From the Huffington Post newspaper, October 10:
The religious right is threatening to rebel should Rudy Giuliani win the nomination for the White House. But while the former New York City mayor's stance on abortion rights is making him a pariah within some conservative circles, it could win him favor among pro-choice advocates....
In a phone interview with the Huffington Post, NARAL's political director Elizabeth Shipp acknowledged it "would help" the pro-choice movement if a Republican proved it was possible to win the presidency while still supporting abortion rights."The Republican Party used to be about the conservative principles of limited government intervention in private life," Shipp said. "It seems to me if they went back to that and stood out from the rigid mainstream, anti-choice agenda, I think yeah, it would be good for the movement."
Could Giuliani be the candidate to take the Republican Party down that road? And would NARAL support him?
"I don't know yet," said Shipp. "He has said some very concerning things since getting into this race. If you have to grade him compared to everyone else you have to give him an incomplete."
Come on. The writer of this piece was incoherently hopeful in one spot. No way would a Giuliani presidential nomination "win him favor among pro-choice advocates." He either has it now or not. And he does not. The only good a Giuliani nomination would do pro-aborts is: 1) take abortion off the political discussion table; and 2) increase the odds of more trickle-down pro-abort elections since pro-lifers will stay home election day. No way would NARAL ever endorse Giuliani over any of the Democrat candidates, who all surpass him in abortion zeal.
And if the nominee is Hillary? Here is a creepy, even scary October 9 observation about her by the author of God and Hillary, Paul Kengor:
I don't know of any politician who is more uncompromising and extreme on abortion rights than Hillary Clinton.... Her extremism on abortion rights was the single most shocking, inexplicable find in my research on her faith and politics. I couldn't understand it. No question. It is truly extraordinary. Nothing, no political issue, impassions her like abortion rights. For Mrs. Clinton, abortion-rights is sacred ground.
[HT: LifeNews.com via Dr. Frank; photo courtesy of Huffington Post]
Comments:
This is really scary, that a radical like HRC is leading everybody in the polls. But I agree, I will not vote for Rudy if he is nominated, unless he has a conversion on abortion...
Posted by: jasper at October 12, 2007 8:47 AMMaybe Romney's the answer. I don't know yet. I know many doubt his conversion from prochoice to prolife. What I do know is that he had no chance of being elected in MA as a prolifer. The 3 previous governors were all prochoice Republicans(Weld,Celucci, and Swift). I think he may have just told people what they wanted to hear so that he could get elected. All politicans do that to some extent. Perhaps his conversion to prolife isn't as recent as it appears. Just a thought.
Posted by: Carrie at October 12, 2007 9:09 AMAnyways, as a liberal, I will pick a prolife canidate who comes closest to my views on other issues. I would probably be considered a fiscal conservative and a social liberal(except for my prolife stance). At this point, I don't see that many differences between the two parties.
Posted by: Carrie at October 12, 2007 9:15 AMMark also goes on the Hillary rampage, this time connecting the dots between her and the Planned Parenthood implosion. He aptly named it "Rodham and Gomorroah".
Posted by: carder at October 12, 2007 10:07 AMI beg your pardon, "Gomorrah". Incorrect spelling on the previous post.
Posted by: carder at October 12, 2007 10:08 AMcarder, great link! I like her new nickname- Slick Hilly.
Posted by: Carrie at October 12, 2007 10:29 AMCarrie, you don't see a difference between the 2 parties? The democrats don't have 1 pro-life candidate.
Posted by: jasper at October 12, 2007 12:39 PMWell, besides the prolife issue, not much. I am going to end up voting republican anyways. Matters of life and death come first.
Posted by: Carrie at October 12, 2007 1:40 PMGood for you.
Posted by: jasper at October 12, 2007 2:37 PMCarrie,
I found Mark to be articulate and precise in his articles. I haven't read many, but the little I've read demonstrates an individual who has taken the flashlight and checked every nook and cranny of the abortion tragedy. Thank God he's on the side of life.
@carder,
this is a superb analysis.
Just wonder if we can spin it so that Doug's and Enigma's 'wantedness' falls into financial pricing ... so that for killing a baby: his/her 'wantedness' has a very definite price tag .... and that cost is 'low' for medical procedures .... if covered by government, would abortion as BC not become hugely popular (especially when hormones are trashed because of side-effects) .... even affecting availability of legit health demands ... like cancer?
Maybe, this is 'the hole' in Hillary's platform ... if-you-fall-though, you're dead.
Posted by: John McDonell at October 13, 2007 6:20 AMover and over,
I keep running into this same myopic-mentality: to win a war ... we need a military victory. Just as Reagan's 'war on cancer' was a shrill and empty promise, so is the War in Iraq. Is the only device to mobilize political-efforts called 'war'? Is there a built-in need for visible victims ... the more photogenic the gore, the better?
Don't we really prolong the carnage because we insist on it - makes our sacrifice appear worthwhile). We fear death or injury and so insist on guns (for protection) ... same deal - huh?
Posted by: John McDonell at October 13, 2007 7:57 AMJohn: Just wonder if we can spin it so that Doug's and Enigma's 'wantedness' falls into financial pricing ... so that for killing a baby: his/her 'wantedness' has a very definite price tag .... and that cost is 'low' for medical procedures .... if covered by government, would abortion as BC not become hugely popular (especially when hormones are trashed because of side-effects) .... even affecting availability of legit health demands ... like cancer?
John, the wanting or not wanting is on the part of the woman who is pregnant, first and foremost.
As far as pricing, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Abortions are quite cheap as medical procedures go, whether the gov't supplies them or not.
Doug
Posted by: Doug at October 13, 2007 8:37 PMI keep running into this same myopic-mentality: to win a war ... we need a military victory. Just as Reagan's 'war on cancer' was a shrill and empty promise, so is the War in Iraq. Is the only device to mobilize political-efforts called 'war'? Is there a built-in need for visible victims ... the more photogenic the gore, the better?
John, LBJ's "War on Poverty" ended up with a higher percentage of Americans below the poverty line than before it. Agreed that the Iraq war ain't going too well.
And how about that "No child left behind" deal from Bush Jr? My wife's a teacher....
Doug
Posted by: Doug at October 13, 2007 8:40 PMAnd of course the "War on Drugs" -- how we doin' on that one? ; )
Posted by: Doug at October 13, 2007 8:42 PM