How is possible for Sarah Palin appealing to the Christian Right and independent voters at the same time?
Check out the final installment of her Charlie Gibson interview.
GIBSON: Roe v. Wade, do you think it should be reversed?
PALIN: I think it should and I think that states should be able to decide that issue… I am pro-life. I do respect other people’s opinion on this, also, and I think that a culture of life is best for America… What I want to do, when elected vice president, with John McCain, hopefully, be able to reach out and work with those who are on the other side of this issue, because I know that we can all agree on the need for and the desire for fewer abortions in America and greater support for adoption, for other alternatives that women can and should be empowered to embrace, to allow that culture of life. That’s my personal opinion on this, Charlie.
GIBSON: John McCain would allow abortion in cases of rape and incest. Do you believe in it only in the case where the life of the mother is in danger?
PALIN: That is my personal opinion.
GIBSON: Would you change and accept it in rape and incest?
PALIN: My personal opinion is that abortion allowed if the life of the mother is endangered. Please understand me on this. I do understand McCain’s position on this. I do understand others who are very passionate about this issue who have a differing.
In Palin’s first response, she reaches out to abortion rights proponents who nonetheless think reducing the number of abortions is a worthy goal. That’s what the Democrats have been trying to do with their new platform language on abortion. Rather than pouncing on a Roe question to beat the drum for a Right to Life Amendment to the constitution, Palin takes a much softer line: the issue should be decided by the states.
In her second answer, she reiterates her hard-line view that abortion should be available only when the mother’s life is at risk, getting well to the right of George W. Bush.
There, that’s how Palin appeals to the Christian Right and to independent women at the same time.
She makes it look easy.
6
posted September 16, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Roe V. Wade should NEVER be repealed…leaving it up to the states would, IMO be trouble. One state would have legal abortions, the one next to it would say no. So if a woman needed to have an abortion, she would perhaps have to head for a state where it was legal…no matter how close or far it is, adding to a hard situation.
Sarah has a right to her personal opinion, but she doesn’t have the right to tell another woman that she can’t do what she feels is necessary. I’m an Independent, and she hasn’t pleased me with her responses at all…not even a tiny bit. What really makes it worse, she sees no reason to “allow” an abortion in the case of rape or incest! That makes her opposistion to Roe V. Wade even worse. How could she tell a woman who has been raped or one who’s “father” has impregnanted her that she has to carry to term? Unbelievable!
posted September 17, 2008 at 6:41 am
How does the rape argument always end up centered around the least likely, most horrific scenarios possible? It’s not that people on both sides try to use abortion to scare people into voting is it?
No, it couldn’t be that.
I believe in states rights, so she sounds pretty reasonable to me. And understand, everyone, on both sides of the abortion, is wrong. And will always be wrong. It’s wrong to make people keep children they can’t deal with, and it’s just as wrong to change a baby into a fetus because baby killing is bad and fetus killing is acceptable. Yet everyone gets so self righteous the moment this topic comes up.