Posted on 09/06/2005 3:48:24 PM PDT by Constitution Restoration Act
More republicans than that are un-deserving of the anti-socialism vote..
There are two who are in real danger of primary defeats.
One, Jim Kolbe (R-AZ), faces a primary challenge from ex-state Representative Randy Graf. Graf is emphasizing border security but is also strongly pro-life.
Joe Schwarz (R-MI) first won last year because several pro-life candidates split the conservative vote. If conservatives can rally around one candidate, he can win if he gets proper support.
The Republican National Coalition For Life should focus their recourses on those two winnable races.
Thanks for the ping!
He ran as a pro-lifer -- what has he voted the wrong way on?
Is not pro-life, IIRC. A few of the others were notable for not being the most principled members, but some were surprises.
As for Joe Schwarz he can be beaten with a strong primary challenger. He is well known for being pro-choice, as well as anti-gun(and somewhat pro-tax as well). He only won in 2004 because conservatives split their votes among several challengers in different parts of the district. Schwarz took advantage of that, as well as some democrat crossover votes. He won with under 30% in the primary, and was lucky to face a weak democrat who was underfunded.
On the democrat side, Dale Kildee is extremely liberal on most issues(unions, guns, economics), but he is pro-life due to his Catholic religion(he went to Sacred Heart Seminary).
Bart Stupak (also Catholic) is a moderate democrat from the Upper Peninsula. The district voted for Bush twice and has a majority of conservative democrats who split their tickets. Stupak is erratic on many issues, but is solidly pro-life, as is his district. A pro-choicer would likely be defeated there as the district is socially conservative, and economically somewhat populist.
Since GOPcapitalist left Free Republic I have only you to ask. Joe Batron a good conservative is on this list, any idea what's up?
I thought he already announced he was not seeking reelection.
He's generally pro-life-especially in comparison to his predecessor in office-but not an absolutist-for better or worse-on most social issues.
My problem with this subject-and this was alluded to in Ramesh's NR piece-is that it's so often framed within the parameters of a debate between implacably anti-science, religiously orthodox Luddites-a la Steve Reich-and enlightened, progressive forces that only want to enrich the lives of desperately impaired Americans suffering incomparable grief and pain as a result of chronic illnesses.
I take issue with this notion, since it doesn't take into account the moral dimensions inherent in bioethics, and dismisses legitimate moral concerns that arise from both religious and non-theist individuals who don't believe that human beings-or incipient life-should be tampered with in order to further the aims of scientific research, no matter how valuable such scientific discoveries might be.
Even if you accept the premise that embryonic stem cell research will ultimately prove more profitable than other less objectionable alternatives, e.g. adult stem cell and blood cord research, rather than merely a biomedical dead-end, as was the case with the equally promising-but ultimately fruitless-field of fetal tissue research several years ago, that still doesn't resolve the crux of the problem, which is the existing conflict between exigent medical needs and longstanding ethical qualms about reducing the amount of respect accorded to potential human life.
I don't think you have to be of a particularly conspiratorial mindset to extrapolate from what the government is being asked to do now, i.e. rescind any and all restrictions placed upon embryonic stem cell research, and perhaps endorse therapeutic cloning, to a future scenario where the federal government has put its imprimatur of acceptance on mass harvesting of human embryos for any and every conceivable reason, including-quite possibly-merely for cosmetic purposes.
The advocates for these sorts of procedures place a premium on the duration and quality of life, which are indeed very important, but the quality of an individual's life doesn't necessarily encompass the entire sweep of humanity.
Unfortunate, but typical of Republicans. They treat us the way Dimmycraps treat blacks.
It looks like they based this soley on the stem cell vote.
While I disagree w/ Barton on that bill, declaring him to not be pro-life, as if one bill wipes out his entire record, doesn't strike as having a whole lot of credibility.
The local Right to Life has kind of gone off the deep end too. I used to be somewhat involved with them, but I think they've lost perspective. They view themselves as sole judges and spokesmen for the movement, which just isn't true anymore. When they take a solid anti-abortion legislator, and call that person an "enemy of life" on the basis of one vote, they lose credibility. I've seen the local group do the same thing, where they completely disregard some legislator's solid anti-abortion record because they disagreed on a research bill.
Sorry, when I said "the local group," I was thinking of Texas Right to Life, not the Republican Coalition for Life.
In any event, we are winning more than we are losing, and could win more if we weren't so damned determined to purge all the 95%ers.
These are moral and ethical questions that government is not capable of resolving, but encroaching federalism will enforce our condecension. Questions of law best left to state governments to define citizenship and the rights thereof. At least in that arena, moral questions have a chance, because morality is not a universal. Morality is a code of conduct.
I agree with a solid majority of Americans and scientists that embryonic stem cell research is promising and will save millions of lives down the road. It's an embryo, not a fetus! Be consistently pro-life and allow universities federal funding for this life-saving research.
Although I don't think anyone is advocating federal intervention against states that choose to experiment with embryonic stem cell research, e.g. California, New Jersey, among others.
What concerns me is that there seems to be a reflexive prejudice against exploring other avenues of biomedical research.
It's almost as if some public officials have already reached the conclusion that this is the only viable way of finding treatments for chronic diseases before all of the data is in, which is the opposite of how the scientific method should (ideally) work.
Agreed, and my thanks.
Yes. Because the right to life forces challenge the cloaked defense of abortion, and as you say, the debate is painted with the broad brush of fanaticism.
The public is fed false hopes of miracle cures and the people who would deny that hope are made evil.
Unfortunately, we can forget about the scientific community doing anything to help the situation because they've proved themselves to be $$$ whores. They'll walk away with pockets full of money and say it's all a "policy decision" and they have nothing to do with it. So we are funding the promise of a promise.
And you're right again. It's the opposite of scientific method. But no one (except that rare honest person)is going to come forward and block one avenue of research against another because no one really knows what the outcome of either avenue will be, and they don't want to be perceived as standing in the way of progress.
Look at what happened in the Terri Schiavo debate. She was painted as a hopeless vegetable and even with a willing and able family to care for her, her life could not be spared and those who supported sparing her life were called a bunch of nuts.
Bush is right to say the government should err on the side of life. But he's sounding like one voice in the wilderness. I had hopes for Frist, because he was one person who could have lent a good deal of credibility in this debate, and he turned out to be another politician.
only one in MN? Is that because of the low percentage of Repubs from MN or... :-)
"The only hypocrite in the bunch is Jim Marshall of Georgia, who almost always votes pro-abortion
He ran as a pro-lifer -- what has he voted the wrong way on?"
"Heather Wilson
Is not pro-life, IIRC."
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.