Rush: Perry the only conservative threat to Romney

The Examiner ^ | October.11,2011 | Charlie Spiering

[Reagan Man]

On his radio program this afternoon, Rush Limbaugh said that Christie's endorsment of Romney is proof that the GOP establishment is "desperate" for Romney to be the Republican nominee.

"They're doing everything they can to make sure -- you know, Bachmann, Santorum, they're not in the top tier now, but they want to make sure they stay there." Limbaugh said, "Perry is the only genuine conservative threat to Romney, and this is an effort to take him out."

Limbaugh added that "the thinking" on Herman Cain is that he does not have enough organization or money to compete with Romney.

"They don't even want to go through the primary process. They want to force people out." Limbaugh concluded, "They want Bachmann to quit. They want Santorum to quit. They want Cain to get outta here. Well, he's not going to for a while. They want Perry to finally throw in the towel. They want everybody to realize they don't have a prayer. It's Romney."

[fieldmarshaldj]

You’re right, he is a robot. I cannot even watch him on tv without wanting to throw something at my screen.

[TheOldLady]

Click the Pic               Thank you, JoeProBono

Harriet Bakes Gingerbread Snails for Gary

Follow the Exciting Adventures of Gary the Snail!

Abolish FReepathons
Go Monthly

Planning to donate at least $10? You can sponsor
one or more New Monthly Donors for no additional cost
FReepmail TheOldLady

[Reagan Man]

>>>>>>I stated my opinion about Perry, and the Perry supporters keep beating me up about it.

Poor baby! Stop your whining already.

You told one Perry supporter who called the Governor a "conservative" they should "sell" their "propaganda elsewhere". When I told you to take your own advice, you said I was defiling "the name of Reagan" by calling Perry a Reagan conservative. So its okay for you to attack good FReepers for posting their opinion in support of Perry. Just as long as we leave you alone and ignore your BS. Not gonna happen, skippy.

Your whining and crying about the bad treatment you get from Perry supporters is noted. LOL

[xzins]

fire in the belly

I agree. To date, he has been this campaign's Fred Thompson....who always had more fire on "Law and Order" than he ever did in his own campaign for the presidency.

In reality, it has now become either Cain or Gingrich. Santorum is more than acceptable to me, but he just isn't getting traction.

[Yosemitest]

Reagan pro-abortion? Not hardly.
You need to get your facts straight.
From Adamantly pro-choice? Ronald Reagan and abortion in 1967.

Posted on 01/24/2008 12:30:20 PM PST by ZGuy

Was Ronald Reagan ever pro-choice?
Did he champion and sign pro-choice legislation in 1967 when governor of California?
Was he "adamantly pro-choice," and outspoken protector of a woman's right to choose?

It has been said that he was, indeed, "adamantly pro-choice."
It's quite an accusation, and it is not true.
First, if words mean anything, it is a false accusation.
According to Merriam-Webster, for one to be adamant, he must be "unshakable or insistent especially in maintaining a position or opinion."
To be pro-choice, one must be a proponent of a woman's right to choose legally to abort her child and in favor of legal abortion on demand.
Governor Reagan did not favor the general legalization of abortion and did not hold that a woman had a right to terminate her pregnancy,
and he most certainly was not adamant about it.

We have examined this within our RedState community -- here, here, and here --
but we have not reviewed what actually happened in 1967, when Governor Reagan signed California's 1967 Therapeutic Abortion Act.
We shall do so now.

Please Read On.…

According to the jacket blurb,
"Lou Cannon covered Reagan for thirty-six years, first as a reporter for the San Jose Mercury News, later as The Washington Post White House correspondent."
In 1969, he wrote extensively about the early years of Ronald Reagan's governorship in a book called Ronnie and Jessie.
My source is his 2003 tome, Governor Reagan: His Rise to Power, which I have just purchased used in hardcover from Amazon.com for about $5 including shipping.
It is within Mitt Romney's budget, and I wish he would have purchased it before he made his infamous pronouncement, but let us look at what it says.

With access to mountains of previously unpublished material – including Governor Reagan's "cabinet minutes" --
Cannon writes a good book of history, devoting seven pages to the matter of the Therapeutic Abortion Act of 1967, beginning on p. 208.
There had been a bill in the California legislature, Cannon tells us, that legalized abortions only to save the life of the mother.
Its sponsor dropped it in 1965, and its sponsorship was grabbed by a young Democrat named Tony Beilenson, a State senator representing an "affluent, liberal district in Los Angeles County."
It was Beilenson's bill, a watered-down version, which Reagan would sign.

Cannon, by way of background, writes:
"Abortion on the 1960s was discussed in whispers.
Until mid-decade, the word itself was taboo in most newspapers. …
The phrases 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life' did not yet exist, and battle lines on the issue were drawn almost entirely on religious lines."
Conservatives who were not Roman Catholics, Cannon writes, believed
"that government should stay out of 'the boardroom and the bedroom.'"

Now, it could be argued that since the euphemism "pro-choice" had not yet been concocted, Governor Reagan could not have been that as claimed.
I'll discard that argument as pure semantics, as Reagan could have fit the definition – right to choose to abort on demand – without it being labeled any particular way.

Cannon writes that when Beilenson introduced his Therapeutic Abortion Act in 1967, it would probably have disappeared again but for Daniel Creedon,
a lobbyist pal of Senate leader Hugh Burns, telling Burns to "give the kid [Beilenson] a chance."
It went to the Judiciary Committee, on which Beilenson sat.

Writes Cannon:
"Beilenson's bill amended California law to allow abortions in cases of rape or incest,
when a doctor deemed that the birth was likely to impair the physical or mental health of the mother,
or when there was 'substantial risk' that the child would be born deformed."
The Beilenson bill gained even more traction when the Colorado legislature voted to liberalize their abortion law
and in response to public outrage over eight San Francisco doctors being arrested for performing abortions on women with German measles.
The Catholic Church, on the other hand, mobilized against the legislation, fearing that a move to liberalize the abortion law in California might spread elsewhere

After six hours of debate past midnight, the bill was sent to the Senate floor with the minimum seven votes favoring it,
five of which were from Senators of the governor's Republican Party.
The governor had expressed some support for the bill, but he was caught off guard when it sailed through committee as quickly as it did.
The governor's Senate liaison, Vern Sturgeon, and Senate leader Burns, whom we met earlier, worked to get it sent back to committee, but they failed.
Beilenson's problem, though, was that he didn't have the votes to have it brought up on the Senate floor.
Realizing this, he put his bill in the inactive file while he worked on finding more support in the senate and from the governor.

Here, Cannon describes Governor Reagan as "not his usual decisive self. …
[N]either his doctrines nor his staff offered a compass to guide him."
(Lyn Nofziger and Ed Meese favored the bill, while Phil Battaglia and Bill Clark opposed it.
Cannon writes that Nancy Reagan was said to favor the bill, but this is uncertain.)
Reagan talked to his wife's father, Dr. Loyal Davis, a retired surgeon who favored liberalizing the abortion law.
[NOTE: It is important to remember that the proposed liberalization of the California law we discuss here,
even though more permissive than zero, did not fit into the modern category of pro-choice.]
In opposition to the Beilenson measure, the governor spoke to Cardinal Francis McIntyre.

Cannon writes:

"Faced with an abundance of contradictory and absolutist advice, Reagan behaved as if lost at sea."

It is impossible to get from that to "adamantly pro-choice," but we are in the middle of a very important history lesson.

Cannon's prose reveals the tension in the air:

"At a news conference on May 9 [1967], he displayed almost total confusion about the bill,
freely contradicting himself and claiming he had discovered some 'loopholes,'
which on close examination turned out to be the purpose of the legislation."

"The clear sign that the governor was wavering in his support for the bill," Cannon writes,
"came when" he suggested that they see how the measure worked in Colorado,
where something similar had already been passed, before imposing it on California.
This made Republicans nervous.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Donald Grunsky, a Republican, told Reagan:
"This will keep coming back as an emotional issue year after year.
If the Legislature acts now, the issue will be resolved and settled once and for all."
(Yeah, right.)
Governor Reagan was still torn, reading through all the information given him by both sides in an unsuccessful search for some sort of compromise.

"I have never done more study on any one thing than on the abortion bill."

Cannon reports that Governor Reagan "lied to reporters" when he twice denied that he had met with Cardinal McIntyre.
Cannon attributes this to the stress under which Reagan found himself at the time and that the governor was "playing for time."
Before the Senate vote, Governor Reagan called for a compromise
and said of the provision which would allow for aborting a baby which would be born with birth defects
that it was "not different from what Hitler might do."
And he was right.
Beilenson, eager to get his abortion vote, stripped that provision and the Senate passed it with 21 votes, the fewest necessary.
Ronald Reagan was not a cheerleader for the bill, even without the provision,
and it was unclear if he would sign it.

In his weekly press conference, Reagan discussed how the "mental health of the mother" provision could be abused by abortionists.
When asked, he said that he was unsure if he would sign the measure, and Republican lawmakers, according to Cannon, were "tired of Reagan's dithering."
The gravity of the measure was not known at this point.

The bill's floor manager, Republican Assemblyman Craig Biddle, declared
that Governor Reagan would be "breaking a pledge" if he didn't sign the bill,
and the Senate passed it, 48-30.

At this point, the governor's media guy, Lyn Nofziger, told Reagan that he wanted to announce immediately
that Reagan would sign the measure, pushing the press to focus on the bill itself rather than a possible veto.
Cannon writes:
"Reagan wearily agreed, and Nofziger produced the press release within minutes."

Cannon:

In his heart, Reagan agreed with Cardinal McIntyre, not Dr. Davis,
and he really wanted to veto the Therapeutic Abortion Act.
Instead, he subordinated his personal feelings to the commitment he had made to Republican legislators to sign the bill.
He wasn't happy about it.
"Those were awful weeks," Reagan told me a year later.
He added that he would never have signed the bill if he had been more experienced as governor,
the only time as governor or President that Reagan acknowledged a mistake on major legislation.

He had no idea of the horrors which the bill, though far from pro-choice, would unleash on the unborn.
(The "horrors" bit is mine, the reportage is Cannon's.)

Cannon does have Reagan adamant about one thing, though Cannon uses a form of the synonym "unwavering":

"You can't allow an abortion on grounds the child won't be born perfect," Reagan said.
"Where do you stop? What is the degree of deformity [required] that a person shouldn't be born?
Crippled persons have contributed greatly to our society." He never wavered in this view.

Lawmakers tried to amend the bill in 1970, and Governor Reagan refused:
"Who might they be doing away with? Another Lincoln, or Beethoven, an Einstein or an Edison? Who shall play God?"

That was Ronald Reagan when the Therapeutic Abortion Act became law.
That was the Ronald Reagan whom Mitt Romney cavalierly calls "adamantly pro-choice."
He was not the prescient and decisive crusader for life for which our romantic imaginings might long, but he was with certainty not pro-choice.

Mitt Romney, in the same interview with Chris Wallace in which he slandered Reagan, wouldn't even admit that he himself was pro-choice:

I never called myself pro-choice.
I never allowed myself to use the word pro-choice because I didn't feel I was pro-choice.
I would protect the law, I said, as it was, but I wasn't pro-choice.

Yet he had just moments earlier declared that "[a]s governor, he [Reagan] was adamantly pro-choice."

We've established that Governor Reagan was anything but pro-choice.
By any convoluted word-game definition, the governor was not "adamantly" anything, in that uncharted territory, but opposed to abortion to ensure "perfect" babies.
Romney, who declared his path similar to Reagan, on the other hand, once proclaimed:
"Let me make this very clear: I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose [to abort her child]."

I posted this to clear President Reagan's good name.
A retraction, an apology, and an explanation from candidate Romney would also be welcome.
Mitt Romney has the money and the looks to compete in this nominating process, so let's keep this as honest as possible.

(To any student of Ronald Reagan, I recommend Lou Cannon's Governor Reagan: His Rise to Power. Adamantly.)

---

And I think you owe Ronald Reagan, and Ronald Reagan's supporters an apology.
Now ... just were does Perry stand on abortion?

[Windflier]

... sigh ... I tire of conversing with you. We've tangled many times, and each time we do, your primary tactic is to beat me over the head with your viewpoint. Never do you make an attempt to try to convince me using better logic, reasoning, or facts.

Try just having a civil conversation with someone sometime. You might just actually convert them to your way of thinking.

[Windflier]

So you on the Cain train now?

Hard to say, but of all the candidates in the race, I like him the best (for a list of reasons).

We've got to play with the hand we've been dealt, and right now, I think Cain is our trump card. If the primary vote were held today, he'd get my vote.

[Reagan Man]

>>>>>>... sigh ... I tire of conversing with you.

I don't blame you. LOL I'd get tired too if I was caught lacing my replies with juvenile BS, then going into a state of whining denial about it when confronted with the facts. Attacking conservative FReepers with cheap pot shots is not the sign of civil debate. Truth is, you can give it, but you can't take it. Btw, you have an obvious persecution complex and think you're a victim. Not conservative attributes by any stretch.

Look, pal, I come to FRee Republic to promote conservatism and conservative candidates. Been doing that since 1999! Occasionally some poster like you comes along and makes my day. Thanks for playing, skippy.

[wolfcreek]

Gov. Perry on Pro-Life Policy

Gov. Perry is the most pro-life governor Texas has ever had and has implemented a number of significant reforms to protect life and strengthen Texas families across our state.

* Abortion. Gov. Perry has worked diligently to make Texas safer for the unborn by signing both parental notification and parental consent laws to ensure parents are involved in their minor daughters’ major decisions. He signed a ban making certain that tax dollars are not used to support abortion facilities and helped implement the strictest third trimester abortion ban in the nation.
* Banning Embryonic Stem Cell Research. Gov. Perry supports a ban on human cloning and has vowed to veto any legislation that provides state dollars for embryonic stem cell research. He has been a strong advocate of utilizing adult stem cells in their place. Adult stem cell research can provide much-needed solutions for Texans suffering from various tissue and organ disorders while protecting the unborn from exploitation. They are also proven more effective in research than embryonic stem cells.
* Protecting Traditional Marriage. Gov. Perry championed a constitutional amendment that defines marriage in Texas as the union of one man and one woman, which was passed by Texas voters in 2005.
* Promoting Adoption. Gov. Perry has been a longtime advocate of adoption. One of his many efforts to encourage adoption in Texas includes the creation of an adoption incentive program designed to lessen the financial burden for families to adopt children in foster care. Created in 2007, the program provides a monthly health insurance subsidy of $150 for parents who adopt foster children who do not qualify for Medicaid. This effort, alongside many others, has helped nearly double the number of adoptions in Texas since 2004.

http://www.rickperry.org/issues/social_conservative

[wolfcreek]

You might not *haunt* Perry threads but, your 20 or so posts on this one is pretty telling. ;>)

You might of read all the Perry *propaganda* but, your responses might dissuade others from reading them.

Just sayin.

[Yosemitest]

Your link shows "Error 404 - Page Not Found".

[wolfcreek]

Here’s one closewr to home.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2754085/posts

[af_vet_rr]

Palin called Perry a conservative.

And Perry called Rudy Giuliani a conservative and said we should vote for him in 2008.

[HerrBlucher]

And same for Cain with Mitt.

[deport]

It’s others who refuse to leave me be about my opinions of Perry.

---

LOL.... Maybe they are just jacking with you. Sometimes it’s best to just let differences be differences. Heck I don’t mind ingoring a poster.

Anyway take care.........

[Tribune7]

OK, fair enough. Maybe the Gipper was as pro-life as Perry

[wmfights]

While I think these "debates" are stupid, nevertheless, if you are going to participate, you ought to come prepared to do what it takes to convince people that you really want the job and that you are the man for the job.

I thought on substance he was right on target. He improved from the previous debates. It's clear he's never going to be "debater in chief" but if he keeps making steady improvement he will be okay.

[Windflier]

You might not *haunt* Perry threads but, your 20 or so posts on this one is pretty telling.

And what, pray tell, do my responses tell you, genius? I hope you've noticed that I'm simply responding to everyone who's challenging me about my personal opinions. Other than that, you want to support Perry, go right ahead.

I've given the man my vote on more than one occasion, when he was clearly the best choice in the race, but I've got other choices right now, and I believe that some of them are better. End of story.

[Conservativegreatgrandma]

I agree with Rush. Cain is not serious. Bachmann can't do it. Santorum can't gain traction, Newt may be rising but there is still too much baggage and Huntsman and Paul are not going to do it.

Granted, we need to pray Perry drinks a lot of strong coffee before the next debate because he needs to firmly plant his boot on Romney's neck and not let up.

[Windflier]

I'd get tired too if I was caught lacing my replies with juvenile BS, then going into a state of whining denial about it when confronted with the facts. Attacking conservative FReepers with cheap pot shots is not the sign of civil debate. Truth is, you can give it, but you can't take it. Btw, you have an obvious persecution complex and think you're a victim. Not conservative attributes by any stretch.

Hey jerkface, do you bother to even note how you're talking to perfect strangers on this board? What a complete load of self-righteous projection.

You write that crap after I all but invited you to have a civil conversation with me for once? Get bent, nutbag.