Stanek weekend question: Do politicians exploit abortion for electoral gain?
An October 21 op ed in CourierJournal.com states:
Why would legislators in the United States not want to resolve the abortion question? Politicians often are not interested in finding common ground on divisive social issues like abortion. Rather, candidates and public officials like to exploit such controversies for electoral gain. By running on “wedge” issues, candidates can attract voters who ordinarily would support the opposition….
To be sure, elected officials and candidates are not driven solely by political considerations when deciding their positions on abortion-related proposals. Many officials and candidates vote on the basis of sincerely held moral views and their desire to serve the public’s interests. Nevertheless, other officials and candidates stake out their positions primarily as a means to electoral victory.
I have a real easy time believing pro-abortion politicians have no interest in seeking “common ground” on abortion to keep their ideologues engaged and campaign funds flowing in.
And I know there are politicians who call themselves pro-life for votes but aren’t at heart.
But I kind of think most politicians on either side just wish the issue would go away.
Your thoughts?
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I wonder the same thing. I believe that there are many Republicans that are “pro-life” because that is what we Republicans demand. Also think that for the most part, the last thing they want to talk about is abortion. Great post Jill.
Sadly Jill, it’s not just politicians, there are many pastors who are pro-life because it fits the part they play – but they’re really pro-choice when it comes down to it.
You can tell by the avoidance of the issue in either case.
I think pro-life politicians are the worst. At least we see Obama sticking to his true colors and pushing for babies deaths as much as he can.
Look at Santorum. He talked and talked and talked and even wrote books about how pro-life he is. And then when the GOP called he rushed to the aid of a HUGE pro-abort named Specter. He campaigned for that crotchety old pro-abort like nobody’s business. He put the GOP over the lives of children. And he isn’t the only politician to do so. Nobody has any true morals that they hold dear anymore when they run for office. Politicians, unfortunately, act no better than a street walker, whoring themselves out to the highest bidder. The street walker usually has a drug addiction to feed and the politician has an election addiction.
Since being the pro-life candidate gives you a clear edge at the ballot box, I’d say that politicians playing the “prolife” card are more likely to be guilty of milking it for a political edge. You only need a few who deliberately avoid doing anything that would drive a stake in abortion’s heart to keep it legal and fresh for battle again and again.
A few questions for ya…
Should zero action “pro-life” politicians be rewarded with our resources and votes just because they keep a genuine pro-abortion politician from winning?
Have we pro-lifers been used simply as political tools to energize campaigns the same way the “Occupy Wall Streeters” are going to be used by so many Democrats?
Do politicians that regard a certain group as “unwashed idealists” but gladly shake their hands because it is necessary to their successful campaign deserve any kind of respect?
Of course they don’t want abortion to go away, no matter how “pro-life” they are. If abortion was abolished they would lose a bunch of moderates, liberals who despise abortion, and single issue voters. They all just talk, do a little token defunding.
To Sydney. You wrote:
Look at Santorum. He talked and talked and talked and even wrote books about how pro-life he is. And then when the GOP called he rushed to the aid of a HUGE pro-abort named Specter. He campaigned for that crotchety old pro-abort like nobody’s business. He put the GOP over the lives of children.
I reply to Sydney:
There are three branches of government, not two. We are fooling ourselves if we believe we can do anything about abortion simply by electing pro-lifers to Congress and the White House. Santorum only endorsed Specter in exchange for a commitment from him that he would vote to confirm pro-life judges to the Supreme Court. Because Specter served on the Senate Judiciary Commitee, and was chairman for a time, too, we could not possibly have gotten the confirmation of Justices Roberts and Alito without Specter’s support. Specter threatened more than once, publicly, to push liberal judges. Santorum wanted to make sure that would not happen. I’ll trade TEN Congressmen for ONE pro-life Supreme Court Justice. We got TWO justices. Further, when the liberals in Pennsylvania found out about the deal, it severely damaged Specter’s hopes for re-election and he, in fact, LOST his race. So your claim that the Specter endorsement was not a pro-life act is simply not true. Rick Santorum is the most pro-life person to ever serve in the United States Senate. He authored and led on the only federal abortion restriction ever to become law in the United States. He got Democrats to vote for it and it withstood a test of the Supreme Court. I find it hard to get my mind around why people would support candidates who think abortion is only a state matter. Do they oppose the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act? You may question Rick Santorum’s judgment on the matter, but you should never question his intention to do always what he thinks is best to end abortion in America once and for all. He is one of only three candidates who would stand and defend the Fourteenth Amendment provision of the GOP’s pro-life plank….and he has my vote for president.
No, he voted for him because he was told to. Arlen Specter had a RABID pro-abortion record. Now all the sudden Santorum thinks he will vote and confirm pro-life supreme court judges? Who needs Specter? Specter was running against a PRO-LIFE democrat! So Santorum should have supported the Democrat who WOULD have voted for pro-life supreme court judges. But Santorum went with what his party told him to do. Either Santorum has no backbone and cares about his political life more than the lives of children or he is a supreme idiot for believing baby-killer Arlen Specter would support a pro-life judge. Pulease.
And btw, I say this as someone who worked for Santorum’s campaign many times as a young adult. I was very hurt and disappointed that someone I believed was pro-life based on his personal life would be either such a colossal idiot or the biggest turncoat of all time.
Sydney, like I said, Specter did support those nominations and they are sitting on the Supreme Court today. Specter is out of office now as a result of the deal he made with Santorum. One thing I forgot to mention is that Toomey later endorsed Santorum and said it was one of the easiest decisions of his life. If you don’t like Rick Santorum, fine, but this criticism is unconscionable, in my book.
Yes and no. There are many pro-life politicians who take such a stance only because it’s politically convenient. But there are some who genuinely care about protecting unborn children and have the political courage to do so even when it could be detrimental to their careers.
There are legislators that will defend a baby conceived in rape. There are Democrats that will accept being treated as lepers in their preferred party because they are pro-life. There was a president that published a book about how the horrors of legalized abortion damaged the “conscience of the nation”, at a time when the majority of his supporters were pro-abortion and his advisors warned him that doing so would severely jeopardize his chances of reelection. There was a Colorado representative that brought a survivor of Planned Parenthood’s barbarism to the state House floor (and shared her story) when the majority was passing a resolution to honour the abortion chain.
These are the politicians that deserve our support.
When thetr really isn;t a po-life candidate to pick then I have no problem voting for somebody who is pro-choice as long as he ran on a pro-life platform and voted pro-life. If my vote is enough to sway them to vote pro-life then they have my vote.
Jack: Of course they don’t want abortion to go away…
No doubt.
Great question this week.
Simple answer – Yes.
I think Jack sums it up great: “Of course they don’t want abortion to go away, no matter how “pro-life” they are. If abortion was abolished they would lose a bunch of moderates, liberals who despise abortion, and single issue voters. They all just talk, do a little token defunding.”
They all just talk, do a little token defunding.
Ex-RINO, The defunding has just begun since the Republican wave election of 2010. If we get the second wave tsunami thats expected in 2012 the defunding will be a lot more than token. Denying abortion providers of public funds means a LOT to me. I really don’t like the idea of our government funding abortion providers. Denying them public funds is huge to me.
Also, on the presidential election your vote is very important too. Obama’s win in 08 cost us two pro-abort idealogues getting lifetime appointments to the SCOTUS. If anybody really cares about the pro-life issue they should realize that this next electon their vote can make a huge difference in the war against abortion cause the next president will likely appoint two more SCOTUS judges. It would absolutely SUCK if Obama got to appoint four SCOTUS judges.
Truth – Jack actually said that - I quoted him directly, and said so.
I have a hard time thinking either party ends up with 60 votes in the senate, the required amount for anything to get done. I think future supreme court candidate battles are going to get very nasty as well.
“Denying abortion providers of public funds means a LOT to me. I really don’t like the idea of our government funding abortion providers. Denying them public funds is huge to me. “
And that’s expected. I don’t like them funded either, but it doesn’t make a difference to legality in the long run. Like I said, I think it’s a political game to them. They wanna keep pro-lifers happy, so they push through defunding measures and easily defeated (as long as Roe stands) abortion restrictions, and the numbers of abortion never go down.
I won’t support anyone for president who thinks either state or federal powers trump our rights. In other words…I won’t support anyone who says states have authority to decide whether or not an unborn child should have the right to live. That right is inalienable and no level of government has authority to be “pro-choice”.
Like Rick Santorum, I believe that all measures, state and federal should be taken to limit abortion AND all efforts should be made to END abortion. We should push for EVERY piece of legislation we can at ALL levels of government to limit abortion as long as it is legislation that does not detract from acknowledgement of the personhood of the unborn child….and we should push for solid state level personhood measures, and a human life amendment to the Constitution. ALL EFFORTS MUST BE MADE to establish personhood and to limit abortion in any way possible with an eye to personhood….AND we need to call for a human life amendment, too.
Only three candidates acknowledge the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of the unborn child through personhood. Santorum, Gingrich and Bachmann. ONLY Santorum continually speaks out on it and has shown the leadership necessary and has the background of success on the the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act to show that we can put our full trust in him to do everything possible within the framework of American law to end abortion.
I understand that many in the pro-life movement have been supporting candidates who believe in “states rights”. That is a rejection of the personhood of the unborn child. Rick Perry, for example, is “states rights” on abortion and yet he believes in corporate personhood? That’s appalling to me. I will never accept that as a legitimately pro-life position. Ever. If Santorum, Gingrich or Bachmann are not the nominee, I will write in Santorum’s name. There is no excuse but cowardice to do otherwise, in my estimation.
That Courier-Journal article quoted at the beginning is totally off-base. “Common ground” on abortion is a myth, and no amount of wishing will make it a reality. Imagine putting representatives from the KKK and NAACP in the same room, and then sanctimoniously chiding them for pandering to their bases and not seeking common ground.
But the article is correct that most politicians, especially on the pro-life side, really don’t care much about the issue, and vote as they do mainly to please a small but vocal base who can make a difference during elections.Changing views on abortion due to political expedience has a long history. Nathan Deal and Richard Shelby magically became pro-life right after their switches to the Republican party in the mid-90s. Richard Gephardt and Joe Biden magically became pro-choice as they prepared to run for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1988. I could go on, but you get the idea.
There is no excuse but cowardice to do otherwise, in my estimation.
Lisa, cowardice is not being able to make the tough vote and reduce abortion just because you can’t save them all. If it is Perry running against Obama you should cast your vote against Obama. Put aside your emotions for a moment and think about this rationally. If you let Obama win the election then your personhood dream will be struck down in the Supreme Court for at least the next couple decades. And electing Perry against Obama would have an immediate effect of reducing the number of abortions in our country through defunding etc. With Perry appointing SCOTUS members at least personhood would stand a chance of being recognized as constitutional. Without Perry and with Obama no personhood amendment would have a chance when it got to the SCOTUS. You need to think past one election. Sometimes goals cannot be achieved in one election cycle because you have to build up consensus from all three branches..the most important of which is SCOTUS. Suck it up and make the tough vote…the only vote that leaves your goals viable for the next couple of decades is a vote to remove Obama. And if we get enough of a wave election in 2012 and personhood made it’s way to the presidents desk, Perry just might sign it.
Cowardice is holding up people like Rick Perry as “pro-life” even as they support personhood for corporations but not the unborn. Cowardice is voting for him anyway knowing that it perpetuates the problem.
And that doesn’t even touch on what a disaster a second Obama term would be economically and internationally.
A second Obama term would set us back four years. A GOP without a pro-life platform would set us back a hundred years.
“A second Obama term would set us back four years.”
Lisa, that is just flat out wrong. Another four years of Obama would mean Obama would place another two pro-abort idealogues on the SCOTUS and on multiple federal benches throughout the US over the next four years. That wouldn’t just set personhood back four years; these would be lifetime court appointments he would be making so it would mean no personhood amendment would be able to get thru for many many years post Obama cause the courts would be stacked against it. You are severely underestimating the damage that would be done to personhood if Obama were appointing federal judges for four more years. He would have appointed anti-personhood idealogues to federal benches and they are lifetime appointments so you should be able to see how this would continue to gravely effect any chances for personhood long after Obama left office. You are not understanding the depth and breadth and length of damage it would cause to the chances of personhood ever becoming law if we do not vote to remove Obama.
Even if personhood isn’t part of the GOP platform today we still need to vote against the pro-abort idealogues so that we can have a personhood friendly court system when that time comes or you are do grave damage with little benefit to the personhood cause.
At least the Left believes “person” is limited to actual people and does not apply to corporations. It was the liberal justices on the Supreme Court in Roe who said that if personhood were established, the Roe case would fall through, not the conservative justices.
Perhaps you don’t have a problem with libertarianism because you haven’t experienced it in practice. It is no better than the Left. It is just as evil.
Supreme Court appointments are more important than the presidency or Congressional seats….but the GOP pro-life plank trumps them all. If that plank is gone, there will be no party that will work to end abortion.
Cowardice is holding up people like Rick Perry as “pro-life” even as they support personhood for corporations but not the unborn.
Please provide me a link to where Perry either voted against or stated he would not support personhood. (No links to states rights etc please, just links to personhood)
Cowardice is voting for him anyway knowing that it perpetuates the problem.
Not getting rid of Obama perpetuaes the problem much, much worse then electing Perry would.
“States rights” positions in and of themselves are anti-personhood. The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits states from trampling the rights of persons. The personhood movement relies on that provision of the Constitution to end abortion nationwide. To claim that a state has the authority is the same as denying the personhood of the child just the same as claiming a state has authority on gun rights would deny the Second Amendment right that is, itself, enjoined on the states by the Fourteenth Amendment.
At the same time, Perry supports “corporate personhood”.
Perry apparently is taking a political position. This is what Rick Santorum said differentiates him from the other candidates. They treat the issues like “little silos”. Santorum understands the Constitution. He is a pro-life attorney. He understands how all of the issues are connected. Perry being a politician, he says “states rights” on abortion but supports corporate personhood. He is not going to defend your rights if he doesn’t even know what a person is. Really.
I will never vote for any candidate who doesn’t know what a person is, and I will not apologize for that.
He’s just a politician. He has no idea. I am not as disappointed in him as I am in pro-life activists who hold people like him as if they are qualified to defend the unborn. There are only three qualified candidates for pro-lifers. Santorum, Gingrich and Bachmann. If Santorum, my pick, does not win, and Gingrich or Bachmann do, I will “compromise” and vote for one of them against Obama, but I am not going to vote for incompetence or someone who doesn’t even know what a real person is….ever.
Lisa, I posted:
Please provide me a link to where Perry either voted against or stated he would not support personhood. (No links to states rights etc please, just links to personhood)
And your response had no such evidence or links to substantiate that Perry has ever voted against or said he would not support personhood for the unborn. Instead you deflected my request for a link and gave me more of your opinion/info on states rights. Sounds like you really don’t have anything where Perry ever voted to deny personhood to the unborn. Just cause he is states rights does not mean he does not acknowledge that states cannot trample on the Constitution. You seem to be talking a hard line without any “real” data where Perry ever said he would not support personhood for the unborn. You may be misleading people when Perry would actually support personhood if it actually came before him. You should at least have some hard evidence to back up such a scurrilous attack on his pro-life position. Again, it is really simple for you to make your case about him and request you provide me the evidence but you deflected instead. So I will ask you again:
Please provide me a link to where Perry either voted against or stated he would not support personhood. (No links to states rights etc please, just links to personhood)
btw – I appreciate your tenacity in wanting to keep their feet to the fire but I don’t appreciate lible. I also disagree about cowardice. The coward on the battlefield in war is incapable of making the hard choices necessary to win the war even if it means they will necessarily lose some lives alomg the way. And according to that definition, even if your accusation against Rick Perry were true, not voting for him over Obama would be an act of cowardice.
If anything I worry Rick Perry would be too generous and caring about people as shown by his position on providing illegal aliens who live in his state the in state tuition rate. Heck, if elected he might take all the money that earmarked for Title X away from Planned Parenthood and double it and earmark it for crisis pregnancy centers instead. That is more of who he is.
I did not “deflect” your question. The Personhood Movement would be completely void if abortion were a matter for the states because the Personhood Movement relies on a provision of the Constitution which says that states may not usurp the right to life.
It is not a “state issue” because they are persons.
Again, there are three GOP candidates who are pro-life and do not hold the “pro-choice for states” position. Santorum, Gingrich and Bachmann. There is no excuse for failing to get behind one of them as they would each do whatever possible at the federal level to end abortion. To support anyone else is betrayal of the principle that our rights trump government powers.
We pro-lifers have a job to do in acting as a prophetic voice for the pre-born in our world…we need to speak truth to power.
Here in the USofA many people believe that states need to recover their “states rights” that have been usurped by federal governance over the years. Okay, legitimate political view. Maybe you agree maybe not…fine. It is a judgment where the dividing line between federal and state authority ought to be drawn. Many believe it has gone way too far in one direction. Good people who know the constitution will see it one way or the other.
Our pro-life politicians cannot be allowed to use this popular view to cop out on taking action on the abortion issue. As has been mentioned here the 14th amendment of our constitution supports personhood. Santorum, Gingrich and Bachmann recognize this as do many other wise leaders. But we have a real job to do getting folks like Perry to embrace the 14th in support of personhood for the pre-born among us. We have to educate our pro-life politicians that anything less is ultimately unacceptable.
We cannot let them snake out of things by throwing up BS like “states rights” whenever abortion is mentioned.
This is our job…whatever happens…we own it.
PS: Having said that, if an incremental change is all we can get done at this point in history…then we cannot shrink from doing what we can get done in the name of “purity of essence”.
I did not “deflect” your question.
Yes you did Lisa. And you did it again. I specifically requested
Please provide me a link to where Perry either voted against or stated he would not support personhood. (No links to states rights etc please, just links to personhood)
And once again you gave me the states rights spiel.
Rick Perry seems to me to be man of character. Maybe he wants states rights cause he is a governer and he wants to sign a personhood amendment to the Texas constitution. One that will be able to override Roe V Wade. But I understand the need to recognize the personhood of the unborn on a federal level. And I think Rick Perry would be willing to grant that recognition on a federal level.
I pretty much agree with Tommy R. that we need to educate the pro-life politicians on a platform that will win the war but we can’t lose our focus on incremental gains while we are preparing.
Tommy is right. Instead of trying to get me, a single mom of four living under the poverty line in the Appalachian foothills, to compromise, why not instead demand that Rick Perry stand for personhood? Hold his feet to the fire, not mine.
This is all you need to know about Rick Perry right here. http://texaspersonhood.blogspot.com/2010/05/rick-perry.html
If Rick Perry were elected President… I believe he would become the most active pro-life president we have had in modern times. Of course, one could say this about most of the republican field.
Tommy, there is nothing whatsoever to base that on and his record shows something quite different.
http://texaspersonhood.blogspot.com/2010/05/rick-perry.html
I recommend you watch Rick Santorum’s speech to the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition if you are really interested in seeing what a pro-life champion is in “real life”.
http://www.therightscoop.com/rick-santorum-speech-and-qa-at-iowa-faith-and-freedom-coalition/
OOPS! Never mind on Bachmann. She’s flippety flopped, I guess.
http://theiowarepublican.com/2011/bachmann-on-late-term-abortion-bans-%E2%80%9Cthat%E2%80%99s-a-state-issue%E2%80%9D/
So, that leaves Santorum and Gingrich.
According to NARAL, Newt Gingrich voted “Yes” on this amendment.
Bill Number:H.R.5490Bill Title:Civil Rights Act of 1984 Date of Vote:06/26/1984
Short Description: Personhood of the Unborn: Civil Rights Act
Vote Summary:Rep. Mark Siljander (R-MI) offered an amendment to the Civil Rights Act of 1984 (H.R. 5490) stating “For the purposes of this act, the term ‘person’ shall include unborn children from the moment of conception.”
On June 26, 1984 the House rejected the Siljander amendment, 186-yes, 219-no, 29-not voting (Roll Call 269).”Yes” was a pro-life vote.
Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama…of these Reagan & George W. Bush were the most active in the pro-life cause. None could be described as a life long “pure” personhood pro-life type. I live in Texas… In spite of his shortcomings in this arena I believe Perry (and other republican candidates as well) would be a more active prolife president than any in the past. This is a testiment to the progess the prolife movement has made through the years.
Personally, I have long liked Santorum the best…but it now appears his chances for all practical purposes are quite low.
We simply MUST defeat Obama!
Ex Gop, we actually agree on something! Lol!
My tuppence: Politicians want abortion to go away about as badly as Al Sharpton wants racial harmony.
I think that abortion is a topic on which republican politicians have a greater need to be seen to be anti-choice than democrats need to be seen as pro-choice. It just fits with their constituencies.
That’s why republican candidates feel the need to scream ‘I’m pro-life’ as a headline in their manifestos whereas democrat candidates focus more on other topics in their manifestos but if asked will generally respond that they support womens’ right to choose.
Reality, The Dems don’t really mind if a Dem claims to be pro-life when he needs to in order to get elected; cause Democrats are Democrats first and cheating/lying to get your agenda passed is a part of their modus operandi. They knew Stupak would vote against his own pro-life amendment on Obamacare. That was really a classic and an eye opener for me. I now realize that Democrats don’t vote based on the issues. They vote along party lines with a gang like mentality.
The gang banger mentality with heavy cronyism is the only way they can be so screwed up on so many issues from the economy to supporting abortion etc. and survive as a party.
I just posted on this topic.
http://blog.lisagraas.com/2011/10/23/does-anyone-know-what-a-person-is-anymore/
Judging by numerous comments on this site truth, it would appear that republicans don’t exactly display any better behavior in this regard. Probably because the majority know that actually acting on this topic would be less than successful for their ongoing career.
You don’t think the republicans vote along party lines?
‘Gang banger’ mentality?
Yes Reality. Gang Banger mentality. Occupy Wall St is another good example of this. They are uniting to support one another even though they don’t necessarily believe in the other causes they are rallying with. That is why you see the higher ups in the Democratic party taking interest and supporting it as a movement.
Judging by numerous comments on this site truth, it would appear that republicans don’t exactly display any better behavior in this regard. Probably because the majority know that actually acting on this topic would be less than successful for their ongoing career.
I agree there are RINOs who but I disagree that we need the abortion issue around as a party. It just takes time and a several generations to overcome an activist SCOTUS that legislates from the bench. Even when abortion is outlawed we will still be united by our common desire for smaller government and a government that doesn’t deficit spend.
Lisa, I agree that the unborn child should be a person. But the fourteenth amendment seems to qualify coverage to persons born:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Wouldn’t that would be a point of contention?
And the republicans have the tea party (although perhaps it could have been called the confederacy).
“there are RINOs who but I disagree that” – huh?
Apparently the SCOTUS is always activist, just depends whether you like the current brand of activism.
Abortion won’t be outlawed.
Should have read:
I agree there are RINOs who believe that actually acting on this topic would be less than successful for their ongoing career.but I disagree that we need the abortion issue around as a party.
I thought that was probably it but I didn’t want to assume :-)
Apparently the SCOTUS is always activist, just depends whether you like the current brand of activism.
Not always. Judges are supposed to interpret the constitution and this decision was a stretch of the right to privacy being interpreted as a right to abortion. It could and should be overturned.
truthseeker, you copy/pasted the wrong part of the Fourteenth Amendment. This is the correct part: “nor shall any State deprive any person of life”
Truth
– I literally laughed out loud at this statement – “Even when abortion is outlawed we will still be united by our common desire for smaller government and a government that doesn’t deficit spend. ”
At the federal level,when was the last time we had GOPers in control that didn’t LOVE deficit spending?
Orrin Hatch – 2009 – “Six years ago, “it was standard practice not to pay for things,”
Back to the original question though – I think that the politicians watch the polls. What would happen if a GOPer actually took a hard line on abortion and put out a bill to outlaw it or completely (and in all cases). They’d wake up an angry segment of the voting block and that politician would lose their job as quickly as possible. If you swing too far on it, the backlash is severe.
In fact, it is an easy argument to say if the GOP gets in the white house in 2012, doesn’t dig the economy out very quickly (which will be massively hard with things like their cut/cap/balance pledge), that the Dems will then sweep through with huge 2014 wins, undoing the various abortion gains made at the state levels the last year or two.
We’ll see though. On most lists of important topics, even to GOP voters, abortion is way down there. Little funding debates will break out, but the thought that anybody will do anything more – I don’t buy it.
Supreme Court justices? So the argument is that we have get in Supremes and:
1) Hope that multiple states pass abortion legislation (has any come close – especially personhood measures)
2) That is escalates to the supreme court
3) That the Supremes that are pro-life stay pro-life (weren’t most of the justices in R v Wade appointed by GOPers?)
4) That they overrule R v Wade
And then the great news! The mass trafficking of women seeking abortions, moving them from state to state (I say that sarcastically).
Ex-GOP, America has become corrupted and needs to be restored. If this generation does not do that, it is “game over” for America.
This song was released just before Reagan was elected. It is because this is how most people saw America that a candidate like Reagan could win. Now, hardly anyone in politics still sees America this way.
Coming to America – http://youtu.be/cRTHdC7k4uY
That is what Rick Santorum, the son of an immigrant, wants America to be again, and that is what I want America to be again. If America cannot be that anymore, then America as we knew it is gone and there is no getting her back.
Lisa: America has become corrupted and needs to be restored. If this generation does not do that, it is “game over” for America.
Such sentiments are always present, be a society 10 years old, 100 years old, 1000 years old…
In some ways, the game is already over for the US. This is because there is no “going back” to the time before we largely ran out of economic rope. No President can change this.
Reagan made an admirable try, during his first two years in office, to reign in Federal spending and the growth of government, a thing which I thought then and think now was good. Yet in the remaining six years, he totally threw in the towel, and spending increased like never before. The end result was that the entire trend of the past 70 or 80 years was maintained, even accelerated.
Santorum, frankly, is too kooky and has exhibited too much bizarre behavior to be a viable candidate.
Ex-GOP: In fact, it is an easy argument to say if the GOP gets in the white house in 2012, doesn’t dig the economy out very quickly (which will be massively hard with things like their cut/cap/balance pledge), that the Dems will then sweep through with huge 2014 wins, undoing the various abortion gains made at the state levels the last year or two.
I agree, and somewhat lament that our two-party system is stuck in that mode. Seems like we just go from one “backlash” to another.
____
What would happen if a GOPer actually took a hard line on abortion and put out a bill to outlaw it or completely (and in all cases). They’d wake up an angry segment of the voting block and that politician would lose their job as quickly as possible.
If something will change the status quo of Democrat/Republican, I think the comparative economic malaise we’re now in is it. After a while, the populace gets really fatigued with “bad times” and is much more willing to embrace a “strong man” who, though they bring some positions which are massively objectionable to some people, present enough radical, new and different aspects that others are willing to roll the dice on him. History is full of such precedents.
Gotta say – haven’t we been in the “worst economic times since the Great Depression”? And this is with very, very low interest rates. This is with low inflation.
Would you loan money to the US Gov’t for 30 years at a 3% interest rate? How about 5 years at 1%? Well, people and countries are doing it, and my feeling is “are they nuts?!”
Methinks market forces will be pushing up interest rates here, sometime, and then we’ll see what “bad times” are really like.
The gang banger mentality with heavy cronyism is the only way they can be so screwed up on so many issues from the economy to supporting abortion etc. and survive as a party.
Truthseeker. :)
Do you seriously think that Republicans are somehow “different”? Plenty of people think they are “screwed up on the issues,” while there are also plenty of people who vote a straight Republican ticket, come hell or high water.
truthseeker at 2:42 am
“The fourteenth amendment seems to qualify coverage to persons born: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
So…the 14th amendment only applies to US citizens? Okay, then it is legal to for a state to “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process” as long as they are not citizens.
Somehow I don’t think it is legal for cops to go around shootin’ foreigners and takin’ their stuff.
The pre-born may (or may not be) citizens, but they are still under the protection of our laws.
Tommy: Somehow I don’t think it is legal for cops to go around shootin’ foreigners and takin’ their stuff.
Right, there are protections for “persons” in the Amendment without regard to citizenship.
____
The pre-born may (or may not be) citizens, but they are still under the protection of our laws.
Some are, to the extent of the restrictions on late-term abortions. But this does not derive from the Constitution, really (other than the Supreme Court allowed the late-term restrictions in the Roe decision), and this is a different thing than personhood.
At the federal level,when was the last time we had GOPers in control that didn’t LOVE deficit spending?
This year when Scott Walker took over Wisconsin finally balanced their budget. It would be that same type of fiscal constraint on a federal level that we need. I think Obama is already over four trillion dollars in deficit spending in less than three years as president. The Democrats don’t even see a need to pass budgets when have control. They just spend and budget the money later. I don’t think they have passed a budget sinc Obama became president. Laugh if you want but there is a glaring difference in the fiscal responsibility shown between the two parties.
Truth – I’m not going to point out the obvious then and instead ask a question.
When was the last time a Democrat(as a governor) ran a deficit in the state of Wisconsin?
Tommy R at October 24, 2011 at 12:20 pm
Thanks for clearing that up for me.
Truth – I’m not going to point out the obvious then and instead ask a question.
Ex-RINO, by all means please do and make a point if you have one to make.
By law, the state of Wisconsin has to have a balanced budget – you can’t run a deficit – so saying Walker running a deficit is a big deal is like saying a person is a good dad because he stays out of jail. It isn’t a big deal. It is what it is supposed to be.
Who is the last GOP President to run a balanced budget?
Who is the last GOP President to run a balanced budget?
Look it up yoursef and make your point if you have one to make.
And balanced budget law or not, Wisconsin was running budget deficits that Walker had to clean up. Read it for yourself if you’d like.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/109275069.html
Truth – those are future budget cycles that are based on a lot of assumptions.
For instance, when Bush came into office, there was a ten year projected surplus of $5.6 trillion) that disappeared for a variety of reasons.
Walker balanced a single year’s budget just like many, many governors before him.
Did you even read the article you posted? Did you not see the word ‘upcoming’?
Ex-RINO,
Those numbers were what Walker was left with if he continued on the previous governors spending. And he fixed it by cutting spending.
truth – that would be a valid point if that was on topic at all – but the statement we are talking about is your first statement: “…still be united by our common desire for smaller government and a government that doesn’t deficit spend.”
The only example of somebody who didn’t deficit spend was somebody who was legally obligated to not deficit spend. What you are talking about in regards to deficits are structural deficits which occur all the time – take a look at Minnesota if you want to see an extreme case. Regardless, the deficit projections change (you’ll see updates) and the state HAS to then pass a budget bill that balances the short term budget. You can also see an example in Milwaukee County – Walker left a large structural deficit when he left.
Back to your original statement though – do you mind me asking what year you were born? Just wondering if a GOP President has had a year WITHOUT deficit spending in your lifetime.
Because again, the common theme you talk about is a government that doesn’t deficit spend – just interested to see if you’ve ever seen that (from a GOPer…you saw it with Clinton).
the statement we are talking about is your first statement: “…still be united by our common desire for smaller government and a government that doesn’t deficit spend.”
Ex-RINO,
It takes more then a Republican president. It takes a congress that can write and pass a budget. But in Obama’s case, he doesn’t seem to think he needs a budget or congressional approval to spend. I am hopeful that some Democrats will join the Republicans and get the message the tea party wave is sending to government and be fiscally conservative cause the times demand it.
Once again, fabulous answer in never-never land dream world…but again, back to the topic at hand – the world in which you dream of has only existed with a Democrat in the White House (at least within the last 40 years or so).
It is actually very say looking at the old news…at the end of 2000 as Clinton was winding down, the projectors for the decade was a $4.966 trillion deficit. Clinton argued that we should work to pay off the debt by 2008 or 2009 – Bush wanted tax cuts. Guess who won? And clearly, guess who lost?
at the end of 2000 as Clinton was winding down, the projectors for the decade was a $4.966 trillion deficit.
Wow. At the rate Obama is deficit spending it looks like he is going to surpass our projected 4.996 trillion dollar deficit for the next decade in just his first three years in office. Obama has already hit 4.2 trillion in deficit spending in just his 2.5 years as president…OUCH!!!
btw – For the final SIX of the eight years Clinton was President, Republicans had the majority in both the House & Senate. That is why the deficits were brought under control. And Clinton was smart enough to go along with them. But our current situation since 2008 has been a complete fiscal disaster cause the Democrats controlled both houses of congress and for the first two years never even bothered to debate or even offer a budget let alone pass one. And in Obama’s third year when the Republicans got control of the house and passed a budget that would have brought sanity back to our spending and avoided a credit downgrade cause Obama wasn’t smart enough to work across the aisle and pass it. Instead, being the child he is, he told them it was “their turn to sit at the back of the bus”. Clinton was smart enough to work across the aisle. Since 2008 Obama and the Democrats have shown themselves to be fiscally incompetent. So now you spread lies and try and say it was no different under Republicans and tell people that their vote doesn’t make a difference. But “we can’t wait” till 2012.
I think Jack sums it up great: “Of course they don’t want abortion to go away, no matter how “pro-life” they are. If abortion was abolished they would lose a bunch of moderates, liberals who despise abortion, and single issue voters. They all just talk, do a little token defunding.”
Ex-RINO,
You try and tell us that our vote won’t make any difference on the abortion issue but that is a lie too. You can say that all you want but I know our vote does make a difference. And “we can’t wait” till 2012″.
Ex-GOP,
You continue to have nostalgia for the Clinton years. But the year 2000 rendered those deficit projections as moot as next year’s weather forecast. You blame the soaring deficits on the Bush tax cuts, which in actuality kept them somewhat in check and sparked a record number months of growth.
Then you focus on the year 2008 and overlook Obama’s quadrupling the deficit ever since.
Most presidents inherit a bad year or two. Only now do we have one hell-bent on making things worse.
truth – I’m not sure if you know how the government works, but anything passed by congress gets signed off on by a President – so the budgets that happened under Clinton were a joint collaboration.
On your post on abortion – I’d love if you could somebody post an argument that was based on things that had happened rather than what you believe might happen. When it comes to deficit spending, you can’t look to the last 40 years for a GOP President to prove your point – because one doesn’t exist. When it comes to abortion legislation and anything beyond funding shifts, you can’t point to the GOP reign of 20 of 28 years and point to anything to prove your point. So you continue to theorize, and that’s great and I’m glad you’re convinced. It would make things easier voting wise. If we had a court case for the federal GOP level, and we were trying to convict them of being pro-life, I just don’t know if we could get a guilty verdict. That is all I’m saying.
Hans – three points:
– I don’t have nostalgia over Clinton years, but I do wish the GOP would have kept paygo in place through the Bush years.
– Bush’s tax cuts weren’t all that caused the deficit. We also fought an unfunded war, and Bush also passed a massive Medicare expansion that was unfunded.
– Nobody has overlooked the current deficit – the conversation has been squarely on truth’s assertion that the GOP doesn’t like deficit spending. Her ‘proof’ was that a Republican governor who is bound to balance the budget did what he was supposed to do.
If you want to talk Obama and my views on the current deficit, we can talk Obama – I’m just saying that you saying it was overlooked is not relevant because it wasn’t part of what we were talking about – we were talking about the myth that Republican’s don’t like deficit spending.
truth – I’m not sure if you know how the government works, but anything passed by congress gets signed off on by a President – so the budgets that happened under Clinton were a joint collaboration.
Ex-RINO, you must be geting all emotional. Or maybe you didn’t have our coffe yet or your not thinking logically? I know you have told me you don’t drink. Or maybe you just need a reading comprehension tutor. Why else would you ask me if I know that Clinton had to sign off? My post stated that it took a Republican house and senate and a president who is smart enough not to sign off on their bills. Here, try reading it again and see if you can find where I said that already. I’ll make it bold so you can read it easier:
“For the final SIX of the eight years Clinton was President, Republicans had the majority in both the House & Senate. That is why the deficits were brought under control. And Clinton was smart enough to go along with them.”
btw – I’m a man
typo correction from truthseeker at October 25, 2011 at 10:37 am
truth – I’m not sure if you know how the government works, but anything passed by congress gets signed off on by a President – so the budgets that happened under Clinton were a joint collaboration.
Ex-RINO, you must be geting all emotional. Or maybe you didn’t have your coffe yet or your not thinking logically. I am not sue. I know you have told me you don’t drink alcohol. Maybe you are just reading carelessly or need a comprehension tutor. Why else would you ask me if I know that Clinton had to sign off? My post stated that it took a Republican house and senate and a president who is smart enough to sign off on their bills. Here, try reading it again and see if you can find where I said that already. I’ll make it bold so you can read it easier:
“For the final SIX of the eight years Clinton was President, Republicans had the majority in both the House & Senate. That is why the deficits were brought under control. And Clinton was smart enough to go along with them.”
btw – I’m a man
Ex-GOP,
Your points on deficit spending and abortion are well taken. I’m sure I’ll sound like some Marxist professor who says Communism hasn’t been truly tried out if I say that truly conservative economics haven’t been tried either.
As George W. Bush has said, the president is “the decider”. The members of Congress are the “spenders”. Republican presidents have had a lousy record of deciding to hold Congressional spending in check. You’re absolutely right.
I like Ann Coulter’s answer to accusations of moral hypocrisy in Republican scandals. It’s at least better to support good behavior rather than being indifferent to it.
I at least know that Republicans are more likely to restrain spending, especially now that the Tea Party is really holding their feet to the fire. I fear restraining abortion has little chance till the economy is straightened out.
Hans – I can very much agree with your last statement – the GOP is more likely to restrain spending.
truth -
sorry about that – we are both men. Established now!
On that – fine – GOP were in charge of the house and senate. At the end of the day, the President and congress works together. One doesn’t function without the other. In Clinton’s days, it functioned, at least to the point that we had surpluses a couple of times. You can say the GOP restrained spending – you can look at the historical outlays and inlays and judge for yourself. I see that revenue increased with higher taxes.
And then Bush came in, and spending continue to increase while taxes decreased.
Regardless, back to your original statement – the GOP may love talking about hating deficit spending, but that’s like Jesse Jackson saying he hates the spotlight. If you look at the record, the record is different. That’s all that I’m saying. If you rewrite the records or look at them with red colored glasses, that’s on you.
sorry about that – we are both men. Established now!
Established in my world anyway. Not so established if the gender-bendng liberal left gets its way….
Ex RINO said:
“On that – fine – GOP were in charge of the house and senate. At the end of the day, the President and congress works together. One doesn’t function without the other. In Clinton’s days, it functioned, at least to the point that we had surpluses a couple of times. You can say the GOP restrained spending – you can look at the historical outlays and inlays and judge for yourself. ”
pecisely what I pointed out. The historical accuracy. And in the present the chances Obama could ever work across the aisle are ZERO.
Hello there, I found your site by way of Google whilst looking for a similar subject, your website got here up, it looks great. I’ve added to my favourites|added to bookmarks.