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.
These same people are the ones who scream absolute bloody murder when the President exercises what power he has (which admittedly isn't much) in an effort to prevent genocide of the pre-born.
there are also the ones who think that because Roe v. Wade hasn't been overturned, Bush did nothing. prolife warriors know that there are small victories and that it isn't an all or nothing proposition. i saw an interesting bumper sticker at Mass last week, it said "National Security begins in the womb."
As you can see in these pictures of aborted babies.
Second Trimester abortion photos
Photos of aborted babies retrieved from dumpsters
Now, you can avoid looking at these photos. But other people here will look at them, and they'll see that your claim that abortion is not murder is, well, irrational.
There is an opinion according to which a human becomes a human not even at birth, but only at reaching the age of reason.
Good 'ol Peter Sanger. A real winner, that one!
Fortunately, his philosophy hasn't become dominant in this country (yet).
Do fetal tissue harvesters harvest human tissues for sale to research programs? ... In your faulty reasoning, the tissues are not from humans; there must be some magic which allows these tissues to become human tissue between the harvesting in abortuaries and the arrival at the research institute. Nice reasoning you got there, slob.
It is much older than Peter Sanger. I was not aware that he was alive in Aristotle's times, but maybe he was. Do not remind him, or he will file a back claim and bankrupt the Social Security system even faster.
With two divorces, three marriages, strong support for pro-choice, pro-partial birth abortion, pro-gay union and other weird an sordid public behavior under his belt, Rudy has hardly "acted the part" of a Catholic.
"Lots and lots of Catholics get divorces"
Most Catholics do not cheat on their multiple wives, and are not divorced once, let alone twice and on their third marriage. Most also do not support partial birth abortion, nor are they as pro-choice as Guiliani, nor do they support marriage or civil unions for homosexuals.
" and vote Democrat.
Voting democratic was not an issue in our discussion.
" Most RCs I know are Democrats. So there is no spies to me when a Republican RC is a liberal."
Who said anything about a surprise? The term used was "hypocrite." Guiliani either is a Catholic and makes a strong attempt to live by his faith, or he isn't and doesn't. He cannot be both.
I don't trust someone who betrays his faith and/or betrays his multiple wives (in and of itself a betrayal to his faith and a betrayal within a betrayal).
My point was that he isn't betraying his faith any more than more of the RCs I know.
And my point is that he (Guiliani) is.
How many people who define themselves as Catholic are on their third marriage? I don't know one. And I know many, many people, most of whom define themselves as Catholic.
thanks for the info.
Nope. Rudy just doesn't need the NCR. And he will beat hillary - with the help of my vote. Why do I like him? Because he gets the job done - the only candidate that gave money back to an arab terrorist.
These pro-Rudy RINOs don't want Catholics, don't want pro-Lifers, don't want social or religious conservatives in the republican party. However when they lose (AND THEY WILL!)Then it'll all be the fault of the real conservatives for being "too pure". Funny, we want more candidates who are more pure, they want republican voters who are more pure. Who are the real purists?
The main arguments of the "Rutards":
1. "He will stop Hillary" - You don't win with a negative, folks.
2. "He is good on foreign policy." Really? I haven't seen any of Rudy's writings in Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, National Interest, etc. Most of his speeches on the subject are superficial, and sound like they were xeroxed from Commentary and the Weekly Standard. No vision, no REALISM.
3. "Remember 9/11!" - This is a fetish. 'Nuff said.
4. "He will grow more conservative in office, and will appoint strict constructionist to the bench." This is what they said about Pataki, Whitman, and John Rowland. We all know how THOSE folks turned out.
5. "He's a fiscal conservative." Really? New York was a union dominated, high tax hellhole when Rudy took office. It REMAINS a high tax hellhole, despite the modest tax cuts proposed by Giussolini.
6. "He's America's Mayor." As said by the Murdoch media empire. Ruling over a city where third world immigrants and their children are a MAJORITY of the population, and white Christians are a small minority, where Republicans are outnumbered 5-1 and where most of those who voted for him also voted for Schumer and Kerry. Anyone else remember the old New Yorker cartoon showing Manhattan as an island off the coast of America?
Why? Abortion is the law right now. Some of us don't think it's the most important issue at this juncture. If you do, FINE. But by supporting Rudy, I think you know that. So go do what you have to and leave us alone. In fact, go start your own party....
You forgot to use the word "greasy," refer to "Mayor Linguine," and diss the "sidecurl Mafia."
: )
Am I the only one who is resentful towards a cult in Brooklyn that gives all of their votes to Rudy and all of their votes to Schumer? Get out of Medieval times, Bobovers! ;-)
Schumer: Good friend of Israel.
Why are Jews suddenly superannuated Tammany patsies and half a millennium behind the times for both of supporting them?
shd rd: "for supporting both of them"
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.