Rand Paul on the Life at Conception Act

[GunnyFreedom]

Buck was also hammered by Bennet on abortion in colorado and he lost by 2 points in a race he should have won.

Mourdock was in Indiana, a state Romney carried by 15 points but lost to a Democrat by 5 points. Why? Voters got turned off when he got hammered on abortion, even though what he said wasn't as bad as Akin.

Rand will get hammered on the rape issue and the pill is no defense to teenage girls who dont come forward until weeks later. would you deny the crying, violated 13 year old an abortion? they will find this girl and put her on TV. What do you say to this Gunny?

The Constitution doesn't authorize the Federal Government to regulate a State's response to homicide.

 

[jmdrake]

All Rand has to say in a primary is that he is 100% pro-life and point to his record. If he wins the nomination he then has to make it clear he supports exceptions or he will have the opposition and PACs hammering him with rape victims on tv in swing states. That's not a pretty sight and hard to refute.

No. That's not "all Rand will have to say". To win in Kentucky he had to claim (falsely) that Trey Grayson was lying about his record. That won't be so easy to do in the national spotlight against a hostile media. (The media was kind to Rand until after he won the primary. Expect the media to dog him this time from day one). Also if Rand sticks with the Plan B and Plan B only exception, those "rape victim" commercials won't be worth spit. Plus Rand would be able to counter with "I'm a child of rape and Hillary Clinton would want me dead" commercials. Fight fire with fire.

Romeny's loss would have been greater if he didn't support exceptions, there was a huge storm over Akin and Mourdock and the media had a field day over it.

Quit being stuck on stupid. Akins and Mourdock made incredibly dumb statements that hurt them far worse than their position on abortion itself. Akins' statement was pseudo science and Mourdock's statement was silly from a religious point of view. (If you accept the rape being part of God's plan then you have to accept abortion as being part of His plan as well). Neither of their ridiculous comments did anything to re-frame the debate. Using your logic, if a liberty candidate said "We should audit the fed because it's run by reptilians from the planet Niburu" and lost the election, that would mean no liberty candidate could ever bring up the federal reserve. Both men should have re-framed the debate by saying they didn't believe in creating two victims of rape, the mother and the child. While some independent women would have had a problem with that answer, it wouldn't have been so horrendously dense as to cause the media firestorm that you keep harping on. And if they went a step further and said "Besides, I support Plan B anyway" the issue would go away totally. But your blanket "rape exception" answer would lead to a firestorm in the primary as well as the general especially if he dodged questions in the primary about "Do you support abortion exceptions" with "I'm 100% pro life, look at my record" answers.

 

[itshappening]

Brian, what Romney did is the only credible thing to do. Running as a hardcore pro-lifer in the General is not going to win you swing states.

The position HAS to soften and exceptions for rape and incest made clear.

In the primary you can paint yourself as pro-life as you want, if you win the position has to soften or you face almost certain loss over an issue that isnt even IMPORTANT compared to deficits and debt.

 

[itshappening]

The Constitution doesn't authorize the Federal Government to regulate a State's response to homicide.

So if the raped girl had the abortion she could be prosecuted for murder.

That will go down well.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Brian, what Romney did is the only credible thing to do. Running as a hardcore pro-lifer in the General is not going to win you swing states.

The position HAS to soften and exceptions for rape and incest made clear.

In the primary you can paint yourself as pro-life as you want, if you win the position has to soften or you face almost certain loss over an issue that isnt even IMPORTANT compared to deficits and debt.

Agree, it's the biggest red herring in American politics.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

So if the raped girl had the abortion she could be prosecuted for murder.

That will go down well.

Absolutely nothing you just said even resembles what I said.

 

[itshappening]

No. That's not "all Rand will have to say". To win in Kentucky he had to claim (falsely) that Trey Grayson was lying about his record. That won't be so easy to do in the national spotlight against a hostile media. (The media was kind to Rand until after he won the primary. Expect the media to dog him this time from day one). Also if Rand sticks with the Plan B and Plan B only exception, those "rape victim" commercials won't be worth spit. Plus Rand would be able to counter with "I'm a child of rape and Hillary Clinton would want me dead" commercials. Fight fire with fire..

The problem is we dont even want to get into this fight, it's not worth fighting it. The election is not about abortion. The Democrats would love it to be about abortion, believe me, they want it to be the only issue because it's a winning issue for them. It allows them to paint the R as EXTREME, rally independent women who don't want their choice restricted and frighten mom's. That's about half the electorate and it has worked well for them.

 

[Maximus]

Why isn't "god" capitalized? Dumb

 

[jmdrake]

Buck was also hammered by Bennet on abortion in colorado and he lost by 2 points in a race he should have won.

Buck actually waffled on abortion, which is what you are in effect asking Rand to do while pretending the opposite.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/01/ken-buck-trips-up-over-ab_n_747468.html

Mourdock was in Indiana, a state Romney carried by 15 points but lost to a Democrat by 5 points. Why? Voters got turned off when he got hammered on abortion, even though what he said wasn't as bad as Akin.

What Mourdock said was every bit as stupid as what Akin said, and arguably even stupider considering that Mourdock had a chance to prepare for the question though learning from Akins example.

Rand will get hammered on the rape issue and the pill is no defense to teenage girls who dont come forward until weeks later. would you deny the crying, violated 13 year old an abortion? they will find this girl and put her on TV. What do you say to this Gunny?

If Rand stakes out the "rape exception" position you want him to take now he will get hammered in the primary with NRTL "Rand Paul wants abortion on demand" ads. Because the blanket "rape exception for victims who don't admit it until weeks later" proposal you're giving is essentially abortion on demand. Think about it. How does this teenager prove she was raped? Proving rape is hard enough under normal circumstances when evidence is collected within hours of a rape. And now you want to base a life and death (for the baby) decision on what exactly? Oh, and why stop with the teenager? Under your exception any woman can just claim she was raped and she can have an abortion. If you want abortion on demand, fine and dandy. But that's not what the teocon voters that support Rand are looking for. He won't make it out of the primary.

 

[jmdrake]

The problem is we dont even want to get into this fight, it's not worth fighting it. The election is not about abortion. The Democrats would love it to be about abortion, believe me, they want it to be the only issue because it's a winning issue for them. It allows them to paint the R as EXTREME, rally independent women who don't want their choice restricted and frighten mom's. That's about half the electorate and it has worked well for them.

It's politics. Fights come to you. And in a GOP primary a candidate that takes your advice will be fighting a losing battle. Such a candidate will never have to worry about facing democrats because he won't beat republicans.

 

[thoughtomator]

The key problem with outlawing abortion is that the immutable fact of personal sovereignty gives a woman many options to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

I maintain that legislation is a terrible approach against abortion and that the only true long term solution is in changing the culture. Pursuing these laws will make it much more difficult to win converts to the GOP, and, if enacted, they will be little more successful than laws against drugs.

 

[itshappening]

Buck actually waffled on abortion, which is what you are in effect asking Rand to do while pretending the opposite.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/01/ken-buck-trips-up-over-ab_n_747468.html



What Mourdock said was every bit as stupid as what Akin said, and arguably even stupider considering that Mourdock had a chance to prepare for the question though learning from Akins example.



If Rand stakes out the "rape exception" position you want him to take now he will get hammered in the primary with NRTL "Rand Paul wants abortion on demand" ads. Because the blanket "rape exception for victims who don't admit it until weeks later" proposal you're giving is essentially abortion on demand. Think about it. How does this teenager prove she was raped? Proving rape is hard enough under normal circumstances when evidence is collected within hours of a rape. And now you want to base a life and death (for the baby) decision on what exactly? Oh, and why stop with the teenager? Under your exception any woman can just claim she was raped and she can have an abortion. If you want abortion on demand, fine and dandy. But that's not what the teocon voters that support Rand are looking for. He won't make it out of the primary.

If he took my advice he would make it out of the primary because he wouldnt be making exceptions. The flip flop comes after and in the General.

As for the exception itself, it really doesn't matter because it's not going to make it through congress. it's a non-issue and just positioning yourself to win an election whether that be in a primary or a general. So, the best thing to do is to flip flop because that is the route to success.

 

[jmdrake]

Brian, what Romney did is the only credible thing to do. Running as a hardcore pro-lifer in the General is not going to win you swing states.

If you focus on the general before you get there you will never get to the general. And if you flip flop as Romney did then you'll lose conservatives in the general who will stay home rather than vote for you. Romney and Obama both got less votes in Ohio than McCain.

The position HAS to soften and exceptions for rape and incest made clear.

Or you can re-frame the debate so that the sound bite attack ads will look stupid and you have a handle to attack back on. And don't say anything goofy like "Rape pregnancies don't happen".

In the primary you can paint yourself as pro-life as you want, if you win the position has to soften or you face almost certain loss over an issue that isnt even IMPORTANT compared to deficits and debt.

A) We haven't even gotten to the primaries yet so your argument is extremely premature.

B) If you flip flop as badly as Romney did you will lose the general because your base won't feel compelled to come out and support you.

C) If you frame your answers sensibly enough the first time (no stupid Akin/Mourdock statements and support for Plan B) you can have a position that moderates on the issue can live with without the need to flip flop.

D) Again it's funny that you initially said "waffling" was Akin and Mourdock's problem...and now you're advocating waffling.

 

[jmdrake]

If he took my advice he would make it out of the primary because he wouldnt be making exceptions. The flip flop comes after and in the General.

Your earlier advice was "Don't waffle" and now your saying "waffle". Your advice gives opponents a gold mine in "flip flop" attack ads that drive away both independents and your base voters.

As for the exception itself, it really doesn't matter because it's not going to make it through congress. it's a non-issue and just positioning yourself to win an election whether that be in a primary or a general. So, the best thing to do is to flip flop because that is the route to success.

Yeah. And Romney's president. /sarcasm

The best thing to do is to have an answer that makes sense in the first place and re-frames the issue. Debate on your terms, not on your opponent's terms.

 

[itshappening]

If you focus on the general before you get there you will never get to the general. And if you flip flop as Romney did then you'll lose conservatives in the general who will stay home rather than vote for you. Romney and Obama both got less votes in Ohio than McCain.



Or you can re-frame the debate so that the sound bite attack ads will look stupid and you have a handle to attack back on. And don't say anything goofy like "Rape pregnancies don't happen".



A) We haven't even gotten to the primaries yet so your argument is extremely premature.

B) If you flip flop as badly as Romney did you will lose the general because your base won't feel compelled to come out and support you.

C) If you frame your answers sensibly enough the first time (no stupid Akin/Mourdock statements and support for Plan B) you can have a position that moderates on the issue can live with without the need to flip flop.

D) Again it's funny that you initially said "waffling" was Akin and Mourdock's problem...and now you're advocating waffling.

You don't lose a general because one would hope the conservatives would vote R anyway in a presidential election regardless of the position on abortion. it's a cynical political calculation but there's no way someone running for president advocating outlawing all abortion is going to win without making it clear that there is going to be exceptions. If there's no flip flop and this is the position then you will get an onslaught of Democrat ads and the whole election becomes abortion. America has to choose. Will it choose to overturn abortion that has been untouched for 4 decades? I don't think so.

 

[jmdrake]

Too late for that.

You have to win the Primary before you get to the General. What position have other potential candidates staked out?

Here's one:

Lost in the massive debate over Komen and Planned Parenthood, pro-life Florida Sen. Marco Rubio has given what many attendees of the Wednesday night Susan B. Anthony List dinner call the best pro-life speech of the year.

Rubio rallied pro-life supporters at the SBA List’s fifth annual Campaign for Life Gala in Washington, D.C., saying that the country “can never truly become what it fully was intended to be unless it deals with [abortion] squarely…it’s that important.”

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/03/m...o-life-speech/

Yep. And let the pander games begin.

 

[itshappening]

Your earlier advice was "Don't waffle" and now your saying "waffle". Your advice gives opponents a gold mine in "flip flop" attack ads that drive away both independents and your base voters.



Yeah. And Romney's president. /sarcasm

The best thing to do is to have an answer that makes sense in the first place and re-frames the issue. Debate on your terms, not on your opponent's terms.

I'm not waffling i'm just telling you how it is. abortion untouched for nearly five decades is not going to be changed and anyone advocating it will lose heavily once the Democrats are done with them.

Romney got the nomination so he was able to be sufficiently prolife in the primary process. He made clear there were exceptions in the General because his polling told him that was the position to take otherwise he would have lost even more heavily.

 

[jmdrake]

You don't lose a general because one would hope the conservatives would vote R anyway in a presidential election regardless of the position on abortion. it's a cynical political calculation but there's no way someone running for president advocating outlawing all abortion is going to win without making it clear that there is going to be exceptions. If there's no flip flop and this is the position then you will get an onslaught of Democrat ads and the whole election becomes abortion. America has to chose. Will it chose to overturn abortion that has been untouched for 4 decades? I don't think so.

You don't get it. Flip flopping itself causes an onslaught of ads. It always does. Romney's flip flop on healthcare cost him the election. I'm certain of that. You were right about one thing in this thread and one thing only. Ken Buck lost in part for waffling on abortion. And now you're suggesting Rand do the same thing! Stake out a defensible position the first time and you don't have to worry about it. Re-frame the debate as to "Why create two victims if you don't have to" and allow for "Plan B" and you can win enough independents without resorting to the kind of flip flopping that can cost you significant parts of your base whether you wish to admit it or not.

 

[Brett85]

That's not going to work because a raped teenage girl might not come forward for weeks and thus might want an abortion, would you deny it to her?

My position is that a woman who is raped shouldn't have to keep the baby. She can give it up for adoption.

 

[jmdrake]

I'm not waffling i'm just telling you how it is. abortion untouched for nearly five decades is not going to be changed and anyone advocating it will lose heavily once the Democrats are done with them.

I didn't say you were waffling. I said you are advocating that Rand waffle. But....come to think of it you are waffling. Earlier you said Buck, Akins and Mourdock lost because they waffled on abortion (not true...only Buck waffled). Now your saying Rand should waffle. I'm saying Rand should consistently give smart answers that don't box him in.

Romney got the nomination so he was able to be sufficiently prolife in the primary process. He made clear there were exceptions in the General because his polling told him that was the position to take otherwise he would have lost even more heavily.

And what his polling didn't account for is how many conservatives would (and did) stay home. Romney lost on turnout. Also I'd bet that a Romney like candidate wouldn't win the GOP nomination in 2016. The "We have to support candidate X because only moderates can win" argument is starting to wear thin.