“It has long been a truism that you can’t win election statewide in California without being pro-choice. The last two Republican governors, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Pete Wilson, were pro-choice. Even conservative icon Ronald Reagan early in his first term as governor signed a therapeutic abortion law that liberalized access to the procedure years before Roe v. Wade made abortion legal,” according to contributor Eleanor Clift at PoliticsDaily.com
Democratic Incumbent Barbara Boxer’s strong support for a woman’s reproductive rights has helped mark her career since she was first elected to the Senate in 1992.
GOP Challenger Carly Fiorina, however, has declared herself as a pro-life candidate, along with fellow Republicans such as Sharon Angle, who’s running against Harry Reid for a U.S. Senate seat in Nevada.
“What we’re seeing in this election cycle, propelled in part by Sarah Palin, is the rise of pro-life feminists in a party where previously the women who rose to elective office were pro-choice moderates,” the Examiner states.
Even among first ladies whose husbands opposed abortion rights, Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush and Laura Bush all supported Roe v. Wade.
Some see the race as a proxy war for the abortion debate. Fiorina has said she would vote to overturn “Roe v. Wade.” Here’s Palin endorsing Fiorina:
Filed under: Uncategorized
Jeff,
The political earthquake in Alaska this week was caused in large part by the presence of a parental notification measure being on the same ballot. It passed overwhelmingly despite the expenditure of $800,000 to defeat it by Planned Parenthood [I don't know what the California equivalent would be, but it would be in the tens of MILLIONS of dollars].
Everyone considers California to be “deep blue” as even Sarah said, but it may not be so on the issue of life: There have been three attempts to pass parental consent here in California in recent years and all three suffered very narrow defeats after being outspent by at least one-hundred-to-one by Planned Parenthood.
Carly will expose Senator Boxer as the extremist that she is on this issue, not only opposing a parent’s right-to-know, but supporting full taxpayer funding for abortion on demand and even Boxer’s support for the barbaric practice of partial birth abortions.
In this year where the economy is king, sadly the more important issue of how we treat our children will be a back burner issue once again. But for those who vote based on this issue, abortion will be a net favorable for Carly giving her a three to four percent advantage, which if she wins by such a margin would be the margin of victory.
Remember that you read it here first because NONE of the main-stream media or political “experts” would ever admit such a thing.
John
“Which if she wins by such a margin would be the margin of victory.”
Brilliant.
Sorry Max, I let my political-speak get ahead of my thoughts: The question is always asked what provided the “margin of victory” in a close race.
What I should have said was that if she wins by this size of a margin then you can attribute her victory to the net vote she gained by her ProLife position.
Clear as mud?
John
Let me be the first to point out that the correct terminology for the Palin position ‘anti-choice.’
The ‘pro-choice’ position favors keeping abortion legal while ensuring it is rare.
Not much of a choice for the child.
John
Carly will lose… Mr. Stoos needs to get a grip on reality.
Steve,
I have a bet with Jeff for dinner over Prop 23: You want to make it dinner for six and include the Boxer race?
John
I will tell you what, if Prop 23 loses I will take you and your wife out to lunch in Sacramento. I will promise to listen for at least 75% of the time
John,
In California, do you really think her pro-life stand on abortion is worth that kind of a net favorable?
I hate to bring up the “you’ve lived here too long” argument again, but I’m thinking statewide, not just among the “social conservatives” in our area. Sometimes we tend to be a bit myopic.
Carly stated for the record she would vote against Rowe v. Wade – a pretty strong statement.
How will that resonate among moderate “boomers” in our state?
-Jeff
Jeff,
Being ProLife does not resonate well with “moderate boomers” because they want their cake and eat it too.
However, I think you would agree that they are going to be voting on the economy and jobs this year: NOT abortion and sadly for Anna, not even on global warming.
If Carly makes this a referendum on the Boxer record, which I think she will and hold firm to her convictions on abortion so she can not be accused of being a hypocrite or flip-flopper she will do well among those voters.
Her advantage comes from those who DO vote based almost exclusively on the abortion issue. Recent polls from both Gallop and Field show a three to four point advantage for the ProLife position, usually something like 14% for the ProLife side to 11% for the ProChoice side.
John
Just curious – it has struck me many times now – why do you always call Fiorina “Carly”, and Boxer “Boxer”? Why not Fiorina vs Boxer, or Carly vs Barbara? For that matter, why do you tend to call the women candidates by their first name (those you like anyway), but the male candidates by their last name?
To be honest I used Carly because I fear misspelling Fiorina and am not sure how it is pronounced. Poor excuse I know, but I think I have done it with an equal number of men.
I also try, and often fail, to use the proper titles for elected officials like Senator Boxer out of respect.
John
That would be “Fee-oh-ree-nah” pretty much phonetically as written, with the stress on the ree.
Thanks Sharon!
That works for my children, but I went to the government schools back in the days when they did not put much stock in being able to read.
John
Seems to me Republican’s are foolish on this issue in CALIFORNIA. Fine by me; we don’t need the person who darn near put HP out of biz in Washington.
On the issue at hand, The right, anti-choice/pro-life, in reality means they are pro-life/anti-choice as long as the “life” is inside a woman’s womb.
After that they pretty much (not 100% mind you, but close) they will kill, kill, kill via capitol punishment, and I will not even go to how inaccurate the guidelines for evidence are nor the percentage of folks in prison that ain’t lilly white and the consequences that can have on who republicans kill each year.
Curtis,
IF you will allow me to separate capital punishment from prison reform then I can honestly say that I think I am with you on much of what you say about prison reform. Instituting restitution as the means of clearing a criminal record for fraud and property crimes would get a whole lot more help to the victims and a lot of young men or women a chance for a fresh start.
However, when it comes to capital punishment, if you are talking about the death penalty for kidnapping, rape or murder in the first degree with at least two witnesses, then I would argue this is a ProLife position: You are saying that human life is so valuable that no other means of punishment can make restitution or bring justice.
John
Since you bring the death penalty and abortion together in this discussion, I feel compelled to mention something that seems to be a bit odd to me.
I can see the viewpoint of maintaining both the death penalty and abortion.
I can also see the faithful’s viewpoint of opposing both the death penalty and abortion.
Additionally, I can see how someone would be more disposed to be protective of the most innocent of humans while less so of violent criminals, and thus oppose abortion while supporting the death penalty.
But how does one support protecting murderers from death, while denying that protection to the most innocent of all human life?
Fiorina’s extreme positions on abortion (hostile to Roe v. Wade, etc.) puts her to the right of the Republican Party, never mind voters in general. She’ll already have every ardently pro-life vote locked down, so she doesn’t gain any additional votes by being more extremely anti-choice.
Fiorina benefits if she can make the election a referendum on Boxer, Washington, and the economy. The abortion issue provides Boxer an opportunity to make Fiorina and her extreme positions an issue.
Add to that Sarah Palin’s very, very low popularity in California, and Fiorina may have given Boxer the biggest contribution of the election cycle.
Just my personal opinion, but I think Fiorina loses because (in addition to her extreme positions, poor record at HP, ties to Palin, etc.), well, Fiorina is not very likeable. Just my opinion, but I don’t think she projects warm & cozy feelings in people, and that can be a critical factor in an election like this one.
John Regan is soooooo right. Barbara Boxer needs to hammer Carly Fiorina on Roe v Wade. The Roe issue alone may be enough to win the election for Boxer. Fiorina probably should have taken a lesson from Meg Whitman and forsaken the certain Russ Steele vote for the uncertain exurban, upside down, underemployed Gen X voter.
Steve,
Senator Boxer’s problem is what I was trying to point out to Jeff above: IF she pounds away at the abortion issue then the folks in the middle don’t think that she cares about jobs and the economy.
She is going to have to campaign there and with her record, it does not look good.
John
John S.,
I think you may not know the “folks in the middle” like you think you do. Trying to pin The Great Reset (this recession) on Barbara Boxer is complete folly. And Fiorina has no chops when it comes to economic issues: she almost ran HP into the ground before the board fired her. I’d rather vote for a ground squirrel to handle legislative issues in the US Senate.
http://politicalcorrection.org/factcheck/200908200003
The “folks in the middle” will blame the Bush/Cheney clown bus for destroying the American economy for the rest of their lives. Illegal wars, speculative bubbles, deregulation, tax cuts for the super rich, and a total disrespect for the very concept of civil service, are how they will remember Bush/Cheney. Forever.
I get a chuckle when I see the level of hate shown toward Obama/Biden by the right. I know that it is a visceral reaction toward how the “folks in the middle” and on the left treated their side from 2000 till 2008. I don’t blame them, I just feel sorry for them.
This is one of the problems with a strong executive branch, it’s very difficult to prosecute presidents who engage in activities bordering on treason. The war in Iraq/Afghanistan and the state of our economy are very closely linked. Have a look at this link and tell me what you think: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17754
Michael,
Don’t disagree with much of what you say here, I was simply making the point that Senator Boxer must take that battle to the voters and not try to divert attention to the social issues if she wants to win “the middle.”
However, I do not agree that our problem has been the inability of our system to curb the executive branch: The problem is a gutless Congress.
If former President Bush wanted a war, he should have sought a declaration of war. Without such a declaration, the congress should have refused to give him any money for his military operations.
Our founders were wise in how they set things up, we just need to elect more people willing to follow the rules.
John
John,
You can’t blame Congress for a strong executive branch. Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, and finally Reagan get the badge of honor for creating that mess.
There has been a steady erosion of Congress’ role going on 5 decades. I think it’s too far gone for Congress to do much about it at this point.
Here’s another fine link: http://www.vdare.com/asp/printPage.asp?url=http://vdare.com/roberts/100816_americans_are_history.htm
M.
Michael,
I certainly agree that this has been a bi-partisan problem which is why so many are frustrated with everything in Washington.
However, it is the Congress that still has the power to tax and to appropriate the funds and if they cut a president off there is not much they can do about it. To the extent that congress, at times under the control of BOTH parities, has not exercised their power under the Constitution they share in the blame and at some point in the future they can be part of the solution.
John
John