Oh and one more thing - why don’t you stop clinging to one debate segment. I notice also you could explain that while he dodged Roe as not relevant to the Senate (100% true) you made no mention in the same debate of his obstinate opposition to ESCR. ‘Splain that.
“...why don’t you stop clinging to one debate segment.”
It wasn't from a debate. It was from an interview on Meet the Press.
“I notice also you could explain that while he dodged Roe as not relevant to the Senate (100% true) you made no mention in the same debate of his obstinate opposition to ESCR. ‘Splain that.”
I pretty much DID address all of this. Did you read all that I wrote? I've said that he made “a muddled attempt at straddling the fence.”
I said that “he was trimming his sails against a Democrat opponent in an overwhelmingly Democrat state.”
I also said, “I'm even willing to give him a mulligan, and if he ‘clarifies’ his position back to a more uniformly pro-life position, I'm willing to forget it.”
But I'll reiterate.
He said that Roe should now stand.
And that IS NOT a pro-life position.
As for contacting him about it, I'll give it some thought.
Frankly, I'm not sure that he'll be particularly interested in assuaging one single little registered Republican, and I rather suspect that I'll get back more gobbledygook where he claims to be pro-life while refusing to say that Roe should go.
And honestly, my tolerance for that kind of crap is pretty much used up.
Furthermore, I'd like to think that if he were genuinely pro-life, he'd repair the damages from his statement without prompting.
But maybe it's too much to hope that he's truly a pro-lifer of integrity.
sitetest