Posted on 07/10/2006 9:10:59 AM PDT by xzins
Besides consigning her to trash bin of history, any alliance with McCain would identify her as a choice of the MSM.
I'll not vote for someone who describes herself as "mildly pro-choice."
She'll fix that or miss my primary vote.
In the general election, it'll be a different story. But if she's with McCain, then the Pubbies will lose. The MSM has been pushing him the way they pushed Dole all those years. With McCain that know it's the Keating 5 issue.
They will eat him alive.
I'll not vote for someone who describes herself as "mildly pro-choice."
Me either. Never!!!!! They better have a pro-life candidate. If they don't than guess what? The RNC is obviously as corrupt as the dems and who needs either of them if that is the case.
> I'll not vote for someone who describes herself as "mildly pro-choice."
And what, exactly, do you think the President can do about abortion? Would you install the rabidly pro-choice Hillary in order to avoid voting for someone mildly-pro-choice, even though neither one could make the practice mroe or less legal?
Unbeleivable that our leading candidate is a pro-choicer, who has never run for office, and who isn't even running....
has said repeatedly that she has no desire to be president.
has said repeatedly that she has no desire to be president.
has said repeatedly that she has no desire to be president.
has said repeatedly that she has no desire to be president.
has said repeatedly that she has no desire to be president.
Did you bother to read the remainder of my post?
Appoint Supreme Court Justices.
After all the "right" to an abortion came from the Supreme Court.
That's what they all say, until....
Hasn't Hillary said the same?........
I believe her. She says she would like to be the commisioner of the NFL.
I did not write the article, put it on the AP wire and publish it in a major newspaper.
I did not write the article, put it on the AP wire and publish it in a major newspaper.
I did not write the article, put it on the AP wire and publish it in a major newspaper.
>>And what, exactly, do you think the President can do about abortion?
> Appoint Supreme Court Justices.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Alito and Roberts refuse to answer questiosn regarding abortion?
Yes. Didn't change things any.
Nor did I say or imply that you did. It is standard procedure to address remarks about an article to the poster of the article.
lol...who cares what she wants?
Also, who would you rather have as President, someone who doesn't want it or someone (like Hillary, Gore, or Kerry) who burns with blind ambition for the office yet could care less if they are really qualified.
Was their stance on the matter not clear?
"I'll not vote for someone who describes herself as "mildly pro-choice." "
And I'll not vote for someone who (a) is not a tested-by-fire-from-liberals politician, and (b) who is not even INTERESTED in the job.
Also she also was pushing Israel down the 'roadmap' of Gaza withdrawal, and we know how well that is turning out. Not!
"Besides consigning her to trash bin of history, any alliance with McCain would identify her as a choice of the MSM."
A lot of MSM hype behind this, yes. What's wrong with real candidates with real accomplishments? Mitt Romney, George Allen, Mike Pence, etc.
I did not say that you said that I said it.
(wanna cup of coffee...too early for beer.)
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Alito and Roberts refuse to answer questiosn regarding abortion?"
They answered questions about the Constitution, which made clear that they would defend the Constitution and not legislate from the bench.
Anyone who is a Constitutionalist Judge has to be against rulings that offend the Constitution's text and intent, and Roe v Wade is exhibit A of bad USSC rulings that are no more than judicial legislating.
> Was their stance on the matter not clear?
Reasonably so, but not *officially* so. Thus, they could easily surprise us by coming up with pro-choice rulings, if the issue ever comes up. USSC Justices have been known to do that sort of thing.
Personally, I think a "moderately pro-choice" stance would be a modest political positive... as that is basically the stance of the bulk of the populace. The simple fact is, the President can't do doodly-squat about this issue, except shoot him/herself in the foot with the voters.
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.