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

 

[dirtboy]

It leaves nothing more than a couple of hundred ditto threads a day.

That and about 200 threads posted by areafiftyone with Rudy's latest poll numbers and the latest school board members in South Carolina to come out in support of Rudy.

[MACVSOG68]

A lot of the Rudy Rooters are fond of talking about Reagan's edict of "not speaking ill of other Republicans." However, they overlook the fact that Ronald Reagan was the only Republican in modern times to challenge an incumbent GOP president for the nomination. He attacked Ford's record as a moderate and came within 117 votes of winning the nomination.

Well, as good a president as he was, he was also unafraid of walking over to the other side of the aisle and negotiate and compromise in order to achieve his goals of lower taxes and a substantially higher military budget.

The Rudy Rooters need to get used to the fact that he will be called to task on his record, not just by conservative Republicans but also by the 'Rats if he stays in the race. Posting verifiable FACTS is not smearing, it's a legitimate part of every political campaign in history.

I have absolutely no problem with that on any of the candidates. But as you are aware, the rules are different for different candidates. And that, my friend, is simply disingenuous.

[dirtboy]

But as you are aware, the rules are different for different candidates.

Sorry, but the rules on FR are based on conservatism. If a candidate ain't very conservative, they and their boosters are gonna have tough sledding here.

Plus, just about all the Rudy boosters have no problem ripping into McCain, so it ain't like they don't have their own targets.

[Jet Jaguar]

“Rudy boosters have no problem ripping into McCain”

Gingrich, Thompson, Thompson, Hunter, & Romney supporters have been ripped into by those same posters.

[Miss Didi]

And that chilling fact says where we are today...as conservatives, who claim to decry the leftist tactics of shutting up any who don't walk the PC line. I sense this was a far greater loss to Free Republic than it was to MiaT.

Bravissimo.

[epow]

If there is no prolife candidate on the ballot, they simply throw their hands up and wait for the next election.

There will be pro-life candidates on the ballot, if not the Republican nominee there will be pro-life 3rd party candidates. I and my extended family will all vote for the 3rd party nominee who best represents our beliefs if Rudy is nominated by the GOP.

I will never vote for a pro-death candidate just because he or she is the lesser of two evils, and I believe that God will punish America severely if we reject viable pro-life candidates while embracing pro-death candidates for the sake of some perceived political advantage.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Here’s something almost nobody will agree with. I’m not afraid of a Hillary Clinton presidency.

We survived Bill, we can survive Hillary. I don’t WANT a Hillary presidency, but our nation is much stronger than any candidate, and much more powerful than to be destroyed by the likes of Hillary.

And worse, I frankly think Hillary would be a better President than Jimmy Carter, or Barack Obama. And maybe even better than Edwards.

I think the obsessive fear of Hillary Clinton is psychotic. I understand how the political people can get worked into a frenzy about the opponents being the incarnation of evil, but when that fear leads to irrationality it becomes a hindrance.

God is in control. We will, by the grace of God, survive. Those who trust in man will be dissappointed.

Rudy supporters are defeatists. Conservatism is correct. People will do what is right, if someone can communicate effectively. Reagan didn’t win the crossover votes by being like the left, but by clearly articulating what made the “right” right. When explained, conservatism won 49 states.

You can win the center in two ways — you can run a candidate that believes in the center, like Rudy : that is defeatism. Or you can run a candidate who is conservative, and can communicate effectively the conservative position. Then you win by teaching others, by giving them something they desire.

Don’t be defeatists.

The beliefs and policies of the left are bad for the country. We do the country no favors if we give into ignorance by running the candidate that appeals to that ignorance.

Remember the movie “Poseidon Adventure”? The ship was upside down, so the only way out was up, toward the bottom of the ship. But most people thought they needed to go to the deck of the ship. Maybe the majority. If you wanted to lead that ship, the easy way was to speak strongly and clearly, and join the group going to the deck. You could lead them to their death, but you’d have the majority.

Or you could clearly articulate the correctness of your view that you should go to the bottom of the ship. Well, someone did, some followed, and they survived.

What’s the point of leading people the wrong way?

I am currently a supporter of Mitt Romney, but not an endorser. Of those who are in the race, I think he best exemplifies the conservative principles I hold dear, along with the executive esperience to actually DO the job, and the ability to clearly articulate his positons and get votes.

He’s a flawed candidate, and I wish Duncan Hunter had Mitt’s speaking ability and charm. I’d vote for Hunter in a minute, but he is flawed as well, and doesn’t impress me as a leader or as a person who can get people to listen to him.

I will vote for McCain if he wins the primary, although he might well be nuts. I’ll admit that in 1992 I chastised some for voting for Ross Perot because he was certifiably nuts, but I guess now I’m ready to vote crazy.

I will seriously consider Fred Thompson if he enters the race. The attacks on Fred by Mia were laughable, hardly the product of a “great mind” she is claimed to be.

[wagglebee]

I have absolutely no problem with that on any of the candidates. But as you are aware, the rules are different for different candidates.

Can you cite a single verifiable fact about any other GOP candidate which has been disallowed here?

I have little doubt that Rudy's aspirations for the presidency go back years (long before 9/11). If he was as astute as his supporters claim, he shouldn't have made leftist speeches to leftist groups.

[CharlesWayneCT]

I’m not singling you out, but I just wanted to say this. I find the attacks on the pro-rudy supporters as being pro-abortion themselves to be unproductive and wish it would stop.

I believe Rudy is pro-abortion, even if not “personally” for abortion (no man that I know of can have an abortion). And I believe pro-lifers that push him in the primaries are seriously misguided. But I won’t question their sincerity, just their judgment. If they say they are pro-life, I see no reason to question them.

That said, since Mia essentially told us that if we didn’t vote for Rudy, we’d be personally responsible for dead babies, I’m guessing she didn’t have the same moral sensibility that I have.

Still, I think the tone of the debates on these threads would be improved if we on the “anti-rudy” side could focus on the absurdity of the claims of the pro-rudy people, and less on calling them personally pro-abortion.

I don’t expect to make any friends by saying this, and as I said I’m not attacking you personally for this.

[airborne]

It is not immoral (or amoral) vs moral.

It is to me.

It is rational vs irrational.

And is it rational to obsess constantly about Hillary?

Unlike the Rudy haters, we are the ones who are TRULY PRO-LIFE.

That's ridiculous.

Your phobia of Hillary has made you irrational, IMO.

[dirtboy]

Here’s something almost nobody will agree with. I’m not afraid of a Hillary Clinton presidency.

If Hillary ends up being the nominee (and that is no sure thing), the GOP cannot win by running against her.

They will have to win by running as Republicans.

And not the rudderless Republicans we saw in 2005-2006. And not the mushy-mouthed Republicans like Gonzales who can't event articulte a power that his boss has without question - the right to fire US Attorneys at will.

Rudy has been underwhelming in his efforts to redefine his stance over abortion. He can't even stick to a few simple talking points. But that's what happens when you run against your personal views and your past. Sooner or later, you trip up.

That is why it is essential for the GOP to nominate someone who actually BELIEVES in core GOP values. And lives them. The GOP has done little of the former and none of the latter recently. And that is what lost elections in 2006, and will lose elections in 2008 unless the GOP returns to its roots.

[MACVSOG68]

Except that Rudy has redefined strict constructionism to allow a judge to uphold Roe as precedent.

So Rudy offers NOTHING here.

Since he claims he would appoint justices similar in their judicial philosophy to Alito and Scalia, I would certainly take my chances that he actually would, than accept Hillary who would fill the bench with the likes of Ginsburg.

Oh, that's rich. So the conservative site FR is now PC in your opinion for rejecting liberal viewpoints and attacks on conservative candidates? Woof. Talk about redefining terms.

First, I reject any distinction between liberal and conservative from the social right. A social agenda of issues is neither demonstrative of a conservative, nor does it preclude a conservative from disagreeing with it. The social right has no claim to conservatism, simply by virtue of their social positions.

Second, yes, the rules you have laid out to me seem to indicate that conservative posters must only support certain positions, and if those positions or candidates are not vetted by the social right, they are to suffer the consequences if they use the very same language and tactics freely used by those here on the other side of the issue. That's one of the things we all scream loudly about in academia today. Once you start putting those kinds of limits on open discussion, it ceases to be open, and if you have rules, they should apply to all.

[dirtboy]

I find the attacks on the pro-rudy supporters as being pro-abortion themselves to be unproductive and wish it would stop.

I'm not attacking Rudy boosters for being pro-abortion.

However, I question their station to challenge the pro-life views of others (and their own commitment to being pro-life when they say they are) when they apparently don't care that their guy has a 100 percent NARAL rating.

[MACVSOG68]

Looks like you are alerting the founder to another who needs to be zotted. I'm sure he has all the help he can handle.

Can you cite a single verifiable fact about any other GOP candidate which has been disallowed here?

Is that really a serious question? I'm saying that supporters of all of the candidates are not under a similar set of rules, as has been explained to me over the past several posts by another poster. Argue with him, not me. I think they should all be vetted equally. But if Fred enters the race, you will see little appreciation here for the treatment accorded the other 3 major candidates.

I have little doubt that Rudy's aspirations for the presidency go back years (long before 9/11). If he was as astute as his supporters claim, he shouldn't have made leftist speeches to leftist groups.

I'm not even discussing Rudy, nor have I been.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Someone on this thread said that Ronald Reagan would have supported using my tax dollars so government could provide special benefits to gay couples (I think it was Mia herself).

It’s not nice to claim things when the person is dead and can’t defend themselves.

Rudy Giuliani is the Bob Dole of 2008. Front-runner, heir-apparent, it’s his time, moderate to appeal to “crossover voters”. And the media was pretty good to Dole — until he got the nomination.

Once it was clear he couldn’t be stopped in the primary, the media turned on him. It became quickly clear that he was in fact incapable of beating Clinton, but too late for us to get another nominee.

Rudy is Bob Dole. Let’s not make that mistake again.

[dirtboy]

Since he claims he would appoint justices similar in their judicial philosophy to Alito and Scalia, I would certainly take my chances that he actually would, than accept Hillary who would fill the bench with the likes of Ginsburg.

Except there are two problems. First, Rudy has re-defined strict constructionism to allow a judge to uphold Roe. And Rudy has also said a president appoints judges that match his views.

So since Rudy has been so pro-abort over the years, I'm completely unsold that he would appoint judges who would overturn Roe.

First, I reject any distinction between liberal and conservative from the social right. A social agenda of issues is neither demonstrative of a conservative, nor does it preclude a conservative from disagreeing with it. The social right has no claim to conservatism, simply by virtue of their social positions.

Well, I disagree on two levels here as well.

First of all, Reagan basically defined modern conservatism, and his social conservatism was robust. Not having at least some social conservative values makes a professed conservative a two-legged stool (with the other two legs being fiscal and national security). The only way conservatism works is when all three are embraced.

And second, the problems with Rudy go far beyond abortion and gay rights. He's also a gun-grabber. And an authoritarian. And no friend of the Bill of Rights. Rudy is simply too far left in the party - at the far fringes where it becomes difficult to tell him apart from, say, Joe Lieberman.

Second, yes, the rules you have laid out to me seem to indicate that conservative posters must only support certain positions, and if those positions or candidates are not vetted by the social right, they are to suffer the consequences if they use the very same language and tactics freely used by those here on the other side of the issue.

Once again, the rules here have always boiled down to a basic concept - conservative good, liberal bad. If you find that suffocating, so be it. But conservatism happens to be the core guiding mission for this website, and it's tough to pursue a conservative agenda if you're dragging a bunch of liberalism around with you.

[Petronski]

But do those rules include not referring to Rudy supporters as treasonous cretins?

Got a link to that?

[wagglebee]

Looks like you are alerting the founder to another who needs to be zotted. I'm sure he has all the help he can handle.

No, I was asking him if he could clarify whether any verifiable facts about any other GOP candidates which have been disallowed here.

I'm saying that supporters of all of the candidates are not under a similar set of rules, as has been explained to me over the past several posts by another poster.

I will grant you that some candidates (primarily Rudy and McCain) get more criticism here, but that is because their principles are inconcistent with conservatism. However, I have not seen where any candidate has been "protected" from criticism.

[wagglebee]

Rudy is the classic “single issue” candidate (the war on terror, which isn’t even a conservative issue even though nearly all conservatives support it and most liberals oppose it); if he is nominated, he will become the GOP’s George McGovern.

[CharlesWayneCT]

If Rudy wins, I will pray to God that he does what he claimed he would do.

But until that day, I will remember that Bush, who I certainly trusted on judges, nominated a woman who, while she might have well been OK, didn’t even have constututional knowledge sufficient to answer a written questionare.

I’m not as sour on Rudy as most people here. If he wins the nomination, and he continues to suppress his liberal tendencies, I’ll probably even support him during the general election, even though I think his election might put conservatism back 10 years.

At least we’ll have a fiscal conservative in the white house. And maybe he’ll get tired after 4 years and we can elect a real conservative.

But I won’t cry myself to sleep in November if Rudy loses, even to Hillary. I know the sun will rise the next day, God will still be in control, and our country will soldier on. And Hillary will guarantee a conservative backlash that will win back the house and Senate, just like her husband did with her help in 1994.

There’s always a silver lining, and I refuse to vote in the primary based on fear and defeatism.