PDA

View Full Version : Reason: "why didnt ROE endorse front runner like Huckabee?"




dvictr
01-22-2008, 01:27 PM
RIDICULOUS... commentary in the first paragraph but decent article

http://reason.com/blog/show/124542.html


"Jane Roe" Endorses Ron Paul

David Weigel | January 22, 2008, 11:52am

About an hour ago Norma McCorvey, a.k.a "Jane Roe" from the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, formally endorsed Ron Paul at the Phoenix Park hotel in Washington. Why didn't she endorse a frontrunner like Mike Huckabee? Thank the grassroots: She saw a newspaper ad in Nevada, bought by Paul supporters, using the analogy of the frog and the pot of boiling water to demonstrate what was happening to America. "It touched my heart." That was three weeks ago, and McCorvey keynoted a pro-life Paul rally in Nevada on January 12th, but the campaign made the official announcement today before Paul spoke at the March for Life. McCorvey:
I support Ron Paul for president because we share the same goal, that of overturning Roe v Wade. Ron Paul doesn’t just talk about being pro-life, he acts on it. His voting record truly is impeccable and he undoubtedly understands our constitutional republic and the inalienable right to life for all. Ron Paul is the prime author of H.R. 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v. Wade. As the signor of the affidavit that legalized abortion 35 years ago I appreciate Ron Paul’s action to restore protection for the unborn. Ron Paul has also authored H.R. 1094 in Congress, which seeks to define life as beginning at conception. He has never wavered on the issue of being pro-life and has a voting record to prove it. He understands the importance of civil liberties for all, including the unborn.

Paul took questions from a tiny audience of press and local supporters after elucidating his abortion views. Roe was wrongly decided; federal courts need to be taken out of the loop on abortion law to let states make their own laws. A constitutional amendment would be "a tedious solution; it takes a long time." Pro-lifers need to make this possible, in public opinion, before lawmakers move. "The ultimate test of the right to life movement is how we change attitudes on this."

McCorvey was frustrated at the lack of attention her original Reno endorsement got, but she was lighthearted today. "When you're president," she asked Paul, "can I stay over at the White House?"

"Anytime," Paul said. The supporters in the back of the room cracked up.

"I'll take the Lincoln Bedroom," said McCorvey.

UPDATE: Paul said that he found McCorvey compelling because she changed her mind on abortion in 1995, so he was asked what he thought of Mitt Romney's evolution on the issue. He generally praised Romney, but I want to listen to the tape before I run what he said.

Bradley in DC
01-22-2008, 01:57 PM
I thought Dave set it up nicely as a way to congratulate our grassroots in Nevada. Great job there, btw, guys!

ShowMeLiberty
01-22-2008, 02:00 PM
I thought Dave set it up nicely as a way to congratulate our grassroots in Nevada. Great job there, btw, guys!

+1

That's exactly how I read it too.

dvictr
01-22-2008, 02:33 PM
well i keep reading about how reason is against RP one day and for him the next so i just dont know!

billyjoeallen
01-22-2008, 02:36 PM
tReason has lost all credibility. They may get back on board the Paul train, but they are just hangers on. Matt Welch, Radley Balko and Nick Gillespie abandoned Dr. Paul when we needed them most. He may forgive them, but I never will.

literatim
01-22-2008, 05:41 PM
Reason has their own agenda and it isn't in line with libertarians. They are in bed with the Beltway warmongering neo-libertarians. Basically, they are socialists disguising themselves as libertarians the same way socialists disguised themselves as Republicans to destroy the party.

Johncjackson
01-22-2008, 06:14 PM
well i keep reading about how reason is against RP one day and for him the next so i just dont know!

"reason" is an institution that does not have one mind or an endorsement. Most of the guys there are very friendly toward Paul, and very outspoken on libertarian issues. The only people who don't see that seem to be people Who support lew Rockwell over Ron Paul and had their feelings hurt over many libertarians wanting to distance themselves from the "populist" ( racial fear mongering) strategy. For these people to say reason or any other normal libertarians oppose Ron Paul just because they don't worship LRC or whatever guy/god they worship is petty BS.


BTW, this isn't "bad media" by any objective standard. Ron Paul is not and has never been considered a front-runner. Stating the obvious is called reality not "bad." SOME of us here would like for RP to be a frontrunner, but others seem more concerned with advancing their little petty beefs and agendas at the expense of actual political success.

killatop
01-22-2008, 10:31 PM
well i keep reading about how reason is against RP one day and for him the next so i just dont know!

you know...i think that's the way I like it.... post the good with the bad... I think that's what they call fair and balanced... not what fox pretends to be.

BTW - I know nothing about this news company - but if you can't tell who they like I consider that a good thing.

0zzy
01-23-2008, 12:02 AM
You guys astound me. I can see being against writers, but a whole publication because they allowed controversial articles on their site. Reason has done a service since it's creation, and Paul is a subscriber. Why? Not because he agrees with everything, cause he doesn't (illegal immigration, abortion), but because generally, they are a good magazine. So is the American Conservative.

I have this judging a 30year magazine by some articles by rare contributors.