Posted on 07/23/2008 3:49:56 AM PDT by rhema
Wonder why he phoned it in? Hmmmmmm. I bet Barak doesn't phone it in to NAACP.
There is no excuse for McCain to not be there. No excuse. He must not want to offend his Hillary voters and independents.
McCain may only be 90% with us on this issue, but Obama is an absolute ZERO on this. Obama may actually be below zero for his support of allow the killing of babies after birth.
This article is about McCain, not Obama. I am aware of where Obama stands.
McCain worries me on this issue. He doesn’t appear to want to deal with this issue in public.
I’ve saw McCain at a Wisconsin rally. He does bring up the issue. We must insure we have judges who agree.
So comparing Obama and McCain on this issue is not allowed on this thread??? I apologize for violating your rule on this.
This is one issue that he could get conservative support for. Yet.....he chooses not to make it well known.
I really do not believe it is an issue Mc
Cain will deal with. I feel sorry for people that think McCain wil put up a SCOTUS nominee who is pro life and actually get that appointment passed by the Democrats.
Democrats worship abortion.
There is no excuse for McCain to not be there. No excuse. He must not want to offend his Hillary voters and independents.
Cut the guy some slack. At least we have someone who is pro life running! I read the speech and it was really well done.
NRTL seems not to have been miffed. Its president writes about those who are, though:
WHEN COMMON SENSE IS LACKING
BY Wanda Franz, Ph.D.
Former Senator Alfonse D’Amato, the New York Republican, was first elected in 1980. He was reelected in 1986 and in 1992. Senator D’Amato managed to do this in liberal New York in spite of a solid pro-life record in the Senate: he voted pro-life 85 times on 89 roll calls.
When Senator D’Amato stood for reelection in 1998, he ran into opposition from some pro-lifers who considered him not pro-life enough or disliked him. Some misguided pro-lifers actively worked against him, others simply refused to vote for him in the general election—it was a matter of "principle," and Senator D’Amato didn’t match their notion of a pro-life candidate.
Senator D’Amato lost to a Democrat who had previously been in the House of Representatives where he (1) was a shrill promoter of abortion, (2) co-sponsored the infamous "Freedom of Choice Act" that would have established abortion on demand under a federal law, (3) co-sponsored the "Reproductive Health Equity Act" that would have required federal funding of all abortions in any federal program, and (4) had voted 97 out of 100 times for the pro-abortion side. In other words, the Democratic candidate was the "ideal" pro-abortion candidate. And his pro-abortion zeal was gratingly expressed: as one senator observed, "There is no more dangerous place than between Senator Schumer and a TV camera." Yes, we are talking about the very same Senator Chuck Schumer who now proudly basks in the glory of having organized the Democratic takeover of the Senate in the 2006 election. . . .
"bless America"? while we endlessly sacrifice our future, slaughtering our blessings? None of us take this seriously enough.
Nothing can sustain American productivity better than the investment of life for our future producers. There are selfish arguments aginst abortion. But no one ever makes them. Those babies are our economy, our security and our culture in twenty years so much more so than those new oil wells are our gasoline in ten. May God have mercy on America and save us from ourselves.
It should have been done by him in person. He sure had time for Lulac, LaRaza, and the Hillary girls.
I read what was said. What has that to do with McCain not being there in person?
Seems like it should be as important as LaRaza.
LOL, true.
If McCain had been there, they would have just accused him of pandering. So anything McCain does is never good enough.
I don’t really wish this, but I wish that *they* could somehow get 8 years of Barry and Ma pelosi and Harry the body Reid, just so they can suffer for their principles like they are in such a hurry to do.
And I have it figured out as to why they do.
Two undeniable truths about "liberalism":
1) Liberalism is at its core, the belief in the use of force to make the responsible and innocent pay for the consequences of the irresponsible.
2) Liberals support NO freedoms unrelated to consequence-free sexual behavior.
Combine these two core beliefs, and you get
the MOST innocent human paying for, with its very life, the irresponsible sexual behavior decisions of others.
Obama is definitely in the MINUS category on this issue having LED a legislative effort to allow infanticide.
Wonder why he phoned it in? Hmmmmmm. I bet Barak doesn’t phone it in to NAACP. by don-o
{Oh,..don-o, And what would BHO’s message be? “faith & hope that we can afford to place an abortorium in every public highschool?”}
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.