Search Results for ‘abortion issue’
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
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
Tonight at 7, Mike Blouin sat down to chat with Grinnell students for about an hour in the Loose dorm lounge. It had a smaller attendance than yesterday’s Fallon event, but that made for a more personal atmosphere. We formed a circle in Loose lounge’s mismatched, anachronistic armchairs and spoke pretty candidly about politics and college antics. (Thankfully, Hannah and I got to Loose early enough to tuck away the empty 30 racks of Natty Light before Mike arrived…) Read more after the jump.
Blouin was the candidate you’d least suspect would command the interest of an audience of college kids. Of the three candidates, he’s the oldest, and he has been cast — perhaps undeservedly — as an “establishment candidate”; so that’s not quite Grinnell material.
But Blouin engaged us. His demeanor was something between professorial and “quirky uncle,” and it worked. I know my opinion of him changed because of the event. Here are some interesting morsels:
Blouin began his speech with a very strong position in favor of a clean elections law. His language was surprisingly firm and insistent. Money, he said, was his biggest complaint about what has changed in Iowa since he got involved in politics.
He also gave us a brief biography. He went to Loras (at age 16), decided to settle in Iowa, got married, became a teacher (as did his wife), got elected to the legislature and was fired for it, had a child with his wife who had been fired for getting pregnant, had to live on a legislator’s salary alone, and worked his way up to being in charge of economic growth (and job creation) in Iowa. He resigned from his job working for Vilsack to run for governor, and he did it early so that there wouldn’t be any question of his objectivity.
Blouin also talked about his plan for government-sponsored health insurance. No one asked him to clarify, but it sounded a lot like Kerry’s plan (something short of “universal,” but still “universally accessible”). Andy McGuire has been the point-person on this, and she has served both with doctors (as a medical expert and researcher) and insurance companies, so she really knows the health insurance system, etc.
The second half is critical of Nussle:
He criticizes Nussle’s oversight of our deficit, but he drives it home by relating it to government services (education and health care).
Q&A:
On giving companies tax breaks to draw them to Iowa:
“I’d be a hypocrite if I said we should never do it. In the ideal, I wouldn’t do it ever. In the ideal world, you wouldn’t have to. In the ideal world, states wouldn’t be giving away their tax breaks in competition with each other… The trouble is we live in a very real world… And until the courts — I say the courts because Congress will never do this — find a way to stop it, we’ve gotta compete…we’ll lose the opportunity to keep our young people.”
He then talks about how our education is great, but people come here for education and then leave, and that’s something he wants to discourage.
He then talks about how the jobs he brought to Iowa had a lot of benefits. The tax breaks he gave businesses came with a lot of requirements, including pay that was above average per capita income in the state, guarantees that they’d stay, etc. In the cases when we didn’t keep businesses here, it was because other states (e.g., South Carolina) gave away unreasonably huge rewards to companies. So Blouin is in favor of tax breaks with guarantees like that.
Eric asked about Iowa’s food deficit (we import 85% of our food):
Blouin deconstructs the statistic and said that it involved seasons, etc. He also said that promoting organic farming (which is mostly for human consumption) will improve that situation.
On my question about abortion:
He states his position (here on his web site) pretty persuasively. I usually get annoyed by the “I’m pro-life personally but not politically” politicians but Blouin wasn’t annoying. He gives concrete examples of the (strategically) liberal programs he’d support to reduce abortions while still honoring his promise to maintain the right to choose. And, finally, he deflects potential criticism for his 1970s votes for a ban on abortion by explaining, “Now it’s taken me years to get to [this] point, but I’m comfortable.”
So then I asked if he’d support laws like the requirements that abortion clinics provide information to pregnant women about the pain their fetus will feel or about adoption services, and he said, unequivocally, that he will not sign any bill that would affect abortion on either side of the issue. He claims, to explain why his pro-life position is actually more effective than Nussle’s, “Republicans want an issue. I want a solution.”
On Alec’s question about the “WalMart laws”:
He likes them, but he needs a democratic legislature.
“I think there’s something seriously wrong with a corporate mindset that hires people at low wages, condemns government giveaways, and calls their employees together to explain how they, as employees of WalMart, can go get Medicaid services. Yeah, it oughta be illegal.”
And he says Eric Palmer is a great candidate who could help change the balance in the legislature.
On Alec’s question about requiring health insurance by law (like Massachusetts):
“To mandate people to buy something they can’t afford to pay for, in itself doesn’t work. You’ve gotta make sure that you’ve got a product — a basic product — that’s affordable for everyone. I want to see how it works in Massachusetts, and I think we can get a pretty good read in a couple of years.”
He goes on to talk about Andy McGuire’s medical qualifications. And then he gives a pretty detailed account of what improvements he wants to make. And he proposes “bridge health insurance” for recent college graduates if they are looking for jobs in Iowa.
He also talks about how he wants to bring down pharmaceutical costs. He wants transparency in drug pricing, but it’ll take creativity to make it constitutional. He thinks he has a solution (by asking for transparency only for drugs that the state buys directly).
On Hannah’s question on McGuire’s donations to Republicans:
Greg Ganske, who unseated Neal Smith, was also McGuire’s neighbor, which explains her donation.
Jim Nussle was her brother’s neighbor, so she donated to one of his early congressional campaigns. But,
“When he abandoned the value system he said he had, she and [her husband] dropped him. 35% of Iowans are Democrats. You’ve got to get to 51%. You’ve gotta reach out to Independents and progressive Republicans who are scared to death of the Nussle/Vanderplaats ticket, and Andy can do it.”
Then a jab at Ed Fallon (although not mentioned by name):
“You know we’ve got another candidate in this race who publicly endorsed Ralph Nader in the 2000 general election against Al Gore. Helped bring us George Bush. And who, through his organization, endorsed a couple of incumbent Republicans in the legislature. That’s what he did. That was then. This is today. And he’s a very competent guy, and he’s got a right to run. I don’t think you can bash him for it… He probably wished he hadn’t done it back then…”
On Eric’s question on whether Blouin would raise taxes to increase teacher pay:
“I don’t think we have to raise taxes to do it.”
He talks about the need to improve pay for teachers, nurses, and day care providers.
All in all, it was an interesting event. I wish more students had made it out.
Oh! And, on his way out, he made a joke about how blogs can be scary. Boo!
April 23rd, 2006
Bacon posted about this yesterday. Former Register columnist Chuck Offenburger, a pro-life-but-kinda-liberal Republican, criticized Blouin for wavering on abortion during his primary campaign. Apparently, Blouin’s ambiguously pro-life position seemed to have been a big reason why Offenburger came out publicly in support of Blouin’s candidacy, and now he’s unhappy.
This raises a question about Blouin’s ability to get elected governor, doesn’t it? I think conventional wisdom might say that a pro-life democratic gubernatorial candidate would have a good shot at beating Nussle in November, but it looks like Blouin’s “wishy-washiness” might just be hurting him on both sides.
And this quote from Offenburger is probably something the Blouin campaign wouldn’t like circulating, but it’s food for thought:
I find myself wondering whether we’re getting the real Blouin position on abortion in this primary campaign. I mean, the guy has a 25-year record of being anti-abortion, and he is an ordained deacon in the Catholic Church. And yet he is “clumsily” handling this issue that is core to so many Catholics?
And I’m curious about his running mate McGuire’s pro-choice credentials. I do not know her, but all I read makes her seem a good, involved citizen. She’s also the mother of seven children, six of whom are in Catholic schools. She’s been a leading fundraiser for Saint Augustin School and Dowling Catholic High School in the Des Moines area. And she was elected president last year of the National Alumni Board of Creighton University, a Catholic university in Omaha. She may well think pro-choice, she certainly talks pro-choice, but it would appear she lives pro-life.
I don’t know what grounds, exactly, Offenburger has to question McGuire’s honesty on the issue besides the fact that she has a big family and kids in Catholic school, but it is interesting that Offenburger feels inclined to question it.
On a sidenote, though, Mike Blouin and Andy McGuire are going to be in Grinnell this Sunday, first stopping in town before coming to Loose Lounge at 7PM to answer students’ questions.
April 19th, 2006
Other blogs already have this, but the Rasmussen numbers have been released for their March poll of Iowa. It’s frustrating how little polling is done here. These are really the only reliable polls, and they only happen once a month.
Here are some interesting facts that don’t have to do with the campaigns in particular but are kind of … yeah:
Most Iowa voters think that most politicians would change their vote for a contribution. But, as in other states we’ve polled, a majority also don’t see this is as a reason to institute publicly funded campaigns.
When asked about the abortion issue, 61% say abortion is morally wrong most of the time while 25% say it isn’t. A plurality of 45% would support a South-Dakota type ban, making abortion illegal except when the life of the mother is at stake.
Uh oh.
April 5th, 2006
Well only kind of. Drew covers the entire event, and it sounds like the Register is polite in describing the exchanges as “stepped-up.” Culver and Blouin went after each other while Fallon asked everyone to play nice and Mohamed was ignored:
Chet Culver said Monday that fellow Democratic candidate for governor Mike Blouin’s support of a higher minimum wage and acceptance of laws allowing abortion are election-year changes intended to curry favor with primary voters.
Blouin countered that Culver’s running mate, Patty Judge, supported restrictions on abortion, despite Culver’s characterization of himself and Judge as having always “unequivocally” backed abortion rights.
“People are not always as troubled by a position you take as they are troubled when you flip and you flop and you try to get every side of the issue,” said Culver, Iowa’s secretary of state. “You have seen what I believe is an election-year conversion.”
I’m glad we’ve adopted the term ”flip flopper” though.
Also, Blouin probably shouldn’t be going after folks’ running mates for being inconsistent.
April 4th, 2006
