Posted on 11/26/2008 6:54:02 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
Baloney. Palin has taken the John McCain, Ron Paul, Fred Thompson, Gerald R. Ford position on abortion, not the Reagan position which is STILL expressed in the Republican platform, which recognizes the personhood of the unborn and their protection by the Fourteenth Amendment. She, unfortunately, thinks that states' rights trump the unalienable right to life. This is not a pro-life stance. It's pro-choice.
She's also a judicial supremacist.
These two core misunderstandings about what ails our nation are fundamental disqualifiers.
McCain/Palin got 88% of the evangelical Christian vote according to exit polls and the turnout among the group was very large, thanks in large part to the wink & a nod from James Dobson despite Dobson's public misgivings about McCain. He was excited about Palin and had her on his radio program.
It's incomprehensible to me that Palin at the top of the ticket would do worse among this group than with her in the VP slot. Makes no sense at all.
But you are playing a little 3 card monte on us when you slip between Practical Political Calculation(PPC) and Principled Conservative Philosophy (PCP)in arguing your points. There is absolutely no contradiction in a PCP when you advocate as a PPC that the Life issue should be first and foremost a State Issue. It makes sense on a number of levels, not the least of which is that more lives will be saved by returning to the states the power to regulate or eliminate abortion. The whole Art of Politics is to achieve what can be achieved by constitutional and lawful means. IE: "The Art of the possible".
SP is on the money when she advocates first turning the issue back to the states where it was before the abomination of Roe.And it is precisely because that approach will, in the short term, mean more restrictions and possible elimination of abortion by many states.
And lets not forget, friend, that your hero and mine signed a very liberal abortion law while governor of CA. Political Morality consists of doing the best you can with the tools at hand. That was always the Reagan way and it is I believe the Palin way.
On the fiscal conservative front even our hero presided over the largest growth of debt by the Feds up to that time because of a higher goal of defeating the USSR. Again, to isolate specific programs by RR or SP misses the point of blending the PPC and PCP to govern SUCCESSFULLY. It is after all the ultimate goal of a political leader. And one reason GWB will be seen as a failure.
Lastly, defense. That,IMO, has more to do with qualities of character and fundamental world view. Do you believe America is an exceptional nation ? Do you believe that Right is worth fighting for? Do you believe in Just War? Do you believe the first duty of Government is to protect and defend the lives and well being of the American people?
These are the questions we should be asking of anyone seeking to be POTUS. And I believe Sarah Palin answer yes to all of them. That's good enough for me.
Your defense of state's rights in this issue is spot on. The life amendment is dead in its tracks. Our one great hope is overturning Roe and sending it back to the states. Every pro-lifer understands this. This is why the battlefield of this issue is set every time we have a new SCOTUS appointment.
I've answered their false accusations of a "windfall profit" tax over and over and over again. They don't seem to want to read my posts. Perhaps they will listen to good old Beldar who laid out the case for why a severance tax is totally different from a windfall profits tax. I have also answered questions about her fiscal policies, but they do not want to understand that spending is in the hands of the legislature. A governor can only veto spending, and Sarah Palin has done so dramatically.
By this person's standards Ronald Reagan wasn't a fiscal conservative because government grew in the 80s as did our deficit. And government grew in California too during his governorship. How could he have been a conservative then? In fact, as you mentioned, Reagan signed into law abortion legislation in California and he gave a borderline liberal SCOTUS judges like O'Connor and Kennedy. So was Reagan pure enough for these puritans? (Though I should say, for the record, that Reagan was of course a true conservative.)
Again, I applaud your efforts to address them directly. I can't because I have too much contempt for their smear of her pro-life record. I would end up cursing them out, and that's not productive. Let cooler heads like yours prevail.
Nam Vet
You are too hard on her. She just sees certain things differently.
Conservative turnout was pitiful, and Evangelical turnout abysmal. He got 88% of what turned out. You are wholly incorrect if you think the Pro-Life movement is gonna back up for anyone. Since it IS the Christian Right, if you care to push that issue to the side, you will be sorely disappointed.
I appreciate your defense, I really do, but now it is you who is arguing philosophy when you should be looking at voting blocks. You are asking the Christian Right to back up on their single most un-assailable most defended high ground. This is an ingrained principle of such immeasurable value to them that it is worth more than any other thing- And you are asking them to compromise it. That is *not* Conservative, FRiend. Find another way, or you WILL lose.
You may capture a certain percentage, but you will not have the Christian Right coming out in FORCE, and you will not have the Pro-Life grassroots- An huge and necessary, dedicated group of foot-soldiers whose committed, nation-wide support is critical for the Republicans and is irreplaceable. They will *not* follow. I know, because I am a part of that network, and the rumblings are already there. It is a non-starter.
As to your argument:
SP is on the money when she advocates first turning the issue back to the states where it was before the abomination of Roe.
She is absolutely and unequivocally *stone_dead_wrong* in her position.
Life is one of the enumerated rights that the Declaration of Independence specifically says is endowed upon each of us by our Creator... Rights which NO MAN can take away from us. That is the very basis of what our Constitutional protections are for. That is the very essence of limited and restricted government.
The Right to LIFE is not given away to ANY court of MAN, to include the Supreme Court of the United States of America, or the damnable World Court, or any Supreme Court of any state, because that right comes from God, the Father, Almighty. It is GIVEN, and TAKEN, in His Courts ALONE.
What the Constitution gives our governmental bodies is the SOLEMN DUTY TO PROTECT OUR GOD GIVEN RIGHTS, including the Right to Life.
To suggest that the Right to Life is to be determined by the states is to allow the life of some babies to be taken by sanction without due process, while other babies are protected properly. That is insanity. Each and every American is protected against any person taking their life without the due process of Law- Otherwise, the act is called a murder, and is an exceptional evil in the eyes of both the Law and the ethical code.
Clearly, no state has the right to summarily kill YOU, because YOU are protected by the U.S Constitution against such excess, and rightly so- The Constitution is YOUR ultimate protection of YOUR God given rights. How is that any different whatsoever for the life of an unborn child?
THAT is were the Pro-Life folks are, and where Palin ought to be. It is also where the true libertarian MUST be. There is no way that this issue can be resolved among the states.
And lets not forget, friend, that your hero and mine signed a very liberal abortion law while governor of CA. Political Morality consists of doing the best you can with the tools at hand. That was always the Reagan way and it is I believe the Palin way.
You had better research that particular statement further, before continuing to smear the name of Ronald Reagan. Your claim is made in ignorance, I believe, but it is offensive all the same. I will not give you the benefit of education, as you should know better, but you had better go looking, because you are utterly wrong.
On the fiscal conservative front even our hero presided over the largest growth of debt by the Feds up to that time because of a higher goal of defeating the USSR.
Fiscal Conservatives felt it was justifiable (and it was). Our military was generally in mothballs, using WWII equipment. Domestic infrastructure was in shambles, and he brought an era of prosperity that lasted through Clinton, in spite of papa Bush and Clinton.
And he didn't do it by screwing the corporations either, did he?
You waive that off as "inspecting individual programs", but that is the singular hallmark of her success in AK. Why her government prospers is directly attributable to the windfall profits tax. A 28% INCREASE in government in a single year. that means a 28% increase in scope too, you know. That isn't "small" government. That scares the crap outta me.
Lastly, defense. That,IMO, has more to do with qualities of character and fundamental world view. [...] These are the questions we should be asking of anyone seeking to be POTUS. And I believe Sarah Palin answer yes to all of them. That's good enough for me.
It isn't you that I am worried about. It is the DefCons. Remember, the object of the exercise is to explain how she will harness the three pillars of Conservatism. We lose our ability to offer a Conservative candidate for president in the primaries. The only way a candidate will successfully navigate the primaries is to keep all the Conservatives together- AGAIN, it is all about offering up a candidate that appeals to ALL_THREE_PILLARS natively.
As I had asked GG, What if Petraeus runs? What does Palin offer the DefCons that would trump Petraeus? Why would they flock to her instead? How could the rest of us satisfy them that she would be an acceptable alternative so they would join us? The obvious answer, FRiend, is that they wouldn't. She has little to compare with Petraeus in the DefCon world- They respect their own, and his credz are impeccable.
The result, as such, is that neither would win. It is entirely predictable.
ROTFLMAO!!!
I seriously think this man is delusional.
And, finally, try to get your facts straight before you sound off and tell someone they are “utterly wrong” and “smearing” Ronald Reagan.
FROM NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE
On June 14, 1967, Ronald Reagan signed the Therapeutic Abortion Act, after only six months as California governor. From a total of 518 legal abortions in California in 1967, the number of abortions would soar to an annual average of 100,000 in the remaining years of Reagan’s two terms — more abortions than in any U.S. state prior to the advent of Roe v. Wade. Reagan’s signing of the abortion bill was an ironic beginning for a man often seen as the modern father of the pro-life movement.
Great find. Serves me right for the seeds of doubt after reading post #248.
I did not ridicule you in any way. As to my "righteous certitude", you have offered no counter to my statements, choosing instead to do exactly what you accuse me of doing.
There is no logical argument for Life being given to the courts of men. In doing so, one subverts the very foundations of the Constitution itself. There can be no reasonable excuse for that.
There is also no viable argument in that line of thought which will sway the Christian Right, which was my main point. I am but one of MILLIONS who believe as I do (the Lion's share of the Christian Right), and will *not* be moved. What I gave you is the Pro-Life position.
I am happy to address your arguments point by point, but I cannot do so if you do not make any, and simply resort to offensive baiting.
And, finally, try to get your facts straight before you sound off and tell someone they are “utterly wrong” and “smearing” Ronald Reagan.
You would do better to actually read the act, and what it allowed, rather than continue to denigrate RR, as so many now are wont to do, to try to tear him down. I will start you on your way with this little bit:
RedState.com: Ronald Reagan was never pro-choice, never "flip-flopped" by Mark Kilmer
And particularly this quote from the comments thereon from RR himself regarding the issue:
Now, with regard to the permissive bill I supposedly signed, let me give you the correct history of what took place early in my term as governor. A bill was introduced that was permissive, indeed was abortion on demand. Naturally, there was great controversy about this bill. The author finally sent word that he would amend his bill to anything the governor would sign. Faced with this responsibility, I probably did more study and more soul searching on the subject that I had done on anything in my eight years as governor. I came to the conclusion, as I have already stated, that it could only be justified to save a human life. The matter of health—meaning the permanent damage to the health of the mother if she went through with her pregnancy—was brought up. It seemed to me that the mother would have the right to protect herself from permanent damage just as she would be able to protect herself, even if it meant taking a life, from someone threatening her with mayhem, so I agreed to that provision. I thought there was adequate provision in the bill requiring responsible boards in the medical profession to declare such permanent harm would follow the birth of the child. Perhaps it was my inexperience in government, but, like so many pieces of legislation, there were loopholes that I had not seen, and the thing that made the California abortion bill become somewhat permissive in nature was violation of the spirit of the legislation by the groups that were supposed to police it. This was particularly true in the case of psychiatrists. If faced with the same problem today, I can assure you I would make sure there were no loopholes in the bill....
But do not believe me, and do not believe Kilmer... Don't even take Reagan at his word. Go find the Act and read it for yourself. I did. Then come back here and see if you care to call me a liar again.
Ping to #253 for more doubt
Kudos ... simply kudos. Liberals don’t get it.
Nobody called you a liar. Get over yourself...and don’t ping me again.
Thank you for confirming my statement above as true. Are you so stubborn or dense as not to see that what I said was TRUE..AND YOUR OWN POST PROVES IT !!.........for whatever political reasons, and no matter what his latter regrets, RR signed a liberal abortion bill in California. Do you not understand what you read.
And that quote from RR you used also confirmed GipperGal’s statement that Palin is more consistently pro-life than all of the so-called pro-lifers who make an exception for rape and incest. As she said, the crimes of the father should have no bearing on the life of the baby. And your constant talking about life being protected by the constitution is just plain stupid in light of the 1973 Roe decision. Do you not understand that baby's are being killed legally in this country and a constitutional amendment, no matter how emotionally satisfying it may be to you IS A DEAD END. And we have to find a better way to stop the killing. And don't you lecture me about the pro-life people and their views. I am outside an abortion clinic every Saturday morning praying for the innocents. And you, Sir , are a fool if you think we will not support SP on this issue.
Furthermore, I think you owe GipperGal an apology for totally misrepresenting what she said.....both on the life issue and the tax issue in Alaska. You just talked over her arguments and facts the same way you did my comment about RR........
All right wise guy. I was feeling a bit bad for getting short with you, and was actually composing a conciliatory post when this one came in, but now the gloves are off. SHOW ME the "very liberal parts" of the act. Put your money where your loud mouth is.
Ronald Reagan signed the CA Therapeutic Abortion Act of '67. That much my post admits. I never said he didn't sign the act. My fight with you is that it was not a "very liberal abortion law". The article I posted plainly shows the truth that the spirit of the law was not followed, and having read the law, I know that to be true. I have played this game with libs and moderates for years. It is a tired old accusation. Go read the law and show me it's very liberal language.
Quite as the article said:
It was "sold" as a compassionate law that would be used to deal with the "hard cases." This statute allowed the termination of pregnancy by a physician, in an accredited hospital, when there was a specific finding that there was a substantial risk that its continuation would "gravely impair the physical or mental health of the mother," or when the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest. However, the law did provide that no termination of pregnancy could be approved after the 20th week of pregnancy.
(emphasis mine.)
The article further explains, by way of quoting the ACLU for the next bit of history:
A progressive measure 35 years ago, the Therapeutic Abortion Act now is archaic, confusing, and unconstitutional. A lawyer researching the Health and Safety Code today would read that abortion is legal only if a hospital committee determines that the pregnancy will gravely impair a woman’s physical or mental health or a District Attorney concludes that the pregnancy probably resulted from rape or incest.
(emphasis mine.)
So what Reagan signed was a law allowing abortion in the case of direct and specific threat to the health of the mother, as determined by a committee of health professionals, or in the case of rape or incest as determined by a district attorney's office... and only in the first twenty weeks of pregnancy.
THAT is your definition of a VERY LIBERAL ABORTION LAW.
Hospitals (and primarily psychiatrists) set up rubber stamp committees- "Mental health" is the loophole Reagan refers to.
Now. Do I agree with the law? No, I do not. I do not agree with abortion in the case of rape and incest, though I would grant that health of the mother (when truly at risk) is a decision best left in the hands of the family.
But the spirit of this law was *not* liberal by any means. In fact, historically, it was quite a bit more conservative than most of the abortion laws that came before it.
It attempts, as is plainly clear, to allow doctors the room they need in life and death matters, with the concurrence of a supposedly honorable determinative body. And in rape or incest, the woman (the victim of the crime) must apply for the abortion- The District Attorney is the determinative body. These restrictions are plainly in place to prevent wholesale abortion, and to assure the legitimacy of the claim.
As the article goes on to say, it was not until '72, when the CA SC overturned all the protections in the act that it became a "very liberal abortion law", and became abortion on demand.
So what your assertion actually proves is that you neither read the article or the law, and simply chose to try and pummel me.
And that quote from RR you used also confirmed GipperGal’s statement that Palin is more consistently pro-life than all of the so-called pro-lifers who make an exception for rape and incest.
Except that she hangs up all those great pro-life values when she walks through the door to her office, as she, herself stated, as quoted upthread.
And your constant talking about life being protected by the constitution is just plain stupid in light of the 1973 Roe decision. Do you not understand that baby's are being killed legally in this country and a constitutional amendment, no matter how emotionally satisfying it may be to you IS A DEAD END.
I am not particularly interested in a Constitutional amendment, although I would support it if offered, if only for the clarification. The Right to Life is inherent, and requires no amendment. What is wrongly decided in Roe is that anyone, including the august justices of the SCOTUS have the right to take Life without due process of law. That is the only correct position Constitutionally, and nothing else will do.
And if you care to talk about dead ends, with ()bama in office and a Democrat Senate, three justices will retire before the next election, and Roe will be safely ensconced for another 25 years. Add that to the 30 years of promises already endured because of a feckless Republican party, and you begin to see what a dead end a challenge in the SCOTUS truly is. We tried it your way for better than 20 years. We will not go back. It is not profitable, nor is it a "new" way... IT was the dead end.
And don't you lecture me about the pro-life people and their views. I am outside an abortion clinic every Saturday morning praying for the innocents. And you, Sir , are a fool if you think we will not support SP on this issue.
Good for you, but I heard the same from the Pro-Life folks who supported MccAin't, all the while, every Evangelical Protestant source I know, and every Pro-Life source I know, was basically stone dead in the water.
I will guarantee you, just as I guaranteed them, It is a non-starter. If you care to argue the finer points, we can, but what matters is that the main-stream Pro-Life position is set upon a Constitutional protection, and they will not back down. Twenty years of no-show pandering has made them quite insistent.
Furthermore, I think you owe GipperGal an apology for totally misrepresenting what she said.....both on the life issue and the tax issue in Alaska. You just talked over her arguments and facts the same way you did my comment about RR.....
I owe GG nothing. she stands on the sidelines and throws poo at me, without the decency to reply to posts she obviously cannot defend, and without the courtesy of a ping when she is insulting me. I misrepresented nothing at all.
I demand to know how a 28% increase in one year is fiscally conservative, That has not been answered even yet. I asked how it is that Wasilla is paying more in taxes after Pain than before- that is not answered yet. The same goes for the windfall profits tax... What I got in a nutshell was, "Oh yeah, well Reagan..." and a bunch of gloss and excuses. FiCons aren't gonna buy it any more than I am. These are decidedly not Conservative things.
As to your comment regarding RR, as I said here, read the damn law. I did not come here to argue with you, but if that is what you want, then lets go.
YOU: "You had better research that particular statement further, before continuing to smear the name of Ronald Reagan. Your claim is made in ignorance, I believe, but it is offensive all the same. I will not give you the benefit of education, as you should know better, but you had better go looking, because you are utterly wrong".
YOU: "Ronald Reagan signed the CA Therapeutic Abortion Act of '67. That much my post admits. I never said he didn't sign the act".
FACT:
FROM NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE :On June 14, 1967, Ronald Reagan signed the Therapeutic Abortion Act, after only six months as California governor. From a total of 518 legal abortions in California in 1967, the number of abortions would soar to an annual average of 100,000 in the remaining years of Reagan’s two terms — more abortions than in any U.S. state prior to the advent of Roe v. Wade. Reagan’s signing of the abortion bill was an ironic beginning for a man often seen as the modern father of the pro-life movement".
Why don't you just stop digging and climb out of the hole you find yourself in? Your original attack against me was that he didn't sign any abortion bill...no way,Jose....."Utterly wrong"is the way you phrased it. And only latter did you focus on the word "very". Which of course was irrelevant to my point.
Because my original point was that all politicians make compromises to advance their agenda. Even Ronald Reagan. And I think any reasonable person reading our posts would understand what I was trying to say.
You were wrong. No shame in that. But your constant refusal to give any ground to truth and facts makes it impossible to continue our discussion. Your heart is in the right place but your brain is frozen in fearful certitude that seems to be afraid to concede anything lest your whole edifice collapses. That's not mentally healthy.
So lets end this little engagement. Nothing fruitful can come from it.
Anyone who so willingly distorts this truth which I have said to you, and anyone who continues to boldly spread scurrilous lies, outright lies, about Ronald Reagan, after correction particularly, and re-correction precisely, IS smearing his good name.
What Reagan signed was an act to allow abortion in only the worst of cases, with discipline and review. I have demonstrated that to you over, and again.
I challenged you to show me the liberal language in the law, which you cannot do, yet here you are, tooting your horn. I explained the workings of the law, and still you bleat your mindless pap.
It is clear that you want desperately to make the point that Reagan compromised his principles, when in FACT, he did nothing of the kind.
Reagan has ever been a defender of Life, and *never* wavered once. And you, sir, for this slur against him, are a lying sack of crap.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.