First Susan B. Anthony’s list endorsed Carly Fiorina in the Republican Senate primary here in California, and now via Flash Report we find that the California Pro-Life Council, the California affiliate of National Right to Life, has joined in endorsing Fiorina.
This comes after she snagged Tom Coburn’s support. Clearly, behind closed doors she’s convincing people.
At this point I’d love to be able to point you to where on Fiorina’s site she talks about her heartfelt pro-life views, but life isn’t one of her “core issues”, so I am entirely at a loss as to what the basis of this endorsement is. My estimate is that she’s trying to prevent abortion from being an issue in the general election, should she win the primary. But what ever she’s saying privately, it’s clearly convincing people, people who make it their business to focus on the cause of life. Said the CPLC:
Fiorina has since met with National Right to Life Committee leadership, and committed to very specific issues of pro-life public policy. Board members of California ProLife also met with her and all have been impressed by her genuine and heartfelt commitment to the cause of Life.
This is a statement written by someone who’s been through the wars on life. The author of this knows that it’s not enough for a person to be personally pro-life, but that person must also be ready to vote pro-life on “very specific issues” in the Senate. It takes both halves for a person to be an effective fighter for life in Washington. That’s the difference between John Kerry and George Bush, after all.
And the CPLC is assuring us that she’s on the right side of that. It’s one thing for SBA to endorse her, since they only endorse women, making themselves a direct counter to the vile group that is EMILY’s list. But CPLC didn’t have to. I have to respect that.
I look back to earlier in this Senate race, and now I laugh. I was being assured by Fiorina supporters that she was a social “moderate.” Back then I had my suspicions that people were confusing Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina. Now I think we have proof.
I’m left to conclude that Tom Campbell is the sole representative of the Party of Death in this primary. He must be stopped. Like Mike Huckabee and Jim DeMint, I’m backing Chuck DeVore as a conservative alternative to Campbell, but for those committed to life, we need to see either Fiorina or DeVore come out on top next month.
Moe Lane
Steve Maley
KnightsofMalta
Dan Spencer
Dan McLaughlin
DeVore needs to catch fire soon
RINKER Tuesday, May 4th at 2:23PM EST (link)…or drop out and support Fiorina. Conservatives need to be united in stopping Campbell!!!!!!
Read that Flash Report piece....
Joshua Trevino (Diary) Tuesday, May 4th at 2:37PM EST (link)…. and specifically, read my long response in comments.
The contention that Carly Fiorina is pro-life is an outright fraud. If “pro-life” means endorsing pro-abortion judges, and stating outright that abortion in America is “a settled issue,” then the term has no meaning.
Chuck DeVore is the only genuine conservative in this race, and I guarantee he will be in it till the end — when he wins.
We are but warriors for the working-day.
People should read Josh's comment there
Neil Stevens (Diary) Tuesday, May 4th at 2:41PM EST (link)It’s detailed and worth considering.
I think the endorsements draw a bright line between Campbell and Fiorina, but It’s points like those Josh makes that help lead me to back Chuck over Carly.
RS contributing editor, technical administrator, and “a hardy variety of crabgrass.”
Read the RedState Posting Rules
Unlikely Voter: Poll Analysis, Election Projection.
“I rejoice that America has resisted.” – William Pitt, the Elder
Fiorina is damaged goods..vote for Chuck
uncoverage Tuesday, May 4th at 3:55PM EST (link)I have written extensively, and so have RedState and Michelle Malkin, about Carly’s problems as a candidate.
Let’s not forget, there was a perfectly good conservative in the race (Chuck DeVore) until the NRSC decided to encourage Carly to run. Rob Jesmer and crew have a great track record with their support of Charlie Crist, Arlen Specter and the like, don’t they?
Carly’s wealth derives primarily from getting herself fired from HP…so much for the “secretary-to-CEO” fairy tale. If she was so great on the job, why is the Packard family campaigning against her and FOR Chuck DeVore?
Carly said she would have voted for Sotomayor to the Supreme Court–what is California Right to Life thinking???
The HP investigations into bribery in Russia and Germany, which allegedly took place during Fiorina’s HP reign, are just beginning. If she would become the nominee, this story will surely hit the fan this fall just in time to doom Fiorina and re-elect Boxer. This race to way too important to waste it on a RINO, diva, teleprompter candidate.
We DO want to oust Boxer, don’t we? Then get behind someone who is clean and a very stark contrast to her. As the Proposition 8 election showed us, California holds some very conservative values which can win a statewide race by a BIG margin.
Please, out-of-state RINO-lovers, please keep your sorry McCain-appeasing noses out of our state politics. We have a horrible senator we are trying to excise like a boil. We have a great conservative, DeVore, who will match up beautifully against the addle-brained Boxer.
There is no doubt in my mind that Carly F. and Tom C. will go down in flames this fall to Boxer if they are the nominee. They are too dirty and liberal.
Don’t confuse our voters with more RINO talk. Tom Campbell has never seen a tax he doesn’t like. The first thing after 9/11, Tom thought to run to Arab terrorist sympathizers to ask for campaign donations and give apologetic speeches about American policy. YUCK
.
I am writing my fingers to the bone and working 24/7 to try to keep California from going off the cliff.
Thank you Red State writers for continuing to stay on message for the medicine California needs.
Chuck DeVore for Senate….Steve Poizner for governor. We have two great financial conservatives, John Dennis and Dana Walsh, running against Nancy Pelosi. Help us get these candidates “viral.” Can you imagine the “pump” this country gets if we can get rid of Pelosi and Boxer? We CAN
do it…just don’t fall into the liberal media trap: They want RINOs to run against.
No third party, no “moderates.” Paint BOLD colors, Ronald Reagan said.
Best regards,
Jane Jamison, UNCOVERAGE.net
uncoverage.net
I am forced to remember a post I made back in September...
lazlor Tuesday, May 4th at 2:38PM EST (link)Sigh… thinking about the NRSC and them telling Larry Elder to take a hike so they could support a losing Fiorina….
ahh, what could have been….
DeVore campaign response.
Joshua Trevino (Diary) Tuesday, May 4th at 2:40PM EST (link)I’m pasting there the DeVore-campaign response to this. It ought to speak for itself.
——————————————————
This demands a response. If you’re a pro-life Californian, ask yourself: Where was Carly Fiorina on any pro-life fight, in any state, in any year, ever? The answer is, sadly, “Nowhere.”
Chuck DeVore, by contrast, was standing with you.
Full disclosure up front: I’m Chuck DeVore’s communications director, and at the suggestion of this site’s generous proprietor, I’d like to respond to this remarkably ill-informed piece directly here in comments.
The author of this essay from the California Pro-Life Council writes, “Carly Fiorina has shown a genuine personal commitment to life, as well as clearly articulated policy commitments.” This is rather astonishing, given Fiorina’s record — or more accurately, the lack thereof — on pro-life issues. The fact is that Carly Fiorina has ….
1) …. no record of pro-life activism whatsoever.
2) …. affirmed her willingness to confirm pro-abortion judges.
3) …. demonstrated an ignorance of pressing pro-life issues.
4) …. publicly stated that the pro-life movement is a de facto waste of time.
Let’s look at specifics from this election cycle alone:
1) Fiorina told a group of reporters in November that she would have voted to confirm the pro-abortion Sonia Sotomayor to SCOTUS:
Source: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=34552
2) On November 5th, 2009, Fiorina was directly “asked whether she would vote to reverse” Roe v. Wade, and dodged the question: “The focus of my campaign are the issues that matter to the people of California, and what matters is what’s on the table right now — is how to we create more jobs and how do we get federal spending out of control.” Translated, that’s a “no.”
Source: http://bit.ly/2IsIER
3) On November 9th, 2009, in a KPCC interview, Fiorina downplayed her pro-life stance, saying, “I believe that life begins at conception … I also recognize that these social issues are not whats on the table today.” Astoundingly, she said this at the same time the so-called Stupak Amendment — the most important pro-life issue of the past year — was a topic of national debate.
Source: http://bit.ly/40UzGN
4) Finally and most revealing, in a conversation to with the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board, Fiorina reiterated her support for Sotomayor, saying, “I do not believe where a potential judicial nominee stands on that issue [of abortion rights] is a qualifier or an unqualifier.”
She then went on to characterize the entire American pro-life movement as essentially a waste of time, saying: “[M]any, many voters are going to conclude while that is a very important issue, it is frankly a decided issue. The law is clear in the state of California, where there is a constitutional guarantee to the right to an abortion. So why are we talking about a theoretical issue?”
Story and audio here:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/04/02/MN8J1CP7H5.DTL
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/opinionshop/detail?&entry_id=60529
Presumably the supporters of the California Pro-Life Council will ask why it chose to endorse a candidate who believes that the pro-life cause is a struggle against what “is frankly a decided issue.”
Chuck DeVore doesn’t believe the fight between pro-life and pro-abortion in America is “a decided issue.” He believes the matter is very much in contention — and that the pro-life cause can and will win.
Contrast Fiorina’s record on pro-life issues with Chuck DeVore’s. He has a 100% pro-life, pro-family rating from the Capitol Resource Institute — and multiple 100% ratings from the California Republican Assembly to his credit. That’s because he has a record stretching back years — rather than campaign-era declarations stretching back weeks.
Chuck DeVore has been a consistent fighter for the unborn throughout his entire public career, and he’s not afraid to be forthright about it now. He’s also been with California’s pro-life community — including the California Pro-Life Council — through every fight over the years. His dedication to the pro-life cause isn’t an electioneering tactic: it’s a core principle. Unlike Fiorina, you won’t find a single example of him telling liberal journalists otherwise.
So much for the value of Carly Fiorina’s “genuine personal commitment to life.” A few minutes with Google would have put the lie to that.
Now, on to the issue of electoral viability: the California Pro-Life Council has decided that Carly Fioria has it, and Chuck DeVore does not. Some reference to data is useful here, but accurate data is remarkably absent from this piece. Let’s take the two pillars of the given argument, cash and polls, in turn.
On cash: The author didn’t accurately cite the last round of FEC reports: he or she gives a too-low estimate of Chuck DeVore’s last cash-on-hand figure with debts subtracted, but does not do the same for Fiorina’s number. The sad fact is that when the same treatment is given to Carly for California — backing out loans which must be repaid and debts — that campaign is several hundred thousand dollars in the red. (Don’t take my word for it: go to FEC.gov and look for yourself.) Contrast with DeVore’s healthy, in-the-black operation, and the proposition that Fiorina’s campaign is more financially viable is flatly risible.
On polls: Recent polls agree that Chuck DeVore is rising fast, while Carly Fiorina is slipping. Certainly that’s been the trend for each since late January. There are even recent polls — Capitol Weekly/Probolsky statewide, and Lewis Group in Orange County — indicating that the two candidates are now in a statistical tie. Furthermore, in the latest Rasmussen poll pitting each of the three Republican candidates versus Barbara Boxer, Carly Fiorina does the worst — behind Chuck DeVore. The notion that Fiorina’s stupendous resources and cash burn rate has earned her anything more than an uncertain second-place is simply unsupportable.
Let’s recap: the California Pro-Life Council has chosen to endorse a candidate who says the pro-life movement is a waste of time, whose campaign is in stupefying debt, and who can’t even eke out a lead — over a candidate who is a proven pro-life warrior, whose campaign is in the black, and who continues a steady rise in the polls.
Well. If the California Pro-Life Council won’t remember who fought for the pro-life cause, California’s pro-lifers assuredly will.
Sincerely,
Joshua Treviño
Communications Director
DeVore for California
We are but warriors for the working-day.
To be clear....
Joshua Trevino (Diary) Tuesday, May 4th at 2:44PM EST (link)The phrase “this remarkably ill-informed piece” there refers to the CA Pro-Life Council’s writeup at Flash Report, where this comment originally appeared — not to Neil’s work.
We are but warriors for the working-day.
Perspective
Sean (SIConservative) (Diary) Tuesday, May 4th at 5:08PM EST (link)Before I reply to the specific points you made, I want to make two things clear. First, I am not going to try to say that Fiorina’s pro-life bonafides compare to Chuck DeVore’s. Second, I can’t make the assertion that she is pro-life, but, for myself, I trust the judgment of Sen. Coburn on the matter.
That said, to your first point, candidates in other races who are generally classified as “pro-life” also said that they would have voted to confirm Sotomayor. I’m referring specifically to Kelly Ayotte in New Hampshire and Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania. Would you also question whether they are pro-life? To be sure, I wasn’t happy about those statements. I also wonder, though, whether they would have acted differently were they actually in the Senate at the time.
What I can say definitively about their cases, and what I expect of Fiorina, is that they would vote to confirm judges likely to overturn Roe. Boxer, of course, won’t.
As to your second point, you’re putting words in her mouth to say that her answer would be “no”. She’s running for Senate, not SCOTUS, so it’s a moot point anyway. President Reagan once responded to a question saying, “[That's a hypothetical question] and I’ve learned that I never get into trouble if I don’t answer those.” It’s beyond hypothetical, though. It’s not even possible, so why give Sen. Boxer something to use against her?
To your third point, Californians won’t elect someone they perceive to be a pro-life crusader. Sens. Coburn and DeMint wouldn’t win there. What we need from the California seat is votes to support the position, not vocal leadership. A Republican in California should be running on a platform of fiscal responsibility, not the life issue, and there’s nothing wrong with her doing so.
As to your final point, you actually give me more pause about Mr. DeVore than Carly Fiorina. A judge’s position on abortion should be irrelevant. His temperament and judicial philosophy are what is important. The political views of a judge should be no more relevant than those of any other voter. I would be much more comfortable with a judge who thinks that abortion should be legal but that it’s not in the Constitution so the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over it than a “pro-life judge” who seeks to justify a ruling based on how evil the practice of abortion is. Does Mr. DeVore, as your post implies, really want a results-oriented judiciary rather than one that looks at the case through the lens of the Constitution?
I’d also like to mention briefly the electability issue. I haven’t followed the CA primary especially closely, in no small part because I remain unconvinced that we can win in California. That’s not to say that we can’t, just that I’m not convinced that we can. That said, I’m not a man who believes we need to throw principle under the bus to win, but I do believe in a need for pragmatism in campaigns. There is nothing wrong with a pro-life candidate focusing exclusively on unrelated issues in a campaign when the electorate is clearly hostile on the life issue but open on others. Campaigning hard on the life issue is a kiss of death to a candidate in California, so I am perplexed as to why DeVore would do so. Can you explain how he expects to explain to win a general election in California when he’s going beyond the call of duty in promoting a position that is clearly at odds with the voters there?
I concur
Adjoran (Diary) Wednesday, May 5th at 2:44AM EST (link)with SIConservative, and would add that while a candidate’s staff may be understandably upset at being passed by for an endorsement in the primary, it is neither seemly nor wise to be seen as disparaging a group such as CPLC, which has done so much good work – and which DeVore will be needing in the fall should he win the nomination.
How prevalent will the candidates abortion position be in the general?
Marcus_Traianus (Diary) Tuesday, May 4th at 3:17PM EST (link)Especially considering the overall California voter dynamics, history of issues such as Prop. 4, etc. How do California independents poll on abortion?
Clearly, the conservative position is pro-life and Fiorina seems to be walking a well-planned tightrope. But why the charade- is this simply for the primary audience with some margin of interpretation for general election voters?
It would simply be helpful to understand how important this issue will be considering the other substantial problems Californians are facing.
Oh and before anyone starts: “how important” to the voters? It is obviously important to the unborn.
“Both of our political parties, at least the honest portion of them, agree conscientiously in the same object—the public good; but they differ essentially in what they deem the means of promoting that good. One side believes it best done by one composition of the governing powers; the other, by a different one. One fears most the ignorance of the people; the other, the selfishness of rulers independent of them. Which is right, time and experience will prove.”.Thomas Jefferson
Hard to tell
Neil Stevens (Diary) Tuesday, May 4th at 3:19PM EST (link)In a normal year Democrats run hard on abortion.
But this isn’t a normal year. We’ve got the economy, terrorism, border security, and just how awful Barbara Boxer is to run on.
RS contributing editor, technical administrator, and “a hardy variety of crabgrass.”
Read the RedState Posting Rules
Unlikely Voter: Poll Analysis, Election Projection.
“I rejoice that America has resisted.” – William Pitt, the Elder
Demographics matter, especially in the statewide races.
acat (Diary) Tuesday, May 4th at 3:31PM EST (link)Abortion is a no-no for the very-Catholic (or even marginally Catholic) and this could peel some of ‘em away from Boxer.
In a normal year, it wouldn’t matter, but the demographics of Cali have been trending very Hispanic (and very Catholic) for a long time now .. it may matter *enough* this time around to do the dance.
My guess is that Carly is taking advantage of her own previously ambiguous position to obtain a pro-life-sounding position now that she can squirm out of later at need.
Mew
——
“All that is gold does not glitter, not all those who wander are lost”. –Tolkein
Disagree
Neil Stevens (Diary) Tuesday, May 4th at 3:41PM EST (link)I don’t think “demographics” matter so much as political organization. People have been saying that for years but it’s never, ever materialized. The “hispanics” just don’t vote as a bloc.
The unions ally with the pro-abort groups. And as the public employee unions have radicalized, so have California politics. They’ve been the key to Republican fortunes in this state.
But even they couldn’t stand up to waves like 1994.
RS contributing editor, technical administrator, and “a hardy variety of crabgrass.”
Read the RedState Posting Rules
Unlikely Voter: Poll Analysis, Election Projection.
“I rejoice that America has resisted.” – William Pitt, the Elder
Demographics is more than just melanin
acat (Diary) Tuesday, May 4th at 4:16PM EST (link)Hispanics don’t vote as a bloc – very true. I don’t like to look at people and see groups – each person votes for his or her own reasons. All politics isn’t just local, as Tip O’Neil said, it’s personal.
The African-American-bloc-party is very, very odd, historically. Failure to assimilate, continued voting in bloc form.. doesn’t look like the same path any other sub-group (Irish, Italian, German, Japanese, Indian/Pakistani) took – which makes the continuing attempts by Republicans to treat Hispanics like African-Americans even more stupid than usual… (and shows an opening on the Dem side since they’re doing the same pandering)
So, while I do agree that “Hispanics aren’t a bloc”, I do think female Catholics – who make up a pretty big percentage of Hispanics – may be easier to peel off if appealed to *as individuals*.
I don’t like Carly – but she’s a lot better than Boxer, and unlike Babs Carly has at least some idea of how to motivate and lead. It’s the direction she’s chosen in the past that make her suspect, not her skills in getting to where she wants to go.
Mew
——
“All that is gold does not glitter, not all those who wander are lost”. –Tolkein
Well I'm jaded to it all
Neil Stevens (Diary) Tuesday, May 4th at 4:43PM EST (link)I’ve heard all these arguments over and over about how the next fad is going to turn things around in this state.
I’m convinced it’s not that easy and the key will be in hard work and organization, not in tuning the message a tad.
RS contributing editor, technical administrator, and “a hardy variety of crabgrass.”
Read the RedState Posting Rules
Unlikely Voter: Poll Analysis, Election Projection.
“I rejoice that America has resisted.” – William Pitt, the Elder
Fads don't last....
acat (Diary) Tuesday, May 4th at 6:39PM EST (link)but sometimes it can be hard to tell the next fad from the next sea change.
I don’t think tweaking the message will get Carly elected. Cali is a tough row for Repubs to hoe, to put it mildly. Too many “big government” types on both sides of the aisle, lot of history. Add in a *very* well organised Union-Democrat complex, and it’s a tough nut to crack.
Same used to be said about Massachusetts, although the complex rotted and softened up under Kennedy and Kerry, giving the voters an unappealing and weak Dem choice, and giving Brown his shot.
While I’d love to see someone other than Boxer, I don’t think California is ready to confront its’ systemic problems just yet, and until they’re ready to elect a serious conservative governor or throw the Dem leadership off the state legislature … it remains a very long shot.
Mew
——
“All that is gold does not glitter, not all those who wander are lost”. –Tolkein
Acat, this makes no sense.
joayn (Diary) Wednesday, May 5th at 12:00AM EST (link)“Abortion is a no-no for the very-Catholic (or even marginally Catholic) and this could peel some of ‘em away from Boxer.”
There’s no such thing as a very-Catholic voter in the Democrat party. You’re either a pro-life Catholic Republican, or a Democrat Catholic. Democrat Catholics in the Boxer camp aren’t going to jump over for any Republican on the life issue – these people would already be Republicans if this issue was so morally important to them. This was especially proven in the final days of the health care bill. Unfortunately, Democrat Catholics do not consider the life issue first and foremost.
Fiorina weasled the CPLC endorsement to get conservative Republican votes. That’s her intent because she’s polling behind him. If anything, she’s trying to peel voters away from Chuck DeVore. This is a Republican vs Republican move. Getting Democrat votes was/is not her intention in this regard.
America is an idea; a noble idea that essentially boils down to the shocking belief that the masses are in fact not asses. John Nolte
rationale
Steven Ertelt (Diary) Tuesday, May 4th at 3:37PM EST (link)LifeNews.com has more on the endorsement, which was made to ensure two pro-life candidates don’t split the vote and allow pro-abortion Campbell to win the GOP nomination. http://www.lifenews.com/state5060.html
Contacts for Calif. Pro Life Council
uncoverage Tuesday, May 4th at 4:44PM EST (link)I would strongly suggest pro-life supporters to email the president and the vice president of the Californa Pro-Life Council to let them know they have made a mistake in endorsing Carly Fiorina, who has said she would have voted in favor of Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court.
Chuck DeVore is the true conservative and ONLY pro-life person in the GOP Senate race in California. His support has DOUBLED in the past few weeks, while Fiorina is declining. She also just made a major stumble on immigration and has alienated the right, the left and the middle.
What was California Pro-Life Council thinking?????
Brian Johnston, President: bpjohnston@sbcglobal.net
Mike Spence, VP: mikespence@verizon.net
Best regards,
Jane Jamison
UNCOVERAGE.net
uncoverage.net
Wake up California!
justfedup Tuesday, May 4th at 7:07PM EST (link)Does anyone remember what Carly did to HP? Compaq? Pink slips at the door, while Carly jetted around world. Like a rock star. All about her. Carly was described as having a vision, but no leadership skills. The Ax lady. Glad I went with medical. Sound familiar. Hint: 1600 Pennsylvannia Ave.
Do You Remember What Tom Campbell Has Done To The State? The Party?!
IJB Tuesday, May 4th at 11:54PM EST (link)No?
Believe me – I’d take Fiorina in a split-second over Campbell.
SBA-List
Sean (SIConservative) (Diary) Tuesday, May 4th at 7:09PM EST (link)Neal, you made a mistake on the SBA-List’s policy. They mainly endorse pro-life women, but they also work to defeat pro-choice women. I think, though I’m not certain, that EMILY’s List also works to defeat pro-life women.
Neil didn't make a mistake.
joayn (Diary) Tuesday, May 4th at 11:33PM EST (link)He’s referring only to their policy of endorsing a candidate. That’s the topic of the post: endorsements. Of course SBA wields their influence in other areas, but that wasn’t his point.
And, quite frankly, they should have made an exception and endorsed Chuck Devore in this instance just to emphasize what an exceptional candidate he is. Afterall, weren’t they going to give Bart Stupak an award on his pro-life “achievements” in congress?
America is an idea; a noble idea that essentially boils down to the shocking belief that the masses are in fact not asses. John Nolte
No, they endorse p-l men running against p-c women
Sean (SIConservative) (Diary) Wednesday, May 5th at 12:20AM EST (link)It’s also asinine to suggest that they make an exception for a single candidate just because you’re excited about his candidacy. There are other organizations for that. As I said, though, they do endorse men running against pro-choice women. In the unlikely event that DeVore wins the primary, they would endorse him (assuming they considered him viable, and possibly even if they didn’t).
As to the Stupak situation, yes, they were going to give him an award. They changed their minds when Stupak did. There’s nothing wrong with that.
So what part did I make a mistake on? (nt)
Neil Stevens (Diary) Wednesday, May 5th at 12:02AM EST (link)RS contributing editor, technical administrator, and “a hardy variety of crabgrass.”
Read the RedState Posting Rules
Unlikely Voter: Poll Analysis, Election Projection.
“I rejoice that America has resisted.” – William Pitt, the Elder
You said that the SBA List only endorses women
Sean (SIConservative) (Diary) Wednesday, May 5th at 12:14AM EST (link)At times, they endorse men running against pro-choice women. In 2008, for example, they endorsed Robert Latta and Jim Ryun.
Ah
Neil Stevens (Diary) Wednesday, May 5th at 12:19AM EST (link)Fair enough.
There seems to be a bias though. Did they even consider endorsing Chuck? Did they send him a questionnaire or try to interview him?
RS contributing editor, technical administrator, and “a hardy variety of crabgrass.”
Read the RedState Posting Rules
Unlikely Voter: Poll Analysis, Election Projection.
“I rejoice that America has resisted.” – William Pitt, the Elder
There's a definite bias
Sean (SIConservative) (Diary) Wednesday, May 5th at 1:29AM EST (link)Yes, they do what they can to recruit and endorse pro-life women. They exist to elect more pro-life women and defeat pro-choice women in an effort to counter the perception the left tries to create that pro-lifers are just men trying to take control of womens’ bodies.
So I'm right to discount their endorsement (nt)
Neil Stevens (Diary) Wednesday, May 5th at 10:14AM EST (link)RS contributing editor, technical administrator, and “a hardy variety of crabgrass.”
Read the RedState Posting Rules
Unlikely Voter: Poll Analysis, Election Projection.
“I rejoice that America has resisted.” – William Pitt, the Elder
Not exactly
Sean (SIConservative) (Diary) Wednesday, May 5th at 11:39AM EST (link)They’re convinced that Fiorina is pro-life and will vote that way. They wouldn’t have endorsed her otherwise. That’s significant given the doubts that many have about her. It’s certainly legitimate to say that the endorsement doesn’t mean that the group thinks she’s stronger than DeVore on the issue, but that’s not the same as discounting it. It’s not like they endorsed her just because she’s a woman.
Your second last sentence is exactly what I mean (nt)
Neil Stevens (Diary) Wednesday, May 5th at 2:31PM EST (link)RS contributing editor, technical administrator, and “a hardy variety of crabgrass.”
Read the RedState Posting Rules
Unlikely Voter: Poll Analysis, Election Projection.
“I rejoice that America has resisted.” – William Pitt, the Elder
The Powers That Be manged to fool James Dobson
cwilson (Diary) Tuesday, May 4th at 11:39PM EST (link)vis the KY race, for about a week. I wonder if we’ll see that others have been fooled in the CA race, on the same issue. If so, I hope the retractions come before, and not after, the election.
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom — go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen! –Samuel Adams
That's not the same
Neil Stevens (Diary) Wednesday, May 5th at 12:06AM EST (link)CPLC isn’t saying DeVore’s pro-abort. Big difference from the Kentucky situation.
RS contributing editor, technical administrator, and “a hardy variety of crabgrass.”
Read the RedState Posting Rules
Unlikely Voter: Poll Analysis, Election Projection.
“I rejoice that America has resisted.” – William Pitt, the Elder
Sounds like Carly should....
audax (Diary) Wednesday, May 5th at 1:02AM EST (link)…drop out and throw her support to DeVore to stop Campbell…isn’t that what RINO’s would say DeVore should do to stop Campbell? But, it will never happen…. RINO’s NEVER support the Conservative-Noun!
Audeamus pro audere est facere
Concerned by the following
JHancock (Diary) Wednesday, May 5th at 1:25AM EST (link)Carly Fiorina has ….
1) …. no record of pro-life activism whatsoever.
2) …. affirmed her willingness to confirm pro-abortion judges.
3) …. demonstrated an ignorance of pressing pro-life issues.
4) …. publicly stated that the pro-life movement is a de facto waste of time.
I’m worried that she is just another lip service pro-lifer who is “personally pro life” but doesn’t feel right “forcing a decision on others that impacts…..women’s’ issues”.
I get tired of these pro-life panderers…its like saying you are personally against the Holocaust, but would never force anyone to tear down the prison camps and release the prisoners……because at the end of the day you don’t want to burn bridges with the Nazi’s you might later need to support you.
Wow
Sean (SIConservative) (Diary) Wednesday, May 5th at 1:54AM EST (link)You managed to read Josh’s post above. Anything new to add?
Uh.....a few things.....
JHancock (Diary) Thursday, May 6th at 4:39PM EST (link)1) “It seems fairly clear that Carly Fiorina was asked to deliver the message to some groups that John McCain was not particularly pro-life. For whatever reason, the McCain campaign viewed her as a good and trustworthy carrier of this message,” Trevino writes. “We are therefore presented with the strange spectacle, in 2008 and since, of Fiorina proclaiming her pro-life sentiments for the first time, even as she amassed a record of publicly delivering a series of cues to the contrary.”
As late as September 2008, Fiorina used the phrase, “reproductive rights,” regarding abortion — a phrase that has long come under fire from pro-life advocates because it is a euphemism to promote abortion.-
Source: http://www.lifenews.com/state4377.html
2) Asked where she stands on abortion, Fiorina said, “I PERSONALLY happen to be pro-life. John McCain has a very long pro-life record and he won’t walk away from that record.”
-in other words, she dislikes abortion, but it is not an issue she wants to tackle.
Source: http://www.blogher.com/mccain-adviser-carly-fiorina-pro-choice-women-wont-vote-mccain
3) “In terms of government policy, I believe we need to do what we can to reduce the number of abortions and I think we need to provide alternatives to women to abortion, such as, for example, making adoption more accessible.”
-but, not in favor of making abortion illegal, or having a Life Amendment…just leave it to the States (which of course means that the most it will ever take to get an abortion is a car trip and $500)…frankly, this is the position many Dems take
Source: http://www.flashreport.org/commentary0b.php?postID=2009110319091465&authID=2005081622025042&post_offsetP=0
4) Wall Street Journal: Fiorina Is Pro-Choice. According to the Wall Street Journal, Carly Fiorina is “pro-choice on abortion.” [Wall Street Journal, 8/22/09]
VS…
LA Times: Fiorina Is Anti-Choice. The Los Angeles Times reported: “Fiorina is opposed to abortion, which puts her at odds with most California voters.” [Los Angeles Times, 8/19/09]
soooo…..it must be a matter of degree then….meaning she’s moderate
5) Both Carly Fiorina and Assemblyman Chuck Devore describe themselves as pro-life conservatives. While Fiorina continually describes herself as such there are many party insiders who refuse to believe her. During the John McCain Presidential campaign, Fiorina erroneously misrepresented the Senator’s voting record as it related to abortion funding and his past votes.
Source: http://hoguenews.com/?p=7131
6)some conservative voters are hung up on Carly’s “I believe life begins at conception, but I support abortion in certain situations”, and her “I am personally pro-life”, which many read as a parsing of speech to deflect one’s personal morals versus the mass appeal of the populous’ position on abortion overall.
Source: http://hoguenews.com/?p=7131
Although I suppose we can’t hope for to much from ANY Californian
“Devore has voted for abortion funding twice; in 2005 and 2008, with his supportive vote for California’s budget in Sacramento both years.”
Medi-Cal funded nearly 40-percent of all abortions in California.
Devore claims that these were budget votes on statis-quoe items, not policy votes.
But still….I think he has more of a record of pro-life than she does, although they both would probably ignore the issue if they could
The best course of action
jwill555 Wednesday, May 5th at 1:35PM EST (link)it appears that the choice for conservatives is between Carly Fiorina and Chuck DeVore. Carly has a lot of baggage going into the general election. Chuck DeVore is a solid conservative. Carly has a lot more money to spend. Chuck has more grassroots support.
The choice is clear for me: Chuck DeVore.