Posted on 05/10/2007 8:37:53 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
It is one of the enduring features of the modern Republican Party: Since the rise of Ronald Reagan and the empowerment of the social conservatives, the party has formally stood in firm opposition to a constitutional right to abortion and the Supreme Court decision that established it.
Yes, there were always Republicans who broke with party orthodoxy on the issue, from New England moderates like Senator Olympia J. Snowe of Maine to pragmatists like Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California. But the party’s platform, if anything, grew less pliant on abortion over the years. And the party invariably nominated presidential candidates who embraced, rather than challenged, the full “pro life” position. (Just as the Democrats did, on the “pro choice” side.)
Now, with Rudolph W. Giuliani one of the front-runners for the Republican nomination, the question inevitably arises: Is the party moving on this issue, ready for more flexibility? Can a supporter of abortion rights, even one with caveats and qualifications, make it to the top of the Republican Party in 2008?
~~snip~~
In the past, such a position brought a quick and determined push back from the party’s social conservatives. Candidates lacking strong anti-abortion credentials, in fact, rarely made it to the top tier. Party moderates regularly tried over the years to soften the Republican platform, and were just as regularly beaten back.
The Republican abortion plank endured: “The unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed,” and the party is committed to supporting the appointment of judges “who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.”
~~snip~~
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
The only way I’d vote for him is if he wins the GOP nomination and is running against Hill/Edwards/Obama/Richardson. Then, I’ll hold my nose and vote for the liberal republican.
Perhaps, Guiliani should try to recruit Fred or Duncan as a running mate. To offset his liberal morals.
Abortion, it’s just murder.
I do not understand, and I can never accept, a view that there is a "right" to abortion which is guaranteed by the United States Constitution.
Not this Republican sir!
The constant dithering since Reagan means that our top contender (Rudy, McLame, Romney) candidates are ALL pro aborts of one degree or another.
If the Republican Party CAN "accept" any of these pro aborts as the nominee, it won't be doing it with my vote.
If the GOP nominates Giuliani, then it is already dead.
Time to cover it up with dirt.
Not a snow balls chance in hell.
“If Mr. Giuliani endures, in short, he will be bucking an awful lot of history.”
And we know he won’t. It needs to be painful enough that another Liberal that wants to try the same stunt in the future, will quickly erase that thought and bring themselves back to failed attempt!
to failed = to this failed attempt
Many accuse many others of being "single issue" voters.
Quantitatively, abortion is what is known in statistics as an "outlier". The act itself is so repulsive, so extreme, so harmful to mother and (of course) child, and so destructive to our collective respect for all human life that its weighting among the various issues skews the results of the political scale. Those who clamor for the WOT as the single issue need to realize that the ideals laid out in our seminal Declaration of Independence - right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness - are precisely the ideals that make America worth fighting for in the first place. To vacillate on the objects of those rights is to undermine original intent and bring in precisely those less noble tendencies toward legalism that have, in recent years, shown themselves as a blight on the American identity in the form of frivolous lawsuits and twisting of the meaning of the law for personal gain. America's reputation for lawsuits has gained dubious international recognition.
Are those self-serving traits of the sort we wish to see further amplified? Are we as a people strong enough to keep a republic whose Constitution "was made only for a moral and religious people...wholly inadequate to the government of any other" (John Adams)?
And mine. And someone should tell Robin Toner and her employers at the N.Y. Slimes that Rudy is also anti-gun, pro-gay marriage, and, if his personal behavior is any indication, pro-adultery. If the legal violent deaths of over 44 million babies since 1973 (not to mention the undemocratic, unconstitutional judicial arrogance reflected in Roe v. Wade) is not enough to deter social conservatives, they might consider some of these other issues.
I could write a book, like most here, about my anti-abortion position, but Rudy would be better than H any day.
This seems to be about Rudy’s politics. His stupidity is a disappointment and it’s a deal-breaker.
Yep.
I hope you don’t really mean that seriously.
Because that graph is garbage.
HEAR HEAR
and go Hunter!
Double nope.
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.