Powered by TypePad

« Talking Point (Mis)Managament | Main | Josh Marshall Needs Help (I Provide Some) »

July 13, 2005


John Thacker
"All of a sudden," he continued, the media began asking, "'Is she selling out? Is she abandoning her principles?' But if John McCain, who's pro-life, works with Hillary on global warming, he's a man of principle moving to the middle."

So he believes that the media is liberal too, huh? After all, that's a very believable explanation for why the media hates Democrats moving to the center by tacking right while it praises Republicans moving to the center by tacking left.

richard mcenroe

Hillary is wonderful! Hillary is a Goddess! Hillary couldn't deliver the Olympics! Hillary couldn't deliver healthcare! Hillary couldn't deliver feminism to China...


Has Hillary ever delivered anything to her constituents?


The point of the political abortion debate has always been whether a woman should be able to make this decision for herself or if the goverment should be involved in the decision.

Roe v. Wade drew a line which allows women to make this decision.

The moral debate probably encompasses as many varied opinions as there are people.

So I, for one, support Roe v. Wade.


No it's not, jerry, and only a sophist or a liar could say that.


Well, he's correct that Dems are boxed in on the abortion debate, but its not the evil Pubs that did it to them. They did it to themselves by failing to stand up to their own special interest groups and failing to support widely popular regulation of abortion around the edges like parental consent laws, a late term abortion ban, etc.

The quadrennial 100 mile crawl through broken glass to the likes of NARAL by Dem presidential candidates has become so pathetic it has reached the point of invoking horrible fascination. Honestly, I squirm watching them do it every election year. Its embarrassing.


After reading that NYT piece, my only regret is that I can only vote for Hillary twice.

Once here, a second time in Flordia.

Maybe a third time if I rent an apartment in Seattle.


"...abortion is a tragedy for virtually everybody who undergoes it, we ought to do all we can to reduce abortion."

Duh. No brainer. I take it everybody agrees with that.

So...this discussion is about the messenger; not the message.

How will reasonable people ever even agree about what they do AGREE about if the discussion is always about the messenger and not the message?

Is America well-served by ignoring POINTS OF AGREEMENT and attacking the messenger?

What kind of civil discourse is that?

Think about it.


In this case no one believes the messenger. Tough thing that, losing your credibility.

Oddly enough, I agree with Clinton, the Dems have boxed themselves into a corner with abortion and even he felt that sting, but since everyone assumed he was lying about it, no one cared.

John Thacker

"...abortion is a tragedy for virtually everybody who undergoes it, we ought to do all we can to reduce abortion."

Duh. No brainer. I take it everybody agrees with that.

Nope, Rider, NARAL doesn't agree with that. Quite a few NARAL spokeswomen make the (quite cogent, really, from their premises) argument that stigmatizing abortion by saying it's a tragedy could result in worse access to abortion for those who need it, and in stigmatization of vulnerable girls and women who get one.

In addition, I doubt that it's "about the messenger, not the message," since the attacks he's referring to are all from the Roe supporting crowd and NARAL fearing that she would go soft on abortion to attract the middle. He doesn't mention any attacks from untrusting Republicans. For these Democrats, it is about the message, not the messenger, since they're willing to attack Hillary.

The comments to this entry are closed.