Ok, thanks. That's all I was trying to rebut (cf. your original post #3).
He was clearly never pro-life to begin with.
By your definition, perhaps not. (Almost no one is.)
If his position is that, while he theoretically opposes abortion, he will do nothing as governor to reduce abortions or cause cultural change, then he is effectively for the status quo.
Similarly, a town Dog Catcher who refuses to enact a nationwide Flat Tax is "effectively for the status quo". We've been through this; it's not a fair or even realistic criticism.
The media can kiss mine. They didn't like it when the congressional Republicans pushed the federal PBA ban, but that didn't negate it's substantial cultural impact, did it? Do you believe the Republican Party should check in with Ed Bradley and Dan Rather before deciding on it's agenda?
No. But I do believe that any candidate suggesting that public school children be forcibly taught a pro-life message would become demonized in no seconds flat and that the demonization would have teeth (meaning, he would lose). Perhaps you disagree. Very well.
I think you're underestimating the appeal to most voters of a non-restrictive pro-life agenda that seeks only cultural change in the short term.
I agreed with you that something like PBA can have broader appeal than the media would have us believe. I don't happen to think the same is true of mandated pro-life public school lessons or TV public service commercials. Perhaps, you do. Very well.
Until then, all we have are the assurances of Dr. Frank that it won't work.
Do you honestly think it would work?
And as for Simon supporting CPCs, I haven't heard or read of him promising state money to any of them.
Oh. Well then therefore he can't possibly really be pro-life. Got it!
This is getting to be a pretty dumb argument; now, somehow your ignorance and lack of knowledge about a guy's campaign in a state you don't even live in is proof positive of the non-pro-life credentials of a (quite obviously and blatantly pro-life) candidate, apparently.
Let's get real. Simon is as pro-life as they come, especially in California. The fact that you doubt this is laughable, and I don't seriously believe you believe he's not pro-life. Obviously you adopt for the purpose of a pose a very purist standard for who qualifies as "really" pro-life, but the question remains whether any human beings (besides presumably yourself, and Alan Keyes) would actually qualify. Since you operate from such a narrowly defined definition of the term "pro-life", a discussion like this gets very irritating very fast, and I apologize in advance for the crudeness of some of my remarks (including in this post).
You are right, you win. Bill Simon is Not "Really" Pro-Life. He loooooooooooooves abortions! Only you are a true pure pro-lifer. Give yourself a pat on the back from me. Best,
You have been so clearly petrified by the pro-abortion media that you believe advocating a simple biology lesson for children is going to doom a pro-life candidate. Get control of your wobbling knees for one moment and think about it. If this is considered too extreme, then there might as well be no pro-life movement at all. Perhaps you'd like that.
Do you honestly think it would work?
Yes. Do you honestly think the media represents public opinion?
"And as for Simon supporting CPCs, I haven't heard or read of him promising state money to any of them."
-----Oh. Well then therefore he can't possibly really be pro-life. Got it!
So, you can't produce a quote? I see.
This is getting to be a pretty dumb argument; now, somehow your ignorance and lack of knowledge about a guy's campaign in a state you don't even live in is proof positive of the non-pro-life credentials of a (quite obviously and blatantly pro-life) candidate, apparently.
Pardon me if I momentarily recoil at being called ignorant by someone who thinks a dog catcher has the same power over taxes that a governor has over abortion. To educate you with just one example, informed consent requirements, which are typically sought and signed into law by governors at the state level, have been proven to reduce abortions by as much as 50% in some states. When you can show that a dog catcher has been able to reduce taxes by 50%, my esteem for your level of knowledge will increase.
Let's get real. Simon is as pro-life as they come, especially in California. The fact that you doubt this is laughable, and I don't seriously believe you believe he's not pro-life. Obviously you adopt for the purpose of a pose a very purist standard for who qualifies as "really" pro-life, but the question remains whether any human beings (besides presumably yourself, and Alan Keyes) would actually qualify.
Interesting fiction. But you clearly do not know enough about my opinions or positions to form any intelligent picture of my standards for politicians, on abortion or anything else. Actually, and it may shock your simplistic conclusions, I'm not so concerned with the ideological rigidity that characterizes so many pro-life "extremists." For example, I would have happily voted for George Allen in Virginia, even though he was technically not fully pro-life. He showed that he was willing to fight, to attack pro-abortion extremism, and that means so much more than the hollow "pro-life" position of the trembling Mr. Bill Simon and his sycophant followers.
Since you operate from such a narrowly defined definition of the term "pro-life", a discussion like this gets very irritating very fast, and I apologize in advance for the crudeness of some of my remarks (including in this post).
You're right. I apologize for mine as well (including in this post).
Actually, just about every believing Roman Catholic who submits to the magisterium of the Church would qualify.
I've enjoyed reading your well-written and considered posts on this topic. They would have conveyed as much information if they had not been besprinkled with quite so many references to ignorance, annoyance, and wobbling knees. It reminds me of the great advantage the apparatchiks have always enjoyed over conservatives, which is their willingness to sort themselves out functionally by rank order and to sink to the level of the ant-pile in order to accomplish their objectives. Personally, I would rather associate with people like you.
My working opinion of your exchange is that Dr. Frank's abundance of wisdom about the way things are, however incisive, is still lacking in the courage and vision that Newt Gingrich displayed in taking on the massed forces of the Left. Even in defeat, Gingrich, like Goldwater before him, forced them to display themselves, which otherwise they so rarely do, except on the one occasion when I saw a reference to Alan Keyes provoke columnist and talking head David Broder, who let his mask slip just for a moment and actually curled his lip in a snarl. We need more of these illuminating moments, and I think Helmsman's initiative and brio are what is needed, just as Reagan's and Newt's were years ago. That said, I think Helmsman's stated reluctance to support Simon is a mistake, and that it would be better to support Simon fully while encouraging him openly to take stronger positions. I don't think that Simon's strategy, articulated by Dr. Frank, of letting many issues remain silent, and then trying to move policy on them without a mandate once in office, is the way to carry one's argument with the people. You may get what you want, but you'll never be able to claim a mandate.
I will grant Dr. Frank that he knows California and the ferocity and operative power of Left journopolemicists (my coinage). Nevertheless, it is necessary to engage them, even to lose, to show the world how abysmal their values are, and to provoke them to mighty lies that will undo their cause later : "I'm not gonna send our boys to fight a land war in Asia", "I did not have sexual relations with that woman", and so on. Barry Goldwater lost, but his issues won when Ronald Reagan was elected. After Reagan's election, Leftist advocacy journalism faded for several years (being confined to complaints about Teflon) and only revived in the last year of his presidency.
I agree with Helmsman, that we need to articulate issues like the abortion issue, in order to receive the mandate not just to administer and to borrow the bully pulpit for a while, but to introduce changes that will wash away the statist Great Society and cut the ligatures with which Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, and Bill Clinton sought to bind the people to the State and to its party.
Just my humble opinion, friends.