E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe Hill: “A resurgence in President Obama’s popularity could force Republican presidential hopefuls to move up their 2012 announcement dates. Already, most of the GOP contenders are lagging behind the 2008 cycle, for which all of the candidates had announced their intention to run by the end of January 2007. Now the question is: How long is too long to wait, particularly as Obama’s approval ratings have risen in recent polls?”
DANIELS: Former Vice President Dick Cheney praised Mitch Daniels as a potential 2012 candidate during an interview with NBC’s Jamie Gangel: “I’m intrigued for example by, oh, someone like Mitch Daniels. I like Mitch because he's got a breadth of experience, as OMB Director for example, because he's run a major of a big corporation, he's run a think tank -- Hudson Institute -- he's now been governor of Indiana, and he's done in Indiana what I think we need to do at the national level.”
HUCKABEE: “Mike Huckabee and his top advisers insist that he's thinking seriously about running for president, but he's doing little to put together the sort of organization needed to mount a campaign,” Politico writes. The latest evidence: Chip Saltsman, his campaign manager in 2008 and one of his closest confidantes, has accepted a job as Chief of Staff for freshman Rep. Chuck Fleischmann (R-Tenn.)… [But] Saltsman said his taking the job should not be read as an indication about Huckabee's intentions.”
PALIN: Per Real Clear Politics, “Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has tasked her aides with quietly gauging her level of support for a potential presidential campaign by making inquiries to a select pool of likely allies and grassroots activists in Iowa.”
Republicans want Palin to be more presidential if she runs for president.
PAWLENTY: “Republican Tim Pawlenty dished out $34,000 to state-level candidates and conservative groups in Iowa during the final 2010 push,” the AP reports. “His late-election contributions to candidates and groups were double the amount made by former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney during the same period.”
PENCE: “Some South Carolina lawmakers are looking forward to the 2012's presidential election -- so much so they've asked U.S. Representative Mike Pence to seek the Republican nomination for president,” WLTX writes. Seven state representatives and four state senators have started a Facebook page and a Twitter account “for what they call a grassroots campaign.”
ROMNEY: Time magazine profiles Romney and his emerging 2012 bid.
Although Romney criticized his opponents in 2008 for not spending more time in Iowa, “as he appears to be preparing to launch a second presidential bid, Romney has largely avoided the state,” Real Clear Politics writes. “After a debilitating second-place finish in the 2008 caucuses, Romney has visited Iowa only twice since President Obama was elected, and he does not have any additional trips to the state currently scheduled.”
SANTORUM: In an interview with the Christian News Service -- and it’s on camera -- Santorum was asked about President Obama’s views on abortion and said he found it “almost remarkable for a black man to say, 'we're going to decide who are people and who are not people.'" (Here’s the video.)
The Manchester Union-Leader reported that Rick Santorum has chosen veteran Republican activist Clara Monier as the chair of his New Hampshire political action committee.
“It's Santorum's second New Hampshire hire this month,” The Hill points out. Santorum earlier announced Mike Biundo as the PAC’s director.
NEW HAMPSHIRE: “On Saturday, January 22, ABC News and WMUR-TV are teaming up for a first ever ‘straw poll’ sanctioned by the New Hampshire Republican State Committee to see just what kind of buzz these 2012 candidates have among the party faithful,” WMUR reports.
TEXAS: Ron Paul’s thinking about a 2012 Senate run.
Leave a Comment:
Good grief, Santorum, what an uninformed comment to make. The Law of the Land, President Obama and democrats leave the choice to women and their doctors not religious beliefs. Santorum is likely done before he begins.
Or only white people are able to decide who are people and who are not.
If this guy is not turned out of the Republican party - that party should be done for any any decent white person and minority in this country! This comment and thought is a disgrace!
It's no wonder he lost his last re-election attempt.
It's also no wonder that a by product of sex (using the 'flip side' shall we say) has been named after him. (google it people - google it).
Santorum is frightening. Every once in a while the mask falls away and you see how they really think.
I just cannot fathom a bigger a s s h o l e than Rick Santorum.
here's the question you abortionists: When does life begin? Is it OK to tear an unborn child apart in the womb while masking it as a 'woman's choice'?
How about the Dr that was killing babies here in Philly, is that ok too?
Where in the US Constitution does it say a Woman or anyone, can decide when a choice ends and life begins?
You on the left who confer 'rights' on animals, can't seem to decide when an unborn child BECOMES a child, you dehumanize the baby by calling it a 'FETUS'. By the way, the word FETUS MEANS 'Little One' in LATIN, it doesn't mean a lifeless bunble of cells.
Don said:
Where in the US Constitution does it say a Woman or anyone, can decide when a choice ends and life begins?
Don, where in the Constitution does it say she can't?
The US Constitution guarantees freedom of speech & Religion, IN OR OUT of Public Office. Deal with it's FREEDOM!!!
Santoreum , another nut job heard from.
Well anyone who knows Santorom's politics can't be too shocked at this. The former Senator made limiting choice for women a hallmark of his career. The fact he chastises the President for not advocating choice especially be taken from black women is a new low--so much for his Presidential aspirations.
I hear Santorum is hard to wash out of your sheets.
As well as Our President signing into law the ban of tax dollars for abortion use...
Some People will just not see truth no matter how bright the light is that is shined apon it.....
Our President is doing everything he can to make this a better place to live for ALL even those that disagree with him based off of lies.....
Don-907787- Ok here is a scientific answer on when life begins. For the first few months of a pregnancy, the fetuses nervous system in inactive. It is no more alive than the egg you ate for breakfast this morning. A few months in, it wakes up. Consciousness and self awareness begins. Now it's a living THINKING hunk of flesh. So the doctor who recently aborted late tem is a murderer, but a woman, a month in to an unwanted pregnancy is not. Religion is the only group that says otherwise. In this case we have a constitutional law. If you oppose something ONLY because "god says so" then, ummm not good enough sorry. Church and state separation is a stickler.
For those who are offended by "blood libel", or anything this article says... GET OVER YOURSELF. If I say "I'm a slave to my work" am I offending black people? How about " This place is a gas" or "burning desire” will it offend Jews? PC is run amuck and ridiculous. A word is intended in the context used, not a context used 60 years ago. Here’s a PC thought for you. Nazi color was red, so we should outlaw that color for anyone to use so we don’t offend anyone. Make sense? To the PC thugs yes. Again I say GET OVER YOURSELF!
Um, Ying, an active nervous system isn't a definition of life. There are plenty different forms of life that never have active nervous systems, or even inactive nervous systems. They're still scientifically alive.
The correct scientific answer is that, as soon as the first cell presents a complete genetic profile that is neither it's mother's nor it's father's, it is a distinct and separate life form. There may be some iffy-ness as to how 'distinct' that genetic profile needs to be (after all, a cancerous cell is at least a little different from the host's genetic profile), but the standard is set at conception. As long as those cells are alive, they represent a separate life form.
Who let him out of his cage? Why are black people Republican? Why? Why?
I guess that santorum would win the 2012 Presidential race if this country was composed of only racists like him !!! but between blacks, hispanics, asians and liberal whites he has a "SNOWBALL'S CHANCE IN HELL" !!! but if he wants to waste his time and other people's money, let the f*cker run !!!
Mr. Santorum has a right to his very conservative views, but to bring race into the matter should end his presidental intentions. A lot of people will see that statement as racist, whether it was intended that way or not. Buh-bye Mr. Santorum. My advice is to stay out of the race. You'll never appeal to the young or the independents with your extreme views.
Believe me...Santorum will not EVER get the nomination, after that comment. Millions of us will automatically reject him without a second thought - as we do ALL racists and bigots. Nominating him would mean automatic defeat.
Planned Parenthood was founded by a racist woman who wanted to 'control' the population of people of color, or didn't you GOOGLE that??
What's extreme about pointing out that there is no constitional right for a woman or man, to decide when life begins, or that confers upon a woman the right to terminate a living, breathing being.
Don, if you are a man then you can't have an abortion anyway. Your right to decide ends at you, others think how they want and thankfully few think like you. This is why we call you the 'vocal minority'
Actually, the MAJORITY of Americans, thinks abortion is extreme. I think, that separates me from those like yourself, offer no defense of why a sonogram, or the myriad of depictions of the shape and size of a developing human being in the womb, clearly shows the child developing, kicking, etc., can be referred to as a choice, NOT a child.
But it's just a 'choice' if the woman decides to abort it. Odd how that defies common sense, a fetus by the way, is the LATIN term menaing 'little one', not BUNDLE OF CELLS.
Actually, the majority of Americans do not think abortion is extreme. Don may be confused about majority because he places his view above all others. The idea when life begins is based on religious views. Our Constitution (First Amendment) protects free religion and freedom from religion. I am tired of a moral minority trying to force their religious views down the country's throat!
Did I mention Santorum can really leave a stain? You need to be careful with Santorum.
Not aware of anywhere the Constitution says 'freedom FROM religion'. I guess that's how moral cowards justify their views.
Don it clearly says seperation of church and state by the way america was founded on choice and peoples right to choose thats why we revolted because it was a choice either pay the taxes or revolt...
Let me just say I went to Catholic schools all my life so as a Catholic I am against abortion but as an AMERICAN I am for peoples right to choice and for the record the people who recieve these abortions are the people that have to answer for it when they stand before GOD no one else...... Point is that it truly is a slippery road but to restrict people of the right to choose is TOTALLY Un-AMERICAN
Actually Don, if you're going to go by polls, the vast majority of Americans want to keep abortion legal. That's not a winning argument either (as though this thing were up to a hand vote.)
Valjean, there is also a scientific standard for life, and that places the beginning of life at conception. Of course, the standard that is used to defend abortions is consciousness, or self-awareness, but that's a dangerous standard. People in comas are neither conscious nor self-aware, after all.
AP, with all the polls that have been done on the topic, and as split as the US is on the topic, you can find a poll that shows the majority is in support of either side. It all depends on how the poll is worded.
I don't think Santorum can find a good civilian job so hes back to politics and a free taxpayer ride.....he hopes
I actually like listening to this tool on Bill Bennett on Fridays. I swear a lot, but I get my cookies thinking "41%". THAT was the portion of the electorate that he won in his last race!
Zero terms and out for this one...
here's the question you abortionists: When does life begin? Is it OK to tear an unborn child apart in the womb while masking it as a 'woman's choice'?
How about the Dr that was killing babies here in Philly, is that ok too?
Where in the US Constitution does it say a Woman or anyone, can decide when a choice ends and life begins?
You on the left who confer 'rights' on animals, can't seem to decide when an unborn child BECOMES a child, you dehumanize the baby by calling it a 'FETUS'. By the way, the word FETUS MEANS 'Little One' in LATIN, it doesn't mean a lifeless bunble of cells.
So Don-907787, if life begins at conception, a woman should able to choose to not be a host for that life and have that life removed from her body. Not aborted, just removed. Then, if that life dies, it's all part of God's plan.
It's really simple. If you have a uterus, it is no one else's business but yours. If you don't have a uterus, then stay out of other people's business.
Your choice ends when you engage in the act of pro-creation. That's your choice, it's not the childs fault it came at an inconvenient time. That sickens me
Don, exactly how many pregnancies have you had? This should be the choice of the woman involved and her own specific circumstances. This should never be a matter of politics. You cannot possibly know what a woman would go through if she were faced with this choice. If you were able to actually get pregnant then and only then should you have an opiono on the subject.
What if you get pregnant because you were raped? Then you didn't have a choice. What if you tried to prevent the pregnancy, but the method failed? Then it wasn't your choice. What if you chose to get pregnant, and then the day you discovered you were, your husband became severely disabled and would need constant, lifelong care? There are tons of reasons for having a safe and legal abortion.
Correct me if I'm wrong FAYSE, wasn't it a court, an organ of our political doings, that SUGGESTED that there was a 'right' to terminate a pregnancy?? How is that NOT political??
See, the left once again, engaging in mindless banter!
If human life begins at conception, then why don't anti-abortion people hold funerals for miscarriages?
Even if life did begin at conception, why does anyone think that the government should have the right to FORCE a woman to use her uterus to sustain another life? By way of analogy, what if you woke up one morning to find yourself lying in a hospital bed. Right next to you, another patient lies in another bed. There is a tube connecting your body to his. The doctors tell you that you can get up and walk around but if you disconnect that tube at any time during the next 9 months, that guy will die. There are side effects that you will suffer, too: nausea, possibly vomiting, constant discomfort, weight gain, back pain, and a small risk that you will die. Oh, and you'll have to devote most of your life to caring for that person for the next 20 years. My question to you: Should the government have the right to legally FORCE you to agree to this even if you never consented to have your body used in this way?
Perhaps most importantly, why would anyone think that a ball of 8 cells is a human being, merely because those 8 cells contain human DNA?
Stompy, your logic fails the legal test. If that were true, then a mother of a newborn could just toss the child into a dumpster and walk away. In reality, that's illegal.
fayse, you engage emotionalism rather than logic. Let me counter that with emotionalism: have you ever been killed? If not, you cannot possibly know what a fetus goes through in an abortion, and shouldn't have the right to force it on anyone.
lynseypug, it is an unfortunate reality of our world that sometimes people have to face the consequences of things they had no control over. Their lack of choice on the matter doesn't give them absolute rights to get out of it at any cost, though. If it did, then a man who's heart was damaged in a crash with a drunken driver would be able to force the doctors to kill another patient and use their heart. That doesn't happen, so why should the same logic be applied here?
MG, the government doesn't force the woman to, nature does. The government could only deny the woman a right to end it. Tell me, do you think one Siamese twin should be allowed to force a separation surgery even if it will kill the other? And to your 'more importantly', why shouldn't they? Why should the number of cells matter? If it does, why should anyone consider a bundle of (number of cells in average 8-year-old child) to be human, just because they have human DNA in them? Where do you draw the line? What standard do you use, and how do you justify that standard over other standards?
To the last three of you, the real issue of debate is whether the unborn child is alive or not. I hope you would all agree that, if the child is recognized as a sapient, aware, and living human being, the mother has no right to kill the child for her own comfort. On the other hand, if the unborn isn't considered to be 'alive', then the mother has every right to do whatever she wants (within reasonable legal restrictions) to her own body. The current law says that it's not alive until the third trimester (with some differences in individual states). Laws can be changed, however. The basis for this law is, at best, a weak scientific standard (it's not really 'life' that's used at all). If it can be replaced with a better standard, it should be, no matter how that skews the resulting law.
Who takes Santorum's Presidential aspirations seriously? That's like taking Palin's seriously. He doesn't have the gravitas.
His comments on abortion are just an indicator of his chances.
Bill had it right when hie said they should be "safe, legal and rare."
Santorum has one good strategy - "to not campaign in Pennsylvania"....he already knows what the results would be.........
here's the question you abortionists: When does life begin? Is it OK to tear an unborn child apart in the womb while masking it as a 'woman's choice'?
How about the Dr that was killing babies here in Philly, is that ok too?
Where in the US Constitution does it say a Woman or anyone, can decide when a choice ends and life begins?
You on the left who confer 'rights' on animals, can't seem to decide when an unborn child BECOMES a child, you dehumanize the baby by calling it a 'FETUS'. By the way, the word FETUS MEANS 'Little One' in LATIN, it doesn't mean a lifeless bunble of cells.
Don--it's legal. It's not going to NOT be illegal. You either trust women with the most personal decision of their lives, or you trust the state to make it for them. I'm going to go with the women on this one--like the vast majority of Americans who are not about to head back to their coat hangers.
They're just not that rare are they devie, is it? We aren't permitted to know how many are performed a year in the country, the left made sure of that, because this nation would rise up in numbers never before seen if they knew how many Americans are killed this way each year.
AP, so why do you trust the woman with the most significant decision (and last) of someone else's life, as well? And, more importantly, why don't you allow them to make the same decision 8 months later?
ED has a few things to say about Rick Santorum~
What causes Santorum to say things like this?
It's in the Republican DNA.
He should have cited his sources, planned parenthood was founded by a woman that wanted to 'control' the population of people of color. Look it up
I have a better idea, Don, how about you cite your sources
So Don, your argument would be that we should return to the Comstock laws? (making all family planning and even talk of family planning illegal?) Yup, Margaret Sanger wrongly embraced the eugenics of her time--but after witnessing the death of her own mother at 40 after 18 pregnancies, she helped fund the research that made the first real family planning possible. Sorry Don, but there's no going back--You'll have to be satisfied with women making their own decisions now and that includes making the decision whether to end a pregnancy.
Eugenics and euthanasia
Sanger was a proponent of negative eugenics, a social philosophy which claims that human hereditary traits can be improved through social intervention. Sanger's eugenic policies ran to an exclusionary immigration policy, free access to birth control methods and full family-planning autonomy for the able-minded, and compulsory segregation or sterilization for the profoundly retarded. She expressly denounced euthanasia as a eugenics tool.
In A Plan for Peace (1932), for example, Sanger proposed a congressional department to:
Keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924.[23]
And, following:
Apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.[23]
If Rick Santorum were the republican nominee, it would ensure an almost 1984 style win for Obama (Reagan won 49 states in 1984)...There aren't too many more vile people on this planet than Rick Santroum..Â
here's the question you abortionists: When does life begin? Is it OK to tear an unborn child apart in the womb while masking it as a 'woman's choice'?
How about the Dr that was killing babies here in Philly, is that ok too?
Where in the US Constitution does it say a Woman or anyone, can decide when a choice ends and life begins?
You on the left who confer 'rights' on animals, can't seem to decide when an unborn child BECOMES a child, you dehumanize the baby by calling it a 'FETUS'. By the way, the word FETUS MEANS 'Little One' in LATIN, it doesn't mean a lifeless bunble of cells.
 I cannot believe how obtuse the authors of these other posts are. This should be simple to understand. However, since the meaning of the comment eludes many of you, let me try to make it even simpler. Santorum believes that someone who is black should be more sensitive to a scenario in which one group of people get to define the value of another unempowered group of people's humanity. Remember the 3/5 rule when counting slaves into the population? He is just pointing out that a person who would have once been a victim of this type of practice is now perpetrating it upon others. Now, let the ridiculous, far-fetched word twisting begin...Â
Bull...Santorum is a racist clown...
Michael, are you implying Santorum was being nice to blacks? It was incredibly stupid. For one thing, it gives the impression that Santorum divides the world into black and white and expects certain kinds of behavior from blacks. What other stereotypes does he have? He's too stupid to last on the national political stage.
Nice try Michael. You seem to be a bright fellow, perhaps Santorum and many other Republicans should hire you to screen their comments before they shove their feet in their respective mouths.
Obtuse? Ouch! You almost penetrated my thick skull with that one. Hey we may be a tad bit insensitive and for sure annoying but we are not slow to understand that Mr. Santorum is not Presidential material. I believe that Rick is the one who is obtuse. btw nice three dollar word.
btw Michael did you vote for yourself?
Hi Devie,
I was not casting my vote for Rick Santorum as president, I just think that the meaning behind his statement was lost on most readers, based upon the comments. I remember seeing Rick debate and he doesn't necessarily do well under pressure. And no, I didn't vote for myself. I don't know who did that. As First Read generally has a left-leaning following, I was as surprised as were you to see that. Some other conservative must have accidentally navigated to this site!
So now we hear from Sanatorium's buddies. The same thinking is running through his corporate brain. "Michael in Des Moines" without your forced early political primaries you would be no better than Mississippians. And we all know how great Haley Barbour's state is. Your attempted "explanation" is not needed, and in truth is to simplistic in the actual meaning Mr Santorum was exposing. This man is as racist as Rush Limbaugh and as intelligent as the Tucson shooter. We need nether of these intellects.
Yeah... and monkeys might fly out of my butt.
Mike in DesMoines....you're response is pretty lame. Santorum's statement is just plain stupid. It does take intelligence to be in public office. He obviously isn't holding.
I'd offer a penny for your thoughts RU, but I'd clearly be overpaying!!!
See how the left just parrots one anothers comments on these sites..it's pathetic
I believe he was one of the first to admit publicaly the pure racism directed against our President. When will they keep dancing around it?
holly is right rick is just saying in public what the likes of huckabe and palin say in private
As a Pennsylvanian, I was glad to see Mr. Santorum exit during the '06 elections. His views are far too radical for my tastes, and, obviously, for most of the rest of Pennsylvanian voters. His national aspirations were slim to begin with, and his foot-in-mouth utterances constantly whittle away at whatever's left...
Good riddance, Rick!
here's the question you abortionists: When does life begin? Is it OK to tear an unborn child apart in the womb while masking it as a 'woman's choice'?
How about the Dr that was killing babies here in Philly, is that ok too?
Where in the US Constitution does it say a Woman or anyone, can decide when a choice ends and life begins?
You on the left who confer 'rights' on animals, can't seem to decide when an unborn child BECOMES a child, you dehumanize the baby by calling it a 'FETUS'. By the way, the word FETUS MEANS 'Little One' in LATIN, it doesn't mean a lifeless bunble of cells.
The nerve of those "black people", huh Rick? What a racist loser
Did I mention that the founder of planned parenthood was a racist concerned about the population of people of color, or didn;t you libs know that??
YES, Don, you mentioned it. And reposted your PRO-LIFE diatribe several times. We get where you're coming from. No one seems impressed.
Now either say something new or go away.
Ok Nres, why does the left suggest 'RAPE' as a cause of so many abortions? Anyone thinking person knows that the millions of abortions performed in this and other nations, were NOT the result of that act. That's a con that libs use routinely to justify an unjustifiable act of tyranny
Don, Whether it be due to rape or otherwise, the choice of ending a pregnancy in American is legally up to the woman before the fetus can survive on its own. The only tyranny is in your own mind. Don't want an abortion? Then by all means, don't have one.
Um ok Mr. Santorum, let's see if I understand the reference you're lamely trying to make... You're refering to the "I Am a Man" civil rights slogan of the late 50s? Srsly? The one countering racists' refusal to call grown men men instead of boys, because of their race? And tying it in some impossible way to abortion? Is that REALLY the path you're attempting to stumble down?
Please Mr. That-Frothy-Mix, go back to the obscurity that Pennsylvania voters so rightly assigned to you years ago.
Santorum isn't bright enough to think that much Perry. He said something sure to piss off black people because its good fund raising for the skidmarks that will support him.
No, he's referring to that fact that the founder of planned parenthood was a racist that wanted to contol the population of people of color. But u knew that, right TAG??
Don,
Now that I've noticed the same two comments from you repeated six or seven times (glad those computer lessons taught you how to Copy and Paste), I thought I'd take your advice and look up "the founder of Planned Parenthood."
Turns out that Margaret Sanger was so much of a racist that Martin Luther King Jr. accepted the Margaret Sanger award from Planned Parenthood in 1966.
King's acceptance speech included the following sentence, in a paragraph on Margaret Sanger:
"She launched a movement which is obeying a higher law to preserve human life under humane conditions."
Hm. This woman you seek to discredit as a racist babykiller was honored by a black minister as one who was "preserv(ing) human life?" The math doesn't work, Don.
She did advocate some eugenic policies that could be misinterpreted as racist - and often are by anti-abortionists, such as yourself, who seek to discredit her and Planned Parenthood as if they were one and the same - but "racism" wasn't her goal, or the point of those policies. Nice try, but poor execution, Don.
frenchy,
I doubt Dr King researched the person. He was quite a forgivng man, and I would imagine he wouldn't spurn her for that reason alone. I'll get some date on her and post it here, as I can see that you are selective in your 'research'.
Here you go Frenchy, I guess you missed this in your 'RESEARCH' on planned parenthood:
Eugenics and euthanasia
Sanger was a proponent of negative eugenics, a social philosophy which claims that human hereditary traits can be improved through social intervention. Sanger's eugenic policies ran to an exclusionary immigration policy, free access to birth control methods and full family-planning autonomy for the able-minded, and compulsory segregation or sterilization for the profoundly retarded. She expressly denounced euthanasia as a eugenics tool.
In A Plan for Peace (1932), for example, Sanger proposed a congressional department to:
Keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924.[23]
And, following:
Apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.[23]
I think it is indicative of Senator's Santorum's racism that he equates sentient human beings who were slaves with a some cells in a woman's body who happen to have a bit more genetic material than the other millions of cells in her body.
Nature, or nature's God, didn't put much of a premimum on human reproductive cells. Women produce hundreds in their lifetime; men produce millions. Even when the egg and sperm get together, only sometimes does it result in a live birth. Do all the pregnancies that don't take result in the death of a human being? If that is the case, we as a society are not doing very much to save all these dying human beings. It is only when there is medical intervention is involved that the pro-lifers care about the fate of zygotes, embryoes, or early term fetuses that are in other people's bodies.
Sanger's Legacy Is Reproductive Freedom and Racism
By Julianne Malveaux
WEnews contributor
Wednesday, July 18, 2001
The articles published in the Birth Control Review showed Sanger's empathy with some eugenicist views. Margaret Sanger worked closely with W.E.B. Du Bois on his "Negro Project," an effort to expose Southern black women to birth control. Mary McLeod Bethune and Adam Clayton Powell Jr. were also involved in the effort. Much later, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. accepted an award from Planned Parenthood and complimented the organization's efforts. It is entirely possible that Sanger's views evolved over time. Certainly, by the late 1940s, she spoke about ways to solve the "Negro problem" in the United States. This evolution, however commendable, does not eradicate the impact of her earlier statements.
While it is understandable that Planned Parenthood would be protective of their founder's reputation, it cannot ignore the fact that Sanger edited the Birth Control Review from its inception until 1929. Under her leadership, the magazine featured articles that embraced the eugenicist position. If Sanger were as anti-eugenics as Planned Parenthood says she was, she would not have printed as many articles sympathetic to eugenics as she did.
So this proves what exactly? That we shouldn't have family planning? That women are going to give up birth control (ANY women, black white or other?) You're really not getting anywhere with this Sanger argument as it relates to abortion.
 I believe what Santorum was referring to was the fact that at one time in this country, we black people were first not considered to be people from a legal sense, and then later only two-thirds of a person. Get it? Obama supposedly should be more sensitive to the cause of the unborn because of our people's experience of not being considered people. It's a stretch, but I guess I see what he was TRYING to say.
By the way, I agree. Santorum couldn't land a decent civilian job like the rest of us, so he's turning back to politics. Go figure.
It was three fifths of a person and no they weren't consider humans that was so the southern states would have better representation in the House of Reps. We all get that he is Pro Life he doesn't need to explain that to anyone who's been alive for the last ten years.
Really Undecided... you give him WAY too much credit.
GOP: No, he's actually invoking the far right wing diatribe against Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood to make an arcane argument against abortion. The fringe extremists argue that all of Sanger's work to make family planning legal and help fund the invention of the pill, were dastardly plots against Blacks (she later in life unfortunately embraced the eugenics of her time). In this day and age, no one outside this fringe actually believes women should not even be allowed birth control because of Sanger, but that's the tortured code that Santorum and his ilk use to fire up his base (this is why DAN keeps posting the same thing over and over)--I'm sure Sarah right now is hitting her forehead with--I wish I'D said that!! works better they think than arguing for the return to coathangers.
The GOP will use Rick Sanitorium as long as he is useful--- just as they're using Sarah Palin and the teabeggers! They all say what the GOP wants said, but wont say themselves for fear of political consequences! But make no mistake, they're part of the GOP plan to retake America and finish what they started. So, let's hold them accountable for what they do compared to what they promised, what they dont do and for what they say or allow to be said without condemnation! That's what they did when the country was worried about an optbreak of violence last year because of their gun laden rhetoric--- they were VERY slow to condemn and filled the air with lotsa noise signifying nothing!
this man is obviously a racist - but you know what - i am sure a lot of his fellow conservatives are - they are just not dumb enough to make a statement like this to the public
Het fred, lookup the biography of the founder of the abortion mill planned parenthood. You may be shocked at what her views were of people of color
Santorum, the ass-clown from Alabama, Palin....gee, how about the Republicans? And how the hell about not worrying about womens rights and start (all of you, Republicans and Democrats) get moving on something to get more jobs in this country and wrangle in the banks and big corps that are robbing us? Why does the Republican party only care about keeping the rich wealth, womens rights and guns? HOW ABOUT A COMMENT ON JOBS YOU DOUCHEBAGS!
It's no ones right to cause the cessation of life in what is clearly a feeling, breathing, human in the womb.
Odd how when someone gets a sonogram of an unborn child, see it's a child, but when they abort it, it's a CHOICE.
The fact is that a life is terminated. We have a Dr here in PA, an abortionist, who killed the babies with scissors, I guess if he used a vacuum cleaner it would have been a CHOICE.
Don said, "breathing, human in the womb"
Breathing in the Womb
"Babies do not actually breathe in the womb---at least, not in the usual sense. Fetal lungs are not fully functional, and are not even able to fully expand, until after birth. During the later stages of gestation, the fetus may "practice" breathing by inhaling and exhaling amniotic fluid. The fetal lungs do not process the amniotic fluid, the way fully formed lungs process air, but experts believe this "breathing" is important to fetal lung development. The fetus gets all of its oxygen and nutrients through the placenta and umbilical cord---a process called fetal circulation."
Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/article/27084-babies-breathe-womb/#ixzz1BgLEivMP
More of that mysticism call science. Maybe you should learn some.
Santorum is back? After a 17% drubbing in his last senate race, I thought we heard the last of this clown. Please, Rick, Just go away. You are so politically irrelevant.
Sadly, losing an election these days doesn't mean the loser retires quietly into private life. Just take a look at the losing vice presidential candidate in the 2008 national elections! Talk about irrelevant!
Hey, google planned parenthood's founder and see what a racist she was...it's pretty disgusting, alot like someone who condones the dismembering of a child in the womb.
I am sure Mr. Santorum saw nothing racist in his comment--which makes it all the sadder. But if he had any self-awareness at all, he would not be thinking of running for president.
couldn't help but notice how those of u on the left, gravitate toward purposely mischaracterizing people's statements. Must be mental illness, like liberlism itself. The Intellectual midgets that populate the the left in this country...it's sad really, they think by suggesting a meaning, everyone will believe it.
Like GLOBAL warming, while it snows in virtually every state in the continental US, and try to suggest that 'it's becuase of global warming' that we're having one of the LOWEST average temperatures for a winter in 50 years.
Hey Don: Your little choo-choo has chugged around the bend! Time for bed.
Her u go nres, aliitle tidbit of the philosophy of palnned parenthoods founder:
Eugenics and euthanasia
Sanger was a proponent of negative eugenics, a social philosophy which claims that human hereditary traits can be improved through social intervention. Sanger's eugenic policies ran to an exclusionary immigration policy, free access to birth control methods and full family-planning autonomy for the able-minded, and compulsory segregation or sterilization for the profoundly retarded. She expressly denounced euthanasia as a eugenics tool.
In A Plan for Peace (1932), for example, Sanger proposed a congressional department to:
Keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924.[23]
And, following:
Apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.[23]
i think santorum was alluding to the historic fact that african-americans were denied legal rights of full citizens. therefore he expects african-americans to be more sensitive when looking at what he see's as the rights of a fetus. of course he ignores the fact that the vast majority of african-americans are not sensitive to the rights of gay citizens either...they don't equate gay rights with civil rights. so why would they equate fetal rights with civil rights?
Apparently Santorum still buys into the 3/5 rule. Apparently Black people are too inferior to have an independent thought of their own.
seems like you were trying to suggest something that wasn't said Ed. Alot like liberals do, routinely, without a shred of evidence, like when u tried to tie the Az rampage on Talk Radio & Fox news, no evidence, but u try to make a case ANYWAY. Libs never let the truth get in the way of a good storyline, they live in slogans. They dont have alot of capacity to process info, so they're reduced to slogans an terms like racist, etc.
How big an idiot can a person be? We push the envelope everyday it seems.
Rick Santorum. Once an idiot, always an idiot.
Santorum. *sigh* This man is the lunatic fringe. The same man who brought a dead fetus home to show his small children, to show them their "brother" who died after being born prematurely. The children's ages at the time were 6, 4, and 1-1/2. Sicko. If this fanatical Opus Dei member ever becomes president, everyone who has one ounce of rationality left in their heads had better run for the hills. Or better yet, buses heading north.
He didn't actually do that, did he?
He did it:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61804-2005Apr17.html
I'm 100% pro-choice, but I don't generally see anything wrong with that if they want to deal with their grief in that way. Our hospitals have removed that aspect of life from our homes, and this is one way to compensate.
But it does seem odd for the parents to impose their feelings of grief on their very young children, who won't have the same emotional tie to the pregnancy.
Fetus menas 'little one', not bundle of cells Pie. Got a question:
here's the question you abortionists: When does life begin? Is it OK to tear an unborn child apart in the womb while masking it as a 'woman's choice'?
How about the Dr that was killing babies here in Philly, is that ok too?
Where in the US Constitution does it say a Woman or anyone, can decide when a choice ends and life begins?
You on the left who confer 'rights' on animals, can't seem to decide when an unborn child BECOMES a child, you dehumanize the baby by calling it a 'FETUS'. By the way, the word FETUS MEANS 'Little One' in LATIN, it doesn't mean a lifeless bunble of cells.