Connect with us

archive

Risky business

The Washington Post shows its true colors

Being a native Pennsylvanian, Tom Corbettâ??s name caught my eye in the headline of this article by The Washington Post. (My excuse for reading it.) The opening paragraphs reveal a lot:

â??(Gov. Scott) Walker quietly signed a bill on July 5 to tighten abortion restrictions. Before that, (Gov. John) Kasich signed a budget that includes provisions requiring abortion providers to attempt to detect a fetal heartbeart and will likely cut funding for Planned Parenthood.

â??â?¦ Two governorsâ?¦embracing abortion legislation sure to stoke anger on the opposite site (sic) might seem like a curious choice. But there are some reasons that may explain why they did it.â?ť

â??Reasons that may explain why they did it.â?ť Hmm. My guess might be that both Walker and Kasich are pro-life; they both value the life of the unborn, and viewed the legislation they approved to be in the best interest of their states.

Yet it seems inconceivable to authors Sean Sullivan and Aaron Blake that these conservative politicians would risk their re-elections by voting on something controversial. Their thinking is that the only reason a politician would ever dream of passing legislation would be if it were in the interest of his next campaign. We knew this all along, itâ??s just slightly shocking how undeterred the left is in admitting it.

The article goes on to say:

â??The danger is that Walker and Kasich risk giving moderate and liberal voters a new reason to vote against them in 2014.”

Wouldn’t the governors risk giving moderate and conservative voters a new reason to vote against them in 2014, if they had voted against the legislation? I can understand if the risk in question were over a trivial ruling, but abortion laws are no small matter and not something right-wingers see as petty wampum. The left views abortion as â??contentious politicsâ?ť too, but would the Post have declared a move by say, Gov. Martin Oâ??Malley to make abortions more accessible a â??risky propositionâ?ť that would â??stoke anger on the opposite sideâ?ť ?

Only action by the right is considered extreme, because it doesnâ??t mesh with the left.

Moral of the story: you should by no means vote for something you believe in, because a voter might disagree with you at some point down the road.

Written By

Teresa Mull was the managing editor of Human Events. Previously, Teresa was an editorial intern at the American Spectator, as well as a production intern for the Laura Ingraham Show. She is a native of Central Pennsylvania and earned her bachelor's degree in Comparative Literature from the University of Dallas. Contact her at tmull@eaglepub.com.

Advertisement
Advertisement

TRENDING NOW:

archive

Risky business

Being a native Pennsylvanian, Tom Corbett’s name caught my eye in the headline of this article by The Washington Post. (My excuse for reading it.) The opening paragraphs reveal a lot:

“(Gov. Scott) Walker quietly signed a bill on July 5 to tighten abortion restrictions. Before that, (Gov. John) Kasich signed a budget that includes provisions requiring abortion providers to attempt to detect a fetal heartbeart and will likely cut funding for Planned Parenthood.

“… Two governors…embracing abortion legislation sure to stoke anger on the opposite site (sic) might seem like a curious choice. But there are some reasons that may explain why they did it.”

“Reasons that may explain why they did it.” Hmm. My guess might be that both Walker and Kasich are pro-life; they both value the life of the unborn, and viewed the legislation they approved to be in the best interest of their states.

Yet it seems inconceivable to authors Sean Sullivan and Aaron Blake that these conservative politicians would risk their re-elections by voting on something controversial. Their thinking is that the only reason a politician would ever dream of passing legislation would be if it were in the interest of his next campaign. We knew this all along, it’s just slightly shocking how undeterred the left is in admitting it.

The article goes on to say:

“The danger is that Walker and Kasich risk giving moderate and liberal voters a new reason to vote against them in 2014.”

Wouldn’t the governors risk giving moderate and conservative voters a new reason to vote against them in 2014, if they had voted against the legislation? I can understand if the risk in question were over a trivial ruling, but abortion laws are no small matter and not something right-wingers see as petty wampum. The left views abortion as “contentious politics” too, but would the Post have declared a move by say, Gov. Martin O’Malley to make abortions more accessible a “risky proposition” that would “stoke anger on the opposite side” ?

Only action by the right is considered extreme, because it doesn’t mesh with the left.

Moral of the story: you should by no means vote for something you believe in, because a voter might disagree with you at some point down the road.

TRENDING NOW:

THE TRUTH ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING: REAL THREAT OR HYSTERIA?

archive

Dystopia Alert: A Decimating National Debt

archive

Guest Columnist: Why We Must Have a Border Wall

archive

Rising Social Agenda Brings Luster to Qualified Dividends

archive

Connect
Newsletter Signup

Sign up for the Human Events newsletter