I thought the ideals of the Republican party were (in my own order of importance):
1- Strong on defense (particularly against those using kids to blow us up).
2- Reducing the Government's interest in my pocket.
3- Reducing the Government's interest in my life.
I'm not an anarchist, and i realize the Government needs to be there to maintain order. So telling me that i will have to pay a fine if i discriminate against people of a specific group makes sense. But, it's nuts to dictate exactly how many of which group i must hire, enroll, accept, etc.
Lest we consume each other, we DO need a fair and balanced Government. But, the situation is such that the pendulum needs to swing back in the direction of less Governance.
With the less Government is better Government pillar of the Republican party, i find it natural that such a party should include many people who are pro-"it's your womb leave the Government out of it".
Surely there should be rules. But a "never" rule deteriorates in practice to something closer to an "always" rule. And both such rules often lead to anarchy.
So please keep your focus. And remember that there are some in this world that advocate late term abortions by violent dismemberment, VERY late term abortions by VERY violent dismemberment, some even after the 30th year. And they are trying to use the act of those abortions to simultaneously abort as many of us as possible!
And THAT is an abortion i'm even willing to pay more taxes to prevent.
|
|
is absolutely correct.
Sorry about that whole North Anna River thing but let's face it, you were asking for it... |
|
|
... the title of this article is an oxymorom. To be "pro-choice" on the abortion issue is rhetorical shorthand for being an favor of legal abortion. On that note, I leave the following advice to all conservatives: don't be fooled and please don't use the term "pro-choice." Let's use the truly accurate phrase, that is, "supporter of legal abortion." |
|
|
Republicans who insist on pro-life credentials from a candidate in order to receive their votes will guarantee a Democratic victory in 2008. Republicans who are too consumed by bigotry to vote for a Mormon for president will guarantee a Democratic victory in 2008. Anyone who thinks that a Huckabee or a Thompson or a Tancredo could win the presidency is in serious need of a dose of reality. That leaves McCain, and he won't get the nomination. It will be 2006 all over again, and we will have the narrow-minded conservative zealots to blame once again. |
|
TradeSports is showing a continued drop for Rudy, a big upswing for McCain and a rise for Romney. The national polls will be slow to reflect changes in support. However, the odds are direct and react rapidly. The field is beginning to level among the candidates.
Most conservative Rudy supporters list McCain as thier second choice and McCain is up 6 or more points to day. |
|
The point of Matt Lewis' comment is really honesty in language, and it's a lesson we all ought to be teaching. "Pro-choice" and "pro-life" were both born as marketing slogans; neither accurately described the position it purported to describe. The issue for one side may be "life", and for the other side "choice" (though I doubt the latter, really), but the topic is "abortion legalization", and you're either in favor of it, or against it.
To quote an ironic button I obtained back in the 60s, "Eschew Obfuscation."
And to quote a more serious observer, Edwin Newman, "Those for whom words have lost their meaning are likely to find that ideas have also lost their meaning." |
|
"Will some conservative explain to me why we could possibly want Rudy to be the Republican nominee?"
Because he would win. |
|
|
For me the last straw is giving money to Planned Parenthood and speaking at a NARAL event. I can't vote for someone who would do either. |
|
I think they're both fine men, who we'd be lucky to have as our president. Rudy would probably "widen the tent" a bit more than Mitt would, but I don't know about his Supreme Court nominations. Mitt would get more conservative agenda items accomplished while in office. I also feel that Mitt would handle our economy better than Rudy would. The elephant in the room in '08 is China's looming presence in the world economy. Mitt seems to be the only cantidate with the skills to deal with that.
So as a conservative, you're left with the question, why settle for Rudy when you can have Mitt? |
|
|
might have better luck running as a Democrat based on his voting record. |
|
A member of the media (I'll let your imagination work on why I added the "-titute"). When it serves their liberal purposes, they support only the most-liberal "Republican" available and only when that person is railing against other "Republicans".
Rudy Giuliani fits that bill on pretty much every issue other than national security, most "law-and-order" issues, and perhaps a tax issue or two (where he vies for the liberal crown with John McCain).
Giuliani ought to learn well from the lesson of McCain. For years, while he was supporting every tax increase and the silencing of everybody except the media, he was the darling of the media. Now that somebody more liberal than him came along, he was discarded like last week's trash. |
|
|
Rudy Guliani is Joe Lieberman in Republican clothes. Both are strong supporters in the war against Islamic terrorism, both are anti-gun, both are pro-abortion, and both are pro-gay special privileges. Will some conservative explain to me why we could possibly want Rudy to be the Republican nominee? |
|
If you knew a writer who...
*Repeats the same anti-Giuliani mantra over an over as "new posts;"
*Harps endlessly about abortion, despite the fact that it isn't even in the top three priorities of GOP voters;
*Thinks every candidate is impure on abortion;
*Focuses obsessively on one GOP candidate he doesn't like (Rudy) for one reason (abortion)
...you would call him a hack.
Time to find a real profession, Matt. Writing is clearly not your strong suit. Your benefit to Townhall seems to be that you make the rest of the conservative bloggers (except McCullough, who is beyond hope) look good by comparison.
|
|
So if Rudy Giuliani should be castigated for once supporting a state level Dem candidate (in a race against a Republican who has been called a "RINO" about a zillion times since then), then you should never have voted for Reagan, who once used to BE A DEMOCRAT (he was also a labor union leader and activist too ... and he was divorced, and ohmygod, he therefore was IMPURE!). By the way, did you know that Mitt Romney endorsed Salt Lake City Mayoral candidate Rocky Anderson as recently as 2003 .. Anderson was a guy who not only was a notorious liberal Democrat (not a centrist like Cuomo), but a guy also openly advocated abortion rights, gay marriage, and the impeachment of George W. Bush? Nope, thought not.
Did you know also that John McCain once endorsed George Wallace, Jr., who has been accused of being an avowed White Supremacist? Maybe he's not a Democrat, but don't you think that's a questionable endorsement, even (especially) for a Republican? Not to mention that McCain openly cooperated with notorious Senate Democrats like Feingold and (ohmygod!) Ted Kennedy? And of course Fred Thompson endorsed McCain who buddied it up with the Swimmer, so Thompson must be cast out as well, right?
If it is your belief that pro choicers are driving out pro lifers, just on the basis that they are pro choicers and yet remain Republicans, then perhaps you might be one of those radicals that I'm concerned about.
I have a suggestion: instead of being so focused on driving people like me (lifelong Republicans, military vet, never-divorced husband and father, business man, etc. etc.) out of the Party, perhaps if you joined with people like to to at least make sure that abortion is not without restrictions, and that your Federal tax dollars are not being used to fund someone else's exercise of their own free will, and that people sympathetic to Federalism and Strict Construction sit on the Supreme Court and lower Federal courts across the land, you might actually see some progress toward your goal of at least reducing, if not ending, abortion in America. For all of that to happen, we must elect Republicans - under the Dems, of course, you'll never get anywhere.
But if people like you continue to draw lines in the sand, saying "it's either us or you guys" .... and "this Party isn't big enough for all of us" any more (as it clearly was under Ronald Reagan), then whatever progress towards reducing abortions that you have experienced to date (such as the recent Supreme Court ruling upholding the Federal ban on partial birth abortions) will cease, because then only the party totally beholden to the Kate Michelman/NOW crowd will be calling all the shots ... maybe they'll even pass a Federal law requiring WalMart to offer abortions at its new in-store medical clinics, in order to grant "equal access" to abortions. Who knows what kind of crap the Dems can get away with if the Republicans cease to be a competitive party.
That is one of the logical endpoints of a radical-anti-abortionist purge of the Republican Party ... you may end up driving the pro choicers out, or you might even, as you suggest, drive yourselves out. Either result, WE ALL LOSE.
|
|
"Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do."
So says the fascist Guiliani!
All Americans should despise what this man is about! |
|
athingortwo
-fair enough. thank you for clarifying your comments
benner-
also fair enough. However pro-lifers can "choose" to leave the party when they want. Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything. If Rudy is the nominee, you have the right to stay home or vote third party. Of course that non-Republican would mean an easier time for Hilary/Barak.
BTW-The Rino thing is a bit sophomoric, but it's not your fault. It's being used by most authors here at townhall, so you're just following the leaders.
fonz-
While not bashing Rudy, Matt lets others do it for him. And yes, I believe that the abortion stance is dividing the party. Past statements should be fair topics. And if the Chris Matthewss and Matt Lewiss of the media continue to bring it up over and over, it will divide even more. Matt never said Republicans can be in the party if not pro-life, but we find a lot of people here at townhall who won't vote Republican is a pro-choice candidate is at the top of the list. I think you last comment more so goes towards Mitt. He sounded credible at the debate. |
|
the good folks with Rudy let me know it was an over-sight.
I promise to be well-behaved on the next call.
BTW, I actually have been a Rudy fan, in the past. But I don't think any conservative could overlook the abortion stuff when it comes to electing a President... |
|
Why is pointing out a candidate is pro-choice "dividing the party" or "bashing" a candidate.
Abortion is an important issue, especially in a Republican primary. Why shouldn't a candidate's past statements and actions on abortion be a fair topic of discussion.
Did I miss where Matt, or anyone else, said that if you are pro-choice you can't run as a Republican?
Republican candiates can be pro-choice. But if they are pro-choice, and then run as pro-lifers why is it wrong to point this out? |
|
stand ... I did not say, as you charge, that "Pro-lifers are Nazis". I said that the "ideological purity" argument that is being used by some of the radical anti-abortionists (not the same group as "pro lifers") use to cast the ideologicaly impure out of the Party,is not unlike the approach the Nazis used (re: racial purity) as an excuse for their ill deeds.
I am against those who seek to "ideologically purify" the Republican Party of its pro-choice members. I am not calling anybody a Nazi (go back and read my post). My rhetoric is not the problem. It is the rhetoric of those who seek to marginalize what is a near-majority viewpoint held by many millions of Republicans.
I am quite comfortable, as are most pro choice Republicans, that there are those in the party who disagree with our position on the matter of a woman's right to an abortion. I do not propose the casting out of those who have a different view than mine. I can very easily vote for a pro-life Republican, as I have done repeatedly since my first vote in the 70's, as long as that candidate is also openly tolerant of those who disagree with him or her but still agree on a majority of other issues that bind Republicans together (low taxes, strong defense, minimal Federal government intrusion in our lives, etc.).
But those who advocate the political stoning and casting out of pro choice Republicans, and the silencing of any recognition that there is a debate on the subject WITHIN THE PARTY, are intolerant bigots, every bit as much so as the anti-Mormon bigots that Hugh is constantly whining about.
I respect thoughtful pro-life opinions. I disrespect the ideologically pure who seek to purify the Party of anything but radical anti-abortionism. I apologize not for my "rhetoric". This is the "elephant in the room" of the Republican Party, and the sooner we figure out who is driving the wedges in our coalition, and begin to deal with them forthrightly, the better it will be for the Party and for the American people. Otherwise, the radical anti-abortion purists will succeed in driving many of us out of the party, and thus marginalizing the Republican Party as the Radical Anti-Abortion Party, which can never win a national election. |
|
steveegg
-What are you talking about? What is a prestitute? And are you suggesting supporters of Rudy would vote for Democrats?
I can tell you that as a Rudy supporter, I have never voted for a Democrat. Since I was eligable, I've voted Bush, Dole, Bush, Bush. I 110% support 43 and will follow him anywhere.
I have voted in the past for Gary Franks(CT-'98), John Rowland(CT-'94, '98), Nancy Johnson(CT-'92, '94, '96), Kevin O'Connell against Dem John Larson(CT-'98), George Allen(VA-'00, '06), Tom Davis(VA-'00, '02, '04), Frank Wolfe(VA-'06), Mark Early(VA-'01), Jerry Kilgore(VA-'05).
To suggest Republicans who support Rudy are Democrats in disguise is beyond the pale and against everything that Ronald Reagan believed in about the good will of our party. Slandering and ignorance are not what we in the GOP are about.
athingortwo
-Calm down with the rhetoric. Pro-lifers aren't Nazis in disguise. I am adamantly against the use of Nazi anolagies by anyone against anyone, except of course people like Saddam. Just because you aren't pro-life doesn't make you right and them wrong.
Republicans need to work together. People like Matt Lewis who are dividing our party based on abortion preference should be ashamed of themselves. A good competition for the nomination is what we need, not name-calling and slandering. |
|
In his comment above, Dean Barnett wrote to Matt Lewis;
*******************
"You are a pit bull!! Now you'll never get invited to a Rudy conference call."
*******************
Dean, I do think 'bull' is the operative word, however, I think it more accurately applies to Matt as an adjective rather than a noun.
Let me give you a hint---the second syllable sort of rhymes with 'pit' ! |
|
Most Americans, and even I dare say most Republicans, find it rather disgusting that certain anti-abortion radicals in the Party have taken to excoriating Mitt Romney for ever daring to advocate the right to choose an abortion ... suggesting that true "ideological purity" (this is starting to evoke images of the German Nazis and their racial purity nonsense ... wherein they classified people on the specific numerical makeup of their family trees to sift out the "true Aryans" from the suspected Jew infiltrators) only comes from being anti-abortion from the moment of one's birth, or even one's conception.
Yes, Mitt Romney is an opportunistic flip-flopper and a total political animal who appears to have few if any bedrock convictions that he isn't capable of jetisoning in the event of some new focus group poll numbers ... but if he has somehow discovered, on the basis of "developing cloning legislation in MA" (how's that for going through conversion contortion!) that "ohmygod, there really isn't a constitutional right to abortion" (that one ranks up there as the mother of all rhetorical non sequiturs!), and now he therefore opposes a woman's right to choose an abortion, then by all means, chalk that one up as a minor win for your side.
Even if such a "battlefield conversion" doesn't speak all that well of Romney's character, intellect, or backbone.
Of course, maybe Romney's excuse is that he's merely another victim of political "Stockholme Syndrome", after allowing himself to be captured by the radical anti-abortioninsts, and so can't help it if he's taking on some of their rhetoric and beliefs as a matter of self-survival.
Who knows, maybe if Mitt wins the Republican nomination as Hugh Hewitt and Dean Barnett have been predicting, and then a new focus group tells him that the American general electorate is actually pro-choice, he'll feel safe enough to throw off his ideological "captors" in the Republican Party and declare "I really was pro choice before I was pro life before I was pro choice".
Haven't we heard something like that before, back in '04?
|
|
|
They figure they can't lose whether Rudi or the 'Rat win. |
|
...what is your stance on abortion?
I think we deserve to know since you're bashing a fellow Republican for his views. Of course Ronald Reagan told us we should never do this to other Republicans.
Also, usually abortion rights activists take to the streets and seem to always vote Democratic. I've never heard of an abortion rights activist calling abortion bad and urging women to look at other options like adoption. They also push abortion rights in our faces and call anyone who disagrees with them(ignorant). Rudy seems to have an open mind about personal choices and respects opinions he may not fully agree with. |
|
|
You are a pit bull!! Now you'll never get invited to a Rudy conference call. |
|
Matt - you obviously are doing whatever you can to torpedo Giuliani's candidacy for the Republican nomination ... fair enough. But voters don't need you to read the tea leaves, consult the oracle, or interpret the holy scriptures for us all to know, plain as day, that Rudy Giuliani has declared openly and honestly over many years, that yes, indeed, he is for protecting a woman's right to choose an abortion. Republicans know that, always have .... saying it over and over and over again, as if you are one of the accusers in the Salem witch trials who has just discovered another one of Satan's handmaidens in our midst, changes not a thing. Rudy Giuliani is pro choice, and a Republican, just like millions of other Republicans.
By the way, although nobody would ever perceive that there are any pro-choice Republicans from the writings found on most conservative websites, from discussions heard on radio shows, or from columns published by conservative print media columnists.
Nevertheless, brace yourselves for this: very consistent opinion polling data collected over the decades have never changed much on this issue, but, believe it or not, nearly half (about 45%) of all Republicans in the USA are also pro choice. As are approximately 2/3 of all Americans ... at least as long as reasonable restrictions are imposed on the process, such as forbidding partial birth abortion, requiring information on other options to be supplied to mothers, requiring teens to notify parents, requiring wives to notify husbands, etc.
And you'll note that many of the current slate of Republican candidates for the Presidential nomination state openly that having a pro-choice position on abortion should not be a disqualifier for any Republican candidate.
Because, of course, if Republicans and so-called conservatives like you succeed in making the Republican Party unfriendly to pro-choicers, it will quickly become a non-entity in national politics, and can never again hope to win a general election where 2/3 of the general election voters expect the government to honor a woman's right to choose an abortion under reasonable restrictions.
Remember, even Ronald Reagan did essentially nothing to restrict abortion ... he said he didn't like abortion (as says Giuliani too), but he took no specific actions, and said almost nothing about the subject, to affirmatively end a woman's right to an abortion. Ditto with George H.W. Bush, and even George W. Bush has on numerous occasions admitted publicly that the American people do not agree with the strict anti-abortion viewpoint, and indeed demand a woman's right to choose an abortion.
Matt: Deal with it. You're in a very small minority in America, the Land of the Free (including free from the likes of people like you who want to take away constitutional rights). You may be in a majority within the Republican Party, but only barely. If you and people like you insist on strict observance of abortion purity in your Party leaders, then the Party will not be able to elect a President again until it repudiates the extremist "witch hunters" of the abortion issue. |
|
"And/but/so" wrote: 'Is it "better" or "worse" to be Pro-Choice or an Abortion Rights Advocate?'
Well, is it worse to ignore shoplifting or worse to shoplift?
|
|
You left-wing nut jobs can't even get your King James Biblical grammar correct.
It's "Thou dost protest too much."
(Second person singular) |
|
Too bad. Rudy could have won the general election.
But, he'll never get the nomination.
Too reasonable on social issues, too ugly in a dress. |
|
Thou doth protest too much...
Is it "better" or "worse" to be Pro-Choice or an Abortion Rights Advocate? |
|
|