8mm
Posted on 03/06/2007 5:39:37 PM PST by markomalley
They are saying that the next GOP presidential candidate might very well be a pro-abortion Republican who promises not to push that issue and is strong on other issues.
They hope that pro-lifers will “be reasonable,” not let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and go along quietly.
We won’t.
Republicans and Democrats in 1980 took radically different approaches to the right to life. Republicans wrote into their party platform that all abortions should be outlawed. Democrats wrote into their party platform that not only should abortion be legal, but families should be forced to pay for others’ abortions through their taxes.
Democratic leaders have been utterly committed to their party platform. But there’s a movement afoot for Republicans to shrug off this plank of the party platform altogether, and give a pro-abortion politician the reins of the party and, they hope, the White House.
In particular, Rudy Giuliani has become a favorite for president of conservative talk-show hosts, and pro-war and tough-on-crime Republicans. He’s also way ahead in polls like Newsweek’s, though it’s anyone guess what such polls mean so early in the process.
The way the pro-Rudy argument goes is this: For the past three decades, social conservatives have had the luxury of insisting on purity in the Republican Party. Their clout was such that any candidate had to undergo a “forced conversion” before running for national office. But 9/11 changed that. Now, extremist Islam and the war on terror are such all-consuming issues, and we can’t be so caught up with abortion anymore.
Since Giuliani is committed to the war on terror and is a great crisis manager with a track record rooting out the gangs of New York, we shouldn’t demand that he be pro-life, but instead we should be willing to make a deal.
Rudy’s deal: He’ll promise not to push the pro-abortion agenda, and he’ll nominate judges in the mold of Samuel Alito and John Roberts. Pro-lifers in the Republican Party in return would support him, but keep insisting that the party stay pro-life, and fight our fiercest pro-life battles at the state level, where they belong.
That seems like a good deal, at first blush. We’re well aware that “forced conversions” to the pro-life fold are far from the ideal. Think of the candidacy of Bob Dole in 1996. And it is true that the fight against judicial tyranny is an immense front in the battle for the right to life. Transforming the courts is a prerequisite to victory elsewhere.
But what dooms the deal from the start is the fact that it totally misunderstands what pro-lifers care about in the first place.
When they ask us to “be reasonable” and go along with a pro-abortion leader, they assume that there is something unreasonable about the pro-life position to start with.
We’re sorry, but we don’t see what is so unreasonable about the right to life. We’ve seen ultrasounds, we’ve named our babies in the womb, we’ve seen women destroyed by abortion. What looks supremely unreasonable to us is that we should trust a leader who not doesn’t only reject the right to life but even supports partial-birth abortion, which is more infanticide than abortion.
We also see the downside of Rudy’s deal. If pro-lifers went along, we’d soon find out that a pro-abortion Republican president would no longer preside over a pro-life party. The power a president exerts over his party’s character is nearly absolute. The party is changed in his image. He picks those who run it and, both directly and indirectly, those who enter it.
Thus, the Republicans in the 1980s became Reaganites. The Democrats in the 1990s took on the pragmatic Clintonite mold. Bush’s GOP is no different, as Ross Douthat points out in “It’s His Party” in the March Atlantic Monthly.
A Republican Party led by a pro-abortion politician would become a pro-abortion party. Parents know that, when we make significant exceptions to significant rules, those exceptions themselves become iron-clad rules to our children. It’s the same in a political party. A Republican Party led by Rudy Giuliani would be a party of contempt for the pro-life position, which is to say, contempt for the fundamental right on which all others depend.
Would a pro-abortion president give us a pro-life Supreme Court justice? Maybe he would in his first term. But we’ve seen in the Democratic Party how quickly and completely contempt for the right to life corrupts. Even if a President Giuliani did the right thing for a short time, it’s likely the party that accepted him would do the wrong thing for a long time.
Would his commitment to the war on terror be worth it? The United States has built the first abortion businesses in both Afghanistan and Iraq, ever. Shamefully, our taxes paid to build and operate a Baghdad abortion clinic that is said to get most of its customers because of the pervasive rape problem in that male-dominated society. And that happened under a pro-life president. What would a pro-abortion president do?
The bottom line: Republicans have made inroads into the Catholic vote for years because of the pro-life issue. If they put a pro-abortion politician up for president, the gains they’ve built for decades will vanish overnight.
Funny YOU should say that
"No self-respecting Southern man will vote for a cross-dressing drag queen like Giuliani."
Nor allegedly will any eat instant grits. However, I think that both Jim Dandy and Qaker Oats has proven that theory erroneous.
After 911, South Carolina fire fighters, with the aid of the citizens of South Carolina, collected enough funds to purchase a fire engine for NYC. It seems NYC had done the same for South Carolina in the past. Both were kind gestures sharing a common bond amongst firefighters.
So naturally Rudy knew exactly who to address in South Carolina. An association of South Carolina firefighters. He knew they would be friendly under the circumstances of their bond.
All that said, any South Carolinian who looks at Rudy's stance on the issues, and they will, it will be exactly as you stated, " no self respecting southern man will vote for a cross-dressing drag queen." ...especially when they consider all the rest of his stances.
It's all your fault.I just know it is.
*smooch*
I love it when liars call other liars.
Oh, and I love you too....
:>)
Night beautiful.
Good night fatima.
Into the tent you went?
LOL
"But you and your and your ilk post lie after lie after lie, as though it were fact, because you are incapable of actual debate."
I'm capable. Since you have all the alleged lies recorded, I believe it fair for you to pick one. Pick any of your alleged lies to debate. Let's have at it.
You and me one on one.
Bring it on or step aside.
Your Church expects your vote to line up with the moral and spiritual issues of the Church. To do otherwise is to throw in to question why the heck you go to church in the first place and what your idea of spiritual authority is. It is up to you to decide which party does that the most. The critical issues for Catholics will remain the sanctity of human life.
Mel
And THEN, as the flames engulf the ship, begin foaming at the mouth about how it's all OUR fault.
You can contact the author of the story via e-mail: editor-"at"-circlemedia-"dot"-com. If you are interested in the validity their (the editors of the National Catholic Register) of the statement, that's probably your best course of action.
One day of doing the right thing will not make up for his life of being a flaming liberal.
Well said. I'm with you.
Abort it. People are, were, and will continue to fornicate, and to abort when the consequences catch up with them. Nothing you could do about it, and nothing you should be trying to do, either. Just inhale deeply and then say: "their effing is none of my effing business".
AM: Corin Stormhands' post constitutes a wholly personal attack against a handful of FReepers. Please review and deal with accordingly.
Oh c'mon Spiff. Lighten up. Must your run to tattle on everything?
You guys have cut and pasted the same information bazillions of times.
It's a joke son. A joke.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic Ping List:
Please ping me to all note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
First of all I'm a Roman Catholic and I don't know any Catholics who reads this tripe. Second, I know many Roman Catholics who will vote for Rudy in a NY Minute. Third Roman Catholics don't like to let the church (especially the Roman Catholic Church) decide for them who to vote for when it comes to politics. We can leave that kind of stuff to the Democrats and the Black Churches.Interesting comments areafiftyone. I am inviting some of our fellow Catholics to weigh in on your opinions here.
Claiming facts are spam is no joke. Supporting left wing liberals is no joke. Abortion is no joke.
Free speech is no joke either. You can't be selective......but you try!
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.