Wednesday, February 07, 2007

Defining Pro-Life for the 2008 Election

Already we see the candidates lining up, announcing their exploratory committees or declaring their intention to run for president.

For the Democrats, the announced candidates are falling all over themselves to ingratiate themselves with the hard left. Hillary wants to pull a Hugo Chavez on the oil companies and they all oppose the war. As for abortion, they would make it a sacrament except that they dare not use a religious term. Come 2008, democrats who want to support a pro-life candidate will not find anyone of the kind running for the Democratic nomination.

Actually that is too bad. A strong pro-life Democrat could probably win in Iowa just as Jimmy carter did in 1976 when he told the Iowa caucus that he was the only pro-life candidate in the race. They then flipped once he had the nomination and he had to kiss up to the pro-abortion extremists in the party. For you history buffs, that was the convention where the Democrats adopted a pro-abortion plank to the part platform. Over 10,000 pro-life activists protested the convention held at Madison Square Garden in New York City in the summer of ’76. I know because I was there protesting. It was that same summer I re-registered as a Republican.

It was the pro-life plank and the pro-life position that attracted me and millions of Democrats to the Republican party. The social conservatives that swelled the ranks of the GOP were for the most part disaffected Catholics and Evangelicals who found that their Democrat party had been hijacked by whacked out extremists from the 60s. In order to get the nomination in the Republican Party and win the White House, one must have the support of the pro-life voter. And so we see the dance that now begins along with the effort by some to cloud the issue.

Rudy Giuliani announced this week that he is running for president. On Hannity and Combs, he tried to explain that he is against abortion but would not change the law. He believes in the right to choose. Well Rudy, if you think it is permissible for someone to kill the child in the womb, then you are in favor of allowing child killing. If your think it should remain legal, then you are NOT pro-life. Any so-called pro-life activist who supports Giuliani is a traitor to the pro-life cause. He and others like him have sold out the children for an empty pot of fool’s gold and the desire for power.

Then there is this fellow called Mitt Romney who in the years past when running for the Senate claimed to be very much in favor of keeping abortion legal. He told the audience in on speech that he can Kennedy would have similar voting records if he was elected. Now I don’t want to discount his conversion. But I find it just a little coincidental that he starts to sound pro-life because he is seeking the presidential nomination. Further it is a sign of his inept so-called leadership that it was under his watch the that marriage in Massachusetts began to endorse perverted lifestyles.
He wants to be president, yet he cannot handle a court hostile to marriage. As the governor he should have encouraged the legislative branch to begin impeachment proceedings against the court. He should have declared their decision contrary to the state constitution and prevented the executive branch from acting out the law. It would have been messy but it would have shown some guts in a gutless world.

So Giuliani fails the test. Romney has a past that reveals him to be pro-abortion. (Again if his conversion is genuine, then he needs to show evidence of pro-life convictions. There are far too many politicians who have given the pro-life movement a line and then reneged on their promise.

Now a lot of conservatives do not like McCain. But give the fellow credit for a strong pro-life voting record. Two bad votes and McCain-Feingold do not help him, but compared with Romney and Giuliani, he has the credentials to argue that he is pro-life.

Nevertheless, McCain does have to stand aside and give Senator Sam Brownback the award for consistent and courageous defense of the pro-life cause. He has been a stalwart in the Senate, sponsoring bills, making sure that the bills get a hearing. He is not afraid of the issue. Unlike john McCain and others who skirt the pro-life message, Sam Brownback embraces the whole agenda. He actually believes that the law should be changed. And he is not afraid to go on record and explain the reasonableness and integrity of the pro-life philosophy as applied to government.

The other candidates simply do not have the name identification or the financial ability to see through a long race. These are the candidates to consider. If you are pro-life, then Brownback is your first choice of the four. McCain can claim the pro-life sticker, but the more engaging and attractive candidate for the movement is Sam Brownback of Kansas. And those are the facts.


At 4:39 AM, Blogger dezine said...

I have been wondering lately if there were even any candidates running who were pro-life. My main reason for voting for Bush was because of his pro-life stance. Good insight, thanks.


Post a Comment

<< Home