Posted by: ST on May 18, 2007 at 12:15 am
There’s a discussion going on over at Hot Air over Dr. James Dobson’s declaration that he absolutely cannot and will not vote for Rudy should he become the nominee, and how much influence he carries within Christian conservative circles. I wrote the following in the comments section there, which I wanted to repost here:
I can’t see myself pulling the lever for Rudy in 2008, should it come to that, and it has nothing to do with anything James Dobson or any other prominent Christian conservative has to say about it.
Once upon a time I was a pro-abortion Democrat who supported one who was staunchly pro-abortion: Bubba. I know my vote was just one vote, but nevertheless every vote for Clinton was one that helped put him in office. A few years after that I became pro-life and think back on my pro-abortion days with a great deal of shame, because I have felt responsible for contributing to the ‘culture of death’ with both my support for abortion ‘rights’ and my support of Bubba (the first time around, not the second).
While it was extremely liberating for me to go from being pro-abortion to pro-life, the level of guilt I felt for contributing in my own way to the ‘culture of death’ was/is great enough that I would be extremely reluctant to put someone back in office who is pro-abortion, even though that person is a member of my political party. For some of us, it’s not an issue where you really feel like there’s any room for compromise. In other words, it’s not an issue I can sacrifice (put on the back burner) just because there are so many other big issues at stake.
I think most Republicans have their hot button issues they won’t compromise on. Immigration is one of them. The Republican base has made it clear that they will under no circumstances support anyone who voices support or who voted for the Senate’s amnesty bill today. Heck, I know people who have unregistered (is that even a word?) from the Republican party over this issue out of sheer anger, and that was before today’s vote for amnesty. I’m not a hardliner on immigration – I see myself more in the middle on the issue, so there is some wiggle room for me and the Republican candidates on that issue, whereas other Republicans won’t give an inch on it. That is certainly their right to do so.
My “no-compromise” issue is abortion. Whoever I support will have to take a pro-life stand. One of the few things our current president has been consistent on is his commitment to life (with the nominees to the Supreme Court, as well as his stance on PBA, cutting [of US] funding of abortions overseas, etc) and I feel like a vote for Rudy would be taking a step back, because I simply do not trust him to nominate people to the USSC in the mold of an Alito or Roberts. I also don’t trust that he would push back on a Democratic Congress (assuming the Dems maintain or increase their control next year) trying to rewrite laws on abortion, including the PBA ban.
Having said that, though, I wouldn’t actively campaign against Rudy should he become the nominee. I just don’t think I can vote for him.
At the same time, I realize that if enough people felt like I do about Rudy, that if he ended up being the Republican nominee, not voting for him in substantial numbers would pave the way for a Democratic rout in the presidential race, which would take us back to square one on abortion because there is not a frontrunner in the Dem party who is committed to pro-life causes and in fact will pander like there’s no tomorrow to the likes of NOW, NARAL, appoint liberal judges to the USSC, etc, so not voting for Rudy would contribute to the election of someone who has an even worse record on abortion than he does …
In fact, as far as the “top tier” Republicans go, the only one who I feel is sincere on the issue of abortion is John McCain. I want to believe Romney, but I still have some doubts about his sincerity. But I’d have a hard time pulling the lever for McCain, because I disagree with so much of his platform and don’t view him as a genuine conservative.
So if you’re pro-life and are committed to keeping a pro-life type in the WH, there aren’t any good options. It’s incredibly frustrating, because I feel there is no one for me to turn to, outside of a staunch pro-lifer like Mike Huckabee, and I really don’t see his candidacy going anywhere.
—–
Speaking of Rudy, this evening I took part in a podcast alongside Michael Illions – moderator, Lorie Byrd, John Hawkins and Liz Mair. The first thing we talked about was today’s amnesty bill, but the majority of the time we spent talking about Tuesday night’s debate, Rudy’s response to Ron Paul, and the performances of the candidates. You can listen to that podcast here.
ST:
I don’t think that it matters anymore who the GOP nominates (pro-abortion or not). I predict that the GOP cave-in on immigration will end any chance of Republicans keeping the White House, let alone re-capture Congress.
al Qaeda is just about to receive the biggest gift since William Jefferson Clinton took up skirt-chasing in the Oval Office.
I used to be a one issue voter, never considering voting for a pro-choice candidate for any office. That changed on 9/11. Yes, a pro-life candidate is still my first choice. That’s why I want Fred Thompson in the race.
That said, having another President Clinton means that we won’t take terrorism seriously, which means thousands more innocents killed. I can’t countenance that. PERIOD.
If we don’t take the fight against jihadists seriously, all other issues are irrelevant.
I’m with Gary on this one. I am a staunch pro-lifer but I’m also pro-life for the people who are now living in our country and could/might be killed by terrorists if we have any Democrat as president.
I think, but I’m not sure, Rudy said abortion should be a state issue and not a federal issue. We can only take him at his word that he will appoint strict constructionist judges to SCOTUS if an opening comes up.
We, as conservatives, have to be able to bend a bit on some of our issues or we are going to have the worst of our nightmares on abortion, immigration or any other issue come true.
How can we hold Republicans responsible for what is being called an amnesty bill when we do not hold a majority in either house of Congress? And do we think having a Democrat in the White House is going to improve our chances of getting a better bill, assuming we don’t regain control of congress?
We have to start thinking with our heads and not our hearts in some instances.
Rudy is not my first choice, but neither are any of the other nine announced candidates. My candidate is Fred Thompson and I pray he runs because I believe he will beat any Democrat up against him, and he’s pro-life.
Politics is a game of compromise. If you can get 75% of what you want are you going to not vote because you didn’t get 100%, thereby assuring yourself and the country of never making that next step in the near future?
I almost always agree with you SJ, but if I have to I’ll hold my nose and vote for Giuliani even though we are not compatible in the social area. I’m concerned about the future of our country and what kind of country my grandchildren are going to inherit, and I do have grandchildren so it’s a real worry for me.
I, too, am staunchly pro-life. Maybe it’s more accurate to say I’m anti-abortion. In any case, I’ll go this route: Vote for whatever candidate most closely matches my beliefs in the primary(right now that’s probably Hunter or Huckabee…so far), and then pull the lever for whatever GOP nominee we’re left with. I share the same misgivings about Rudy, but no Dem would be better on the issue, so I’ll continue to vote Republican.
As to “top tier” candidates, and the feeling that a Huckabee doesn’t stand a chance, if someone on the “lower tier” marks higher in one’s mind than the rest, one is oblidged to vote for that candidate. One is also oblidged to broadcast, advertise, tell the story of the favored candidate in order to bring that candidate into view of as many voters as possible. If all Republican/conservative voters stuck to their true beliefs, wouldn’t a lower tier candidate move up to the top tier? How could he not if everyone supports him? Vote for the best candidate in the primaries no matter what. Then support whoever gets the party nod.
I vote with Gary…..If we dont win this global thing with Islamo nuts, abortion is going to be the last thing on our minds…….!
Rudy will not get my vote unless he is the only one standing after the primary and is up agiant hillary, BUT HE MUST PROVE HE WILL CLOSE OUR BORDERS AND NOT GIVE AMNESTY TO THE ILLEGALS AND BUILD THAT DAMN FENCE.
Just hope Fred jumps in, this immigration s#it just may be his opening. Tancredo is the only one on the ticket that really gets it on that issue but they won’t give it to him.
I will not vote for any pro-abortion candidate I will never vote for a pro-abortion candidate. It is more than a moral issue; it is a baseline to judge one’s ability to set aside intellect in favor of expedience. Giuliani, in my estimation, is the worst kind of pro-abortion person. He knows that it is the evil killing of life, and he would never want to see it done, but he thinks it is still a choice. That position defies logic. A person can have 3 positions on abortion: 1. It is killing an innocent human life. 2. It is not killing a human life at ‘some’ stage of development. 3. It is killing a human life but convenience is more important.
If you deny that it is killing a human life from the point of egg fertalization you are denying science. If you are able to kill an innocent human life for convenience you are able to make very scary rationalizations. This is a basic issue. When you start deciding innocent life is inconvenient you tumble down a slope that ends in something much worse than the Holocaust.
The MSM is salivating (and going to great length) to enable a “New York Contest,” Rudy vs Hillary. I am not at all certain they have sufficient influence to make that contest a reality. (But) should Rudy prevail, he’ll have little to do/say about abortion. As president, he’d be much too busy defending the nation to initiate any such agenda involving this most contentious of issues. Hillary, of course, would be a different story entirely. The best we can hope for is that the Supremes eventually DO throw out Roe v Wade, and enable the voters (at the state level) to decide. It’s not a perfect solution, but it’s better than having it shoved down our throats the way it has been for over thirty years. I think if it came to a vote among today’s Supremes, Roe would go down 5-4. If Dubya gets to make another Supreme Court nomination (something I see as at least possible) well, you do the math.
Fred has to be enjoying this one. A GOP meltdown is in full swing.
I have considered THAT ONE, too, CZ! I am wondering if it’s just coincidental, or if Fred’s political intuition is superior? Guess we’ll see…
But as far as the choice of a American woman having the RIGHT to choose whether or not she wants to become a MOMMY should always be HER decisiion not the governments……
Maybe the American woman should have thought about that before spreading her, well, better not say it that way.
We all know abortion is murder; just some of us are more able to say it than others.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: I will not vote for Rudy Giuliani or John McCain, period, even if one of them wins the nomination.
For those commenters above who believe that they might have to swallow their principles to prevent someone worse from getting in office, remember: the electoral college determines the winner. The greater probability is that pennsylvania, where I live, won’t really be in play in 2008, that the Democrat is going to carry it regardless.
Well, that means I can vote for the Constitution Party candidate (which I did in the 2004 Senate race) without worrying that I have subjected the country to something bad. For those of us who are conservatives in “blue” states, we can use votes for third parties to show the GOP that we will not just sit back and take whatever crap they give us.
I also want to say that for the woman that is pregnant without support or ability to see a future that the fear of bearing a child is great. I understand that and have compassion for that woman. Things do happen that leave us in situations both unwanted and unplanned, but the answer is not to have an abortion.
Women in this situation are preyed upon by the abortion industry, male and social dominators, and people acting with the best of intentions. The end result is the end result. If you have had an abortion, please do not feel attacked by my pro-life comments. My heart aches for you, as I know the decision was not made lightly and I know the burden that is carried after the act has been carried out. We as a society have failed you, and I am sorry. There are places to go that will help you with the grief you might be feeling; a grief many people may try to tell you does not exist.
For those that have not had an abortion yet, but might think it is the easiest answer to what seems an insurmountable problem, there are good alternatives available.
Look at all the nonsense with Dems in control of the House. Now tell me that voting only on the abortion issue is a good idea. I agree that finding a pro-lifer is preferable, and I pray we’ll find one that stands a good chance of winning the general, but if there is only Rudy on top when it’s all said and done, you still have to punch his number to prevent further Democrat damage. I hate the lesser of two evils path, but it’s still a far cry better than allowing the greater evil to prevail. This isn’t gray area stuff, it’s playing the hand dealt to you. If it ain’t all aces, folding in this game will lead to greater losses than the dough on the table, which will be taxed heavily, BTW.
I will not vote for someone who supports abortion. I will not vote for a gun-grabber. I will not vote for anyone who is soft on illegal immigration. Giuliani is good on the issues of terrorism, fiscal responsibility and crime, but fails miserably on the other three most important issues we face. He will not get my vote.
Mekan, the psychological effects of abortion on demand probably will never be measured. I’ve known women who have trouble seeing children playing in a park.
Edited. –ST I have said this before and and I will say this again I once helped a young teenage woman have an abortion by freaking paying for it when I was a teenager……… and she was one too… 10 years later I ran into the lady and she started crying the moment she saw me. Thanking me for helping her out in a time of personal crisis and being non-judgemental about how she wound up in that situation in the first place.IT IS A WOMAN’S CHOICE NOT THE edited. –ST GOVERNMENT’S CHOICE. GET IT????????????????????
tommy, I want you to cool it on the cursing. I don’t just mean by your little creative editing of your curse words, because that doesn’t cut it. I mean cool it.
Well OK about my choice of words ST I always thought youse folks on the right like freedom of speech IQ mean after all Youse folks are against the “fair time” broadcasting that some of us the left (not me personally) are advocating????????????? And what IS YOUR POSITION about this topic. Do you agree with me that an adult woman should be able to chouse whether or not she wants too become a mommy? And if you agree with me why in the world would you vote for fascists who would legistate the most personal decision any woman would have to make
tommy in nyc, the women I know who had abortions 40 years ago and are past child-bearing age have nothing but regrets.
I agree with you Tom TB. I know women who have to tell themselves everyday it was the right decision. If it was the right decision, then why do so many women regret that decision?? I also know a woman who had an abortion and it collapsed her tubes, she could never have a child again. She calls it the worst mistake of her life.
Tommy you are decieved. If a woman is going to make the choice not to be a Mommy, then she should not surrender her body over to a man. It is her body, so why does she give it to a man, and then expect to get rid of the child that interaction produces. It is stupid thinking, for lazy people. Also I bet the waiting list for adoptions in NY is 3 years or more. How many of those babies would find wonderful homes with adults who can’t be Mommies or Daddies, but want to so dearly. Thus accomplishing the very same objective.
As far as Sis abridging your rights to speak, no one is saying you can’t post here. She is saying that we, the people who have to read your posts, shouldn’t be subjected to the insulting swearing. But, like a good “if I can’t swear, you are taking away my rights” lib, you have to run to the stupidity of accusations. – Lorica
Now onto my thoughts about Rudy. After seeing how moderate Reps continue to screw conservatives, hell will freeze over before I vote for him. I am so sick of these spineless moderates, that I flat out refuse to vote for them, I would rather see the Dems ruin this country, in the hopes that we can restart, than vote to help them ruin it. – Lorica
Tommy in NYC,
I understand your feelings and know we will never see eye to eye on this subject. The choice to not have a baby is before having sex. I know, a puritanical view, but once that egg is fertilized it is a human being. We may not have known that once. We may not have really known that scientifically until 20 years ago. But the genetic coding of the human being is complete and present at the moment of conception. You tommy, were all that you might be at that very moment. This is scientific and not simply a philosophical or religious point of view.
Now, the choice to accept that or not is up to you. Currently our nation, by court mandate, has determined it ok to ‘terminate’ whatever ‘it’ is from the time of conception through the point of birth.
If you accept that the fertilized human egg is a innocent human being, or maintain that only a fetus that can survive outside the womb is a person does not matter. We as a nation are free to terminate them all. If that is the way it should be then a parent should also have the right to terminate handicapped or mentally ill children. Sons and daughters should have the right to terminate their feeble parents. You see, what we are doing is making a judgment that innocent human life is worth less than our convenience. How far do we go before life is worth more than convenience? Many civilizations moved to exterminate the troublesome Jews, Catholics, feeble, and wrong thinkers because it was convenient.
Many will argue the case of rape and incest. In very rare cases a baby must be killed to save the life of the mother, and that is a very justified decision in that scenario. I would not be happy about that compromise, but I could live with it. The number of abortions committed due to rape and incest is very low; although if that were the only way to have an abortion I think the number of rape and incest victims would skyrocket. So if we take those two issues off the table you can not argue that abortion is for anything other than convenience.
To sum this all up, the woman has the right to choose. That choice is made before there is life. Scientifically that life starts at the moment of conception. Once there is life it should be protected and only destroyed if there is a determined danger posed to another life.
I know you don’t agree Tommy.
You know excites me about this? It’s that we’re ABLE to have this conversation. Unlike the left, which forces you to march in lock step with Soros, er the DNC, (remember what happened to Liberman?) the Republicans can and should have differences. The fact that we have viable canidates that go from right of center to the right and everywhere in between is a great strength. It means that the GOP is more inclusive than the Democrats and more open minded. I would LOVE to see Fred run, but anyone on the GOP is FAR superior to anyone the democrats can dredge up. Keep that in mind as the election goes along. Iron sharpens Iron right?
Mekan it is ok to agree to disagree and Lorica I also hope the Dems start running the country again but for vastly different reasons than you espoused. 43 is a disaster. Never forget this fact. And Tom B I also know woman who have regretted making that personal decision also. No joke but as far as I am concerned it is a personal decision not the governments and IMHO it is just that simple.
ST says,
“So if you’re pro-life and are committed to keeping a pro-life type in the WH, there aren’t any good options. It’s incredibly frustrating, because I feel there is no one for me to turn to, outside of a staunch pro-lifer like Mike Huckabee, and I really don’t see his candidacy going anywhere.”
This is normally what happens at the end of a political cycle: When the prevailing ideology fails, or is seen to fail (and is there a difference?) a certain segment of the former majority feels it has no place to go. Sometimes there’s nothing to do but wait it out, wait for the pendulum to swing back in the other direction. And while one waits one can either go emo, and rage, rage at the dying of light (which has always struck me as a rather inefficient expenditure of energy), or sit on your front porch and play “Yes Sir, That’s My Baby” on the banjo. (A Jean Shepherd reference I just tossed in there.)
Anyway, speaking pragmatically, my sense at this point in time is that the only GOP candidate with any kind of chance to win the general election is, well, Rudy, Fighter of Ferrets.
Leslie,
That is why I just can’t vote for Rudy. I will vote for no candidate that seeks to harm cute lil ferrets.
“And what IS YOUR POSITION about this topic. Do you agree with me that an adult woman should be able to chouse whether or not she wants too become a mommy?”
Absolutely! If she doesn’t want to take a chance on getting pregnant, she probably shouldn’t have sex. Is the sex = pregnancy connection too sophisticated for you Liberals to make? Or perhaps it’s the pregnancy = life = responsibility thing that eludes you.
Ahh, I see the problem. You see, tommy, “43 is a disaster” is an OPINION, not a fact. It is the truth as YOU see it, not everybody else.
Now saying something like “2+2=4″, THAT is a fact.
See the difference guy?