at this point will go to update
Free Republic's computer system
We have the need for SPEED before the election!
Donate Just One Monthly
And Become a FR Hero
Sponsors will contribute $10
For each new monthly sign-up
Posted on 02/20/2012 6:31:00 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Yesterday on CNN's State of the Union, Candy Crowley asked Ron Paul about the new focus in national politics on social issues and whether a national debate focusing on them would help Republicans in November. Paul called it a "losing position" but neglects to mention that he has campaigned on his opposition to abortion at least since the Ames straw poll, an omission caught by CNS News:
“Do you–are you uncomfortable–certainly Rick Santorum is the one who has been in the forefront of some of this talk on social issues, but there have been others in the race,” Crowley asked Paul. “Are you uncomfortable with this talk about social issues? Do you consider it a winning area for Republicans in November?”
“No,” said Paul. “I think it’s a losing position.
“I mean, I talk about it because I have a precise understanding of how difficult problems are to be solved,” Paul continued. “And they’re not to be at the national level. We’re not supposed to nationalize these problems. The founders were very clear that problems like this, if there needs to be legislation of sorts, the state has the right to write the legislation that they so choose. And that solves a lot of our problems.”
Back on Dec. 19, Paul signed the “Personhood Pledge” published by PersonhoodUSA. This pledge says in part: “I stand with President Ronald Reagan in supporting ‘the unalienable personhood of every American, from the moment of conception until natural death,’ and with the Republican Party platform in affirming that I ‘support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and endorse legislation to make clear that the 14th Amendment protections apply to unborn children.”
The current context of the debate on social issues hinges on federal mandates, a point which Paul acknowledges in this interview. Why would that be a loser? It’s practically the entire context of his campaign — reducing the power of federal government to issue the kind of mandates like the HHS mandate for employers to essentially provide free contraception to their employees. Tying that in with social issues should make the argument stronger, at least if it’s handled correctly.
Matt Lewis argues that not only is Paul wrong, but history shows that Republicans do well when social issues are in play:
As Jeffrey Bell’s forthcoming book (per the Wall Street Journal’s review) notes,
“Social issues were nonexistent in the period 1932 to 1964. … The Republican Party won two presidential elections out of nine, and they had the Congress for all of four years in that entire period.
“. . . When social issues came into the mix—I would date it from the 1968 election . . . the Republican Party won seven out of 11 presidential elections.”
(Emphasis mine.)
As much as moderate Republicans and cosmopolitan conservatives might lament the resurrection of the culture wars (which were foisted upon us, and appear to have been rekindled once again by liberal overreach), they were electorally fruitful for the GOP.
What is more, the notion that running on the economy (what Mr. Romney presumably seems comfortable doing) is a panacea, is dubious. The economy appears to be recovering (at least, the unemployment rate is dropping), a point which will obviously make it harder, should the trend continue, to oust Obama.
Even more to the point, history does not seem indicate that a struggling economy — regardless of who is to blame — or who currently occupies the White House — will benefit the Republican candidate in a general election. (This, of course, is controversial. Jimmy Carter’s handling of the economy was surely one cause of his 1980 defeat, but would he have been defeated had it not been for the Iranian hostages?)
If the economy starts heating up — which the CBO, among many others, predicts won’t happen — the election will have to hinge on larger, basic issues of limited power and Obama’s overreach. If we shy away from challenging Obama on those positions now, we probably won’t have a candidate willing to do it in November.
What is this?
Did the author forget that we had the last half of the Great Depression and WWII in that timeframe?
The Republican party is a tripod, with social conservatives... fiscal conservatives, and national defense/law-n-order conservatives. Nominate a candidate that is weak in any one of the three will guarantee failure.
Goodwithagun 2012: Because there are no states or state laws in America to cover this...
That's because there was a fundamental social consensus until 1964. There were no serious "social issues." Then the pill hit, and the sexual revolution began.
If Obama refuses to debate he'll be dead meat.
There should be a law that would prevent a woman who was raped from immediately going to a hospital and getting a shot of estrogen to prevent her from becoming pregnant?
That is what Ron Paul said, “immediately” after being raped. What he actually said matters to me, not what others say he said as is so often the case here and elsewhere.
Having read Ron Paul’s words from the article this thread is on, I consider Ron Paul the most pro-life one running and that he sees a plan to actually stop millions of abortions and that he wants a right to life law for the unborn. I support that 100% and all the spin in the world does not change what he actually said.
Hmmm... this pro life so-con likes what he sees and hears. I am not going to become anti-Paul because that is the latest fad. I like the guy and like what he proposes in 99% of his policies and promises, no one else running comes close.
I also believe him, something I am having a hard time with on any of the others considering their records both in office and out of office.
Small govt, trillion dollar cut in spending year one, a plan to actually do something to end abortion, and having all branches of govt actually bound by the constitution. Gee what a kook!
I have been thinking that, also. And it will be two-pronged, his reason not to debate will be an all-consuming national/international emergency requiring all his attention, aka October Surprise... Newt doesn’t necessarily need the debates, but he does need the airtime...
Most pro-life? Then why did he voted a against a bill bill that would have prohibited minors being transported across state lines to get abortions without parents consent?
The estrogen shot?
Really, and he knows the woman was raped when? He said he would give the shot, to prevent pregnancy (means there is a baby), you can’t prevent pregnancy if the woman is not pregnant.
Paul has been in congress for decades, he has done nothing. Why do yo think as president he would do anything.
99% of his policies - really.
Voting against aide to Israel but for aide to palestine, because as he says Israel is the biggest terrorist state in the middle east.
99% of his policies - really
The ones that state America is responsible for 9/11 (even though we have been fighting islam since 1776). Jefferson said the best way to deal with islam is kill them all.
Paul knows nothing about the founding or the constitution anymore than Fred Phelps knows the Bible.
Do you even know what his policies are? Not what people say they are but what he actually says and writes.
No, current laws against murder should protect embryos as living persons at every stage of development. The estrogen shot (Dr. Paul hypothetically prescribed) prevents the implantation of an existing embryo and therefore it is an assault with intent to murder the embryo just as if you strangled me. The "immediacy" of the treatment (assault) is irrelevant because a the injection could not prevent a fertilization if ovulation has already taken place.
Like I said, I love Dr Paul, just like you, but protecting life is not a priority for him. He wants it off the Federal table and he does not want to have to deal with the painful minutia involved with protecting a person who make only consist of proverbial handful of cells that may have gotten half of his genetic material from an "honest" rapist.
I don't think one can be more or less pro-life either you are or you aren't and Dr. Paul is either confused or he is obfuscating. In a TEA party meaning during Rand Paul's senate primary campaign, I warned Rand about speaking ambiguously, incoherently or evasively about abortion. I also implored him to declare and describe abortion to be the economic and security issue that it is. Maybe Ron is right and it and other "social issues" a losing issues for this campaign. If they are, than we are lost and hopeless.
If I find Rick Santorum making the same equivocations, then I won't support him either.
None of the candidates have proposed a law that would prevent a rape victim from getting a shot of estrogen immediately after being raped. Nor do I believe any would, including Santorum. Such a law would never get through congress even in pre legal abortion days. Nobody is going to criminally prosecute a woman for preventing a pregnancy from happening immediately after being raped. So Ron Paul is being a realist instead of trying to spin it politically to make himself look good, that is my opinion on him regarding this.
As a Christian I believe life begins before conception (Jer 1:5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you) and that physical life begins at conception but I would not support a law that would prevent a woman who was raped from being able to get a shot of estrogen immediately after being being raped. And I still consider myself 100% pro-life.
It can take up to 5 days for a sperm to reach the fallopian tube and as short as 30 minutes. For a sperm to fertilize an egg, 24 hrs at a minimum according to what I have read and as long as 14 days. A shot of estrogen prevents the egg from being fertilized so conception has not happened.
I say all this with the full knowledge I am accountable to God for what I say and do.
I also know people who I am very close to, who were conceived by rape and I am very very glad they were allowed to be conceived thus born.
I did the research, estrogen has not been used to stop pregnancy since the 60's (when Ron Paul practiced). Now progesterone, mifepristone and/or misoprostol are used.
I'm against abortifacients of any kind being used to perform an abortifacient (killing an embryo) function. I don't consider anyone in favor of an abortifacient pro-life. I'm uncertain of where you stand because I think one of us (possibly me) must have a misunderstanding of how things work.
Be careful of how you interpret the word "conception" because some people consider it to mean "implantation" instead of "fertilization".
Finally, I'm not looking for a law or laws from a President. I'm looking for a consistent world-view and mindset that protects innocent blood and does not hold children responsible for the sins of their fathers. Sure we're arguing on the extreme and complicated margin of the debate, but if everyone who claims they are pro-life really is, then the slaughter would be abating and it is not. The Mississipi Personhood Amendment loss is proof of that.
I'll follow your posts as you defend Ron Paul, and I'll keep an open mind but you have not convinced me yet. I think he wants it both ways which is duplicitous. I'm also interested in any specific criticism you have for Santorum.
I am not saying it isn’t life because of the rape just that in the first hours no one, absolutely no one is going to stop a women getting a shot of whatever to prevent her egg from becoming fertilized so she does not become pregnant. Condoms prevent the sperm from reaching the egg and no one is going to outlaw them just as no one is going to outlaw and punish a woman who was raped from preventing herself from becoming pregnant.
Santorum voted for bills that included funding for Planned Parenthood. Ron Paul did not. Both men knew that funding would be used to kill a great many babies as PP is largest abortion chamber(s) in America. Which one is truly pro-life and which one keeps saying one thing to get the nomination but has a record of doing the opposite?
I think the shot of whatever is far more likely to prevent implantation than fertilization thus if a fertilization has already occurred or if it occurs in spite of the measure, it is an abortion. The best response to the question is to switch tracks and ask: "Why oh why are we not imposing capital punishment for rapists?"
If it is acceptable for a rape victim to do this because she has a obvious strong revulsion to carrying the child of a monster who need capital punishment, then we are on the untenable slippery slope to allowing abortion for anyone with a strong revulsion. The enemy knows this and that's why they keep asking the undermining question.
Santorum voted for bills that included funding for Planned Parenthood.
I'll research this.
From the debate last night concerning Title X:
Santorum: "I think I was making it clear that while I have a personal moral objection to it, even though I don't support it, that I voted for bills that included it. And I made it very clear in subsequent interviews that I don't support that, I've never supported it, and on an individual basis have voted against it."
That's not good enough for me, but if every bill before Congress contains such poison pills, then nobody could vote for anything. So what about the bills Santorum voted for, made them worth taking the poison?
I see don't see a slippery slope being created if it was only permissible for a rape victim to immediately stop herself from becoming pregnant. Of course what we have now is abortion as contraception for anyone who wants it, even late in the pregnancy. Personally I would counsel a woman to not stop the pregnancy but I would not support a law that prevented her from stopping the pregnancy in the first day.
Not good enough for me either. Paul's position is if enough of the congresscritters stopped voting for Bill's with poison in them it would produce Bill's without the poison. This is why (one of the reasons) I respect the guy. We need people like him in politics to change what few are willing to change... it just keeps on the way it is and it is getting worse, much worse. I dread to think what we will have in 10 yrs.
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.