Strong Republican debate tonight 9


By Tom Quiner

Tonight’s debate was strong on substance. All four candidates made the Republican case and exposed the weakness of President Obama’s policies.

I think every single candidate came across well. Rick Santorum was in the crosshairs and had Mitt Romney and Ron Paul ganging up on him. Mr. Santorum kept his cool. He responded with clarity and intelligence. I was impressed. He knows his stuff. He did something else. He admitted he was wrong on “No Child Left Behind.” He explained why he voted the way he did, and it made sense. He explained why the vote was wrong in hindsight, and he made sense.

Newt Gingrich had a strong night, but that was because he wasn’t in the crosshairs. I don’t think Newt held up in the Florida debate when he was on hot seat as well as Rick Santorum did tonight.

Mr. Romney bothered me. He talked about how he supported the Catholic Church on life issues when he was Governor of Massachusetts, and yet when push came to shove back then he caved. Revisit a previous Quiner’s Diner post for details (“Mitt Romney’s less than resounding support for the unborn”).

I like the way Newt Gingrich turned around the question on birth control and asked “why didn’t the elite mainstream media ask Barack Obama why he supported infanticide when he was a state senator in Illinois?”

The media’s double standard is beyond debate. Rick Santorum has proven he can take the heat. He and Mr. Gingrich both made the conservative case well. So did Mitt Romney, you just never know if he really means it.

As for Ron Paul, his cavalier dismissal of Iran’s nuclear program suggests that Barack Obama is a better choice than he is.

 

Liberals, get used to it. Social conservatism is here to stay. 6


By Tom Quiner

Social conservatism is growing because more people recognize the humanity of the preborn.

The Iowa poll reveals the unstoppable trend slowly sweeping the country: the percentage of Iowans who consider themselves pro life just went up another 2 points in the last year, from 52 to 54 percent.

Nationally, Rick Santorum is riding the wave. It is a dangerous place to be. The powers of the Left are setting their sites on him. They want to portray him as being nutty for caring so much about human life from the instant of conception.

And yet a growing percentage of America agrees, as Quiner’s Diner has discussed in the past week.

As a reflection of Iowan’s desire to protect human life, Republicans in the legislature are promoting a bill that would require physicians to  perform an ultrasound and share it with the mother before performing an abortion.

Planned Parenthood of Iowa is fighting it tooth and nail. They say the bill is “demeaning, badgering and manipulative.” What they don’t mention is that it is bad for their almighty profits. Here’s why: nine out of ten women who view the ultrasound of their child change their mind about aborting her.

They see a person, not a blob of cells. Nothing demeaning about that.

And no one is badgering this mother about the decision. Certainly not the doctor whose livelihood is dependent upon performing abortions. No, it is the mother’s own conscience that is doing the badgering. Her conscience screams: don’t do it! This is your daughter. You … we … can’t live with this decision. It will haunt us forever.

And how can a simple test that reveals the truth be manipulative? How many other surgeries ever take place without an x-ray or an ultrasound? Tell me, how many? Good grief, my dentist does an x-ray before filling one of my teeth.

If anything, it is manipulative on the part of Planned Parenthood to withhold such critical information.

A mother sees the beauty of life in a flash through the truth revealed by the ultrasound. It is truly love at first sight.

The president and his party have imposed abortifacients on religious organizations in violation of their religious rights.

Doesn’t it seem reasonable to impose a simple ultrasound on abortion mills in the name of the human rights of the little ones whose lives are on the line?

3 Reasons Rick Santorum is for real Reply


Rick Santorum has minimal baggage compared to every other serious candidate in the race. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both carry serious baggage: their records. Romney is the father of Romneycare which required taxpayers to help pay for abortions. Obama has bankrupted us. He has imposed Romneycare on the entire country. And he has launched an assault on the entire country’s religious liberties with the Obama Mandate. More…

What’s going on with the Republican campaign? 1


By Tom Quiner

The Republican establishment wants Mitt Romney to be their candidate.

Rank and file Republicans don’t.

Rank and file Republicans don’t want a man with fuzzy convictions and a demonstrated willingness to compromise and cave in to liberals.

The dynamic in this race is fascinating. Mr. Romney has the best organization and the most money of his remaining rivals, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Ron Paul. He has devoted a big chunk of his resources to destroying Newt Gingrich with a glut of negative advertising.

It may have worked. Mr. Gingrich’s campaign is reeling.

And yet two out of three Republicans don’t want the “Massachusetts moderate,” to quote Mr. Gingrich. They want a fiscal conservative, and that includes each of Mr. Romney’s rivals.

We are watching the steady ascension of Rick Santorum. The Republican compromisers, such as Bob Dole and John McCain, want Romney. But look how well their approach worked. Contrast that with a conviction candidate like Ronald Reagan who swept to two landslide victories.

Can Rick Santorum go all the way? I think he can. He has consistent convictions. He doesn’t have Mr. Gingrich’s baggage. He is strong and decent. And he’s smart as a whip. He knows how the system works.

I heard him speak this summer at a small gathering. He said if a Republican wins the White House, Obamacare CAN be undone.

Readers of this blog know of our embrace of Newt Gingrich. If Gingrich’s campaign can’t regain its footing, and it may still do so, Mr. Santorum is a candidate we can quickly embrace.

Rick Santorum proves the old adage: slow and steady wins the race.

The vicious Left 4


By Tom Quiner

Rick Santorum believes that a baby in the womb is a human being.

The president, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and the bulk of the Democratic Party disagree. They only agree to bestow the mark of humanity at birth.

Fifteen years ago, Karen Santorum, Rick’s wife, gave birth to a premature baby. Their son died at birth.

By the definition of most Republicans, he enjoyed the dignity of personhood from his conception.

By the definition of the president and his party, he earned the dignity of personhood only at his birth. So by the time the time he died, a mere 120 minutes following his birth, everyone in America, including the Radical Left, would agree that Gabriel Michael Santorum was a human being.

Mr. and Mrs. Santorum did something unusual, but profound: they took their deceased son home for their children to view. They wanted their family to grieve the loss of their brother/son together. They wanted their kids to know their sibling to give his life meaning.

Gabriel would be more than an abstraction, he would be a real human being for as long as they lived.

Now that Rick Santorum has become a legitimate political force, one that can challenge Barack Obama, the political Left has responded with a viciousness that leaves even the jaded sensibilities of 21st Americans reeling. And that is not easy to do.

Liberal TV icon, Alan Colmes of Fox News, tried to denigrate Mr. and Mrs. Santorum’s actions:

“Once (voters) get a load of some of the crazy things he’s said and done, like taking his 2-hour-old baby who died right after childbirth home and played with it for a couple of hours so his other children would know that the child was real …”

Rich Lowry, editor of National Review responded:

“You are mocking him. They lost a child, Alan. That’s very serious and it’s not something you should be mocking on national TV.”

Colmes responded with a level of dishonest cynicism that is telling:

“I’m not mocking the losing of the child. But what I’m saying is I think it shows a certain unusual attitude toward taking a 2-hour-baby home who died to play with his other children.”

Needless to say, the Santorums didn’t take Gabriel home to play with his siblings, because Gabriel was dead.

They took him home so their kids could pay private respect to their brother, something even the political Left could understand because even they would acknowledge that Gabriel was a real, live human being for a short while

Alan Colmes chose to mischaracterize the situation, no let’s shoot straight, he chose to lie about the situation. I don’t know much about Alan Colmes, but he sure came across as heartless in his choice of words designed to denigrate the decency of the Santorums.

Another liberal jumped on the bandwagon. Eugene Robinson, a Pulitzer prize-winning reporter from the Washington Post, described the Santorums’ actions thusly:

[Santorum is] “not a little weird. He’s really weird. Some of his positions he’s taken are just so weird that I think some Republicans are going to be off-put. Not everybody is going to be down, for example, with the story of how he and his wife handled the stillborn child whose body they took home to kind of sleep with and introduce to the rest of the family. It’s a very weird story.”

Mr. Robinson invoked the word “weird” four times in talking about Rick Santorum. The idea that they took a dead baby home to “sleep” with him was the proof.

Of course, no one “slept” with the baby. Mr. Robinson chose to fabricate that part of the story as the essential word to compromise the emotional stability of a Republican running for president, a candidate whom Mr. Robinson desires to destroy. For the record, the baby was not stillborn. Gabriel died two hours after birth. Mr. Robinson fabricated that word, too, compounding his dishonest assault on the most decent candidate in this campaign.

These guys, Mr. Colmes and Mr. Robinson, knew what they doing. They chose words they knew were dishonest in order to hurt a man simply because they disagreed with his politics.

Am I just being an oversensitive conservative?

Or are these spokespersons for the Left vicious?