Replies

Why because this time he is not attacking Mitt Romney, but going after Sarah Palin? I’m actually enjoying watching you guys. This a fun way to spend a Friday night.

Another non-reader posting utter nonsense.

Read the thread, it is quite instructive as to why EV lost this argument.

BTW, this is not about "Johnny-come-lately to the Pro-Life cause" Mitt Romney, Mitt couldn't shine EV's shoes when it comes to the Pro-Life issue.

I have read both posted articles on this subject and actually agree with the Palin people that this is probably not a huge deal and one where she found herself somewhat backed into a corner by state law. The point I am making is that I am finding it amusing that when your candidate is the one being skewered that you will bare your fangs against someone that you would normally consider a staunch ally. At least EV is being consistent in his principles unlike you and others who are willing to look the other way when it suits your ideological needs. I have even seen the argument being made by your side that this is not a big deal because maybe the woman in question has changed her stand on the issue though that is never alluded to in either article. However none of you were or are willing to give the same benefit of the doubt to someone like Mr. Romney, who as you just posted is a johnny come lately to the pro-life issue.

There in lies the problem with your argument. I don't doubt for a moment that Sarah Palin is pro life, and that as a governor and not a poster on a forum, that she is sometimes stuck with making decisions she doesn't like. It is the hypocrisy of her supporters that I find disturbing. No one else's candidate can have even a hint of blemish on their conservative record, State Supreme Courts and legislatures be damned, but when it is your candidate we should look at all the extenuating circumstances. It is this type of slavish clinging to ideological purity that got us Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the Bambster.