Ron's Positions on Evolution & Abortion Need to be Clarifed, Because He's Losing Support!

[t0rnado]

Obama extended all of Bush's faith-based bullshit in place. As an atheist, I am pissed that Obama would steal my money and give it to religious nutcases and I highly doubt Ron Paul would continue the practice:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25473529/

Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, criticized Obama's proposed expansion of a program he said has undermined civil rights and civil liberties.

"I am disappointed that any presidential candidate would want to continue a failed policy of the Bush administration," he said. "It ought to be shut down, not continued."

 

[robert68]

...
Most of RPs fans know about his positions on abortion: that a) it doesn't matter what the government says, because you can't stop a girl from drinking tea the day after forgetting to use a condom, b) it is not for the federal gov't to decide - leave it to the states, and c) nobody should be forced to pay for clinics - they should be funded privately if the states choose to allow it. But these stances definitely DO need to be clarified (again and again), because so many people are under the impression that its one or the other. They probably don't understand his constitutional starting point.

If it is made clear by Ron himself that he will never advocate: a) unilaterally banning abortion federally, and b) using the executive branch to force religion on school curricula, I'm pretty sure that would be enough to placate voters that would otherwise be terrified of him. If the "scary" part is taken away, I'm sure many (like myself) could be convinced to support him based on other issues. But ya gotta remove the fear. People vote based on their emotions, and these emotional, divisive issues evoke fear.

The following is from a post at the Daily Paul from a few days ago, that I think is relevant:

Ron pulls a very easy-to-please position on abortion whenever he is on television since 2007... and then he goes and writes very "abortion should simply be illegal" position papers. And so basically one DP member can point to a TV clip and be like "SEE?!", and then another member can point to a position paper that Ron wrote and be like "SEE?!"

The problem actually lies more with Ron Paul than it does any DP member.

Just search my name and the topics I started, I started one with "RP/Abortion/National TV" that QUITE CLEARLY shows his biding-time stance on abortion and NO liability on the abortion seeker, and only real liability on late term abortions. This is video since 2007 and he hasn't changed his mind while on television about this. I think this was he pre-concession to his idea of what American society will tolerate on the issue.

Then, you have his position papers. He basically says "abortion should be illegal" in so many eloquent words.
Example:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul240.html

When you read that, you could vote for Ron Paul or Mike Huckabee if abortion was the most important issue on the planet for you.
-------------------------------
It pains me to say this, but abortion is one issue that Ron Paul is talking out of both sides of his mouth on. Pretty much everything else he is rock solid.

And speaking personally, I think what he proposes on TV is far the best solution to abortion than I've seen from anyone else.

 

[StilesBC]

robert,

Thanks for pointing that out. I'd imagine this is a result of his constituency being very opposed to any ambiguity (where is papers seem directed), while his TV interviews are directed toward a national audience. If he wants to run for President as a serious candidate, he'll have to sacrifice the former and stress the differences I outlined from the generic "ban it all" approach.