The Right Scoop
Newt would have made a great President.
Oh well, maybe when the pain inflicted by Obama finally gets to the unbearable point, Republicans will nominate a true Conservative to go into battle, instead of a spineless, weak RINO.
I agree, there has to be something good coming out of this mess, and a true conservative being nominated sounds bloody brilliant!
I am so discouraged with all politicians. I am a true conservative and my first two choices for president were Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain, but the lamestream media ruined them. At this point in time I feel we need all new politicians in both parties. The US is becoming a third world country because all our politicians never vote with their constituents starting from the White House on down. God help US!
The Republicans are WEAK especially Boehner! He makes it look like he won't give in to Obama, but in the end it's always...YES SIR...WHATEVER YOU SAY SIR!!! Why hasn't the GOP done anything to investigate this CORRUPTED election! The voting machines in the swing states were rigged by GEORGE SOROS...he owns these machines! Maybe the Republicans should go by way of the WHIGS!!! We need a NEW Conservative party with young leaders like Ryan, Rubio, Cruz and Paul to lead!!! We need strong Constitutional leadership! These OLDER and STALE guys need to GO!!! With them it's the same old RINO crap! The GOP is going over the RINO CLIFF!
disagree. Older is always wiser. Mitt was older but lacked the true gutt for the job. He needed to fight obama and he didnt. Newt is older and wiser and would have fought obama and communicated to the people better. Newt would have won. and to hear that he was nominated for speaker of the house a few weeks ago and didnt get a second and now we are left with Bohner the weakling..............God is teaching us all a lesson of sorts.
...Well this is the "guy" who should have been nominated (even if was destined to lose to the election) to debate Obama (Liberals) vs. (Conservatives) for those three debates.
Mitt Romney was tough as nails but he failed to show up in debate #2 and got owned in debate in #3.
What a disaster...
...And what's so sad: 10-20 years from now nobody is going to remember Romney (Dukakis) (outside of the mainstream); but we'll all remember Newt Gingrich.
...That guy who WAS the former speaker of the house that passed the Contract with America WHICH included welfare reform DURING a liberal president and who WAS "Person of the Year" and who ushered in a new Republican revolution to take control of both the house and senate.
And the Bob Dole's, John McCain and now Mitt Romney's (and guys like them) 'club' continue to conquer and dictate like a snake into GOP formation for guns n' fun.
Holy Crap' who would have thought the Obama would have been called so early??
This wasn't Gerald Ford vs. Jimmy Carter in 1976 (like "they" all reckoned back to).
Nor was it Perot vs. Bush vs Clinton in '92.
It was even earlier (than called) than thought in 1988.
Forget about 1996 (minus an hour earlier or later)...
And 2004, called the next day!
FORGET ABOUT THAT
And in 2000!
Election 2012:
NO FORD, BUSH, MCCAIN, ROMNEY...
I hope 2016 is a Jeb Bush disaster primary and we'll all FINALLY be done with this & that!
"..Well this is the "guy" who should have been nominated "
That's right. The conservatives lost their minds again by nominating the "good looking guy" as candidate over the right guy. Now they've got enough tears to cry for the next four years.
You bet my both elderly father and mother both noticed the pre-face -post face of the candidate.
If he was bald, fat he would have been gone following the New Hampshire primary.
Apparently, you have to be over 6 feet tall, have a good looking face and a large backing...and your a shoe-in.
I would love Gingrich to (at least) try to run in 2016.
We can probably assume it's Hillary vs.
1. Rubio
2. Jiindhall
3. Ryan
4. Paul (the son)
5. Bush
There's the candidates.
Truth is, Bush will probably get the nominee and if you ask the American people who they would rather be president.
Rubio is too young, so I suspect the team is:
Bush/Rubio
...And that's going to be a disaster
The real solution is to re-educate the young, and the minorities, to a conservative way of thinking. In other words, a better understanding of the principals of the Constitution.
You're right, but that's going to take at least a generation. We only have 4 years (2 till the next mid-terms) and it's going to be on all over again.
Newt is the man! He should have been on the ticket with Cain or West. I do feel better after listening to him, but the RINOs lack the b@lls to do their job.
How I missed NEWT's "All Way to Tampa"! Newt, Mark Levin and Allen West, restoring fathers!
After reading some of the posts here and at the risk of being called a "liberal" again.....Look....Newt is without a doubt an intellectual power house.
BUT, his personal life was a train wreck....with the understanding that its none of my business and I dont really care about it BUT when he casts a character judgment or places moral imperatives in the public domain.....his duplicitous behavior screams "doublestandard".
AND, his arrogance and ego in this last primary was stunning in its display.
His attacks on Romney became THE talking points of the Demokrats. You may think of this as a compliment to his intellectual capability but they point more to a person who placed personal ambition ahead of all else including damaging his running mates to a significant degree. His behavior was egocentric to the point of being almost maniacal.
I'm pointing this out for the simple fact that we really have to have more "outsiders" or grass roots involvement to refresh this Republican establishment. Look at the candidates that have been fielded since Clinton.
Who the hell thought that Bob Dole (bless his heart) was a good opposition candidate to Bill Clinton?
What were people thinking by fielding McCain....no offense....many of us remember his history and trying to establish him as a "conservative" was a mistake.
He was branded as a "maverick".....but.....um.....how does the Keating 5 scandal grab ya? or his support FOR gun control before he was against it?
Please have mercy.....we need new blood and our grass roots movements can give us that.
Think about it......the Tea Party or the 912 groups have been hugely successful despite the ire of the entrenched party apparachiks.
both clintons personal lives are a train wreck and they are held up as poster children in their party........... who cares that Newt divorced and re-married. At least he had the gutts to divorce and not live the lie that the Clintons live every day.
I supported Newt in the primaries. He is far from perfect, but he was the only one I believed who could have whipped Obama.
Can you imagine if the House had had the brains to choose Newt as Speaker, we would have him in charge of negotiating with Obama now? That would have been a dream instead of this nightmare we are in now.
I voted for Newt as well. I even have a tee-shirt Newt 2012.... but the conservatives are as usual out manuvered by the left. they wanted to run against mitt and we gave him mitt. the MSM was dying to call mitt as the winner in the primaries and we fed them what they wanted.
Always good to hear from Speaker Gingrich. Guess he won't be going to have lunch w obama anytime soon. Cripes, I can't believe Romney went up there.
Newt is wrong on one point. There are RINO establishment people in the GOP who are intent on removing conservatives from the Party. Anyone who denies is clearly out of touch and Newt doesn't get it on that point.
I do like everything else he's doing. Finding better ways of using technology and reaching different demographics is an important one. But one question that wasn't answered is how to fight the corrupt media. And also how to get debates that are moderated by conservatives. Why isn't there at least ONE debate moderated by a conservative? The liberals believe that the current moderators are "neutral" which is a laugh. Right there, the next candidate needs to enforce at least one debate on better terms.
The man know how to fight in this game. The congressmen were/ARE fools not to select him as their speaker.
I totally agree. However, I'll go one step further, Americans, Repubs specifically, were/are fools for not selecting him as the nominee. Newt IS a fighter and would have done much better against Obummer then Mittens. If you look at the exit polling from the election it's clear that Obummer won the women, youth, Black and Hispanic vote, all because of their preconceived idea that Mittens would take away their birth control and food stamps--all of which are mostly social issues. My idea was that if Newt was the nominee, social issues would not have been so prevalent because they were not major issues of his platform—“it’s the economy and the size of government stupid.” Ultimately, if he would have won the Presidency we would have had a better chance of getting this country’s fiscal house in order and then, after he accomplished this, he or whoever followed him could work on the social ills of this country.
WordsFailMe, you touched on something with that comment. Newt is a fighter, one of the few we have. We always complain about the Republicans not being aggressive enough, and all the time, Newt Gingrich is right there in front of us, and we don't use his talents. He is the most experienced Politician in Washington. No one else even comes close.
The Conservative movement does have leaders. We're just not using them.
Oh how I wish House Republicans would listen to Newt. Why can't they have a strategy meeting with Newt, Sarah, Allen West, Rand Paul and come up a long term plan to beat obama, then coordinate it with the right wing media to get the message out.
The Palins endorsed Newt in the primaries. the Pauls did not. I dont care for the Pauls and their radical thinking. West Palin and Rubio along with Newt leading can take this country back
Quite simply for the reason that all of the people you just mentioned are held in disdain, by the Good 'Ole Boys' club.
Washington is full of political mysteries. Unfortunately for us, that is one of them.
The only problem with bold negotiations by the republicans is that there is weak Speaker of the house (Boehner). He needs to be replaced before the left will ever respect the right.
I'm sorry to be mean, but Boehner appears drunk to me, most of the time. Besides, I could never trust a man so vain, that he goes to tanning salons. I'm sorry.
And that's just my personal opinion of him. As a politician, he's worthless. There are Democrats, for God's sakes, that are more Conservative. A wimp of the first order. I am sure Obama laughs every time he thinks of him. Now that I think of it, so do I.
Let me say something nice about BawnYer, if he was the last piece of toilet paper I would just go without wiping.
Look....lets face facts, Newt represents what is wrong with the Republican establishment.
Its not the pragmatic intellectual arguments that he makes that are wrong....its the fact that many establishment Republicans dont "live" by examples that they espouse.
For example, dont condemn Bill Clinton for his sexual indiscretion while you screwed around on your first wife.
No offense against the Evangelical wing....but abortion and homosexuality issues are not something we own....and frankly many you chose to stay home because you simply couldnt support a Mormon.
Congrats, you helped elect the "devil" you knew and all that goes with it.
Republicans are much better off looking at social issues through the prism of Constitutional Individual Liberties...rather than through a "moralistic" prism that that the "moralists" will find endless objection to and in the end fail you because of your "failing".
"For example, don't condemn Bill Clinton for his sexual indiscretion while you screwed around on your first wife."
Git your Facts Straight! Your comment was the typical Democrat Defense of Willy...
Newt and for the most part Republicans were not condemning Willy for his sexual indiscretions, they IMPEACHED his LYING @SS for Lying to a Grand Jury. Which also cost him his licenses to practice law at least for a period of time. The Fact that Willy's lies were about his sexual indiscretions, RAPE, and seducing an intern, was secondary.
I don't like it that Newt had his own sexual indiscretions at the time this was going own or at any other time, but he was carrying out his duty as speaker, regardless of what was going on in his personal life.
I just want to clarify.....Newt and conservatives in general attacked Clinton on legal grounds and on "moral" grounds.
I wasnt excusing Clintons behavior....I was questioning Newts.
If we, as conservatives, are accusing socialist "progressives" of cognitive dissonance and an acute setting of double standards....be prepared for them to search out the same behavior in us.
I'm not above "playing dirty", just like they do......but I want it to be clearly understood that the "moral" argument is a trap....no one is invulnerable to it.
Demonizing them is fine and in fact necessary, they do that to us on a constant basis.
Just dont be under the delusion that you are more "moral" or occupy some "moral" high ground and are above a given behavior....they arent under the same delusion.
It seems to me you fail to grasp the fact that the reason Willy's dalliances, or whether he smoked a cigar in the oval office or just played with it was the evidence of his LIE to the grand jury. LYING is what he was Impeached for not moral grounds.
Don't try and confuse the issue with what the MSM and Democrat party put forth trying to cover for a liberal like they always do.
Willy's sex-capades isn't the reason I Voted against him for Governor I don't know how many times and President twice.
madnessofjack, I know you are active on other sites, but I wish you would comment here more than you do. Your perspective on things has a clean feel about it. No argument from me.
Evangelicals came out in strong numbers for Romney everywhere except Virginia. CO, OH, FL, etc. all came out for Romney. But maybe you're right. I can't believe that every Evangelical would have been comfortable voting for a Mormon. Still, their numbers were quite high for every state except for Virginia.
I don't agree with you on Newt, Jack.
But regarding evangelicals,---Committed Christians, living their ideals, disciplined and determined are not going to vote for a Mormon and they are not going to vote for a Catholic. They will find a thousand reasons why they will not support a not-Christian but in the end, it is simply religious bigotry. In this country, the E's will just stay home and pray for salvation and await the Rapture.
In Egypt and Nigeria, the Christians will be martyred by neighbor bigots while the Muslim will martyr himself and take a dozen souls of his hated enemies with him. It's tradition.
The world is segregated by race, religion, and tribe. It hasn't changed in 65,000 years and it will not change regardless of how many times one recites the Declaration of Independence. I am not saying to abandon hope. I am urging everyone to abandon illusion.
All men are created equal. Where? You were born white in the USA and you are condemned to a life of work and sacrifice and ultimately what is left of your wealth at death will be split with the government?
"I am not saying to abandon hope. I am urging everyone to abandon illusion."
I am sooooo with you on that.....and I'm so glad you said it.
With all due respect, Words, he was just simply saying, I believe, that political principles are important, but moral principles matter too. I believe they go together, hand in hand. While it is true that we have come to a point in our History, where we are willing to forgive moral deficiencies in a Politician, so long as he or she is capable of getting the job done.
But wouldn't it be great, if we did not have to make that compromise, in order to have great leaders? Its worth thinking about.
If what you are saying is true, then candidates like Scott Brown, Linda McMahon, Tommy Thompson, and the candidate in Hawaii should have won (along with "electable" Mitt Romney). The fixation on Murdock and Akin has become yet another talking point/strawman for beltway pundits. Somehow Murdock and Akin became responsible for the poor voter turnout, poor GOTV, and poor communication of the GOP.
And, if the "evangelicals" are kicked to the curb, who does all the door knocking and phone banking? It surely isn't those voters you are trying to attract by getting rid of the social conservatives. Go ahead and "stop" talking about these issues, b/c liberals CAN'T wait to talk about them.
Here's what happened: the liberals i.e. Obama and his campaign RAN on social issues. They ran on abortion, birth control, and gay marriage. What did Romney do? He talked about the economy. So, again if your theory is true, then Romney should have won.
I do face facts...Newt is not establishment, if he was, they meaning the 'establishment' would not have laid him to waste during the primaries, they would have welcomed him with open arms! As for your reference to Bill Clinton, I would ask that you research that a bit more. You kind of sound like a liberal there with your liberal talking points...Newt did not go after Clinton on his indiscrections, but simply on the fact that he lied to a Grand Jury, which for anyone else is a felony, but for good ole' Bill..just a loss in his law license. I also, don't know one single conservative that did not vote for Romney because of his religion...if they did not vote for him(Which I find horrible..since we are stuck with Obummer another 4 years) it was because he was not conservative enough. I also take offense on your disdain for the 'evangelical wing'...caring about the death of millions of babies in the womb, or trying to ensure that marriage is between a man and a woman. This is surely what we all 'own' because it rips at the fabric of our society and culture. I welcome your response....
We don't often have the benefit of nibblesyble here each evening. Enjoy it while you can. I know I do. nibblesyble tends to be one of the quieter among us. She only comments in a big way, when someone pushes one of her buttons, and I just love it when that happens. I guess it happened this evening, and I'm lovin' it. You go, girl. I've got your back.
Are you trying to make me blush white?? Thanks for that, you made my day. I always have your back too. Hugs, N
Newt has been around for a while. I don't mind establishment if it's someone that is conservative and fights for individual freedoms and liberty. Newt falls into that category. It's RINO's that are failing the Party because people can just for a Democrat and get the real deal as far as liberalism goes.
Abortion is an issue in which the country has been moving decidedly to our side on. Most Americans believe that abortion is taking of a human life no matter how hard pro abortion folks have tried to redefine it as products of conception or whatever their current nomenclature is. That it should be used only when the womans life is in jeopardy or for rape and incest. And for those who believe it should be allowed as birth control, they overwhelming believe it should be done before the baby becomes viable. They also are decidedly for parental notification. That is a huge change from where it was.
There is a difference between homosexual rights and the right to gay marriage. I think we all can agree homosexuals should have the right to live with whom they chose. They should be able to visit loved ones in the hospital and leave their property to whom they wish. All are things that they, by and large, enjoy currently and we should champion that as conservatives. Marriage is another issue. Men and women produce children through their sexual activity and it makes sense for them to enter into marriage and all the concommitant advantages that go with it. Homosexual unions do not naturally have that concern. Marriage makes no sense for them and I don't think maintaining our opposition to it is irrational or bigoted or any of the other meme's that are currently being thrown at us. If gay marriage is allowed universally there will be individual liberties that will be infringed upon that will be egregious in the extreme. And it will be completely unnecessary for the reasons that I just wrote about.
Ridiculous. What individual liberties will be infringed upon with marriage equality? Now you guys are just making up nonsense.
And regardless, you will lose this battle through attrition with the younger generation, or through the Supremes, or through a vote - as you saw last month 4 states voted for marriage equality which was huge.
What a waste of time alienating a segment of people that aren't hurting anyone. Sorry 'bout your ick factor. Hope you don't have any gay kids or you'll be completely confused. Cuz, see, they're not human and CHOSE that icky life style. eyeroll.
What a presumptuous diatribe you went on. As I said, there is no reason for gay marriage. It wasn't even on the radar screens of gays until the later half of the last century. To pretend that some great civil liberty will be lost now if we don't allow gays to marry is ludicrous. They don't have the same concerns that heterosexuals do when they engage in sex.
There are people in this country now who have had to make choices based upon their beliefs concerning homosexuality. One of the examples are Catholic Adoption services that have had to close their doors because they refused to allow gay couples to adopt at their institutions. This is egregious that gays would deem it preferable that these institutions close there doors, thereby denying these children a chance at being adopted by a loving mother and father. And for what. It will only get worse as we redefine marriage. And there is absolutely no need for it. Nothing of value is lost by not allowing gays to marry.
well put white531, although no need to be apologetic in your definition. If one got offended, dear Lord,TRUTH HURTs !
I believe homosexuality is a sickness, just like any other sickness. It is not normal human behavior, as we know it. I don't pretend to know the cause of it. In that vein of thought, I neither condemn those afflicted with this sickness, nor do I condone it. I guess if I were to put it to you, in simple terms, I just don't understand it, but that does not mean I approve of it.
I accept the reality, that it exists in our society, just like I accept the reality, that pedophiles exist in our society. That doesn't make it acceptable human behavior.
Forgive me, but I don't think homosexuality is mentioned anywhere in Scripture. Please correct me, if I am wrong on that.
I believe there are many things, that we are living with today, that were not part of God's original plan. Socialism and Communism come to mind. That thought could launch us into a lot of complicated discussions on how we take care of the Earth, and the animals, and the resources God gave us, and even each other, as human beings.
Pristine, is not a word I would use to describe what we have done with this planet, and the life that it continues to nourish.
To their credit, I have known gay people who were magnificent human beings. So, don't paint me as a homophobic. I just don't agree with the lifestyle. I don't think God does, either. But, I'm not the judge.
That being said, here is the problem I have with homosexuals. They can't reproduce. Since they can't reproduce, they have to recruit. And that is where we part ways. That is where the understanding of their belief and culture depart from ours.
Understandably, they seek to legislate it and make it legal, if not in the eyes of God, at least in the eyes of man. I am against that. It is simply an attempt to legitimize something most of us are against. To put a word on it, it is not Democratic.
To force the Majority, to accept behavior by a Minority, when most are against it, is not Democratic. The will of the Majority should prevail, so long as the Majority adheres to The Constitution. Find a clause in The Constitution, that endorses homosexuality, and I will agree.
It does not exist in the Bible. It does not exist in The Constitution. It only exists in the minds of those who would force homosexuality, as a lifestyle, on the rest of us.
It is not Democratic, and I reject it on principle. What two individuals do behind closed doors is not my business. So long as I am not a witness to it, I am not part of it. Just don't get in my face with it. Don't tell me it has to be the law of the land.
Because it isn't. Live your own lives as you see fit. But stop trying to make the rest of us accept it as normal human behavior, because it isn't. I am sorry to put it like that, but those are the simple facts, and that is how most of us view the problem.
"That it should be used only when the womans life is in jeopardy or for rape and incest
And for those who believe it should be allowed as birth control, they overwhelming believe it should be done before the baby becomes viable"
Thats all well and good
OK....now look at the Akins statement
"“From what I understand from doctors . . . if it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down,”
That was a jaw dropping, stunningly ignorant thing to say. That statement betrays a point of view that anyone can honestly question whether or not this guy is in touch with reality.
Or this one from Mourdock
"“I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen,”
I dont know about you....but even I am not comfortable with this.
Most people I know dont place "God" and "rape" in the same sentence. Further, by implication....he places himself in the awkward position of "justifying" a rape pregnancy.
Both of these Senate seats were ours to lose....both of these races were lost by comments that were spectacularly out of range of any damage control the Republicans could muster plus these people have ruined any future political careers and lent credence to their oppositions claim that Republicans want to "outlaw a womans right to choose".
The saddest part is that just by saying something to the effect of "I personally dont like abortion BUT I wont stand in the way of a womans choice"....this fiasco and the damage done to the Republican brand could've been avoided.
yes....I'm afraid there is.
I'm not going to repost the thread, you can read it for yourself.
The position that I was criticized for was that Akin or Mourdock were better off saying something to the effect "I dont believe in abortions, but I cant block them either".
As opposed to the utter jaw dropping, apex of stupidity they uttered.
The point I trying to make was those two seats were ours to lose....this was literally snatching defeat from the jaws of victory....and these kinds of losses hurt in more ways than one, in case you havent noticed.
We have to be smarter...we have to show a bit more intelligence than this, unlike the Demokrats we dont own voting blocks outright.
When I say infanticide, I am not talking about abortion in general, I am talking about abortions that are performed after the baby is viable and in particular live birth abortion. There is no cognitive disconnect. Most liberals believe in abortion on demand with no restrictions whatsoever. That is the extreme position, yet conservatives feel that they have to hide their heads for believing that life begins at conception and that if you are going to take that life there should be a compelling reason for doing so. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. I don't see why it is so hard to defend and as I said previously, just because 2 politicians stated their position inarticulatly or ignorantly, is no reason for us to abandon social issues.
There are a lot of people of every political stripe who believe Roe v Wade was "wrongly decided" and that it should be overturned. Doesn't mean they want abortion outlawed or that they have the power to outlaw it. The number of people in this country conservative or otherwise who want abortion outlawed is so infinitesmal they would never have any legitimate power to do so. That so many of my gender are unable to think that one through for themselves is what is simplistic. And pathetic.
Of course we need to educate people. We could start with giving my gender a remedial education in the law, so that they will not be so duped by people on the left shouting meme's like there's a "republican war on women". Or "Republicans want to take away your Reproductive rights." It's hogwash to anyone with more than 2 working brain cells.
Well thanks for understanding my POV I resent any Gov't intruding in my life, but this isn't about limits on salt or soda pop, this is a human being, with it's own DNA, that we are discussing. I appreciate you taking the time to express your POV, I am afraid we just disagree. I am sure we probably agree more than we disagree about other issues, like our utter disgust at the current occupant in the White House!
Fine. Now tell the candidates, specifically THE candidate Romney, who said they "would repeal Roe V Wade" not to throw around tripe and come up with what YOU would say if YOU were running. You make everything sound so simplistic. What? "I would repeal R V Wade but don't worry it couldn't possibly happen for years but meanwhile I'll do everything I can to put the brakes on it". Sooooo.... the tripe was correct. And I am NOT pro abortion but conservative tripe is more annoying because it is not a solution.
It makes much more sense to go the education route by stating you'd fight for the mother to be at least as educated as Bloomberg is forcing mothers to be about breast feeding in the hospital before allowing them access to formula...and even THAT would get a huge battle from the Liberals and their ignorant demo. It's NOT that simple fighting the Alinsky machine and media.
Just sayin'
"Furthermore the tripe about Republicans wanting to outlaw a womans" right to choose" is only something an ignorant electorate can make and I recognize that many of my gender did make that leap."
and then....
"The "choice" that pro-life conservatives want to take away from women is nothing less than infanticide. We should not be embarrassed to defend it."
Can you see the cognitive disconnect here?
I'm not condemning you.....I just want you to see that the position is almost impossible to defend.
I have lived through this argument and I understand your POV, believe me.
Lets just be honest, a large number of women find the thought of government telling them "what they can do with their bodies" as repugnant as we find government intrusion into our own lives repugnant....real or imagined it remains a fact none the less.
Let me clarify, I said I believe it is murder, not what the laws of the country indicate. Therefore I will not water it down as a 'woman's choice'. Nor do I entirely blame the women having them, as they have been told over and over it is no big deal as it's a clump of cells, hey it's your body, or this world is too cruel of a place to bring up a child ect. I will not turn a blind eye to it at any time and therefore I will never utter the words "I personally disagree with it, but I respect a woman's choice' ugh...it sickens me even to type it!
um....no....the electorate has decided that "abortion" as defined by Roe vs. Wade is legal.
That battle was lost in 1973.
Whether or not we like it or not isnt the point anymore.
Murder.....has also been decided by the electorate.....that issue is within the jurisdiction of the individual states and "murder" is illegal in every one of our 50 states.
That being said.
You are perfectly free to say " I personally dont like murder, but I shant stand in the way of a persons choice to do it"
but the understanding of this electorate is that "murder" is acting in contravention of the law, no matter what state you live in.
"Abortion" no matter what your personal point of view, is NOT illegal under the law.
We may not like or approve of someones choice BUT the reality is that they still have that "right".
Conservatives believe that abortion is the taking of human life and that life should only be taken for compelling reasons such as life of the mother, rape and incest. This is the correct position to have on the issue. I don't believe we should abandon it because of the ignorance of Akin or the inarticulateness of Mourdock. Or the fact that their wrongheadedness cost them their respective elections. To use a phrase Gingrich used in the second video, we shouldn't "cede ground" on these crucial issues.
Furthermore the tripe about Republicans wanting to outlaw a womans" right to choose" is only something an ignorant electorate can make and I recognize that many of my gender did make that leap. I'm embarrassed to say that, but let's face facts, there are apparently a lot of ignorant women out there. We need to educate them everytime they bring it up. If Akin and Mourdock had been elected, women would still have the right to choose to abort their babies. It would take a constitutional challenge to Roe v Wade or someone would have to try to pass an amendment in order for that to happen. It would be years and years before anything close to that would happen. In other words, abortion will always be legal. The "choice" that pro-life conservatives want to take away from women is nothing less than infanticide. We should not be embarrassed to defend it.
hmmm, regarding your last line, here is one too 'I personally don't like murder, but I shant stand in the way of a person's choice to do it" that is how we feel about abortion sir, so please don't ask us to water it for anyone!
Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.