The front page of my local newspaper today says that Dubya Bush could beat anyone, anyplace, anytime.
Dubya’s got alot of money, he’s trying to play the moderate card, he’s a good speaker but…he’s very pro-life.
Well, I say that America will never elect a pro-life president. Ever. No matter how popular he is, no matter who he picks for his veep. It ain’t gonna happen.
What’s it going to be?
Therealbubba
He’s very pro-life? Says who? He has said, as far as I have seen, that he won’t make it a criteria in selecting judges, for example.
And, in case you’ve forgotten, his father was elected as a pro-life candidate. As was Reagan. So, what, we elect a pro-choice guy twice and suddenly no pro-life candidate can ever be elected again? While this would make me happy, I certainly don’t think it’s true.
The Ummurican people elected Reagan and Bush the Elder. You may recall Reagan asking the Surgeon-General to proclaim that abortion would permanently wreck a woman’s health, and the SG replying he would be happy to announce that a normal uncomplicated pregnancy would cause more physical changes than an uncomplicated abortion.
I’m too lazy to look up the exact quote, but Molly Ivins said something to the effect of Does anybody really think Bush cares if you get an abortion?. Nevertheless, he toed the party line also.
I don’t think Dubya really cares either (or Dole, for that matter)but I also don’t see either of them using the pros and cons of abortion as an example of those sterling values of individual initiative and/or non-governmental interference.
David, he did promise the good people of Texas that he would “do what ever it takes to stop abortion in Texas” when he ran for gov. And “I won’t base a supreme court nomination on whether the judge is pro-life” doesn’t fly with me, no more than I think it does with most moderates and liberals. How could he be held to that if he were elected? That’s too vague to hold water with me.
And, yes, it is understood that the president cannot wave his or her magic wand and outlaw abortion. However, I feel that with women as the majority of voters today, a pro-life candidate doesn’t stand a chance. With all of the pressing issues facing us, it’s going to boil down to this one issue.
Therealbubba
And a lot of women are anti-abortion, too.
And I can’t imagine why. Why ANY woman would allow someone else to make that decision for her - especially some pinhead who was elected because he looked good on television - is beyond me.
I dunno… ask my mom…
Hey, shitheads!
Yes, many are and great for them. Very few are pro-life, as in anti-choice. Not accounting for the bible thumping activists.
Yes, GREAT method to advance a dialogue!
Is this an assumption that all abortion opponents are fundamentalist loonies. A great many people I know would take offense at that.
I share aseymayo sentiments on the issue, but I’d refrain from calling names and making assumptions.
I know you understand what you heard me say, but what you don’t understand is what I said is not necessarily what I meant.
[To steal another’s sig]
SterlingNorth
To lying, cheating, stealing, and drinking.
Always lie to save a friend, cheat death,
steal your love’s heart, and drink with good friends.
—*Madison Michele
*
No, I take that back,
I meant what I said!
Bubba said:
As several people have already pointed out, not all women are anti-abortion.
But even beyond that, you completely ignored what I said in my message, noting that before Clinton, we elected an anti-abortion president three terms in a row. You have not explained why you think there was some huge shift between then and now.
Omniscient said:
Hey, Omniscient! Cut it out, take it to the Pit, or face deletions if you continue.
David B, SDMB Great Debates Moderator
No David, I disagree. Demographics have changed. Soccer moms are the ones that got Clinton elected. They’ll be there in November 2000 too. Over half of voters today are women and the majority of women are pro-choice. Let’s not get pro-choice and pro-abortion confused here.
Therealbubba
I’m contemplating a woman my wife and I knew in our previous life (i.e., in NY not NC) who was strongly opposed to abortion on religious grounds. She was not a fundamentalist loonie by any means, and was very active in Birthright and supportive of Planned Parenthood except for their willingness to encourage abortions. (What I know of Birthright is that they are an organization that says, okay, you have a pregnant teenage girl and are telling her, “don’t have an abortion; it’s wrong” – well then, what is she gonna do, and tries to provide her with all the help she may need to deal with her pregnancy, and without judgmentalism.)
Bubba said:
And you have the evidence to back that assertion, right? Let’s see it!
Does “It’s the economy, stupid” mean anything to you? Do you remember that slogan? They used it for a reason.
How many? What percentage of voting women are pro-choice?
I disagree that demographics have shifted towards pro-choice. Since 1994 congress has been pro-life republican. I don’t think abortion will be a major issue in the upcoming election. The republican’s are even making noises about removing the pro-life plank from their platform.
Here’s how I think America veiw’s abortion:
A few say no abortions ever.
A few say abortions anytime.
Most say abortions should be available but with restrictions.
I don’t see a big shift in the upcoming election.
What’s a soccer mom?
A woman who has given birth to a soccer ball, Boris. I’m sure you’ve seen a couple just pre-parturition in stores and things. 
David, I’ve tried a couple of search engines, NOW and League of Women Voters, and I’m drawing blanks on voter demographics. You’d think that would be easy to find on the net. I’ll try again later tonight or tomorrow.
Therealbubba
Ok, if you haven’t found anything that discusses the demographics, what made you think they had changed to begin with?