And before you dismiss the source, the Seattle Times is very middle of the road (unlike its competitor which is unabashedly liberal) -- socially liberal, but never a fan of excessive government and even less so of tax hikes.
Based on my assumptions about the enormous gulf in policy preferences between the two of them. Although to be fair, you're right, aside from her well-known positions on abortion (only in cases where the mother will die) and drilling for oil (yes, please, even though neither the state nor the oil companies own the land in question) I don't know too much about her in the big picture sense. However, one would assume that the Hillary supporters would still support the party nominee, or at least not take direct action to defeat him, but it is the Democratic Party after all. All assumptions should be carefully vetted and compulsively re-examined until Obama takes the oath in January.
There are two equal and opposite absurd assumptions about women voters in this election:
1. The vast majority of women voters who would otherwise vote for Obama will vote for McCain because Palin is a woman.
2. No women voters who would otherwise vote for Obama will vote for McCain because Palin is a woman.
There will be a contingent of women voters who would otherwise vote for Obama - many of them likely disaffected former Hillary supporters - that want to see a woman on the winning ticket. Perhaps some of them already had their doubts about Obama's leadership ability and substantive experience and Palin puts them over the edge. But there will be some voters like that. The only question is whether it will be a significant contingent or not.
Well, my mother isn't a Hillary supporter (she's voted Republican since 1972), but she's said that Palin is a deal-breaker for this election simply on her stance on reproductive rights.
This isn't directed at you because you certainly didn't coin it, but the the phrase "reproductive rights" to refer to abortion is absurd.
By the time abortion is relevant, the man and woman in question have already exercised their reproductive rights. Abortion is not a form of contraception but is treated as such. It's not a reproductive right. It's not reproduction.
I prefer calling it fetal-skull-crushing rights. Or fetal-brain-suctioning rights. Fetal-heart-stopping rights works, too.
She might not, however, be as fiscally conservative as one might be led to believe.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008154664_palin03.html
And before you dismiss the source, the Seattle Times is very middle of the road (unlike its competitor which is unabashedly liberal) -- socially liberal, but never a fan of excessive government and even less so of tax hikes.
Reply
...based on? Isn't it a bit soon to tell?
Reply
Reply
1. The vast majority of women voters who would otherwise vote for Obama will vote for McCain because Palin is a woman.
2. No women voters who would otherwise vote for Obama will vote for McCain because Palin is a woman.
There will be a contingent of women voters who would otherwise vote for Obama - many of them likely disaffected former Hillary supporters - that want to see a woman on the winning ticket. Perhaps some of them already had their doubts about Obama's leadership ability and substantive experience and Palin puts them over the edge. But there will be some voters like that. The only question is whether it will be a significant contingent or not.
Reply
Reply
By the time abortion is relevant, the man and woman in question have already exercised their reproductive rights. Abortion is not a form of contraception but is treated as such. It's not a reproductive right. It's not reproduction.
I prefer calling it fetal-skull-crushing rights. Or fetal-brain-suctioning rights. Fetal-heart-stopping rights works, too.
Reply
Reply
By the time there is a third human in question, those rights have been exercised.
The "right" we're talking about has less to do with reproduction and more to do with killing a human before it becomes too much of a nuisance.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment