28 August 2005

Harris stumbles on abortion issue

Read about Katherine Harris' recent blunder at AmericanpolitiX.com.



Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm guessing fundraising isn't going as well as her and her supporters said it would and she's trying to generate cash. Regardless, she's certainly sounding desperate. She should have left it alone. I don't think the White House has stopped looking and by saying she's changed her mind, she just reminds the pro-lifers that she use to be soft, leaving open the possibility of the National Party putting up a candidate with stronger credentials on the issue and tapping into that "base" everyone thinks she owns. Shame is in short supply in the Harris camp.

10:32:00 PM  
Blogger RightDemocrat said...

I agree that most Floridians do not favor a total ban on abortion and Harris is somewhat out of step with public opinion in that regard. Still, it is sometimes intensity rather than majority opinion that counts. I think that there are more hard-line pro-life voters in Florida than pro-choice electors. Harris will not play up her hard-line pro-life stance except with evangelical and conservative Catholic voters.

If Nelson had voted for the ban on late term abortions, I think he would be in a much stronger position. Nelson probably would have liked to have voted for the partial birth ban since he is conservative Christian in terms of religious beliefs and a moderate by temperament, but was no doubt afraid of angering the South Florida liberal base. I guarantee you that Harris will use the late term abortion issue and it will be very hard to defend Nelson's position in places like North Florida.

10:10:00 PM  
Blogger Mike said...

"If Nelson had voted for the ban on late term abortions..."

He DID vote for the ban while it protected the health of the mother. He only voted against it when it did not protect against the health of the mother.

That said, Harris will leave that out and attack him anyway.

10:41:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

She will, but she's foolishly throwing out in the wrong race. You can't teach an old dog new tricks, yadda, yadda. If you subscribed to her fluid sense of morality - she was pro-choice in 1994 when she ran for Senate, pro-life in the 1998 Secretary of State Republican PRIMARY and then wish-washy in the General against the Democrat. She seemed to go back to her pro-choice message in 2002 when she ran for Congress against a Democrat. Someone forgot to tell her Nelson is a Democrat because according to her script, she should be moving back to the center.

She's got to get a new bag of tricks, it's not 1994 anymore. In the old days you could play one message to one crowd and another one to a crowd that holds the opposing view. With the media today, everything is scrutinized and when you talk to the Garden Club in Boyton Beach, you might as well be talking to the entire electorate.

I think her message folks are dusty and in way over their heads. Nowadays, flip-flopping is like blood in the water to reporters and you lose credibility throughout the entire platform. "If she's flipping on this important issue that isn't my personal litmus test for a candidate, how can I trust her when she tells me about my issue which is the environment, education, etc." The only ones you have left are the folks on whose side you flipped on that one issue and trust you won't flip again. Look what Bush did to Kerry on flip-flopping. Before it was all over, folks just didn't know which Kerry to believe.

1:08:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think rightdemocrat is on to something, but I think the late-term abortion ban vote is easy to define for Nelson. It is important, however, for Nelson to come out and attack first in order to define himself and also define Harris.

For instance, Nelson never voted against a ban on late-term abortions. He voted against a bill that would allow a mother to become sterile or die simply because there were complications late in her pregnancy. Nelson voted for the real late-term abortion ban, which prohibits the practice when the mother's life and health is not threatened.

Harris on the other hand has taken the extreme position that if you're going to have a dead fetus on the table, well you better have a dead mother too. For the sake of opposing abortion, Harris is willing to allow innocent women, who likely acted responsibly, to also die.

It's important that Nelson doesn't get pigeonholed into this one like Kerry did with the $87 billion. He needs to throw down the gauntlet and define the issue.

Nelson should say, There were two bills, one banned late-term abortions, and I voted for it. There was another bill that would allow mothers to die or become sterile because they could no longer terminate their pregnancy before a government-mandated deadline. I voted against that one, because I don't believe the government should support the unnecessary death of innocent women.

Then let Harris explain how the bill she supported wouldn't cause innocent women to become sterile or die.

This could be a winning issue, if played this way, by further alienating the swing moderate voters who have been voting GOP in recent years.

10:25:00 AM  
Blogger TheDevilIsInTheDetails said...

Another death in penalty philippine Resource... LifeLaw.org . A discussion forum for all that deals with such hot-button issues as death in penalty philippine .

7:51:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home