Captain's Quarters -

You can expect Giuliani to be about as faithful to his supporters as he has been to his wife.

Personally, I am quite sick and tired of "social conservatives" dictating the anti-abortion line as the only allowed "conservative" position.

I hope a third candidate does run. Then when Hillary is elected because the "pro life" guy manages to siphon enough votes to make the Hillary-nightmare a reality, the Republican party can finally jettison the anti-abortion anchor around its neck.

So, lets recap:
[1] the Democrats will tell you how they will spend your money
[2] the Republicans will tell you how they want you to use your body.
[3] the islamo-terrorists will tell you how they will end your life.

You should know, Tim, that some in New York have said that Giuliani isn't really a conservative on any issue. They say that he voted for McGovern. Then too, consider what happened the last time that Giuliani ran against Clinton.

There are many pro-life candidates running who have been there all along -- Huckabee, Brownback, McCain, Thompson. The pro-life crowd's problem is not that they lack a candidate. It may be that they divide the pro-life vote; but even if some dropped out, it likely would not matter. It seems McCain voters go more to Rudy than some other pro-life candidate and the others have such small vote totals that they do not cover the difference between Rudy and Thompson.

It may just be that there are other issues that override abortion for most Republican voters.
Right now it seems the Republican party is making up its mind that Giuliani is OK

Abortion is murder. Failure to acknowledge that takes Liberal mental gymnastics, and tells us all we need to know about you. Fred Barnes doesn't realize conservatives are so angry about Scamnesty, now LOST, and having a Lib like Rudy foisted on us, they will let the GOP lose in the hope it will eventually disintegrate. Why, because they have principles, not a relative morality.

Given the choice of the lesser of two evils, why would one make a choice that would insure the election of the greater evil. What ever the christian conservatives fear or detest in Giuliani, real or imagined is surely a guarantee in its implimentation in Hillary. Who do you think will appoint the most conservative judges?
I would like to point out the first Clinton took office because of a third party candidate. If social conservatives are so childish and selfish as to sabotage whoever the Republicans nominate, they will be the ones most damaged in the long run. Hillary is no friend of the christian right, or America for that matter. The thought of her as President frightens the hell out of me.

If Guiliani wanted to show his sincerity regarding how he's going to operate on the abortion issue, choosing as advisors on judicial policy fellow Republicans who were associated with Supreme Court appointments that the pro-lifers clearly approve of (Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito) would be a good step. The inevitable hysterical reaction from NARAL, et al, that would inevitably follow such choices would provide him with some useful advertising.

Personally, I am quite sick and tired of "social conservatives" dictating the anti-abortion line as the only allowed "conservative" position.

Agree, agree, and agree. I just don't see it as being a litmus test issue, because - really - what can a President in and of himself do about it? He can stack the Supreme Court, I suppose, but even that is not going to be a guarantee of changing the status quo.

Socially, there has been a shift towards the pro-life side in the last 30 years. I just don't see any further changes coming to where it will make a hill of beans difference if Davecatbones calls someone a murderer or not. Abortion is not going to be outlawed despite the caterwauling of the anti-abortionists, and I really can't see how a mere Presidential candidate could make an iota of difference in that reality.

Presidential candidates should take the same sort of stand as Supreme Court judges and just refuse to answer that question on the grounds that it's old and boring and stupid.

I think that Barnes has missed the mark a bit. While abortion is a major factor driving the drive for a third party, it is not the only one.

Social conservatives that I talk to speak of Bush's appalling weakness in office - even when the GOP controlled Congress. Even before last year's blowout losses, Bush would only occasionally pop up on TV and in front of audiences to give uninspiring speeches in which he looked and sounded bored. For all practical purposes he has abandoned the political battlefield and let Democrats run roughshod over the US military.

There are countless examples of Bush's knock-kneed leadership. When Prateus was smeared by the MoveOn brownshirts, Bush was among the very last to defend his general. When Dick Durbin compared US troops to Nazis, Bush reacted limply. When Democrat Congressional leaders falsely claimed the Iraq war was lost earlier this year, Bush was AWOL. When John Murths smeared the Marine Corps over Haditha, Bush was nowhere to be found.

And what did Bush reserve his firepower for? Amnesty for illegals - a move that could have scripted by Howard Dean. The only thing saving Bush's presidency is the fact the Democrat Party is even more incompetent than he is - and insane to boot.

It's true that Bush has doggedly pursued the war in Iraq - and is winning despite himself. It is also true that his judicial choices have been mostly excellent. These are major accomplishments. But the entire Bush administration's history has been littered with unforced errors to the point that he is inviting ruinous comparisons to Jimmy Carter for sheer bungling. Bush remains his own worst enemy.

Giuliani has an excellent record in leadership and a strong national security stance, and that is why this caterwauling anti-abortion social conservative is planning to vote for him despite his stance on abortion and spending (I suspect that Giuliani may out-do Bush's profligate record on the latter). Giuliani also understands that you have to stand up to Democrats and the MSM once in a while - and stop whining and cringing every time they criticize you.

If social conservatives are so childish and selfish as to sabotage whoever the Republicans nominate

Again, where did the sabotage come from the last time that Giuliani ran against Clinton?

Posted by Jim Harris | October 13, 2007 6:29 PM
You can expect Giuliani to be about as faithful to his supporters as he has been to his wife.

****************

~GEE! WHICH of his THREE wives are you POSSIBLY referring to?~

SROTFLTHH!!!

I think it would BEHOOVE the MODERATES to remember AFTER THE GENERAL ELECTION - ANY THIRD PARTY VOTES the bolting Conservatives do give to someone they like better is NOT GOING TO BE VOTES THAT WERE TAKEN FROM RUDI.

They'll be the votes the GOP DROVE FROM THE GOP BECAUSE THEY INSIST ON A RINO CANDIDATE EVEN AFTER HAIVNG BEEN WARNED THESE VOTERS WILL NOT COME TO THAT TABLE NO MATTER WHAT!

People who would OTHERWISE have NEVER voted for Rudi or other RINOS, but would have simple STAYED AT HOME.

Voters who were NEVER Rudi's to LOSE!

Posted by KW64 | October 13, 2007 6:47 PM

There are many pro-life candidates running who have been there all along -- Huckabee, Brownback, McCain, Thompson. The pro-life crowd's problem is not that they lack a candidate. It may be that they divide the pro-life vote;
*************************

The more the pro-life crowd looks at these other RINOS, the more they'll find severe problems with each of them, NOT LEAST OF ALL with the so-called Christian, Huckabee.

Fred the Clinton ENABLER and Brownback - a vote for McCain politics as usual - Huckabee, contending for the Dim Healthcare micromanagement vote - all pro-ILLEGAL ALIEN over the concerns of American Citizens.

Just so barfing.

Like Zell Miller said, I didn't leave my party - my party left ME.

These men never had my vote to LOSE.

And as for the Arnold Schwartzeneggar Syndrome of the moderate mantra of "ELECTABILITY" - yesterday, Dah Ahnold Man signed a bill that BANNED THE USE of terms in Public School that are offensive to some people - "mom", "dad", "husband", "wife", "traditional family", etc.

So tell us again how WE are screwing things up by refusing to consider voting for OTHER RINOS.

Giuliani, according to conventional wisdom, and quite a few polls, is supposed to be the only Republican who can beat Hillary. OK. I'd much prefer Giuliani to Hillary any day.

But, the Giuliani ascendency typifies what is seriously wrong with the Republican Party today.

Instead of constantly grooming new and younger Conservatives over the years, we, the GOP, mostly have settled for whomever is "electable." Giuliani is the current best example of what happens to a Party that has lost focus, has surrendered its core principles for the expediency of getting soemone, anyone, elected over whomever is running as a Dem.

The result?

A lot of RINO's, and senior RINO's in our ranks, within the Party decision-makers, and way too many in Congress. I'd add, we have one in the present White House as well.

Do I want to see us do anything that will get Hillary elected? No, not really. But, when are we going to bite the bullet and let the surgeons saw off the RINO limbs? Or at least, heal ourselves from within so that the RINO's will stop trying to be a little bit left or centrist, and instead embrace Conservatism.

I have heard too many in our ranks say that a guy like Thompson, for example, doesn't have the ability to raise money, thus isn't really a serious candidate compared to Giuliani. Huckabee and Brownback and Hunter are put in this category as well. Ron Paul is a separate story...he is raising money, but he will pull a Perot soon enough.

So...the ability to raise money is the arbiter of who we hold out as our Party candidate? And that, by extension, makes us what?

Being a Conservative, being a social conservative, does not mean we hate children, minorities, the less fortunate. But time after time we let the little things slide, and a lot of us start believing the myth...and when confronted by liberals, we hem and haw and dance to their music, not our own. Why? Show of hands, how many of us who call ourselves republican, Conservative, or just anti-Dem are willing to take the long shot and try to get a candidate on top at our Convention who is not a major money raiser but is a Conservative? Select a candidate who is not all about media savvy but is a Conservative and has the record to show for it? In essence, when are we going to get off our backsides and start acting like Conservatives? Reclaim our Party? Get a real Conservative or two or three or more elected to the Presidency, and a Conservative member of Congress in every district we can muster?

The longer we try to elect Giuliani's because they somehow can beat the other side we take yet another step away from our goal, and when the other side keeps moving the goal lines, we make it impossible to reclaim our Conservatism as anything other than a comic foil for the Left.

Been a Conservative since my 20's. Been voting GOP since my 20's. After more than 30 years, I would have thought that maintaining Conservatism would mean something more to a lot more Republicans than I have witnessed over the past three or four cycles of Presidential elections, and a lot less in the many intervening Congressional elections.

Maybe we deserve to get out heads handed to us on a platter this time around. Maybe that is what the GOP really needs.

Rudy has said multiple times that he will appoint judges the likes of Scalia and Roberts. We have to separate his personal views from what he at least claims he will do in office. The LEFT gets this in spades - they may not agree with a candidate on much but they still show up and vote. Conservatives get their noses out of joint and stay home.

Base question: If the Dems win, how many judges do you think Hill/Bill will put in the courts? As many as they can, all in their 40's. They win, we lose and for a LOOOOOONNNNNGGGG time.

Much of voting is the for the better (not best) of two candidates. The left gets this - we better or we can watch much of our freedoms disappear.

I'm as frustrated with Bush as many are but he's got 14 months left. History will prove him right on Iraq. We need to get back the house and stave off a filibuster proof senate. Rudy gets the Islamic threats; he told the Saudis to pound sand and refused their $10 mill after 9/11; he supports our military; he wants abortion and gay marriage to be state issues - and this is where they belong. Also, he wants the job. Thompson is very questionable in this category - saw him at a fundraiser - no fire in the belly - witty at times but fire? And frankly, I don't think he's that conservative.

People are acting like tomorrow is the general Rudy vs. Hillary --- it's not. Let's get together, and vote for a real conservative and reject Rudy who did not prevent the 1993 Terrorist Attack on WTC nor acted like the toughest man on Earth after that.

Rudy Giuliani is pretending to know what he is going to do once president, but he doesn't. He is more lights and mirrors. A false conservative. We need to do better. Conservative, conservative, conservative! Nothing less will do. Surely not a pro-abortionist.

Posted by Davecatbone | October 13, 2007 6:53 PM

Yeah! What Rudi doesn't lose on Abortion, he'll lose on Shamnesty - since he sued the Feds TWICE to make them leave NYC alone as a Sanctuary City!

Those upset about Dah Anold Man signing the bill to ban the TRADITIONAL FAMILY WORDS from Public School will remember Rudi's adultery and support of homosexual rights, and should honestly wonder about that "PROMISE" HE HAS ALREADY MODIFIED to nominate "strict constructionist" judicial appointees - which he already PROMISED NOT TO USE A ROE V WADE LITNUS TEST for.

Then there are those who are concerned about the STATE OF THE UNION when they see a politician willing to set aside a major election so HE can be "APPOINTED" as royalty to the position - as those of us who specially tuned in to see Rudi receive an award for his 9/11 work on an INTERNATIONALLLY AIRED LIVE BROADCAST, a few weeks after Bloomburg's 2002 Election - as we watched him in TOTAL SHOCK stuttering to the hawkers at that ceremony in the live audience, "Well...if they really WANT me...
whuh?, what? huh?"
And then take TWO WEEKS to give a DEMOCRAT-style "apology" of sorts - the "if anyone was offended" sort.

Not your George Washington MOMENT, there, Rudi!!!

Sorry guys. Rudi lost my vote back then in 2002 FOR ANY ELECTED OFFICE OR APPOINTED JUDICIARY POSITION FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE NO MATTER WHAT IT WAS!

He has done NOTHING to regain it, NOT EVEN by going head to head against Hillary, again!

"I would like to point out the first Clinton took office because of a third party candidate."

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

I used to think the only reason Clinton won either election was because of Perot.
I didn't vote for Perot, either time - he's nuts and a Clinton buddy, and a Planned Parenthood owner/pusher/lobbyist.

But I didn't vote for Robert Dole EITHER. I did a write-in.

I voted in the Primary - Dole was NEVER an option for me because of things he did before he ever registered as a candidate. Just like Rudi did.

But since then, I have talked to the Perot voters I know in real life. And nearly everyone I know in real life did vote for Perot!
NONE OF THEM EXPECTED OR WANTED HIM TO WIN. THAT shocked me.
(The guy I voted for, I wished could win, I put a name down that stood for what I stand for. I knew he wouldn't win, but he was what I wanted.)

But NONE of the Perot voters EVER considered voting for Bush Sr the SECOND time, and NEVER considered voting for Dole at all.

None of those folks are on the internet now.

NONE of them will vote for Rudi, and most of them will stay home.

If James Dobson throws his support to a 3rd party candidate, the advertising won't matter, they'll see one news notice that the person has Dobson's support and they'll vote for that, INSTEAD OF STAYING HOME, for two reasons:
1) To support Dobson STANDING UP FOR VALUES IN AMERICA TODAY since the GOP does not
2) To send a message to the GOP, they don't expect the GOP to ever act like they hear!

Brand new Abortion movie out - "NEUTRAL" - showing both sides, with v iews from pro-abortions, pro-"CHOICE", UNDECIDEDS, and also anti-abortionists, supposed to be filmed without prejudice towards any one - but against a backdrop of black and white film of abortion stuff filmed secretly for the last 5 or so years.
I think it is called "Lake of Fire", or something equally "neutral". :)

TRUE.

I imagine since it has just started being shown, in the last few weeks, that it will prolly stir things up a bit regarding Abortion as a political issue by the time of the General Election.

I'm pro-life. It would be very difficult for me to vote for Rudy. I may vote for him because he is the lesser of two evils, or because he supports the war on terror, but the vote would be very reluctant if not painful. Every pro-life person I know without exception is of the same opinion. The pary would lose our support, our endorsement.

I see no future for the pro-life position in a party dominated by Rudy. He is farther from me on this than many Democrats. I suspect that a lot of pro-lifers would be willing to wait four years for a better candidate.

No matter what I do, many many pro-life voters (and most pro-life people vote) would sit out the election even if there is no alternate candidate. I would NOT blame them. Most pro-life people certainly would not contribute financially or otherwise help with the campaign.

Rudy is simply not viable.

What in the world does the religious right want? They were oh so thrilled when GWB was elected, fine man, good Christian etc. etc. Other than the war on terror & his 2 justices appointed to the SC, while definitely not insignificant, what else has Bush done that is so great for the country? As someone else pointed out Bush has the bully pulpit, but is unable or unwilling to use it.

OK, let Dobson et al talk you into taking your marbles and heading home. You're apt to find out that moderate 'pubs will say toodles and not much else.

Hopefully, there are still enough Reagan Democrats who would prefer a President Guiliani rather than President Clinton.

If Hillary becomes president and the Dems increase their seats in Congress, we'll get astronomically higher taxes that'll cripple the economy;

insane regulation will strangle our businesses;

socialism will be rammed down our necks;

the Supreme Court will go left for decades to come;

we'll retreat in our war against Islamofascism;

we'll throw open our borders;

and abortion will become a sacrament, a rite of passage.

But at least conservatives will still have their principles.

If all Giuliani and the GOP can offer as a core value is "defeat Hillary" next year, what have we really gained insofar as long term gains are concerned?

If hating Hillary is to become our mantra, how different, really, are we than those Bush-haters on the Left?

If Conservative core values are no longer to be the core of the Republican platform, does one really expect for Conservatives to once again blindly chose the lesser of two evils?

Is there no candidate on the Right who will not only promise, but work, from day one of their candidacy, to ensure secure borders, an adherance to the Constitution in passing our laws and holding the judiciary to the fire for not making sweeping nuanced and penumbra interpretations of those same laws? Is there going to be a continuing and growing of the nanny state?

If we do not, as a people and a party, define with precision our platform, and resolve to adher to that platform, no matter how difficult, what are we to become? Just another version of the Democratic Party of 1960?

Yes, a lot of Conservatives "may" stay home. But maybe this is what the GOP really needs. Instead of being Democrat Party-lite, why can't we become the Conservative GOP again? Or is it too difficult?

Having one thing...pro-life...being the only touchstone for many many GOP voters shows how far we have fallen away from our core values. Maybe we deserve to go down in flames in 2008.

Roe IS the law! Exactly what "talking" does Guiliani have to do?

It it's up to the religious right? Hillary's our next president.

But there are plenty of sane voters out there; many more in this generation, than used to exist back in time when people "took instruction" from the pulpit.

Of course, since I'm an old-timer; I know the truth. The Pope gave instructions to the priests to ban certain books, for instance. And, back in the 1950's these books became best sellers.

In other words? People didn't take insructions from their religious leaders.

And, these days you've got a wider variety to the belief systems people adhere to.

For proof, lots of people are reading Christopher Hitchens book: God is not great. And, there's no rioting going on at any bookstores.

Some things come along, and just get taken for granted.

I have no idea how many abortions are done in any given year; but I read someplace, yesterday, that 90% of all women have, or know someone's who has had, an abortion.

There are also families out there, benefiting from medicine's miracles, who are given a less than healthy baby to take home. And, this is sometimes viewed by others "as a tragedy." One where they want genetic information when they're dealing with pregnancies, themselves.

Since you know there are ultrasounds done; and you know that genetic testing is done; what happens when those tests show horrible results?

Roe is the LAW. Hence, there are LEGAL choices, today. Far better than what was when religion put a strangle-hold on birth control information. And, back alley abortions killed millions. OF WOMEN! Back alleys make this a very dangerous procedure.

Roe changed this.

Ronald Reagan, two years before ROE became the National standard, and the LAW, he signed into being legalized abortions for Californians. One of the few states that did this before ROE made it nationally available.

The screaming antics, however, have set aside any gains republicans could have made in the market place. Perhaps, for screaming about a 60-member majority in the senate. SOmething the religious nutters said "would make them bullet-proof."

People voted, not by screaming out anything about choice. Just voted the congress critters down a peg.

So, yes. The religious right has been going at this thing for a long, long, time, now.

Unlike 55 MPH laws, which got tossed when most drivers drove at least 10 miles an hour faster; all over this country. You can see how people vote for what they want.

And, they'll vote for Hillary, if Guiliani is not the republican candidate.

Can Guiliani's health fail? Didn't Arik Sharon's?

Catering to the religious right is one of those things that keeps the republicans from claiming libertarian and independent voters.

To win. You need everybody.

To lose, you just need to continue the antics that give you senators like Larry Craig. Able to talk a good game; while he slithers under toilet stalls to find the sex he likes best.

To each his own.

(By the way, before Roe? It was criminal, how Catholic women, in droves, sought out hysterectomies. As a birth control! Because there was no sympathy for them from the church, when they wanted birth control information.

Roe is one of the changes. And, the PILL is the other.

When something is LEGAL, you are not breaking the LAW when you "do it." And, it seems, as I said, far more people take advantage of the LAW, than used to be the case.

Fred Barnes' Historical Revisionism is noted:

PAT BUCHANON was the name on the ballot which 1000 Floridians voted for by accident and which in turn gave Bush the State of Florida.

Nader had nothing to do with it.

Fred Barnes should b ashamed of himself for not being honest on this matter.

history IS - you try re-writing it and you WILL be called out on it.

"Abortion is murder. Failure to acknowledge that takes Liberal mental gymnastics, and tells us all we need to know about you."

Really - Davecatbone? who made you "judge, jury and executioner"? - yourself?

Lets look at your bold claim above shall we?

"Abortion is murder"

Really? how so? 1. If we were talking about a Human Being - yes - right? However many do not see that clump of cells as a Human Being any more than they see a a Frog Embreo anyhting resembling a frog - both are just "clump of cells".

So ending the life force of a "clump of cells" is murder? - hardly Bubba.

no gymnastics needed, unless it is you trying to explain how a clump of cells is no fact a human being.

.........this aught to be good ;-).

"History will prove him right on Iraq"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

ya, like it did with LBJ on Nam.

No Bubba. History will NOT be kind in this matter.

we will not "Win" this one and the history books will tell our children of the folly of the Boy King in his illegal neogoon fantasy gunboat transformation of the ME into a Democracy - shear folly and utter failure.

we lost - deal with it. in ten yrs you will know I'm right. - you will have the history books telling your kids the same song.

"catering to the religious right is one of those things that keeps the republicans from claiming libertarian and independent voters."

DAMN STRAIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

no truer words ever said!

However many do not see that clump of cells as a Human Being any more than they see a a Frog Embreo anyhting resembling a frog - both are just "clump of cells".

Thread hijack!! But what the heck - I'll bite. I like watching the Kool-Aid Krowd try to make an intellectual argument (stop laughing!). It's like watching a wolf trying to play a cello.

gaffo - are you made of “anyhting” like a clump of cells? Or are folks like you - by virtue of being morally and ethically superior (and full of Kool-Aid) – constructed out of non-cellular non-CFC environmentally-friendly union-labeled supernatural material inspected and approved by the DNC?

If you can prove that you are not a clump of cells, then we can continue with my smackdown of you. Otherwise – I don’t bother with non-cellular beings. Discrimination, you know.

This aught to be good, indeed.

Carol - great post!!

seems like the HPV vacine is the equivalent of the Pill today. Christoimposers trying to make the HPV vacine not available to all girls via the public vacine.

like denying a vacine will make the girl abstain from sex out of fear!!

christ-imposers rule your party Carol............maybe they jumping ship would be a good thing (might allow me to seriously look at supporting a more Libertarian minded candidate from your side also --- i'm currently stuck with Dems.).

"Or are folks like you - by virtue of being morally and ethically superior"

huh? only ones here who are "Morally Superior" are the Kristocrats like you and Davo - shoving your vision of "true morals" down our throuts (whether we want it or not).

Most of you folks end up being hypocrites to boot - like Larry Craig / teddy Haggart.

condemning others while buggering your own.

gotta love the stinch of such hypocracy.

yes?

.............

now - tell us all how a clump of cells is a Human Being.

this aught to be good ;-)...........

There seems a serious pall of Paul in here tonite...

No matter what I do, many many pro-life voters (and most pro-life people vote) would sit out the election even if there is no alternate candidate.

Interesting. For this poster, the opportunity to tell a pregnant woman who is a total stranger what to do with her own body takes precedence over every other consideration including terrorists trying to blow us up and Mexicans trying to swarm us to death.

I truly hope s/he is wrong in claiming "many many" others who think (or not) in the same way.

Giuliani as the GOP nominee will certainly cause a lot of hand wringing by the religious right but will ultimately be beneficial for the GOP long term.

If the religious right sits it out, Hillary or worse yet, one of the other two yapping lap dogs will win and the anti-abortionists will lose the opportunity to continue their Jihad against nudity, sex and reproduction. They might even wakeup one day to find abortion clinic picketing declared a hate crime and a civil rights violation to boot.

Or they can hold their nose and vote for Giuliani who will also not carry their water beyond a few words at his inauguration. Certainly no proposed anti-anything legislation as a payback.

Either way, a Giuliani nomination might possibly mark the beginning of the cure for the "social conservative" disease currently infecting the GOP.

So much nonsense so little time

Look kids, this has been an exhausting 12 year run for the Republicans.

Much of the shift in power is natural. That's the reality of US politics.

Giuliani may be a very good alternative for the party. A true blue conservative is going to get cooked this cycle; the county is simply tired politically and ready for a change.

The far right needs to give it a rest (of course they'll overplay their hand like every extreme)and accept the fact that the era of "kissing the ring" is over.

He's the hybrid candidate the public may go for.

He's a Prius in a field of Dodge Darts.

"Other than the war on terror & his 2 justices appointed to the SC, while definitely not insignificant, what else has Bush done that is so great for the country?"

Tax cuts.

They work. Proof is in the pudding.

*sigh* There are obviously people on the SoCon Right who are unwilling to accept that some tactical losses in the service of incremental progress toward strategic aims is preferable to a massive strategic loss which is nonetheless instructive and purifying.

OK. Whatever. I'd die to defend your right to your views and principles, even if I don't share them, yadda-yadda.

This whole abortion issue is simply predicated on questions which are rooted in axiomatic metaphysical presuppositions on the nature of life. They are not amenable to resolution via argument because they lie beneath the stratum which is accessible to logical discourse, period.

So, given that the answers to these questions can't be ultimately resolved by discussion, it falls to the open marketplace of collective societal Will for them to sink or swim according to their fitness.

And for those of a religious bent (to whose ranks I once belonged...guess that makes me dead-again...), it's only fair to add that the ultimate proving ground of such matters is the individual soul, whose choices will either encumber them with sin or leaven them with redemption (subject, or course, to Grace), irrespective of whatever laws may or may not be in place in their earthly setting. Just saying.

So, I will be voting for Rudy, respecting those who don't, and hoping against hope that a Clinton presidency will not be the price of this experiment.

Posted by tim stevens | October 14, 2007 1:09 AM

...They might even wakeup one day to find abortion clinic picketing declared a hate crime and a civil rights violation to boot. ...
******************************

You mean like the way that RINO Arnold just outlawed TRADITIONAL FAMILY TERMS in the Public Schools of California, on Friday??? Terms like mom, dad, husband, wife, traditional family, etc??? For being OFFENSIVE?

And gee, didn't the SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES in California gang up with the GOP MODERATES to vote for Arnold because HE was so much more ELECTABLE than Tom McClintock?

And THIS is the LATEST reward?

So! Please, tell me again, what is the CARROT here, and what is the STICK!

Because these BENEFITS you guys are telling us there are to having Rudi instead of Hillary are just not really manifesting, to some of us, right now.

The only way the Republican Party might jettison the religious conservatives is if they pull a 'Nader.' So probably it would be best if they did. I honestly hope we can survive Hillary.

I'll vote for Rudy in the primary and cross my fingers. The problem with the god squad is not that they refuse to accept abortion, it's that they plan to use the coercive power of the state to make their fellow citizens accept their views. It also doesn't help that they're nuts.

The American People don't want a theological dictum. That's why there hasn't been a religious conservative elected to statewide office in California for about sixteen years.

Think about it. Religious conservative = lose the election.

gaffo said

Really? how so? 1. If we were talking about a Human Being - yes - right? However many do not see that clump of cells as a Human Being any more than they see a a Frog Embreo anyhting resembling a frog - both are just "clump of cells

Gee, where to begin? First of all, it's spelled "embryo" -- every knowlegable person knows that. Second of all, every human being has a beginning -- there's a spot where they become human. The scientific term for that spot is conception (from the Latin for "beginning") -- and it's when the egg has been fertilized by the sperm and all the DNA associated with a new human being are contained in that single cell.

religions or laws may set different places for the origin of a human -- one such point is when the child is born (the head "crowns"), another is when the child takes its first breath. Yet another is the "third trimester" But the point is that the child has been a human by scientific reckoning for many months prior to any of those points.

That your "clump of cells" doesn't yet look like an adult human is not a guage of their humanity -- the scientist can readily determine whether a blastocyte ("clump of cells") is human or frog just by examining the DNA of one of those cells. In fact, the scientist can determine the parentage of the cells by such an examination as well, provided the scientist also has cells to analyse from the parents.

The above facts are also prime indicators as to why embryonic stem cell research is a dead end path -- embryonic stem cells derived from a now-dead embryo contain human DNA different from any possible recipient. If embryonic stem cells can be induced to grow into an organ or tissue suitable for transplant (which certainly is possible), that organ or tissue is an exact tissue match only for the original donor (the embryonic human) from which the cells were originally acquired. Any other recipient of that organ or tissue has a high probability of rejecting the organ or tissue if it is emplaced into that recipient. The recipient will require a life-long regime of anti-rejection drugs to reduce that possibility.

Mwalimu Daudi is quite right -- humans are indeed clumps of cells. But poor gaffo may be right too -- he may not be a clump of cells, but, rather, just a clump of hot air. And, by simple boolean logic, what does that state about gaffo's humanity?

What should Jane Fonda say to be a great spokesmodel for Hummer?

The better questions are: Can the Republican Party allow one of its segments to dictate to the entire Party? Especially on a trailing edge lost cause like banning all abortions. There are what, 2 or 3 votes on the Court for that? There is no way that is going to change much, and losing an election to fly that flag is beyond stupid.

The Christian conservatives have had their guy for 8 years. They can play by the rules, and take turns, or they can bloody well leave and be damned.

But don't think they'll ever be listened to again if they do.

Three observations:
(1) Whether Rudy's pro-choice stance disqualifies him is related to whether abortion is in fact murder. No reasonable person would support a candidate who thinks it's ok to slaughter hundreds of thousands of children each year. Pro-choice posters here may disagree about abortion being murder, but they make no sense when they imply that pro-life voters are overreacting. And the allegation that this is an issue of religious domination is quite dishonest (or remarkably ignorant).

(2) When the field is narrowed to two bad candidates, a citizen's responsibility is to vote for the lesser of the two evils. We are not at that point yet, so vote pro-life in the primaries. But in the general election one may have to vote Giuliani over Clinton - staying home would be irresponsible. A third candidate vote may actually be preferable, however, since if Giuliani loses due to vote splitting the Republican party will likely take care to select a pro-life candidate the next time. Such a vote would be good on principle, bad tactically, but possible good strategically. Weighing the long-term harm and deciding how to minimize it may therefore lead people to both vote for or against Giuliani in 2008. So for those who castigate the pro-life bloc for not considering the strategic picture, respect the fact that the long-term lesser of two evils here is non-obvious.

(3) Giuliani can't be trusted. He claims he is pro-choice; i.e. he believes that a woman has the fundamental right to terminate pregnancy, but he is promising to act contrary to that belief. In short, he is promising to trample on what he believes is a woman's right. It may be difficult to believe Romney concerning his changed stance, but it's actually irrational to believe Giuliani.

"A third candidate vote may actually be preferable, however, since if Giuliani loses due to vote splitting the Republican party will likely take care to select a pro-life candidate the next time."

Be careful what you wish for....the pro-life movement needs moderate and independent Republicans to be effective politically.

Piss enough people off and you may find yourself wondering for decades in the diaspora.

The majority of the Republican party is pro-choice through the first trimester, many through the second.

Where politics is concerned, religious conviction can spill over into arrogance or better yet, political suicide.

Posted by Gaunilon

One of the best reasoned comments ever.

Hugh Beaumont, do you support abortion?

I'll vote for Rudy in the primary and cross my fingers. The problem with the god squad is not that they refuse to accept abortion, it's that they plan to use the coercive power of the state to make their fellow citizens accept their views. It also doesn't help that they're nuts.

Exactly the same arguments were made against the religious extremists who wanted to make slavery illegal.

You're worse than "nuts" -- you're evil.

This just isn't sitting right:

In order to run a third-party candidate, the pro-life forces willing to splinter will need to raise a lot of money in a short period of time for their candidate. They haven't been able to do that in the primaries now; what makes anyone think they could do it for some unknown personality that hasn't bothered to enter the GOP primaries? The race is still three months away from its first vote -- why not put all of that effort to use now?

Why does it need to be a new, "unknown personality" who has to build an entire campaign infrastructure from scratch? It seems far more likely that one of the current, pro-life GOP candidates would fill the bill far better. It's not that hard to picture a Thompson, or more likely Brownback, either being delusional enough to think they could win or having dined on enough sour grapes to want to stick it to Rudy and the party that failed to nominate them, picking up that ball and running with it.

Fundraising? They already have the machine in place. Timing? How long did it take Lieberman, upon losing the Connecticut primary, to get on the ballot as an independent? Two days. The potential pro-life candidate would only have to have the people in place, gathering signatures, etc. in all the states they would hope to be competitive in, and after it became clear they needed to drop out of the GOP race, to start the wheels in motion.

Not saying it should or will happen, just that it's hardly an impossibility by any means.

Guiliani will never win a general. McCain or Thompson are the only choices that could win.

However, next year is more likely the Democrats' year. So if pro-life forces ever want to stand on principal to make a point, that would be as good a year as any.

I just don't get it. The most sacred tenet of the Social Theocrats platform, one of absolutely ZERO tolerance for abortion, is not in its self, enough to generate at least a calling. Doesn't it come home squarely and unequivocally that after 8 years of supporting Dear Leader and the GOP, the Social Theocrats realize they've been used and marginalized beyond? Man, the gaul of the GOP's leadership. It's almost like blackmail at this point, insist on running a third party or independent candidate in protest and then be blamed for handing the election over to HRC. I think the point has to be made even WITH the Social Theocrats votes, the GOP may still loose. What a pickle huh? Actually a no brainer for me. Reminds me of the scene in Alice in Wonderland with the Walrus, his stooge and the oysters. Guess which one is the Social Theocrats?

What if the Dems finance a pro-life candidate?

I see benefits all around.

Socialized medicine. Abortion more available. etc.

What is not to like about a Hillary win?

Abortion is murder.

I'd love to see abortion either go underground and/or 1 million women a year prosecuted for premeditated murder. Life sentences.

Too many black men in prison not enough white women.

This could even the score.

Just think of the benefits.

The anti-abortion crowd confuses the potential with the actual -- and rights are not determined by potentials.

For instance, every human being at birth is a potential serial killer -- yet no one would assert that the newborn be treated as such and put to death.

Every human being at birth is a potential inventor of some fabulously valuable product -- yet no one would declare that the newborn be paid royalties for an invention that he only has the potential to conceive.

An embryo is only a potential human being. Until it becomes an actual human being -- until it becomes a separate, biologically self-sufficient entity breathing its own air, digesting and processing its own food, etc., -- it is only a body part. It matters not that it is a human body part -- fingernails are human body parts too -- it is not a human being, and thus does not possess rights.

Furthermore, even if it were a human being, no human being has the right to use the body of another human being against their will.

A potential human being cannot be said to possess rights -- certainly not rights that trump the rights of the actual human being that is carrying it.

If we put the government in charge of reproduction we can remove this scourge. Hell will be rent forever.

I propose weekly testing of all women for pregnancy and video taping all sex acts. We have to keep an eye on people to prevent them from doing the wrong thing.

Implanting tracking chips at birth would also be a big help.

To all the pro lifers out there, get a life. No pun intended.

Your views and your candidates have absolutely no chance of ever being elected in your lifetime. Ever. Focus on e-v-e-r. Keep reminding yourself of that central theme.

The best candidate you could ever hope for is a pro choice candidate who personally is against abortion. That's it. Just as the illegal immigrants who are here are not going to be forced to go home pro abortion supporters are not going to be denied.

What can happen, and will over time, is society will continue to evolve to the point where abortion will be seen for what it is. Stop being delusional. That time is decades down the road barring the second coming. What we have to do is nudge the electorate forward without turning into the Taliban.

Listen to yourselves with your high and mighty moral pontificating. A simple question? Will more abortions and the trashing of conservatives principles happen more under Bill and Hillary Clinton or under a Repub? Let me be clear about this. Your logic, as I have read here and in many editorials is basically this: While more abortions will happen, including the return of the monstrous partial birth procedure because of my vote, I have to stand by my principles. Take that one to the confessional. Also if the best you have is Rudy et al are rinos so it doesn't matter, you are not qualified to vote, so please stay home. The voting process has gotten to complicated for you.

As to the Rudy detractors, vote for some one else but stop with the myth making about what he will or won't do. This is Rudy's record and approach to abortion:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTJjZjE1YzMyNzgwOGY2Y2E2YWFmZDdiMmJmNzdmMmY=

Exactly the same arguments were made against the religious extremists who wanted to make slavery illegal.

You're worse than "nuts" -- you're evil.

We definitely need a Civil War to settle this once an for all.

If it wrecks the economy, and we wind up with no more that 30 million dead, and overrun by Islamic Fascists it will be worth it. After all they hate abortion too.

I do believe human life begins at conception.

There are now millions of frozen fertilized embryos frozen in liquid nitrogen.

I propose we thaw them and get millions of new pro life voters.

The sooner the better.

I'm against the Republican Party nominating any one who is electable.

Leave that to the Democrats.

Rudy could also indicate he would pick a VP running mate who is pro-life (and pro-building the border fence). To add ideological balance to the ticket.

What ever happened to the old fashioned idea of convincing women not to have abortions?

Is putting the government gun to the heads of women really the way to go?

What happens when a Dem gets in and turns the government gun on you?

So long as the Church (ie Catholic, Baptist, Protestant, Church of Christ, Episcopalian etc etc)continues voting into office pro-abortion candidates in order to receive the goin coin of entitlement goodies then abortion will always be the issue dividing a Nation.

For example, I find it extraordinary that 95% of African-Americans (most of whom are deeply Conservative in their religious beliefs) have been voting the Plantation Party into power the last fifty years because of all the goodies the Slave Masters offer yet a third of all abortions are done against the African-American female.

I suppose for the Church the elimination is okay so long as the goodies are there to make up for the sins inside the Church.

Could anyone have imagined when the Angelican Church preached that slavery was a sin and should be ended that the devoted memebers of the Church would respond with:

While I believe slavery is a sin and that God believes all people should be free, what right do I have in telling the Slave owner what to do their their private property therefore I must support slavery.

If the religious had abandoned their beliefs, slavery would never have ended.

He needs to convince the pro gun-rights crowd as well.

Woody

If you don't want to have an abortion, don't get pregnant.....If you want a Commie for a President put Hillary in office..I am a Baptist conservative who is against abortion, but I will not vote Hillary or any other democrat...If Rudy is the guy, he get's my vote, and not some protest vote 3rd party...

I throw it back to you, fiscal conservatives and libertarians.

A pro-life President would nominate pro-life judges at all federal levels. One after the other. Each more conservative than the last. Congressional democrats would have one mission: to stop the confirmation of a single pro-life judge.

Did you catch that?

A distracted congress, grinding slowly to a halt.

That should be sweet music to your ears.

Michael Smith

"rights are not determined by potentical"

Since 'fetus' as of this moment has yet to be defined, rights are determined according to need and desire at any given moment during a nine month period.

A female can demand the right to have pre-natal government care for a period of nine months should she choose to call the 'fetus' life.

If she chooses to call the fetus 'just a clump of cells' she has the right to have government subsidized abortion to rid herself of a terrible infection.

If the male decides it's life she can say "it's my body, my choice" and if he decides it's "just a clump of cells" she can say "it's my body, it's my choice" so he is defacto denied any rights at all.

What I like about Barnes's suggestion is that it offers a ways in which females are not forced into abortion in a world where females are not given much choice but to abort while perhaps re-engage male responsibility in the issues of human reproduction

That said, Rudy is thus far my choice because he denied funding to Brooklyn Museum's government funding of 'Christ Piss' which was a courageous thing to do in a very vicious Collectivist environment.

But if Thompson is nominated I am just as happy though I would like to see a little more determination from the candidate.

Romney, pro-life or not, doesn't strike me as a leader who will fight the tough war against Islamic-Fascism and progressive Collectivism.

this is such a "Who's the first guy to grab his ankles for the Party?"
kinda thang. Wait until all the Rudy supporters are told they have to support McCain for the nomination. All I can say to support my claim is Bob Dole and GHW Bush. Party elders, both, and if I'm not mistaken history will repeat itself. Ronald Reagan was too risky to have over Ford. I think we're in the same election dynamics. Post watergate, post Vietnam. Let HRC have it and then tie up the government for 4 more years and THEN here comes Rudy or whoever is the Ronald Raygun clone. OR, PLAN R, Richard Cheney and Clarence Thomas forming the new, bold, old school of the New Federalist movement. Now were talking, founding fathers era, save the Republic, kinda stuff. They split the GOP and Albert Jr. comes in and splits the Democrats. We need some good inter-party political smackdowns don't we?

Who are these angry social conservatives being pilloried? I am a social conservative to whom abortion is a critical issue. There is no way I would not support Guiliani in a General Election match-up against Hilliary.

Gays and prolifers have this in common: they have a single overriding issue; they say it's an essential part of their lives and so they cannot brook compromise, and they're willing to screw over the rest of the country to get it.

"I have a daughter now. I would give my personal advice, my religious and moral views...I would help her with taking care of the baby. But if the ultimate choice of the woman — my daughter or any other woman — would be that in this particular circumstance, to have an abortion, I’d support that. I’d give my daughter the money for it."

- Rudy Giuliani, discussing abortion while running for mayor in 1989, on the Phil Donahue show

"When the Liberal Party Policy Committee reviewed a list of key social issues of deep concern to progressive New Yorkers, we found that Rudy Giuliani agreed with the Liberal Party's stance on a majority of such issues. He agreed with the Liberal Party's views on affirmative action, gay rights, gun control, school prayer and tuition tax credits. As Mayor, Rudy Giuliani would uphold the Constitutional and legal rights to abortion."

- N.Y.S. Liberal Party Endorsement Statement of Candidate Giuliani for Mayor of New York City April 8, 1989

"Most of Clinton's policies are very similar to most of mine."

- Rudy Giuliani, to the New York Post's Jack Newfield, 1996

"From my point of view as the mayor of New York City, the question that I have to ask is, "Who has the best chance in the next four years of successfully fighting for our interest? Who understands them, and who will make the best case for it?" Our future, our destiny is not a matter of chance. It's a matter of choice. My choice is Mario Cuomo."

- Rudy Giuliani, endorsing Mario Cuomo, 1994

The thing is; being pro-life doesn't guarantee that the candidate is a Conservative either. W is case in point. He's pro-Amnesty, and certainly not a fiscal conservative. Huckabee is another one.

The pro-life-uber-alles crowd better wake up to the fact that there is a certain segment of their faction that is fiscally socialist, based on their religious principles. They would do well to remember that their religion sometimes does conflict with certain Constitutional principles that other conservatives hold dear.

The problem the anti-abortion side is always going to have is that permitting abortion is not the same as mandating abortion. The government doesn't make anyone submit to an abortion. The law simply allows each woman to decide for herself.

There is no way that this country moves back to a time when the government COULD decide for a woman, could make her bear a child against her will. It is never going to happen, not unless we fall to the Islamofascists, then yes it may happen then. But barring that, no.

No one in this country ever has to have an abortion (certain medical scenarios aside). If you don't want to have one, then don't have one.

There is something really creepy about the idea that a bunch of people I don't know, who care nothing about me otherwise and who would have no responsibility either legally or morally for any decision I make on having a child somehow think they have the right to force me to have one.

This is how the majority of women in this country see the pro-life argument and this is not going to change. Nor should it. It is fundamental personal liberty.

The GOP has survived despite the pro-life wing of the party because no GOP President has ever been rabid about abortion. You want to see the GOP destroyed? Then make outlawing abortion the centerpiece of the campaign.

This would have no more impact than the Sue Jeffers movement did in Minnesota. Remember all those Republicans that were not going to vote for Gov. Pawlenty, because he was too moderate.

Well Gov. Pawlenty was the only statewide Republican that won in 2006.

I really don’t think we want to take advice from the Sue Jeffers crowd on how to win an election.

"Abortion is murder"

I doubt that people who say this really mean it. If they did then they've been awfully timid about tens of millions of murders being commited under their noses. You'd think the biggest genocide in human history would trigger something of a more rigorous response.

Perhaps then it's just hyperbole.

Uncle pontificates and previricates ad nauseum:

"Gee, where to begin? First of all, it's spelled "embryo" -- every knowlegable person knows that."

Um - nice begining there Bubba - the gramarian attack. Lovely, this usually means you have nothing to contribute substantively, but we shall see if you live up you our expectations..........

"Second of all, every human being has a beginning -- there's a spot where they become human."

Really? gee - I never knew this - lol.

"The scientific term for that spot is conception (from the Latin for "beginning")"

Lie number one. There is no consensus of when Human Life begins in the scientific community.

"Life" begins at conception - maybe. Maybe "life" prexisted the zygote and was present in the egg and sperm.

irrelivant since the said life in all cases above is not Human life.

" -- and it's when the egg has been fertilized by the sperm and all the DNA associated with a new human being are contained in that single cell. "

or it is in each and every egg/sperm cell or in every cell in your body!!?

I think your continued bodily life is condemning all those billions of your cells from becoming Human life (since they have Human DNA - they are all Human Beings!!! (that IS what you are claiming!)).................So you must morally donate your body to science and offer up your life so we can clone all your cells so they can grow up to be Human Beings!! Stop taking showers! evertime you do so you are killing so many of your skin cells!! so amny humans you are killing!

shame!

"religions or laws may set different places for the origin of a human -- one such point is when the child is born (the head "crowns"), another is when the child takes its first breath. Yet another is the "third trimester" But the point is that the child has been a human by scientific reckoning for many months prior to any of those points. "

Nope - the point is you are not telling the trueth above. There is NO scientific agreement of when Human Life begins.

human DNA is NOT human life. - if it is you must to as I stated above and donate your life to cloning all your cells so they can life a full and wonderful human life.

"That your "clump of cells" doesn't yet look like an adult human is not a guage of their humanity -"

um...........yes it is.

"- the scientist can readily determine whether a blastocyte ("clump of cells") is human or frog just by examining the DNA of one of those cells. In fact, the scientist can determine the parentage of the cells by such an examination as well, provided the scientist also has cells to analyse from the parents."

DNA? irrelivant. When i cut my finger I do not end up killing millions of my brothers, but millions of my skin cells.

get real Bubba.

"The above facts are also prime indicators as to why embryonic stem cell research is a dead end path -- embryonic stem cells derived from a now-dead embryo contain human DNA different from any possible recipient. If embryonic stem cells can be induced to grow into an organ or tissue suitable for transplant (which certainly is possible), that organ or tissue is an exact tissue match only for the original donor (the embryonic human) from which the cells were originally acquired. Any other recipient of that organ or tissue has a high probability of rejecting the organ or tissue if it is emplaced into that recipient. The recipient will require a life-long regime of anti-rejection drugs to reduce that possibility."

the point if science is to start from a point of ignorance and progress toward knowledge (not the reverse as you are promoting from the religious perspective). Unlike you scientists don't pontificate as to the ineffectiveness of a field if research BEFORE that research is conducted.

you'd make a piss-poor biologist Uncle.

--- i'm going to enjoy watching the Religious self-rightious send the Republican party into the Dog House for 8-yrs.

in the long run maybe it will allow the Rockefellers to return and mayself with them.

Has our country's moral foundation grown stronger or weaker since 1973?

Deny it all you want, there is a cause and effect relationship between the degeneration of this country into hedonism and our unwillingness to admit we are under attack by an enemy that wants to kill us all.

The only thing Americans are willing to fight for is the right to party. Don't you get it?

"There is something really creepy about the idea that a bunch of people I don't know, who care nothing about me otherwise and who would have no responsibility either legally or morally for any decision I make on having a child somehow think they have the right to force me to have one."

Straight and to the point Bennett!!

great post!

Amen Sgt Ted!

I'm pro-life, and I'm amazed at how many people here mischaracterize all pro-lifers as being "theocrats" or opposing birth control. I don't care how much sex people have. It's none of my business. I don't want to ban birth control--actually, I wish the Catholic Church would end its ban on birth control because I think it's much more preferable to prevent a child from being conceived than to kill the baby after it's conceived. I don't have any desire to force anyone to join a particular religion, or to pray, or anything like that. And I strongly support giving HPV vaccines to girls and women who wish to have them.

Abortion is not solely a religious issue, although the other side loves to frame it as such in order to obscure the real issue. The real issue is human rights. Like the antislavery movement, many anti-abortionists are religious, but they don't have to be. The question is simple--should it be legal to end an innocent human life? The answer should be simple, too, if we are honest with ourselves. I am a woman, but my "right to do what I want with my body" stops when doing what I want with my body ends someone else's life. I have no more right to kill my unborn child than I would have to kill a 3 year old child. We are all "clumps of cells." Just because some of us have less cells than others doesn't give us the right to kill those people.

As with slavery, the Republican Party is the only party that is standing up for human rights on the abortion issue. If the Republican Party becomes pro-abortion--if it nominates Giuliani--it will have turned its back on the most important principle it was founded upon--the dignity of every human being. It will also have turned its back on me, and I will likely switch my party affiliation to Independent and write-in someone like Thompson in the general election.

"The question is simple--should it be legal to end an innocent human life?"

That is not the question. The question is: who decides when life begins?

And that question has been answered. The U.S. Supreme Court decided that the point at which life begins is a decision to be made by the pregnant woman up until the point at which the fetus is viable (can live outside the womb). You don't get to decide the issue for anyone but yourself. More important, the government doesn't get to decide.

The issue of what rights a woman has in terminating a pregnancy after viability is still not completely settled.

Congress passed, and the Court upheld (in the Gonzalez v Carhart case) a law preventing certain late term abortion procedures (emphasis on the word procedure).

This does not mean that a state can't allow post viability abortions otherwise, under the Roe standard so long as the health of the mother is deemed at risk. The Partial Birth Abortion Act passed by Congress only addressed a particular type of medical procedure in terminating the pregnancy.

Tens of thousands of Pro-lifers have signed oaths notto ever vote for pro-abortion candidates. Most of them will keep their promises. Rudy will not have the full support of the Republican base because he is not pro-life regardless of all the arguments about lesser evils, political blackmail, radical libertarian arguments, etc. Perhaps the big business Republicans should consider nominating a prop life candidate since a non-prolife candidate is likely to loose.

"Perhaps the big business Republicans should consider nominating a prop life candidate since a non-prolife candidate is likely to lose."

Or perhaps the oath signers need to reconsider their position if Guiliani gets the nomination. Certainly they are free to sit home or write in a third party candidate. They can then rest comfortably in the knowledge that they have acted in a way more likely to increase the very thing they claim to abhor.

It might also help to consider that the effect of pro-lifers deciding to sit this one out or "waste" their vote on principle may well have an adverse effect down ballot, which is where the battle over abortion is really being fought anyway, in the state legislatures, and to a lesser extent, in the US Congress. Depending on how long Hillary's coat tails turn out to be, that is.

Donald,

That is exactly the kind of Moveon.org rhetoric that we should ignore. Thankfully, the GOP has far fewer extremists than the Democrats do.

This is why Rudy is going to win in a landslide.

Ted Olson is supporting Rudy. See

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2ViNzlkZWFkNDc5Y2IwN2IzMWZmYmY4NGJiNGRiOGU=

To my adament pro-life friends, I commend two points:

1. From an article in the San Diego Union-Tribune: "[Governor Ronald Reagan] signed into law the most liberal abortion statute of its day."

2. This exerpt from Lincoln's letter to Horace Greeley in response to an editorial in Greeley's paper during the Civil War. Lincoln responded:

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

Not to dramatize the situation, but the Union as we conservatives conceive it is likewise under assault today. None of us who love it can afford to give less than our best efforts to support it. Rudy has said he will appoint Justices in the mold of Roberts and Alito. Ted Olson supports him. That's good enough for me.

We live in a democratic republic not a theocracy. If we want a law changed we have to convince the majority that we are right. Just because the left is willing to short circuit the process through a liberal Supreme Court doesn't mean we should impose our values on others in the same fashion. We start at the grassroots level convincing one person at a time. If our arguments for life are so weak that others can't be swayed from their hedonistic safety net of abortion then we all lose. But the bottom line is that it's up to us. We lost the culture wars of the 60's. No amount of wishful thinking is going to change that. We have a long uphill climb to get our culture and country back. As for Rudy, if he can keep things from sliding any further in the meantime them I'm all for him. As president there is little he can do about abortion. That job is ours!

Let's do a gedanken experiment. The religious right succeeds in outlawing abortion. After a brief religio-orgastic episode, they now have to decide how to enforce their new law. But things aren't exactly the way they were in 1959. There is a pill which will terminate a pregnancy, readily available throughout Western Europe. There are instruments which will safely (for the mother) terminate a pregnancy in a few seconds.

Now about 20% to 30% of all 4.4 annual confirmed pregnancies terminate in miscarriages, mostly in the first trimester. It has also been estimated that the real rate is closer to 50% because the actual number of pregnancies is underestimated. So how are we supposed to distinguish the miscarriages from the directed abortions? Considering our tremendous success at stopping the importation and sale of class III controlled substances, how are we going to stop the illegal importation and use of the abortion pill? How are you going to stop women from flying to France and taking the pill legally? That costs about $600. We're mostly agreed that we wouldn't want to support islamofacists, how about gynofacists? Should I be investing in women's prison companies?

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Rudy Giuliani is as bad as Hillary Clinton on protecting human life from legal destruction. Then this issue provides no moral grounds to choose one over the other.

In that case, the choice must be made on other matters: the oozing corruption of the Clintons (remember Whitewater and those end-of-term pardons?), the reckless gutting of our intelligence organizations, the attempt to negotiate and triangulate when moral stances are called for, the deporting to Cuba of a child whose mother gave her life to bring him here, the feckless handling of national defense (which is quickly becoming the defense of civilization), and many, many other points.

Now, let us remove the assumption that the choice is between Rudy and Hillary, and replace it by a choice between Rudy, Hillary, and (say) Duncan Hunter or Mike Huckabee.

The third candidate may have a better position on legal protection of life, but can he win? Remember, there is never a moral imperative to attempt the impossible. If voting for the "best" candidate on this issue will mean that another candidate wins, you have no moral requirement to cast that vote.

Your vote must be directed toward the best possible end, not the best end under a different set of circumstances. If voting for the "best" candidate helps the worst viable candidate win, then you have to vote for the best viable candidate, in this case the second best overall. Which again reduces it to Rudy vs. Hillary.

In much the same way as Orwell found the British pacifists "objectively pro-facist", the dead-ender pro-lifers are "objectively pro-Hillary". I'm not so sure, though, that Rudy can't pick up enough moderates and independents to more than offset the absence of any pro-life third party voters.

Bennett, Bruce in WA, William Graves and njcommuter have made exellent points.

"Abortion is one choice among others. Everyone can have their own opinion. You have no right to shove your philosophy down my throat."

Fine. But as marxists continue to confiscate greater portions of our wealth, they will tell you that free market capitalism is one system among many. Everyone can have their own opinion. You have no right to shove capitalism down their throat.

You will have no defense.

Constitution? Written by white men. Living breathing document. One system among many.

You guys are sawing the branch out from under yourself.

Either there is a natural law or there isn't. You can't cherrypick laws of human nature that you think ought to be defended, but be willing to concede that, hey since abortion is scientificall possible, we ought to give it free reign. Yes, and confiscation of wealth and property is possible to do. Again, when this gets free reign, I won't be crying any tears. It's the logical conclusion of libertarian relativism.

"That is not the question. The question is: who decides when life begins?"

The answer to that question is so obvious it amazes me that people feel the need to debate it. It's Sex Ed 101. You start out with an egg in the woman and a sperm in the man. Two separate people. When the egg and sperm combine, a third person with his or her own genetic code is created. It's simple common sense. Even most pro-choicers I know admit that the unborn child is alive from conception. That is a non-issue. The real issue is what, if anything, justifies killing that life once it is created. I find the only possible justification to be when it is necessary to save the mother's life. Otherwise, it's just plain murder.

Arguing against the conclusions of a contrary conscience is one thing, that's the permanent state of democracy. Denouncing people for having a conscience and letting it form conclusions, is just bigotry. Count me OUT. No deal. No ultimatum. I deny the vote you think I owe you and the duty you imagine I bear you, and I'm gone.

"If the Republican Party becomes pro-abortion--if it nominates Giuliani--it will have turned its back on the most important principle it was founded upon--the dignity of every human being. It will also have turned its back on me, and I will likely switch my party affiliation to Independent and write-in someone like Thompson in the general election."

Truly brilliant Nicole.

Help elect Hillary so that we can have even more abortions, throw away the Supreme court nominees who might have changed Roe vs Wade, bring back partial birth abortions and last but not least advance Socialism. Great set of principles you have there Nicole. Keep killing kids to make a point while threatening blackmail. Yup. Great ethics.

The sooner real conservatives and libertarians marginalize folks like you the better off we all will be. Catering to your kind of thinking is the last thing we need to do.

Again please read Rudy's record on abortion instead of making statements(slurs) about his pro abortion status.

http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?action=detail&pk=MURDOCK-10-11-07

"The answer to that question [in re when does life begin] is so obvious it amazes me that people feel the need to debate it. It's Sex Ed 101."

The United States Supreme Court disagrees with you. So do millions of other Americans.

You may wish to have the power to impose your own personal beliefs on the rest of us unenlightened souls but (so far) you just don't have the right to do it. Sorry!

Life is based on compromise. We would never be able to get anything accomplished without compromise.

This all or nothing attitude will result in a Hillary landslide. Rudy has clearly stated that he will appoint strict constructionist judges, like Alito and Roberts. More importantly, he is the only GOP candidate that can get elected to appoint these judges.

Taking a look at how few Americans actually register to vote, and how few of those actually do vote.

I have to ask all Conservatives, and those others who support the GOP, if a Giuliani loss is to be attributed to solely those pro-life voters who have routinely since Reagan voted for GOP candidates, for example, what has the GOP been doing for the last decade or two?

We certainly are not going out of our way to recruit new Republicans, are we?

If a single issue can mean life under Giuliani or a life under Hillary, we on the Right are failing.

We have also over the past decade or two come to look at the vote of the Christian Right as a given. Taken it for granted. And if they take their vote and stay home, who in fact is to blame?

The abortion issue is but one plank in the platform. Not every voter and potential voter is enamored with the pro-life stance. What about the 2nd Amendment? What about getting the USSC and the federal courts back to a solid majority of judges who will use the Constitution as their primary ands sole document when interpreting law? What about fiscal responsiblity? What about smaller federal government? What about secure borders? What about sending our industries offshore? What about the Kelo decision? What about the rampant and out of control nanny state? What about enhancing our military and promulgating a successful war against jihad? And so many more other topics that need correction under a GOP platform and Presidency?

We have just about a year to double GOP ranks, stand for something, set out our platform, and get out the vote en masse to make sure that a Hillary has no chance at all at a vote similar to 2000 or 2004. We should be able to m,ake it very difficult for Hillary or whomever the Dem candidate is to cobble together but a quarter of the vote, if that.

That great divide in recent America, Red and Blue, is not solely the fault of the Dems. We haven't exactly been busy getting a huge segment of the voting age but not voting population on board.

When one issue can cripple our Candidacy, we have much larger problems going on within the GOP tent.

Reading Americans debating abortion always leads us non-Americans in disbelief and in jaw dropping shock.
The country who warns against 'big' government control wishes 'big' government to have control over a womens body.
It's 'murder' is it? 'There is no justificaion to kill a live to save a life'.
American zygotes your country supports you,
you don't deserve to be MURDERED.
Collateral damage in Iraq that's not murder,U.S and allied soldiers deaths ,nope not murder..birth pangs of freedom.
Your hypocritical religious blatherings again shows us what we in the free world are still dealing with.

RECENT SUCCESS: "The Measurable, Quantifiable Impact of Voting Pro-Life"

MAGS, I hate your guts.

"Reading Americans debating abortion always leads us non-Americans in disbelief and in jaw dropping shock."

Ummm...well...all non-Americans except Muslims ...and certainly not the Chinese people who have little choice in the matter because of the one child rule. And I doubt Central and South America citizens find it all that surprising, this debate we have.

But maybe in Europe...yes, maybe (non-Muslim, non-evangelical) Europeans are just horrified at our debate over this issue.

Believe it or not, MAGS, it's the sign of a healthy democracy, that citizens debate over issues that matter to them. I know, I know...it's so...bourgeois.

"You may wish to have the power to impose your own personal beliefs on the rest of us unenlightened souls but (so far) you just don't have the right to do it. Sorry!"

Ah, the favorite straw man of the pro-abortionist. "You're imposing your beliefs on me!" I'm not going to disagree--yes I am trying to impose my beliefs on you. And I hate to break it to you, but every law on the books represents an imposition of some peoples' beliefs on the beliefs of others. The Constitution itself is an imposition of the beliefs of the majority of the original 13 colonies on the rest of us. No law would ever get passed if universal agreement were required.

Right now, the belief that is being imposed on this country, not by the majority, but by a few members of the Supreme Court, is that is is acceptable to murder an unborn child. That belief is imposed in the most violent, cold-blooded manner against the unborn child by the abortionists' scalpal. My goal is to impose a different (and I believe morally superior belief)--that it is wrong to murder an unborn child and, therefore, abortion should be illegal unless necssary to save a woman's life. Which belief will win out is the critical issue, and the lives of countless millions hangs in the balance.

Christoph,
Oh dear are you not playing,taking your ball in are you.
Trans-atlantic hatred is hurtful,we are your closest allie's apparently.We can disagree.
You may hate my guts but you would love my arse.

"Right now, the belief that is being imposed on this country, not by the majority, but by a few members of the Supreme Court..."

As is consistent with our system of governance.

Legislatures pass laws and courts review those laws to determine if they pass constitutional muster. And the US Supreme Court determined that neither the states nor the Congress can pass a law to interfere with a woman's right to decide what to do with her own body when it comes to bearing a child (except in certain limited circumstances).

You can certainly disagree, you can certainly choose not to have an abortion yourself. You just don't get to decide what other women should believe on this issue.

This is why Roe v Wade is so important. To avoid the Nicoles of the world dictating how the rest of us women should live. Fortunately there are more of us (who want to make our own decision on this issue) than there are of you.

Your passion on the issue may be compelling but it is ultimately irrelevant. Perhaps a more useful outlet for your beliefs is to adopt as many unwanted children as you have room (and a checkbook) to handle.

Posted by MAGS | October 14, 2007 6:27 PM

You may hate my guts but you would love my arse.

Only when kicking it.

Oh, Nicole... I love you.

In a philosophical and moral sense.

Those who think everyone conservative should follow the Republican party line are in for disappointment. I made up my mind long ago that I wouldn't vote Rudy and he has said absolutely nothing to change my mind. Smilin' Bob is looking better and better as my write-in.

A few more observations:

(1) There is a general misconception (no pun intended) amongst pro-choice folk on this column that a majority of women oppose additional restrictions on abortion. For all those who are spouting this nonsense, polls contradict it. See this recent CBS poll for reference.

(2) At least two people have quoted "one million deaths a year" from back-alley abortions. The figure quoted during the arguments for Roe v Wade was 1% of that. Dr. Nathanson has since confessed that even this was a lie; the actual number was roughly 250. (For those who do not know who Dr. Nathanson is, read "Confession of an Ex-Abortionist". You can find it here .

(3) About the "theocracy", "government control", arguments, note a simple fact: homicide is already illegal. If abortion is homicide, it should be prosecuted. Whether abortion is homicide is perhaps open to debate, but the issue trumps all others in our society for those who acknowledge that hundreds of thousands of children are being murdered each year. This should surprise no one.

(4) If abortion is not murder, then abortion is actually no more significant than having an appendix removed. The government has no business getting involved in such things, which puts Giuliani in a very strange position. Either he believes abortion is like an appendectomy but is willing to hamper a woman's right to get one, or he believes abortion is murder but is publicly supportive of it. Neither position can possibly be held by an honest man. Therefore Giuliani cannot be trusted.

And as I stated above, reasonable, well-intentioned, well-informed people may still arrive at the conclusion that they must vote for Rudy in the general election (if he makes it that far) to forestall a Clinton presidency. That may be the lesser of two evils; at the very least it's a reasonable position that can be held in good conscience. However it is also reasonable, and possibly strategically sound, to vote for a 3rd party candidate. This is not a "dictate" by "theocrats", it's a vote based on reason and conscience. Agree or disagree, you should be proud and grateful to have such citizens in your midst.

gaffo,

Again, it's spelled "embryo", not "embreo". Anyone who's studied biology knows that. I don't think you have the standing knowledge-wise to tell me what is or is not scientifically correct since you are not conversant with the stages of animal development (as your misspelling of a basic but necessary term in high school biology shows).

We humans are no different from any other animal (or, rather, eukaryote) in how we physically develop.

Some people wish it were so, or, like you, even swear it is so, but the science is right there saying you are incorrect. I suggest that you find a good college biology text, or even a high school one if the college level stuff is too tough for you, and study it carefully. Then, you are welcome to come back and debate with us big dogs.

Again, gaffo, "embryo".

"There is a general misconception (no pun intended) amongst pro-choice folk on this column that a majority of women oppose additional restrictions on abortion..."

Key phrase there being "additional restrictions"...this is not what the anti-abortion crowd wants. It wants all abortion outlawed.

Perhaps the pro-lifers need to consider what will happen if we who have tolerated their takeover of the GOP decide once and for all that we cannot share this tent with them. Everyone seems to think that the GOP survives because of the anti-abortion types. Perhaps it is time to find out just how true that is.

Everyone is so worried about losing the pro-lifers. What about losing the national security/low taxes/small government voters who are no longer willing to be held hostage over an issue that is so fundamentally at odds with everything else the GOP has always stood for?

The pro-lifers have had their way for several election cycles, demanding that the GOP candidate for President genuflect at their altar. Not that it's done them much good. Roe v Wade is the law of the land and will remain so.

If they're such a powerful force, maybe they should form their own party and stop feeding at the GOP trough. They won't win but at least they will be marginalized once and for all. And the GOP can start building a more sustainable coalition.

Abortion is one of my top three issues. The others are national security and the judiciary. I have to weigh the pros and the cons and when I do that I have to go with Rudy. I had high hopes for Fred but he just doesn't seem to have the fire in his belly to win this thing.

Rudy has the courage to attack Hillary Clinton with no fear. If she wants to run in what has traditionally been a man's race she should be treated as all the other candidates are treated and Rudy is taking it to her.

"I had high hopes for Fred but he just doesn't seem to have the fire in his belly to win this thing."

He also seems old, a little shaky and not all that committed to anything in particular. Kind of a Bob Dole type without the edginess.

But then I've never understood anyone's interest in Thompson. Romney supporters, even McCain supporters, these I understand. But not Thompson. Hillary will eat him alive, he won't have the stomach for taking it to her, I agree about that.

"However it is also reasonable, and possibly strategically sound, to vote for a 3rd party candidate. This is not a "dictate" by "theocrats", it's a vote based on reason and conscience. Agree or disagree, you should be proud and grateful to have such citizens in your midst."

what a bunch of BS.

When your reason and conscience lead to more of what you supposedly abhor I have no use for your logic. As such I don't want you around having anything to do with rational decision making. You are not capable of such thinking.

Nicloe says:

The answer to that question is so obvious it amazes me that people feel the need to debate it. It's Sex Ed 101. You start out with an egg in the woman and a sperm in the man. Two separate people. When the egg and sperm combine, a third person with his or her own genetic code is created. It's simple common sense.

There are several million frozen embryos in liquid nitrogen. I propose we thaw them all, right now and let their life continue. It is immoral to keep them frozen. They are being imprisoned without due process. Its unconstitutional. End the prisons for children at once. Thaw the embryos.

"...when Hillary is elected because the "pro life" guy manages to siphon enough votes to make the Hillary-nightmare a reality, the Republican party can finally jettison the anti-abortion anchor around its neck."

Funny. Weren't we told that Giuliani's very nomination was supposed to be about: the Republican Party jettisoning the "anti-abortion anchor"? Now I suppose no matter whether Giuliani wins or loses the presidency the party will get rid of that "anchor"?

It has to be remembered, during the long match from Goldwater to Reagan, conservatives gained absolutely nothing making nice with Rockefeller Republicans. It is only when conservatives won the party that they could win the nation.

It is the same with "pro-lifers". Without the party they HAVE NO voice on the national stage. Without the party, they cannot take their case to the nation. As they see it, it does no good to grasp the big brass ring and lose the heart of the party.

It also has to be remembered that many if not most in the Republican ranks have a "non-traditional" set of political priorities. For most of us, we are conservatives first and Republicans second. As long as the Party is the home of American Conservativism, conservatives can be counted as Republicans. The same is true of the party’s pro-life members. They are pro-life first and Republicans second. When the Party learns it has to deal with and accept "non-traditional" political loyalties, then it will have a mission much like that of its Lincoln years. Failure to come to terms the anti-abortion cause will only disembowel the party.

The country needs a lot more than Republicans whose only aim is to win house and senate seats along with the oval office. It is not just that Republican officeholders haven't delivered on "social issues", they haven't delivered on "small government/lower taxes" as well--many would say they failed more in the later than the former. In the last ten years, the Party has let us all down and this is the reason and this reason alone the Republicans' latest losses occurred. This will not improve by lowering our expectations of Republicans.

Well, at least Rudy admits he's a hypocrite in order to get your vote, unlike Romney. Oh yeah, I believe a pro abortion liberal will act pro-life. And snowballs exist in Hell.
It's really a sad state of affairs when the best the Party of Reagan can put up is two northeastern liberals. And the rest of the repubs are falling for it.
And another thing - I dont see any of the Republican liberals putting forth any plan to WIN the war on terrorism.
And personally, I dont care who doesnt like social conservatives defining anything. I have a right to vote my conscience and that's what I'm going to do. And it wont be for Guilani. If Hillary wins so be it. We get the leadership we deserve and we deserve the leadership we get.
Guiliani practices the same things Bill Clinton did. But yet, that's all ok because he's a REPUBLICAN! Phooey.

The Republican party might take into consideration that without the "pro-lifers" they may not have much of a chance to win. So much for the pro-life anchor.