Posted on 06/18/2004 3:59:50 PM PDT by RonDog
.
www.sfgate.com Return to regular view
GOP has star-power dilemma
How will party use Schwarzenegger?
- Carla Marinucci, Chronicle Political Writer
Friday, June 18, 2004With less than three months to go before the Republican National Convention in New York City, a prime-time cliffhanger is in the works over whether the Bush camp will use it or lose it -- the megawatt influence and star power of California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Among the most sensitive issues is whether Schwarzenegger, a GOP marquee name, will be given a prized prime-time speaking spot at the party's presidential convention August 30-Sept. 2 at Madison Square Garden.
On the pro side: As the party's star actor, Schwarzenegger would get worldwide attention, and -- to the delight of networks -- draw millions of potential viewers to the now scripted-for-television political convention.
On the con side: The White House worries about lavishing too much attention on one Republican elected official who has shown an uncanny ability to upstage the party's star, Bush himself. A prominent role for Schwarzenegger also could anger the Republican right wing, which opposes his social views on such issues as abortion and same-sex marriage.
Ken Mehlman, campaign manager for Bush-Cheney '04, in an interview with The Chronicle, made no commitment on the specific role the Bush team expects the California governor to play, saying only that Schwarzenegger "is one of the great leaders of our party.''
Asked about talk that the White House is worried Schwarzenegger might outshine Bush at the convention, Mehlman downplayed the matter, suggesting that Schwarzenegger is one of many stars in the GOP...
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
The poll doesn't break down the various positions that are covered by "available, stricter limits", so there is no way for either of us to divine the percentages of exactly what the respondents meant. You know this already, and that's why you are hiding behind the unknowable.
I will put up my theory that the internal positions run the gamut of various nuances, from the very conservative "only in the case of incest, rape, and medical emergency" all the way up to "during the first 2 trimesters", and perhaps even "all except for partial birth abortion" against your truely wishful thinking that all respondents meant "only in the case of incest, rape, and medical emergency" any day.
Even most elected Republicans only attack partial birth and perhaps late-term abortion. That is pretty good proof right there that this is the main issue in the minds of Republicans.Most Republicans are not evangelicals who believe life begins at conception. That is a very small percentage of the public, and the GOP is one of only two major national parties, and will reflect popular opinion.
I've presented my case - complete with facts, figures, and common sense - and you have presented your case to the contrary. I have provided irrefutable evidence that Republicans are indeed split on the issue of abortion. I have shown that this is not a settled issue in the GOP, and the party is not monolithic in its thinking.
You, on the other hand, want to haggle over a mere 10%.
This is for others to decide now.
That didn't stop you up to this point. Are you now telling me you were *gasp* spinning the numbers without any factual basis? I'm shocked! LOL.
Even most elected Republicans only attack partial birth and perhaps late-term abortion. That is pretty good proof right there that this is the main issue in the minds of Republicans. Most Republicans are not evangelicals who believe life begins at conception. That is a very small percentage of the public, and the GOP is one of only two major national parties, and will reflect popular opinion.
You go from that statement, replete with qualifiers, to saying:
I have provided irrefutable evidence that Republicans are indeed split on the issue of abortion.
You're one of a kind, counterpunch. ROFL!
Once again, your best argument is one of petty semantics.
I think it is quite logical to deduce that "available, stricter limits" is just as divided as the two extremes are. You, however, are living in la-la land if you believe everyone who gave this answer meant only giving exceptions for rape and incest.
If your point of view was nearly as popular as you would like me and others to believe, then there would be little need or urgency behind your own social crusade.
I freely admit I don't know what it means - hence the reason I asked six times for a definition. You're the only interpreting the poll to suit your views. I already stated it isn't worth its own bandwidth until we find out what "stricter limits" are.
Nice attempt at putting words in my mouth, but you'll need to do better than that.
In short, to suit your view.
You are trying to interprit it as monolithic, which is statistically improbable to the point of exclusion.
Once again, I'm not interpreting it at all - I'm discarding it until you can show me a definition.
You can't possibly be this retarded, can you?
I see your still confused. Open your eyes you Libertarian heathen. Look under the Party Platform:Renewing Family and Community
The Supreme Courts recent decision, prohibiting states from banning partial-birth abortions a procedure denounced by a committee of the American Medical Association and rightly branded as four-fifths infanticide shocks the conscience of the nation. As a country, we must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence. That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendments protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.
Our goal is to ensure that women with problem pregnancies have the kind of support, material and otherwise, they need for themselves and for their babies, not to be punitive towards those for whose difficult situation we have only compassion. We oppose abortion, but our pro-life agenda does not include punitive action against women who have an abortion. We salute those who provide alternatives to abortion....
From the essay, "Abortion and The Conscience of a Nation", by President Ronald Reagan 1983
"Abraham Lincoln recognized that we could not survive as a free land when some men could decide that others were not fit to be free and should therefore be slaves. Likewise, we cannot survive as a free nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be abandoned to abortion or infanticide. My Administration is dedicated to the preservation of America as a free land, and there is no cause more important for preserving that freedom than affirming the transcendent right to life of all human beings, the right without which no other rights have any meaning."
Words like abortion, prolife, right to life, are well known "terms" among the educated in American society. "You based your remarks on ignorance. Period. Face it, you got schooled."
counterpunch: sheesh man, at least post something believable if you're going to try to lie your way out of an argument.
What are you talking about? Nothing has been stripped from the Republican Party Platform. All pro-life references still exist on the dual website of RNC.org & GOP.com. Where do you think my posts came from, stupid?
You're angry because you made a major screw up and can't admit you were wrong. Instead of acting like an adult and apologizing, you act like a spoiled brat and lash out with more of your juvenile outbursts. But that wasn't enough for you. Then you decided to attack my religious and spiritual beliefs. You're not only a religious bigot, your a con-artist, a liar and a phony.
The Republican Party is America's pro-life political party and George W.Bush is a pro-life President. Both the GOP and the President support pro-life issues and through their efforts, advance the right to life for all unborn children. The President spoke to the pro-life event, March for Life, back in January. Just like he does every year. Bush also spoke earlier this year on the National Sanctity of Human Life Day. And I guarantee, the President will mentioned his support for pro-life issues in his acceptance speech this September in NYCity.
Schwarzenegger and Giuliani are pro-choice, liberal Republicans and do not represent the conservative mainstream base of the GOP. They're in the minority.
JimRob's back from Texas and here was a thread he posted today. 2004 Republican Party of Texas Platform -Pro-Life, Pro-God, Pro-Family Pro-America, Pro-Freedom.
BTW, I consider myself to have a libertarian streak. Yet for the life of me I cannot understand how a libertarian could be pro-choice. It's obvious that a fetus carries the same individual rights as any other human, and therefore it's government's responsibility to extend protection to the fetus as it would any other life.
FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. April 21-22, 2004. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3. |
||||||
. |
||||||
"On the issue of abortion, would you say you are more pro-life or more pro-choice?" | ||||||
. |
||||||
Pro-choice | Pro-life | Both/Mix (vol.) |
Not Sure |
|||
% | % | % | % | |||
4/04 | 44 | 47 | 6 | 3 | ||
7/03 | 44 | 44 | 6 | 6 | ||
4/03 | 49 | 41 | 5 | 5 | ||
1/02 | 47 | 41 | 5 | 7 | ||
1/01 | 47 | 42 | 7 | 4 | ||
7/00 | 54 | 38 | 5 | 3 | ||
1/00 | 43 | 44 | 8 | 5 | ||
6/99 | 42 | 44 | 9 | 5 | ||
|
I don't think there's any question that the country's turning pro-life. Time is on our side; I'm a "Gen-Xer" and the overwhelming majority of my generation seems to be pro-life.
You have a talent for selective reading. Perhaps you shouldn't read only the "agenda" page at GOP.com but should venture over to the "Platform" pages.
Once again, as already posted by ReaganMan:
"The Supreme Courts recent decision, prohibiting states from banning partial-birth abortions a procedure denounced by a committee of the American Medical Association and rightly branded as four-fifths infanticide shocks the conscience of the nation. As a country, we must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence. That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendments protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life."From GOP.com: Party Platform - Renewing Family and Community
FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. July 15-16, 2003. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3. |
||||||
. |
||||||
Do you believe that human life begins at conception, or once the baby may be able to survive outside the mother's womb with medical assistance, or when the baby is actually born? |
||||||
% |
. |
|||||
At conception | 55 | |||||
Survive outside womb | 23 | |||||
At birth | 13 | |||||
Not sure | 9 | |||||
|
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.