Republican anti-abortion activists face possibility of setback

International Herald Tribune ^ | 7/29/07 | Robin Toner

[wagglebee]

WASHINGTON: After 30 years of political organizing, the anti-abortion movement has won a series of victories in the legislatures and the courts and stands tantalizingly close to winning even more. But these are anxious days for the movement.

Six months before the Iowa presidential caucuses, anti-abortion activists in the Republican Party are trying to adjust to a strikingly different political landscape. For the first time in more than a generation, they face, in former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani of New York, a front-runner for the nomination who supports abortion rights.

"Pro-life" support is divided among several other candidates, including former Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, a relatively recent convert to the cause, and former Senator Fred Thompson of Tennessee. And some strategists and outside analysts are voicing a theory that was once unthinkable in the Republican Party: That a convergence of forces - such as the early primaries in moderate states like California - may have diminished the influence of the anti-abortion movement on the Republican nominating process.

Anti-abortion leaders are increasingly moving to defend the seminal victory they first won in 1980 - the definition of the Republican Party as the "pro-life party" in its platform and its presidential nominees. Key leaders are signing on with the anti-abortion candidates they see as best able to go the distance. And some of those leaders are warning, bluntly, that the abortion issue is fundamental - not something to be finessed.

[wagglebee]

At the Republican straw poll in Iowa next month, anti-abortion activists will circulate a petition calling on the party to reassert its pro-life values, honor its platform and choose an anti-abortion nominee.

It is imperative to defeat Roody.

[wagglebee]

Pro-Life Ping

[wagglebee]

Stop Rudy Ping

[xmission]

Why is he even a republican candidate?

[wagglebee]

Why is he even a republican candidate?

Great question!

[vetsvette]

“Why is he even a republican candidate?”

Because the Dummies won’t have him.

[Coleus]

.

[Jim Robinson]

Run, FRed, Run!!

[Dragonspirit]

Exactly. The Republican nominee MUST be pro-life. I like Rudy, but I can not compromise on this issue more than any other. Rudy would make a great person to put in the cabinet, but I don’t want him nominating the justices because I do not think he would nominate pro-life ones.

Romney or Thompson would be fine with me.

[Clemenza]

What pisses me off is Rudy's so-called "tough guy" image. The guy is just another Lawn Guyland cream puff from Garden City, who would cower without his entourage.

I really would like to see this arrogant, corrupt greaseball creation of the Murdoch Media go the way of Harold Stassen.

[Beagle8U]

I will never vote for any of the “Three Stooges”.

I’ll support Fred or a conservative in the 2nd tier has to move up.

It’s not just abortion the stooges are wrong on, you better add anti-gun and queer agenda.

[JohnnyZ]

Mitt Romney promised pro-abortion groups that he would work to liberalize the Republican Party from within.

Two years later he had a supposed "conversion" and began running for president.

[wagglebee]

You are 100% correct.

[Reagan Man]

Right now, options are limited for pro-life conservatives. If Giuliani wins the nomination, the GOP is DOA on election day 2008. Rooty`s support has dropped significantly and McCain’s campaign has been stymied since Fred Thompson has been testing the waters. And Romney is not the answer. Hopefully FredT will go for it and conservatives will have a viable choice in the primaries.

[EQAndyBuzz]

“Republican anti-abortion activists face possibility of setback.”

Republican Pro-Choice activists who choose life over death face the possibility of setback.

Much better.

[Old Student]

“Mitt Romney promised pro-abortion groups that he would work to liberalize the Republican Party from within.
Two years later he had a supposed “conversion” and began running for president.”

Got references for that? I’m looking for info to help firm up my list of favored candidates.

[JohnnyZ]

As he had with Planned Parenthood, Romney answered "Yes" to questions asking whether he supported Roe v. Wade and opposed attempts to restrict abortion. After completing the questionnaire, Romney met with three NARAL executives. In this meeting, NARAL executives recount, Romney evidenced no hesitation about his pro-choice views. He also tried to pique the executives' interest in endorsing him by bluntly acknowledging that he had higher political aspirations, saying, "You need someone like me in Washington." Moreover, those present recall that Romney argued that his election would make him credible in the Republican party nationally and thus help "sensible" Republicans like him overshadow more conservative elements in the GOP.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/013/222htyos.asp?pg=1

[Cedar]

I’m with you. My favorite is Duncan Hunter, second is Fred.

One thing’s for sure, I will never vote for a pro-abortion, pro-homo candidate. If GOP chooses one, he/she won’t get my vote.

[Old Student]

Thanks. That about does it. I am a Mormon, but I’m not a moron. If Clinton is the only opponent, I could probably vote for him, if I held my nose. Otherwise, not.