12/26 Huffpo: They're now questioning Paul's Pro-Life stance....

[freakout9903]

hxx p://www.huffing tonpost.com/2011/12/26/ron-paul-personhood-pledge_n_1170373.html?ref=mostpopular

[ShaneEnochs]

In an open letter to Paul, Personhood USA took issue with that line of reasoning, writing, "How exactly does Rep. Paul suggest we “protect rights at the federal level?" The group's point, put simply, is that federally protected rights should be enforced on a federal level. Leaving individual states to determine how to enforce federal laws allows states to apply different standards of enforcement, which in practice, if not in theory, appears to contradict the federal nature of the protection.

State and local governments enforce just about all laws regarding violence. What a silly thing for them to say.

[sailingaway]

sigh...

no one is more pro life than Ron....

[Bruno]

"4000 babies delivered, 0 aborted. 'nuff said", says father of 1-day old baby.

[Liberty Shark]

I have been closely monitoring just about everything (and I mean everything) that has gone up on the internet and the cable news channels regarding Dr. Paul in the last few weeks. I usually try to monitor things closely anyways, or have for about the last 6 months (and have really done so since 2008).
I have noticed in the last 36 hours the attacks have rapidly intensified, along with the amount of attacks.
However, I would not be in panic mode because some of the attacks are really more pathetic than usual, and that's saying a lot.
Until some decent polls come out, obviously it will be difficult to assess the potential damage, although I am not as panicked as many people seem to be. Many of the attacks are so strange and off the wall that they could easily be ineffective, and potentially even backfire.

I will say this... I strongly believe that there is some form of behind the scenes coordination of these attacks. It seems to me as though the strategy is to try to destroy Paul's support among voters who had voted for Obama in 2008. Of course they are trying to crush support from all groups, but this sticks out in my mind when monitoring this stuff.

[sailingaway]

I agree with them trying to destroy the idealist vote. They are trying to throw enough stuff with nasty associational language at Ron that it will bury his shine.

[Lafayette]

State and local governments enforce just about all laws regarding violence. What a silly thing for them to say.

NO! You must have big bloated wasteful ABC agencies like the DEA, TSA, ATF, etc to enforce laws on all states, how else will we justify all the spending and the need to violate your constitutional rights.

[affa]

this is definitely an attempt to keep crossover votes home. no question.

[unknown]

In reply to the Huff Po, let me just say the following: bwhahahahahhahahaha

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

this is definitely an attempt to keep crossover votes home. no question.

This.

No Question about it. HuffPo is trying to prevent indecisive Democratic Liberals/Progressives from considering Ron Paul.

[eleganz]

guys don't get sucked into this crap when your ATTENTION and PRODUCTIVITY to the CAMPAIGN is what matters.

I'm not even trying to read the hit pieces anymore....its all about WINNING.

[Matthew Zak]

In an open letter to Paul, Personhood USA took issue with that line of reasoning, writing, "How exactly does Rep. Paul suggest we “protect rights at the federal level?" The group's point, put simply, is that federally protected rights should be enforced on a federal level. Leaving individual states to determine how to enforce federal laws allows states to apply different standards of enforcement, which in practice, if not in theory, appears to contradict the federal nature of the protection.

Does this make ANY sense...?

[milo10]

You're being too negative. My take on the article was mostly positive, but that is because I am pro-choice. Ron's stance on abortion is one of my biggest problems with him as a candidate, and hearing that Personhood USA had some reservations about his position is great.

Appearing in the Huffington Post, this was a positive. Whether the people here like it or not, the day that Ron is seen as identical with Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum on an issue like abortion is the day that we are going to start bleeding a lot of the enthusiasm from many of the teens and twenty-somethings who have added so much to this campaign.

[nbruno322]

This.

No Question about it. HuffPo is trying to prevent indecisive Democratic Liberals/Progressives from considering Ron Paul.

Who owns the HuffPost again? I remember they were bought by some massive media firm recently. They are def part of the MSM, just masquerading as a blog site.

[randomname]

Who owns the HuffPost again? I remember they were bought by some massive media firm recently. They are def part of the MSM, just masquerading as a blog site.

AOL

[randomname]

Not to get too conspiratorial and say shareholders are instructing employees to put out hit pieces but AOL is owned by the same kind of people who own Fox News. Capital Research Global Investors and Dodge & Cox own 25% of AOL and and 15% of News Corp...

Add in Blackrock, State Street and Vanguard and you have over 25% of News Corp and over 37% of AOL

[Crotale]

This is Ron Paul's pro-life speech in Ames, Iowa.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txVg1C0PkLI

The campaign has hit the airwaves with these ads. Pretty unequivocal, I reckon.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkAsLPrnJGc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_qBSow4FrE&feature=channel_video_title

Keep promoting, phoning from home, we'll ride these smear attempts no problem.

[jcarcinogen]

Look at the front page now http://www.huffingtonpost.com/politics/

A huge headline saying Paul did not deny racist statements in 96.

EDIT: Read the comments to make your morning cheerful.

[unknown]

Take it to media spin please.

[Created4]

Whether the people here like it or not, the day that Ron is seen as identical with Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum on an issue like abortion is the day that we are going to start bleeding a lot of the enthusiasm from many of the teens and twenty-somethings who have added so much to this campaign.

It doesn't matter whether "we like it or not", that fact is that it is simply not true. It would be true if he were in the Democratic Party, but he is not. He needs the social conservative votes from people who would support Bachmann or Santorum. And to broad brush "teens and twenty-somethings" as all pro choice is not true either. I have two of them in my household, home-schoolers who were not old enough to vote in 2008, and they are solidly pro-life. Ron Paul is the most solidly pro-life candidate in the GOP field, period.

[gmc1988]

You're being too negative. My take on the article was mostly positive, but that is because I am pro-choice. Ron's stance on abortion is one of my biggest problems with him as a candidate, and hearing that Personhood USA had some reservations about his position is great.

Appearing in the Huffington Post, this was a positive. Whether the people here like it or not, the day that Ron is seen as identical with Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum on an issue like abortion is the day that we are going to start bleeding a lot of the enthusiasm from many of the teens and twenty-somethings who have added so much to this campaign.

Sigh. How can you be against Dr Paul's abortion stance? If you experienced what he has experienced in terms of witnessing an abortion, I'm sure you would feel the same way he does. And no, I do not believe that his abortion stance will hurt him AT ALL with voters.

[mosquitobite]

Isn't it good when HuffPo is saying he's not pro-life?? Conservatives don't read HuffPo!
Sorry, I guess I see it as helping when you're addressing the Dem/Indy vote?

eta: yes - I agree with Milo.

It's not a hit piece when you consider their audience!!

[milo10]

It doesn't matter whether "we like it or not", that fact is that it is simply not true. It would be true if he were in the Democratic Party, but he is not. He needs the social conservative votes from people who would support Bachmann or Santorum. And to broad brush "teens and twenty-somethings" as all pro choice is not true either. I have two of them in my household, home-schoolers who were not old enough to vote in 2008, and they are solidly pro-life. Ron Paul is the most solidly pro-life candidate in the GOP field, period.

Congratulations on home-schooling, you have my respect. But let me say that children home-schooled by a parent who believes that Ron Paul is the most pro-life candidate may not be a representative cross section of people in that age range.


Sigh. How can you be against Dr Paul's abortion stance? If you experienced what he has experienced in terms of witnessing an abortion, I'm sure you would feel the same way he does. And no, I do not believe that his abortion stance will hurt him AT ALL with voters.

Everything will hurt you with voters, particularly with an issue like this. I don't think pro-choice people like myself necessarily have an issue with those who are personally troubled by abortion. The central issue politically is when that spills into laws. If Ron wants to pass the abortion issue onto the states, then I find that a lot more palatable than individuals like Bachmann and Santorum who want to pass a constitutional amendment to ban abortion.

Be happy that Ron, acting on his personal beliefs, has struck a good balance on this issue in terms of the electorate. That also means you will get a little bit of static on both sides. I don't think Paul supporters are as used to that as the supporters of other candidates, as Ron tends to be fundamentally on one side of an issue or another.

[KEEF]

"4000 babies delivered, 0 aborted. 'nuff said", says father of 1-day old baby.

Congrats Bruno

[Justinfrom1776]

"4000 babies delivered, 0 aborted. 'nuff said", says father of 1-day old baby.

Congratulations to you, 1 more "good guy" in the world.. This fight has intensified for me big time since I became a parent.

[sailingaway]

The problem isn't HuffPo, it is the people who put out the pledge who clearly just want clarification from Ron, meanwhile he is standing in a meat grinder and trying to campaign at the same time. The pledge people and Steve Deace have a radio town hall on this that all the other conservative candidates will be on. (Ron isn't in Iowa until tomorrow.) I wish this could have been cleared up before them, but the mass of attacks, Christmas intervening, and end of caucus campaign events long planned may mean he hasn't gotten back to them before their town hall. In which case I am sure the other candidates will be happy to explain THEIR version of what his note on the pledge meant.

[Brett85]

Everything will hurt you with voters, particularly with an issue like this. I don't think pro-choice people like myself necessarily have an issue with those who are personally troubled by abortion. The central issue politically is when that spills into laws. If Ron wants to pass the abortion issue onto the states, then I find that a lot more palatable than individuals like Bachmann and Santorum who want to pass a constitutional amendment to ban abortion.

Be happy that Ron, acting on his personal beliefs, has struck a good balance on this issue in terms of the electorate. That also means you will get a little bit of static on both sides. I don't think Paul supporters are as used to that as the supporters of other candidates, as Ron tends to be fundamentally on one side of an issue or another.

Ron Paul's position is that the federal government doesn't have the Constitutional authority to ban abortion through a federal law, so it has to be done through a Constitutional amendment.

[affa]

Sigh. How can you be against Dr Paul's abortion stance? If you experienced what he has experienced in terms of witnessing an abortion, I'm sure you would feel the same way he does. And no, I do not believe that his abortion stance will hurt him AT ALL with voters.

You're not in touch with the left, then. based on my personal experience, i'd say there is a huge contingent of potential 'blue republican' cross-over vote that are held back because of the abortion issue. This has been a hot topic issue for decades, and the vast majority on both sides don't seem to even try to understand the position of the other side. That he is pro-life is as significant an issue to potential crossover voters as it would be to Republican voters were he pro-choice.

[craezie]

Ron Paul's position is that the federal government doesn't have the Constitutional authority to ban abortion through a federal law, so it has to be done through a Constitutional amendment.

I disagree with RP's position but I do think that it would at least be a step in the right direction. I have no problem with a federal ban on abortion, particularly late term abortions, because they protect the constitutional rights of human beings. Constitutionally granted rights DO need to be protected at a federal level. There is no reason, ever, to kill a viable human being. If you don't want to raise him, there are plenty of others out there that do. Of course, the nitty gritty of ENFORCEMENT of the ban would need to be with the states.

Ultimately all disagreements on abortion boil down to whether enough a zygote/ fetus/ baby is a person with rights. These are very tricky issues, but not worth compromising or softening to try to appeal to "youth". Quite frankly, part of being a youth is that you don't understand the preciousness of life (yours or others). While I was a Christian who believed in the sanctity of life in theory, I understood nothing as a youth. Only after carrying four children in my womb and having the privilege of birthing and caring for three of them do I understand a little bit of what its about. Once you see your own child through an ultrasound, moving around with every single body part perfectly formed at only 12 weeks, abortion takes on a whole different meaning.

[Brett85]

You're not in touch with the left, then. based on my personal experience, i'd say there is a huge contingent of potential 'blue republican' cross-over vote that are held back because of the abortion issue. This has been a hot topic issue for decades, and the vast majority on both sides don't seem to even try to understand the position of the other side. That he is pro-life is as significant an issue to potential crossover voters as it would be to Republican voters were he pro-choice.

Ron Paul is running in the Republican primary, not the Democratic primary. He needs to focus on getting pro life voters to support him.

[milo10]

Ron Paul's position is that the federal government doesn't have the Constitutional authority to ban abortion through a federal law, so it has to be done through a Constitutional amendment.

But does he support such a constitutional amendment? My understanding is that, in general, he prefers issues like this to be decided as locally as possible.

[acptulsa]

You're being too negative. My take on the article was mostly positive, but that is because I am pro-choice. Ron's stance on abortion is one of my biggest problems with him as a candidate, and hearing that Personhood USA had some reservations about his position is great.

Appearing in the Huffington Post, this was a positive. Whether the people here like it or not, the day that Ron is seen as identical with Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum on an issue like abortion is the day that we are going to start bleeding a lot of the enthusiasm from many of the teens and twenty-somethings who have added so much to this campaign.

This.

If this appears on HotAir, that could be a problem. On HuffPo? Not so much...


But does he support such a constitutional amendment? My understanding is that, in general, he prefers issues like this to be decided as locally as possible.

Someone is terribly mixed up. The amendment talk is about overturning Roe v. Wade so that states will actually have something to say in the matter, that's all. So long as the Supreme Court says, 'The Constitution says x, the only way to get them to admit that the Constitution says y is to amend it.

[Brett85]

But does he support such a constitutional amendment? My understanding is that, in general, he prefers issues like this to be decided as locally as possible.

Yes, he does. He just doesn't think that is actually has a chance to pass, so it's not something he focuses on.

[Cyberbrain]

You're not in touch with the left, then. based on my personal experience, i'd say there is a huge contingent of potential 'blue republican' cross-over vote that are held back because of the abortion issue. This has been a hot topic issue for decades, and the vast majority on both sides don't seem to even try to understand the position of the other side. That he is pro-life is as significant an issue to potential crossover voters as it would be to Republican voters were he pro-choice.

Exactly and well said. It'd be just like how pro-lifers would see it if he was pro-choice. Major obstacle.

I'm personally not happy that he signed one of these stupid pledges period. He's not like other candidates, his record and word is solid 20 years back, he doesn't need to get pigeon-holed in one of these things. And on top of that he's a friggan OB/GYN, that tells you he's more serious about what he has to say about the issue than anything else. Pledges like this just end up causing practical problems and conflicting scenarios with the Constitution and legal system that you've now "pledged" yourself to.

[Pisces]

The problem isn't HuffPo, it is the people who put out the pledge who clearly just want clarification from Ron, meanwhile he is standing in a meat grinder and trying to campaign at the same time. The pledge people and Steve Deace have a radio town hall on this that all the other conservative candidates will be on. (Ron isn't in Iowa until tomorrow.) I wish this could have been cleared up before them, but the mass of attacks, Christmas intervening, and end of caucus campaign events long planned may mean he hasn't gotten back to them before their town hall. In which case I am sure the other candidates will be happy to explain THEIR version of what his note on the pledge meant.

Rand Paul and Jesse Benton were on the Steve Deace show last week to talk about Ron's position on the personhood pledge and how he would handle it at the federal level. Steve Deace must have been on vacation because he wasn't there but surely he listens to his own show. Maybe he'll reference these interviews during his townhall? Here is a link to the Steve Deace show podcast containing these interviews: http://stevedeace.com/news/national-politics/deace-show-podcast-12-22-11/.

Jesse's take on what the federal govt would do about abortion sounds different than what a lot of people here are saying. Would he go on a show like Deace's and misrepresent Ron's views? This isn't a rhetorical question. I haven't heard many Jesse Benton interviews so I don't know the answer myself.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Yes, he does. He just doesn't think that is actually has a chance to pass, so it's not something he focuses on.

He said in the Des Moines Register editorial interview that he does not support an amendment, at 36:30:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APJeikpqfbg

[Brett85]

He said in the Des Moines Register editorial interview that he does not support an amendment, at 36:30:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APJeikpqfbg

He's been somewhat inconsistent on that issue then. This pledge that he signed contained language that stated abortion should be banned at the federal level. I've seen other articles by Ron where he stated that he supported a human life amendment. He even introduced a Human Life Amendment when he first came to Congress. So it doesn't seem like he has a clear position on that.

[RKoho]

This won't make my job any easier. I don't know any Republicans or Conservatives. I mostly bring in Blue Republicans. So in my little context it is a bad move. I suppose in the broader term of the Republican primary it is good. Ah well.

[TheViper]

Babies delivered - 4,000
Abortions performed - 0


I think that shows his personal stance greater than anything else.