« BACK | PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Cain and Romney were Right Not to Sign SBA List’s Ridiculous Pledge!

By: Steve Foley (Diary) | June 18th, 2011 at 02:58 PM |

RESIZE: AAA

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the two bona fide businessmen running for the GOP nomination for President of the United States have decided not to sign a so-called Pro-Life pledge that is more designed to force candidates to conform to SBA’s apparent “affirmative action agenda” than it is to confirm their Pro-Life status.

This issue came to a head yesterday when SBA List called out the two Republican candidates in the pages of Politico and has the interwebs a buzz with so-called conservatives accusing the two of wavering on their Pro-Life stance for not signing the pledge. Nothing could be further from the truth, in my opinion, and if the goal of the pledge was to identify a candidates Pro-life status it would have simply asked that question and been done with it… it did not.

What this pledge does do is demand and then lock-in candidates to hire and appoint only those people who meet a certain criteria over those who are the most qualified for the job. I don’t know about you, but to my mind, this is a form of affirmative action and is not a conservative position, it’s unfair, and Un-American.

The pledge required the following:

* Only nominate to the U.S. Supreme Court and federal bench judges who are committed to restraint and applying the original meaning of the Constitution, not legislating from the bench;

* Select pro-life appointees for relevant Cabinet and Executive Branch positions, in particular the head of National Institutes of Health, the Department of Health & Human Services, and the Department of Justice;

* Advance pro-life legislation to permanently end all taxpayer funding of abortion in all domestic and international spending programs, and defund Planned Parenthood and all other contractors and recipients of federal funds with affiliates that perform or fund abortions; and

* Advance and sign into law a Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to protect unborn children who are capable of feeling pain from abortion.

There is also a separation of powers issue that Cain sited today:

Cain has said he opposes abortion and that he supports cutting funds for Planned Parenthood.In a statement issued Saturday, Cain said his respect for the separation of powers prevented him from signing. “[T]he fourth requirement demands that I ‘advance’ the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. As president, I would sign it, but Congress must advance the legislation,” the statement said, adding that Cain remains “a consistent and unwavering champion of pro-life issues.”

Look, I understand SBA List’s motivation here but their execution was way off, in my opinion, and I think the candidates that rushed to sign this pledge, politicians all, have locked themselves into bad policy right from the get go… if they think this wont come back to haunt them, should they win the White House, they have another thing coming. Of course, they have the option of doing what most politicians do once they get elected and ignore the pledge but that’s not going to win them any points either.

Not signing this pledge does not make one less Pro-Life, it does however prove a couple of things…
1) You don’t support any form of affirmative action!!!

2) That your smart enough to know this will be used as club to beat you over the head with if you hire or appoint someone who is not pro-life or thinks the issue isn’t black or white.

Cross-Posted from The Minority Report

Tags: National Institutes of Health, Planned Parenthood, Pro-life, Republican, Susan B. Anthony List, United States, United States Department of Health and Human Services, White House

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES | LOGIN TO COMMENT | REGISTER TODAY

Anteater

Steve Foley

… with what?

http://teapartisan.wordpress.com Loren Heal

Not to let this issue divide us or anything (thanks, Marjorie!), but spinning on the word “advance” is a fig leaf. Obviously the Executive Branch doesn’t make laws, but for a president to “advance” a piece of legislation is for him to lobby for it.

The president can propose legislation and use a variety of means of leverage to gain votes for it. That’s called advancing legislation. Either Cain knows that and is being disingenuous or he doesn’t know it and has no business running for president.

Steve Foley

I would respect the point your trying to make better as it’s own comment not as an reply to this…

Dude you know better!

lineholder

We definitely need to take a proactive approach on pro-life issues.

But I have to agree that there is something about the approach that has been taken to try to get candidates to sign onto this that seems a bit off.

acat

In terms of reducing the number of abortions, the successes have come at the local and state level, using local picketers and local pressure on property owners and city councils, and state pressure to actually regulate abortion as a medical procedure, taking place in a medical facility.

Without going further, I’ll just say that Bart Stupak fooled the pro-lifers for quite a while… and this cat is going to judge candidates based on their records and actions, not on whether they sign a piece of paper.

To me, this comes across as an outfit out hunting scalps, not a legitimate group seeking to reduce the number of abortions. They may well be both but .. they may also have lost their bearings.

Mew

lineholder

I’ve gotten to the point lately where I’m actually becoming a strong proponent of greater regulation for the abortion industry as a whole, and that is primarily due to the concerns that I have about PPFA acting as a self-accrediting entity for the entire abortion industry.

And there’s far more potential to deal with the pro-life issues at a state level than at a federal level. That’s been proven at this point.

In this particular context, something about this situation seems off to me…almost as if signing this pledge is being used as leverage in a coercive way. Maybe that’s just my perception at the moment, and I could be wrong, but that’s how it comes across.
http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

besides the aging of the population, was the emergence of vivid in-the-womb photos, not just of human babies but those that came out later of large mammals in the womb.

conservativecurmudgeon

of Ultrasound and other imaging systems at clinics across the country for twenty years now. There is a direct correlation between the numbers of folks who actually see their babies in the womb, and their subsequent decisions to not abort. When you see the pictures of what clearly is your baby, you are loathe to kill it.

Simple as that. Which is why, by the way, the lovely folks at Planned Parenthood are against “over-saturation” of such machines.

rightwingmom52

And I can personally attest that it is especially so with young people. My 20 year old son unfortunately puts too much stock in academia and science and has yet to learn the value of conservatism, but on this issue agrees with me and is pro life because of the evidence science provides that we’re talking about a human life.

jerry39

acat

I’m anti-abortion, and label myself as such.

Pro-life carries conotations beyond just opposing abortion… and I’m not sure I buy all of them so I use the more specific label.

Were you possibly refering to some other cat?

Mew

http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

I’m 100% opposed to signing any pledges and I’ll start with Grover Norquist’s tax “pledge”. Eventually, these things end up being larger than life and Norquist’s pledge is the poster child with him whining at Republican lawmakers for voting against ethanol because he defines it as a “tax increase”.

Also, a “pledge” is really easy to void with a “things have just changed” statement. Look at TheWon’s record.

Steve Foley

…with you as well.

Flagstaff

I agree on my own behalf and for Charles Krauthammer, who also opposes these pledge/blackmail thingies. (He said so publicly on Fox).

e_rowe

I’m generally not a fan of making politicians sign pledges, and I wouldn’t have a problem with a candidate who followed a policy of never signing them no matter what they said. I just don’t buy the claim that there’s anything wrong with what’s in this one, especially the line about applying the litmus test. Correct ideology is the most important qualification for certain positions.

Steve Foley

… the fact of the matter is, and I’ll say it again, Relevant Cabinet and Executive Branch positions could be any or all? The simple fact is? it was wrong to include that language in the pledge as was locking candidates into a clear violation of the separation of powers.

http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
e_rowe

And whether you are capable of comprehending this simple concept or not, I’ll restate it.

That broad language makes it harder to hold the president to this pledge, not easier. Relevant cabinet positions will de facto be whatever positions he says he thinks are relevant, and if anyone else disagrees they’ll have nothing to hold against him.

As for the separation of powers, could you please show me where in the Constitution it prohibits the president from applying litmus tests?

All of the justices and cabinet members take oaths to uphold the Constitution. Their employment should be conditioned on their taking that seriously. To say this is to apply litmus tests.

http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

I wouldn’t sign a grocery receipt. That man is nothing but bad for the Conservative Movement.

e_rowe

So, by it’s own wording, candidates were only pledging to apply that pro-life litmus test in cases where being pro-life is a pre-requisite for being the most qualified person for the job.

Steve Foley

…and that portion of the pledge is wide open to interpretation.

Select pro-life appointees for relevant Cabinet and Executive Branch positions

Relevant Cabinet and Executive Branch positions could be any or all…

Defend it if you must but the simple fact is… it was wrong to include that language in the pledge as was locking candidates into a clear violation of the separation of powers.

e_rowe

acat

“It’s a poor nuclear blaster that doesn’t point both ways” — Issac Asimov

Mew

e_rowe
Steve Foley

N/T

http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

NO candidate for President has any business defining a litmus test that s/he will apply to judicial nominees that addresses specific legislative/judicial issues.

e_rowe

Likewise with countless other rulings.

acat

to nominate people who hold that correct view.

All it does is to hand power – specifically, the power to screech “You broke your word!” from the sidelines – to a group who answer to .. nobody.

We both agree, more or less, with the content – but that’ s not the question.

The question is whether the candidates think the SBA can be trusted.

Given the circumstances around this, and the glaring “Fail!” Herman Cain pointed out, I gotta say Cain made the right decision here.

Mew

e_rowe

I’m not really defending the practice of signing pledges. I’m just defending the content of this one.
Steve Foley

…No litmus tests for hires or appointees… period!
e_rowe

That may be where you’re coming from, but it’s not where I’m coming from.

FDR committed an egregious act of tyranny when he used his power to stack the court as a way to prevent them from stopping the New Deal. And every president since then who appointed justices who reaffirmed that approach to judiciating only perpetuated that tyranny.

So as long as the litmus tests are good ones, bring them on. The more the better.
Steve Foley

This right here:

So as long as the litmus tests are good ones, bring them on. The more the better.

Is so inane that any further conversation in this matter with you is a complete waste of my time.

That statement was utterly ridiculous
acat

You’ll revolutionize political punditry!

“Yes, I tested the litmus test that pesky cat was using and found it to be a bad litmus test, so I can ignore anything he says!”….

Mew
Remington_Steele
e_rowe

You think that SCOTUS nominees should not be chosen based on how they are going to judge?

Because that’s what a litmus test is, it’s choosing a justice based on how they will judge.

They get applied all the time. That’s why the courts are so liberal. Your position seems to be that we’re wrong to try to rectify that.

Obviously the rightness or wrongness of the test depends on what it is. A litmus test requiring that judges support the New Deal was wrong, a litmus test requiring that they oppose it would be right. The same goes for Roe v. Wade.

Frankly, I think this is going too easy on them. Justices who reaffirm Roe v. Wade should be impeached for violating their oaths of office. And Congress should pass a law taking state abortion laws out of federal court jurisdiction.
Bill S

The phrase “litmus test” implies there is a single standard by which one is judged. A collection of such tests/measures/standards is appropriate to judge one’s overall fitness for office, judgeship, etc. The issue isn’t the various “tests,” it’s using a single one as THE measure.
http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

And, as much as I dislike Romney, I did like his non-signing statement.
e_rowe

You liked how he said the reason he didn’t sign it was because he’s unwilling to cut funding of hospitals? If that’s his reason, it only confirms that he’s in the wrong. He can give his own money to hospitals all he wants, but he has no right to give them mine.

His idea that he can accomplish anything just by withholding funds from groups that primarily do abortions is just a way to do make a symbolic pro-life gesture that doesn’t actually accomplish anything. There would be so many ways for any group, including Planned Parenthood, to get around that with fungibility that it wouldn’t end up cutting anything.

We should be able to eliminate 100% of any funding of any organization that performs any abortions and 100% of any aid to any country that has tax-payer funded abortions. This should be a no-brainer. Not more than 20% of the public would oppose that, and that 20% won’t vote Republican under any circumstances anyway.
acat

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-O3kYrDPbI

Clearly, you want to be in charge… Thing is, politics is the art of the possible, and .. at this time, what you want isn’t possible short of an armed conservative take-over. I .. don’t see that working out any better than the creeping leftist take-over we’ve been enduring for the last century.

Don’t overreach. Achieve what you can. As Pennsylvania and Virginia are proving, we can do plenty to reduce the number of abortions just by demanding enforcement of *existing* medical laws and regulations upon them.

Mew
gekster
e_rowe

If the Republicans wanted to do it, they’d have the overwhelming support of the public. There’s no way to put a good spin on the fact that Romney doesn’t want to.
acat
e_rowe

The one where he says that the reason he wouldn’t sign the pledge was because he thinks ending all taxpayer funding of abortion is too extreme.
acat

You are no longer arguing in good faith. I see no more reason to be “nice”.

If you open your eyes and look at where the number of abortions are going down, you’ll see that they’re where *local* and *state* level organizations are challenging the industry directly.

In the South, where locals stage protests and locals refuse to do business with anyone connected to abortion clinics, i.e. refuse to rent to them, refuse to serve them, etc. (all perfectly legal, by the way) and .. suddenly running a death clinic is not profitable and .. the number of abortions go down.

In the East, where Pennsylvania and Virginia are starting to hold death clinics to the same standards as urgent care offices and hospitals, a lot of them are finding it difficult to meet the standards and make a profit and again.. are folding. The number of abortions go down as a result.

Please show me where SBA had {pock}-all to do with these “partial” victories.

Please further show me what activites the SBA performs, other than trying to “influence the legislative agenda” (and lightening the wallets of pro-lifers) to actually make a difference as I do not accept that they do jack {excrement}.

Mew
aesthete

From his statement: “It is one thing to end federal funding for an organization like Planned Parenthood; it is entirely another to end all federal funding for thousands of hospitals across America.”

IOW, why yes, Romney is willing to stand with pro-lifers on the completely arbitrary defunding of a conservative cultural hot-button, but is not willing to extend the very same principles that would theoretically motivate a defunding for PP to defund other hospitals which perform abortions. It’s just another nail in the coffin as far as I’m concerned, but e_rowe didn’t mischaracterize Romney’s position at all.

Christine (Trelaina)

Who died and made the SBA the sole designation of what’s pro-life?

Show me the pro-life record. Show me the willingness to stand up for what you believe. Show me that you take actions according to conservative beliefs, not a wet finger in the wind.

Most of all – show me that you’re not going to meld into the establishment, where it’s not so much what the pledge says, but how it’s going to be presented in the press, and how fast you can race to get your pen and sign something you think will make you look good.
2thepoint

Cain’s statement was quoted; Romney’s pro-life pledge should have been included or referenced in this article.

Mitt Romney:
“I am pro-life and believe that abortion should be limited to only instances of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.

I support the reversal of Roe v. Wade, because it is bad law and bad medicine. Roe was a misguided ruling that was a result of a small group of activist federal judges legislating from the bench.

I support the Hyde Amendment, which broadly bars the use of federal funds for abortions. And as president, I will support efforts to prohibit federal funding for any organization like Planned Parenthood, which primarily performs abortions or offers abortion-related services.

I will reinstate the Mexico City Policy to ensure that non-governmental organizations that receive funding from America refrain from performing or promoting abortion services, as a method of family planning, in other countries. This includes ending American funding for any United Nations or other foreign assistance program that promotes or performs abortions on women around the world.

I will advocate for and support a Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to protect unborn children who are capable of feeling pain from abortion.

And perhaps most importantly, I will only appoint judges who adhere to the Constitution and the laws as they are written, not as they want them to be written.

As much as I share the goals of the Susan B. Anthony List, its well-meaning pledge is overly broad and would have unintended consequences. That is why I could not sign it. It is one thing to end federal funding for an organization like Planned Parenthood; it is entirely another to end all federal funding for thousands of hospitals across America. That is precisely what the pledge would demand and require of a president who signed it.

The pledge also unduly burdens a president?s ability to appoint the most qualified individuals to a broad array of key positions in the federal government. I would expect every one of my appointees to carry out my policies on abortion and every other issue, irrespective of their personal views.

If I have the opportunity to serve as our nation?s next president, I commit to doing everything in my power to cultivate, promote, and support a culture of life in America.

-Mitt Romney”

Steve Foley

…was released after I wrote the piece.

But you posted it… so there’s that.
e_rowe

Cain handled this in a way that didn’t do him any damage. But what Romney did here just dug the hole deeper.

cpaguy

I don’t like Romney in the least.

I was not even comfortable with some of the language in his statement (“pain capable”..what?…).

However, for the most part it plays well. I don’t have major qualms with it.

Do I believe Romney will do anything to advance the anti-abortion cause? No.

Is this even a matter a President can affect? Not really.

Do I believe his statement is well nuanced and will play well with voters? Yes. The RINO force is strong with this one (Conservatives…we must be careful to neutralize this one as soon as possible).

silentcal2012

Like others stated, pledges are not good politics, but I might accept one rooted in principles. But this one tries to direct policy. As if an Republican president in the middle of a terror threat would say… Rudy Guiliani would be perfect for the Homeland Security post, but I signed a pledge during the campaign that I would appoint a pro-life person to all cabines posts, and I must pick a less qualified person. Some candidates thought this through, some just pandered.

e_rowe

And that wasn’t the reason they didn’t sign it anyway.

In the case of Romney, according to his own statement about it, the reason he didn’t sign it was because he doesn’t agree with the part about ending taxpayer funding of abortion.

silentcal2012

And would you end all funds to veteran hospitals? I know people are stuck on Planned Parenthood, but almost all hospitals perform abortions including Veternan hospitals. Would you cut all funding to most of the hospitals in America, including veteran hospitals? And would you bind a president with such a promise even if he cant fulfill it. And do you respect politicians who make promises that cant fulfill.

e_rowe

And again, I’m not a fan of pledges. But notice that Romney’s disagreement with this one is not about the principle of pledges, it”s about this one being too extreme for him.

On your first question. Absolutely, yes. If you want to give your own money to hospitals that perform abortions, go ahead. You don’t have a right to give them mine. You can be sure that there would be plenty of hospitals, especially VA hospitals that would stop performing abortions in those circumstances, which is the point.

silentcal2012

According to you the only reason he signed it because of taxpayer funded abortion, but his statement couldnt be more clear. Perhaps, you didnt read the whole thing, or you are really obtuse:

“The pledge also unduly burdens a president?s ability to appoint the most qualified individuals to a broad array of key positions in the federal government. I would expect every one of my appointees to carry out my policies on abortion and every other issue, irrespective of their personal views.”

e_rowe

Do you really think it’s a good thing that Romney believes that?

silentcal2012

The pledge doesnt say SCOTUS. It says all relevant cabinet and executive level positions, which most likely includes Attorney General. And I’m pro-life and have no problems with Rudy as an AG. I think he’d make a hell of an AG. Its dumb to exclude him and make a candidate beholden to policy laden pledge this early.

streetwise

I respect Cain and Romney more for not being bossed around, even by people whose values I like.

http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

nmcowboy

Affirmative action has a connotation of advancing people without regard to their resume. Consider the pledge elements.

1. Federal judiciary. This is not a litmus test but rather a pledge that nominees be properly vetted, something GOP Presidents have failed to do, having given us such luminaries as Earl Warren, William Brennan, Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O’Ccnnor, Anthony Kennedy and David Souter.

The pledge commits the candidate to nominate only individuals who “are committed to restraint and applying the original meaning of the Constitution…”

This goes to judicial temperament and philosophy and can hardly be characterized as “affirmative action.”

2. Relevant Cabinet and Executive Branch Positions. In the thread, this was quite contentious and characterized as vague. “Relevant” is modified, however, by the language of the pledge: “in particular the head of the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Health & Human Services and the Department of Justice.

If the damage done by those named departments is to be undone and reversed, they must he filled by individuals committed to life. How is such a requirement “affirmative action?”

3. “Advance” pro-life legislation including a Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. The criticism from Cain on this point is that the term “advance” when coupled with legislation is violative of the separation of powers doctrine. How so?

Presidents have historically used the bully pulpit of the White House and their political capital to advance legislation. On a fiscal front, will a new president “advance” legislation to stop the red ink? Would not legislation advancement from the White House be required to deal with entitlement programs, foreign aid, military “actions” around the globe, etc.?

It is ironic that Cain and other candidates criticize the present occupant of the White House–rightly so–for having no plan to deal with the budget and economic wreck, yet a pledge that a new President “advance” pro-life legislation is characterized as violative of the separation of powers doctrine.

I don’t see it nor do I see how the pledge can be construed as analogous to “affirmative action.”

Steve Foley

Well I con’t help your fundmental lack of understanding…

Locking a candidate into hiring or appointing someone solely based on a set of criteria instead of “the best person for the job” is , to my mind a form of affirmative action… period!

As to your comprehension – I think there are online classes for that?

aesthete

It can often be the case that we do not want the best person for the job if certain of that person’s moral mechanics don’t lend towards that person being dependable holding power over others: for example, one would not want someone heading up the NIH to hold eugenicist or genocidal notions; the overwhelming majority here would also consider sympathies for Maoism or Marxist-Leninism to be a dis-qualifier for any position of power in the federal government, regardless of the managerial output and competence of the person. IMO, a person’s stance on abortion should rightly be considered a dis-qualifier for certain appointments in the federal government (though I don’t hold judges to be among them).

However, if you’re the type of person who needs to sign a pledge in order to take the above into account when appointing federal officials, you’re probably not the right fit for the job.

http://theheartlander.wordpress.com/ heartlander

I would include judges among those for whom a pro-abortion stance should be a disqualifier, since many of the incremental pro-life steps we citizens have taken at the local and state level have been STRUCK DOWN by activist pro-abortion judges.

JSobieski

Any such judge will always be liberal over being pro-life.

A truly strict constructionist judge is going to be pro-life as naturally as a fish breathes in water. The pro-life part is redundant.

Opening up pro-life as a specific criteria may lead to what Sen. Thompson characterized Gov. Huckabee as being.

Bottom Line: Focus on the underlying judicial philosophy, and don’t get side tracked. Anything else is being too clever by half.

nmcowboy

What makes a person “the best person for the job” for the Federal bench? Using your inclusive standard, GOP Presidents have given us the justices I enumerated.

It would appear that under your inclusive approach, a commitment to judicial restraint and a belief in original intent have nothing to do with one’s ability and qualifications to sit on the federal bench: proponents of a “living constitution” are potentially as equally qualified as their opponents in the strict construction camp.

Similarly, under your inclusive approach, one’s view on the sanctity of life is not a primary factor to be considered in appointing someone to head DOJ, HHS or NHI–it is not a quality which would make one standout when considering that appointment.

Under your approach, what qualifies one in terms of economic expertise? If one were to say disciples of Keynes need not apply at Treasury or for the President’s CEA, would that be “affirmative action?” After all, couldn’t a disciple of Keynes be the most “qualified” and we wouldn’t want a litmus test to exclude someone would we?

I obviously lack your understanding but would suggest that deference to professional “experts” and “managers” is what has put this country on the downward death spiral it is following–that and trashing our moral standards.

SirGladiator

Comparing a pledge to support the Right to Life to affirmative action makes no sense. The simple fact is that Mitt Romney has run as pro-abortion in multiplate races, he ran as pro-life in 2008, and now he’s trying to sort of have both positions at once. Yes I support life, but no I dont support it strongly enough to sign a pledge. He’s just highlighting the fact that you can’t trust him, because he will say whatever he thinks he has to. I don’t know what on earth is going through Cain’s mind, as somebody already said, by his logic he would be against a President submitting a budget to Congress. But at least his comment can be credited to good intentioned stupidity, Romney’s is clearly a case of cold political calculation, as it always is with him whenever he takes yet another position on abortion. This whole issue did us a great favor, it showed Romney for who he is, and sadly it may have shown that Cain just honestly isn’t knowledgable enough about how things work, maybe he isn’t ready for prime time. Not making that judgement yet, I like the Hermanator, but this is just dumb on his part, gotta be smarter when you’re on the big stage. In any event, thank you SBA for doing what you set out to do, give us important information on the candidates.

Steve Foley

…to smack Romney around, an otherwise worthy exercise btw, but the fact remains crystal clear – BBA was derelict in the construction of this pledge the language is ambiguous and wrong and both Cain and Romney should be applauded for not bowing to their BS

Thanks for playing!

http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

The pledge is an attempt to shrink the wiggle room.

Watch them wiggle.

acat

Most of these “pledges” are too broadly written to “reduce wriggle room”.

They aren’t intended for clarity, they are intended to grant the group promoting them a wide latitude in manipulating the candidate, but .. they are otherwise not enforceable.

I especially dislike the other side of this – that voters are outsourcing our responsibility of judging between candidates to these groups, that we are instead voting based on “cheat sheets” (erm, “voters guides”) instead of doing the work of evaluating records and values…

Mew

http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

Bush One’s read my lips pledge wasn’t a contract but it did carry a penalty. A pledge isn’t legally binding but it may be electorally binding.

Getting a candidate on the record regarding life and clarifying we expect more than words but action in the form of appointments is a good thing.
It may not carry the weight of Bush’s pledge but reneging will carry some penalty that may mean a lost election in the future.

I have dealt with contracts enough to know you either do them with a handshake because you implicitly trust the other fellow or you try to nail them down as tightly as possible.

In this particular case we have Cain who I like but don’t know why he refuses to sign, his statement, as somebody else noted, doesn’t line up with reality. Presidents CAN advance legislation. There is no constitutional issue here.

And Romney, who has a history of flopping all over this issue and has proven he cannot be trusted. Put bluntly, I am not voting for Romney no matter what he signs because he will have his fingers crossed behind his back.

As for the affirmative action nonsense that is bunk.Naturally any president appoints people who line up with his ideological agenda. A true believing pro-life president is naturally going to avoid appointing people who are pro baby killing. A pro-abortion candidate will do the opposite. An ambivalent president like Romney doesn’t care and doesn’t want to be constrained by promises he doesn’t believe in or intend to keep. This doesn’t mean Romney will find the BEST man either, it just means some other heretofore undisclosed ideological or personal consideration will guide his selection.

Further affirmative action is used to imply a choice of more qualified or less qualified because as implemented by the government it works that way. But life outside of government mandate doesn’t work that way. Rudy is NOT the ONLY possible guy who could clean up the Holder mess. In a nation of 330 million there are hundreds if not thousands (maybe millions) that could do as well or even better than Rudy. Given that pro-life is now a majority most candidates would be pro-life. What’s wrong with saying I am going to pick from the larger pool of qualified candidates?

Is Ben Bernanke the ONLY guy capable of running the FED and ending this economic mess caused by the FED?

acat

Nothing wrong with it, it’s a litmus test I also use.

Anyone you don’t think will follow it doesn’t need to sign anything, you won’t be swayed.

Anyone you do think will follow it doesn’t need to sign anything either.. because you know their views.

Just checking but .. where does that leave the usefulness of the pledge?

Seems to me – again – the only group who benefit (unless there’s something of value the SBA or FairTax or whoever give out for a signature…) is the group seeking signatures…. and that they’re remarkably shadowy.

Mew

http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

I would never vote Romney and Cain I like. But now with Cain, and particularly because I think his excuse was lame, I am at least on alert. Doesn’t mean I wouldn’t vote for him .

Josh LeGuern

The next Attorney General needs to clean house after Eric Holder’s appalling term at Justice. You need someone who can kick butt and take names.

Rudy Guiliani’s the man for the job! The SBA List Pledge doesn’t allow for that because he’s Pro-Choice.

It’s a dumb pledge. And while the current candidate in the race I’d vote for (Bachmann) has signed the pledge, I think Romney and Cain were right not to sign it.
runner12

He supports defunding PP because it is popular right now. But heaven forbid the hospitals who perform abortions quit receiving tax payer funds. Once again, he proves he is a RINO.

As to Cain, his reasoning was weak ( I say this as someone who really likes Cain ). There are other reasons one could give not to sign the pledge, the second qualification being one of them. Personally, i have no problem with points 1,3,and 4 of the pledge and find it hard to believe that a pro-life conservative would have a problem with them either.

It is point 2 where I might hesitate. Promising to place a litmus test on appointees would make me a little squeemish, even if the odds were likely that my appointee would be pro-life.

Remington_Steele

heaven forbid the hospitals who perform abortions quit receiving tax payer funds.

Yes actually, heaven forbid it! I’m pro-life and a social conservative, but fully defunding VA Hospitals is unacceptable. There are better ways to pursue life without screwing our vets. Being quick to jump without looking where does not a good president make.

Tbone

See how it makes more sense.

Remington_Steele

http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
runner12

tax payer funds for abortions, period. This goes for the VA and Planned Parenthood. If we do not apply consistent logic across the board, we end up looking like hypocrites and the meme that is is personal with PP gains credence.

Thus the hypocrisy of Romney’s defense of not signing the pledge. As I stated above, there were better reasons not to sign the pledge. His statements make it come across as tax payer funded abortions in hospitals are okay, but not for PP. You can see how PP could take that and run with it.

I am saying this as someone who has some issues with the pledge.

Remington_Steele

You assumed that Romney meant to not fund abortions only at hospitals as if that was even an options with this pledge. That’s why this pledge is bad. It appearently has too small of print for knee jerk readers. This is where the pledge goes wrong:

…and defund Planned Parenthood and all other contractors and recipients of federal funds with affiliates that perform or fund abortions

Understand that VA Hospitals perform abortions for rape and incest. If you signed this pledge and became President, you would be obligated to remove all funding for VA Hospitals period.

This pledge says nothing about targeted defunding of procedures. Romney was thoughtful in his reason why he would not sign. Targeted defunding is not even a part of this discussion.

runner12

that little word “and” after Planned Parenthood clearly is extending the effort to defund PP to other organizations who use federal dollars to perform abortions. Which brings around the question I asked in my post and which you failed to address or answer.

Why is it wrong for PP to receive federal dollars for abortions, but perfectly okay for the VA to receive federal dollars for the same procedure? Because they are the VA? If you think the liberal media won’t ask that question, you are very much mistaken.

Once again, there are other reasons to not sign this pledge that were better than what Romney stated. But it is clear that you are a defender of Romney, regardless of what he does or says. I am more than likely wasting my time trying to point out the flawed logic in his statements.
http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
aesthete
Remington_Steele

Why is it wrong for PP to receive federal dollars for abortions, but perfectly okay for the VA to receive federal dollars for the same procedure? Because they are the VA?

I didn’t answer your question because it is a modification of what the pledge was asking:

This pledge says nothing about targeted defunding of procedures… Targeted defunding is not even a part of this discussion.

Should Romney have said stop all targeted funding? Yes. Did he respond to one of the reasons why this pledge is too vague? Yes, he responded to it’s vagueness. And it appears you agree with him there. Now could he have answered that better? Yes. Romney’s argument was weak like Cain’s was.

Steve Foley

First of all… Starting your rebuttal with–first of all tells more about you than even warrents a response!

runner12

three words, my friend. My point was simply to say that I can understand why some people would be wary of signing the pledge, but not for the reasons stated by Romney. His reasoning is flawed and once again he is positioning himself to gain poltical points.

You may also note that I thought Cain’s reasoning was weak as well and I like Cain! Unfortunately it appears that this has turned into a defense of a favorite candidate rather than a discussion of the merits of the pledge.

http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

That’s all these things are for. I wish groups wouldn’t do this, because ultimately it’ll paint them into a corner (see: Ken Buck), but it seems we’ll never be rid of them. Personally, I don’t have a problem with the SBA pledge, because if I were elected I’d never appoint someone that’s pro-choice to a position that has anything to do with abortion. Call it a litmus test or whatever you want, but I just could never be responsible for personally moving foxes into the henhouse.

http://theheartlander.wordpress.com/ heartlander

…but everybody screws up on occasion. This is the first questionable initiative I’ve seen from them.

congressworksforus

SBA almost cost Steve Driehaus (R-OH) his chance at winning back his seat from a pro-choice Democrat in 2010.

Driehaus had it in the bag; SBA very nearly derailed it with ads that simply weren’t needed in the district under the circumstances…

congressworksforus

Of course, I mixed up the two… Driehaus was the incumbent D who almost won; Steve Chabot is the Republican whose bid to reclaim his seat was almost torpedoed…

http://theheartlander.wordpress.com/ heartlander

If I remember correctly, didn’t SBA List run ads showing how Driehaus had caved and voted for Obamacare? Why would that be a bad thing to point out? Shouldn’t that have helped Chabot?
jerry39

I live in Cincinnati and pointing out that Driehaus lied on Obamacare and lied with the Stupak gang did not hurt Chabot.

samcoastie

if you are talking about the SBAstance on abortion…
“defund … all other contractors and recipients of federal funds with affiliates that perform or fund abortions.”…support for that broad sweeping restriction is probably closer to 20 percent than 80.

The 80 percent stance is in Romney’s statement….?I am pro-life and believe that abortion should be limited to only instances of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.” Whether you believe Romney will live up to that statement is another question.

Does anyone think the left won’t hammer anybody who signs the SBA pledge in the general? By signing the pledge they have said they would defund any hospital that performs an obortion even in cases of rape, incest and to save the life of the mother.

The SBA statement is too broad and will be a millstone in the general for anyone that signs it!
drfredc

Privatize, don’t “Defund” Planned Parenthood!

The Social Conservatives are part of the problem, not solution, to getting Planned Parenthood out of taxpayers pocketbooks. This will continue as long as they continue to demand Planned Parenthood be “defunded”. The term “DEFUND” gives the opposition a huge opening to counter this laudable effort as most fence sitters interpret “defund” as “end the program”… That isn’t what defunding Planned Parenthood would do.

Defunding Planned Parenthood at the Federal level would only stop taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood — Planned Parenthood could continue to operate as a private non-profit collecting operating revenue from any number of non-taxpayer funding sources.

If this is the goal, then make it clear that is the goal — Privatize Planned Parenthood.

To many fence sitters, this will sound like something they could get solidly behind. It would also fit into a simple to define movement to privatize most any government activity or operation that can be found in the yellow pages…

Furthermore, when the PRESSSident, liberals, and waving GOP LOSERship say “defund”, social conservatives should vehemently stand up and correct these purposeful misstatements — we don’t want to DEFUND Planned Parenthood, we want to PRIVATIZE Planned Parenthood.

Whatever happens in the Yellow pages, stays in the Yellow pages… We need to cut back on the Blue Pages….

rightwingmom52

Privatizing Planned Parenthood and its abortion practices doesn’t make it any less immoral and is not an acceptable solution to those of us who are pro life. Murder is still murder regardless of whether it’s performed in the “yellow pages” or wherever.

cpaguy

Planned Parenthood is already private. However, it is able to receive funding for its projects through government programs.

RightWingMom is correct, PP should be eliminated.

It is an organization that was founded with absolutely evil intent (killing of blacks and other minorities) that has succeeded in fulfilling its original mission to a large extent.

Planned Parenthood may have “sanitized” itself after the years. However, they have only expanded its mission. Rather than just minorities, they want to target all babies.

jeffreywturner

If Romney’s refusal to sign this pledge is your reason for doubting his pro-life credentials, then you obviously have no clue about his record. He is on record, ON VIDEO EVEN, as being strongly, unquestionably, downright vehemently pro-abortion. I mean he talked about Roe v. Wade as though it were the best thing since sliced bread. He was in LOVE with abortion when he was Governor of MA. Even as pro-abortion Republicans go, he was extreme. Only when he decided to pursue the GOP nomination for President did he claim to be pro-life.

So I say again, if you needed this pledge nonsense as ammunition to question the sincerity of Romney’s claim to be pro-life, then you need to do some research.

Yeh yeh yeh, I know, “He was running in MA, he had to be pro-abortion”. So he was lying to the voters then and now we see his true colors? Ask yourself this – how do you know it isn’t the other way around? Think about it.

Remington_Steele

in 2006, Romney “vehemently” changed his stance on abortion from pro-choice to pro-life due to the stem cell debate. Yeah, he flip flopped and acknowledged that himself. He wrote an Op-Ed in the Boston Globe at the time and explained his change to his constituency. Every pro-choice legislation in Massachusetts that came to his desk after that time was vetoed.

Questioning Romney’s sincerity about abortion is easy to do, but his record as Governor after his change did include pro-life executive actions. Saying “he was in LOVE with abortion” & “he was extreme” is just so 2002.

jeffreywturner

I am 100% certain that his “change” in 2006 had nothing to do with the fact that he had decided not to seek re-election in MA and was preparing to seek the GOP nomination for President two years later.

traversecityconservative

It puts pro-life issues above all else and IMHO it’s at the bottom of my list. I care more about jobs, the deficit, the debt, illegal immigration, national security issues and about ten other things.

Bill S

But the fact that it prioritizes something that’s not at the top of your list doesn’t make it “stupid”. To others, it’s near the TOP of the list.

Presidents can do more than one thing at a time. It’s not necessary to prioritize, unless you’re Mitch Daniels.
rightwingmom52

our God-given right to life was the first of the 3 most basic tenets of the Declaration of Independence: ?life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.? The 14th Amendment to our Constitution reaffirmed it: ?nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.? To disagree with the pledge on its merits is one thing, but to imply that an organization whose members top priority above all else is to save the most innocent among us is stupid is a stupid thing to say. I’m sure all those unborn babies would like to be around to care about jobs, the deficit, the debt, etc., but nobody asked them.

http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
acat

Thank you for not painting too broadly here. Could you please explain why this pledge is (a) a big deal and (b) not problematic for you?

Abortion is a good “litmus test” issue – and I am anti-abortion* but .. I’m also anti-gun-grabbing and anti-red-tape… so – when I test candidates, just as when I test pool water, I use multiple different “test strips”.

I find this pledge poorly constructed, as Herman Cain pointed out. This is pretty common with publically promoted pledges, actually .. not enough thought goes into “what does this look like for a Senator?” vs. “what does this look like for a POTUS?”. .. Two different offices, two different roles with different responsibilities .. but only one pledge. This indicates, to me, either a shoddy job on the part of the creators, or an expected inability in the audience to understand why there should be a difference.

I also find it dangerously open to reinterpretation after the fact. It looks like its’ main purpose is to create a chit that can be called in later if the SBA do not like a given nominee who the signatories may not have even heard of. “Candidate X, you signed our pledge, you must now oppose nominee Y” ..

I don’t agree that we need a pledge to tell our candidates who or what to support or oppose. We should be picking men and women of integrity who hold these values themselves, that is, we should find folk who “walk the walk”, not just “talk the talk”. Anyone deciding based on a pledge is practicing bumper-sticker politics – voting for someone based on a slogan, not a serious review.

I see no difference between lying to consituents in a speech and lying to constituents when signing a piece of paper .. so the whole idea of a “pledge” is, to my mind, redundant. Either the candidate is lying or not .. see above… see also Bart Stupak, who I’m sure would have signed on the dotted line.

Unless there’s a carrot to go along with this stick, I don’t see why any candidate would sign, though – so .. I have to assume there is one.. but this pledge doesn’t “lock in” the candidate any more than their word does. It just provides ammo for more “gotcha” politics. See above.

My point is – I don’t see the value, and I see some serious problems here.

Thank you in advance for your explanation.

Mew

* I hesitate to use the label “pro-life” as I am also pro-death-penalty and do not necessarily want to terminate existing stem cell research. Note that we never did end HeLa cell research.., and those were human-derived. I do note that, last time I looked, there have been many more interesting results found using stem cells from adults. Ironically, it appeared – last I looked – like fetal stem cells may end up being a blind alley.

BA Cyclone

Charles Krauthammer said it very succinctly last night on Bret Baier’s panel at the end. It was to the effect that we put far too much weight upon candidates signing onto (or not signing) language of a pledge that some group authors, then positions themselves as the end-all-be-all spokesperson for a particular litmus test issue.

“If you were really X you would sign our pledge!”

I don’t agree with the OP on this particular thread trail — I am staunchly pro-life and this matters to me — we can ignore or value whatever pledges we personally place value upon.

Frankly I think you hit the real issue here — there is exponentially too much weight placed upon these political pledges in the first place.
rightwingmom52

First, nowhere in my previous comment did I indicate my position on the SBA pledge other than to say I don’t agree with calling this one stupid, and by implication, that the members of SBA are stupid. SBA, Right to Life and similar groups have my undying gratitude and support for fighting the good fight. Doesn’t mean they don’t make mistakes, but they’re not stupid. Having said that, I tend to agree with those who don’t particularly like pledges per se. I judge people by their actions, or fruits if you will. More to the point, politicians by their votes.

As for the wording of this pledge, any organization at one time or another may have a poorly worded pledge that is not necessarily intended to be a “gotcha” but more of a gauge. Based on SBA’s work, I have no reason to think they had some nefarious motive in mind. I really don’t see much difference in an organization proffering a pledge than my calls to my reps asking their positions on an issue and holding them to it.

Some organizations ask candidates to complete questionnaires on various issues, and I find this extremely helpful. Most that I’ve seen give the candidates an opportunity to flesh out more than just a yes or no answer and explain their positions. Unless a candidate has something to hide, I see no reason why he should refuse to complete such a questionnaire. If a candidate is not willing to share his beliefs with me, he won’t get my vote.

As for being pro life, I simply cannot separate that or other social issues from my religious views, but I am most definitely also a fiscal conservative and I believe in a strong defense. I have and will always vote for the most conservative candidate on all issues in the primary. I try to do the same in the general, short of voting third party or for instance in 2012 if doing so would mean Obama’s re-election. I pray I’m never faced with having to choose between two pro-choice candidates, because I think I would have to not vote. While I might disagree vehemently with a candidate’s views on which programs to cut or immigration reform or where to send the troops, abortion is life and death and my conscience demands I vote for pro life candidates without compromise. I’m all for adult stem cell research, but not embryonic. I am also pro death penalty, but I use the term pro life out of respect for the groups doing the heavy lifting, i.e., that’s the term they prefer.

One more thing about being pro life. As pointed out in my previous comment, life is our God given right. Without life, other rights become irrelevant. I simply do not understand how anyone can call themselves a conservative and not be willing to fight for life itself or how anyone can call themselves pro life without being conservative.

Hope this answers your questions. Would have gotten back to you earlier, but had to spend a little time with the family.

acat

You and I are not opposed to abortion for the same reasons .. but we arrive at the same position; we are both strongly opposed to abortion and will look favorably on politicans who are of the same belief.

For my side, and I’ve said this before, it’s a matter of diversity and the scarcity of genius. That is, we toss around the phrase “{person} is one in a {big number}”… For example “Michael Jordan is one in a billion” or “We won’t see a politician like Reagan again, he’s one in a million”… and yet, just *how* many babies have been denied the opportunity to prove their genius?

I have a couple concerns with your reply… As I said in my previous post, if a politician will lie to my face, he or she will also lie on paper, so I don’t see surveys as any more useful in getting at the truth than speeches. That is, there’s no way of knowing – just from a survey – whether the positions a politician claims are those he or she actually holds. Note Mitt Romney’s 150-degree turn on abortion. (he hasn’t even managed a full 180…) Where is truth?

I have a similar problem with voting as a scorecard for politicians. It presents a partial picture and, while it’s arguably better, it’s still not perfect. Bart Stupak was quite solidly anti-abortion until Pelosi and Obama needed his vote. Until then, he was quite a successful liar, extracting money and respect from pro-life groups. for being “a democrat with principles”.

Worse, voting doesn’t indicate any great amount of .. call it “fervency”. A rep who votes for a bill to please a subset of constitutents gets just as much of an “attaboy” as the rep who worked tirelessly behind the scenes to get the bill brought to the floor… and as McCain proves, it’s possible to game the votes going into election years…

This is part of why I use multiple litmus tests .. because if a candidate is “out there” on one or more issues, for example a candidate who claims to be opposed to abortion and wanting to cut the budget but also in favor of strict gun control.. my ears perk up. The three positions are all rooted in the same principle – individual liberty. The right to be alive, the right to not be over-governed and over-taxed, and the right to self defense… so a candidate who’s willing to be wrong on one .. I gotta ask questions.

My concern with your answer, but not at all with you, rwm52, is that .. there’s been a trend for a long while to “outsource the analysis” to groups like SBA. This doesn’t mean they’re “stupid” or “bad” .. but it means – to me – that voters who are relying on their candidate guides are not thinking for themselves .. so are likely voting for Stupak types who say the right thing and vote the right way (as long as the votes aren’t close…) without really seeing the person. Again, you’re clearly plugged in and thinking for yourself so .. no problem with you, just with some of your fellow travellers.

Mew
rightwingmom52

the use of questionnaires and judging by votes, but sometimes that may be all there is. Perhaps I should have been clearer in stating that I look at a combination of things which is probably pretty close to your multiple litmus tests. I realize a candidate may lie on a questionnaire (or on a pledge or when he moves his lips), but if he is willing to answer the questions, and even moreso, flesh out his positions, I’m willing to take it at face value unless and until actions prove otherwise. Maybe this works better at a local level which is where I’ve seen it used more. I guess my question to you is how do you gauge your litmus tests for potential candidates and/or elected officials?

You’re right that we’re on the same page on the issues, regardless of how we get there. I just can’t help but give more weight to the pro life issue because the sanctity of life is the very core of my belief system, and there is no middle ground here for me. It’s virtually life or death, unlike other issues where we can fight over the details, e.g., flat tax vs. fair tax, no waiting period to buy guns vs. reasonable waiting period, which programs to cut and which to keep, etc. Thanks for the vote of confidence in my ability to think for myself, though. My fellow redstaters certainly keep me on my toes.
acat

And even if it’s not *my* life, there’s no reason to think it couldn’t have been, or that it won’t be in the future….

The best way to judge statewide candidates or national candidates is to get to know them .. or to network with people who have done so .. before they got to the statewide or national race.

To loop the conversation back to the original topic….much depends on a network of trust.

I’m willing to give Herman Cain a pass on the SBA pledge because he’s taken the time to get to know Red State, speaking at gatherings, posting, and (at one point) responding to questions right here, on Red State. He could be lying, he could have been misrepresented by a staffer, but .. while I have my disagreements with the front page authors, the Directors, and Erick, I do not doubt the depth of their conviction, nor do I doubt that they’d not have been pro-Cain (before being pro-Cain was cool) if they thought he was .. slimy. I don’t know Cain, but I know Erick by reputation, and Erick certainly seems trustworthy – so I will trust Cain because Erick does so.

I would consider giving Romney a pass if I had some reason to believe the same about him but .. there’s no network there… I don’t have anybody whose opinion I find trustworthy telling me I should trust Romney… and even at this remove, he seems… opportunistic. I do not trust him.

In short, yes, our litmus tests are similar. Again, thank you for taking the time to discuss this, and definitely keep thinking for yourself!

Mew
rightwingmom52

Between you and the Devine Gamecock giving me a 5, I felt just a little bit special – even did a little church lady dance. Not really. Just in my head. I have no rhythm.

Tbone

you’re already born.

http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

Nice variant of the Farmer Joe’s breakfast story.

SoFiMil

He has to stop punting on questions that are put to him.

SoFiMil

with a clear nexus to the right to life. And it simply seeks SCOTUS appointees to follow original intent and not judicial activism, which i believe is a very reasonable request/demand.
SoFiMil
gekster

He did kinda just jump in.
If he can show he can learn, then I see no problem.

(not an endorsement of any kind)

SoFiMil
acat

I want to see if any of ‘em can grow….

For some, this will be a tall order. Romney has to grow into an actual conservative… Ron Paul has to grow into a sane person…

Mew

gekster

If not by then, well.

gekster

Being insane, and the other liberal for that long, hard to change.

williamjameson

without locking down a candidate. As for SCOTUS and Fed court appointments, the legislature specifically the GOP can work to stop a nominee appointment.

Better to get a statement on the record and preferably during debate to use as a tool to keep the politician focused on respected appointments and as for laws, again the legislature.
jerry39

That’s quite a stretch. Affirmative action has to do with taking positive (affirmative) steps to correct discrimination versus merely taking the negative step of prohibiting discrimination. Conservatives are opposed to it because the corrective measure is the same as the evil being corrected, i.e selection based on race, gender or what have you to correct past selection based on a different race, gender, what have you.

Selecting people based on their viewpoints for political positions is pretty much A OK and has zero, zilch, nada, nothing – to do with affirmative action.
Would you be opposed to a promise not to appoint socialists or racists or keynesians or cap and trade supporters to relevant positions? Of course not because the term relevant has meaning.

Neither does promising to “advance legislation”implicate any separation of powers issue. I imagine if you review stump speeches you will find hundreds of candidates for executive office claiming “if I am elected, I promise to advance legislation that will — blah blah blah”

I think you protest too much in trying to spin these guys out of this. Its best to go with the, I dont sign pledges approach. Of course if their out signing other pledges, then that becomes a bit harder.

I can respect arguments not to sign this, especially the specificity of the legislation they want pushed. But I also agree with SBA and disagree with this post that “all they have to do is say they are pro-life.” That means nothing. A candidate that cant do more than say “i’m prolife” probably isnt pro-life life in the sense pro-lifers think of the term..

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Cain and Romney were Right Not to Sign SBA List’s Ridiculous Pledge!

COMMENTS

ALL

COMMENTS

POPULAR

#RSRH

PICK YOUR STATE & GET LOCAL