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.
I suppose I'm inclined to agree. However, even Courageous Newt didn't do a whole lot about abortion that I can recall. Keep in mind that we are talking about a very specific issue here (abortion). I reckon if Newt and his revolution has a legacy for which he deserves credit, it's welfare reform.
We are not talking about welfare reform. My views on the electability of candidates advocating strong welfare reform positions are much different, you realize.
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.
Actually I'll go you one further. I didn't mean to imply (and don't really think) that Simon will, after remaining silent, spring helmsman's ideas on the state after winning. I essentially agreed with helmsman that a Governor Simon would have little tangible pro-life impact on the policy of the state (except perhaps by comparison with the Davis alternative). My argument with him was more focused on (1) rebutting the notion of a Simon "reversal", and (2) slightly more generally, the idea that a Simon failure to live up to helmsman's prescriptions for changing the culture to a pro-life position means he's "not pro-life".
Please, just try to imagine a gubernatorial candidate saying in a debate "I think it should be mandated that every public school student be taught that life begins at conception, and I will make this mandate my first priority as governor." This is not welfare reform we're talking about.
You may get what you want, but you'll never be able to claim a mandate.
The presumption here seems to be that such a mandate exists, or can exist after a few months of a campaign by a vigorous pro-lifer. I guess I don't think so. Now before you accuse me of believing media lies, No, I don't think the state (not even California) is so monolithically pro-abortion as the media would like us to believe. Maybe the ratio of strong pro-aborts to strong pro-lifers here is something relatively modest: 45-35 or 42-38 or 37-31 or 37-35 or even 35-37 for all I know. But the idea that a candidate could find a mandate to call upon, or create one, by advocating such things as tax money being spent on pro-life commercial advertisements strikes me as completely out of touch with reality. (Of course I could be wrong, as I've said many times on this thread :)
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 guess what I like about Simon's (apparent) position is the following: 1. he is consistent and sincere in saying that his personal beliefs are pro-life. 2. he is pragmatic and in touch with reality by acknowledging that a state governor, under our current governmental setup, lacks the power to outlaw abortions. The conclusion is clear, his personal beliefs are what they are but he has no intention of violating the power of his position. Those who would argue with him have an uphill climb - they have to argue that no decent person should even privately hold a pro-life opinion (which will expose them, which is what you want, right?), or they have to scare people into thinking that he will indeed abuse and overreach his power once in office (which is an untenable claim to be making as long as Simon remains consistent), or both.