In response to:

What's Good for the Noose is Good for the Pander

bigdawgworking Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 7:03 AM
You cannot win the war without winning the battles. A strategic retreat on rape mean LESS ABORTION. But, as proved by Akin and Mourdock, being "prinicpled", as you call it, means MORE ABORTION. So, why is more abortion better? Why is an all or nothing approach good? Considering that 2 Senate seats went to pro-abortion candidates -- seats that could have helped REDUCE abortion -- seems a high price to pay for a very small number of abortions. Or, as they said in the old days, you are stooping over to pick up pennies while dollars fall out of your pockets.
rwright Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 2:36 PM
The majority of the electorate is either pro-life or pro-choice. The elected senators are not pro-abortion, they are pro-choice.
Rich L. Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 5:44 PM
Baloney! They are pro murder of innocent babies.

Recently, Ann Coulter wrote a controversial column suggesting that numerous Republican losses in the 2012 election cycle could be tied to the GOP stance on abortion. After lamenting the problem, she suggested a solution: the GOP should officially abandon its opposition to the so-called rape exception to a ban on abortion.

Ann's position on this matter is wrong for three reasons. First, it is unprincipled. Second, it will not be received with the popular support she envisions. Third, it is not the best political response to the problem. After elaborating on each problem associated with Ann's position, I propose an...