The Only Pro-life Candidate

[zabbazooey]

[url="http://www.fred08.com/Virtual/Media/SocialValues120507.pdf"]http://www.fred08.com/Virtual/Media/SocialValues120507.pdf[/url]

Huckabee is not truly pro-life

[Norseman82]

Al,

You need to understand the reality of the current legislative and judicial situation.

The minute the Sanctity of Life Act is signed into law, the pro-aborts are going to find a judge to declare it unconstitutional based on Roe vs Wade. Then we will be gambling on the Supreme Court eventually ruling on this. What if we lose?

Then, assuming we win, what happens if the law is later repealed by a pro-abort Congress and president?

Badmouth a constitutional amendment as much as you wish, but legally it is more rock solid: the SCOTUS cannot overturn it, and once ratified it will take an enormous effort to "unratify" it.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='zabbazooey' post='1430119' date='Dec 5 2007, 02:27 PM'][url="http://www.fred08.com/Virtual/Media/SocialValues120507.pdf"]http://www.fred08.com/Virtual/Media/SocialValues120507.pdf[/url]

Huckabee is not truly pro-life[/quote]

We're supposed to take Fred Thompson's word for what Huckabee believes? How about a non-biased source? How about this:

[url="http://www.nrlc.org/Election2008/allcandidatescomparison.pdf"]http://www.nrlc.org/Election2008/allcandidatescomparison.pdf[/url]

Since when is a voucher program a pro-life issue?

I read in the paper recently that Huckabee said that simply returning abortion to be decided by the states is not good enough.

Edited December 5, 2007 by Norseman82

[The Joey-O]

[quote name='zabbazooey' post='1430119' date='Dec 5 2007, 02:27 PM'][url="http://www.fred08.com/Virtual/Media/SocialValues120507.pdf"]http://www.fred08.com/Virtual/Media/SocialValues120507.pdf[/url]

Huckabee is not truly pro-life[/quote]

Yeah, this little piece takes quotes out of context, then comes up with outright lies about the candidates' stances on issues. Fred Thompson is weak on all issues, abortion included. He runs a lazy campaign, and he doesn't have an old Southern Baptist's chance at a dance competition.

[dairygirl4u2c]

that link is wildly deceptive. read it with a critical eye.

especially when there's these things:
[url="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5647755919789481719&q=huckabee+abortion&total=45&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3"]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=56...h&plindex=3[/url]

[dairygirl4u2c]

[url="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4409625829240846974"]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4409625829240846974[/url]

[dairygirl4u2c]

here is the interview that compelled me to go for huckabee...

[url="http://www.charlierose.com/guests/mike-huckabee"]http://www.charlierose.com/guests/mike-huckabee[/url]

me, the hard core conservative basher. (actually some would say that only means he's liberal, but that's not true. i'm conservative too as a general rule)

[dairygirl4u2c]

i'm against ron paul as he's too extreme. only his interpretation of the constitution to mean no federal power. really the constuttuion stuff is a cop out.
he should justify his view with policy arguments.

states are notoriously bad at doing their own thing. the fed has to ensure a minimum exists. rivers caught fire before fed laws cause states felt they had to compete to keep businesses at expense of environ laws. busineses move if they are forced to pay minimum wage. or if they can get lower taxes. now, some competition is actually good, but you have to draw the right blanace. no federal powr is not the right balance as paul suggests.

the problem is that many conservatives think the states have to fail before the feds intervene, if they'd allow intervention at all. that is just unwise altogether. if the feds ensure a minimum for major things then states wouldn't be burdened by the laws unless they're not doing as they should. no child left behind is a good law at least in the attempt, yet ron paul cops out and says it unconstitutional.
you don't need them to fail before having minimum.
like i said with minimum wage, if state use it, that means it's doing its job, if they don't and pay more then it doens't matter. min wage is just an example, let's not get tied on the nuances of the min wage argument.

it takes smart policy, not cop out state or charity arguments. capitalism run amok has jacked the price of basic health for catostophic stuff and basic eductaion. so like require at least that you ahve screenings for basic health like high blood pressure as those are what wreck havoc on the system. it doesn't have to be a doctor for most stuff. huckabee talks about this stuff. regulate education so investors doin't go to the states where it costs so much. with ron paul, everyone would be paying the full 50000 for a four year public degree. with reasonable politicians, that'd be regulated or subsidized witha federal standard.
huckabee doesn't want to intervene he says on things like education. but he'd bully the states, he says, to ensure a minimum.

half of people are prochoice early on. 20 percent are prochoice later in the pregnancy. it's ridiculous to think you have a chance changing at least the early stuff.
paul in the 20 regard might be better, but huckabee is pretty firm himself.

the public has opinons, and care about these other issue i was talking about. vote for somehting that has a chance of changing. with things like social security and all the issues i talked about, huckabee would deliver. ron paul would not try to work on conservative spending, as he's all about no spending feds. he might a little but it's just not ron paul's expertise. mike huckabee's been doing that for a long time.

Edited December 5, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[The Joey-O]

[url="http://www.nysunpolitics.com/blog/2007/05/thompsons-1994-issue-positions.html"]Here's Fred Thompson's stance on Abortion (it's a bit dated, so he may have changed his mind since then).[/url]

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5a_Fpu_8KE"]And a video.[/url]

Edited December 5, 2007 by The Joey-O

[zabbazooey]

He has a 100% pro life voting record

[Aloysius]

to me, 100% pro-life voting record doesn't cut it anymore, such people are the status quo defenders, they want the pro-life issue to continue to be political fodder for the GOP without taking any radical initiatives against abortion. They need to be doing something about it, they need to pledge willingness to use the bully pulpit to get congress to act. We need acts like the Sanctity of Life act. We need a Constitutional amendment (I never said the water at the top of the mountain spring wasn't healthier, just that that's not the first thing you give someone dying of thirst).

sadly, I do have high doubts that Ron Paul will get the nomination; I will not support Huckabee as a VP candidate to any other GOP candidate, but if he were the main guy I might, though I do not think he could defeat the democrat candidate the way Ron Paul could. the great thing is that because of the LBJ law, Paul can simultaneously run for both his seat in congress and president, even if he gets the nomination he'll definitely remain in the house (no one can defeat him in that district, they absolutely love him there)... and he'll probably remain quite a nationally known figure and potentially get another shot at saving the constitution.

a Ron Paul nomination would do many things: first, you have a bunch of republicans that would vote for him to keep the boogey-woman out of the white house (you know who I'm talking about); heck, also I think a lot of them would get in touch with Ron Paul's reaganesque policies and be reminded that they, too, want to cut government spending. Then you'd have all the anti-war democrats, anti-war independents, and previously apathetic voter bases fired up to vote for him. I think you'd see most of the red states remain red, then you'd see Pennsylvania fall red (pro-life and anti-war? are you kidding me? pennsylvania democrats would love him as a candidate), which alone would be enough to swing the margin of victory... but I think you could even see something ridiculous, maybe even a state like NY or California falling red. don't think it could happen? there are a lot of democrats unsatisfied with the war stances of the democratic candidates, mark my words.

dairy, I think you've gotten a little mixed up on Ron Paul's positions, and you're pretty much judging Ron Paul by my opinions (ie when I explain the principal of subsidarity, while Ron might agree, he's also more knowledgeable about the dynamic process that'd be necessary to start bringing things into more conformity with that)... I get overly excited that he actually has some principals and go off talking about the ideal of what he'd do, he's really quite practical in his actual policies and plans, though. Abolishing the Department of Education was actually something Ronald Reagan talked about, for instance; it's not some extremist thing, it was mainstream in the Reagan days.

[rkwright]

I think some earlier posts were missing the point. The abortion battle is ultimately in the courts. The only way to side-step the courts would be to pass a constitutional amendment, which seems highly unlikely. However by passing legislation banning abortion, it would go to the courts where it would be battled out again.

Courts do not always follow prior decisions, that is key here! With the right judges in place something like this can be overturned. Thats the only way it will happen. The posts that say any legislation aimed at banning abortion is dead on arrival are misguided. The courts do overturn cases, especially after lengthy periods (ie 30 years!)

[The Joey-O]

[quote name='zabbazooey' post='1430305' date='Dec 5 2007, 07:19 PM']He has a 100% pro life voting record[/quote]

He's really only had 3 chances to vote on abortion related issues. He's lobbeyed for Planned-Parent Hood and is OK with abortions in the first trimester. Here's his record according to [url="http://www.ontheissues.org/Fred_Thompson.htm"]OnTheIssues.org[/url]

[walk_on_water]

Not to open another can of worms, but Huckabee also has an interesting economic policy. I like that he is socially conservative, yet on economic issues more liberal than the other candidates. I feel that he can better address the needs of the poor in our society because of his economic policy.

Although abortion takes precedence, I think this is also an important factor.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1429947' date='Dec 5 2007, 03:29 AM']there is no veto of Supreme Court decisions that I know of... I believe that a Supreme Court decision may merely be overturned by implementing contrary legislation, as the Sanctity of Life Act intends to do in congress.[/quote]
Not at all. The Supreme Court are the final arbiters of what's constitutional, i.e. they have the power of [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_the_United_States"]Judicial Review[/url]. In this situation, rightly or wrongly, the Court determined that a right to privacy permitting abortions is guaranteed by the Constitution. Hence, neither an executive order or a law passed by Congress and signed by the president could "overturn" Roe v. Wade as a constitutional matter. The only point of that as a strategy would be to deliberately set up the need for a constitutional review, as in South Dakota, in which the law would be challenged as unconstitutional, and which would then have to be reviewed by the Supreme Court. And given that both Roberts and Alito gave undertakings during their respective confirmation hearings to be cognizant of [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stare_decisis"][i]stare decisis[/i][/url], i.e. legal precedent, I'm not sure that overturning Roe via that means would be a "slam dunk."

Edited December 6, 2007 by kenrockthefirst