Posted on 12/05/2001 6:50:44 AM PST by randita
I don't live there, and I don't know about Lundgren, who (as I hear it) ran an absolutely stupid campaign. But I can say that that this woman attends meetings of other powerful, prominent GOP women, and if her take on this is correct, you are wrong. And I'm pro-life, but you can't stick your head in the sand.
That's Riordan code-speak for "We should kill minorities before they're born."
Compare and contrast (well, there is no contrast) to the White Aryan Resistance's official position on abortion:
"Among non-Whites, invest in ghetto abortion clinics. Help to raise money for free abortions. Abortion clinic syndicates throughout North America, that primarily operate in non-White areas and receive tax support, should be promoted."
Eugenics. No longer a stealth cause among Republicans. Y'all ought to be proud.
This is a fallacy I always find irritating. Almost 80% (78%) of abortion providers will be found in economically disadvantaged, Black or minority communities. Pro-life Blacks will argue it was planned this way. Economically disadvantaged women have access to very cheap abortions right in their back yard.
"He has a great opportunity, as a centrist, to bring back women to the Republican Party," she said. "If you're pro-choice, you're more pro- environment, pro-education, and anti-guns.
A very broad stereotype in my opinion, especially the pro-education comment.
However, I dont live in California, but the opinions and statements in this article are probably true. I have a few Pro-Choice, (strong) Republican friends who I make room for in my life. I have managed to sway one to the Pro-Life side. Still working on the others. LOL
Interesting article. Thanks for posting it.
What annoys me to know end are these people who call themselves "personally pro-life", but would "never stand in the way of a woman's choice." What moral relativistic cowardly garbage. Sorry to use such strong language, but if one believes that abortion is murder and wrong, then isn't it wrong for the lady down the street, or the teenager in high school? People who hold to the above "position" are really just cowards who haven't the integrity to own up to what they are really advocating: the death of the unborn.
I would rather these people just come out and say they are in favor of a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy. Don't insult my intelligence by claiming to be two things at once. I have less than no respect for people who do.
Yep, Repubilcan hard times, huh? We got the President, the House of Representatives, the Senate (well, did have it by a hair), alot of governorships, state houses. I think she's talking about HER WING OF THE PARTY. The wing that has not been able to change the pro-life plank. The wing that tried to get Christine Todd Witman to run for President just because she favors unborn deaths.
Hard times, yeah, for people who like killing unborn children. No matter how they dress it up, it's still murder. When Republicans put forth an objectionable pro-death candidate, the majority of Republicans generally stay home. Them's the facts.
The libs didn't make this mess overnight. We won't fix it overnight. But if we can get out for good candidates, AND show we are also willing to work for "moderates" that will work for our guys (Giuliani is one shining example of this), then we can gain a lot more friends and influence than if we stay home in a huff.
Right. Since according to the LA TIMES poll the day after, Lungren had a net gain on the abortion issues. The problem with Lungren must have been that no one perceived him as a real prolifer.
I agree with you Randita, unless we have an unabashed conservative who sticks to his principles, conservative voters will stay home.
Lets all join Randita and support conservatives like Bill Simon!
It is a well-standing lie that women are overwhelmingly pro-choice. Women are by and large PRO-LIFE, but they are so ridiculed by society, the media, and militant pro-aborts that they remain silent on the issue, quietly voting or sitting out elections because they can't stomach their choices.
Lungren didn't lose because he was pro-life, he lost because he ran an awful campaign, was boring and uninspiring, and had no message. The L.A. Times did an exit poll that showed that people who said that abortion was one of the deciding factors in their decision in the race, voted 13% for Lungren and 12% for Davis, a slight edge for the pro-life Lungren!
Riordan is liberal straight down the ticket, not just on abortion. And I, for one, can not stomach people who think that the right to kill innocent unborn babies without anesthesia should be a deciding factor on who should represent us.
Sadly, Roe v. Wade is the law of the land right now. However, we can change the hearts and minds of the American people by talking about the realities of abortion and giving real, compassionate alternatives to women faced with an unwanted pregnancy.
Riordan is just more of the same, another white guy who doesn't realize that abortion destroys more than one life.
Here's a great link that totally substantiates that women are prolife.
Susan B. Anthony free republic link
I, for one, will NEVER settle for Riordan, who is more liberal than Davis.
"If you're pro-choice, you're more pro- environment, pro-education, and anti-guns. It's not just a single issue. It tells a lot about a candidate."
Kinda clear what these people are trying to do - purge conservatives from the GOP.
That is so right, whoever said it. Being pro-abortion almost always means that the candidate is liberal on everything else. I'm not that political, really -- except on the Life issue -- but I don't understand why anyone liberal would vote for Riordan over Davis? They are so much alike! Why Riordan? Why not Davis? The devil you know ...
Inquiring minds want to know.
We have a whole generation of children who are functionally illiterate because they weren't taught to read with phonics. We have a generation of girls with low self-esteem because they think they need to "put out" to be like everyone else, and their teacher says it's OK. THen, the condom breaks, they get pregnant, and they have an abortion, and their mental health and their soul is irreparably harmed.
I read somewhere that Riordan said something like "If it's for the children, I'm for it." What the heck does that mean? There is a lot of stuff out there that is "for the children" that is BAD BAD BAD.
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.