WDEL Blog: Allan Loudell

Rand Paul the new G.O.P. Presidential frontrunner?

Christie on life support. Jeb Bush on the sidelines (and would the G.O.P., let alone Americans generally, really want a THIRD Bush?). Marco Rubio no longer a Tea Party fav because of his relatively more moderate immigration stance. Bobby Jindal hidden somewhere in the bayou. Ted Cruz likely to flame out before prime time. Rick Santorum unlikely to be taken very seriously a second time.

The ATLANTIC on line offers a fairly persuasive piece suggesting Rand Paul is the new frontrunner for the Republican Presidential nomination. (I'm somewhat persuaded, but note that I didn't include Scott Walker in the above list. Also Mike Huckabee, who, like Rand Paul, enjoys the advantage of having run before.) Of course, perceived "frontrunners" this far out don't mean very much (Remember Rudy Giuliani?), but I think it's instructive that Rand Paul - so distrusted by ardent pro-Israel conservatives and national security "hawks" - could possibly be in the driver's seat for his party's nomination...


Posted at 8:18am on January 23, 2014 by Allan Loudell

<- Back to all Allan Loudell posts

Comments on this post:

Mike from Delaware
Thu, Jan 23, 2014 8:34am
That list of potential candidates all are TEA folks, other than maybe Jeb Bush, but as you mentioned, the odds of the nation wanting a third Bush is pretty unlikely, especially given how badly Bush Jr.'s second term ended. Americans might have a short memory, but we're still climbing our way out of that mess Little Bush put us in.

I can imagine the TEA folks high-fiving it as they're pretty well set, now that Christie is flaming out, to control the G.O.P. and one of THEIR boys is ready to grab the reigns of power for the G.O.P./TEA party.

My guess is the DEMS also are high-fiving it, because Hillary's chances [or whomever they nominate] just improved with Christie flaming out and a TEA party person gaining control of the G.O.P.

Shows how far things have gone, where Hillary Clinton would be seen by many to be the moderate candidate, but that indeed seems to be what's transpiring as the G.O.P. continues to allow the extremists within their ranks [a.k.a., the TEA party folks] to run their party.

Thu, Jan 23, 2014 8:39am
Rand Paul needs to be on the 2016 ticket...either in the "driver's seat" or as "co-pilot". Rand attracts Libertarians and youth (especially those who no longer trust Big Gov't after the N.S.A. revelations).

Mr. Loudell...I know it's your blog and you may choose whatever topics interest you...but no mention of the 40th Anniversary of Roe vs. Wade (55 MILLION abortions 1973-2013) and the changing opinion of our nation on this "hot button" topic?

Hundreds of thousands show up in D.C. every year to protest the SCOTUS decision on the matter and they are ignored by the media. Many states have ended all abortions in the Third trimester, and quite a few now will not allow them in the Second trimester... The Philly trial with Kermit Gosnell highlighted the horrible conditions many clinics offer and many clinics have been closed (thank God). The R.N.C. is getting behind this wave of "change" about Equal Rights FOR ALL (even the pre-born)...even Reince Priebus was at the rally yesterday to solidify the fact that the Republicans are for LIFE, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness (tough to do if you are aborted).

Thu, Jan 23, 2014 8:47am
Mike: I predict Hillary will run as a Moderate Democrat and IF elected will quickly show her true inner-Saul Alinsky...in other words her true Progressive roots. Hillary will make 0bama look like a Moderate in hindsight.

Hillary has the money, the friends and the power to create a Moderate candidate and once again our nation will probably fall for the "Fairy-Tale" candidate...unless Benghazi actually catches up to her, but the reality of that happening is doubtful as the media covers for her and the Moderates/Progressives (on both sides of the political aisle) fear her.

Thu, Jan 23, 2014 9:04am
Earl, thank you for mentioning Roe v. Wade. Maybe it's time to start showing up and giving those dried-up old ladies and geezers outside the clinics a dose of their own medicine. Get in their faces and see how they like it. Notice how the anti-abortion protesters are almost never anyone capable of reproduction. They are not in the game but they insist on trying to make the rules for others. Once again, you and Pizza want to shove your doctrine down everybody else's throat.

MFD: It's hardly fair to say the Republican establishment "allows" the tea baggers to run the party. How are they supposed to stop them? Keep the Kochs, Adelson, et al, from dumping truck-loads of money on tea party groups? Bar tea-baggers from primaries and state conventions and caucuses?

Earl: You tea-baggers are obsessed with Alinsky. Truth is you tea-baggers are the only ones who pay attention to him and you are the only ones who follow his strategies. Once again, you get an "F" in recent U.S. history. Hillary (and Slick Willy) have always been "New Democrats" - moderate or D.L.C. Democrats. Those are her "roots." She was never a progressive. Do you guess about this stuff or do you just lie? If you'd been paying attention, you'd also know that Democrats tend to talk sort-of progressive in the primaries and then sell-out or cave-in after the election (like Obama).

Thu, Jan 23, 2014 9:40am
By the way, Earl, "Fresh Air from WHYY" did a show Monday on the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act. They quoted some of the congressional debate. Curiously enough, "conservatives" were using the same arguments against non-discrimination against Blacks (in voting, housing, employment, public accommodations) that you tea baggers use against LGBT rights today. And they were often quoting the Bible to do it. If you and Pizza want to base the legal system on the Bible, I guess that means you approve of slavery. Polygamy, too. Just two more things which have been justified through scripture.

Thu, Jan 23, 2014 9:55am
One sentence in the article I really agree with is: "Yes, it's absurdly early." The crash-and-burn of Governor Christie (my previous favorite for the race) shows how we can get carried away when looking for candidates.

Rand Paul appeals right now because there are people who know is name. Republicans take a long to time to warm up to newcomers, so that gives him an advantage. His distaste for "big brother" is a popular message right now, so that gives him a second advantage. Organization in Iowa is a third. But in the 2014 election, we may see some surprises emerge who will be stars like Governor Christie was for awhile.

Since Democrats are more welcome to new faces, Mrs. Clinton is not a shoe-in. In fact, many Democrats are already in an "anyone but Clinton" position. Many do love her, but nearly as many hate her and the Clintons in general.

On another note, Bill, you are missing the recent trend in the anti-abortion movement. Younger women are now a large part of the effort. Channel 10 offered coverage of the locals who who in the march. Fox and EWTN provided much coverage. Youth are now much more of a factor. No, they don't demonstrate in front of abortion clinics. They have more sense than to do that. They are part of the new movement to promote adoption over abortion. The message is being heard.

Thu, Jan 23, 2014 10:02am
On Roe versus Wade, I remember an old discussion on black-and-white TV involving a priest, a Presbyterian, and a rabbi all discussing the beginning of life.... The Catholic (could have been a bishop) insisted life began at conception, but couldn't prove it... It was just his faith. The Presbyterian used tradition, that birth always in the past, even in Biblical times, was the signifying factor of when life began. The Rabbi, when it was his turn, said they both were wrong. Life begins after the kids move out of the house....

I think the Rabbi nailed it. I've stuck with his opinion...

Thu, Jan 23, 2014 10:09am
"On another note, Bill, you are missing the recent trend in the anti-abortion movement. Younger women are now a large part of the effort. Channel 10 offered coverage of the locals who who in the march. Fox and EWTN provided much coverage. Youth are now much more of a factor. No, they don't demonstrate in front of abortion clinics. They have more sense than to do that. They are part of the new movement to promote adoption over abortion. The message is being heard."-JimH

Exactly! The 20-somethings (voting male & females) are now the ones trying to advance Pro-Life policies. Very few protest in front of the clinics and instead favor using the internet and creating on-line help groups and ADOPTIONS for those considering abortion.

Rockforlife.org is not exactly "old" folks sitting in front of clinics in their rocking chairs...they are YOUTH promoting human rights for all, born and pre-born.

Thu, Jan 23, 2014 10:13am
kavips: We have advanced far beyond b&w television sets (can't say I've ever actually watched one)...modern science now allows us to actually SEE a fetus that's only a few weeks old. Science is what is supposedly embraced by the Left, yet when it contradicts the Left's agenda, it must not be trusted. How convenient.

Thu, Jan 23, 2014 10:21am
As for Rand Paul... I don't think he generates much excitement, as evidenced by this thread quickly jumping off him and onto abortion....

Rand Paul's signifying moment was 3 weeks after his filibuster deploring drone use, he quietly said outside the limelight that he had no problem with drones killing anybody....

That tells me he is not real... Someone who is not real does not make it very far in a presidential campaign.

That was one thing you could say about Romney. His image as a limelighting incompetent wishy-washy, mistake-prone individual, was dead on.

He won the nomination through his insincerity, by saying "I'm a fake human being and that is just who I am". Something Rand Paul needs to learn between now and Iowa....

Despite Earl's and Pizza's encouragement of an extreme Conservative, Ted Cruz for example, history shows that Republicans did quite well during the New Deal era from the 30's up to now, when Republicans suddenly became the LADY GAGA of politics.

The House and Senate were both full of Republicans, and Eisenhower, Nixon, all beat out the top Democratic challengers to achieve the Presidency..... Delaware had its Republican Senator and Congressman. Mike Castle, who exhibited a moderate view, could possibly still be relevant as our current Senator today.

Harsh conservatism killed Republicans. Republicans are dead in the water until they muzzle their radical arm. It has eliminated almost all their chances of winning in 2016, and may collapse after 2014....

As for Christie, not many moderates are considering it now, but, if he were the actual nominee in 2016, would America seriously overlook his corpulent body structure? Is that really how we want to represent ourselves in the world today? America! The threatening bumbling fat man? Bridgegate is probably God's answer to many Republicans' prayers; they just don't know it yet....

Thu, Jan 23, 2014 10:38am
"...would America seriously overlook his corpulent body structure? Is that really how we want to represent ourselves in the world today? America! The threatening bumbling fat man?

Christie is shaped like Santa.... Is that really worse than an old, bitter and shrill Hillary Rodham? Just ask Bill Clinton who he'd rather have a burger with...

BTW, I didn't add the 55-million abortions to distract from Rand... just a bit tired of guessing who will run in 2016. Rand is a "star" right now, but that could all change in a heart beat...and Republicans need to focus on 2014 and the Senate.

Thu, Jan 23, 2014 11:34am
Earl, again, you are letting your own wishful thinking get in the way of clear thought. Obviously you wish abortion to be illegal, and so you cherrypick bits and pieces of reality to make yourself believe you are on the right track....

Pro-Life people say a fetus is alive at conception. By the same scientific principals they use, their excrement they expel has just as much "life" as what they are trying so hard to protect.

In fact, from his invective tone, I could almost see BillS organizing a rally to throw excrement on people protesting abortion outside clinics... That might be a good tactic, actually. I wonder how many diehards would come back and protest again...

But, I digress.

The bottom line is that pro lifers are putting up an arbitrary line, one they made up, one they think is real, one they choose to believe despite all evidence to the contrary, and insisting everyone else succumb to their beliefs...

I refuse to, because to my philosophy, your definitions make no sense. To my way of thinking, if the body expelled the fetus at one month, two months, three months, four months, five, months, six months, seven months, eight months, and it were birthed out in a cabin far out in the woods, would the baby live? No. Therefore how can one say it was meant to live?

You see, I arbitrary choose to use that definition of life just like you Earl, and those who are anti-abortionists, choose to use a heartbeat, masturbation, brain waves, pain, or any other randomly picked harbinger for deciding when or when not life begins...

It's all random.. and all of us can back it up with very good arguments on either side, that must give pause to all listening in...

So what the argument really boils down to, is not over the beginning of life at all. It is over whether people should either be forced to do as they are told, or whether they have the right to make up their own minds...

Anti-Abortionists say "you must do what I say, because....." And the right-to-choosers, say... "Don't listen to them... Do what you think is right. Do what you think is best for you, your future, and the baby you'd bring into the world if you so wanted...."

And I would venture that, because certain people tend to be the most vocal against it, it all comes down to sex... If you look at who is against abortion, it always turns out to be people not having fun sex. Priests, Nuns, fat old men, young people from religious homes who've never dated, people married to spouses who ... sex with them, shudder, shudder, ugh.... and it comes down to the Scarlet Letter syndrome, where sex is the most horrible sin one would like to enjoy.. Therefore if you have coitus, you must bear the price, even if it means a child goes through life hated by everyone including its own mother and father.
People who think sex is a abomination are the biggest crybabies against abortion....

They don't care one bit about the baby, as evidenced with Rick Santorum, whose wife apparently had an abortion, but they twisted it in such a way, to say, it was not an abortion...???

So on the landscape, you have these gnarly nasty people against sex, trying to impose their will on everyone else. The Supreme Court wisely said, those gnarly nasty people have no grounds to do so, and abortion has no choice but to became legal...

Abortion is a choice. An avenue of last resort. Just like killing an intruder is an avenue of last resort. I don't know of any Republican conservative who would argue against shooting an intruder...

And it is exactly the same, as condemning a woman to raising a kid she doesn't want... It is the exact equivalent of Saying you, sir, have to take a beating and suffer the damage for the rest of your life because you see, you aren't allowed to make a choice over what is best for you, and "WE" decided on randomly acquired evidence that you are not allowed to defend yourself with any firearm or other weapon because that would be taking an innocent life, of a cute little helpless person who just needed a little cash to buy some drugs, that's all... You should have given him whatever that intruder wanted, but no, you killed him and now you have to go to jail, and when you die, you must go to hell as well.

if you believe that little scenario is the way things should actually be in real life, then you really aren't a conservative now, are you? No conservative could ever believe that a person should be prohibited from making a thoughtful lifelong decision that would protect their own interest, and that of their loved ones now, would they? That goes against Conservatism.

Therefore no Conservative can ever be against abortion. For that choice is equally as disruptive to someone as suffering from a beating at the hands of a thug invading your home... There is no distinction; they both do lifelong damage.

Going against abortions as a legal right is a Liberal philosophy, as in "Make People Do What I Want", or one would so believe listening to Conservatives rail on about things they think Liberals think but don't understand, as one is prone to hear on WDEL from 1-4, M-F...

It is a real moral dilemma for Conservatives now, isn't it? They must ask themselves... "Am I a Liberal because I am against the personal right to choose what's best for oneself, as in abortion, or should I become a pro-Choice person because I am a conservative?"

Bottom line: If you are a Conservative and against Roe versus Wade, you are messed up...

Roe versus Wade was decided 40 years ago!... Should we overturn it? What would be the ramifications? For example could we have reinstated slavery in 1905? Should we have gone back to Jim Crow laws in 2004? Should we have turned ourselves back over to Great Britain in 1852, 8 years before the Civil War? Or 1823, 9 years after we won the war of 1812? Should Belarus go back to being part of communist Russia almost twenty years in our future, say in 2033?

As Americans, land of the free and home of the brave, we acknowledge that some of our nation's people are just flat out stupid. That is a fact of life. There will always be those who for some reason of other, can't string two thoughts together and come up with an idea... There will be people who forever think blacks should have no rights... But just because they exist, that doesn't make them right. It does make them freaks....

After 40 years, it is time to treat all those who think we should magically overturn a bedrock of modern life, and that we should remove the underlying guaranteeing that women have rights to decide their own future... as freaks.

After 40 years, they are no more relevant than slavers, than Royalists, than plantation owners, or Soviet Politburo members 40 years after the world has moved on and passed them by.

So Earl, give it up. The rest of humanity is tired of it. Move on.

That just might be the reason Allan chose not to put something completely irrelevant on his own blog... And hats of to him for not doing so...

Thu, Jan 23, 2014 12:17pm
"These are not the droids you are looking for...move along, move along.~Obi Wan Kenobi

Sorry kavips but I'm not a simple-minded Stormtrooper.

Abortion is a choice. An avenue of last resort. Just like killing an intruder is an avenue of last resort. I don't know of any Republican conservative who would argue against shooting an intruder...

And it is exactly the same, as condemning a woman to raising a kid she doesn't want...

Um, not if the woman chooses to give the child to a loving family to adopt!!! Some people realize that you are condemning the child to a DEATH sentence so that the mother isn't "punished with a baby" (as the best president ever once said of his own daughters if they ever had an "unwanted" pregnancy)

Your analogies don't line up at all...the first scenario protects against someone breaking into a person's house (and probably willing to commit violence upon the occupants of the household), the second kills the innocent "occupant" in order to let the person responsible (minus rape or other circumstances) continue on with their life as if nothing ever happened.

I'm sure the real reason Mr. Loudell didn't post this topic is because of the "heated" discussions that would occur on such a "hot button topic".

"Destruction of the embryo in the mother's womb is a violation of the right to live which God has bestowed upon this nascent life. To raise the question whether we are here concerned already with a human being or not is merely to confuse the issue. The simple fact is that God certainly intended to create a human being and that this nascent human being has been deliberately deprived of his life, and that is nothing but murder."~Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Thu, Jan 23, 2014 12:21pm
BTW, Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe) is now staunchly Pro-Life, petitioned the SCOTUS in 2005 to overturn the 1973 decision and endorsed Rand Paul's dad in 2008 because of his solid Pro-Life stance/voting record.

Thu, Jan 23, 2014 1:54pm
The issue is not when life begins. Of course, a fetus is alive. So are mushrooms, sponges, bacteria... The issue is what is a human being and when does a fetus become a human being? In Biblical times, contrary to what the Presbyterian said, it was seven days after birth. Yes, the Catholic Church says at the moment of conception. But Buddhism teaches the soul enters the body right before birth. Once again, we see people trying to impose their own version of Christian dogma on everybody else. Forget separation of church and state.

Fox and EWTN? Hardly sources of objective information on any subject.

You think abortion is wrong. Don't have one? Oh, wait! You guys are never likely to face that choice. Even so, stop trying to force others to live their lives according to your dictates. Let god deal with other people's sins, if any.

MFD: Luther says there's no way people can keep the law. But Jesus said to be perfect, even going beyond the requirements of the law. So why tell people to strive for perfect if it's not possible? Who you gonna believe? The guy you consider god incarnate, or some kraut overcome with guilt feelings?

Thu, Jan 23, 2014 2:00pm
Earl... Thank you for proving my case.

Who is Dietrich Bonhoeffer and why would that matter to me?
And why should I care whether Norma McCorvey is pro life or pro dog? What does supporting Ron Paul have to do with anything to anyone? He could get more than 8% of his party on board.

They perhaps all mean something to you apparently, and you are using, (as I predicted mind you) things that are important to you, to justify what is important to you... from my perspective you might as well stopped on your commute home, gone up to a random front door, knocked, and given me that that person's name as a reason for overturning Roe vrs Wade... They said so.

The second point is that you failed to address how imposing your way upon women is different than others imposing "their way" upon your right to defend your house...

You fail completely because the two scenarios do line up. They line up exactly, perfectly along the very same path. The only way you are able to rebut them is by making up something completely outside my argument, that the intruder will kill you, and relating that to killing a fetus inside the mother.... Ummm. we weren't talking about killing. We were talking about making choices for other people....

The only way anyone can defend pro life, is to avoid the argument of whether or not we have a choice to choose our own destiny.

In fact, you yourself use just that very form of choice in promoting your solution of adoption... Let me ask you Earl, Have you ever been pregnant? Have you ever given birth? No? Really? So you are an expert on women now?

I know you didn't say it, but that was where you were going so I nipped it in the bud.

Tell me Earl, if you were pregnant, and not keeping the child,.. which would you prefer? Going full term, risking your life, (childbirth is pretty scary btw), then giving it up after all that time?... or would you take the easy way and have it exit the body naturally, while still microscopic, and you never know for sure when it leaves?

Or let us put thusly. Umm.. If you had a constipated stool the size of your left foot, which of these two options would you, Earl, choose, ... a) to expel that blockage in solid form through your exit sphincter ... or b) to have a doctor perform an enema, liquidate it, and pass it that way... You don't have to tell us; trust me, we aren't that interested... But you have a choice: which is a lot more than you are giving any woman by removing their option to choose through Roe Vrs Wade...

So in that scenario you question, you are attempting to make the choice for that women's life, just as those denying you any recourse to defend yourself, are making a choice in regards to your future...

Killing is not part of the equation when it comes to Roe vers Wade, for if you remember, science tells us your excrement has more life than a new fetus.

It is impossible to defend overturning Roe vrs Wade.. It is exactly the very same scenario, and though you may prevent yourself from seeing it by putting hands over your eyes and ears and saying na, na, na, from a third parties viewpoint, you look like a fool. We all see it is the same scenario, exactly.

Fact is, you have no right to tell other people what they should, or should not do.... do you now?.

Thu, Jan 23, 2014 2:17pm
"blah blah blah abortion blah blah blah gays blah blah blah"
That's how I read the above comments. For your consideration:

"We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods ... The church's pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently ... We have to find a new balance."
-- Pope Francis

Move on people. Yes, we know, conservatives hate abortion and gay marriage, progressives favor personal rights. You're not changing anyone's opinion. The pope still admits abortion is "horrific", but even HE isn't talking about it as much. So can we move on, please?

Thu, Jan 23, 2014 2:37pm
kavips: Jane Roe (McCorvey) was the Roe of Roe v. Wade so it makes a big difference that she is pro-life and wants the case "won" in her name revoked.
I'll let you try using G0ogle to find out on your own who Bonhoeffer was...he was, to say the least, a very interesting man.
We are never going to agree on this topic since you are unable to admit that (without the abortionist's help or a naturally occurring miscarriage) a child will grow and be born...so much for the idea of Equal Rights for all.

And to answer your theoretical birthing question...I would go full term and either keep or let the child be adopted. Though I may not be able to give birth I am fully committed to do anything for my kids and wife...18 years of commitment (per child) is a lot longer than 9 months.
That's one of the reasons my church has a special outreach to help young unwed moms.

And as to telling others how to live their lives...I'm pretty sure there are laws on the books against murder. If a pregnant woman is murdered and the "fetus" dies as well...it's a double murder charge.

Thu, Jan 23, 2014 2:41pm
Really Shawn...then why did Pope Francis tweet out support for yesterday's March for Life?

Thu, Jan 23, 2014 2:57pm

"I join the March for Life in Washington with my prayers. May God help us respect all life, especially the most vulnerable."
~Pope Francis

Thu, Jan 23, 2014 3:16pm
Earl's mind is small and completely closed. Yet he thinks he is entitled to tell everyone how to live, based on his standards of sin. He also thinks god is not competent to run the universe without his, Earl's, help.
People like Earl and Pizza want a dictatorship run by fundamentalist preachers. Be afraid, be very afraid.
They are anti-sex, anti-pleasure, anti-freedom except within the confines of which they approve.

Mike from Delaware
Thu, Jan 23, 2014 3:16pm
Billsmith said: "MFD: Luther says there's no way people can keep the law. But Jesus said to be perfect, even going beyond the requirements of the law. So why tell people to strive for perfect if it's not possible?"

Both are correct. Jesus gave us the standard to strive for in this life. Luther's explaining that we can't do it on our own [the Law], and Christ's sacrifice paid the price [the Gospel]. But we aren't to use that as an excuse to not make any effort to live as Christ would, but realize none of us will ever hit it 100% we are to still strive to do it, yet understand that due to his Son's sacrifice, we are acceptable to God in spite of what we actually deserve.

Thu, Jan 23, 2014 3:43pm
MFD: Interesting that you consider the Torah (the law) as "doing it on your own," even though the Torah comes from god. Of course, the difference between your religion and the religion of Jesus (Judaism) is that Christianity is about getting to heaven and Judaism is about how people treat each other here and now. The purpose of the Torah in Judaism is to guide people in living together. In Christianity, it's an arbitrary and largely obsolete set of rules to show people how flawed they are.

Ron Paul is a bona fide libertarian. Not a tea bagger - or somebody who panders to tea baggers - like his son. I bet if Rand ran as tea bagger candidate, daddy Ron would not vote for him. He probably wouldn't speak out but he'd sit out the whole campaign. Not only have tea baggers taken over the Republican Party, they've gone along way toward taking over the libertarian movement, too.

Thu, Jan 23, 2014 5:57pm
All the Libertarians I know despise the Tea Baggers because, for lack of a better term, they think the Teas are just plain stupid.....(Libertarians like to think alot)

They don't mean that they necessarily disagrees with their opinions. But Teas are stupid in the case they cannot argue, they cannot defend, they cannot rebut, they cannot offer explanations. Troglodytes I guess they are. They simply believe things, usually because they were told to simply believe things, never asking for proof, never looking to challenge what they were taught, to see if it really works, and never to remain silent in their ignorance... Some of their beliefs are worthy of looking deeper, but discussing it with them stretches the patience of even a contrarian Libertarian...

Not the type of person I'd want to be around...

And give a shout-out to Shawn way up the thread... Thanks for proving my point.....

Abortion has been legal for 40 years... If you don't like it, get over it... it is here to stay.

It's about choice... we've fought several wars to allow ourselves the right to choose what is best for us. As icing on the cake, at one point above, Earl says he would choose to carry a baby full term and give it up...

The key word is "choose".....

The very thing he'd take away from all women by overturning Roe versus Wade....

There is only one way to rationalize an argument against abortion. That is to negate the presence of Women... If women don't matter, are underneath you, don't have skin in the game, if women are an inferior class of human beings, as slaves were once considered, without rights, only then, and only in those parameters, do the arguments made by anti-abortionists only begin to make sense....

If you want to undo abortion, you will first have to take away a woman's right to vote... Oops, too late. The 40 years to overturn limit has passed... that would have been in 1960 btw...

If women don't matter, then go ahead and make abortion illegal...

I don't think that is a politically viable option and would encourage all to drop it....

Bottom line, no one really cares about abortion. No one really cares about gays. No one really cares about Rand Paul....

We need a new topic...

Thu, Jan 23, 2014 6:11pm
Here is the report form Davos...


Internationalists will enjoy it.

Thu, Jan 23, 2014 7:33pm
After 8 years of Barack Chavez-Castro-Obama, I should hope America will be ready for anything but Hillary "Ethel Rosenberg" Clinton.

Thu, Jan 23, 2014 9:13pm
Ahh... the Tea Party once had great expectations of change. Now all it can do is insert middle names for Democratic candidates. How sad.

Thu, Jan 23, 2014 9:19pm
I think Rand Paul is too freaky to catch on. I'm looking for interest to start building underneath John Kasich... a likable, strong conservative, who can win Ohio.

Thu, Jan 23, 2014 9:19pm
Yep. How sad the Democratic party, once a part of the people, has been hijacked by communists.

Thu, Jan 23, 2014 9:44pm
Finally. Something I can agree with Kavips on. I'll take Kasich for sure. He may even be winnable.

Thu, Jan 23, 2014 10:42pm
kavips: If you truly care about the health of women as you claim then you should try (as your Libertarian friends do) applying some critical thinking on the topic...abortion is quite harmful to the women who have them...physically (increased chance of future miscarriages and higher percentage of certain cancers), psychologically, and spiritually.

I have the utmost respect for women (especially moms)...motherhood is one of the toughest yet most rewarding jobs in the world IMHO. It's this respect plus the belief that all persons (born and pre-born) have the right to life, and this right trumps "choice" if it infringes on another life.

You demonize the "stupid" Tea Partiers. yet you yourself sound like a flat-earther, who, no matter the evidence to the contrary, you will not be bothered with differing facts if they affect "choice".

Feel free to ignore the changes already taking place around the country (multiple abortion clinics closing, stricter abortion laws, and more people considering adoptions rather than aborting). Your blissful ignorance just helps abortion abolitionists gain a stronger foothold in culture. Your comparison of slavery to abortions is spot-on but the reality is that, just as slaves had no rights, the same is true of the pre-borns. The next abolitionists are speaking up for those who have no voices...pre-borns, scared/young pregnant girls, and children sold into the sex trade (modern-day slavery).

Thu, Jan 23, 2014 10:50pm
To Bill Smith: I only wish that the TEA baggers owned the Republicans and Libertarians as you suppose. Unfortunately, we have a long way to go to achieve that.

As to the fundamental preacher dictatorship, I only wish such a regime within the confines of what God approves, not man. Not even me.

Fri, Jan 24, 2014 3:27am
Pizza: Only problem is nobody has heard anything from your god for 2,000 years. So, it's the ideas of Popes, preachers, and people like you about what god wants. Even 2,000 years ago, we have a handful of writers' highly edited and redacted versions of what god may or may not have said. And we are supposed to take their word for god's directions?

Funny, if somebody today says they got a message directly from god, they get put in a padded cell with lots of high octane anti-psychotic meds and even "believers" like you think they are crazy.

You don't know what god approves. You just know what you approve and you attribute it to god so you can push everybody else around. Go back to Belarus. They like dictators there.

Fri, Jan 24, 2014 4:31am
Hey Bill: Your suggestion may be worthy of consideration. Even better yet, I may want to consider Russia.

Of course, I suppose it might be easier to just move to Rising Sun.

Fri, Jan 24, 2014 6:00am
Pizza: Do you mean Japan or the town in Cecil County where the Klan is active? I think the latter is where you'd fit right in.

Fri, Jan 24, 2014 7:50am
Really Shawn...then why did Pope Francis tweet out support for yesterday's March for Life? - EarlGrey

You didn't even read my post, did you? I said, "The pope still admits abortion is "horrific", but even HE isn't talking about it as much." I don't doubt he's still very pro-life, and will talk about it on occasion. But he specifically said we need to talk about other things. Do you really think Francis is talking about it as often as his predecessors? If he were, why was he receiving so much backlash for his LACK of bringing it up prior to his "horrific" comment?

So again I say, no one here is going to change the minds of anyone else here about their views on abortion and gays. So MOVE ON, the argument is pointless and tiresome!

Mike from Delaware
Fri, Jan 24, 2014 8:53am
I've read this exchange with interest. Kavips offers some great insight into another view of the abortion issue and how it relates to women and why I thought, at the time and still believe this, the G.O.P./TEA folks were crazy in the 2012 election to bring up abortion and [nutty Santorium bringing up wanting to ban birth control]. Those are lose- lose issues for any guy to get involved with.

As I recall, Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush, and Laura Bush - all good right-wing conservative Republican wives -- all were outspokenly Pro-Choice, even though their husbands were all Pro-Life. That ought to tell us something about this issue.

Us guys don't get it. We aren't women. For us, this is an academic discussion; for women this is real and very personal. The G.O.P. continues to want to make abortion an issue, which I believe helped Mitt Romney lose in 2012. Even good conservative Republican women still get to go into the voting booth [without their husbands] and vote; and my guess is many of those good conservative Republican women voted Democratic, both for Prez and Congress, simply to keep the TEA wingnuts from taking abortion away from women.

If I've learned anything from listening to women discuss this issue, it is, this is VERY VERY important to them, even if they've passed child-bearing age. The older women remember when abortion was illegal and how many women [possibly themselves] risked their lives and many died using coat hangers, or going to a garage for some quack to perform an illegal abortion, etc., to try to abort a fetus from an unwanted pregnancy.

So for us guys to try to legislate abortion and birth control is crazy and guaranteed to lose us any election, because the "sisterhood" is strong on this issue [it crosses all races and ethnic groups] and women do stick together when they feel their personal stuff is being threatened. It is what it is. As Kavips said earlier above, the only way to pass a law to make it illegal would be to take the vote away from women, which isn't going to happen either.

Frankly, in my opinion, any law regarding abortion and birth control should be written by women, not men. This entire issue is a "mine field" for any guy to enter and better left alone. That is if you want YOUR candidates to win an election.

2012 election was about Obamacare and the providing of those abortions/birth control devices. Women got what they wanted as now abortions, birth control, pap smears, and mamograms are all provided FREE, no co-pay under Obamacare. THAT ought to give you an idea of what you're dealing with.

The "Jeani" was let out of the bottle in 1920 giving women the vote, and there's no putting her back in the bottle.

Fri, Jan 24, 2014 9:59am
This thread could go forever, but this is my final post on it.

It's quite interesting that pro-life individuals are demonized as hating women, looking down on women, and trying to take away their voting rights because we believe that abortion is murder. If you take note...the majority of the hundreds of thousands marching in D.C. for Life were women (not men).

I sincerely hope that women en masse open their eyes to the fact that in the case of abortion, it's the male (the other component to making a baby science class) who suffers none of the bad that goes along with the procedure... the male is relieved of all responsibility of the baby (half of whom is his), he suffers no health issues, no psychological side effects and no real impact has been felt by this "partner" in the relationship/equation.

So, which group truly thinks less of women? The group that values them and wants them to have healthy/happy lives or the group who tells them they will lose "choice" if they lose the ability to legally eliminate a growing fetus living in their body? There is still a choice for those who do not abort the child...they can choose to raise the child, or choose to give up the baby for adoption if they are unable to raise a child.

kavips, shawn and bill all sound exactly like the Southern Democrats who fought so hard to keep slavery legal and viewed slaves as non-persons... just as pre-borns are viewed by the pro-abortion supporters on this blog. If slavery had been passed as constitutional 40 years ago, would you three still be perfectly fine and still say the abolitionists should just shut up and move along?

Think with the minds God blessed you with and thank your moms for not aborting you. Anyone here could have been one of the 55-million voices silenced before their time.

Mike from Delaware
Fri, Jan 24, 2014 10:30am
EarlGrey: One final thought on this topic from me. When I was doing my radio show a number of years ago, the abortion topic came up [that night was an open-topic show; any topic was fair game that night].

One caller, a guy, called in really ticked-off as he proudly said on the radio to me, and my listeners, that he was really ticked-off with those abortion protesters. He said that the other day he had forced his girlfriend to go to get an abortion, because he "wasn't going to pay no child support." When they got there, all those protesters were there and really got her upset, because she didn't want to abort the baby, but "I wasn't going to pay no child support", so I made her get out of the car and go past those protesters who started yelling at her, which only made her cry more. She finally got inside the building. She wasn't getting back in this car until she got that abortion, because I'm not paying any child support, etc., etc., he went on.

I started to get really upset and was about to release both barrels on him [which probably would have cost me my job at the station, because I'd probably have used some of the few remaining words the FCC gets upset over being said on air), but thankfully I just said, we've got to go to commericial and cut to spots which gave me a chance to calm down and figure out how to respond to this evil person without getting fired.

Prior to that caller, it had never occurred to me that some boyfriends and husbands would FORCE their girlfriends and wives to get an abortion against their will. So even though I personally believe abortion should be legal ONLY for rape, incest, or the life of the mother being threatened, that caller made me see another very ugly side to the abortion issue. Some woman who wants to have her baby is being forced, possibly violently, by her significant other, to abort that baby. At least, with abortion being legal, she won't be forced by this same evil person, to go to some hack in a back ally where her life would really be at risk. So for that reason, I'd not vote to make abortion illegal. I believe abortions should be very very rare, but very very safe when the need sadly arises.

In a perfect world, no abortions would be needed, but we don't live in a perfect world, but a very fallen world.

Fri, Jan 24, 2014 10:38am
MFD: Will go part way with you: If you apply the logic that only women should decide about abortion, than only men should decide about war, since women still don't get drafted.

I won't go along with you if you say one woman - or one group of women - should be able to decide for, and impose their decision, on another woman or another group of women.

What's really ironic is the use of abortion to select the sex of a child; people (including women) abort girls because they want to have a boy. Some parts of the world are facing a drastic shortage of marriageable females.

But what I still find objectionable here is people who feel called upon, and feel entitled, to force their own ethical and moral choices on others. Everybody can have their opinions about abortion and their feelings about it, but when they try to make their opinions into law - claiming god told them to - then it's time to fight back against the Earls and Pizzas.

The Republican Party was pro-choice until Tricky Dick, as an add-on to his Southern Strategy, decided to pander to Catholics and fundamentalists by being anti-abortion.

According to Christian dogma, if fetuses have souls, then they go right to heaven (Limbo having been abolished) and miss out on this veil of tears. If so, you do fetuses a favor by aborting them.

Mike from Delaware
Fri, Jan 24, 2014 1:25pm
Billsmith: No draft since 1974, yet we've been in a few wars since. Today it's an all-volunteer military, with now women serving in hostile areas that would have been forbidden years ago. So unless we revert back to drafting ONLY men, I'd not agree, BUT yes, if we were to go back to drafting only men, then YES, I'd agree with you.

Fri, Jan 24, 2014 3:25pm
MFD: 18-year-old males still have to register for the draft - only males. We still have a draft, although right now nobody is being called up. But they can be - anytime. The military learned during Viet Nam that they are less likely to face opposition to military ventures without the draft (and with the media helping out with all their "support the troops" puff pieces).

Fri, Jan 24, 2014 7:27pm
Bill: Since I didn't know there was a Rising Sun in Japan, and considering I already live in Cecil County, then the answer is obvious.

By the way, the Maryland gay marriage referendum, while passing state wide, failed in Cecil County as 55.7% voted against it and 44.3% voted in favor.

Family values are alive and well here.

Fri, Jan 24, 2014 8:04pm
Another interesting fact here is that gay marriage only passed in Maryland by 6 out of 24 counties. The only reason it passed was that is was done by state-wide popular vote. Had it been done by electoral college by county, it would have failed miserably.

This is just one of many examples of big-city liberalism vs. rural small-town conservative family values. Here's the link to the breakdown chart:


Fri, Jan 24, 2014 8:22pm
Family values? Which family. Dysfunctional family.

First you think stuff should be decided by states. When you lose at that level, you want things decided by counties. Anything at all except letting people live their own lives, they own way and decide things for themselves. Sig heil!

Sat, Jan 25, 2014 6:49am
Hey Bill: Those of us in "fly-over country" would like to be able to live our own lives and make our own decisions, but the big-city liberals are hellbent on keeping us from that.

Sat, Jan 25, 2014 11:33am
Pizza/Earl: Live your own lives and make your own decisions as long as it doesn't affect anybody else. Just don't stop others from being able to live their own lives and make their own decisions - even if they live and decide in ways you don't approve of. You talk about freedom but the only freedom you care about is your own. You are happy to deny it freedom to anyone else. To women making reproductive choices you don't like. To lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transvestites making lifestyle and relationship choices you don't like. Mind your own business and "big city liberals" won't bother you.

Sat, Jan 25, 2014 2:17pm
True, Pizza rails at city-folk dictating policy to country bumpkins, and yet, champions country bumpkins dictating policy to city-folk.... One can't have it both ways, unless one lives in a power vacuum where one has all the power....

That is just wrong. Over time through discussions such as this thread, I have discovered that Conservatives are simply fighting change. It is no different really than employees in a company who had buttered up their boss to letting them do what they want, then, suddenly getting a new boss. Likewise, it is no different than a husband getting used to coming home to a wife, taking and showing no love, thinking he owns her because he decided to "take her on" and support her with his money, then having her leave him for someone who truly appreciates her talents, humor, and intellect... Furthermore it is the same as a big shot who because he knows a police officer, is not worried about a ticket, finding himself pulled over by someone who happens to work with and throughly dislike that police officer, and write them a ticket...

We were once a monoglot society. Everyone was white. everyone was protestant. everyone farmed or lived off farmers by selling them something. Everyone was born in a small town hospital, went to a small town school, got their first small town job, and bought a small town house and did rather well.

They worshiped God, and prayers were naturally said in government funded meetings.. After all, why wouldn't you say a prayer? What has happened is that these small town conservatives, are finding out there are other people in this world. There are ... Hindus. There are.... Buddhists. There are .... Muslims. Suddenly saying the Lord's Prayer in a public gathering, is offensive to some of those very same citizens who pay taxes, who vote, and are involved deeply with their local government.... what's wrong with "those" people conservatives ask each other? How could anyone object to us saying our prayer which we've always said at school functions>...

This shows the extreme shallowness of the Conservatives mind. If an average brain holds a gallon of water, the Conservative brain would hold but a thimble. If you ask any Conservative... should your children be forced to say a Hindu prayer every morning, Conservatives would say "absolutely not. My kid is not going to say a Hindu prayer, that is praying to a false God and will send my kid to hell."

The Conservative mind is so small, it can't grasp what the rest of us all can, that what conservatives want to do to others in the name of freedom, they wouldn't want done to them... in the name of freedom.....

But as reality sets in, and as fair becomes fair, the best option becomes to ban such mandatory required behavior and to let freedom ring for every religion: give everyone a choice....

But Conservatives think that having their values regulated to the same level as everyone else's, is a slap to their face, and so they, wrongly, fight against it... Their argument boils down too (and evidence is readily visible upon this thread)... you can't be right; there is just no way, because I'm right....

That kind of argument never wins fans. It is primarily the argument against denial within onesself... As if one is indeed, struggling inside with whether they DID put far too much faith in their "given" values, and now that those values are being challenged, one can see they don't muster up at all...

The argument is going off in their own heads. We on the outside see the repercussions... For when one's values have no merit nor legal standing, the only way they can be enforced, is through might. I'll overpower you and MAKE YOU do what I say....

That is the distillation of Conservatives in a nutshell. Tired old beaten psychological ghosts, having one too many warped, frustrated old feelings about topics whose death should have happened long ago...

It's an emotional response; one totally unfounded on rationality; openness, and inquisitiveness. They are to be pitied; like the child who stubbornly insists both dead parents will one day, walk through the front door and all will be well again....

Every psychologist treating such a child, would agree that reality must set in, sooner or later. If they differ, it is over how and when.

But this thread does show, that conservatives are just like that child, holding on to old ghosts of the way things were, and thinking if they just wish hard enough, it will be so...

The saddest part, is that all of America is falling behind while our media caters to their emotional breakdown..... There are a lot of far more important things that need discussed.....

Sat, Jan 25, 2014 2:27pm
"We were once a monoglot society. Everyone was white. everyone was protestant. everyone farmed or lived off farmers by selling them something. Everyone was born in a small town hospital, went to a small town school, got their first small town job, and bought a small town house and did rather well."

That was never the reality. Once upon a time, the WASPs were pervasive and everybody else was invisible. A lot of people - maybe most people - were born at home. Schools were segregated or restricted. Most people didn't own houses. You are describing Mayberry and it only existed in the minds of the show's writers. While Andy was helping people, real sheriffs were turning fire hoses and police dogs on people who just wanted to register to vote. Homosexuals were arrested, locked up, sometimes castrated.

Kavips, for all you PC types find wrong with the world, the world - at least this country - is better than it was, despite all the ways people like Pizza resisted things getting better. They slow things down but they are always on the wrong side of history.

Sat, Jan 25, 2014 5:51pm
Hey Bill: I may be on the wrong side of history, but I'm on the right side of eternity.

Sat, Jan 25, 2014 10:50pm
"Pizza/Earl: Live your own lives and make your own decisions as long as it doesn't affect anybody else. Just don't stop others from being able to live their own lives and make their own decisions - even if they live and decide in ways you don't approve of. You talk about freedom but the only freedom you care about is your own. You are happy to deny it freedom to anyone else. To women making reproductive choices you don't like. To lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transvestites making lifestyle and relationship choices you don't like."

bill: I don't care what lifestyle you or any LGBT..LMNOP want to live that's up to you and God, not me. Leave marriage out of the equation or proselytizing sexuality (any sexuality...hetero, homo, any) to K-8th grades and you won't hear a peep from me.

And, there is a difference between using "the pill", using condoms or even taking the "morning after pill" and killing a 20 week old (or older) human. Look at the ultrasound proof, look at the tiny human being (with a beating heart) removed from the woman...use your mind not "feelings".

“It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.”
~Ronald Reagan

Sun, Jan 26, 2014 2:42am
Earl/Pizza: Why leave marriage "out of the equation?" The only reason you all give is some religious doctrine (not shared by all in your religion). Marriage is a legal contract which confers benefits from the state. Marriage is a social institution which confers recognition from society. Nobody is saying your church can't refuse to marry somebody. Neither can you tell somebody with whom they can share their lives, whom they have as their "next of kin," with whom they can create a home and family, with whom they can be recognized as a couple.

Funny how you people say it's about your own "freedom" when you are trying to curtail somebody else's freedom, just because you don't approve of what they are doing.

You can tell people are desperate and gullible when they quote a B-movie actor's corporate speechwriters. Particularly one stupid enough to pair up with a sexless ball busting skank like Nancy. Funny how Republican politicians all seem to pair up with sexless, ball busting skanks.

I won't even get into all the stuff you all say that is blatantly false.

Mon, Jan 27, 2014 12:39pm
BillSmith: State/Fed benefits can be modified to reflect a civil union (equal benefits, next of kin status, etc.) without involving marriage. Marriage is not a social institution and that is the problem. If anything, churches should make marriage more difficult for all people to sign up for not easier...if marriage is to be taken as seriously as it should be. It's an oath between man/woman/God to unite the three forever...not a legal contract to get legal benefits and social acceptance. Read the oath most pastors/priests/reverends have the couple recite to each other and tell me if they sound like an easy oath to keep (especially the for better/worse, till death do us part).

It's interesting that you get so upset about others supposedly taking away your freedoms, yet you seem to have no trouble trampling on the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of others. Which rights? Just read the Constitution and see which ones you don't think should still exist and you have your answer.

Add your comment:
Attention: In an attempt to promote a level of civility and personal responsibility in blog discussions, we now require you to be a member of the WDEL Members Only Group in order to post a comment. Your Members Only Group username and password are required to process your post.

You can join the WDEL Members Only Group for free by clicking here.
If you are already a member but have forgotten your username or password, please click here.

Please register your post with your WDEL Members Only Group username and password below.

Copyright © 2014, Delmarva Broadcasting Company. All Rights Reserved.   Terms of Use.
WDEL Statement of Equal Employment Opportunity and Outreach