If Sen. Allen is nominated, and he manages to win the enduring affection of conservatives, he'll win the election.
His abortion position, up until 'viability', makes him functionally pro-abortion.
He will never 'win the enduring affection' of conservatives with that stance, and with 'virtual' (imaginary) fences and amnesty for illegals.
If he's the nominee, God forbid, the Republican coalition WILL fracture.
Dear EternalVigilance,
"His abortion position, up until 'viability', makes him functionally pro-abortion."
Actually, his position is that he accepts abortion up until, I think central nervous or brain function, which is much earlier than viability, actually toward the end of the first trimester.
Thus, I don't think that he's "functionally pro-abortion" right now. I've talked to a lot of pro-lifers, and most seem to agree that a presidential nominee who agrees that Roe must go, all things be equal, is acceptable, even if not perfectly pro-life.
Sen. Allen has indicated that he believes abortion laws should be more restrictive than they are at this time, but more importantly, that states should have the ability to determine their own laws on abortion. This is in direct contradiction to the central holding of Roe and Doe.
Since the primary current legal obstacle to protecting unborn children is Roe and its machinery of murder, any presidential candidate who will appoint Supreme Court Justices who understand that Roe is bad constitutional law, and must go, is at least an acceptable presidential candidate.
Thus, Sen. Allen, for now, is a pro-life ally, if not a real pro-lifer himself.
Ironically, once Roe is overturned, folks like Sen. Allen will become adversaries to life.
But we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.
I would vote for Sen. Allen in 2008 for President of the United States.
sitetest
Is it fair to say, that every reasonably possible GOP nominee in the hunt, would cause the above in your view? Is there anybody with a realistic chance of the nomination, that would not cause the above in your view? Should we all re-register as Dems, and try to nominate ... ?
Just curious.
"His abortion position, up until 'viability', makes him functionally pro-abortion."
Actions speak louder than words:
2005 Senator Allen supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 0 percent in 2005.
2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 0 percent in 2004.
2003-2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the National Right to Life Committee 100 percent in 2003-2004.
2003 Senator Allen supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 0 percent in 2003.
2001-2002 Senator Allen supported the interests of the National Right to Life Committee 100 percent in 2001-2002.
2001 Senator Allen supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 0 percent in 2001.
1996-2003 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Planned Parenthood (Senate) 0 percent in 1996-2003.
1995-2004 On the votes that the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Assocation considered to be the most important in 1995-2004, Senator Allen voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=CNIP9093
-----
Best & Brightest
ACU is pleased to recognize those members of the U.S. Senate who recorded a perfect score of 100% in 2005:
George Allen (R-VA)
http://www.conservative.org/archive2/senate.asp