Posted on 03/16/2002 5:02:37 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:39:56 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
GOP gubernatorial candidate Bill Simon Jr. has promised he will "change the topic" if asked about controversial issues like abortion in the coming campaign, but pro-choice activists defiantly signaled this week that he won't have an easy time of it.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
I would say America in general is in its post-Christian phase, but it's a bit more glaring on the Left Coast.
Not if the media has anything to say about it. I can hear it now: "Simon is dogged by his stance on abortion, which is clearly at odds with the will of the people of California. Back to you, Tom."
Well, that proves it. Simon is operationally pro-abortion, since the status quo is pro-abortion. He's not willing to discuss it, do anything about, or even recognize that the issue is still in debate. He is pro-abortion, just like the scores of "pro-life" candidates who run for office across this country with their tails between their legs on this issue -- and who then lift not one finger to stop abortion in any of the many ways allowable by the Supreme Court. At least Davis is honest enough to tell the voters straight out that he supports the killing of the unborn, Simon evidently can't muster even that. I thought Simon was different -- I was wrong. PLINO (Pro-Life In Name Only)
Then why lie to the people who voted for him believing that he would save at least some children? I mean, what is the point of this fakery? It's like saying you're for tax cuts, but you're not going to do anything about it because taxes are a "settled issue." What this really is is a slap at the intelligence of religious conservatives. He, like many other PLINOs, thinks that merely claiming to be pro-life will get him the votes of single issue pro-lifers because they're too stupid to recognize his "wink and nod" disowning of the issue during the campaign. GW Bush also believed he could do this in 2000 and paid for it when 4 million evangelicals he had counted on didn't show up to vote for him! I hope Simon suffers the same fate.
Or, he can be honest and admit that he supports abortion-on-demand. I would much sooner vote for a moderate pro-choicer who would fight to enact programs to discourage abortion, than I would for a deceiving PLINO who insults my intelligence and would sit idle as the unborn are subjected to the Cuisinart. I don't appreciate being lied to, by politicians or by scumbags -- but these days the two are indistinguishable, it would seem.
He's not pretending to be pro-abortion, like Riordan supposedly did; he's just saying "yes, I'm pro-life, but that's not an issue in this campaign." He's not hiding it; he's just trying to prevent the baby-killers from beating him about the head with it.
A pro-life candidate can win statewide office in California, but not if that's his only issue.
He also stated that he would not seek to overturn the pro-choice law in California...probably because it'd be next to impossible.
I'm pro-life and choose to not make this a one issue Gov race. I'm voting for Simon in November, just like I voted for Simon in the primaries.
Oh yes, the passing of the buck. The PLINOs running for state office always claim abortion is a federal matter, while those running at the federal level claim restrictions should be sought at the state level -- how devilishly clever. No, what's happening here is that we have just another politician who wants the single-issue pro-life vote without having to do anything for it. He believes that lip-service will accomplish this, as it has for so many others. I hope he turns out to be sadly mistaken.
he's just saying "yes, I'm pro-life, but that's not an issue in this campaign."
"Yes, I'm for tax cuts, but that's not an issue in this campaign."
"Yes, I'm for less government, but that's not an issue in this campaign."
"Yes, I'm for gun rights, but that's not an issue in this campaign."
The question: Then what exactly is the difference between you and your liberal opponent, if you won't stand up for the causes you claim to believe in?
Answer: There is no difference.
Then you're voting for someone who will do nothing to stop abortion. That is the same position that Davis holds. I can't believe that I have to tell anyone this, but please don't accept a politician's word until he has proven that he deserves your trust by action. How could Simon prove himself as pro-life by action? By aggressively attacking Davis on partial-birth abortion, which is a politically safe issue -- even in California. This would show that he is willing to fight for the unborn, not just issue meaningless position papers. But I won't be holding my breath, since his idiot campaign staffer was stupid enough to leak the truth of his position to the press. Usually, the PLINOs are smart enough to continue the deception at least until after the election.
If that is allowed to happen, then the butchering will go on unabated forever -- as it has for decades now.
A wise, insightful, accurate diagnosis.
Have you been asleep these past 30-40 years? Have you not seen the way the left has accomplished its goals? They didn't do it by running around shouting "Vote for me; I'm a socialist!" They did it through incrementalism. The only way we can achieve our goals is likewise through incrementalism.
People fear change. Incrementalism is the way you get things done in our system. If you push too hard, too fast, the change will result in a backlash.
Bull, B. The single most devastating anti-abortion policy in existence is called informed consent. When a woman considering abortion is required to learn about the development of her baby, or beter yet, see the child in an ultrasound scan, she decides to give birth -- at rates exceeding 70%!!! While there is no real reason the federal government can't enact an informed consent law of it's own, these laws are usually sought at the state level. These laws are generally supported by vast majorities of the public -- even in California! Plus, there are half a dozen other substantive policies that could be implemented at the state level that could cause dramatic reductions in the abortion rate. I have spelled them out before many times here at FR.
Have you been asleep these past 30-40 years? Have you not seen the way the left has accomplished its goals? They didn't do it by running around shouting "Vote for me; I'm a socialist!" They did it through incrementalism. The only way we can achieve our goals is likewise through incrementalism.
Ah, time for another lecture of Helmsman about the necessity of incrementalism. The veins in my neck are really starting to bulge now, baby! Where is that aspirin of mine? You're obviously not familiar with my postings here or you'd know that I'm not insisting on banning abortion tomorrow. I'm simply demanding that those politicians who claim to be pro-life actively fight for majority supported pro-life policies that will have immediate effects in saving unborn babies. That's all, B. Aren't I a frothing, raving lunatic? But we can't even expect that, evidently. Instead we get cheap politicians who lie to us and do nothing to move the cause. Incrementalism requires constant progress, B.
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.