Wednesday, August 20, 2008
|
|
Winning Reagan's Way
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
9:27 AM
|
The Lieberman boomlet --Ed Morrissey's reaction of "Disaster" sums up a lot of the reaction I received on my show and in my e-mail box yesterday (HT: RobinsonandLong.com)-- reminds me of the push for a Reagan-Ford ticket in 1980, when Beltway sharpies told the Gipper he couldn't win without a major shake-up of the dynamics of the race, one that would be provided by picking former President Ford as a running mate.
Reagan was tempted but ultimately went with George H.W. Bush and drove straight-ahead to a blowout win over then President Carter. Reagan won because he persuaded millions of Americans he had the right vision for the country, and that the voters could trust him --and his party-- to govern well though Watergate was only a short six years in the past,
Senator McCain has the same choice ahead of him. He doesn't need any bank shots or game-changers. He needs what was on display Saturday night at Saddleback --a confidence in the rightness of center-right ideas across a range of issues and of course a deep belief in American exceptionalism. A conventional but base-energizing choice --Romney or Pawlenty-- will keep the momentum going and reveal no deficit of confidence in McCain's ideas or the core ideas of his party. Such a choice will also say that while the Congressional GOP was seduced by spending and Beltway ways over the past few terms, the party's ideals remain the right ones for governing, and that its social agenda of protecting and strengthening families while seeking to protect the unborn remain at the core of the party and its nominee.
Yesterday I interviewed Mitt Romney (transcript here) and Denver's Archbishop Charles Chaput (transcript here.) Monday I interviewed author David Freddoso about his new book, which will air today.
All three conversations reveal that the country remains divided over some major issues that simply don't admit to bipartisan approaches: Should we pursue victory in Iraq and the wider war? Should we go and explore and produce as much of our own energy as possible? Should life in the womb be protected? Should taxes be kept low? Does America still represent the best hope for the planet? Senator Lieberman has put aside his party's position on victory in Iraq, but he has not done so on many of these other crucial issues, and for those people who fight day in and day out for such things, the veep selection matters a great deal. "Would John McCain ever pick a running mate in favor of retreat in Iraq," a pro-life activist asked me yesterday. "Of course he wouldn't," was the obvious answer, and the activist's point was made: If Senator McCain genuinely cares about the life issue, he won't pick a pro-choice running mate.
McCain won big on Saturday and the polls across the board are shifting his way because a solid majority of the country isn't ready to abandon the idea that America is the world's leader and is fundamentally a good nation doing great things, as it has been for the past two hundred plus years.
The GOP has championed these core ideas since 1980 and there is no need to apologize for them though the leadership on the Hill failed to execute well in the past few years. Picking a leader within the party as a running mate underscores Senator McCain's commitment to the ideas that powered the Reagan Revolution, and a bumbling, fumbling, inexperienced Barack Obama has no response to these ideas.
The big shift in the Reuters poll (yes, I know it is Zogby, but the direction counts) is just the latest indication that the public has begun to really examine the four year senator from Illinois and to conclude that it isn't going to gamble the country's future on the most radical major party nominee in modern American political history, especially one who has taken to whining about imaginary unfair attacks on his patriotism while dissembling about his record and his associates.
As noted, David Freddoso will be on today's program discussing his book, The Case Against Barack Obama.
And Archbishop Chaput's book, Render Unto Caesar, is doing very well on Amazon.com. Get that along with Freddoso's and save on shipping. Archbishop Chaput, btw, is conspicuously not being invited to bring his pro-life message to the Democratic Convention convening in his Diocese. (Perhaps Father Phleger will be the Roman Catholic representative?)
 
|
|
I have listened to many comments by McCain but I have never heard him or anyone impugn Obama's patriotism. Just once I would like to see someone question that comment and have him cite a specific instance where this happened. His answer would probably be a lot of ah's, um's and comments that would lead you to wonder what he just said.
My guess is that if you disagree with, that is considered questioning his patriotism. |
|
|
the beginning of the end for obambi. He is not comfortable in his own skin and he has a large chip on his shoulders. At a place like Saddleback, he speaks one way, then "jive" speaks in front of another, this is off putting, and suggests that obambi has issues. This guy is the worst candidate for president in this Nation's history. |
|
|
The Democratic Convention is next week, and Obama is still only the "presumptive" nominee. You don't suppose...nah, couldn't happen. Hillary would never do anything so brazenly selfish. |
|
you've given us President McCain.... Good job! |
|
candidates as a whining point. President Bush has NEVER-EVER impugned any of their ofice holders' "patriotism", but they've bleated for years that he and Cheney have. Total, uneqivocal BS. I agree that our side needs to NAIL them to the wall with the challenge: When, where, how was your(faux!)Patriotism questioned by McCain??
Makes them sound like the 7th Grade Hall Monitor, Stern Looking Finger Waggers we know them to be. Scolds in an age of True Evil. Toast. Clueless TOAST. |
|
I have always planned to vote for McCain if he turned out to be our GOP candidate; but with the enthusiasm (or lack thereof) I had for Dole in 1996. Not a problem, but nothing getting me energized (and frankly very worried about the future - I didn't think He/We could win).
After SaddleBrook - I LOVE the guy! I was also very energized after watching last night's FNC special on him. He Rocks!
Keep rolling John. My money is finally coming your way. Also, stay Reagan-strong on Georgia.
Let's get'er done... GAME ON!
Robert Estes
Atlanta ---- GEORGIA |
|
|
|
I am inclined against Lieberman for VP because of the reasons Hugh mentioned, namely Lieberman's positions on most issues other than the Iraq war. Having said that, I respect and admire Lieberman and would accept him as the VP choice.
Hugh fails to address the potential benefits of choosing Lieberman. Lieberman could attract middle of the road democrats and independent voters looking for a reason or explanation to vote against Obama. Instead of the republican base arguement against Lieberman, I would like to read an evaluation of the positives and negatives of such a choice when it comes to general election strategy. After all, McCain has to win the general election. If McCain fails to win the election, the republican base may be happy about his VP pick, but Obama is president.
We need hard-headed, bottom-line analysis for general election victory.
Doug Santo
Pasadena, CA |
|
American Solutions has a free Gas Contest. This just started so there are only a few videos right now.
http://www.youtube.com/group/freegascontest
Learn more about the contest here:
http://www.americansolutions.com/General/?Page=110ddecc-631 c-4aa5-b1dd-de5df63b82f5
FYI: My video is called American Energy = Security & Jobs :)
We are trying to get the word out, and trying to get more people to submit to create more awareness. I hope folks here will help advertise this event.
|
|
|
...is a "community organizer"; read, Get Out The Vote. Unless Mc is doing the ACORN thing, he's going to get hammered in the fall. We're probably looking at millions of new (dem) voters being registered; don't think we can beat that. |
|
For the last week the incessant buzz amongst bloggers, especially those who are of the Roman Catholic bent (Hugh, NRO editors, etc.) or evangelical bent is that abortion is going to be THE downfall of Barack Obama, and that the most horrible of outcomes for Republicans would be if McCain chooses a pro-choice (i.e., not pro abortion) VP.
Let's have a little reality check:
According to Pew, in a poll published on May 29, 2008 (http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1317), asking voters (by Pub, Dem, and Indy) to rank their most important issues, among a total of 16 issues, this is where abortion ranked:
Republicans - 13th
Democrats - 15th
Independents - 15th
Yet, according to the loudest voices in the conservative blogosphere, you'd think the election this week suddenly turned into a all time national referendum on abortion.
Look at some of the other issues that ranked well above abortion as a key issue amongst Republicans:
budget deficit - 10th
education - 4th
As always, the volume and the shrillness of what passes as blogger pronouncement has little to do with what the average person - Pub, Dem, or Indy - actually cares about.
The numbers 1, 2, and 3 issues in the Pew poll:
Pubs - terrorism, economy, moral values
Dems - economy, education, jobs
Indys - economy, jobs, energy
Amongst all voters combined, abortion ranks 15 of 16 (ahead only of gay marriage) in 2008.
Most elections turn on only the top one to three issues ... any issue that wallows along at 13 to 15 out of 16 is effectively a non-issue ... it's just part of the overall noise level that most people don't pay much attention to.
Which is where abortion is, and has been more or less forever. In fact, according to Pew, abortion has decreased 7 percent in the average overall voter priority rating since 2004. |
|
Is John McCain capable of picking somebody whom most Republicans would not care for as his VP? Based upon his past performance and general inclinations, that's certainly possible, indeed plausible.
Will McCain appoint Lieberman as VP? Probably not. Lieberman would not be the smart pick, even if he is McCain's best friend in the Senate.
But one thing that we have seen over and over again is that nominees frequently choose somebody from way out in left field, or they choose someone who is not much at all like themselves in personality or politics or background.
Examples? A-plenty ... Bush 43 picking his VEEP-vetter, Cheney ... Dole picking Jack Kemp (few people even remember who Kemp is or was) ... Bush 41 picking what's 'is name(?) ... and Reagan picking Bush 41 (everybody thought RR despised the preppy Washington insider Bush).
The Dems picked a little more predictably (Arkansas outsider BJ going with Washington insider AlGore - but that was before AG went insane), but other Dems also went with a couple of ringers too (Mondale going with patently unqualified Geraldine Ferraro; McGovern picking a Missouri Senator with mental problems).
Nothing should surprise us about anybody's VP pick. |
|
|
The fact that abortion is down nation-wide as an importance issue does not, not take into consideration the hugely important segment of the Pub BASE as Evangelicals are. They ,would be dissed if Joe were picked and, and in great numbers they would stay at home or worse, vote for Barr. So, my guess is, since ole John was on Laura's show today and once more, while not talking about the pick, affirmed that his administration would be a pro-life one. That seems to say neither Joe or Tom would be the choice but and if John goes mavericky, he loses the election and anyone with political sense knows it. He could go wildly and pick Sarah. He could pick JC Watts or some other person out of sight. If that person is a conservative, the BASE will be satisfied. Even Tim and Mitt would suffice. |
|
To some Pub "base" voters, abortion is the supreme issue, of course - but my point is that, across the entire spectrum of voters - whether Pub, Dem, or indy, abortion consistently ranks relatively low in priority.
Pew is not the only poll that shows that ... similar results have consistently been polled by other outfits across the decades.
If the Pubs were to give in to the noisy pro life crowd and define themselves as single issue anti-abortionists, then they would never win another national election. Period.
All of the screaming from the anti-abortion crowd this week about McCain's possible pro choice VP pick is simply their attempt to co-opt and outshout every other constituency of the Republican Party, to whom abortion is at most just one of many issues considered in deciding how to vote.
The fact that McCain himself is and always has been pro life should have taken abortion off the table, but it is telling that the small-in-numbers but very loud and organized anti-abortion crowd is not satisfied unless the entire Party meekly submits and moves in lockstep with their orthodoxy.
And of course, every time the antis talk about how unacceptable it is to include pro choicers in the Party leadership, they are telling the 40% of Republicans who ARE pro choicers that their votes are welcome, but they had better damn well sit down and shut up, and BTW don't ever expect to have a seat at the table.
My, what a party builder that attitude is!
Pro choice Pubs are for the most part OK with pro life Pub candidates ... why should the respect not be mutual?
|
|
as the new leader of the GOP. Mitch McConnel may specialize in Mitch-slapping Hapless Harry around the Senate chambers, but the country is starving to see a leader as I saw a glimpse of at Saddleback over the weekend. I'm warming up to the old goat I suppose.
And, AND, I'll be the first "Con" on these pages to admit if I hear ONE MORE TIME the phrase "What Would Reagan Do," someone is gonna get HURT!!! Ronald Reagan was many GREAT things, but to scab a favorite self check phrase of mine ("What Would Jesus Do" aka "WWJD") into WWRD makes me wanna throw things. Even Reagan himself would feel sick hearing that phrase. Disney Co. used to run that way after Walt Disney died and it floundered doing so. The same fate awaits the GOP if it adopts WWRD as its guiding motto. The old goat needs to grab the reins and say "This is what we're going to do!" |
|
You have to realize that many of us who like McCain have trained ourselves to do so (in a somewhat military chain-of-command sort of submission) in spite of heavy reluctance. We indeed realize that of all of the GOP candidates McCain was the best choice in terms of waging war on the enemy and providing the international image of “peace through strength” that is so vital right now. Also, after McCain’s Saddleback performance we are slightly encouraged.
At the same time, however, we still want to see him pick the right VP and ROMNEY IS NOT THE RIGHT GUY. This has to do with Romney’s 60-year-old conservative puberty combined with the reality that his religion is offensive (the evangelical sphere is my world and this is the consensus). If McCain adds Romney to the ticket, the base (10% of the GOP) who do 90% of the work will “cling to their Bibles and guns” and cast an apathetic vote – but will not lick envelopes, send cash, don bumper stickers, nor walk precincts. McCain might lose.
McCain MUST ENERGIZE THE BASE with his VP. Jindal, or Thune would be great choices, but I won’t hold my breath. There is no room for error in this decision. None whatsoever.
|
|
the "Bradley effect", most certainly in place, means that the Clinton's will be full court pressing the "supers" at that thing called the democrat convention. The unelectable tag is staring them squarely in the face and buyers remorse is setting in. "How do we get rid of him and not send Sharpy into the streets of Denver", is the 64000 dollar question, in the backrooms of the DNC. As Drudge would say, developing..............
Can we be so lucky, that obambi would chose, "slow joe" Biden, please, please, say it's so, joe.
Can obambi hold on, please, please, hold on obambi....47 states minimum... |
|
|
He said he does not want the job. He said he will not take the job. He said he wants to be Governor of louisiana. I think he would do very well as veep and could take over and do a great job if it came to that, but no one can't force him to take a position he very clearly does not want. |
|
By his own admission was the 1986 amnesty of illegal aliens. It failed miserably and has resulted in 10 times the number of illegal aliens.
John McCain thinks we should repeat that mistake.
The GOP under John McCain apparently no longer thinks the rule of law is a core belief worth keeping. Neither is national sovereignty or security.
You simply CANNOT have national security if you will not defend your own borders or enforce your own laws. Foreign nationals numbering in the thousands are entering our country at will daily. John McCain has done and will do NOTHING to stop it. Don't believe me? Ask Juan Hernandez! |
|
I have impuned Obama's patriotism like a crazy-woman on these threads. But no more than the rest of the America-loathing Left academia which is the birthplace of Obama.
I don't think Mack or other Pub leaders have done it, but we the people (including talking heads) certainly have. And why?
Most of what Obama, Michelle and Wright have said (or done) plays into the narrative: no flag pin, no hand on the heart, embarrassed by America, not proud of America, apologizing for America, G. damining America, wanting to diminish military power, wanting to follow the Left meme, Americans clinging to God and guns and cut America down to size by diminishing our power.
What do you expect us to think, Scary Barry?
|
|
Lamentably, a lot of the Reagan legacy has faded into history. The one decision that lives on today in infamy is his damnable ammesty program.
And why was it such a mistake? No control of the border. Amnesty is a bad idea. Without border control: a complete and total disaster.
Not only do we lose national security, but national sovereignty. Secure the border and stop the dang magnets! What's the matter with you stupid people?
You are right. What good does it do for Mack to out himself as the the "national security" candidate while ignoring border issues? That is NOT patriotic it is suicidal.
|
|
for VP! He was born in Fort Worth, TX. He's eligible! And has devoted himself to "immigrant rights."
And, did I mention, that his website plays music? |
|
|
for McCain to put himself out there as the national security candidate. |
|
|
Romney is LDS; You have no place in your heart for people of that faith. |
|
|
Don't forget... The dems never funded the border protection. |
|
Somebody will see an "error" no matter who they choose. The top of the ticket has to weigh error v. advantage.
Rove on Hannity last night touting Romney's acceptibility, saying there is huge support all over the country for Mitt, "even in El Paso."
There has to be some room for error or a candidate cannot win. The big question is can the anti-Mormons sink the campaign and hand it to Obama? Is your Mormon-hate that strong?
I for one would love to see the no-mormons-need-apply segment of the party marginalized forever. This seems like as good a time as any to do it. |
|
Today Rush said the Romney was the BEST choice for VP.
And Rush is RIGHT on this one. Period.
You need to get over your hate of Romney and Mormons. Hate cankers the soul.
Hey, I notice that you don't allow comments on your TH blog. Why is that? |
|
|
Neither have the Republicans. In fact, Clinton made a better show of enforcement than Bush has. In 1999 there were 2400 workplace enforcement actuons, by 2004 that number was 4. They only started enforcement again right before the 2006 elections because they could see the butt kicking coming. |
|
Juan Hernandez for VP!!!!
He is the right choice for McCain. |
|
|
|
Oh and yesterday Mark Levin (the great one) said that McCain should pick Romney!!
Cheers!!!! |
|
...on the other thread had an interesting point: None of the talking heads really understand the evangelical pscyhe. Most are Catholics or in Levin's case Jewish.
The smart, conservative talk show hosts cannot figure out why the numskull evangs won't get on board with Romney.
Some of them make good points against Romney from their point of view, especially that he was EVER pro-choice. I'm getting that.
But Doug is that part of the party that needs to be pushed aside and be met with deaf ears. I hope Mack is man enough to poke 'em in the eye, choose Mitt, win the election and be done with the Mormonism-is-offensive caca as a political force.
|
|
I'm a Methodist and I can't think of ever considering a candidates faith when voting. My Congressman is Jewish(Cantor). There is skepticism about Romney from more than just the people who don't like Mormons. I do like Mormons, have always found them to be great folks. However, I have seen the tapes of Romney saying thing that are distinctly not conservative. He has been all over the map politically, especially in his '94 run against Kennedy. His progression, growth, evolving, or whatever we call it, has been in the right direction in this campaign. Until January of 2007, he had supported McCain/Kennedy, so not all over his conversion has been all that long ago. I was prepared to hold my nose for Mitt if he'd been the guy, because he was at least saying the right things. Instead what we got was Sen. Stick-In-The-Eye, who's showing us the knife he intends to stick us in the back with after the election. And they will say that all of those people who voted for him support amnesty.
Praying For A Miracle In Minneapolis. |
|
I have not always been please with Romney (As you know I started out a Hunter fan). But I keep in mind that;
1) He is new to politics.
2) Jan of 07 was when people really started to find out what was in McCain/Kennedy. Up until then we all had to take their word for what it, that it was good. You and I have already knew to distrust Washington politicians. I think Romney hadn't yet learned that. I think he knows it now.
3) Romney is very intelligent and learns fast. |
|
Yes,
We all need to pray for a miracle in Minneapolis. |
|
|
I prefer WWJWD: What Would John Wayne Do? ;) |
|
The old tapes were are unsettling--especially since he was so convincing. If people are squeamish on that grounds, I understand.
He's made a lot of changes in the right direction. Are the changes sincere? I think so. But I also think it's an indictment that it took him so long.
We Mormons out West are pro-life and VERY conservative. Mitt's kind of an anomolgy. I believe he'd be a lot more acceptable to evangelical voters if he'd hung out more with his conservative Idaho cousins shooting up the neighborhood. |
|
HA!!! Me too, when it comes secular matters or bad guys coming over the walls.
What bothers me the most about "WWRD" is it sounds too much like Disney in the immediate post-Walt days. It just says loud and clear the GOP is lacking leadership if it has to ask itself that. Clearly the House GOP and Senate GOP had NONE before 2006. McConnell is an excellent Senate Minority Leader, but McCain needs to take overall charge to bring this all home and kick some arses back into gear. |
|
|
kgk and I are listening to Hugh now with the writer Freddoso. He does not seem to be as one sided with weird facts as Dr. Corsi. His research is well researched with volumnes of footnotes; something my hubby kgk is used to since he teaches history in college. The problem is: Dems will not read this book. Indies might and some Southern Blue Dogs might and that might help people see the real radicalism of this duo: and Michelle my belle is a perfect compliment to the head socialist pacifist. BTW, it seems poor Becky , Kim, and some other lefty females here love the Beckel talking points but have no clue, not one as to the specific agendas,issues, statements of fact of the so called BO record and what he would do to America. None. They for weeks , it seems years, have never put down one fact of what the Messiah and the Dem Congress would pass, approve of, and foist on the public. So far, kgk and I have not seen one liberal poster here tell us exactly what BO would do as Prez except to dissolve Bush-Cheney in some type of acid!!!!!! |
|
becky writes: Wednesday, August, 20, 2008 6:36 PM
McCain 'won big' in front of the fundys?
are you serious? He is so out of touch. And life begins at conception? Does he intend to prosecute women who abort or take pills that undo the conception the day after? What an idiot.
After the convention, when we see the old guy next to the articulate smart younger guy, when we see the dolled up, pilled up wife versus the smart articulate warm woman named Michelle, when we see the fundys frothing in their prejudice against people who are born gay, then we'll see the election go the way the right knows it ultimately will...House and Senate veto proof Dem, President Obama for 8 years. GOP destroyed by Machiavellian Cheney and Bush.
Arch says:
Becky. You must realize that not everyone is a libtard. In fact most if not 82% of the American citizens live a conservative lifestyle though they may be voting victims of gullibility of the libtard agit prop rotting the core of our nation. And let me warn you of the suicidal dogma of killing your species' progeny right after conception. This is not a logical policy to advocate or accept as it lessens the survival rate of ones species. Only an idiot fool would find this pro choice sickness a virtue to its survival as a nation of families. You have a thinking problem if you can support the killing of a unique individual while it develops and strives to survive. Science has peer review evidence that is irrefutable that life begins at conception as a truly unique individual exists and not a ball of wax. Re-think your position on the life vs choice debate as you may soon have a little unique individual growing inside your womb. Please don't kill it!!! |
|
"...the reality that his religion is offensive (the evangelical sphere is my world and this is the consensus)"
Please state your denomination if you are willing. I am Southern Baptist and I can assure you that your assessment of Romney's acceptability as VP is not the consensus in my little piece of the evangelical world. Romney's religion, heretical as it may be (and we do consider it heretical), has not entered into any discussions I've had with my brethren. I don't know any that would sit out because of Romney. If McCain nominates an open, unapologetic pro-abortion Repub, they might. If he nominates a pro-abortion democrat (Lieberman) there's a good chance-- I might even. |
|
"After the convention, when we see the old guy next to the articulate smart younger guy, when we see the dolled up, pilled up wife versus the smart articulate warm woman named Michelle..."
This is news. I didn't know there was a smart articulate younger guy challenging Obama for the democrat nomination. And what a coincidence that his wife is named Michelle (only she's warm) too.
And I do want to go back to 1950 (well, maybe not that far back since I wouldn't have even been a twinkle) because America isn't.. uh...mm... what it once was, er...uh... what it could be. |
|
This difference between 1950 and 2008 is very effective birth control. There are very few who "unfortunately" get pregnant--unless you were raped or in a coma.
Even Bill Clinton fought to make abortion legal, safe and rare. Well, one million is not rare. Whatever your feeling on when a human receives Equal Protection, one million abortions a year as a means of birth control for the irresponsible is nasty and immoral.
As a point of fact, abortion in some form will always be legal somewhere in the US for the foreseeable future. It would be interesting though, to see if women's reproductive responsibility would improve if abortions were not quite so available.
There's really no excuse for the current situation. |
|
becky writes: Wednesday, August, 20, 2008 8:30 PM
Arch
you are a fool. I have children, and never had an abortion. No man, however, should determine whether a woman makes the decision to abort a child so long as the abortion is done within the law.
Do you want to execute women who abort and doctors who do the abortions? Do you really want to go back to 1950?
Arch says:
I do want to prosecute those who prey upon and murder innocent individuals who are merely trying to survive. I will live to see the day when abortion becomes illegal again because it has been determined scientifically irrefutable that a human individual exists at conception with a future and full human rights. We prosecute mothers who murder their innocent children by drowning them in a bathtub or driving them into a lake while trapped in a car don't we? Now explain the difference when a mother aborts her blastocyst and is assisted by the abortionist murdering doctors who violate the Hypocratic oath to do no harm. That unique individual human is every bit alive and developing. Only the human interference of murder stops it from living. Becky. Do not get pregnant if you do not want the baby. That is the best pro choice policy. Once you have committed to accepting the male sperm and conception has occurred, You no longer have any right to violate that human's right to life. You have chosen to become a host for the survival of the person that you have conceived on your own free will. No amount of spin can make abortion acceptable or murder at any stage of human life is acceptable. There is no grey area in the debate anymore. The conceived human has every bit the right to life, liberty ,and the pursuit of happiness afforded to any American citizen. God bless you for having children. |
|
I am way out of step with the rest of you. I've prided myself on being an "Independent" since the moment we, as 18 year-olds, could register to vote back when the legal age was lowered. I have voted both Demo. and Rep., though I have to say I hated Reagan (but Carter more), and I voted twice for the third-party candidate.
And yet, despite the fact that the Demowhines have pretty much prevented me from voting for them since 2000 because of their obsessive hatred of Bush, I am NOT happy with McCain-- I shall hold my nose, as others say. But if he were to choose Lieberman, I would vote for him in a heartbeat. I wish to this day we could vote the VP separately.
Anyway, that's my opinion-- and as my late father used to say, "Opinions are like a**holes-- everybody has one; some are just smellier than others." |
|
K.G. writes: Wednesday, August, 20, 2008 10:49 PM
arch and becky
This difference between 1950 and 2008 is very effective birth control. There are very few who "unfortunately" get pregnant--unless you were raped or in a coma.
Even Bill Clinton fought to make abortion legal, safe and rare. Well, one million is not rare. Whatever your feeling on when a human receives Equal Protection, one million abortions a year as a means of birth control for the irresponsible is nasty and immoral.
As a point of fact, abortion in some form will always be legal somewhere in the US for the foreseeable future. It would be interesting though, to see if women's reproductive responsibility would improve if abortions were not quite so available.
There's really no excuse for the current situation.
Arch says"
K.G. Abortion will become illegal in the future as politics change and the science of DNA is understood better by the public. Too bad there is so much of an industry with millions of bucks involved in the abortion industry. Just think of who has the truth on their side and who has implemented deception and misdirection to confuse the public with strawman arguments to keep the public in the dark about the truth of the chain of human life. God these libtards are ghouls and know better. |
|
"No man, however, should determine whether a woman makes the decision to abort a child so long as the abortion is done within the law."
Perhaps we should nominate a pro-life woman. |
|
dmac writes: Wednesday, August, 20, 2008 11:30 PM
Becky
"No man, however, should determine whether a woman makes the decision to abort a child so long as the abortion is done within the law."
Perhaps we should nominate a pro-life woman.
Arch says:
Dmac. You have a point. Becky thinks just because a man says a woman must not kill her innocent baby, that makes it ok to murder the child. No matter who it is that sticks up for the rights of the developing human being, they must be tyrants in Becky's world. She doesn't consider the innocent developing human as a unique individual but the property of the mother or a parasite infecting her life. This is the problem with libtards. They do not respect human life unless it is their own, just like a tyrant! |
|
...in humanity than I do. People are becoming increasingly selfish and crass. Many will see this evil for what is it. There was an interesting lady on Hannity today who said she's always been pro-choice--until she heard of the Downs baby left to die alone.
Hearing the story hit her in head like a board and changed her thinking.
One by one people may change, but in large numbers? I don't think so. Even if abortions dropped from one million to one thousand a year, I believe forces would still maintain the legality of abortion, sadly.
It's individual choice not laws that will bring abortion to a halt. Just my opinion. I don't believe we can put the genie back in the bottle by criminalizing abortion. |
|
K.G. writes: Thursday, August, 21, 2008 12:04
arch: You have more faith...
...in humanity than I do. People are becoming increasingly selfish and crass. Many will see this evil for what is it. There was an interesting lady on Hannity today who said she's always been pro-choice--until she heard of the Downs baby left to die alone.
Hearing the story hit her in head like a board and changed her thinking.
One by one people may change, but in large numbers? I don't think so. Even if abortions dropped from one million to one thousand a year, I believe forces would still maintain the legality of abortion, sadly.
It's individual choice not laws that will bring abortion to a halt. Just my opinion. I don't believe we can put the genie back in the bottle by criminalizing abortion.
Arch says"
K.G. I believe that the right leader can communicate the truth about the abortion issue and make it change. Right now there is no hope of that with the leaders involved. I do have faith that political issues will change toward the truth as the lies and misconceptions are eventually destroyed and replaced by the sound truth as history displays. I only pray that you and I can live to see it happen. |
|
We've made quite a bit of progress on the public opinion side of the debate since Roe v Wade was decided. And I think that has had an impact on the behavior side. It has made an impact on the legislative side also as more restrictions are passed by legislatures (only to get overturned by the courts).
We still need to attack the problem from the "supply side", the Planned Parenthood abortion mills. Criminalizing abortion probably won't happen, certainly not at the federal level. But increased regulatory burden and stiff penalties on providers who violate should help. The documentation required to establish the life of the mother is in significant danger should be quite comprehensive. Parental notifications absolutely required for minors.
Adoption services will likely need to be addressed as well. If we are going to protect the life until it is born, we need to make sure the truly unwanted babies are provided for. |
|
In 2000 I worked like a dog for Prop 22 (DOMA) in CA. 61% were against gay marriage. Now, 8 years later, for insurance, we got signatures for Prop 8, a CA constitutional amendment maintaining traditional marriage.
In the meantime, the CA Supreme Court, mostly Pubs, decreed gay marriage legal by judicial fiat. We are fighting tooth and toe nail to get the proposition passed--even tho public opinion is now 50-50.
We may pull it off; but even if we do, it's just a matter of time that it will be overturned. We will fight the good fight, but it's a quixotic one, I'm afraid.
People will respond to sound truth when the Right Leader returns. Until then, ... we'll see, my friend. |
|
Yes, the improvement is very encouraging. And I agree with the remedies you mention. I believe this latest Born Alive publicity goes a long way to hit people in the head with reality and pull at their heartstrings.
With effective birth control and people crying themselves to sleep praying for a baby to adopt, there is no excuse for the number of abortions. Society needs to do what we've done with smoking in CA: Demonize it out of existence.
Carrying a baby to term and giving it up for adoption may be inconvenient, even difficult, but should be encouraged at every level.
Keep up the good work.
|
|
"The numbers 1, 2, and 3 issues in the Pew poll:
Pubs - terrorism, economy, moral values"
"Moral Values" = Abortion.
Also, I'd get behind Lieberman before I'd get behnid Romney. At least Lieberman is an honest man about his convictions. |
|
the latest ultrasound technology, elevates the abortion debate and its inpact in the turn-out voters, willing to support passionately their cause.
Again, do not undermine the pro-life passionate belief in baby's human rights.
Obama has extreme pro-choice record, and is a co-sponsor of the Freedom of Choice Act, which codifies abortion as a legal right at any stage of pregnancy and requires taxpayer funding. And, as a State Senator, in Illinois, he opposed legislation to clarify that infant survivors of abortion have the same legal rights as other infants. |
|
|
When McCain says Obama's positions are putting political ambition ahead of his country, that's called impugning your rival's patriotism. |
|
A couple of things on the necessity of pro-life stance v. poll position of the abortion issue:
1) the abortion issue per se may also be understood as part of the judges issue or moral values/beliefs and may not make it as high as a discrete category
2) While it may not be listed as the top priority voters want candidates to work on, it may be a prerequisite for many people.
3) if moral values ranks third among Repubs, then there is a large enough chunk of voters that rank abortion and the other social issues very high. It may not be as high a priority for the general population, but the Repub candidate must have those votes from his base to win.
4) we want to paint Obama as he is, a radical. One of the best ways to demonstrate that is highlight his support of partial birth abortion, which has broad public condemnation, and his opposition to born alive legislation. If we have a pro-choice candidate on the ticket, it would reduce the impact.
The way I look at it, the opportunities for the POTUS to directly affect the abortion issue are very few and come around infrequently. Hence, the abortion issue is not one that would rank high on my list of overall priorities for the president. But, when those opportunities do come around, they need fire in the belly to push forward. And when they present themselves, the abortion issue is highest priority. Therefore, I want a president that is competent on security and the economy, but being pro-life is a prerequisite. If he is not, he is a non-starter. And if McCain selects a pro-choice candidate, it means he really isn't serious about abortion or the SCOTUS. |
|
Looks like the majority of female speakers at the GOP convention are PRO-CHOICE and if you take out flip-floppers on the issue like Romney, Martinez and Crist it's almost even on the male side.
Who wants to bet the pro choice women won't mention reproductive rights in their speeches if they value their careers?
Why all the pro choice speakers if it's a non-negotiable plank of the platform? It couldn't be pandering for votes using the lives of unborn children could it? |
|
|
...is McCain's best choice for VP. If Petraeus is willing to take it. Good for the USA as well. |
|
Most; the majority, GOP women, ARE pro-life, Pro-family, Pro Human Rights for Babies, from the moment of conception, till birth and beyond.
This election will be Human Rights Issue for the Babies, which is by Obama's statement, above his 'PAY GRADE'. As a Community Organizer in Chicago, there will be more other issues above his Pay Grade, for spending less than 145 days in the U.S. Capital. |
|
Hewitt talking about Conservative ideals?
The guy's a major cheerleader for the neocon takeover of the Republican Party foreign policy apparatus -- something Reagan would not have tolerated.
There is also a person Reagan would never have put on his ticket to run with him as Vice President -- John McCain. |
|
Exactly why is it OK for Reagan to have changed his mind on Abortion, but not Romney? Hummmm? Romney has governed very conservativly, and has NEVER made law that was contrary to abortion.
Not sure who you had in mind for the veep slot, but Romney is the best, and hopefully he's got the nod. |
|
|
|