This past weekend at the Red State Gathering, every Republican presidential hopeful demanded the defunding of Planned Parenthood in the wake of the undercover videos exposing their organ harvesting. That was at a minimum; more than one demanded a criminal investigation of the nation’s largest abortion-mill chain as well. However, Donald Trump got pushed into endorsing the status quo during an interview on CNN’s New Day, Breitbart’s John Nolte reports. Video picks up at 5:53:
“The problem that I have with Planned Parenthood is the abortion situation. It is like an abortion factory, frankly,” Trump said. “And you can’t have it. And you just shouldn’t be funding it. That should not be funded by the government, and I feel strongly about that.”
Actually, that’s not a bad answer, although Trump seems unaware that Planned Parenthood already argues that federal subsidies don’t fund abortions. However, Chris Cuomo then changed tactics by talking about the importance of the other services provided by Planned Parenthood, and Trump didn’t avoid the trap:
When pressed on non-abortion services Planned Parenthood allegedly provides, Trump said, “What I would do when the time came, I’d look at the individual things they do, and maybe some of the individual things they do are good. I know a lot of the things are bad. But certainly the abortion aspect of it should not be funded by government, absolutely.”
Trump continued, “I would look at the good aspects of [Planned Parenthood], and I would also look, because I’m sure they do some things properly and good and that are good for women, and I would look at that, and I would look at other aspects also. But we have to take care of women.”
Nolte raises the first obvious problem with that position, which is that the $500 million or so in government funding allows abortions to take place, whether it’s aimed at those services or not:
In other words Trump is open to a status quo many conservatives find unacceptable and immoral; also a typical federal government shell game to skirt around the law. If you give Planned Parenthood money for these so-called “other things,” the abortion provider can shift money from those “other things” to abortion.
Chris Cuomo tried the same argument on Trump that Mark Halperin used with Rick Perry a few weeks ago. Perry didn’t buy into the premise, and instead turned the question around on Halperin, to the delight of the Morning Joe panel at the time. Trump didn’t learn from that schooling, instead getting locked into Cuomo’s context.
Trump misses another point in this exchange too, which is that Planned Parenthood is hardly the only option for those other services that Trump wants to keep funded. In fact, no one is arguing that these services shouldn’t remain funded, but only that federal subsidies for them flow to other clinics that don’t perform abortions as their core business. The federal subsidies going to Planned Parenthood distort the market, boosting the largest player at the expense of smaller clinics more suited to deliver care in their communities. One would think that Trump would be particularly well positioned to explain that.
What makes this even more interesting is that Trump said he wanted a government shutdown to defund Planned Parenthood just eight days ago, during an appearance on Hugh Hewitt’s show:
HH: The word is that the Democrats will filibuster and the president will veto — that’s the only way to get rid of Planned Parenthood money for selling off baby parts is to shut the government down in September. Would you support that?
DT: Well I can tell you this. I would and I was also in support if the Republicans stuck together you could have done it with Obamacare also, but the Republicans decided not to stick together and they left a few people out there like Ted Cruz. You know, they left a lot of the people who really went in and wanted to do the job and you know what? If they had stuck together they wold have won that battle. I think you have to in this case also, yes.
That’s a mighty big shift from one week to the next. However, this doesn’t look like a flip-flop as much as it does a case of a candidate being unprepared. Trump’s initial response would have been solid, had he stuck to it, but he seems unaware that Planned Parenthood apologists rely on the argument that federal subsidies do not fund “the abortion aspect” of Planned Parenthood now, which is how they’ve fended off attempts to defund the company in the past. It’s not a fatal error, especially for Trump, who can certainly clarify and amend these remarks to the satisfaction of the base — as long as he remains consistent on it in the future. Even at that, though, it demonstrates the rather facile grasp on public policy issues that Trump has long demonstrated.
Besides, people who look for “fatal errors” from Trump miss the point. As I explain in my column at The Week, Trump’s popularity really isn’t about him — it’s about the voters who want to shake up a system that ignores them. That goes well beyond the fringes, and it’s happening in both parties:
Many Beltway pundits assumed that Trump’s “blood” remark would be a crash-and-burn moment. They clearly have a lot to learn about the conservative voters who will ultimately make that decision. While many of them understood and agreed with the unvitation in the immediate aftermath of Trump’s attack on Kelly, no one that I spoke to at the RedState Event had sworn him off as a candidate. These were not rabid Trump backers unwilling to tolerate criticism of a personal hero, but conservatives frustrated by a party that they feel has stopped listening to them, and largely talks over them. Many of these conservative activists see Trump as a man who breaks that pattern. They want to send a message to the GOP and force the party to pay attention to its base voters.
They aren’t alone, either. A similar dynamic has played out on the other side of the aisle. Hillary Clinton came into the race not just as a favorite, but as the only realistic option for Democrats. The Clinton team had made sure of that, packaging her as inevitable and locking up the majority of the party’s establishment donors. Yet the former secretary of state, the first woman in either party to seriously contend for the nomination, could barely fill her “reboot” event in June on New York City’s Roosevelt Island. Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders — who isn’t even registered as a Democrat — has 28,000 people cramming into venues to hear him speak. One of these two contenders has become a rock star, and it’s not establishment favorite Hillary Clinton. …
Candidates like Trump might be unserious or even clownish to the media and political analysts, but the large number of people who latch onto them as a vehicle for their frustration are not. This populist impulse on both sides of the aisle threatens to derail the two-party system. Unless the leadership in both organizations starts paying more attention to voters than the status quo which those voters are rejecting — and finding leaders in anyone who can give vent to their frustration — they may be the authors of their own demise.
Some of this may sort itself out as the GOP field narrows, but that won’t solve the problem. It just may lessen the symptoms, but even that’s a long shot. The first party to understand and integrate the Internet era of populism wins in 2016.
and here I thought Trump understood financing . PP cannot legally use federal funding for abortions. But the money is able to be used for other services ,and that frees up other funds for their abortion mills. Besides that ,why should our tax dollars go to support any organization that murders babies as their trade ,and sells their body parts ? In fact ;IF there is a rationale at all for funding Federally Qualified Health Centers ,then one possible quid pro quo should be that they actually save lives as a business model .
He certainly understands that money is fungible, especially in a large organization.
He just can't seem to recall what his deep and profound convictions on abortion are on any given day. Pro-abortion, pro-late-term-abortion, pro-life, kinda pro-life, Teh Donald has a lot to keep straight.
"He just can't seem to recall what his deep and profound convictions on abortion are on any given day. Pro-abortion, pro-late-term-abortion, pro-life, kinda pro-life, Teh Donald has a lot to keep straight."
“The problem that I have with Planned Parenthood is the abortion situation. It is like an abortion factory, frankly,” Trump said. “And you can’t have it. And you just shouldn’t be funding it. That should not be funded by the government, and I feel strongly about that.”
That doesn't sound pro-abortion to me. And that's from just a couple of days ago.
“The problem that I have with Planned Parenthood is the abortion situation. It is like an abortion factory, frankly,” Trump said. “And you can’t have it. And you just shouldn’t be funding it. That should not be funded by the government, and I feel strongly about that.”
After the Gosnell mass murder scandal and the current human vivisection scandal at PP and Donald is still waffling on PP week-by-week?
Yeah, he's totally pro-life.
Paul, Cruz, Rubio, Graham (voting last week to defund PP) and the rest of the GOP field have no problems stating the positions they have all held for years on abortion.
Hell, even Pataki, who is pro-choice, wants to defund PP.
Paul, Cruz, Rubio, Graham (voting last week to defund PP) and the rest of the GOP field have no problems stating the positions they have all held for years on abortion.
You're right - the GOP has no problem at all with the position they have had for years on abortion: "If only the Supreme Court would strike down Roe..."
Ah yes, the Republican Supreme Court.
In 1973, a Supreme Court dominated by Republican appointees put Roe in place.
In 1986, a Supreme Court with two fresh new pro-abortion faces on it, appointed by the publicly "pro-life" Reagan and approved by the putatively "pro-life" Republican Senate, upheld and extended Roe.
And ever since then, the Republican Supreme Court, every day, could strike down Roe, or limit it. But since 1986 the Republicans have put two MORE pro- choicers on the court, and only one pro-lifer (and one whose views are "not known" - REALLY? On a signature issue the Republicans appoint judges without VETTING their opinions on the matter?) The Democrats have never, and will never, ever, appoint a pro-lifer to the Court, so WHEN the Republicans appoint FOUR pro-choice justices versus TWO pro-lifers, in thirty years, under three Presidents, the Republicans reveal what the Republicans REALLY are: a pro- choice party that lies about being pro-life. Nothing more.
If you support the Republican Party, you support the party that put Roe in place, and that doubled down on it, and that has kept the pro-choice majority up there.
GOP power is fungible. When you support some local GOP hack who says he's pro- life, maybe he is. But when he goes to Washington, he votes for the party leadership in Congress and backs the President, and Republican Presidents since Reagan (and including Reagan), have put pro-choicers on the Court 2:1.
So, when you vote for a "pro-life Republican", you're doing exactly the same thing as when you vote for a pro-life Democrat. Except the Democrat's party TELLS YOU it's against their own candidate on that issue, while the Republicans lie to your face and pretend they ARE a pro-life party...all the while controlling the Supreme Court that could strike down Roe TODAY... and all the while backing Republican Presidents and their 2:1 preference for pro-choice nominees over pro-lifers.
So, when you vote for a "pro-life Republican", you're doing exactly the same thing as when you vote for a pro-life Democrat.
There are no pro-life Democrats in national office.
Surely you don't think Casey of PA is pro-life in any meaningful way? I can't think of another that would even make the claim. I don't think Jim Webb was. I don't think Manchin is.
So where, maybe somewhere off in Imaginationland, do you think you can find any elected pro-life Democrats?
So where, maybe somewhere off in Imaginationland, do you think you can find any elected pro-life Democrats?
I don't. And in my lifetime the Republicans have never had a pro-life President.
Nixon's Supreme Court was controlled by Republican appointees, and gave us Roe.
Reagan "said" he now opposed the abortion that he signed into law in California, BUT he named TWO new pro-abortion Justices to the Supreme Court and only one new pro-justice. So, where it counted - in the actual power equation - Reagan was as much of a lying dirtbag as the rest of the Republicans with power have always been on this issue.
And Reagan's pro-choice appointees, which he named, were the ones who gave the pro-choicers their Casey decision.
Then came Poppy Bush. He was sure to keep the pro-choice balance, naming one pro-lifer and a flagrant pro-choicer.
How is it that Democrats can be so very good at picking Supreme Court Justices that perfectly reflect their ideology, while Republicans miss two out of three times?
Easy, Republicans DON'T miss two out of three times. They are every bit as capable of picking Justices that perfectly reflect their values, and they do. It's just that pro-lifers like YOU are duped by masterful liars like Reagan, who get your vote, tell you they're pro-life, and then pack the court 2:1 with Republican pro-choicers.
And because you worship the ground that old lying fox walked on, you never open your eyes.
And then we had W Bush. Who did he name? Obamacare Roberts. There's your effective pro-choice decision, turning federal health dollars into abortion dollars. And Alito? He's unknown. Hasn't faced the issue yet. Bush TRIED to jam pro-abortion Harriet Miers on the court, but was stopped.
So, all three Republican Presidents elected after Roe installed pro-choice Justices on the high court at a rate of 2:1 over pro-life, while simply throwing out pro-life statements as boob bait for Bubbas like you.
You bought it, and you still do.
Before Obamacare, there were a handful of Democrats who called themselves pro- life, but they caved. They're Democrats. Democrats are babykillers.
But that's how Democrats CAMPAIGN AS A PARTY: they're proud to be babykillers.
Republicans are liars: Reagan, both Bushes, Romney - they lie like they breathe. The most powerful Republicans in the land are the President (when he is a Republican) and the Supreme Court Justices that the Republican Presidents name. Reagan named two pro-choicers and one pro-lifer. Bush 41 named one pro- choicer and one pro-lifer. Bush 43 named a pro-choicer and a cypher.
So, what've we got? Three "pro-life" Republicans, FOUR pro-choice Justices, only TWO pro-life Justices, and one unknown, who was the second pick after W tried to put a second pro-choicer up there.
Yeah, yeah, the GOP are "pro-life", yeah, yeah they're "the only hope" of overturning Roe.
Bullshit. The inner GOP - the power group - Reagan, the Bushes, Romney - they were always pro-choice, and the proof is seen in their actual ACTS. Naming Supreme Court justices is where Roe would be struck at. They put TWICE AS MANY pro-choicers on that court as pro-lifers. That was not an ACCIDENT. That was their policy, their choice. The Republican Party is pro-choice. It lies to pro-life Bubbas, and they believe it.
But you know them by their FRUIT, and the FRUIT of the Republican Party is Roe itself, and Casey, and Obamacare with its abortion provisions, and a 2:1 margin of pro-choice appointees to the high court.
There is nowhere to hide, so you'll just change the subject. Because you're more pro-Republican than pro-life.
I'm not. This is one of the reasons I hate the Republican Party. Because they are such con men, such liars.
And on top of that, they lose wars and wreck the economy. Useless crony capitalist pro-choice turds who convince boobs they're pro-life, and keep the howling snake handlers in ranks by pouring cash into defense contractors, "to defend Israel".
There are no pro-life Democrats since Obamacare. And the Republican Party has NEVER been pro-life. Ever. Particularly not under Reagan. He was a master showman, and he duped you pro-lifers. You bought his lies, and you avert your eyes from the fact that he consciously, with forethought, choose two pro- choicers for the court and only one pro-lifer.
You've been duped. You won't admit it. Your political allegiance has been given to people who lied to you about this issue.
Democrats are evil, and exult in it. But Republicans are more evil, for their both support abortion - where it counts and when it counts - and they lie through their teeth to the Bubbas to keep them in ranks.
That's what happened. And it'll keep happening too, if the Republican Party gets its way.
I have no idea what Trump will do on the matter. He says he's pro-life. Used to be pro-choice and now isn't. We've heard that lie before from Reagan, and from the Bushes. We heard it from Romney.
So, we have two pro-choice parties, in fact. Trump may be a positive surprise, but I wouldn't bet on it.
The pro-life issue will not really be represented by either parties.
Match null.
Therefore, both parties are unacceptable on that.
Let's look at the next issue: economics. Democrats are better than Republicans, but Trump is better than Democrats. So Trump's my man.
Also, he gives the Republican powers-that-be hives. Frankly, whoever gives the GOP PTB's hives is probably better than what the GOP is going to offer.
Who knows? If elected, Trump may actually BE the first truly pro-life Republican President since Roe. We'll see who he names to the court. It's a cinch that the other Republicans will continue to be the pro-choice partisan that they've always been. Santorum and Huckabee are exceptions. They're also hopeless also-rans.
Republicans are liars: Reagan, both Bushes, Romney - they lie like they breathe. The most powerful Republicans in the land are the President (when he is a Republican) and the Supreme Court Justices that the Republican Presidents name. Reagan named two pro-choicers and one pro-lifer. Bush 41 named one pro- choicer and one pro-lifer. Bush 43 named a pro-choicer and a cypher.
You play loose with the facts. Reagan tried to appoint Bork. Why didn't you mention that.
Also you don't know their hearts. You don't know if some president that says they are pro life is lying or not.
If you want to prove your point. Here is what you must do. Show us from the record where any of these people appointed by Republicans were on record of being pro abortion. I don't think you can do that.
When Nixon was making appointees abortion wasn't on the radar. So you can't blame him for not knowing all the views of the people he chose. Unless I'm mistaken and you are God and you know their hearts.
I support Trump. I'm hoping he is honesat when he says he is pro life. I give him the benefit if the doubt because when he said he was pro choice he said basically he was ashamed of it.
Why do you give Trump the benefit of the doubt? Just curious.
Why do you give Trump the benefit of the doubt? Just curious.
Because he is a super-rich New York socialite operating in a world where being openly pro-life is not an advantage at all.
Because he was convinced to change his stance to pro-life many years ago.
Because I've listened to him, to what he said about it, and his reasoning sounds like the reasoning of a real person, not a scripted thing he is saying to try to run for President. Romney, for example, was clipped and avoided the subject. Trump just brought it up on his own in the context of the Planned Parenthood issue. People are dumping on him for not taking a political absolutist stance, but he took a stance similar to what I might say until I had investigated the facts: "They probably do some good and it's ok to fund that, but abortion - we should not be funding that." That would be my starting position too, until I was acquainted with the facts.
Also, Trump has never pretended to be as life-focused as I am. He doesn't claim to be very abstemious about eating meat, to worry about the conditions of the animals at the farm (therefore limiting his buying to certain things). He doesn't seem to worry about the death penalty or war. He's not a saint. He seems like a man who was a liberal, and in his youth rather libertine, socialite who gradually grew up and came to a better understanding, and changed his view.
That's human, and that's all I expect of people. I don't expect people to become St. Francis of Assisi.
But once they see it, I DO expect them to be rigidly pro-life and use their power to kill it, which is why I do not accept any covering argument for Republicans on their Justices. Democrats enforce a rigid litmus test on the matter and have very reliable judges. I expect Republicans to do the same - and I note that they DO when it comes to everything having to do with the economic interests of the wealthy elite whom the Republicans REALLY serve. That wealthy elite is pro-rich, and pro-choice, and that's what Republican Presidents actually deliver.
Also, it helps that Donald Trump was a Democrat. It helps because he hasn't spent his whole life bending into a Republican suit. He made a change in middle age. Bloomberg did the same thing, but never became pro-life, and Bloomberg was the most effective, businesslike mayor of New York probably ever.
And then there's finally the fact that Donald FIGHTS. He has charisma and HE FIGHTS. I am certain that once Trump has taken a stance on something, he's not going to back down, and he will be a bully and use all his power to ram it down everybody's throat. I want a leader who will do that - who will use power to override the will of the resistors, and who will change the rules on the fly, if need be, to get the victory.
Democrats do that. Plutocrat Republicans do that. And eunuchs just sort of take it and "play by the rules", and get rolled. The rules are arbitrary and not holy, and rigged. I want somebody who is going to WIN, and that means smashing rules sometimes, and conventions, and doing what POWER will let him do.
Obama rammed down the secrecy of his birth certificate, because he had to. He used power and did it.
If Trump does that very same thing - overbearing bullying use of POWER to ram down something that the other side says is "unjust", and IS unjust according to the rules, but is what I want - I want a leader who will break the law and break heads for ME.
I want the Hillary Clintons and Barack Obamas fighting for MY causes, at least some of them, because I am tired of losing, and I care about what I think is right more than I care about the mere process of getting there.
I don't like decorum, and I like people - when somebody overbears them - who will bellow louder and louder and physically dominate, if he has to, in order to not be rolled.
There's a lot I like about Donald Trump, and the fact that he is a blowhard bully who simply punches back, hard, and who uses his wealth to destroy opponents - I want that on MY SIDE for a change.
And on some things, he is.
Also, the fact that the Republicans seem to hate his guts means that he's doing something right. They hate him, I hate them. I love the idea of ramming him down on the heads of that party, and then having him come in, fire the staff and replace it and change the Republican Party, from the top and inside, against its will, into something else.
What the Republican Party IS, is grotesque, and I can't support it. Democrats are babykillers.
Trump was a babykiller. Now he says he's not, and brings up the subject. I believe him that he's not. He's right on insurance markets. He's right about the legal bribery system of politicians. He's right on a lot, and I want to give him a chance to change everything.
For all of those reasons, and more, I support Donald Trump.
My view of him is probably not unlike Abraham Lincoln's view of General Grant.
On hearing criticism of Grant, Lincoln said "I need him. He fights."
On hearing that Grant drank a lot, Lincoln said 'Find out whatever General Grant is drinking and send it to my other generals.'
I'm tired of losing. Trump is a winner. He fights. Some of his fights will be for me. Right now, NONE of the GOP fights are for me at all. And the Democrats are so tainted by babykilling that I can't see past it.
