Posted on 05/17/2007 7:36:55 AM PDT by Mobile Vulgus
William F. Buckley once said something to the effect that he didn't want the most conservative nominee as presidential candidate for the GOP, he wanted the most conservative candidate that could win the election as the GOP's nominee. In light of this sentiment, I am wondering if the lion of old line conservatism has decided that Mitt Romney just might be the "conservative enough" candidate for the GOP in 2008?
Last week, Buckley offered for our consideration a column mentioning Mitt Romney's conversion from abortion advocate to his new found status of anti-abortion believer -- a stance that puts him just in time to offer himself as the GOP candidate for the 2008 GOP nomination -- and how so many are rightfully skeptical of this new stance.
In Romney's Moral Thought Buckley mentions that Romney's sudden conversion is acclaimed as that born of "studied reflection" on the issue, just as Romney claims. Of course, Buckley seems to conveniently ignore the fact that Romney was still advocating his pro-abortion ideas not too long ago as Governor of Massachusetts making it a bit hard to believe that Mitt spent much time agonizing over this change.
Buckley, though, seems to accept Romney's claims at face value based on the fact that America has changed its prevailing moral opinion in the past. I find his reasoning less than convincing, especially when he cites Thomas Jefferson's acceptance of slavery at the same time he was writing about freedom and liberty in the Declaration of Independence.
Jefferson, it is true, did own slaves as he was propounding for American freedom, but he never thought of slavery as a moral good. He always thought of it as a bad thing that should go away. He just had no idea about how to go about getting rid of it. Additionally, Jefferson never imagined the issue of slavery was one not to be reconsidered for future Americans. He even attempted to start a society that might help repatriate African slaves back to Africa, called the American Colonization Society.
So, to use Jefferson as some sort of example of an embargoing of a moral issue or moral evolution in comparison with Mitt Romney's is not really a legitimate one.
I will admit that Buckley doesn't come right out and state plainly that he believes Mitt's conversion. And, the other point Buckley makes, that of scolding the pro-abortioners for never seeming to give the issue much thought and just taking their own belief without question, is a good one. But, I find his smoothing of the waves for Romney a bit disturbing and seems to speak to the conservative stalwart's sizing Romney up favorably for the nomination.
In Romney we have a candidate that just can't be believed on some of the most important conservative issues; guns and abortion. With his late lie on his "lifetime" as a hunter and his only recently advocating for a pro-abortion position, Romney seems almost like a candidate who will say just anything to get the nomination. His claim of deep moral thought on the issue after which he emerged a newly minted anti-abortionist is just too convenient to be accepted.
In any case, it seems plain that Bill Buckley doesn't want to shut the door on Mitt Romney with this little op ed of his. I cannot say, however, that he is standing upright with this consideration. Buckley's bending over backwards to give Romney the benefit of the doubt makes me marvel that a man of his advanced age is flexible enough for the effort.
Post #22 is strong and clear and stands well on it’s own. Refute it honestly, or not at all.
I wouldn't have a big problem with torturing terrorists, but the question wasn't even about torture. The question wasn't about doing to the terrorists some of the things that were done to John McCain. No one was going to leave the terrorists with the permanent physical impairments that John McCain suffers. Instead, the question was whether we would do things that would be frightening but not permanently harmful. In order to save innocent American lives, we shouldn't hesitate to do these things if we know the terrorists know something.
Bill
Based on your last post I think we are in agreement. I see no contradiction between that and the post #22.
Some would argue that sleep deprivation and waterboarding is torture. Those technics you mentioned (ie skinning people alive) are too primitive and I doubt would be used under any circumstance. Not for “moral” reasons but because there are more effective ways to get the information (ie. drugs).
The problem with mccain is that he wants to ban torture under any circumstance. And that would prevent the use of “enhanced interrogations” in those unlikely but possible scenarios like the one brit hume mentioned.
But at the debate mccain said this in response to the question: “If I knew for sure that they had that kind of information, I, as the president of the United States, would take that responsibility. That is a million-to-one scenario. But only I would take that responsibility.”
It seems to me that he took the same position as everyone else there.
A commander should never let on that less than legal and proper treatment of prisoners will be condoned, least he create a thousand avid torture masters among his subordinates.
Most give in within seconds. The toughest of al Qaeda's prisoners, Khalid Shiek Mohammed, held out 2 to 2 1/2 minutes before begging to confess.
Waterboarding would work well in imminent situations also, perhaps even better and quicker than any other technique.
Excellent post! I am a strong Romney supporter. This is a hit peiece on him.
Wasn’t the assault weapons ban already on the books in Mass when he took office?
Personally, I think he is the most exciting and electable Republican to come along in a long time. He makes many others look like they are drugged.
“Wasn’t the assault weapons ban already on the books in Mass when he took office?”
I believe it was. The AWB bill that Romney signed had the blessing of the NRA.
He was the toughest of all the al Qaeda prisoners, not necessarily a leader. It also worked on the less tough and less important terrorists.
They're all people with the same gag reflexes and fear of drowning as everyone else, suicidal or not.
I suggest you do some reading up on the technique to understand the biology and psychology of how and why it works so well.
Thanks! He would have looked like a loser if he fought the bill. You can only get so many things done in a blue state as a conservative. This wasn’t one of them for him.
Yes, electable.
Intelligence often times, but not always, has a way of deciphering the truth and accuracy of a "confession."
At any rate, with many innocent lives at stake, waterboarding a vicious enemy of the United States, is most certainly justifiable in an effort to save them, or are you going to continue to argue that point?
You would tie the hands of those in authority from being able to save innocent lives, potentially, many innocent lives, in order to save vile, vicious enemies of the United States, a few moments of extreme discomfort produced by waterboarding. How extraordinary.
Post #22 stands. You lost this argument way back then. You may rehash it, but you will do so alone. Goodnight, GWB.
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.