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.
Unless, of course, the candidate in question is YOUR candidate, and then you're fine with that.
Best chuckles of the day so far:
"Rudy is a flaming liberal."
"Rudy is a left wing liberal."
Giuliani is conservative on several issues, moderate on several issues, and liberal on a few. I'll happily support him and I believe he'll win. I don't agree with him on every issue and I don't have to defend all his positions. I support him because he has the best combination of "right positions" and "electability" of any candidate so far. ("So far," being the operative phrase.)
Apparently, skins are running thin in the anti-Rudy camp! Let me just say that campaigning for Rudy, or any other GOP candidate, *is* welcomed here by a vast contingent of Freepers.
The "grits" thing: that was a great reply. We can make a similar argument to those saying that Catholics either won't or shouldn't vote for Rudy--how many thousands of New York City Catholics turned out for Rudy? They didn't sit on their hands on election day, and neither will Catholics in general.
I was not going to vote for him until 2 days ago when Rush played about 6 Hillary sound bites and the MSM followed up with another several sound/video bites of Hillary. That was all it took for me to realize I can't not vote against Hillary.
It's about leadership and understanding the global issues facing the civilized world. I believe Rudy gets it!
I sympathize with what you're saying. And if it were him versus Hitlery in the General election, there's no way I would vote for Hitlery either.
All well and good.
But the GOP does not have a nominee yet. Why not support a truly conservative candidate? At least until the GOP nominates somebody...
My thought on the matter is we should support the candidate we'd WANT at this juncture and then make a decision on who we're stuck with once the nomination process is done.
Rudy has our vote!
Oh, I agree completely. I wasn't saying that I would support Rudy over a conservative just because Rudy can win. I was just being a bit pessimistic and assuming that Rudy would win. I've been thinking that if he did I'd vote 3rd party. Hearing a couple of minutes of Hillary showed me that I won't be able to do that to make a point.
I prefer Newt and I loathe Romney. I have a real problem with Mormons.
You anti-Rudy folks should consider the next 8 years of the Clinton Presidency...and grow up.
Then try growing up yourself.
At the request of a fellow Freeper, I pulled the picture of Rudy in the chorus line from my posts. This is the thanks I received in return? Thanks a lot.
Haven't you heard that Rudy is passing up the first debate in April? They are having a debate with all the candidates in NH and Rudy feels he can pass on it.
Another one issue selfish person.
Yet, on the Fox News show, Giuliani said that he supports a ban on partial-birth abortion as long as there is a provision to protect the life of the mother.
"If it has provision for the life of the mother, then I would support it," he told the Fox News program.
Washington, D.C. – The House of Representatives yesterday passed H.R. 760, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, by a margin of 282-139. Congressman Duncan Hunter (CA-52), who is a cosponsor of the legislation, proudly voted in favor of this measure which prohibits medical doctors, except in situations where the LIFE OF THE MOTHER is threatened, from utilizing certain procedures that involve the partial delivery of a living unborn baby, killing the child, then completing the delivery
I didn't say vast majority, I said "contingent." And while I can understand how Freepers might not be happy when other Freepers don't agree with them on some issue or some candidate, I'd venture that the idea of free debate is and has always been welcome here, even when it gets heated.
Ahhh, another "lesser of two liberals" type heard from. So much for conservatism. How's that blood on your hands looking? Hard to scrub off, huh, scumbag?
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.