Sunday, May 23, 2010

Shifting The Goal Posts?

UPDATE: This is one of the more ridiculous things I've heard in a very long time. That Sarah Palin herself will give up her Pro-Life position?

I said no such thing about Palin.

Read it again.

The same platform that can easily be done away with should the Republican nominee, whoever they are, feel like it in 2012.

If the GOP goes the way David Frum would like it in 2012, then the chances of a pro-abortion candidate are very likely.

Do I think Palin has a chance to be the nominee? I honestly have no clue. Whatever will happen, will happen.

But yes, Lisa Graas has shifted the goal posts. Way back where she wanted something where Palin talked about the plank specifically. Then it was the 14th amendment. I've tried to oblige her. It wasn't to her satisfaction.

I'm done trying to jump through her hoops.

Previously:
The gauntlet was thrown and the challenge laid bare was thus:

On a side note, I have challenged David Riddle, a contributor at Conservatives 4 Palin, to provide me with some quotes from Sarah Palin proving that she is a defender of our Fourteenth Amendment.  See, that's important since it's in our pro-life plank.

To which I replied back:

[Palin] gave a speech on Friday, May 14th to the Susan B. Anthony Organization. There was lots of talk about the Constitution throughout her speech and her support for it as well as endorse candidates who she’ll believe to support those same views. Thanks to the wonders of the internet, it’s available online.

I should have figured it wouldn't of satisfied Lisa Graas's question. She points back to the plank in the GOP Platform of 08. The plank that is by no way law of the land. The platform that lost in 08. The same platform that can easily be done away with should the Republican nominee, whoever they are, feel like it in 2012.

It's safe to say that Graas is for the most part a single issue voter. That's fine, its her choice. I can understand her hesitation at someone who is libertarian like Rand Paul. But I can't find what she wants regarding Palin using the exact verbs and noun in the correct syntax she's looking for. Palin is not a lawyer so I wouldn't expect any legal briefs on that one.

Far as I know, she didn't push any anti-abortion bills through the Alaskan State Congress. They would have been rendered moot if they were signed into law anyway. If the 14th Amendment was repealed, the Alaska would have a chance to be a pro-life state, if I remember my US Government class correctly. There's the catch-22 for Graas. Without the 14th, the Americans With Disabilities Act couldn't be enforce at the federal level and would be up to the individual states to act on it.

What Palin is trying to establish is coalition building. Getting to that proverbial 51% which wins elections and controls Congress.

But for now, I've said my piece and continue to agree to disagree with Graas.

6 comments:

  1. It disappoints me to hear you suggest that Palin would not only be okay with changing the pro-life plank, but also that she should do so as a matter of political expediency......and it disappoints me to hear you characterize this as my "shifting the goal posts" rather than your shifting them. Anyway, here is my reply.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You know, Dave, I wouldn't have signed on to C4P if I had any doubts about the Gov.'s pro-life commitment; on a philosophical level, it would probably be fair to call me a single-issue voter, too--I'm not necessarily dogmatic about approach, but I will not vote for a politician who isn't absolutely committed to ending abortion by whatever means they deem most likely to be effective. I do not believe one can build good arguments on false premises, and anyone who is pro-abortion demonstrates that their premises are false at the most fundamental level possible.

    As such, the mere fact that I support Gov. Palin makes it clear that I have no doubt whatsoever that her pro-life position is real, sincere, and basic to her political outlook--not a matter of political expediency, but something at the core of who she is and what she believes. And here's the thing: there is absolutely nothing to suggest otherwise (including Rand Paul). For Lisa Graas to question the Gov.'s integrity on this point because of insufficient evidence is a standard piece of disreputable rhetorical trickery. If I wanted, I could use the same approach to argue that Lisa Graas is pro-slavery, or at least that we can't be sure that she isn't. It would be ridiculously unfair, of course, but there's less evidence that she's anti-slavery than that Gov. Palin is pro-life, so . . .

    ReplyDelete
  3. What "position" Dave? Specifically. I don't think she'll give up on her position against public funding of abortion.............the only position you have been able to prove that she has on the law.

    There is a record here. http://prolifeprofiles.com/palin

    What are you smoking?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Rob Harrison: If I wanted, I could use the same approach to argue that Lisa Graas is pro-slavery, or at least that we can't be sure that she isn't. It would be ridiculously unfair, of course, but there's less evidence that she's anti-slavery than that Gov. Palin is pro-life, so . . .

    Mr. Harrison, you have obviously not read my blog at all. If there's any blogger out there for whom it can be proven there is opposition to slavery, it would be me.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I've stopped digging, Lisa.

    I've failed to provide you the letter of the law for your emotional appeal.

    Yes, yours is an emotional appeal. You've said many times that the ADA is personal to you, and rightly so.

    But I'm not the one who can answer your question.

    I cry your pardon.

    ReplyDelete