Devore for Senate.
Fiorina is on record that she would have voted for Sonia Sotomayor.
FROM THE MOUTH OF CARLY FIORINA: “I do not believe where a potential judicial nominee stands on that issue [of abortion rights] is a qualifier or an unqualifier.”
CARLY: “...(W)hile that is a very important issue, it is frankly a decided issue. The law is clear in the state of California, where there is a constitutional guarantee to the right to an abortion. So why are we talking about a theoretical issue?”
This is an advocate for life? No way. She is trying to fool pro-life voters into supporting her.
I do not feel in my heart she is pro life. I am saddened by Palin’s endorsement too. I like Palin though
Perhaps she sincerely is; but the fact remains that she might be any of the following:
1.) Pro-Choice, but uncommitted enough to make a switch in order to run for the seat.
2.) Libertarianly/Personally “Pro Life.”
3.) Indifferent either way.
4.) Mostly Pro-Life, but not reliable enough an ally.
5.) Fully Pro-Life and a reliable Pro-Life ally.
She may or may not be anywhere from #1 to #5 on that list. The key point to me is that we do not need to ask this question of Chuck DeVore. His stance is unambiguous. Nobody is certain when it comes to Carly.
So if this is the most important issue when making a decision, one must ask oneself how comfortable they are with their categorization of Fiorina. In other words, just how sure are you?
I can tell you this: I'm sure about DeVore.
She’s a RINO. I hope she is not elected.
Fiorina is PRO-Fiorina. If that means she’s pro-life one day and pro-choice the next, then so be it. That’s it. Her wet finger in the wind skill learned from McCain has become refined with developing close hold campaign events designed to compartmentalize her swings on issues. McCain used the same duplicitous tactic in 2008 and is using it now for re-election in Arizona.
I agree with the wink and a nod. I do not think for a moment she is pro life.
Fiorina is a disaster waiting to happen. We ‘ain’t seen nothing yet’ if this cold @%@&^ gets into office!
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
Ping
This is known as hearsay and wouldn't stand up in a court of law. I'll go with her word rather than a 3rd party anonymous opinion of her. Who's to say that source knows what he/she was talking about, or wasn't some potential rival trying to undermine her for a later run against her in some primary race?
Further, just because she says of McCain that he never was for a repeal of Roe v. Wade doesn't mean she's pro-choice. It just means she was delivering her message on behalf of a campaign she was working for, trying to bring in the PUMA-type female voters for McCain, voters who were t-ed off at Hillary's loss in the Dem primary and uncomfortable with Obama's radicalism. It was a tough race where any bleed off of Democratic votes for McCain was seen as giving him a big advantage. That's what this outreach was about, trying to make PUMAs comfortable with McCain. That's called good politics. I don't think it says a thing about where Fiorina's head is at on abortion. She was just being the good soldier. It certainly isn't more an indicator of her thinking than her unequivocal statement of "I'm pro-life."
Finally, consider the source here--a Devore operative.
This year I’m ABB and ABM. “Anyone But Babs” and “Anyone But Moonbeam”! Trust me. Even the worst RINO can’t be as bad as those two have been for California!
I’m not from California but DeVore sounds like the candidate most grounded in Conservative values.
After looking at the “Carly Fiornia on the First Admendment” video that is attached to all the threads lately, I am wondering if Carly plays for the ‘other’ team. No normal woman wears her hair that short, and that leather jacket.
All I need to know about Fiorina is contained in the speech she made:
CARLY FIORINA
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA
SEPTEMBER 26, 2001
“TECHNOLOGY, BUSINESS AND OUR WAY OF LIFE: WHAT’S NEXT”
© Copyright 2001 Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P
All rights reserved. Do not use without written permission from HP.
If posting an excerpt here infringes copyright, you may wish to remove.
EXCERPT:
There was once a civilization that was the greatest in the world.
It was able to create a continental super-state that stretched from ocean to ocean, and from northern climes to tropics and deserts. Within its dominion lived hundreds of millions of people, of different creeds and ethnic origins.
One of its languages became the universal language of much of the world, the bridge between the peoples of a hundred lands. Its armies were made up of people of many nationalities, and its military protection allowed a degree of peace and prosperity that had never been known. The reach of this civilization’s commerce extended from Latin America to China, and everywhere in between.
And this civilization was driven more than anything, by invention. Its architects designed buildings that defied gravity. Its mathematicians created the algebra and algorithms that would enable the building of computers, and the creation of encryption. Its doctors examined the human body, and found new cures for disease. Its astronomers looked into the heavens, named the stars, and paved the way for space travel and exploration.
Its writers created thousands of stories. Stories of courage, romance and magic. Its poets wrote of love, when others before them were too steeped in fear to think of such things.
When other nations were afraid of ideas, this civilization thrived on them, and kept them alive. When censors threatened to wipe out knowledge from past civilizations, this civilization kept the knowledge alive, and passed it on to others.
While modern Western civilization shares many of these traits, the civilization I’m talking about was the Islamic world from the year 800 to 1600, which included the Ottoman Empire and the courts of Baghdad, Damascus and Cairo, and enlightened rulers like Suleiman the Magnificent.
Although we are often unaware of our indebtedness to this other civilization, its gifts are very much a part of our heritage. The technology industry would not exist without the contributions of Arab mathematicians. Sufi poet-philosophers like Rumi challenged our notions of self and truth. Leaders like Suleiman contributed to our notions of tolerance and civic leadership.
And perhaps we can learn a lesson from his example: It was leadership based on meritocracy, not inheritance. It was leadership that harnessed the full capabilities of a very diverse population–that included Christianity, Islamic, and Jewish traditions.
This kind of enlightened leadership — leadership that nurtured culture, sustainability, diversity and courage — led to 800 years of invention and prosperity.
In dark and serious times like this, we must affirm our commitment to building societies and institutions that aspire to this kind of greatness. More than ever, we must focus on the importance of leadership– bold acts of leadership and decidedly personal acts of leadership.
With that, I’d like to open up the conversation and see what we, collectively, believe about the role of leadership.
http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/execteam/speeches/fiorina/minnesota01.html
I’d bet anything she is NOT pro-life. Pro abortion types obfuscate.
Good article. I see nothing in her actions or words that convinces me that Fiorina is pro-life.
Seriously???? Even though she has the endorsements of the California Pro-Life Council, the California affiliate of National Right to Life (per Red State, May 4th)?