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.
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.