is an example. But in general, the government is naturally going to be more inefficient and ineffective. Some things are so big that they require the govt. to do it. That doesn’t mean that the federal government should be doing things that local and state government or the private sector could do more efficiently and with more accountability. The government doesn’t need to worry about efficiency - if it runs out of money, it merely has to raise taxes on those poor saps who work hard. That is a recipe for inefficiency - and that truth is a main flaw in the reasoning of any liberal statist.

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?

Last I checked the state of Texas was a bright example of economic success and business expansion - which is why Rick Perry was an immediate frontrunner when he jumped into the GOP primary race. Texas is run by the GOP. On the other hand, California has been run by Democrats for the past many years and they are in a financial mess. Next question?

Its really ridiculous to focus only on helping the rich; Mexico has lower taxes and richer rich. This means that education needs to be funded, child protective services need to exist, children need to have nutritious meals and healthcare.

Weak points and analysis. It is the robust free-market in America which has helped us attain the standard of living we enjoy today. What we need are parents who take responsibility for feeding their own children. Unfortunately Democrat welfare policies have created a society dependent on handouts and foodstamps to survive. Yes we need a safety net. But unfortunately we have a hammock.

Ishii

 

[Caldera]

CPAC 2012

Rick Santorum:
abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/rick-santorums-full-speech-cpac-2012-15556100

Newt Gingrich:
abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/newt-gingrich-full-speech-cpac-2012-15558504

Mitt Romney:
abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/mitt-romneys-full-speech-cpac-2012-15556905

Sen. Marco Rubio:
youtube.com/watch?v=KEdyViVg1i4

Rep. Allen West:
youtube.com/watch?v=7efYX9hlEnk

Robert Spencer Interview at CPAC
youtube.com/watch?v=VuYao27reKk

 

[Caldera]

Oops…Posted the wrong link for Allen West. That was from '11. Here is the link for his 2012 CPAC address. (Great speech!)
therightscoop.com/full-speech-allen-west-at-cpac-2012/

 

[ProVobis]

Don’t think Paul will be much of a factor.
Ishii

Make no mistake. Ron Paul has been a factor since he’s been in Congress, especially raising the level of pro-life, anti-war, and Federal Reserve System awareness. And he’s a gentleman and consistent with his message. Furthermore, his son will continue his message, regardless of who’s in the White House.

 

[ProVobis]

And for that to happen we will need another president who nominates justices like Bush did, not like Obama does.

Like Harriet Miers? Ooops.

And let’s not forget Fed Chairman nominations. Bernanke is about the worst Fed Reserve appointee in history. If people only realized how much he has destroyed the free-market economy, even before he became the head of the Fed.

 

[gamewell45]

How do we “work together” with a despot? Roll over, or should we defend our Constitutional liberties, granted to us by God, instead?

The problem lies herein, not everyone feels as you do and as such we have to compromise and find a common ground to be used as a starting point.

Gamewell, it is past time that everyone stood up against this horrible man intent on destroying our way of life. I refuse to leave my children with a socialist hell on earth without a fight to prevent it! Cordially, Rob

Please tell me in your opinion, what is “our way of life?”

 

[estesbob]

Make no mistake. Ron Paul has been a factor since he’s been in Congress, especially raising the level of pro-life, anti-war, and Federal Reserve System awareness. And he’s a gentleman and consistent with his message. Furthermore, his son will continue his message, regardless of who’s in the White House.

He has passed exactly one piece of Legislation in his entire political career and that involved restoration of a firehouse in his district. It would be hard to find a congressman who has been less effective in the History of the US And while we’re at it we are told we must ignore his 50% pro-life record from the American life league (as opposed to Santorums and Gingrichs nearly 100% ) and accept Paul supporters definition of pro-life and if we get past all that we are told we must ignore his racist, anti-semetic rants of 20 years ago.(some one else signed his name to them???)

 

[ishii]

Like Harriet Miers? Ooops…

Don’t forget David Souter, Anthony Kennedy, and Sandra Day O’connor. Triple Oops. Then again, if you’re looking for perfection, I am sure a president Paul would be just that and deliver on all his promises - with no politics, no mistakes, no deals, no compromises, just a nice, docile House and Senate to approve everything he proposes.

Getting back to Harriet Miers, good thing we had a GOP controlled senate during the Harriet Miers fiasco and we ended up getting Samuel Alito out of the deal. So, vote for the GOP guy (or gal) for U.S. Senate, not the Constitution party guy or the Libertarian candidate, okay?

 

[ishii]

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

You need to read my posts more carefully. I asked you to give me examples of pro-life groups supporting pro-choice Republicans. How is withdrawing an award for “pro-life” Democrat Stupak - who sold out to Obama - supporting the pro-choice Republican? How is supporting Mitt Romney supporting a pro-choice Republican? Mitt has declared that he had a change of heart on the issue and would nominate justices in the mold of Alito or Scalia. I believe, with the help of a GOP senate, Mitt would do just that.

Steve Poizner is an individual, not a group, who supported the lesser of two evils compared to Meg Whitman in the Califonia governor’s race.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

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

John

Don’t manipulate facts in order to disengenuously argue that the GOP in 2012 is not pro-life.

Pierce Butler, Owen Roberts, and Charles Evans Hughes - all appointed by Republicans in the 20’s. And that has about as much relevance to the current pro-life GOP in 2012 as justices appointed by Eisenhower in the 50’s does.

Ishii

 

[LovePatience]

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.

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?

Last I checked the state of Texas was a bright example of economic success and business expansion - which is why Rick Perry was an immediate frontrunner when he jumped into the GOP primary race. Texas is run by the GOP. On the other hand, California has been run by Democrats for the past many years and they are in a financial mess. Next question?

Are you changing the topic because you have no examples? The GOP has no plan to reduce poverty.

Poverty grows in Rick Perry’s America
Texas Governor Rick Perry likes to brag that his state is an economic powerhouse.

But don’t tell that to the nearly one in five Texans who are living below the poverty line.

While it’s true that Texas is responsible for 40% of the jobs added in the U.S. over the past two years, its poverty rate also grew faster than the national average in 2010.

Texas ranks 6th in terms of people living in poverty. Some 18.4% of Texans were impoverished in 2010, up from 17.3% a year earlier, according to Census Bureau data released this week. The national average is 15.1%.

And being poor in Texas isn’t easy. The state has one of the lowest rates of spending on its citizens per capita and the highest share of those lacking health insurance. It doesn’t provide a lot of support services to those in need: Relatively few collect food stamps and qualifying for cash assistance is particularly tough.

“There are two tiers in Texas,” said Miguel Ferguson, associate professor of social work at University of Texas at Austin. "There are parts of Texas that are doing well. And there is a tremendous number of Texans, more than Perry has ever wanted to acknowledge, that are doing very, very poorly."http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/18/news/economy/poverty_perry_texas/index.htm

 

[LovePatience]

You need to read my posts more carefully. I asked you to give me examples of pro-life groups supporting pro-choice Republicans. How is withdrawing an award for “pro-life” Democrat Stupak - who sold out to Obama - supporting the pro-choice Republican? How is supporting Mitt Romney supporting a pro-choice Republican? Mitt has declared that he had a change of heart on the issue and would nominate justices in the mold of Alito or Scalia. I believe, with the help of a GOP senate, Mitt would do just that.

Steve Poizner is an individual, not a group, who supported the lesser of two evils compared to Meg Whitman in the Califonia governor’s race.

You are the one who needs to read posts. Life Priority Network endorsing Steve Poizner is a pro-life group endorsing a pro-choice Repubican.

So you advocate supporting Mitt Romney as pro-life because he alleges that he has had a change of heart while he has many years record of supporting the pro-choice cause and his change of heart coincided with his decision to run for the Presidency. He is the author of a plan that provides abortion with a free, $50, or $100 co-pay, and he has done nothing to fight to change this. However, you consider Stupak who has a life history of supporting pro-life causes and introduced an amendments to a bill that he did not author that substantially limits the amount of abortions performed to be a sell out.

Over the course of history, which one of the two has reduced abortions and which one has helped increased their number? Romney’s plan covers more abortions than Obama’s plan does so it is clear that Romeny has done more to increase abortions. Yet pro-life conservatives are comfortable endorsing him while attacking Stupak.

Deeper than this is the complete lack of support in the GOP for Jon Hunstman.
On LifeSite News:

Jon Huntsman’s pro-life views and record received praise from two pro-life advocates who told the National Catholic Register that the former Utah governor is someone pro-life voters could support if he wins the GOP nomination.

Huntsman signed a trio of pro-life bills in February 2009 that the Utah legislature approved — including legislation to make second-trimester abortions illegal, a measure to allow women to know about the pain their unborn children will feel during an abortion, and a bill that would create a legal defense fund to pay for litigation related to lawsuit abortions advocates file against state legislation.

“As governor of Utah I signed every pro-life bill that came to my desk,” Hunstman told the Faith and Freedom Conference in June. “I signed the bill that made second-trimester abortions illegal, and increased the penalty for doing so. I signed the bill to allow women to know the pain an abortion causes an unborn child. I signed the bill requiring parental permission for abortion. I signed the bill that would trigger a ban on abortions in Utah if Roe v. Wade was overturned.”

Rob Wasinger, a former chief of staff and presidential campaign manager for Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback and the deputy campaign manager for Huntsman, told the National Catholic Register, “His record on pro-life issues is second to none.”

“He has said he would reinstate the Mexico City Policy and would veto a budget if it had funding for Planned Parenthood,” Wasinger added

…

Huntsman has also lived out his pro-life views in that he has seven children, two of whom were from international adoptions. He shared the story with the conference participants.

lifenews.com/2012/01/10/activists-praise-jon-huntsmans-pro-life-views-record/

He is not only pro-life. He is MORE pro-life than the rest of the GOP. How was he treated? Attacked for adopting children from poor countries and supporting China. Cindy McCain blasts video featuring Huntsman’s kids content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/01/jon-huntsman-cindy-mccain-video-ron-paul-/1

From a Republican former congressman:

SCARBOROUGH: Again, the great irony is that Jon Huntsman, ideologically, if you look at his record from being governor of Utah forward, Jon Huntsman was the most conservative Republican–small-government conservative–in this race, bar none. Again, the Wall Street Journal said it, Erick Erickson said it, George Will said it. But because he had a moderate temperament, like another guy named Ronald Reagan, he was not seen as being conservative enough. Because he didn’t call Barack Obama a Marxist or a fascist or a socialist, he was somehow deemed unworthy,** as not hating enough** to be a true conservative. If that is how the Republican party defines conservative in 2012, then they have turned their backs not only on Ronald Reagan but also on leaders like Jeb Bush and Mitch Daniels.

Read more: newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2012/01/16/morning-joe-rejecting-huntsman-republicans-turned-their-back-reaga#ixzz1m6c3ARE7

Conservatives are not seriously factoring in pro-life or moral values; what they are seriously considering is how deep one’s hate and resentment is towards certain groups in this society. It has very little to do with being pro-life except to damage the pro-life issue by using it as a screen for ugly actions and policies.

 

[ProVobis]

He has passed exactly one piece of Legislation in his entire political career …

That’s possible. Even with a Republican-run Congress of six years, his Sanctity of Life bill couldn’t pass.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

You are the one who needs to read posts. Life Priority Network endorsing Steve Poizner is a pro-life group endorsing a pro-choice Repubican.

So you advocate supporting Mitt Romney as pro-life because he alleges that he has had a change of heart while he has many years record of supporting the pro-choice cause and his change of heart coincided with his decision to run for the Presidency. He is the author of a plan that provides abortion with a free, $50, or $100 co-pay, and he has done nothing to fight to change this. However, you consider Stupak who has a life history of supporting pro-life causes and introduced an amendments to a bill that he did not author that substantially limits the amount of abortions performed to be a sell out.

Over the course of history, which one of the two has reduced abortions and which one has helped increased their number? Romney’s plan covers more abortions than Obama’s plan does so it is clear that Romeny has done more to increase abortions. Yet pro-life conservatives are comfortable endorsing him while attacking Stupak.

Deeper than this is the complete lack of support in the GOP for Jon Hunstman.
On LifeSite News:

He is not only pro-life. He is MORE pro-life than the rest of the GOP. How was he treated? Attacked for adopting children from poor countries and supporting China. Cindy McCain blasts video featuring Huntsman’s kids content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/01/jon-huntsman-cindy-mccain-video-ron-paul-/1

**From a Republican former congressman:

Conservatives are not seriously factoring in pro-life or moral values; what they are seriously considering is how deep one’s hate and resentment is towards certain groups in this society. It has very little to do with being pro-life except to damage the pro-life issue by using it as a screen for ugly actions and policies**.

This is why a two party system doesn’t work.

 

[ProVobis]

Don’t manipulate facts in order to disengenuously argue that the GOP in 2012 is not pro-life.

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. I’m an individual not someone who is to be taken for granted because someone yells he’s “pro-life” when he doesn’t have a clue as to what it means.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

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. I’m an individual not someone who is to be taken for granted because someone yells he’s “pro-life” when he doesn’t have a clue as to what it means.

My first criterium for voting for a candidate is that they must be pro-life. I stand with the Church on this

 

[ProVobis]

My first criterium for voting for a candidate is that they must be pro-life. I stand with the Church on this

Okay, but my point is that you should not just take his word for it. The other candidate may be “more” pro-life though he may not say a word about it.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Like Harriet Miers? Ooops.

And let’s not forget Fed Chairman nominations. Bernanke is about the worst Fed Reserve appointee in history. If people only realized how much he has destroyed the free-market economy, even before he became the head of the Fed.

ANd he was nominated by who? Compassionate conservative Republican George W. Bush.

 

[ProVobis]

ANd he was nominated by who? Compassionate conservative Republican George W. Bush.

Yes and at least twice. Had been earlier nominated to serve on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors in 2002. Bernanke applauded every move Greenspan made to overblow the housing market. Some conservatism.

youtube.com/watch?v=0VEieqB8_rA

 

[estesbob]

Romney wins The Washington Times/CPAC Straw Poll

Mitt Romney won The Washington Times/CPAC Presidential Straw Poll on Saturday, and also nipped Rick Santorum as the top choice of conservatives nationwide, according to a new version of the poll conducted for the first time this year that suggests Mr. Romney retains strong support among self-identified conservatives.

washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/11/romney-wins-washington-timescpac-straw-poll/