When I read that Sam Brownback had dropped out of the race, my immediate reaction was that this would be good news for Mitt Romney.
In light of Brownback's comments yesterday, I'm wondering whether he dropped out specifically to help Romney:
The Kansas senator did acknowledge, however, that he is convinced the Republican Party will nominate a "pro-life candidate," and he feels that Giuliani does not fit the bill. "Governor Romney's certainly taken a pro-life position now," Brownback said to reporters after his speech. "We'll see if that's something that can persuade the American public. My criticism of [Romney] has been that you need someone that believes in the cause to persuade the American public, and if it's seen as switching on a lot of topics it's tough to persuade the American public. Mayor Giuliani has said he's pro-choice."
That sounds like a tacit endorsement of Romney.
But it makes me wonder about something else.
Since when is abortion the number one issue for the president of the United States?
I realize people have strong feelings all the way around. I have mixed feelings and I have discussed them. But what exactly is the president going to do about it one way or the other? He's charged with faithfully executing the laws of the United States, and his powers are limited. True, he could sign or veto abortion legislation (and that could possibly be sustained or thrown out by the Supreme Court), but he'd be charged with enforcing the laws on the books, and little more. There's no magic wand for the president to wave which could either "save the unborn" or further "doom" them. And even if we suppose that the Supreme Court were to do something so dramatic as to reverse Roe v. Wade, then abortion would become even less of a presidential concern as it would revert completely to the states.
My intent here is not to debate the merits of the abortion issue, but to express concern that the GOP is plagued with a lack of imagination, and possibly hamstrung by single-issue contingencies.
Meanwhile, Hillary is becoming a walking encyclopedia of moderation, and while she barely mentions abortion these days, she has done her damnedest to make herself appear as abortion-unfriendly as possible. Unless she's caught waving a coathanger at a NOW convention, the Republicans will be painted as shrill and obsessed.
And Hillary will fall back on her previous statements that abortion is "a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women," and:
There is no reason why government cannot do more to educate and inform and provide assistance so that the choice guaranteed under our constitution either does not ever have to be exercised or only in very rare circumstances.
Hey, these are serious issues. Get with the program!
posted by Eric on 10.20.07 at 11:49 AM
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/5695
Comments
I watched a little bit of Ben Stein’s speech in front of the Family Research Council, and a tad of Phyllis Schlafly. Since I consider myself a Republican, and in the main, they do as well, I thought I’d add a comment about why I am at times uncomfortable with this “wing” of the Republican party.
I’ve seen, firsthand, what goes on behind closed doors when the Religious Right (RR) meet behind closed doors. This is not to say that these observations apply to all such get-togethers. I have experienced these people at county central committee meetings and at the state level. Since they are motivated by religion they have no uncertainty. It is this lack of uncertainty that creates my suspicion of their aptitude for governance.
If their (RR) lack of uncertainty was focused on the ordinary Sunday school stuff of the Golden Rule or turning the other cheek, which in the main were presented as lofty ideals since Man is imperfect, the moral certainty of espousing these beliefs would present no problem to me. I can easily accept that much of what is encompassed by religious training is beneficial; both to the individual receiving that training, and to those around that individual who comprise society.
Where I differ is on this issue of life. I believe that I can argue persuasively that abortion should be criminalized. To advance that argument it is helpful to make sure the audience receiving the argument has faith in “life after death”. It is the construct of an “hereafter” that mitigates most of the real-world problems of life and death decisions. Often I’ve heard “kill them all and let God sort it out”. This in reference to various groups, sometimes even attorneys.
The joke is, man is imperfect. Our ability “to know” is limited. Therefore, since there is a God, and mistakes will be made regardless of our intent, the wholesale slaughter of an offending group will be met in Heaven with the appropriate outcome for the victim, as a result of that inability to make good decisions, to discern between worthy or unworthy, here on Earth.
Having God on ones side is surely an Ace when it comes to the debater’s hole card.
It is just this equivocation, between certainty and uncertainty that serves to reinforce my suspicion of the Religious Right. Depending upon your religious training--whether Catholic, Presbyterian or Baptist, your training, although “Christian” will vary greatly—you will view your role in determining or choosing outcomes in your life with a great deal of variance. And, hopelessly for me, your intent can/will outweigh potential negative, adverse outcomes that were unintended as a consequence to your choice/action. In my way of thinking, too many RR’s are certain of their role in the heaven to come than the hell on earth. And without weighing outcomes for their beliefs, convictions, actions operate as if they are already acting from a pure state of grace.
Their, the Religious Right’s, belief system therefore more closely approximates the totalitarian belief system of the Left, than it does the more libertarian impulses of the Right. And when that totalitarian impulse is exposed, the RR turns on its heels and presents the ethical dilemma “Shouldn’t we defend all life?”
Usually my next question is whether or not they believe in the Death Penalty. I don’t. Although I believe I can argue persuasively that the death penalty is a penalty that society has the right to impose. But just as easily as a member of the Religious Right can believe in the death penalty on one hand, with similar clarity they can reject abortion on the other. Which further deepens my suspicion of the RR.
The impulse to control the actions of others in an undeniable aspect of the Religious Right. What does a Catholic do when asked if they were “born again”? How does a Catholic explain to an evangelical that in their case, God got it right the first time? Such hubris. (Which is in part why the recent hubbub over Ann Coulter’s comments on “perfecting Jews” was amusing.)
I guess the Ann Coulter incident can actually clear the air a bit on why my suspicions of the RR are so strong. Ms. Coulter was actually explaining her understanding of one of the Church’s doctrines. I have no reason to believe that she was suggesting another Spanish Inquisition. But for her there’s no hiding behind a wall of ethics. She was merely expounding the dogma of the faith she has chosen to practice. And within that faith, volunteerism is an essential precept of faith. She chooses to be Catholic. That’s all.
Many great politicians have had strong religious training combined with strong faith. The story of Oregon’s Mark Hatfield is one of those stories that come to mind. But it was from within his faith that he found the strength to make political decisions that reflected the world that he lived in. Not the world he envisioned living in. Not the world of life hereafter.
But this is just a comment, so I’ll leave it here. I hope something I’ve written will help the conversation move forward.
They are likely to face a candidate in Hillary Clinton who will receive at least five million votes for no other reason than her sex, and they try to elevate an issue that will alienate that very constituency, increasing Hillary's total.
Brett · October 20, 2007 02:10 PM
I would not be here but for the fact that my 43 year old mother did not believe in abortion when I was conceived.
She was an atheist. Yet she believed, rightly or wrongly, that life started at conception.
My father was an MD who knew the risks of children born to change of life women -- that a disproportionate number are born with defects, and a high number are Downs Syndrome kids.
He wanted her to abort (when it was illegal everywhere) and was willing to perform the procedure himself.
She wouldn't hear of it.
Yet in her old age, as a lifetime Republican, she turned against the Republican Party because it came to advance a dogmatic, religious view of abortion as murder.
Her last presidential vote was for Clinton.
Were she alive today, I'm sure Hillary would get her vote simply because of this issue.
And you think that Romney and the Religious Right have a chance?
Not in my lifetime.
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Don?t bang your head!
I watched a little bit of Ben Stein’s speech in front of the Family Research Council, and a tad of Phyllis Schlafly. Since I consider myself a Republican, and in the main, they do as well, I thought I’d add a comment about why I am at times uncomfortable with this “wing” of the Republican party.
I’ve seen, firsthand, what goes on behind closed doors when the Religious Right (RR) meet behind closed doors. This is not to say that these observations apply to all such get-togethers. I have experienced these people at county central committee meetings and at the state level. Since they are motivated by religion they have no uncertainty. It is this lack of uncertainty that creates my suspicion of their aptitude for governance.
If their (RR) lack of uncertainty was focused on the ordinary Sunday school stuff of the Golden Rule or turning the other cheek, which in the main were presented as lofty ideals since Man is imperfect, the moral certainty of espousing these beliefs would present no problem to me. I can easily accept that much of what is encompassed by religious training is beneficial; both to the individual receiving that training, and to those around that individual who comprise society.
Where I differ is on this issue of life. I believe that I can argue persuasively that abortion should be criminalized. To advance that argument it is helpful to make sure the audience receiving the argument has faith in “life after death”. It is the construct of an “hereafter” that mitigates most of the real-world problems of life and death decisions. Often I’ve heard “kill them all and let God sort it out”. This in reference to various groups, sometimes even attorneys.
The joke is, man is imperfect. Our ability “to know” is limited. Therefore, since there is a God, and mistakes will be made regardless of our intent, the wholesale slaughter of an offending group will be met in Heaven with the appropriate outcome for the victim, as a result of that inability to make good decisions, to discern between worthy or unworthy, here on Earth.
Having God on ones side is surely an Ace when it comes to the debater’s hole card.
It is just this equivocation, between certainty and uncertainty that serves to reinforce my suspicion of the Religious Right. Depending upon your religious training--whether Catholic, Presbyterian or Baptist, your training, although “Christian” will vary greatly—you will view your role in determining or choosing outcomes in your life with a great deal of variance. And, hopelessly for me, your intent can/will outweigh potential negative, adverse outcomes that were unintended as a consequence to your choice/action. In my way of thinking, too many RR’s are certain of their role in the heaven to come than the hell on earth. And without weighing outcomes for their beliefs, convictions, actions operate as if they are already acting from a pure state of grace.
Their, the Religious Right’s, belief system therefore more closely approximates the totalitarian belief system of the Left, than it does the more libertarian impulses of the Right. And when that totalitarian impulse is exposed, the RR turns on its heels and presents the ethical dilemma “Shouldn’t we defend all life?”
Usually my next question is whether or not they believe in the Death Penalty. I don’t. Although I believe I can argue persuasively that the death penalty is a penalty that society has the right to impose. But just as easily as a member of the Religious Right can believe in the death penalty on one hand, with similar clarity they can reject abortion on the other. Which further deepens my suspicion of the RR.
The impulse to control the actions of others in an undeniable aspect of the Religious Right. What does a Catholic do when asked if they were “born again”? How does a Catholic explain to an evangelical that in their case, God got it right the first time? Such hubris. (Which is in part why the recent hubbub over Ann Coulter’s comments on “perfecting Jews” was amusing.)
I guess the Ann Coulter incident can actually clear the air a bit on why my suspicions of the RR are so strong. Ms. Coulter was actually explaining her understanding of one of the Church’s doctrines. I have no reason to believe that she was suggesting another Spanish Inquisition. But for her there’s no hiding behind a wall of ethics. She was merely expounding the dogma of the faith she has chosen to practice. And within that faith, volunteerism is an essential precept of faith. She chooses to be Catholic. That’s all.
Many great politicians have had strong religious training combined with strong faith. The story of Oregon’s Mark Hatfield is one of those stories that come to mind. But it was from within his faith that he found the strength to make political decisions that reflected the world that he lived in. Not the world he envisioned living in. Not the world of life hereafter.
But this is just a comment, so I’ll leave it here. I hope something I’ve written will help the conversation move forward.