Skip to comments.Axelrod: Santorum's stance on social issues 'are quite divisive'
Posted on 02/15/2012 8:04:05 AM PST by Nachum
Top Obama political strategist David Axelrod took aim at surging GOP hopeful Rick Santorum Wednesday, painting him as a fringe candidate unlikely to appeal to voters after closer inspection. Speaking on CBS This Morning on Wednesday, Axelrod said the former Pennsylvania senator's economic policies were unlikely to win over voters. "I think when people really examine his economic policies, I don't think the average working person in this economy is going to look at his economic policies and say 'yeah, that's the ticket for me. That offers great hope for me.'" Axelrod said.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
****ing nazi bastard.
What is it about Obama’s Pro-Abortion stance that is NOT “divisive”?
And killing live born babies isn’t..?
So then is he saying that Obama’s and liberals stands on the social issues and other are NOT divisive or controversial?
If you are going to criticize the opposition as “divisive”, then you are implying that your liberal positions are mainstream and non-controversial.
Or am I missing something?
Maybe what I’m missing is that you are not supposed to question Team Obama about anything.
Coming from the likes of Axelrod, that is really rich....unfortunately, the stupes who support Obama (eg, the 47%) will buy this hook, line, and sinker.
I hope this endorsement helps.
I guess it is. He doesnt approve of aborting 8 month old babies like mr obama
Interesting that Axe comments reflect “the working” middle-class.
Doesn’t the White Hut care about the unemployed? Is he implying that they aren’t counting on them to vote?
Just no idea where he picked up that talent, but there it is.
And Obama’s are NOT!?!
F U D A!!!!
I paraphrase the NPR panel -- people who likely seek more political unity in this country:
"Ha! You lost!!"
"Whoop! Obama wins another one!"
"Boy, those Republicans sure take a long time to decide to do the right thing, huh?"
"These people just care about the rich, but they lost this round!"
But Axelrod is worried about Santorum being divisive ...
Ahhhh, but Mr. Axlerod, Senator Santorum would protect our freedoms (the free exercise of religion comes to mind) unlike the current resident of the White House. This is a very unifying issue among a majority of Americans.
Also, Mr. Axlerod, I sincerely doubt that there will ever be a resident of the White House as DIVISIVE as Mr. Obama, particularly when it has to do with race, religion, and class warfare.
Given a choice, Obama would kill Axlerod’s daughter to prevent wasting resources on a girl who is never likely to become a producer.
These people disgust me.
Wow. Coming from an advisor to the most divisive President in US history, his criticism of Santorum is laughable.
Axelrod is an evil man.
They don't want unemployed young men to vote, hence their total elimination from Democrat rhetoric.
Unemployed young men are available to the Republicans for very little investment. Just don't send Romney after them ~ he's the guy into consolidation, greater efficiency, and structural layoffs.
They know all about that.
One hell of an endorsement.
Santorum offers a clear difference between the current communist in the white hut and a Patriotic, Constitution Supporting, Honest, American Leader.
Romney, not so much.
yes he is and so what?
Oh yeah Axelrod — and your boss can issue a fatwa against one of the largest Christian churches in the country, but he’s not divisive at all. Not at all. Unbelievable.
This BS coming from a man who speaks for the most destructive and divisive fake president ever, Barack Hussein Obama.
Patriotic combat veteran Old Sarge took aim at top Obama political strategist David Axelrod Wednesday, correctly identifying him as a Marxist/Leninist propaganda peddler after closer inspection.
The live born baby is a punishment, according to Obama.
That live born baby punishes girls and women who have done things which caused them to get pregnant without a husband.
The live born baby should NOT punish Obama’s daughters, to paraphrase what he has said. He wouldn’t want his daughters punished like that if they make mistakes in life.
And on the issue at hand, the liberal mind does NOT think that the killing of a baby is controversial. To liberals, their views are mainstream and conventional. Whereas, it’s conservatives who are “out of the mainstream”.
What is it about Obamas Pro-Abortion stance that is NOT divisive?
Abortion up to 9 months in the womb is ok for the left. Conservatives running need to start reminding people that fact. Some people do not even know it can be done up to 9 months. If they want to call us extreme for rejecting abortion, we need to show how heartless, cruel, and extreme they are. I would mention this fact EVERY TIME they say we are extreme or too far right.
Key Facts on Partial-Birth Abortion
February 14, 2003
For further information, contact the Federal Legislation Department at the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) at Legfederal@aol.com or 202-626-8820, and visit the Partial-Birth Abortion section of the National Right to Life website at www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/index.html, especially www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/test.html.
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (H.R. 760, S. 3) would ban performance of a partial-birth abortion except if it were necessary to the save a mother’s life. The bill defines partial-birth abortion as an abortion in which the person performing the abortion deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, and then kills the baby. The bill would permit use of the procedure if necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.
In a partial-birth abortion, the abortionist pulls a living baby feet-first out of the womb and into the birth canal (vagina), except for the head, which the abortionist purposely keeps lodged just inside the cervix (the opening to the womb). The abortionist punctures the base of the babys skull with a surgical instrument, such as a long surgical scissors or a pointed hollow metal tube called a trochar. He then inserts a catheter (tube) into the wound, and removes the baby’s brain with a powerful suction machine. This causes the skull to collapse, after which the abortionist completes the delivery of the now-dead baby. (See www.house.gov/burton/RSC/haskellinstructional.pdf)
The January 2003 Gallup poll found that 70% favored and 25% opposed a law that would make it illegal to perform a specific abortion procedure conducted in the last six months of pregnancy known as partial birth abortion, except in cases necessary to save the life of the mother. (margin of error +/- 3%)
The term partial-birth is perfectly accurate. Under both federal law and most state laws, a live birth occurs when a baby is entirely expelled from the mother and shows any signs of life, however briefly — regardless of whether the baby is viable, i.e., developed enough to be sustained outside the womb with neo-natal medical assistance. Even at 4½ months (20 weeks), perinatologists say that if a baby is expelled or removed completely from the uterus, she will usually gasp for breath and sometimes survive for hours, even though lung development is usually insufficient to permit successful sustained respiration until 23 weeks.
Some prominent defenders of partial-birth abortions, such as NARAL’s Kate Michelman and syndicated columnist Ellen Goodman, insisted that anesthesia kills the babies before they are removed from the womb. This myth has been refuted by professional societies of anesthesiologists. In reality, the babies are alive and experience great pain when subjected to a partial-birth abortion. [Documentation on request.]
Partial-birth abortions are performed thousands of times annually on healthy babies of healthy mothers. In 1997, Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers (1997), estimated that the method was used 3,000 to 5,000 times annually. In the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along, Fitzsimmons said. (The New York Times, Feb. 26, 1997, p. A11.) (See clippings at www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/index.html, in the late 1996 and early 1997 archive.) In January 2003, even the Alan Guttmacher Institute an affiliate of Planned Parenthood published a survey of abortion providers that estimated that 2,200 abortions were performed by the method in the year 2000. While that figure is surely low (see www.nrlc.org/press_releases_new/release011503.html), it is more than triple the number that AGI estimated in its most recent previous survey (for 1996).
In January 1997, the PBS program Media Matters showed that in 1995-96, the news media largely swallowed a pro-abortion party line that partial-birth abortions are performed rarely and only in extreme medical circumstances — claims later discredited. (See www.pbs.org/wnet/mediamatters99/transcript2.html)
Phony ban counterproposals advanced by Reps. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and Jim Greenwood (R-Pa.) would place no limits on partial-birth abortions in the fifth and sixth months of pregnancy, when the vast majority of partial-birth abortions occur. Furthermore, these phony bans would allow an abortion even in the seventh month and later if an abortionist asserts that a baby is not viable or that an abortion is required to preserve health. Reps. Hoyer and Greenwood admitted that their proposal would allow third-trimester abortions even for (in their words) mental health reasons. (www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/Phony%20ban%20on%20late-term.pdf)
Another phony ban substitute amendment proposed in the past by Senator Tom Daschle (D-SD) and Richard Durbin (D-Il.) would not affect the typical partial-birth abortions performed in the late second trimester. Even in the seventh month and later, the substitute would permit abortions based on any degree of risk of grievous injury to her physical health. Dr. Warren Hern, a leading practitioner of very late abortions who wrote the textbook Abortion Practice, commented on the Daschle amendment, I say every pregnancy carries a risk of death, and therefore, I will certify that any pregnancy is a threat to a womans life and could cause grievous injury to her physical health. (in USA Today and Washington Times, both May 15, 1997) In other words, under the Daschle-Durbin amendment, any pregnant woman would qualify for an abortion even in the seventh month and later.
Although usually used in the fifth and sixth months, the partial-birth abortion method is also used to perform abortions in the third trimester — that is, the seventh month and later. In Kansas, the only state in which the law requires separate reporting of partial-birth abortions, abortionists reported in 1999 they had performed 182 partial-birth abortions on babies who were defined by the abortionists themselves as viable, and they also reported that all 182 of these were performed for mental (as opposed to physical) health reasons. See page 11 of this state report: www.kdhe.state.ks.us/hci/99itop1.pdf
In a written submission to the House Judiciary Committee in June, 1995, the late Dr. James McMahon who is considered to be the developer of the method explicitly acknowledged that he performed such abortions on babies with no flaw whatever, even in the third trimester, for such reasons as mere youth of the mother or for psychiatric difficulties. Indeed, even at 29 weeks — well into the seventh month — one-fourth of the babies that McMahon aborted had no flaw, however minor. Moreover, McMahons submission showed that in a series of about 2,000 such abortions that he performed, only 9% were performed for maternal [health] indications, and of that group, the most common reason was depression.
The Physicians Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth (PHACT) — a group of over 600 physician-specialists (mostly in obstetrics, perinatology, and related disciplines) — has spoken out to dispute claims that some women need partial-birth abortions to avoid serious physical injury. PHACT said: We, and many other doctors across the United States, regularly treat women whose unborn children suffer these and other serious conditions. Never is the partial-birth procedure medically indicated. Rather, such infants are regularly and safely delivered live, vaginally, with no threat to the mother’s health or fertility. In September, 1996, former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop and other PHACT members said that partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to protect a mother’s health or her future fertility. On the contrary, this procedure can pose a significant threat to both.
In May, 1997, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (then H.R. 1122) was endorsed by the American Medical Association. In a letter to Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), AMA Executive Vice President P. John Seward, M.D., wrote, Thank you for the opportunity to work with you towards restricting a procedure we all agree is not good medicine.
The Hot List Help Support NRLC Human Cloning Documents About NRLC Today’s News and Views Abortion NRL News Federal Legislation Voting Records Pregnancy Help Euthanasia Will to Live RU-486 State Affiliates
Another pearl of wisdom from Axelnimrod.
Axelrod: Santorum’s stance on social issues ‘are quite divisive’
Normal versus Perverse “divisive”? Brilliant analysis.
Here we go!
If Santorum can KEEP the conversation on economics, he has a fighting chance. He will have to unveil, in detail, an economic plan which will appeal to all sectors of the GOP and the independents...and then he will have to pitch it with blue collar appeal to Reagan D’s, sort of a subgroup of indys. Fortunately, THAT is one thing that Santorum has historically done well.
But if this becomes an election about contraception, and obviously obama will try that, it is going to be difficult for Santorum.
The other interesting thing is that if Santorum can hold the 60% of Catholics that are ticked at obama, and if he can win PA - and both of those would seem to be sort of natural for him - but if he can do that, he “might” have a fighting chance against obama in the general. Just maybe...but it will be brutal.
(if, of course, Santorum is the nominee...).
There are 3 people that whenever I see them on TV, I change the channel. They are Axelrod, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Obama.
One of, The Roman Catholic Church is the LARGEST denomination in the Country. There are 68,503,456 registered Catholics in the United States (22% of the US population) according to the American Bishops’ count in their Official Catholic Directory 2010.
The Roman Catholic Church is also the largest Religious institution in the World. Total church membership (both lay and clerical) in 2007 was 1.147 billion people. It is estimated to be larger than 1.2 Billion today.
This isn’t the kind of institution that you wanrt to pick a public fight with.
It is the difference between right and wrong, good and bad, healthy and unhealthy, success and failutre.
The fact is that the great social restructuring the democratic party has foisted for decades on these United States, costing tens of trillions of dollars, is money thrown down a rat hole.
It has done more to divide America, to entrap people in unhealthy social life styles, unhealthy economic conditions, and in failed policies than anything else in this nation's history.
Rick Santorum is simply pointing this out and naming names and they types of life-styles, economics, etc. that produce such misery.
Rick Santorum is pointing towards the traditional, underlying, moral foundation of the nation that has enspired and produced the most prosperous, giving, cahritable, and successful nation on earth and the path back to it.
He is pointing America towards the path of hope.
Of course Axelrod and Obama and all of their ilk are against it. They are totally invested in the policies of failure because it makes the sad creatures trapped in them beholden to, and dependent on them. It is their entire power base.
If that is devisive, so be it. We must go through that divide to get to the properity, success, and hope that lies beyond it...to pull proplr out of the embrace of death the left has clutched them in.
God grant that we can succeeed and pull our nation away from the embrace of these marxists and enemies.
“60% of Catholics that are ticked at obama”
I saw a poll citing 75%.
IF they all vote against Obama, he’s toast.
Remind everyone: Barak Obama voted AGAINST a bill that would require giving care to BABIES THAT SURVIVED ABORTIONS AND WERE VIABLE OUTSIDE THE WOMB when he was a state senator.
To me, that makes him no better than a Nazi...
WSJ reported the figure at 77.7 million Catholics in the US.
Axelrod has it wrong but don’t tell him....
Santorum is not electable, but it’s not because of this.
Obama would blow him away by at least 10-12 points and we’d lose Congress.
Rick is a terribly flawed candidate. We need someone else.
“This isnt the kind of institution that you want to pick a public fight with.”
Actually I think Obama does want this fight. A cold calculation on his part. For one he sees the church as totally weakened by the scandals. Secondly, it’s a way he can divide people. The way he wins in 2012 is by sowing chaos and confusion. He’s making this election about the false argument of “access” to contraception, betting that the largely ignorant public will fall for that nonsense.
Secondly, this serves his larger purpose of accelerating a complete federal takeover of healthcare if he wins a second term. He knows that a huge percentage of US hospitals are catholic; and he knows many bishops would close their hospitals rather than comply with this unjust law, or be put out of business due to the severe fines. THUS....his next “crisis” moment is created, allowing the federal government to take over these properties in the name of public safety and health.
There is often a divide between right and wrong.
IF they all vote against Obama, hes toast.”
And, alas, that is a big if seeing as the majority of Catholics (and the majority of voters) supported him in 2008.
Hopefully times have changed...but obama is riding pretty high in the polls now, and I am not confident.
My dear A$$elrod, your Puppet Bastard who loves to spend other peoples money has lost.
He is going to run on Government Run Religion, Government Run Healthcare, and Government Run Economy.
Your Puppet Bastard has run up such a large deficit (your Democrat Senate has not passed a budget in over 1,000 days) that the United States of America has be down graded.
You must be so proud.
You and Your Puppet Bastard are jokes.
Yes, dividing moral clarity from depravity.
For people who have no moral compass, like you, Axelgrease, anybody with a higher moral standard than you is “divisive”.
Rick is on record for making statements that imply contraception is both wrong and immoral. Statistically a very large number of U.S. women either use or have used contraceptives; some studies say as high as 99%. Rick's stance will be a VERY high hurdle to overcome.
Rick Santorum in his own words on contraception:
One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the former Pennsylvania senator explained. Its not okay. Its a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be
Source- see linked video at approx 17:48 minutes:
Santorum is not electable, but it’s not because of this.
Obama would blow him away by at least 10-12 points and we’d lose Congress.
On top of being a Big Government faux conservative who helped bankrupt our country, Rick is a terribly flawed candidate. We need someone else, perhaps someone not currently in the race.
Divisive is a better thing to be than corrosive. To divide virtue from vice is what Mr. Axelrod would call divisive. To call evil good is what he would label virtuous.
David Axelrod will one day die alone and unmourned, his only accomplishments having been to promote to high office those who have helped destroy individual responsibility for the sake not of freedom but of license. His reward will have been money. Money can buy medical personnel to help extend by a little a life lived for self and then a grave aggrandizing self.
The man is an exceedingly clever fool.
_______________ give us a list.
You do know that Obama is not electable.
Yep. Santorum’s stance is very divisive. And he’s on the right side of the divide. It’s wheat from chaff time.
Oh my goodness! He actually SAID that in an interview with a recorder going??
We all better pray that this guy implodes soon (hopefully in next week’s debate) because we WILL end up with 4 more years of Obama if Santorum’s the nominee.
“I do have concerns regarding Santorum’s support for Sonia Sotomyer,Romney and Arlen..all for socialized medicine and not exactly pro LIFE!”
In my opinion, the most damned detail of Santorum’s Congressman years is his constant support for more spending, more pork and more taxes.
In all his career in Washington DC, Santorum sponsored or co-sponsored FIFTY-ONE spending bills, but not a SINGLE one spending cut bill!
He porked billions out of the Congress and he said he “loves earmarks”. It is obvious that a pro-spending, pro-more taxes is not a fiscal conservative.
Santorum is a big government guy. His moral compass is stuck on “corrupt bastard”.