Skip to comments.No deal, Rudy
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.
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.
So now the GOP is telling us to nominate an "electable" pro-choice candidate because "he can win."
I am still waiting for *any* evidence.
The only article I can find is from a site that claims the reason for the clinic is the overwhelming number of rapes by US servicemen, tacitly condoned by the chain of command.
Since I KNOW that is bull****, I suspect the entire allegation is.
If Tony Blair had to walk around 10 Downing Street with U.S. Secret Service protection, I think it would be safe to say that Great Britain was no longer much of a sovereign nation at all.
Oh crap it was a joke. Did you not see the little smile on the bottom?
What site is that?
NO, I was responding to your #192, where you were telling her to quit sucking up. She has no need to suck up to me. In fact, I owe her and her family. They deserve a large credit for helping me discover the true value of my Catholic faith. I wouldn't be where I am in my religious life without them.
I think both the personal behavior and the political position fit together as someone who cannot speak with authority on traditional marriage and family issues and represent a pro-life and pro-family position.
His personal life only amplifies concerns I have about his liberal social issue positions.
> What site is that?
Posted previously at:
Whoaheynow. I'm not so sure. FreeRepublic is a conservative website. The Republican Party is quickly leaving consevatives behind.
I don't think FR will leave us conservatives, or vice versa.
Heehee.wouldntbprudent It would be nice to ping the person you are talking about.
Meanwhile, in Kabul, Afghanistan, seven reproductive health care centers formerly supported by the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) were reopened this month with help from the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). Run by a local NGO, the Afghan Family Guidance Association (AFGA), the clinics were forced to close in June due to IPPF "funding problems". IPPF's U.S. affiliate, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, did not respond to telephone calls or emails regarding the nature of its funding problems. "The UNFPA funding, 50,000 dollars for the next six months, is a vital bridging assistance this year until we are fully registered with IPPF in 2006 and get our budget from its core fund," said Ahmad Zeya Yousufzai, AFGA's executive director. But according to AFGA, very little is happening on the issue of reproductive health care outside the capital, making the challenge and need for further funding even greater.Checking now on the Planned Parenthood funding in Afghanistan.....
We have a failure to communicate here.
I realize that JimRob is not a liberal. He's a conservative. So are a lot of people here. I wonder, though, why some are treating his posts like he must be followed.
He started a website. I'm glad! Great job! But does that mean that, within the realm of conservatism, we must kowtow to JimRob's views? I think not. NOr do I think he would want that, otherwise why would he start a website the purpose of which is to *discuss* and *debate* conservative politics.
You know, as much as I disagree with much of Dinesh D'Souza's arguments in his latest book, he is right on the money when it comes to the cultural Left angering the "Muslims" (I personally like to call them Mohammedans) with things like this.
Ah, my error.
Nice try, but it serves only to highlight her silence.
Now, can you explain why AME Zion Churches and "A group of Baptist churches" "decide for them who to vote for when it comes to politics."
I missed that Memo from the GOP. Could you post a copy here?
I thought there were several candidates, of all different stripes, running for the Republican nomination. Just when did the GOP order us to nominate he whom you would not name, to wit, Rudy Giuliani?
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.