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.
Irrrelevant. Neither case refers to the allegation posted by AC. And in any case, it is highly unlikely imo that the US would establish abortion clinics to aid and abet honor killings. Again, I want to see confirmation that the US is doing this.
I think we might agree more than I first thought. I don't think Mr. Robinson expects bowing to his particular viewpoints on particular issues, but he has set the boundary markers rather clearly over the years. To my mind it is important to honor those markers. That is my point.
You're very right. Thanks!
And if everyone on this site agreed, we wouldn't have these hilarious Rudywars threads!! I haven't seen likeminded people hash it out like this since my Baptist church took a vote to change the carpeting!
I'm running out of my popcorn stockpile.
We can differ on opinion, that's fine, but I'd like to see some factual evidence.
> Checking now on the Planned Parenthood funding in Afghanistan.....
"The Bush administration has withheld, for the third consecutive year, funds earmarked for UNFPA."
The Gag Rule, in place since Reagan with a brief hiatus under Clinton, forbids any US funds going to any organization offshore that even *mentions* abortion.
The GOP is telling us who to nominate?
Ya got a source and a cite on that?
Explain why Rudy's anti-gun lawsuit and his sanctuary-city actions should not be considered disqualifiers?
Would be nice to ping the person you are talking about.
You are quite right to want that. However, I do not think the aformentioned article is irrelevant. Planned Parenthood receives rather large amounts of monies from various governments and it is important to see, if possible, who is giving the money to Planned Parenthood for these abortion clinics in Afghanistan. Normally, on FreeRepublic in the past we would all start digging and looking. I hope others will do the same.
Sure, they're not Switzerland. But the local police could shut down an abortion clinic if they want to. Or they can subcontract it out to Mookie Sadr's boys and have it blown up.
Your pics trigger an emotional response alright. But those pics will never trigger a vote for a gun grabbin wife swappin child neglectin cross dressin liberal.
Need I say more?
Then we agree completely on this point.
I believe it is very important to honor the boundaries JimRob has set for this site, though it's not always easy to discern what is and is not over the line. In fact, on one thread, many here thought JimRob had violated the boundaries by allowing a post with a certain name-calling as part of the title.
He apparently thought the thread was within tolerance.
That said, again, I do agree that it is important to honor the markers. But that is not the same as some who trot out some JimRob post and declare, "see, even The Owner agrees with me!," as if we must all now bow down.
When I say JimRob is in the same position as any other poster, I mean he should be agreed with or disagreed with, within the rules, as one thinks fit.
Sounds about right.
However I don't support any 60% candidates during the primaries.
I already pinged Jim on post 133. There is a difference between "talking about someone" and mentioning them in passing. I think Jim has a lot more to do than worry about it every time his name is mentioned.
Who appointed you "hall monitor"?
I, too, am a veteran of the Baptist Church Carpet Wars.
Wow. That brings back some SNL-type memories.
Got to look deeper than that. Moneys that go for one thing to PP easily wind up elsewhere.
I know...but it was so vague and pointless I figured I should just go with the flow.
Absolutely so. Thank you for your patience with me as we sorted this through. I appreciate it very much.
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.