Free Republic

I have no reason to dislike or distrust Palin. She’s more conservative that McCain is. She may not know how to stand up to the judiciary, but that puts her in company with 99.5% of the House, Senate, and 100% of the executives in this country, holding state or national, elective or administrative office.

In fact, there is much to like about Palin, and I wish her a long and meaningful political career.

But the sad fact is that it is McCain who is running for President this year. It will be his policies — ala Amnesty, Campaign Finance, Global Warming, etc. — that are pursued by the administration, not Palin’s.

So say what you will about Keyes’ commentary here. “Unequally yoked” hits just about the right note.

James Monroe was Secretary of State under Madison, 1811-1817.

John Quincy Adams was Secretary of State under Monroe.

Just read Sowell's piece on Townhall and came here to see if anyone else made this point. Well spotted. :)

mortality risk imposed upon the female is the focus of self defense from the mortality risk forced upon her.

The mortality risk was forced upon her by the rapist, not the baby. Thus, the baby cannot be held accountable for the actions of the rapist.

But if you hold a "pro-life" position, you should really check your argument anew. For if the baby CAN, in principle, be held to account for the risk not of his or her own making, then whether the baby comes as a consequence of rape or incest is not important to determine if the baby can be killed at the whim of the mother whose mortality rate has increased.

The mortality rate of the mother only marginally increases anyway. Abortion results in close to 100% mortality rate for the baby -- and has other detrimental effects on the mother. Therefore, even by that standard, justice demands that the risk effected by the pregnancy on the mother does not warrant the ultimate response against the innocent baby, as you suggest.

It may be impossible for your mind to reconcile the fact that individual life begins at conception and the self-defense rights of a woman or girl who has been raped, and such either or mentality does fashion the irreconcilable, but courts and natural law deal with this sort of thing often, in reality.

As I explained before, the principle of self-defense does not apply to the baby, because the baby is not attacking the mother. The baby is completely innocent in the matter that left the woman with the baby inside of her.

The time for self-defense is at the point of offense, and against only the person attacking.

Your argument rests on the premise that the baby is an "object" to be discarded and not a "person" with unalienable rights. However, what started this discussion was that McCain himself said that life begins at conception, which makes treating one as an object under certain circumstances (e.g., the woman was raped) logically problematic.

Just because the answer is difficult to bear (for the mother, et al) doesn't make the logic invalid.

I really have no desire, as I said, to abandon common ground with those who agree with me on 98% of the abortions performed. However, as the matter is pressed, I have no choice but to defend the plain truth of the right to life and John McCain's rejection of it.

John McCain has taken two irreconcilable positions.

1. That life begins at conception, and
2. That the right to life is subject to the discretion of man or his institutions, who determine that the circumstances surrounding the creation of that life are too unpleasant.

Either the right to life is a matter of human choice or it isn't. If it is, as McCain's position suggests, then its sole claim to protection is positive law -- not natural law.

If this is true, then there is no objective standard by which the degree of misfortune can be consistently judged -- giving credence to the notion that the right to life ought to be subject to the choice of the mother, and not the government, and certainly not God.

The principle of self-defense does not apply here, because the baby is not responsible for the attack on the mother. The baby is the result of the attack, and thus should not be held responsible for the actions of his or her parents.

You know, at the Saddleback conference, when McCain was asked when life begins, he said unequivocally -- at conception.

One would wonder, then, why he would then make exceptions for rape and incest.

I have no desire to abandon common ground with anyone who thinks that, but it does represent my profound disappointment with McCain as a leader or as an intellectual. He is wholly incapable of consistency on this issue, because he does not understand it. If he does not understand it, he cannot defend it properly, and he unwittingly gives credence to the idea that abortion is just a matter of personal choice.

First thing we need to do is stop calling it the “Fairness Doctrine.”

I’m afraid I can’t say that I hold the same hope Dr. Keyes claims in his introduction.

This thread does nothing to change that.

The solution is pretty simple given the likely outcomes (although the execution will be painful): Redraw the battle lines so both are in front of you.

In part, I agree with you EV. McCain will probably stab us in the back. But Obama will attack us full force and openly.

At least if you are attacked from the front, you will have your guard up and be prepared to defend yourself and return the salvo in kind.

When you're watching the front lines ready to battle the enemy and someone you thought is a friend attacks you, you more than likely die on the spot.

Here's my favorite paragraph:

"Others can hardly be blamed for not supporting McCain when he offers them nothing to support. If people are obliged to support one person who doesn't represent them in order to stop another who also doesn't represent them, they end up with a government that doesn't represent them. The American founders rightly identified representation as the defining feature of our republic (see, for example, James Madison in Federalist Number 10, "a republic by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place …"). Now, thanks to the "choice of evils" crowd, we are being skillfully maneuvered into a voting mentality that effectively destroys it." [Emphasis mine]

Do you happen to know if he delivered the content of this article to Dr. Dobson directly? I know they've been friendly in the past.

Ok, well, we are back to "the only poll that counts is in November." Funny, when I said that prior to 2006, I was jeered out of here because of . . . the polls.

If you ever make that claim again and need a second opinion, ping me and I'll agree on spec. :)

“Funny, all the doomsayers around here said, early on in 2006 when the polls showed the GOP losing, ‘The polls are right.’”

Surely you can’t expect me to speak for all the doomsayers you’ve encountered. I can only speak for myself.

I do not believe any electoral poll except the electoral college and the election results that count, and I object in principle to the way the media breathlessly (mis)uses polls to create stories about the horse race instead of objectively reporting the things about the candidates people actually need to know to make an informed decision.

The media may not have been able to elect Algore, but he did close the enormous polling gap by election day in terms of the complete popular vote — so much so that he actually overtook GWB. We were saved from Gore by the Constitution’s mandate for the composition of electors.

Who, the media?

It doesn't really matter that we think little of Obama and Clinton. The media will close ranks behind whomever the Dim nominee is, and against the pubbie nominee. The polls are just an illusion, just as they were a comparable period ahead of the 2000 election.

As before and always, polls released today will matter very little on election day.

Not from these media outlets.

I’d be surprised if this lasts until November.

Hardly. But we fundamentally disagree on the notion that electing McCain is going to help America survive. Quite the contrary. See my tagline.

Not that McCain going to win, mind you. He's going to lose. Handily. And he'll deserve to lose. Win or lose, though, we'll get the government we deserve. And either way, it isn't going to be good.

We'll point our fingers all around. You blame Keyes and people like me. Others will blame McCain and people like you.

If you really want to solve the problem, stop treating the Republican party, and politics in general, as some sort of country club that only the rich and connected can have access to. Immediately. And stop acting as if our duty as electors is put our vote behind the candidate we think is most likely to win, in spite of all other concerns.

Look, Keyes is a nice enough guy and a solid conservative but taking up the mantle of being this year's Buchanon only takes votes from McCain.

Just because someone votes for Keyes doesn't mean they would have voted at all, if the only other options on the ballot were McCain and Obama.

I will NOT vote for McCain. I only have one vote, and it is precious to me. McCain does not represent or articulate my views, and thus he has not earned it.

The mob is already having their way. I think they are beyond reason, and they will reap their rewards come November... and for at least 4 years beyond.