Search Results for ‘abortion’
Fred Thompson made his Sunday morning talk-show debut as a candidate on “Meet the Press” last week and delivered a mediocre performance. With the Thompson-anticipation boomlet fading and poll numbers falling, Thompson needs to rebound from his unremarkable stances and lackluster debate performance to regain the lead and interest focus in the race.
But the former Tennessee Senator did not make the cut under Tim Russert’s straightforward questions. Thompson bungled several questions, sounded nervous at times, gave few specifics, and offered few solutions to the problems Russert brought to attention.
On Iraq, a question Thompson should have been well prepared for, he seemed stumped.
“MR. RUSSERT: But staying the course, the status quo, can that be our strategy? What is our exit strategy? How long would you stay there?
MR. THOMPSON: Well, it’s, it’s not a, it’s not a stay-the-course when—in, in terms of what’s been going on there. What’s been going on there’s been quite negative. It is a—giving us an opportunity to succeed. You know, we’ve got to, we’ve got take yes for an answer. We got to take success as a, as a reality when we find it.”
But then, two questions later, Thompson redefined his position.
“MR. RUSSERT: But you oppose withdrawing any troops right now.
MR. THOMPSON: Well, I, I, I think we ought to stay on the course that we’re on.”
Russert found many recent quotes from Thompson which sound like the remarks of a novice politician. Thompson also bungled on abortion, making the case for states rights, a woman’s and legislature’s right to choose, and slamming Roe vs. Wade. Thompson does not have a reputation for being especially libertarian, but he seems to be staking out that territory as part of a composite, traditional conservative image. But if he continues to define his own positions and plans so blatantly poorly, he will have minimal support to help him through the primaries.
View the whole transcript at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21623208/
November 9th, 2007
After Sam Brownback dropped out last week, speculation immediately started as to which candidate the prominent social conservative would support. It was generally assumed that Brownback would lend his endorsement to a candidate shared his socially conservative views. However, as the Politico reports, Rudy Giuliani, who is pro-choice and pro gay rights, has been courting Brownback. While Brownback is not giving it up on the first date, he said he was “much more comfortable” with Giuliani’s position on abortion and gave Giuliani a chaste kiss on the cheek, describing him as a “wonderful candidate.”
If Giuliani gets the Republican nomination, he will need to have a prominent social conservative on the ticket to keep the right wing of the Republican Party happy. Prominent religious fundamentalists and extremists like James Dobson have declared that they would never vote for Giuliani, although at this stage, it’s just posturing. Giuliani would to do everything he could to appease them and have a Vice Presidential nominee would perform that task. It would be a role that Brownback would be perfectly suited for. That is why Brownback is meeting with Giuliani and making such a public display of it. Giuliani is the only candidate who needs Brownback and would put him on the ticket. (After all, Kansas isn’t a swing state). Brownback is a failed Presidential candidate who knows what he wants and is not afraid to go get it.
October 26th, 2007
Cross posted at Iowa Independent
Jerry Falwell died two days ago. Will the Christian Right soon follow? That is certainly one of the questions being debated amidst the 2008 presidential contest. The front-runner for the GOP nomination, Rudy Giuliani, is pro-choice. But he has come under fire; recently for these views and his lead is shrinking nationwide and in Iowa.
Will the Christian Right try to stop Giuliani from winning the nomination? Could they if they tried? In this sense, perhaps the real legacy of Jerry Falwell won’t be known until the GOP has its nominee.
The cover story of the New Republic’s current issue is a lengthy (and intriguing) tribute to the idea that Giuliani can win the GOP nomination. Nestled within, however, is this paragraph:
Then, of course, there is the religious right. Though their power is on the wane, Christian conservatives are not going to allow Giuliani to have the nomination without a bitter fight… Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, put it this way: “If he wins, he’ll do so without social conservatives.” Then he added that a Republican presidential candidate can “no more win without conservative voters than a Democrat can without overwhelming support from blacks.”
Earlier today, James Dobson, chairman of Focus on the Family, and one of the leaders of today’s Christian conservative movement announced he would not support Giuliani if he were the Republican nominee:
Speaking as a private citizen and not on behalf of any organization or party, I cannot, and will not, vote for Rudy Giuliani in 2008. It is an irrevocable decision. If given a Hobson’s – Dobson’s? – choice between him and Sens. Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, I will either cast my ballot for an also-ran – or if worse comes to worst – not vote in a presidential election for the first time in my adult life.
On the other hand, Ralph Reed, former head of the Christian Coalition, urged social conservatives to give Giuliani a chance. According to the Hotline, Reed told viewers of the Christian Broadcasting Network that Giuliani “can still potentially win over pro-family voters” if he focuses on issues where they agree. Giuliani had campaigned for Reed last May when Reed was running in Georgia’s lieutenant governor primary; Reed went on to lose the election, but has maintained an affinity for Giuliani, apparently talking him up in January at the National Review Institute.
Here in Iowa, Giuliani has the support of former Congressman and failed gubernatorial candidate Jim Nussle, who was conservative on social issues while in Congress. However, Nussle’s running mate, the more conservative Bob Vanderplaats, in addition to the very conservative Danny Carroll, has endorsed former Arkansas governor and pastor Mike Huckabee. Iowa Republicans–especially the grassroots–are well known conservatives. Two polls taken in 2000 showed that about 60 percent of likely GOP caucusers thought abortion should be illegal, according to the Des Moines Register. The Register reported in the same article that Giuliani hasn’t decided yet whether to participate in the Ames Straw Poll, a crucial test of Republican support in Iowa.
Whether Giuliani will win the Iowa caucuses or the nomination remains to be seen. But what is clear is that a Giuliani victory would be a crushing blow, perhaps a fitting epitaph, for the movement that Jerry Falwell helped create.
May 17th, 2007
Chet Culver announced a major initiative yesterday to provide $12.5 million in state funds for embryonic stem cell research. Stem cell research was a major talking point of Chet’s during the campaign and it’s not at all a surprise that he’s following through with it. Although Iowa will still be far behind other states like California, which has allocated up to $3 billion over the next ten years for embryonic stem cell research and our neighbors in Illinois who have allocated $15 million, it’s still a good start. Hopefully, with Democratic majorities in both Houses, legislation to make state funding of embryonic stem cell research legal will breeze through the legislature along with the necessary appropriations.
However, Chet did draw some criticism. Betty DeBoef, the Danny Carroll clone with spelling issues, doesn’t see the need for stem cell research. In fact, she thinks “it’s more about abortion rights than it is about finding cures for people.” This is reassuring to know. I always thought that Michael J. Fox was merely motivated by self interest. Frankly, Betty DeBoef wasn’t much good at smearing Eric Palmer during the election and she’s even worse at trying to attack Chet Culver’s attempt to make sure that the hundreds of thousands of Iowans suffering dieases and ailments ranging from paralysis to Parkinson’s might one day be cured. In fact, maybe stem cell research might even help Betty one day, provided that it could help doctors find a cure for Foot In Mouth Disease.
January 26th, 2007
Via Hotline On Call, we learn that Rudy Giuliani will be campaigning for Republican gubernatorial hopeful Jim Nussle and Republican congressional candidate Mike Whalen in the days leading up to Election Day. There’s no question that spending time with Iowa Republicans is good for Giuliani as he mulls a presidential run in 2008, but what could be the effects on these two Iowa races?
Sure, Giuliani brings a lot of star-power with him, and he conjures up memories of 9/11 — we all know how good Republicans are at wrapping themselves in the flag — but he is also widely known as a liberal Republican, particularly for his pro-choice views. Should we be surprised that two pro-life candidates like Nussle and Whalen have attached themselves to the Giuliani teat? I don’t think so.
We’ve watched Nussle do his hustle on choice since the beginning of the campaign. And in such a split electorate, it should come as no surprise that he is trying to pivot a bit to the left; in fact, that has been a nationwide trend among GOP gubernatorial candidates according to the New York Times.
Whalen’s pro-life cred has been questioned as well. Last April, the Krusty Konservative noted Whalen’s “general ignorance and his lack of interest” in the issue and that he once told people that he was only pro-life “because his consultants told him he had to be.” But again, we shouldn’t be surprised of his posturing; he is running in unfriendly territory, a district that Kerry and Gore both won.
But therein lies the rub! If Nussle and Whalen go too far off the right-wing reservation, the base will be less enthusiastic about the election, perhaps not volunteering or not voting at all. Besides, as we have learned these last few years, when voters have a chance to vote for a Republican or a Republican-lite, they go for the real Republican. As we’ll likely find out in a mere two weeks, the same goes for Democrats.
October 24th, 2006
Tonight Chet Culver and Jim Nussle sparred in the first gubernatorial debate of the election season, and I’m going to call it a Culver win. (That’s actually me trying to be objective.) Nussle was certainly more polished than Chet, but I think Chet’s ideas clearly trumped Nussle’s question-dodging answers. Besides, the grooming and smooth talking may not be a plus in Nussle’s column, since professional Washington politician doesn’t generally play well in Iowa. I’ve also heard Nussle’s tie described as a “crime against humanity.”
On attack ads and negative campaigning. Nussle went first and gave an opening statement, completely ignoring the question. Chet pointed out that Nussle aired negative ads first. The moderator then allotted another 30 seconds to both candidates, pointing out that Nussle didn’t respond. Nothing worthwhile comes out of it.
On choice. In Clintonian fashion, Culver says that “Zero is the best number of abortions,” but that he respects a woman’s right to choose. Nussle cites his 100% pro-life voting record in Congress and says that he would further restrict abortions.
On tax policy. Nussle kept bringing up taxes all evening, saying that seniors are fleeing Iowa for “greener tax pastures.” I’m pretty sure seniors are leaving because Iowa is cold cold cold, and I think young people are more concerned that there are too many pastures and not enough, you know, city. Chet spoke about Vilsack’s successes, and pointed out that a higher cigarette tax could potentially save 13,000 lives.
On alternative fuels. It’s Iowa, everyone loves alternative fuels.
On affordable healthcare. Nussle completely skipped the question and talked about how “every mile is a minute” and rural citizens in emergencies are suffering. True perhaps, but who cares if they can’t afford the healthcare when they get to a hospital? (And wouldn’t it be nice if they could have preventative medicine and not have to almost die rushing to a hospital?) Chet explained his plan to expand Hawk-I and allow all Iowans to enjoy the same healthcare coverage as elected officials.
On education. We know, we know, Chet would be the only governor who had been in the classroom in the past 20 years. As Chet pointed out, Nussle voted 100 times against education while in Congress. Chet put it well, saying “It’s the record, not the rhetoric.” (He also looked very pleased with himself after this.)
On stem cell research. Nussle said adult stem cells are where the “exciting” research is happening. That’s probably because he voted to ban embryonic stem cell research, so no research is happening there. Culver pointed out that Nancy Reagan and Bill Frist both support overturning the stem cell ban, and that it could potentially save millions of lives.
In summary, Chet stuck to his talking points and elucidated his plans for Iowa, while Nussle, ok I’ll say it, hustled.
October 2nd, 2006
Well the Nussle hustle rhetoric is kind of silly, but apparently the powers at be have seen signs that it is sticking (or will stick), because they keep repeating it. In a somewhat surprising move, they have released an ad specifically for the web (not uncommon in other states, but …) on Nussle’s abortion hussle. Perhaps they made it thinking they might run it on TV and then decided against it? I don’t know.
You can view the ad here.
Incidentally, Nussle’s ads are all up on YouTube, but I haven’t found any of Culver’s. It’d be cool if they started uploading them, because then more people would probably watch them (and bloggers could embed them in posts).
Update: The Culver camp informs me that there are, in fact, three Culver ads on YouTube. My bad for missing those.
September 20th, 2006
Those who went to the Harkin Steak Fry may have noticed that we had a crack team of bloggers there. In the following post, Ben and Alec reflect over the highs and lows of the event, which has made the news across the country.
Alec filed the following post:
The Harkin Steak fry gave me so much to sink my teeth into that I don’t know where to begin.
First, the basics—it didn’t rain and the steak was good. I hear the beans were a little cold. The lack of coleslaw was an enormous oversight. Someone said they liked the chicken but that it could have used a little salt. I didn’t try, nor hear anything about the bread. All things considered, it was a good day on the food front.
Oh, and there were speeches and stuff.
Ben, Freeda and I first stumbled by some of Evan Bayh’s people from the All America PAC. We asked one of them how long he had been with Bayh’s campaign, and he corrected us (with tongue firmly in cheek) that it was a political action committee. We were assured that Bayh would be around Iowa next year. Surprise surprise.
Soon after, we got a hold of Vilsack standing by the ice cream machine and taking pictures. Ben asked him whether the speech he gave for Grinnell commencement in the spring could be the basis of a possible stump speech (read: the 08′ question creatively reworded). The Governor said he had a lot on his mind and that he would continue to go around the country and tell people about the issues he thought were important. It was a snoozer for an answer, but I guess we couldn’t have expected the man to announce his candidacy to three college kids with press passes. Ah well. Then, Ben asked how congressional candidates should talk about Iraq before November. Vilsack said that, as he saw it, the mission in Iraq had changed from three years ago—with an elected government and a “standing army” the mission needed to shift to “building civil society.” He didn’t say it upfront, but he strongly hinted that he supported some sort of phased withdrawal. Could Vilsack be changing the position he offered in June to the DLC?
I caught a glimpse of the back of Obama’s head in the middle of a giggling crowd. I knew it was no use to try to get a word with him at that point. Mark that as the first failed chance to nab Obama.
Next, we found Mary and Chet Culver hanging out by the press. After shaking his hand and introducing ourselves (I’ve met Chet before, but I forgive him), we asked him what issues he planned to highlight before November in order to secure a majority of the undecided voters (the people who, if the latest DM poll is right, are going to decide this thing). He said that he would keep detailing his plan to “move Iowa forward” and said it was important for people to know that he was a coach and a teacher. In what seems to be a recurrent theme, he talked about these credentials as a private citizen far more than his time as Sec of State. Indeed, all day, the only person to dwell on Culver’s job as Secretary of State was Harkin, who said Chet had done more than anyone else in the country to make voting accessible to all. If Harkin can praise Culver’s time in elected office that profusely, why is it that Culver seems to stress the teacher/coach angle far more often?
I’d guess the emphasis on having been a teacher/coach is meant to contrast Chet’s private life with Nussle’s lack of non-government work (besides being a lawyer, which is a dirty word in the Republican party), but I’d like to see Chet talk more about his time as Sec of State.
In what goes down as the best moment of the day, Mary Culver told us she reads our blog and even recognized Hannah as a contributor. That is, of course, the quickest way to a blogger’s heart. Swoon. She said she was surprised Nussle had gone negative so early and speculated that low internal polling numbers motivated his turn to mudslinging.
As we made our way toward the stage we briefly got to speak with Jerome Armstrong and also shook hands with Mark Warner. Sadly, we didn’t get a chance to pose a question—the man seemed pretty intent on working the crowd. But something tells me we’ll be seeing a great deal more of him next year.
And then from Ben:
Shortly after, we watched Leonard Boswell take the stage. I know this isn’t news for many of you, but it was the first time I had seen the Boz since his successful surgery, and I just have to mention how good he looks. Slimmed down and full of energy, he looks at least 15 years younger. And he sounded confident.
He’s going to win this election and it won’t even be close.
After his speech, which I largely missed, Secretary of Ag. candidate Denise O’Brien spoke about the need for a “safe and healthy Iowa” to fairly large applause. Sec. of State candidate Mike Mauro spoke next and got the crowd riled up with an attack on Katherine Harris and the 2000 Florida Recount (The Dems are never going to forget that). Patty Judge, hopefully our next Lt. Governor, spoke afterwards. She’s not that polished but she gave the crowd some good lines. Biggest applause lines: education, abortion rights (”Choice matters in Iowa”), and perhaps surprisingly stem cell research. I’m not sure how potent that issue will actually be here in Iowa, but Claire McCaskill does seem to be using it with success in her Missouri senate race this year.
Something to think about…
Up next was Mark Warner, who seemed a bit out of place at this Iowa Dems event considering his presence wasn’t announced in advance, but was still greeted with fairly strong applause and a small standing O. He joked that some people still hadn’t recognized him at the event (maybe that’s why he was there — gotta get that name id up) and said, “It all starts in Iowa,” which I took to be a not-so-subtle reference to the 2008 Iowa caucuses. He ended with fists pumped and a “Let’s win” shout, which played well with the crowd.
Governor Vilsack spoke next, almost wistfully (”I’m ever so proud to be an Iowa Democrat. Ever so proud.”). He gave a sort of retrospective on the last eight years. He’s probably experiencing a bit of uncertainty right now, as he’ll soon be out of a job and though he’s eyeing the 2008 race, polls show him not even coming close to winning his own state’s caucuses… He spoke about the need for community and the positive role government can play in people’s lives. He talked about the fact that Americans were feeling anxious, especially after the Bush failures of Iraq and Katrina. It was actually one of the better speeches I’ve seen him give.
Culver spoke next and did a pretty good job of energizing the crowd.
Lots of Culver-Judge signs were waving. A choice quote: “I want to be the people’s governor. Jim Nussle wants to be the special interests ‘governor.” (Good, me likes the populist rhetoric.) He also said that “We’re ready to implement our plan when we get there.” I’m not sure how effective this “plan” rhetoric actually is. Most voters won’t read his plan, and it seems kind of vague, but maybe I’m wrong. He encouraged the crowd to take part in the three keys to victory: Volunteer (canvass, make calls), Visibility (put up signs, bumperstickers), and Vote (duh). This was good, I thought. Voters and activists want to feel engaged in the campaign. They want to feel part of something and the more they feel connected the more they will do. He promised the “Big Trifecta” would pull through in November.
Tom Harkin, the man of the hour, spoke next. Always gracious, he thanked the woman doing sign-language next to him on the stage. Seriously, this guy is full of heart. He said some nice words about Culver and then started ripping into the Republicans. He said the GOP was in “full fear-mongering mode” and they were trying to do anything to distract voters from “Bush’s war.” “There’s no virtue in staying the course if the course you’re on is headed over the cliff,” he said. “There’s no virtue in being strong and wrong.” He also threw some jabs at Nussle, saying that “Bush and Nussle are attached at the hip.”
Harkin’s smart: Bush is an anchor for every GOP candidate this year — from dog-catcher to senator.
Obamarama spoke next and boy did he get an applause. He complimented Iowa and said, “I’m going to have to come again.” Is he running in ‘08? More hints that he is. He gave a strong speech and the crowd obviously loved it. He recalled an anecdote where he met Marjorie Lewis, a 105-year-old black woman while he was running for the Senate. He then proceeded to tell America’s story through her life. It was an excellent rhetorical device and the speech really tugged at your Democratic and progressive heartstrings. He said that whenever he is cynical about politics he thinks of Marjorie Lewis and what she’s seen. It was a long speech, but his eloquent delivery seemed to keep the crowd captivated. I overheard one grandmotherly lady behind me remark that “Edwards-Obama would be a great ticket.” Interesting…
Needless to say he got a standing O at the end (actually he received several throughout the speech). Harkin thanked everyone for coming and that was it. We stayed around for a bit longer after the speeches, hoping to get a chance to interview Obama, Harkin, etc, which we were promised by the Harkin people but there was such a long line of well-wishers and star-struck fans that we figured it wasn’t worth it to wait around. So we packed up the car and headed home, scheming all the way home over who we’d like to run in 2008.
September 18th, 2006
Far out of the mainstream, Jim Nussle was against a woman’s right to choose – even when a woman’s life is in danger. Until now, anyway.
Carroll’s Daily Times-Herald calls him out on this sudden “flip-flop.” In an interview with the Herald, Nussle took this position:
“Those are very difficult challenges and my position has been that I believe life begins at conception and I don’t have any exceptions to my pro-life position.”
Problem is, now he’s running for governor. And those views are a little extreme. So when filling out an issues survey from Project Vote Smart, he adjusted his position. All of a sudden, he supports abortion rights in the first trimester and in cases of rape, incest, and when a woman’s life is in danger. That’s a relief.
As the Herald’s Douglas Burns puts it:
“Nussle either had an Everest-sized epiphany one night or he is captaining the good ship Mixed Message or he is a, cue the 2004 Republican National Convention audience chorus, ‘flip-flop, flip-flop.”
September 14th, 2006
There’s been a fairly heated debate raging today over at Political Forecast about whether Culver has placed undo stress on choice during the campaign, and it seems people in the Iowa blogosphere aren’t the only ones to have noted how the navigation of this sticky issue has changed in state races.
The New York Times highlights our very own gubernatorial race as an example of how South Dakota has changed choice in state races. Instead of questions about how to regulate abortions, candidates are now faced with a binary choice: ban or no? This places candidates like Blouin, who are personally pro-life but oppose a ban, in an awkward position. How does one articulate a nuanced position on a hot-button issue without committing an “I supported abortion before I was against it” misstep? (That was meant to be rhetorical, but I reckon picking a pro-choice female doctor as a running mate and letting her answer the question is one method of assuaging people’s fears!)
The article also points out that no one really knows how this issue will play out. Some pro-lifers are against ban proposals because they don’t see them as a pragmatic approach to eliminating abortion, and worry that they will call pro-choicers to action (well duh!). Perhaps the Nussle folks are worried about this too, as Nussle declined an interview with the Times, and his spokesperson noted that he has not publicly stated whether he would support a ban. On the other hand, he may just be standing aside to let the Dems pick each other apart—a strategy that has obviously been working.
June 5th, 2006
Previous Posts
