Thursday, February 16, 2012

The Surge of Mr. Rick

"I don't want to make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money. I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money."

Rick Santorum

Thank you, Massah....

To Mr. Rick's credit, he says he was misquoted when he made that remark, and I'm perfectly willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. He claims he didn't say "black people". What he really said was "blah people". Of course he did. Some of my best friends are blah people.

And now on to the freak show....

It's almost i
nconceivable to me how much lower the standards of the GOP manage to fall with each passing year. Their new flavor of the month for February 2012 appears to be Rick Santorum, a man who could be mistaken for George W. Bush's not-too-bright younger brother. He kinda reminds me of Bobby Kennedy with birth defects. Is this yet another passing fad? Just a little over a week ago I was hoping against all odds that he would be The One crowned at the convention this summer. A Santorum candidacy would be bound to bring in a million laughs. I then dismissed the very idea as absurd. Fate has never been as kind to me as that. Now I'm not so sure.

One alm
ost has to feel pity for Mitt Romney. As a genuine conservative, he would have been right at home with the Barry Goldwater crowd of yore. But this new Republican party is something else entirely. Back in the good old days, while they might have been hard to take seriously most of the time, they were essentially a well-meaning - if slightly goofy - lot. It strains the imagination to remember that the legendary New York mayor Fiorello LaGuardia (photo left) once served in congress as a Republican. That era is gone forever and long forgotten. The gauge that records the intellectual substance of the "party of Abraham Lincoln" has flat-lined. They will soon be extincted. Life is beautiful.

As if things weren't bad enough this week for Romney, he's now struggling to win his home state of Michigan - a state his father George once served as governor of a half century ago. He may be a son of that state but it's more-than-apparent he's not the favorite son. It must be a depressing thing to wake up each and every day to the realization that even your own kind detest you. The "base" sees Mitt, not as the kind of guy who will work in their interests, but the interests of the moneyed plutocracy - which is true - but that's true for the entire Republican party. The difference between Santorum and Romney is this: Rick has most of them deceived. Mitt is as transparent as your sitting room window.

This is not to say that the Romney campaign is dead in the water. Anything but. A lot can happen between now and the convention and probably will. It's anyone's guess how Super Tuesday will play out. Rick's disadvantage is that he is disorganized and (when the going gets tough) befuddled. The fact that he has been able to win anything speaks volumes about the ideological condition of that disgusting party - not to mention the mentality of the people who vote in Republican primaries. If the Mittster can hang onto Michigan he still has a shot. If he doesn't he might as well fold up the tent and go home - wherever the hell "home" is. He's never made that quite clear.

My heart is with Mr. Rick. I soooo want him to win the nomination I can't stand it. I know what you're thinking: Be careful what you wish for, Tom Degan! Yeah, I know. President Rick Santorum would be catastrophic for this poor country, I hear you. But look at it from the point-of-view of a progressive blogger. A Santorum administration would be the gift from Heaven that keeps giving. And when your vocation is finding the humor in all things political, Rick's White House would be a virtual gold mine! It was a lot easier siphoning the comedy out of George W. Bush than it is from Barack Obama. Of course this is all wishful speculation on my part. Rick Santorum is never going to be president. But a man can dream, can't he?

And then there's poor old Newt Gingrich....

On second thought, when a person disintegrates to such a miserably pathetic state as Newt has, kicking him is bad form - not to mention in terrible taste. I'd better take a pass here - tempting though it may be.

"Today I consider myself the luckiest man on the face of the earth."

-Lou Gehrig, 1939

t? Read it and weep, Lou! Which brings me to the subject of the man the three stooges of the pluticracy are tripping over themselves trying to defeat - the president of the United States. The gods of happy political accidents have smiled down on Barack Obama throughout his short political career. Fate has always pitted him against people who were either engulfed in scandal, imbeciles, extremists, or crazy as an army of bed bugs. In the case of Sarah Palin it was all of the above. It now appears that in 2012 this run of good luck won't be deserting him. It's irrelevant who gets the nomination in the end. That party has so mortally wounded itself they've effectively reelected Obama. I get miffed whenever someone says that the prez has an uphill fight between now and Election Day. I disagree. The end-result has been etched in granite. It's all downhill from here.

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY


Fire-Breathing Liberal
by Robert Wexler (with David Fisher)


And speaking of Fiorello LaGuardia, here's a clip of "the Little Flower" (as he was known in his day) campaigning for mayor in 1932. He is speaking out against the prohibition of alcohol. One might imagine him saying the same thing today about the prohibition of marijuana. When this film was made, grass was not yet illegal.

They just don't make Republicans like that anymore. It's a shame. La Guardia was as good as they get


At 10:10 AM, Anonymous Beatrix said...

Although I agree with you, in theory, please don't allow your readers to think that Obama's re-election is a cake-walk. We still need everyone out there, doing their part to get the vote out on election day. The Republicans will do all they can to make sure that voting (for people who would tend to vote Democratic) is as difficult as possible.

At 10:20 AM, Blogger Tom Degan said...

I know what you're talking about, Beatrix. They're despicable. Here is a link to a piece I wrote last summer on this very same topic:

Won't You Come Home Jim Crow? Won't You Come Home?

Just in case you missed it last time.


At 12:05 PM, Blogger charles moore said...

Tom, the best line in your rant: "It's almost inconceivable to me how much lower the standards of the GOP manage to fall with each passing year."

It is absolutely astounding that a man who was such a piss poor senator, couldn't get reelected to the senate and was treated as a complete joke is now considered a serious candidate.

You are much more charitable than I; I just can not accept his "blah people" remark.

At 12:26 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Obama Breaks His Pledge on the Budget

By Debra Saunders

In February 2009 -- having signed into law his $787 billion stimulus package -- President Barack Obama made a pledge to the nation. "Contrary to the prevailing wisdom in Washington these past few years," the president noted, "we cannot simply spend as we please and defer the consequences to the next budget, the next administration or the next generation." Obama already had noted that he'd "inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit -- the largest in our nation's history." A month into office, Obama announced, "Today I am pledging to cut the deficit we inherited in half by the end of my first term in office."

Wolf Blitzah has been overhead commenting on yet another of Obama's failed promises:

"Mr. President, Excuses are like assholes, everyone has one."

At 12:37 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Looks like even comedians are fed up with the Big O:

The liberals are asking us to give Obama time. We agree...and think 25 to life would be appropriate. --Jay Leno

America needs Obama-care like Nancy Pelosi needs a Halloween mask. --Jay Leno

Q: Have you heard about McDonald's'new Obama Value Meal?
A: Order anything you like and the guy behind you has to pay for it. --Conan O'Brien

Q: What does Barack Obama call lunch with a convicted felon?
A: A fund raiser. --Jay Leno

Q: What's the difference between Obama's cabinet and a penitentiary?
A: One is filled with tax evaders, blackmailers,and threats to society. The other is for housing prisoners. --David Letterman

Q: If Nancy Pelosi and Obama were on a boat in the middle of the ocean and it started to sink, who would be saved?
A: America ! --Jimmy Fallon

Q: What's the difference between Obama and his dog, Bo?
A: Bo has papers. --Jimmy Kimmel

Q: What was the most positive result of the "Cash for Clunkers" program?
A: It took 95% of the Obama bumper stickers off the road. --David Letterman

At 2:15 PM, Blogger Just the Facts! said...


What's your point? You are not going to support Republican unless they were the most liberal canadate on the ballot
Without commenting on whom I would support from the GOP, my take is the GOP's base is supporting who they believe is the most conservative canadate. I think that is a backlash against what they see as the most liberal President in our history. What is interesting about this is how many liberals claim Obama is not liberal enough for them, yet after the election, polls will show they voted for
him anyway.

I see you hope Mr. Rick wins the nomination, and miss the days of Goldwater who would be today a libertarian. Did I read your post correctly?

At 2:27 PM, Blogger Tom Degan said...

"I think that is a backlash against what they see as the most liberal President in our history."

With all due respect, show me a person who would make such a statement and I'll show you a person with no knowledge whatsoever of American history.

Are you even vaguely implying that Barack Obama is more liberal than Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson?

Are you serious?

You ought to do some reading of the history of the country you are abysmally ignorant of. Seriously.

At 3:40 PM, Blogger Just the Facts! said...

I'll read your books if you read mine.
Do be so dismisive of the backlash against liberalism, remember 2010?

At 4:28 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just the facts,

Oh my, aren't you the tease and the coy one: "Without commenting on whom I would support from the GOP"? So you are going to keep us in breathless suspense while you continue to beat up on Obama. What's the matter, are you too chicken to say who you think is the better GOP candidate? Or do you really think that the GOP has a bunch of worthless clowns?

At 4:50 PM, Blogger Suzan said...

I still believe the clown parade is just preparing the Obama-hating masses for the ascension of Jeb Bush.

Either before or at the brokered Convention.

Love ya,


At 5:02 PM, Blogger Just the Facts! said...

Do not try deflection on me, Anonymous troll.

What I am saying is right now he is considered the most liberal candidate running for President. The election returns of Nov 2010 reflect that same view, that he was the most liberal President in office at that time. And we all saw the results of that election.

I wonder what would be the effect if Obama while winning a 2nd term, lost the Senate and the GOP continued to hold the House? Might provide for some interesting political conversation for the next four years.

"abysmally ignorant" and "With all due respect" do not go together very well.
Notice Tom, that I have not disrespected you in any way.


At 5:05 PM, Blogger Just the Facts! said...


You bring up an interesting view.
Unless Romney wins both MI and OH, I think we will get to watch the first brokered convention in how long?

At 7:45 PM, Blogger Tom Degan said...


I believe that you and I are on the same page. I believe that a brokered convention is a real possibility.

It's possible
For a plain yellow pumpkin
To become a golden carriage....

- Oscar Hammerstein

I can't see this party going with any of these fools. Would they be crazy enough to give the nomination to Jeb? Of course they would.

We shall see what we shall see.


At 7:56 PM, Blogger Tom Degan said...

"'abysmally ignorant' and 'With all due respect' do not go together very well.
Notice Tom, that I have not disrespected you in any way."

You have a decidedly good point there. Perhaps I should have been a tad gentler.

Sometimes I am in not-too-good-a-mood.

Sometimes I live in the country
Sometimes I live in town
Sometimes I take a great notion
To jump in the river and drown....

- Ledbelly

With all due respect, I remain apologetic for being so damned harsh.

Tommy the COMMIE

(or so they say)

At 9:39 PM, Blogger Just the Facts! said...


I can't recall when the last broker convention, do you?

At 6:46 AM, Blogger Yellowstone said...

From Wikipedia:

Before the era of presidential primary elections, political party conventions were routinely brokered. The Democratic Party required two-thirds of delegates to choose a candidate, starting with the first Democratic National Convention in 1832, and then at every convention from 1844 until 1936. This made it far more likely to have a brokered convention, particularly when two strong factions existed. The most infamous example was at the 1924 Democratic National Convention (the Klanbake), where the divisions between Wets and Drys on Prohibition (and other issues) led to 102 ballots of deadlock between frontrunners Alfred E. Smith and William G. McAdoo before dark horse John W. Davis was chosen as a compromise candidate on the 103rd ballot. Adlai Stevenson (of the 1952 Democratic Party) and Thomas Dewey (of the 1948 Republican Party) were the most recent "brokered convention" presidential nominees. The last winning U.S. presidential nominee produced by a brokered convention was Franklin D. Roosevelt, in 1932.

At 11:02 AM, Anonymous John said...


I'm sure it is a done deal - and the fix is already in for Obama. He serves the aristocracy well. Why would they want to change?

At 2:23 PM, Blogger Just the Facts! said...

Thanks Yellowstone!

As a fix already being in, I never thought about the Democrat's having a brokered convention.

I still feel that if Mr. Rick takes MI and OH, its a brokered GOP convention.

I am positive, as I stated here before, that I will not vote for Obama in 2012. Haven't made up my mind on who I'll vote for. Waiting to see all the candidates.

At 3:59 PM, Anonymous John said...

JTF, ha ha. It is amazing how you thunk that one up.

Sad as another term of Obama is, a silver lining is that whoever you vote for will not be elected.

On the other hand, anyone I am willing to vote for is not likely to be elected either. To avoid you asking your favorite question, I am not looking for a particular degree of liberalism - only someone who puts some of my (and perhaps another 99% of the population's) interests first.

At 4:24 PM, Blogger Just the Facts! said...

Gee John, I'm glad, in these rotten days of high unemployment, rising costs and unrest in the Middle East, I could make you laugh! Who said Conservatives had no scene of humor?

Anyway, you said something that made me wonder, what are the 99% of the population interests?

Is it:
Freedom from govt intrusion?
Free stuff paid for by others?
Health Care?

What is our (I too, am not wealthy enough to be called a 1%) interests?


At 7:46 PM, Anonymous John said...

This is a good one...

>Freedom from govt intrusion?
Like that is going to happen - however I think we should fight to maximize what we experience of the promise in the Bill of Rights.

>Retirement? Health Care? Jobs?
Why not? our government pays trillions of dollars on maintaining ways to kill people, what's a few hundred billion to help people live?

>Free stuff paid for by others?
Yea, like trillion dollar bail outs, huge nuclear power plant subsidies (i.e. free insurance & and government waste disposal ~ should it ever happen). No bid contacts. Privatization of public infrastructure. These things and military spending completely dwarfs all of the stuff you complain about

At 7:59 PM, Anonymous Wolf Blitzah said...

Mr. President,

I too had tingles up my leg when you were elected!

But after hearing endless excuses about all your failed campaign promises, I have one thing to say:


At 8:43 AM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

John, you astutely remarked...


I'm sure it is a done deal - and the fix is already in for Obama. He serves the aristocracy well. Why would they want to change?

You're absolutely correct. The aristocracy's current charge is undoubtedly serving them very well. Unless -- and it's a huge unless -- Obama suddenly changes course and becomes the populist president he campaigned and pretended that he'd be four years ago, there's not going to be any reason to change horses in the middle of the stream. None of the clowns being paraded before us this primary season will have to be inserted into the equation. Obama's doing an admirable job, and they're pleased.

As I've already said: Obama will assuredly win the (fixed) horse race in November -- by a nose (just so to portend at least a modicum of "democracy" at work, and a free and fair election).

At 10:18 AM, Blogger Just the Facts! said...

John and JG,
Correct me if I am wrong, but both of you seem to beleive that the winner of the election has already been decided.
I don't disagree that Obama will win, even without JG and me voting for him. But I cant find any evidence that the race is fixed.
Would either of you please provide me with same?

At 11:36 AM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

Just the Falsehoods!, your naiveté shines through again with the following...

"Correct me if I am wrong, but both of you seem to beleive [sic] that the winner of the election has already been decided."

Remarkably, no correction is necessary. For once you've been able to comprehend without my resorting to monosyllable wording or simple sentences. I congratulate you!

Since approximately one-third of America's voters will cast their ballots electronically, coupled with the distinct capability that electronic voting machines can be hacked and the actual results altered and manipulated, the possibility...or should I say probability that vote fraud will occur, is greater than it will not. Of course, that's just one mechanism to assure victory -- especially when money equates to speech.

I can't speak for John. He may have an entirely different reason, or set of reasons, which I'm sure are equally valid.

Once'll be Obama by a nose. Count on it.

At 1:00 PM, Blogger Just the Facts! said...


Thanks again for your kind words.

Since you believe that both parties are in league to ensure Obama is elected, that the "fix" is in, what choice do we have to make our voice/voice count and to be heard?

At 2:42 PM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

Just the Falsehoods!, once again you show you haven't been paying attention. There aren't two parties -- there is only one.

How many times do I need to remind you of this?

At 3:02 PM, Anonymous Liberals Are Sexy said...

Rick Santorum is only the not-Mitt flavor of the week. The GOP has cycled and recycled through their cast of characters for nomination. Every not-Mitt has had thier moment. However, they begin to talk and show their true self. Each is appealing to a certain faction of the hot mess that is now the GOP. There is no one candidate that will satisfy a majority of Republicans. Romney will win out in the end as the candidate as he appeals to the monied interests the best. I always believed that Romney would be the nominee, and I believe he still will be. Obama will beat Romney in the general election. This is not a bad thing for the monied interests in the country. It's also not a bad thing for the GOP because they will have 4 more years to obstruct, divert attention, play dirty, name call, etc., while getting everything they want anyway. If the GOP truly wanted to win this election, they would have come up with a good candidate in the beginning. (If one even exists, I don't know.)

At 5:18 PM, Blogger Saul Alinsky said...

Dave Dubya,

Since you are once again restricting free speech on your blog like Hugo Chavez, I will post here for you to see.

You have done an excellent job on your blog of falsely equating those who believe in what the Founders of America believed, with the Nazis and "neo fascists."

Bravo Dave Dubya, keep up the good work!

At 9:18 PM, Anonymous James said...

It seems to me all Rick Santorum ever talks about is abortion and gays. These issues are the be all and end all in Conservative politics. Rick and others believe that no abortions should be allowed even in the case of rape or incest. A newly wed woman, a girl trying to graduate collage, or a woman with three kids and no husband would have to put their lives on hold to have the rapist baby. Are you fucking kidding me?

Instead of giving them the morning after pill and letting the rape victims recover and move on, Rick would have a rape just be the start of a traumatic period in their lives.

These so called Christian politicians are so full of shit they have not had a bowel movement in years. I doubt any of them would have their wives or daughters have a rapist baby.

At 9:35 PM, Anonymous Ghana Rondo said...

Saul buddy, long time no read!!

Look, Dave Dubya's having one of his monthly melt downs. This time is over being called what he calls others. Now he claims he doesn't know you that well or something. He'll get tired of having to ok every post or realize that no one reads his blog when he does this. He's pissed this time cause it came out he's a unionized public worker at a state prison, where he gets paid to watch men all day. YUCK! No wonder he wants to raise taxes, taxes are what pays his wages!
Saul, got to go, but before I do. I looked at your link which lead me to a blog that looks an awful like the one Jefferson Guardian puts up.

"Would you care to explain?
Who is the gaucho amigo?
Why is he standing
In your spangled leather poncho
And your elevator shoes?
Bodacious cowboys
Such as your friend
Will never be welcome here
High in the Custerdome."


SORRY, I just can't help myself some times.

At 2:25 AM, Anonymous Ron Baldwin said...

James noted that Rick Santorum believes that no abortions should be allowed even in the case of rape or incest. While I am decidedly pro-choice I have a grudging respect for Santorum’s position.

The anti-abortion crowd paint themselves into a corner when they agree that abortion can be allowed in the case of pregnancy by rape or incest. Ask any one of that crowd why they oppose abortion and, typically, they say abortion is the murder of an “innocent unborn child” (using their words). I have yet to meet anyone who can explain why pregnancy by rape or incest results in any diminished innocence of the unborn child compared with pregnancy as a result of consensual sex.

Most people have never read the 1973 Roe v Wade Supreme Court decision and thus believe the decision merely approved abortions and ignored any rights of the fetus. Actually the decision is a scholarly review of the history of abortion and a careful balancing of the rights of the pregnant woman and the unborn fetus.

At 9:47 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Degan is the most uncharitable, he sees the word "Republican" and heart fills with hate. Never mind that Santorum is Italian Catholic America, he made something of himself, Degan takes cheapshots, is the biggest bigot around, the true legacy of the DevilCrat party.

At 9:59 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What's the score on who did the lynching?

Democrats 1001, Republicans ZERO, read the facts, even if Degan tries to pin all racism on Republicans as the mentally ill hater he is, it's the history of the Democrat party.

Degan hates Italian Americans, Catholics, Degan is the biggest bigot around, true to the DevilCrat party.

The other mentally ill dumbocrats can claim the same, but hey yous, you all did it. All you can show is your heritage for tarring and feathering people.

At 10:16 AM, Anonymous Invisable Friend said...

Most recent Anonymous,

I believe you forgot your morning meds.

At 10:30 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Invisible Friends: Okay, funny.

Answer the question, how many Republicans are associated with the hanging of blacks in the South??

Now, answer how many Democrats?

Feel good about your party of hate.

Can't answer a question? Eh? I didn't expect it.

At 10:57 AM, Anonymous George Jefferson's Guardian said...

Ghana Rondo,

I now see why Dave Dubya has never complained, like most liberals, that there are too many people in prison! Releasing prisoners might cause some union layoffs!

Dave is a master of deflection. He claims he has never heard of Saul Alinsky. Maybe its true as the prison library has no material on Saul Alinsky. If he went to college it must have been for a Liberal Arts degree at a pretty crappy one.

The greatest trick Saul Alinsky and the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world their kind does not exist.

At 11:14 AM, Blogger Tom Degan said...

One of the newest (and most amusing) GOP talking points is that - way back when - it was the Democrats who were the enemies of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and that it never would have been passed without the Republicans. This is partially true. It was the southern Democrats who were rabidly opposed to basic human rights for people of color that is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. But what is undeniable is the fact that the right wing spin doctors have been engaging recently in a cynical bit of revisionist history. Let me begin my explanation be posing two basic questions:

QUESTION NUMBER ONE: "Were" the Republicans at least partially responsible for the success of LBJ's Civil Rights Act in 1964?

ANSWER: Absolutely they were

QUESTION NUMBER TWO: "Are" the Republicans entitled to take credit for that fact in 2010?

ANSWER: Absolutely not.

You see, a half-century ago the Republican party was virtually nonexistent south of the Mason Dixon line. Oh, sure, there were a few people in that region of the country who identified themselves as Republicans, but the majority of them were black - and not allowed to vote! In the former Confederacy, white people were almost exclusively registered with the Democratic party. Why, you ask? Because none of these jackasses could bring themselves to register with the party of Republican Abraham Lincoln: "That nigger-lovin' bastard that freed the slaves." Let's face it, a grudge is a grudge - even a century after the fact. That all changed in the mid-nineteen-sixties.

When President Johnson signed into being the Civil rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, it marked the end of the "solid south" for the Democratic party. At the time, Johnson told his two aides Jack Valenti and Bill Moyers, "We've lost the south for a generation." It turned out to be an optimistic prediction.

The "solid south" has been solidly Republican ever since. The Dixiecrats of yore - or their ideological ancestors - are today Republicans.

Now they are trying to get us to swallow the fantasy that the mass exodus of Dixiecrats to the GOP forty years ago had absolutely nothing to do with race. It was all about economics, they tell us. Bullshit. It had everything to do with race. I was born very early in the morning, but it wasn't this morning. I'm happy to give you this much-needed lesson in the history of America.

Oh, and as to my hating Catholics and Italian Americans, I am Catholic and come from a family which includes many members of Italian heritage.

So much for that silly argument.

At 6:58 PM, Blogger Harley A. said...

Ron Baldwin said:

"The anti-abortion crowd paint themselves into a corner when they agree that abortion can be allowed in the case of pregnancy by rape or incest. Ask any one of that crowd why they oppose abortion and, typically, they say abortion is the murder of an “innocent unborn child” (using their words). I have yet to meet anyone who can explain why pregnancy by rape or incest results in any diminished innocence of the unborn child compared with pregnancy as a result of consensual sex."

Not a bad point. However, the "pro-choice" crowd similarly paint themselves into a corner when they say things like "well, I am no fan of abortion and I'd like to see the need for it go away". Why? If it is morally neutral and presents no significant physical and emotional detriment to the mother, then why worry about it? Answer - because they know deep down that it is wrong but want to reserve the right to continue it. You are right, though, the means of conception does not in fact diminish the innocence of the person that grows inside the mother. Often people realize that some choices, though technically wrong, are extremely difficult to live with and I suppose are willing to allow it. It is the best argument the pro-choice bunch have, I'll admit. The problem is that it is a tiny fraction of the issue, so is really diversionary more than anything else.

At 1:06 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You Democrats do any lynching today? This is Tom Degan's party, especially since FDR did nothing for Civil Rights and JFK voted against Civil Rights. This is the Tom Degan hatesite. Democrat slimebag lynchers.

At 1:10 AM, Blogger TSVDP said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

At 2:32 AM, Anonymous Ron Baldwin said...

To Harley A,

I appreciate your recognition of the conundrum in allowing an exception to a prohibition of abortion in the case of rape or incest. We obviously have wide differences and reasons for our opinions on abortion. It is rare to find someone who without compromising their beliefs can engage in a responsible and respectful discussion of this most divisive topic.

I do not know how much discussion you have had with pro-choice people but I have never heard a pro-choice person say they believe abortion “is morally neutral and presents no significant physical and emotional detriment to the mother.” That makes it sound as if they believe it is akin to having one’s teeth cleaned by a dentist.

Clearly the decision to have an abortion has profound consequences. But the real question is who should make that decision. As I said before, Roe v Wade is a careful balancing of the rights of the pregnant woman and those of the fetus.

I am old enough to remember well (but fortunately not personally) the dark days of back alley abortions before Roe v Wade. Outlawing abortions will in my opinion return us to those “days of yesteryear” (to quote from the introduction to radio episodes of “The Lone Ranger” Monday, Wednesday, and Friday at 7:30 PM).

At 11:04 AM, Blogger Harley A. said...

Ron, yes, there is precious little collegial debate left in this country - on ANY issue. We more resemble Jerry Springer than we do Meet the Press.

At 6:54 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would like to express my apologies to all Japanese Americans who our dictatorial president FDR imprisoned in concentration camps 60 years ago today, Democrat Bigots as usual.

At 7:12 PM, Anonymous George Jefferson's Guardian said...

Dave is up to his old tricks like Hugo Chavez on his blog. No free speech.

I bet he would sniff Hugo CHavez's crack if given the chance!

At 10:26 AM, Blogger Syed Haider said...

Its such a nice site, i'am the regular visitor of this web. Its very informative site.

Dental Instruments

At 5:14 AM, Blogger Neurosurgery Instruments said...

I appericiate your effort its such a nice nice, and has very informative.

Surgical Instruments

At 11:20 AM, Blogger Smoker said...

This is nice. Really love to read that article. Thanks for this ..
pan card application form


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home