Romney turns guns on Santorum

posted at 11:55 am on February 6, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Generally speaking, political campaigns don’t waste time or effort attacking competitors who pose no threat to their standing.  The Mitt Romney campaign has mostly focused on Newt Gingrich for its attacks, which made sense in December and January, as Gingrich had the poll standing and the cash to pose a serious threat — a threat fulfilled in South Carolina.  Now, however, the Romney campaign has a new target:

The campaign has sent out three press releases attacking the former Pennsylvania senator in the past 24 hours — and is trotting out lead-surrogate former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty to attack Santorum in a conference call this afternoon.

“Rick Santorum is a nice guy, but he is simply not ready to be President,” Pawlenty said in a statement released by the Romney campaign. Pawlenty also attacked Santorum for his record as “pork-barrel spender” who is not as conservative as he presents himself to be.

The new focus is a response to Santorum’s strong position leading up to Tuesday’s Minnesota caucus, leading Romney 29% to 27% in a Saturday poll by the Democrat-leaning Public Policy Polling.

Additionally, Santorum has been the only candidate who seems capable of tripping up the usually-unflappable Romney. In the two Florida debates, Santorum drew blood with attacks on the Massachusetts health care law Romney championed. The Romney campaign issued a separate list of Santorum’s “false attacks” on Romney’s signature legislative achievement in the Bay State.

As it happens, pork-barrel spending is one of the issues on which I disagree with Santorum, DADT being another.  Santorum has defended the practice in general in the same way that Ron Paul defends it, which is to highlight spending authorizations as a Congressional responsibility, and one that is in theory more accountable than allowing executive-branch agencies to make those decisions.  In theory, Santorum and Paul are correct.  In practice, however, Congress has had very little transparency on earmarks until very recently, and they ended up mostly being used to flex their muscles in home districts in order to boost their advantage as incumbents.  That has allowed a culture of corruption to flood Washington from both Republicans and Democrats alike, and Congressional reforms to the process have been halting and half-hearted at best.

That specific attack line indicates that Romney has begun to see Santorum as an increasing threat.  Nate Silver agrees, to a point:

A contiguous block of eight swing states containing 95 electoral votes — Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — determine the winners and losers in most presidential elections. When at least six or seven of these states are added to the state bases of the Democratic or Republican candidate, he or she is all but guaranteed a victory. (Barack Obama won seven of them in 2008). Only when they are about evenly divided, as in 2000 or 2004, do swing states in other parts of the country — like Nevada or New Hampshire or Florida — tend to make much difference.

Mr. Romney lost Iowa to Rick Santorum, albeit by about the narrowest possible margin. He will have two more opportunities to win a Midwestern state on Tuesday, when Minnesota has its caucuses and Missouri holds a primary. (The Missouri primary does not matter for delegate selection: the state will hold a separate caucus for that purpose in March.)

Mr. Romney could be vulnerable in both states. A survey released on Sunday by Public Policy Polling, which has had fairly accurate results so far in the primary season, had Minnesota as a toss-up between Mr. Romney and Mr. Santorum, with Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul not far behind.

And in Missouri, where Mr. Gingrich is not on the ballot for the “beauty contest” primary, it had Mr. Santorum ahead of Mr. Romney, 45 percent to 34 percent.

Imagine that Mr. Romney were to lose both states. That would make him zero for three in the nation’s most important swing region. It would raise questions about his performance in Ohio, probably the most important state to vote on “Super Tuesday,” March 6. Polling there also shows a competitive race.

If Romney loses both, he would still have not lost any delegates.  None of the contests before Arizona this month produce delegate allocations except Nevada; they’re all non-binding.  But it would raise questions about Romney’s ability to connect in “flyover country,” and would highlight Santorum’s ability to play in the Midwest.

Bill Kristol believes a Santorum-Romney fight would produce a more “serious and constructive” battle in the GOP primaries:

In Minnesota and Colorado, the caucus system will result in a proportional allocation of delegates among the various candidates. But with polling showing Santorum even with Romney in Minnesota and second to Romney in Colorado, a strong showing for Santorum would do the most to slow the Romney juggernaut. It would also of course help Santorum’s chances to replace Gingrich down the road as the alternative to Romney—an outcome that, I suspect, might well result in a better race for the nomination and a healthier situation for the ultimate Republican nominee.

A final point: vote. The Romney-Gingrich slugfest of negativity seems to have produced a low turnout in Florida and Nevada. But the choice before you remains no less important than it was before all the negative ads started airing. Indeed, you who will vote tomorrow have a chance to get us beyond the unseemly spectacle of the last couple of weeks. You can put Romney on a likely path to the nomination. Or you can create the possibility of a serious and constructive Romney vs. Santorum race.

Obviously, I agree with this assessment.  Given the new focus on Santorum, it looks as though Team Romney now sees Santorum as a considerable threat.  We’ll see how Santorum responds, but he’s been undaunted by all of the twists and turns so far.


Related Posts:

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 3 4

No, of course he doesn’t. But I’ll give you the direct quote:

“That would be taking a life, and I believe that any doctor that performs an abortion, I would advocate that any doctor that performs an abortion, should be criminally charged for doing so.”

Because, see, doctors take a Hippocratic oath to do no harm. And murdering babies is pretty much the opposite of that. So, Santorum thinks that doctors who kill babies are criminals.

Seems like a pretty consistent view to me.

AJsDaddie on February 6, 2012 at 10:08 PM

And does that quote pertain to rape or incest?

Moreover, why does Santorum’s personal view about abortion matter? As a constitutional matter, a president would appoint juritsts to the SCOTUS that would return abortion back to the States where it belongs. He wouldn’t get to institute his personal policy preferences on abortion on us all. At most, he might limit Federal funding on embryonic stem cell research or Planned Parenthood, etc.

ghostwriter on February 6, 2012 at 10:15 PM

SANTORUM in the video: What we need to do is when we look at an economic stimulus package is not look at what the cost is but what the impact will be on the economy. And you want job creation, job growth, and you want the creation of new federal revenues as a result of that economic activity. So I don’t think we should look at it in terms of how much money it costs the federal treasury. You have to look at how many new jobs it is going to create, how much economic activity and new revenues will flow to the federal government as result. And so the President’s package is, from my perspective, what the doctor ordered. It is exactly right for investors.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZKuHhYNqjA&feature=player_embedded

ryandan on February 6, 2012 at 10:15 PM

Gunlock Bill on February 6, 2012 at 4:14 PM

Pro-abortion folks love to bring up the hypothetical of a rape victim who becomes pregnant, precisely because there’s no good answer.
It’s not so easy as all that.
Which gets me wondering if you’re ranting about this because you’re pro-abortion, or just to demonize Santorum and promote Romney.
tom on February 6, 2012 at 9:04 PM

You just nailed most of the anti-Santorum posters, right there.

Well said.

listens2glenn on February 6, 2012 at 10:15 PM

And does that quote pertain to rape or incest?

Yeah, he did say it in reference to rape/incest:

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/06/12/243113/santorum-rape-incest/?mobile=nc

ghostwriter on February 6, 2012 at 10:17 PM

As much as we conservatives would love to have an articulate tea party conservative like rubio as the nominee, it is unfortunately just not in the cards this time.

Well when you find one, let me and my family know – we are staying home and keeping our money to ourselves until the RINOS running the RNC give us one.

Oh, take your empty threats of “a non-vote is a vote for Barry” and stuff them up your ass. Crap candidates like Willard Fillmoure Romneycare and Salamander are so awful that I don’t see enough of a difference to bother showing up.

Let it all burn down, f*&^ it.

Sides… at least the RINOS in congress have to PRETEND to vote against Obama to save face occasionally. Lord knows what they will do under the partisan cover with a Democrat like Ken-Doll.

SilverDeth on February 6, 2012 at 10:17 PM

Santorum will be in Oklahoma on Thursday. He should do pretty well here on Super Tuesday. He has my vote. Where did all the Romney attackers come from. It is getting old that anyone who comes close to the annointed one gets attacked and some of the attacks verge on lies.

There is not way that I vote for Romney for dog catcher — would be afraid he would be mean to dogs. Oh that’s right he put his own dog in a carrier on top of the car.

If someone hadn’t cheated in Iowa with the missing ballot boxes, I would bet money Santorum would have come out of Iowa with a win by quite a few votes but the Romney people couldn’t let that happen.

Personally think Romney will lie, cheat, and steal to win and his Church will be right there with him if the idiot at my door today was any indication. I have as much respect for Romney as he shows to ordinary people when he meets them — zero, zip, nada. Saw it up close and personal — he is as cold as ice and doesn’t have a clue how to work a room. He seems very uncomfortable being around regular people but we are probably just the ‘little’ people to him who cannot afford to invest in hedge or equity funds and get a 15% tax rate — now it is $250,000 but used to be $1M to get that great rate which only a few people who work for hedge funds and equity funds can get.

If you are on a fixed income with a good retirement after 35-40 years, you get to pay at 28% while the millionaire gets a 15% rate and I am supposed to want to vote for this man who has done nothing but run for President since his last year as Governor? Not happening.

PhiKapMom on February 6, 2012 at 10:19 PM

AJsDaddie on February 6, 2012 at 10:08 PM

Thanks. It is very difficult to keep up with all of the videos/speeches/quotes:-)

Well, that sounds like his belief. One’s belief won’t overturn the SCOTUS ruling, so I don’t see it as an issue or see the point the other person brought up.

bluefox on February 6, 2012 at 10:19 PM

If only there were a disastrous, inexperienced, terrifyingly inept thug of a man currently in the White House for the GOP candidates to attack.

Willard Fillmoure Romneycare is in the Oval Office already?

SilverDeth on February 6, 2012 at 10:22 PM

Gunlock Bill on February 6, 2012 at 4:14 PM

Pro-abortion folks love to bring up the hypothetical of a rape victim who becomes pregnant, precisely because there’s no good answer.
It’s not so easy as all that.
Which gets me wondering if you’re ranting about this because you’re pro-abortion, or just to demonize Santorum and promote Romney.
tom on February 6, 2012 at 9:04 PM

You just nailed most of the anti-Santorum posters, right there.

Well said.

listens2glenn on February 6, 2012 at 10:15 PM

To me, it seems to me that sending the matter back to the States for the people to decide through the democratic, legislative process is a very good and appropriate answer. One of the main reasons (aside from the moral argument) that Roe v. Wade is wrong is that the decision set the issue outside of the legislative and politcal environment, and made it a judicial matter. Folks would be able to come up with suitable compromises from State to State if they were left to their own devices.

ghostwriter on February 6, 2012 at 10:22 PM

I mean seriously, unless the baby is going to kill you, what possible argument can you have to kill a baby?

AJsDaddie on February 6, 2012 at 8:31 PM

1) At the point where the rape victim would take the morning after pill, the embryo is a clump of undifferentiated cells. It is not a baby. You can twist and warp reality and language to try to claim those cells are a baby, but that doesn’t make them a baby. And most women (and thus most rape victims) don’t consider it a baby.

So you are wrong even before we get to #2, but then there is #2:

2) You have no right to impose on another unwilling person’s body for nine months for your benefit, taking blood and other resources for your own body, even if you need to do so to save your life. That imposition violates their individual liberty.

If someone has a blood disease and a very rare blood type (like yours), and he needs regular transfusions only you can supply, and his brother kidnaps you and hooks you up to a machine that regularly transfuses blood from you to his brother, and then the police find you, you are not obligated to stay hooked up to the machine. You can disconnect the machine and watch the guy die. His problem is not your problem even though unhooking the machine will kill him.

You did not choose to be hooked up.

His brother could be the nicest guy in the world, and he didn’t want his the brother to kidnap you and hook you up. He could be a top scientist or a great philanthropist. He could be loved by millions. You still have absolutely no obligation.

You did not choose. No one has the right to force you.

This is the basic morality of individual liberty. The Democrats do not understand this with regard to economics and property rights. Apparently many socons also do not understand it with regard to the individual right to the sole ownership of the property that is our own bodies.

So you are doubly wrong.

BTW, #2 doesn’t get women who consented to sex off the hook. They did make the choice, even if they were just taking a gamble.

fadetogray on February 6, 2012 at 10:22 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZKuHhYNqjA&feature=player_embedded
ryandan on February 6, 2012 at 10:15 PM

That video is the BEST legitimate argument against Rick Santorum, I’ve seen so far.
He should be confronted with it NOW, and made to explain it.

Otherwise Obama will confront him with it, later.
I’m staying behind him, but he should explain that.

listens2glenn on February 6, 2012 at 10:23 PM

Yeah, he did say it in reference to rape/incest:

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/06/12/243113/santorum-rape-incest/?mobile=nc

ghostwriter on February 6, 2012 at 10:17 PM

If you read all of his quotes, it makes for a clear position (something that’s often hard to get from the other candidates). He thinks NO doctor should perform abortions. Ever. However, he is willing to accept some very limited exceptions.

It shows a man with strong convictions who will make pragmatic compromises when he has to but who isn’t very comfortable doing so.

Certainly much better that than someone who would force me to pay for someone else’s abortion.

AJsDaddie on February 6, 2012 at 10:30 PM

2) You have no right to impose on another unwilling person’s body for nine months for your benefit, taking blood and other resources for your own body, even if you need to do so to save your life. That imposition violates their individual liberty.

This position is the reason many people are truly believe that Liberalism is a mental disorder. You’re sick. Truly sick.

AJsDaddie on February 6, 2012 at 10:33 PM

If you read all of his quotes, it makes for a clear position (something that’s often hard to get from the other candidates). He thinks NO doctor should perform abortions. Ever. However, he is willing to accept some very limited exceptions.

It shows a man with strong convictions who will make pragmatic compromises when he has to but who isn’t very comfortable doing so.

Certainly much better that than someone who would force me to pay for someone else’s abortion.

AJsDaddie on February 6, 2012 at 10:30 PM

Fair enough. I wasn’t commenting on whether or not I agreed with him. I just wanted to know whether or not he took the hard line on rape and incest. In my view, prohibiting abortion in the case of rape or incest seems too harsh. However, it is clearly a morally and logically coherent position…

ghostwriter on February 6, 2012 at 10:36 PM

fadetogray on February 6, 2012 at 10:22 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0

ghostwriter on February 6, 2012 at 10:43 PM

That video is the BEST legitimate argument against Rick Santorum, I’ve seen so far.
He should be confronted with it NOW, and made to explain it.

Otherwise Obama will confront him with it, later.
I’m staying behind him, but he should explain that.

listens2glenn on February 6, 2012 at 10:23 PM

You do realize that this was in regard to the Bush stripped-down stimulus of 2002, right? Here’s what it did:

The stimulus measure, approved by the Senate Friday after earlier approval by the House, extends the 26-week limit on unemployment benefits to 39 weeks — longer in states with high unemployment rates. The extension comes just as the 26 weeks of unemployment benefits were about to expire for workers who lost their jobs after the September 11 terrorist attacks.

The law also provides tax incentives for companies to expand and invest in plants and equipment, which Bush said “will mean more job opportunities for workers in every part of our country, especially in manufacturing and in high-tech and for those who work for small businesses.”

The $42 billion stimulus bill also contains more than $5 billion in tax relief for businesses in lower Manhattan “to help businesses get back on their feet so they can start hiring again,” Bush said.

Tax incentives, an extension of jobless benefits to a whopping 39 weeks, and an incredible FORTY-TWO BILLION overall. And this was passed just after 9/11.

To compare it to the obscene trillion dollar pork bills of this (and even Bush’s) administration is simply ludicrous. Santorum came out against TARP, and has been almost unanimous in his support for tax cuts, from the AMT to the Death Tax. Really, folks, you might want to look it up.

AJsDaddie on February 6, 2012 at 10:45 PM

By the way, for all you pro-abortion types, you should know that Santorum respects you way more than you respect him: he voted for the abortion clinic access bill. If you don’t know what that is, look it up. Then tell us again why you feel it necessary to continue to slam a man of strong moral convictions just because you don’t agree with them. He’s willing to respect yours.

AJsDaddie on February 6, 2012 at 10:49 PM

By the way, for all you pro-abortion types, you should know that Santorum respects you way more than you respect him: he voted for the abortion clinic access bill. If you don’t know what that is, look it up. Then tell us again why you feel it necessary to continue to slam a man of strong moral convictions just because you don’t agree with them. He’s willing to respect yours.

AJsDaddie on February 6, 2012 at 10:49 PM

Well said.

ghostwriter on February 6, 2012 at 10:50 PM

“Bluefox: no, I don’t believe anyone should be forced by law into having a baby as a result of non-consensual sex. Nor does Santorum.”

AJsDaddie on February 6, 2012 at 8:31 PM

I’ll give you the direct quote:

“That would be taking a life, and I believe that any doctor that performs an abortion, I would advocate that any doctor that performs an abortion, should be criminally charged for doing so.”

Because, see, doctors take a Hippocratic oath to do no harm. And murdering babies is pretty much the opposite of that. So, Santorum thinks that doctors who kill babies are criminals.

Seems like a pretty consistent view to me.

AJsDaddie on February 6, 2012 at 10:08 PM

AJsDaddie: if you can logically reconcile these two direct quotes from you, without resorting to the idiotic trope that criminalizing abortions doesn’t force someone into having a baby, then great. Otherwise, you are just a dunderhead.

HTL on February 6, 2012 at 10:53 PM

ghostwriter on February 6, 2012 at 10:43 PM

Thank you for your response, ghostwriter. I knew AJsDaddy was off the rails and somewhat lacking in intellect, but I am truly disappointed that it turns out that you also lack the capacity to reason beyond the most simpleminded dogma.

fadetogray on February 6, 2012 at 10:53 PM

Thank you for your response, ghostwriter. I knew AJsDaddy was off the rails and somewhat lacking in intellect, but I am truly disappointed that it turns out that you also lack the capacity to reason beyond the most simpleminded dogma.

fadetogray on February 6, 2012 at 10:53 PM

That’s funny–I thought that I was responding to simple-minded dogma. After all, you’re the one who took a difficult moral dilemma, boiled it down to absolute adherence to one moral principle, and declared the opposing view not just wrong, but “doubly wrong”. And I’m the one that’s supposed to be dogmatic? You’ve got a strange sense of humor.

ghostwriter on February 6, 2012 at 11:06 PM

HTL, it’s simple. He believes doctors that perform abortions are criminals, but he’s willing to accept the Hyde Amendment language in the case of incest and rape. He’s not happy, and he still thinks they’re criminals, but he’s willing to with the law of the land. Much as teetotalers accepted the 21st amendment.

I see it as a solid position for a complex and difficult question.

I do think it’s a difficult position, and it outlines that as President I think you have to have more tolerant views than as a Senator, as a Senator than as a Congressman and so on. As your represented base gets larger you probably need to adjust your stance to deal with the reality of your constituents.

But that doesn’t preclude a person from thinking that abortion is murder and abortionists are criminals.

Is that clear enough, or am I still a dunderhead? :)

AJsDaddie on February 6, 2012 at 11:09 PM

That’s funny–I thought that I was responding to simple-minded dogma. After all, you’re the one who took a difficult moral dilemma, boiled it down to absolute adherence to one moral principle, and declared the opposing view not just wrong, but “doubly wrong”. And I’m the one that’s supposed to be dogmatic? You’ve got a strange sense of humor.

ghostwriter on February 6, 2012 at 11:06 PM

You were responding (as snidely as it is possible to do) to my comment that illustrated a couple of the logical errors in AJsDaddy’s simpleminded dogma. That you could not see how that worked even enough to organize a reasoned response to the comment is, as I said, disappointing.

I really did not realize you are a jackass, so it came as a bit of a shock. My bad.

fadetogray on February 6, 2012 at 11:14 PM

HTL, it’s simple. He believes doctors that perform abortions are criminals, but he’s willing to accept the Hyde Amendment language in the case of incest and rape. He’s not happy, and he still thinks they’re criminals, but he’s willing to with the law of the land. Much as teetotalers accepted the 21st amendment.

I see it as a solid position for a complex and difficult question.

I do think it’s a difficult position, and it outlines that as President I think you have to have more tolerant views than as a Senator, as a Senator than as a Congressman and so on. As your represented base gets larger you probably need to adjust your stance to deal with the reality of your constituents.

But that doesn’t preclude a person from thinking that abortion is murder and abortionists are criminals.

Is that clear enough, or am I still a dunderhead? :)

AJsDaddie on February 6, 2012 at 11:09 PM

You aren’t a dunderhead, but I think that you are mistaken. I’ve watched that video three times, and Santorum seems quite categorical tha abortion should be criminalized, even in the case of rape or incest. What is this Hyde amendment language to which you refer?

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/06/12/243113/santorum-rape-incest/?mobile=nc

ghostwriter on February 6, 2012 at 11:17 PM

You were responding (as snidely as it is possible to do) to my comment that illustrated a couple of the logical errors in AJsDaddy’s simpleminded dogma. That you could not see how that worked even enough to organize a reasoned response to the comment is, as I said, disappointing.

I really did not realize you are a jackass, so it came as a bit of a shock. My bad.

fadetogray on February 6, 2012 at 11:14 PM

You can keep expressing your faux disappointment, calling people dogmatic, and stupid if it makes you happy, but it doesn’t make you smarter than anybody else, or you arguments any stronger.

In truth, I kind of felt bad about posting that link, because I probably shouldn’t have done it. I owe you an apology for that. Still, after seeing this last post of yours, I can’t help but think that you really do seem to be a bit of an arrogant jerk, characterizing AJsdad’s views as simple-minded dogma.

ghostwriter on February 6, 2012 at 11:31 PM

You aren’t a dunderhead, but I think that you are mistaken. I’ve watched that video three times, and Santorum seems quite categorical tha abortion should be criminalized, even in the case of rape or incest. What is this Hyde amendment language to which you refer?

ghostwriter on February 6, 2012 at 11:17 PM

I think you have to take his comments together as a body of work. One of the best roundups is here:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/07/rick-santorum-s-abortion-comments.html

Think progress tends to cherry pick a little bit. Here’s the whole quote:

SEN. SANTORUM: That would be taking a life, and, and I believe that, that any doctor who performs an abortion–that–I would advocate that any doctor that performs an abortion should be criminally charged for doing so. I don’t–I’ve never supported criminalization of abortion for mothers, but I do for people who perform them. I believe that life is sacred. It’s one of those things in the Declaration of Independence. We are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, and the first is life. And I believe that that life should be protected at the moment it is a human life. And at conception it is biologically human, and it’s alive. It’s a human life, it should be a person under the Constitution.

So he’s not against the mother, but he really, really has a problem with the abortionists. I do see your point, though. He’s pretty adamantly against abortion and it’s not clear what actions he would take as President even in cases of rape or incest.

AJsDaddie on February 6, 2012 at 11:31 PM

Dang. If you told me 6 months ago the nomination would come down to these three I would have laughed in your face. :(

kg598301 on February 6, 2012 at 11:36 PM

So he’s not against the mother, but he really, really has a problem with the abortionists. I do see your point, though. He’s pretty adamantly against abortion and it’s not clear what actions he would take as President even in cases of rape or incest.

AJsDaddie on February 6, 2012 at 11:31 PM

The uncertainty is my fear. I’m not opposed to a pro-life constitutional amendment on principle(though whether it’s a good idea is debatable, to say the least), but absent such an amendment it’s a question that belongs to the states.

gryphon202 on February 6, 2012 at 11:36 PM

Still, after seeing this last post of yours, I can’t help but think that you really do seem to be a bit of an arrogant jerk, characterizing AJsdad’s views as simple-minded dogma.

ghostwriter on February 6, 2012 at 11:31 PM

I see. AJsDaddie attacks me personally and you post that link you even admit you shouldn’t have done, yet I am the one who is an arrogant jerk because of how I have responded to the attacks.

I understand. I even consider it pretty funny, given that strange sense of humor I have.

You guys have a good evening in the echo chamber.

fadetogray on February 6, 2012 at 11:39 PM

AJsDaddie on February 6, 2012 at 11:31 PM

Thanks for the link. I guess that I still don’t see how he reconciles the Hyde amendment with his other expressed views, but he clearly seems to have held both opinions.

I’m off to be. Good night!

ghostwriter on February 6, 2012 at 11:43 PM


AJsDaddie on February 6, 2012 at 11:09 PM

Based on your additional information, I did some Googling and found this quote from a Tim Russert interview in 2007:

“SANTORUM: The Hyde Amendment allows rape, incest, life of the mother. That is the common ground we could get, and I would support that.

Q: But by your standards, it’s the taking of a life.

SANTORUM: It is, there’s no question it’s the taking of a life. But it is an attempt for me to try to see if we can find common ground to actually make progress in limiting the other abortions. So yes, that’s what I would do.”

So you were correct; I did not have as in-depth an understanding of his previous statements on the subject as you do. I think he is still adopting two mutually exclusionary positions, but the confusion is his not yours. Thank you for clarifying enough for me to figure that out.

HTL on February 6, 2012 at 11:47 PM

The uncertainty is my fear. I’m not opposed to a pro-life constitutional amendment on principle(though whether it’s a good idea is debatable, to say the least), but absent such an amendment it’s a question that belongs to the states.

gryphon202 on February 6, 2012 at 11:36 PM

I understand. But as has been pointed out, there’s little a President can do to materially affect the implementation of the laws. Unless he plans to circumvent Congress like the current administration (and I don’t think he will), then I don’t think his hardline stance should affect anything, except perhaps give pro-life folks a little more confidence to speak their minds.

But I understand your concern. Still, if that’s the worst thing you’re worried about then I think Santorum is a much better choice than the Man Who Would Give You Obamacare Lite. And not only that, but isn’t it nice to know what a candidate believes in? Do we even know what Romney believes in?

AJsDaddie on February 6, 2012 at 11:47 PM

But I understand your concern. Still, if that’s the worst thing you’re worried about then I think Santorum is a much better choice than the Man Who Would Give You Obamacare Lite. And not only that, but isn’t it nice to know what a candidate believes in? Do we even know what Romney believes in?

AJsDaddie on February 6, 2012 at 11:47 PM

I would have concerns about a Sarah Palin candidacy, and I was really hoping she would run. That being said, I am probably going to vote for Santorum in the primaries if the opportunity is there. We all said we didn’t want to have to choose the lesser of two evils, so God listened and gave us THREE evils to choose from, of which I find Rick Santorum to be far-and-away the least odious.

gryphon202 on February 6, 2012 at 11:51 PM

I see. AJsDaddie attacks me personally and you post that link you even admit you shouldn’t have done, yet I am the one who is an arrogant jerk because of how I have responded to the attacks.

fadetogray on February 6, 2012 at 11:39 PM

I called you sick because you said that babies have no right to live inside of their mothers. Even the most liberal puke won’t go that far, at least not without the protection of anonymity. I dare you to pick a city, pick a random street, go to a random house or place of business, and try to spout that drivel. Unless you happen to land in Nancy Pelosi’s district, my guess is you’ll get far worse than me calling you sick.

AJsDaddie on February 6, 2012 at 11:58 PM

see. AJsDaddie attacks me personally and you post that link you even admit you shouldn’t have done, yet I am the one who is an arrogant jerk because of how I have responded to the attacks.

I understand. I even consider it pretty funny, given that strange sense of humor I have.

You guys have a good evening in the echo chamber.

fadetogray on February 6, 2012 at 11:39 PM

Yep, that’s about the size of it. You could have told me to get bent, with some justification. Instead, you went for haughty condescension, not once, not twice, but three times.

Good night.

ghostwriter on February 7, 2012 at 12:00 AM

I would have concerns about a Sarah Palin candidacy, and I was really hoping she would run. That being said, I am probably going to vote for Santorum in the primaries if the opportunity is there. We all said we didn’t want to have to choose the lesser of two evils, so God listened and gave us THREE evils to choose from, of which I find Rick Santorum to be far-and-away the least odious.

gryphon202 on February 6, 2012 at 11:51 PM

That’s where I find myself. I actually appreciate (enjoy is a little too strong a word) this sort of thread because it forces me to do a little more research on some things I thought I already knew. Santorum’s social positions are farther right than mine and his fiscal policies sometimes tend to be a little more Big Government than I’d like, but at least I know where he stands on just about any topic. I can vote for a man I disagree with easier than I man I don’t trust. And I don’t trust Romney as far as I can throw him.

Interestingly, I trust Gingrich, but I think I trust him to do whatever the hell he pleases. In a way, he’s a lot like Nixon in that if he got elected, I bet our enemies abroad would crap themselves wondering what the crazy bastard would do next. And that’s almost (almost) enough to get my vote. But we have far more serious problems at home right now and I think Santorum’s better equipped to handle them.

AJsDaddie on February 7, 2012 at 12:05 AM

Based on your additional information, I did some Googling and found this quote from a Tim Russert interview in 2007:

HTL on February 6, 2012 at 11:47 PM

Man, Tim Russert is sorely missed. They should have just turned out the lights at NBC when he died.

Anyway, way past my bedtime. Good night.

AJsDaddie on February 7, 2012 at 12:20 AM

So if Romney is this “electable” candidate, why is Obama kicking his a** according to both Rasmussen and ABC/Wash Post? If he’s not really “electable” and favored to win, that what is the possible rationale for his candidacy?

gumbyandpokey on February 6, 2012 at 5:41 PM

It’s his turn. Shut up.

kg598301 on February 7, 2012 at 12:35 AM

The women who do not like Santorum are the same ones who gave us Obama. They do not like women who voluntarily stay at home to raise their children. Their heros are women who have careers and work, even when they do not to, and have others raise their children.

These women are the true sexists.

fight like a girl on February 6, 2012 at 2:19 PM

I take it you are not a fan of Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann, both of whom have had several children and worked.

kg598301 on February 7, 2012 at 12:45 AM

Santorum is stuck on abortion, the Catholic church, having a bunch of kids, and loosing his last election to the senate in his home state of PA. He is narrow minded and Obama would have him for snacks; not even worthy of lunch. He will be on top for a little while and then whoosh! Abortion is not on the top of the list for most people right now, jobs, Iran, China……and you are all raving about abortion. He should have gone to seminary.

AReadyRepub on February 7, 2012 at 1:19 AM

Interestingly, I trust Gingrich, but I think I trust him to do whatever the hell he pleases. In a way, he’s a lot like Nixon in that if he got elected, I bet our enemies abroad would crap themselves wondering what the crazy bastard would do next. And that’s almost (almost) enough to get my vote. But we have far more serious problems at home right now and I think Santorum’s better equipped to handle them.

AJsDaddie on February 7, 2012 at 12:05 AM

That “crazy bastard” tricky Dick Nixon gave us OSHA and the EPA. He’d have been a liberal wet dream if not for that pesky little Alger Hiss affair. I’ll die believing that the Watergate scandal was no more than Democratic revenge for outting Hiss.

gryphon202 on February 7, 2012 at 1:44 AM

If Santorum is nominated the campaign will be all about abortion. Our government is a third too large, ours debts are crushing, and yet people here want to actually nominate a candidate who will be forced to defend every abortion utterance he ever made, 24 hours a day, every day, until November rolls around. Thats all Obama will talk about and, of course, thats all the press will talk about. As bad as that scumbag Romney seems to be, at least he can focus the election on spending and debt where it needs to be.

MTF on February 7, 2012 at 7:44 AM

If Santorum is nominated the campaign will be all about abortion. Our government is a third too large, ours debts are crushing, and yet people here want to actually nominate a candidate who will be forced to defend every abortion utterance he ever made, 24 hours a day, every day, until November rolls around. Thats all Obama will talk about and, of course, thats all the press will talk about. As bad as that scumbag Romney seems to be, at least he can focus the election on spending and debt where it needs to be.

MTF on February 7, 2012 at 7:44 AM

Actually, we’ve seen in the debates that Santorum can focus the conversation pretty directly on what needs to be discussed: Obamacare. Which is something Romney cannot do. Why in the world would you pick the one candidate who cannot fight against Obamacare?

AJsDaddie on February 7, 2012 at 8:03 AM

That “crazy bastard” tricky Dick Nixon gave us OSHA and the EPA. He’d have been a liberal wet dream if not for that pesky little Alger Hiss affair. I’ll die believing that the Watergate scandal was no more than Democratic revenge for outting Hiss.

gryphon202 on February 7, 2012 at 1:44 AM

I didn’t say I liked Nixon. Just talking about his foreign policy.

AJsDaddie on February 7, 2012 at 8:05 AM

and you are all raving about abortion. He should have gone to seminary.

AReadyRepub on February 7, 2012 at 1:19 AM

Actually, we’re not all raving about abortion. A few ultra-liberal types are worried that Santorum will take away their precious so-called right to on demand abortion and to do so they’re distorting Santorum’s positions. Best to get it all out now during the primary.

If Santorum were to win the primary but lose to Obama because he hates killing babies and the doctors who make money doing it, then as a country we deserve whatever we get. But I’m pretty sure I’d rather die on that hill than elect another go-along, get-along, say whatever will get me elected Democrat lite. But that’s just me, and that’s what primaries are for. You all pick Romney, and I’ll pull the lever for him. But don’t blame me when Obamacare doesn’t get repealed.

AJsDaddie on February 7, 2012 at 8:11 AM

So I wont even try.

csdeven on February 6, 2012 at 7:53 PM

The quote I gave about “only worthy men” was from Joseph Smith, LDS founder and prophet, Felding backed it, Pratt backed it, Young backed it up…it was his (and their) words not mine.
If you think Smith and all the other prophets were nuts, that is your right…Women are limited men have no limits, that is fact in the LDS heirarchy.
Try to prove me wrong…and I will show you the quotes from most everyone of the Mormon prophets that you are committing heresy.

right2bright on February 7, 2012 at 8:54 AM

I take it you are not a fan of Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann, both of whom have had several children and worked.

kg598301 on February 7, 2012 at 12:45 AM

Discernment…both took time off to care for their children, and had careers that allowed them time to put their family first…and sometimes that isn’t even enough, didn’t one of Palin’s kids kind of go astray?

right2bright on February 7, 2012 at 8:57 AM

I called you sick because you said that babies have no right to live inside of their mothers. Even the most liberal puke won’t go that far, at least not without the protection of anonymity. I dare you to pick a city, pick a random street, go to a random house or place of business, and try to spout that drivel. Unless you happen to land in Nancy Pelosi’s district, my guess is you’ll get far worse than me calling you sick.

AJsDaddie on February 6, 2012 at 11:58 PM

I said babies who had been physically forced on the mother by rape had no right to live inside the mother if the mother didn’t allow it.

That position is not only not unique to me, or even rare. It is the position of the overwhelming majority of the country.

In fact, I said that when a women chose to have sex, she was granting that right. That is the position I have that is outside of the mainstream.

Yet you called me sick. And ghostwriter posted that link as a vicious put down. Both of you just attacked me, declining to respond to the subject of my comment.

And yet somehow in your twisted minds I am the one who is out of line.

I wasn’t nearly condescending enough. You are both nasty, small minded crackpots. If I thought you were anywhere near typical of Santorum supporters, I would have no part of it.

fadetogray on February 7, 2012 at 9:06 AM

Actually, we’ve seen in the debates that Santorum can focus the conversation pretty directly on what needs to be discussed: Obamacare. Which is something Romney cannot do. Why in the world would you pick the one candidate who cannot fight against Obamacare?

AJsDaddie on February 7, 2012 at 8:03 AM

Just reading this thread ought to have convinced you of the naivete in this statement. Even here, amongst conservatives, this issue is pure acid. Obama is the Great Divider, sowing discontent and envy wherever he can. He’s an expert. And we will be handing him a candidate who cannot persuade even his native constituency to shut up about abortion.

Imagine the election at large! I despair.

MTF on February 7, 2012 at 9:31 AM

I said babies who had been physically forced on the mother by rape had no right to live inside the mother if the mother didn’t allow it.
fadetogray on February 7, 2012 at 9:06 AM

Wow. You don’t get it. This is still a sick position. Sick and evil. The baby has every right to live, because it didn’t commit the rape. Killing the child is adding murder to rape. We allow for it because of the potentially greater evil of ruining the mother’s life, but it’s still murder, especially if you’ve gotten past the “clump of cells” stage.

Do you condone partial birth abortion for rape victims who didn’t have the courage to tell anyone about the incident until six months later? If you don’t, then your “baby has no right to live” is out the window and you were just using it to justify your pro-abortion position. If you do condone partial-birth abortion, then I (and most of the human world) have nothing further to say to you.

The position of those who believe that life is sacrosanct is that there is never a “good” reason to kill a baby. Just that there are sometimes compelling exceptions, but that it’s still murder. You want it to be conscience-free, and it is not. Sorry, but moral relativism will get you every time.

AJsDaddie on February 7, 2012 at 9:46 AM

Just reading this thread ought to have convinced you of the naivete in this statement. Even here, amongst conservatives, this issue is pure acid. Obama is the Great Divider, sowing discontent and envy wherever he can. He’s an expert. And we will be handing him a candidate who cannot persuade even his native constituency to shut up about abortion.

Imagine the election at large! I despair.

MTF on February 7, 2012 at 9:31 AM

While I agree there are some pro-abortionists here, pro-abortion positions are not conservative. Abortion on demand is wholly and completely owned by the Left.

I’ll grant you that it’s possible to lean right on fiscal isues and be more moderate on social issues, but in that case your position on abortion shouldn’t influence your decision on the Presidency. If you would vote against someone who has strong fiscal conservative values because you disagree with their pro-life stance, then I repeat that you’re not a conservative.

Personally, I’d be very interested to see Obama campaign on a platform of pro-abortion. If it was me, I’d nail him on his partial birth votes and then ask him whether 14-yr-olds should get abortions without their parents’ permission. I think it might finally get some of the fence-sitters off the fence.

AJsDaddie on February 7, 2012 at 9:56 AM

Do you condone partial birth abortion for rape victims who didn’t have the courage to tell anyone about the incident until six months later?

And for anyone who might misconstrue this, “didn’t have the courage” is not meant to disrespect the victim. I’m talking about situations where the victim was afraid or ashamed or otherwise coerced to not say anything until months later.

AJsDaddie on February 7, 2012 at 10:01 AM

No, jackwad. I said I would counsel the victim that having the baby is an option. Which is what Santorum said. He is against abortion in all cases, but nowhere did he say he would legislate against a woman’s choice.

Oh, right, jackwad, you would take a traumatized rape victim and FORCE them to suffer through a session of your dogmatic religiosity, until the succumb/submit to your will, not theirs.

So, what is the difference between you and a jihadist?

SANTORUM: “The Hyde Amendment allows rape, incest, life of the mother. That is the common ground we could get, and I would support that.” —2006 Senate debate

See that? Hyde amendment?

Oh, good, FINALLY some reason.

But, first they must submit to a session of your dogmatic religiosity, right?

SANTORUM: “If the case was a situation between the life of the mother and the life of the child, then obviously that’s a decision where—we run into all the time in the law, which is if it’s two people’s lives then obviously you aren’t prosecuted for, in a sense, self-defense. If you’re defending your own life, then you can take the life of another to defend your own life. That is clear in the law.” —Appearing on Fresh Air, August 2004

See that? Life of the mother?

Oh, good, FINALLY some more reason.

But, first they must submit to a session of your dogmatic religiosity, right?

Gunlock, you and EddieC are both jackwads. With the reading comprehension of seven-year-olds.

Coming from you, that is a compliment.

Thank you.

Santorum is against partial birth abortion. What’s your stance on that? He’s against abortion on demand for convenience. What’s your stance on that?

AJsDaddie on February 6, 2012 at 8:24 PM

Hey, jackwad, we have been talking about the victims of RAPE. If you want to fabricate a strawman for you to flog, have at it.

Gunlock Bill on February 7, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Right! So, the woman shouldn’t get to make the choice, but Rick Santorum gets to force her to be the incubator for the rapist.

Gunlock Bill on February 6, 2012 at 4:14 PM

Pro-abortion folks love to bring up the hypothetical of a rape victim who becomes pregnant, precisely because there’s no good answer.

Oh, so anybody that wants to preserve the liberty of a real (not hypothetical) rape victim as much as is possible is now “pro-abortion”??

So, rather that address the issue with a reasoned argument you resort to ad hominem attacks?

Then they get to scream about how horrible one answer is — carrying an unwanted baby to term — while acting as if the other path — paying to have it put to death — is completely uncomplicated and simple.

It’s not so easy as all that.

tom on February 6, 2012 at 9:04 PM

And the anti-liberty folks want to make it simple by screaming “your a baby KILLER” to the traumatized victim of rape to satisfy their dogmatically ridged sanctimony.

It is NOT so easy and that is why it should be left to the RAPE VICTIM to decide without having to be traumatized further by being forced to suffer through one of your unwanted religious sessions.

It appears the your whole argument is based upon the premise that the “right to life” ALWAYS supersedes the “right to liberty”. Upon what do you base this premise?

Gunlock Bill on February 7, 2012 at 11:20 AM

gryphon202 on February 7, 2012 at 1:44 AM

I didn’t say I liked Nixon. Just talking about his foreign policy.

AJsDaddie on February 7, 2012 at 8:05 AM

Oh I know. Just saying, the Charlie Foxtrot that started with FDR continued apace under Nixon at a vastly accelerated rate. He [Nixon] also instituted modern affirmative action programs.

gryphon202 on February 7, 2012 at 11:27 AM

It appears the your whole argument is based upon the premise that the “right to life” ALWAYS supersedes the “right to liberty”. Upon what do you base this premise?

Gunlock Bill on February 7, 2012 at 11:20 AM

You could flip that around and say that to you, the right to the mother’s liberty trumps an innocent baby’s right to life. It cuts both ways. The right to swing my fist ends where someone else’s nose begins, and if murder is illegal, murdering babies should be illegal for the same reasons, but it’s not, and your pretzel logic in the matter is absolutely astounding.

gryphon202 on February 7, 2012 at 11:30 AM

Personally, I’d be very interested to see Obama campaign on a platform of pro-abortion. If it was me, I’d nail him on his partial birth votes and then ask him whether 14-yr-olds should get abortions without their parents’ permission. I think it might finally get some of the fence-sitters off the fence.

AJsDaddie on February 7, 2012 at 9:56 AM

He already did that, you fool! He ran on this issue on 2008 and in his Senate election campaigns! Remember all those “Present” votes? Well, as you yourself note he made it a point never to to miss an abortion vote and even was the floor learder when the Illinois legislature to approve partial birth. It’s the only issue he has ever actually led on, and he would absolutely love to fight the next election on such familiar ground!

Can’t you understand the simple fact that the issue of abortion does not belong in this race at all? Look at this thread, for crying out loud: it’s become an angry back-and-forth argument about the politics of abortion, entirely.

Those who want to do something to reduce the incidence of abortion need to focus on winning elections, dominating Congress and statehouses, and getting sympathetic judges elected. Giving the president an issue to run on like this one, one he’s run on for YEARS and won on, will be an enormous loser. Look at this thread! You can’t even persuade your ideological friends of your position.

Thinking you can persuade any significant part of our country in this upcoming election, voters deeply suspicious of ideologically-driven morality (after their Obama experience), to vote for a candidate whose principal appeal is to the pro-life movement is a ridiculous idea, and nothing more than a prelude to a Democrat landslide. We will lose, and big, thanks to you and this issue.

Where will we all be then? Democrat judges, as far as the eye can see. A liberal Supreme Court. Democrat Congresses, expanding federal control over morality and individual decision making. Permanent ObamaCare, requiring abortion availability and eventually requiring population management by the government (ie, China).

You folks are causing this to happen, if you make this issue the overriding issue of this campaign, because we will lose. We always lose on this issue. Even this group here cannot agree on it!

MTF on February 7, 2012 at 11:58 AM

But, first they must submit to a session of your dogmatic religiosity, right?

Who said anything about enforced counseling, religious or otherwise? Do your voices talk to you all the time, or only when you’re in front of a computer? On the other hand, getting complete professional information including the pros and cons (such as the fact that abortion is correlated to a higher percentage of breast cancer) is a very important thing, especially during the emotional trauma of a violent crime like rape.

Are you generally against information, or just the information that might contradict your world view?

Hey, jackwad, we have been talking about the victims of RAPE. If you want to fabricate a strawman for you to flog, have at it.

Gunlock Bill on February 7, 2012 at 10:55 AM

You don’t even get the irony of bringing up strawmen? When your entire argument is about the farthest edge case? In case you haven’t noticed, the adults have been discussing abortion in general, not just your rape strawman. Besides that, I’ve already answered your droning:

The pro-life position is that all abortion is murder, and all murder is wrong. Pro-lifers are willing to compromise, though, in the case of rape, incest and the life of the mother. Santorum has specifically stated his position to be exactly that, and in fact has gone so far as to say that he would never criminalize the mother.

There is some question, though, as to his position on abortionists. While he says he is willing to accept the Hyde amendment, he also has said he would consider any doctor who performs an abortion to be a criminal. These two statements need to be reconciled.

So now that we understand Santorum’s position and we all agree that victims of rape need special attention and care, how about your opinion on the rest of the discussion? Would you outlaw abortion as a result of consensual sex? Would you outlaw partial-birth abortion? Would you outlaw abortifacients? Please, let us know.

AJsDaddie on February 7, 2012 at 12:04 PM

Oh I know. Just saying, the Charlie Foxtrot that started with FDR continued apace under Nixon at a vastly accelerated rate. He [Nixon] also instituted modern affirmative action programs.

gryphon202 on February 7, 2012 at 11:27 AM

Okay, all good. Yeah, I agree that old Tricky Dick wasn’t exactly a TEA Party Republican. :)

AJsDaddie on February 7, 2012 at 12:06 PM

The baby (a product of RAPE) has every right to live, because it didn’t commit the rape.
AJsDaddie on February 7, 2012 at 9:46 AM

So, it has every right to enslave the would be mother without her consent? She did not choose to be raped. She did not consent to have sex. It was FORCED upon her. She was FORCED to be a sex slave for the rapist and now, you want to add more enslavement by forcing her to be an incubator for someone else.

Dogmatic Jihadists unite!!!

Gunlock Bill on February 7, 2012 at 12:08 PM

You don’t even get the irony of bringing up strawmen?

Apparently you don’t know what a “strawman” is.

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position.

We were talking about the victims of RAPE. No more, no less.

When your entire argument is about the farthest edge case?

We were talking about the victims of RAPE. That isn’t “the farthest edge case”, it is the exact middle of what we were discussing.

In case you haven’t noticed, the adults have been discussing abortion in general, not just your rape strawman. Besides that, I’ve already answered your droning:

In case you didn’t notice, I was addressing what you said about RAPE victims. No more, no less. So, if you want to misrepresent what my position (which I haven’t expressed) about abortion in other cases, it is a strawman.

The pro-life position is that all abortion is murder, and all murder is wrong.

AJsDaddie on February 7, 2012 at 12:04 PM

Then Santorum has been complicit in murder because he voted to subsidize ABORTION!!!
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/10549-santorum-voted-to-subsidize-abortion-pl

Gunlock Bill on February 7, 2012 at 12:17 PM

So, it has every right to enslave the would be mother without her consent?

OMG. Another one with the “enslaving” bit.

Yes the baby has the right to live. But as has been said DOZENS of times throughout this thread already that rape, incest and life of the mother can be considered acceptable reasons to murder the baby. But it’s still murder and should still be seen that way. Using words like “incubator” and “enslave” don’t change that.

Answer my earlier questions to fade: do you consider late-term partial birth abortion of a rape victim’s baby to be acceptable? That will identify exactly where you fit in the spectrum of life and death. Either the mother’s liberty trumps all and partial bitrh abortion is acceptable, or your entire argument is nothing but straw.

AJsDaddie on February 7, 2012 at 12:19 PM

Apparently you don’t know what a “strawman” is.

Yes I do. The pro-life position against abortion specifically deals with rape and incest as exceptions. You continue to misrepresent the two as saying pro-lifers would “force the baby” on the mother, thus misrepresenting the position entirely.

I mean, really, keep digging.

AJsDaddie on February 7, 2012 at 12:23 PM

Then Santorum has been complicit in murder because he voted to subsidize ABORTION!!
Gunlock Bill on February 7, 2012 at 12:17 PM

So you consider Title X to be abortion funding? So you’re against contraceptives and family planning? You sound like one of those religious whackjobs!

AJsDaddie on February 7, 2012 at 12:28 PM

“to misrepresent the two”

should have been “conflate the two (referring to the position and the exception)”

AJsDaddie on February 7, 2012 at 12:29 PM

Who said anything about enforced counseling, religious or otherwise?

AJsDaddie on February 7, 2012 at 12:04 PM

You did.

SANTORUM: Well, you can make the argument that if she doesn’t have this baby, if she kills her child, that that, too, could ruin her life.

And this is not an easy choice.

He never said “force” he said “counsel”. As in acknowledge the fact that you are going to kill an unborn baby who didn’t rape anyone.
AJsDaddie on February 6, 2012 at 4:40 PM

THAT certainly implies enforced counseling. How and when would you make that argument to every victim of rape AS HE IMPLIES, if it isn’t enforced?

Gunlock Bill on February 7, 2012 at 12:33 PM

THAT certainly implies enforced counseling. How and when would you make that argument to every victim of rape AS HE IMPLIES, if it isn’t enforced?

Gunlock Bill on February 7, 2012 at 12:33 PM

Nowhere did either I or Santorum say that every woman must have government mandated counseling. You made that up in your strangely paranoid mind.

So your big argument about fascist religious zealotry is because you THINK that I SAID that Santorum IMPLIES that everyone MUST get some sort of GOVERNMENT MANDATED counseling, none of which was actually said and all of which you made up.

The definition of strawman: making up a position and then arguing against it.

Keep on digging, Billy, keep on digging!

AJsDaddie on February 7, 2012 at 12:55 PM

So you consider Title X to be abortion funding?

Nice strawman.

Funding Planned Parenthood is abortion funding.

So you’re against contraceptives and family planning? You sound like one of those religious whackjobs!

AJsDaddie on February 7, 2012 at 12:28 PM

Nice strawman.

Funding Planned Parenthood is abortion funding.

Gunlock Bill on February 7, 2012 at 1:27 PM

The pro-life position against abortion specifically deals with rape and incest as exceptions.

Then what is your beef with me?

That is the position I am defending. That is RAPE is an EXCEPTION! PERIOD!

You continue to misrepresent the two as saying pro-lifers would “force the baby” on the mother, thus misrepresenting the position entirely.

I mean, really, keep digging.

AJsDaddie on February 7, 2012 at 12:23 PM

I am defending the position that RAPE is/should be an exception. I have made that PERFECTLY clear from the outset.

If that is not a problem for you, THEN why are you attacking me?

Gunlock Bill on February 7, 2012 at 1:32 PM

Funding Planned Parenthood is abortion funding.

Gunlock Bill on February 7, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Title X. For or against?

AJsDaddie on February 7, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Then what is your beef with me?

You attacked me, Jackwad.

AJsDaddie on February 7, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Then what is your beef with me?

You attacked me, Jackwad.

AJsDaddie on February 7, 2012 at 1:42 PM

You know what? Enough with the ad hominems, at least from me. You have your position, I have mine, and we are probably closer than we sound from this thread. I’m willing to drop it, and to apologize for my boorish behavior.

We have much bigger fish to fry.

AJsDaddie on February 7, 2012 at 2:18 PM

You attacked me, Jackwad.

AJsDaddie on February 7, 2012 at 1:42 PM

LOL!!!!

Who called who “jackwad” first?

LOL!!!

Gunlock Bill on February 7, 2012 at 2:35 PM

LOL!!!!

Who called who “jackwad” first?

LOL!!!

Gunlock Bill on February 7, 2012 at 2:35 PM

Why I did, in response to your sarcastic attacks:

Right so they are not “rape babies” they babies from rape.

HUGH difference. /s

Rather than ask me what I meant or have some sort of polite discourse, you immediately went into condescension and sarcasm. I responded in kind, and the commentary descended into vitriol.

Please, at least accept your own portion of the responsibility. Lead with condescension, expect jackwaddery. :)

In any case, I apologize for my behavior. I’m moving on now.

AJsDaddie on February 7, 2012 at 2:42 PM

???

So, because I made fun of your asinine “babies from rape” is different from “rape babies”, I am condescending?

That is like saying “rabbits from bunnies” aren’t the same as “bunny rabbits”.

Gunlock Bill on February 7, 2012 at 4:37 PM

So, because I made fun of your asinine “babies from rape” is different from “rape babies”, I am condescending?

That is like saying “rabbits from bunnies” aren’t the same as “bunny rabbits”.

Gunlock Bill on February 7, 2012 at 4:37 PM

Nice. I try to be nice and you call me asinine. Okee dokee, that’s fine with me.

And just for the record, I said babies are gifts, and rape is evil. You do know that many babies of rape are carried to term and raised as part of loving families, right? The evilness of the rape doesn’t make the babies any less of gifts. If you don’t understand that, then the only thing I can do is pity you. You live in a dark, sad world.

AJsDaddie on February 7, 2012 at 4:52 PM

I take it you are not a fan of Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann, both of whom have had several children and worked.

kg598301 on February 7, 2012 at 12:45 AM

Discernment…both took time off to care for their children, and had careers that allowed them time to put their family first…and sometimes that isn’t even enough, didn’t one of Palin’s kids kind of go astray?

right2bright on February 7, 2012 at 8:57 AM

I remember reading that Sarah Palin was back in her office the day after she had Trig, and was very much admired for that here at HotAir. Do you honestly think Michelle Bachmann, with her political career, could always “be there” for all those kids?

But my real point is that whether a woman is a good mother or not has nothing to do with whether she works. Some women enjoy working and are better mothers for that; other women would rather stay home and are better mothers for that. A lot of women can’t afford to stay home. A working mother can be a fantastic example to her kids in many ways. Until you’ve walked a mile in someone’s shoes you should make your own choices and let others make theirs, but that would ruin all the self-righteous holier-than-thou soapbox fun, I guess.

kg598301 on February 7, 2012 at 4:57 PM

Nice. I try to be nice and you call me asinine.
AJsDaddie on February 7, 2012 at 4:52 PM

Wrong O!!

I called your statement asinine. Too bad you can’t tell the difference.

Gunlock Bill on February 8, 2012 at 9:59 AM

Wrong O!!

I called your statement asinine. Too bad you can’t tell the difference.

Gunlock Bill on February 8, 2012 at 9:59 AM

It’s disrespectful behavior either way. But it’s a typical liberal splitting of hairs to avoid responsibility, so I guess it’s to be expected.

I’ll know better than to ever give you even the slightest courtesy.

AJsDaddie on February 8, 2012 at 5:48 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4