Knowing Your Enemies is Sometimes More Important
than just voting for someone you agree with.
The
New York Times has a summary article on the Pennslyvania Senate Race between current Republican senator Rick Santorum and Democrat contender Bob Casey, Jr.
I've posted on this race before - both are pro-life candidates.
For liberals, Bob Casey's father, governor Robert Casey Snr attempted to answer the question "How can we justify with our experience in this country - our tradition, our heritage, our history - how can we justify writing off the unborn child in a country which prides itself on leaving no one out and no one behind?". So in carrying on that tradition, the Democrats think they have a winner in Bob.
But Rick Santorum is more than just another pro-life politician - he has been a leader for the pro-life side in the Senate and the ease at which hardened pro-choice activists have backed Casey is telling.
I hope ordinary pro-life Pennslyvanians look at those who they disagree with (Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, Kate Michelman) and then weigh up their choice. When Barbara Boxer says that a pro-life candidate winning is actually a pro-choice victory, you've got to open your eyes.
Some Irish pro-lifers in the past, most noticeably in the last referendum, were unable to do so. This led to the bizarre picture of Dana, failed politician turned Irish dancer clapping and claiming victory alongside her natural enemies in the debate.
Her shortsightness and lack of political judgement was not just her downfall but a set back for pro-lifers here. She is still blissfully unaware of her blunder as she dances for Mna na hEireann in trousers to some naff popsong.
Those in Pennsylvania for whom abortion is an issue that decides their ballot will hopefully pick the candidate with the proven record on pro-life leadership. That said, I would dearly love to see Democrats for Life become a more mainstream part of the Democrat party. Unfortunately as history as shown here as well, pro-choice liberal parties have a remarkably small tent when it comes to abortion.
The
New York Times has a summary article on the Pennslyvania Senate Race between current Republican senator Rick Santorum and Democrat contender Bob Casey, Jr.
I've posted on this race before - both are pro-life candidates.
For liberals, Bob Casey's father, governor Robert Casey Snr attempted to answer the question "How can we justify with our experience in this country - our tradition, our heritage, our history - how can we justify writing off the unborn child in a country which prides itself on leaving no one out and no one behind?". So in carrying on that tradition, the Democrats think they have a winner in Bob.
But Rick Santorum is more than just another pro-life politician - he has been a leader for the pro-life side in the Senate and the ease at which hardened pro-choice activists have backed Casey is telling.
I hope ordinary pro-life Pennslyvanians look at those who they disagree with (Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, Kate Michelman) and then weigh up their choice. When Barbara Boxer says that a pro-life candidate winning is actually a pro-choice victory, you've got to open your eyes.
Some Irish pro-lifers in the past, most noticeably in the last referendum, were unable to do so. This led to the bizarre picture of Dana, failed politician turned Irish dancer clapping and claiming victory alongside her natural enemies in the debate.
Her shortsightness and lack of political judgement was not just her downfall but a set back for pro-lifers here. She is still blissfully unaware of her blunder as she dances for Mna na hEireann in trousers to some naff popsong.
Those in Pennsylvania for whom abortion is an issue that decides their ballot will hopefully pick the candidate with the proven record on pro-life leadership. That said, I would dearly love to see Democrats for Life become a more mainstream part of the Democrat party. Unfortunately as history as shown here as well, pro-choice liberal parties have a remarkably small tent when it comes to abortion.
Labels: Bioethics
posted by Auds | 09:27
2 Comments:
I agree that part of the Democratic base is unreasonably intolerant of anyone taking an anti-abortion position (I am sympathetic to the anti-abortion myself, but it is an issue which I find difficult to choose a practical course. It's important that no more girls die in backstreet abortions, for one).
But even within the small group of US Congressmen who can be confidently said to be b*stards, Man-on-Dog stands out as a rotter.
i have to say I agree with ewi on what he said.
I think many people choose their issues based on what they want to be. Thus liberals are pro choice and conservatives pro-life.
When really the debate has little to do with either camp.
It is an arguement about a definition.
Post a Comment
<< Home