Posted on 11/03/2005 9:18:49 AM PST by kingattax
DEMOCRATS are getting cold feet about starting an abortion fight over Supreme Court nominee Sam Alito — because if they do, they could lose big-time in the court of public opinion. Alito backed a law requiring a woman to notify her husband before an abortion. The Supreme Court disagreed.
But Americans — by a nearly 3-1 majority — agree with Alito, so the fact that he might shift the court could be a plus.
In all, 72 percent of Americans favor spousal-notification laws, according to a 2003 Gallup Poll, and an equally lopsided margin thinks teens under 18 should have to tell their parents before an abortion.
Most Americans want legal abortion, but they want it more restricted. If the abortion debate centers on whether to tell parents or a husband, it's a loser for pro-choice Dems.
So some Dems want to blast Alito on machine guns — he opposed a federal law barring private ownership.
But it was a narrow ruling, and the truth is, Dems seem privately resigned that Alito will be confirmed.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
I would still love to know why the dems supported Alito in 1990.
ping
That is precisely correct. The DEMS decided to oppose Bush on anything and everything whether it went against their actual interets or not. Their constant screming means there is no distinction between legitimate opposition on a significant political watershed issue and a throw away topic where the RATS are simply playing a gotcha game (even when they might otherwise agree with the President). So a screming democRAT becomes a daily given and is no longer worth any level of public focus.
Anybody who thinks about this law for a minute realizes that the average married woman wouldn't want to secretly abort her child, UNLESS she had a pretty compelling reason (which isn't to say a 'good' reason).
Though I think there is an exception in the law 'if the husband isn't the father (which means she has to certify on some forms in her medical file that she had an extramarital dalliance - private or not, that's a bitter pill to swallow), basically I think that this law was there to undermine married women with with other men's babies in their belly from getting an abortion - it's a 'heads up' to the hubby that he has a bad wife on his hands.
When that's presented to people, most of them probably support sticking it to a bad wife with a problem on her hands, and at least alert hubby that he might consider finding a better wife. That's basically uncontroversial (a 3-1 margin, which is probably a bit understated).
I knew it would be trouble for the dems when their talking point, basically, was 'Can you believe he wants women to let their husbands know she is getting an abortion?' Clearly to me, most people would find this uncontroversial, and the dem exasperation would come across as strangely incongruent, compared to a national sense of values.
That's not to say that most people would support a woman getting permission from her mate (I don't think they would, though it would be close), or somehow reflects an overall mandate against abortion (which doesn't really exist, either).
Bush took the easy way out and it backfired. In the end doing what you think is right and sticking to it is how you earn the respect of the public. Pandering is a sign of weakness.
By BUSH picking Alito it now looks like either Rove and/or Card were either distracted or drunk with the Miers suggestion for SCOTUS.
That reads like parody.
Tougher to be critical of someone you consider a personal friend, and I *think* he overextended his reach with his base- ahem.
She may have mentioned it, and he figured he owed her. Dunno.
"They can't win so why fight?"
The fact is the Dems can't win on any of the issues they hold so dear because they're way to the left of the American mainstream. And that is why they pursue the only tactic left to them: ATTACK, ATTACK, ATTACK....
They keep hoping to drag the rest of the country down to their filthy level, but it's a losing strategy on the national level.
"Gee! Sucks to be you!"
The senators in red states up for reelection next year certainly don't want to fight.
She still longing for the days of HilleryCare where she almost succeeded in killing American Health Care. As for now it is still living.
Chances are pretty good he'll get a thrid at bat in this game before his term is up.
That's their dilemma. They need those nut's money but the need independent voters to win.
http://209.197.89.57/19580222/pop/bozscaggs/Lido_Shuffle.mid
With apologies to ARTIST: Boz Scaggs
TITLE: Alito Shuffle
Lyrics
Alido got the vote that day, The Left attacked!
But that weren't all he got and he ain't gonna' slack!
A Rove planned star and a clueless Card, he made them stop!
Just long enough to grab a headline off the top
Next stop DC town, Alito put the hammer down and let it roll
He said one more Justice ought to get it
One last shot 'fore we kill it
One more for the road!
{Refrain}
Alito, whoa-oh-oh-oh
He's for the money, he's for the show
Alito's waitin' for the go
Alito, whoa-oh-oh-oh
He said one more vote ought to get it
One last shot 'fore we kill it
One more for the road!
Alito be runnin', havin' great big fun, til he got the note
Sayin' toe the line or blow, and that was all Hillary wrote
He be makin' like a beeline, headin' for the Chorusline
Goin' for broke
Sayin' one more hit ought to do it
This Old Court, nothin' to it!
One more for the road!
{Refrain}
That is some seriously funny stuff.
When you run the same play over and over again eventually the defense figures it out.
Looks too intelligent.
Actually that is 2-1, and that one was a really pathetic display. I like W, but he really screwed the pooch with his last pick.
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.