Betrayal (Are Republicans bidding farewell to pro-life supporters?)

National Catholic Register ^ | June 12-18, 2005

[Robert_Paulson2]

While the pro-life plank is definitely a huge factor for much of our success, I wouldn't call it the "main reason". I think the main reason is that we are the party that advocates individual responsibility.

---

since we are offering opinions here:

the ONLY reason W won the election was because he was perceived to be the more aggressive protector of Americans against RELIGIOUS extremists who want to blow things up here.

that's it.
pro life (anti abortion) comes WAY down the list as to what were the FIRST and PRIMARY reasons Americans (not conservatives) voted him in for a second term. And even then only for a subset of largely religious conservatives (the catholic reagan democrats).

He's the national security president that just happens to be more prolife than previous presidents have been...

Moral values are also NOT the primary reason MOST americans voted W back in either. IMPORTANT? perhaps yes, but NOT THE PRIMARY REASON they pulled the lever.

The top three issues in the vast majority of americans minds: National Security, National Security and National Security.

Nobody is throwing the prolife agenda overboard. But to this president, this term, the issue seems to be social security reform and judgeships. His own agenda... not mine.

Mine would be:
illegal immigration (National Security)
war on militant Islam (National Security)
energy supply (largely National Security)


Like I said, MY PRIORITIES... but clearly NOT his.

[AzaleaCity5691]

Actually, the Line Item Veto was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court during the Clinton administration (the one time Clinton was actually right, and they overrule him, typical)

[COEXERJ145]

the most talked about "candidates" for President are such buffoons like Rice, Guiliani and ANOLD

The most talked about by whom?

Katie Couric? Dan Rather? Al Franken?

CNN, Washington Compost, New York Times, Gallup, AP/Ipsos, and the other usual suspects. They're going to push people like Hagel, McLame, and Guiliani simply because if they can't have a Democrat, they'll take the next best thing. The truth is right now no one knows who the nominee is going to be so tearing ourselves up over it is pointless and stupid.

Oh and to NATIVEDAUGHTER, Arnold cannot run for President so there is no point in even bringing him up.

[wyattearp]

So murdering unborn Americans is OK with you?

Not at all! Abortion is premeditated murder, plain and simple. I just get really pissed off when people vote for pro-life democrats and then show up as delegates at Republican conventions. There is a pro-life democrat on the Olympic Peninsula that keeps getting reelected in a Republican district because he is pro-life. The man is a socialist.

[churchillbuff]

Oh sheesh, what bunk, blame the Pubbies for democrat obstruction. """

Read the article again, Barney. It blames Republicans for voting to fund embryonic stem-cell funding. It wasn't Democrat "obstruction" that caused Republicans to vote to waste money on research that private investors won't fund.

[NATIVEDAUGHTER]

When the National GOP STOPS supporting liberal Republicans, then they will have a legitimate reason for not being criticized....THERE ARE NO EXCUSES NOW for the GOP's failure to shape social policy at home....

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

Nope. FOS means "in desperate need of Ex-Lax."

[AzaleaCity5691]

Luckily I'm Catholic, so I don't have to worry about "dissident church members". Excommunication is a practice that needs to come back in vogue.

[Redleg Duke]

You noticed too? They pride themselves in being "conservative" as well.

They whine like RATS, though.

[newguy357]

Of course the GOP knows that if Hillary runs in 08 then "most" "Republican" people will vote for ANYBODY (including pro-aborts like Condi or Rudy) that would run against her.

This one won't. Nor will many others I know. If the republicans put up a pro-abortion candidate like Rudy, they will lose the white house. Many of us will choose to finally throw our votes away 3rd party style. The only question is whether or not the RNC understands this.

[NATIVEDAUGHTER]

Ronald Reagan was the most pro-life President in American history...W doesn't even come close...I see you 're still being the Party shill...

[pollyannaish]

Amen. I agree with both of your assessments.

Perennial whiners/chicken-littles/agitators are happier when we are making absolutely NO forward progress. They have a functional inability to reassess when we have setbacks and figure out a new way to the goal. Politics is not a strait line, even if policy is.

Here at home we've labeled some of the "usual suspects" FRhome-wreckers.

[linkinpunk]

I don't like being held hostage by the 5 rinos either.

But I would rather get five more elected so their votes become less valuable.

[sinkspur]

When the National GOP STOPS supporting liberal Republicans, then they will have a legitimate reason for not being criticized....

Those "liberal" Republicans are the only Republicans who can be elected in some of those Northeastern liberal states and districts.

And, they vote with the rest of the GOP 90% of the time.

If you limit the GOP to conservatives only, you'll lose every national presidential election and be a permanent minority in Congress.

[Ignatius J Reilly]

"I've often wondered what would have happened if the pro-life movement had invested HALF of the time and money into advertising and education campaigns that they have into political efforts"

Nicely said, [golf clap], I really don't see Roe V Wade ever being overturned and even if it is abortion will remain legal in most states. If we really want to do something about abortion as much time, energy and money need to go to preventing abortion as trying to change legislation.

And by prevent abortion I mean more than standing outside clinics handing out religous tracts and yelling murderer to women entering.

[malakhi]

Perennial whiners/chicken-littles/agitators are happier when we are making absolutely NO forward progress.

Political naifs having a temper tantrum when they don't get everything they want, NOW! They don't understand, or refuse to accept, the reality of how politics works.

[malakhi]

If you limit the GOP to conservatives only, you'll lose every national presidential election and be a permanent minority in Congress.

Sure, but you'd maintain your ideological purity. [rolls eyes]

[Dane]

Ronald Reagan was the most pro-life President in American history...W doesn't even come close...I see you 're still being the Party shill..

Huh can you show me the partial birth abortion ban Ronald Reagan signed?

[wyattearp]

Well, not all pro-lifers, obviously, but there those who vote pro-life despite not agreeing with you on guns, unions, taxes etc. that would have easily giving Florida to Gore if they hadn't held their noses & pulled the R lever.

Why did they have to hold their noses when Bush is pro-life? With Dole, it is quite possible that it was the pro-lifers not holding their noses and pulling the R lever that was responsible for Clinton getting reelected.

This from somebody that held his nose (literally) and voted for Ellen Craswell for governor (Washington), even though I disagreed with most of her politics. (that was rather funny actually: I held my nose and voted for Craswell. The guy next to me saw me holding my nose and said "Craswell?" I sighed, and said "yep." We both had a laugh at that).

[sinkspur]

Ronald Reagan was the most pro-life President in American history...W doesn't even come close...I see you 're still being the Party shill...

LOL! Ronald Reagan talked a good pro-life line, but he nominated Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy to the Supreme Court, and they've been the swing votes against much pro-life legislation.

And Reagan himself never pushed any pro-life legislation. Had it not been for Henry Hyde, there would have been NO pro-life legislation passed in Reagan's eight years in office.

Bush has signed more pro-life bills than Reagan ever did, and that's in one term.