Seems to me that partisan politics aside, Sen. Harry Reid owes Nevada voters an explanation on his vote yesterday related to federal funding of abortion.
He tells Nevadans that he’s a staunch "pro-life" advocate. But in Washington, D.C., he votes "pro-choice". Or, at least that’s how it seems.
In casting a vote yesterday against an amendment to tighten restrictions on abortion coverage in the health care "reform" bill, Sen. Reid said that he opposes abortion rights but it "doesn’t mean I’m opposed to finding common ground for the greater good."
What in the world does that mean? I’m from the federal government and for the "greater good" I’m here to facilitate the killing of your baby, er fetus?
Now look, I want to be perfectly clear. I have friends on both sides of the abortion issue. I tend to side with the "pro-life" view. You can make arguments that hang together both ways. But honestly, in light of votes and statements like this, can anyone articulate the Harry Reid position on abortion?
If you want to put your finger on what ails Sen. Reid in Nevada, it is behavior like this. Be a fish, or be a fowl. Don’t be a fish in one place and a fowl in another. That just doesn’t fly, or swim, depending upon your point of view.