by matttbastard
Related: More from Steven White on one key area where the Good Doctor’s absolutism re: personal liberty runs into a brick wall.
Seconded.
December 20, 2007 · 3 Comments
Categories: 2008 · GOP · US · Women · abortion · civil liberties · classic fucktardery · conservative · election · gender · human rights · politics · privilege · reproductive freedom · rhetoric · right-wing · sexism · society · women's rights
Tagged: Andrew Sullivan, Dana Goldstein, Dennis Kucinich, libertarian, paleocon, R0n P@ul, reproductive freedom
3 responses so far ↓
daisydeadhead // December 21, 2007 at 9:56 am
I don’t like that aspect of the good doctor’s politics either, but what has he actually said he would DO? Libertarians fulminate about what they disapprove of, but don’t usually DO anything like pass laws against abortion. Is this more of the “personally opposed” rhetoric? If so, I can live with “personally opposed”–who cares if ANYONE is personally opposed? I care if they start passing laws, and it is just SO anti-libertarian to do that…
Lip service to the so-called pro-life crowd means little. Republicans have been doing it since 1973, and most of the time, it don’t mean squat.
But yeah, this bothers me about the good doctor, whom I’ve seen twice now and he *always* makes a point of saying something anti-abortion here in conservative South Carolina. I’m surprised Andrew Sullivan endorses him, since he opposes gay marriage also.
theconverted // December 21, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Shockingly, for all his foibles, Paul is probably the least scary, least crazy of all the Republicans…and that is saying something.
I don’t like some of the stuff Paul stands for but he is the best of choice of the Rethuglicans
Prole // December 22, 2007 at 11:34 am
Daisydeadhead – the danger of a Ron Paul presidency for reproductive rights is in the fact that the next POTUS will likely choose at least one Supreme Court judge. Roe v Wade hangs in the balance, and currently it’s about one hostile justice away from being overturned.