[rhombus]

Good grief, it seems it's always about whether or not lib women want to kill their kids in the womb, to both sides of the political spectrum. Seems to me there are other issues to fight (and win) on. If JRB happens to be pro-life, pro-2A, so much the better, eh? I can't believe we're not hammering this property rights thing down the throat of every lib pundit and "newscaster", in this SC nominee issue. Unless of course.... half the pubs actually supported the Lelo decision.. argh.

You touch on two very important issues. First, the latter. Yes the property rights issue shoud be hammered down their throats. Why are all the good PR people Rats? We just don't deomogogue very well.

Second the abortion issue. It's still very big especially with soccer moms and their naughty daughters. Bush sidestepped the issue when he ran in 2000. He said something about changing people's hearts and avoided any pledge to change laws - this was enough to convince enough soccer moms who otherwise would have voted for Gore. Roberts did the same thing when he said Roe was settled law. The biggest fear out there is that a bunch of "crazed religious nuts" are going to pass a law outlawing abortion. And back in 2000, after the Senate caved on impeachment and the liberals made the whole issue about sex, a Republican hard-liner on abortion was never going to be elected.

I agree there are more important things out there but not to so many on both the left and the right.

[Sloth]

Second the abortion issue. It's still very big especially with soccer moms and their naughty daughters. Bush sidestepped the issue when he ran in 2000. He said something about changing people's hearts and avoided any pledge to change laws - this was enough to convince enough soccer moms who otherwise would have voted for Gore.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030701-115636-9509r.htm