Tonight's Detroit TV News: Granholm Protesters on CBS & UPN tonight at 10pm & 11pm

62 CBS News ^ | 9/15/2002 | announcement

[Notwithstanding]

Granholm campaing is being distracted and forced off message by por-life demonstrators wherever she goes. She claims to be "personally" against abortion-murder and yet she is the poster-child for advocacy of partial birth abortion and all abortion.

The Michigan media have been covering this story for several weeks and Granholm is slipping in the polls against pro-life, pro-gun, anti-tax Dick Posthumus.

[cmsgop]

by por-life demonstrators

They are so depressing.......

[cfrels]

Way to go Michiganders!!Give her hell!!

[tomkat]

... Granholm is slipping in the polls against pro-life, pro-gun, anti-tax Dick Posthumus

is this for real ?
i mean, yea, the spelling's a little different, but still ...

gotta be - ya can't make stuff like this up    

[hammerdown]

[ishmac]

Granholm campaign is being distracted and forced off message...

Oh God, let it be true.

I don't understand these perverse, daft Catholics who are personally opposed, but...

Ms Granholm was a big crusader against consumer frauds. What if someone said, "Although personally opposed to consumer swindles, I would never dream of imposing my morality on the public and inhibiting the right of a businessman to choose his relation with his customers. Such laws would violate the entrepreneur's right to privacy.

You could make the same case about stock market chicanery. "Although personally opposed to Global Crossing's apparent swindles, I don't have the right to impose my morality on the executives and accountants who perpetrated the frauds and make them behave according to my moral dictates."

[lasereye]

What about drug use? How can you logically justify opposing drug use but not abortion? The libertarians, (which I'm not), are at least smart enough to know you have to be for legalizing both.

[cebadams]

Was this a promo to a news-at-11 story or simply a newsbreak?

[Polonius]

The libertarians, (which I'm not), are at least smart enough to know you have to be for legalizing both.

How so? One act involves physical harm only to one's self, while the other involves harm to another life.

[Rensselaer]

... Granholm is slipping in the polls against pro-life, pro-gun, anti-tax Dick Posthumus

is this for real ?

Recent Polls:

EPIC/MRA, 8/21: Granholm 55, Posthumus 42
EPIC/MRA, 6/27: Granholm 52, Posthumus 30

I haven't seen any other statewide polls reported. Posthumus has a way to go. He's got time, but it doesn't look good.

[tomkat]

thanks for the reply,
but it's the guy's name that caught my eye ...

best of luck to him though

[lasereye]

What I meant was if you're for legalized abortion, then you can't be against legalizing drugs.

[lasereye]

Actually that's quite a jump from 6/27 to 8/21, and that's almost a month old.

[ishmac]

What about drug use?

What about it? I'm only trying to show that one can't logically support laws against stock swindles while at the same time opposing laws against abortion. Both acts are contrary to the moral order.

How can you logically justify opposing drug use but not abortion? The libertarians, (which I'm not), are at least smart enough to know you have to be for legalizing both.

Indeed, you can't consistently support drug use and oppose abortion. Both acts assume it's O.K. to say "yes" to appetite and indulge certain passions. I'm opposed to both drug use and abortion. I support laws that prohibit and punish both.

[Polonius]

Gotcha ... my bad.

[Frank_2001]

If you're a 'Rat, you really can't run for anything higher than dog catcher without being pro-abort, IMHO the "personally opposed " stuff is just a little dodge to stay one step ahead of the bishop and avoid excommunication...