Topic: Romney, Cain Nix Anti-Abortion Pledge

[AmericanPatriot]

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/MittRomney-Abortion-2012PresidentialElection/2011/06/18/id/400502?s=al&promo_code=C76C-1

Presidenial hopefuls Mitt Romney and Herman Cain have declined to sign a pledge that calls for White House hopefuls to push for anti-abortion goals if elected presdient, Politico reports. Five other candidates -- Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty and Rick Santorum -- have signed the pledge, written by the Susan B. Anthony List.

The pledge requires that candidates promise to nominate or appoint pro-life judges, Cabinet memebrs and administration officials. It also calls for zero taxpayer funding for abortion and the defunding of Planned Parenthood.

“Governor Romney pledged in the last campaign that he would be a pro-life president and of course he pledges it today,” Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul said in a statement. “However, this well-intentioned effort has some potentially unforeseen consequences and he does not feel he could in good conscience sign it. Gov. Romney has been a strong supporter of the SBA List in the past and he looks forward to continue working with them to promote a culture of life.”

Saul said that Romney was concerned that abiding by the pledge would “strip taxpayer funding from thousands of healthcare facilities” and would hamstring him in selecting officials for the executive branch.

The other Republican presidential candidates who also declined to sign the pledge were Cain and Gary Johnson. It was unclear if the group asked former Ambassador Jon Huntsman to sign to pledge.

[LadyVirginia]

If you can't put your name on it----

 

[charlesoakwood]

Herman Cain spoke to this, said it had four enumerated points and on point 4 he asked them if he could change one word. It was a legal point because as president he could not push for a law but he could and would sign it if passed. He told them he would sign their pledge if they would allow him to change one word in number 4 and they said no.

[rickl]

Candidates must focus entirely on restoring limited Constitutional government and free-market capitalism.  Period.

All these social issues will do is cause divisions.  We can't afford that.

[rickl]

Karl Denninger had a post about this several months ago that is a must-read:

To The Tea Party (And Related Organizations)

[LadyVirginia]

Candidates must focus entirely on restoring limited Constitutional government and free-market capitalism.  Period.

All these social issues will do is cause divisions.   We can't afford that.

They already have...

hmmm....

I'm tired of pro-life people being asked to put aside their convictions to appeal to those who aren't pro-life.  Doesn't sound much different than what we have now--pro-life people have been asked to do that for 3 decades-- it hasn't helped.

People who aren't pro-life can set aside their convictions and support a "limited Constitutional government and free-market capitalism" candidate who is also pro-life.

I dislike abortion being labeled as a social issue.  Binge drinking among college students is a social issue.  Girls dressing like sluts at school is a social issue.  Texting while driving is a social issue.  Abortion being described as a social issue only serves to diminish what it is --as if it were only one of several ills affecting society.  It strikes at the core of how a society defines itself.  Lack of care and protection for the weakest describes a narcissistic people--people intend on self-fulfillment at the expense of others.  No code will hold back those greedy needs.  The Constitution --and society itself really-- works only so long as people understand it beyond their own self needs. Abortion is the antithesis of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Abortion kills a living being whether one wishes to acknowledge it or not.  It kills. If you can kill a helpless being for whatever reason then any other decision pales in comparison and is of less significance.

To think we can return to a society that predates this mess we're in and still accept abortion is wishing on a star. Accepting abortion on the level we have in this country is indicative of the mindset prevalent in this country. Killing is the ultimate choice a society can make.  If it can choose to kill the most helpless then the limit to what society can accept has been crossed. Excessive taxes, confiscating property, limiting speech, etc are nothing. 

[rickl]

Of course, Roe v. Wade was a perfect example of a Supreme Court which exceeded its Constitutional mandates and made up law out of whole cloth.

[charlesoakwood]

In free America before the progressives and the racist genocidal mental patient Margaret Sanger the thought of aborting babies was abhorrent.
And they were known as babies in the womb alive and protected by the mother, the father, and society.  It took years and years of "science" and education to convince the masses it is not a child but just a tissue mass. Well, science has undone that.

Abortion is a social issue. It is a civil issue. The issue is:
Due we as a people, as part of our social fabric, accept and condone the murder of unborn children or not?  Are we a society that accepts and promotes murder on the sacrificial altar of progressivism? Are we a society that respects and honors life?  It is a crossroads.

[rickl]

The point is, the immediate and necessary goal is to win elections.  There are literally tens of millions of people, if not 100 million, who will absolutely crawl across broken glass to vote against a "social conservative".  Like it or not, that's just a fact.

[AlanS]

There are literally tens of millions of people, if not 100 million, who will absolutely crawl across broken glass to vote against a "social conservative".  Like it or not, that's just a fact.

Just proves they have too many people with their head up their azz.

[LadyVirginia]

If a person can stand firm on life issues like Bachmann then I'm sure that she have the backbone to stand firm on other important issues and not cave when the going gets tough.

If only it was about winning elections...

....I could throw over a lot of issues if that's all it was about....

[charlesoakwood]

[blockquote]

Romney: Romney has gotten two big name backers in Nevada. Lt. Gov Brian Krolicki and Rep. Joe Heck will serve as co-chairs of his NV campaign. Romney is heavily favored to win the forgotten early state's caucus.

More Romney: Romney is heavily favored to win the Presidential primary in MA.
He leads with 49%, to
10% for Bachmann (this is pre-debate),
9% for Palin,
8% for Cain,
6% for Pawlenty,
5% for Paul, and
4%(!) for Newt.
Newt is almost in Jon Hunstman territory. For perspective, only 8 more people support Newt than Huntsman in this poll.

[/blockquote]

[charlesoakwood]

Mitt Romney — Fudging the truth to get elected





HT: Weasel Zippers

[LadyVirginia]

THAT is a frightening picture.

[Glock32]

Apparently that's how prostate exams are administered under RomneyCare.

[Thresherman]

I think it is stupid to ask candidates to sign pledges as it forces them to promise to do something without knowing the details and conditions that the future may bring.  Frankly I doubt that I could support a candidate that enters an agreement that could force him to act against his better judgement simply to curry favor with special interest group.

[Damn_Lucky]

Apparently that's how prostate exams are administered under RomneyCare.

[charlesoakwood]

I think it is stupid to ask candidates to sign pledges as it forces them to promise to do something without knowing the details and conditions that the future may bring.  Frankly I doubt that I could support a candidate that enters an agreement that could force him to act against his better judgement simply to curry favor with special interest group.

They do put themselves in an awkward position.   
However by eliminating candidates who signed there is only one valid candidate remaining.

Herman Cain, President of the United States of America.

 

[IronDioPriest]

Any single-issue group that seeks to put a candidate on record as supporting or opposing a specifically worded litmus test is self-serving and damaging the opportunity to unseat the Marxist.

I don't care whether the issue is social, fiscal - whatever. Ask the candidate to explain their position on your frikkin issue, and let them explain it. Let people compare their explanation to the record. Let people check their own guts as to the honesty of the explanation.

Just about any divisive issue can and will be used in any way possible as a weapon by an opponent. Demanding a signature on a specific issue provides a concrete foundation upon which an opponent can build that attack strategy.

Are these people now going to promote the idea that Herman Cain is not pro-life because he refused to sign their frikkin pledge? It is ridiculous, and we can't afford ridiculous.

[charlesoakwood]

[blockquote]

Romney: One more cash story, as Mitt now has a SuperPAC, titled "Restore Our Future" and led by a trio of well-traveled strategists, Charlie Spies, Carl Forti, and Larry McCarthy. These organizations are difficult to understand at times, but they are essential for keeping pace with Obama and his Republican opponents in the cash race.

Florida: Romney holds a 27-17 lead over Bachmann and Palin in this critical primary state, which is the largest of the pre-Super Tuesday states. The Sunshine State was essentially Mitt's Last Stand in 2008, as McCain's victory there ticked off his big Super Tuesday wins.

[/blockquote]

Restore our future back to what?  RomneyCare? A Republican do nothing congress?  A philandering President?  He's not compared himself to Reagan so we can assume he's not that dreamy. 

Mr. Romney, I don't want to go back to any future.  I want a Presidency and Congress to restore itself to its origins and release this nation from the bondage of bureaucrats and regulation that we may again be righteous and prosperous and free.