Michael Steele: We need to reach out to pro-choice Republicans
posted at 7:06 pm on December 8, 2008 by Allahpundit
The question of the day, as posed by former Giuliani speechwriter John Avlon in NRO: Should the GOP have a litmus test of social conservatism? David Brody put it to Steele in the context of his membership on the board of Republican Leadership Committee, Christie Todd Whitman’s outfit for “a Republican Party that is unified by the basic tenets of fiscal responsibility and personal freedom, but that allows for diverse opinions on social issues by its members.” I like his answer; most of you probably won’t. Or maybe you will. I can’t keep track anymore of which RINOs should be purged and which merely reformed.
Lots more goodness where this came from, with clips at CBN of Steele on the federal marriage amendment (he’s against it), kicking toxic incumbents like Ted Stevens out of office before they can destroy the party (he’s for it), and the media’s adulation of He Who Came From the Sky to Deliver Us (“This is their creation. He is their creation.”). Click the image to watch.
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
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 6 7 8 9 Next »
Yes, Dave you’re so very clever. You’ve convinced me just by saying it, that I’ve woven a classic straw dog and that attempted to steer you away from all the sage arguments you’ve made. You of course were not Christian baiting. You argued every bit the position of a true Conservative in all of your exchanges and linking to a page that represents the home where the majority of servicemen lost in the GWOT would call home as an answer to where folks looking to live the lifestyle of share croppers or indentured “servants” (sorry for the gross error there) couldn’t laughingly be taken as a slight to ones service by any stretch of the imagination. My apologies and good night.
hawkdriver on December 9, 2008 at 3:51 AM
My beliefs don’t have a thing to do with religion. Abortion is a matter that should have been left to the states to decide, as it was before Roe v. Wade usurped the legislature’s function in the name of all-wise progressivism. The Roe Court’s analysis is nothing but big words and malarky designed to fool non-lawyers into thinking that it’s so complicated that a layman can’t understand it. Emanating from a penumbra of the Fourteenth Amendment, indeed.
The process of court-dictated progressive legislation has continued until we now have “progressive” ideas taught in schools and established as law; it’s either goodthink or thoughtcrime in this 21st century America. And I don’t like it.
Personally I think that abortion is an abomination. But it’s an abomination that free people should be allowed to practice if a majority of citizens in any particular state chooses to do so. But it is most manifestly not a constitutional “right” that must be imposed on citizens of states that don’t happen to want that particular abomination practiced in their jurisdiction. What “choice” actually means is that the citizens of Nebraska or Kansas or Mississippi *have* no choice but to permit abortion in their states whereas, before Roe, the citizens of every state could share in making the choice to permit abortion or not.
This isn’t about religion, folks, it’s about freedom to decide what is moral and what is not, which is essentially what state legislatures do. Or have any of you gone so far as to think that only the US Supreme Court can decide whether stealing or murder or sexual relations with children are permissible acts?
I sometimes despair reading the posts on this forum. Most of you just don’t get it. And that’s why I no longer consider myself a Republican.
Venusian Visitor on December 9, 2008 at 3:54 AM
Roe v Wade was about as scientific as astrological predictions.
Religion may not have been mentioned, but rational thought didn’t take place either.
In what way can you describe the legal deliberations of Roe v Wade as secular, except to say that religion was not part of the discussion.
It was an embarrassment to the American legal process…secularly speaking.
Saltysam on December 9, 2008 at 3:57 AM
Venusian Visitor on December 9, 2008 at 3:54 AM
I feel your pain.
Saltysam on December 9, 2008 at 4:01 AM
With no religion, with no foundation of morality other than the laws of nature, who is even the state then to legislate my behavior?
hawkdriver on December 9, 2008 at 4:04 AM
Nothing more than an apparatus to protect its own power. Top of the food chain.
Saltysam on December 9, 2008 at 4:09 AM
I guess if we vote and consensus dictates our morality, then it really is a true democracy and not a representative republic. Damn, we suck again.
hawkdriver on December 9, 2008 at 4:13 AM
I’m reluctant to answer you because your intension seems to be to mock religion, and as I said, I can make a pro-life argument without ever appealing to religion.
But if you are sincere in wanting to know, then I can answer you as a Catholic. The oldest catechism in existence, the Didache, which dates to the apostolic age (i.e., the time of the Apostles, 100 AD), states: “You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.”
So, basically, Christians have always regarded abortion as a grave evil. It was, of course, practiced in ancient times as it is now. So, the early Christians were aware of it, and they rejected it then as they do now.
As I noted, you don’t have to be religious to find abortion wrong. But since you asked, I answered.
ramrocks on December 9, 2008 at 4:15 AM
This is why teh first amendment is so important to sustaining the potential of a good democracy.
The purpose of the religion clause was to keep the secular interests of state from intefering with the moral judgement and character of her people, who ultimately hold the responsibility of securing a just government.
Today, most people believe it was to prevent the spread of religion from being too powerful in people’s lives. Completely upside down.
Saltysam on December 9, 2008 at 4:22 AM
Once upon a time there were two neighboring farmers, Alpha and Omega, which were bitter, sworn enemies. There properties were separated by a wooden fence. Almost daily Alpha and Omega would often launch a war of words and criticism of each other across the fence and occasionally break for a truce when their wives decided to socialize on occasion. One day a swarm of locusts decided to invade Alpha’s land and threathen his crop. Sensing that his crop was also in jeopardy, Omega offered the services of his men and equipment to help Alpha build a firebreak. No longer were they enemies, but now allies. In real life Alpha was Russia, Omega the USA and the locusts were Nazi Germany after she invaded Russia in June 1941. Because of Communist collectivist ideology and American political principles based on individual freedom Russia and America had become sworn enemies since 1917. But like Omega, the USA saw that if it abandoned Russia, and if Russia were to be conquered, Germany would soon take Britain leaving the USA isolated and find itself having to defend its land in a two front war against Germany and its powerful ally Japan. Thus the USA supplied armaments, vehicles and foodstuffs to Russia so she could continue to fight. They became allies and eventually won WWII as allies. Now take the GOP. The moderates are Russia; the conservative wing is the USA. Obama is Nazi Germany and the MSM is Japan. If the GOP allows or encourages the moderates to leave its party, Republican conservatives will have to go it alone against Obama and its propaganda wing the MSM. Under these circumstances the GOP has very little chance in winning the 2012 presidential election. But if moderates and conservatives find common cause and begin to realize who the real enemy is-Obama and the MSM-the GOP will have a better chance to prevail. These two factions in the GOP have a decision to make-to allow Obama and the MSM to prevail by driving a wedge between moderates and conservatives or to unite under one banner for the good of America. United we stand, divided we fall.
technopeasant on December 9, 2008 at 4:28 AM
technopeasant on December 9, 2008 at 4:28 AM
Ahhh.
So, this is why America just rolls over and accepts communism as its eventual destiny.
Conservatives must roll over in order to find common ground with moderates.
Saltysam on December 9, 2008 at 4:34 AM
Oh boy, did you just ask for it!
Saltysam on December 9, 2008 at 4:38 AM
Not roll over but find common ground and common purpose. Who is the real enemy? Obama and the MSM. Did the USA compromise its principles to help Russian in its time of need? No. America came to the realization that the eagle and the bear needed each other to survive and eventually succeed.
technopeasant on December 9, 2008 at 4:38 AM
Venusian Visitor said:
Do you believe the same is true for owning blacks as property? Should slavery be a state’s rights issue as well?
These “state’s rights” arguments make me sick!!!!!!!
TheMightyQuinn on December 9, 2008 at 4:39 AM
We’re off to a good start on the common ground goodwill!
Saltysam on December 9, 2008 at 4:39 AM
Saltysam: isn’t the antipathy towards moderates by some conservatives on a similar scale as the contempt shown by the USA towards Russia before the invasion of Russia by Nazi Germany? The connection I wanted to make between moderates and Russia is not ideological but metaphorical.
technopeasant on December 9, 2008 at 4:42 AM
The USA capitulated on Eastern Europe, and USSR’s permanent member status on the security council at the UN.
We rolled over.
Saltysam on December 9, 2008 at 4:44 AM
I don’t know about you, but the contempt that the “moderates” have shown toward conservatives has been abhorrent.
LOL! I’d say it was a Freudian ideological metaphor! ;-)
Saltysam on December 9, 2008 at 4:48 AM
Again my reference is metaphorical. It so happens that the analogy I used included Russia; what I wanted to show is that two parties can be at each other’s throats but bond if they both perceive a greater threat that seeks to destroy both of them. Saltysam, isn’t Obama and the MSM a greater threat to conservatives than the moderates within the GOP?
technopeasant on December 9, 2008 at 4:49 AM
Saltysam: do you really want to see the moderates leave the GOP? If you do, then we do have a fundamental disagreement.
technopeasant on December 9, 2008 at 4:50 AM
LMAO! No, tell us what you really think of him.
ramrocks on December 9, 2008 at 4:53 AM
No, I don’t.
I want them to stop trying to run the party. They have crippled us.
Saltysam on December 9, 2008 at 4:56 AM
ramrocks: in my analogy he is. Obama and the MSM represent a greater threat to conservatives than the moderates within the GOP do. If the conservatives and moderates, as Michael Steele said, don’t wake up, then Obama may win in a walkover in 2012, even with the presence of Sarah at the top of the GOP ticket. God, help us if that happens.
technopeasant on December 9, 2008 at 4:57 AM
Saltysam: to play devil’s advocate moderates say the same thing about conservatives. Eventually the back and forth has to stop and grown-ups have to get their act together for the good of the nation. That’s all I’m saying.
technopeasant on December 9, 2008 at 4:59 AM
techno: If the economy is as bad in four years as it is now, then the moderates won’t care about the GOP’s position on abortion. They’ll be demanding change and want someone other than Obama. The moderates are chameleons. They’ll gravitate toward the winner.
ramrocks on December 9, 2008 at 5:00 AM
What does LMAO stand for?
technopeasant on December 9, 2008 at 5:00 AM
Let me see.
Were the vichy French a greater threat to France than the Germans?
Saltysam on December 9, 2008 at 5:03 AM
Laugh my ass off.
Saltysam on December 9, 2008 at 5:04 AM
ramrocks: then according to your logic conservatives have to convince moderates that they having a winning hand and possess the ‘right stuff’ and conservatives have to willing to see moderates as worthy allies who also have something to bring to the table.
technopeasant on December 9, 2008 at 5:05 AM
This last election is the last time I ever go along to get along. The, Last. Time.
It is a recipe for failure.
And the GOP needs to do something about the primary process. I don’t Iowa and New Hampshire. And I’m sick to death of these states running the show.
We should all vote on the same day.
Saltysam on December 9, 2008 at 5:08 AM
Vichy, France was an administration arm of Nazi Germany which carried out what the latter wanted done. The greater threat to France was always Germany-it dictated the rules of the game and could arbitrarily change the rules of the game at any time.
technopeasant on December 9, 2008 at 5:09 AM
Saltysam: I think you equate ‘getting along’ or coming together for the common good as capitulation. Again America did not capitulate to Russia by offering a hand of friendship and help during WWII. America was acting in its own self-interest and its own survival. If conservatives bond with moderates it should NOT be considered as one side capitulating to the other but a unity forged out of the realization that there is a common enemy that is much more dangerous than either one of us is to each other.
technopeasant on December 9, 2008 at 5:15 AM
I don’t even understand why a “moderate” would throw away all the rest of conservative ideology on this one issue alone.
And at the very least, a “moderate” should understand that a reversal of RvW would simply place abortion back into the state legislatures. This should please “moderates”, shouldn’t it? It seems the perfect common ground for these factions.
Saltysam on December 9, 2008 at 5:17 AM
No.
I equate moderation as everything that destroyed the popularity of the conservative movement. And I will NOT fall for it again.
Saltysam on December 9, 2008 at 5:20 AM
Saltysam: I agree with you completely. And I agree with you on the primary process. And furthermore I think that GOP should consider going to a closed primary system, allowing new members to join in a given state up to about 2 weeks before the vote takes place.
technopeasant on December 9, 2008 at 5:22 AM
Saltysam: If Sarah were at the top of the ticket and she firmly espoused conservative principles and values and in turn brought the moderates along with her on her bandwagon, would you have any problem with that scenario?
technopeasant on December 9, 2008 at 5:25 AM
Well, what is this common ground?
Ten to one, as a three legged stool conservative, I have to be the one to give up something on all aspects of conservative thought in order to find “common” ground.
I have to play the adult.
Saltysam on December 9, 2008 at 5:26 AM
No. Saltysam, both sides have to exhibit adult behavior or the unified front will not work. Again I am not talking capitulation; I am talking here about naked self-interest, nothing more and nothing less.
technopeasant on December 9, 2008 at 5:29 AM
What is the common ground?
technopeasant on December 9, 2008 at 5:34 AM
Of course not.
As long as she articulates conservatism in a way that awakens the inner conservative in most Americans, and makes the light turn on in peoples heads that the Constitution needs to be preserved and protected.
I want to hear her promote freedom and liberty as the fundamental ethic of federal politics, not amtrak subsidies and climate control.
If she can do that, and moderates continue to whine, then they are exactly what I suspected they are all along…frauds.
If they don’t, I would never be more gracious, humble, and happy to admit I was wrong.
Saltysam on December 9, 2008 at 5:43 AM
I believe that the strongest part of Sarah’s presentation is just that-being a Reagan conservative (he was an idol of hers)who defends traditional values like American exceptionalism and individual freedom and all the rights guaranteed in the Constitution-witness her summary at her debate with Biden which got very little attention; i actually thought it was the most brilliant thing she said during the campaign about freedom can be lost in just one generation-Saltysam-you need not worry about Sarah on this issue. I am more concerned about what economic policies she is going to espouse and what actions she would take to revitalize the health of the economy; that is perhaps the reason why she is consulting with economists from the University of Chicago as to best approach to take.
technopeasant on December 9, 2008 at 5:52 AM
The Republican party has always allowed for diverse opinions, but it used to stand for something more than just fiscal responsibility and national defense. Now, we conservatives are being told to shut up and go along with the moderates on abortion so we won’t offend them and send them crying into the arms of the Democrats. If our desire to get along with moderates (def: pro-abortion Republicans) is predicated on our abandonment of a sacred principal, then I say “No thanks, keep the party; I’ll keep my principals”. I still have to look at myself in the mirror and I don’t want to hate what I see.
SKYFOX on December 9, 2008 at 6:08 AM
That’s all that’s really necessary. we need to get away from this idea that the Fed need to “manage” the economy.
Also, with a floating currency, its important to understand that “a commitment to lower taxes, a strong national defense posture that fights wars only to win, a belief in individual freedom and the free enterprise system and the defense of the Constitution” is the actual “full faith and credit of the United States”
.
Saltysam on December 9, 2008 at 6:13 AM
Also, with a floating currency,
I think we need to get away from this. The Fed should not have the power to devalue people’s savings out of thin air.
Saltysam on December 9, 2008 at 6:17 AM
SKYFOX: I am pro-life, and I am not asking you to hate yourself and certainly not to abandon your principles. What I have been suggesting however is that a ‘moderate’ may not be your best friend but he is not your worst ‘enemy’-Obama and the MSM are. For conservatives to forge a bond or what you call ‘getting along with moderates’ is NOT capitulation; what it represents is one’s desire to protect one’s self-interest and to look out for the good of the nation. Refer to my analogy earlier on this page regarding America helping Russia during WWII after Germany invaded Russia. Out of necessity they became allies and won the war together as allies. What I am suggesting is that moderates and conservatives form an alliance out of necessity-that necessity being to oust Obama in 2012 and save America from his radical socialist agenda.
technopeasant on December 9, 2008 at 6:26 AM
What the…?
If we can’t even agree on a simple thing like “killing babies is wrong”, why do you think we can agree on complex issues?
dominigan on December 9, 2008 at 7:04 AM
Isn’t there already a party in place for moderates? Isn’t it the DNC? I agree with other posters – why do conservatives have to reach across our own aisle to the moderates? Let them (stay) with us or get back over to the left. Look what befriending Russia has done for us, after all.
LoneStarGal on December 9, 2008 at 7:04 AM
LoneStarGal: so you’re saying: conservatives and moderates- let’s divorce each other so that Obama and the MSM can have a free run to destroy America. Conservatives (I am one) let me be crystal-clear-moderates are not the enemy-Obama and the MSM are. Many GOP moderates believe in fiscal responsibility, a strong defense and individual freedom. And many moderates a pro-life and pro-gun. We have more in common than we have differences. Again the enemy is Obama. He must be defeated in 2012.
technopeasant on December 9, 2008 at 7:16 AM
While I know technopeasant is only using a metaphor in comparing moderates and conservatives to nations, I don’t think it is a good metaphor. An American political party is more a nation unto itself: a collection of wide range of interest and views, full of internal conversation and argument. What I dislike in the current conversation is the efforts of self-professed “conservatives”, who actually much more right-wing than conservative, trying to turn the Republican into a cult and purge the RINO heretics. The Republican party deserves to lose elections if this cult takes power. Sadly, the conservative cult does stand a chance of taking power since the Democrat’s economic policy is just so flat out stupid. I doubt that “conservative” cult could ever win a majority except for the Democrat’s inability to understand the most basic facts about economics. It makes me despair about reasonable politics for our nation to stumble from one lunacy to the next.
thuja on December 9, 2008 at 7:21 AM
The “moderates” are “Regan democrats” folks like Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller. Nice to have their support when we need it. But we don’t need to abandon our principals to get that support. It’s all about the person at the top of the ticket and not about how “moderate” they are.
This type of thinking has delievered us to the present situation. Time to wake up!
conservnut on December 9, 2008 at 7:24 AM
Hell yeah, Big Tent FTW!!!
abobo on December 9, 2008 at 7:33 AM
Dittos!
What a “reasonable” society we’ve become. It’s okay to kill babies but not murderers.
Michael Steele for
RNC chairGovernor of California.Doppleganker on December 9, 2008 at 7:46 AM
He’s right!!!!!!!!!! Arguement needs to be about Abortion being OK as a medical procedure to save a woman’s life & MURDER as BIRTH CONTROL. ProChoice needs to be redefined a Pro unlimited killing while ProLife needs to be about choosing life as long as it doesn’t kill Mom.
Max47 on December 9, 2008 at 7:57 AM
The moderates are the ones who need to wake up.
What does “reaching out” mean? What does that mean??? I know what it’s suppose to mean. It’s suppose to mean conservatives shut up and sit down,, stop caring about morality,,stop caring about principle,, even right or wrong for that matter,,, just care about policies that lower our taxes and increase the money flow.
Well, everything is morality.
“….if we wish to continue to be distinctively American, we must continue to make that term comprehensive enough to embrace the legitimate desires of a civilized and enlightened people determined in all their relations to pursue a conscientious and religious life…
… The expression of the popular will in favor of maintaining our constitutional guarantees was overwhelming and decisive…. These questions involve moral issues. We need not concern ourselves much about the rights of property if we will faithfully observe the rights of persons. Under our institutions their rights are supreme. It is not property but the right to hold property, both great and small, which our Constitution guarantees…..America seeks no earthly empire built on blood and force. No ambition, no temptation, lures her to thought of foreign dominions. The legions which she sends forth are armed, not with the sword, but with the cross. The higher state to which she seeks the allegiance of all mankind is not of human, but of divine origin. She cherishes no purpose save to merit the favor of Almighty God.”
Calvin Coolidge in his inaugural address.
JellyToast on December 9, 2008 at 8:03 AM
That’s my point.
aikidoka on December 9, 2008 at 8:11 AM
Mommypundit on December 8, 2008 at 10:16 PM
Everyone, take a look at what he refers to as “fetal tissue.” Hmmm…guys, gals, not sure what you are seeing here but I sure as heck see some babies arms and legs…
Arms and legs! MURDER!
I’m just trying to get you people to argue REASONABLY.
DaveS on December 8, 2008 at 10:21 PM
Is it an unreasonable argument to look at piles of human bodies in war zones or in the Nazi camps? Was it unreasonable to cry, “Murder! Genocide!” upon seeing reality? Tell me, at what point is an ounce of emotionality worth something? Do you ever emote? Is there anything you find worth exclaiming something over? See, it isn’t opinion or irrationality to come across the truth and declare it for what it is. DaveS, I worry more for the person who can see that and dispassionately call it “fetal tissue” and dismiss the one who tells the truth.
Mommypundit on December 9, 2008 at 8:14 AM
Are you kidding me? Are you afraid that individual states don’t have the good sense in 2008 to keep slavery abolished? Puh-leeeze. You think only the Federal Government is smart enough to figure that out? THAT’s funny.
Oink on December 9, 2008 at 8:35 AM
I’m sick of the republicans bending over for the pro-aborts, and every other liberal group around.
hope those morons find lots of moderates to make up for people like me who won’t vote for them anymore.
right4life on December 9, 2008 at 8:51 AM
Wow. I wake up this morning, and over 700 comments appear out of nowhere, about a plea to do what may have cost us the elections in 2006 and 2008. Don’t tell me we’ve run out of arguments already.
I agree with the Visitor, up to a point. If abortion is an abomination, is that limited to a personal opinion? I think robbing banks is bad. I think child molesting is bad. I think car thieves should go to jail. Is that just my personal opinion? Should we leave those things up to the states.
Government has always, ALWAYS, A-L-W-A-Y-S (!!!) had a role in “legislating morality.” What else do you think laws are supposed to do? The issue of “states rights” is not unchecked, but is spelled out in the Constitution, as pertaining to those powers not specifically outlined in that document. That all men are created equal, that they have the rights to “life, liberty, yada yada yada,” is not left to the states. That is why eliminating Jim Crow laws were not a threat to “states rights.” Unfortunately, the right to life is not left to the states. Some people think it should be. But whether or not it is, “pro-choice” Republicans should understand, that if they want Congress and/or the White House back, their party has to offer a clear alternative. Otherwise, there’s really no point in voting Republican.
manwithblackhat on December 9, 2008 at 8:54 AM
We live in a time when what an increasing majority seems to consider correct/moral is the opposite of what was formerly so. Even people old enough to know better and who lived under the former ethical system have been slowly and systematically turned from their previously held views.
It makes life much less pleasurable and satisfying, and it’s grating and dispiriting to see unpardonable behaviors pardoned, not to mention dangerous for what it portends.
But it is what it is. You really have no choice but to continue to resist, in small and not so small ways, if you want to feel free, even though that may alienate you from everyday life. Evidently, for now, that is the price of freedom.
JiangxiDad on December 9, 2008 at 9:11 AM
Inasmuch as men have been known to die for it, there has always been a price for freedom.
manwithblackhat on December 9, 2008 at 9:28 AM
I don’t think slavery is always wrong. If it’s voluntary and paid for, it’s not much different than work.
And I don’t think early abortion is wrong either, especially when birth control failed.
And I don’t believe that the Bible considers abortion to be the same as murder. The verse that says “He knew me even before I was placed there” really doesn’t talk about abortion and could just as easily be read to prohibit birth control.
Do what you want, but it’s people like me that shift from Dem to GOP. If the GOP wants to win, it needs moderatesm, especially since it looks like the Hispanics have abandoned the GOP.
jim m on December 9, 2008 at 9:32 AM
To be quite honest my opinion of moderates is pretty low. Most of them can be relied upon to vote whichever way the macro political winds are blowing.
More amusing is their hatred of a so called “conservative litmus test” on abortion while simultaneously saying that because the GOP does not mirror the Democratic Party in open support of abortion, they cannot get a moderate’s vote.
Who is it that has the litmus test, again?
BKennedy on December 9, 2008 at 9:43 AM
Well, I agree with you, and I liked Steele a great deal for the post, but I still consider myself a Republican. There’s a healthy split of views, but you’re hardly alone philisophically on this board.
JudetheFossil on December 9, 2008 at 9:45 AM
One of the problems for Conservatives is that states didn’t have the good sense to eliminate segregation until the federal government forced them to in the 1960′s. It changed the balance of power between the feds and the states for the worse. But the feds could justify the expanse of government due to the poor judgment of the states.
dedalus on December 9, 2008 at 9:55 AM
What I don’t understand is Why?
I know I am late to this thread and nobody is reading any longer, but if I care about keeping abortion rights legal, I’m going to vote for the D. Why would I vote for the R party if they switch to pro-abortion. That plank is already taken by the D’s.
And again, here we have another Catholic explaining why we have to support abortion. For all the noise that Catholics make about a Cathecism or whatever, it seems that in practice the views are a little more nuanced.
Americans have a choice. You can choose to have sex or not have sex. You can choose to use birth control or not use birth control. Once there is a pregnancy there is no longer ONE person making the choice. There are two lives at stake unless one of the two suffers from some sort of ‘arrested development’.
Again, I don’t think I’m ever going to vote for the GOP any more. As far as I’m concerned they are not even viable (call them GM). I think there needs to be a conservative party that will appeal to blacks and hispanics and other American conservatives. Then there will be no need for the GOP.
ThackerAgency on December 9, 2008 at 9:57 AM
As a former pro-choice catholic republican, I can tell you that in my younger days, I used to justify abortion as a choice that should be left up to the mother. The older I get the more I realized that I was chosing not to dwell on it because I knew that I would never personally have an abortion. Once I started to try to explain my stance to my children, I realized that I was lying to myself. I realized that abortion is wrong. There is no logical argument for it that does not take another persons view more into account than the childs. Whether you beleive it is a viable child at any number of weeks, it will grow to be a child and aborting it for the mothers sake, or societies sake, etc. is still putting someone elses interest above the childs. By the way, this was explained to me by my 13 year old daughter when she asked about abortion and I tried to justify my pro choice stance to her. She had thought this through much more throughly than her mother.
momof2 on December 9, 2008 at 10:00 AM
I will never understand the rationale of the pro-choice Catholic. Pontious Pilate is the perfect example of a pro-choice catholic…he was personally opposed to the crucifixion of Christ, but left it up to others to decide…he was being politically expedient to quell the unrest, but “he washed his hands of it”.
joepub on December 9, 2008 at 10:08 AM
Sure it does…it definitely takes a stand against abortion.
*
Steele is correct, we need to open the tent,once in the tent it is up to us to show them that our way is not the wrong way, and also to listen to them.
There is a certain segment of women who support abortion, we need to listen to SOME of them and comfort their fears and anger.
It just isn’t right to slam the door in every ones face who doesn’t agree with you.
right2bright on December 9, 2008 at 10:13 AM
Personally, I don’t see how the 3 legs of the “stool” don’t work nicely together. I wouldn’t sit on a stool with one wobbly leg.
But if we’re gonna play hardball, then hardball it is: Stop the baby killing, defend our country, and give me my money. The rest of you can piss off!
8)
HYTEAndy on December 9, 2008 at 10:23 AM
Which Catholic would that be? I assume you don’t mean Steele because he said no such thing.
Did you watch the clip? The essense of his point was that sometimes a hard right conservative can’t win every seat, but it would be better for the GOP to run an imperfect conservative in the district than allow the lib socialist to keep their incumbency. The party platform will still be the same, and will still be pro-life.
BKennedy on December 9, 2008 at 10:24 AM
joepub on December 9, 2008 at 10:08 AM
I just explained my stance as a no-longer pro-choice republican. Deep down I knew that it was wrong, but when you start thinking about telling people how to use their bodies, I had a problem with that. I was taught that everyone has free will and that seemed to take that away from people. Whether you agree or don’t agree that is how I felt. I personally would never have an abortion, so I felt I was doing no wrong and keeping to my catholic beleifs. After my 13 year old opened my eyes, I realized I had been deluding myself.
momof2 on December 9, 2008 at 10:24 AM
This is interesting. So now, the pro-abortion people are justified in being FEARFUL and ANGRY that abortion might not be a legal form of birth control? What would they fear? Having too many babies to adopt? Giving minds and wills an opportunity to contribute to society?
What are they angry about? not being able to erase a problem? penis envy? needing to kill their own babies?
But the problem is that most pro-life Republican politicians don’t really know WHY they are pro-life. They aren’t convicted about it one way or the other. They don’t care. No modern society should ever contemplate killing the unborn, much less make it legal.
It’s things like abortion and gay rights that add fuel to the fire of Islamic extremists concerning America. They use issues like this to show that America needs to be fought against and hit and destroyed. America is not losing its moral compass because of foreign wars. America is losing its moral compass because of policies domestically at home.
ThackerAgency on December 9, 2008 at 10:25 AM
The crucifixion was something of a state’s rights issue. It was politically better for Rome to let the Judeans decide the outcome for their own religious crimes as long as the tax revenue continued to flow back to Rome. Pilate probably opted against justice in favor of political stability.
dedalus on December 9, 2008 at 10:29 AM
Kennedy, I know you are Catholic, and I’d like to consider you a friend. But the reality is that if Catholics would make a stand against abortion, Roe would be overturned. The problem is the nuance that guys like Rudy come up with saying that they are personally against it, but support your right to do it. That isn’t believing anything.
Steele seems to be a nice guy. But the GOP is supposed to be an alternative to something. A counter weight to something. It seems like the GOP just wants to co-opt what the D’s are doing, become the D’s, and then the people who voted for the D will suddenly vote for R’s.
It doesn’t work that way. The GOP was the conservative alternative. Now the GOP is nothing. The GOP continues to turn red states blue (like NC) and they keep learning the wrong lesson.
I guess the theme song for the R party now should be:
don’t it make my red states. . .
don’t it make my red states. . .
don’t it make my red states BLUE.
ThackerAgency on December 9, 2008 at 10:29 AM
Against robbery? Don’t rob houses!
Against adultery? Don’t cheat on your spouse!
Against abortion? Don’t have one!
(See how nicely the logic flows?)
HYTEAndy on December 9, 2008 at 10:30 AM
Enjoy abortion. do it
Enjoy adultery. do it
Enjoy robbery. do it.
(See how nicely the logic flows?)
JiangxiDad on December 9, 2008 at 10:34 AM
The reasons we have laws, is that some people DO want to rob houses and cheat on their spouses, because they do not CARE about “how nicely the logic flows.”
manwithblackhat on December 9, 2008 at 10:36 AM
.
Thank you. Life is vulnerable and precious. It is so beneath our calling to say we owe a duty to the child from the moment of birth, but not a minute before. Suggesting that there is a “right” to snuff out that vulnerable life signals exactly the wrong values to our children. The better message is to say mothers have the power to neglect their unborn children and prevent their birth, but exercising that power is discouraging to everyone, and shames us all.
Mark30339 on December 9, 2008 at 10:41 AM
OK, unsure who the original poster was, but, I have to point out that this logic is inconsistent.
“Personally” indicates either a rightfully personal decision OR an unwillingness to make an offensive, absolutist statement, regardless of merit.
Then, you call abortion an abomination. What is an abomination but something which is so morally reprehensible that it is almost unspeakable. Most true abominations are illegal by virtue of their vile nature which would literally destroy the fabric of a just society.
If, then, abortion is an abomination in the true sense of the word, why would it be ok to allow any society vote on whether it is just fine to do? This flies in the face of libertarian argument for “no victimless” crime, which abortion clearly is not. It also denies a biblical understanding of human nature which, might I add, informed our founders when they safe guarded us against a pure, straight democracy. What makes you think that might makes right in the area of abomination? Sounds to me like relativism.
Mommypundit on December 9, 2008 at 10:46 AM
personal freedom means:
- I can publicly disagree with the state
- I can worship God as my conscience dictates
- I can bear arms without infringement
- I can have a trial by jury
- …
personal freedom does not mean that we can kill unborn children. “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” are limited to those that can escape the womb?
Abortion is not a social issue. It is a moral issue.
If that is to become the RNC position, I will remain a classical liberal (a.k.a. “the base”), representative of those who have left the Republican (a.k.a. Democrat Lite) Party and content not to return.
AZ_Redneck on December 9, 2008 at 10:46 AM
No. We need to kick Michael RINO Steele out of the republican party.
He’s obviously just trying to scare social conservatives away from the republican party so that it will remain an ineffective party and his buddy Obama can rule indefinitely.
SaintOlaf on December 9, 2008 at 10:47 AM
So, at what point can we say that something is wrong? Do you have a family? Children? A friend? Would it be illegal to kill them? For someone to rape and murder them? This isn’t an exercise in moral equivalence..I sincerely want to know at what point you will allow the state the right to enforce any law? What exactly do you see the state’s role to be? This is an important question.
What you are saying is that these issues have little to do with what the State says and more to do with personal liberty. I wonder at what point you would approve of any legislation
These crimes/actions are not equivalent to, say, choosing to buy the organic Annie’s Mac and Cheese or Kraft Original. There are some things which are not up for debate…unless you want total anarchy.
Mommypundit on December 9, 2008 at 10:54 AM
Skip the issues clap-trap.
Implement TERM LIMITS.
That is the only thing the will end the madness.
notagool on December 9, 2008 at 10:56 AM
No, Oh Mighty One, I don’t, because the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution expressly prohibits the States from permitting slavery:
The Thirteenth Amendment was enacted the way constitutional amendments are supposed to be enacted – passed by the federal legislature and sent to the State legislatures for ratification. So the people of a majority of the various States agreed, through their representatives, to permit the federal government to abolish slavery. Absolutely proper. That’s how constitutional federal government is supposed to work.
The general legislative power of the States is guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment, which the States demanded before ratifying the Constitution. It says that:
So, unless the constitution empowers the federal government to do something, or prohibits the states from doing something, the States get to do as they please with regard to local legislation.
Now, let’s talk about the “right” to abortion. The constitution says nothing about abortion and States were free to legislate as they pleased in that area for almost two hundred years. The constitution still says nothing about abortion. It can’t be fit into any of the categories of things the federal government is expressly allowed to do, like regulating interstate commerce and etcetera.
The supposed “right” to abortion was deduced to exist as “emanating” from a supposed right to privacy that was found in the “penumbra” of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Now, in case you’ve forgotten since your time at Harvard Law School, the relevant section of the Fourteenth Amendment provides as follows:
Now, please explain to me how you get from that text to a federal constitutional right to privacy that cannot be abridged by the States, and then explain to me how you get from the supposed right to privacy to a constitutional right to an abortion that is also not subject to State interference? Can’t do it? OK, here’s the answer. In a case called Griswold v. Connecticut, the question was whether the State of Connecticut could prohibit the use of contraceptives – you know, rubbers. The geniuses in the US Supreme Court decided that Connecticut couldn’t do that because there was an unstated, implied right to privacy in the federal constitution and, because rubbers are generally used in private, the States could not prohibit their use. [As an aside, note that methamphetamines and marijuana are generally used in private, too.]
Follow that? Now, because there is an “implied” right to privacy that guarantees your right to use rubbers (but not cocaine), it naturally follows that you have a privacy right that guarantees the right to an abortion (but not a machine gun, which, in my view, would get you a whole lot more privacy in the long run.)
So, Mighty One, if you think that all of that makes sense, you are retarded – which is to say, qualified to sit on the United States Supreme Court, where you can make up laws, too, when the whim strikes you.
The whole point of making these cases so complex is so that most people won’t be able to/bother to understand that we have been subjected to tyranny by old people with lifetime appointments who answer to no one.
And that’s what *should* be making you sick.
Venusian Visitor on December 9, 2008 at 11:01 AM
Not sure the Bible gets you clearly all the way to conception, though the case to quickening is more evident.
Regardless Biblical arguments aren’t going to be the medium to convincing those who believe that they are protected from the establishment of a particular church law or scripture interpretation.
dedalus on December 9, 2008 at 11:03 AM
I should have mentioned that my “Against… dont!” posts were sarcasm.
Again, I was sarcastically imitating the logic of pro-choicers.
I am as pro-life as they come.
HYTEAndy on December 9, 2008 at 11:08 AM
And the logic does NOT flow nicely.
That was the point of my post.
HYTEAndy on December 9, 2008 at 11:08 AM
The founders knew of abortion and didn’t address the beginning of life in the Constitution. To the extent abortion was regulated by law in colonial times, the founders would have likely relied on the “quickening” standard.
dedalus on December 9, 2008 at 11:12 AM
It does seem to be a bit of a leap.
However, if the time at which one becomes a citizen is at all fuzzy, so as to allow one to be a citizen before the act of being born…
Count to 10 on December 9, 2008 at 11:12 AM
That would be reaching out to Democrats, our party is kissing to much butt already,…Republicans need to get assertive and stand up for OUR party.
christene on December 9, 2008 at 11:14 AM
Actually it very clearly does.
The Incarnation of the Lord began at the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary….not at His birth!
Orthodox Christians understand and celebrate the fact that the Incarnation began at conception.
The pro-life movement is rooted in the Holy Scriptures and Orthodox Christianity.
SaintOlaf on December 9, 2008 at 11:24 AM
Behold the handmaiden of the Lord!
Venusian Visitor on December 9, 2008 at 11:27 AM
I am a Libertarian leaning Republican male. Have voted Republican since 1980. I define myself as a “Moderate” Republican. Why, because I believe in evolution, the right to die (i.e., Terri Schiavo), and that abortion is a woman’s health/personal issue. In a perfect world there would be no abortions based on birth control. This is what are goal should be.
If you want to call me a RINO and kick me out of our party that’s OK. I’ve feel like I’ve been abandoned anyway. (See fiscal irresponsibility).
Social conservatives cannot elect presidents. Go ahead, kick all the RINO’s and Moderates out. This party will implode and split. Maybe this needs to happen, in fact I think it already has begun. I look forward to the day when 50% of the Democratic party wakes up and joins us in the middle to solve problems, not bicker and point fingers.
flyfish on December 9, 2008 at 11:32 AM
Biblical arguments aside, now that we have the technology to prove how advanced life has already become at the time abortion is still legal there is no reason that it should be an option. Adopt a kid out to a loving family. Many good families can’t find kids to adopt in the states because it has become quite difficult so they adopt from China.
And as for the person who argued that southern states can’t be trusted with states rights issues because of the desegregation issue: Before southern states were forced to integrate there was a whole economic system with African American owners – banks, stores, etc. When integration was forced on them they all went out of business because they couldn’t compete with the stronger, more well established white-owned businesses. Who did that hurt? I’m not saying that integration was wrong by any means, I’m just saying that there is more to consider than just thinking “everyone in the south must be a racist”.
Doppleganker on December 9, 2008 at 11:32 AM
Anyway, what reaching out that should be done is presenting a more coherent basis for the position (SaintOlaf’s “the bible says so” doesn’t work on people who don’t care what the bible says), as well as convincing them to support Republicans because of the direction they want things to go right now. Be more incremental: majorities support waiting periods, parental notification, restrictions on late term abortions, and oppose subsidies. Emphasize that.
I’m not a lawyer, but would it work if congress passed a resolution that abortion should be regulated by the states?
Count to 10 on December 9, 2008 at 11:35 AM
Michael Steele is a moron and so are the countless others here at HotAir that just DO NOT GET IT… We lost the election because:
1) We had a HORRIBLE RINO candidate foisted upon Conservatives by “Moderates”!
2) The Dems had the FULL and total support of the MSM for the Messiah, even though they (MSM) had “chosen” our guy!
3) We had ANOTHER so called leader that could not form a COMPLETE SENTENCE! Had NO real, honest convictions for the REAGAN CONSERVATIVE message that has been missing from our party…
4) Dems had massive “black” turnout and moron, sorry, I mean “youth” voters energized.
5) Poor / Unemployed / Union Tools voted themselves a check and voted AGAINST America’s best intrests.
*** The constant talk, blah, blah, blah, blah, about Moderates and Conservatives is garbage. There is ONLY ONE way to win… PREACH, TEACH, WALK, TALK, VALUES, MORALS, PRO-LIFE, LOW TAXES, ANTI-UNION, PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITIES, STRONG MILITARY… LOUD AND PROUD, AMERICA FIRST, ENGLISH AS OFFICIAL LANGUAGE, VOUCHERS FOR ALL PARENTS, HOME SCHOOLING RIGHTS, HEALTHCARE REFORMS and so many more… CORE PRINCIPALS, no more faux Conservatives!
The Moderates got us where we are, now move over and let a REAL HARD CORE CONSERVATIVE that can articulate the core values and the message lead the Republican party back to power. No more will I go along to get along, HARD CONSERVATIVES or nothing, but Moderates need to STFU!
Mark Garnett on December 9, 2008 at 11:37 AM
momof2 on December 9, 2008 at 10:24 AM
joepub on December 9, 2008 at 11:38 AM
It means you are supporting the system of law before Roe v Wade, when each State had their own definitions for murder and had their own punishments or not. The Feds did not presume to define social law for the states.
However, a group of Supreme Court Justices decided they didn’t like the way States voted so they dove into the Constitution and found something that was not there.
They did not find original intent, because we know that in the society of the Founders, abortion was universally illegal just a sodomy was a crime. Both were handled locally not federally, although Federal entities acted on the same standards. For instance, George Washington removed an officer in his army for homosexual behaviour.
As society drifted, certain States found goodness in abortion and legalized abortion. At that critical point in our history, the Supreme court decided that States no longer had the right to define murder by finding in the constitution the universal right to commit murder under circumstances the justices defined
This awesome leap to transfer the definition of murder to the Federal Courts permanently weakened the Highest Court which has continued to usurp the definition of various local law for the higher good, in property rights, religious expression etc.
When I hear people argue correctly that we must win the hearts and minds of people on the abortion issue I think back to the days when States reflected the hearts and minds of their majority citizens. There were alternatives to different community standards. You could move to a different State
Not all viewpoints are satisfied. The idea that all viewpoints must be appeased has resulted in the atheist holiday tree, and the redefinition of religious speech as obscene because it vilifies certain behaviour, and the redfinition of pornographic and scatalogical speech as not obscene because it is not religious.
As the highest court spins into orbit, it is redefining local social law to the lowest common denominator and working to create a quota system of community standards at the State level, so all standards are appeased and the majority may never set a standard.
Thus the nation through the High Court is drifting towards the EU model of suppression the local voice and imposing community standards from unelected officials at the top
entagor on December 9, 2008 at 11:40 AM
Wouldn’t the incarnation have to occur at conception since it was the substitute for conception? Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit to a woman who (some believe) was herself conceived without sin. He also rose from the dead and ascended bodily into heaven. A description of the Word becoming flesh is different than a law governing pregnancy.
There are laws about many practices in the Bible, some of them very specific but I’m not familiar with one that deals with an early term abortion.
The pro-life movement may be rooted in the Holy Scriptures but it needs to make its case with methods beyond scripture since voters aren’t likely to be persuaded by arguments from the faith of other religions. The courts are certainly not going to look to the Gospel accounts of the Annunciation when reviewing Roe.
dedalus on December 9, 2008 at 11:43 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 6 7 8 9 Next »