Pro-Choice Versus Anti-Choice

Disagreement with respect is hard to do, especially on the heavy topic of abortion.  Breeanne Howe does not attempt to do this with her biased article in RedState, on October 12, titled "The Abortion Debate Continues."  She's referring to the question asked of Vice President Joe Biden and Congressman Paul Ryan 73 minutes into the debate, and although, abortion is only one issue shared by Catholics, Mrs. Raddatz poses the question of how the candidates' united faith affects their abortion rights policies.
 Mrs. Howe argues that Vice President Biden's stance on abortion is illogical, as is the "left side of the isle", because he separates his personal life from his religious views and doesn't want to force his beliefs onto others.  She believes this is a "weak excuse."  She describes V.P. Biden as "loud and angry" but uses complimentary adjectives such as eloquent and excellent when speaking of Ryan's performance and positions.
She states that Mr. Ryan defends the issue of life and that there should be no exceptions for abortion unless the life of the mother is at risk.  V.P Biden defends the issue of life as well.  It's a matter of pro-choice versus anti-choice.
 She goes on to write that the Romney administrations policies, exception for incest and rape, are "not logical and are as cruel as any abortion."  She then gives an irrational analogy, comparing an abortion to murdering a three year old child.  "Ryan will be a champion for the unborn in the White House", she claims.
It's her job and objective to be fanatically conservative and to try and persuade people who are on the fence about social issues to emulate the herd.  Mrs. Howe clearly hopes to reach people of particular religions and conservative conformists.  She reports to the same people who spend time worrying about government's intrusion upon our liberties, but are insistent upon meddling in the business of whom I can marry or what I do with my body.
Historically, women's freedom and equality have been attacked and compromised by anti-choice lawmakers attempting to control a woman's decisions about her health and body.  Women are now being attacked in media forums across the country.  I believe in democracy and the right to free speech, but my reproductive system is no body's business.  Hopefully, there will be a champion for women and their issues in the White House for another four years.

Arguing the Polls

In Pete Du Pont's September 27th article, in the Wall Street Journal, he attempts to persuade the reader that despite being ahead in the polls, President Obama does not have this election locked up and republicans need to get out and vote for governor Romney.  He, like many right leaning columnists, is hoping that this bandwagon effect will be absorbed by the readers of the WSJ and subsequent publications.  He hopes to reach the affluent and the aspiring, the investor, people with portfolios, the upper middle class republicans.  The general demographics of the readership of the WSJ are 82% male with an average age of 57.  Although, for the uninformed reader, he informs them that Mitt Romney is the republican candidate and that the democrats went with their incumbent and then reminds us that the "polls are volatile and close" and that the election is not over.
In this commentary titled "The Election Isn't Over" he cites polling companies such as Rasmussen Reports, where the president is up in August and then tied with Romney in late September; Gallup shows Romney up in August and President Obama up now; a conservative leaning political polling site, RealClearPolitics.com has the president at a base of 179 in the electoral college and Mr. Romney at 150.  I can't dispute the poll numbers, his opinion or the obvious high unemployment and slow economic recovery, but I can elaborate on the president's policy that Mr. Du Pont vaguely and carelessly mentions.
Pete Du Pont writes that higher taxes are coming with "ObamaCare's new 3.8% tax on investment income."  The 3.8% tax is not a sales tax but a tax on "unearned income" you would gain from investments, rentals, or home sales over the exemption amount of $250,000 for single and $500,000 for married couples.  This tax would only be added for some people with incomes above $200,000 and some married couples with income greater than $250,000.
In the end, Pete Du Pont's argument was honest and concrete.  I desperately wanted him to be wrong about the national debt or the tax penalty and the amount of people it would affect.  Mr. Du Pont states that "Mr." Obama continues to score poorly on job approval.  It's all relative....I think he's doing fine.