Posted on 03/31/2005 7:39:11 AM PST by 1stFreedom
For over a decade I’ve tried to convince people in the pro-life movement that leaving the Republican Party wasn’t a good move. The past few days has changed my mind, and I started to write this article when the news broke that Terri died.
Florida has shown us that the best that the GOP has to offer is a losing strategy.
For decades abortion has remained “legal” due to the same problems which were present in Florida: an arrogant judiciary and an unwilling executive branch.
The call for Jeb to refuse to enforce the illicit orders of Judge Greer went unheeded. As a direct result, Jeb’s actions sanctioned the starvation of Terri Schiavo. His Pontius Pilate approach to saving her life hasn’t fooled the pro-life base.
His public denial that there wasn’t anything more he could do was a slap in the face to the pro-life movement and to Terri’s parents. It is well known that he indeed had these ORDINARY powers as the Governor of the State of Florida.
If this is the strategy the GOP has to reign in the Judiciary, then it’s time to find another party. It is simply not acceptable that someone could be starved to death in the United States of America with “legal” sanction.
But where does one go? Many of the alternative parties are too idealistic or too focused on history to reach a broad spectrum of people. And some of the names are quite silly….
In my mind, an ideal third party candidate would appeal to socially conservative Republicans, Regan democrats, and minorities. A coalition party can indeed win…
What are your thoughts?
As much as I admire the coalition government model of the Israelis, it seems that America is stuck with a two-party system. Anyone who jumps to a third party is going to be sidelined from the mainstream. We gotta live with the two party system, folks. We can't waste another decade pursuing a Ross Perot pipedream of another third party. It was tried already and failed miserably.
That said, I feel like laying low for awhile from politics. The Republican Party has failed us in this. I just want to lay low. In other words, I'm not waving the flag for them for the time being. I'm being apolitical and just hanging on the religious threads and the "bread and circuses" threads that keep me satisfied in my peon status.
The state gives me bread and American Idol; what more do I need? (/sarcasm)
You have no response to his message so you want to shoot the messenger? If this is your version of republicanism, make mine vanilla! To me you are as sick as Michael Schiavo and George Felos and company.
Dear Vicomte13,
"(1) Actually, before the next Census, America will be a predominantly Catholic nation,..."
Well, not quite. The next census is in 2010. There are currently about 65 - 70 million Catholics, out of 300 million citizens of the United States. I think it's just about 23%, whatever that works out to. But remember, lots of Catholics are only nominally so. Even if we were to say that 40% of Catholics at least assist at Mass regularly (and I think that would be on the high side, nationwide), it is difficult to ascribe much Catholic thinking to the 60% that don't seem to be able to perform the most basic outward sign of commitment to their Catholic faith.
Anyway, to get to "predominant" status, I'd say that Catholics would need to comprise at least close to half the population. But I'd even go with 40%, as then there would be more persons who called themselves both Catholic and Christian than there would who only called themselves Christian.
If the population is, say, 320 million by 2010, that would mean there would need to about 130 million Catholics in the US by then. That's about a doubling. It won't happen via immigration. Even if every additional person in the US by 2010 were Catholic, it wouldn't be close to 40%. Catholics would be inching up on 30%.
"(2) I think that there is almost complete common ground on Christian moral issues between Roman Catholics, Evangelical Protestants, Baptists and the like, as well as the growing numbers of Eastern Orthodox from the Middle Eastern diaspora."
At certain points, yes. The problem is how folks think that should play out into the secular realm, the world of politics. I think most of these folks will be disinclined to a Catholic confessional state. ;-)
But, I think that a lot of these folks are going to agree on some of the big life issues.
And that's why I prefer restoration of republicanism rather than trying to mount our own judicial tyranny over that of the death-lovers. The death-lovers predominate in the elite. But those that side with life are the dominant force among voters.
But, without the undoing of judicial tyranny, it just won't mean much. Without rolling back judicial supremacy, rule of the Nine Evil Ones, we will be unable to roll back the laws of death.
"That's why I suggested, further up the thread, that what is really needed is not a new political party, nor necessarily a mass Christian exodus from the Republican party, but a Christian Innocent Life PAC that only focuses on abortion and euthanasia, on which all pro-life Christians agree."
Yes, but that's radically different than trying to elect enough folks so that we can put our own set of tyrannical creeps into the judiciary. It seems to me that the long-term goal is the restoration of constitutional balance between the branches of government, which means cutting the moral monsters of the courts down to appropriate size.
As to your suggestion, I think it's something to think about, I'm just not sure. I'm open to different courses of action. I think it's good that folks talk about these ideas and kick 'em around. The folks who say that to abandon the Republican Party is to invite great harm in the short-term have a point. But the folks who say that all we're doing in sticking our fingers in a dike springing more holes by the minute also have a point.
I think the discussion is good, although I wish that those who are tied permanently to the Republican Party would be a little less rude in their dismissiveness of other ideas.
The bottom line is, as long as most judges, lawyers, and even politicians (even Republican ones!) accept the doctrine of judicial supremacy, explicitly or implicitly, the pro-life majority in the United States will be thwarted. As will republican governance.
If the Republican Party wishes to be the party of life, then Republican leaders need to start thinking about the radical actions needed to fix the problem.
Arresting every judge involved in this travesty for murder might be a start. At least it's a suggestion.
But asking the question of whether we should investigate other actions is certainly a worthy idea.
sitetest
Besides posturing and grandstanding and then ducking for cover, Dubya, Jeb and the Congress did WHAT for Terri? Did they stand up to this "judge" and his ILLEGAL order that not only pulled the feeding tube (the LEGAL part) but forbade ANY FORM of oral sustenance (the ILLEGAL part)? Nope. They did their posturing then ran for cover when the judge defied them. That subpeona was one example. After it was issued, they could have requested Dubya to send a Marshal to serve it and take her into protective custody. Did they do that? One can debate the Constitutionality of their deeds, but all it was was SHOW, with no substance. Which is what the Pubbie Party is all about. Substanceless show. You are a waste of time and worse, for the pubbies actually PREVENT anything from being accomplished in the desire of MOST conservatives to actually reduce government and protect the weakest among us from scumsuckers like Felos and Schiavo. Your comment is but one example of scores of thousands.
Two words: NOT YET! (Let's see what the Sen. leaders do with the Nuclear Option first.)
Agreed, and it's time we started reaching out to pro-life Democrats. For the life of me, I cannot figure out why some pro-lifers remain Democrats!
TR vs. Taft vs. Wilson. In that election, the Republicans were the "third party."
"Agreed, and it's time we started reaching out to pro-life Democrats. For the life of me, I cannot figure out why some pro-lifers remain Democrats!"
It is time for pro-life Christians to be primarily pro-life Christians, much less closely tied to either party. They can vote Republican, if they choose, but they need to be much more discriminating about spending time and money on Republican party building. 5 of the 6 branches of government, federal and state, that looked that the Terri Schiavo case are controlled by or have a majority of Republicans in them. All 6 failed.
If I were a pro-life Democrat today, I would ask myself "Why would I want to be a Republican?" The Republicans talk, but don't act. Joe Lieberman said he would have reinserted the tube. He's a Democrat, and you know that if he were in the White House, HE WOULD HAVE. So, what purpose would be served by switching to the Republican Party, who have now PROVEN they won't use the full measure of their power to support life when they can?"
And the Democrat might even follow that up by saying "And the reason I didn't become one all along is because I always saw right through them."
As a long-time Republican supporter and contributor and pro-lifer, I have no such comfort. I'm just sitting here feeling like a duped, used rube.
If the Republicans don't pass the Nuclear Option SOON and pack the court, I'm gone. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame of me.
"I feel like laying low for awhile from politics."
You and 3-5 million other Christian pro-lifers.
What happened the past two weeks is unbelievable.
The Republicans CANNOT undo the damage they did by letting Terri die. All they can do to prevent the damage from getting WORSE is to pass the Nuclear Option, quickly, so that at least we can start getting judges up there who won't do this again...maybe.
Problem is, Thomas and Scalia, and dozens of other Republican judges, did not intervene to save Terri. When they have wanted to, they have always been capable of finding an argument. They didn't want to.
The Nuclear Option is not really going to FIX the issue, because it merely means putting judges on the judiciary we HOPE will do the right thing. The only thing that passing the Nuclear Option really does is send a message to the pro-life Christians that we have no been abandoned.
But don't hold your breath.
The truth is that we have probably been abandoned.
Were we fools for not seeing how we were being played all along?
Perhaps yes.
But we're not fooled anymore.
Life and death is beyond the ability of the spin-meisters to spin.
I see Gary Bauer is out there trying to put a brave face on it, saying how this shows more than ever how we need to be committed to the Republicans, in order to protect life.
Are you convinced?
Me neither.
No.
The Republicans have to SHUT UP and ACT.
I don't believe a word they say any more.
Neither do you.
If we are representative of millions of Christian pro-lifers, and I suspect we are, then the Republican majority died with Terri.
Unless those Republicans ACT.
Not talk.
ACT.
Dear Kenny Bunkport,
Yes, well, I didn't go further back than 1968. I wasn't sure how "recent" sinkspur was looking for. But I figured 5 out of the last 10 elections would be enough to show that his assertion was false.
sitetest
"We can't waste another decade pursuing a Ross Perot pipedream of another third party. It was tried already and failed miserably."
Did it REALLY fail miserably?
Think again.
What REALLY happened in 1992?
George Bush welched on his no new taxes pledge, and furious economic Republicans abandoned him and the Republican Party for an election. They voted for Perot or they didn't vote, because the Republicans made themselves no different from the Democrats.
Yes, Clinton won.
But what was the result for the ECONOMIC CONSERVATIVES' agenda?
The Republican Party, facing disastrous and permanent defeat and minority status, made a pact with them: NEVER AGAIN. And since that time NOT ONCE have the Republicans allowed tax hikes, NOT ONCE have they proposed them, or gone along with them. The economic conservatives sent a cold and clear message to the Republican Party: YOU WILL OBEY US, DAMN YOU, OR YOU WILL DIE POLITICALLY.
Yes, the Republicans LOST, but since then they have slavishly and completely OBEYED the economic right. And with the eventual return to power of the GOP, the economic right has now gotten its ENTIRE agenda, right up to the proposed privatization of Social Security.
So, the defection of the economic right in 1992 actually redounded to a VICTORY for the economic right. The Republican Party no longer DARES to do anything that will offend them.
The Religious Right was just stabbed in the back by Republicans in six different branches of government. If the Christians walk, as they seem like they are going to do, what will happen? A Republican minority, for a time. Perhaps even President Hillary Clinton. But the Republicans will NEVER AGAIN do what they just did. Eventually, they will get power back because of sheer demographics. And if it is as crystal clear to Republicans that anything other than action on pro-life issues is the same thing as raising taxes: certain political death, they won't do this again. They will be properly chastened.
It all sounds so calculating. But the truth is probably more this: millions of Christians are heartbroken and disgusted. They entered politics on a narrow issue and voted for the GOP because they believed. They were betrayed, and learned their lesson. They'll stay home by the millions and stop supporting the Republicans, and the Republican majority is going to fall apart. That's what happens when leaders are cowards and fail.
Did you know that Neville Chamberlain was a great economic politician? Truly a wizard of trade and industrial policy.
Somehow, that doesn't really help his reputation, does it?
That is the Republican problem right now.
The Bushes failed.
Even Scalia and Thomas failed.
They all failed.
Total moral collapse.
I don't think anything can reverse the damage, but passing the Nuclear Option RIGHT NOW would at least stanch the flow and establish that there is SOME good faith left in the Republican Party.
Don't hold your breath.
stupid, if not evil.
the democrats will benefit from your actions.
"stupid, if not evil.
the democrats will benefit from your actions"
So what?
The Democrats, many of them, are pro-death.
But then, Harry Reid is pro-life.
And Joe Lieberman said that he would have reinserted Terri's feeding tube.
You make the assumption that Democrats are evil.
What is evil is the culture of death.
The Democrats, mostly, support it.
Republicans say they oppose it, but Republican leaders in all six branches of government that were involved in the Schiavo case either supported her death, or made grand speeches but abdicated actions.
And either way, we are left with the culture of death.
The difference is that most Democrats tell the truth about being for it, which makes them unacceptable.
Republican politicians make great theater about being pro-life, but when crunch time comes, they either vote for death, like Scalia and Thomas did, or they stand by and do nothing, like the Bushes and the Republican Senators in Florida.
So, what difference does it make if the Democrats benefit by discouraged pro-lifers' going home. Where we are at is zero. We can't go below zero. By sticking with you guys, we are still at zero. You talked a good game, but did not have the guts to fight.
And you call US stupid, if not evil?
Stupidity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
First, you put Specter on Judiciary despite his anti-life stance.
Then you would not act to save Terri, not in any of six branches of government. Like Democrats, you TALK, but talk is nothing. Action is what counts.
Then your key Senators say the nuclear option is off the table, meaning that the pro-death judiciary will stay as it is.
So, what are we supposed to do, keep voting for you so that you can advance your economic agenda, but screw us again and again and again by inaction?
Three times in 4 months, and we're supposed to trust you and not go home.
No.
Pass the Nuclear Option now, and some of us will stay.
Otherwise, President Hillary would have been no different from President Bush. We would still have abortion on demand right up to birth, and Terri would still be dead.
What difference does it make for us to vote for you or not vote? What difference does it make for them to be in power or you? When you have the power, you do nothing. You just tell us you're doing all you can.
As if we were stupid fools.
Dear Vicomte13,
"But then, Harry Reid is pro-life."
Not at all true. Mr. Reid supports Roe v. Wade. He doesn't support every insane addendum thereto, and he claims to be "personally opposed" to abortion, I believe. However, he is no more pro-life than Tom Ridge, or a host of other pro-abortion Republicans.
As for Mr. Lieberman, please note the first three letters of his last name. It should be truncated at that point.
As for Justices Scalia and Thomas, we really have no idea what position they took on all this. For all we know, the vote to reject the case for review may have been 7 - 2 or 6 - 3, even.
sitetest
sitetest
As republicans tear their souls apart over this, the dims just sit back and watch...and wait....and grin.
Get thee ready for Hilliary the First!
Perhaps all you say is true. I acknowledge that the Democratic party is unacceptable: their position is pro-death.
After this week, the Republican Party has established their position as status quo, which means pro-death by default and inaction.
That is why the cries that failing to support the Republicans helps the Democrats falls on deaf ears. Yes, that is true. But so what? Either way, you get death. Feeling really bad about standing for the status quo of death fails to persuade me that one is any better than the other. It just means one is hypocritical and the other is honestly brutal.
Either way, we're at zero.
The Republicans have to pass the Nuclear Option to give any fig leaf to their actions.
Dear Vicomte13,
I don't disagree that pro-lifers should engage in deep, thoughtful, wholesale reevaluation of the political circumstances and accepted political processes currently existing in our country. The recent controversy shows the level of commitment to life on the part of the Republican Party hierarchy.
Look at tmy tagline. If the Republicans can't deliver, then I'll have to figure out some strategy other than voting straight "R," working for party hacks, and giving them my money.
I just wanted to make sure we use the actual facts.
sitetest
I did not realize Reid supported Roe v. Wade.
I know Joe Lieberman better. He's my Senator. He does indeed support Roe v. Wade and is not, therefore, pro-life.
That said, he has a habit of saying what he thinks and doing it. I recall the yeoman's service he did for the 5% of Democrats who still had a shred of sanity in the last election cycle by standing solidly in favor the Iraq war. Of course that, among other things, made him completely unelectable. Still, I don't think it's fair to call Joe Lieberman a liar. He's not. He has real integrity. I will all Democrats were like him. I would continue to disagree with them profoundly, but I would respect them. I respect Joe Lieberman.
Dear Vicomte13,
Mr. Lieberman sometimes talks a good game.
However, as I recall, before the 2000 election, he'd offered support for the general idea of tuition tax credits/vouchers, etc. During the election of 2000, he sold his (already heavily-mortgaged) soul to get the vice-presidential nomination. He then came out against vouchers/credits, essentially accusing anyone who supported them of being educational terrorists.
Before his first election to the Senate, he intimated to the Catholic hierarchy in Connecticut that he was pro-life.
The man is a 24-carat gold liar.
He is worse than worthless.
sitetest
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.