Posted on 10/21/2007 11:38:01 PM PDT by My Favorite Headache
When I stated my belief that a Hillary presidency would insure as many abortions as possible (a notion which you summarily dismissed as "crap"), I was talking about what she'll do to the SCOTUS is she gets the chance. (Remember! To the Clintons, 43% of the popular vote is a mandate.)
With a Hillary presidency, we have her assurances:
"It is time for a new court."
There is no doubt what she means by that. Kennedy votes with the constructionists far too often for her liking, and she will appoint more Breyers and Ginsburgs, assuring a long, long life for Roe.
With Rudy, there is an opportunity for constructionists. He has stated that he will appoint justices in the mold of John Roberts. He has stated that he is "okay" with the overturning of Roe.
Do I believe him? I don't know..but this means that the chances exist for less abortion under Rudy. This means the chance exists for less infanticide under Rudy. This means that the chance exists for the overturning of Roe under Rudy.
These chances do not exist under a potential Hillary presidency. No matter what Congress does to mitigate abortion, Hillary will veto the measure and Congress will not be able to override...at least not in the first two years of her presidency...probably not ever.
I'll take chances for life over assurances of death any day...particularly in the short term. The long term strategy of waiting for Hillary's popularity to nosedive after two or three years is the anti-active stuff of pipedreams.
I want Fred Thompson to be our nominee. If he's not, the seeds you and others are sowing here have the potential to do irreversible long-term damage to the country. As soon as The Electoral College is abolished and Socialized Medicine is enacted, conservatives can kiss their wishes for smaller government goodbye. A new Reagan Dawn will be postponed by decades.
You don't need a crystal ball to see it. You just need to be able to play a little chess.
“My thoughts extend to the desire for an opportunity for strict constructionists to be appointed to the bench at the Federal level.”
I understand. But I disagree with your conclusions.
“There is no doubt what she means by that. Kennedy votes with the constructionists far too often for her liking, and she will appoint more Breyers and Ginsburgs, assuring a long, long life for Roe.”
I suspect that Mrs. Clinton will be able to nominate moderate liberals to the Supreme Court, who will continue to uphold Roe.
“With Rudy, there is an opportunity for constructionists. He has stated that he will appoint justices in the mold of John Roberts. He has stated that he is ‘okay’ with the overturning of Roe.”
If a con man tells you that he isn’t conning you in the current con game that he’s playing, I suppose that you could say, “It’s POSSIBLE that he isn’t conning me any longer,” but I wouldn’t base many decisions thereupon.
Mr. Giuliani has a long history both of support of abortion as a constitutional “right” and of appointing liberal judges, some very, very liberal indeed.
I believe that he will continue to do as he’s done. I don’t believe for a moment that he’s going to appoint “strict constructionists” who think that Roe should go.
You certainly may believe him, if you wish. I think it’s a con.
Thus, I think that as president, Mr. Giuliani will appoint judges and justices every bit as liberal as Mrs. Clinton will appoint, and perhaps even more so.
Beyond that, as president, Mr. Giuliani WILL destroy the Republican Party as a vehicle for social conservatism for decades into the future.
When I weigh things out, I’m willing to say that there is perhaps a 1% chance that Mr. Giuliani will not appoint liberal pro-Roe justices.
Remember, though, that overturning Roe is just the beginning of the race. It will be a Pyrrhic victory if Roe is overturned, but there is no longer a conservative party to advance the cause of life legislatively.
I think that there is a 95%+ chance that Mr. Giuliani will steer the Republican Party far to the left, at least in terms of social issues, and likely in terms ultimately of fiscal policy as well (it's tough to be a social liberal and a fiscal conservative in the long run). I think that if he manages to serve two mildly “successful” terms, that the Republican Party will no longer be a party of the social right. It may be possible to recover the party over the course of a decade or two or three. Or not.
I won't vote for a baby killer for president.
sitetest
bump
But you may be willing to enable one:
In order to take the real moral high ground regarding abortion and its potential outworking in either a Clinton or Giuliani presidency, one must reach the conclusion that there will be a potential for less abortions during one or the other...because in the event of their respective party nominations, one or the other will be elected president.
Astonishingly, to me at least, you seem to have reached the conclusion that there will be less abortions during a Clinton presidency.
I can't imagine thinking such a thing.
Go Fred!
“But you may be willing to enable one:
“In order to take the real moral high ground regarding abortion and its potential outworking in either a Clinton or Giuliani presidency, one must reach the conclusion that there will be a potential for less abortions during one or the other...because in the event of their respective party nominations, one or the other will be elected president.”
False.
I don’t know if there will be more abortions or fewer abortions whether either Mr. Giuliani or Mrs. Clinton are elected, during their respective term of office.
Abortions declined during the presidency of Mr. Clinton. One might argue that they would have declined further if he hadn’t been elected. I’m agnostic on the point. I could argue it either way. I think that a lot of folks tolerated Mr. Clinton as president because they think he did a tolerable job, but were repulsed by his obvious moral squalor. In that case, one could argue that his bad example caused at least some folks to take heed.
As well, if a Democrat-controlled Congress made noises about, say, general federal funding of abortion, I don’t believe that Mr. Giuliani would resist. Seeing the leader of the party going along for the ride would likely embolden the pro-murder elements of the Republican Party. The pro-life elements of the Republican Party, already diminished in power by the fascists in the party who would point to the Giuliani victory as “proof” that people are generally pro-abortion and that pro-lifers and social conservatives should be thrown out of the party, might not be able to successfully oppose such legislation.
Thus, general federal funding of baby-killing for poor women would likely pass the Congress, and would certainly be signed into law by President Giuliani (* spit *).
On the other hand, the Republican Party would rally round restrictions on federal funding of abortion just for the politics of opposing President H. Clinton.
Thus, I think one can make the case that there would be fewer with Mrs. Clinton. I think that one can also make the opposite case.
But that isn’t what I’ve argued.
Rather, my belief is that the eventual demise of the legal regime of abortion on demand generally throughout the United States will be substantially delayed by the election of Mr. Giuliani than by the election of Mrs. Clinton.
If it’s Giuliani vs. Clinton, honest, mindful social conservatives will be forced to admit: we’ve already been defeated. The cause of the unborn, the cause of families, the cause of decency will have received a body blow, a huge setback. No matter which one of these baby killers win, we, and unborn babies, will have already lost. A liberal will be president. No matter what.
It will be time to look to the future, to a time when neither of these baby killers is president. It will be a time to think of a long-term strategy to recover from the blow of the election of either of these baby killers.
My own judgment is that we will be able to rebuild better if the Republican Party is in OPPOSITION TO a baby killer, rather than in CONSPIRACY WITH a baby killer. I think that in the very long term (not necessarily over the next four to eight years), more babies will die, and legal protection of the unborn will be significantly delayed, with the election of Mr. Giuliani.
Honestly, I’m a few years short of 50. If either of these moral horrors is elected president, I think it’s likely that I’ll be dead before the unborn are again generally protected in law.
But if Mr. Giuliani is elected, perhaps even my children won’t see that day, either.
sitetest
If you're able to presuppose with such authority under this scenario ("would point to the Giuliani victory as 'proof' that people are generally pro-abortion and that pro-lifers and social conservatives should be thrown out of the party"), why can't you prognosticate with regards to Hillary vs. Rudy and the probability of more or less infanticide should either be elected president?
Rudy has recently said that he wants to "end abortion." Do I believe him? I tell you this: I read between the lines when the Clintons state that they want to keep abortion "safe, legal and rare."
Now there is no equating these two statements; the sentiments expressed are as far apart as day and night. I do not see how a Republican (much less a conservative) can enable Hillary Clinton's election considering that the most liberal GOP candidate in the field has come out with a statement in such opposition to her pro-death declarations. It's frankly astonishing.
The pro-life elements of the Republican Party, already diminished in power by the fascists in the party who would point to the Giuliani victory as “proof” that people are generally pro-abortion and that pro-lifers and social conservatives should be thrown out of the party, might not be able to successfully oppose such legislation.
Let's turn that one around:
"The pro-death elements of the Democrat Party, already entrenched in power by the fascists in the party who would point to the Clinton victory as “proof” that people are not only overwhelmingly pro-abortion, they are also pro-Communism, anti-war, pro-tax hike, pro-Socialized Medicine, anti-military, pro-growth-in-entitlement-spending and anti-school choice, and that pro-lifers and social conservatives are to be disregarded completely, might be able to successfully pass any legislation they damn well please, since 43% is a mandate."
I honestly don't understand your position. You have laid it out well, but you write as though the Democrat field is populated by George McGovern, Al Gore and John Kerry.
These are the Clintons, sitetest. They are hell-bent on vengeance, destruction, socialism, military defeat and dictatorial power. If you think the Johnson and Carter administrations were disasters, just wait until Hillary's elected with a plurality, and then come find me so I can post an "I-told-you-so" note...if they haven't taken my PC away.
"I do not see how a Republican (much less a conservative) can enable Hillary Clinton's election..."
I'd called you out on this crap, and you'd apologized. See post 404 and your response thereto.
I see that you are not a man of your word.
Our conversation is at an end.
sitetest
“Just wanted to clarify in case the Luntz group has members trolling here today. I already got a few messages from people sent to me today who work for some of the candidates.
They are trolling here.”
This does not surprise me at all. Thanks for mentioning this.
Keep your comments public. I’m not interested in private FR e-mails.
My FReepmail was intended to ease tensions.
You have not been insulted, my comments are general, my apology stands and I hope the remainder of your day goes well...but I too have grown weary of conversing with you.
This is a place for arguments, and my last post was full of them. If you'd rather take offense and impugn my character as not being a man of my word than address what I consider to be real substance, it's no skin off my nose.
I must say it was a pleasure to have had this conversation with someone who wasn't calling me an ignorant fool.
What is a “true” conservative?
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.