Judicial Nominations – Huckabee or Romney?

Judicial Nominations – Huckabee or Romney?

You and I know the importance of the judge issue. As Senator Jeff Sessions once told me, “Nobody polls on it, but its what everyone wants to talk about.”

We need to make sure that Republican president understands this issue without wavering and without any populist tendencies. Mitt Romney is not that man, I
believe Mike Huckabee is someone who can be trusted on the judicial nominations.

First, Mike Huckabee has been unwavering on his understanding of abortion as the defining public policy issue of our generation. Mitt Romney’s record is not similarly comforting. Mr. Romney defends his former pro-abortion choice position (and presumably his wife’s donation to Planned Parenthood)  [Read More]

[Read More]

7 thoughts on “Judicial Nominations – Huckabee or Romney?

  1. Wow, why do conservative writers always lie? Is it in their DNA, or is it just the bankruptcy of their “Ideas” that leaves them no choice?

    I’m a fan of the original Mr. Conservative – Barry Goldwater. I’m pretty sure he’d punch Mr. Miranda in the mouth for publishing the tripe above.

    I can’t believe he actually wrote this in a forum where adults would read it:

    “Mr. Romney defends his former pro-abortion choice position (and presumably his wife’s donation to Planned Parenthood) by reminding us that President Reagan and George H. W. Bush were also converts to the pro-life cause. I reject the comparison.”

    No – not true. Romney’s past support for keeping abortion safe, legal and rare was because of a personal event – a tragedy that the radical right wishes on thousands of women. He had a close relative die from the after effects of an illegal “backalley” abortion.

    Whatever is outlawed doesn’t go away, it just gets more expensive and dangerous. Romney (who I do not support BTW) supported legal abortion because he understood that making it illegal would be a death sentence for a lot of women, and he didn’t want them to die. Some people do care about people after they’re born you know.

  2. Casper,

    You start with an accusation of lying? You throw that accusation around very lightly. It makes it hard to take the rest of what you wrote seriously.

    Are you asserting that Romney did not defend his position by saying that Reagan and Bush were also former pro-choicers?

    The assertion implied in your final sentence that to oppose abortion being legal is to not care about people after they are born is silly.

    I oppose abortion being legal and I care about people after they are born. My whole life proves it. I personally know many people just like me.

    None of what you said changes the fact that a human being has a right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

    That includes unborn children.


  3. **This comment is posted by Casper. Due to the length of the comment, ThirstyJon’s response is written directly within the comment in red:

    I promise you, if you stop posting things written by liars, I will stop calling them liars. [ThirstyJon: And if you keep resorting to labels and accusations I will continue to take all of your opinions with a grain of salt.] I do not throw the accusation around lightly. I’ve discussed many people with you without name calling – including Reverend Huckabee. I’ve never called him a liar, because I don’t know of an instance where he lied. I called George Bush a liar because he is, and I’ve proven it to you several times (the fact that you refuse to hear doesn’t alter the truth of this). Now I will call this writer a liar because he is, and I’ll prove it. You still won’t listen, but maybe some passing reader will. [ThirstyJon: Is that why you are here at Freedomthirst.com Casper? In case a passing reader shows up? Hmmmm.]

    About taking anything I say seriously… You never will [ThirstyJon: Interesting judgment, do you still think you know me?], and I accept that. To you I’m just a liberal whacko “phony veteran”. [ThirstyJon: Really Casper? I have never once even hinted that I think you are a “phony veteran.” Where in the world did you come up with that one? I have never called you a liberal whacko either. The only reference on my blog using those words is in an article directed primarily at conservatives and how God even loves “liberal whackos.” It was in quotes in the original article, it was not directed at you personally and it is a clear reference to the error of people labeling one another and forgetting that God loves all. You can read it here.] I argue with you here mostly for the benefit of other people who might read this. [ThirstyJon: Attention passer by, are you benefited? I want to know. :-)]

    I’m asserting that your writer is lying by omission. Did Romney say that Reagan and Bush were also former pro-choicers? I believe he did say that in a recent debate. But your “writer” omits the explanation that I’ve alluded to. For many years, many times, in many venues, Romney explained his support for safe & legal abortion by telling the story of his relative that died as a result of an illegal abortion (watch here::: http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/jan/10/video_of_liberal_mitt_romney_quotes_surfaces) [ThirstyJon: Thanks for the heads up on the Romney video. I found it quite enlightening. Everyone should watch it. In fact, I have now posted it here.] – your “writer” omits this, leaves it out – which leaves the reader with the impression that Romney’s only defense on his flip-flop is “Bush & Reagan did it too!”. So your writer left out an important point in order to mislead the reader. Is this not a lie? [ThirstyJon: I do not pretend to know the writer’s motive. I recommend that you do not either. I personally doubt that he is trying to mislead anyone by omission. He is just stating that he doesn’t accept Romney’s excuse for repeatedly changing his position. Passer by – please see original article above and watch the video for yourself. :-)]

    I can understand how your anti-woman [ThirstyJon: There you go relying on a label again. What in the world!] writer would like to skirt the issue. The fact is that when abortion is illegal women seek out illegal abortions, and die as a result. If abortion is outlawed again, healthy adult women will die of sepsis and toxic shock and hemorrhage, just like they did in the 1960’s. This is an inescapable fact, but obviously one that some people would like to keep quiet. [ThirstyJon: This does not justify the murder of innocent unborn human beings. It is shocking that anyone would not see this. It is like you just said “if we outlaw murder, people may attempt illegal murders that are dangerous to themselves.”]

    [ThirstyJon: Very nice squigglys here. Very Nice.]

    You said ” The assertion implied in your final sentence that to oppose abortion being legal is to not care about people after they are born is silly.”

    No no, not true, that’s not what I said. I never said that “to oppose abortion being legal is to not care about people” – I say that your words and actions demonstrate that you care deeply about abortion, but may care less about (non-rich, non-white, non-Christian, non-Republican) people. [ThirstyJon: This is nonsense Casper. I cannot believe that you would actually say that because I oppose the murder of innocent unborn children I might care less about people who are non-rich, etc. Ridiculous Casper. Ridiculous. I am equally opposed to murder regardless of who is being murdered or what their demographics are.] I never said the 2 were related. Many many people care deeply about abortion and really do care about the poor, Mother Theresa, Rev. [Governor] Huckabee, (myself – though I don’t claim to be in the same league as these two)…

    [ThirstyJon: Some of this comment is off topic, but because I am a nice guy I will leave it here highlighted by this nice table. I’ll respond to it someday in one of my posts about how just because the government did something nice for somebody doesn’t mean the government is the best solution. Maybe I’ll even write a post eventually about how off it is to assert that opposing government-led solutions means one doesn’t care.]

    You say you care about people – Ok… Elsewhere on your blog you say that you have goals that you work toward, I can’t seem to find them right now, but here’s what I recall: [ThirstyJon: Passerby, you can read all about this stuff here.]

    End social security (Wow – that comes first!?!?)
    End welfare
    End abortion
    Change the military to a more locally based system.

    Ok, let’s run through them… (I’ll skip the military thing, too silly to discuss, unless you think the governor of Wyoming needs (and could pay for) an aircraft carrier).

    End social security – did you know (or care) that before Social Security, suicide was one of the leading causes of death among the elderly? A jump off a bridge beats slow starvation, and old folks without families to care for them didn’t have a lot of choices. Go ahead, tell me how the churches will take core of them. (They didn’t before 1933, and they won’t next time around). So you show your care for your fellow man by wanting to shut down a program that gives the poor and the sick and the old some scraps off of your table. And please don’t tell me how they should have invested more wisely. A 43 year old widow with a GED and 3 kids who can handle 20 hours a week of janitorial work and still take care of her kids ain’t gonna start a 401(k).

    End welfare – Ever read a Dickens book? 19th century England was full of churches, and full of starving “street urchins” – 21st century America is not. Coincidence? Yeah, shut that one down too, and don’t forget the food stamps.

    End abortion – Yes, rape victims should have to carry the child of their rapist. If a woman is sick and cannot bear a child to term, then she just has to die. God’s will? The millions of women like Romney’s sis-in-law who will die from botched abortions? Tramps anyway, let ’em die.

    You oppose abortion strongly – great, don’t have one. I’m just suggesting that if we really care about those babies maybe we should do something for them after the umbilical cord is cut. Shutting down their head start and Medicare programs, cutting off mom’s welfare and Grandma’s Social Security, and starting random wars for them to die in ain’t what I had in mind. Expanding your churches’ Sunday school program won’t help much either.

    Please don’t care about me, I have enough problems.



    I should explain myself a bit. I grew up in a food stamp family. My Dad worked hard, but could never get ahead. My parents were uneducated, and they made some bad choices and could never handle money. They “worked hard and played by the rules”. I grew up in (rented, decayed) houses where public assistance was often the little help we needed to keep from going hungry, or to keep the lights on, or the heat.

    When I finished high school I talked to my parents about college, and I might as well have asked them about going to Jupiter. They had no idea about how to apply, how to get help, if there was help available. I talked to my guidance counselor and found that she’d already written me off. Decent (not stellar) grades, shabby clothes and a mom who came to conferences in flip-flops smoking a Saratoga told her all she needed to know about me, and she sent me straight to the military recruiter.

    I did my tour in the mil, and later went back to school as a night student. I completed my studies all at night, and later helped my wife (whose background is similar to mine) to complete her studies, including an MA.

    I’ve never forgotten the help my family got, and how badly we needed it, and the idea of what might have happened if it hadn’t been available. I’m living, working, taxpaying proof that the programs are not necessarily traps that holds families for generations. Sometimes – many times – they really are the “Hand-up, not a hand-out” that’s needed. I get very defensive when people who have no idea how bad it can get right here in the USA start talking about shutting down programs that probably saved my life – programs that save lives everyday, so they can get (another) tax cut and trade up their Lincoln Aviator for a Lincoln Navigator.

    [ThirstyJon: Casper, I don’t judge you or anyone else who has benefited from a welfare program. However, I am dedicated to finding solutions to such problems that do not involve painting rich people as bad, tax cuts as greedy, or come from a “rich vs. poor” thinking. I am convinced that making people dependant on the state is a serious threat to freedom, especially if you have to attack ordinary people with high taxes.]

  4. Ok – so what are your solutions? Please write a blog post on that topic, I can’t wait.
    Again, these are tildes (TILL-deez) not squiggles.
    Again, I never said that being opposed to abortion and not caring about people are related, they are 2 different things, like hotdogs and influenza. You can have one, or the other, or neither, or both – they are completely unrelated things.
    I believe that poverty and social justice are an enormous problem in America, and I believe that tackling enormous problems are what government is for. Could a private corporation working on a fee system have built the interstate highway system? Of course not, they can’t maintain the Jersey Turnpike. From there I kind of extrapolate that if somebody thinks their precious tax cut is more important than supporting WIC, then they don’t care about kids. you gotta admit it’s not a completely specious argument…
    About the rich vs. poor thinking, I believe that the rich declared “class war” on the poor 30 years ago, and have been winning. Some of us are ready to start fighting back.
    Ok, you never said phony veteran, that was Limbaugh. You’ve stated in the past that you enjoyed his show – “America held hostage”, ring a bell? Sorry.
    Ordinary people with high taxes? The ordinary people already pay high taxes, it’s the rich that aren’t paying their share as a percentage of income. If you make 30,000 a year, and really do the math on how much you pay in taxes (don’t forget SSA, FITW, SITW, Sales taxes on goods, taxes on fuels/utilities/etcs. License plates, vehicle registration fees, personal property taxes, Real Estate property taxes, etc. etc. etc.) the little guy pays 30% to 35%. When Dick Cheney’s stock options mature and he pockets millions, he pays a small (and decreasing) capital gains tax on that UNearned income. The rich guy pays more like 15%. Some think that’s bull – you don’t? Please write us a blog post on that as well.
    Sorry about my tone Jon. The post got my goat on a bad day.

Leave a Reply