Rick Santorum Chides Daniels on Abortion-Social Issues Truce

[juliee]

Rick Santorum Chides Daniels on Abortion-Social Issues Truce

Washington, DC – In an interview with conservative radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt, potential Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum slammed Mitch Daniels, also a potential GOP hopeful, on his abortion-social issues truce.

lifenews.com/2011/02/04/rick-santorum-chides-daniels-on-abortion-social-issues-truce/

 

[Barbkw]

Like Fr. Pavone has said, ‘How can you serve the public, when you keep killing the public.’

 

[ishii]

I don’t really understand the politics of this. How is a truce on social issues going to help the fiscal crisis that we face? It seems to me that you have two groups opposed to each other, one which wants to cut spending to solve the crisis,and another that wants to raise taxes and increase spending. What does abortion have to do with this either way? How does ignoring the social issues help solve the fiscal crisis? It doesn’t make sense.

But you have to love Santorum. He has been an unapologetic pro-life stalwart over the years - contrary to what some on these forums say about all Republicans being phony in their opposition to abortion, Santorum is proof that many, perhaps most, of the pro-life Republicans are sincere, if a bit hamstrung by the abortion lobby and the Democrats who thwart their pro-life efforts. Unfortunately, I don’t think Santorum has much of a chance to win the nomination, much less be elected president. His 18 point defeat in the 2006 senate race has not helped him.

Ishii

 

[LCMS_No_More]

I don’t really understand the politics of this. How is a truce on social issues going to help the fiscal crisis that we face? It seems to me that you have two groups opposed to each other, one which wants to cut spending to solve the crisis,and another that wants to raise taxes and increase spending. What does abortion have to do with this either way? How does ignoring the social issues help solve the fiscal crisis? It doesn’t make sense.

But you have to love Santorum. He has been an unapologetic pro-life stalwart over the years - contrary to what some on these forums say about all Republicans being phony in their opposition to abortion, Santorum is proof that many, perhaps most, of the pro-life Republicans are sincere, if a bit hamstrung by the abortion lobby and the Democrats who thwart their pro-life efforts. Unfortunately, I don’t think Santorum has much of a chance to win the nomination, much less be elected president. His 18 point defeat in the 2006 senate race has not helped him.

Ishii

Of the highlighted part, I have no disagreement. The problem is, I think that real pro-lifers, who feel it in their soul and are committed to defending the unborn, not just political gain, are few and far between. I don’t doubt the sincerity of Hyde or Santorum. I just think that most Republican politicians are pro-life solely for political purposes and would jettison the stance if it would win more votes and were permitted by the Party.

 

[ishii]

Of the highlighted part, I have no disagreement. The problem is, I think that real pro-lifers, who feel it in their soul and are committed to defending the unborn, not just political gain, are few and far between. I don’t doubt the sincerity of Hyde or Santorum. I just think that most Republican politicians are pro-life solely for political purposes and would jettison the stance if it would win more votes and were permitted by the Party.

I suppose there are some, but I would argue that we can’t really know for sure whether a given Republican, self-professed pro-life politician is sincerely pro-life or not. How do you know what someone “feels in their soul” and on what basis do you judge them authentically pro-life? If you look at the voting records of most Republicans you will find that they have overwhelmingly high pro-life voting records, while they are rated as 0% - 10% Naral rating. (Democrats are the opposite). Again, just what is an “authentic” pro-life politician, and on what basis do you judge their authenticity? Given that you seem to despise the Republican party for a variety of reasons on other issues isn’t likely that your flimsy contention that the Republicans aren’t sincerely pro-life is merely a product of your dislike of them on those other issues? Convenient, isn’t it?

Ishii

 

[LCMS_No_More]

I suppose there are some, but I would argue that we can’t really know for sure whether a given Republican, self-professed pro-life politician is sincerely pro-life or not. How do you know what someone “feels in their soul” and on what basis do you judge them authentically pro-life?

I look at them overall and not just on how they vote exactly on abortion issues. Abortion plays a large role, and I do take it into account; however, I believe that we must be about protecting ALL human life inside AND outside the womb. If you’re willing to make it easier to apply the death penalty by removing process that ensure that the person being put to death is actually guilty of killing another person, you lose a lot of pro-life points with me. If you’re willing to go to war as one of the first options, you lose almost a lot of pro-life points with me.

I know the argument about, well, abortion is like a super-massive black hole to your ordinary yellow dwarf star issue of the death penalty or an ordinary red giant like going to war at the drop of a hat. I also know the numbers game. I don’t buy it. One life or a million. It’s all the same. Life is LIFE in all its forms. I believe we need to be VERY careful with how we treat the lives of others, unborn AND born.

If I thought voting Republican would reduce abortions, I’d do so. I’ve yet to see reliable evidence that Republican action is effective in reducing abortions.

If you look at the voting records of most Republicans you will find that they have overwhelmingly high pro-life voting records, while they are rated as 0% - 10% Naral rating. (Democrats are the opposite).

Do you believe that it’s possible to be a completely immoral monster and get a 0% NARAL rating? I do.

And to be perfectly honest, don’t give a rat’s behind what the opposition thinks. That’s empowering THEM to decide how WE vote.

Again, just what is an “authentic” pro-life politician, and on what basis do you judge their authenticity? Given that you seem to despise the Republican party for a variety of reasons on other issues isn’t likely that your flimsy contention that the Republicans aren’t sincerely pro-life is merely a product of your dislike of them on those other issues? Convenient, isn’t it?

Ishii

See above.

Funny how you change my “most Republican politicians” to “the Republicans.” Was that an attempt to put a spin on what I wrote that isn’t true? Please tell me you’re not resorting to this kind of tactic. It’s hard to have a discussion with someone who rewrites what I say. I try to be VERY careful about how I write my posts to make sure that people can’t do this.

 

[ishii]

I look at them overall and not just on how they vote exactly on abortion issues. Abortion plays a large role, and I do take it into account; however, I believe that we must be about protecting ALL human life inside AND outside the womb. If you’re willing to make it easier to apply the death penalty by removing process that ensure that the person being put to death is actually guilty of killing another person, you lose a lot of pro-life points with me. If you’re willing to go to war as one of the first options, you lose almost a lot of pro-life points with me.

I know the argument about, well, abortion is like a super-massive black hole to your ordinary yellow dwarf star issue of the death penalty or an ordinary red giant like going to war at the drop of a hat. I also know the numbers game. I don’t buy it. One life or a million. It’s all the same. Life is LIFE in all its forms. I believe we need to be VERY careful with how we treat the lives of others, unborn AND born.

If I thought voting Republican would reduce abortions, I’d do so. I’ve yet to see reliable evidence that Republican action is effective in reducing abortions.

Do you believe that it’s possible to be a completely immoral monster and get a 0% NARAL rating? I do.

And to be perfectly honest, don’t give a rat’s behind what the opposition thinks That’s empowering THEM to decide how WE vote.

See above.

Funny how you change my “most Republican politicians” to “the Republicans.” Was that an attempt to put a spin on what I wrote that isn’t true? Please tell me you’re not resorting to this kind of tactic. It’s hard to have a discussion with someone who rewrites what I say. I try to be VERY careful about how I write my posts to make sure that people can’t do this.

I realize that I’m asking you to do something which you apparently don’t want to do, which is provide evidence for your wild claims, but which Republican has “removed the process that ensures the person being put to death is actually guilty” ? Provide specific examples and name the Republican.

Abortion is non-negotiable. The issues which you criticize Republicans not being pro-life on are not non-negotiable. The Church allows for a just war.

The problem is that unless Roe V wade is overturned, you will not see a “reduction of abortions” that you expect Republicans to achieve. Here are four Republican victories: Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Roberts, and Alito. We need one more. McCain would likely have provided one more. Alas, catholics voted for Obama. Yet you blame the Republicans.

Which immoral monster has a 0% Naral rating? Name them.

Impossible to have a discussion with someone who throws out wild claims and doesnt’ back them up.

Ishii

 

[LCMS_No_More]

I realize that I’m asking you to do something which you apparently don’t want to do, which is provide evidence for your wild claims, but which Republican has “removed the process that ensures the person being put to death is actually guilty” ? Provide specific examples and name the Republican.

This is what is called moving the goal posts.

Abortion is non-negotiable. The issues which you criticize Republicans not being pro-life on are not non-negotiable. The Church allows for a just war.

The problem is that unless Roe V wade is overturned, you will not see a “reduction of abortions” that you expect Republicans to achieve. Here are four Republican victories: Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Roberts, and Alito. We need one more. McCain would likely have provided one more. Alas, catholics voted for Obama. Yet you blame the Republicans.

I held my nose(and my gorge down) and voted for McCain. :sad_yes: Sorry, you can’t pin Obama on me.

Which immoral monster has a 0% Naral rating? Name them.

I said that I believe that it was possible. Since I only have to evaluate cadidates for President, US Senator, US Representative, California Governor, State Senator, Assemblyperson, Members of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, Mayor of the City of Los Angeles, Member of the Los Angeles City Council and various local boards, I haven’t come across one myself.

Impossible to have a discussion with someone who throws out wild claims and doesnt’ back them up.

Ishii

Even more so when people move the goalposts.

 

[ishii]

This is what is called moving the goal post…

No, I’m not moving the goalposts, I’m merely trying to get you to back up your accusations with actual evidence or examples. You implied that Republicans aren’t truly pro-life because they “remove the process that ensures the one being put to death is actually guilty”. I asked you for example to back up that claim. If you think you’re going to get a free ride on making all sorts of baseless accusations and charges, think again.

I held my nose(and my gorge down) and voted for McCain. :sad_yes: Sorry, you can’t pin Obama on me…

Did you vote for Fiorina who was a committed pro-lifer (meaning she believes babies have a right to not get murdered in the womb)? Or did you not vote for her because you disagree with her on taxes (an issue which good Catholics can disagree) and thereby help Boxer get re-elected?

I said that I believe that it was possible. Since I only have to evaluate cadidates for President, US Senator, US Representative, California Governor, State Senator, Assemblyperson, Members of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, Mayor of the City of Los Angeles, Member of the Los Angeles City Council and various local boards, I haven’t come across one myself…

Anything is possible. A politician who gets a 0% Naral rating could be a homicidal maniac. I prefer to deal with the here and now - i.e. reality.

Even more so when people move the goalposts.

Back up your claims with real examples/evidence!

Ishii

 

[Sherry_G]

LCMS no more: you stated “real pro-lifers are few and far between” you qualified it as a person who holds a deep belief that abortion is wrong in every case, etc. I was struck by how you could have developed this thinking! Are you not a “real pro-lifer” yourself? And wouldn’t you consider most practicing Catholics as “real pro-lifers”? Not the Catholics who check the "Catholic " box on a questionaire when they are facing surgery but never go to Mass except for Christmas and Easter. The ‘fundamentalist’ Catholics who spend their time studying the faith, visiting Catholic websites and attend Mass at least weekly and often daily, if their schedules permit, the Catholics who support those who hunger and thirst worldwide through volunteer work or at the very least through donations of massive proportions, by the millions are “real pro-lifers”. Then add all the other Christians who are, in fact “real pro-lifers” and yes, many of them are Republicans, too, I wonder about your skepticism and where it comes from. Rick Santorum is doing a wonderful work in being a spokesperson for the unborn in political arenas, and in his personal life as well. Real Prolifers are real people in all walks of life, even in politics.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

LCMS no more: you stated “real pro-lifers are few and far between” you qualified it as a person who holds a deep belief that abortion is wrong in every case, etc. I was struck by how you could have developed this thinking! Are you not a “real pro-lifer” yourself? And wouldn’t you consider most practicing Catholics as “real pro-lifers”? Not the Catholics who check the "Catholic " box on a questionaire when they are facing surgery but never go to Mass except for Christmas and Easter. The ‘fundamentalist’ Catholics who spend their time studying the faith, visiting Catholic websites and attend Mass at least weekly and often daily, if their schedules permit, the Catholics who support those who hunger and thirst worldwide through volunteer work or at the very least through donations of massive proportions, by the millions are “real pro-lifers”. Then add all the other Christians who are, in fact “real pro-lifers” and yes, many of them are Republicans, too, I wonder about your skepticism and where it comes from. Rick Santorum is doing a wonderful work in being a spokesperson for the unborn in political arenas, and in his personal life as well. Real Prolifers are real people in all walks of life, even in politics.

Please understand that I am not talking about the grassroots level Republican. I believe that people on the grassroots level really are pro-life and I believe that grassroots level people also believe the rest of the stuff the Republican party stands for are the best things for the country. I get that. The problem is, to the people I’m talking about, the grassroots level only exists when it’s time to run a poll or actually get you out to vote.

The people I’m talking about are the movers and shakers of the party; those whose opinions really count (you don’t actually believe that your opinion matters, do you?); the ones with all the money. I don’t believe this group of people gives a single thought about the plight of the unborn. They do know that they want power and the way to get that is VOTES. Since these movers and shakers know that Christians can provide a lot of votes, so they form an alliance with Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson to flog for Christian votes in exchange for a pro-life platform. The problem is, while the Christians REALLY want to eliminate abortion, the movers and shakers have absolutely NO interest in actually doing it.

This is what I’m talking about. I don’t doubt the sincerity of any person on this board who states that they are pro-life. Not a one. At the same time, I have grave concerns about the movers and shakers of the Republican party.

 

[ishii]

Please understand that I am not talking about the grassroots level Republican. I believe that people on the grassroots level really are pro-life and I believe that grassroots level people also believe the rest of the stuff the Republican party stands for are the best things for the country. I get that. The problem is, to the people I’m talking about, the grassroots level only exists when it’s time to run a poll or actually get you out to vote.

The people I’m talking about are the movers and shakers of the party; those whose opinions really count (you don’t actually believe that your opinion matters, do you?); the ones with all the money. I don’t believe this group of people gives a single thought about the plight of the unborn. They do know that they want power and the way to get that is VOTES. Since these movers and shakers know that Christians can provide a lot of votes, so they form an alliance with Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson to flog for Christian votes in exchange for a pro-life platform. The problem is, while the Christians REALLY want to eliminate abortion, the movers and shakers have absolutely NO interest in actually doing it.

This is what I’m talking about. I don’t doubt the sincerity of any person on this board who states that they are pro-life. Not a one. At the same time, I have grave concerns about the movers and shakers of the Republican party.

Really? Which of the “movers and shakers” do you believe are lying about being pro-life? Name them.

Ishii

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Really? Which of the “movers and shakers” do you believe are lying about being pro-life? Name them.

Ishii

I don’t know the names of the rulers of the Republican party and nor am I insterested in knowing them. I do know of two iconic Republican governors here in California who both exemplify what I believe to be true Republicanism: Pete Wilson and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Both are pro-abortion, pro-gray “marriage,” pro-stem cells, but they do have the one thing that makes one a True Republican: they hate taxes (even though both ended up raising taxes, just like Reagan did!).

Then again, someone we all agree is very important told us “you will know them by their fruits.” Sadly, neither political party will bear the fruit of a pro-life nation. They just don’t have it in them.

 

[ishii]

I don’t know the names of the rulers of the Republican party and nor am I insterested in knowing them. I do know of two iconic Republican governors here in California who both exemplify what I believe to be true Republicanism: Pete Wilson and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Both are pro-abortion, pro-gray “marriage,” pro-stem cells, but they do have the one thing that makes one a True Republican: they hate taxes (even though both ended up raising taxes, just like Reagan did!).

Then again, someone we all agree is very important told us “you will know them by their fruits.” Sadly, neither political party will bear the fruit of a pro-life nation. They just don’t have it in them.

I agree with what you say about Pete Wilson and Arnold. But you couldn’t have picked two politicians less representative of the current GOP than those two. For one, Pete Wilson retired over ten years ago and retired from the senate twenty years ago. He ran unsuccessfully for president in 1996. Hardly a good example of a Republican in 2011 - which is what we’re talking about now - whether the current crop of Republicans are sincerely pro-life. Arnold Schwarzenegger came into office because Gray Davis had been recalled. He won because of his Hollywood star status. No getting around that. There are a handful of other Republicans who have similar views, but most Republicans are pro-life. I think its a bit much to say that Republicans “hate taxes”. Most (but not all) have a political philosophy which believes in smaller government, certainly less govt. at the federal level, and (gasp!) - lower taxes. Notice how its not “no taxes”. To say they “hate taxes” is just useless hyperbole which doesn’t add to the discussion. Now you may disagree that smaller govt. and lower taxes are the right thing to do, but honest people can disagree with that and still be consistent with Catholic moral teaching. Not so with abortion. Its non-negotiable. Its wrong, and its diametrically opposed to Catholic moral teaching. When you have a candidate such as you did in the 2010 Senate race in California, you have two choices: one who is diametrically opposed to Catholic teaching, and one who is in lockstep with Catholic teaching on the sanctity of life. I truly believe Catholics had a moral obligation to vote for the pro-life candidate, even those catholics who “love taxes” (to use your style of wording). As you did in voting for McCain. There are lots of Republicans who “have it in them” to make this a pro-life nation, but unfortunately political realities make this struggle very slow at times. We seem to take a step backward, then a step forward, then backward. However, I don’t think that it makes sense to give up. I also don’t believe that we should attach unrealistic standards on a political party - " abolish abortion in ten years or you lose my vote and I start calling you insincere". We need to keep up the battle. We may be ten years away or thirty years away but we must not stop. Nor do we need to put all our faith in politicians, Republican or Democrat. But when I see a politician who has earned the condemnation of the abortion lobby and NARAL by being given a 0% rating, I generally would view them as pro-life atleast insofar as their voting record is concerned. I have no right to question their sincerity. Question their effectiveness, ok. But not their sincerity.

Ishii