Dan Quayle Blesses Christine

A. C. Szul mack97 at EROLS.COM
Tue Nov 4 22:08:41 MST 1997


Kenneth E. Wyman wrote:
>
> On 11/04/97 09:16:05 Carole wrote:
> >>
> >Quayle never had a chance for the oval office in the first place.  And as
> >far as endorsing Whitman, I can't see how the other candidate could be a
> >better choice.  Elections are not single issue campaigns.  I don't agree
> >with Whitman's PBA opinions either; but I don't see that as a reason to
> >give the election to the Dems.
> >carole
> >===============================================
> >Carole,
>
>    There comes a time in politics when one must choose between party
> loyalty and principle in voting "up" or "down" on a given issue.  Our
> nation's history is replete with those of political courage who
> opposed their party on the political battlefield because of principled
> convictions.
>
>     The "bottom line" for Republican cultural conservatives in this
> "battle" for principle in the state of New Jersey reads: Republican
> Governor Whitman chose to veto a law prohibiting the infanticide of
> partial birth abortions. Should the Republican voter affirm or deny
> her the ability to continue her promotion of that horrific taking
> of an innocent's life?
>
>     Ken Wyman

----------------------->snip>------------------------

Dan Quayle made the right choice. This is (was, as of today) a CHOICE
between Christie Todd Whitman, a decent Republican governor who, yes, is
pro-choice; and McGreevy, a Democrat endorsed by the likes of
scandal-ridden, draft-dodging, hypocritical, wishy-washy Klinton, Gore
and their cronies.  And that's reality.  The bottom line.

Now what were you saying about principles?

-A
http://www.erols.com/mack97
"The sharpest tool in the shed." -- anonymous



More information about the Rushtalk mailing list