The week before last on Face the Nation, Rick Santorum was asked whether, in recent remarks, he’s been deliberately suggesting that President Obama “looks down on disabled people.” Santorum replied: “Well, the President supported partial-birth abortion, and partial-birth abortion is a procedure used almost exclusively to kill children late in pregnancy when they’ve been found out to be disabled.”
That’s odd. Because for nine years, while he was promoting the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in the U.S. Senate, Santorum said exactly the opposite. He said partial-birth abortion was used almost exclusively to kill children who weren’t disabled. And he said anyone who implied otherwise was a liar. ..........
That didn’t stop Santorum from converting Fitzsimmons’ confession into numbers. In March 1997, Santorum declared on the Senate floor that Fitzsimmons “called up the doctors of the clinics, and the doctors said, ‘No. We perform this fairly routinely,’ not just on third trimester babies, and some are, but the vast majority — 95% is my guess, or even more — are on healthy mothers with healthy babies in the fifth and sixth months of pregnancy. Those are the facts.”
Facts? These weren’t facts. These were Santorum’s misquotations and guesses. Two weeks later, Santorum told his colleagues that “at least 90% of [partial-birth abortions], according to their industry, are healthy babies and healthy mothers.” By May 1997, Santorum was claiming that the procedure was used on “healthy babies … in almost all cases.”

Though the procedure has had a low rate of use, representing 0.17% (2,232 of 1,313,000) of all abortions in the United States in the year 2000, according to voluntary responses to an Alan Guttmacher Institute survey,[2] it has developed into a focal point of the abortion debate. In the United States, intact dilation and extraction was made illegal in most circumstances by the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart.

Neal Anderth wrote:Santorum swept the South tonight, the race goes on.

danivon wrote:ARJ, sure, but if the Paulistas hacking in some states erodes delegate count, who's likely to be the biggest loser?

danivon wrote:The main effect has been to pretty much set the limit on Gingrich's ambitions. He's won two of the four States he had a stronger base in. Santorum is now the clear rival to Romney, and could easily see a boost as a result

Archduke Russell John wrote:

danivon wrote:ARJ, sure, but if the Paulistas hacking in some states erodes delegate count, who's likely to be the biggest loser?

Yes, because those delegates are still required to vote for Romney on the first round. Romney has 496 delegates so far. The other three combine have 444.

The problem for Santorum is that most of the races he will do well in are over. Up coming are California, New York and Pennsylvania which are something like 1, 3, & 4 in the number of delegates allocated. Romney should do well in those states.

Still, if he doesn't win Pa, he's got a big problem.

I agree with this. There was a recent press conference (yesterday I think) where the Commonwealth's incumbent Republicans named who they supported. Pretty much they went for Romney across the board.

danivon wrote:Really? I though the whole point of the Paul hacks was to pick up the delegates as they go through caucuses, so that while the indications from initial straw polls were going one way, Paul was getting more out the other end.

danivon wrote:There are also uncommited delegates, and it's not actually unprecedented for delegates to vote a different way when they get there (what is the punishment if they do?)

The problem for Santorum is that most of the races he will do well in are over. Up coming are California, New York and Pennsylvania which are something like 1, 3, & 4 in the number of delegates allocated. Romney should do well in those states.
Still, if he doesn't win Pa, he's got a big problem

rickyp wrote:Santorum has double digit leads in polling in Pennsylvania... I think you can count that one safely for Santorum

Campaigning really hasn't started here yet. There are no ad on tv or radio and there has been no lit mailings yet either.

rickyp wrote:Do you know the answer to how ballots are submitted at conventions? Just wondering how "committed delegates" are enforced at convention.