Wilderness wanderings: Emily Whitten on Maurice Sendak and Jean Craighead George 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Santorum snags rare pro-life primary endorsement
WASHINGTON—One of the nation’s top pro-life groups, the Susan B. Anthony List, announced Friday it is endorsing Rick Santorum in the Republican presidential primary race. It is the group’s first-ever endorsement of a candidate during the GOP primary season.
“Among the field of strong pro-life candidates in the GOP primary, one stands out as a proven leader in this great human and civil rights cause of our time,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the SBA List. “Rick Santorum communicates the vision and has exhibited the strategic and tactical prowess the pro-life movement must have in order to succeed.”
With Mitt Romney trying to hold off the surging Santorum as the campaign heads to Michigan and Arizona for primaries later this month, the SBA List endorsement highlight’s the difficulty he faces among social conservatives. Romney switched to a pro-life position in 2005 while governor of Massachusetts.
Dannenfelser said the endorsement decision was made because the group believes that the primary process is at an inflection point, adding that the abortion issue faces a tipping point on the national stage. According to Jane Abraham, chairman of the SBA List board of directors, the board unanimously decided to back Santorum. … COMPLETE STORY >>
back to top28 Comments to “Santorum snags rare pro-life primary endorsement”
How will this help him?
Report comment to moderator
A lot of people vote according to abortion alone, PR.
So for that reason alone, this gives Santorum some positive press.
Report comment to moderator
The Susn B. Anthony group is the conservative answer to the liberal pro-abort EMILY’s List (Early Money Is Like Yeast). Women need to rally in direct opposition to the “feminazis.”
Report comment to moderator
Buying the media assumption that one group alone could ever truly represent or speak for all women in the USA is like saying one group represents all black folks or all white folks.
I think CWA has a zillion active members compared to NOW but do you ever hear that in the news?
If you think Planned Parenthood is vicious towards groups like SKG then just sit back and watch what the abortucrat stormtroops do if Santorum gets the R party nod. They will take the word “shrill” to an entirely unimagined level
If Santorum did get the nomination that would be alright by me
Report comment to moderator
No one (friends or political foes alike) doubts that Santorum’s convictions on this issue go deeper than politics.
I could not say that with a straight face about Obama on any issue–including his two-faced “evolving” policy on the definition of marriage itself.
Report comment to moderator
This is the issue that the left and Romney will attack Rick S over.
Report comment to moderator
“This is someone who is a supporter of mine, and I’m not responsible for every comment that a supporter of mine makes,” said Santorum on CBS’s This Morning. “When you quote a supporter of mine who tells a bad, off-color joke and somehow I’m responsible for that, that’s ‘gotcha.’”
Now, if the media would do as Santorum asks, this will be a better campaign. But I won’t hold my breath.
We all need to remember that, regardless of whether it is an R supporter or a D supporter.
Report comment to moderator
I’m surprised Santorum took this long to catch on — he’s the prefect anti-Romeny candidate, far better than any of the other flavors of the month.
2 Thorn — Correct, I once had a conversation with an American women who I assumed was a Democrat — she had a visceral dislike for FOX, opposed the Iraqi war, didn’t like the exuberant flag waving after 9/11, was highly educated in a secular university, etc yet she voted McCain over Obama solely because of abortion.
Report comment to moderator
It is the liberal media who use the silly label of Santorum as the anti-Romney candidate. They have much in common values-wise and politically, while Romney has more business experience and success. The media have a stake in aggravating all candidates against each other because they want to be in control without having been elected – only with polticians as their puppets. That is our real power struggle.
Report comment to moderator
As much as I hate abortion, I am struggling to support Santorum. He is certainly not a fiscal conservative (his economic plan will continue this exteme deficit). Also, RS will have great difficulty beating Obama. Unfortunatly, a man can’t win a election on social issues alone in this day and age.
Report comment to moderator
I beg to differ, Buckeye. Fiscal conservatives will vote for the R candidate over Obama, no matter who it is. Social conservatives might stay away if Romney gets the nomination. The R party needs a social conservative more than it it needs a fiscal RINO.
Report comment to moderator
Come on, guys. We can do better than either Santorum or Gingrich. Please, please, give real consideration to Ron Paul.
I read comment after comment here about how most of you want less government, lower taxes, a more reasonable budget, more local control, less regulation on business, etc.
But then you plan to vote for candidates who might just barely move the country in that direction instead of for the candidate who actually wants to go there and has a voting record to prove it.
Report comment to moderator
“…a man can’t win a election on social issues alone in this day and age.”
A man won the election last time with hardly any serious reference to ANY real issue whatsoever. He got away with dismissiing serious real life & death issues by saying things like, “That’s above my pay grade.” He won on cheap hopey changey rhetoric and just rode the wave of leg-tingling media worship into the white house.
It is silly to suggest that any conservative candidate will win on social issues alone, or that any would try. A strong and realistic fiscal conservative like Rick Santorum has a better chance of beating Obama and the media than any other candidate at this time.
Of couse, mind-numbed media lemmings will continue to let the media define Rick Santorum falsely as one-dimentional but thinking people know better.
Report comment to moderator
@Peter L, I was comparing Santorum to Romney, sorry for not making that clear. To me, Romney has a solid resume that is much more superior than RS’s credentials.
@Kyle A, Paul has some good ideas but he is out of touch with the real world. In all his years in congress, he has not gotten anything done (how many of his bills have become law?). He refuses to recognize our established system. For example, Paul has repeatedly proposed bills to make abortion a state issue. This sounds great but it is legally impossible. The Supreme Court has already determined that the Constitution protects abortion rights in Roe v. Wade. As wrong as that is, nothing can change especially a congressional act. The only solution to the problem would be a pro-life amendment which Paul refuses to support. Paul does not understand the check and balance system of the Constitution. Paul has some interesting ideas but is too out of touch to be president.
Report comment to moderator
Joel,
Yes, Obama got elected largly on emotion, (the economy tanking had a lot to do with it as well.) I doubt, though, that you will ever see anywhere near the number of people voting for a conservative candidate on emotion alone as voted for that reason for Obama last time.
Report comment to moderator
“We can do better than either Santorum or Gingrich. Please, please, give real consideration to Ron Paul.”
I did give respectful consideration to Ron Paul early on and listened to him. He is unacceptable due to egregious false and ridiculous accusations against the USA (which he stands by shamefully) and far too much mindless sympathy for our real enemies, like Iran. There are other reasons, but Ron Paul destroyed his credibility with me and on the basis of his own statements and campaign.
I want less government, lower taxes, a more reasonable budget, more local control, less regulation on business and Rick Santorum is our bet to move in all those directions meaningfully and realistically. And he understands the serious problem Iran poses too. His head is not in the clouds nor is he a populist who spouts off horrific false accusations for political popularity as Ron Paul does.
Yes, to move in a good direction meaningfully is how to approach politics in our divided governmental system. Ron Paul knows how to cast popular votes but has not shown us the ability to work with anyone to move a meaningful bill in a positive direction.
Besides, Ron Paul has had his chance and we given fair consideration by millions.
Report comment to moderator
I did not mean to bring up old arguments. I just thought that I would make another plea.
Here’s a slightly new twist. If Paul is so bad, so ineffective, so anti-American, then why have the people in his district elected him again and again over the last thirty-five years? And, if he is so bad, so ineffective, so anti-American, then why would good Christians like some of the ones who comment here be willing to even consider him? I mean, if it is so obvious that his views are evil, then all people of good will and good morals would reject him as vociferously as some of you, right?
Report comment to moderator
Kyle A: I mean, if it is so obvious that his views are evil, then all people of good will and good morals would reject him as vociferously as some of you, right?
Ron Paul’s opponents hardly regard him as evil-Just wrong headed. I favor his ideas about shrinking the federal government, though unlike Paul Ryan who does his homework on issues, Paul, very much like Obama, is enamored more with rhetoric than reality.
Besides which his ideas about America’s foreign policy would do serious harm to vital American economic and political interests around the world. Those who watch international affairs closely regard him as rather naive, though not evil.
Report comment to moderator
Okay, Sails. If he is so obviously wrong-headed, then why does he keep getting re-elected? Some of his margins are big, and one time he ran unopposed.
Why do reasonable people like me favor him, if he is so obviously wrong-headed?
I disagree with you about his being enamored with rhetoric. Look at his voting record. He votes the way that he says he will. And he is the only candidate who wants to end the Federal Reserve and return to the gold standard. That’s reality–not just rhetoric. Why you mean by “reality” is compromise and acceptance of the status quo.
Why should America be the only nation to look after her interests? Is it because we are so big? Is it because God loves us more? I submit that we should be looking for fair trade between nations, rather than dominating others by force.
Report comment to moderator
Kyle, he gets reelected to bring home the bacon to his district – tax subsidies for business and earmarks. Some he proposes and then votes against some. He tries to have it both ways. If google results are wrong, please correct me. We need a leader. Paul does not have a good record of getting support from his congressional colleagues to vote for the bills he proposes. That doesn’t make him a bad man – just another politican whose sincerely held beliefs don’t get enough support.
Report comment to moderator
I would agree with Pastor Roy’s sentiment in 1. Santorum’s ability to garner the votes of hard-core abortion opponents has never been in doubt. After all, SBAL is largely a conservative Roman Catholic group whose main purpose is to advocate for legislation that embraces a Roman Catholic view of issues related to women’s health.
It strikes me that this has a lot more to do with SBAL’s fundraising efforts than it does with endorsing Santorum. Now that Santorum looks like a viable option, SBAL wants to appear to be relevant. Its donor base probably consists almost wholly of Santorum supporters. SBAL would appear to be out of touch with that donor base if it didn’t endorse Santorum. So, I don’t see how this qualifies as news.
Also, I think that the endorsement hurts Santorum. He has not yet won a single contested primary. (The Missouri “primary” was a beauty contest that did not involve the awarding of delegates, and was ignored by everyone but Santorum.) Santorum has not yet proven that he can win the votes of fiscal conservatives who are more moderate on social issues. Moreover, Santorum doesn’t have a leg to stand on concerning fiscal issues. His record in Congress shows that he is a big spender who will dig us further and further into debt…maybe just at a slightly slower pace than President Obama.
Report comment to moderator
Evan, I think the SBAL endorsement is news because it’s the first. Even on a news program this morning some Republican woman for choice (name escapaes me) bragged that the SBAL does not endorse candidates.
Report comment to moderator
“If he is so obviously wrong-headed, then why does he keep getting re-elected?”
Maybe his opponents are even worse. I have said here often that as a congressman, I might even be able to vote for him over a Dem. But he is running for Commander-in-Chief and I can’t think of anyone more unqualified for THAT role than Ron Paul.
“Why do reasonable people like me favor him, if he is so obviously wrong-headed?”
That’s for you to explain, not me.
His voting record and his claims for what he “wants” are the same as rhetoric. There is so much more to effective leadership than showing up to vote (even though Obama often did not even do THAT).
Report comment to moderator
Louise, are you saying that he tries to get money for his district? Wow! I’m sure that Santorum and Gingrich have NEVER done that. Obviously they are the superior candidates.
Have you read why Paul requests money for his district and why he often votes against the bills. He says that it is like a person who does not like the tax system but still claims his deductions and credits. It’s his money, so he is entitled to it. In the same way he says that if the Congress is going to give out money anyway, he does not want his district to be left out. It’s their money anyway, since it was confiscated by the government.
As for why he votes against them, it’s because they are attached to bills that he cannot vote for in good conscience. Many times it is because the other earmarks in the bill are rididulous and way, way higher than his.
All in all, it seems like he is totally a man of principle in both regards. As I implied above, I think that you should compare his earmarks to those of your favorite candidate. (In the case of Romney, look at his spending as governor, including his state-run insurance program.)
Joel Mark, as you tell it, his opponents could not have been worse unless they simply allowed Iran to annex the United States.
It’s interesting that any of his opponents would have gotten a lot more money for their district (Paul has served two different districts). They would have been a real asset for their constituents when it comes to money, and yet Paul was hugely popular. His percentage was as high as 70% in some elections.
So what exactly do those folks in Texas like about him. They are certainly patriotic people–huge fans of George Bush. They must not think of Paul as pro-Iran. (I don’t either, since he isn’t.) They would probably have liked more money coming into their district for pork-barrel projects, which they certainly would have gotten with a Democrat or with the other Republican candidates.
I think Paul would make the best Commander in Chief, becuase he wants to use the military for what it was mean for according to the Constitution–defense. He also wants to return to the Congress the Consittutional power to delcare war. If you oppose him on those issues, then you admit that you do not want America to follow its Constitution.
Paul in the Congress reminds me of Socrates. He is the lone voice of reason, telling people that our fake money and our huge debt are going to get us into trouble. Do most people listen? Is he “successful”? No, and I am glad. In a group of fools, a wise man never wins–except in his own conscience and in his integrity.
Report comment to moderator
Kyle; “Joel Mark, as you tell it, his opponents could not have been worse unless they simply allowed Iran to annex the United States.”
Actually that’s not how I told it or thought it. The context for my comment and for who is worse is related to a congressional race. At that level, our national security is not nearly as much at stake than at the Presidential level. In a congressional race, I’m sure there are many candidates from the left who are much worse than Ron Paul. Remember, I like a lot of what Ron Paul stands for on domestic matters and spending issues. And congress does the spending. So, there are many liberal candidates who I’m sure are much worse than Ron Paul, even if they have a better grip on national security issues (and that’s not a given with many Democrats).
Whether those Texans who vote for Ron Paul think of him as pro-Iran or not is beyond my control or knowledge. There are other issues. But I have assessed that problem in him first hand from his own irresponsible and often untrue comments which he continues to make.
Kyle, your support for Paul is rooted in what you think he “wants” to do (you use that word a lot in describing why you like him). Again, when assessing a candidate, you must look beyond what they say they “want” to do and look at their record of actually working with others to get it done in the real world.
I am actually not a big fan of Socrates. I might not have voted for his conviction but he did corrupt some youth (Alcebietes, for one, which led to a horrific betrayal of Athens that hurt many) rather seriously–which was one of the accusations against him. But that’s another story.
Report comment to moderator
Kyle, I understand your explanation of Ron Paul’s voting for earmarks that benefit his district. But he still speaks against them. As president there’s nothing he can do about that system and Congress doesn’t for exactly the reasons you stated – it’s their constitutent’s money.
When it comes to Paul’s foreign policy I have to agree with Joel Mark. Plus, I get very uncomfortable when Paul uses the language of the Left, like American “empire,” falsely accusing us of wanting to take over the world. His non-intervention policy is totally unrealistic at this point in history and he totally exaggerates our “bases” and military overseas. But I think we are repeating all those points over and over and not getting any further.
I welcome being corrected on anything I misunderstand, so don’t think I’m trying to shut down the conversation. I always appreciate your input and opinions, whether I agree or not.
I have much to learn about everything.
Report comment to moderator
There are so many issues to address on this thread, I don’t know where to begin! I will just address the comments by Joel Mark at 16.
Ron Paul’s stand on foreign policy appears to be a stumbling block to many people, especially Christians. I am in a state of constant wonderment at the idea that it is Christian, Biblical, constitutional or even moral to continue on this path of spreading democracy by force, let alone so many undeclared wars by Congress.
If Christianity evangelized the faith the way our government is supposedly spreading democracy, then we would be hypocrites. And maybe we are. Americans should follow the U.S.Constitution in the way that Christians should follow the Bible, but it seems Republicans have bought into the war industry much like the Democrats have bought into the welfare industry.
When we went into Iraq there was a lot of conflicting evidence on the reasons for this invasion and I felt we would not really know the truth until the troops started talking. Well, they are talking. Yesterday there was a “Veterans for Ron Paul Rally” at the White House where many veterans spoke out on what they were made to do in the name of freedom. More troops have given money to Ron Paul than to Romney and Obama combined. You will be hearing more from these people.
If we want to continue in the same old vein of divisive politics, then support Rick Santorum. He is another big government Republican and a neo-con. Yes, he is vehemently pro-life but manages to turn people off with his unloving approach. Frankly, Santorum is neither likeable nor electable.
I am saying all of this as a life long conservative Republican and a Precinct Committee Person for the GOP. The time has come to start thinking as real Americans (Constitutional) and real Christians (Biblical), and not following the same old pattern of being told what to think by the media elites and the powers that be.
Report comment to moderator
How does the Susan B. Anthony List qualify as “one of the nation’s top pro-life groups when its “Pro-life Citizen’s Pledge” demands that any candidate the pledger supports commit to:
“FOURTH, advance and sign into law a Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to protect unborn children who are capable of feeling pain from abortion.”
Such a proposal says some children should be protected from abortion. I can only support a candidate who agrees that the life of human beings is an inalienable right endowed by our Creator, and recognizes the Constitution’s prohibition against depriving any person of life apart from due process of law. For a consistent pro-life pledge see the Equal Protection for Posterity Resolution: http://www.equalprotectionforposterity.com.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!