Romney Loses More Momentum at CPAC

The Mittens used the word 'conservative' 29 times during his CPAC speech.

“Now ... is a time to reaffirm what it means to be conservative and why this must be our greatest hour as conservatives.” (Hey, that was a two-fer.)

“We conservatives aren't just proud to cling to our guns and to our religion.”

I know conservatism because I have lived conservatism.” (Ding-ding!)

He can say it all he wants. Saying it and being one are two different things.

As our colleague Karen says in the comments section below - we all need a good laugh.

The people I spoke with who were in attendance said the energy was around Santorum at the Conference. Meanwhile, Santorum is surging in the polls in Michigan.

Our Lady of Lourdes, pray for us!

Support Santorum (75% do NOT Support Romney!)

Nobody has a crystal ball in who the nominee will be, but judging from the support on the level of the grassroots voters, I wholeheartedly agree with Gingrich that the Mittens will NOT be the nominee.

When there are legitimate prolifers in a political race and it looks like they could actually win, why, in the Name of Christ, would a group get together to go out of their way to endorse a proabort?

Massachusetts Prolife Advocates say Romney is Prolife

Look, of course they have to 'say' it, because when we all look at Romneys record, it isn't 'prolife' at all. They've got to take the same positions they oppose with Obama and then claim they believe those positions to be 'prolife'.

This is political suicide.

If those positions are 'prolife' when Romney takes them, they are 'prolife' when Obama takes them.

This is the reason why prochoice candidates keep defeating prolifers.

They've taken a couple of things and given them a good spin, but here's everything you need to know about whether Romney is 'prolife'.

1. Romney said that he does not favor a federal constitutional amendment banning abortion, but instead favors each state deciding for itself whether to allow abortion or not. (Suppose Lincoln had taken that approach on the slavery issue. )

2. Gov. Romney signed into law a universal health insurance plan that (a) includes increased state-funded abortions, and (b) names Planned Parenthood in the law as an overseer. Romney never challenged any of that.

3. Romney said he would disagree with governmental intervention in the Terri Schiavo forced starvation case, adding "I think it's probably best to leave these kinds of matters in the hands of the courts."

4. Gov. Romney forced Catholic hospitals in Massachusetts to dispense the "morning after" pill.

5. Romney said he does not object to stem cell research using left over human embryos.

6. Although Romney vetoed pro-abortion legislation after his "conversion", it always appeared to be for political effect. The Legislature always overrode the vetoes. We never saw Romney exert any substantial effort to get his vetoes
sustained

Romney's current view on abortion appears to be based more on a procedural stance than a moral view and is not necessarily a pro-life view.

Instead of focusing on the moral case against abortion, Romney has repeatedly stated he wants the people to vote on this issue, which, in of in itself is not a pro-life position unless you also agree to use your position to pass pro-life legislation. But when pressed on whether he would support a constitutional amendment banning abortion, he refuses to answer this question. The National Journal (February 10, 2007) pressed him on this point:

Question:

You would favor a constitutional amendment banning abortion with exceptions for the life of the mother, rape and incest. Is that correct?

Romney:

What I've indicated is that I am pro-life, and that my hope is that the Supreme Court will give to the states over time or give to the states soon or give to the states their own ability to make their own decision with regard to their abortion law.

Question:

If a state wanted unlimited abortion?

Romney:

The state would fall into restrictions that had been imposed at the federal level, so they couldn't be more expansive in abortion than currently exists under the law, but they could become more restrictive in abortion provisions. So states like Massachusetts could stay like they are if they so desire, and states that have a different view could take that course. And it would be up to the citizens of the individual states. My view is not to impose a single federal rule on the entire nation -- a one-size-fits-all approach -- but instead allow states to make their own decisions in this regard.


On February 28, 2005 - also after his conversion - Romney said:

I am personally pro-life. However, as governor I would not change the laws of the commonwealth relating to abortion.

Anne Fox from 'Mass Citizens for Life' somehow didn't make it on the list of prolife usual suspects who endorse proaborts but, she sent out her own email endorsing the proabortion, author of obamacare and unconstitutional mandates. She's very fond of Santorum, but she wishes Romney would see his failings in prolife positions and doesn't want to fault them:

Last night a good chunk of the country joined us to watch the results of the Iowa caucuses. Of course, pro-lifers are very fond of Rick Santorum!

We in Massachusetts wish Governor Romney would recognize the failings of state-controlled health care and come up with a better way to accomplish his laudable goals but we do not fault his pro-life position.....In the last few days we have had calls at the MCFL office from operatives of other campaigns trying to get us to criticize Romney's positions on life. The governor's positions are pro-life and we feel confident that they will stay that way.

With 'prolife' operatives like this, who needs prochoice operatives?

There's a prolifer gaining momentum but we don't want him to get the nomination so let's issue a press release for the flip-floping proabort whom 75% of Repulican's won't support.

If 75% of the Republicans want anyone but Romney and the Democrats are going to vote Democrat, math and common sense should enlighten your intellect that Romney would be defeated against Obama.

Frankly, if it comes to a race where the prolifers defeat the prolifer by endorsing the proabort while the prolifers were gaining momentum -and we get stuck with Romney, my efforts are going toward getting the grassroots to sit out the election. We've got to stop feeding the beast and we are better off having everyone know Obama is a proabort. Having our own prolifers pretend Romney's position are prolife is catastrophic to our mission in the longterm.

Santorum is a real prolifer and is gaining momentum. This is the time to get behind him and put a sock in initiatives endorsing candidates whose positions are prochoice. (n.b. The hubris that Rick is against gay marriage and therefore is extreme - coming from our own voting block is blockhead. Obama is against gay marriage)

Latest news out of Iowa is saying there was a counting error and Santorum may have actually WON.

I'm praying for Santorum and I'm going to do and say all I can to support his momentum. That is what all of us should be doing until we see how the cards play out.

The Elephant in the GOP

Romney faces trust deficit with voters.

Ya think?

Herman Cain has had a rather exciting week, eh?

I know the candidates I don't like in the 2012 race for POTUS but I'm not invested in any particular candidate, including Cain. But I have to tell you, as I watched the asinine media blitz about the 'smoking' commercial, the twisting of everything he says - I thought to myself "Heh. Even the democrats aren't this weird. Where have I seen this before?"

All of a sudden, it hit me: The Romneybots.


Look, the ad was high-school quality and a bit strange, but only thing I got out of it was he must not have a team of professionals put together yet.

He definitely isn't politically seasoned. It's early...and I hate to say it...but it's not like there's another horse in the race. Perry is starting to look like an empty suit. Romney is a train-wreck. I like Newt and I'll get behind him if his campaign gets a lift, but I'm not sure he can pull it off. They will crucify Michelle. I don't trust Santorum. Paul is a screwball.

We're going to have to lower the bar on something and as far as I'm concerned, the seasoning and polish are not substantive. I'm tired of the phonies who are coached in the back room by pros.

As far as the abortion-related question with his grandaughter, I think that was a family-related and personal question - not a political question. I've heard his views on pro-life and I am satisfied with them. There's nothing to be gained by saying there are no exceptions to abortion, unless that's exactly the way he feels. The phoney pros dance around that question. Even prolifers who are cowards dance around that question. He's convicted.

The 'sexual harassment' thing could be something or could be nothing. I don't mean to undermine sexual harassment because it can be devastating if true. But until I hear more, it's a big yawn for me. I've seen too many men in the professional world have a bunch of nothing blown up by a woman with a chip on her shoulder.

The more this thing plays out, I'd say I agree with MaryAnn Kreitzer. It isn't persuading me away from him, if anything, he's starting to look a little better.

Catholic Chatter about Rick Perry in 2012

Though I wasn't too crazy about Rick Perry's controversial invitation to Haggee, this was not a deal breaker for me.

I am not at all enamored with Perry's 'states rights' talk.

We've put a structure in place that trumps states rights when it's clear federal protection is necessary to protect life, dignity, a class of people and our culture.

But his talk about 'states rights' wasn't fatal. It is, after all, part of our Constitution. It can even be good strategy at some point in history while combating something egregious.

But sometimes a state or a group of states come up with ideas that need to be totally outlawed. Slavery, for instance. Denying people the right to vote based on color or gender. Denying them the right to bear arms. Denying them the right to drink alcohol. Denying them life.

Perry considers abortions a states rights issue.

Legalizing the killing of a class of people isn't a state's right. It's a human rights issue that needs to be taken up on the federal level and Constitutionally protected.

We refine our Constitution when things start going awry on the state level. That's the system we have in place.

When a politician uses states rights talk about abortion, I start to get a little skeptical. Actually, a lot skeptical. But again, it isn't a write-off.


As a Catholic, a mother and a woman, this was the deal breaker.

But if we force every daughter to get Gardasil, we have lost hope in the ability of our children to say no to hazardous premarital sex.

In effect, the very decision to give your daughter Gardasil tells your daughter: “I know you can’t say no.” This gives her the green light. She’ll think: “After all, Mom and Dad think I’m having sex anyway.”

But having the state mandate this is even worse. You establish a culture where young girls are resigned to becoming a sex object. It’s an assault on the dignity of young women.

Females are too stupid and nymphomaniac to waste any more of our energies aspiring to teach them the virtues of chastity and morality. He has given up the pursuit of teaching the culture the qualities of a decent, emotionally stable life partner. His cultural policies are driven to surrender to the hook up mentality.

IMO, Perry has some subterfuge that affects his respect for women and children and ultimately his discretion. Too much of the Kadashians going on there for me.

It would take a lot of convincing to get on board that machine.

The 2012 Election for POTUS

Pawlenty is out. It's a bit early to throw in the towel but there it is.

Last I knew, candidates were busing in people to stack the Ames. It isn't very reliable.

I'm a-scaird.

Michele and Ron? Really?

I'd get behind Michele as she's on the team but is she electable? To be honest, I haven't really been paying that much attention. I'd vote for the Ron up against Barack Hussein but he's a little too Shirley McLaine for me.

At least these two are solidly pro-life.

Strange the flipflopper didn't participate. His previous strategy has been to bus 'em into Iowa and stack the poll. Enthusiasm among voters must be low.

There's no question in my mind that Rick Santorum is an authentic prolifer. But two problems. His discretion is (less than stellar), and I suspect the left will take quotes from his book to fearmonger. I also never got the feeling his personality was a winner among his peers in Washington. He's made an awful lot of enemies within our ranks (people who ordinarily get along with other people). It does not speak well of his leadership. If he can't pull our own team together, our bid for the White House is toast. I wouldn't rail against him if he were the nominee (as I would Romney) but I lack enthusiasm.

Rick Perry is courting the evangelicals. He's got his game on with them but will they use their political forces to elect him? When you scratch the surface,his policies and agenda aren't much different than Barack's. What's the attraction? Grassroot voters will scratch the surface and sooner or later, he'll go under the bus. He's not getting into the White House without the grassroots. What's the point?

We have a situation where the White House is the GOP's to lose and this is as good as it gets?

The defection of Obama's troops continues to be fascinating. He could go down as the most divisive President in the history of American politics. It should be an interesting week, as he is apparently going to come out swinging.

We'll see what he's got left. We'll see what the GOP has in their armory. Wouldn't you love to be a fly on the wall?