Replies

Not quite yet time, but it's five minutes to midnight.

The Bush boys caved completely, but George is term-limited out. Folks like you and me will never vote for Jeb now, and that ends any prospect of further office for him.

The Republican Party as such performed very, very badly in the past few weeks, but let's keep our eye on the prize here: the Judiciary. If the Judiciary were pro-life, this would not have happened. Indeed, given the tremendous power of our Judiciary (clearly evidenced by the Schiavo case) if we get a pro-life Judiciary, it will be able to overrule a Democratic President and Congress when we get one again, just as it just overruled the Republicans' half-hearted efforts with Schiavo.

The key to gaining control of the Judiciary is the Nuclear Option in the Senate. Bush's appointees have been reasonably conservative. If they were voted on, they would be installed, and the Judiciary would be moved further and further to the pro-life side. Democrats have been particularly focused on blocking Appellate Court judges, because they understand that its the Circuits where most constitutional law is made.

The Republicans just failed the pro-life movement catastrophically, and Christian pro-lifers should realize that, thus far, the Republicans actually haven't done anything more than Democrats to change the pro-death culture of our law, other than talk a better game (but then welch in the crunch).

But they have not yet failed to pass the Nuclear Option.
They need to do that soon.
If they do, the Republicans will have set the course that, over time, with successive Republican Administrations who will actually appoint pro-life judges, we will finally see the Judiciary dismantle the legal culture of death.

That's the only way to win long term.
The Republicans haven't COMPLETELY failed, but they just failed very badly.

They have one last shot at redemption: the nuclear option.

If they refuse to pass THAT, they will have truly abandoned the pro-lifers, and it will be time for the pro-lifers to walk out the door.

A third party?
That's a lot of trouble to organize.
More effective would be a narrowly focused, pro-life Christian PAC, whose voters commit as a group to support the pro-life candidates in an election, of whatever party, but to NOT support any pro-death candidate.

When I say narrowly tailored, I mean "No abortion, and no euthanasia".
Christians do not agree on the death penalty, so leave the innocent life/guilty life distinction out of it. Being a pro-life party that is staunchly pro-death penalty will alienate the Catholics, the biggest Christian bloc. Being a pro-life party that is staunchly anti-death penalty will alienate many conservative Protestants.
Guilty life is a different cadre from innocent life, and a different PAC can focus on that.

Likewise, other socially conservative issues such as immigration or the second amendment have no place on the platform of a pro-innocent-life PAC. Different people are very passionate about these things, but if your focus is preserving innocent life from the ravages of domestic law, worrying about stopping pro-life Mexican Catholics from coming across the border is a red herring. Besides, it alienates the Catholics. The gun issue provokes fanatical emotions on both sides. I note that the NRA is incredibly effective at its advocacy precisely BECAUSE it remains single issue focused. Suppose the NRA were to also become adamantly pro-union (lots of union hunters)? It would alienate 3/4ths of its members. Suppose it became anti-union? It would alienate 1/th of its members.
Either way, making a broad political platform detracts from the single issue of importance.

Why a pro-life PAC? There are plenty of them.
Yes, but they are mostly Church affiliated.
Jerry Falwell does wonderful work, but he alienates Catholics because of religious divergences.
The Pope and the staunchly pro-life Catholic bishops and their movements do wonderful work, but Baptists are just not going to flock to them.

What needs to happen is a pro-life NRA which is not denominational but welcomes ALL denominations, INCLUDING pro-life atheists (I know one), and all political persuasions. To do that, you have to focus on one issue: innocent life, and eschew all other issue advocacy.

There is no Pro-Innocent-Life "NRA".
If there were, heartbroken Christians would have a place to go, and it would be politically EFFECTIVE in a way that trying to form a general third party isn't.

The point of the NRA is to use money and huge membership as power to DIRECTLY THREATEN the political careers of politicians who oppose them, and to STRONGLY ADVANCE the political careers of the politicians who agree with their single cause. That is BRILLIANTLY effective.
If the NRA decided to form a third party, it would collapse as a political force.

Christian Pro-lifers have been loyal Republicans; too loyal as it turns out. We have been reduced to being the Republicans' Blacks: "Where else will they go?" is voiced right here, often.

The answer is to disinvest emotion in the Republican Party.
The Republican Party is not a vehicle into which we can trust the core beliefs about life that are the cornerstone of our faith. We trusted too much, and we just got horribly burnt. If the Republicans welch on the Nuclear Option too, a lot of Christians will simply leave politics.

The trick, then, before that happens, is to have a non-sectarian, non-conservative-or-liberal, straight up national Pro-Innocent-Life PAC, that focuses ONLY on abortion and euthanasia, and supports WHATEVER candidate who will embrace their message with money and votes.

This is the "pure" and relatively non-political way to do it.
It is paradoxical to consider a PAC non-political, but actually, the problem of trusting to a political party is that parties have to compromise. Christians CANNOT compromise on life. It makes more sense, therefore, for pro-life Christians to put together a PAC that PRECISELY echoes their shared values on life where they share them - and the only place most Christians agree is on abortion and killing the sick - leave off the places where Catholics and Protestants CAN'T agree (which is mostly everything else), and make a Pro-Innocent Life NRA.

Then there is no compromise necessary or even desireable. A great multi-million voter hyrda rears its head and does not seek compromise. It states its position, Christian beliefs on life purely, and promises full support for any politician of any party who agrees to help, and promises a hellstorm and political destruction on any politician who opposes life.

Thus, the need to compromise with the likes of an Arlen Specter goes by the wayside, and the Republicans (and Democrats) are far more "pinched" by the life issue, much in the same way that Democrats toe the NRA line in many jurisdictions.

That's the most effective way to do it.
Not a new party, but a new pan-Christian Innocent Life PAC.
Democrats would join, Republicans would join. You'd have Jerry Falwell supporters in the bleachers right next to Mackerel-snapping bingo players from Boston, and in complete agreement.

Of course, the Falwell and Catholic and other pro-life organizations would ALSO continue to exist, just as there are pro-second Amendment groups besides the NRA.

The point is to have an organization that states with simple, elegant, and overwhelmingly powerful purity, the message about innocent life that all Christians believe, and then to wield that pure issue as a great electoral club over the head of both parties.

It would be a good thing for the pro-life movement if the Republicans thought that it would vote as a bloc for Democrats in any election where a clear pro-life Democrat was running against a waffling Republican. It would advance the cause of life if Christian pro-life belief was not tied to one party which is not itself FULLY committed to the Christian pro-life position.

So, what we should do is stay Republicans (or Democrats) but form a PAC, not a party. And then use that PAC to beat the brains out of every Republican that steps out of line, just like the NRA does.

That's the model: the NRA, not Perot.

With such a PAC, Republican affiliation becomes secondary. If the Republicans don't deliver, there is still somewhere more important to go. And the cost to the Republicans of not delivering would be much more frightening and "mind-focusing".