Posted on 09/07/2002 2:58:12 PM PDT by technochick99
WASHINGTON, D.C. (WOMENSENEWS)--A gracious southerner who has successfully blurred the line between a moderate and conservative Republican throughout her long career in public life, Elizabeth Dole does not seem like the next Jesse Helms.
Yet that is what the North Carolina Senate hopeful says she will be if elected to succeed Helms, the five-term firebrand who will retire in January after having championed the conservative movement's anti-abortion, anti-women's rights agenda for the past three decades.
Having spent decades in Washington as a high-profile bureaucrat and senatorial spouse, Dole moved to her native North Carolina last year shortly after she kicked off her Senate campaign. The undisputed frontrunner in the race, she will face six challengers in the Sept. 10 primary. Nine Democrats are vying for their party's primary nod.
"On most of the issues, I'm right where he is," Dole said, referring to Helms in a recent interview on CNN.
Helms appears to agree. In a slight to several of her more conservative challengers, he endorsed Dole earlier this year. President Bush has also campaigned on her behalf.
Yet critics say Dole is a moderate in conservative clothing. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a staunchly pro-choice Republican, campaigned with her on the day that she won a coveted endorsement from a powerful anti-abortion political committee. Moderates in Washington are also confident she will not toe the party line if she wins office. Indeed, officials from the Republican Main Street Partnership, a political-action committee devoted to electing moderate Republicans to office, have endorsed her candidacy and contributed the maximum amount of money to her campaign, in the hopes that she will join their group in January.
Pro-Choice Groups Find Dole Too Conservative
While politicos from both parties question whether Dole would in fact carry on Helms' legacy, women's groups are taking her at her word. Indeed, the prospect that a disciple of Helms could take office at a time when the Supreme Court supports the current abortion law by a one vote-margin, when a Republican president is poised to appoint the next justice, and when Democrats could lose control of the Senate in November's midterm elections, they say, is cause for grave concern.
As a result, pro-choice groups are going to great lengths to warn voters not to mistake Dole's agreeable manner for pragmatic politics and not to associate her ideology with that of her more moderate husband, former Senate Majority Leader and presidential candidate Bob Dole. Instead, they say they will endorse the Democratic nominee--most likely the investment banker and former Clinton administration chief of staff Erskine Bowles--in the midterm elections.
"Everyone is looking at her tone and tenor," said Kate Michelman, president of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, a political-action committee devoted to electing pro-choice candidates to office. "The bottom line is that her votes will be identical to Jesse Helms'. She might have a different style about her, but she embodies the same views and the same values when it comes to reproductive rights as Jesse Helms."
Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women, echoed that sentiment. Dole, she said, was regarded as pragmatic, and at times moderate, during her service in the Reagan administration as Secretary of Transportation, in the Bush administration as Secretary of Labor, throughout the 1990s as president of the American Red Cross, and even during her 2000 presidential run.
Still, "My sense is that if she says she's as conservative as Jesse Helms, I don't doubt it," Gandy said.
On the other side of the political spectrum, anti-abortion groups are also taking Dole at her word that she is "right in line" with Helms.
"Mrs. Dole has indicated a strong pro-life position," said Barbara Holt, state president of the North Carolina Right to Life, an anti-choice political-action committee. "We feel that she will follow in the footsteps of Sen. Helms."
Nonetheless, many are holding out hope that Dole will not be as vocal an opponent of women's rights as Helms was if, as expected, she wins the Sept. 10 primary and the Nov. 5 general election. They note that Dole supports the right to an abortion in cases of rape and incest and when the life of the woman is at stake--a distinction Helms does not make. And, unlike Helms, Dole also supports the Equal Rights Amendment, her spokeswoman said.
Dole has also indicated that she would be more progressive than Helms has been in the areas of women's health and domestic violence. In addition, Dole has indicated that she would not necessarily oppose federal funding of international organizations that permit abortion, a stance Helms has taken over the years.
Women's groups are also encouraged that Dole prides herself on a reputation for building coalitions to reach consensus. Helms, by contrast, has preferred to stand alone on principle rather than hammer out compromises with his colleagues to pass legislation.
"If elected to the Senate from North Carolina, the pro-choice community would expect Mrs. Dole to be approachable about family-planning issues and women's reproductive rights, something that Jesse Helms was clearly not," said Jennifer Stockman, head of the Republican Pro-Choice Coalition. Unlike Helms, Stockman added that Dole has no interest in overturning Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion.
"Realistically," Stockman said, "Mrs. Dole has never been a pro-choice ally. But we are hopeful that she will be more open-minded to issues important to women."
Helms' Legacy Tough to Live Up To
Few indeed could live up to the standard set by Helms. The longtime leader of the conservative movement, Helms began his Senate career in 1973, the same year that the Supreme Court legalized abortion.
He quickly proved his conservative mettle, orchestrating a ban on U.S. funds to international organizations offering abortions during his first year in office. Since then, he has attempted to deny funding to colleges and universities that offer emergency contraception to students. He also worked to prevent the United States from contributing funds to the United Nations Population Fund, which promotes family planning in developing countries.
As the former chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Helms has recently spearheaded efforts to scuttle U.S. ratification of an International Criminal Court, which would address crimes against humanity, including many forms of sexual violence. He has also single-handedly held up floor consideration for several years of a United Nations treaty called the Convention for the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women, a document widely used by women worldwide to advocate for their rights.
Surprisingly, some anti-abortion advocates agree with their counterparts in the pro-choice community that Dole is playing election-year politics when she compares herself to Helms. They say she is merely paying lip service to the conservative community in an effort to reassure Helms supporters that she will carry on his legacy if she becomes a senator. Indeed, such voters will play a crucial role in the seven-way primary, which promises to draw out the state's most conservative voters, and in what could become a tough general election this fall.
"We are skeptical, very skeptical, that Dole will carry out the mantle of Jesse Helms," said Lori Waters, executive director of the Eagle Forum, an anti-choice, anti-women's rights advocacy group headed by conservative columnist Phyllis Schlafly. "She's had a history of making some not so conservative statements. Having Jesse Helms as a standard is very hard to live up to. We're not optimistic that she would be able to meet that standard."
Allison Stevens covers politics in Washington.
No she isn't. Elect Dan Blue or Erskine Bowles - and we can have him out at the end of his first term. Elect RINO Liddy - and she'll stay there forever.
Liddy Dole's recent voter registration in North Carolina - is it illegal?
Why are you even a Republican?
Our Founders on Morality and Christian Priciples
"Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand. John Adams
"The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure, than they have it now, they may change their Rulers and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty." John Adams
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams
"Religion and virtue are the only foundations, not only of all free government, but of social felicity under all governments and in all the combinations of human society." John Adams
"The highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity. John Quincy Adams
"From the day of the Declaration...they (the American people) were bound by the laws of God, which they all, and by the laws of The Gospel, which they nearly all, acknowledge as the rules of their conduct." John Quincy Adams
"Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator, for he is entirely a dependent being....And, consequently, as man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should in all points conform to his Maker's will...this will of his Maker is called the law of nature. These laws laid down by God are the eternal immutable laws of good and evil...This law of nature dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this... Sir William Blackstone
"Blasphemy against the Almighty is denying his being or providence, or uttering contumelious reproaches on our Savior Christ. It is punished, at common law by fine and imprisonment, for Christianity is part of the laws of the land. Sir William Blackstone
"The preservation of Christianity as a national religion is abstracted from its own intrinsic truth, of the utmost consequence to the civil state, which a single instance will sufficiently demonstrate. Sir William Blackstone
"I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man. Alexander Hamilton
"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here." Patrick Henry
"The Bible is worth all other books which have ever been printed." Patrick Henry
"Bad men cannot make good citizens. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience are incompatible with freedom." Patrick Henry
"It is when people forget God that tyrants forge their chains." Patrick Henry
"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers. John Jay
"Religion is the only solid basis of good morals; therefore education should teach the precepts of religion, and the duties of man toward God." Gouverneur Morris
"If thou wouldst rule well, thou must rule for God, and to do that, thou must be ruled by him....Those who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants." William Penn
"By removing the Bible from schools we would be wasting so much time and money in punishing criminals and so little pains to prevent crime. Take the Bible out of our schools and there would be an explosion in crime." Benjamin Rush
As we can see here, our founders did not endorse or embrace libertarianism or Liberalism in the least. Our Founders understood that laws must reflect Almighty God's Moral Precepts.
Libertarianism and Liberalism are religions of self indulgence and hedonism. It teaches that the person can decide for himself what is right and wrong, and has to answer to no one.
It is humanistic to the core.
Libertarians and Liberals believe abortion, homosexuality, fornication, adultery, sexual perversions, prostitution, drug use, gambling ect... are all things that should be practiced and enjoyed.
They hate and despise authority, and they blame government and laws for their problems.
GOD MAKES LAW. MAN's LAW MUST REFLECT GOD'S LAW.
Our Founders understood this principle. They had laws that protected the moral fabric of our nation, because they understood that a good nation must have morality. They took it for granted that the people were moral, that is why the constitution worked.
The hippies of the 1960's were not moral, their immoral/ammoral lifestyle is incompatable with the constitution.
If our founders had only known what we have become, they would have drafted a much different constitution.
Way back in 1815, The Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided an important case, here are excerpts from that case: It reflects the case law of the day, and the attitude on which our nation was founded.)
This court is...invested with power to punish not only open violations of decency and morality, but also whatever secretly tends to undermine the principles of society... Whatever tends to the destruction of morality, in general, may be punishable criminally. Crimes are public offenses, not because they are perpetrated publically, but because their effect is to injure the public. Buglary, though done in secret, is a public offense; and secretly destroying fences is indictable.
Hence it follows, that an offense may be punishable, if in it's nature and by it's example, it tends to the corruption or morals; although it not be committed in public.
Although every immoral act, such as lying, ect... is not indictable, yet where the offense charged is destructive of morality in general...it is punishable at common law. The destruction of morality renders the power of government invalid...
No man is permitted to corrupt the morals of the people, secret poision cannot be thus desseminated.
QUOTES ON HOMOSEXUALITY</B.
"Homosexual conduct is, and has been, considered abhorrent, immoral, detestable, a crime against nature, and a violation of the laws of nature and of nature's God upon which this Nation and our laws are predicated. Such conduct violates both the criminal and civil laws of this State and is destructive to a basic building block of society -- the family." ---- Chief Justice Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court in a decision denying custody of children to a lesbian mother.
The Corpus Juris Civilis is the sixth-century encyclopedic collection of Roman laws made under the sponsorship of Emperor Justinian. "It is Justinian's collection which served as the basis of canon law (the law of the Christian Church) and civil law (both European and English)."
The following is a statement in Law French from Corpus Juris: "'Sodomie est crime de majeste vers le Roy Celestre,' and [is] translated in a footnote as 'Sodomy is high treason against the King of Heaven.' At common law 'sodomy' and the phrase 'infamous crime against nature' were often used interchangeably."
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination." (KJV) Leviticus 18:22
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them."(KJV) Leviticus 20:13
"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God." 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NASB)
"There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel." (KJV) Deuteronomy 23:17
No matter how much society appears to change, the law on this subject has remained steadfast from the earliest history of the law, and that law is and must be our law today. The common law designates homosexuality as an inherent evil... ---- Chief Justice Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court in a decision denying custody of children to a lesbian mother.
"The Constitution does not confer a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy. None of the fundamental rights announced in this Court's prior cases involving family relationships, marriage, or procreation bear any resemblance to the right asserted in this case. And any claim that those cases stand for the proposition that any kind of private sexual conduct between consenting adults is constitutionally insulated from state proscription is unsupportable. " The United States Supreme Court in BOWERS v. HARDWICK, 478 U.S. 186 (1986) 478 U.S. 186
Criminal sodomy laws in effect in 1791:
Connecticut: 1 Public Statute Laws of the State of Connecticut, 1808, Title LXVI, ch. 1, 2 (rev. 1672). Delaware: 1 Laws of the State of Delaware, 1797, ch. 22, 5 (passed 1719). Georgia had no criminal sodomy statute until 1816, but sodomy was a crime at common law, and the General Assembly adopted the common law of England as the law of Georgia in 1784. The First Laws of the State of Georgia, pt. 1, p. 290 (1981). Maryland had no criminal sodomy statute in 1791. Maryland's Declaration of Rights, passed in 1776, however, stated that "the inhabitants of Maryland are entitled to the common law of England," and sodomy was a crime at common law. 4 W. Swindler, Sources and Documents of United States Constitutions 372 (1975). Massachusetts: Acts and Laws passed by the General Court of Massachusetts, ch. 14, Act of Mar. 3, 1785. New Hampshire passed its first sodomy statute in 1718. Acts and Laws of New Hampshire 1680-1726, p. 141 (1978). Sodomy was a crime at common law in New Jersey at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights. The State enacted its first criminal sodomy law five years later. Acts of the Twentieth General Assembly, Mar. 18, 1796, ch. DC, 7. New York: Laws of New York, ch. 21 (passed 1787). [478 U.S. 186, 193] At the time of ratification of the Bill of Rights, North Carolina had adopted the English statute of Henry VIII outlawing sodomy. See Collection of the Statutes of the Parliament of England in Force in the State of North-Carolina, ch. 17, p. 314 (Martin ed. 1792). Pennsylvania: Laws of the Fourteenth General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, ch. CLIV, 2 (passed 1790). Rhode Island passed its first sodomy law in 1662. The Earliest Acts and Laws of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations 1647-1719, p. 142 (1977). South Carolina: Public Laws of the State of South Carolina, p. 49 (1790). At the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, Virginia had no specific statute outlawing sodomy, but had adopted the English common law. 9 Hening's Laws of Virginia, ch. 5, 6, p. 127 (1821) (passed 1776).
Criminal sodomy statutes in effect in 1868:
Alabama: Ala. Rev. Code 3604 (1867). Arizona (Terr.): Howell Code, ch. 10, 48 (1865). Arkansas: Ark. Stat., ch. 51, Art. IV, 5 (1858). California: 1 Cal. Gen. Laws, 1450, 48 (1865). Colorado (Terr.): Colo. Rev. Stat., ch. 22, 45, 46 (1868). Connecticut: Conn. Gen. Stat., Tit. 122, ch. 7, 124 (1866). Delaware: Del. Rev. Stat., ch. 131, 7 (1893). Florida: Fla. Rev. Stat., div. 5, 2614 (passed 1868) (1892). Georgia: Ga. Code 4286, 4287, 4290 (1867). Kingdom of Hawaii: Haw. Penal Code, ch. 13, 11 (1869). Illinois: Ill. Rev. Stat., div. 5, 49, 50 (1845). Kansas (Terr.): Kan. Stat., ch. 53, 7 (1855). Kentucky: 1 Ky. Rev. Stat., ch. 28, Art. IV, 11 (1860). Louisiana: La. Rev. Stat., Crimes and Offences, 5 (1856). Maine: Me. Rev. Stat., Tit. XII, ch. 160, 4 (1840). Maryland: 1 Md. Code, Art. 30, 201 (1860). Massachusetts: Mass. Gen. Stat., ch. 165, 18 (1860). Michigan: Mich. Rev. Stat., Tit. 30, ch. 158, 16 (1846). Minnesota: Minn. Stat., ch. 96, 13 (1859). Mississippi: Miss. Rev. Code, ch. 64, LII, Art. 238 (1857). Missouri: 1 Mo. Rev. Stat., ch. 50, Art. VIII, 7 (1856). Montana (Terr.): Mont. Acts, Resolutions, Memorials, Criminal Practice Acts, ch. IV, 44 (1866). Nebraska (Terr.): Neb. Rev. Stat., Crim. Code, ch. 4, 47 (1866). [478 U.S. 186, 194] Nevada (Terr.): Nev. Comp. Laws, 1861-1900, Crimes and Punishments, 45. New Hampshire: N. H. Laws, Act. of June 19, 1812, 5 (1815). New Jersey: N. J. Rev. Stat., Tit. 8, ch. 1, 9 (1847). New York: 3 N. Y. Rev. Stat., pt. 4, ch. 1, Tit. 5, 20 (5th ed. 1859). North Carolina: N.C. Rev. Code, ch. 34, 6 (1855). Oregon: Laws of Ore., Crimes - Against Morality, etc., ch. 7, 655 (1874). Pennsylvania: Act of Mar. 31, 1860, 32, Pub. L. 392, in 1 Digest of Statute Law of Pa. 1700-1903, p. 1011 (Purdon 1905). Rhode Island: R. I. Gen. Stat., ch. 232, 12 (1872). South Carolina: Act of 1712, in 2 Stat. at Large of S. C. 1682-1716, p. 493 (1837). Tennessee: Tenn. Code, ch. 8, Art. 1, 4843 (1858). Texas: Tex. Rev. Stat., Tit. 10, ch. 5, Art. 342 (1887) (passed 1860). Vermont: Acts and Laws of the State of Vt. (1779). Virginia: Va. Code, ch. 149, 12 (1868). West Virginia: W. Va. Code, ch. 149, 12 (1868). Wisconsin (Terr.): Wis. Stat. 14, p. 367 (1839).
"Forasmuch as there is not yet sufficient and condign punishment appointed and limited by the due course of the Laws of this Realm for the detestable and abominable Vice of Buggery committed with mankind of beast: It may therefore please the King's Highness with the assent of the Lords Spiritual and the Commons of this present parliament assembled, that it may be enacted by the authority of the same, that the same offence be from henceforth ajudged Felony and that such an order and form of process therein to be used against the offenders as in cases of felony at the Common law. And that the offenders being herof convict by verdict confession or outlawry shall suffer such pains of death and losses and penalties of their good chattels debts lands tenements and hereditaments as felons do according to the Common Laws of this Realme. And that no person offending in any such offence shall be admitted to his Clergy, And that Justices of the Peace shall have power and authority within the limits of their commissions and Jurisdictions to hear and determine the said offence, as they do in the cases of other felonies. This Act to endure till the last day. of the next Parliament" Buggery act of England 1553
Britton, i.10: "Let enquiry also be made of those who feloniously in time of peace have burnt other's corn or houses, and those who are attainted thereof shall be burnt, so that they might be punished in like manner as they have offended. The same sentence shall be passed upon sorcerers, sorceresses, renegades, sodomists, and heretics publicly convicted" English law forbidding sodomy dating back to 1300AD.
Remember:
"It is when people forget God that tyrants forge their chains."
To present what the founders though America should be based on, makes it necessary to Quote them.
You do realize that a QUOTE is in the Founder's OWN WORDS Right?
The Founders did not support your warped liberal sense of What is American. They understood that Morality, specifically Christian Morality was essential to the nation's future.
And the thread is here if you are interested: Dearth of Information About Jesse Helms Seat
Best regards,
Best regards,
I'm not sure I understand. You asked several questions about Candidate Dole's background and Mr. Brewer has published a sixty page analysis of her career in Washington complete with footnotes.
I have little in common politically with Rachel Carson, but it is necessary for me to read Silent Spring if I am to effectively understand the mind of environmental movement as it has evolved since the Sixties.
If it is important to you to have Federal Judges confirmed by a Republican majority you might be alarmed to learn that the election of Mrs. Dole may amount to the elevation of another Jim Jeffords (in skirts) and your goal of confirming Federal Judges may continue to elude you.
A review of Mr. Brewer's analysis may help you better understand the mind of Candidate Dole as it has evolved over the course of her tenure in Washington.
I encourage to put aside your differences with Mr. Brewer and listen to what he has to say.
The Republic you save may be your own.
Best regards,
And what might that be?
You may find it entertaining to "calibrate" your political compass at various political sites around the Internet.
This site offers some thought provoking commentary even though the results are displayed on only two co-ordinate axis-X/Y. Click here
The questions could also use some tweaking. Regardless, I hope you find it to be of value.
Best regards,
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.