WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE 'PRO-LIFE'?

hillary clinton, Hannity & Colmes, YouTube ^ | 4.19.07 | Mia T

[Mia T]

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE 'PRO-LIFE'?

by Mia T, 4.18.07

 

HILLARY TAKES VILLAGE: teen abortion / no parent notification (YouTube)

From the Senate: Statement on Supreme Court's Gonzales v. Carhart Decision Washington, DC -- 4/18/2007 "This decision marks a dramatic departure from four decades of Supreme Court rulings that upheld a woman's right to choose and recognized the importance of women's health. Today's decision blatantly defies the Court's recent decision in 2000 striking down a state partial-birth abortion law because of its failure to provide an exception for the health of the mother. As the Supreme Court recognized in Roe v. Wade in 1973, this issue is complex and highly personal; the rights and lives of women must be taken into account. It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito." HILLARY CLINTON ON SCOTUS DECISION

HANNITY: Partial birth? GIULIANI: I think that's going to be upheld. I think it should be. as long as there's provision for the life of the mother then that's something that should be done. HANNITY: There's a misconception that you support a partial birth abortion. GIULIANI: If it doesn't have provision for the mother I wouldn't support the legislation. If it has provision for the life of the mother I would support.... GIULIANI: I think the appointment of judges that I would make would be very similar to if not exactly the same as the last two judges that were appointed. Chief Justice Roberts is somebody I work with, somebody I admire. Justice Alito, someone I knew when he was US attorney, also admire. If I had been president over the last four years, I can't think of any-- that I'd do anything different with that. I guess the key is and I appointed over 100 judges when I was the mayor so it's something I take very, very seriously. I would appoint judges that interpreted the constitution rather than invented it. Understood the difference of being a judge and a legislator. And having argued a case before the Supreme Court, having argued in many, many courts is something I would take very seriously. HANNITY: So you would look for a Scalia, Roberts, Alito. GIULIANI: Scalia is another former colleague of mine and somebody I consider to be a great judge. You are never going to get somebody exactly the same. I don't think you have a litmus test. But I do think you have a general philosophical approach that you want from a justice. I think a strict construction would be probably the way I describe it. Giuliani on Hannity: VIDEO AND TRANSCRIPT

 

 

COMMENT:

Premise: The only thing electorally each of us controls is our own vote.
Corollary: Each of us is responsible for the consequences of our own vote.

If we take the primary and the general election separately, that helps to define the problem.

IMO, we are faced, in the primary with selecting someone who will successfully prosecute the war, someone who will successfully protect and defend the Constitution. I suspect no one will disagree with this.

But we must also select someone who can win, for reasons that are obvious to me, but not, apparently, to some in this forum.

Anyone who demonstrates to me he can satisfy all of the above gets my attention, and the one who satisfies it best will get my support.

Notice that I do not mention ideological purity. I don't even mention ideology. Lincoln understood that sometimes you must go outside the system to save the system, that Lady Liberty cannot lift herself up by her own bootstraps.

So in step one, the primary, if you (or I) vote for and help nominate a sure loser in the name of ideological purity or for whatever reason, then yes, you are (or I am) helping to elect hillary clinton or whichever D is nominated.

In the general, if it's hillary vs. Rudy, say, and you don't vote, or vote 3rd party, then you are helping to elect hillary clinton. To think that you have any other options in this de facto 2-party system of ours is self-delusion.

And if you help to elect hillary clinton, you must bear the responsibility for all the deaths of all the children, unborn, living, and not yet even imagined that will flow from that election.

Those are the facts. You may not like them. They may disturb your idea of 'pro-life' as viewed through the narrow lens of abortion.

Dilemmas are tough. Life is full of them. Cognitive dissonance is not comfortable and many here, (and most if not all of us some time or other), find comfort in rationalizing dilemmas away.

But the problem is still there; you are no closer to the real solution. To the contrary. You are fast approaching real disaster. I sincerely hope you see it before it is too late.


POSTSCRIPT

MORALITY: Nothing less than morality undergirds my argument. What I am disputing are not your moral underpinnings--I admire them-- but rather your failure to acknowledge that your solution is no less (and I would argue, far more) immoral than the alternative.

COGNITIVE DISSONANCE: No insult intended. Dilemmas cause cognitive dissonance. No option is wholly satisfactory. I understand why you don't want to vote for someone who is pro-choice. But there is a dilemma: Your solution, to vote 3rd party or sit home, ultimately helps to elect someone who is by your very own criteria far worse than Rudy.

They may disturb your idea of 'pro-life' as viewed through the narrow lens of abortion.

This statement is not meant as an insult. Being 'pro-life' means so much more than simply being against abortion. When we fail to acknowledge that fact, we do dangerous, irrational, ultimately self-destructive things like helping to elect hillary clinton.

"The power of the harasser, the abuser, the rapist depends above all on the silence of women." (Ursula K. LeGuin)



VOTE SMART: A WARNING TO ALL WOMEN ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON

by Mia T, 3.11.07
A RESPONSE TO 'VOTE DIFFERENT'
(A Mashup of Obama-Apple 1984 Ad Mashup)

YouTube Views for VOTE SMART: 320,931
PLEASE FReep

YouTube (First Month) Honors for VOTE SMART:
#6 - Most Viewed - News & Politics - All
#6 - Most Viewed - News & Politics - English
#33 - Top Rated - News & Politics - All
#30 - Top Rated - News & Politics - English
#7 - Most Discussed - News & Politics - All
#6 - Most Discussed - News & Politics - English
#7 - Top Favorites - News & Politics - All
#7 - Top Favorites - News & Politics - English

 

 

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2007

 

[kevkrom]

A little less fear of Rudy

I don't fear Guiliani. I just think he's absolutely the wrong man for the job, especially when there are better men running.

[MACVSOG68]

Thanks Gracey. You keep up the good work.

[MACVSOG68]

My response to you is short, unlike your long winded response that is the typical response that those for Rudy repeat endlessly.

Well, you have apparently posted to the wrong person, as I have not made any statements supportive of Rudy, merely supportive of the Party. Rudy is one of 3 declared candidates who can win the election. I will support the candidate of the Party, whoever that is. As for my "long winded" response, it really wasn't for you but for the numerous lurkers here who need to understand that the far right no longer has the Party under its thumb.

And do not expect people to accept Rudy as the candidate and then insult them when they refuse Rudy.

I expect no one to accept any particular candidate until he becomes the nominee of the Party. And as for insults...well, that seems to be your only tool left.

I, myself, do not think Rudy will ever get the nomination.

And that's fine. He may not. It's early in the election cycle. But I think you understand Rudy was not what my post to you was about. It may have been long winded, but you failed to address a single point I made, so I presume you simply didn't read it.

[MACVSOG68]

And thanks to you for the great starter.

[Mia T]

Citizen politicians: What the Founders envisioned were people of exceptional character, ability and achievement who would lend their expertise by serving a term or two and then return to their day jobs.

This isn't Fred Thompson.

Indeed, Thompson exempifies DC entrenched power and the revolving door.

• campaign manager for Senator Howard Baker's successful re-election campaign in 1972
• co-chief counsel to the Senate Watergate Committee in its investigation of the Watergate scandal, (1973-1974)
• 1975-1993 Thompson's eighteen year engagement as a lobbyist in D.C. He 'eventually represented clients including Westinghouse, General Electric (the current corporate owner of the NBC Universal-NBC television network), and the Tennessee Savings and Loan League '
• 'By 1982, Thompson worked the U.S. Congress membership as a lobbyist for passage of the Savings and Loan deregulation legislation desired by the Tennessee Savings and Loan League --- in this case, federal deregulation legislation allowing for additional government support of ailing S&Ls; giving U.S. thrifts the freedom to invest in potentially more profitable, but riskier, ventures; and eliminating interest-rate ceilings on new accounts to increase S&Ls' competitiveness. Enacted into law during in September 1982, the Senate bill pushed by Thompson was incorporated into the Garn - St Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982. The Garn - St Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982 is widely credited with having laid the groundwork for the U.S. Savings and Loan crisis of the late 1980s.'
• November 8, 1994, Thompson was elected to the United States Senate. Thompson was re-elected in 1996.

Citizen politicians: What the Founders envisioned were people of exceptional character, ability and achievement who would lend their expertise by serving a term or two and then return to their day jobs.

This isn't Fred Thompson.

Indeed, Thompson exempifies DC entrenched power and the revolving door.

• campaign manager for Senator Howard Baker's successful re-election campaign in 1972
• co-chief counsel to the Senate Watergate Committee in its investigation of the Watergate scandal, (1973-1974)
• 1975-1993 Thompson's eighteen year engagement as a lobbyist in D.C. He 'eventually represented clients including Westinghouse, General Electric (the current corporate owner of the NBC Universal-NBC television network), and the Tennessee Savings and Loan League '
• 'By 1982, Thompson worked the U.S. Congress membership as a lobbyist for passage of the Savings and Loan deregulation legislation desired by the Tennessee Savings and Loan League --- in this case, federal deregulation legislation allowing for additional government support of ailing S&Ls; giving U.S. thrifts the freedom to invest in potentially more profitable, but riskier, ventures; and eliminating interest-rate ceilings on new accounts to increase S&Ls' competitiveness. Enacted into law during in September 1982, the Senate bill pushed by Thompson was incorporated into the Garn - St Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982. The Garn - St Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982 is widely credited with having laid the groundwork for the U.S. Savings and Loan crisis of the late 1980s.'
• November 8, 1994, Thompson was elected to the United States Senate. Thompson was re-elected in 1996.

[kevkrom]

Citizen politicians: What the Founders envisioned were people of exceptional character, ability and achievement who would lend their expertise by serving a term or two and then return to their day jobs. This isn't Fred Thompson. Indeed, Thompson exempifies DC entrenched power and the revolving door.

LOL! Relying on Wikpedia's leftist editorializing to discredit Thompson?

Look at Thompson's lobbying history -- it is universally in favor of deregulation, period. As in, get the federal government out of regulating things it has no business dealing with in the first place.

Deregulation generally works. To point to one failure that deregulation may have allowed to happen does not invalidate that deregulation was still the right thing to do.

[Mia T]

thank you, KATIE-O. :)

Excellent commentary!

[dforest]

The points you want addressed are the same things that have been hashed and rehashed too many times.

It is the Rudy supporters that have nothing to sell but the same old product with a new deceptive label, to make it look more palatable.

Rudy lovers have the idea that social conservatives are not allowed to fight back, if they do, that makes them hypocrites. Many here are not willing to drop over and accept Rudy because we have no place to go.

We are also sick of being told that if we don’t vote for Rudy, we are voting for Hillary. I have posted to many Rudy people with many things other than alleged insults. Funny, too many times those posts are left unanswered. Perhaps what you call insults are the only way to get a response to a post that Rudy lovers wish to avoid.

[Mia T]

Of course, polls are increasingly predictive the closer we are to an election. But to say they are meaningless is not true. Not only do they have some predictive value, they feed on themselves (to affect donations, support, etc) and thereby influence the ultimate outcome.

To say the campaign hasn’t started is also not true.

[Mia T]

We are also sick of being told that if we don’t vote for Rudy, we are voting for Hillary. I have posted to many Rudy people with many things other than alleged insults. Funny, too many times those posts are left unanswered.

I will answer it. To say that sitting home or voting third party is a de facto vote for hillary not an 'insult.' It is simple mathematical fact.

If you are 'insulted,' by that fact, that tells me that either you lack a basic understanding of the mathematics involved... or, more likely, you prefer to rationalize away your de facto vote for hillary clinton, (which is understandable).

[MACVSOG68]

You see? You can respond in a reasonable manner if you want. I did not make the point that a non vote for Rudy was a vote for Hillary. I simply said that when the dust settles and we have a candidate, that true Republicans and true conservatives will support him (whoever it is) over Hillary.

Perhaps what you call insults are the only way to get a response to a post that Rudy lovers wish to avoid.

Perhaps. I think you can distinguish an insult from a reasoned discussion. In any case, I do find it interesting (since I'm not even close to picking) that this anti-Rudy frenzy is almost cult-like. I see some of the same relating to the other 2 mainstream candidates, but nothing like Rudy. Well, I'm not a part of the social right, so I really can't understand such reaction, only judge it.

You take care.

[dforest]

To say that sitting home or voting third party is a de facto vote for hillary not an 'insult.' It is simple mathematical fact.

The best hope for the conservative cause would be for Rudy to lose. Rudy is unacceptable. If he should win with conservative help, our cause would be over. If he loses, it will be a wake up call to the GOP and proof that conservatives are not willing to go left to appease the Rudy types.

That is conservative thought.

No battle is easy, but to simply "drop" your principles out of fear and fail to stand by them is the biggest loss the conservative cause can take.

Unlike you, I don't think Hillary or Obama are unbeatable. I believe if we get a good strong conservative rational candidate, to contrast the Democrats and lunacy from the left, we will have a large groundswell of support from this whole party and maybe pick up some of the Reagan Democrats we lost.

[kevkrom]

Why were posts #133 and #134 pulled? There was nothing objectionable about them (they’re quoted in their entirely in #135), even if I disagree with the premise presented?

[M Kehoe]

Wow, heck of a thread...

Oh, and good morning to you.

5.56mm

[Mia T]

I pulled them because they were wrong. I misread what you said.

Boy, you’re fast on the trigger. :)

As I don’t stand by those statements, would appreciate it if you pull your refutation. Thx.

Will be posting a replacement soon.

[Mia T]

To be clear, I stand by the statements generally, but they don’t apply to your comments or to the situation here.