A semi-long article, but a good read.
"The Virginian: Will Sen. George Allen bring a "libertarian sense" to the White House?"WASHINGTON--It's High Noon at the Monocle, a famous Capitol Hill restaurant. George F. Allen is staring at me. The normally loquacious Virginia senator is not saying anything and neither am I. Silence hangs in the air for a few seconds.
The impasse, like so many other things in American politics, was owing to Roe v. Wade. Mr. Allen's position is carefully demarcated: He would like to see the decision "reinterpreted" to allow states to decide the legal status of abortion. Does that mean he would like to see it overturned? He won't say. So I suggest that Mr. Allen's "reinterpretation" would produce precisely the same result as overturning the ruling: States would decide the fate of abortion. I pause for a response. Nothing. I get more direct. "Why won't you say you want Roe reversed?"
Again, Mr. Allen is mum, and eventually I give up.
Mr. Allen is an increasingly prominent figure in the Republican Party. He is running this year for re-election to the Senate, with a bid for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008 still a matter for future consideration. His silence on abortion might make for some awkward moments with journalists, but it also makes political sense. He's figured out a safe, even popular, way to deal with a polarizing issue. Polls show a solid majority of Americans opposed to overturning Roe v. Wade. They presumably think the result would ban abortion. But when the issue is put a different way--letting states decide--their view becomes more favorable. Clever, isn't it?
(Cont...)
