Replies

RUSH: ... We've talked about abortion on this program countless times, the sanctity of life and how it is the root of many things. But in terms of electing a president, there are a couple things the president can do about abortion, one of them substantive, the other is somewhat ephemeral. The substantive thing that a president can do about abortion is to nominate judges, primarily Supreme Court justices. That's it. Now, a president can lead, a president can try to inspire and motivate, change hearts and so forth, but, in a substantive way, there's not much a president can do about abortion. Rick from Kansas City is a good illustration, a good example of what I mean when I describe Governor Huckabee as campaigning on identity politics. There are some people who will overlook every aspect of Governor Huckabee that is really something in total opposition to most of their beliefs, because all they will see is the Christian characteristic, particularly if it fits right with the abortion issue.

Now, my friends, I'm sorry here. I haven't spent a lifetime, and particularly the last 23 years on radio, advocating conservative principles only to throw them away to embrace some candidate. I don't support open borders and amnesty, as does Governor Huckabee. I don't support the release of hundreds of criminals. I don't support repeated increases in taxes. I don't support national health care. I don't care what you call it, whether it's in the name of the children or not. I don't support anti-war rhetoric that sounds as if it was written by Nancy Pelosi. And yet I'm being asked to put all that aside in the midst of a Republican primary. As I've tried to point out countless times, a primary is a time to sort these things out. Now, I, speaking for myself, am not going to put aside my principles to accommodate a single politician or campaign operative, period. Too much is at stake here. And being asked to do this, to put all this aside for any single issue is not the point.

Now, I don't want somebody in the White House who has no problem with abortion. I don't want anybody in the White House who thinks that it's okay and that we ought not do anything about it. Don't misunderstand. But I also don't want anybody to misunderstand what a president can actually do about it and how far a president can actually take the issue. It's about judges, if your concern is overturning Roe vs. Wade. If it's not, if you realize that's going to be a ways down the line and yet we want to do something about abortion prior to that then it's about changing minds and hearts. There are several ways of going about doing that, and one of the ways is not wagging your finger in people's faces and telling them they're sinning or telling them they're wrong, you're just going to seal their resolve against you. I think we're in the process of changing minds and hearts. I think abortion figures are falling. I think as generations grow and change, there's a greater repugnance attached to the whole practice. It is not an 80% majority issue, pro-choice isn't. It's not even 50% now. Progress is being made on this. But I'm not going to sit here and put aside all of these things that I believe in and have worked for and that I know work. (cont.)

RUSH: Why Conservatism Matters Most

The American Spectator

Huckabee’s ‘Clueless’ Foreign Policy - Saturday, December 15, 2007

By using the word “clueless,” I refer not only to Michael D. Huckabee’s understanding of international relations as outlined in his Foreign Affairs essay, but the 1995 Alicia Silverstone teen movie, which seems a surprisingly relevant comparison, given Huckabee’s opening paragraph:

The United States, as the world’s only superpower, is less vulnerable to military defeat. But it is more vulnerable to the animosity of other countries. Much like a top high school student, if it is modest about its abilities and achievements, if it is generous in helping others, it is loved. But if it attempts to dominate others, it is despised.

More than anything, Huckabee’s essay is startling in its incoherence, and it has something within it to scare off any faction of the conservative movement. To those who remain supportive of President Bush and believe he has helped keep us safe since Sept. 11, Huckabee writes that “the Bush administration’s arrogant bunker mentality has been counterproductive at home and abroad.”

He goes on to echo liberal talking points in criticizing Bush for his handling of Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, and Al Qaeda. For those conservatives who believe that Iran does not deserve to be awarded with diplomatic ties to the U.S. given its “a world without America” and “wipe Israel off the map” rhetoric—not to mention funding of terrorist activities directed at Americans in Iraq—Huckabee thinks we should talk with the Islamist government, because “When one stops talking to a parent or a friend, differences cannot be resolved and relationships cannot move forward. The same is true for countries.” ...........

I can't tell you how many of you supposedly "pro-life" FReepers are so short-sited about what a POTUS can do about abortion...(the following isn't meant to be any limitation about what a POTUS can do & say...but I had to cut it off somewhere, starting with a call for Rush to repent!)...

The real question is: If you consider yourself a pro-lifer, & if others you've had online or offline pro-life convos with haven't mentioned what follows, maybe you need to begin to realize how anemic their political advice is...

RUSH: ...yet we want to do something about abortion prior to that then it's about changing minds and hearts. There are several ways of going about doing that, and one of the ways is not wagging your finger in people's faces and telling them they're sinning or telling them they're wrong, you're just going to seal their resolve against you. I think we're in the process of changing minds and hearts. I think abortion figures are falling. I think as generations grow and change, there's a greater repugnance attached to the whole practice.

Rush is just plain wrong on this. In fact, Ronald Reagan himself proved him wrong. Reagan came out with a book during his presidency called Abortion & The Conscience of a Nation.

Now, was that, as Rush claims, wagging his finger in people's faces and telling them they're sinning or telling them they're wrong? (A BIG NO!!!). Did Reagan, by doing that, just wind up seal[ing] their resolve against pro-lifers? (Another NO!!!)

Rush goes on to say: I think we're in the process of changing minds and hearts. What? Wasn't that what Reagan did through the advent of that pro-life book? Wasn't Reagan changing minds & hearts?

(Rush needs to repent over this oversight)

And, Miss Didi, before you cited the above, you also cited this from Rush--also wrong:

RUSH...We've talked about abortion on this program countless times, the sanctity of life and how it is the root of many things. But in terms of electing a president, there are a couple things the president can do about abortion, one of them substantive, the other is somewhat ephemeral. The substantive thing that a president can do about abortion is to nominate judges, primarily Supreme Court justices. That's it. Now, a president can lead, a president can try to inspire and motivate, change hearts and so forth, but, in a substantive way, there's not much a president can do about abortion...But I also don't want anybody to misunderstand what a president can actually do about it and how far a president can actually take the issue. It's about judges...

Besides the example of what Reagan did above, there's at least another avenue in which pro-life presidents have attempted to make a difference, and that's through cutting off some of the funding of the abortion industry. We've had examples where the POTUS has, thru the Mexico City policy, directly taken on the funding of the international abortion industry.

Reagan established the policy in 1984; Bush reinstated it in 2001 after Clinton rescinded it in 1993. Here's a White House press release on the subject:

MEMORANDUM FOR THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT: Restoration of the Mexico City Policy

The Mexico City Policy announced by President Reagan in 1984 required nongovernmental organizations to agree as a condition of their receipt of Federal funds that such organizations would neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations. This policy was in effect until it was rescinded on January 22, 1993. It is my conviction that taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortions or advocate or actively promote abortion, either here or abroad. It is therefore my belief that the Mexico City Policy should be restored. Accordingly, I hereby rescind the "Memorandum for the Acting Administrator of the Agency for International Development, Subject: AID Family Planning Grants/Mexico City Policy," dated January 22, 1993, and I direct the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development to reinstate in full all of the requirements of the Mexico City Policy in effect on January 19, 1993. (Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20010123-5.html )

I believe a POTUS can also reduce the amount of funding of the domestic abortion industry as well, since it accumulates funds from so many different "Title" programs & other Uncle Sam donations of our tax $.