Romney advisor turned Obama supporter finds NARAL endorsement “deeply troubling”
posted at 10:57 am on May 15, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Yes, it’s Doug Kmiec again, straining mightily to reconcile his own moral abhorrence of abortion with his sudden hero-worship of a man whose only opposition to the practice in 12 years as a legislator has been tepidly rhetorical. Some of his fellow Catholics are letting him hear about it now (occasionally in ugly ways), so back we go for another try at squaring the circle:
It won’t help now that the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) has endorsed Obama over Clinton. This is an endorsement that is deeply troubling unless the good Senator Obama intends to match it with the sobering acknowledgment that abortion is less “right,” than avoidable tragedy…
[Church teachings] obviously would preclude a Catholic voter from supporting a referendum providing public funding for abortion, but what about a candidate like Obama who is not pro-abortion, but of the view that the civil law best leaves this question to the mother in consultation with their own clergyman and doctor?
Catholic voters in this circumstance are asked to consider what other social goods Obama represents and whether they can honestly and openly say that they are supporting him for that reason and not his stand on abortion… The list is long: the death and economic waste associated with an unjustified war in Iraq; failure to be good stewards of the environment; promoting a tax code that favors the wealthy and undermines a family wage; perpetuating an immigration system that divides families and overlooks the exploitation of labor and more.
This isn’t one of my core issues but I think I’ve got a handle on the basic pro-life position, so help me out here. Kmiec’s solution to the NARAL dilemma is to have Obama propose a “fulsome initiative” to promote adoption; evidently that would restore his anti-abortion bona fides to a level worthy of a pro-life voter’s vote. If you believe abortion is murder, though, why would some sort of hortatory measure like that suffice? It’d be like if Obama proposed letting family members euthanize Alzheimer’s patients so long as there was some “fulsome initiative” to inform them of the virtues of letting them live. Some behavior is immoral to a degree that we merely cajole, other behavior is immoral to a degree that we prohibit. How did abortion end up in the former category for anti-abortion advocate Doug Kmiec? And what on earth does it mean to say that Obama “is not pro-abortion,” as though that’s some mark of distinction? There isn’t a single mainstream pro-choice politician I can think of, left or right, who doesn’t load up his/her abortion rhetoric with lip service about what a tragedy it is, how it should be safe, legal, and hopefully rare, etc. Anything less would be ghoulish. As such, Obama’s hesitancy isn’t evidence of virtue, it’s evidence of his being barely sentient enough to know that he’d better be sober in how he talks about this lest those independent voters he needs head for the hills.
As for his laundry list of the Messiah’s other selling points — going green, ending the war post haste, promoting a family reunification policy for immigration that would let millions through the border — I’m starting to see now why Mitt’s campaign often seemed so … confused. Exit question: What, pray tell, could possibly justify this repulsive choice of words?
International strategic thinker Edward Luttwak recently speculated in the New York Times that by this happenstance of birth, it is not “realistic” to think an “Obama presidency “will decisively improve relations with the world’s Muslims.”
Luttwak also served President Reagan, so it’s possible his essay is a McCain IED, but I doubt it.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Serving under Reagan = in the tank for McCain? I don’t see how that works other than “serving under Reagan = conservative, conservative = backing the GOP candidate.” That might make sense from the point of view of a liberal like this guy. He was more fun when I thought he was a social con who just wanted to be liked. After his little laundry list there apparently he’s just a liberal who doesn’t like abortion.
I think you should remember this the next time you do a post on the bizarre ongoing support for Romney as conservative leader in exile…
Alex K on May 15, 2008 at 11:04 AM
what an idiot
jp on May 15, 2008 at 11:04 AM
Politicians suck
kirkill on May 15, 2008 at 11:05 AM
Gee, could that be because Obama’s not pro-life?!
amerpundit on May 15, 2008 at 11:05 AM
Kmiec seems deeply confused on every level.
DrSteve on May 15, 2008 at 11:08 AM
More like letting people pay doctors to euthanize their inconvenient family members, not just those with debilitating condition. Because for most people who have abortions the fetus isn’t ’sick’ or afflicted with a painful condition, it’s just not something they want to deal with. The Inconvenient Fetus. You hear it all the time: “I’m not ready”, etc.
Or to put it in the Sacred Words of the Dear Leader of the Democratic Republic of Transcendent Unity, people don’t want to be “punished” with a baby.
Vote Sauron 08 on May 15, 2008 at 11:11 AM
Obama doesn’t want one of his daughters to be “punished with a baby,” but Kmiec expects what, that he will support giving them a 9-month “time out” if they get pregnant?
raybury on May 15, 2008 at 11:11 AM
Isn’t this like diverting every tenth child out of the gas chamber line because you feel bad?
Limerick on May 15, 2008 at 11:16 AM
This is why Mitt couldn’t have done it. There was no compass, no established history of policy. Hopefully in a few years he will have established that.
Kmiec is grasping for straws…he now knows he stepped in it.
right2bright on May 15, 2008 at 11:20 AM
How a total idiot like this is allowed near any ‘republican’ campaign is beyond me.
Think_b4_speaking on May 15, 2008 at 11:29 AM
I would also point out that Obama cannot be called “not pro-abortion” when one considers his opposition to at least one of the failed abortion child protection bills. Kmiec is a fool.
Think_b4_speaking on May 15, 2008 at 11:33 AM
Kmiec’s effort to square the circle with Obama is the equivalent of San Francisco Giants fans still defending Barry Bonds, or Yankee fans offering up justifications or alabais for Roger Clemens in the baseball steroids probes. Kmiec would rather battle in his own mind to justify his support for Barak by coming up with convoluted explanations than admit he made a stupid choice to support this man, based on his own moral beliefs.
It also further explains why conservatives who scrambled to try and rally the troops to Mitt following McCain’s win in South Carolina found few followers behind them. Even factoring those who couldn’t get past Romney’s religion, there were many others who looked at his record and the people around him and just couldn’t get excited enough to think this was the guy Republicans needed to go into battle with to stop McCain from getting the nomination (you’ll also notice that, much as Obama’s 57 state line and other embarrassing quips are purged from the big media’s collective memory, Kmiec’s embarrassing statements and how they reflect of Romney’s judgment haven’t exactly been front-and-center topics for certain conservative radio shows and pundits who led the post-S.C. Romney charge).
jon1979 on May 15, 2008 at 11:33 AM
Doug Kmiecs obvious break with reality has nothing to do with Mitt Romney. Your powers of deductive reasonig are in need of tuning.
Did Mitt Romney jump over to support Obama? No.
Did any other prominent Romney supporter jump to Obama? No.
Does Doug Kmiec have free will or should Mitt Romney tell him who he can support? Should Mitt tell him what to wear?
Tying this to Mitt Romney is ignorant and childish and smacks of ulterior motives.
EJDolbow on May 15, 2008 at 11:40 AM
Kmiec is to naive to be in politics.
Bill C on May 15, 2008 at 11:41 AM
Have you studied Mitt Romney’s tenure as governor of Mass? He stood on the steps of the Supreme Court after their Gay Marriage ruling and yelled, “Let the people Vote!” He personally scoured the laws of Mass and discovered and arcane law (circa 1913) that made it impossible for people to marry in Mass if that marriag would be illegal in their home states.
He was lauded by pro-family, pro-life and pro-guns groups who worked with him in Mass.
The man has lived his entire life as a Conservative. He walks the walk.
Mitt Romney, like many conservatives in the 1990’s thought Government had no business dealing with abortion (See Fred Thompson, Henry Hyde and numberous other’s records).
Mitt Romney is not responsible for Doug Kmiec’s acid trips or early stage Alzhimer’s disease.
Doug Kmiec and most high profile Catholics supported Romney because he was the best hope we had of getting a Conservative President this year.
EJDolbow on May 15, 2008 at 11:46 AM
No wonder Romney lost, he has this idiot as an advisor. Shows you the type of people Obama attracts.
jencab on May 15, 2008 at 11:48 AM
McCain’s apologists and useless idiots keep telling us who don’t support him are too rigid in our thinking and we need to see the shades of gray that would legitimize amnesty for illegals, the business-crushing wealth distribution of the Kyoto protocol, the presenence of a “conservative” at La Raza hate fests- and all the other liberal crap that McCain wants us to ignore.
This is just another example of the same mentally deficient disorder that allows McCain to get away with calling himself a conservative while taking positions to the left of Hillary Clinton. Since Americans abhor the culture of death, Obama becomes “not pro-abortion” even though he has consistently upheld the “right” of women to kill off unborn life for their convenience. John McCain is not “pro-amnesty” either but we had Mexicans lining up at the border for the greatest rush since the Oklahoma territory was opened up for settlement. We need to force our politicians to state their positions and defend them instead of allowing them to lie. John McCain you are a rabid liberal who hates Christians- defend yourself. Obama and Clinton- you are pro-death when it comes to innocent life- defend yourselves.
highhopes on May 15, 2008 at 11:50 AM
I don’t think you’re correct about Obama.
Obama thinks abortion is merely one more method of birth control, like using a condom. I wish someone would ask him how many times he would hope his daughters use this remedy in case they make multiple mistakes. I also understand he’s a proponent of live birth/partial birth abortions. As on so many things, he’s an obamanation.
JiangxiDad on May 15, 2008 at 11:54 AM
It is beyond absurd to say that Obama is not pro-abortion.
Sorry to repeat this link again, but Obama is not just pro-choice, but is radically pro-abortion.
Also, Catholic teaching prohibits voting for anyone who advocates abortion in any way.
Rightwingsparkle on May 15, 2008 at 11:58 AM
Breaking News:
List of a few former Romney supports NOT supporting Obama:
Gov. Matt Blunt (MO)\
(Gov. Dave Heineman (NE)
Gov. Don Carcieri (RI)
U.S. Sen. Wayne Allard (CO)
U.S. Sen. Judd Gregg (NH)
U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint (SC)
U.S. Sen. Bob Bennett (UT)
U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch (UT)
U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers (AL-3)
U.S. Rep. Robert B. Aderholt (AL-4)
U.S Rep. Wally Herger (CA-2)
U.S. Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon (CA-25)
U.S. Rep. John Campbell (CA-48)
U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo (CO-6)
U.S. Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite (FL-5)
U.S. Rep. Connie Mack (FL-14)
U.S. Rep. Tom Feeney (FL-24)
U.S. Rep. Jack Kingston (GA-1)
U.S. Rep. Tom Price (GA-6)
U.S. Rep. John Linder (Ga-7)
U.S. Rep. Phil Gingrey (GA-11)
U.S. Rep. Mike Simpson (ID-2)
U.S. Rep. and Former Speaker Dennis Hastert (IL-14)
U.S. Rep. Ed Whitfield (KY-1)
U.S. Rep. Ron Lewis (KY-2)
U.S. Rep. Hal Rogers (KY-5)
U.S. Rep. Jim McCrery (LA-4)
U.S. Rep. Rodney Alexander (LA-5)
U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra (MI-2)
U.S. Rep. Vernon Ehlers (MI-3)
U.S. Rep. Dave Camp (MI-4)
U.S. Rep. Joe Knollenberg (MI-9)
U.S. Rep. Virginia Foxx (NC-5)
U.S. Rep. Ralph Regula (OH-16)
U.S. Rep. Bill Shuster (PA-9)
U.S. Rep. John Duncan Jr. (TN-2)
U.S. Rep. Rep. Marsha Blackburn (TN-7)
U.S. Rep. Mike Conaway (TX-11)
U.S. Rep. Kay Granger (TX-12)
U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith (TX-21)
U.S. Rep. John Carter (TX-31)
U.S. Rep. Chris Cannon (UT-3)
U.S. Rep. Tom Petri (WI-6)
EJDolbow on May 15, 2008 at 11:59 AM
Cognitive dissonance FTL.
spmat on May 15, 2008 at 12:01 PM
Read my post.
Choosing guys like this, one that could change his mind and support someone polar opposite of Mitt, is why Mitt had a problem. Mitt’s policies were never settled, he kept shifting them. That was the perception, born out by his poor showing. He was pro-gun, and anti-gun, he was pro-abortion (In April 2006 Romney signed the Massachusetts Health Care Reform Plan that pays for even elective abortions), anti-abortion, etc.
Like I said, I hope he straightens his political life out and becomes a true conservative.
right2bright on May 15, 2008 at 12:02 PM
This isn’t a Mitt for President post, he lost that handedly.
This is about a conservative supporter going to the pro-abortion side and now he is “stuck”.
But thanks for the list, I can use that for something.
right2bright on May 15, 2008 at 12:06 PM
…but of the view that the federal law best leaves this question to the minor child with her own elementary school administrator and abortion industry specialist.
Fixed it.
Maquis on May 15, 2008 at 12:13 PM
To me, that’s the logical conclusion of people who support abortion as a right. If it’s a right, it can’t be denied to someone who has them routinely. And if it’s a right, and the unborn isn’t a life, then what’s the problem?
I’ve tried, but I just cannot understand the position that supports abortion but wants it to be rare.
I support gun rights. I have no problem with certain reasonable restrictions on gun ownership, but once those are met, I don’t think legal gun ownership should be rare. I’d rather it were the opposite.
Esthier on May 15, 2008 at 12:38 PM
What the hell happened to Doug Kmiec??? He was once one of the most principled Catholic legal experts in the country. I worked with him in the Reagan administration. This abortion apologist does not resemble the man I worked with.
rockmom on May 15, 2008 at 12:54 PM
So having your campaign call anybody who questions your positions a racist is a good example of loving thy neighbor, huh? Calling Bernardine Dorhn “manistream” is principled conservatism?
funky chicken on May 15, 2008 at 12:58 PM
Why do we pay any attention to people like Kmiec or Gershon? They are not conservatives. Period.
Clark1 on May 15, 2008 at 1:10 PM
Good point. Maybe a better analogy would be the First Amendment though?
“I support the right to free speech, and I believe it should be legal, safe, and rare.”
fossten on May 15, 2008 at 2:06 PM
Total and utter spin by Kmiec. Unfortunately, Catholics who are diehard Dems will buy it. And I can say that.
Connie on May 15, 2008 at 2:52 PM
This Kmiec guy needs to sit down in a quiet place, and really figure out what in the hell are his principles. He’s obviously not done that to date.
He reminds me of these people who vote Republican one election, and then vote Democrat the next, for the most superficial of reasons. (”But he seems like he really cares about me.” Eeeccchhh.)
That Mitt gave a befuddled mediocrity like this any role in his campaign is truly scary, not to mention disappointing.
Cicero43 on May 15, 2008 at 3:13 PM
DON’T EAT THE SEEDS!
- The Cat
MirCat on May 15, 2008 at 7:04 PM
Kmiec’s got a “man crush”… awwww, how cute…
BadBrad on May 16, 2008 at 6:18 AM
You just love to call Kmiec an “adviser”, don’t you?
malan89 on May 16, 2008 at 5:01 PM