Several things going on here:
A) Manipulative and clueless press is only interested in simple sound bites and has no interest in the details of the life issues (its always “mean people with traditional morals” vs. “kind progressives who put people before rigid morality”)
B) Manipulative purist pro-life groups who are so worried about the real erosion of moral truth that they try to trap candidates into adopting the purist position such that they are painted as sell-outs if they make real progress toward protecting life by supporting imperfect legislation
C) a pro-life candidate who actually understands the moral issue fully and won’t allow himself to be manipulated by either group A or group B.
Life is a black and white issue of fact. But the besy to protect life is an issue filled with important nuances based on political and practical realities. It is pure deceit to claim otherwise.
besy = best way
Regarding point A: I agree.
Regarding Points B & C: I disagree right from the get-go. First of all, when discussing morality, the use of the words “purist” or “manipulative” often negatively describes those with a firm moral position. The question was, which would you support? Period. There is only one answer. A candidate can explain that that is his PREFERENCE, but that he would choose to support something less perfect if he was absolutely sure he could not get the votes for his PREFERENCE.
Forget NUANCE! We’ve had enough of that with Mr. Obama. “Let your ‘Yes’ mean ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No’ mean ‘No.’ Anything more is from the evil one.” Matthew 5:37
Overall, I understand where you are coming from but I think Americans are hungry for a good deal MORE plain speaking. Within the “nuanced” realm of Washington DC speak, that needs to be very well understood by today’s candidates.