Just a little reminder for everyone currently revving their engines for Rick Santorum

He openly and nakedly dissents from the Church’s teaching on Just War (no such thing as just pre-emptive war).

He favors the use of torture (which is, you know, intrinsically immoral).

He thinks cold-blooded murder of the Right Sort of innocent human being in a nation with whom we are not at war is “wonderful”.

He lost his Senate seat by putting party before his allegedly unshakeable prolife principles not only by backing pro-abort zealot Arlen Spector over the prolife candidate, but (according to Judie Brown) by actually pushing legislation to legalize human cloning.

He is another mega-government zealot for ever-expanding wars of Empire (on deck: IRAN!) which will help torpedo our economy even further (resulting in more misery and, yes, more abortion for cash-strapped single mothers).

He is almost as clueless as Romney when it comes to the miseries of the poor and middle class. Here he is, explaining to a mother that she shouldn’t have a problem paying $1 million for prescription drugs for her ill son. In short, he is another guardian, like Obama and the rest of the Ruling Class, of the interests of our Ruling Class. I can certainly understand a Catholic who may vote for him out of desperation at Obama’s assaults on religious liberty. But I can’t for the life of me understand any Catholic who actually takes the Church’s teaching seriously seeing in this man a hero to be cheered for and defended against all criticism.

Not that it matters. After this temporary hiccup, the GOP machine will, with the slow, smooth strangling power of a python, slowly crush the life out of its obstreporous members and bring them to heel, safely chanting the name of Romney. It really does make me wonder in what sense we live in a democracy when we so consistently keep getting candidates nobody wants and nobody anybody knows wants.

  • Jack

    Santorum’s catholocism is the same as that of the late Edward Kennedy, the only place where he MIGHT score better is the fact that he hasn’t been seen with a topless blonde on Good Friday…………. yet

  • Gregory

    More prayer, penance and sacrifice.
    In the end, His will be done.
    “And we know that to them that love God, all things work together unto good, to such as, according to his purpose, are called to be saints. “

  • Scott

    Is it any wonder we can’t get good people to run with the meat grinder we subject them and their families to? Vetting? Torture is more like it.

    • Joseph

      Is this a plea to stop pointing out Santorum’s flaws?

  • Kirt Higdon

    Santorum’s support of Spector even went to the extent of endorsing him for President when Spector went for a long shot attempt for that in 1996. I think another important aspect is that the Church can’t be blamed for what Romney or Obama does. It will be blamed for what Santorum or Gingrich do. Let one of those two become president and centuries from now, anti-Catholics will be mentioning the genocide of the Iranians right up there with the Inquisition and the Crusades as one of the many historic sins of the Catholic Church.

    • Joseph

      Interesting thought (for the conspiracy theorist in me). It may not take centuries. It could give the “new atheists” all the excuse they need to launch the Bolshevik Christian cleansing.

  • K Prieto

    The only real candidate is Fits with my Catholic views of prolife, just war theory, subsidiary, no torture, peace is Dr. Ron Paul

    • Kirt Higdon

      I agree. But unhappily Ron Paul won’t get the GOP nod, nor does he intend to make a third party run. So that leaves the question of who to support in the fall.

      • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

        Don’t give up so easily. I see signs of a possible August surprise ahead. If you support him, try to get others to support him. He’s not that far away. In a recent national poll, he finished second behind Romney, with Romney sputtering and Paul gaining.

    • Wade

      K Prieto, Dr. Paul is going to have to do a little better for me in explaining the content of some of his newsletters before I can say that he fits my Catholic views of justice and charity. I am not at this time satisfied with his explanation that either he was a bad editor or that he didn’t actually write the “Ron Paul” newsletters.

  • Dan C

    The pro-life narrative is that Santorum lost in 2006 because of his support of Spector. That is not true.

    Santorum lost Pennsylvania because of his War and Defense policies. He spent the previous 6 years in cold, sweaty fear of Muslim radicals and talked like that. He never found a war he couldn’t enthusiastically, passionately cheerlead for and Iraq amd Afghanistan were no different. He loves to talk war and defense. He is of the opinion that military action from the US gets an immediate imprimatur from God Himself. That is why he lost. That is why Congress fell into Democratic hands.

    His anti-abortion credentials are impeccable, with the exception of his support of Spector.

    His pro-life credentials were hardly mentioned at all during his Senate campaign that year. He ran as an anti-Muslim, pro-war Republican. He was rejected based on that.

  • Jim

    But I bet he knows Flannery O’Connor was a woman.

  • David Davies

    Mark. A state of war between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the U.S.A. has existed since 1979. We have, for the most part, tried to ignore this despite the long list of acts of war perpetrated against us by Iran or its proxies. Pretending that there is no war because there is no formal declaration is just silly. We were at war with Japan in the interval between Pearl Harbor and the Congressional declaration on Dec 8th. So how is it that military action taken against Iran can be termed ‘pre-emptive’?

    • kmk

      Japan pre-emptively attacked us. Isn’t Pearl Harbor considered a day that will live in infamy? So is it any less infamous if we pre-emptively attack Iran…

      • http://davidgriffey.blogspot.com/ Dave G.

        If we did it by surprise while we were in negotiations with Iran, then yeah. Of course it all could turn out to be a great big conspiracy by Iran to get us to attack them so they could go to a war they really want….

      • David Davies

        kmk. We were at peace with Japan before Pearl Harbor. That is why their attack was preemptive. We are not at peace with Iran. We have not been at peace with Iran since 1979, or 1953, (or even 400 B.C. if you want to really stretch the time frame and definition of ‘we’). Therefore any military action we might take against Iran cannot be preemptive.

    • Richard Johnson

      “Mark. A state of war between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the U.S.A. has existed since 1979.”

      Incorrect. The state of war began many years prior to that, when the US openly supported a coup against the democratically elected leader of that nation, Mohammad Mosaddegh, and installed their puppet in his place. 1953 is when the war between the two nations began. We forget this at our own peril.

      • http://confederatepapist.blogspot.com/ Confederate Papist

        I consider it a conveniently forgotten fact….

      • David Davies

        Yep. We did that. What exactly is wrong with supporting a faction within another country when the success of that faction is in the interest of your country? Does the support of France during the Revolutionary War ring any bells?

        Where is it written that any effort by country A to influence events in country B is intrinsically evil?

        • http://confederatepapist.blogspot.com/ Confederate Papist

          Lincoln promised war against England if they helped the CSA…..so apparently he thought so.

    • Andy, Bad Person

      Pretending that there is no war because there is no formal declaration is just silly.

      So when does such an undeclared war end? Only with a formal declaration of peace (even though a formal declaration of war never happened)? Is this a plea for war in saecula saeculorum? Are we still at war in Vietnam and Korea?

      Give me a break.

      • David Davies

        Peace has never been declared in Korea, so, yes, we are technically still at war there. It’s just an armistice, you know.

        With undeclared wars peace comes when one side or the other stops fighting. With Viet Nam you can easily figure out which side that was.

        IMHO it is very bad policy to go to war without a formal declaration. It gives cover to all those who for one reason or another would like to continue pretending that hostilities do not exist and that we are therefore correct in doing nothing.

        I am not in favor of any war. I am even less in favor of losing one which is declared against us.

        • http://confederatepapist.blogspot.com/ Confederate Papist

          Or fighting a war with your eyes covered and one arm and leg each tied behind your back as was done in ‘Nam, Iraq and Afghanistan….

          • David Davies

            More reasons for a formal Declaration of War.

  • David Davies

    The point about drug prices is that these drugs would not exist if the companies which make them had no incentive to do the work. Santorum’s remarks have to be ripped out of context to make it appear that he thinks it’s just dandy for a poor woman to have a million dollar prescription bill.

    Are there people who need help with drug costs? Yep. And the government is just about the worst possible conduit for that help. The drug companies themselves recognize this and have programs to ensure that their drugs are available to those who need them.

    • Richard Johnson

      “The point about drug prices is that these drugs would not exist if the companies which make them had no incentive to do the work.”

      Actually a remarkable amount of research on these drugs was, and still is, done in universities and other government-owned hospitals, labs, and testing facilities. Our own University of Iowa and Iowa State University have played enormous roles in advancing medicinal research.

      This research was paid for, in large part, by the taxpayers, not private companies.

      • dbp

        Without facts to back either side up, I’m going to remain undecided on this.

        Could the prices be lower? Yes, perhaps. But remember that successful drugs don’t only amortize their own costs of creation after the fact, but also those of all the unsuccessful drugs that (in presumably good faith) the company has been trying to develop.

        I don’t have a horse in this race one way or the other: I don’t know anyone who needs prescriptions like this, and I certainly don’t, myself; but on the other hand, I don’t have any stake whatsoever in drug companies or any especially strong philosophical axes to grind.

        But I do think that people love to find the villian and ready the pitchforks. Is our system deeply flawed? Maybe. But until you can demonstrate with hard numbers that any significant proportion of the countless amazing advances in medicine we’ve seen over the past many decades would exist without the work the drug companies do in the way they do it, I’ll leave my pitchfork in the closet.

        Lest anyone has forgotten, we live in a fallen world, in which disease and death are and always will be part of the game. If you have evidence (and not just Hollywood and other popular insinuation) that they are acting in bad faith, that’s one thing; but I haven’t seen it.

        Mark, you seem to understand that the Vatican selling all its stuff to give it to the poor would end up being a long-term loss (for the poor, too), because of the use it puts to its art and so forth. Isn’t it just possible that asking the drug companies to make their new drugs free or substantially cheaper a similarly misguided demand?

        • Mark Shea

          Poor, poor drug companies. They mustn’t give an inch to Mean, mean parents with dying children. Profits are the most important thing in the universe.

          • dbp

            See my comment below. Would you be substantially happier with that drug priced at $700K/year, and the drug company taking a 10% loss every year? And how long exactly do you think the drug company can stay in business, at that rate?

            Take this one child’s case and figure out the percentage you’d need to reduce the price to make it affordable. What’s the number– say, $20,000/year? That’s still a LOT of money, but it’s a 98% reduction in cost. How many people’s drug bills can it reduce by 98% before it falls into bankruptcy? And then, who will make the drugs we rely on? Who will make new ones?

            The child isn’t dying because the Pharmaceuticals doesn’t want to save him. The child is dying because we live in a fallen world, where people suffer from terrible diseases.

            • S. Murphy

              Invoking the fallen world here is kind of like using ‘God made it that way’ as a scientific explanation. It’s true, but entirely beside the point. The fallen world, to paraphrase from *The African Queen*, is what we were put here to overcome.
              There’s gotta be a way to bridge that gap between R&D + production costs on the one hand, and life-threatening condition + poverty on the other. Not opposed to the drug companies making a profit, because they just won’t get stuff done without that incentive — unless we were to turn them into utilities – but that would require the researchers and developers to all be idealists, and they’re probably not…

              • dbp

                It should be pretty clear that I’m not using the ‘fallen world’ idea as a cop-out. If you hadn’t noticed, I want the pharmaceutical industries to continue to exist, precisely because I agree that overcoming the world’s fallenness is part of our mission as Christians.

                My point is, it’s very easy to say “There’s gotta be a way to bridge that gap between R&D + production costs on the one hand, and life-threatening condition + poverty on the other.” We absolutely are doing that, or all the drugs we are using every day (the ones that don’t currently cost $1M/year) wouldn’t exist. But it takes time and money. Abilify’s price will come down dramatically in time (especially once generics are made), and then, guess what? All of a sudden it will become part of the background of (presumably) affordable drugs that people all over the world rely on. It’s extremely unfortunate for the people who can’t wait that long, but again, that’s not the drug companies’ fault.

                In short, if you can come up with an actual, economically sound plan to “bridge that gap between R&D + production costs on the one hand, and life-threatening condition + poverty on the other,” I’m all ears. But at least make an honest effort to look at the math first– because I suspect it’s a harder problem than you are making it out to be.

                • S. Murphy

                  Okay. Cool.

                  I was asking questions, not proposing a plan.

          • David Davies

            Mark. There is a lot of evidence that the drug companies do have programs to assist people with the cost. In my desk drawer right now I have a Livalo Co-Pay Card which greatly reduces the cost of a prescription for this excellent cholesterol lowering drug. So it seems that the EVIL big Pharma firms Kowa and Lilly have a least some motive other than profit. And the pharma commercials on T.V. usually reference some assistance program for those who cannot afford the advertised drug. I understand that you don’t watch T.V. (and I support that!!!) so you probably haven’t seen them.

            If profit cannot be used to motivate invention and creation then what will? Surely you have ideas to share here?

          • David Davies

            One other thing. From your response, Mark, it certainly looks as if you never read the second paragraph of my first post.

            • http://confederatepapist.blogspot.com/ Confederate Papist

              My bp medication used to cost $70US per 30 ct. Fortunately at the time I had insurance so I only paid $10US. Then it went up to $20US, and then I had to get 90 days, which was about $30US.
              Then I lost my job of 11 years, moved to FL from GA and lost my wife’s bennies in addition to my employer not having a plan. Fortunately I had 6 month worth of meds to carry me through until I found a PCP. He then tells me my med is *free* at the local grocery store’s pharmacy. So apparently the pharma company made it’s money back on this.
              I’m no fan of big pharma….look at all of the drugs that have been pulled off the shelf because they’ve killed people. These stupid ads they run on TV list all of these side affects and I think to myself, “who the heck would want to subject themselves to this crap?”. Why be a science experiment for the drug companies and the federal government (FDA) who are both irresponsible players in today’s medicine. Holistic is the way to go.

        • Joseph

          An interesting observation… why is it that most Pharma sales people make such a fine packet? I don’t say that out of jealousy, I don’t need their money. I have a few friends in Pharma who do substantially well when all they do is take doctors to bars and golf clubs… and, quite honestly, they really aren’t that bright. Something has always bothered me about that.

      • Telemachus

        We could do away with the patent system. That would help things a lot. Intellectual property is an artificial form of property that is maintained by the state.

        • dbp

          Careful. I totally agree that this form of property is artificially maintained by the state. But it’s there for a reason. Patents create incentives both for invention and for information sharing (because you can’t patent something without enough information to be able to replicate its essential characteristics) after invention. It’s not clear you’d have nearly as much invention (drug research being just one small example).

          I say this despite being partly in your corner. Some kinds of patents just don’t make sense (they don’t accomplish their purpose at all), like a majority of software patents granted. But I think there may be a baby in that bathwater….

        • David Davies

          My invention is not my property? Do tell. If I have a really good idea then your policy gives me no incentive whatever to develop it. That wet blanket should be enough to smother all the fires of invention and put all of us peasants back into our mud and wattle huts where we can be properly policed by our elite philosopher kings like Obama and Gore.

    • Andy

      A lot of drug research is conducted based on taxpayers dollars, 55% and up. However, the larger problem is that many of the drugs we are running out of are not manufactured because there is not enough of a profit. It seems sad to put profit before lives… For Santorum or any other leader, if one exists to support that in the callous way he did displays a disdain for life that I find troubling.
      “The government is just about the worst possible conduit for that help.” Without debating that point think about the motive drug companies have – making money. If the government is the worst conduit at least it is not driven by the profit motive.

      • dbp

        Um… what’s wrong with the profit motive? That’s what is otherwise known as ‘wanting to make a living.’ Of course it can be taken to excess, but it’s no more immoral or evil than capitalism in itself.

        These things only turn ugly when they get out of hand. And, as I said in my reply above, without some actual facts and figures (with sources, preferably), it’s hard to come to a good conclusion.

        So, how about some real numbers?

        It looks like Big Pharma’s profits in 2008 were 15.8%, making it the third most profitable industry that year. Now, one might actually see this as a good thing because it spurs investment, which increases the capital available for research and development; but let’s say you just don’t like the idea that people are making that much. Where do you think it ought to be on that list? Above or below “entertainment” at 12.4%? Above or below Beverages at 7.2%? How high will you allow, again remembering that profit drives investment?

        Well, let’s just say peg Pharmaceuticals at 5.8%, below Printing, Food Consumer Products, Industrial Farm Equipment, and many others. They could get in that neighborhood by taking in 10% less revenue.

        So the $1M/year drug referenced in the article is now $900K/year. Would you be happy with that? My guess is not. Would you be happy with $850K/year? No to that, too, but now the drug company is barely breaking even and there’s no investment whatsoever to keep the company liquid. How about $700K/year? Now the company is tanking and the drug STILL isn’t affordable.

        Until someone can show me how I’m wrong about this, using real numbers, I remain skeptical of the ‘evil Big Pharma’ narrative. Not to say they couldn’t be evil in other ways (Hollywood likes the ‘someone found a cure for cancer but is keeping it under wraps’ plot), but the economic model doesn’t seem to me as far beyond the pale as people seem to make it out.

        • S. Murphy

          Yeah. If somebody else is making a profit, without hurting anyone, there’s not point in being imputing evil to the mere fact of success. Some of the drugs they don’t want to make any more, if I understand correctly, are no longer profitable because generics have hit the market – but some individuals respond weirdly to the generics, whereas they did well on the original – so they’re screwed when it’s no longer profitable.
          In the meantime, lifesaving meds have been developed precisely because the industry was profitable.
          But then, as noted, there’s a fair amount of research also done at public universities, on taxpayer’s nickel.
          Would it make sense to take a public utility approach to continuing to manufacture the oldies but goodies?

          • dbp

            I responded to your comment above assuming you were disagreeing with me, though here it seems maybe I’ve mistaken your viewpoint. Apologies, if so.

            I don’t care about the drug industry beyond hoping it’ll continue to develop new medicines (and, yes, at an affordable price, at least eventually). I just get frustrated when people rag on businesses as being greedy and callous without seriously engaging with the economics that underlie them. Maybe they’re guilty and maybe not, but you won’t know until you look at the specifics.

            • S. Murphy

              I was reacting, as I now see, in haste, to one part of your statement, for which I apologize.

              Agree that assuming guilt or evil — as opposed to looking realistically at the potential for duty to shareholders to obscure duty to the common good, and ask whether fair and reasonable steps are being taken to ensure clarity — is careless thinking. re: clarity – I’m not enough of an economist to have any idea where the balance between regulatory oversight and gov’t overreach actually is. Although I think ‘you will provide contraceptives for free when selling a policy to an entity that claims conscience protection’ is a pretty clear overreach.

          • dbp

            Oh, and to answer the last question: I think the idea of manufacturing older drugs in a utility fashion is pretty interesting. If there’s a way to increase availability while reducing costs, I say go for it. Just be sure you don’t end up with unintended side-effects. Do we want the manufacture of, say, contraceptives and abortifacients to go that way?

            • S. Murphy

              heh. Fair point. The hell with mental health and chemotherapy, until everybody has her Norplant. What a world.

          • David Davies

            Some drugs are orphaned by lack of demand, and others are orphaned by legal decree. Our lawyers drove a perfectly good anti-nausea drug out of the market about twenty five years ago. Don’t remember it’s name. Our doctor finally found some old drug still sitting in the hospital pharmacy which turned out to be the only thing which could control my wife’s hyperemesis. Without that I’d likely be a widower and childless.

        • Andy

          There is nothing wrong with making a profit – the issue is when making a profit replaces the life of a dying child or adult. If you wan to select profit over life fine. But I prefer to see life over profit.
          Reducing the issue to “real numbers does’t hide the fact that profit has become more important than a life.
          As far as the research goes – 53% is paid for by private organizations and government grants. SO the drug companies are only putting up 47%. Then we see on TV the constant messages about the meds we need to take; then sales reps. taking the doctors and their office mgrs. to lunch and the like.
          If the price of drugs was driven by research and production costs alone, I would be fine with that. But when the factors are put into the equation it is not about the cost of development, it is about the cost of many other factors.

          • dbp

            You are the one asserting that profit is the be-all of these companies. If they are spending money on taking doctors and office managers to lunch, they do so because it increases profits– meaning, more sales. Ditto with advertising. Those are expenditures that are justified economically only because they move more product.

            Now, don’t get me wrong. You’re probably right that there’s a certain amount of fat that could be cut out. But don’t so quickly disparage the effort to get the word out. Those things you were talking about are for one purpose: to raise the profile of the product in potential customers’ minds. If the drug is bad, this isn’t a good thing, of course, but if the drug is good (as Abilify apparently is), it’s really education that is subsidized by the drug company and incentivized by the perks that go along with the sales pitch. These are new drugs, and doctors wouldn’t necessarily know about them or think about them without these things you’re decrying. If this gets a new, better drug into circulation that much faster, that’s a good thing, not a bad thing.

            You can cite those percentages all you like (though the numbers are unsourced and not entirely clear: are those for drug discovery or for drug development, or for both? Over what time period? How measured?), but the percentages that are important are the profit numbers. Because despite the excesses you (justly, in part at least) mention, we’re talking about 15.8% profit. How much fat would you need to cut out to be able to drop prices by 98%?

          • dbp

            Put another way,I totally agree with you: I prefer to see life over profit, too. But now I think about what I would do if I were going to start a pharmaceutical company. Looking at what I can see of the hard numbers that underlie the economics of the situation, I don’t see how I could possibly fix the situation Santorum was presented with, even with the best of intentions, if I was the company that ended up with Abilify. I could give that one child his drugs for free after it made high-profile news, but that’d amount to little more than PR if I couldn’t back that up by making it free to everyone else in the same situation. But how economically viable would that be? My guess is, not very (though without numbers I can’t judge). So my point is, as a Catholic very concerned with caring for the sick, it isn’t at all clear to me that I could do it better.

            Now, many drug companies apparently do have programs to assist poor people with drug costs. I don’t know what the makers of Abilify (don’t know who that is) offer for this, and what the price of that drug is on such a program. But the existence of such things is another indication to me that these companies aren’t as evil as they’re being cracked up to be.

  • Thomas R

    He has problems, particularly on torture. Still he might be more persuadable than the others. Also I think many to most voters are aware that this is a majority non-Catholic nation so even a Catholic politician can’t plausibly “rule” completely in-line with Catholic social teaching. Even if he or wished to it can’t actually happen. (Particularly as it could cause a reaction which would be harmful to the faith. The Catholic element of the South Vietnamese elite didn’t exactly rule by Catholic teaching, but preferencing the Catholic minority was ultimately bad for Catholics as I recall) I’d like to think you know that too, but at times I’m not certain.

    Still even going by the standard of “this is not a Catholic nation, some evils have to be tolerated to avoid a greater evil” he does at times say really stupid things. Or go beyond simply tolerating evils to supporting them. Although to be honest my main concern is that he’s just too weak a candidate. That he would be offputting or weird to too many voters.

  • laura

    Mark, who would you have us support then? Do you expect the perfect Catholic candidate to suddenly emerge out of the clouds? We need to unite behind someone or Obama will win again in November. I will not savage Ron Paul like you are doing to Santorum but despite his pro-life credentials he is ‘out there’ on foreign policy. Gingrich has his own problems – we know. Romney is a moderate at best and not so good on life and marriage as it turns out. I am getting pretty sick of listening to and reading this kind of Santorum bashing from left wing Catholics. It is this kind of thinking – the kind that says that he can never be good enough or live up to your high Catholic standards to get your vote. If Obama wins because Catholics like you are just too high and mighty to vote for Santorum, we’ll have you to thank, Mark.
    –Laura

    • Richard Johnson

      “If Obama wins because Catholics like you are just too high and mighty to vote for Santorum, we’ll have you to thank, Mark.”

      In 2000 people voted for “anyone but the Democrat” and we got George W. Bush. In 2008 people voted for “anyone but the Republican” and we got Barack H. Obama.

      When are folks going to learn that voting for the lesser of two evils still means that evil wins?

      • http://confederatepapist.blogspot.com/ Confederate Papist

        How does the trend end? It seems for at least the last 20-some-odd years the electorate has been voting *against* someone rather than *for* someone.

        I firmly believe that if the people want to vote *for* someone, it has to be a bottom-up, grass roots type campaign…not someone who has been canonised by the MSM or the “rock star” of the hour. I would have thought that 2008 would have sent a message, but alas, too many people would rather have thrills up their legs and free candy rather than take an active part in the future of the country.

      • laura

        So we just throw up our hands and let Obama win because they are all evil? I do not understand.

        • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

          Ron Paul is not evil. MOST of us here will probably vote for the GOP candidate in November even if it is not Paul, even though some have serious misgivings.

          Obama’s naked attack on religious freedom assured the GOP some votes it wouldn’t have had otherwise.

          Please read the articles I have posted about Ron Paul’s supposedly “out there” foreign policy, though. (The post with the articles won’t appear until Mark moderates it)

          • http://davidgriffey.blogspot.com/ Dave G.

            And some of us might vote for Ron Paul, even though we have misgivings.

    • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

      See, I don’t really think Paul is “out there” on foreign policy. That’s what the other candidates want you to think. Read these articles:

      http://buchanan.org/blog/ron-paul-reactionary-or-visionary-4997

      http://buchanan.org/blog/who-wants-war-with-iran-2-4998

    • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

      See, I don’t really think Paul is “out there” on foreign policy. That’s what the other candidates want you to think. Read this article:

      http://buchanan.org/blog/ron-paul-reactionary-or-visionary-4997

  • Sean O

    Laura

    Not perfect. This is hardly an apt description of Rick Santorum. He is pro-life, but when it was on the line he chose party over principle. He supported abortion zealot Arlen Spector b/c he was a Republican over a pro-life Democrat. He fell in line b/c that is what W. Bush and Karl Rove told him to do.

    He has never met a war he didn’t like. And he has no qualms using torture on our enemies which doesn’t produce reliable info and places our soldiers, when they are captured, in great jeopardy. But hey, if you “support the troops” just throw a yellow magnetic ribbon on your Suv. What more can you do.

    There is far far more wrong w Santorum than what is right with him. Not perfect, not even close.

    • laura

      I guess I am on the wrong blog. (Horrors!) I do not believe the assertion that waterboarding is torture. Aside from that, none of you have yet to answer my question – who would you have us support?

      • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

        Why not? What is the purpose of waterboarding then? Quite a few people here support Paul. Some support nobody.

      • Melanie

        If it is not torture, what is it?

        Volunteer to be waterboarded and then get back to us. ;)

        • laura

          I am not here to argue about the merits of water boarding. All I will say is, with the full knowledge that I am not in friendly territory — sad to say for I am a fellow CATHOLIC and CHRISTIAN — water boarding is not pulling out someone’s fingernails and does not involve electricity. In the event of an extreme national emergency I believe the president should have some methods at his disposal to secure information that will safeguard lives. That is all. To say our enemies will do such and such because we do such and such is a red herring. They already do and will.

          • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

            Why does something have to involve electricity to be torture? That’s strange. I agree that it would be important to “have some way to extract information”, but we have to make sure that it is moral. We can’t commit evil to secure some real or perceived good.

            Anyway, since you seem to be a Santorum supporter mostly based on the abortion issue, I’d look closely at his votes to fund Planned Parenthood, his undying support for Arlen Specter, and his support for the FACE act. Then, look at Ron Paul, and his support of the We The People act, which would effectively end Roe vs. Wade immediately, without waiting 20 years to get the judges on the SCOTUS that we need.

            • Joseph

              Whoops. Don’t tell CatholicVote.

          • Mark Shea

            Right. And abortion should be safe, legal, and rare? Same logic. “We know it’s intrinsically evil, but we want to keep our options open, because we don’t trust God.”

          • Mark Shea

            Seriously Laura. This sort of rhetoric is the perfect illustration of why I think Santorum and his ilk are so deeply corrupting of the conservative Catholic electorate. Had he had the courage of his convictions and upheld Catholic teaching on torture rather than chosen to instruct conservative Catholics in sophistries to justify it, I would have some respect for him.

          • Joseph

            Repeatedly calling my wife a “stupid b*tch”, treating her like a worthless human being, and taking my 23-year old neighbor on a date tonight for Valentine’s Day while she stays home and watches the kids isn’t torture either. So long as I’m not pulling out her fingernails.

      • http://davidgriffey.blogspot.com/ Dave G.

        Well then yeah, you’re not in friendly territory here. I’m no expert, but it seems like torture to me. Still, this issue has been debated on this blog as much as anything. So don’t expect too much support from the ‘waterboarding isn’t torture, is it?’ perspective.

      • Bob
        • Dan F.

          Hi Laura,

          The ‘is waterboarding torture’ question has been hashed out considerably on this blog (general consensus yes it is) and that zippycatholic link above has a good summary of the arguments – changed my thinking.

          That said, even if waterboarding isn’t quite torture I still think we should be against it because it violates the dignity of the human person (in this case a prisoner). It’s still categorically wrong, even if it isn’t torture.

          The principle is that every person (regardless of their many sins) is created in the image of God and has value in his eyes. Any prisoner counts as ‘the least of these my brethren’ including a terrorist committed to an ideology of death.

      • William

        Laura, Ron Paul here! Is he perfect in every way? No, but his views are the closest to Catholic moral theology.

        • Thomas R

          No he’s not. I don’t know why Mark was selling that, but cutting aid to the world’s poor is not exactly Catholic teaching. Letting the individual states be fiefdoms that practically can do whatever is not really what subsidiary means. And if I really looked into it I could find many others.

          Catholic teaching doesn’t say the solution to doing bad things is to just quit doing anything. I don’t even think the faith is precisely non-interventionist. I’m sure with a bit of time I can think of civil-wars and humanitarian-crises where the Church favored intervening.

      • Chris

        Laura,

        Simulated execution is torture (such as putting prisoners against a bullet-riddled wall, and subjecting them to a firing squad with empty rifles.)

        Waterboarding is a simulated execution (by drowning), thus is torture.

  • Sean O

    In 2008 the Republicans had a good, decent, thoughtful man who wanted to run for president—Chuck Hagel Sen from Nebraska (pro-life as well). The Republican power brokers savaged him b/c he was weak on war, not mindlessly war-hawkish enough. I mean what would the 2x decorated Vietnam veteran “know” about war. Best to leave war planning in the hands of “men”, “tough guys” who never forget to wear little American pins on their lapels but who “forgot” to do military service when they were young men. Actually most of these chicken hawks actively & determinedly avoided service. I am sick and tired of these pompous cowards and hypocrites.

  • Sealgaire

    Morning Mark,

    I think you missed Santorum’s major point in the linked article; without economic reward drug companies will not put money in developing new drugs and we will all suffer for the lack. A couple of quick points to hold in mind: Government is most often an inefficient and ineffective way to determine how resources are best allocated and there is no such thing as a free lunch, the costs of health care must be borne somewhere.

    I agree with you that the results of our current system are often heartrending, especially for the most vulnerable. How we treat healthcare in our country deserves better thought than our political class gives it and certainly something better than either the status quo of our dysfunctional current system of employer supplied health insurance or the abomination that is Obamacare.

    • Joseph

      Actually, I think you missed a point made earlier by Richard Johnson:

      “Actually a remarkable amount of research on these drugs was, and still is, done in universities and other government-owned hospitals, labs, and testing facilities. Our own University of Iowa and Iowa State University have played enormous roles in advancing medicinal research.

      This research was paid for, in large part, by the taxpayers, not private companies.”

  • The Deuce

    but (according to Judie Brown) by actually pushing legislation to legalize human cloning

    Okay, I’m pretty skeptical that this part happened, but I mostly agree with the rest.

    • Mark Shea

      See the link.

  • http://ohnimus.wordpress.com Christian Ohnimus

    Another point against him:

    “I mean, you have people who don’t heed those warnings and then put people at risk as a result of not heeding those warnings. There may be a need to look at tougher penalties on those who decide to ride it out and understand that there are consequences to not leaving.”
    ~Rick Santorum, suggesting we punish people who don’t evacuate their homes during a natural disaster shortly after Hurricane Katrina despite the fact that the evacuation of the coast was not properly executed.

  • http://davidgriffey.blogspot.com/ Dave G.

    On the other hand, I saw that Fr. Dwight Longenecker had an interesting article discussing some of the positives of a Santorum candidacy. An excerpt:

    “He is not just against abortion, but genuinely pro life–in favor of assistance for the poor, helping the fight against AIDS, and looking to build community in order to help the needy on a local level.”

    Interesting take, especially as he wraps it up by pointing out that Santorum seems to attract not just Catholic voters (if any at all), but Evangelical voters as well:

    “For the first time a Catholic politician is popular not only with Catholics, but with Evangelicals. Is anybody out there really opening their eyes to just how huge this new alliance could be? The fact that Santorum is openly admired by Evangelical Protestants also reveals another shift that has been going on for years.

    For many cultural, historical and theological reasons, over the last thirty years the hard line between Protestants and Catholics has been softening. Evangelicals are far more likely now to regard Catholics like Santorum as allies rather than enemies.”

    Just thought I’d toss that out there from a different perspective.

    • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

      True, there are some things to like about Santorum. Other than Paul, I would prefer he get the nomination before Romney or Gingrich.

      Based on foreign policy and spending policies, though, I vastly prefer Paul, and I think there’s a decent chance that this motto I saw on a Ron Paul site is correct – “For America, it’s R.P. or R.I.P.”

      • http://davidgriffey.blogspot.com/ Dave G.

        I’m not much of a Paul fan, but I could vote for him. Same with Santorum. It’s not like there’s any of the candidate I’d want to go pick out curtains with. But given especially the naked attack on religious liberties by a sitting president who actually has to worry about reelection, I can’t imagine what it would be like if he didn’t have to worry, and that’s enough for me to consider at least a couple of the GOP options.

        • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

          “But given especially the naked attack on religious liberties by a sitting president who actually has to worry about reelection, I can’t imagine what it would be like if he didn’t have to worry, and that’s enough for me to consider at least a couple of the GOP options.”

          No argument there.

  • http://Janehartman.com Jane Hartman

    If water boarding is torture, then why are all these formerly tortured folks running around so healthily? Some were water boarded over a hundred times. I think it’s horribly unpleasant and scary, but not torture.

    • Mark Shea

      If rape is so terrible, why do victims of multiple gang rape seem so healthy? “Horribly unpleasant and scary” = psychological torture. Why are Christians laboring so hard to excuse this evil, not to mention counter-productive, stuff?

    • Bob

      Waterboarding is torture. After nearly a decade of debate spawned by our embrace of torture, there is no longer any excuse for a non-ignorant right thinking person to believe otherwise. Banish the ignorance:

      http://zippycatholic.blogspot.com/2010/02/why-i-believe-waterboarding-is-torture.html

    • Joseph

      Wow. Wha? Code Red! We have an acute case of media-sponsored brainwashing here! Seriously? “Running around healthily”?

    • ds

      So the logic here is, if you are not permanently disfigured, it isn’t torture. MAKES SENSE.

      • Joseph

        Well, no, someone who is horribly disfigured can still run around healthily. Don’t put words in her mouth!

    • Dan C

      Diana Ortiz is “running around healthy.” You won’t see the scars on her, nor will the consequence of the gang rapes be apparent. Is she a torture victim? She claims she is. I believe her.

  • Wryman

    IMHO all that counts when looking at presidential candidates is what kind of judges will they appoint. That makes my choice pretty easy.

    • Mark Shea

      Because opposition to abortion taketh away the sins of the world. That’s the genius that gave us the disaster of the Bush Administration, which plunged us into unnecessary war, destroyed the economy, nominated one pro-choice incompetent named Miers, and gave us a Chief Justice whose only statement about Roe is that it is “settled law”.

      • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

        Well, it depends what he means. In this, as in other areas, though, the only one I trust to select good judges is Ron Paul.

        I hope that Rick Santorum would too, but he’s hard to get a read on, since he supported the FACE law, Specter, a funding bill that including funding for PP, and some other things that make you wonder how truly pro-life he is.

      • Thomas R

        Granted, but I asked once can you name a US President who didn’t support grave evil in your formulation and I kind of think you maybe can’t name one.

        Clinton – Pro-Choice, bombed nations that weren’t attacking anyone.

        Bush Sr. – How was Panama a just war? And I think he funded Khmer Rouge guerrillas because they were against other kinds of Communists.

        Reagan – Wow, where to start. He supported legalized abortion in California. He aided several Central American dictators who killed nuns and the like.

        Nixon/Ford – Pro-Choice and/or supportive of unjust wars.

        Eisenhower – Presided over the overthrow of democratic governments in Guatemala and Iran.

        I might do Carter, LBJ, and JFK later.

    • Chris M

      So if Obama had appointed staunchly pro-life or conservative or strong Constitutionalist judges, and done everything else exactly as he has done..?

    • William

      Wryman, and that’s worked out real well hasn’t it?

      • ds

        He didn’t say it was effective, he said it was easy. So long as you don’t have any difficult decisions…

        • Joseph

          It’s the American way: “America: Wing It”

  • Mark S (not for Shea)

    “Not that it matters.”

    Right. The GOP nominee is going to be Romney, and Obama is going to beat him in the election. The only thing that might be really fun about the next several months is that there is a better than average chance that Ron Paul will run as a Third Party candidate.

    I really don’t understand the “Anyone but Obama!” mentality of justifying a vote for the morally bankrupt GOP. It’s like the man who looses a viper in his house to get rid of the rat. Yeah, the viper may get rid of the rat. But then you’ve got a viper problem.

  • B.E. Ward

    When you vote for the candidate that has the ‘best chance’ of competing well, you’re not voting for the candidate, you’re voting for the ‘best chance’.

    I’m sure that’s exactly what the founding fathers had in mind.

  • Michael

    Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion
    3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

    Regarding the cloning, Here’s the bill: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-109s2754es/pdf/BILLS-109s2754es.pdf

    Note that the bill itself states:
    SEC. 2. PURPOSES.
    It is the purpose of this Act to—
    (1) intensify research that may result in improved understanding of or treatments for diseases and other adverse health conditions; and
    (2) promote the derivation of pluripotent stem cell lines, including from postnatal sources, without creating human embryos for research purposes or discarding, destroying, or knowingly harming a human embryo or fetus.

    And the insurance cost argument? The million dollar Rx case is unfortunate, and he addresses that. His answer is actually all about putting the decisions back in the hands of the people. He is not “another guardian”.

    We end up with candidates nobody likes when people buy into this notion that their vote doesn’t matter in the long run.

    • Michael

      http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=6041&repos=1&subrepos=0&searchid=839241

      Sorry. This is the “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion” link. I didn’t do something correctly setting that one up.

    • Joseph

      “His answer is actually all about putting the decisions back in the hands of the people. He is not “another guardian”.”

      I see, that solves everything. If people like that woman would just band together and boycott the life-saving drug until the drug companies are forced to sell it at a discount, the market forces will bring the price down… if their beloved children live that long. All hail the power of the people… which is somehow intrinsically united to the power of the “free” market!

      • Michael

        The solution?

        Or even what answer would you have liked from a presidential candidate?

        • Joseph

          I will humbly answer with, I do not pretend to have the knowledge to answer that question. But I will say that there are some “ideas” that are totally illogical. And no one, yet, has proposed a logical solution. When I hear of one, I’ll let you know. But I’m not going to cheer someone on for promoting an illogical position.

          • Michael

            Imagine if only he had given that answer. You do see the problem with being so critical of a response when a) you have no better answer and b) not answering (or punting) is not actually an option.

            Can I press? What explicitly are you finding illogical? Honest question.

            • Joseph

              Newsflash… I’m not running for president, so I’m not punting.

              A mother who wants to provide her son life-saving medication is not going to halt his medication to wait for market forces to make it cheaper, nor should anyone expect her to. That mother would rather go broke than watch her son die, just so she can save some cash (I, as a father, would understand this). It’s illogical and inhuman to throw your hands up and depend on a free market when lives are at stake.

              Now, for toaster ovens, golf clubs, game consoles, etc., free market all the way, baby. Not for products that are essential to survive.

              • Michael

                I was only saying that he couldn’t punt, I wasn’t accusing you of punting.

                And he’s not throwing his hands up. The free market is the reason for a lot of drugs that are saving a lot of lives. It’s just an economic system, it sounds like you are expecting it to be more.

              • Joseph

                I prefer to give the credit to God, for giving us things in his creation that intellegent human beings made in his image can use to create marvelous life-saving drugs. The free market, is not a person. I can’t create/invent anything.

                • David Davies

                  Yes. And so you should support incentives to motivate those who can ‘creat/invent’ things.

                • Joseph

                  David,

                  I was responding to “The free market is the reason for a lot of drugs that are saving a lot of lives”. The free market doesn’t create a damn thing, people do.

                  It’s that weird elevation of “the economy” that so many Americans have stupidly bought into because Dubya, CNN, and Fox News oft repeated, “the economy has created more jobs”. Neither the “free market” nor “the economy” nor are “incentives” people. They do not create or invent anything.

                  And I’m not sure that Alexander Fleming needed any “incentives” from the holy and blessed “free market”. I’m sure when he made his discovery, he was happy that it would be able to help humanity, not buy him a Lexus.

      • http://davidgriffey.blogspot.com/ Dave G.

        Why is it when someone in the GOP says reduce this or cut that and let the markets decide, they are derided as evil? But when Paul continually speaks of reducing this, reducing that, cutting this, cutting that, and says Romney is right, it’s the law of the free market, he’s celebrated as a political savior? Just something I’ve noticed.

        • Joseph

          It may be because Ron Paul has the ability to articulate, that he actually understands what he’s talking about.

          Perhaps Santorum appears like he’s just regurgitating media talking points left over from the Bush administration. I don’t know. For me, it’s not his ideas on economics that troubles me about Santorum. Economics is not my strong point though I have a few friends for which it is and, what I understand from them, it’s not an exact science. There are many different ways to do things.

          I personally have nothing against “free market” speech. I’m all for it… just not when it comes to life saving treatments. I don’t think that people who, as fortune would have it, have serious ailments or have dependents who do should be left to fend for themselves by the cruel trading blocks of the free market. They are human beings and so are their dependents. I think it’s an absolute cruel thing to say “sorry your son’s medication costs so much, perhaps one day it will come down in price. My plan is to give you hope that eventually the free market will make your medication affordable. If not, oh well. We live and die by the free market!”. It’s so Darwinian.

    • Mark Shea

      There cannot be diversity of opinion among Catholics about applauding murder as “wonderful”, supporting cloning, and pre-emptive war (which is “not in the catechism”). Also, torture is, like abortion, intrinsically immoral. And if abortion is your litumus test, Santorum supported the ardently proabortion Spector.

      • Joseph

        Oopsy! Somebody tell CatholicVote.

      • Michael

        Murder is not wonderful.
        I don’t think he’s supporting cloning.
        What is pre-emptive war? Sure an act may be pre-emptive of some future consideration, but it can still be very much the result of past and present actions that might merit the use of proportional violence.
        Spector is regretted. I believe him on that. Maybe I’m wrong.
        He’s made mistakes. He’ll make more. Do you have a candidate who hasn’t or won’t?

        • Timbot2000

          “Recently, Iranian scientists have been turning up dead, I think that’s wonderful”-Rick Santorum

          • Michael

            Don’t forget the working on the Nuclear program part. It does change things.

            I’m not even saying I agree. I do not have the information available to know whether it is justified.

            • Timbot2000

              Changes nothing. This was well hashed out before. We did not kill Andrei Sakharov, we did not kill Yuili Khariton, we did not kill Peng Huanwu or Yu Min, even when we had the chance. Civilians working on weapons development programs in countries with which we are not at war are illegitimate targets.

            • Joseph

              Wow. I sure am glad I didn’t go into Nuclear Tech. Apparently, some Americans think that makes you fair game for assassination.

        • laura

          Thank you, Michael.

    • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

      It is true that there is some room for disagreement on whether a war is just or not, but both Pope John Paul II and (then) Cardinal Ratzinger were pretty clear that the Iraq war did not meet the criteria.

      I am also concerned about some warts in Santorum’s pro-life record and his “big government” principles.

  • Wryman

    Well, let’s see… in the ninth district, loony judges just proclaimed that it is unconstitutional to have marriage be only between a man and a woman. All it will take for that to be the law of the land is for Obama justices to proclaim that the “full faith and credit” clause of the constitution requires gay marriage all over America. I don’t like it that GOP-appointed justices have not overturned Roe v. Wade, but I do know that the Democrats have a pro-abortion litmus test that the GOP at least does not have. So if there is to be a judicial change, it will come from judges appt by the GOP.
    Chris M: If Obama were pro-life (and pro-family in other ways), you’re durn tootin’ I would vote for him. Look at it this way: At least you’d know he was really on your side. With the GOP, you never know.

    • Joseph

      Not necessarily. Republicans are a mixed bag when it comes to gay “marriage”. And they haven’t done much at all to stop abortion for the last… how many years?…

      • Timbot2000

        Exhibit#1 Lindsey Graham :)

  • ds

    I was briefly on abilify, and I paid $87.50/3 months with my prescription benefit plan (from my employer). My insurance company is not paying $999,650 a year. $1,000,000/year for uninsured buyers is not what Bristol Meyers/Squibb is really expecting to be paid per prescription, that is just a bullshit price they quote to help them get the price the want from the INSURED people and their insurance company.

    Point being here, there’s something unjust in a system where if you are unlucky enough to not have insurance you pay $1,000,000/yr where the insured pay $350. And Santorum’s response to that mother isn’t that he wants to work to fix this injustice, but rather “We either believe in markets or we don’t.”

  • laura

    I won’t be coming back here obviously. Not a friendly place. I challenge you though – we have a tyrannical man in the WH right now who is hell bent on taking away our freedoms as guaranteed in the Constitution and you all are looking for Mr. Perfect. Newsflash: HE DOESN’T EXIST. He won’t be suddenly appearing out of the clouds. They are all flawed people. Flawed candidates. Its a miracle that we actually have candidates at all with the venomous barbs thrown at them from every side. Even on this ‘Catholic’ blog. In your quest to be more Catholic than me you seem willing to allow Obama to win because you won’t lower yourself to vote for someone who doesn’t have every box checked on their supposedly Catholic card. You want to throw Santorum under the bus because he’s not Catholic enough for you? Shame on you. Good luck with Paul. Like he’s going to win.

    • Joseph

      These are the same arguments that Mark Shea had to deal with in 2008. You should actually be grateful that he just may close his eyes, pinch his nose, and vote for the candidate most likely to end Obama’s war on Church. He may not as well, but you trying to guilt him or anyone else isn’t going to change reality.

      • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

        Last I checked, Ron Paul has been coming closer to beating Obama in the polls than Rick Santorum…check out realclearpolitics.com for the details. Wherever I go, I find a lot more people excited or open to Ron Paul than Rick Santorum, so this doesn’t surprise me at all.

        Most people here (we don’t belong to a hive mind, after all) will end up voting for Santorum, or even Romney, if they are the nominee.

        • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

          Actually, Santorum and Paul are in a virtual tie right now, but up until now, Paul has always done better in the head-to-head matchups vs. Obama.

    • Dan C

      Heard this on the web in 2004, 2006, and 2008. Stayed away around 2010. Each election is the most important election in a generation.

      By the way, both liberals and conservatives said it each election.

  • StubbleSpark

    Pointless and ridiculous hit piece that completely out of touch in a time of existential crisis between Majoritarian Secularites and Believers.

    Shame on you, Mark.

    • Mark Shea

      Translation: Check your Catholic brain and start shouting for the Perfection of the Team Leader like a good Republican.

      News flash: I’m not a good Republican.

      • Thomas R

        My newsflash, I’m not a Republican either. (I wrote something in during the 2004 election due to Abu Gharaib and the debates) I think one can criticize your tone at least without being Republican.

    • Joseph

      Hmm… that’s interesting. So a suicide is now a hit? It wasn’t that difficult for Mark to discover the intel then type it all up in a nice, neat, blog post for our information, you know (nothing a couple of Google searches couldn’t reveal).

  • Tom

    For everyone banging on Santorum for supporting pro-abortion Spector, here is another point-of-view from Jill Stanek: http://www.jillstanek.com/2012/02/playing-pro-life-political-chess/

    • Timbot2000

      The intellectual dishonesty of this piece is astounding. Josef Goebbels would be green with envy! All I have to say is John “Roe is settled law” Roberts.

      • Tom

        Speaking of intellectual dishonesty, Timbot2000, how about providing Roberts’ complete thought on the subject rather than a fragment, which changes the meaning entirely: “In private meetings with senators before his confirmation, Roberts testified that Roe was settled law, but added that it was subject to the legal principle of stare decisis,[23] meaning that while the Court must give some weight to the precedent, it was not legally bound to uphold it.”

  • Chris

    While worth looking at, Stanek’s claim that “history proved Santorum right”, is based on a false assumption, namely the pipe dream that Roe v Wade can, could, or ever will be revisited and overturned, which now Chief Justice Roberts, (whose confirmation she holds up as having needed Spector), said before & after being confirmed that Roe is “settled law” and he had no interest in revisiting it.

    Additionally, she seems to credit Santorum with Toomey having “handily won” a Senate seat, which actually argues against the fact that Santorum opposed him because he supposedly wouldn’t have won, maintaining the Republican Senate majority, (which gained seats even aside from Spector.)

    Finally, she doesn’t seem to know or care that Santorum, along with Bush II and the rest of the Republican controlled legislature, IGNORED Ron Paul’s Sanctity of Life Acts, which would have legislatively overturned Roe v Wade, doing more to slow & eventually stop abortion than anything that has been done since Roe, and in a far faster & easier manner than “Supreme Court 2400AD”, or an impossible constitutional amendment.

  • http://7kids6dice1gamerdad.wordpress.com Raul

    Wow. I am glad that I stayed away from the computer yesterday and spent that good time with my wife and family.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X