Should We Nominate a Pro-Choice Republican?
by Phillip Ellis Jackson | View comments |
Print This Post
In an ideal world, my candidate would believe exactly the same things I do, with the same intensity. Unfortunately, this isn’t how the world actually works.
It’s way too early in the election cycle to get behind a particular candidate. Even in the best of times, the guy (or nowadays, possibly the gal) you pick can self-destruct in a hundred different ways in the blink of an eye, let alone over the next 18 months.
We all remember how the presumptive Democrat nominee Ed Muskee crashed and burned in 1971 when he cried in public about the unkind things some newspaper said about his wife. No one wanted a wimp for a president, at least back then. Today a few well-placed sniffles or a trembling lower lip can actually be campaign asset, thanks both to Bill Clinton and the Feminist movement, who together have re-defined what it means to be a man in the eyes of the American electorate. Then there was Gary Hart who dared the press to prove that he was fooling around on his wife. He did, and they did, and that was the last we heard of his candidacy — another victim of the pre-Bill Clinton era of public morality.
In more recent times, who can forget the demented scream of Howard Dean? It proved that any hint of a Thomas Eagleton problem was still a deal-breaker for the American public. We may have come to accept a crying, lip-trembling philanderer in the Oval Office, or even someone who’s a little off mentally (remember, Al Gore did win the popular vote in 2000). But if we think the guy is certifiably crazy, then cooler heads will ultimately prevail, and that candidate’s fortunes will fall faster than the Dow Jones Industrial average should Hillary get elected.
No, for all these reasons and more, it’s far too early to support one candidate over another. And I haven’t even touched on the subject yet of what they actually stand for. If this was a normal election cycle, right about now I’d just be starting my candidate checklist. Where do they stand on economic issues like trade and taxes, political issues like slowing (or actually reversing) the growth of government, legal issues such as the proper use of eminent domain and the intelligent regulation of speech (as opposed to the campaign finance reform fiasco), and social issues ranging from civil rights to abortion?
But this isn’t a normal election cycle. It’s not just the de facto regional primary system that was created — the Mother of all Super Tuesdays. Nor is it the fact that for the first time in U.S. history a woman has a viable chance of getting her party’s nomination. Rather, what makes 2008 so special is a tiny little issue almost completely unnoticed by 50% of the voting population and 100% of the mainstream press. I’m speaking, of course, about the life and death struggle of Western Civilization against the forces of Islamic fascism.
As David Yerushalmi recently pointed out in his essay "In Search of a Moderate Muslim," there’s a group of people in the world who want to kill us. I put this in simple terms not to disparage David’s points, but to reinforce them. The adults of the world already understand this fact, having watched a few thousand innocent people get incinerated on September 11, 2001, not to mention those who’ve been paying attention to Middle East politics for the last 50 years. Democrats, Liberals, Holocaust-deniers, Moveon.org Bush haters, Rodney King Can’t-We-All-Just-Get-Alongers, Politically Correct Thought Police Nannies, Articles of Confederation Isolationists, the Mainstream News Media, and the populations of Oakland and San Francisco to name just a few, have yet to be convinced. In fact, to their way of thinking, if we’d only impeach Bush there would have been no September 11, or attack on the USS Cole, or African Embassies bombings, or Blackhawk Down, or . . . well, you get the point.
You may notice that in constructing my Candidate Issues Checklist, I omitted any reference to national defense. Up until the recent past, the issue of national defense was pretty much a given regardless of the candidates vying for public office. We had our enemies, as every nation does, but no one seriously feared for their lives when they went to work or flew across the country. Terrorism was the province of the Middle East, and occasionally Europe. Our principal enemy collapsed of its own weight and left us as the world’s only superpower, so what did we have to fear? The only real debate among those seeking office was how to spend the “peace dividend” following the demise of Soviet Communism, or during the Clinton years, just how much national security technology we could afford to sell to the Chinese to help build up the Clinton-Gore political war chest.
I’m being somewhat facetious, of course, by implying that Democrats have always been at least minimally concerned about national security. The truth is, the slogan “It’s not safe to vote Democrat” wasn’t invented in a vacuum. Democrats, as a party, have never held the military in particularly high regard, unless it’s to deliver meals to starving African children for a quick photo-op. But before 9/11, the worst we’d suffer was a decline in our military readiness and/or commitment to national security that would be repaired, once again, when the Republicans came back in power. Annoying — yes, and demeaning to the men and women in uniform serving this country — certainly, but life or death critical? Not really.
September 11 changed everything, at least for many of us who are more concerned with our country and family’s safety than automatically opposing everything Bush supports. We can no longer afford the luxury of 4, 8 or 12+ years of uninterrupted Democrat control of the White House to wreak havoc on the nation’s security, knowing that the Republicans will eventually fix the problem. Today we face a threat unparalleled since the 1930s, and the response of the Democrats in power is to pretend that it doesn’t exist and hope that it will go away.
It won’t, and unlike 9/11, the next big casualty count could very well number in the hundreds of thousands. Even after September 11, even after North Korea exploded a nuclear device (contrary to Nobel Laureate Jimmy Carter’s assertions that North Korea had abandoned its nuclear ambitions, thanks to his efforts), even after the growing, visible threat of Islamic fascism as evidenced by the actions of Al Qaeda and the pronouncements of Iran, Nancy Pelosi still thinks all this is just a “situation to be managed,” not a war to be fought. And to a person, all of the Democrats running for the highest office agree with her assessment.
So we come now to what matters most in supporting a candidate in the upcoming presidential election. In normal times, I’d put issues like abortion at the top of my checklist. I believe that the killing of an innocent human life is tantamount to murder, even one still attached to an umbilical cord. I haven’t changed my opinion on this subject one iota, even where the issue of rape and incest is involved. The human being resulting from this abomination didn’t cause the abomination to happen, and tragic as it would be for the rape victim to carry it to term and then put the child up for adoption, killing that innocent child would simply compound one abomination with another. There are two victims of rape in this situation; the mother and her child. Killing one makes no more sense than killing both, since neither is guilty of any offense.
I realize that my take on the abortion issue goes farther than many pro-life advocates, which is why it’s equally important for everyone to understand that in 2008, a candidate’s stand on Roe v. Wade will have absolutely no impact on any decision I make in the ballot box. The issue that matters to me first and foremost is where they stand on protecting my family from the threat of Islamo-fascism. That is the foundation from which all other issues will spring.
My focus on security is not to say that other issues are irrelevant. Rather, it is to say that other issues will follow from this base. Once I know I can support Candidate X on a fundamental level, I’ll look at where he/she stands on a variety of additional issues, and then maker my selection accordingly. If the only thing my candidate and I agreed on was the security question, that would be enough to get my vote. Conversely, if we agreed on every other issue from abortion, to taxes, to freedom of speech, but disagreed on security, I wouldn’t give that person my support. And just to round things out, if every candidate fell short on my security evaluation, then I’d vote for the one who scored the highest, even if it was only 1% out of 100% of what I wanted.
Security, if I haven’t made myself clear enough by now, is not just the main issue in deciding my vote. It’s the only issue.
I believe, however, that by focusing first and foremost on the issue of security, we can still get a candidate elected who will advance our other interests; even such issues as overturning a woman’s “right” to elective abortion. I say this because once the short list of security-conscious candidates is determined, we should be able to find a Republican candidate who also supports a strict construction of the Constitution. Where a candidate stands on this issue, not whether they personally oppose abortion, tells us all we need to know.
One thing that is often lost in the abortion debate is the fact that a president can’t personally overturn Roe v. Wade, no matter how strongly he feels about the issue. The best he can do, from a practical standpoint, is appoint Supreme Court justices (should a vacancy occur) who might strictly interpret the Constitution, and thus possibly impact that decision. True, a president can also use his office as a bully pulpit to help educate the public on the inherent evil of harming an innocent human life, and make it harder for the Executive branch to support abortion practices. But insofar as the issue of ending abortion remains the central question, we all need to recognize that a president can only do certain, indirect things to impact Roe v. Wade — assuming that his Supreme Court nominee doesn’t go off the reservation, as has happened with previous appointments by Reagan and GHW Bush. And finally, we should remember that if the Supreme Court one day does in fact overturn Roe v. Wade, abortion would not end. Instead, it would be returned to the province of the State Legislatures, where 50 new battles would begin.
While I agree that in a perfect world I’d rather have a staunch opponent of abortion in the White House than a fair-weather friend, I also recognize that what a candidate personally feels about this issue only goes so far in actually impacting policy. When the country’s security isn’t at stake, then we have the luxury of elevating this issue in our judgment of a candidate’s acceptability. But now is not one of those times. Unless we deal with the very real threat to ourselves and our families posed by the rise of Islamo-fascism, the abortion debate will be rendered moot by virtue of the fact that few of us will be in any position to have this debate. Infidels aren’t granted rights of free expression in an Islamic-dominated world, and in any case, dead Infidels have no need for any discussions of any kind.
Despite my own strong beliefs that we need to overturn Roe v. Wade as the first step in ending elective abortions, the only practical path to doing this in 2008 is to first identify a group of candidates who will fight terrorists instead of appease them, and then look for at least one member of this group who will appoint strict constructionist judges to the Supreme Court.
In this case, Rudy Giuliani is as acceptable to me as the Party’s nominee as Mitt Romney, John McCain, or Fred Thompson. Of course, during the primary fights I’m free to choose someone other than Rudy. Here the second tier issues can (and should) come into play. This is why we still need to hear more about the specifics of each candidate’s policies and the reasoning behind it, to make the best choice among the existing field. But once the nominating process is over, it’s a whole different game. Sitting on my hands in 2008 because Rudy gets the nod is just plain stupid, since clearly Hillary, Obama, Edwards or Gore would be a total disaster on both security and abortion.
So, while it’s way too early to pick one candidate over another for the Republican Party nomination, the timing is exactly right to begin winnowing down the field based on where they stand on the fight against radical Islam. Answering that will allow the next big question to be addressed: are they really likely to appoint a strict constructionist to the Court — or at least as strict a constructionist as the politics of the Senate will allow?
Then, and only then, can we get to the issue of whether the Republican nominee will help make inroads in the fight against elective abortion. That is, unless we decide to waste our vote on some fringe candidate to “make a statement” to the Republican Party. Some people tried this strategy in 2006, and we can all see how well returning the Democrats to power is advancing the issues we hold dear.
Jackson-ic@hotmail.com
http://www.scifi-jackson.com/
Read more articles by Phillip Ellis Jackson
I agree with you 100% that national defense/homeland security/the war on Islamic terrorists is the singular issue in the upcoming campaign. I too have yet to settle on a candidate for the Republican nomination (other than opposing McCain.) And though Rudy's stand on abortion is so convoluted and contradictory that it calls into question his judgement (or at least his sincerity) I, nevertheless, being a New Yorker, remember both the pre-Rudy cesspool the city was and the heroic 9/11 response of his administration (contrast this with Louisiana post-Katrina.) I do not think we can find a better or tougher man to lead us through (or prevent) the next crisis.
For me, he (Giuliani) certainly passes the security test as surely as he fails miserably on abortion. What will cinch it for me is his, and the other candidates stand on immigration. All else being equal, this is my litmus test.
Comment by Jeff Osonitsch | May 14, 2007
The problem with most of the current crop of wanna-be presidents (including Guliani) is that they don't seem to understand that conservative ideas, eloquently expressed and continually reinforced, win every time.
We conservatives have allowed ourselves to be beaten into submission by those on the the left who compromise on nothing. We are willing to accept less than stellar candidates who mostly get it, while the left demands and gets lock-step orthodoxy with their candidates.
The leftist candidate simply has to pretend they are conservative with a wink and a nod, so that the average voter, who likes conservative ideas, will cast his vote for the leftist.
The only way conservative ideas will win the day is to articulate them, vote for candidates who embrace them, and win the media war by being dilligent apologists for conservatism.
Otherwise, all we will end up with is "leftist lite," a continual, albeit restrained, progression to the left.
Comment by Mountain Man | May 14, 2007
I don't understand why people seem so convinced that Giuliani would be great as regards fighting the war. Nothing he has said so far suggests that this would be the case.
"What will cinch it for me is his, and the other candidates stand on immigration. "
He is even stronger for open borders than George Bush is. He took the Federal government to court to preserve New Yorks "sanctuary city" policy. He lost. He deified the law, as all the other sanctuary cities continue to do to this day.
Comment by PatrickW | May 14, 2007
"Some people tried this strategy in 2006, and we can all see how well returning the Democrats to power is advancing the issues we hold dear."
It's not having any effect one way or another. The people running the GOP are commited to their preferred course of action, and there is very little we mere voters can do to influence them. Given a choice between a Democratic party hostile to the issues we hold dear, and a Republican party with the same sentiments, I'll take the Democrats.
Comment by PatrickW | May 14, 2007
PatrickW:
If you're making a series of rhetorical points by saying that there is no difference between a Democrat President Hillary/Obama/Edwards/Gore, and a Republican President Romney/McCain/Thompson/Rudy, or legislation promoted and passed by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and any Republican now in a leadership position, I have no response — since you're just venting, and the point isn't to be taken seriously.
But if you actually believe that Fred Thompson would nominate the same Supreme Court candidates as Obama, or Romney as Hillary, etc., you're plainly mistaken. And for all the flaws in the Republican party leadership, no one can make a serious case that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are Republicans in drag.
The purpose of my essay was to move away from rhetorical and emotional reactions to contemporary politics, and start to look at what we can/can't hope to realistically do within the present system.
Regards, Phil
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | May 14, 2007
Phil,
What I think he's trying to say (and it's becoming more and more true) is not that Pelosi and Reid are Republicans in drag, but that the Republicans are increasingly becoming Democrats in disguise.
Compassionate Conservativism is little more than liberalism with a conscience. I made the comment about the Bush/Kerry race in 2004 and I stand by it, "Both are liberals, one admits to it." Electing liberals with spines is preferable to the spineless variety, but we'd still prefer a conservative at the end of the day.
Comment by WolvenBear | May 14, 2007
WolvenBear — There is a lot of truth to the way you put it. But, I still contend, there are enough differences to keep me from throwing my vote away on a third party, or abdicating to Hillary, Obama et. al. by actually electing a liberal. Remember, a liberal with a "spine" is an oxymoron. That spine is world view that sees no moral difference between a Satanist and a Christian/Jew (it's all "religion"), that prefers appeasement to defending our national values, and wants to eliminate poverty by eliminating wealth.
For better or worse, we have institutionalized a two party system in this country, and unless we want to create 3 parties by keeping one strong (the Democrats) and two weak (old Republicans and a new Conservative party), that's the political environment we must deal with. By the time a more conservative party truly emerges from the ashes, the Lib/Dems will have completely institutionalized their power through the passage of conservative-unfriendly laws.
Better to keep pushing with the Republican party than to give up and insure defeat. If incumbants fall short, work at the primary level to replace them. But in the end, when the general election comes, it's a vote between two candidates. And we can't afford to make it it convenient for the Liberals to win by default.
Take care, Phil
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | May 14, 2007
Phillip Ellis Jackson
"The purpose of my essay was to move away from rhetorical and emotional reactions to contemporary politics, and start to look at what we can/can’t hope to realistically do within the present system."
And the point of my response is that the present system is designed to facilitate certain ends and to impede others. The current system is taking us in a certain direction - towards increasing centralisation and the rule of a wealthy technocratic elite. The rest is details, as factions within that elite squabble among themselves.
What substantive differences would you expect to see from a McCain or Giuliani Presidency on the one hand and a Clinton of Obama one on the other? We'll be drawing down from Iraq by 2008, and leaving a small force behind, whoever is president.
The basic math of the situation is going to require tax increases. Or spending cuts, which are unlikely. This is so regardless of who is President.
Both parties are commited to increased immigration. This is having and will continue to have entirely predictible results on the type of policies America wil have, in all areas. Poll show that Mexicans are solidly against the Iraq war. They will not magically become in favor of US miliary intervention simply by the granting of US citizenship.
I am saying that there are large scale social, economic, and demographic forces at work, in ways which tend to undermine all that I (and, I believe, you) am working for. I am saying that these forces were put in motion with a purpose, by people who wield power in both of our political parties. I am saying that we can strive to turn these forces aside or reverse them, or we can capitulate to them. I am saying that the time to try to exert some influence on Republican (and Democratic) politics is now, during the primary season. If the threat of a third party is needed in order to get these peoples attention, then it would be foolish to preemptively take the threat off the table. It is the ONLY thing which affords us any leverage.
Comment by PatrickW | May 14, 2007
PatrickW:
See my *** below. I think some of your premises are flawed, but we’re in general agreement on a lot of things.
“The current system is taking us in a certain direction - towards increasing centralisation and the rule of a wealthy technocratic elite. The rest is details, as factions within that elite squabble among themselves.”
*** We’ve been moving toward “increasing centralization” since shortly after the Constitution was ratified. This is not a new phenomenon. As for being ruled by a wealthy technocratic elite, I suppose if this was written a century ago we be discussing the wealthy landed elite (Carnage, Rockefeller, the Trusts in general, etc.) The rich always have a greater influence than the poor. Again, nothing new here.
“What substantive differences would you expect to see from a McCain or Giuliani Presidency on the one hand and a Clinton of Obama one on the other? We’ll be drawing down from Iraq by 2008, and leaving a small force behind, whoever is president.”
*** You can’t seriously believe that John McCain would pursue the same Iraq policy as Hillary or Obama? Both may oversee a reduction in troops, but one would do so to abandon Iraq, leaving a small symbolic force behind; the other would re-define the mission and keep actively killing terrorists.
“The basic math of the situation is going to require tax increases. Or spending cuts, which are unlikely. This is so regardless of who is President.”
*** Correct. But it makes a difference whether the tax increase/spending reduction is 5% or 50%, and whether it is to redistribute wealth or actually build up the military.
“Both parties are commited to increased immigration. This is having and will continue to have entirely predictible results on the type of policies America wil have, in all areas. Poll show that Mexicans are solidly against the Iraq war. They will not magically become in favor of US miliary intervention simply by the granting of US citizenship.”
*** I can’t argue with you that both parties are pandering to the immigration issue.
“I am saying that there are large scale social, economic, and demographic forces at work, in ways which tend to undermine all that I (and, I believe, you) am working for. I am saying that these forces were put in motion with a purpose, by people who wield power in both of our political parties.”
*** Again, nothing new here. This is how it’s always worked in American politics. It’s not conspiratorial. It’s the way all political systems operate.
“I am saying that the time to try to exert some influence on Republican (and Democratic) politics is now, during
the primary season. If the threat of a third party is needed in order to get these peoples attention, then it would be foolish to preemptively take the threat off the table. It is the ONLY thing which affords us any leverage.“
*** I agree with your sentiments, but not your prescription. For a third party “threat” to be real, it has to be believable. For it to be believable, it has to be real. The net result is that all the energy gets put into the third party threat, which can then take on a life of its own. I’d rather see the same energy be devoted to a primary challenge within the party.
Good discussion. Phil
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | May 14, 2007
Phil,
No denying that the few differences there are, are important, but they are few and far between. Both parties (on the whole) love big gov't, lax immigration laws, massive social programs, and (with the introduction of our big three) are coming closer together on abortion.
The two differences between Kerry and Bush that were worth mentioning are their stances on abortion, and Bush believed that we have the right to defend ourselves from threats. Other than that…they weren't terribly dissimilar.
And perhaps this is what confuses me soooo much about the left's hate for Bush. Except for those two issues, he believes in pretty much everything they do and is little more than a liberal with a spine.
Comment by WolvenBear | May 14, 2007
One huge obstacle for the Republican party and/or conservatives, is that the Democrats/liberals are the party for the stupid, the ignorant, the lazy, and the ill-informed. It's easy to motivate and rally stupid, ignorant, lazy, and ill-informed people. While we sit here at http://www.intellectualconservative.com discussing the electability of third party candidates, and the true meaning of "conservatism", the Democrats/liberals are at huffington post and moveon.org being spoon-fed the latest 9/11 conspiracy theory, fuming about Halliburton's stealing Iraqi oil and making trillions of dollars of profit from it, and spouting pre-recorded, made-for-TV sound bites like "No blood for oil", or "Bush lied, people died". It's far easier to be told what to think than it is to engage in a personal investigation of the issues and come to your own conclusion. So the Democrats/liberals will ALWAYS be more united than Republicans/conservatives. Because drones are always united; they're programmed that way. It's easier to vote your convictions when you've been told by someone else what your convictions are. It makes for a very consistent voting base. It's been jokingly suggested, "never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups." It's also been said that "many a truth is said in jest." and that's true of this situation. Conservatives need a unifying candidate. We shouldn't have to pick the "lesser of evils" among our candidates. That we're having discussions like this is clear evidence that the GOP is doing a very poor job of putting forth candidates that represent its voters. We're constantly stuck in this dilemma of picking a "close-enough" runner. It causes dissatisfaction and division within the party. That never happens to the other side, because their voters depend on the party itself to tell them which candidate to pick. There's never an ideological division to deal with, because nobody in their voting base thinks. Right now, conservatives are stuck in the unfortunate and unenviable position of having to try and rally around a group of "front-runner" candidates that hardly represent their viewpoint, but at least aren't as fanatical and activist as the opposition.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | May 15, 2007
Patrick Mulligan and Wolvenbear:
Again, you both make excellent points. Let me add a few of my own to round them out.
I like the way Patrick characterized the two parties. I’d add that Republicans/Conservatives tend to deal with ideas, while Liberals/Democrats tend to deal with emotions. It’s much easier to support a candidate who “cares” about an issue (where the specifics are just details) than one who has the correct ideas about an issue. Hate Bush? – then any candidate who hates Bush for any reason will do. Worried about the environment? Then any candidate with any “enviro-friendly” platform will do, no matter how stupid or unscientific it is.
But for Republican’s/Conservatives, it’s not enough simply to care. The candidate must have a good, solid idea to back it up. And since ideas are important, if the candidate expresses only 75% of an idea we can agree with, we look for the mythical candidate who is 100% in sinc. And if we ever happen to find this person, we don’t stop there. We also place great importance on their character. So a candidate who represents all of our positions, but cheats on his wife, won’t get our support.
I’m not saying that it’s wrong to care about ideas and character, only that we must never forget that this is a political contest, not the coronation of a new pope. We need to evaluate our candidates by looking at their basic, fundamental ideas/positions, assessing their character from a public policy standpoint (i.e. will they actually do what they say), assess their managerial experience/potential, etc., all within a political framework inhabited by flawed human beings. From that we eventually nominate “our guy”, and close ranks even if he’s substantially less than what we’d ideally desire, since he/she will be heads and heals better than the Democrat/Liberal. The Democrats/Liberals want power, and will close ranks to get it because power is a goal in and of itself. If we adopt a morally-superior position and refuse to support any “flawed” Republican/Conservative candidates, we’re insuring our defeat. Once back in complete control the Lib/Dems won’t let go, so we don’t have the luxury of “teaching the Republicans a lesson”.
Which brings me to Wolvenbear. Because both the Democrats and Republicans are mainstream parties (unlike, say, the Communist Party USA), and because there is a certain bureaucratic dynamic to the operation of modern government, you’re not ever likely to get one major candidate advocating decentralized government, and another advocating nationalization. Rather, they will both “fine tune” the present system, the difference being that one will lean toward more federal government involvement, and the other less. On a grand scale these may seem like minor details, but it matters whether my tax rate is 25% or 35%, whether the Justice nominated for the Supreme Court believes in applying foreign law or is a strict constructionist, whether we intend to cut and run from Iraq or do the same job differently, etc.
I share your frustration at the lack of progress at times in promoting genuinely conservative positions once a Republican reaches power. But I resist the easy temptation of saying that there’s very little difference between Hillary and Fred Thompson, Obama and John McCaine, Rudy and Gore.
Take care, Phil
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | May 15, 2007
Phil,
I agree that we can't get 100% agreement. I don't think anyone is asking for such.
But, anyone who aspires to high office must be pro-life. I don't care how conservative someone claims to be, if they support or tolerate the murder of unborn children.
With taxes, well, it's only money. But in matters of life and death, this must be a litmus test. I would vote for Obama if he was pro-life, even though Guiliani would be a much better overall President.
Murder is a deal breaker.
Comment by Mountain Man | May 15, 2007
“ …in matters of life and death, this must be a litmus test. … I would vote for Obama if he was pro-life, even though Guiliani would be a much better overall President. Murder is a deal breaker.”
Mountainman: What would you do if Rudy got the nomination and ran against a Democrat who wanted to actually make abortion more accessible to women?
1. Would you not vote and let the hyper-abortionist win?
2. Would you vote for a 3rd party candidate to send a message, and in doing so let the hyper-abortionist win, and hope that we could somehow reverse the policy 4 years later after all these additional children are aborted?
3. Or would you vote for Rudy, and hold his feet to the political fire to insure that he appoints strict constructionist judges?
#3 is not perfect in any way, but 1 and 2 are guaranteed to kill a lot of children.
Unfortunately, this is the political reality we must operate within. At times we must choose the lesser of two evils, and at times we must factor in additional issues (like their stand on the war against Islamo fascism) as equal, if not greater concerns. I have to make my voting decisions based on the practical options arising from the way things currently are. This doesn't mean I just accept the status quo. But in challenging it, I need to know how far I can go, and how fast, to make progress — instead of letting the other side win by defauly.
Take care, Phil
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | May 15, 2007
" I’d rather see the same energy be devoted to a primary challenge within the party."
I think that is what I and others are calling for. A primary challenge to the current frontrunners. For whatever reason, many Republicans won't look outside the current top three.
"The issue that matters to me first and foremost is where they stand on protecting my family from the threat of Islamo-fascism."
None of the presidential candidates, Republican or Democrat, have been very forthcoming about what they would do on this matter. I don't believe that the Republicans are commited to fighting a world-wide war, not a "hot war" at any rate.
The reality is that the situation is analogous to the Cold War. We will have to employ some combination of diplomacy, containment, and selective use and threat of force, with the long term goal being to outlast the enemy. This new Cold War may well last decades, and the GOP is not going to have the Presidency for all that period. We can't spend the next forty years subordinating everything to getting a Republican into office. Among other problems, it just will not work. You get elected President by meeting what the voters see as their immediate needs.
A majority of voters do not see Islamic terrorism as a pressing concern. Getting elected will require more than an obsessive focus on Iraq to the exclusion of all else.
Comment by PatrickW | May 15, 2007
"You get elected President by meeting what the voters see as their immediate needs."
True, if you are speaking about the pure mechanics of the electoral process.
But identifying those "needs" is not synonymous with simply taking an opinion poll of what people desire. This is where leadership comes in. The candidate I prefer is one who can identify what is actually needed vs. desired, and through education, charisma, his/her organizational abilities, etc., help the people understand. Or, in the absence of that, ignore the voters' wishes and do the right thing anyway.
We may very well be in for a multi-decade fight to make the world safe from Islamo fascism. Americans, by nature, want their fights to be over quickly and cleanly. Any policy that has this as its objective, rather than the ultimate defeat or practical emasculation of the enemy, will at best delay the inevitable conflict (and make it worse in the process), or result in outright defeat.
I focus on Islamo fascism (rather than Iraq per se) because I'm looking at the broader problem, of which Iraq is one battle. I'll support the Republican who comes closest to this view. I leave out the Democrats because, to a person, they all see this fight as a "situation to be managed", not a war to be won.
If we don't win this fight with Islamic radicals, then every other issue will eventually become moot.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | May 15, 2007
"For whatever reason, many Republicans won’t look outside the current top three."
It's not up to abstract "Republicans" to broaden the field of candidates. It's a matter of those of us who care about such issues identifying people (current office holders or not) who share our beliefs, convincing them to run, and then the raising the money and engendering the necessary public support to make it a viable candidacy. This is the classic definition of a primary fight.
If there isn't sufficient interest on the part of the voting public to pursue our ideas, then we need to step back and, through other methods (media, books/studies, speakers, etc.), educate the public as to why these issues are critically important. This will then lay the foundation for mounting a successful primary challenge.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | May 15, 2007
[I left out one paragraph to my last post]
In the meantime, we need to make our choices within the world and political realities as they exist today. If it comes down to Rudy vs. Hillary, the decision isn't "I wish there was someone else to vote for." It's "do I vote for Rudy, or do I vote for Hillary?" And then, start working like hell to get a better nominee for 2012.
Take care, Phil
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | May 15, 2007
Phil,
I am in no way saying that every Republican is identical to every Democrat. You bring up Fred…but he's not running yet, and he may not. There's Tancredo and Hunter, but they're not getting the air time to get any votes. Guilliani may not be Clinton, but he's not Reagan or Thompson or even Tancredo.
There is a difference between not advocating for shrinking government, and for actually running on a platform of bigger government…that government can solve all your problems.
There is as little reason to believe that Guilliani will appoint strict constitutionalist judges as Hillary. He's pro-big government, anti-2nd amendment, pro-abortion, higher taxes politician. That he recognizes that many of his positions are unpopular…and that he needs to back away from them in no way changes the fact that he has them. If it comes down to Hillary vs Guilliani (heaven forbid), then I will vote for Guilliani, but my comment from 04 will still apply.
"Both are liberals, one admits it."
Comment by WolvenBear | May 15, 2007
"If it comes down to Hillary vs Guilliani (heaven forbid), then I will vote for Guilliani …"
And that is the crux of the issue. If I had to choose one designation for him — liberal or conservative — I'd follow your prescription: “Both are liberals, one admits it.” BUT looking at the shades of grey (or pink) here, where Hillary registers in the top 10 percentile, Rudy is still considerably below that.
I have my doubts that someone as liberal as Rudy can get the Republican nomination (but he could ends up in the VEEP spot if he does well enough in the primaries). Like I said in my article, it's way too early to pick a candidate yet to support. I do think Fred will get in, and that should make the race really interesting. My only point is that Rudy would be an acceptable candidate to me as VEEP, or even the #1 guy should he somehow manage to survive the Republican primaries, where a person like Chuck Hagel would not be acceptable to me, even though he has a strong pro-life record.
Hagel does not pass the “security test” I referenced in my essay, so he’s automatically disqualified in my mind. Assuming he would take his pro-life beliefs into consideration when nominating a Supreme Court Justice — a dubious conclusion, because this would also mean nominating a strict constructionist, and while overturning Roe v Wade is something a strict constructionist would do, I think Hegel would look for a Sandra Day O’Conner instead of a Scalia — this is not enough for me to support him. He’s too weak on fighting Islamo fascism, which remains the number one issue confronting our nation’s survival.
So even though I may not support Rudy in the primaries (then again, I might — I’m only beginning my evaluation of all the candidates) — I can say with absolute assurance that, like you, if it comes down to Hillary vs Guilliani, I will vote for Guilliani. I will not support a 3rd party candidate for any reason, since that will insure a pro-abortion Democrat's election, and I won't sit on my hands and not vote, since that will accomplish the same objective.
Good conversation. Take care, Phil
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | May 15, 2007