Skip to comments.To the Wavering Voter: Mitt Romney won't make war on women, the Middle East or the middle class
Posted on 10/15/2012 4:48:27 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Dear Wavering Voter:
No, abortion rights and access to contraception will not be jeopardized if Mitt Romney becomes president. Not remotely, not vaguely, not even close. No woman in America, including Sandra Fluke, will have war made upon her by a President Romney.
Maybe you think the job of a president is to be our DJ-in-Chief and set the mood music for the country. In that case, the slow-jam Obama administration has everything to recommend it, while a Romney presidency may get on your nerves like a hokey country song. But it won't get in your way.
How am I so sure? It's not a question of Mr. Romney's sincerity on social issues. It's the fact that since Roe v. Wade became the law of the land almost 40 years ago, Republican presidents have named seven justices to the Supreme Court, while Democratic presidents have named only four. Guess what? Roe v. Wade is and will remain the law of the land.
No, we will not have another war in the Middle East. Not even if President Romney orders Iran's nuclear sites bombed to smithereens.
Remember "Operation Desert Fox"? Probably not. That was a four-day, full-on bombing campaign against Iraq ordered by Bill Clinton in December 1998, on the eve of his impeachment. The ostensible purpose of the campaign was to degrade Saddam's WMD capabilities, which then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright called "the threat of the 21st century."
It must have worked beyond anyone's wildest dreams. Air strikes may be acts of war, but not the kind of war President Obama is warning will be our lot if Republicans are elected. Incidentally, Mr. Obama also says "all options are on the table" when it comes to Iran. If he isn't serious...
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
The WSJ news section (i.e., the “reporters”) is left-leaning; the editorial page is relatively conservative. That’s why I pay very little attention to the WSJ political “news.”
This article, however, is from the editorial page.
The editorial page’s conservatism certainly doesn’t extend to immigration. On that, they’re not just liberal, but self-righteously and smugly liberal.
But anyway, that the GOP has been bad at picking good Supreme Court justices, while the Democrats are perfect at picking horrible justices is certainly true. But the fact remains that Roe could be overturned if Romney were to get the chance to replace Ginsburg (yeah, I know that assumes Roberts wouldn’t pull an obamacare), and the GOP takes the Senate allowing Romney to appoint a conservative (assuming Romney would keep his word and do so). Romney might also get to replace Kennedy, and Roe is one of the issues where he goes left.
So it could very well happen. The GOP should try playing up the federalism angle more. Many believe a conservative Sup Court would issue a ruling banning abortion, or that overturning Roe would itself ban abortion. The truth of course is that it would simply return the matter to the states where it belongs.
Who knows, that might be effective. Tell the people of [insert battleground state here] that you trust them to set their own abortion policy, free of interference from the values of other states that may be very different.
Whew, it’s certainly a relief to know that babies will still be murdered in the womb if Romney is elected. For a while there, I thought something might change.
I think what he’s saying is that a “President Romney” can’t change that on his first day, he can only appoint justices who might change it, like any other president.
If Mitt is questioned about the alleged “GOP war on women”, I hope he’s aware of the fact that...
“Female employees in the Obama White House make considerably less than their male colleagues, records show.
According to the 2011 annual report on White House staff, female employees earned a median annual salary of $60,000, which was about 18 percent less than the median salary for male employees ($71,000).
The Obama campaign on Wednesday lashed out at presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney for his failure to immediately endorse the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, a controversial law enacted in 2009 that made it easier to file discrimination lawsuits ”
True, but so far, Republicans have done a lot of talking about abortion but haven’t taken many actions to further the pro-life cause. We shall see.
Yeah, the WSJ’s editorial page is pro-illegal immigration. It is one of the main reasons I see the WSJ ed page as “iffy.”