- comment
Politicl.Animal - body
- Only a fool considered Biden a real contender for the Democratic nomination before the gaffe, and now it will simply be a matter of going through the motions.
Allen, on the other hand, was a serious contender and if he wins going away will still be a serious contender. McCain can push the racist story all he wants, but Allen will win the South (minus Flordia and possibly Tennessee if Frist stays in) in the 2008 primaries and McCain knows it. That's the difference between Biden's comment and Allen's.
- comment Charlie Bishop
- body
- I think it's way past time for Mr. Webb to step forward and endorse or comdemn the statments made on his behalf by Lowell Feld (weasely disclaimer notwithstanding).
- comment ....
- body
- Lowell knows what hes talking about. Any man who would give money to a Republican does not represent the great man that was Thurgood Marshall.
This is clearly a partisan endorsment given so people will ignore George Allen's racist past (and present).
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican.
Does he not represent the values of Thurgood Marshall?
I could continue listing African-Americans who are both Republicans and outstanding leaders in the civil rights community. I could list good Republicans as well, but then again why be redundant?
- comment D.J. McGuire
- body
- Actually, Shaun, Thurgood Marshall was not above playing politics (note to readers, "playing politics" is not a negative term for me - I have to many politicians in the family for that).
Besides, Allen has always had a history of reaching out to African-American voters in VA. VA Dems may not like to admit it, but the ex-Governor Doug Wilder is closest to politically is Allen - and Wilder hasn't exactly been shy about it.
- comment D.J. McGuire
- body
- Um, not quite, Shaun. MLK voted for Ike in 1956, but that was his last Republican vote.
Face it, Shaun, some people will NEVER accept independent thinking African-Americans. There is a reason for this, but you have to have grown up in the Northeast (like I did) to understand.
Believe me, it's not pretty.
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- Face it, Shaun, some people will NEVER accept independent thinking African-Americans. There is a reason for this, but you have to have grown up in the Northeast (like I did) to understand.
Sadly typical, and a common refrain from Republicans of color.
- comment ....
- body
- MLK was amazing and almost certainly voted for John F. Kennedy and certainly LBJ (the father of American civil rights) against the racist Barry Goldwater.
Oh i forgot, who appointed Thurgond Marshall?
Anyway, George Allen is a racist and Thurgood Marshall would cringe if he heard about this.
- comment Mike
- body
- James,
For the Record, it is Republicans who have done the most for civil rights, and it is Democrats who have created the most obstacles for civil rights. Republicans and Civil Rights
- comment ....
- body
- BULL SHIT! Only 1 Democrat (Robert Byrd) opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, while the Republican Nominee for President, Racist Barry Goldwater opposed it (along with a dozen of his Republican college ages and many former Democrats who became Republicans because the GOP is the party of racism and hate).
We only have civil rights in this country because of 2 Democratic Presidents: Harry Truman who desegregated the military and Lyndon Johnson who desegregated... the entire South.
- comment ....
- body
- BTW: After 1948 when Hubert Humphry gave the greatest speach of all time, and the Democrats put civil rights in their platform, The Democratic Party was the party of civil rights.
BTW: Republican George Bush has a 2% approval rating among African Americans... Is that becuase the Republicans are the party of civil rights?
- comment Mason Conservative
- body
- James, a quick history lesson on the '64 Civil Rights Act:
LBJ went to Northern Republicans in the Senate to pass it, lead by Sen. Everett Dirksen of Illinois, the minority leader. As proof, here is the vote breakdown:
The Senate Version:
Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%)
Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%)
So much for " Only 1 Democrat (Robert Byrd) opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, while the Republican Nominee for President, Racist Barry Goldwater opposed it (along with a dozen of his Republican college ages and many former Democrats who became Republicans because the GOP is the party of racism and hate)"
A total of six Republicans voted against this bill, one being Strom Thurmond and yes, Barry Goldwater. Hardly the "dozens" you speak of. Now if you want to make the case between liberal and conservatives, that might work better for you. All those "no's" had big fat "D" next to their names, including liberal heroes like William Fullbright and Sam Ervin and Albert Gore.
If your majoring in history James, you hvae a long way to go. You need to put your contemporary politics aside and evaluate this on its merits. NORTHERN Demcrats and Republicans are the heroes. At this time, the GOP was basically a regional party, relegated to the minority status for years. The saddest part of the story of the Civil Rights Act is that Everett McKinley Dirksen is forgotten.
Come on James, your in college now, you need to do better than this. The fact is Lyndon Johnson knew he could not pass the Civll Rights Act without Republicans to overcome the southern filibuster, and they came through at a much higher percentage than the Democrats. Only 6 GOPers voted against this. Wake up.
- comment ....
- body
- You call the Southern Senators who voted against it "Democrats", i call them "Dixiecrats".
- comment Mason Conservative
- body
- James, the Dixiecrats were a political phenonanon in the South in 1948, and died shortly therafter. Except for Strom, every single Dixiecrat returned to the Democratic party. The caucused with the party, they were the chairman of the Democratic congressional committes, and they ran as full-fledged Democrats. At the Democratic Conventions, they were all there voting alongside their liberal northern neighbors. While the Democrats gave us heores like Hubert Humphrey, they also gave us Howard K. Smith.
Your distorting history for the sake of contemporary politics, and that is shameful. Listen closely. They. Where. DEMOCRATS. Only three southern senators merit true distinction on civil rights: Claude Pepper of Florida, Ralph Yarborough of Texas, and Estes Kefauver of Tennesse. I believe Kefauver (one of my favs) was the lone singe "yaye" vote. They were the only ones who were able to breakthrough their culture and politics at home. All three lost their senate seats because of it.
Many of these men were flat out racists (Russell, Byrd, and Eastland. Others truly struggled. Albert Gore and William Fulbriight were throughtful public servants who just could not overcome their upringing and where they came from, or the political realities at home. At times, conservatives often mock men like Gore and Fulbrught, and thats not fair--they really did agonize over it.
BTW, it was these "Dixiecrats" put many Democrats in office, especially FDR. John F. Kennedy, if you have read Robert Dalleck's biography, was hesitant on civil rights for fears of the wrath of southern senators. He did not have the iron will that LBJ did to twist arms to go his way. They had real power inside the Democratic Party.
Getting into a pissing match over which party is the party "of civil rights" is not the way to look at history. The Republican Party was founded on free soil and abolition, and the real father of Civil Rights was Thaddeus Stevens, if you ask me.
Your right that these southern Democrats where much differen then their northern colleagues, but Democratic power in Congress was because of these southern D's. In essence, the Democrats would have never held a majority that they did had Jim Crow not existed. It took heoric men like Huburt Humphrey to point this out. But don't pretend like southern Democrats were completely divorced from regualr Democrats. It was BECAUSE of the southern Democrats that the Dems held majorities in Congress in those days. Your trying to warp history to make a contemporary political argument, and a cheap one at that. Your smart and better than this.
- comment Mike
- body
- From the article I posted:
Harry Truman ordered the integration of the military. However, his Republican opponent in the election of 1948, Tom Dewey, was just as strong a proponent for that effort as any Democrat.
As a matter of fact, the record shows that since 1933 Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats.
In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes."
Source #1
Source #2
Read the article ... you may start to see that your beloved Democrat party isn't all it makes itself up to be (except on matters of extreme immorality and the perpetuation of infanticide ... there they have gained all the credit they have earned).
- comment D.J. McGuire
- body
- James,
"Lyndon Johnson who desegregated... the entire South"
Sorry, Jim, but in 1969, 74 percent of Southern school systems were segregated. That number fell to 8 percent by 1974.
This is only education, mind you, not the entire Southern cultural system, but the fellow whose Administration integrated the majority of Southern schools was - brace yourself, James - Richard Nixon.
- comment Charles
- body
- James is solving the problem of his party's racist past by writing out the racists after the fact and consigning them to a "different" category.
His party is still a racist party, as can be seen by their obsession over people's skin color. The democrats not only treat people differently based on their skin color, but they cry racism when other people DON'T treat people differently because of skin color.
Now we can all laugh because the Thurgood Marshall foundation knows that Allen is not a racist, and was awarding him an honor he richly deserved.
And the racists in the democrat party, who have no problem giving donations to WHITE groups who might also give Allen an award, decided that if a BLACK group tried to give Allen an award, those democrats would just teach those uppity blacks by withholding their donations.
The foundation did not back down -- good for them. And now, even worse, is that Senator Allen showed his honor and dignity by withdrawing his own name, in order to ensure that the foundation did not have to suffer the loss of donations from the racists in the democrat party who put politics above honor.
Allen comes out looking magnanimous, the democrats supporting Webb look like spoiled brat college kids and elitists who think that they can still order black groups around.
- comment Megan
- body
- Mason, so what you're saying is that not only does James not know his constitution, he doesn't know jack beans about history.......
everyone should watch "Stupid In America" tonight by John Stossel. It shows what a joke the public school sytem is...
- comment GOPHokie
- body
- Why are we even arguing folks?
If it weren't for the GOP, blacks would still be out picking cotton.
The thought of them having "rights" wouldn't even be an issue.
Just some food for thought.
- comment Mike
- body
- Aw MAN!!! If he's trying to dodge the Democrat Party's racist PAST, why not examine it's racist present?
The Democrat Party is a MAJOR contributer of Planned Parenthood, which was founded by Margaret Sanger, who was a HUGE racist, who also happens to be one of the Democrat Party's big-time heroes (if they believed in such things, they'd call her a saint).
The fact of the matter is that Margaret Sanger wanted abortions so that we could weed out blacks from society. Is it a coincidence that Planned Parenthood abortion clinics are most available to inner city blacks?
Face it, Democrats want abortions so they can eliminate blacks from America!
- comment ....
- body
- 1) I and the vast majority of African Americans are pro-choice.
2) Southern Democrat (1948-1968, when they all became Republicans) is a Dixiecrat.
- comment ....
- body
- According to a survey USA poll conducted on August 15th, a large majority of Virginian's are pro-choice (15%: pro-choice minus pro-life), and the vast majority of African American Virginians are pro-choice (24%: pro-choice minus pro-life).
- comment Charles
- body
- Polls on "pro-choice/pro-life" are rarely useful. You have to be very careful in asking questions to get good information out of them.
Notwithstanding, polls simply indicate what people think, not what is right. Killing babies is wrong, even if everybody thinks it's OK.
It's pretty easy to get people to condone violence, mistreatment, and even murder of other humans, so long as you can put them into a "separate" category.
Blacks suffered this, as did american indians, in this country. Jews in WW2, Christians in muslim countries today.
Babies are an easy constituency to mistreat, especially pre-born because they have no voice of their own.
Thus an enlightened nation, which long ago supposedly realised that treating other human beings as property was just plain wrong, still treats the unborn human beings as the mother's property, to be dealt with as she sees fit.
But abortion does make life a lot easier for a lot of men who want to have sex with women and then not live up to the responsibilities. Abortion is a great boon to those men, who, having talked the women into having sex with them, can also talk the women into killing their babies -- and if they can't, some just beat the kids out of them with baseball bats.
- comment Charles
- body
- Lest someone misunderstand about abortion polls:
Most polls will break down the reasons for having an abortion. Almost all respondents support abortion to save the life of the mother, and if you just ask people "should abortion be legal or illegal" some will answer "legal" even if the only abortions they approve us is for the mother's life, or maybe the mother's life and health, or including rape and incest.
In polls asking for specific circumstances, no poll shows a majority supporting abortion simply because the mother doesn't want the child.
Here's a web page with lots of polling numbers, I'm not endorsing it, but it shows the wide variation you get by asking the question differently (for example, a lot of polls mis-state the Roe V. Wade decision):
http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
- comment Charles
- body
- BTW, here's a link to the Zogby poll about blacks and abortion:
http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=8087
Hispanics support a pro-life position by a 78-21 percent margin, African Americans backed the pro-life perspective 62-38.
Zogby defined "pro-life" as anybody restricting abortion to mother's life, rape, and incest. They did so because abortions due to rape, incest, and the mother's life are so rare that restricting abortion to those three would stop over 96% of all abortions in the country.
Again though, I don't know if the poll was reliable, I'm just noting that there was a poll that showed that hispanics and blacks were more ""pro-life" than whites.
- comment Charles
- body
- I found a SurveyUSA poll from August of 2005. They asked people to label themselves pro-life or pro-choice.
When asked that way, most polls lean more toward pro-choice, because people who favor some abortions don't label themselves pro-life all the time. Many pro-lifers reject assigning the "pro-life" label to people who favor abortion in cases of rape and incest, for example.
I couldn't find any SurveyUSA polls for 8/15/2006, not saying they don't exist, but since this was an abortion survey in 8/14/2005, maybe that was the poll James was referencing.
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=09dfde52-e7c5-4c31-8ab1-126384d162b6
In this poll, the only group that leaned pro-life was the "other" group.
- comment ....
- body
- "a respected polling firm, a total of 56 percent agreed with one of the following pro-life views: abortion should never be legal (18 percent), legal only when the life of the mother is in danger (15 percent) or legal only when the life of the mother is in danger or in cases of rape or incest (23 percent)."
Only 18% of Americans are Pro-Life, not 56%.
- comment Charles
- body
- James, you may feel free to define "pro-life" in that manner if you wish, but it is useless toward having a real discussion.
Your argument would suggest that a person who says abortion should be illegal except in cases of rape, incest, or where the life of the mother is in danger would be "pro-choice".
In which case (and btw this is actually TRUE for many surveys) the "pro-choice" position on most surveys is grossly overstated, including a lot of people who basically want to overturn Roe and ban abortion in almost all cases.
BTW, I'm betting that if you sat down and talked to the 16%, you would find that most of them would allow abortion to save the life of the mother, they just don't trust a law that starts with that because they assume it will be used as a loophole, with many claims that "life" is in danger, which in some ways it always is with a pregnancy.
My personal opinion is that the idea of an exception for rape and incest is a political expediency, or at least is something that makes no sense. The only reason to oppose abortion is because it is the murder of human life. If so, murder cannot be justified based on the circumstance that led to the conception of that human life. The baby is not guilty of anything, and should not be punished with death for the sins of the father.
But I don't tend to attack those who include the rape/incest exception, because they are rare occurances, and the goal is to stop the killing, not to win points for consistancy.
- comment James Young
- body
- I agree with JEM to this extent: I'm sure Thurgood Marshall would speak out against such an award to a Republican. He was a partisan Democrat to the core. And a mediocre Supreme Court Justice, notwithstanding his historical significance as the first black Supreme Court Justice, and his accomplishments as a Supreme Court advocate.
BTW, Harry Byrd is the only Senator to have voted against confirming BOTH Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas. And the notion that Barry Goldwater was a racist is historical revisionism of the worst order. Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for the same reason that Justice William O. Douglas concurred in the cases affirming it: rooting the Act in the Commerce Clause rather than in the Thirteenth Amendment's "badges of slavery" language was both intellectually dishonest, and a needless increase in the power of the Federal government.
And MC, Senator Dirksen is also a hero because of his filibuster against far Left efforts to repeal Section 14(b) of Taft-Hartley, which permits state Right to Work laws.
JEM's historical analysis is Orwellian in its single-minded effort to cast the racists of the Democrat Party down the "memory hole."
- comment Dvt guy
- body
- There were tons of racists who were democrats.
there were tons of racists who were republicans.
Blah blah blah blah blah.
The point is that CONSERVATIVES (democrats and Republicans) were racist, while LIBERALS (Democrats and Republicans) were fighting for the civil rights movement.
The Conservative movement fought civil rights.
- comment Mike
- body
- The point is that CONSERVATIVES (democrats and Republicans) were racist, while LIBERALS (Democrats and Republicans) were fighting for the civil rights movement.
Um ... two things.
1) How are you defining "conservative" and "Liberal"?
and
2) How are you qualifying this remark?
31 Comments:
Allen, on the other hand, was a serious contender and if he wins going away will still be a serious contender. McCain can push the racist story all he wants, but Allen will win the South (minus Flordia and possibly Tennessee if Frist stays in) in the 2008 primaries and McCain knows it. That's the difference between Biden's comment and Allen's.
This is clearly a partisan endorsment given so people will ignore George Allen's racist past (and present).
Does he not represent the values of Thurgood Marshall?
I could continue listing African-Americans who are both Republicans and outstanding leaders in the civil rights community. I could list good Republicans as well, but then again why be redundant?
Besides, Allen has always had a history of reaching out to African-American voters in VA. VA Dems may not like to admit it, but the ex-Governor Doug Wilder is closest to politically is Allen - and Wilder hasn't exactly been shy about it.
Face it, Shaun, some people will NEVER accept independent thinking African-Americans. There is a reason for this, but you have to have grown up in the Northeast (like I did) to understand.
Believe me, it's not pretty.
Sadly typical, and a common refrain from Republicans of color.
Oh i forgot, who appointed Thurgond Marshall?
Anyway, George Allen is a racist and Thurgood Marshall would cringe if he heard about this.
For the Record, it is Republicans who have done the most for civil rights, and it is Democrats who have created the most obstacles for civil rights. Republicans and Civil Rights
We only have civil rights in this country because of 2 Democratic Presidents: Harry Truman who desegregated the military and Lyndon Johnson who desegregated... the entire South.
BTW: Republican George Bush has a 2% approval rating among African Americans... Is that becuase the Republicans are the party of civil rights?
LBJ went to Northern Republicans in the Senate to pass it, lead by Sen. Everett Dirksen of Illinois, the minority leader. As proof, here is the vote breakdown:
The Senate Version:
Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%)
Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%)
So much for " Only 1 Democrat (Robert Byrd) opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, while the Republican Nominee for President, Racist Barry Goldwater opposed it (along with a dozen of his Republican college ages and many former Democrats who became Republicans because the GOP is the party of racism and hate)"
A total of six Republicans voted against this bill, one being Strom Thurmond and yes, Barry Goldwater. Hardly the "dozens" you speak of. Now if you want to make the case between liberal and conservatives, that might work better for you. All those "no's" had big fat "D" next to their names, including liberal heroes like William Fullbright and Sam Ervin and Albert Gore.
If your majoring in history James, you hvae a long way to go. You need to put your contemporary politics aside and evaluate this on its merits. NORTHERN Demcrats and Republicans are the heroes. At this time, the GOP was basically a regional party, relegated to the minority status for years. The saddest part of the story of the Civil Rights Act is that Everett McKinley Dirksen is forgotten.
Come on James, your in college now, you need to do better than this. The fact is Lyndon Johnson knew he could not pass the Civll Rights Act without Republicans to overcome the southern filibuster, and they came through at a much higher percentage than the Democrats. Only 6 GOPers voted against this. Wake up.
Your distorting history for the sake of contemporary politics, and that is shameful. Listen closely. They. Where. DEMOCRATS. Only three southern senators merit true distinction on civil rights: Claude Pepper of Florida, Ralph Yarborough of Texas, and Estes Kefauver of Tennesse. I believe Kefauver (one of my favs) was the lone singe "yaye" vote. They were the only ones who were able to breakthrough their culture and politics at home. All three lost their senate seats because of it.
Many of these men were flat out racists (Russell, Byrd, and Eastland. Others truly struggled. Albert Gore and William Fulbriight were throughtful public servants who just could not overcome their upringing and where they came from, or the political realities at home. At times, conservatives often mock men like Gore and Fulbrught, and thats not fair--they really did agonize over it.
BTW, it was these "Dixiecrats" put many Democrats in office, especially FDR. John F. Kennedy, if you have read Robert Dalleck's biography, was hesitant on civil rights for fears of the wrath of southern senators. He did not have the iron will that LBJ did to twist arms to go his way. They had real power inside the Democratic Party.
Getting into a pissing match over which party is the party "of civil rights" is not the way to look at history. The Republican Party was founded on free soil and abolition, and the real father of Civil Rights was Thaddeus Stevens, if you ask me.
Your right that these southern Democrats where much differen then their northern colleagues, but Democratic power in Congress was because of these southern D's. In essence, the Democrats would have never held a majority that they did had Jim Crow not existed. It took heoric men like Huburt Humphrey to point this out. But don't pretend like southern Democrats were completely divorced from regualr Democrats. It was BECAUSE of the southern Democrats that the Dems held majorities in Congress in those days. Your trying to warp history to make a contemporary political argument, and a cheap one at that. Your smart and better than this.
Harry Truman ordered the integration of the military. However, his Republican opponent in the election of 1948, Tom Dewey, was just as strong a proponent for that effort as any Democrat.
As a matter of fact, the record shows that since 1933 Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats.
In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes."
Source #1
Source #2
Read the article ... you may start to see that your beloved Democrat party isn't all it makes itself up to be (except on matters of extreme immorality and the perpetuation of infanticide ... there they have gained all the credit they have earned).
"Lyndon Johnson who desegregated... the entire South"
Sorry, Jim, but in 1969, 74 percent of Southern school systems were segregated. That number fell to 8 percent by 1974.
This is only education, mind you, not the entire Southern cultural system, but the fellow whose Administration integrated the majority of Southern schools was - brace yourself, James - Richard Nixon.
His party is still a racist party, as can be seen by their obsession over people's skin color. The democrats not only treat people differently based on their skin color, but they cry racism when other people DON'T treat people differently because of skin color.
Now we can all laugh because the Thurgood Marshall foundation knows that Allen is not a racist, and was awarding him an honor he richly deserved.
And the racists in the democrat party, who have no problem giving donations to WHITE groups who might also give Allen an award, decided that if a BLACK group tried to give Allen an award, those democrats would just teach those uppity blacks by withholding their donations.
The foundation did not back down -- good for them. And now, even worse, is that Senator Allen showed his honor and dignity by withdrawing his own name, in order to ensure that the foundation did not have to suffer the loss of donations from the racists in the democrat party who put politics above honor.
Allen comes out looking magnanimous, the democrats supporting Webb look like spoiled brat college kids and elitists who think that they can still order black groups around.
everyone should watch "Stupid In America" tonight by John Stossel. It shows what a joke the public school sytem is...
If it weren't for the GOP, blacks would still be out picking cotton.
The thought of them having "rights" wouldn't even be an issue.
Just some food for thought.
The Democrat Party is a MAJOR contributer of Planned Parenthood, which was founded by Margaret Sanger, who was a HUGE racist, who also happens to be one of the Democrat Party's big-time heroes (if they believed in such things, they'd call her a saint).
The fact of the matter is that Margaret Sanger wanted abortions so that we could weed out blacks from society. Is it a coincidence that Planned Parenthood abortion clinics are most available to inner city blacks?
Face it, Democrats want abortions so they can eliminate blacks from America!
2) Southern Democrat (1948-1968, when they all became Republicans) is a Dixiecrat.
Notwithstanding, polls simply indicate what people think, not what is right. Killing babies is wrong, even if everybody thinks it's OK.
It's pretty easy to get people to condone violence, mistreatment, and even murder of other humans, so long as you can put them into a "separate" category.
Blacks suffered this, as did american indians, in this country. Jews in WW2, Christians in muslim countries today.
Babies are an easy constituency to mistreat, especially pre-born because they have no voice of their own.
Thus an enlightened nation, which long ago supposedly realised that treating other human beings as property was just plain wrong, still treats the unborn human beings as the mother's property, to be dealt with as she sees fit.
But abortion does make life a lot easier for a lot of men who want to have sex with women and then not live up to the responsibilities. Abortion is a great boon to those men, who, having talked the women into having sex with them, can also talk the women into killing their babies -- and if they can't, some just beat the kids out of them with baseball bats.
Most polls will break down the reasons for having an abortion. Almost all respondents support abortion to save the life of the mother, and if you just ask people "should abortion be legal or illegal" some will answer "legal" even if the only abortions they approve us is for the mother's life, or maybe the mother's life and health, or including rape and incest.
In polls asking for specific circumstances, no poll shows a majority supporting abortion simply because the mother doesn't want the child.
Here's a web page with lots of polling numbers, I'm not endorsing it, but it shows the wide variation you get by asking the question differently (for example, a lot of polls mis-state the Roe V. Wade decision):
http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=8087
Hispanics support a pro-life position by a 78-21 percent margin, African Americans backed the pro-life perspective 62-38.
Zogby defined "pro-life" as anybody restricting abortion to mother's life, rape, and incest. They did so because abortions due to rape, incest, and the mother's life are so rare that restricting abortion to those three would stop over 96% of all abortions in the country.
Again though, I don't know if the poll was reliable, I'm just noting that there was a poll that showed that hispanics and blacks were more ""pro-life" than whites.
When asked that way, most polls lean more toward pro-choice, because people who favor some abortions don't label themselves pro-life all the time. Many pro-lifers reject assigning the "pro-life" label to people who favor abortion in cases of rape and incest, for example.
I couldn't find any SurveyUSA polls for 8/15/2006, not saying they don't exist, but since this was an abortion survey in 8/14/2005, maybe that was the poll James was referencing.
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=09dfde52-e7c5-4c31-8ab1-126384d162b6
In this poll, the only group that leaned pro-life was the "other" group.
Only 18% of Americans are Pro-Life, not 56%.
Your argument would suggest that a person who says abortion should be illegal except in cases of rape, incest, or where the life of the mother is in danger would be "pro-choice".
In which case (and btw this is actually TRUE for many surveys) the "pro-choice" position on most surveys is grossly overstated, including a lot of people who basically want to overturn Roe and ban abortion in almost all cases.
BTW, I'm betting that if you sat down and talked to the 16%, you would find that most of them would allow abortion to save the life of the mother, they just don't trust a law that starts with that because they assume it will be used as a loophole, with many claims that "life" is in danger, which in some ways it always is with a pregnancy.
My personal opinion is that the idea of an exception for rape and incest is a political expediency, or at least is something that makes no sense. The only reason to oppose abortion is because it is the murder of human life. If so, murder cannot be justified based on the circumstance that led to the conception of that human life. The baby is not guilty of anything, and should not be punished with death for the sins of the father.
But I don't tend to attack those who include the rape/incest exception, because they are rare occurances, and the goal is to stop the killing, not to win points for consistancy.
BTW, Harry Byrd is the only Senator to have voted against confirming BOTH Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas. And the notion that Barry Goldwater was a racist is historical revisionism of the worst order. Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for the same reason that Justice William O. Douglas concurred in the cases affirming it: rooting the Act in the Commerce Clause rather than in the Thirteenth Amendment's "badges of slavery" language was both intellectually dishonest, and a needless increase in the power of the Federal government.
And MC, Senator Dirksen is also a hero because of his filibuster against far Left efforts to repeal Section 14(b) of Taft-Hartley, which permits state Right to Work laws.
JEM's historical analysis is Orwellian in its single-minded effort to cast the racists of the Democrat Party down the "memory hole."
there were tons of racists who were republicans.
Blah blah blah blah blah.
The point is that CONSERVATIVES (democrats and Republicans) were racist, while LIBERALS (Democrats and Republicans) were fighting for the civil rights movement.
The Conservative movement fought civil rights.
Um ... two things.
1) How are you defining "conservative" and "Liberal"?
and
2) How are you qualifying this remark?
Post a Comment
Home