George Allen's Race Problem - Pin Prick

The New Republic ^ | 4/28/06

[Corin Stormhands]

Don't be taken in by the hype and the deception about the Senator.

'course not, most of the hype (among other smelly things) is coming from YOU.

[FreeReign]

Thus, I don't think that he's "functionally pro-abortion" right now. I've talked to a lot of pro-lifers, and most seem to agree that a presidential nominee who agrees that Roe must go, all things be equal, is acceptable, even if not perfectly pro-life. Sen. Allen has indicated that he believes abortion laws should be more restrictive than they are at this time, but more importantly, that states should have the ability to determine their own laws on abortion. This is in direct contradiction to the central holding of Roe and Doe.

Yes, life is best protected by state laws.

[Torie]

f he's the nominee, God forbid, the Republican coalition WILL fracture.

Is it fair to say, that every reasonably possible GOP nominee in the hunt, would cause the above in your view? Is there anybody with a realistic chance of the nomination, that would not cause the above in your view? Should we all re-register as Dems, and try to nominate ... ?

Just curious.

[EternalVigilance]

Crude. You're better than that, I'm sure.

[EternalVigilance]

I'd love a much more pro-life nominee, EternalVigilance, but I don't see any realistic prospects on the horizon for such an individual in 2008.

Then you'll get what you deserve.

The score is 0-0.

Sad to see folks like you cede the game as it is just getting under way.

[EternalVigilance]

'course not, most of the hype (among other smelly things) is coming from YOU.

All I want is a nominee that will defend innocent human life and our borders.

George Allen has made it clear, if you really listen to him, that he will do neither.

[Josh Painter]

"His abortion position, up until 'viability', makes him functionally pro-abortion."

Actions speak louder than words:

2005 Senator Allen supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 0 percent in 2005.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 0 percent in 2004.

2003-2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the National Right to Life Committee 100 percent in 2003-2004.

2003 Senator Allen supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 0 percent in 2003.

2001-2002 Senator Allen supported the interests of the National Right to Life Committee 100 percent in 2001-2002.

2001 Senator Allen supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 0 percent in 2001.

1996-2003 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Planned Parenthood (Senate) 0 percent in 1996-2003.

1995-2004 On the votes that the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Assocation considered to be the most important in 1995-2004, Senator Allen voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=CNIP9093

-----

Best & Brightest

ACU is pleased to recognize those members of the U.S. Senate who recorded a perfect score of 100% in 2005:

George Allen (R-VA)

http://www.conservative.org/archive2/senate.asp

[sitetest]

Dear EternalVigilance,

"Then you'll get what you deserve."

LOL! I won't get anything that I deserve! A sinner, I deserve far worse than I get.

Sadly, who will get much worse than they deserve are the innocent unborn.

"Sad to see folks like you cede the game as it is just getting under way."

Well, as you say, the game is just getting under way. If someone better than Sen. Allen decides to run, I'll support him. However, if Sen. Allen is the best the pro-life movement can get, well, I don't see how that's my fault.

Is someone currently looking at running whom you believe would be the superior pro-life candidate?

I believe that it is possible that Sen. Allen will commit to appoint anti-Roe nominees (although I assume that he will use the usual code to say it).

If he does, he seems to me to be a man of his word, and I will then support him if he is the nominee.

If he doesn't, then all bets are off.


sitetest

[EternalVigilance]

Is it fair to say, that every reasonably possible GOP nominee in the hunt, would cause the above in your view? Is there anybody with a realistic chance of the nomination, that would not cause the above in your view? Should we all re-register as Dems, and try to nominate ... ? Just curious.

Pro-lifers drew a line that they would not cross over 20 years ago: The platform stays pro-life, as do our nominees for POTUS and VP.

George W. Bush's 'rape and incest' exceptions were and are abhorrent to me, but I compromised to support him.

But I will not go further. And Allen is ALOT further.

I will not vote for him, if he is the nominee.

Nor Giuliani, nor McCain, nor Rice, nor Romney...

[Torie]

I don't see any names in your post. Come on EV, just let it all hang out. That is what I do all the time. I answer the questions of posters, directly, and without equivocation, usually.

[Torie]

I should add names of those you would support, in the hunt, as opposed to those you would not support.

[EternalVigilance]

Is someone currently looking at running whom you believe would be the superior pro-life candidate?

There are many thousands of qualified men or women who can meet the first criteria for major public office: The devotion to duty and their sworn oath to protect the God-given, unalienable right to life of the American people, most importantly the most weak and helpless among us.

No need to settle for those who don't understand this most basic and important of principles.

[EternalVigilance]

That is what I do all the time. I answer the questions of posters, directly, and without equivocation, usually.

Too funny! :-)

[sitetest]

Dear EternalVigilance,

"There are many thousands of qualified men or women..."

Wonderful!!

Which ones are currently running?

Thanks,


sitetest

[EternalVigilance]

Nah. You know who my enemies are, and what they will do with statements like that.

You'll just have to be satisfied with who I won't support, for now.

[Torie]

To claim a 100% is a risky scheme. But I suspect my percentage is pretty asymptotically close to that. "All the time" was a turn of phrase.

[EternalVigilance]

Nobody is 'currently running', officially, yet.

[Torie]

OK. That is direct. You refuse to answer the question, with a no comment. Since I know I have no influence, on anything, that issue does not bother me. I don't worry about my "enemies." My irrelevant enemies, can bash the irrelevant moi, to their heart's content.

[sitetest]

Dear EternalVigilance,

"Nobody is 'currently running', officially, yet."

Well, it isn't my preference to vote for nobody.

Get back to me when you want me to consider some actual person.

Until then, Sen. Allen looks to me to be about the best of this motley litter.


sitetest

[kabar]

Yep....this the whole "cowboy Allen" thing is pretty dorky

You mean like Ronald Reagan's cowboy image.