Conservatives moving to coalesce around Santorum?

OpportunityCost said:

Agree to disagree Redress. Here is my feeling and opinion on the subject, give a woman 4, maybe 5 months. After that, a child has proven to be viable as a human being outside the womb, heart beat, alpha wave patterns, the works. Thats a life to me. A life that has no legal protections, unless murdered along with the mother in a violent crime. Allowing the child to be partially born then sticking a medical instrument into its head and killing it should be considered murder but it is not. Obama voted against a ban on that procedure. That is his abortion record, the most far left position possible.

Ordinarily I dont have extremely strong positions on abortion but, Redress, you are in deep denial about what Obama's voting record is and is not.

Click to expand...

Obama voted against the ban because there was no exception for the health of the mother. This is an important distinction.

Redress said:

Obama voted against the ban because there was no exception for the health of the mother. This is an important distinction.

Click to expand...

Geez. There ARE.

720 ILCS 513/  Partial-birth Abortion Ban Act.

(720 ILCS 513/20)
Sec. 20. Prosecution of woman prohibited. A woman on whom a partial-birth abortion is performed may not be prosecuted under this Act, for a conspiracy to violate this Act, or for an offense under Article 31 of the Criminal Code of 1961 based on a violation of this Act, nor may she be held accountable under Article 5 of the Criminal Code of 1961 for an offense based on a violation of this Act.
(Source: P.A. 90-560, eff. 2-13-98.)

Click to expand...

(720 ILCS 513/10)
Sec. 10. Partial-birth abortions prohibited. Any person who knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus or infant is guilty of a Class 4 felony. This Section does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother because her life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, provided that no other medical procedure would suffice for that purpose. (Source: P.A. 90-560, eff. 2-13-98.)

Click to expand...

Thats the law he voted against. Read it. I live in Illinois, I remember the vote, I remember the law, I remember Obama's vote. You are mistaken. You are buying spin. Read the law itself.

OpportunityCost said:

Geez. There ARE.

720*ILCS*513/**Partial-birth Abortion Ban Act.





Thats the law he voted against. Read it. I live in Illinois, I remember the vote, I remember the law, I remember Obama's vote. You are mistaken. You are buying spin. Read the law itself.

Click to expand...

You are unaware of the difference between the life of the mother and the health of the mother? I think it is a pretty clear distinction. What part are you confused by?

Redress said:

Obama voted against the ban because there was no exception for the health of the mother. This is an important distinction.

Click to expand...

no. he late claimed that. later.

after he claimed that he voted against it because it didn't mirror the language of the national bill, and accused those who claimed that it has of lying..... and was then objectively demonstrated incorrect on both counts. His first excuse turned out to be false, and so he went for another which was intended to sound good, but which is in fact devoid of logic.

a child that is born and outside the mother can no longer impact the mothers health unless she decides to do some "mothering" and try to nurse it. living, breathing, crying babies don't have to be abandoned in closets until they finally die of exposure to protect mothers who have just been through an early-birth procedure.

OpportunityCost said:

Geez. There ARE.

720*ILCS*513/**Partial-birth Abortion Ban Act.

(720 ILCS 513/10)
Sec. 10. Partial-birth abortions prohibited. Any person who knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus or infant is guilty of a Class 4 felony. This Section does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother because her life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, provided that no other medical procedure would suffice for that purpose. (Source: P.A. 90-560, eff. 2-13-98.)

Click to expand...

Thats the law he voted against. Read it. I live in Illinois, I remember the vote, I remember the law, I remember Obama's vote. You are mistaken. You are buying spin. Read the law itself.

Click to expand...

and there you have it.

So CP, you ever going to back up your wild assed claim? You have shown you have no clue what the difference between the life of a mother and the health of a mother is, but can you actually document a claim you made?

can and have. can you demonstrate anything supporting your defense?

Fletch said:

Except that now the state stepped in and demanded that those who have a moral objection to contraceptives must pay for their usage by others.

Click to expand...

Many taxpayers have "moral objection(s)" to the things that their government does in their name - supporting dictatorships, selling weapons, tax cuts for the wealthy, holding prisons without trial in Guantanamo Bay, "waterboarding," war in Iraq, etc.

Those who disagree with supporting contraception for others can join this long line of "conscientious objectors," but don't hold your breath waiting for a tax refund!

I'm guessing the red meat of the core GOP is still social issues, unfortunately. Either that, or they're totally unfamiliar with Santorum's record. I think his cushy relationship with big labor is pretty damning.

I think people who have doubts about Santorum's fiscal conservatism, and spending should read this:

Dear Santorum Bashers. Read this and weep. » The Right Scoop -

Amigo said:

I think people who have doubts about Santorum's fiscal conservatism, and spending should read this:

Dear Santorum Bashers. Read this and weep. » The Right Scoop -

Click to expand...

How about his history of being cushy with big labor?

Amigo said:

I think people who have doubts about Santorum's fiscal conservatism, and spending should read this:

Dear Santorum Bashers. Read this and weep. » The Right Scoop -

Click to expand...

So apparently the lesson is...scouring over a persons entire record and nitpick individual issues rather than looking at the whole is perfectly fine when its against a candidate you dislike but when its a candidate you're wanting people to suppor then its positively wrong to do.

OpportunityCost said:

To which Santorum has now replied he should not have voted for NCLB.
There are plenty of otherwise conservative reps and senators that voted for both Medicare part D and NCLB, partly for parochial concerns and partly out of loyalty for Bush. The current political climate would not allow such votes to go unchecked and I believe that Santorum knows that his mission in DC will be to reduce spending, not create more of it. He is campaigning on that. Romney is showing or telegraphing the opposite of that. It really boils down to those essential ideas. Im not going to say facts because whether we believe it or not comes down to how we feel about the candidates.

Click to expand...

My point exactly, SAntorum like Romney is nothing more than a finely lubricated weather vane when it comes to fiscal issues. When big government spending was OK, Santorum happily went along with it. Now that its out of style with his constituency, he's picked up the mantle of fiscal conservatism. He has no core values on fiscal matters. Santorum's core is purely about social issues, which is fine for him, but let's act like he's some fiscal conservative champion when his record clearly says otherwise. Other than Obamacare, has he labeled any specific programs or departments he would cut? I haven't heard him talk about serious cuts to SS or Medicare and he's definately not ging to make any meaningful cuts to "defense" spending, so what exactly is he going to do to balance the budget when two thirds of the budget is not going to be touched in any meaningful way?

If you want to vote for Santorum because you agree with social stances, more power to you. But people who are primarly concerned about fiscal issues should view Santorum with the same skeptism they view Romney.

Amigo said:

I think people who have doubts about Santorum's fiscal conservatism, and spending should read this:

Dear Santorum Bashers. Read this and weep. » The Right Scoop -

Click to expand...

It would be more compelling if we knew how they arrived at those grades. I could assign letter grades to senators too, but unless I reveal my methodology, its pretty much meaningless. And I'll just ask a simple question, what major fiscally conservative stands did Santorum take while in the Senate? Particularly during the Bush years when Republicans started spending like drunken sailors. NCLB, Medicare Part D, deficit ceiling, the Bush budgets, none of those are the acts of a fiscal conservative and they are not minor nitpicking issues.