As Marjorie Dannenfelser makes clear, the hospital issue that Governor Romney raised is actually not an issue — it is not anywhere near the center of the abortion fight and nobody is proposing to make it so. The pledge does, however, ask candidates to select appointees to “relevant Cabinet and Executive Branch positions, in particular the head of National Institutes of Health, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Health & Human Services,” not “a broad array of key positions in the federal government,” as Governor Romney writes. I would expect a pro-life candidate to agree to such a simple proposition, just as I would expect a pro-business candidate not to appoint a union boss to head the Department of Labor or someone from the Environmental Defense Fund to head the EPA. So, now that Marjorie has allayed Governor Romney’s stated concerns with the pledge, I would suggest he be asked to sign it once again.
Sorry Senator, I for one would think Rudy Guiliani would make a great attorney general, but the SBA pledge would needlessly disqualify him. No thanks
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRomney's been saying the exact same thing about abortion for the past 4+ years. This isn't some big surprise.
Rick, why are you all so scared of taking on Romney when he is actually in front of you? Why not confront him in a debate?
Weak sauce.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAbortion is a like trench warfare in World War I where both sides are fighting over inches of ground. (And the analogy holds for the human cost as well.) You're asking for a pledge that guarantees they'll win us a hundred yards, which just isn't possible.
The pledge does, however, ask candidates to select appointees to “relevant Cabinet and Executive Branch positions, in particular the head of National Institutes of Health, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Health & Human Services,” not “a broad array of key positions in the federal government,” as Governor Romney writes.
With all due respect, this just looks like you're fishing for excuses not to accept Gov. Romney's pledge.
Bottom line: Gov Romney made a clearly worded pro-life pledge that we the people can use to hold his feet to the fire, if necessary.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWith all due respect it looks like you're fishing for an excuse to defend Romney, kind of like the sell-out Kathryn Lopez. Santorum is right: the pledge only applies to relevant cabinet positions. I don't think anyone in their right mind think it's an absolute necessity that the Secretary of Transportation be pro-life. It's not unreasonable, however, to expect that health-care related and other cabinet positions be held by pro-lifers. Romney is blowing smoke.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Abortion is a like trench warfare in World War I where both sides are fighting over inches of ground."
The anti-abortion people are the French and the pro-abortion people are the Germans, and the trench will always and forever remain in France because abortion will never again be illegal in this country.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRomney has shown himself to be a glad-hander interested in NE votes over conservative values.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAny adult who only changed from pro-choice to pro-life in mid-life is fishing for NE votes. Romney has more sides than a crystal ball over a night club.
For him its ambition over values.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMitt at the plate:
Strike 1: RomneyCare --> ObamaCare
Strike 2: Global warming man caused
Strike 3: I'm pro-choice (1994 Senatorial debate); I never said I was pro-choice (2002 GOP acceptance speech)
You're out!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's deeply irresponsible that candidates for POTUS go everywhere signing pledges of interest group.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr. Santorum:
Please. Let's stop this nonsense over a pledge. We've seen just how ludicrous things can become with Norquist and his nonsense over his so-called tax pledge and the ethanol subsidy. Instead of celebrating its death, he's whining that he didn't get exactly what he wants. Welcome to life and politics.
Our number one goal is to make Obama a one term president. This twaddle doesn't help.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe all expect Mr. Santorum to offer some fine principles for the pro-Life cause. Some of it is commendable, some it is poorly considered in the approach. Above reflects some of the same political offering which led to his defeat and demise in PA.
It is not the pro-Life policy agenda, but the manner it which Mr. Santorum pushes the issue. He desperately needs to rethink some of the approach - even conceptions about "rape".
After 9-11, Mr. Santorum, then Senator, focused on a special case in Florida. He was passionate about the life issue, but in many ways his obsession grew to be considered by many Americans as a very robust invasion. One of the problems was simply the manner in which the offering was conducted. In the midst of waging a GWOT - the Battle raging in Iraq, with the President trying to get all to focus on the problems with entitlements like Social Security, etc., the Schiavo case began to backlash on the positive intent. And the effort had pushed so many passions beyond reality, they simply weren't even fair in treating many Republicans who tried their best to help. Instead the "fashion" on Our side turned to vilify. Nothing Republicans did, even holding up other business in Washington was good enough - they were all demeaned by a passionate small entity on Our side.
One must make certain the message - movement grows the Public Support. Also, with this Country is facing an ECONOMIC disaster, it is essential a few do not simply play politics with such important issues - exploiting the Base for personal gain - dividing the needed effort to defeat the Democratic Party - when so many enormous problems face us.
The note above, ventures into territory which really feels regretful. Mr. Santorum could have provided the sound judgment to allow the GOP Primary voters judge for themselves, about the expressed beliefs of Mr. Romney.
Long ago, we all supported a primary challenge to the likes of Mrs. Murkowski in Alaska. Sadly, the hyperbole and divisive nature grew to such an extreme, (all over a Candidate who was revealed to be hardly ideal or far from a 'pure' conservative in Mr. Miller). In the end, we only ended up predictably pushing a potential Senator away from the Conservative side. Much of it grew to ugly personal levels, far from healthy. A similar scene played out in Delaware, enabling the very worst. Certainly it may have been Ms. Murkowski's natural moderate lean, but the product from Our Conservative Base grew so emotive and hostile, one can only expect this poor result - providing Mrs. Murkowski ample reason to owe the conservative side very little.
Mr. Santorum often appears to be a leader. Is he really thinking of everyone involved? The biggest picture in a sound political manner? Is his way the best to grow a National mentality determined to protect all life? Will he work to unite? To strengthen? Or just unwittingly divide?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI am glad Santorum is holding Romney's feet to the fire on this issue. By means of your analogy to Murkowski, you seem to be suggesting that an aggressive candidate like Santorum will alienate the moderate Romney, so that Romney will "owe the conservative side very little." Romney can't get the nomination at all without the right. If he would backtrack on abortion *again* because a more conservative politician pushed too hard (which I can't see happening), well, better to expose him now -- and better to be aggressive.
No, here Santorum forces Romney to think and act clearly concerning the subject, something Romney has not always done in the past. Moreover, Santorum calls attention to his rival's wishy-washiness on the subject, which he has every right to do and which those choosing a candidate have every right to know about.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think Old Bore would be a more appropriate handle for you. Yeah, we get it, you don't like conservatives who are conservatives. You like your right-wingers soft and not scary, just like John McCain who proved all so effective in 2008.
When will the likes of you realize that the GOP followed your mentality into the political wilderness? We don't need your "advice" anymore. So go play on David Frum's website and bemoan all those crazy conservatives who actually stick to their principles.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAbortion is the civil rights issue of our day, every bit as crucial a civil right as slavery was prior to the Civil War.
Romney's position is analogous to the string of do-nothing Whigs who claimed to personally oppose slavery but were unwilling to combat it on any ground, however favorable. The Republican Party was formed to do something about it.
The position Romney articulates is no different than that of most Catholic Democrats---of course, it is completely beside the point. The pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute found that less than 1% of abortions are performed due to rape,incest, and the mother's life being at risk; indeed, only 7% tilt toward mental health as being a factor with the others. What precisely does "pro-life" Romney intend to do about the other 93%?
I and many other pro-life conservatives would accept an immediate 93% reduction in abortions on these grounds while continuing to stop people from giving the death sentence to babies because of their father's grievous sins and crimes. The fact remains that abortion is being used as a form of birth control. And Romney's just fine with that.
Rick Santorum is not. He is to be commended for his stance, which subsequent generations will look favorably upon, even as we continue to look favorably upon Abraham Lincoln.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI also commend NRO for finally doing the right thing and letting candidates other than Mitt Romney to directly speak on their platform.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't think NRO should let any politician post here. The blog's becoming one big campaign message/spin board for the GOP. I'm increasingly going elsewhere for conservative commentary and analysis.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGiven how horribly incompetent, occasionally traitorous in effect if not in intent, the Obama administration was and is, the US NEEDS a new [i.e., Republican] President in 2013 and a hopefully matching [Republican] House & Senate. Not as a luxury, but as a matter of survival.
Radicals pushing different social wars - WHICH WILL NOT COMMAND VOTING MAJORITIES IN THE FORM THEY WOULD WANT ANYWAY - down the throats of the potential GOP-voting independents, risk not only the perpetuation of the abortion status quo, but also burying the GOP chances in 2012, and with them, the US' chances in general.
No "unborn child" will be saved, but those already born would see their chance to a decent future... aborted by a second Obama term, obtained with the paradoxical complicity of far right radicals.
These are the equivalent of the likes of Samantha Powers, Anita Dunn, Kevin Jennings and Valerie Jarrett.
I don't want Obama's inner circle to push down my throat highly ideological agendas and tests of Marxist purity. I don't need the likes of Mr. Santorum to do anything similar either. Obviously Mr. Santorum's positions were too radical to even help him hold onto a mere Senate seat.
Who does actually believe that Mr. Santorum should decree which litmus tests the future Republican President needs to sign in advance in order to please him?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI just lost most of the middling respect I had for Santorum. I'm not impressed.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYeah, Mr. Santorum really wants Mitt to sign the thing...right.
Personally, these pledges grate on me a bit. A good, principled leader does not need to sign a pledge to get his point of view across, or to convince anyone that he's genuine on an issue.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"A good, principled leader does not need to sign a pledge to get his point of view across, or to convince anyone that he's genuine on an issue."
Well, we are talking Mitt here, not a good, principled leader.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse