Single Issue Stupidity and Rick Santorum [Reader Post]

Loading

I remember hearing once that in Shakespeare’s day the cumulative writings an educated person could be expected to encounter over the course of their lifetime was the equivalent one week’s worth of the New York Times. Today things are slightly different in that we get a week’s worth of the New York Times every week – whether we want it or not. In addition, thousands of times that volume of content is every day via print, broadcast and internet media. As such, anyone who doesn’t want to be overwhelmed to the point of becoming catatonic has to focus their attention on sources of news and information they perceive to be reliable, honest and accurate.

Modern voters find themselves in a similar situation. The possible issues about which one might be concerned are literally infinite. From the national unemployment rate, to state referendums to local zoning ordinances, a voter can be overwhelmed with trying to get even a cursory understanding of the issues. Add to those issues dozens of candidates with varying positions and you have a recipe for catatonia. All of this while voters are busy living their lives, raising their kids, spending time with friends etc.

Voters typically deal with this surfeit of choices by narrowing the focus, in a similar way to what they do with information sources, i.e. look to sources they think they can trust. When they see a candidate pilloried on 60 Minutes for wanting to rationalize (aka “slash”) Social Security or when the New York Times runs a piece about how brilliant a particular presidential candidate is, fans of those sources know how to vote. Another way citizens decide who they are going to vote for is by joining particular organizations that seem to be made up of people who share many of their beliefs or values such as various Tea Parties or community organizations.

The extreme of this narrowing of one’s focus is the single issue voter. The person or organization focuses on a single issue upon which they make their decision as to who to vote for. One of the most well known such single issue organizations is the National Rifle Association. The NRA is an advocate for 2nd Amendment rights, which is a strong Constitutional position to take. It’s “incumbent-friendly” policy however is not very logical. It supports many Democrats who, while supporting the 2nd Amendment, shred the rest of the Constitution. In 2010 the NRA supported 53 pro 2nd Amendment House Democrats, most of whom were facing pro 2nd Amendment Republicans. It didn’t matter to the NRA that the House under Nancy Pelosi was running roughshod over the Constitution and therefore, to borrow a idea from Martin Niemöller, once the Constitution was in tatters there would be no 2nd Amendment to protect. Smart.

A similar scenario is playing itself out in the GOP primary and the beneficiary of such absurdity is Rick Santorum. Rick Santorum surged in Iowa and almost beat the regrettably frontrunning Mitt Romney. How did he do it? A big part of it was that he was essentially the last man standing in the anti-Romney corner. A significant part however is his focus on social issues, particularly his strident anti-abortion message. (In Iowa, according to St. Louis Today, among Iowa caucus-goers who regard abortion as their most significant issue, 55% voted for Santorum.)

While the notion of being anti-abortion is certainly mainstream in the GOP, having abortion as a voter’s single issue, or most important issue during what is going to be the most important election in a century makes no sense at all. There are so many threats to the nation as a whole that to base one’s vote on that single issue is absurd – particularly as abortion rates have dropped by 30% in the last 20 years and a president’s impact is minimal regardless. How did unborn babies fare in the Soviet Union? Not particularly well. How did unborn girls fare in China over the last three decades? Not well either. Counter-intuitively, the Socialist Mecca of Europe has lower abortion rates than we do, but one wonders if that might be because they’ve stopped having sex or something because they are not having many babies either…

Voting for the candidate who is most vociferous in his defense of your one issue to the exclusion of everything else is suicide. While candidate Rick Santorum speaks about limited government and lower taxes and overregulation on the campaign trail, Senator Rick Santorum was far from a constitutional conservative. He voted in support of most of George Bush’s big government agenda, he voted against NAFTA, voted for steel tariffs and was a huge supporter of earmarks. And just in case there’s some uncertainty as to Rick Santorum’s view of the role of government, in 2004 he laid out his view very clearly:

One of the criticisms I make is what I refer to as more of a Libertairanish right. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be alone to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, that we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. That is not how traditional conservatives view the world. There is no such society that I am aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.

Obviously Rick Santorum has never heard of the United States. Both his record and his words make it crystal clear that he is no friend of limited, constitutional government. Big government has set us on a course to turn the United States into a socialist / statist Mecca. Unfortunately for everyone involved (and that includes unborn babies) that Mecca is more like a nightmare of economic malaise, sub standard medical care, a lack of individual freedom and long term social decline. Rick Santorum may sound great on babies, but he will do nothing to take us off that path to disaster. Those single issue voters who are supporting him just might want to think again, or consider the prognosis for the country (and its unborn babies) once America becomes an economic basket case and modern day dystopia.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
49 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

My first choice was Bachmann as the only real conservative in the race.

It looks like I will now support Newt as the best RINO in the group.

Geez, where is Sarah??? As a Pennsylvanian, I vehemently oppose Tricky Rick as much as RINO Romney and Nutty Ron Paul. Doesn’t leave much… Perry or Newt….

When the Demomedia trots out their October surprise on Romney, we will wonder why we didn’t nominate a candidate who was not only charismatic, but “pre-smeared” to a degree that most people found disgusting. There is a reason the Demomedia spent 4 years so focused on destroying Sarah Palin.

Newt Gingrich is no RINO!

Newt Gingrich is pro-life, pro-2nd Amendment and loves America and understands its citizens. As a historian, he thoroughly knows the U.S. Constitution and our nation’s history.

He allied with Ronald Reagan to build the Reagan Coalition, the Religious Right, and the Republican majority (together the Reagan Revolution) which directly led the downfall of the Soviet Union, the Contract with America, government reforms, less government, tax cuts, a balanced budget, and the great, long-standing Reagan economy.

Washington is broken, it doesn’t work the way it is supposed to and Newt said, if elected, he will work to change the way Washington does business. That is what I want from a Republican President. You better believe the elitists who suck money off of government contracts are terrified he will be elected.

We need someone that is consistently conservative and covers all three legs of Ronald Reagan’s conservative stool. That person is Rick Perry. Economic conservative. Social Conservative. and National Security Conservative. Unimpeachable record of job creation and character.

It’s popular, of course, to pillory single issue voters. But the reality is that virtually everyone is a single issue voter. All it means is that you have some issue that is for you a deal-breaker. Would you vote for a candidate who wanted to solve our financial crisis by eliminating private property? Who wanted to make Jews wear yellow stars? Reinstitute Jim Crow? If you answered no to any of those, then you believe that there is at least one path our government could follow that would destroy something essential to the well-being of our society.

So do I. That certainly doesn’t mean my single issue is the *only* issue I consider. But it’s the over-arching issue, the most important one. To change metaphors, it’s the threshold that each candidate has to get past before I evaluate her or him on other issues.

I believe the taking of innocent human life is so heinous that it trumps all other concerns. It destroys, not only the life of the person involved, but the fabric of our society, making us callous, utilitarian and less human as a people. It’s no accident that our founders listed the right to life first in their enumeration of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (or life, liberty and property). The right to life is the foundational right upon which all other rights rest.

I’m not addressing here the issue of Santorum’s candidacy. Just your suggestion that having an issue one believes to be of such importance to the health of the republic that a candidate has to get it right to have one’s support is prima facie a stupid position.

I think your negative comments on the NRA are off the mark. It’s called the National Rifle Association, not the National Republican Association, and its history of support for Democrats willing to take the pro-gun side is a textbook example of how you stake out the middle in two-party politics. Seen any substantive anti-gun legislation in the past fifteen years or so? No? That’s partly because of those 50 odd Democrats that the NRA has on its side.
I still prefer GOA because the NRA doesn’t seem interested in ever trying to repeal anything, but the NRA’s strategy has been extremely effective. It helps, of course, that there’s no real money to be made by banning guns.

@Carolyn:

Well said Carolyn!

I believe the taking of innocent human life is so heinous that it trumps all other concerns. It destroys, not only the life of the person involved, but the fabric of our society, making us callous, utilitarian and less human as a people. It’s no accident that our founders listed the right to life first in their enumeration of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (or life, liberty and property). The right to life is the foundational right upon which all other rights rest

What many of the right don’t get about social issues, especially the right to life, is that ALL social justice starts in the womb, and I can prove it with the plethora of phonies out there. It’s actually pretty easy to know who the real deal is because the only thing you ever need to know to know the guts of person is how hard that person will fight to defend human life.

Here are a few examples of some other great pro-life quotes. Too bad they all caved for power. Real men never cave on the right to life.

AL GORE

In a May 26, 1987 letter to a constituent he wrote: “During my 11 years in congress, I have consistently opposed federal funding for abortions. In my opinion, it is wrong to spend federal funds for what is arguably taking of a human life. Let me assure you that I share your belief that innocent human life must be protected, and I am committed to furthering this goal.”

Rep. Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.)
“Life is the division of human cells, a process that begins with conception…. The [Supreme Court’s abortion] ruling was unjust, and it is incumbent on the Congress to correct the injustice.” Mr. Gephardt wrote in 1984, “I have always been supportive of pro-life legislation. I intend to remain steadfast on this issue…. I believe that the life of the unborn should be protected at all costs.”

Sen. Edward Kennedy, [D-Mass.], in a letter to a constituent, August 3, 1971
“While the deep concern of a woman bearing an unwanted child merits consideration and sympathy, it is my personal feeling that the legalization of abortion on demand is not in accordance with the value which our civilization places on human life. Wanted or unwanted, I believe that human life, even at its earliest stages, has certain rights which must be recognized — the right to be born, the right to love, the right to grown old.
“I share the confidence of those who feel that America is working to care for its unwanted as well as wanted children, protecting particularly those who cannot protect themselves. I also share the opinions of those who do not accept abortion as a response to our society’s problems — an inadequate welfare system, unsatisfactory job training programs, and insufficient financial support for all its citizens.

“When history looks back to this era it should recognize this generation as one which cared about human beings enough to halt the practice of war, to provide a decent living for every family and to fulfill its responsibility to its children from the very moment of conception.”

Bill Clinton, in a letter to Arkansas Right to Life, September 26, 1986
“I am opposed to abortion and to government funding of abortions. We should not spend state funds on abortions because so many people believe abortion is wrong.”

Reverend Jesse Jackson

“There are those who argue that the right to privacy is of [a] higher order than the right to life … that was the premise of slavery. You could not protest the existence or treatment of slaves on the plantation because that was private and therefore outside your right to be concerned.

“What happens to the mind of a person, and the moral fabric of a nation, that accepts the aborting of the life of a baby without a pang of conscience? What kind of a person and what kind of a society will we have 20 years hence if life can be taken so casually? It is that question, the question of our attitude, our value system, and our mind-set with regard to the nature and worth of life itself that is the central question confronting mankind. Failure to answer that question affirmatively may leave us with a hell right here on earth.”

Personally, I find this Jesse Jackson quote to be the most “interesting.”

It is that question, the question of our attitude, our value system, and our mind-set with regard to the nature and worth of life itself that is the central question confronting mankind. Failure to answer that question affirmatively may leave us with a hell right here on earth.”

@Patricia:
Great finds, Patricia!
You’re right, too.
Jesse Jackson’s logic is impeccable.
Any idea what year it was he said those words?

@Nan G:

Thanks Nan. Jessie Jackson wrote that in January 1977 in an article for National Right to Life News by the Rev. Jesse Jackson. I can’t find the actual article, but found bits and pieces of it in various places, all referencing the same article; this one from Dr. Alveda King (MLK’s granddaughter).

Here’s another quote of his from the end of that essay.

Near the end of his essay, Jackson wrote, “Another area that concerns me greatly, namely because I know how it has been used with regard to race, is the psycholinguistics involved in this whole issue of abortion. If something can be dehumanized through the rhetoric used to describe it, then the major battle has been won. … Those advocates of taking life prior to birth do not call it killing or murder, they call it abortion. They further never talk about aborting a baby because that would imply something human. Rather they talk about aborting the fetus. Fetus sounds less than human and therefore can be justified.”

So Vince, put me too in the “Single Issue Stupid” category. Call me stupid as much as you want, but without life, one has no chance of ANY rights, ever. Money comes and goes, but never can we get back one life, let alone the millions we’ve already killed.

I also disgree with your “decreasing abortion numbers.” Abortons have actually increased, many of them now “chemical abortions” and not counted.

I’ll tell you what I think stupid is; the thought and hope of peace when we kill our own childen!

@Carolyn and Patricia, abortion is really a moot point when selecting a POTUS. Unless Congress passed legislation reversing opinions of Roe v Wade for them to sign or veto, there is little a POTUS can do to change current abortion law. Frankly, I don’t ever see Congress doing that… including a Republican dominated Congress. They haven’t done so since they gained power in the mid-90s, and thru 2006. Why would you think they would do so in the future?

Simply ain’t happening.

INRE the SCOTUS, the only other consideration for an abortion stance for a POTUS, the majority of the Republican candidates are likely to appoint judges who are closer to strict Constructionists as opposed to the living document types. But as we’ve seen at the federal level, even judges have their activist moments on key issues. No guarantees for a Supreme appointee either. But I can’t see anyone in the lackluster line up who’d be selecting a Sotomayer clone.

Even federal funding of abortion is a matter of Congress, not the POTUS. It’s highly unlikely it would be a stand alone item in a bill and would be, as was done with O’healthcare, included with a larger array of more nanny rules. But a POTUS does not have a line item veto… and can only issue a signing statement opinion.

Frankly it requires the cooperation of far too many to accomplish the reversal of Roe v Wade, or to even make abortion more widespread than it is now. Even the Blue Dog Dems had to be bribed – and ultimately lied to – about federal funding of abortion to get O’healthcare passed in the 11th hour (Stupak). They had the wool pulled over their eyes, fools that they were. Ultimately, I think it was just a political statement for re’election purposes on their part. They obviously didn’t share either of your “deal-breaker” mentality on the bill as a whole, or they would have never given their support.

Abortion is a non issue for a candidate for me because of these mitigating factors. To pick a candidate simply because he shares your beliefs on this issue, and ignore the fact that he’s virtually powerless to effect grand changes, is to dangerously ignore other issues where a POTUS can genuinely make a difference.

But I do understand your “single issue that is a deal-breaker” presentation, Carolyn. Ron Paul is like that for me because of his foreign policy.

Mata and Vince:

I don’t have any grandious ideas about Roe v Wade being overturned. Even if it was, it would just revert back to the states. And even then, abortion will only end, if ever, when hearts change.

That’s not why I think the abortion issues is so important. Mata just like you can’t take Ron Paul seriously (neither can I), because of his foreign policy issues, I feel that way about anyone who isn’t passionate about life, as it’s the bellwether of our value system as a nation and to each other.

I’m afraid we are already seeing the prescience of Jessie Jackson also knowing that back in 1977, because when we eat each other alive, as we are doing more and more, it can only be the result of the debasement and dignity of human life, consequently, to quote Jackson for the 3rd time tonight, “hell right here on earth.”

My question to you, Patricia, would be how do you know that the other candidates are *not* “passionate about life”? Or is it you demand they wear it on their sleeve like Santorum?

My point is most of them know that it’s a hot button, and somewhat a moot issue unworthy of selecting that hot button other than tersely declaring they are either pro life or pro choice. The political can of worms opened going much further than that isn’t worth the heat for the job. Santorum has to go there because it’s really one of the only issues where he ever showed leadership… when he could win an election, that is. Considering the size of his defeat in re’election, I’m not guessing he could even carry his own state in the general.

@MataHarley:

My question to you, Patricia, would be how do you know that the other candidates are *not* “passionate about life”? Or is it you demand they wear it on their sleeve like Santorum?

I think most of them are passionate about abortion, but pro life is more than about abortion. Santorium lives it, in all of his issues. Unlike former politicans, Santorum will never cave, despite the consequences. I’m not a big fan of wearing it on the sleeve, just living it, which I believe Santorum does, far more than any of the others.

Patricia, are you telling me that any POTUS you support has to live up to Santorum’s “on his sleeve” overt support, and that passionately anti-abortion isn’t enough?

Man… and I thought *I* was a tough audience… LOL

@Vince: In that case, you might want to consider avoiding words like absurd and phrases like makes no sense at all to describe “single-issue” pro-life voters the next time around. That language does muddy the waters a bit.

@MataHarley: I disagree. POTUS has a profound influence on abortion policy in this country and abroad through his executive orders, appointments, and judicial nominations. For example . . .

Obama nullified the Mexico City Policy, thus making organizations that perform and promote abortion as a family-planning method eligible to receive foreign aid from us.

He has given hundreds of millions of dollars to the UN Population Fund, which is involved in China’s coerced-abortion population-control program.

He issued an executive order opening the door to federal funding of research involving the killing of human embryos.

He rescinded a conscience-protection regulation issued by Bush. The regulation had prevented health-care providers from being penalized for refusing to participate in abortions.

He has named strong abortion advocates to senior positions in the White House, including:
* Rahm Emanuel (in Congress he had a 100% NARAL rating);
* Domestic Policy Adviser Melody Barnes (previously a board member for the Planned
Parenthood Action Fund);
* Communications Director Ellen Moran (previously executive director of EMILY’s List).

He has put strongly pro-AB people in cabinet posts and at the top of key agencies, including:
* Hillary Clinton at State;
* Kathleen Sebelius at HHS;
* Margaret Hamburg at FDA;
* Deputy Attorney General David Ogden;
* Assistant Attorney General Dawn Johnsen (former legal director for NARAL)
* Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues Melanne Verveer.

And, of course, the next President will almost undoubtedly replace at least Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and probably other justices as well. (Scalia and Kennedy are both 75, and Breyer is 73.) We’re currently one vote away from SCOTUS overturning Roe. If, when Justice Ginsburg retires, we have a President with fire in his belly over the protection of human life, combined with a Republican Senate, Roe could quite well head off to the history books.

Or we could have, say, Romney in the White House. While he is of course currently pro-life, it’s hard to say whether he has any fire in his belly on the issue other than that caused by his ardent desire to live on Pennsylvania Ave. It’s easy to imagine a scenario where, when it came time to face that grueling nomination-and-confirmation process, to actually spend all the political capital necessary to get his nominee confirmed, the issues he actually cares about might eclipse the pro-life enthusiasm he produces as a candidate.

The protection of the preborn, the disabled, and the elderly is an absolutely crucial issue in this year’s presidential race.

@MataHarley:

Well Mata, it appears that most or all of the other candidates are pro life, I’m not convinced they are “passionatly” pro life (maybe Perry), at least not like Santorum. Santorum is the only one I trust who wouldn’t sell out for anything.

Carolyn (#19), makes the points much better than I did. I will only add one that she missed, and that is the impeachable offense of Obama using US taxpayer monies to fund Kenya to change from their pro life policy.

If only the birthers would bark on something real; this is impeachable!

Lastly, for everyone reading who thinks we pro lifers are a necessary inconvienence, who, like the GOP, wish we would just shut up and vote (they can’t win without us), know that it will be the pro lifers who will fighting just as hard to save you if Obama care goes as planned (I also don’t trust that Romney will really overturn OCare).

Anyone in doubt needs to listen to this phone call from a brain surgeon to Mark Levin on 11-22-11, describing, what is not yet public save for Mark Levin’s show, how the new “Obama rules” will work for the 70 year olds. Yes, the surgeon (who was vetted and is who he says he is), tells us that death panels do await us, “UNITS” (that will be our devolution title, made easy by years of abortion and word manipulation, another thing btw Jessie Jackson addressed (above post).

Ignore the importance of human life at your own risk, but mark my words, there will come a day, probably in our lifetime, when we would give anything to have had a staunchly pro life president, because regardless of how you slice and dice it, it all starts at the top.

Abortion is the greatest evil of our lifetime, with consequences so great we can’t imagine. But hey, it’s the economy stupid!

Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.—Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Santorum and Perry are the only two candidates that I feel would not sell out on this important issue to get a vote. Santorum is so much more than a one issue candidate. His position on this issue is unwavering. I want a strong conservative in the White House when it’s time to nominate new Supreme Court justices, not a RINO who will compromise. If we continue to compromise with abortion we will compromise on the issue of end of life care. I could care less if Santorum lost an election before, Reagan lost elections, so did many more great leaders.

@Carolyn and @Patricia, you miss the real power behind all those points you make, erroneously attributing them to the POTUS. They can attempt, via foreign aid or grants, to broach subjects near and dear to your heart. However it requires a willing Congress to appropriate those funds. A POTUS cannot spend on anything that a Congress disallows.

A perfect example of this is the defunding of the enforcement on the incandescent bulb ban. It has not removed the law, but it’s also not happening because Congress has severed the money line to implement the law. It at least buys time until a more friendly Congress can come in and clean up the mess created by that bill.

Thus the importance of issues like this – controlling the purse strings and thereby controlling the policy – lies with a focus on your state representatives. They have far more power than the POTUS, as they should.

I don’t think you two, being sorta the “extremists”.. LOL… demanding more than agreement, but a demonstration of “passion” on pro-life…. are an inconvenience. No one said, or even hinted at that.

On the flip side, just because any of us, or the candidates, do not appear to share your “passion” on the issue also doesn’t mean we deserve being accused of “ignoring the importance of human life” either. I don’t think that is what Vince intended to convey when he was using abortion as an example of single issue voters. But as you’ll notice, his example of both the NRA and abortion brought out heated retorts… which sort of makes his point.

This is the primary. People have their favorite horses in the race, and generally they are chosen by whomever best represents your core issues. But we haven’t gotten down to the general yet, so I’d say the “suicide” charge might be a bit premature.

What I will say is that both of you are likely to be more forgiving and flexible “single issue” voters than me. I don’t believe that either of you would vote for Obama over a GOP candidate who wasn’t Santorum simply because they lack the “passion” you want to see. Me? There is nothing offered in the world that would make me pull the lever for Ron Paul. While I can whine and be disgusted about the nuances of the other candidates’ foreign policy views, Ron Paul’s vision is beyond offensive to me.

Therefore, I’m probably more of a problem than you two.

@MataHarley:

Mata my friend I’m afraid we will have to agree to disagree on this one. IMO, what you and many don’t understand is the “power” of a pro-abortion culture, which btw, no one can deny Obama markedly increased and fosters.

Re-read Caroylyn’s excellet post (#19). Most of it Obama did with a strok of a pen, subsequently, everything he wanted funded got funded.

Do you not think it matters that Sebalius, (a women so pro-abortion she was supported by Tiller the Baby Killer late term abortionist in her last election), the head of HHS, is the gatekeeper of Obamacare? Does it not matter that the same person “guarding the gate” for medical care is a women who has no problem with fully developed sentient babies having scissors stabed into their skulls?

Every day we as a culture get more and more “desensitized”, making us ripe for the pickin’ when they decide to easily discard us (the old and the disabled). Want another example, look at IVD in this country. Just like our copious all you can eat buffets, when it comes to harvested eggs, the skys the limit. We now have over a half of million human eggs (it’s all human DNA, regardless of when life “begins”) , stockplied in liquid nitrogen freezers nationwide, in addition to the millions aborted. Compare that to Germany and other countries in Europe were it is strictly illegal to have any excess eggs outside the womb (or frozen). Why? Because unlike our me me me I must have it at any cost no sacrifice culture, Germany understands not ony Holocausts, but what happens when human life/dignity, is debased, at any stage.

Here’s a hint: it doesn’t end well. Just ask (if you could) the half million frozen or the millions aborted. Unlike lightbulbs, we can’t remake what we killed from our stupidity.

@Patricia, leaving aside the philosophical discussion here, let me focus yet again on reality and one statement:

Re-read Caroylyn’s excellet post (#19). Most of it Obama did with a strok of a pen, subsequently, everything he wanted funded got funded.

I do believe the “got funded” (by a Dem dominated Congress in both chambers) is the key. The power lies with Congress, and therefore you generally fight these issues in the states with representatives that will refuse to allow funding for specific issues. A POTUS is easily neutralized when Congress yanks the purse away… thus Congress has the power, not the POTUS.

What Carolyn cites is a failure of having like minded members in Congress… not the WH. Congress could just as easily pass a bill that funded the same, over the objections of a POTUS. i.e if there was a GOP POTUS with the same 2007-2010 Congress, they would have passed legislation with the funding laid out, and over ridden any presidential veto. See what I mean?

@MataHarley: Mata, this is a both-and issue, not an either-or issue.

What you’re saying is certainly true. Yes! Congress controls the purse strings. I agree!

But, also, yes! The power of a pro-abortion (or a pro-life) culture, as Patricia says, is extremely important in shaping people’s thinking. Life is busy, and most people most of the time absorb their worldview largely by osmosis. They forget to check behind the curtain as they watch the movies, listen to the music and read the articles that are telling them how to think. So pro-abortion (or pro-life) gatekeepers are crucial in shaping the thinking, the policy, and thus the future of the country.

I understand and respect what you and Patricia hold as prime issues, Carolyn. Unfortunately that absolute of “both” as opposed to “either/or” is a rare prize and not the norm. Bringing it back down to reality, both you and Patricia are not satisifed with agreement of being pro-life. You require “passion” of pro-life. Strikes me that it’s a seriously high bar set for the one in the lesser power position, don’t you think?

For a state representative, would you accept a pro-life candidate, without the “passion” over a pro choice? Of course. Now the real question is if you had two pro life candidates, on passionate and the other just a supporter, whether you would toss all the other issues simply to pick the one with passion.

And that’s what Vince’s readers post here is all about.

@MataHarley:

Now the real question is if you had two pro life candidates, on passionate and the other just a supporter, whether you would toss all the other issues simply to pick the one with passion

Actually I would Mata, for this reason. Passionate pro life people understand that nothing trumps human life, consequently, it becomes the only social issue needed. When you get life right, every other social issue follows suit, it has to. What we have now is a bunch of phonies (aka democrats), who claim to be champions for the poor, the immigrants, the elderly, the list goes on. Yet those same ‘champions’ will fight to their last breath to defend abortion. How could that make sense? If you take life in the womb, of which every American is entitled, there is no chance for ANY future rights.

We are know that it’s all a shame for votes, that works better and better with more entitlements. That’s enslavement if you ask me. Mark my words, if the dems could find a way to count a fetus vote, they would turn prolife on a dime.

That may sound a bit over the top, but my point isn’t. This country is a bunch of phonies (not just dems). The lesser continue to be exploited, thousands of abortions occur daily, and only a handful care, despite how many give lip service to it.

I’ve been watching this for a very long time. I challange anyone to prove me wrong that anyone who is pro-choice is anything by a phony when it comes to social issues, as the ‘atruism’ always leads to a self-serving agenda. I’m telling you, all you need to know about a person, the fail proof bellwether, is how passionate that person is about life in the womb. Rick Santorum is the real deal.

Then you have confirmed the point that Vince was trying to make, Patricia. Tho I wouldn’t use such harsh language as “stupid” or “suicide”. I don’t consider voting your convictions stupid as that’s an insult to the concept of voting as founded. To those, who’s all sole concern is to win an election for political party control, it’s tantamount to party treason. I don’t feel that way. But I also don’t minimize that exercising that right to express my heart with my vote doesn’t have consequences.

And that’s the valid point Vince makes – that there are many threats to this nation. If you exclude all of those just for the single issue – including bypassing another candidate who may be more like kind in those other issues simply because he/she doesn’t demonstrate the passion to require – it has it’s consequences in the end. We can rightly point to Ron Paul’s supporters, who feel the same passion about his anti-war/foreign policy stance that you do about Santorum’s pro life position. Thus RP’s power to be another Ross Perot, and handing the election to Obama. Indeed, if their central position is anti-war and a diminished military, they will not be voting for any other GOP candidate over Obama anyway.

But I doubt there is enough of them to split the Dem vote, handing the advantage to the Republicans. And that is the focus of those who are voting for a party win, and not necessarily voting for a candidate to advance your personal ideals.

It’s every voters right to make that decision, whether any of us think it wise or not. I understand that this is genuinely our only change to have some say… even tho it’s futile. That should never change. But any one would be a fool not to recognize that devotion to principles in an election over party win… and I do that myself… will affect the outcome.

My quandary, tho over different issues, is similar. Unlike you, I triage my personal issues based on what a POTUS is empowered to do, and not assume he has greater power than given by the Constitution to effect changes. But, if Romney is the nominee, will I bite the bullet? I have held, and so far have not changed, that Romney, Paul or Huntsman are a no go for me. None of them are an “almost” enough in their presentations to make me overlook what I consider serious disagreements or mistrust with their proposals, or their records. Ron Paul is an absolute no… with zero hope of me changing my mind on that one. I feel as strongly against RP as you feel for Santorum.

Then again, I’m in Oregon and virtually inconsequential anyway. Not only will the game be over before the primaries come to Oregon, (if they aren’t “over” now as the media and establishment pronounces…LOL) I have the luxury of voting my conscious with little repercussions. We’re certainly not a swing state, and I’d be surprised if there was any significant Romney support… or for Ron Paul… here.

Patricia is dead on, Santorum is the real deal. It’s time to break out the sweater vests and get behind this man. A pro choice person or candidate is more than likely a liberal on all social issues and more often than not on fiscal issues as well. If you have no problem with killing innocent children your morals and values are in question as far as I’m concerned.

The only pure pro choice candidates are Romney and (correction…Perry), Sid. Bachman, Huntsman, Santorum and Paul are all anti-abortion. Gingrich and Perry are anti abortion unless it’s a case of rape or incest. Santorum is not the lone ranger in the GOP line up.

Perry supposedly had an epiphany in Iowa and is now against abortion in all cases (or so I heard). Of course a campaign trail conversion like that should be taken with a big grain of salt.
Is Romney officially pro-choice at this point, or are we just counting him in that column based on his record and previous statements? Not doubting the classification, just curious.

bbartlog: Is Romney officially pro-choice at this point, or are we just counting him in that column based on his record and previous statements? Not doubting the classification, just curious.

Gosh… I dunno, bbartlog. That’s today’s stance. Tomorrow or the next? Who knows. Depends on his audience, right? LOL Sorry. Don’t mean to be flippant, but what can you do when describing a moving target?

@MataHarley: However, only Paul and Santorum have been pro life all along. Not sure what Mr. Paul thinks about exceptions to issue of abortion. Bachmann is out of the race and Huntsman has never been in the race. I am impressed that Romney had a change of heart on the issue but was this a sincere change or a political change of heart? And “anti-abortion” is a term the left uses to give killing innocent children some credibility. Personally, there’s pro choice and pro death sides to this issue.

Sid, who knows what Romney thinks. Which way is the wind blowing today, and what crowd is he addressing?

That said, I don’t have a problem with people changing their minds – i.e. growing with experience, as the rest of us do every day – along life’s paths. It’s the sincerity of today’s positions we have to evaluate. But as I was saying to Patricia and Carolyn, there are more issues that threaten the union than abortion that a POTUS can affect, without depending upon Congress. As for abortion? Not so much. Congress holds the reins. Therefore I will not hold abortion as the quintessential issue for judgement on a potential POTUS. I am far too much of a realist to demand that the POTUS also be a philosopher. He has control of the reins for 8 years at best… six that may be productive. The first year is generally lost to ramping up to speed. THe last to being a lame duck.

But there are always exceptions to that observation… including Obama’s first year. But then he had a supermajority Senate and majority House. The time was ripe to push thru whatever they could in that window. I have no doubts that were the shoes reversed, the Republicans would do the same.

But I do laugh that you chose to use “pro life” and “pro death”. It’s actually phrasing I use myself in select circles. But I also have my exceptions. Laws required my sister to carry a stillborn (cord wrapped around the neck) to full term for one month because of abortion laws decades ago. I consider that a form of mental torture. But since it wasn’t a threatening health issue, aborting the stillborn was prohibited. Laws have a tendency to do that… widen the net to encompass that which it wasn’t intended to do.

There are no absolutes in life because no two situations are necessarily alike. And I simply won’t take a hard nosed stance without considering those circumstances. Nor do I don’t like a candidate who does. Too rigid, IMHO.

Paul is largely pro-life but gets some demerits from the pro-life side for not supporting various legislation that would allow for more federal action against abortion. See: http://ontheissues.org/2012/Ron_Paul_Abortion.htm (interesting that you can get a 0% rating from NARAL while still only getting a 56% from the NRLC, I guess the NRLC considers more bills or is more picky somehow). Santorum’s legislative record is perfectly pro-life and as far as I know the only thing you can ding him on (as regards abortion) is that he endorsed Arlen Specter (pro-choice) over Pat Toomey (pro-life) at one point. I expect he and Arlen were friends, having been PA senators at the same time. Nitpicking.

I want someone like Santorum as President when it comes time to nominate the next supreme court justice. Laws change and forcing a woman to carry her stillborn child was a bad decision and law. But aborting a viable human being is reprehensible. Santorum is more than a one issue candidate. He has a good plan for the economy and he is strong on national defense…plus he is prolife. To me that’s three “wins.”

I’m with Sid all the way. I also agree that Santorum has a good business and jobs’ plan. The reason he supported Specter was because Specter had influence on the SCOTUS judges, and true to his word, thanks to help from Specter, we got Roberts and Alito. It’s easier to look at the bigger picture.

Mata that’s a really sad story about your sister. FWIW, I think it’s a horrible law too, especially because there was no life to save. Thankfully that is an extreme case and even if Roe v Wade wasever reversed, that law would never be back on the books.

I do disagree with you Mata about “no absolutes in life.” While no two situations are hardly, if ever the same, truth is always an absolute. I realize that you prefer to keep the discussion non philosophical, but the reality is, it is philosophical. If truth exists, it has to be based on God. If it doesn’t none of this matters. On the the other hand, if it does exist, as all religious Christians and Jews believe, there really isn’t “right and left, only “right and wrong.” Consequently, all of our “political” disagreements essentially boil down to that absolute truth, regardless of how we spin, rationalize, and or deny.

@Sid: Rick Perry IS and has ALWAYS been pro-life. He signed the Parental Consent Law in Texas, He signed the Sonogram bill requiring anyone seeking an abortion in Tx to get a sonogram first and have it explained to them and the Supreme Court just held it constitutional, and Perry signed the bill to de-fund Planned Parenthood in Texas causing 12 of their clinics to close in Texas.

Now I’ll put that up against Santorum’s record on abortion for effectiveness and it wins hands down!!!!!

As I’m thinking about each candidate a why or why not I’m for or against them, I was thinking about Santorum. Great on the social issues. Seems like a really great guy. Passionate of the issue of Life.

Then it dawns on me…this man is running as the family values candidate. He wants to be the crusader for the family. Then what business does a father of 7 children, one of them severely handicapped, and home schoolers to boot have running for POTUS!

POTUS is a fully involved 24/7 all consuming job. He can’t possibly raise that family, home school his children and be a helpmate to his wife and be POTUS. It is not humanly possible.
I think he would possibly make a great president but at this point in his life, he already has a mission. And unless he plans on being hypocrite in chief, he better be the family man he is crusading for.

@bbartlog: Paul is a Libertarian. No laws concerning abortion. Everyone is free to do as they choose. He may be against abortion personally but holding to his idealistic philosophy would never pass a law to stop it.

@Tercel: I like Perry alot, however his position on mandating the cancer drug to young girls bothered me greatly. He has explained it and I do believe he had the best of intentions but it should have been an opt in program.

@Tercel: If we apply this to the President then we should apply this to Congress as well. Especially since they are supposedly taking time away from their real jobs to represent their constituents. At least as President you only have that job. Besides with all the kids Santorum has, he won’t have much time for golf. Apparently if you only have two kids you have plenty of time to be the Leader of the Free World.

@Tercel:

Tercel first on Perry: I do like the man, and believe that he is pro life (albeit not as passionate as Santorum). I would bet that Perrry is pro contracepton, (I know, dare I bring it up). I’m not wanting to get into a contracpeton debate, only making the point that there IS a connection between pro life and not using contracepton. My point being that my guess is that Santorum is the only one who takes pro life to that level.

All said, I think Perry works great for TX, but the US isn’t TX.

Now, as for Sanorum not being able to be a real father in the White House, are you serious? For starters, they would have help coming out of their ears. Being home schooled, they could all jump on Air Force one and go along with dad as he leads the free world; who as a kid could imagine such an rare opportunity. What those kids would learn beyond the classroom would be jaw dropping. I would wager they would actually spend more time with their dad then if Rick had a 40 hour a week job.

And the real bonus would be having family in the white house that embarces all that is good about love , family, and faith. No, you certainly can’t legislate morality, but you can lead by example. The Santorums would be a class act and a refreshing well needed gift to our country, especially in one where it is frowned upon to have more than two kids and family and traditional marriage are under attack. The country would learn a lot form the Santorums, and it would be a postive influence on the younger generation who despertly need a good family role model.

Can’t believe what’s happening in this primary…It’s like a virus has caught hold and muddled clear commonsense thinking.

As a nation we are in the worst economy since the Great Depression. Only one state in the Union is doing well compared to the rest of the country and many nations. Texas is doing well because it is governed with conservative principles and led by a strong commonsense conservative. He has the best record and policy plans. There have been 9 debates since his oops! gaffe, and he’s been solid in each one.

But

We are being told Romneycare is inevitable (Obama will beat him in this economy)

Then there is a former speaker who was driven out of office by his own caucus with ties to Freddie Mac.

The above mentioned statist who lost his last election and has a google problem he can’t fix and whines about since 2003.

The nutball Dr. Kookoobanas who is a hypocritical pork king.

And finally the Chinese speaking former governor and Obama ambassodor employee who has a pretty good record in Utah but can’t stand most of the conservatives in the base.

But the regular guy who is a farmer’s son and an air force pilot who worked his way through the crazy rodeo of Texas Politics to lead the state through this depression by convincing Texans on both sides that we can thrive if we make tough choices and stay true to our heritage as Texans. The guy who led an historic sweep in 2010 to achieve a republican super majority in both houses and later stared them down pushing to initiate the largest budget cuts since WWII $15 Billion to balance the budget and upgrade our credit rating while Obama downgraded the nation. The guy who has fought DC over the border since 2003 when W was poaching our agents and spent $400 million of Texas money on border security and billed the federal govt. The guy who has fought the EPA since the 1990’s when he was Agr. Commissioner. The guy who pushed though tax breaks for disabled vets and their widows. The guy who signed sonagram legislation that is closing Planned parenthood clinics in Texas. The guy who pushed tort reform Loser Pays Law and chased bogus lawyer out of Texas and flooded the state with doctors who can afford to practice here. The guy who led a state that created 3 out of 4 private sector jobs in the nation, led the country in exports for the last 9 years and beat the US & China in manufacturing while keeping taxes low, saving the rain day fund and achieving a $1.6 Billion surplus. Y’know the 10th Amendment guy…The antithesis to both Obamalite and Obama.

Yeah…Republicans and conservatives are gonna throw away Gov. Rick Perry cause he had a few lousy debates and said Oops! in November…and maybe cause they really do let the clearchannel media do their thinking for them.

Incredible.

I understand you support Perry, workingclass artist. You’re not alone, but you sure don’t have a ton of company. Perry’s showings in debates, polls and the two primaries thus far have been lackluster… and that is reflected in his lack of traction. Also, I’m not sure why you think “only one state in the Union is doing well”. ND, NE, SD, NH, VT and IA all have unemployment figures at 5.7% or below. As a matter of fact, TX was #28, meaning 27 other states had better unemployment numbers. You’ll have to remember that Perry, in NH, is governor of a state with 8.1% unemployment, lecturing a state with 5.2% unemployment.

But then, take heart. I don’t see this game as over yet after just two primaries. Or even four. Perry may end up resurrecting himself yet. Who knows. It’s an anything goes type primary. It looks like most conservatives and indys are open to an anyone but Romney. Trouble is each one takes turns shooting themselves in the foot.


“All said, I think Perry works great for TX, but the US isn’t TX.”

Every state that has adopted their own version of the Texas Model is seeing job growth…Right to Work Legislation is sweeping Union States because it makes economic sense and is American.

When Perry spoke to the NH legislature he said “Don’t sit back and take it.I’m not against Unions but no one should be forced to join one to earn a living to put food on the table for their families.”

Santorum is in the pockets of the Unions and his voting record shows it. He will flop in Right to Work States.

Gov. Perry is already inspiring others just by running for office. Down here we call that Leadership.

Gov. Rick Perry on the Citizen Legislators Act

AUSTIN – Gov. Rick Perry today issued the following statement on the Citizen Legislators Act filed today by Illinois Congressman Timothy V. Johnson.

“I applaud Rep. Johnson for filing legislation to create a part-time, citizen congress that will restore the vision of our founding fathers. This bill aligns closely with my Uproot and Overhaul Washington plan, which calls for cutting congressional sessions, staffs and salaries in half.

“I support Rep. Johnson’s legislation because I believe members of Congress should spend less time in Washington and more time living at home under the laws they pass with the people they represent.

“Americans are tired of Washington politicians who are out of touch, spend all their time inside the beltway, and whose reckless spending and corrupt practices are endangering our great nation. It is time to send these politicians back home to get real jobs rather than spending all their time in Washington spending money we don’t have on programs we don’t need.

“With a part-time congress, we can save taxpayers billions of dollars, end the permanent political class and begin a complete overhaul of Washington’s broken status quo.”

http://www.rickperry.org/uproot-and-overhaul-washington-html/

Considering the fact that this thread contained a lot of discussion on abortion, thought I’d share what our President thinks about abortion on this anniversary of Roe v Wade.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-defends-roe-v-wade-way-our-daughters-have-same-chance-sons-fulfill-their-dreams

Obama Defends Roe v. Wade As Way for ‘Our Daughters’ to Have Same Chance As Sons to ‘Fulfill Their Dreams’

Even beyond the morality of his opinion, it’s mindblowing that being a Harvard trained constitutional lawyer, he actually believes that abortion is in the constitution.   But then, this entire abortion debate has much been about “symantic gymnastics.”  Funny too how he missed that “right to life” part, didn’t realize it was changed to “liberty, pursuit of happiness, and the “right to fulfill dreams like the boys.”

 

 

 

@mata harley

do any of the states you mention have 1300-1500 people a day moving there? Un-employment in Texas has dropped back to 7.8%. 3 out of 4 private sector jobs were created in Texas. Doesn’t matter anyhow as Perry has dropped out of the race & come back home..