Posted on 10/25/2007 10:23:02 AM PDT by Ol' Sparky
“I believe no challenge is more important to the character of America than restoring the right to life to all human beings.”
—Ronald Reagan, January 1984
Yes, yes, I know: A President Hillary Clinton would be Armageddon to the pro-life movement. There is no candidate — none — in the history of presidential politics as radical as Hillary Clinton on abortion. To pro-lifers, she absolutely must be defeated.
That said, Rudy Giuliani is not the answer, though he may be a lesser of two evils on the issue of abortion. Acknowledging his promise to appoint “strict constructionist” judges, there are still other areas in which Rudy would utterly fail pro-lifers; and one particular area (upon which I will focus) that is significantly unappreciated and far-reaching.
A pro-choice Republican president robs Republicans of the moral and rhetorical leadership that their presidents have provided on the abortion issue, especially under four terms of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. This critical reality is not grasped even by many pro-lifers, who whine about how 20 years of Republican presidents have failed to overturn Roe v. Wade.
The reality is that overturning Roe v. Wade is not easy. It indeed starts with changing the courts. In the meantime, however, there is much the president can and must do to influence public opinion on the abortion issue — to make the moral case, to argue the justness of the cause, and to plough the ground to ready Americans for a seismic shift in abortion policy. To that end, both Reagan and Bush provided significant leadership.
As testimony to Reagan’s outspokenness, I have on my desk a 45-page single-space document of quotes from Reagan on abortion, printed from the official Presidential Papers. In these, it is clear that Reagan saw himself as duty-bound to fight abortion, which he equated to slavery in terms of moral outrage.
“This nation fought a terrible war so that black Americans would be guaranteed their God-given rights,” Reagan said to the National Religious Broadcasters in January 1984. He goes on:
Abraham Lincoln recognized that we could not survive as a free land when some could decide whether others should be free or slaves. Well, today another question begs to be asked: How can we survive as a free nation when some decide that others are not fit to live and should be done away with? I believe no challenge is more important to the character of America than restoring the right to life to all human beings. Without that right, no other rights have meaning.
Reagan anchored this cause to his faith, quoting the words of Christ: “Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for such is the kingdom of God.” He insisted that, “God’s most blessed gift to his family is the gift of life. He sent us the Prince of Peace as a babe in the manger.”
Reagan seized an occasion as high-profile as his 1986 State of the Union address to make this remarkable observation: “Today there is a wound in our national conscience. America will never be whole as long as the right to life granted by our Creator is denied to the unborn.”
In the event of election, a President Giuliani would not say anything like this, which would mark an unfortunate turn in the perception of a Republican president. We have come to expect a rudderless lack of moral clarity from Democratic politicians; indeed, millions of pro-life Democrats have permanently parted ways with their party because of its leadership’s embrace of death to the defenseless unborn. To accept the same from a Republican president would be hard to stomach.
Similarly, George W. Bush has been eloquent on life issues, including new areas like human cloning and embryonic-stem-cell research. He said in April 2002:
As we seek to improve human life, we must always preserve human dignity…. Advances in biomedical technology must never come at the expense of human conscience. As we seek what is possible, we must always ask what is right, and we must not forget that even the most noble ends do not justify any means.
Bush has sought to lead and even teach in this area, rather than swimming with the tide of an unethical, relativistic culture. “Science has set before us decisions of immense consequence,” says Bush. “We can pursue medical research with a clear sense of moral purpose or we can travel without an ethical compass into a world we could live to regret…. Life is a creation, not a commodity.” Bush fears a Brave New World “in which human beings are grown for spare body parts; … that’s not acceptable.”
Americans have been guided by their president on this essential moral question of the 21st century. They would not receive the same from Rudy. Quite the contrary, in his case, they would find reinforcement for the liberal Democrat position that unborn life is to be exploited for the selfish purposes of the living.
Never underestimate the power of the bully pulpit. The Great Communicator did not. The president can dramatically affect public opinion through the words he uses and the causes he embraces. Reagan and Bush both did this in support of innocent, unborn life. In so doing, they have given the pro-life cause both hope and a home: the Republican party. The Democrats, conversely, have slammed the door shut.
The president is the leader of his party. With a President Giuliani, neither of the two party leaderships would be pro-life. That would be devastating to the cause of life, a reality apparently understood by the principled pro-life evangelicals and Catholics threatening to stay home or bolt to a third party if Rudy wins the nomination — and, yes, thereby electing Hillary Clinton. Clearly, they have thought through the destructive implications of a pro-choice Republican president, and are trying to stop a train wreck before it happens. Maybe they have a point.
— Paul Kengor has most recently published God and Hillary Clinton (HarperCollins, 2007) and The Judge: William P. Clark, Ronald Reagan’s Top Hand (Ignatius Press, 2007). He is professor of political science at Grove City College.
HOW IS THAT WORKING OUT FOR YOU?
December 2, 2005; Posted: 3:16 p.m. EST (20:16 GMT)
(CNN) — Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito had a private meeting with the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Friday as he sought to reassure lawmakers that he would respect legal precedent on abortion rights and put his personal views aside.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/02/specter.alito/
Sept. 13, 2005
WASHINGTON — Supreme Court nominee John Roberts said Tuesday that the landmark 1973 ruling legalizing abortion was “settled as a precedent of the court” as he was immediately pressed to address the divisive issue on the second day of his confirmation hearings.
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/9/13/103353.shtml
The great moral dilemma that I have to answer in the next few months and so many in the early primary states will have to answer with their decisive votes.
Will we stick to our principles or follow expediency?
We should do something about it. Rush to the fore, avast the flotsam, march forwardly into the opaqueness! Only by righteousness's and frequent oil changes can we return to that upon which we have endeavored! And, so forth.....
Thank you, thank you, thank you. Please, be seated!
If I were a "choice" lobbyist, I wouldn't bet the farm on that reassurance, or on Roberts's own promise to "respect precedent." Precedent is not a blanket category. A decision a justice does not believe to be anchored in law is not considered precedent. Roberts said as much in reference to this comment.
In other words, if you respect life, do keep applying pressure to get the right minds on the Court. It's the way to bet. Personally, I'd bet on an inside straight before I bet against Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia.
What is the dilemma?
Not voting to nominate a candidate that couldn’t possibly win the general election should be an easy choice.
This basic premise is completely incorrect. Rudy Giuliani is just as radical as Hillary Clinton (if not more so) on this issue.
Rudy gets nominated and the MSM will be all over his left wingism in order to drive the conservatives away come November
That doesn’t mean anything. Alito and Roberts were just throwing bread crumbs to the Rats to get confirmed.
No funding or political support for years before the 06 elections because of big spending, warmongering, and illegals?
LOL, all this faux concern for the GOP is stunning!
why should we believe him that he has changed?
I wouldn’t vote for Rudy under any circumstances. I doubt I could vote for fipper Romney either
I wouldn’t lie about such a thing. Would you?
That’s what everyone used to say about Dubya - compassionate conservative really means conservative it’s just that he has to say that to get elected. Huh!
The obvious solution is not to nominate Rudy.
If we don’t want to choose between very, very bad and even worse, then don’t nominate him.
If Rudy is nominated, and if as a result hillary is elected, we’ll hear a lot of people bitching and moaning about social conservatives and religious conservatives who declined to vote. Sorry, I’d say the major blame would be on the heads of those who were stupid enough to nominate a candidate who will drive away tens of millions of voters from the base.
Is the average Republican voter stupid enough to nominate Rudy? Or might Democrat pros send their flocks to the Republican polls to vote for him? That’s what nearly happened with McCain in 2000.
No, the party pros need to wake up and smell the roses, as well as the average conservative voter. Nominating Rudy will result in an impossible choice for most moral voters, who will simply not vote for either candidate. Period.
So, stop him now.
Good observation. (Tho I've found a lot of FREEPERS who want to ignore what the MSM '08 emphasis will be)
True but words may influence others who do have a say in the voting.
I’ve upset candidate supporters on this forum just by expressing my analytical opinions of their strengths and weaknesses.
A lot of sensitive people in this audience.
I wasn’t overdramitizing that my little words make others upset.
The Fred Thompson people didn’t like my take on his refusal to vote to remove Bill Clinton from office for perjury.
Mike Huckabee looks like Gomer Pyle-Jim Nabors.
He’s a little too legalistic with his anti-obesity and anti-smoking campaigns.
Guys like Romney and Giuliani will run to the middle once they’ve seduced you into voting for them early next year with conservative talk and one or the other wins.
Romney is probably the biggest flipper of them all.
Anyone upset?
Look, I think there are trolls trying to get us to fight each other, but I refuse to get angry with anyone.
Party unity is more important than ever for politics, but I will still have my principles no matter what.
Voting Pro-life has not been enough. We have all been under the illusion that overturning Roe is the holy grail.
The sad fact is that even without Roe, it goes to the States, which means that millions more will continue to die.
We could continue to vote pro-life and try to get a contstitution amendment for life. It will never be ratified by the States, ever.
So, where does voting pro-life lead us. Nowhere.
I think the pro-life movement needs a whole new strategy on how to end it. Bully pulpits make us feel good because they are saying the right things but millions are dying meanwhile...
If we don’t want to choose between very, very bad and even worse, then don’t nominate him.
That is kind of a circular truism, except for that November election thingy.
If Rudy is nominated, and if as a result hillary is elected, we’ll hear a lot of people bitching and moaning (as always, about everything)about social conservatives and religious conservatives who declined to vote.( If you don't vote, you get what others vote for. Seems rational. Complaining would be..) Sorry, I’d say the major blame would be on the heads of those(that would be the majority) who were stupid enough to nominate a candidate who will drive away tens of millions of voters from the base.(Poor things, didn't get pitch, taking ball and going home and do some serious sniveling)
Is the average Republican voter stupid enough to nominate Rudy?
Sure. We've gotten Nixon, Ford, Hasteret, Cunningham, Craig....
Or might Democrat pros send their flocks to the Republican polls to vote for him? That’s what nearly happened with McCain in 2000.
Depends on the state voting laws. I doubt even after an election such voting behavior could be deduced beyond speculation.
No, the party pros(snicker) need to wake up and smell the roses, as well as the average conservative voter.( What, just average, no extream conservatives?) Nominating Rudy will result in an impossible choice for most moral voters(all eight of them. 99.9% of America is someway on the public teat), who will simply(I love complex actions, mulit varible permutations that are simple. Thank you) not vote(that is the tread over time) for either candidate. Period.( Is that .Period, or Period 2 periods period?)
So, stop him now.(Like Stop the War, Now, or N.O.W., or any of a hundred lefties with their bla,bla,now!)
So, I take it you are not voting for Rudy.
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.