Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

No deal, Rudy
Catholic Online ^ | 3/6/2007

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: abestgopcandidate; abortion; catholicforum; cino; guiliani; homosexualagenda; liberalgop; marksanford; messageboardpost; moralabsolutes; norudy; prolife; rino; rudy; tomtancredo
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 541-554 next last
To: Lexinom; Sir Francis Dashwood; EternalVigilance; .30Carbine; Calpernia; oneamericanvoice; ...
electing a man, however eloquent, however likeable, with Giuliani's character deficiences effectively sanctions the very worst of Western culture - the very things that make the WOT worth fighting in the first place.

More than just sanctions--it puts someone with these ethics into the position of Franchisor. But there are no franchise royalties for the 'disenfranchised,' who are kept as voting-cannon-fodder by and for the elitists who manipulate them.
261 posted on 03/06/2007 8:07:16 PM PST by The Spirit Of Allegiance (Public Employees: Honor Your Oaths! Defend the Constitution from Enemies--Foreign and Domestic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Artemis Webb

I did you are already the insult monitor.


262 posted on 03/06/2007 8:07:54 PM PST by fatima (Shut up Murtha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard; areafiftyone

"You'll have to ask them."

Exactly.

But according to areafiftyone, "them" are nothing but mindless robots voting however they're told.

I still await her defense of post #17 on this thread.


263 posted on 03/06/2007 8:08:47 PM PST by Enosh (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: gotribe

He may destroy Hillary, but he will destroy the gun owners next. No Rudy.


264 posted on 03/06/2007 8:10:12 PM PST by mad_as_he$$ (So many geeks, so few circuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Siobhan
Of course it is NOT!

Yes, it's his site, his rules, and he manages it; however, once this site is turned into a one candidate promoting site, with all other views banned, then the LLC nature of the rules come into play and FR becomes an illegal political arm of that candidate.

265 posted on 03/06/2007 8:10:44 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: mohresearcher
The good news is that Rudy has better legs than Hillary.
266 posted on 03/06/2007 8:11:41 PM PST by mad_as_he$$ (So many geeks, so few circuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: mohresearcher
The good news is that Rudy has better legs than Hillary.
267 posted on 03/06/2007 8:11:44 PM PST by mad_as_he$$ (So many geeks, so few circuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: mohresearcher
The good news is that Rudy has better legs than Hillary.
268 posted on 03/06/2007 8:11:45 PM PST by mad_as_he$$ (So many geeks, so few circuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: abishai
I'm glad to see people actively standing their moral ground, and not sheepishly following "the party line."

The party line? What's that?

269 posted on 03/06/2007 8:12:12 PM PST by FreeReign (Still looking for the best conservative candidate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: mad_as_he$$

You can say that again!


270 posted on 03/06/2007 8:12:22 PM PST by abishai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

It is Fred Thompson, Duncan Hunter, or nobody. No one else will get a penny from my checkbook in 2008. Ok, Chuck Norris, but no one else!


271 posted on 03/06/2007 8:12:49 PM PST by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
I believe you are saying his position on abortion is not an issue for you, but his gun control positions are vis-a-vis the Second Amendment which should mobilize us as a nation to the defense of our homeland. Is that right?
272 posted on 03/06/2007 8:12:57 PM PST by Siobhan (Pray, pray, pray,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: supercat

> But I see no reason to support a candidate who goes so
> strongly against my most important beliefs.

We're speaking at cross purposes here.

I don't have any illusions about convincing single issue pro-gun, or single issue pro-life, or single issue pro-family voters that Rudy is "their guy".

He's not, quite simply. And if they can find a candidate to support who better reflects their values, by all means, support him or her.

My point is rather that the internecine savaging (of Giuliani or any other candidate) only serves whoever the dems put up. It serves no constructive purpose whatsoever. That was the reasoning behind Reagan's 11th commandment.


273 posted on 03/06/2007 8:13:28 PM PST by voltaires_zit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign

I honestly think that the GOP will not care what socons think and nominate Guiliani.


274 posted on 03/06/2007 8:14:35 PM PST by abishai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: voltaires_zit

"Lame eating of one's own like that is not very productive."

Speaking for myself, I have but one thing in common with Rudy the G-man. We are both registered Republicans. Beyond that, we share no political or social values. He should do the right thing now as he has done in the past...switch parties.


275 posted on 03/06/2007 8:15:27 PM PST by takenoprisoner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: Artemis Webb

I am a housewife who does a few other things.I am dumb-heeehe.Answer my question please.


276 posted on 03/06/2007 8:16:11 PM PST by fatima (Shut up Murtha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: wouldntbprudent
I'm a writer ... I spittled it out faster than you can even imagine ... and the mistakes in typing are the result of that. Try clicking on 'Home Page' to read the founder's vision for FR. BTW, the post wasn't meant as a lecture ... your mileage may vary.
277 posted on 03/06/2007 8:16:51 PM PST by MHGinTN (If you've had life support. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: abishai
I honestly think that the GOP will not care what socons think and nominate Guiliani.

I disagree.

I honestly think that the majority of GOP primary voters are pro-life and pro 2A.

Sorry to hear that you have such a negative view of the GOP voters.

278 posted on 03/06/2007 8:19:20 PM PST by FreeReign (Still looking for the best conservative candidate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

Thank you, but I am well aware of the founder's vision, having been on FR since 1999.

Going to great lengths to pontificate upon the obvious is generally construed as a lecture. Your mileage may vary.


279 posted on 03/06/2007 8:21:27 PM PST by wouldntbprudent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
I have noticed that double standard with regard to Newt Gingrich. The lack of consistency is bewildering.

I think Giuliani provokes a high level of anxiety that results in incredible emotional overflowing. Sometimes that is a good thing for a candidate, but in his case it is not.

Most Americans I know put abortion in their top five concerns. Polls are entertainment but they do not tell me what I can observe in my own world, so I don't see confirmation of your point about most Americans and this issue. Perhaps I will see it after these primaries and the election but not now.

Having Republican presidents alone does not mean that Roe will change. There must be court appointments etc. that turn the tide of judicial review. Of course, if the Republican Presidents had used the Executive Order in the way that Bill Clinton did then they could have changed Roe in a number of ways. But in general Republicans do not like rule by Presidential decree.

280 posted on 03/06/2007 8:22:07 PM PST by Siobhan (Pray, pray, pray,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 541-554 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson