WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE 'PRO-LIFE'?

hillary clinton, Hannity & Colmes, YouTube ^ | 4.19.07 | Mia T

[Mia T]

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE 'PRO-LIFE'?

by Mia T, 4.18.07

 

HILLARY TAKES VILLAGE: teen abortion / no parent notification (YouTube)

From the Senate: Statement on Supreme Court's Gonzales v. Carhart Decision Washington, DC -- 4/18/2007 "This decision marks a dramatic departure from four decades of Supreme Court rulings that upheld a woman's right to choose and recognized the importance of women's health. Today's decision blatantly defies the Court's recent decision in 2000 striking down a state partial-birth abortion law because of its failure to provide an exception for the health of the mother. As the Supreme Court recognized in Roe v. Wade in 1973, this issue is complex and highly personal; the rights and lives of women must be taken into account. It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito." HILLARY CLINTON ON SCOTUS DECISION

HANNITY: Partial birth? GIULIANI: I think that's going to be upheld. I think it should be. as long as there's provision for the life of the mother then that's something that should be done. HANNITY: There's a misconception that you support a partial birth abortion. GIULIANI: If it doesn't have provision for the mother I wouldn't support the legislation. If it has provision for the life of the mother I would support.... GIULIANI: I think the appointment of judges that I would make would be very similar to if not exactly the same as the last two judges that were appointed. Chief Justice Roberts is somebody I work with, somebody I admire. Justice Alito, someone I knew when he was US attorney, also admire. If I had been president over the last four years, I can't think of any-- that I'd do anything different with that. I guess the key is and I appointed over 100 judges when I was the mayor so it's something I take very, very seriously. I would appoint judges that interpreted the constitution rather than invented it. Understood the difference of being a judge and a legislator. And having argued a case before the Supreme Court, having argued in many, many courts is something I would take very seriously. HANNITY: So you would look for a Scalia, Roberts, Alito. GIULIANI: Scalia is another former colleague of mine and somebody I consider to be a great judge. You are never going to get somebody exactly the same. I don't think you have a litmus test. But I do think you have a general philosophical approach that you want from a justice. I think a strict construction would be probably the way I describe it. Giuliani on Hannity: VIDEO AND TRANSCRIPT

 

 

COMMENT:

Premise: The only thing electorally each of us controls is our own vote.
Corollary: Each of us is responsible for the consequences of our own vote.

If we take the primary and the general election separately, that helps to define the problem.

IMO, we are faced, in the primary with selecting someone who will successfully prosecute the war, someone who will successfully protect and defend the Constitution. I suspect no one will disagree with this.

But we must also select someone who can win, for reasons that are obvious to me, but not, apparently, to some in this forum.

Anyone who demonstrates to me he can satisfy all of the above gets my attention, and the one who satisfies it best will get my support.

Notice that I do not mention ideological purity. I don't even mention ideology. Lincoln understood that sometimes you must go outside the system to save the system, that Lady Liberty cannot lift herself up by her own bootstraps.

So in step one, the primary, if you (or I) vote for and help nominate a sure loser in the name of ideological purity or for whatever reason, then yes, you are (or I am) helping to elect hillary clinton or whichever D is nominated.

In the general, if it's hillary vs. Rudy, say, and you don't vote, or vote 3rd party, then you are helping to elect hillary clinton. To think that you have any other options in this de facto 2-party system of ours is self-delusion.

And if you help to elect hillary clinton, you must bear the responsibility for all the deaths of all the children, unborn, living, and not yet even imagined that will flow from that election.

Those are the facts. You may not like them. They may disturb your idea of 'pro-life' as viewed through the narrow lens of abortion.

Dilemmas are tough. Life is full of them. Cognitive dissonance is not comfortable and many here, (and most if not all of us some time or other), find comfort in rationalizing dilemmas away.

But the problem is still there; you are no closer to the real solution. To the contrary. You are fast approaching real disaster. I sincerely hope you see it before it is too late.


POSTSCRIPT

MORALITY: Nothing less than morality undergirds my argument. What I am disputing are not your moral underpinnings--I admire them-- but rather your failure to acknowledge that your solution is no less (and I would argue, far more) immoral than the alternative.

COGNITIVE DISSONANCE: No insult intended. Dilemmas cause cognitive dissonance. No option is wholly satisfactory. I understand why you don't want to vote for someone who is pro-choice. But there is a dilemma: Your solution, to vote 3rd party or sit home, ultimately helps to elect someone who is by your very own criteria far worse than Rudy.

They may disturb your idea of 'pro-life' as viewed through the narrow lens of abortion.

This statement is not meant as an insult. Being 'pro-life' means so much more than simply being against abortion. When we fail to acknowledge that fact, we do dangerous, irrational, ultimately self-destructive things like helping to elect hillary clinton.

"The power of the harasser, the abuser, the rapist depends above all on the silence of women." (Ursula K. LeGuin)



VOTE SMART: A WARNING TO ALL WOMEN ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON

by Mia T, 3.11.07
A RESPONSE TO 'VOTE DIFFERENT'
(A Mashup of Obama-Apple 1984 Ad Mashup)

YouTube Views for VOTE SMART: 320,931
PLEASE FReep

YouTube (First Month) Honors for VOTE SMART:
#6 - Most Viewed - News & Politics - All
#6 - Most Viewed - News & Politics - English
#33 - Top Rated - News & Politics - All
#30 - Top Rated - News & Politics - English
#7 - Most Discussed - News & Politics - All
#6 - Most Discussed - News & Politics - English
#7 - Top Favorites - News & Politics - All
#7 - Top Favorites - News & Politics - English

 

 

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2007

 

[dirtboy]

(1) You are neglecting to include Rudy’s crossover appeal in your calculation.

What crossover appeal?

Reagan's crossover appeal was largely pro-life and pro-gun Dems. Rudy won't pull those.

And you would have us believe that Rudy, as a pro-war pubbie, can run left to pic up votes even though antiwar sentiment increases dramatically the further left you go in the electorate.

So unless Rudy sells out on the Iraq War, he can't run left. And if he does sell out (and he's given himself an out already for that), then he's just negated your core assertion - that he's the guy to lead the country in a time of war.

[E.G.C.]

Mia T. Bump

[ElkGroveDan]

Wanting a future for your kids isn’t ‘political’ or ‘religious.’ It’s instinctual.

You are making an argument with me as to why these people should get out and vote. But I'm not the one suggesting it. That's the way those people are. If you can go convince them, more power to you. Keep in mind though, they don't read FreeRepublic, they don't follow politics and for the most part they don't watch much news.

As for so-called cross over appeal, the only presidential candidate in recent memory to achieve that in a big way was Ronald Reagan. So I'm not sure who is going to be crossing over for pro-abortion, gun grabbing, homo-friendly Rudy, because on those issues the Dmeocrat is always better.

[Mia T]

That is my whole point.

I will vote for whichever R is nominated. I understand the danger of the clintons.

If another R emerges who is a stronger candidate, I will support that R. We will lose only if we, each of us with our own vote, votes for the other guy.

Funny you should ask about GHWBush. He lost because he was a fool and ultimately irresponsible. He understood that the clintons were unfit to lead, he had the goods on clinton, but never used it.

This is not unlike what you would be doing.

[dirtboy]

That is my whole point. I will vote for whichever R is nominated. I understand the danger of the clintons.

It is not your whole point. You are pushing a flawed candidate who would rift the party the way Papa Bush's leftward drift did in 1992.

Funny you should ask about GHWBush. He lost because he was a fool and ultimately irresponsible. He understood that the clintons were unfit to lead, he had the goods on clinton, but never used it.

Oh, yeah, sure. He had the goods on them. That's a good one.

Bush was a fool because he drifted leftwards. But he went nowhere near as far left as Rudy is now, even with his attempts to move rightward.

This is not unlike what you would be doing.

6.2 percent, Mia. That is Rudy's support among Freepers. Pretty pathetic. Shows he has no support among conservatives. You need to drop your support of Rudy and quit trying to redefine the concept of pro-life the way you have here. Our definition of such works just fine.

[Mia T]

No. That’s not my point. I think when faced with clinton, the sequel, the survival instinct will kick in with many of those religious folks, as it will with many women normally on the fence.

As for crossover: Giuliani has widened his lead over clinton in New Jersey (50-41).(Quinnipiac University Poll) But it is the recent Keystone Poll that foreshadows the final outcome. Rudy demolishes clinton in PA (53-37).

[Mia T]

Did you click the link and listen to what Bush41 said about clinton?

Surely you don’t doubt that Bush had access to documentation of all the nasty clinton stuff.

BTW, just heard an updated Quinnipiac University Poll released today. Rudy would defeat hillary in NJ 49-40.

[Mia T]

Are you saying that you really aren’t pro-LIFE, that you are only anti-abortion?

[dirtboy]

Are you saying that you really aren’t pro-LIFE, that you are only anti-abortion?

Anti-abortion is pro-life, Mia. Unless you think pro-life is also anti-death-penalty. And anti-war is pro-life. And other left-wing viewpoints in that regard.

[Mia T]

My positions aren’t etched in stone. That would be foolish. Conditions change.

The idea is to win so that the defective and dangerous clintons do not retake the White House, not that any particular R becomes president.

We should field the strongest R. To do any less would be irresponsible.

[showme_the_Glory]

pingaling

[kevkrom]

The idea is to win so that the defective and dangerous clintons do not retake the White House

Hillary Clinton is a red herring -- if she manages to win the Dem primary, she will lose to any competent opponent.

We should field the strongest R. To do any less would be irresponsible.

Not if that "R" is a complete betrayal of conservatism. We gain NOTHING in that scenario.

[kevkrom]

Rudy would defeat hillary in NJ 49-40.

Today. The campaign hasn't even started yet. These polls are meaningless.

[Cindy]

Thanks you MiaT.
Good video.
I passed it around.

[MACVSOG68]

Mia, thanks for the well thought out and intelligent post. I notice from the 30 plus posts here so far, that you are getting little more than the usual inanities I see regularly aimed at anyone who believes that Hillary is infinitely worse than any Republican candidate.

But you are 100 percent correct. Those who would destroy every Republican candidate who has any chance of victory against Hillary don't begin to understand what conservatism means. Conservatism never meant committing political suicide simply because your candidate doesn't get the nomination. Most here have no idea how important the next election is. They seem to forget that in all likelihood 2 vacancies will occur on the USSC.

They seem to forget what is at stake in the war on terror, the major challenges from China and Russia, the growing Marxist movement south of our border. Somehow they cannot fathom having a nominee who will bring together the center and moderate Republicans as well as the conservative Democrats and independents. Somehow they do not understand that Americans shun the extremes of both parties, and sincerely want a leader who will work with both parties to bring about the legislative initiatives promised by the 109th Congress, but that achieved little more than corruption and sleaze.

The party that fails to appeal to the independents and moderates of both sides will lose the next election.

As you so eloquently said, the social values of the right wing are to be prized and respected. But many of those issues are not even on the radar with most Americans with so much more facing this Country.

Thanks for the great post.

[Registered]

Super post Mia, and you didn’t have to resort to name-calling or labeling those that disagree with you a “Treasonous Liberal”.

[KATIE-O]

"....But we must also select someone who can win, for reasons that are obvious to me, but not, apparently, to some in this forum....."

Thank you, Thank you, Thank you, Mia, for your intelligent and analytical approach to the political conundrum we find ourselves involved in at this time. The choice of electing a very strong, fiscally conservative leader who can win the majority of the big electoral college states but who we disagree with in some areas, versus voting for someone who passes all the litmus tests but can't possibly win the election.

What should be a no brainer at this time in our history has become a food fight within some Republican circles. The argument that "I'm more conservative than you are" is so silly when we have an enemy as brutal and unrelenting as the Islamofascists who want to take over the West. I will vote for my party's nominee, no matter who it is, because any Republican in the White House is better than any Liberal Democrat!

[investigateworld]

"I'll have no part of it. "

I join that.

Rudy is just as liberal as the Clinton's.

So maybe I'll be a man without a party like Zell Miller, but someday I will have to answer to the Boss of the Universe.

[KATIE-O]

“.....The campaign hasn’t even started yet. These polls are meaningless......”

Not entirely meaningless. They show a strong, continuing trend. Things could change, but not likely.

[areafiftyone]

(((((PING)))))