No deal, Rudy

Catholic Online ^ | 3/6/2007

[markomalley]

They are saying that the next GOP presidential candidate might very well be a pro-abortion Republican who promises not to push that issue and is strong on other issues.

They hope that pro-lifers will “be reasonable,” not let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and go along quietly.

We won’t.

Republicans and Democrats in 1980 took radically different approaches to the right to life. Republicans wrote into their party platform that all abortions should be outlawed. Democrats wrote into their party platform that not only should abortion be legal, but families should be forced to pay for others’ abortions through their taxes.

Democratic leaders have been utterly committed to their party platform. But there’s a movement afoot for Republicans to shrug off this plank of the party platform altogether, and give a pro-abortion politician the reins of the party and, they hope, the White House.

In particular, Rudy Giuliani has become a favorite for president of conservative talk-show hosts, and pro-war and tough-on-crime Republicans. He’s also way ahead in polls like Newsweek’s, though it’s anyone guess what such polls mean so early in the process.

The way the pro-Rudy argument goes is this: For the past three decades, social conservatives have had the luxury of insisting on purity in the Republican Party. Their clout was such that any candidate had to undergo a “forced conversion” before running for national office. But 9/11 changed that. Now, extremist Islam and the war on terror are such all-consuming issues, and we can’t be so caught up with abortion anymore.

Since Giuliani is committed to the war on terror and is a great crisis manager with a track record rooting out the gangs of New York, we shouldn’t demand that he be pro-life, but instead we should be willing to make a deal.

Rudy’s deal: He’ll promise not to push the pro-abortion agenda, and he’ll nominate judges in the mold of Samuel Alito and John Roberts. Pro-lifers in the Republican Party in return would support him, but keep insisting that the party stay pro-life, and fight our fiercest pro-life battles at the state level, where they belong.

That seems like a good deal, at first blush. We’re well aware that “forced conversions” to the pro-life fold are far from the ideal. Think of the candidacy of Bob Dole in 1996. And it is true that the fight against judicial tyranny is an immense front in the battle for the right to life. Transforming the courts is a prerequisite to victory elsewhere.

But what dooms the deal from the start is the fact that it totally misunderstands what pro-lifers care about in the first place.

When they ask us to “be reasonable” and go along with a pro-abortion leader, they assume that there is something unreasonable about the pro-life position to start with.

We’re sorry, but we don’t see what is so unreasonable about the right to life. We’ve seen ultrasounds, we’ve named our babies in the womb, we’ve seen women destroyed by abortion. What looks supremely unreasonable to us is that we should trust a leader who not doesn’t only reject the right to life but even supports partial-birth abortion, which is more infanticide than abortion.

We also see the downside of Rudy’s deal. If pro-lifers went along, we’d soon find out that a pro-abortion Republican president would no longer preside over a pro-life party. The power a president exerts over his party’s character is nearly absolute. The party is changed in his image. He picks those who run it and, both directly and indirectly, those who enter it.

Thus, the Republicans in the 1980s became Reaganites. The Democrats in the 1990s took on the pragmatic Clintonite mold. Bush’s GOP is no different, as Ross Douthat points out in “It’s His Party” in the March Atlantic Monthly.

A Republican Party led by a pro-abortion politician would become a pro-abortion party. Parents know that, when we make significant exceptions to significant rules, those exceptions themselves become iron-clad rules to our children. It’s the same in a political party. A Republican Party led by Rudy Giuliani would be a party of contempt for the pro-life position, which is to say, contempt for the fundamental right on which all others depend.

Would a pro-abortion president give us a pro-life Supreme Court justice? Maybe he would in his first term. But we’ve seen in the Democratic Party how quickly and completely contempt for the right to life corrupts. Even if a President Giuliani did the right thing for a short time, it’s likely the party that accepted him would do the wrong thing for a long time.

Would his commitment to the war on terror be worth it? The United States has built the first abortion businesses in both Afghanistan and Iraq, ever. Shamefully, our taxes paid to build and operate a Baghdad abortion clinic that is said to get most of its customers because of the pervasive rape problem in that male-dominated society. And that happened under a pro-life president. What would a pro-abortion president do?

The bottom line: Republicans have made inroads into the Catholic vote for years because of the pro-life issue. If they put a pro-abortion politician up for president, the gains they’ve built for decades will vanish overnight.

[wouldntbprudent]

The power a president exerts over his party’s character is nearly absolute.

Examples, please.

[markomalley]

That was in Mark's post of the article itself, perhaps he can provide an additional link.

I'm afraid I don't have anything readily available other than the content of the article. No time tonight to Google it up. Although it sounds like something that would come out of UNICEF (which receives US funding). But that is speculation on my part.

[EagleUSA]

Most of what has been posted to Fr, against Rudy, from the beginning, has been 1/2 truths, lies, and things blatantly taken out of context and then twisted.

You don't like him? Fine.....just don't use lies to make your case against him.
-----
Please go away. Thank you.

[nopardons]

You can't tell me to "go away"; you have no authority here and I haven't broken any posting rules.

[fatima]

So nice to see you too FRiend,Missed you but you know that.

[Siobhan]

It is important to source it. I recall that it was possible because of funds the US had released to a certain UN agency. But I too will do some digging to see if I can find something clearly sourced on that point.

[Artemis Webb]

Hey supercat...when Rudy threw all the sex shops out of Times Square was that good on his part?

[MaxMax]

You can just image if Rudy were the Presidential nominee
the field day everyone would have as a result of these photos being shown everywhere.

You hit on one of the first devices that held me back from considering Giuliani.
And as I said before, those pictures will be shown Every day until the day
of the election by the MSM. and yes, it will have a significant impact towards the public
and their personal views towards Giuliani.

IMO those Pics will be enough to sway enough of the public to cause discourse
towards such a candidate. I refuse to allow our party to be humiliated
in such a way, so I'll fight against Giuliani and hold back my funding of the party.
And encourage all I meet to do the same.

MaxMax,
/Salute

[Gop1040]

It's still pandering no matter how you explain it.

[supercat]

First of all, Rudy isn't a RINO; that IS a fact! He may not be as far right as you would like, bit he IS a REPUBLICAN.

True or false: Rudy has demonstrated that he believes an NYC mayor should be allowed to try to impose his own anti-gun viewpoint nationwide (by trying to do precisely that).

True or false: Nothing Rudy has done since then would indicate any realization that his action was wrong.

True or false: Rudy, as Mayor, made New York City a sanctuary for illegal aliens.

True or false: Nothing Rudy has done since then would indicate any realization that his action was wrong.

Dressing up in drag for a comedy skit doesn't bother me. But I've seen nothing to suggest that the above issues don't disqualify him.

[StAnDeliver]

Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2267. Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

Pope John Paul II, "Evangelium Vitae". Execution is only appropriate "in cases of absolute necessity, in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today, however, as a result of steady improvement in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."

Given that the "organization", the wretched state of the US penal system could not possibly be considered as qualifying under "steady improvement", the death penalty in the US is conscionable in cases where it is not possible to otherwise defend society.

[Pyro7480]

The Roman Catholic Church is against capital punishment too. If you're a Catholic does that mean you must oppose it too?

Here's a very good article on the subject. Is the Church Against Both Abortion and the Death Penalty?

[Enosh]

Have I frightened you away from this thread by asking you to explain what you mean by "Black Churches?"

[wouldntbprudent]

You're kidding, right?

[wouldntbprudent]

Exactly.

[madprof98]

All us pro-lifers have been dismissed!

I think it's increasingly likely we are going to be dismissed from the Republican Party at convention time. Having been dismissed from another political party quite a while back, I've gotten used to it. But I hate it that we're being run off of FreeRepublic, and that is exactly what they're doing right now.

[cgk]

Pro-Life/Pro-Baby ping!

Please FReepmail me if you would like to be added to, or removed from, the Pro-Life/Pro-Baby ping list...

[dfwddr]

Rudy doesn't need you

Thank you for making that clear.

pissant, why don't you share gotribe's wisdom with the list.

[voltaires_zit]

The only article I can find remotely relevant is here:

http://www.lilithgallery.com/feminist/abortioninbaghdad.html

This is an obviously irrational screed supposedly sourced to the washington post yet clearly paralleling the supposed clinic to a "butcher shop" and claiming the US pays for it because of all the rapes by US servicemen.

Needless to say, the article is utter hogwash.

The relevant law: since 1973, the Helms amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act has prohibited the use of U.S. funds for abortion services; using U.S. funds for biomedical research and lobbying on abortion has been prohibited since 1981. In 30 years, no violations have been reported.

Further background: the Iraqi regulations on abortion under Saddam (which probably, though not certainly, haven't changed) are available here:

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/abortion/doc/iraq.doc

"Abortions are allowed in Iraq to preserve the life and health of the pregnant woman and for reasons of foetal defect. Iraqi law also allows abortion for reasons of incest and rape. Spousal consent is required."

[supercat]

Hey supercat...when Rudy threw all the sex shops out of Times Square was that good on his part?

Rudy has done a number of good things, and a number of bad things. As such, it would appear he can neither be a purely good tree, nor a purely bad one. Still, in response to your question I felt it appropriate to mention a Bible passage that seemed relevant.