(2) Support an uncompromising pro-lifer who’ll get creamed in the general election.

In the last 7 general elections, the uncompromising pro-lifer is 5-2 over the uncompromising pro-choicer.

Translation: your political analysis sucks.

… beginning with the realization that the people Republicans need to attract in order to win the general election probably have more in common with Giuliani on so-called “life issues” than they do with Kentucky-fried God-botherers.
Centerfire on April 5, 2007 at 7:55 PM

Honestly, you really belong over at Amanda Marcotte’s blog, they are much more your type of people. And no, those aren’t the ones republicans need to attract, as the 5-2 record attests to.

(2) Support an uncompromising pro-lifer who’ll get creamed in the general election.

When was the last time an uncompromising pro-lifer got creamed in the general election? Bush I and Dole both lost, but they hardly got creamed. In fact, in the last 7 presidential elections, the uncompromising pro-lifer is 5-2 over the pro-choicer.

In other words, your analysis sucks.

If, on the other hand, the answer to the question is “no”, then they should quit their bitching and start making some pragmatic political calculations, beginning with the realization that the people Republicans need to attract in order to win the general election probably have more in common with Giuliani on so-called “life issues” than they do with Kentucky-fried God-botherers.

Centerfire on April 5, 2007 at 7:55 PM

I honestly think you’d be more comfortable over at Amanda Marcotte’s blog. And no, those arent’t the people republicans need to attact.

I would just love to see statistics on crimes committed by illegal aliens, compared to crimes commited by legal immigrants, or compared to the population as a whole.
I would love to see the percentage of illegal aliens partaking of the public dole, as compared to the population as a whole.

paulsur on April 6, 2007 at 12:40 PM

You need yo head over to SNIPER’S PLACE at .762justice he takes perverse pleasure in compiling and publicizing those VERY STATS!

When you are seeing that all my Civil Rights are underwritten by the AMERICAN TAXPAYER…would you put me down for a handmade Weatherby MARK XXII? Super!

Viva la Second Amendment!

Gratefully yours,

C. Jane Stewart

John, you are in your 13th minute, start becoming conservative or find the lazy boy recliner

Even beyond that, Scalia has been known at times to go off the originalist reservation when he has an itch to scratch. Without sufficient knowledge of Alito and Roberts’s habits, the only true-blue originalist on the court is Thomas, as can be seen from his dissenting opinion in the case linked above.

I only have one voice and one vote. To me the issues of abortion, guns and illegal immigration are very important so tell me again why I should vote for someone who is to the left or the same as Hillary and Obama on these issues.

Last night I spent an hour on Mitt Romney’s website learning about his stance on issues. I agree with him on just about every issue and I was amazed by his accomplishments of saving the 2002 Winter Olympics and saving Massachusetts from impending bankruptcy. The man has a clear vision and a strong set of values. Whether or not he could be as successful with the federal deficit remains to be seen. I have not been impressed with any of the other Republican hopefuls. I believe Romney is on the way up and will be the man to beat.

Completely Agree.

Heck, Bush nearly rammed a complete blanko on us in Miers.

True. But had the commonsense God gave a goat to back down and give us Alito.

To be quite frank, I wouldn’t vote for a 3rd party candidate, but I wouldn’t blame the pro-lifers one bit if they did. Rudy’s gonna crack the Republican party wide open for the sake of his prideful intransigence.

You say this like it’s a bad thing.

Look, social-cons have three options:

(1) Support a candidate who, while unpalatable to them on so-called “life issues”, nonetheless can attract enough moderates to win in the general election.

(2) Support an uncompromising pro-lifer who’ll get creamed in the general election.

(3) Support a third-party candidate or sit out the election, and completely marginalize themselves.

Pro-lifers need to ask themselves if their principles are worth several years of Democratic Party rule, and/or the further diminuition of their political influence. If the answer to that question is “yes”, then I for one welcome their speedy departure from the Republican Party, because it doesn’t need political “allies” who’ll try to hold it hostage to their own narrow interests.

If, on the other hand, the answer to the question is “no”, then they should quit their bitching and start making some pragmatic political calculations, beginning with the realization that the people Republicans need to attract in order to win the general election probably have more in common with Giuliani on so-called “life issues” than they do with Kentucky-fried God-botherers.

Rudy is responding to the hole he’s in with furious shovel-fu. That’s just stupid.

Heh. I’ve got to remember that line.

It would not be a stretch for pro-lifers to expect a bait and switch on originalism, given that Rudy isn’t even trying to bait at all during the primary. Understand that three of the 5 left-leaning pro-RvW justices on the SCOTUS were appointed by Republicans. The most activist of which, JPS, was appointed by, you guessed it, Gerald Ford, the last pro-choice (unelected) Republican President, and the other two were appointed by pro-life Republicans (Souter and Kennedy). Heck, Bush nearly rammed a complete blanko on us in Miers.

Rudy is responding to the hole he’s in with furious shovel-fu. That’s just stupid.

Don’t underestimate what Bush has done and what a future President can do on this front.

Not to mention the appointments of Alito and Roberts.

This is simply not true. I won’t go into a long repeat that I did elsewhere here, but Bush signed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. He signed The Unborn Victims Act. He signed The Born Alive Act. And he actively encouraged states to pass parental consent laws. These are NO SMALL THINGS. This is more than we have been able to do in decades. Don’t underestimate what Bush has done and what a future President can do on this front.

Someone said earlier, I think in the other Rudy thread trying to make the case that the pro-life position is politically dead, that we’ve had a committed pro-life President in office for nearly 8 years and there’s been very little progress on that front. Given what Rudy is saying now, there’s even less of a chance of progress being made should he be elected. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if any and all executive orders regarding embryonic stem cell research would be summarily reversed should he be elected.

I understand that, which is why I believe focusing on politics alone is the wrong way to go about this. I think crisis pregnancy centers and organizations like them are the most effective way to further the cause – one person at a time. Meet the needs.

The way to change the law is to change the population. If the pro-life movement had focused on that in recent decades rather than the politics, it would have been less polarizing and we wouldn’t even be having this conversation.

Someone said earlier, I think in the other Rudy thread trying to make the case that the pro-life position is politically dead, that we’ve had a committed pro-life President in office for nearly 8 years and there’s been very little progress on that front.

They’ve said the pro-life position was politically dead every election cycle since Roe v. Wade. If that was the case, then Rudy’s comments wouldn’t have registered even a faint blip on the political radar screen.

Guys,

Did you think I was insisting that McCain would win the nomination Just because I liked him? It wasn’t just that. This is politics. McCain has been in this game a long time. He knows how to play it. I don’t see this going any other way. Like I said many times, you want me to give you a reason to vote for him in the general election? I will. I will when the time comes.

Rightwingsparkle on April 5, 2007 at 7:13 PM

He didn’t play it that well in ‘00 when he ran towards the center during the primaries. Pretty big strategic mistake, although to give him due credit, he’s at least showed some signs of learning from it. Still, considering many of the things he’s done since then and his abhorrent stand on closing the borders, he’s only marginally better than Rudy. I’d vote for McVain over any democrat, but I can’t vote for him in the primary anymore than I could vote for Guliani.

But the real underlying point to all of this for me is … please, Fred … run … please!

McCain has been in this game a long time. He knows how to play it. I don’t see this going any other way.

Suing pro-lifers doesn’t seem an effective way to play the game, honestly. What happens if he wins and a pro-life organization goes under because of his stupid lawsuit?

I would. To do so would lead to a Democrat presidency and the total loss of their influence. If they supported the party while disagreeing with its candidate, they would still be able to have some say in keeping pro-life causes in the party platform.

Someone said earlier, I think in the other Rudy thread trying to make the case that the pro-life position is politically dead, that we’ve had a committed pro-life President in office for nearly 8 years and there’s been very little progress on that front. Given what Rudy is saying now, there’s even less of a chance of progress being made should he be elected. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if any and all executive orders regarding embryonic stem cell research would be summarily reversed should he be elected.

Given the choice between one candidate that guarantees that he’ll do exactly what you hate, another candidate that guarantees to do exactly what you hate and a third candidate that guarantees to do exactly what you believe is most important, which would you chose? The argument of political pragmatism only holds water if you actually had some chance of getting what you wanted.

If Rudy’s using language like this in the primary, do you actually think he’ll listen one iota to their concerns even in the general, forget about after he’s elected?

Did you think I was insisting that McCain would win the nomination Just because I liked him? It wasn’t just that. This is politics. McCain has been in this game a long time. He knows how to play it. I don’t see this going any other way. Like I said many times, you want me to give you a reason to vote for him in the general election? I will. I will when the time comes.

On this you are right – it would hurt politically in the long-term. But in the short term, I can at least understand the impulse.

Nevertheless, this underscores the need to nominate someone who is, at least, not hostile to pro-lifers or outright stupid on the position as Rudy is showing himself to be.

Haha. I do agree with that. I just don’t want to see the pro-life issue get sidelined becuase 10% of those who agree with it decide to sit out “on principle.” Political parties are vindictive beasts when they lose, and if pro-lifers are the ones who cause that loss, then it’s not going to be a happy time.

If they are spoilers and cause the Republicans to lose the presidency, it would be game over for them, politically. They would have no party and no way to influence policy other than through a few select political figures.

A third party spoiler is a bad, bad idea.

Slublog on April 5, 2007 at 6:58 PM

On this you are right – it would hurt politically in the long-term. But in the short term, I can at least understand the impulse.

Nevertheless, this underscores the need to nominate someone who is, at least, not hostile to pro-lifers or outright stupid on the position as Rudy is showing himself to be.