Thumbs down: Brownback
This cartoon ran in newspapers today…
… based on this exchange between Stephanopoulos, Romney, and Brownback during the August 5 Republican debate…
(See video on page 2.)
I get very aggravated with pro-lifers who won’t allow politicians to convert. Lord knows the other side has welcomed an array of converts with open arms, including notorious U.S. Senator Dick Durbin, whose defection was not just accepted but rewarded. He would not be the Senate Democrats’ second in command today were it not for that.
I’m not on board with Romney’s candidacy. But I am on board with his conversion. We should nurture Romney, not stop him from joining ranks without first swearing an oath on his first born child.
In this case Brownback came out the loser by making it appear in calls to voters that Romney is still pro-abortion. Brownback potentially hampered our cause for his political gain. This makes me lean away from him.
Aug.08, 2007 6:26 pm |
Political anti-life bias |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I agree Jill… Mitt has converted (the right way) thats good for me…
If the man claims to be a pro life convert, I believe him. Why can’t he be? I sure know more about abortion NOW than I did before I had a computer. What a difference 9 months has made for me. Maybe he did some research on abortion, and he changed his mind.
When will women get over the fact that men cannot get pregnant? I went to a My Space pro choice site, and these women make such unfair statements about pro life men. Uh-um, if men were able have abortions, it would STILL be a tragedy! However, when a pro choice man supports abortion, he is a real “understanding guy.” It’s backwards. A real man would never support abortion. They all bit*h about the government. What for? The government did NOT impregnate you!
How hard is it to disprove that his wife gave money to PP?
Yes, that is right Heather…they have an excuse for everthing…
jasper, I don’t like the fact that they try to speak for all of us. As you can clearly see from Jill’s site, not all of us women want to keep abortion legal. I feel it’s an embarrassment to my gender. We still have Gloria Steinem parading around with her ‘I Had An Abortion’ T-shirt. Isn’t she in her 70’s?
Jill, I couldn’t agree more. While I’m staying as far from the subject of presidential candidates as I can, I wish more people would realize that Romney, whether genuine or not, is an example of the millions of Americans (like myself) who have made the idealogical switch.
Rosie, she gave to PP in 1994 – 13 years ago – when the couple was admittedly pro-abortion. Why did Brownback bring it up when he knew the truth? Clearly, he was attempting to portray their pro-abortion position as current.
That’s what I thought he meant, so it worked.
Conservatives were never forgiving to Kerry whenever he stated he was against the war when he voted for it before. Everybody was waffle waffle waffle. Sure, we can be skeptical, but I thought his explanation was heartfelt, and I at least agreed with him on that issue. Most of America was for the war at first. But then when our goals became hazy and it was easy to see how long it could be…at least now we can mostly agree that staying there is a mistake.
Why grant conservative Romney amnesty on this issue? He deserves a critical reaction to his waffling. The fact that he switched issues before campaigning is incriminating. At the very least we can be happy for his personal life, but we at least have to be suspicious. It doesn’t seem he would do anything for the cause since this just seems to be a ploy to elect people..
What if he has another change of mind when he gets into office?
He might change his mind again. Lots of people change from right-to-life to pro-choice, often when someone close to them has an abortion.
Oh Somg, I thought you said that it was the rtlfers having the actual abortions. Now you’ve said they become pro choice when someone close to them has an abortion? I don’t think so. If they are truly RTL, then they will never support abortion. If they do support it, then they were never very pro life to begin with.
I was reading that Ms. Magazine credits Gloria Steinem for heading “the women’s movement”…..What movement?
Politicians are allowed to convert. The damaging fact about Mitt is that his “conversion” is so fake. Have you heard the guy tell his story on how he changed his view? It’s so unbelievable, it convinces no one.
The one thing I wanted to mention is that this cartoonist really doesn’t like Sam Brownback. He’s re-using his comic characters as he’s using the same caricature for Brownback, he used for Tom DeLay.
Jill, I’m a huge believer in conversion and redemption. St. Paul (formerly Saul of Tarsus) is one of my favorite saints.
But my problem with Mitt Romney’s conversion is that it’s too soon, and for me, far too convenient. I will not judge the man’s heart, because only God knows what Mitt Romney feels deep down, but I’m not ready to accept this “conversion” so soon on this or any other politician’s promise.
He’ll convince me when he behaves like a pro-lifer when he doesn’t have anything to gain from it.
Adam, what is so unconvincing about this, from the article you linked to:
Two years into his governorship, in February 2005, Romney announced his opposition to stem cell research. Then, to the dismay of his pro-choice supporters, he vetoed a July 2005 bill making available Plan B or “morning after” contraception. Also that year, in an op-ed for the Boston Globe, he declared himself pro-life.
Romney says he changed his mind in November 2004, when he met with a scientist from the Harvard Stem Cell Institute. Romney claimed in a June 2006 interview that the researcher had told him: “‘Look, you don’t have to think about this stem cell research as a moral issue, because we kill the embryos after 14 days.'”
Just because you are not convinced of the humanity of an embryo does not mean Romney or anyone else could not have an epiphany about the entire pro-life topic from that point.
If his just saying so is unconvincing, what about his substantive actions following it?
Tony, I’d say Romney’s veto of public funding of escr as governor of a grossly liberal state – with such a prominent major university like Harvard from whence pressure to sign it certainly arose – demonstrated pro-life resolve. Don’t forget, Romney’s wife has MS. His signing was considered a no-brainer. He shocked pretty much everyone.
Also, his veto of free access of Plan B as governor of the same liberal state demonstrated same.
I’m not a Romney fan. But sheesh, we should be welcoming and encouraging the guy rather than flailing him. You’d think he was still a confessed pro-abort by the way we treat him.
I think the pro life side should at least welcome Romney, because no matter his reasons for switching sides, he votes pro life doesn’t he?
I do believe that people do have the right to kind of doubt his absolute sincerity, because of when his conversion came about (and how it affects his strategy). I mean, how many votes is a pro choice, Mormon Republican from Massachusetts going to get from the highly coveted Bible belters and “nascar dads”?
Jill, I’m not flailing him. This “epiphany” of his seems awful close to his decision to run for president. I won’t categorically say (like Sam Brownback) that Mitt is not vigorously pro-life.
I’m just not convinced enough to pull his lever if he’s up against Fred Thompson. If Thompson doesn’t get into the race I’ll be happy to vote for him.
This is just my opinion. I have never blogged about it, etc. There just isn’t enough evidence of walking the walk while not standing to benefit to convince me.
Tony, let’s say Romney’s epiphany was purely politically motivated. So what? If president, he’ll respond one of two ways. He’ll either dig in and stick with our agenda to prove he’s a man of his word, or he’ll back away because he’s not committed. Seems to me the vast majority of pro-life politicians take the latter route anyway.
I think Luke 9:49-50 could apply here:
49″Master,” said John, “we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us.” 50″Do not stop him,” Jesus said, “for whoever is not against you is for you.”
All that said. I’m with you at this point. If Thompson runs, I’m with him. If Thompson doesn’t, I’m with Romney.
It’s not that I don’t welcome converts, it’s just that if a former Al-Qaeda member professed Christ, I wouldn’t immeadiately put him as the pastor of a church. It’s not that I doubt his motives or the motives of pro-life converts, it’s just that trust is earned. Demonstrate to me a lenghty record of commitment to the pro-life cause and then I will consider giving you veto power over a hostile democrat-controlled congress and the ability to appoint a judge that could overturn Roe.
Guess what, y’all: Brownback is the only one with a flawless, trustworthy record. Brownback is the only one that’s never given me reason to doubt him. Bush gave many reasons, Romney’s records less than 5 years ago are a cause for concern, and Fred Thompson’s own words (not to mention lobby records) require some redemption. After all, this is the presidency we’re talking about.
Perhaps the conversions are real, perhaps they’re not- We can’t gamble with human lives here.
So I welcome converts, even those that convert at a politically advantageous time- just don’t expect me to advocate exhalting them to positions of authority without more substantive evidence of their commitments.
I anticipate causing a huff by saying this, but here goes: Too many people are Republican before they’re pro-life.
When I was in college, there were two men running for Congress: Michael Burgess and Paul LeBon. Micheal Burgess was your cliche Republican with capitalistic values and crispy, glossy, cemented hair. He was also prochoice. And then there was Paul LeBon, a good Catholic man who was a moral conservative and an economic liberal. He was unequivocably prolife.
Paul LeBon spoke at our campus pro-life group meeting only to be met with vocal disgust at suggesting better welfare benefits to women who choose life, government-subsidized child care and maternity leave. These college pro-life leaders disagreed with Paul LeBon’s economics, the unborn be damned.
Nonetheless, Paul LeBon was running an excellent moral conservative campaign- leafletting churches, rallying Catholics. When Michael Burgess discovered that he was losing votes to a democrat, he had a sudden change of heart and became pro-life. And all of the campus pro-life leaders hopped on his bandwagon and campaigned/voted for him. Not me- I was campaigning for Paul LeBon. I was no economic liberal, but this was a man I could trust to fight for the unborn.
This didn’t bode well with my Republican friends and all of the debates with my Burgess-backing brethren sounded eerily similar to this argument. “Oh, he had a change of heart!” and “Can’t people convert?” The truth was- these people couldn’t stomach voting for a democrat and we’re so relieved to vote for the Republican without having their positions as pro-life leaders questioned. One finally admitted to me that he would have voted Burgess anyway because there needed to be a Republican majority to get any pro-life bills heard. All though there is some truth to that, it all seemed like rationalizations and conscience-salving to me.
My suspicions were further fortified when I took a handful of my Burgess-supporting friends with me to the March for Life in Austin that year, where a leader of Democrats for Life made a speech- only also to be met by my friends’ scorn. I rebuked them and was disheartened that her statement missed them. She said, “If you were dying, and someone was trying to save your life, would you say to that person- “Wait! Are you a democrat or a Republican? No! You’d be grateful that someone is trying to help you.” To the unborn, it’s all the same- but not so many of my Republican, supposed pro-life friends.
So are the unborn/ill/disabled/elderly your primary concern or is it one of many lumped with economics, immigration issues, etc.? If that’s the case, you’re lucky. Many of the staunchest pro-lifers are hardcore conservatives- but it seems to me that when it’s between voting red and potentially sacrificing the unborn or voting blue with assurance of their advocacy- many “pro-lifers” true colors are exposed.
Jacqueline, as always, your posts are well-reasoned. As for Romney being untested, he’s not.
He vetoed public funding of escr as governor of a grossly liberal state that included a major research university – Harvard. Plus his wife has MS. His veto was a pleasant shock.
He also vetoed free access of Plan B as governor of the same liberal state.
Thanks, Jill.
He vetoed public funding of escr as governor of a grossly liberal state that included a major research university – Harvard. Plus his wife has MS. His veto was a pleasant shock.
He also vetoed free access of Plan B as governor of the same liberal state.
I recognize that and that’s wonderful! But that was only a few short years ago.
Furthermore, these acts of political decency happened only after he’d already secured the governorship on the pro-choice platform-and conveinently around the time he was considering a presidental bid which he knew would only happen if he could claim himself “pro-life”. After the Supreme Court appointments (Miers, Roberts, Alito) brou-ha-ha, any seasoned politician would know there was no way to get Bush’s values-voters without a pro-life stance.
So there is reason to suspect pandering- but even if he were genuine- it’s way to soon to trust a convert with that type of power. Like he flip-flopped on the prochoice voters who elected him governor- he could easily reverse himself if he were writing off another term or had some vested interest to vote otherwise.
Brownback is squeaky clean- why do pro-lifers not fall in behind him? I think it’s because too many let secondary issues take priority over the unborn. If people just looked at life issues- Brownback is the clear choice.
I think people have a vested interest in believing these conversion stories because it allows them to vote for who they want (because of lesser issues) while also allowing them an out for their consciences. It’s a way to do as they please without that pesky cognitive dissonance!
My stance is just that we can’t thrust recent converts to a position of authority before we have complete confidence in them to do right by human life. I don’t have that confidence in anyone by Brownback.
And, for the record- while I support Sam Brownback, I find myself pretty much nausiated at our choices in 08. From a political standpoint, I can’t fall behind anyone completely.
For example, Brownback’s a clear pro-lifer, but I can’t agree with his desire to deny troops support and withdraw them.
Then again, I’m a moral conservative with some liberal stances (like illegal immigration for example) in the Feminists for Life tradition, so I’m pretty much hosed no matter what. :)
But back to the original topic…
Jacqueline, I appreciate your concern about recent converts. You and I will just have to disagree that Romney’s demonstration of his convictions following his conversion showed his position was cemented. And it’s been a few years now. And he’s constantly pestered from both sides on the question and hasn’t backed down.
I don’t know why Brownback hasn’t gained in prominence as a presidential candidate. I would support him if he were the nominee, even though his antics with Romney were self-serving at the expense of the movement, imo.
Hilarious cartoon.
I think Brownback hasn’t gained prominence because many people see him as a right-wing wacko. I know very little about him, and I’m not trying to start trouble, but he usually votes against civil-rights and opposes abortion even when the pregnancy is due to rape.
Doug
Opposes abortion even for women pregnant by rapists
Brownback: chronology trumping ideology
Rich Lowry at National Review said it better yesterday than I did in my “Thumbs down: Brownback” post last week: The Brownback campaign is essentially premised on pro-life purity…. I admire those views and think they are very important…. But…