republicans, is this helping, or hurting your party

[724Skinsfan]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Yea, it takes alot of skill to suck the brains out of a 6 month old fetus an if it was that hard how did the peopl back in the days do them in a dark alley. I heard last night this guy has performed over 64,000 abortions. Not sure how you can have any heart or feelings with those kind of numbers and if you look at the guy he looks like one of those guys you see on the post office wall wanted for some creepy crime.

Good lord! He's like the anti-Wilt Chamberlain.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Yea, it takes alot of skill to suck the brains out of a 6 month old fetus an if it was that hard how did the peopl back in the days do them in a dark alley. I heard last night this guy has performed over 64,000 abortions. Not sure how you can have any heart or feelings with those kind of numbers and if you look at the guy he looks like one of those guys you see on the post office wall wanted for some creepy crime.

If you're one of only a few doctors in the country who performs these types of abortions, then the numbers will naturally be high.

When it comes to late term abortions, I think we have ask what the alternative is, and what type of world we'd like to live in. If we're talking about the saving the life of the mother, then horrific as these procedures are, there doesn't seem to be much of a choice. It's a tragedy any way you look at it. But I'd rather live in a country where the individual and her doctor are able to make this decision rather that some bearucrat in Washington D.C. or a state official dictating those decisions for us.

[dmek25]

At first, it seemed like a joke. Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto opined on Monday that -- if the 2012 election were to turn to national security -- "it's hard to think of a better candidate... than Richard B. Cheney."

But while his headline -- "Cheney for President" -- provoked guffaws in some quarters, several of the party's most well-regarded strategists and pollsters are actually taking the idea deadly seriously.
anyone down for this?

[CRedskinsRule]

Sadly, my first expectation for reading this was that someone had caught another Republican in some base scandal. The expectation of what that might have been forced me to open and read. Very disappointing post.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by dmek25

At first, it seemed like a joke. Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto opined on Monday that -- if the 2012 election were to turn to national security -- "it's hard to think of a better candidate... than Richard B. Cheney."

But while his headline -- "Cheney for President" -- provoked guffaws in some quarters, several of the party's most well-regarded strategists and pollsters are actually taking the idea deadly seriously.
anyone down for this?

I saw him on TV today (you know, me being at home all day) and his basic premise, which is a huge assumption, is if we have another 9/11 during Obama's presidency. Based on that assumption, Taranto thinks Dick Cheney would be the most credible and strongest voice in the Republican party regarding national security. And that somehow Republicans would flock to Cheney lock and step based on that one policy position alone.

I think it's reasonable to assume that Cheney would have folks ear if something on that scale took place on American soil again, but the majority of Americans just couldn't swallow another four years of Dick Cheney. Not even the most loyal Republican feel that way.

National security gravitas aside, I don't think Cheney has the physical stamina to run a national campaign for two years. But then again I didn't think John McCain could endure such a grueling schedule either.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

I saw him on TV today (you know, me being at home all day) and his basic premise, which is a huge assumption, is if we have another 9/11 during Obama's presidency. Based on that assumption, Taranto thinks Dick Cheney would be the most credible and strongest voice in the Republican party regarding national security. And that somehow Republicans would flock to Cheney lock and step based on that one policy position alone.

I think it's reasonable to assume that Cheney would have folks ear if something on that scale took place on American soil again, but the majority of Americans just couldn't swallow another four years of Dick Cheney. Not even the most loyal Republican feel that way.

National security gravitas aside, I don't think Cheney has the physical stamina to run a national campaign for two years. But then again I didn't think John McCain could endure such a grueling schedule either.

All that has been said about Cheney I do feel that he took protecting us from another attack is something he took very serious rather you agree with everything he did and how he did them is another story. The people wanting to attack us are ruthless and sometimes you have to fight fire with fire and I think Cheney understood this.