Posted on 02/19/2012 11:37:29 PM PST by timlot
Amid new controversy, how Dems will hit Santorum http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/amid-new-controversy-how-dems-will-hit-santorum/384246
"Being pro-life is one thing," says the Democrat. "People can get that. But taking it to the incest and rape extreme, or saying that health insurance shouldn't cover amniocentesis -- that makes people say, 'Wow, he's not one of these Republicans who is pro-life but is not going to do anything, he's one of those Republicans who is pro-life and will try to do everything.' He's not one of those check-the-box Republicans. He's somebody who feels it deeply."
Perhaps because my social circle consists of more people than the ones that attend my church. :)
Perhaps because my social circle consists of more people than the ones that attend my church. :)
That is not to say that people would generally weep if abortion was outlawed, but most people’s concern themselves with what happens in the home moreso than what happens in the community and being able to provide for themselves would be more important that what happens in the community.
***************************
He has his own baggage, and I don't find him to be particularly personable or likable.
However, he and Newt are the only two remaining candidates that I find acceptable. I hope Newt wins the nomination, but if it is instead Santorum, I will vote for him.
************************
Exactly. It's the people YOU know.
*********************************
I disagree with your conclusions. I guess we won't be friends.
So, preventing an abortion is more important than feeding your child?
And I’m only asking that as a point of logic, which comes first?
That’s how most people think. They don’t think about how their actions will affect the future, they only think about the here and now.
All most people think about, if they are in this position, is that they aren’t working and their child is hungry. They honestly don’t care, at the moment, than some young women might be getting an abortion 300 miles away, as tragic as that is.
As I said, and you’re proving largely correct, the search for the holy grail in the abortion debate is hindering the process of lowering the number of abortions, with the intent of eliminating them.
And I’m only asking that as a point of logic, which comes first?
That’s how most people think. They don’t think about how their actions will affect the future, they only think about the here and now.
****************************
I don't think that you have any idea of how most people think, but it's becoming increasingly clear the way that you and your friends think.
I am more on your side, then you might believe.
I just disagree with your methodology. If we had conducted WWII as the pro-lifers think we should be conducting the war on abortion, we’d all be speaking Japanese or German now or, at least, prolonged the war by thirty years.
Really?
Then why are conservatives losing on public policy, if most people think like conservatives?
Are you incapable of seeing how the abortion holocaust has impacted the economy or are you just unwilling to address it?
**********************************
It's you who keeps making sweeping generalizations based on your own, limited experience.
Social conservatives who support Santorum see Ron Paul and his followers as dangerous clowns. Well, guess what? Libertarians and independents see the hard-line social conservatives the same way.
Newt would have been acceptable to the Ron Paul libertarians, to the Romney moderates, and to many of the Santorum social conservatives as a second choice, and would have been a good unifier. I don't see Newt's candidacy going anywhere right now.
"Quite a show" may be an understatement. Remember the Clinton Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, and how its passage galvanized the pro-gunners on the right and led to the Congressional takeover of 1994?
To the Left, abortion is as big a hot button as guns are to the right, and may provoke a similar reaction.
Your solution is what, a moderate like Romney? We tried that with McCain.
Furthermore most candidates are wise enough to balance they're statements enough to draw such people enough to get elected and then once in office they present the "strong arm"....once again Ricks showing his hand and for that he'll be trumped in no time flat ....
He has, but that is what the media draws attention to, and conservatives are falling for it on a conservative site, but I'm thinking they're welcoming the liberal tactics to elevate their own candidate.
And as a reminder...this is one of the reasons PA. voted him out. His self-righteous attitude gets in the way of smart thinking...which he lacks...he'll never move a congress with that attitude.... and people will see bits of as he moves along...he just isn't that smart as supposed.
Rick didn't have had a chance that year. He was in a blue state, the discontent with Republicans was elevated that year, and he ran against the son of a beloved former governor who ran as a pro-lifer to boot.
For a long time, we have lamented the loss of traditional values in this country, and we finally have a conservative that is tired of the PC and is willing to stand up for them, and what happens? He's criticized by conservatives who want to elevate their own candidate and/or are kowtowing to the liberal MSM.
The irony here is too astounding not to point out. You want to cut out the name calling and vitriol, yet here you are on every thread calling Santorum "Sanctimonium", and you mock Santorum supporters as being holier than thou and ugly.
I have never ever seen a Santorum supporter on this site (feel free to point one out) who has said that we're somehow looked upon more favorably by God than supporters of other candidates.
You’re absolutely spot on.
That’s true, and we are only meeting replacement level thanks to immigration.
As I said, I agree with your position, not your methodology. I am familiar with how abortion affects the economy, because a non-person does not buy goods and does not use services.
As I said, your focus should have been less bludgeon and more surgical as it would have likely gotten more progress towards the elimination of abortion. By not working to get the feds out of it, you have allowed the states to find cover for not having to do anything.
If you had gotten the feds out of the business, that would have left the states much more malleable to adjusting their position.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.