The three leading Democrats speak on abortion, and Edwards and Obama dig themselves a nice little hole in the process:
Elizabeth Edwards said Tuesday that her husband's health-care plan would provide insurance coverage of abortion.
Speaking on behalf of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards before the family planning and abortion-rights group Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Edwards lauded her husband's health-care proposal as "a true universal health-care plan" that would cover "all reproductive health services, including pregnancy termination," referring to abortion...
Asked about his proposal for expanded access to health insurance, Obama said it would cover "reproductive-health services." Contacted afterward, an Obama spokesman said that included abortions.
Clinton has not yet released her health-care proposal... She criticized cuts in contraception services for low-income women, lengthy delays in approving over-the-counter sales of the "morning-after" contraceptive pill and redirection of sex education funds to abstinence-only programs that do not include information on contraceptive use or condoms toto prevent the spread of AIDS.
For those of you who don't think Hillary is guaranteed to win, you need to pay closer attention. Liberalism is not appealing to the masses. Large government supporters capture certain niche markets: government workers, the poor, African Americans and most other non-Aisan minorities, and illegal immigrants, who are usually non-Aisian minorities.
They also tend to do well with women, but this conglomeration is seldom sufficient to win elections. Liberals do not win by being liberal; they win by preaching moderation. It should be added that a conservative splinter group helps liberals as well. Remember Ross Perot? You can bet your bottom dollar that Hillary does.
Democrats are seldom that bright, but they're not complete morons either. They know, deep down, that most of their little crusades aren't all that popular. Take abortion for instance. Most Americans will tolerate abortion, but they would like it to be restricted. Partial birth abortion is too close to infanticide; allowing minors to abort without informing their parents reeks of perniciousness; in cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother, abortion should be allowed, and most early term abortion are alright, but it's a necessary evil, not a good.
Understand that I am not an apologist for abortion. I think abortion is the worst evil ever concocted by man, and it should be altogether eliminated, with staunch penalties for those who procure it. This may run counter to my libertarian principles, but I am a Catholic first, a libertarian second.
But the facts are against me, as they usually are in cases of public opinion. But they are also against Edwards and Obama. While the base loves that their candidates are supportive of free abortions for all, the average American finds it disgusting. Funding abortion is not a way to win moderate votes, and even a worthless hack like Guiliani might win an election against those who would revive the ancient sacrifices to Moloch on the public dime. There is no way the Democrats are going to be so stupid as to run Edwards or Obama so long as they stick to their guns on this one.
As ridiculous as it sounds, Hillary is actually the most moderate of the Democratic candidates. This, coupled with the seething mediocrity from the Republican camp, is why she will win, not only the nomination, but the Presidency.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
You do understand, that even though what I am about to say I do believe is true, I am against abortion.
The only *"good" thing to come from abortion is the left is murdering itself at a far faster rate than conservatives, and has crippled itself in real terms. However, it has foreseen this and that is why it has pushed, and hard, for immigration to be what it is today. They need replacements, and even then, they are on a part of the population curve that does not favor them. With an amnesty, continued immigration status quo, and current and predicted demographic dynamics though, they win hands down. Lets call the whole thing a liberal population machine. It burns babies for fuel, this fuel allows the adults to spend near full time advocating, protesting, and doing other activist functions, the immigrants are like air, then replacements for the activists, and ignorant therefore easily “liberalized”. The cycle continues.
Can the boiler be turned off before it becomes full steam? A change in abortion would necessitate a change in immigration, or there would be real trouble, real fast. Can you say Mexican Economy? Just some thoughts.
*"good" - No, I do not think the "good" is worth the price. The ones who are paying it aren't leftists, just their children. Now, if they could leave the child and dump themselves... we could talk.
I think your point is somewhat valid, but only to an extent. Someone, somewhere, might be pushing for replacement fetuses, but I don't think most liberals are aware of the substitution.
The elites may be conspiring against us, but the people are seldom in on the deal.
Post a Comment