# Liberty Movement > Rand Paul Forum >  Rand-hater Santorum heavily considering 2016 presidential run

## compromise

http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05...d-the-trigger/



> Former Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum said he is weighing another run for president.
> 
> "I'm planning on doing everything consistent with putting yourself in a position to make a decision that is a viable decision," said Santorum, who gave Mitt Romney some trouble in the 2012 Republican primary fight.
> 
> "I haven't pulled any triggers yet, but certainly we're out there," he said.
> 
> Santorum said he has been traveling all over the country with his organization "Patriot Voices."
> 
> "We're staying active and involved in the fray. We'll continue to do so and at some point make a decision," said the former presidential candidate.


Could hurt Rand in the deep south, especially Alabama and Mississippi.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05...d-the-trigger/
> 
> 
> Could hurt Rand in the deep south, especially Alabama and Mississippi.


Probably despite the fact that Rand is evangelical of sorts and Santy is Catholic, it's the only reason this retread is still hanging around. We need to meme-slap this guy whenever you hear someone bring up his name on this. He's a phony socon plant to peel socon support away from Rand, splitting the conservative vote enough to allow the establishment choice of Bush, Christie or Rubio to run away with the primary. I was gonna take a shot at Dixie in general but I'll hold.

----------


## compromise

> Probably despite the fact that Rand is evangelical of sorts and Santy is Catholic, it's the only reason this retread is still hanging around. We need to meme-slap this guy whenever you hear someone bring up his name on this. He's a phony socon plant to peel socon support away from Rand, splitting the conservative vote enough to allow the establishment choice of Bush, Christie or Rubio to run away with the primary. I was gonna take a shot at Dixie in general but I'll hold.


Yeah, I don't get that. 50 years ago, a Northeastern Italian Catholic like Santorum would be close to unelectable in that part of the Deep South. Now he's one of the most popular guys down there.

Rand really needs to focus on Santorum's vote for Planned Parenthood if he wants to beat Santorum in these Gulf states.

----------


## ObiRandKenobi

I'm sure Santorum had some die hard supporters. But I think most of his support in '12 was anti-Romney/Romneycare.

----------


## supermario21

> Yeah, I don't get that. 50 years ago, a Northeastern Italian Catholic like Santorum would be close to unelectable in that part of the Deep South. Now he's one of the most popular guys down there.
> 
> Rand really needs to focus on Santorum's vote for Planned Parenthood if he wants to beat Santorum in these Gulf states.


Yeah, the religious schisms in the Republican Party sure are interesting. Santorum can't win in the Industrial Midwest or NE where Catholicism is strongest yet can sucker in the theocrats to vote for him. He's going to be Rand's potential spoiler in Iowa. I don't think he'll gain any steam to make it to the south.

----------


## erowe1

I hope he runs.

----------


## Cap

No matter what this clown does, it's going to be fun googling santorum.

----------


## VIDEODROME

lol

----------


## SilentBull

Rand would destroy this douche. Ron and Rand had the best ads. I can't wait to see what Rand's campaign comes up with to crush asses like this guy.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I was gonna take a shot at Dixie in general but I'll hold.


Oh, don't hold. Now that we've learned what Rand supporters think of libertarians, I'd love to hear what y'all think about the South.

----------


## ProvincialPeasant

The attention people here give Santorum is amazing. He won't run because, even now, no one remembers him. He only became popular because the 2012 field was incredibly weak. 2016 will be a battle between titans.

----------


## aclove

The problem with being too merciless with Santorum is that the theocrats down here in the South are susceptible to someone playing the victim card.  They identify with someone who's being persecuted, because they believe that they themselves are being persecuted by a world full of sinful perverts.  

It's truly remarkable to see people who represent a hefty majority of the population falling all over themselves talking about how the world hates them for their faith.  They're convinced of this, you see, because they're subjected to the horrendous abuse of having to be aware that homosexuals and secular people exist and live in the same state as them.

So, should Rand begin eviscerating Santorum over his record in the same manner he did to Trey Grayson, it's entirely plausible that Santorum will simply complain that the "libertarian" candidate is trashing him because he's the true Christian conservative in the race, and these goofballs will lap it up and ask for seconds.

----------


## klamath

If Rand can beat him in iowa NH and SC santorums strength in the deep south won't help him.

----------


## KingNothing

> The attention people here give Santorum is amazing. He won't run because, even now, no one remembers him. He only became popular because the 2012 field was incredibly weak. 2016 will be a battle between titans.


He has literally nothing to lose but time by running.

If he runs, he gets attention and probably another book deal or some speaking engagements.

I hope that he runs because he absolutely does not hurt Rand.  Iowa won't break for him again.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

Lol at biased Rand worshipping thread titles. Does anyone take you seriously? They shouldn't.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> Lol at biased Rand worshipping thread titles. Does anyone take you seriously? They shouldn't.


It seems like an appropriate title to me and this is Rand's sub afterall. We're all taking shots at Santorum and you seem to be slapping at Rand, we have our enemy and apparently you have yours. sad

----------


## FriedChicken

I don't remember the medical issue that his daughter has, but back when it was in the news I thought it was highly likely to the point of being anticipated (statistically speaking) she will die within a few years.

I can't imagine running for president going all over the country campaigning knowing the condition of one of my kids could lead to their death soon. I DEFINITELY can't imagine actually wanting to be president knowing that its likely I will be away from my daughter so much and I'll be grieving her death most likely in my first term.

Santorum might run, I can't believe he wants to win. Surely he has more love for his daughter than that (I don't believe him to be a bad father).

I think he really feels Rand is a threat to his vision for America - and I agree with Santorum on that. I've got a feeling Santorum is only motivated by undermining the Paul's right now.

I think he'll have some success too, sadly.
Santorum will double down on Iowa like never before if he runs, that's what I would bet on anyway.

----------


## Aratus

RICK SANTORUM CAN COME ACROSS LIKE A SANCTIMONIOUS SHYSTER AND CONFIDENCE MAN
 WHO HAS JUST TAKEN OUT A PATENT ON  HIS OWN BRAND OF SNAKE OIL. BE WARNED, PEOPLE!

----------


## chudrockz

> I don't remember the medical issue that his daughter has, but back when it was in the news I thought it was highly likely to the point of being anticipated (statistically speaking) she will die within a few years.
> 
> I can't imagine running for president going all over the country campaigning knowing the condition of one of my kids could lead to their death soon. I DEFINITELY can't imagine actually wanting to be president knowing that its likely I will be away from my daughter so much and I'll be grieving her death most likely in my first term.
> 
> Santorum might run, I can't believe he wants to win. Surely he has more love for his daughter than that (I don't believe him to be a bad father).
> 
> I think he really feels Rand is a threat to his vision for America - and I agree with Santorum on that. I've got a feeling Santorum is only motivated by undermining the Paul's right now.
> 
> I think he'll have some success too, sadly.
> Santorum will double down on Iowa like never before if he runs, that's what I would bet on anyway.


That reminds me. I wonder what, if anything, ever happened with that plan to send him and his ill daughter a card or donation or something? I was in favor of it, but after some argument I think it just sort of went away....

----------


## erowe1

> The attention people here give Santorum is amazing. He won't run because, even now, no one remembers him. He only became popular because the 2012 field was incredibly weak. 2016 will be a battle between titans.


If Huckabee runs, then I think Santorum is in real trouble. But if not, then he could be as much of a factor in 2016 as he was in 2012. And he will be able to carry through a lot of the same supporters he had then.

I don't think he can win.

----------


## Brett85

I don't mind Santorum running since he would at least hold Rand's feet to the fire on the abortion issue.  I don't like Santorum and wouldn't ever vote for him, but I like his strong stance on the abortion issue.

----------


## Rocco

We should all be rejoicing at the idea of Santorum running again. Of all the candidates in the 2012 primary, the attacks Ron Paul's campaign had against Santorum were by far the strongest both in the debates and in TV ads. This is because Santorum represents a failed GOP which bears no resemblance to the parties supposed small government principles. He is THE personification of the fundamental contradiction between the parties "pro family" rhetoric and the actual small government values conservatism was founded on. Watching Rand corner him and take him to the woodshed in the debates will not only be a lot of fun, it will be a productive way of displaying that libertarianism is the heart of conservatism, and that conservatives who deviate from libertarian ideology will be shown as hypocrites.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

FSP: Slapping at Rand? How so? Rand is my enemy? ....so far I'm still voting for him in 2016.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

Also, I have every confidence that Rand would stomp a mudhole in Santorum and walk it dry.

----------


## EBounding

Rand has to win Iowa and by a large margin.  I truly believe if Ron did just half of the retail-politicking that Santorum did, he would have won the Iowa poll.

----------


## supermario21

Actually it seems as if SC is becoming pro-liberty. Mulvaney, Scott, Gowdy, and now Sanford are all ranging from decent to very good and people like Tom Davis and Lee Bright in the State Senate as well as Nancy Mace and Jack Hunter among others are going to help the state morph into a more pro-liberty Republican state. I'd say Alabama and Mississippi are the worst, as well as Tennessee, which still sucks up to the establishment.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

I really don't see Frothy hurting Rand in Iowa.  Possibly the south if he were to stick it out that long.

When Santorum accidentally touched my suit at Value Voter's Summit, I had to burn it.  I hope I don't have to see his face ever again.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Honestly, I think Independents as a general rule are willing to leave abortion to the states and would be more than happy to not worry about it.  I'm not saying that's good or bad (I think I feel more strongly about abortion than they do, but I still believe its a state issue) I'm just saying... honestly, that half the population that supports 1st trimester but not 2nd... I seriously doubt they pick candidates based on that issue.  Maybe its one of many issues that they consider, but I seriously doubt its make or break for them.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Actually it seems as if SC is becoming pro-liberty. Mulvaney, Scott, Gowdy, and now Sanford are all ranging from decent to very good and people like Tom Davis and Lee Bright in the State Senate as well as Nancy Mace and Jack Hunter among others are going to help the state morph into a more pro-liberty Republican state. I'd say Alabama and Mississippi are the worst, as well as Tennessee, which still sucks up to the establishment.


I prefer the South Carolina of pre-1865 honestly... I mean... without the slavery of course, but I loved how SC was willing to flat out give the middle finger to the establishment... and fight it.  

Lindsey Graham is still in SC.  When they hang him for treason... I mean, vote him out, then I'll trust them.




> I really don't see Frothy hurting Rand in Iowa.  Possibly the south if he were to stick it out that long.
> 
> When Santorum accidentally touched my suit at Value Voter's Summit, I had to burn it.  I hope I don't have to see his face ever again.


Why can't we burn him?  He looks like a witch!


Santorum might be fun to talk to actually... I could probably own him in a debate...

----------


## Christian Liberty

> We should all be rejoicing at the idea of Santorum running again. Of all the candidates in the 2012 primary, the attacks Ron Paul's campaign had against Santorum were by far the strongest both in the debates and in TV ads. This is because Santorum represents a failed GOP which bears no resemblance to the parties supposed small government principles. He is THE personification of the fundamental contradiction between the parties "pro family" rhetoric and the actual small government values conservatism was founded on. Watching Rand corner him and take him to the woodshed in the debates will not only be a lot of fun, it will be a productive way of displaying that libertarianism is the heart of conservatism, and that conservatives who deviate from libertarian ideology will be shown as hypocrites.


I don't think family values and small govt. libertarianism contradict each other at all.  Its the neocon warmongering, and to a lesser extent, enforcement of moralitythat do not fit with family values or small govt. libertarianism...

----------


## EBounding

> This X1000. Santorum's 99 county tour was nothing short of brilliant in terms of campaign strategy. A lot of people don't like to admit it, but we lost Iowa largely because Santorum outworked us. While Ron was taking off weekends back in Texas Santorum was going to every church who would have him. If Rand is going to win convincingly we need him to display a similar work ethic.


Yep.  A lot of people blamed the "Santorum media surge" (including myself at the time), but if we're really honest, that surge was the _result_ of Santorum practically running for Governor of Iowa despite barely any resources.  Ron had millions and an enthusiastic base at his disposal, yet he kept with a modest educational campaign which yielded him a close 3rd place.

----------


## Christian Liberty

@TC- How could they force the states to do this?  Couldn't they just nullify it?  How much force would you be willing to use to ensure they don't do that?  The bottom line is that if the Feds don't use any force either way, its a state decision, whatever the laws say...

----------


## compromise

> I don't know if he's really a threat or not, but don't forget to mention to any Baptist types that he's Catholic--apparently Baptists* generally do not like the Catholic church and think Catholics are pawns of the evil pope. Sorta like what Petar thinks.
> 
> *I'm referring to "white" Baptist churches, I've known plenty of black Baptists and never got the impression that they had any opinion on the Catholic church.


Blacks...voting in GOP primaries?

----------


## JCDenton0451

According to 2012 exit poll 71% of voters in New Hampshire believe that abortion should be legal in all or most cases. There is no way a hardline pro-life candidate can win this state in the general election.

If Rand allows Santorum to push himself on social issues, he will lose the primary too.

In Virginia, 63% of voters support abortion. Obama winning this state twice was no fluke.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...lection-issue/

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yeah, I know, but it's just his recent rhetoric that I disagree with, like the "thousands of exceptions for abortion" and other similar statements.  Having Santorum in the race will hopefully keep Rand from saying those kind of things.


I think what he meant by "Thousands of exceptions" were thousands of individual cases where the mother's life is in danger.  But yeah, I get your point.  I still seriously don't want Rand being manipulated by Rick Santorum.  If Santorum can influence him, don't you wonder if the neocon establishment will be able to later on?

Honestly, if I were Rand I'd just hammer Santorum's pro-choice record (Voting for Planned Parenthood) and leave it at that.  

Wow... I'm starting to sound like I'm pro-abortion.  You know I'm not.  I want it banned, and I want it punished as murder.  But I don't want the Feds anywhere near it.  If the Feds take this one, they WILL find a way to use it to make a police state or do some other horrible thing.  I don't think the Feds have the moral authority to kill a fly, much less do anything like this.

I'd sooner ask a random German to execute the murderers and rapists of 1941 than ask Adolf Hitler to do it.  Seriously, I get why Iran calls us "The Great Satan" and it doesn't have one thing to do with our state governments.

The less our Federal Government is doing, the better.  I'm not going to give them jurisdiction over anything, even for a good purpose.  



> The most recent polls show that Americans are becoming more pro life.  The most recent Gallup poll showed that 58% of Americans either think that abortion should always be illegal or should be illegal most of the time.


IIRC when you break the question down by trimester its weird... something like only a quarter of Americans actually think life should be defended from conception, but an additional 50% or so believe it should be defended from the beginning of the second trimester.  I don't agree with them, of course, but in theory, banning second trimester abortion really should be a walk in the park, if it weren't for the doggone Roe v Wade.

I don't honestly think life from conception will ever happen, as much as it should.  Even Mississippi couldn't get it done.

----------


## erowe1

> According to 2012 exit poll 71% of voters in New Hampshire believe that abortion should be legal in all or most cases. There is no way a hardline pro-life candidate can win this state in the general election.
> 
> If Rand allows Santorum to push himself on social issues, he will lose the primary too.
> 
> In Virginia, 63% of voters support abortion. Obama winning this state twice was no fluke.
> 
> http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...lection-issue/


Notice how they report that data in a way that deliberately favors the pro-abortion side.

They put together "all or most cases" as one category, instead of separately reporting how many think it should be legal in all cases (like it is now), and how many think it should only be legal in most cases. Then when they report the pro-life side, they only mention the number who think it should be illegal in all cases.

They also don't link to the actual unedited poll data.

That poll seems to confirm others that most voters in those states would favor overturning Roe v. Wade, which makes abortion legal in all cases.

----------


## JCDenton0451

The poll wasn't asking about Roe vs Wade, they were asking about abortion. Overwhelming majorities in swing states oppose a total ban on abortion - that's pretty clear. Given these numbers it's actually quite surprising that GOP has managed to remain competitive in VA and NH. Lots of people who vote GOP must be holding their noses.

If you look at those who take fundamentalist view, that abortion must be completely illegal with no exceptions for rape and incest, that's roughly 20% of the population nationwide.

And this is currently Rand Paul's position.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

And the pro-choice hardline view, that the unborn has zero percent rights, effectively the current legal situation, is NOT "fundamentalist?" How come there are a hundred polls that include pro-choice tilted questioning of supposed pro-life absolutism, but almost none bringing up pro-choice absolutism?  Hmmm?

If the emphasis is placed on the fact that most people, in most states, oppose legal abortion under most circumstances, instead of letting pro-choicers drive the issue based on the hard cases, Rand can win on this issue easily.

----------


## supermario21

The bottom line is that a majority of people in recent polls believe that abortion should be illegal in most cases, with the lone exceptions being rape, incest, and life of the mother. That position is closer to the average GOP position rather than the nearly restrictionless abortion platform of Democrats.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> Yep.  A lot of people blamed the "Santorum media surge" (including myself at the time), but if we're really honest, that surge was the _result_ of Santorum practically running for Governor of Iowa despite barely any resources.  Ron had millions and an enthusiastic base at his disposal, yet he kept with a modest educational campaign which yielded him a close 3rd place.


Nope, nope.  You're wrong.  Santorum spent almost all of 2011, from April of that year till about mid-to-late December, sputtering around at 1%-2%, both nationally and in Iowa.  Then CNN put out this really fake poll, a poll PPP tweeted was flawed and not accurate, showing Santorum magically at 15% in Iowa.  At that point, _all_ the media started talking about Santorum, pumping him up as surging and a great candidate for Iowa's Republican Christians, etc., and it became a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Santorum won Iowa only because of that last-ten day media onslaught of cheerleading him on.  Santorum got over a week of wall-to-wall free advertising from the media.  Why they did that, I don't know.  Maybe Romney/Paul was boring to them.  But make no mistake, Santorum's Iowa win (until Ron Paul actually won it, though Santorum and Romney both got the Iowa propaganda win) was a media creation: he didn't do anything different in December 2011 than he had the previous eight months, so why else did he rise from 2% land?

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> According to 2012 exit poll 71% of voters in New Hampshire believe that abortion should be legal in all or most cases. There is no way a hardline pro-life candidate can win this state in the general election.
> 
> If Rand allows Santorum to push himself on social issues, he will lose the primary too.
> 
> In Virginia, 63% of voters support abortion. Obama winning this state twice was no fluke.
> 
> http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...lection-issue/


http://www.lifenews.com/2013/01/22/r...e-on-abortion/

Nationally, most Americans are pro-life.  In a GOP primary, it's overwhelming.   Outspoken campaigning on legalized abortion is not going to win anyone the Republican presidential nomination.

----------


## Brett85

> @TC- How could they force the states to do this?  Couldn't they just nullify it?  How much force would you be willing to use to ensure they don't do that?  The bottom line is that if the Feds don't use any force either way, its a state decision, whatever the laws say...


I think the Supreme Court would enforce it, just like the Supreme Court forces the states to enforce the 14th amendment.

----------


## Brett85

> It would make abortion illegal in New Hampshire and Virginia, that's what I had in mind. No chance of winning these states with this kind of platform.


I've never seen any poll that shows abortion as a top issue among voters.

----------


## Brett85

> I don't agree with them, of course, but in theory, banning second trimester abortion really should be a walk in the park, if it weren't for the doggone Roe v Wade.
> 
> I don't honestly think life from conception will ever happen, as much as it should.  Even Mississippi couldn't get it done.


Some of these personhood laws are flawed in that they don't mention an exception for the life of the mother and could be interpreted as banning emergency contraception like the Morning After Pill.  That's why even many pro life voters in Mississippi voted against that Personhood law.  I think Rand's bill has that same flaw and needs to be changed to make it clear that there would be an exception for the life of the mother and that it wouldn't ban any form of contraception.

----------


## anaconda

> Probably despite the fact that Rand is evangelical of sorts and Santy is Catholic, it's the only reason this retread is still hanging around. We need to meme-slap this guy whenever you hear someone bring up his name on this. He's a phony socon plant to peel socon support away from Rand, splitting the conservative vote enough to allow the establishment choice of Bush, Christie or Rubio to run away with the primary. I was gonna take a shot at Dixie in general but I'll hold.


Rand will eat Frothy for lunch on the debate stage. Rand's got about 30 IQ points on Frothy.

----------


## anaconda

> I hope he runs.


Agreed. Wiping out Frothy point by point on the debate stage is a great way to indict the rest of the moderates at the same time.

----------


## Brett85

> According to 2012 exit poll 71% of voters in New Hampshire believe that abortion should be legal in all or most cases. There is no way a hardline pro-life candidate can win this state in the general election.


He doesn't need to.  New Hampshire only has 4 electoral votes.  He'll need to focus on the Midwest states that are more socially conservative.

----------


## supermario21

Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, and to a lesser extent, PA. That is the trifecta the GOP could use to win in 2016. Still lots of white voters.

----------


## Warlord

> Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, and to a lesser extent, PA. That is the trifecta the GOP could use to win in 2016. Still lots of white voters.


Only Rand can win those.  If the GOP doesn't nominate him they're going to lose.

----------


## Brett85

> Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, and to a lesser extent, PA. That is the trifecta the GOP could use to win in 2016. Still lots of white voters.


Yep, and I think even Minnesota is winnable with the right message.  Like you said, lots of white voters.

----------


## Brett85

> Only Rand can win those.  If the GOP doesn't nominate him they're going to lose.


I agree, because these states tend to be support a less interventionist foreign policy.  They want to take care of things here at home and not nation build overseas.

----------


## JCDenton0451

> I've never seen any poll that shows abortion as a top issue among voters.


Well, what is your top issue?

----------


## Brett85

> Well, what is your top issue?


Abortion, although the other social issues I either don't care about as much or am more libertarian on.  But, it seems to me like most of the people who have abortion as their most important issue are pro life.  I don't know of many pro choicers who have abortion as their most important issue.  Perhaps a few radical feminists, but not anywhere close to a majority of voters.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I think the Supreme Court would enforce it, just like the Supreme Court forces the states to enforce the 14th amendment.


SCOTUS can't actually enforce anything.  Federal forces do.  Let's say you're the President.  The radical left-wing governor of New York (Whoever he is at the time) gives you the middle finger and says abortion is legal in his state.  Would you pull an Andrew Jackson and set another anti-nullification precedent?

I think that might have consequences you don't intend, and for very little benefit since, if I understand correctly, its extremely hard to actually prove beyond a reasonable doubt that somebody got an abortion instead of a miscarriage.

I completely agree on the issue but its a fool's game.  And even the "Radical" pro-lifers aren't willing to do what really needs to be done.  And even that won't exactly be enough.





> Some of these personhood laws are flawed in that they don't mention an exception for the life of the mother and could be interpreted as banning emergency contraception like the Morning After Pill.  That's why even many pro life voters in Mississippi voted against that Personhood law.  I think Rand's bill has that same flaw and needs to be changed to make it clear that there would be an exception for the life of the mother and that it wouldn't ban any form of contraception.


Does the Morning After Pill actually have anything to do with abortion?

What's the difference between conception and implantation, and which one are you going for?  I've heard some people mention that life beginning at conception will lead to the banning of some contraceptives but I don't know why, or even if, that's the case.



> I agree, because these states tend to be support a less interventionist foreign policy.  They want to take care of things here at home and not nation build overseas.


Why is this so hard for America?

Maybe I'm just not regarding the unborn highly enough (I honestly think every single person on the planet has this problem, with the possible exception of the people who ACTUALLY go and kill abortion doctors) but I'm honestly more concerned with  the murder that is done by the State, which indirectly leads to everyone being less free and everyone getting plundered more, than I am with murder by private actors.  Part of it is I guess the fact that decentralized murder can't REALLY be stopped, but honestly if I had to pick between abortion getting banned everywhere and adopting Ron Paul's foreign policy right now, I'd pick the latter.

----------


## libertygrl

Just play this to conservatives who are considering Santorum:

----------


## JCDenton0451

> Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, and to a lesser extent, PA. That is the trifecta the GOP could use to win in 2016. Still lots of white voters.





> Yep, and I think even Minnesota  is winnable with the right message.  Like you said, lots of white  voters.


lol Romney campaign also thought they had a chance in Michigan and Minnesota. But the truth is white people don't vote based on race, they vote based on issues. Pennsylvania, Minnesota are fairly liberal states. Hardline social-conservativism is bound to repel a lot of voters there.

One interesting fact is that turnout among white voters actually declined in 2008 and 2012.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Abortion, although the other social issues I either don't care about as much or am more libertarian on.  But, it seems to me like most of the people who have abortion as their most important issue are pro life.  I don't know of many pro choicers who have abortion as their most important issue.  Perhaps a few radical feminists, but not anywhere close to a majority of voters.


I mentioned this briefly in my other post.  With the exception of Ron Paul, the kind of pro-lifism that the rest of the Republicans are advocated REALLY doesn't tempt me.  If you aren't going to do ANYTHING about it, why write the freaking law?  I know I complain a bit about the Federalism aspect, and yes, short of a constitutional amendment, if the 14th amendment didn't exist I'd apply the whole "Murder is a state level issue" to other kinds of murder as well, but that's not my biggest issue.  My biggest issue is that most Republicans won't really do ANYTHING about it.  Romney was radically pro-choice in Mass....  IIRC the only abortion law I think Obama actually voted on was the PBA ban, which he may well have accidentally slipped on the correct vote since this isn't a Federal issue (I still wonder why Ron Paul voted for this one... this was probably one case where principle was trumped by horror.  As Ron was an MD I don't blame him for this, but if its a state issue... wouldn't it be a state issue ALL the time?)  Of course, Obama was an idiot for voting that way since he doesn't care about state's rights at all, I definitely think partial birth abortion is more evil than Confederate Slavery, but the Feds never had jurisdiction there either.  Not to mention that the Republicans, while being "Pro-life" also support war everywhere.  I don't really think they are hypocrites for supporting the death penalty, since that's at least supposed to be targeted against killers, but foreign war definitely kills the innocent just like abortion does.

I would definitely not vote for a pro-choice candidate over a seriously pro-life candidate.  I might even be tempted, at least slightly, to ignore the other issues and vote for a REAL pro-lifer like Randall Terry.  But the jokes in the GOP?  Give me a break.  If they aren't willing to actually declare the unborn to be living persons, and killing them to be murder, they are really just reenforcing the perception that GOPers are sexist bigots and they aren't really serious about stopping abortion.  In which case, I will ignore their game and look at other issues.

TLDR: If abortion was a battle between pro-life and pro-choice, I might feel that way, but its more of a battle between 95% pro-choice and 100% pro-choice.  Its a joke.

----------


## Christian Liberty

@libertygrl- Did Rick Santorum actually say that?  Wow...

He can't even answer the freaking question and people take him seriously?

I've got to show this one to my dad, and a certain teacher...  Both of them are fairly small government people (Not as much as I am, of course) and both of them inexplicably supported Rick...   I can't even believe he got as far as he did if he's that freaking dumb....

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA



----------


## JCDenton0451

> Abortion, although the other social issues I either don't care about as much or am more libertarian on.  But, it seems to me like most of the people who have abortion as their most important issue are pro life.  I don't know of many pro choicers who have abortion as their most important issue.  Perhaps a few radical feminists, but not anywhere close to a majority of voters.


I think you're deluding yourself. The liberal and moderate voters begin to care about abortion when the social conservatives start making statement perceived as extreme or intolerant by the Media. Rand will have to tie himself in knots trying to appease them, and I just don't see how he can appease the Media and hardcore socons at the same time.

Also, if your main issue is abortion, shouldn't you be in Huckabee's camp instead?

----------


## libertygrl

> @libertygrl- Did Rick Santorum actually say that?  Wow...
> 
> He can't even answer the freaking question and people take him seriously?
> 
> I've got to show this one to my dad, and a certain teacher...  Both of them are fairly small government people (Not as much as I am, of course) and both of them inexplicably supported Rick...   I can't even believe he got as far as he did if he's that freaking dumb....


Yep!    It was an interview he did on NPR radio. Can't recall the year.  Maybe 2008. I first heard it on Freedomwatch and Judge Nap called him out on it.  What a jerk!  Especially the line: " There is no such society that I am aware of where we've had radical individualism and that it suceeeds as a culture."   Uh, DUH! What about the USA???   

Good luck! Hope you'll be able to open up a few eyes.

----------


## Brett85

> One interesting fact is that turnout among white voters actually declined in 2008 and 2012.


That's because a lot of white evangelicals simply stayed home because they viewed Romney as a pro choice social liberal.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Another thing to note. The Bachmann campaign started to implode about 4 weeks before the election. Lost endorsements, staff quiting, etc. Social conservatives flocked to her which lead to her surge but bad press and sagging poll numbers caused many to question their support for her. The media gave a couple good pieces on Santorum and he surged in the last couple of weeks. Of course, almost nobody gave Ron Paul a good piece despite his increasing poll numbers.
> 
> Also, many people think Santorum really worked crowds of Iowans. But he did not. He did visit all 99 counties but when he visited my county about 7-9 people showed up, including media. He didn't connect with that many people because nobody knew who he was.


But he laid the groundwork to be people's second or third choice.  Basically a lot of people may have been sympathetic to him, but they wanted a winning horse.  Also local news pieces in the papers and 6:00 pm news do matter to elderly voters.  And your area in southeast Iowa isn't Santorum's bread n butter.  Northwest Iowa is the evangelical stronghold.  About 3/4 of the state is evangelical friendly though so its fertile ground for a Santorum/Huckabee type.

----------


## Brett85

> Also, if your main issue is abortion, shouldn't you be in Huckabee's camp instead?


My main issue is protecting life in general, and Republicans other than the Paul's and a few others certainly don't support a pro life foreign policy.

----------


## thoughtomator

I hope Santorum does make a run, he'll soak up a lot of the crazy neo/so-con vote while being appealing to no one else, competing for that source of support with other potential opponents.

----------


## JCDenton0451

> http://www.lifenews.com/2013/01/22/r...e-on-abortion/
> 
> Nationally, most Americans are pro-life.  In a GOP primary, it's overwhelming.   Outspoken campaigning on legalized abortion is not going to win anyone the Republican presidential nomination.


Americans are confused by labels. Many people who claim to be pro-life also support Planned Parenthood.

I'm not suggesting Rand should embrace abortion, but catering to the deluded masses of Religious Right will absolutely hurt him in the general election. The fundies may still be potent within the Republican party, but they are increasingly isolated from the rest of the nation.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yep!    It was an interview he did on NPR radio. Can't recall the year.  Maybe 2008. I first heard it on Freedomwatch and Judge Nap called him out on it.  What a jerk!  Especially the line: " There is no such society that I am aware of where we've had radical individualism and that it suceeeds as a culture."   Uh, DUH! What about the USA???   
> 
> Good luck! Hope you'll be able to open up a few eyes.


Well, I knew he said the stupid anti-freedom comment...  His problem, fundamentally, is that he doesn't see the difference between cultural conservatism and coerced conservatism.  While certainly a libertarian can oppose all kinds of conservatism, its also completely possible for a libertarian to be a cultural conservative.  Ron Paul and most of the guys on LRC are cultural conservatives.   There's also this weird perception that libertarians must be pro-choice.  Libertarians can break either way on abortion.

I was asking if Santorum really told someone to vote for Ron Paul... I guess so?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> That's because a lot of white evangelicals simply stayed home because they viewed Romney as a pro choice social liberal.


You mean because he was a pro-choice social liberal?

The only person I can think of that I'd prefer Romney over is John Mccain....

----------


## JCDenton0451

> That's because a lot of white evangelicals simply stayed home because they viewed Romney as a pro choice social liberal.


lol Totally not true. This claim has been disproven by conservative punduts at hotair.com.

Evangelicals hated this president viscerally, and came out in full force

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/04/0...erate-nominee/

----------


## supermario21

I think the bigger problem is that "moderates" increasingly vote Democratic, on the scale of 15-20 points more. Seems as if the center is moving left.

----------


## Christian Liberty

I hated this President a lot....  But I was still mad over  the anti-Paul debackle in the GOP (Still am.)  I hated Romney more...

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

Let me rephrase that.  I think Santorum was the first choice of most evangelicals, but he wasn't viable early on in the process until he did considerable leg work within the state.  He practically lived there for an entire year.

----------


## JCDenton0451

> I think the bigger problem is that "moderates" increasingly vote Democratic, on the scale of 15-20 points more. Seems as if the center is moving left.


Another way of looking at this is that Republican party is moving futher to the right, on social issues anyway. Did you read the Republican program? That's some crazy stuff. It was the most conservative program in 30 years - at least that's what Paul Ryan said.

Lots of voters prioritize social issues over economics, and not just the Evangelicals, and Republican party seems to be evolving in the opposite direction on social issues, compared to the rest of the country.

----------


## Brett85

> I think the bigger problem is that "moderates" increasingly vote Democratic, on the scale of 15-20 points more. Seems as if the center is moving left.


No, it's just that most people who call themselves "moderates" are actually liberals.  The polls show that most Democrats call themselves moderates.

----------


## Brett85

> Well, I knew he said the stupid anti-freedom comment...  His problem, fundamentally, is that he doesn't see the difference between cultural conservatism and coerced conservatism.  While certainly a libertarian can oppose all kinds of conservatism, its also completely possible for a libertarian to be a cultural conservative.  Ron Paul and most of the guys on LRC are cultural conservatives.   There's also this weird perception that libertarians must be pro-choice.  Libertarians can break either way on abortion.


Yeah, that's the way I view it.  I consider myself to be a social conservative but not an authoritarian conservative.  I think there's a big difference between the two.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yeah, that's the way I view it.  I consider myself to be a social conservative but not an authoritarian conservative.  I think there's a big difference between the two.


I agree with you, but I try to use the word "Cultural Conservative" because for some reason social conservatism has come to mean authoritarian, or at least authoritarian on social issues.

Just curious, how would you address my comments about the abortion thing?  If that's your one issue I can see voting Constitution but the GOP so obviously uses it as a game that with a few exceptions I can't even take them seriously when they say they're pro-life.

I mean, would you really vote for Rick Santorum over a hypothetical Ron Paul who supported Roe v Wade but was right on everything else?  I might hold my nose, but I'd vote for the hypothetical Ron Paul without much hesitation.

Then again, that may just be because I'm selfish, I don't know.

----------


## Brett85

> I mean, would you really vote for Rick Santorum over a hypothetical Ron Paul who supported Roe v Wade but was right on everything else?


I probably just wouldn't vote.  If it were a choice between someone like Peter Schiff and Rick Santorum, I would probably still vote for Schiff, because even though Schiff calls himself pro choice, he supports overturning Roe v. Wade, which is probably the most important part of the pro life agenda.  If Roe v. Wade were overturned, we could at least ban abortion in the conservative states.  But, I couldn't ever see myself voting for someone who supports Roe v. Wade, regardless of how good they were on other issues.  So basically, I guess I can probably vote for pro choice libertarians as long as they at least support overturning Roe v. Wade and allowing the states to ban abortion.  Although, I don't believe I could donate money to any politician who wasn't 100% pro life.

----------


## erowe1

> The poll wasn't asking about Roe vs Wade, they were asking about abortion. Overwhelming majorities in swing states oppose a total ban on abortion - that's pretty clear..


That's pretty irrelevant.

What means a lot more than that is that an overwhelming majority also oppose allowing abortion in all circumstances. The only honest way to interpret your own poll is that voters want to move laws in the pro-life direction.

----------


## JCDenton0451

> That's pretty irrelevant.
> 
> What means a lot more than that is that an overwhelming majority also oppose allowing abortion in all circumstances. The only honest way to interpret your own poll is that voters want to move laws in the pro-life direction.


Only a supremely stupid or a religious person can look at the electoral trashing of Todd Akin and Richard Murdock and infer that the voters really want is more laws against abortion.

----------


## 69360

Good more to dilute the vote.

He dropped out last time rather than lose his home state.

----------


## Brett85

> Only a supremely stupid or a religious person can look at the electoral trashing of Todd Akin and Richard Murdock and infer that the voters really want is more laws against abortion.


Akin and Mourdock lost because they made stupid and insensitive comments about abortion.  It had nothing to do with their actual position on the issue.  Pro life candidates who oppose the exceptions win elections all the time.  Ronald Reagan opposed abortion in all cases and won reelection in a 49 state landslide.

----------


## JCDenton0451

> Akin and Mourdock lost because they made stupid and insensitive comments about abortion.  It had nothing to do with their actual position on the issue.  Pro life candidates who oppose the exceptions win elections all the time.  Ronald Reagan opposed abortion in all cases and won reelection in a 49 state landslide.


Akin and Mourdock stated publicly what most socons say in private: that pregnancies from rape are something that God intended to happen. They didn't misspoke. It's what these people really believe. Todd Akin also exposed the fact that many pro-lifers are pretty clueless about human biology and generally have no idea what they are talking about. And Todd Akin was not a fringe figure. He was a leader in pro-life movement.

Ronald Reagan ran 30 years. The country has changed since then. People now are more aware of the Religious Right, and they have little patience with it.

BTW, Libertarian candidate won 5.5% of the vote in the same race in which Richard Mourdock got owned.

----------


## Brett85

> BTW, Libertarian candidate won 5.5% of the vote in the same race in which Richard Mourdock got owned.


The Libertarian Party candidate in that race was also pro life.

http://uncommontary.com/tag/andrew-horning/

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> I probably just wouldn't vote.  If it were a choice between someone like Peter Schiff and Rick Santorum, I would probably still vote for Schiff, because even though Schiff calls himself pro choice, he supports overturning Roe v. Wade, which is probably the most important part of the pro life agenda.  If Roe v. Wade were overturned, we could at least ban abortion in the conservative states.  But, I couldn't ever see myself voting for someone who supports Roe v. Wade, regardless of how good they were on other issues.  So basically, I guess I can probably vote for pro choice libertarians as long as they at least support overturning Roe v. Wade and allowing the states to ban abortion.  Although, I don't believe I could donate money to any politician who wasn't 100% pro life.


Liberty is a patchwork quilt, not a blanket statement.  The sooner we realize this, the sooner we win.

----------


## anaconda

> Liberty is a patchwork quilt, not a blanket statement.  The sooner we realize this, the sooner we win.


Very fine choice of words.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I probably just wouldn't vote.  If it were a choice between someone like Peter Schiff and Rick Santorum, I would probably still vote for Schiff, because even though Schiff calls himself pro choice, he supports overturning Roe v. Wade, which is probably the most important part of the pro life agenda.  If Roe v. Wade were overturned, we could at least ban abortion in the conservative states.  But, I couldn't ever see myself voting for someone who supports Roe v. Wade, regardless of how good they were on other issues.  So basically, I guess I can probably vote for pro choice libertarians as long as they at least support overturning Roe v. Wade and allowing the states to ban abortion.  Although, I don't believe I could donate money to any politician who wasn't 100% pro life.


Do you consider  Ron Paul 100% pro-life?

BTW: Pretty much all libertarians are against Roe v Wade, although I think you're also the first libertarian I've seen that supported a Federal ban, for whatever reason most libertarians want to make it a state issue.  I think that's  politically smart for a couple of reasons but I'm definitely on the "Pro-life" side of that debate.

I'd probably vote for the theorretical Ron Paul, but it would take a lot for me to support a pro Roe v Wade candidate.  Like near perfection on everything else.  If I actually believed the GOP were really pro-life, that thin window would probably disappear entirely.

----------


## Thor



----------


## Brett85

> Do you consider  Ron Paul 100% pro-life?


Yes.  He voted against some federal abortion laws because he was opposed to creating a federal abortion police.  Although he did vote in favor of the ban on partial birth abortion, so I don't really even see how anyone can say that Ron believes that abortion should be entirely a state issue.  He also co-sponsored and advocated a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution banning abortion, which is about as pro life as you can possibly get.

----------


## Brett85

> BTW: Pretty much all libertarians are against Roe v Wade, although I think you're also the first libertarian I've seen that supported a Federal ban, for whatever reason most libertarians want to make it a state issue.


In an interview with Reason Magazine, Nick Gillespie asked Justin Amash about his position on abortion and whether it should be a federal or state issue.  Justin replied that he's 100% pro life and believes that the issue falls under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

http://reason.com/reasontv/2013/03/2...-abortion-with

32:38 mark

----------


## klamath

> Akin and Mourdock stated publicly what most socons say in private: that pregnancies from rape are something that God intended to happen. They didn't misspoke. It's what these people really believe. Todd Akin also exposed the fact that many pro-lifers are pretty clueless about human biology and generally have no idea what they are talking about. And Todd Akin was not a fringe figure. He was a leader in pro-life movement.
> 
> Ronald Reagan ran 30 years. The country has changed since then. People now are more aware of the Religious Right, and they have little patience with it.
> 
> BTW, Libertarian candidate won 5.5% of the vote in the same race in which Richard Mourdock got owned.


Yes overwhelmingly voters support abortion in cases of rape and incest. The media framed that and kept it focused that way on mourdock and akin. Let a prolife republican run against a progressive democrat that supports abortion for convenience, late term abortion and snipping the spines of live born fetuses, the repubican is going to CRUSH the progressive. The Americans overwhelmingly support heavier restriction on those abortions.

----------


## erowe1

> Akin and Mourdock stated publicly what most socons say in private: that pregnancies from rape are something that God intended to happen. They didn't misspoke. It's what these people really believe. Todd Akin also exposed the fact that many pro-lifers are pretty clueless about human biology and generally have no idea what they are talking about. And Todd Akin was not a fringe figure. He was a leader in pro-life movement.
> 
> Ronald Reagan ran 30 years. The country has changed since then. People now are more aware of the Religious Right, and they have little patience with it.
> 
> BTW, Libertarian candidate won 5.5% of the vote in the same race in which Richard Mourdock got owned.


That LP candidate was Andy Horning who put out a statement saying he agreed with Mourdock about abortion. I think he got even more than 5.5.

I don't think what Mourdock said cost him the election. He was down before that happened. It wasn't even a big deal. It basically was about the same thing as saying he's something other than an atheist. What happened, though, was the GOP establishment used it as an excuse to distance themselves from him, which they wanted to do ever since he beat Lugar anyway.

----------


## erowe1

> Only a supremely stupid or a religious person can look at the electoral trashing of Todd Akin and Richard Murdock and infer that the voters really want is more laws against abortion.


That's the narrative the media told you. I'm sure it's easy to parrot back and say that everyone who's smart agrees. I don't buy it.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yes.  He voted against some federal abortion laws because he was opposed to creating a federal abortion police.  Although he did vote in favor of the ban on partial birth abortion, so I don't really even see how anyone can say that Ron believes that abortion should be entirely a state issue.  He also co-sponsored and advocated a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution banning abortion, which is about as pro life as you can possibly get.





> In an interview with Reason Magazine, Nick Gillespie asked Justin Amash about his position on abortion and whether it should be a federal or state issue.  Justin replied that he's 100% pro life and believes that the issue falls under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
> 
> http://reason.com/reasontv/2013/03/2...-abortion-with
> 
> 32:38 mark


I guess I'm probably technically less pro-life than these guys... because I don't really like the 14th amendment argument,.  The more I listen to it, the less I like it.  The intent of the 14th was clearly to guarantee rights to all persons "Born or Naturalized in the United States."  I think the 14th amendment was a mistake anyway, and should be repealed (Not because  I have a problem with birthright citizenship though, its because I have a problem with the Federal government being able to impose the Bill of Rights on the states, I think that's just asking for trouble) and I also consider it invalid since the CSA only signed it at gunpoint.  But even if I believed the amendment was valid, its intent is clear.  Its supposed to apply to all persons "Born or naturalized in the United States."  Saying that just because fetuses are also persons (Which is a proposition I agree with) it must apply doesn't make sense.  It would be like if I said the following:

"I'm inviting everyone who is a senior in high school on Long Island to attend my house for a hypothetical 19th birthday party that I can't throw yet because I'm still only 18.  All seniors shall bring a lunch bag because there are way too many of you to feed with my mother's food alone.  Hope to see you all there."

There are obviously tons of seniors not on Long Island, but any reasonable person would read the "All seniors" section of this ridiculous paragraph as saying that all seniors in high school in Long Island.  There are still seniors in high school not on Long Island, and senior citizens both on and off Long Island.  All of these people are "Seniors", but they aren't the seniors we're addressing.

In the same way "All persons... born or naturalized in the United States..."  Its not strictly defining personhood at all, but the passage is giving rights specifically to people that were born or naturalized here.  Of course, the unborn still have rights, but that's irrelevant to this amendment.

My fear is that the twisting of the 14th to make it to apply to the unborn when its clearly not intended by the wording is that it opens the door (Which has already been opened) for liberal courts to liberally define other sections of the document as well.  For instance, the whole twisting of "Necessary and proper" into "We can do whatever the crap we want" and "General Welfare" into "New Deal, Great Society, exc."

The more I think about it, the more I really don't like the constitution anyway.  It was a good document but the wording left way too much open to interpretation.  The 10th amendment SHOULD limit the constitution to the strictest reading possible, but apparently I can't even get everyone on RPF to agree with me.  If I can't even convince you guys... the document isn't doing its job.

Regarding the PBA ban... I've been wondering about that one.  I think that vote was a mistake.  Interestingly, the most hardcore pro-life advocacy group, the American Right to Life movement, (This is an organization that supports NO exceptions) doesn't like the PBA ban either.  I'm not convinced it actually saved anyone so much as it simply demanded a less gruesome murder method.  More importantly, the Federal government has no jurisdiction over murder.  Considering the pressure of the Santorum types about Ron Paul's voting record, I can understand why someone who doesn't understand the constitution (People like you, who at least get my argument but don't agree with it, would probably understand why RP voted against the PBA if that was what he had decided to do) would likely think he was voting in favor of a radical abortion procedure if he didn't vote for it.  Personally, assuming I didn't fall to political pressure, I'd probably vote present on something like that, and probably any other abortion law.  I couldn't vote for it because it would be a violation of my oath but I couldn't deliberately vote to stop them from protecting unborn children, if that makes sense.

That said, I support an amendment to ban abortion everywhere.  I just want it done by amendment, not by a half-hearted unconstitutional measure.

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

I'm sure this will make a few Rand-haters on this forum happy!!! woohoo  FU Santorum.

----------


## supermario21

The item to note is that Ron doesn't like the 14th amendment at all, and thinks it's unconstitutional/shouldn't be enforced. Rand and Amash I know differ on that position. Reason had an article discussing Ron vs Rand on the 14th and the consensus was that Rand was more constitutionally sound.

----------


## Christian Liberty

I don't know all the facts, but I would not be surprised if the 13th and 15th were unconstitutional as well.

I actually don't understand Ron's problem with birthright citizenship.

Even if the 14this constituional, it definitely doesn't apply to the unborn under strict constructionism.  Not because they aren't people (They are) but becasue they aren't the people being addressed.  Its clear that citizens of Iran weren't being addressed by that amendment, even though such people are still clearly "Persons."  In my ridiculously silly analogy paragraph, seniors who lived in New Jersey were not invited to my party but they are still seniors.

Abortion is still a state issue.  I honestly could respect someone if they admitted that they flat out don't care about the constitution where human life is concerned.  I don't give a crap about the laws when it comes to abortion for anyone BUT the Federal government.  The way I look at it, Scott Roeder and other anti-abortion vigilantes are heroes.  But I don't want FedGov acting outside the law.

Oh... and regarding the "Rand hater" comment, if anyone seriously thinks Santorum is better than Rand, they should forget both Santorum and Rand and just stick with Ron Paul, because that person is on crack and should probably not vote for any candidate who wants to punish them for that.

----------


## Brett85

@FreedomFanatic-I wouldn't necessarily say that I disagree with your position on the Constitutionality of federal involvement in abortion.  It's an issue I've been torn on for some time.  It's just that it seems to me like perhaps there can be more than one interpretation of the Constitution on this issue, since both Rand and Justin Amash seem to think that the 14th amendment should be used to protect the unborn at the federal level, while Ron disagrees.  I'm just saying that if I were a member of Congress and felt convicted to vote for pro life bills, I would use the 5th and 14th amendments to justify the Constitutionality of these bills before I would ever use the commerce clause to justify it.  There's absolutely no way that the commerce clause should ever be used to justify federal abortion laws, if you believe in a strict interpration of that clause.  I realize that using the 5th and 14th amendments as a justification may be a stretch as well, but it's not nearly as much of a stretch as using the commerce clause.  I guess I'm just saying that there's enough wiggle room that I would possibly have to use those amendments as a justification for my votes, because I care about defending human life first and foremost.  If there were a bill that I had to vote on that I just felt was blatantly unconstitutional, I suppose I would just have to do what you said and simply abstain from voting or vote "present."  I don't think I could ever bring myself to actually vote against any pro life legislation, because the issue is just way to important to me.

----------


## Brett85

Also, I wouldn't ever claim that someone isn't pro life simply because they oppose federal abortion laws from a 10th amendment perspective.  Santorum's attacks on Ron Paul on this issue were very misleading since he was trying to imply that Ron sometimes voted against federal abortion laws because he was pro choice, when in reality he simply felt that these laws violated the 10th amendment.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> Only a supremely stupid or a religious person can look at the electoral trashing of Todd Akin and Richard Murdock and infer that the voters really want is more laws against abortion.


Only a supremely stupid person cannot infer that Akin and Murdock's problems were over stupid comments about _rape_.

If you haven't noticed the steady progress against abortion at the state level since 1973, you're just not paying attention.  Even Ruth Bader Gingsburg recently lamented how the pro-abortion crowd is losing ground because of _Roe v. Wade_.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> @FreedomFanatic-I wouldn't necessarily say that I disagree with your position on the Constitutionality of federal involvement in abortion.  It's an issue I've been torn on for some time.  It's just that it seems to me like perhaps there can be more than one interpretation of the Constitution on this issue, since both Rand and Justin Amash seem to think that the 14th amendment should be used to protect the unborn at the federal level, while Ron disagrees.  I'm just saying that if I were a member of Congress and felt convicted to vote for pro life bills, I would use the 5th and 14th amendments to justify the Constitutionality of these bills before I would ever use the commerce clause to justify it.  There's absolutely no way that the commerce clause should ever be used to justify federal abortion laws, if you believe in a strict interpration of that clause.  I realize that using the 5th and 14th amendments as a justification may be a stretch as well, but it's not nearly as much of a stretch as using the commerce clause.  I guess I'm just saying that there's enough wiggle room that I would possibly have to use those amendments as a justification for my votes, because I care about defending human life first and foremost.  If there were a bill that I had to vote on that I just felt was blatantly unconstitutional, I suppose I would just have to do what you said and simply abstain from voting or vote "present."  I don't think I could ever bring myself to actually vote against any pro life legislation, because the issue is just way to important to me.


Fair enough.  Yeah, its pretty darn important to me as well, hence why I'd vote "Present" if the law was unconstitutional.  I'd probably let them go ahead and do it.  Unless the bill itself was actually bad for some reason.  

And yeah, the 5th and 14th is still better than the commerce clause.  The only way I can even imagine that one working is if somone crossed state lines to get an abortion.  That probably technically works, but there's no way we should even have a commerce clause that's that broad.  I'd strike it from the constitution entirely honestly.  I don't even see a huge reason why states shouldn't be able to produce their own currencies, since my ideal is that government would remove itself from currency anyway (Which would likely lead to gold or silver tender on the market.)

Not to pick on Rand or Amash, but honestly, both of them are playing the game much more than Ron did.  Ron Paul was also much more consistent in general.  If I were going to trust any of the three on the constittuionality of something, I'd probably trust Ron first.  Honestly, I think Rand probably thinks its constitutional for the same reason that you do... because you want it to.  So do I, but I can't intellectually justify it so I support a new amendment.

It won't happeen I know, but I'm just saying, if I had a chance to vote for that amendment, I would.  Of course, Conservatives are perpetually busy with the "One mand one woman" amendment so they'll never do this one (lol.)



> Also, I wouldn't ever claim that someone isn't pro life simply because they oppose federal abortion laws from a 10th amendment perspective.  Santorum's attacks on Ron Paul on this issue were very misleading since he was trying to imply that Ron sometimes voted against federal abortion laws because he was pro choice, when in reality he simply felt that these laws violated the 10th amendment.



This is exactly correct.  Plus, Santorum thinks everything is a Federal issue.  I've never heard him say ANYTHING should be left to the states.  Santorum, like Johnson, but for opposite reasons, would wish the 10th out of existance.  I don't think its just abortion with Rick like it is with you... its everything...

----------


## Virgil

As someone from Missouri. That comment that Akin made instantly lost him the race, from young to old the outrage of that comment propelled McCaskill
to win.

-Virgil

----------


## anaconda

>

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Rand has to win Iowa and by a large margin.  I truly believe if Ron did just half of the retail-politicking that Santorum did, he would have won the Iowa poll.


Ron would've won Iowa if it wasn't rigged.

----------


## compromise

> As someone from Missouri. That comment that Akin made instantly lost him the race, from young to old the outrage of that comment propelled McCaskill
> to win.
> 
> -Virgil


It wasn't only the comment itself, it was all the establishment Repubs denouncing the comment and helping it to spread in the liberal media. I'm glad Rand stood with Akin and Mourdock.

----------


## Dogsoldier

Hmmmm....controlled opposition....I see the last election all over again....The neocons will run 10 or more people to drown out Rand.

----------


## MaxPower

I am greatly comforted by the certainty embedded deep within the core of my being that Rick Santorum will never be president.

----------


## Warlord

> Hmmmm....controlled opposition....I see the last election all over again....The neocons will run 10 or more people to drown out Rand.


It won't matter he'll beat them all.  He is that good.

----------


## Intoxiklown

> I'm sure Santorum had some die hard supporters. But I think most of his support in '12 was anti-Romney/Romneycare.



This.

Santorm did well down here due to him not being Romney the Mormon. Contrary to popular belief, Rand Paul is QUITE popular down here. Sweet Christ, it kills me at how much an "anti-label" crowd LOVES throwing labels if the subject is the south.

----------


## JCDenton0451

> Only a supremely stupid person cannot infer that Akin and Murdock's problems were over stupid comments about _rape_.
> 
> If you haven't notice the steady progress against abortion at the state level since 1973, you're just not paying attention.  Even Ruth Bader Gingsburg recently lamented how the pro-abortion crowd is losing ground because of _Roe v. Wade_.


Not stupid, extreme. You want to ban abortion in cases of rape, that makes you extreme, that makes you look irrational to the 80% of people in this country.

The steady progress you're referring to is limited to red states. The Religious Right there is getting increasingly desperate, because they're beginning to understand: they don't have much time left. The demographic and generational change will make them irrelevant in the not too distant future.

----------


## erowe1

> As someone from Missouri. That comment that Akin made instantly lost him the race, from young to old the outrage of that comment propelled McCaskill
> to win.
> 
> -Virgil


I think you're right about Akin. His was a major mistake. I don't think Mourdock's was anything like that. But Mourdock keeps getting grouped with Akin. As soon as the news spread about the Mourdock debate people started saying he did the same thing Akin did. Then, instead of Akin being an aberrant fool, Akin and Mourdock together became prototypes of a pattern of the social conservative who can't win.

----------


## JCDenton0451

> Yes overwhelmingly voters support abortion in cases of rape and incest. The media framed that and kept it focused that way on mourdock and akin. Let a prolife republican run against a progressive democrat that supports abortion for convenience, late term abortion and snipping the spines of live born fetuses, the repubican is going to CRUSH the progressive. The Americans overwhelmingly support heavier restriction on those abortions.


Obama supports ALL of these things, he just doesn't particularly advertise it, and the Media never asked him hard questions about abortion. But that's beside the point. This is Rand Paul's forum after all, and his position on abortion is out of touch with the overwhelming majority of voters. I'm glad that at least one person on this board understands that.

----------


## Warlord

Akin was just a bad candidate. Mourdock would have won if he kept his mouth shut. He's a twice elected state officeholder and lost to a Dem congressman in INDIANA.

All because he couldnt keep his mouth shut the dumbass.

He shouldn't have even been in that debate. All he had to do was ride Romney's coat tails and he would have been a US senator but he decided to speak and it cost him.

----------


## erowe1

> Akin was just a bad candidate. Mourdock would have won if he kept his mouth shut. He's a twice elected state officeholder and lost to a Dem congressman in INDIANA.
> 
> All because he couldnt keep his mouth shut the dumbass.
> 
> He shouldn't have even been in that debate


I don't think it's from not keeping his mouth shut. I saw no evidence that that debate affected the outcome more than a very small amount. He was down before it. I think his comment won him some votes and lost him some others. I was leaning toward Horning before that, but Mourdock almost won me over with that comment. I ended up not voting.

His statewide office was treasurer. I'd say that puts him at a disadvantage to a Congressman, not an advantage. And Donnelly was an ideal kind of Democrat for Indiana. He was seen as a centrist and had been elected in a centrist district that was recently redrawn to make it more Republican. He was the Dems presumed nominee and had the full support of his party and their funders. The GOP leadership was cool to Mourdock all along. Part of the reason his statement had the fallout it did was because other Republicans used it against him, demanding he apologize for nothing.

----------


## Warlord

> I don't think it's from not keeping his mouth shut. I saw no evidence that that debate affected the outcome more than a very small amount. He was down before it. I think his comment won him some votes and lost him some others. I was leaning toward Horning before that, but Mourdock almost won me over with that comment. I ended up not voting.
> 
> His statewide office was treasurer. I'd say that puts him at a disadvantage to a Congressman, not an advantage. And Donnelly was an ideal kind of Democrat for Indiana. He was seen as a centrist and had been elected in a centrist district that was recently redrawn to make it more Republican. He was the Dems presumed nominee and had the full support of his party and their funders. The GOP leadership was cool to Mourdock all along. Part of the reason his statement had the fallout it did was because other Republicans used it against him, demanding he apologize for nothing.


No it does not. The guy had been on the ballot twice statewide against a congressman who nobody had heard of. 

People were used to seeing his name on the ballot and would vote for him.

Maybe not you erowe but news flash; you and your anecdotes dont matter. I'm talking about the herd mentality of tens of thousands of voters within the state. 

The comment on the debate stage cost him as it was picked up nationally and caused a storm which grabbed people's attention in the state away from the dog and pony presidential show and focused on who was further down the ballot. 

He should never have done a debate. He was overwhelmingly favorite to win that race and all he had to do was safely ride Romney's coat tails all the way to election day.  He ended up under performing him massively.  Sickening and it cost the GOP a sure senate seat.

Mourdock you MORON!

----------


## erowe1

> No it does not. The guy had been on the ballot twice statewide against a congressman who nobody had heard of.


Being on the ballot statewide for a minor office doesn't make you well-known. I'm pretty sure Donnelly was better known than Mourdock before that race.




> People were used to seeing his name on the ballot and would vote for him.


Is that how it works for you? You see some name of someone you've never heard of on a ballot one time, and then 4 years later you see that same name on a ballot again and say to yourself, "Oh yeah, I remember that name from last time."?




> Maybe not you erowe but news flash; you and your anecdotes dont matter. I'm talking about the herd mentality of tens of thousands of voters within the state.


If so, then some evidence would be nice. So far you're just repeating the same things the media has been telling you, and they never back it up either.





> He should never have done a debate. He was overwhelmingly favorite to win that race and all he had to do was safely ride Romney's coat tails all the way to election day.  He ended up under performing him massively.  Sickening and it cost the GOP a sure senate seat.


You may be right about coattails and being better off not debating. But he was never the overwhelming favorite. And he was definitely down in the polls before that debate.

----------


## Warlord

Being on the ballot before is a big deal. He was known and people were used to voting for him.

All he had to do was sneak under the radar ignore the fat liberal posing as a centrist and become a US senator

But no... Richard knows best. He had to open his mouth and make himself visible.

----------


## erowe1

> Being on the ballot before is a big deal. He was known and people were used to voting for him.


I really think that's ridiculous. You get used to something you do frequently. You don't get used to a name that you see among a list of names once every four years. Congressmen are better known than state treasurers.

----------


## Warlord

> I really think that's ridiculous. You get used to something you do frequently. You don't get used to a name that you see among a list of names once every four years.


YOU may think that but the dumbed down masses are used to seeing that name on the ballot and would have had no problem voting ROMNEY-MOURDOCK until he opened his mouth and drew attention to himself.

----------


## erowe1

> the dumbed down masses are used to seeing that name on the ballot


Sorry. Not buying it.

The dumbed down masses are either so dumb that they don't recognize any politicians names, or, if they do recognize names, the names of congressmen are more recognizable than the names of state treasurers. I can't believe this is just me. I'm pretty certain that you'll find lots of voters who can name not only their own representative, but also a bunch of others from their own state and other states, and their level of knowledge of who their state treasurer is will be far lower.

----------


## Warlord

The trick was to get them to vote straight ticket but he made such a mess of it they ended up voting Romney and SWITCHING from someone they have voted for before to a Congressman from a confined district that many of them had never heard of.

It's practically unheard of.  He would have won if just shut up and ran his ads, avoided debate, sent out his mailers and campaigned hard under the Romney banner.

----------


## erowe1

> The trick was to get them to vote straight ticket but he made such a mess of it they ended up voting Romney and SWITCHING from someone they have voted for before to a Congressman from a confined district that many of them had never heard of.
> 
> It's practically unheard of.  He would have won if just shut up and ran his ads, avoided debate, sent out his mailers and campaigned hard under the Romney banner.


You're mixing together different arguments. The coattails one is valid. The one about being better known isn't. A congressman from one district will generally be better known across the whole state than the state treasurer will be. Before that senate race, Donnelly was better known than Mourdock. That changed over the course of the Republican primary, which put Mourdock in the news a lot while Donnelly was unopposed on the Dem side. But whatever name recognition Mourdock had going into the general election was a lot more because of those primaries than because of having been state treasurer. Also, along with that name recognition from the primaries came an unwarranted label of him being an unbending Tea Part extremist. So it wasn't all good for him.

----------


## Warlord

He would have won if he stuck to the Romney-Mourdock playbook.  To underperform Romney by such an amount is laughable and shows you how bad his campaign was. The debate was the final nail in the coffin.  He should never have been in it and should have just spent a month traveling the state, shaking hands and campaigning for Mittens and bashing Obama/Obamacare at every opportunity

----------


## erowe1

> He would have won if he stuck to the Romney-Mourdock playbook.  To underperform Romney by such an amount is laughable and shows you how bad his campaign was. The debate was the final nail in the coffin.  He should never have been in it and should have just spent a month traveling the state, shaking hands and campaigning for Mittens


I agree with everything except the part about the debate.

----------


## FriedChicken

I'm confident Mourdock would have won if it were not for the comment - he did a poor job wording it and poor job explaining it later. What he meant I didn't think was disagreeable at all and any person believing in God and that "no one person is an accident" would have to agree with him also.

He could have done a great job defending himself and he didn't. 

Personally, even though I'm a Christian, I wish he would have left his faith in God out of his answer and stuck to the rights of the unborn regardless of circumstances the life began under and thrown something in about how he believes in x,y and z measures to help rape victims recover and measures to help prevent rape. Its a lot to ask that he think of all that on his feet - but he could have followed up with all that the day after.

I actually support Mourdocks statement but I completely understand that everyone twisting it and telling everyone what to think about it cost him the election.



... I think we've had this discussion before.

----------


## FriedChicken

Every pro-life person who believes people who were conceived in tragic circumstances DON'T deserve to die for the sin of their biological "father" need to have a prepared response in their their back pocket AND written on the palm of their hand they've rehearsed OVER and OVER.

They should never just wing and answer to that question like Mourdock did and they should never plan on the question not being asked.

----------


## Warlord

erowe, your other senator Coats had been on the ballot before and cruised to victory in 2010.  That should have been Mourdock in 2012 but he's a moron and drew too much attention to himself. 

That's a fact .

Now your stuck with a fat liberal posing as a centrist.  You can thank Richard for that.

----------


## erowe1

> erowe, your other senator Coats had been on the ballot before and cruised to victory in 2010.  That should have been Mourdock in 2012 but he's a moron and drew too much attention to himself. 
> 
> That's a fact .
> 
> Now your stuck with a fat liberal posing as a centrist.  You can thank Richard for that.


Coats had been a US Senator. He had been in the news a lot for a long time. People had a lot more reason to know him than just  having seen his name in a list of names once every so many years.

Congressmen are better known than state treasurers, and US senators are better known than congressmen. You can't put a state treasurer on the level of a US Senator.

As for Donnelly, to be honest, I'm just glad Lugar lost. I don't think Mourdock would have been that great. And if I have him to thank for Lugar being gone, then I'm happy to thank him for that.

----------


## Warlord

He was already relatively known after de-throning Lugar and had a story to tell the voters and also ROMNEY winning the state 

It was simple and he blew it.

----------


## erowe1

> He was already relatively known after de-throning Lugar and had a story to tell the voters and also ROMNEY winning the state 
> 
> It was simple and he blew it.


That's true.

----------


## fr33

I could see Santorum being a spoiler. According to the media he was one of the many deemed "the conservative alternative to Romney". I blame the media mostly for Romney getting the nomination. He was the presumptive nominee before the first primary votes were cast. I guess I should really blame GOP voters for being stupid enough to be manipulated. It could happen again.

----------


## Warlord

Rand will beat them all in IA and NH.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Obama supports ALL of these things, he just doesn't particularly advertise it, and the Media never asked him hard questions about abortion. But that's beside the point. This is Rand Paul's forum after all, and his position on abortion is out of touch with the overwhelming majority of voters. I'm glad that at least one person on this board understands that.


He's probably more pro-life than the average, but I don't think the voters will pick based on that one issue.  If Rand convinces them he can fix the economy, most will let that go, IMO.



> As someone from Missouri. That comment that Akin made instantly lost him the race, from young to old the outrage of that comment propelled McCaskill
> to win.
> 
> -Virgil


Honestly, to me that just shows the stupidity of voters.  Akin probably wasn't a good choice in general but I seriously would not discount him for a stupid comment.

----------


## erowe1

> He's probably more pro-life than the average


I think the word "probably" is pretty important there too, since I'm not entirely sure it's the case. I think he's in a position where he can appeal to pro-life purists in the primary and the softer more generic pro-life majority of the country in the general without actually changing his position.

----------


## Christian Liberty

IIRC I saw a poll once that said over 70% of Americans would outlaw abortion in the second trimester but over 70% of Americans thought it should be legal in the 1st.  Pure pro-lifers and radical pro-choicers are both less common than the media portrays it, if I understand correctly.

----------


## Brett85

> Every pro-life person who believes people who were conceived in tragic circumstances DON'T deserve to die for the sin of their biological "father" need to have a prepared response in their their back pocket AND written on the palm of their hand they've rehearsed OVER and OVER.


I think the response should simply be that women could still use the Morning After Pill if they get raped.  That can be used up to 72 hours after the rape occurs and almost always prevents the pregnancy from occuring.  There's really no excuse at all for abortion to be legal in cases of rape when rape victims can now buy the Morning After Pill over the counter.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Does the Morning After Pill ever actually cause abortion?

----------


## FriedChicken

> Does the Morning After Pill ever actually cause abortion?


If you consider a pregnancy to begin at conception than yes. I believe that life begins at conception but I think it more enforceable for laws to be written that define life at 3 weeks after conception - because that would result in outlawing the abortion surgical procedure but still leave chemical alternatives available like the morning after pill.

From an idealistic stand point I still consider the morning after pill to be an abortion but it is impossible to regulate it because, chemically speaking, its the same thing as a birth control pill and contraception will always be legal. I'm pretty sure that all effective contraception drugs, on occasion, cause unknown miscarriages - so a morning after pill is basically just a stronger dose of a contraception pill.

Ron actually pointed that out during a debate - I remember cringing at the time because pointing out to women that contraception can cause an 'abortion' didn't seems like a good way to win votes. My wife has several friends who know this fact but choose to ignore it because they'd rather be ignorant ... woe to the person who brings it to their attention. lol.

I agree with TradCon that would have been a good answer for Mourdock. Its not hard finding a better answer than he gave.

----------


## Brett85

> If you consider a pregnancy to begin at conception than yes. I believe that life begins at conception but I think it more enforceable for laws to be written that define life at 3 weeks after conception - because that would result in outlawing the abortion surgical procedure but still leave chemical alternatives available like the morning after pill.


Do you mean 3 days after conception?  That's basically my position.  My position is basically that there should be legal protections for the unborn from the time that the fertilized egg attaches to the uterus.  That would make it to where the Morning After Pill wouldn't be illegal.  The Morning After Pill basically just makes it to where the fertilized egg doesn't attach to the uterus.  Some people may technically consider this to be an "abortion," but it simply works the same way that a lot of other forms of birth control works, and I would rather allow a woman to use the Morning After Pill than to have her get an abortion when she's three months pregnant.

----------


## Brett85

> Does the Morning After Pill ever actually cause abortion?


I guess it depends on whether you think life begins right when the egg is fertilized or when the egg actually attaches to the uterus.  I think Ron has basically said that he believes conception occurs when the fertilized egg attaches to the uterus.

----------


## FriedChicken

> I guess it depends on whether you think life begins right when the egg is fertilized or when the egg actually attaches to the uterus.  I think Ron has basically said that he believes conception occurs when the fertilized egg attaches to the uterus.


... I'm thinking I heard Ron say that he believed life began at conception (fertilized egg) but I can't directly point to a source. But he basically conceded that it should be legal for a woman to take chemical actions to "end the pregnancy"  because you can't prove whether an abortion actually occurred so it wouldn't be prosecutable.

I remember him saying that "if one of his granddaughters were raped" (an analogy put to him by the interviewer) and she didn't want a pregnancy that he would recommend her going to the hospital for a shot of estrogen.
She would never know if she was ever impregnated or not.

----------


## Brett85

> ... I'm thinking I heard Ron say that he believed life began at conception (fertilized egg) but I can't directly point to a source. But he basically conceded that it should be legal for a woman to take chemical actions to "end the pregnancy"  because you can't prove whether an abortion actually occurred so it wouldn't be prosecutable.
> 
> I remember him saying that "if one of his granddaughters were raped" (an analogy put to him by the interviewer) and she didn't want a pregnancy that he would recommend her going to the hospital for a shot of estrogen.
> She would never know if she was ever impregnated or not.


My view is basically that the Morning After Pill should be legal since it simply prevents the egg from attaching to the uterus, but I think that other chemicals that are more controversial like RU486 should be banned.  RU486 is an actual abortion pill that kills the baby after it has attached to the uterus and has begun growing.  I think this chemical and other similar chemicals should be outlawed.  That's also Rand's position, that the Morning After Pill should be legal but RU 486 should be illegal.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> If you consider a pregnancy to begin at conception than yes. I believe that life begins at conception but I think it more enforceable for laws to be written that define life at 3 weeks after conception - because that would result in outlawing the abortion surgical procedure but still leave chemical alternatives available like the morning after pill.
> 
> From an idealistic stand point I still consider the morning after pill to be an abortion but it is impossible to regulate it because, chemically speaking, its the same thing as a birth control pill and contraception will always be legal. I'm pretty sure that all effective contraception drugs, on occasion, cause unknown miscarriages - so a morning after pill is basically just a stronger dose of a contraception pill.
> 
> Ron actually pointed that out during a debate - I remember cringing at the time because pointing out to women that contraception can cause an 'abortion' didn't seems like a good way to win votes. My wife has several friends who know this fact but choose to ignore it because they'd rather be ignorant ... woe to the person who brings it to their attention. lol.
> 
> I agree with TradCon that would have been a good answer for Mourdock. Its not hard finding a better answer than he gave.


I definitely see a difference between the occasional, accidental mistake and deliberately having an abortion...

----------


## JCDenton0451

> He's probably more pro-life than the average, but I don't think the voters will pick based on that one issue.  If Rand convinces them he can fix the economy, most will let that go, IMO.


How come social conservatives always demand Republican politicians take extreme positions on abortion, then expect them campaign on the economy and national security in the general election? If no-abortion-for-rape-victims position is _such a winner_, why not run on it?

----------


## JCDenton0451

> But he was never the overwhelming favorite. And he was definitely down in the polls before that debate.


That's some revisionist history right there: Mourdock was running in a red state, he had the backing of the Club for Growth, and he demolished Lugar in the primary. The polls before the debate were close with Mourdock slightly ahead. *His rape comments caused almost a 10 point swing.*

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...elly-3166.html

----------


## Aratus

mitt romney  looked like wanted to buy a muzzle for all the GOP contenders for our lesser offices after that lil ole political faux pas

----------


## Aratus

people... "J.D-451" is correct about the mass media focus on the comment and the way the public at large reacted

----------


## erowe1

> That's some revisionist history right there: Mourdock was running in a red state, he had the backing of the Club for Growth, and he demolished Lugar in the primary. The polls before the debate were close with Mourdock slightly ahead. *His rape comments caused almost a 10 point swing.*
> 
> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...elly-3166.html


That site doesn't show all the polls. It also doesn't show which ones included Horning. The ones that put Mourdock ahead generally didn't include him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_..._Indiana,_2012

Look at the two Howey Politics polls, one before the debate, the other after it. They included Horning and had the same methodology, as well as the largest sample sizes of any pols of the race, so it's comparing like with like. Mourdock was already down and then went down 2  more points. The margin of error was 3.5.

It's not revisionist history. I was here living through it as it went on and paying attention to those things.

----------


## libertygrl

> Well, I knew he said the stupid anti-freedom comment...  His problem, fundamentally, is that he doesn't see the difference between cultural conservatism and coerced conservatism.  While certainly a libertarian can oppose all kinds of conservatism, its also completely possible for a libertarian to be a cultural conservative.  Ron Paul and most of the guys on LRC are cultural conservatives.   There's also this weird perception that libertarians must be pro-choice.  Libertarians can break either way on abortion.
> 
> I was asking if Santorum really told someone to vote for Ron Paul... I guess so?


Yes, if you watch the video there's a scene where he's campaigning. Some guy in the crowd calls him on on some stuff he voted for.  Santorum got annoyed and figured he was a Ron Paul supporter so (I believe he meant it sarcastically) he told him to go vote for Ron Paul.

----------


## supermario21

Santorum is a guy who said that voting for Obama would be better than Romney...if he made that comment about Mitt, could you imagine what he'd say about Rand? He'd endorse HRC and help out in blue collar regions of the country...

----------


## Warlord

> That site doesn't show all the polls. It also doesn't show which ones included Horning. The ones that put Mourdock ahead generally didn't include him.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_..._Indiana,_2012
> 
> Look at the two Howey Politics polls, one before the debate, the other after it. They included Horning and had the same methodology, as well as the largest sample sizes of any pols of the race, so it's comparing like with like. Mourdock was already down and then went down 2  more points. The margin of error was 3.5.
> 
> It's not revisionist history. I was here living through it as it went on and paying attention to those things.


Including the LP in a poll is irrelevant. He still should have won and would have won.

Just accept it will you?

Mourdock was one of the biggest let downs of 2012 because he threw away a sure fire Senate seat and that's why we're still talking about him and mad at him.

----------


## Aratus

I think mourdock's quip cost  gentleman mitt about 5% of the vote in the fall general election
when he looked and sounded less educated than general dwight david eisenhower did in 1952!
the voters want people to have passed biology class rather than to have flunked it rather badly.

----------


## satchelmcqueen

id bet santorum will win georgia due to the christian vote. even after i showed my friends and family santorums lies, they still voted for him. rand better hit the jesus vote hard.

----------


## erowe1

> Including the LP in a poll is irrelevant


You either were not paying attention to the post I was replying to so as to understand the point I was making, or you're just wrong.




> Mourdock was one of the biggest let downs of 2012 because he threw away a sure fire Senate seat and that's why we're still talking about him and mad at him.


I'm not mad at him. I didn't even support him in the first place. (Well, I did in the primary, because I was voting for RP there anyway and I wanted Lugar to lose).

----------


## erowe1

> I think mourdock's quip cost  gentleman mitt about 5% of the vote in the fall general election
> when he looked and sounded less educated than general dwight david eisenhower did in 1952!
> the voters want people to have passed biology class rather than to have flunked it rather badly.


I think you're talking about Akin.

----------


## Aratus

lets split the fickle 5% mister  mitt romney might have had
between the way the mass media slammed akin of MO
and the way the same mass media slammed into mourdock!!!

----------


## Brett85

> How come social conservatives always demand Republican politicians take extreme positions on abortion, then expect them campaign on the economy and national security in the general election? If no-abortion-for-rape-victims position is _such a winner_, why not run on it?


It's not a "winner."  It's just the correct position.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Santorum is a guy who *said that voting for Obama would be better than Romney*...if he made that comment about Mitt, could you imagine what he'd say about Rand? He'd endorse HRC and help out in blue collar regions of the country...


Considering what the GOP did to the Ron Paul movement... I agree with Rick Santorum...

Although, shooting myself in the head seems like a better prospect than either of those, as does voting for Hitler...


(Hitler can't do any more damage, he's dead.)

----------


## Christian Liberty

> It's not a "winner."  It's just the correct position.


It is, but you can also get the correct opinion with four words, none of which begin with the letter A at all.

I'm not saying you have to do that, I certainly respect being EXPLICIT when it comes to the truth, but I can understand giving the minimum amount of necessary info in some cases.

----------


## PaleoPaul

> Does the Morning After Pill ever actually cause abortion?


It's meant to prevent conception, so no.  It's called a CONTRAceptive.

----------


## supermario21

> Considering what the GOP did to the Ron Paul movement... I agree with Rick Santorum...
> 
> Although, shooting myself in the head seems like a better prospect than either of those, as does voting for Hitler...
> 
> 
> (Hitler can't do any more damage, he's dead.)


I agree, of course, but Santorum wasn't using our reasoning. Unless you take the thought that Santorum was more conservative than Romney (he was MUCH worse). In fact I definitely would never vote for Santorum. I would have voted for Gary or Virgil or just written in Ron in that case.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> It's not a "winner."  It's just the correct position.


Correct. The right to Life is the first right of liberty. It's also right to deny abortion in the case of the "life of the mother," as Supreme Court precedent interprets the phrase legally to include "psychological life" of the mother, which results in elective abortion in most circumstances anyway (mother can legally abort on demand under the exception, because she doesn't _feel like_ having the child). 

Unless such an exception is expressly limited to _physical_ life, as exclusively determined by a doctor, life of the mother = legal abortion under most circumstances, and this is why the exception is opposed by principled pro-lifers.

----------


## Korey Kaczynski

> The problem with being too merciless with Santorum is that the theocrats down here in the South are susceptible to someone playing the victim card.  They identify with someone who's being persecuted, because they believe that they themselves are being persecuted by a world full of sinful perverts.  
> 
> It's truly remarkable to see people who represent a hefty majority of the population falling all over themselves talking about how the world hates them for their faith.  They're convinced of this, you see, because they're subjected to the horrendous abuse of having to be aware that homosexuals and secular people exist and live in the same state as them.
> 
> So, should Rand begin eviscerating Santorum over his record in the same manner he did to Trey Grayson, it's entirely plausible that Santorum will simply complain that the "libertarian" candidate is trashing him because he's the true Christian conservative in the race, and these goofballs will lap it up and ask for seconds.


Santorum was alright in the video in the OP. He's not a bad person, but he's not a good representative of conservatism. Santorum, despite what one may think of him, is a good man, but not a leader.

The christian persecution complex is an interesting one, because it is mostly one that was brought upon themselves. The Evangelicals were far too anti-atheist and vocal, which mobolized atheists (normally a right-wing group IMO) into being left-wing as a counter and normal functional people, regardless of religion and lack thereof, tend to be conservative by nature unless they have some sort of defect in their soul. So while atheists were falsely scapegoated, the leftists gained power, the atheists insulted by a vocal minority of faux conservatives, thus gained power too and the once-imagined attack on christianity is now real. But it is an attack they started wanting to feel important.

So in that way evangelicals are a lot like leftists.  My opinion is they'd be communists in another life if they weren't told to be conservative, because both groups have the same mentality.

That's why evangelicals are like leftists: they want to form some sort of Utopia. Functional people just want to put smart people in charge.

----------

