Monday, October 16, 2006

Claire McCaskill's Double Speak

I don't mean to insult anyone's intelligence. I imagine that most Missourians realize that Claire McCaskill is pro-choice but I felt the need to point something out because she hit on a pet peeve of mine in one of her statements tonight.

Anytime I hear a person say "I, personally, oppose abortion," it is a red flag for me.

Tonight in the KY3 debate between Claire McCaskill and Senator Jim Talent she made that statement. What she means is she wouldn't have an abortion herself but she wouldn't presume to make that decision for any other woman. Claire McCaskill is pro-abortion not pro-life and when I hear someone make that statement without clarifying that they mean that they wouldn't have an abortion themselves but support abortion rights it leaves me to believe that they are trying to fool unwitting people into thinking they are pro-life. It is double speak. The fact is Claire McCaskill is pro-"choice" not pro-life:


AP Wire 09/25/2006 McCaskill on abortion:

"Abortion should be safe, legal and rare. I believe the decision to have an abortion is up to the woman in conjunction with her family, doctor and whatever spiritual guidance she seeks, not in the hands of the government."


She is listed as an Endorsed Candidate at NARAL Pro-Choice America and is a featured candidate at EMILY's List which, at its website, describes itself as:

"...the nation's largest grassroots political network, is dedicated to taking back our country from the radical right wing by electing pro-choice Democratic women to federal, state, and local office."


Just don't be fooled by her double speak.

9 comments:

The Libertarian Guy (tm) said...

*gasp* No! NO NO NO!!! It can't be! "Doublespeak" from a Brand X political candidate? Perish the thought! Oh, the humanity...

Jacke M. said...

Aaaaaaaaaah, shuddup! :P

Seriously, why should people believe that once in Washington, listening to the song of the sirens that libertarians will not be corrupted and end up dancing around every question posed just like every other politician who goes to Washington with all these good intentions and an idealistic mindset...thinking they're going to change the world?

I'm feeling a little cynical tonight...sorry 'bout that.

The Libertarian Guy (tm) said...

No, that's fine... it's not a bad question. My answer: Sure, I'd take money from special-interest groups or lobbyists... ONE TIME. Because, after I failed to vote *their* way, they wouldn't give me money ever again. ;)

Seriously, no. I've worn out three videotape copies of "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" - now I need a copy on DVD. I also watch "Dr. Strangelove" at least twice a year.

I would never vote for a tax increase. Ever. And I would never vote to increase the size of gov't unless a corresponding cut happens first; same goes for passing new laws - not until one OLD law is rescinded.

I'm that serious, Jacke. But I share your cynicism... hell, I live for it. Keeps me on edge.

Jacke M. said...

I think you are sincere. The problem is I think there have been lots of sincerely idealistic people who have gone to Washington and in less than a year, after being taken under the wings of those who've made careers out of politics, change their tune.

Changing the politicians may not be possible, if one considers that. What we need to do is start demanding legitimate change and accountability of those who go there.

I think you understand that the FairTax becoming law would put about 50% of lobbyists out of work, and that is exactly why there is not enough support in Congress and the Senate to get it through to vote. About the time we begin to make headway we have a new Congress and a new Senate and we have to start all over again.

I don't expect that the FairTax will cure EVERYTHING, but it would be a huge step in the right direction...then if people like you and other Libertarians want to work to do away with even more taxes that'd be great.

Back to the original issue though...how do we hold our politicians accountable? Especially when we know that if we don't vote for them we'll get even worse?

It's a connundrum. (sp?)

The Libertarian Guy (tm) said...

That's a tough one: How do you regulate ones' thoughts?

Wait, forget I said that. Thought control... sounds like Hillary's dry dream.

Jacke M. said...

That one sailed right over my head. I told you you're too cool to be representative. ;)

What do you mean?

Jacke M. said...

That one sailed right over my head. I told you you're too cool to be representative. ;)

What do you mean?

Jacke M. said...

Aaaaaaaaaaaaargh! How'd that happen!? :0

The Libertarian Guy (tm) said...

Double-posted! Looks like Bill Gates' plan for world domination is still in effect... ;)