Posted on 05/07/2010 6:53:08 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
Fiorina said abortion rights would not be her litmus test for approving a Supreme Court nominee.
In November, while speaking at an event sponsored by the conservative magazine the American Spectator, Fiorina said she “probably would have voted for” Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the court. Sotomayor has said she considers abortion rights to be an issue settled by the court.
On Friday, Fiorina said, “I do not believe where a potential judicial nominee stands on that issue is a qualifier or an unqualifier [sic].”
She added that while “many, many voters are going to conclude while that is a very important issue, it is frankly a decided issue,” she said.
“The law is clear in the state of California, where there is a constitutional guarantee to the right to an abortion. So why are we talking about a theoretical issue?”
Carly Fiorina is a “golden parachute enriched” endowed competing to be the California GOP’s nominee against leftist Democrat Barbara Boxer in November’s general election. She claims to be pro-life. She has been endorsed by such reputedly pro-life groups as Susan B. Anthony’s list and the California Pro-life Council (the California affiliate of National Right to Life as well as Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn. Yet nothing in her public life or statements justifies these supposedly prolife endorsements. Indeed, the publicly available evidence utterly contradicts them. Her supposed prolife stand reminds me of Obama’s infamous birth certificate. Though the available evidence doesn’t justify what we are being told about it, we should accept it as a fact because others claim to have seen what we cannot.
(Excerpt) Read more at loyaltoliberty.com ...
No kidding? I'm shocked, I tell ya!
Look, it is me that is being harassed and attacked, I didn’t make you start posting to me, and I sure didn’t ask for how nasty it was, you keep attacking me and posting to me, why not just lay off, I tried to be civil and patient, but give it a rest.
I’m tired of your harassment, troll. Stay away from me.
This is bizarre, out of the blue, you attacked me, and you keep posting to me without let up, why are you doing this?
Stay away from me, troll. I’m tired of your constant harassment. Maybe if I move the words around you’re comprehend.
Part of the purpose of a primary is to see if a possible candidate has the political skills and talents to succeed in that arena, if not then they need to go to working behind the scenes, or writing books, or whatever they do.
You are right, we can’t carry them through a primary, at some point we have to look at who the other choices are, in this case Campbell needs to be stopped.
What is your deal?
Why did you start posting to me?
Why won’t you stop posting to me?
What is going on in your head, just lay off this most bizarre, and extreme harassment.
Stay away from me, troll.
Exactly. After a fair shake. DeVore has had that. I personally would like him to be the one trailling Campbell by a few percent instead of Fiorinna. I'd be sending him money and cheering him on. I'm sure you would too. But the reality is Fiorina is a decent compromise candidate IMO - at least she is running on a conservative platform and is competitive, primary and general. Not a decent candidate relative to DeVore of course, but relative to Campbell, absolutely. And Campbell is the problem here. We may all wish that wasn't the siyuation, but it is.
moderator, is there something that you can do about this guy?
I'm already worried that the absentee voting is going to start very soon, I hope that there is time to stop Campbell.
Not true -- Bryan did win sometimes.
(According to the actual trial transcripts, if not the Hollywood adaptations, he actually beat Darrow's case quite soundly in the Scopes Trial).
Ahh, maybe that was why Palin left it to now - giving DeVore a chance to pick up some steam and turn things around, right up to the last minute. Risky, but fair.
Good argument for Moloch over Jesus, and DeSade over Florence Nightingale.
Settle. Compromise. Lie down. Roll over.
Bah.
I’d say that it’s a good argument for living in the real world. I’d like to have Ronald Reagan as governor of CA again and as Senator and of course in the White House, but that’s not a choice. I’ll take the best I can get over holding out for a longshot and ending up with the worst.
But if she keeps doing this, she'll earn the marker Keyes has already warned her about once, when he suggested she might turn into, or be, a "Judas goat" for the RiNO high command in Topsider Central.
She has to avoid like a good case of the Black Death, any suggestion -- that would kill her biggest asset, her authenticity -- that she is just a shill for Mitt and the Yacht Club, and that they have somehow achieved a greasy "pragmatic" ascendancy over her principles and authenticity.
I don't think she is, but here she is backing another weak Republican over a real conservative, just like Keyes warned about. She had better not keep doing this.
Can't you see the amoral money is just playing with you?
They want Fiorina, a full-blooded Member of the Club (how many times has she partied with the Bohemians and trucked off to Europe to powwow with the Bilderbergers?), so they run some NARAL-nauseous uber-RiNO and all of a sudden you have to abandon your conservative candidate -- who would beat either Fiorina or Campbell in a two-way race -- and support Carly the future (as someone called her) aisle-crosser?
Fiorina has been the kiss of death to many of the companies she managed. I doubt she will be good for CA.
It is time to get behind a candidate who can win. I like Devore, but Campbell’s entry has forced this race prematurely. Fiorina has been interviewed at length by several excellent ProLife organizations who subsequently endorsed her, and a wise person will give their judgment deference.
Fiorina has the ability to beat Boxer that DeVore likely does not, and if Campbell were to manage to win the GOP primary it will be disaster.
It is time for DeVore to bow out of the race, and throw his support behind Fiorina.
I believe the state of conservatism is in good stead at this point.
However, I don’t equate the state of conservatism with the political landscape. Would I like a government consisting solely of solidly conservative representatives? Probably. Will we ever have that? no way. And unless the entire country is conservative, we shouldn’t — the idea of a republic is to have representatives of all the people, and you are going to have liberals, conservatives, and libertarians of all stripes.
More importantly, we simply aren’t getting enough electable conservatives running for office yet, even for offices where you might well be able to elect a conservative. There are two parts to being electable.
First, you have to have the possibilitity of appealing philosophically to a majority of the voters. That is hard when you are a strong conservative, except that a lot of people who aren’t really conservative do like how “conservative” translates to government.
The second is to actually HAVE appeal, to be able to communicate effectively so that you can convince people who might support your philosophy to vote for you, and maybe even to win people over to your opinion.
Unfortunately, often that 2nd characteristic requires a canddidate be “politic” — to speak in a way that doesn’t sound rigid, to even show willingness to compromise with some aspects of principle in order to acheive a positive outcome.
In California, it seems foolhardy to think that strong conservatism would appeal to a majority of the voters. On it’s best days, California is decidedly biased toward a less moderate position. However, they are broke, and the voters are scared, and will vote for a strong fiscal conservative message, even if they aren’t on board with the whole basket.
Could a Ronald Reagan pull it off? Maybe so — he had a way with words and could put people at ease. He also had a pragamatic attitude, even though he stood firm on principle. But DeVore isn’t Ronald Reagan.
Anyway, politics isn’t really for ideologues. Sure, they play, and you can’t piss them off too much because they are happy to prove their point by electing people far to the opposite end of their beliefs to “stick it to” the people that agree mostly with them.
But you can’t just appeal to that group. And you certainly can’t appeal to the subgroup of ideologues that expect purity on virtually every political question. Not and win elections in a two-party system.
Lastly, we’ll never elect solid conservatives in any great numbers if the moderate wing of the republican party thinks we can’t be trusted to play the game. The idea is to have a primary, and then pull together to support the winner. Crist is the latest example of not playing the game. And we know that moderates do jump ship too often when conservatives win primaries, but conservatives also jump ship on a regular basis.
That’s certainly a good way to keep pure, but a lousy way to win elections.
So, until the day when we have a leader who is able to educate a majority of the country to agree with us on every issue, we’re going to have to put up with a candidate like Carly Fionora in California. Do I wish that DeVore had proven himself capable of appealing to the electorate — sure. But his poll numbers among the people most likely to support him prove otherwise.
Just as Duncan Hunter, bless his heart, showed himself entirely incapable of articulating conservatism in a way that excited significant numbers of people — hence his lousy poll numbers and near-nonexistant support in the primaries.
I liked that Sarah Palin didn’t say anything bad about DeVore. She simply said who she thought was the best chance of helping the conservative cause come November.
I’ve had my fill of people of the overly pragmatic squishy wing of the republican party. But too often the conservative activists are too busy with friendly fire to advance the cause.
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.