Perry pledges a pro-life VP pick

posted at 3:25 pm on August 31, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

When Rick Perry signed the Susan B. Anthony List’s pro-life pledge last week, it raised a few eyebrows among those who recall his endorsement of former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani in 2008, a noted pro-choice Republican.  Perry insisted that a President Giuliani would appoint conservative jurists to the bench and that his personal views would not be relevant.  Four years later, Perry now says that, if nominated, he will make sure his running mate is not just pro-life, but an advocate for the cause:

Surging Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry, the Texas governor, has pledged to influential Christian leaders that he will push pro-life policies, oppose gay marriage, and pick cabinet officials and a vice president who share his values, a promise that would rule out a Perry-Rudy Giuliani ticket.

At a weekend Texas gathering of about 200 conservative leaders, some from Washington, Perry and his wife Anita portrayed themselves as authentic and life-long conservatives who could bring the most pro-life administration ever to Washington.

LifeNews provides more context:

Perry has been given high marks by pro-life groups in Texas and both Texas Right to Life and Texas Alliance for Life have given him high grades for his lengthy record pushing for and signing pro-life legislation. “Gov. Perry has a wonderful pro-life record,” National Right to Life President Carol Tobias has said.

Perry, who has spoken out repeatedly when it comes to pro-life issues, has said: “We can’t afford to give up the good fight until the day Roe v. Wade is nothing but a shameful footnote in our nation’s history books.”

Pro-life activists will no doubt be happy to hear this.  It does open up a line of attack against Perry, although almost certainly not in the primary — unless it comes from Rudy Giuliani himself, and that’s also unlikely.  If Giuliani does get in, the last thing he’ll want to do is remind people of his pro-choice positions.  He — or anyone else — could ask Perry in a debate, “Why was Giuliani good enough for the Presidency in 2008 but not good enough for a VP in 2012?”  In fact, I’d be surprised if someone didn’t ask that question next week — and it could be one of the debate moderators.

Otherwise, though, this doesn’t mean too much in a GOP primary, where the expectation is that a nominee will be pro-life.  It also won’t reduce Perry’s options for a running mate.  Practically everyone in the field now is avowedly pro-life, even Mitt Romney, who had been pro-choice earlier in his career.  For options outside of the current presidential field, Perry could select Tim Pawlenty, Nevada governor Brian Sandoval, New Mexico governor Susanna Martinez, Virginia governor Bob McDonnell, Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal, and practically every other Republican mentioned for the job.

Update: Actually, Sandoval is pro-choice, something I didn’t know.  Thanks to Twitter reader SantaisaSmoker.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Dark Ages

mythicknight on August 31, 2011 at 3:28 PM

Rudy as AG works.

nickj116 on August 31, 2011 at 3:28 PM

Boy, that sure narrows the field down. There are literally ones of Republicans ineligible now.

Doughboy on August 31, 2011 at 3:28 PM

A VP pick that will give us eight more years of real Conservatism.

Speakup on August 31, 2011 at 3:29 PM

Dark Ages

mythicknight on August 31, 2011 at 3:28 PM

Said the dim bulb..

stefanite on August 31, 2011 at 3:29 PM

Dark Ages

mythicknight on August 31, 2011 at 3:28 PM

^^^ embarrassing.

darwin on August 31, 2011 at 3:29 PM

Dark Ages

mythicknight on August 31, 2011 at 3:28 PM

Because nothing says “Dark Ages” like protecting the lives of unborn children. They were all about child protection and human rights in the dark ages.

amerpundit on August 31, 2011 at 3:31 PM

Add Christie and Rubio. And take away Brian Sandoval R-NV: He’s pro-choice.

IR-MN on August 31, 2011 at 3:32 PM

Dark Ages mythicknight on August 31, 2011 at 3:28 PM

Yes, shredding babies in utero is so civilized and wonderful and enlightened a practice.

Akzed on August 31, 2011 at 3:33 PM

Was Democrat – now Republican
Supports HillaryCare – denounces ObamneyCare
Supports Rudy as Pres – Not as VP

Is he another flipper like Romney?

sleepy-beans on August 31, 2011 at 3:33 PM

http://www.briansandoval.com/issues

“I am pro-choice”.

bcm4134 on August 31, 2011 at 3:33 PM

Perry/Bachman 2012.

Nethicus on August 31, 2011 at 3:34 PM

What about the VP’s stance on gay marriage.

Pablo Honey on August 31, 2011 at 3:34 PM

Dark Ages

mythicknight on August 31, 2011 at 3:28 PM

Yes it is, isn’t it? We’ve been living in the barbaric dark ages ever since the supreme court sanctioned the indiscriminate killing of unborn children.

Rod on August 31, 2011 at 3:34 PM

Perry doesn’t need Rudy as an attack-dog VP…

Let Rudy get in and rebuild Justice

phreshone on August 31, 2011 at 3:36 PM

Was Democrat – now Republican
Supports HillaryCare – denounces ObamneyCare
Supports Rudy as Pres – Not as VP

Is he another flipper like Romney?

sleepy-beans on August 31, 2011 at 3:33 PM

1. Flipping parties years ago means nothing. Reagan did it. Zell Miller did it. It happens. People change.

2. He “supported” HillaryCare before it took shape. I support the idea of health care reform, too. I just don’t like government takeovers of health care.

3. He supported Rudy as the best choice in 2008. Obviously Perry thinks there are, um, better choices now.

Romney’s problem isn’t that he passed RomneyCare and then backed away. It’s that he maintains the stance that there’s a difference and he was right.

amerpundit on August 31, 2011 at 3:37 PM

Was Al Gore pro-life?

faraway on August 31, 2011 at 3:37 PM

Palin
Rubio
Martinez of NM
McDonnell of VA
and etc.

Schadenfreude on August 31, 2011 at 3:38 PM

I understand the sentiment certainly, but the thought of a Perry/Rudy ticket was sounding pretty sweet to me if my preferred candidate decides not to enter.

I hope whomever wins at least considers Rudy for AG, he’d be great at it.

DrAllecon on August 31, 2011 at 3:38 PM

I’m totally pro-life but I would have been more impressed with a pledge to pick a pro-Constitution VP.

SKYFOX on August 31, 2011 at 3:39 PM

I hope whomever wins at least considers Rudy for AG, he’d be great at it.

DrAllecon on August 31, 2011 at 3:38 PM

What, you don’t think Holder should be carried over? Racist!

SKYFOX on August 31, 2011 at 3:41 PM

Was Al Gore pro-life?

faraway on August 31, 2011 at 3:37 PM

Years back? Yep. Opposed federal funding for abortion. NRLC gave him an 84% pro-life record.

amerpundit on August 31, 2011 at 3:41 PM

Rudy as AG works.

nickj116 on August 31, 2011 at 3:28 PM

If he won’t pick a pro-choice VP, he sure won’t pick Rudy as AG. But there are plenty of great choices out there for the whole administration! What worries me most is that every judicial nomination he makes, he’s pledged to pick only pro-life judges which will make confirmations tougher than need be.

cartooner on August 31, 2011 at 3:42 PM

Let Rudy get in and rebuild Justice

phreshone on August 31, 2011 at 3:36 PM

…find the current goons and lock them up.

Schadenfreude on August 31, 2011 at 3:43 PM

Flip flop P.Rick

Falz on August 31, 2011 at 3:46 PM

What, you don’t think Holder should be carried over? Racist!

SKYFOX on August 31, 2011 at 3:41 PM

Holder SHOULD be carried over…hot tar and feathers…before being run out of town on a rail.

DrAllecon on August 31, 2011 at 3:47 PM

Perry/Ryan seems obvious. Rubio wants to serve his term. Bachmann brings nothing to the table with Perry, she wouldn’t deliver her own state. Allen West would be a good choice too.

Perry/Ryan though seems the best: Perry talks economy, Ryan talks the debt.

cpaulus on August 31, 2011 at 3:47 PM

Rudy as AG works.

nickj116 on August 31, 2011 at 3:28 PM

Yeah, if you want the DOJ to continue thrashing the rights of gun dealers and owners, definitely.

fossten on August 31, 2011 at 3:50 PM

HUCKABEE!!!

jparks1972 on August 31, 2011 at 3:50 PM

Hmmmm, He already caters to that part of the party pretty well. Its an odd pledge to take at this time.

cozmo on August 31, 2011 at 3:51 PM

Rudy, I think, is more pro-life than he’s given credit for. He’s not in favor of eliminating abortion immediately, but then again, where have all of the pro-life candidates we’ve elected ever gotten us on this front?

The War on Abortion, sad to say, is going about as well as the War on Drugs or the War on Poverty. It may well be time for a different tack.

I’m in full agreement with Feminists for Life on abortion – legal abortion is an indication that we as a society are not meeting the needs of women. “Women deserve better choices,” they say, and that’s 100% correct.

Rudy, as mayor of NYC, worked to find ways to reduce the number of abortions and during his eight years at City Hall, the number did steadily drop. Now, in a perfect world, we could eliminate abortion tomorrow. But we don’t live in a perfect world. We live in a world where the sudden and immediate end of abortion would bring about howls of injustice – and political recrimination – from those who aren’t repulsed by the wholesale slaughter of children.

There’s a different tactic – we need to continue to reduce abortions by offering those better choices, until a day comes when abortions are rare enough that their elimination would not be controversial.

Just my opinion. Let the RINO calling begin.

Red Cloud on August 31, 2011 at 3:51 PM

Dark Ages

mythicknight on August 31, 2011 at 3:28 PM

Induced abortion has long history, and can be traced back to civilizations as varied as China under Shennong (c. 2700 BCE), Ancient Egypt with its Ebers Papyrus (c. 1550 BCE), and the Roman Empire in the time of Juvenal (c. 200 CE).

John the Libertarian on August 31, 2011 at 3:52 PM

Induced abortion has long history, and can be traced back to civilizations as varied as China under Shennong (c. 2700 BCE), Ancient Egypt with its Ebers Papyrus (c. 1550 BCE), and the Roman Empire in the time of Juvenal (c. 200 CE).

John the Libertarian on August 31, 2011 at 3:52 PM

Yes, evil has been around since the dawn of time.

Ward Cleaver on August 31, 2011 at 3:56 PM

Hmmmm, He already caters to that part of the party pretty well. Its an odd pledge to take at this time.

cozmo on August 31, 2011 at 3:51 PM

No, do it right up front; don’t surprise everyone at, or after, the convention. Throw it all out there at the outset – take him or leave him.

Ward Cleaver on August 31, 2011 at 3:59 PM

Just my opinion. Let the RINO calling begin.

Red Cloud on August 31, 2011 at 3:51 PM

No RINO-calling here. The bottom line is that it takes a Supreme Court to overturn Roe. We are coming to a time when changing the court is within reach.
As far as Rudy is concerned tho’, Perry took that stupid pledge which ties his hands unless he renegs which will cause all kinds of political problems for him.

cartooner on August 31, 2011 at 4:02 PM

Red Cloud on August 31, 2011 at 3:51 PM

Are you kidding me?

Rudy & his wife donated to Planned Parenthood. He’s spoken to Planned Parenthood and I think at NARAL.

1997 NARAL/NY PAC questionnaire complete by then candidate for Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Nine questions that are asked include whether the candidate agrees with the substance of Roe v. Wade, whether the candidate supports Medicaid funding of abortions “without any restrictions,” and whether the candidate opposes legislation requiring parental notification or consent for minors to obtain an abortion. To each of these Giuliani answered “yes.” The questionnaire also asks whether the candidate would “oppose legislation that would make criminals of doctors who perform intact D&X [partial birth] abortions.” Again Giuliani answered “yes” to each of these. Other questions ask whether he would support inclusion of contraceptive and abortion services in all “health care delivery packages,” requiring OB/Gyn graduate training hospitals to require abortion training and including comprehensive sex education in public schools. Once again Giuliani answered “yes” to all of these.

INC on August 31, 2011 at 4:03 PM

Ward Cleaver on August 31, 2011 at 3:59 PM

Its not the stand that is odd. His views on abortion are well known in Texas. It is also known that he is not real big on pledges. The one about being pro-life a while back was a gimme’ but also not his style. Same as this one. With his views as well known as they are, he didn’t need to sign a pledge.

Though he did break many libertarian hearts who were looking forward to a Perry?Giuliani ticket

cozmo on August 31, 2011 at 4:06 PM

Red Cloud on August 31, 2011 at 3:51 PM

The War on Abortion has been going far better than you think.

I’m in full agreement with Feminists for Life on abortion – legal abortion is an indication that we as a society are not meeting the needs of women. “Women deserve better choices,” they say, and that’s 100% correct.

Red Cloud on August 31, 2011 at 3:51 PM

The Me choice strikes again. No, it’s an indication we’re not meeting the needs of the children who are killed in the womb. We have lost our moral moorings as a society.

INC on August 31, 2011 at 4:06 PM

cartooner on August 31, 2011 at 4:02 PM

Like they are going to let Ginsberg remain on the court if things start to look bad worse for Obama next spring.

cozmo on August 31, 2011 at 4:08 PM

The Me choice strikes again. No, it’s an indication we’re not meeting the needs of the children who are killed in the womb. We have lost our moral moorings as a society.

INC on August 31, 2011 at 4:06 PM

I’m not saying that’s wrong. I’m saying we can’t ignore the argument being made by the other side that is fighting to keep something barbaric legal.

Red Cloud on August 31, 2011 at 4:10 PM

So this definitely gets me away from any chance of supporting Perry.

For those of you that think this is a good thing, any government that is powerful enough to go inside your own body and make decisions about what you do with your own body, is a government powerful enough to eliminate any semblance of our unalienable human rights that we have been granted by G_d. Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government granted powered to go inside of our bodies, it is a surrender of human rights.

And this is coming from someone that believes that life begins at conception and that killing that life is murder

http://www.unalienable.com/

georgealbert on August 31, 2011 at 4:11 PM

cartooner on August 31, 2011 at 3:42 PM

A pro-life judge will be infinitely more reliable to stay conservative than a pro-choice judge. Social Conservatives in general are always more reliable to vote conservative than social moderates or liberals.

Daemonocracy on August 31, 2011 at 4:13 PM

georgealbert on August 31, 2011 at 4:11 PM

Yes, because the right to life is not an inalienable right from God. Good thinking.

Daemonocracy on August 31, 2011 at 4:14 PM

T-Paw fee-vah!

Bruno Strozek on August 31, 2011 at 4:16 PM

The Me choice strikes again. No, it’s an indication we’re not meeting the needs of the children who are killed in the womb. We have lost our moral moorings as a society.

INC on August 31, 2011 at 4:06 PM

It’s only going to get worse, with the APA again trying to normalize pedophilia.

Ward Cleaver on August 31, 2011 at 4:16 PM

For those of you that think this is a good thing, any government that is powerful enough to go inside your own body and make decisions about what you do with your own body, is a government powerful enough to eliminate any semblance of our unalienable human rights that we have been granted by G_d.

georgealbert on August 31, 2011 at 4:11 PM

You neglected to mention the rights of the only truly innocent life involved.

Vashta.Nerada on August 31, 2011 at 4:16 PM

So this definitely gets me away from any chance of supporting Perry.

For those of you that think this is a good thing, any government that is powerful enough to go inside your own body and make decisions about what you do with your own body, is a government powerful enough to eliminate any semblance of our unalienable human rights that we have been granted by G_d. Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government granted powered to go inside of our bodies, it is a surrender of human rights.

And this is coming from someone that believes that life begins at conception and that killing that life is murder

http://www.unalienable.com/

georgealbert on August 31, 2011 at 4:11 PM

Yes, because this country was so awful before 1973.

Ward Cleaver on August 31, 2011 at 4:17 PM

georgealbert on August 31, 2011 at 4:11 PM

Right, the Constitution does not grant the fed gov the power to go inside our bodies, therefore Roe v. Wade was an overstep by the SC. That power is meant for the state level and if one state votes to allow abortion, then it is their choice. Should voters make it illegal in a state, then it is their choice as well. It is not the place of the feds to decided one way or the other.

TQM38a on August 31, 2011 at 4:23 PM

Just my opinion. Let the RINO calling begin.

Red Cloud on August 31, 2011 at 3:51 PM

Not from me. Good post.

a capella on August 31, 2011 at 4:23 PM

For those of you that think this is a good thing, any government that is powerful enough to go inside your own body and make decisions about what you do with your own body, is a government powerful enough to eliminate any semblance of our unalienable human rights that we have been granted by G_d.

georgealbert on August 31, 2011 at 4:11 PM

Sorry George, but the government ALREADY does that.

Can a woman prostitute herself legally? No.

Can you take any and all manner of narcotics freely? No.

fossten on August 31, 2011 at 4:25 PM

A VP pick that will give us eight more years of real Conservatism.

Speakup on August 31, 2011 at 3:29 PM

THIS!

Conservatives do NOT want a Reagan-Bush repeat where the gains Reagan made in advancing conservatism was reversed by a VP (Bush) who absolutely detested his ideas.

Hence the Establishment now weighing in to try and influence the VP pick should Perry win. That would assuage their Romney loss.

We want RINOs to take the back seat for once and watch the adults work to restore America’s greatness!

TheRightMan on August 31, 2011 at 4:25 PM

georgealbert on August 31, 2011 at 4:11 PM

Sorry George, but the government ALREADY does that.

Can a woman prostitute herself legally? No.

Can you take any and all manner of narcotics freely? No.

fossten on August 31, 2011 at 4:25 PM

One more: Can you sell your organs? No.

fossten on August 31, 2011 at 4:26 PM

Has abortion ever been completely outlawed in the United States? Isn’t Perry a big supporter of the 10th amendment anyway?

cpaulus on August 31, 2011 at 4:28 PM

Perry doing his best to send indies packing.

Romney looking better as a potential challenger to Obama.

rickyricardo on August 31, 2011 at 4:29 PM

Fred Thomson for VP!

Teh Fred!!!

dczombie on August 31, 2011 at 4:31 PM

Has abortion ever been completely outlawed in the United States? Isn’t Perry a big supporter of the 10th amendment anyway?

cpaulus on August 31, 2011 at 4:28 PM

Being pro life is not inconsistent with being pro 10th Amendment.

dczombie on August 31, 2011 at 4:31 PM

Perry’s pledge to pick a pro-life VP nominee would also eliminate Chris Christie, who could otherwise put NJ and PA in play.

But this still leaves lots of choices intact, and bodes well for the long-term future of SCOTUS, if Perry wins the Presidency and his VP succeeds him after two terms, or if some unfortunate event befalls him.

If Perry wins the GOP nomination, he could unite the Tea Party conservatives with “establishment Republicans” by selecting Romney as his VP candidate, which would probably win NV and possibly MI, due to Romney’s father being Governor there. This would be equivalent to Reagan selecting his former primary opponent George H.W. Bush as his running mate, which united the conservative/moderate wings of Republicans in 1980.

From an Electoral Vote perspective, if Perry wins the GOP nomination, he will lock up the South (including NC and VA, which Obama won in 2008) and Great Plains states in the general election. He will need FL and either PA, OH, or any two of MI, WI, and CO to win the Presidency, and all of them except CO have Republican Governors, among which he could select his running mate. Vice President John Kasich, anyone?

Steve Z on August 31, 2011 at 4:35 PM

Y’all arguing for giving the Fed Gov Un-Constitutional powers with silly arguments, like, hey they already stole those rights, or saying that somehow the federal government owns your babies really need to think before you type.

I agree that Roe vs Wade is a bad decision too, but that does not mean I want to double down on bad decisions by putting them into a federal statute that is not authorized by the Constitution.

People that support liberty need to make a decision about whether an individual with G_d given rights should defer to the federal government when the administration of those rights presents terrible and difficult problems or if the individual person with the decision rights ownership AND ability should make that decision.

Just because a decision is hard and morally challenging is not an excuse to turn it over to the government, well, unless of course you are liberal/progressive…that is what they do

georgealbert on August 31, 2011 at 4:41 PM

——-
6) I UNDERSTAND THAT I AM REQUIRED BY LAW TO HEAR AN EXPLANATION OF THE SONOGRAM IMAGES UNLESS I CERTIFY INWRITING TO ONE OF THE FOLLOWING:
_____ I AM PREGNANT AS A RESULT OF A SEXUAL ASSAULT, INCEST, OR OTHER VIOLATION OF THE TEXAS PENAL CODE THAT HAS BEEN REPORTED TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES OR THAT HAS NOT BEEN REPORTED BECAUSE I REASONABLY BELIEVE THAT DOING SO WOULD PUT ME AT RISK OF RETALIATION RESULTING IN SERIOUS BODILY INJURY. . . .
——-

Perry’s America

Dave Rywall on August 31, 2011 at 4:45 PM

Just because a decision is hard and morally challenging is not an excuse to turn it over to the government, well, unless of course you are liberal/progressive…that is what they do

georgealbert on August 31, 2011 at 4:41 PM

Which way do you think the baby would decide?

Vashta.Nerada on August 31, 2011 at 4:47 PM

I AM PREGNANT
Dave Rywall on August 31, 2011 at 4:45 PM

Sorry to hear that.

gh on August 31, 2011 at 4:48 PM

I AM PREGNANT
Dave Rywall on August 31, 2011 at 4:45 PM

Sorry to hear that.

gh on August 31, 2011 at 4:48 PM
——
To gh, abortion = comedy

Dave Rywall on August 31, 2011 at 4:49 PM

Christine O’Donnell is pro-life.

ducks …

gh on August 31, 2011 at 4:49 PM

To gh, abortion = comedy Dave Rywall = moron

Dave Rywall on August 31, 2011 at 4:49 PM

FIFY.

gh on August 31, 2011 at 4:50 PM

To gh, abortion = comedy Dave Rywall = moron

Dave Rywall on August 31, 2011 at 4:49 PM

FIFY.

gh on August 31, 2011 at 4:50 PM
—-

You seem to have missed it the first time so here it is again:

To gh, abortion = comedy

Dave Rywall on August 31, 2011 at 4:58 PM

Vashta.Nerada on August 31, 2011 at 4:47 PM

Who do you think would have the best interest of the baby at heart, some Federal government bureaucrat or the parents?

And if you give the Fed gov the ability to make the decision over life or death, what will stop the Fed gov from deciding upon death over life?

People need to realize that giving the government the right to decide who lives and who dies is not only Un-Constitutional but it is morally and religiously wrong

georgealbert on August 31, 2011 at 5:00 PM

People need to realize that giving the government the right to decide who lives and who dies is not only Un-Constitutional but it is morally and religiously wrong

georgealbert on August 31, 2011 at 5:00 PM

You missed the point entirely. The government has the duty to protect innocent life. The baby is on course to be killed; ergo the government has a duty to protect that life over the convenience of the parents.

Vashta.Nerada on August 31, 2011 at 5:04 PM

And if you give the Fed gov the ability to make the decision over life or death, what will stop the Fed gov from deciding upon death over life?

georgealbert on August 31, 2011 at 5:00 PM

Furthermore, nobody is giving the feds the ability to make the decision of life or death; their obligation is to protect life, not decide upon it.

Vashta.Nerada on August 31, 2011 at 5:05 PM

…..and Obama along with his progressive minions are smiling.

The SoCons, once again, are bringing up the abortion issue……smh.

rickyricardo on August 31, 2011 at 5:07 PM

Being pro life is not inconsistent with being pro 10th Amendment.

dczombie on August 31, 2011 at 4:31 PM

Completely agree, I’m just not sure why the VP being pro-life or not really matters if we’re going to elect a guy who thinks that abortion should be dealt with in the states. Wouldn’t being pro-tenth amendment being more important?

cpaulus on August 31, 2011 at 5:09 PM

Which way do you think the baby would decide?

Vashta.Nerada on August 31, 2011 at 4:47 PM

When Obama is re-elected, will your question matter?

Not so much.

rickyricardo on August 31, 2011 at 5:10 PM

rickyricardo on August 31, 2011 at 5:10 PM

Dream on. The GOP primary is the only race that matters next year on the federal level. The general election is already a foregone conclusion. Even the democrats know that.

Vashta.Nerada on August 31, 2011 at 5:12 PM

Dream on. The GOP primary is the only race that matters next year on the federal level. The general election is already a foregone conclusion. Even the democrats know that.

Vashta.Nerada on August 31, 2011 at 5:12 PM

Very well done. You must trolling from Kos.

rickyricardo on August 31, 2011 at 5:16 PM

Always have a VP pick more extreme (or, currently, incompetent) than you; it acts as a safety factor. Perry/Bachmann 2012!

michaelo on August 31, 2011 at 5:51 PM

And if you give the Fed gov the ability to make the decision over life or death, what will stop the Fed gov from deciding upon death over life?

georgealbert on August 31, 2011 at 5:00 PM

Done deal; see Obamacare.

slickwillie2001 on August 31, 2011 at 5:54 PM

Ok, Perry’s starting to concern me. Don’t misunderstand, I’m pro-life, but he supported Rudy for President, and now all of a sudden he’s unqualified for the VP spot? This guy’s in full pandering mode, and I’m getting a little uncomfortable with it.

ncconservative on August 31, 2011 at 5:57 PM

The only thing that might make this the dark ages are the legal human butcher shops around the country.

hawkdriver on August 31, 2011 at 5:58 PM

The only thing that might make this the dark ages are the legal human butcher shops around the country.

hawkdriver on August 31, 2011 at 5:58 PM

Yep. An abortion doctor that takes home living aborted fetuses to play with overnight before he murders them? That’s pretty dark.

slickwillie2001 on August 31, 2011 at 6:27 PM

slickwillie2001 on August 31, 2011 at 6:27 PM

Gosnell did that I take it?

hawkdriver on August 31, 2011 at 6:28 PM

Is that the same Rick Perry that said on countless occasions he would not run for President?

The same Rick Perry that promised the TX voters he would fulfill his 3rd term -cause he wanted it so badly.

PFFFFTTTT

stenwin77 on August 31, 2011 at 6:31 PM

Poor Rudy. Wow Perry is quite the political friend [cough] charlatan. But boy he sure does pray good.

•Perry pressures Congress to pass TARP in a joint letter with the DGA (sshh don’t tell the Tea Party)
•Perry was against Obama Stimulus Money until he took it (sshh don’t tell the Tea Party)
•Perry liked his executive ordered mandate until it was politically untenable
•Thought Hillarycare was commendable and had his hand out ready for a piece of it
•Advocated for bi-national health insurance with Mexico
•Throws a guy he endorsed just 3 short years ago under the bus.
•Dove right in and swam in the Texas cesspool of pay to play; we’re only beginning to know what’s in that swamp.
•Held a pre-presidential prayer party with some freaky fringe evangelicals organizing the event for him
•Less than a year ago published a book that uses extreme language to describe and deal with the third rail of politics of SS, Medicare and Medicaid, though now his campaign communication director says that “Fed Up” is meant to reflect Perry’s current view on how to fix the program.

We Republicans are in a heap of hurt if we run this guy in the general. But boy he sure does pray good.

sheryl on August 31, 2011 at 6:39 PM

sheryl on August 31, 2011 at 6:39 PM

Just out of curiousity, who do you like for 2012?

hawkdriver on August 31, 2011 at 6:41 PM

@vashta.nerada…. Clearly fact, logic, history and rational thinking have no place in your universe

georgealbert on August 31, 2011 at 6:47 PM

Dark Ages

mythicknight on August 31, 2011 at 3:28 PM

The same idiots who defend sticking a scissors into the soft skull of a partially born baby and sucking its brain out think that pouring water over the covered face of a jihadist is torture.

pdigaudio on August 31, 2011 at 6:52 PM

Dream on. The GOP primary is the only race that matters next year on the federal level. The general election is already a foregone conclusion. Even the democrats know that.

Vashta.Nerada on August 31, 2011 at 5:12 PM
Very well done. You must trolling from Kos.

rickyricardo on August 31, 2011 at 5:16 PM

I think Vasha means the Dems know Obama doesn’t have a chance, so yeah, the GOP race is pretty darn important.

stenwin77 on August 31, 2011 at 6:57 PM

I’m in full agreement with Feminists for Life on abortion – legal abortion is an indication that we as a society are not meeting the needs of women. …

Red Cloud on August 31, 2011 at 3:51 PM

… or babies, either.

I’m a huge fan of the science fiction novels of Lois McMaster Bujold. Her universe is pretty libertarian (though there are totalitarian planets in it). One piece of technology, instrumental in the plots of at least two of her novels, is the “uterine replicator”.

I surmise that Ms Bujold had a tough time with her pregnancies (IIRC, she has two kids) and thus dreamed up the idea for her works of fiction. (I can’t blame her — I daresay many pregnant woman have wished for a little vacation from being pregnant, even just to drink a thimbleful of champagne on New Year’s Eve!)

But if we could invent the uterine replicator, into which “unwanted” (I hate that word!) babies could be transplanted while in the fetal or even embryo stage, every baby now being aborted would be born alive and could be adopted before being born.

Who says the GOP is anti-science? :-)

Mary in LA on August 31, 2011 at 7:09 PM

Gosnell did that I take it?

hawkdriver on August 31, 2011 at 6:28 PM

Yup. When he was arrested, “Doktor” Gosnell had, IIRC, a collection of pickled baby feet, etc.

I don’t recommend you Google it — first you’ll puke your guts out, then you’ll want to go commit aggravated assault followed by murder one.

Mary in LA on August 31, 2011 at 7:12 PM

Just out of curiousity, who do you like for 2012?

hawkdriver on August 31, 2011 at 6:41 PM

I’m a Mitt girl!

If I couldn’t vote for Mitt in the general, my second choice would be Rick Santorum. I went to a lecture of his and he’s a very impressive person.

sheryl on August 31, 2011 at 7:17 PM

I’m a Mitt girl!

If I couldn’t vote for Mitt in the general, my second choice would be Rick Santorum. I went to a lecture of his and he’s a very impressive person.

sheryl on August 31, 2011 at 7:17 PM

I supported Mitt in the last primaries. (Still sore at Huck)

Santorum is my Senator from PA. What an honor to vote for him.

I have to admit, I’m pretty impressed with Perry though. I do look at what people post about all our guys/gals. Thanks for the answer.

hawkdriver on August 31, 2011 at 7:29 PM

People need to realize that giving the government the right to decide who lives and who dies is not only Un-Constitutional but it is morally and religiously wrong

georgealbert on August 31, 2011 at 5:00 PM

The historical record stands absolutely against this, like it or not.

anuts on August 31, 2011 at 7:43 PM

hawkdriver on August 31, 2011 at 7:29 PM

You’re very welcome.

I wish I was impressed with Perry. Because if he makes it thru the finish line, I’m going to have to do some soul searching. I’ll pull the lever for him because, like Sarah said, I’m an ABO voter but I’ll be quiet about it, no advocacy. I won’t be proud that the GOP elected him I’m afraid.

Thanks for your question.

sheryl on August 31, 2011 at 7:55 PM

It is a non issue. We have had so called pro Life presidents for the majority of the time since 1973 and abortion is still legal. Stop with the social con issues and concentrate on jobs and repeal of ObamaCare.

Hilts on August 31, 2011 at 8:40 PM

Sweeet. In fact, awesome.

Lourdes on August 31, 2011 at 8:45 PM

What about the VP’s stance on gay marriage.

Pablo Honey on August 31, 2011 at 3:34 PM

Perry opposes so-called “‘gay’ marriage”.

HERE, read this.

Lourdes on August 31, 2011 at 8:47 PM

What about the VP’s stance on gay marriage.

Pablo Honey on August 31, 2011 at 3:34 P

M

Perry opposes so-called “‘gay’ marriage”.

HERE, read this.

Lourdes on August 31, 2011 at 8:47 PM

Ooops, you posed issue as to “VP” not Pres. My mistake.

I know Bachmann opposes the idea, while I am not sure what Rubio’s views are, but considering he’s Conservative…

Lourdes on August 31, 2011 at 8:49 PM

I’m a Mitt girl!

If I couldn’t vote for Mitt in the general, my second choice would be Rick Santorum. I went to a lecture of his and he’s a very impressive person.

sheryl on August 31, 2011 at 7:17 PM

I supported Mitt in the last primaries. (Still sore at Huck)

Santorum is my Senator from PA. What an honor to vote for him.

I have to admit, I’m pretty impressed with Perry though. I do look at what people post about all our guys/gals. Thanks for the answer.

hawkdriver on August 31, 2011 at 7:29 PM

I quite like and regard well Rick Santorum, too.

Lourdes on August 31, 2011 at 8:50 PM

Hilts on August 31, 2011 at 8:40 PM

Sorry, but no. I’m not fooled by that dodge anymore. Progressive Republicans/Libertarians are pushing their social issues while they’re telling us not to. It’s a manner of making it easier to accomplish their goals. I care as much about unborn babies as I do the economy, jobs, money, my bank account, your bank account.

hawkdriver on August 31, 2011 at 8:51 PM

I quite like and regard well Rick Santorum, too.

Lourdes on August 31, 2011 at 8:50 PM

Man, he gets beat up unmercifully for something he never really said.

hawkdriver on August 31, 2011 at 8:53 PM

It is a non issue. We have had so called pro Life presidents for the majority of the time since 1973 and abortion is still legal. Stop with the social con issues and concentrate on jobs and repeal of ObamaCare.

Hilts on August 31, 2011 at 8:40 PM

Very wrong there, Hilts.

The “issue” is quite important to many individuals, even to some Democrats, moreso Independents and certainly among Republicans.

It’s quite possible to care about the survival of unborn human beings and seek to protect their lives and to also be concerned about, and involved in, economic issues of a variety today.

You undervalue how important the issue of sanctity of life is to many of us. We also vote.

Lourdes on August 31, 2011 at 8:59 PM

Comment pages: 1 2