Giuliani No Better Than Hillary On Abortion? I Don't Think So ...
The Choice Here For Pro-Lifers Is Ultimately Between More Abortions & Less Abortions.
By Martin A. Knight Posted in 2008 | Abortion | Archived | election | giuliani | Rudy | unity — Comments (21) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
For what it's worth, I'm already on record as not a Primary supporter of Rudy (even if this is my second somewhat "pro-Rudy" post in as many weeks), but in the general, I would happily pull the lever for the man because he will be many times better than the alternative. Even on life issues. Believe it or not, the truth is, from all indications, I don't think Rudy gives that much of a damn about abortion. That makes him much easier to sway than someone who passionately upholds it as a sacrament (Hillary). And if, as he must, he picks a pro-lifer to be his Vice President, when his term(s) is/are done, we will have successor in line for the White House who is pro-life.
Will we get that with Hillary? Does anybody believe that the Press Corps will do anything that will jeopardize President Hillary being succeeded by her equally rabidly pro-abortion Vice President? Understand this, the Press now knows from 2006 that they can control the mushy middle (not by building up Democrats, but by tearing down Republicans) and they're going to make sure she has an eight year honeymoon if she wins - corruption and scandals are going to be spun, covered up and even pinned on Republicans, until her successor is safely inaugurated.
Never forget this; defeat does indeed have consequences. And they could last decades. Upon decades. Imagine three (or more) 40 year old Ginsburgs and Breyers on the Court - and one of them could be replacing Justice Scalia.
More below ...
Icythus here is arguing that on judges, at least, it will be better to have Hillary as President nominating Ginsburg 2.0 because social conservatives would rally around and ... what? First of all; whoever Hillary nominates, even if the Senate is 60% Majority Republican, is going to be confirmed with at least 75% support because Senate Republicans are naturally linguini-spined and because Borking is not possible without MSM support - and anyone who thinks the Press is going to provide support for any attacks on a liberal SCOTUS nominee is beyond stupid. Hillary is not going to pay any attention at all to social conservatives on judges - but whoever she nominates is going to have NARAL's seal of approval. And make no mistake, Ginsburg 2.0 is going to be confirmed and they would be nothing we can do about it, so all the rallying and screaming would be for absolutely nothing.
So I'd rather make sure (if it is Rudy versus Hillary on Election Day 2008) that Rudy wins and provide for us a much greater than zero chance that we will get a good (originalist, strict constructionist, etc.) SCOTUS nominee than allow Hillary (or whoever) the chance to most definitely make NARAL's fondest dreams come true. As an aside, I note that Icythus does not seem to get the irony of the fact that Sandra Day O'Connor was nominated by our very own pro-life Ronald Reagan.
Either way, I seriously don't get the logic that would lead anyone to believe that there would be no difference between a Rudy and a Hillary Presidency when it comes to abortion. There would be - and it's not even just judges; it's the continued existence of pregnancy crisis centers, it's parental notification, it's keeping partial birth abortion bans in place, it's not repealing the Born Alive Infants Act, it's not exporting abortion outside America's borders, it's not forcing doctors to perform abortions on pain of losing their license to practice, etc.
So let's all be realistic; pro-lifers would continue have a huge amount of influence. Dubya may not be a fighter like Rudy, but he is equally (or even more) strong-willed and yet we were able to get him to back down on Miers. Rudy is not going to have it anywhere near as easy. Rudy already knows all too well that if he wins he would be the titular head of a vastly pro-life party ... and he would need us more than we would need him for him to be in any way effective as a political leader.
Hillary, on the other hand, will do everything she can to affirmatively increase the number of abortions in America and around the world. Bill Clinton, at least, would take a look at the polls and avoid it if it threatened him politically. Hillary, however, is a true believer on that, if nothing else.
With Rudy we still have a chance of actually reducing the number of abortions because he would be with us in popularizing alternatives and making it possible that money and legislation would flow in that direction (hopefully through tax breaks and for example, giving crisis pregnancy centers some legal protection from liberal harassment - e.g. see Eliot Spitzer's brutal campaign against them in New York as Attorney General)
I confess; I'm pretty cold-blooded about this stuff - which is why I continue to support Mitt despite everyone throwing tantrums because he dared to move from Left (in 1994) to Right (2007) on a few issues. PS: Mitt would meet the definition of a flip-flopper if he had ever gone from Left to Right and then back Left again; call me crazy but people moving from Left to Right make me happy, not angry that they were ever on the Left in the first place - it's counter-productive.
My point is this; we will always have Rudy (Romney or any other GOP Presidential candidate) by the [testicles] ... because, interestingly enough, we're on his side, which is he will play (no pun intended) ball.
« Poppies in Iraq and Arabs in Afghanistan: Did Barack Obama “Pull a McCain” in his SpeechTuesday Night ? — Comments (6) | Jeanne Shaheen: Democrat, Politican, Idiot — Comments (14) »
Giuliani No Better Than Hillary On Abortion? I Don't Think So ... 21 Comments (0 topical, 21 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I'll just say this-if we don't flip Congress Rudy isn't going to do any better than anyone else who might get past him in the primaries for most of the same reasoning here...media hype and Borking notwithstanding, clearly the relentless blather about bi-partisanship and congressional blockades will only get more exposure.
I promised no more slams of any in the gop, so I'll leave it at this-the same or an increased Dem majority all by itself is going to determine the next rounds of SCOTUS...we'll have to choke down O'Connor-style replacements imho...and as both Rudy and Romney have routinely pointed out, in a Dem majority environment you fight hard to reach a compromise-compromise will not likely bring more Alito or Roberts-style confirmations. Thompson or McCain or Huckabee would find themselves in the same position.
I'm beginning to believe SCOTUS is just as much off the table as Abortion without a flip. We really need to not lose Congress, however too late it might already be.
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
Don't expect to flip congress.
The press has put a stink on the current administration. We need someone who can outmaneuver, outflank and generally run rings around them.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
It may even be in Rudy's interest, in trying to get nominated, to announce now that he will choose as his VP someone who is pro-life (and who has a history of advocating border enforcement).
I think two somewhat different people. From the cesspool of New York liberalism to the White House and a much different constituency, and with pressure from within his party, I can see a marked change.
In New York if you don't run on the full gamut of left wing weirdness you wind up getting about fifty votes from Queens County. Rudy is enough of a pragmatist to make a move to the right on this issue, much as people who favor Death will be outraged.
Hillary on the other hand will be handing out discount tickets in front of abortion clinics, and as everything else should be paid for by government, fevered talk of federal subsidies will befoul the air.
One of the better posts I've seen and right on about Hillary and media protection for her wretched and incomparably corrupt self.
Though they can't make her look any less bloated.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
"Rudy is enough of a pragmatist to make a move to the right on this issue"
No, no he's not. The fact that he's chosen not to despite everyone (including you) assuming he would is a significant sign.
Don't say you had no warnings.
What Rudy has or has not done to date is not a guaranty of future actions in the WH. There does seem to be something of a history of presidents acting differently once elected, give me time and I'll try and come up with a name or two.
Significant signs are not determinative of the future, which for both you and me may be something we ought not to bet the house on.
Thanks for the warning, neophyte that I am, let's see what happens. But if I'm right don't say you weren't told.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
His current behavior isn't conclusive evidence, but it's the only evidence we've got. On the other side, you seem to have... wishful thinking.
By definition an hypothesis is unfalsifiable, otherwise it would be proof or proved false, as in this case time may tell. The only evidence you have now may be the best evidence but that's for now, and it's not now we're talking about. I may add that even with your current evidence you are advancing an hypothesis yourself, that as president as opposed to NYC Mayor his conduct and position will not, cannot change.
So what it comes down to is that you prefer your hypothesis over my hypothesis, which gets us nowhere, satisfying though it may be.
As you say, the evidence you use is "inconclusive", but the evidence of candidates changing positions when elected is anything but, a sample of reasons given in my first post re. Rudy.
And it's fairly safe to say as President Rudy won't be attending any Gay Pride Parades either, something having to do with constituencies.
In any case and following the originating post I'll go with Rudy over Hillary any day on the abortion issue. With that and by your leave I'll bow out.
The point of the originating post is that Rudy would be better than Hillary, is that in dispute?
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
If he were to move significantly to the Right on abortion, you'd be here screaming "flip-flop!" and that he cannot be trusted.
True or not false :-D ...
I agree. ;)
But I wasn't just ready to accept an early-campaign flip-flop, I was hoping for it -- as a New Yorker, he's my guy. But he couldn't even bring himself to declare the obvious truth that Roe v. Wade was constitutional poison. It reflects not only on what he'll do but how seriously he takes the conservative bedrock of the party.
But here's the difference between pro-choice actual (not Chafee) Republicans and Democrats when it comes to abortion.
A pro-choice Republican President can be for the Born Alive Infants Act.
A pro-choice Republican President can be opposed to Partial Birth Abortion.
A pro-choice Republican President can maintain the Mexico City policy.
A pro-choice Republican President can support Crisis Pregnancy Centers.
A pro-choice Republican President can provide more support for adoption services in lieu of abortions.
A pro-choice Republican President can veto legislation forcing OB/GYNs to perform abortions on non-life threatening pregnancies.
A pro-choice Republican President can support Parental Notification Legislation.
Rudy can be pushed in these directions - and be influenced to pick good judges like we did with Bush vis-a-vis Miers.
Hillary cannot.
Any of the GOP candidates is MILES better than ANY of the Democrats.
Let me first take issue with a smaller point, and that is how the media would treat a Rodham Presidency. The media is a business, and the business of the media is business. There would be scandals gallore, probably including many more sexual escapades by her husband. Sex and scandal sell, and the media would be happy to have another four year soap opera just as they had with her husband.
On the larger issue, though, what if you're wrong? What if a pro-choice Republican President nominates and has confirmed, with 90+ votes, a nominee who considers precedent equal to the Constitution? Where does it leave the pro-life movement when we are stabbed in the front, not in the back, by a Republican President? I would say it's game, set, match for the other side. I can't imagine another pro-life nominee, as pro-lifers would be taken for granted (as I think we already are) by the Republican Party, and in four years time, we are once again told the exact same thing, and we don't have the money to stop it? Where are the tens of millions of dollars for a grassroots primary challenge to a sitting President? Who will say that we shouldn't renominate Rudy for the exact same reasons that they are arguing we should nominate him this time? Those making the argument for Rudy's candidacy now are the same ones who will tell us that he had no choice but to nominate someone chosen by Chuck Schumer when he does so. Rudy may not be a true believer on the issue, but there is no way he will pick a fight to get someone worthwhile confirmed in a Democrat Senate.
The problem with a Giuliani nomination for the pro-life movement, is that he and many of his supporters are rather open about trying to create a new winning electoral coalition nationally.
If Giuliani can take back some of the old northeastern liberal Republicans and ex-Republicans to make his electoral college majority, then the Republican party can permanently tell pro-lifers to get lost.
And then the cause of ending abortion on demand in America willl be in big trouble.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
A. You are wrong, there is no way that would ever happen, especially since Giuliani has basically pledged to be effectively pro-life.
B. Even if you are right, it would indeed be bad for Republicans to lose their lock on the pro-life vote, I'm not actually sure it would be bad for the pro-life cause. If pro-lifers had champions in both parties, (I mean real champions, not fake pro-lifers like Reid and Casey), I think we'd actually have a better chance at making progress. That's not reality right now, but if your hypo were correct (as I've said, it isn't), those voters would go somewhere, and eventually they would have a voice one way or another.
Jindal/Palin '16
Chafee Republicans do not have nearly enough numbers to make up for the loss of pro-lifers to the GOP. In fact, most of them would still be opposed to him on most other issues where he disagrees with Democrats.
It's why he has been shoe-horning himself in front of SoCon crowds to beg us to please(!) not sit it out if he wins the nomination.
I hate to say this, because I abhor abortions, but even if we had 9 Scalia's on the SCOTUS and they overturned Roe, we would not likely reduce the number of abortions in this country. We would likely reduce the number of legal abortions, but recent studies http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/12/news/12abortion.php
and history show us that making abortion illegal doesn't really reduce the rate of abortions. The only way to reduce and eliminate abortions is to eliminate the need for them. That begins, in my opionion, with teaching children self-respect and respect for others. It included appropriate sex-education that emphasises abstince as well as birth control. We may also need to help private organizations and even the government assist with adoptions, early child healthcare and daycare. It's a very complex issue and on principle, I think abortion, especially after the first tri-mester should be illegal, but we won't actually start making a dent in the abortion rate without takling it as a social issue as well as a legal one.
This is why I think the "take my ball and going home" people are really being foolish.
You said, "Either way, I seriously don't get the logic that would lead anyone to believe that there would be no difference between a Rudy and a Hillary Presidency when it comes to abortion. There would be - and it's not even just judges; it's the continued existence of pregnancy crisis centers, it's parental notification, it's keeping partial birth abortion bans in place, it's not repealing the Born Alive Infants Act, it's not exporting abortion outside America's borders, it's not forcing doctors to perform abortions on pain of losing their license to practice, etc"
There is a VAST difference between Rudy and Hillary. Hillary is a radical feminist on abortion and related issues. Pro-lifers won't have a chance to turn her large intitutional ship around for decades.
Your evaluation pretty well parallels my own journey on this subject. You've got much more talent expressing it however. Thank you.
=============
Life is not fair, but It's still a Wonderful Life!
I am.
I'm also imaging three or four Stevens or Souters over the next four to eight years.
Can't say I see a whole lot of difference.
... while the best we can reasonably expect is a Roberts.
The best from a Hillary Presidency would be a Souter. What we would invariably get is a Ginsburg.
I'd still go with Rudy here.
If Rudy goes left as the Republican standard-bearer, the long-term consequences for the party and the conservative movement are dire.
The notion that only the next election is important is how we ended up with the mess we're in now. Yes, immediate elections are crucial. But we always pay for the residue of compromise and inattention.
Republican betrayal on immigration came *this* close to wrecking the right for a generation, if not more. Don't forget: they think they can get away with it.