« One criticism of Obama's speech and race |
Main
| Alaska, do we have a problem? »
McCain's abortion kabuki
29 Aug 2008 01:28 pm
Here's another thing McCain just lost--any veneer of being a
"moderate" on abortion. Did we mention that Palin is not simply
pro-life, but pro-life in all cases except the life/death of the
mother. In other words, in cases of rape and incest, Palin believes the
government should force women to go through with the pregnancy. I think it will be very clear where these guys stand from here on out. And I think it's more of us than there are of them.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
She's also pro teaching creationism! What a troglodyte! Not even mincing words and saying "intelligent design."
Apologies for the broken link... got excited.
Here is the fixed link.
And here is more on that topic
And she's anti-polar bear!
Deleted. Ugly ad-hominem. Stop please.
Fred:
Quick reality check:
The only thing standing between Roe v. Wade being overturned is the next president's likely three supreme court justice picks.
Deleted. Stop please.
There definitely are more of you, but
(a) most people realize that no Republican President will ever put the votes on the Court needed to overturn Roe - they'll say they'll do it to keep the base, but won't because it would be political suicide (and this isn't conjecture - Reagan and Bush's father both could've done it and chose not to)
(b) yeah, Palin's really pro-life, but she's also a woman who knowingly gave birth to a kid with Down's. A strong pro-life stance is much easier to take from a woman who's actually made a tough choice like that.
This anti-choice thing is only the tip of the ice berg with Palin. She's an ex-Pat Buchanan crusader who's a global warming, pro-creationism is schools, anti-stem cell, anti endangered species act right wing hack.
She's subscribes to the the worst of the worst tripe of the radical right.
Although Andrew seems to think she's pro pot...
t-nc is putting on his serious pundit garb today.
great point!!!
in fact, that one fact alone may do more than anything else to sink mccain with women.
til now, he has been able to successfully and amazingly muddy the waters about his abortion stance. i saw a poll that indicated somewhere near 50% of women thought he was pro-choice, even though he has a solid pro-life voting record.
having palin on the ticket will totally obliterate any attempt by him to continue to allow voters to have that mistaken impression.
it also emphasizes how desperate the mccain campaign actually has become.
(a) most people realize that no Republican President will ever put the votes on the Court needed to overturn Roe - they'll say they'll do it to keep the base, but won't because it would be political suicide (and this isn't conjecture - Reagan and Bush's father both could've done it and chose not to)
Huh? Reagan appointed Scalia. Bush 41 appointed Thomas. As far as I know there are aggressively anti-Roe. When Reagan was making appointments, there weren't that many new-style conservatives in the Federal Judiciary. That's why they crossed their fingers with O'Connor (and she turned about to be a little more respectful of stare decisis than they had hoped), and Kennedy was a compromise after the Bork (was is very anti-Roe) and Ginsberg (anti-Roe as well) debacles.
Souter was a political favor to the Sununu family. Souter was a "mistake" that no Republican president will ever make again.
Today, there are many, many, many more pro-life federal judges from which to chose.
I wonder if Joe Lieberman had to be dragged screaming from the building.... Man, you betray your party, cozy up to an incompetent old weasel, and in return, he dumps you for yet another younger woman. Gotta sting, gotta burn. Still, it is kinda satisfying to see *s.
"t-nc is putting on his serious pundit garb today."
I know. I need to chill. I'm going where I said I'd never go. But it's so bright and shiny over there...
I've seen other people say this before and don't understand it. Why should the fact that she made a tough choice change anything about what we think of other women's choices? Why should we be any more comfortable with Palin wanting to deny women freedom than if it's someone like Sam Brownback?
you wear that garb well.
great stuff!
Ta-Nehisi,
Palin is also, apparently, a creationist. This will be very interesting, I think. Bush obviously diminished the importance of science as an objective voice in politics, but nevertheless I don't think he--or Cheney--ever came out as a denier of evolution. Really interesting to see how this will play out on the national stage. Huckabee had a nice way of framing his creationism (paraphrasing: he didn't debate how long ago the earth had been created, but rejected the idea of evolution as a random struggle for control). Nevertheless, it still made a lot of people pretty uneasy. There's plenty of issues where the majority of Americans are culturally conservative, but I think--I hope!--that creationism is not exactly a mainstream belief (even if it is held by a significant percentage of the population).
You folks underestimate the integrity of Chief Justice Robers and Justice Alito. They may think Roe v. Wade was a flawed decision (and even pro-choicers have to acknowledge that the Constitutional basis behind it was specious), but they are also judicial conservatives, which means they believe in stare decisis, and respect the precedent of Roe.
Deleted.
Umm, Fred, I think you missed the Roberts court recent dismantling of precedent. That stare decisis stuff was confirmation talk. The Roberts court doesn't always mention that they are doing it (see partial birth abortion), but they are.
At the risk of hijacking the thread (and I don't really mean to) - I can actually respect this position more than the opposite. I mean, once you get to the point where you think that "abortion is murder," why should rape or incest matter? Nobody would ever kill a baby because they happened to be a child of rape or incest.
I've always thought that the converse - exceptions for rape and incest - were basically a naked pander by people that were afraid to take a real hit for their beliefs. She may be wrong, but at least she's consistent.
When Reagan was making appointments, there weren't that many new-style conservatives in the Federal Judiciary. That's why they crossed their fingers with O'Connor (and she turned about to be a little more respectful of stare decisis than they had hoped), and Kennedy was a compromise after the Bork (was is very anti-Roe) and Ginsberg (anti-Roe as well) debacles.
So you're telling me that they went with O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter because there just weren't enough pro-life judges to choose from. I mean, they picked Thomas and he was hardly qualified at all. I'm sure they could've found a pro-lifer if they were so disposed. Also, McCain has a somewhat mixed record in this area and certainly isn't the ideologue Reagan was. I don't think he'd ever do anything politically that risky - and I also don't think that Roberts would actually vote to overturn Roe. Like Kennedy, he's very wrapped up in concerns over public perception of the Court.
I see the possibility to turn the elitist meme on its head here. Palin, after finding out that her unborn child had Down's Syndrome, decided to go through with the pregnancy. This looks like intellectual consistency at first. Palin, however, is a woman of wealth and power, who will never have to worry about health insurance or support for her child. So, by saying that abortion should be banned across the board, she's operating from a position of elitism, wherein the consequences of having a disabled child don't affect her nearly as much as they might affect a poor, uninsured, single woman. Thus, this can be spun as the intellectual equivalent of the out of touch elitist liberal.
So you're pro-abortion if it's restricted to Black folks, eh Fred? Idiot. It's almost funny though, the way you just put that out there. What are your reasons for feeling that way, Kooky McNutjob? Tell me so I can laugh some more...
Re: Thus, this can be spun as the intellectual equivalent of the out of touch elitist liberal.
Warning warning! Don't go there!
Dragging the woman's disabled child into a political catfight as a means to criticize her will create sympathy for her in everyone to the right of Andrea Dworkin. Simply say "Sarah Palin made her choice, why does she want to deny other women theirs?"
RE: JonF
I'm not saying that the Dems should bring the disabled kid into the fight. My point was more the thing you're saying ("Sarah Palin made her choice, etc.), but I think that Palin will be bringing up her choice early and often, and it gives an opportunity for Dems to paint the ticket as out of touch and elitist (which it is). Palin's going to bring the kid into it, all the Dems have to do is draw the contrast. I'd be disgusted if the Dems brought up the kid.