Bachmann Blasts Gingrich on Abortion

thepage.time.com ^ | November 19, 2011 | staff

[Jukeman]

Defeat Obama. The botheads forget defeating Obama is the agenda most of us have and they just go nuts regarding comments they perceive as opposition to their “no chance in hell” candidate. I suspect many of them are libs anyhow. Your comments are lucid and spot on.

[JimInMO]

Yes! Understanding and acting upon the great national void--many people simply have not been introduced to the IDEAS and PRINCIPLES on which this country was founded, conducted itself, and prospered.

May I repost a comment I made from last week?

"Yes. Simply regurgitating the same, over-used stump (or smug FR) talking points doesn’t do any good, or change many minds. What we need to do is reclaim some of the empty space between many people’s ears. Reintroduce some of the ideas, principles, history, civility, morality, expectation of self-reliance, and the passing of those from one generation to the next."

"Simply hurling out our position and then arguing about it does not serve the larger and necessary requirements of redirecting this country back toward our formative values."

"We need people who understand our past greatness to teach those principles to ensuing generations. Otherwise, all we have is a bickering, downward-spiraling, uncivil society bent on each component getting what it can at the expense of someone else."

[TBBT]

I suppose that I’m a bit guilty of a singular focus of as late. That’s primarily because - for the moment - I see all the other noise as just that - noise. Right now the upcoming election drowns out all other topics in significance - at least for me. This election may well decide for generations what kind of country we will have. A European socialist state whose leaders are chosen to manage the decline. Or the country that conservatives know that it has been and should still be.

For the moment, I don’t see anything big that is going to happen in terms of policy. No grand deal or settlement is going to be forthcoming. This case is going to have to go to the jury in November 2012. Even the fast & furious and Solyndra scandals - while important - are still secondary to defeating Obama. Some might even ask - will those stories still have legs once Obama goes down?

There are other reasons for my singular focus. Time is one. I only have so much time and can’t get to everything. The other is the “silly-season” factor. For me - this stuff is like football for sports fanatics. Currently we are in the playoffs. Anything else out there in the sports or entertainment world is just noise...

So now I’m off to take a shower where I’ll ponder the questions: Does this mean that I have a small mind?

[MNJohnnie]

ANSWER the question. Don’t just go into your default setting of hysteric personal attack mode the second anyone asks a tough question about your candidate of choice.

Why in the world do you think nominating the one candidate the 0 Campaign PR machine can credibly paint as part of the DC Establishment in the minds of independent voters is going to work?

With the vast majority of Americans angry at professional politicians of both parties, why would you want to nominate the one candidate an incumbent President can position himself as the “outsider” against?

[mnehring]

and his Republican-dominated House never voted to bar taxpayer funding to this largest U.S. abortion provider.

You know, Bachmann is really starting to annoy me. First she jump on the bandwagon on the lies about Cain's abortion stance, then she throws this crap out there. During the years that she is claiming nothing was done, it was actually known as the most pro-life congress ever. It may be good to remind her that Congress voted on several major pro-life bills that Clinton vetoed. That Congress also voted several times to eliminate Title X- a major controversy at the time. Maybe being a tax lawyer at the time, she wasn't paying attention.

Some sources.

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=AASB&p_theme=aasb&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EA213D497A005D1&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=L1JaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=s0wNAAAAIBAJ&pg=7030,3175475&dq=congress+planned+parenthood&hl=en

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=DP&p_theme=dp&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EAF44426533C958&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=oTpHAAAAIBAJ&sjid=bekMAAAAIBAJ&pg=2788,71406&dq=congress+planned+parenthood+defund&hl=en

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/bostonherald/access/20511262.html?dids=20511262:20511262&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=May+22%2C+1995&author=Don+Feder&pub=Boston+Herald&desc=Social+contract+written+on+wind&pqatl=google

[mnehring]

Good plug, thanks, another positive for Cain. Not only is he a super smart mathematician with more degrees and experience under his belt than most of the other candidates combined, but he is ‘connected’. Another + for Cain.

[C. Edmund Wright]

>> Reintroduce some of the ideas, principles, history, civility, morality, expectation of self-reliance, and the passing of those from one generation to the next.....We need people who understand our past greatness to teach those principles to ensuing generations”>>

I like all of what you say above, especially what I quoted. And for all his warts, Newt does that better than anyone else at this point. Of course, by saying that, folks around here assume I am all in for Newt. Not the case. But a lot of folks are taking another look at him and most understand all of his problems. But they recognize exactly what you say above and how important that is at this point in history.

Cain’s life success puts more experience to what you said above, and that makes him appealing. Newt explains it better than Cain, and that makes him also appealing. A case could be made that to a degree, Perry governed Texas that way, which makes him appealing.

That is why all three of those appeal to me on some level, while all three have their problems too. But I am committed to the ideas above.

[C. Edmund Wright]

I WILL TYPE SLOWER FOR YOU:

I don’t buy your premise. Your question is flawed. That is the answer, YOUR QUESTION IS FAULTY AND FLAWED. Not 100% flawed, which I stated, but too flawed to answer.

Let me ask you one: Why did you stop beating your wife?

Can you answer that? No, because the premise is flawed. At least, I hope it is. Does the concept of a flawed question not compute? Apparently.

[Perdogg]

This whole abortion discusion is nothing but pandering. I am pro-life and in favor of cutting all federal monies for abortions, and since 1981 we have had 20 years of pro-life Presidents (Reagan, Bush, & Bush II) and not a lot has changed. Even if Roe V Wade is overturned, the abortion laws will be left up to the individual states.

Michelle Bachmann has never offered any legistlation regarding to, or has even mentioned Gardasil prior to the debate in Florida. She will say anything to anyone to get votes.

[MNJohnnie]

Quit trying to divert off topic with you usual personal attack mode of response

ANSWER the question.

[mnehring]

..oh, and before anyone claims the previous were not specifically addressing ‘votes to defund planned parenthood’, here are some more references. Specifically, the major battle to end Title X funding that Congress took on through most of its term (it was a few RINOs along with the Dems that blocked it- but they can’t say Newt and company didn’t do anything).

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=PD&s_site=twincities&p_multi=SP&p_theme=realcities&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EDCB9C875A3989D&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=WT&p_theme=wt&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EB0F16D4C8FB56F&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=WT&p_theme=wt&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EB0F16D2AFA6DEB&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM

[Diogenesis]

"I will protect and serve YOU, Master.
From the attacks on Palin, and the others.
To defending you in debates. You are my King."

[C. Edmund Wright]

>> So now I’m off to take a shower where I’ll ponder the questions: Does this mean that I have a small mind? >>

Oh no, all great minds do their best pondering in the shower or at the ocean or in a hot tub. Known fact!

Anyway, the point I was making is not that thinking about elections is a small minded thing to do. Thinking only about PEOPLE in the elections and not about the IDEAS of the election is. Assuming that disagreeing with the ideas of one candidate means you are shilling for another candidate is small minded. My only point...

[Jukeman]

Absolutely! I suspect there are those who come to FR masquerading as conservatives while, in truth, they are libs and in some cases, Marxists.

[GLDNGUN]

The answer is I suppose you are wrong and have made a mountain out of a mole hill, an 8 point increase is an 8 point increase

When you deny a reality everyone else in the room knows as fact, you pretty much become a laughingstock. Real Clear Politics polling data average of all GOP Presidential polls showed Newt bottomed out at 4.3% in early August. He's now at 21.6%. That was good for 6th place in August. He's now basically in a dead heat with Romney, despite Cain pulling in about 18.6% of the vote. If/when Cain drops out, guess where the vast majority of those voters are going? To the very same candidate that Cain will be endorsing - Newt.

So right now, Newt is tied with Romney, despite the fact that the conservative is basically split between Newt and Cain, while Romney is getting the limo lib GOP vote. We all know he's at his ceiling. When conservatives coalesce around a single candidate, Romney will be truly exposed. Right now, Newt is looking like the guy to do it.

But you go right ahead and provide the comedic relief and babble on about meaningless "8%" bump. Even most Newt haters wouldn't deny that his rise in the polls has been much more dramatic than that; otherwise, they wouldn't be attacking him here day and night.

[sodpoodle]

Good balanced responses.

Most men aspire to power, glory, wealth and acceptance.

Newt seems to be a normal man, with an exceptional intellect, survival instincts and from experience - a dose of humility.

Thankfully, he has made some dumb errors in judgement, has been a pragmatist and not a dictator.

He’s not perfect - and that’s a good thing - should keep him humble. The American people will see to it.

[C. Edmund Wright]

The answer is your questions are so shallow and surface and based on main steam media templates that they are not answerable. But here you go:

Newt is not the ONLY person the O campaign can paint as an insider. So FLAWED PREMISE ONE.

I am not necessarily supporting Newt, he is one of three I kind of lean towards. FLAWED PREMISE TWO.

How the O campaign will campaign against us is NOT how we should choose our candiate: JOHNNIE FLAW THREE.

That you think you know where “independent voters” will go is JOHNNY FLAW FOUR.

That the vast majority of Americans are equally fed up with both parties is JOHNNY FLAW FIVE.

That the President can position himself as an outsider is FLAW SIX.

So, since your entire question is so friggin flawed, I will say that any of our candidates is better than Obama and likely will beat Obama because the campaign will turn not on any of your child like assumptions that you’ve absorbed from the media and show a total lack of original thought, but will turn on who can best paint the differences between the idea of America as founded versus the idea of America of Hope and Change.

And Cain, through his life, can do that.
Newt, through his intellect, can do that.
Perry, through Texas’ success, can do that.

All the others can too, with some degrees of success. Now, can Johnnie understand that?

[C. Edmund Wright]

>> Most men aspire to power, glory, wealth and acceptance. >>

Yes, and by men, I assume you include women. But being grown up enough to admit just what you said gets you labelled as an unprincipled pro choice liberal de facto around here.

And yet, what you said is true of ANYONE WHO IS FAMOUS ENOUGH FOR US TO EVEN DISCUSS THEM. Yes, all of them. Learn it, live it, love it.

[Jukeman]

LOL! Already happened. Yesterday I was labeled a globalist, communist, pro-choicer and “occupier” for saying Obama has to be defeated and I would support whatever candidate is nominated whether Gingrich, Cain or Romney.

[MNJohnnie]

So standard Newt supporter SOP: Diversion, obfuscation and personal attack.

And then you wonder why people are suspicion about this PR cult of personality being manufactured around Newt?