Posted on 03/06/2007 5:39:37 PM PST by 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.
DEMOCRATIC STRATEGISTS ISSUE MEMO ON LOSS OF CATHOLICS
Washington, DC, Apr. 13, 2005 (Culture of Life Foundation/CWNews.com) - A memo authored by a prominent Democratic strategy organization calls the decline in support of white Catholics for Democrats "striking" and "a big part of the 2004 election story." One of the analysis' key findings is that Catholic voters are becoming more pro-life, which the authors called "a factor in the recent losses and one of the blockages for Democrats, at least in the Midwest."
The data also reveals that young Catholics are more pro-life than their parents and that bishops who speak out against pro-abortion politicians help bolster the pro-life vote.
The abortion issue is particularly potent for a group called "Democratic defectors" who either identified themselves as Democrats or voted for Bill Clinton in 1996 but voted for President Bush in the last election. Among this group, "26 percent believe that abortion should be illegal in all cases, nearly three times the number for all Catholic Democrats."
The memo was issued by Democracy Corps, a research and tactical advice organization founded by Democrat strategy virtuosos James Carville, Stanley Greenberg and Bob Shrum. Titled "Reclaiming the White Catholic Vote," it is based on data from a nationwide survey of more than 1,000 white Catholic voters.
The decline in the white Catholic vote has been steady over the last decade. Clinton won it by seven percentage points; Al Gore lost it by seven points; and Sen. John Kerry lost it by 14 points. The data provided in the report provides a fascinating window into the much discussed Catholic vote and makes it clear Democrats are losing ground because of their stance on a range of cultural issues.
It turns out that one of the most contentious and visible issues in the 2004 election, the denial of the Eucharist to pro-abortion politicians, did not hurt the pro-life side as many said it would.
The poll found that when white Catholics were asked whether or not they were more or less likely to vote for a Democrat that "is denied Communion by the area's bishop for voting to support abortion rights" 49 percent said they were less likely while 33 percent said they were more likely.
The memo also made it clear that the abortion issue is not going away. "Although the pro-life position is strongest among seniors, Catholics' current pro-life position does not appear likely to lessen with time.
While middle-age Catholics lean toward keeping abortion legal, voters under 30 are more pro-life: 53 percent believe abortion should be illegal in most cases." The pro-life position could be a winning one for Democrats according to the study.
Fifty-nine percent of white Catholics say they are more likely to support a Democratic candidate who is pro-life and 35 percent say they are less likely, giving a pro-life Democrat a 24 point advantage. Even on the East Coast where Catholics are less pro-life, a pro-life Democrat has a 12 point advantage over a pro-abortion candidate.
The memo advises Democrat candidates to get around the issue by presenting themselves as one who "[b]elieves in a woman's right to choose but believes all sides should come together around the common goal of preventing and reducing the number of abortions, with more sex ed, including abstinence, access to contraception and more adoption."
This common ground approach is reminiscent of a recent speech given by New York Senator and likely presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton, in which she softened her approach to abortion by calling it a "tragic choice." In the speech she said faith-based abstinence should be embraced but also called on increased funding for "family planning services," a euphemism for contraception, abortifacients, and abortions.
SOURCE http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=36492
Amen.
And no one is "shoving" candidates down someone else's throats.
My goodness. I fear for people who take someone strongly stating an opposing opinion as "running them off" or "shoving candidates down their throat."
Clearly you believe that. I'm very sorry.
As I stated, "Should we throw out principle because of fear, terrorists and the left have won already. The message our deserting conservative principles would send to all remaining Conservatives in Congress, to America, and the world would take decades to reverse."
This flunks the smell test. Both countries have sovereign governments which, such as they are, have the authority to close any such so-called "abortion businesses." And since abortion is forbidden by islamic law, I suspect this is a fight the new governments would not want to have to fight with their more fundamentalist rivals. I'd need to see confirmaton that this goes on before I'd believe it.
I'm new here?
Right.
Why don't you read that whole thread?
I am aware of JimRob's post to me. He used it to refuse to answer direct questions, posed by me and others, regarding his approval of that thread's use of the words "treasonous liberals."
His answer was snippy and, worse, immaterial to the question at hand. So what?
And, please, can you make the connection for me between what I posted to you and your reply, including quoting from The Owner? Spell that out for me.
I've read through the specs repeatedly. Giuliani hits about a 60% match. He is not, perhaps 80% ally. Neither is he 80% enemy.
Reagan's 11th commandment SHOULD rule in such a case, but I suspect we shall continue down the path of eating our own to save the MSM the trouble.
He is a most dear friend. He prayed faithfully for my son Vince before he died, and continues to pray for us. I hope you have a friend like that.
See the principles listed in post #180, the ones on which this site is supposed to be based? I joined FreeRepublic in 1998 because I believed those were valid principles. These days, they are most likely to be ridiculed on this site by posters supporting the pro-abortion, pro-gay candidate from Blue State America. Their hatred of pro-lifers is every bit as strong as anything I've seen on Daily Kos, and I go there only once every blue moon to find out what evil is brewing in the world. Now I don't need to. The evil has found its home right here.
Yes, I'm being run off--in exactly the same way bad always drives off good. You guys should know. You're always bragging about how your man cleaned up the rot that had driven legitimate businesses out of Times Square.
You honestly believe that JimRob has some sort of corner on conservative wisdom---because he started a website that attracted a community of conservatives and who make FR what it is?
That's scary.
Quit sucking up.
Actually that is a common mistake Westerners make. Islam and Sharia permit Abortion in certain cases when a woman is impregnated by "an infidel" for example. And terminating pregnancies are common practice via honor killings of young women.
I totally disagree......just today on the news I saw a Catholic Bishop I believe standing with Ted Kennedy advocating for him and his immigration plan....if the Catholic Church is so opposed to abortion, why don't they excommunicate most the Kennedy's, the Kerry's et al?.. I'm very curious why they don't follow their words with deeds.
AME Zion Churches, for one. A group of Baptist churches, for another. I believe they are a separate denomination but I am not sure of the exact title.
Oh, give it a break! My friendship with Siobhan is of little consequence to you.
Are you so bitter in person?
I understand your skepticism, but knowing what I know about the history of that region and U.S. foreign policy I am certain that nothing would stand in the way of the U.S. when it comes to implementing this kind of crap over there.
I wrote no such thing. He's the one that says "Liberals need not apply." He sets the rules and terms.
Okay fine. I stand corrected. You ARE being run off. /s
Don't let the door hit you in the azz on the way out.
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.