Let's look at some numbers. In 1992, voters had the choice of G.H.W. Bush who was opposed to legalized abortion even though he wasn't as passionate as some pro-lifers wanted, Bill Clinton who favored legalized abortion, and Ross Perot who favored legalized abortion. The combined vote of the candidates who favored legalized abortion was sixty-two percent against only thirty-eight percent who opposed legalized abortion. In 1996, the even less pro-life Bob Dole won about forty-three percent of the vote against the same two pro-abortion candidates. In 2000, the pro-life G.W. Bush won about forty-eight percent of the vote against the pro-abortion Al Gore and Ralph Nader. In the primaries, G.W. Bush was often considered too soft in his pro-life stances by the hard-core pro-lifers. In 2004, the pro-life G.W. Bush finally received more than fifty percent of the vote, but he was helped by the fact that several states had gay marriage on the state ballots to drive up conservative turnout, people still supported him as a wartime president, and John Kerry was a very weak candidate. A pro-life candidate will not have any of those advantages in 2008.
A careful examination of the facts suggests that my interpretation is correct. People are less comfortable with abortion than they've ever been, but they aren't ready for the kind of complete prohibition that hard-core pro-lifers want. I think someone with Mr. Hunter's beliefs can win, but he doesn't help himself by posturing on the issue every time the voters see him.
There is no such thing as a pro-life extremist, as all life is sacred, from conception to natural death.
I'm sorry, but this statement is just so much nonsense. Some situations can kill the mother before the baby has time to develop well enough to survive. In these situations, the question is not between life and death. The question is between one life and the other or sometimes between one death or two. Pro-life extremists are people who insist that two deaths are better than one if saving the mother depends on treatment that would kill the baby or who believe that they have the right to make the decision of which life to save. Let me make this clear. You don't have the right to decide which life will be saved, and if a woman decides to save her own life, that's none of your business.
Unlike former Gov. Romney, President Reagan didn’t flip flop just before the primaries, and he regretted a decision he made while gov. on the life issue.
Unlike President Reagan, Governor Romney acted in favor of life whenever the issue arose during his term as governor. Governor Romney's rhetoric has not been all that the pro-life movement would like over the years, but his performance in office was good. The question becomes whether we want posturing on the campaign trail or performance in office.
Anyway, you are deflecting, but I don’t think it’s on purpose. The point is that they did NOT even ask Hunter the pro-life question.
No, my point is that Mr. Hunter was not hurt by the fact that they didn't ask him the question. He doesn't need to spend more time posturing about the abortion issue.
They ignored him, and it would have helped him, as more pro-lifers would have knocked on doors, etc. to support him.
The pro-lifers who are willing to knock on doors are people who will research the candidates on their own or people who have already decided and are just watching the debate in order to see how their candidate would do. Having another chance to posture on this issue would not have gained him any volunteers. He did a great job with the questions that he received. More time would have been nice, but one more repeat of his abortion position would not have changed anything.
Polls have shown that pro-life voters will vote for a candidate if they are pro-LIFE, but pro-”choice” candidates as a rule will vote for other issues.
No one is suggesting that Mr. Hunter would get more votes by supporting legalized abortion. No one doubts that Duncan Hunter is pro-life, and he doesn't have to answer one more abortion question in one more debate to solidify his pro-life credentials. He already has as much of the hard-core pro-life vote as he's going to get. The rest of the support that he gets will consist of people who think that abortion should be illegal, and most of them would vote for someone else if Mr. Hunter weren't against legalized abortion. However, the notion that he's going to win more votes by more pro-life posturing is wrong.
Bill
You’re making a short story long.
Let’s try logic.
Why do you think the candidates, outside of Rudy, were falling all over themselves to show that they are pro-life?