Ron Paul Put Support Behind A Pro-Abortion Candidate For President Instead Of A Pro-Lifer
Ron Paul’s pro-life ad touts that he’s delivered over 4000 babies. His ad says he’s a man of faith committed to protecting life.
Paul said he observed a late term aborted baby being placed in a bucket. This experience highly influenced his views on life.He says, “Who are we to decide that we pick and throw one away and pick up and struggle to save the other ones?” He goes on to say that, “Unless we resolve this and understand that life is precious and we must protect life, we can’t protect liberty.”
In 2008, Ron Paul who says he’s committed to protecting life, actually gave his support to a pro-abortion candidate instead of to the pro-life candidate. He put his support behind a string of third party candidates. One of them was pro-choice Cynthia McKinney. Link Link Link Link Link
On AllThingsMcKinney, she brags about her 100% pro-choice rating from NARAL, Planned Parenthood and Pro-choice America. Link She even voted against the partial birth abortion ban. Link
I don’t know how a man who claims he’s “committed to protecting life” can put any amount of support behind someone who is for partial birth abortion and who brags about her 100% rating from NARAL, Planned Parenthood and Pro-choice America.
Ron Paul says that seeing that baby in that bucket convinced him of the need to protect life. Yet he gives support for president to someone who believes we have a right to toss dead babies in buckets?
You can view his ad below. The consistent one, isn’t consistent on this issue.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkAsLPrnJGc
P.S.
The Paul supporter comments are flooding in. Trying to defend their hypocrite messiah.
They’re saying, “But he was endorsing all third party candidates.”
Yes and one of those third party candidates he was on stage endorsing/backing was Cynthia McKinney. On that stage he made a strong point to denounce a pro-life candidate, yet he was willing to back someone who is pro-choice.
You may say, “But can’t you back someone you disagree with?”
If it’s on an issue on say something like whether to have or not have a flat tax, sure you can.
But we’re talking the issue of LIFE.
Ron Paul claims he’s ‘committed’ to protecting life. Yet he considered a pro-choice, pro-put a dead baby in a bucket candidate as a legitimate option for president, when at the same time he didn’t consider a strong pro-life candidate a legitimate option.
You can’t claim you’re ‘committed’ to protecting life and then go throw support behind a pro-choice candidate. Even if it’s just partial support or half support or 1% support. Support is support, and it’s contradictory to throw any amount of support to a pro-choice candidate if you claim you’re committed to protecting life.
18 Comments
Leave a Reply
-
Conservatives Network featured in...
What is it about endorsing someone with different views than you makes you inconsistent with your own values? You spun this article to make Paul out to be a hypocrite, and that couldn’t be further from the truth. I can only hope that whoever you vote for in the upcoming elections will agree with everything you agree with exactly. According to the tone of this article, voting for someone who disagrees with you on any issue, would be hypocrisy on your part and I doubt that there is a candidate who has every single view that you have.
P.S.
The Paul supporter comments are flooding in. Trying to defend their hypocrite messiah.
They’re saying, “But he was endorsing all third party candidates.”
Yes and one of those third party candidates he was on stage endorsing/backing was Cynthia McKinney. On that stage he made a strong point to denounce a pro-life candidate, yet he was willing to back someone who is pro-choice.
You may say, “But can’t you back someone you disagree with?”
If it’s on an issue on say something like whether to have or not have a flat tax, sure you can.
But we’re talking the issue of LIFE.
Ron Paul claims he’s ‘committed’ to protecting life. Yet he considered a pro-choice, pro-put a dead baby in a bucket candidate as a legitimate option for president, when at the same time he didn’t consider a strong pro-life candidate a legitimate option.
You can’t claim you’re ‘committed’ to protecting life and then go throw support behind a pro-choice candidate. Even if it’s just partial support or half support or 1% support. Support is support, and it’s contradictory to throw any amount of support to a pro-choice candidate if you claim you’re committed to protecting life.
as I tried to show you through twitter, his main endorsement in the 2008 election was Chuck Baldwin, but you want no parts of it because it contradicts your own agenda.
Here is a link:
http://www.ronpaul.com/2008-09-23/ron-paul-endorses-chuck-baldwin-for-president/
Chuck Baldwin is of course Pro-Life as is Dr. Paul who has delivered over 4000 babies and has performed exactly 0 abortions.
This still doesn’t negate the fact he gave support for a time to a pro-choice candidate. If you are ‘committed’ to protecting life, you should NEVER give even .00000000000000000000001% of support to a pro-choice, pro-partial birth abortion candidate.
Wake up Paulbot!
he was just trying to bring up the point that there were other candidates running as opposed to just McCain and Obama. If you read what he said there he even says he doesn’t agree with everything everybody says. You are just twisting it to fit what you want to believe.
No not really. He clearly put some support behind her. He must have forgotten the dead baby he saw in that bucket.
I see the point you are trying to make. I think you are stretching things a lot to do it, but I see what you are saying. I, myself, don’t believe the government should be involved at all, but for the sake of argument I will agree with you for now. However, I assume that you have selected a candidate that agrees with you 100% of the time, and has never done anything that could be stretched out of proportion to negate your candidates integrity? If this is the case, please enlighten us and I for one, will take a serious look at your preferred candidate.
I think a staunch pro-choice person could agree with the point I’m making. If Ron Paul believes abortion is murder and if he says he’s committed to stopping it, then it’s a total violation of his ‘commitment’ when he gives even an ounce of backing/support to someone who in his views would ‘put the dead baby in the bucket’.
Again this isn’t about having to find someone who agrees with you on 100% of all issues.
Protecting human life isn’t as weighty an issue as say cutting 10% from the EPA.
A person against cutting 10% from the EPA could vote for someone who is for cutting that amount, without being too inconsistent. But when it’s a weighty issue such as ‘human life’, I really think it does violate ones ‘commitment’ to life, when they go supporting someone who is for putting the dead baby in a bucket.
Americans are sick of this election-by-inquisition stuff. They don’t care about flag burning or the myriad other stupid, made up issues any more. They want to know why we spent our grandkids’ money on bailing out banks, defending countries across the globe that can afford their own soldiering, and stupid unConstitutional government. They want to know how billions in stimulus doesn’t stimulate anything but economic uncertainty.
You just embarrass yourself with this sort of silly ‘gotcha’ stuff as the only arrow in your quiver. Keep up the good work! Ron Paul needs all the support he can get, and ‘exposes’ like yours only drive more folks to vote for him.
Oh America doesn’t care about vetting candidates by inquisition? You better tell Ron Paul that because he’s spending millions in your contributions doing the same to anyone in his way.
What’s good for the goose, is good for the gander bubb. If Paul can bring the heat, then he can take it too.
No more double standards for Dr. No. You want media attention? Then get ready for it.
Oh, come on – you can respond to these few already posted but won’t even let my posts on the wall for some reason? Am I to understand this as the memory-holing of information too inconvenient for you to respond to without impeding the desired control of information on your site? Shades of China, Jeff. Disheartening.
I’m smart enough to know this desire for ‘dialogue’ you seem to want, is just a Paulbot guise, so you can sit there and ignore truth, and say stupid stuff.
And you say Paul is paranoid and espouses conspiracies? Why not engage in discussion with people who see differently than you to actually change their minds, instead of posting a lot of inciteful information without allowing proper rebuttal as is easy enough to provide – in some tenuous effort to slander pretty much the only actual conservative running?
You’re all really that frightened by his foreign policy (which is vindicated by any serious review of history and is the legacy position of the republican party) and belief that the states should handle for themselves what the federal government has no valid place to address? What stupid stuff have I said so far? I’ve saved all my comments, if you’d like me to repost them for clarity and wouldn’t mind your guests reading them.
Because I know they’re not interested in discussion.
All they want to do is repeatedly say NUH-UH as you place every piece of evidence you can infront of them.
Some of us are smart enough not to.
Don’t argue with a fool. They’ll drag you down to their level then beat you with their experience.
Again, the guise of a Paulbot is that they want to have honest discussion in the first place.
They simply don’t want to.
If you place evidence in front of them up to their nose, they just say, NUH uh, I need evidence. So you pile it up ten feet over their head. THen they say..LIIIIES!!!
There is NO honest discussion to be had with a Paulbot because they’re in total denial of everything.
I just had one Paulbot dismiss a heap of evidence because I used the term Paul supporter in a post. They look for any excuse to ignore evidence, as they say, NUH UH!
From the mouths of babes…you’re proving that quite adequately. That *seems* to me to actually be more or less exactly what you’re doing, honestly, except you’re doing it by way of deleting content and refusal to respond.
You accuse Paul of racism based on cherry-picked newsletters that he admittedly failed to oversee appropriately while working as a doctor full-time again, after the newsletters had been going out without issue for at least a few years, and Paul’s entire career otherwise condemns racist views and policies. He’s friends with and has staffed his campaigns with the openly gay and jewish, and is a long-term friend of and is defended against racism charges by the (black) president of Austin’s NAACP. Paul draws the most minority support of any republican because he’s the only one actually concerned about some very bad policies that primarily harm them – including our irrational and counterproductive foreign policy.
A refusal to acknowledge and account for these and other facts is effectively a hard stand on ignorance and intentional obfuscation.
Again, I’ve learned you’re not interested in discussion.
All you want to do is say nuh uh to everything presented, as you keep on blathering you Paultard talking points.
I’ve learned my lesson. I’m not getting engaged in your idiocy.