He writes:
The usual information tables for Pro-Life Wisconsin and Wisconsin Right to Life are also present.
But there is one table that isn't normally a fixture at state GOP conventions, one displaying a red, white and blue sign reading, "Republicans for Choice."
Manning the display Judy Hartig-Osanka, a delegate from Racine County, is the state chair of Planned Parenthood Republicans for Choice. She said the organization hasn't had a booth at the state GOP convention since 1990 or '92.
Response has been mixed.
"People come by and say, 'I really support Planned Parenthood, my daughter's been there,'" Hartig-Osanka said.
"I hope by inviting us here today and by the comments people are making as they come by, I think people are glad to see diversity, and they're glad to see us here."
But as she was talking to a reporter, a group of three women delegates came to the booth who weren't appreciative of the message.
One said, "The Republican Party doesn't stand for choice."
Said another, "We don't have a choice to kill, and that's what you're doing."
This raises some fundamental questions:
--Who defines the Republican Party?
--What does the Republican Party stand for?
--Will Republicans support an ambiguously pro-life candidate?
--Will Republicans support an unapologetic pro-choice (abortion) candidate?
--What is the issue that will define Election 2008?
The lab rat to determine the answers is Rudy Giuliani.
The New York Times discusses what it calls the "G.O.P. orthodoxy on social issues" and Giuliani's challenge to appeal to Republican primary voters.
When Giuliani spoke at Houston Baptist College, he didn't back away from his positions on abortion, gun control, and gay rights.
If Giuliani can make it there, he'll make it anywhere.
The speech by Mr. Giuliani reflected a decision — other campaigns suggested “gamble” might be a better word — to address head-on a fundamental obstacle to his winning the nomination: his long history as a moderate Northeast Republican in a party increasingly dominated by Southern and Midwestern conservatives. As such, it loomed as a potentially important moment in the party’s efforts to decide how to compete against the Democrats in 2008 and what it should stand for in a post-Bush era.
“The mere fact that I am standing here running for president of the United States with the views that I have, that are different in some respects on some of these issues, shows that we much more adequately represent the length and breadth and the opinions of America than the other party does,” Mr. Giuliani said.
Good point.
...Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a group of conservative Christians, dismissed Mr. Giuliani’s speech in an e-mail message he sent to supporters Friday afternoon.
“When people hear Rudy Giuliani speak about taxpayer-funded abortions, gay ‘rights’ and gun control, they don’t hear a choice, they hear an echo of Hillary Clinton,” Mr. Perkins wrote.
True.
Giuliani leans to the Left on those issues. But are those the issues that matter most to Republican voters?
The social issues certainly matter most to some Republican voters.
Will Giuliani saying that as president he would appoint strict constructionist judges be enough to appease staunchly Pro-Life supporters?
For some it will be. For others it won't.
There are echoes of Hillary when Giuliani speaks on abortion. But would it be better to have Giuliani take up a Southern drawl and pander and dodge and lie?
...Mr. Giuliani drew a standing ovation from his audience, and many members, in interviews after the remarks, praised him for what they described as his candor in presenting his position on difficult issues. But leaders of some evangelical and conservative groups quickly denounced him and predicted his downfall.
“The mayor’s position on abortion couldn't’t be more repugnant to pro-lifers” said Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, the public policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention. “It shows a moral obtuseness that is stunning.”
Republicans, even some involved in rival campaigns, said they were fascinated by his move, and applauded his frankness, even as they predicted that the party would not embrace a candidate who was an unapologetic advocate of abortion rights or gay rights.
Another question:
--Can a candidate win a party's nomination based on his or her frankness?
There's no question that a Pro-Life candidate could NEVER win the nomination of the Democrat Party. NEVER. NO WAY. No Dem has the spine or the character to take on the far Left fringe of the Democrat Party.
Is Giuliani sealing his fate and failure among the Republicans by sticking to his principles?
If one looks at the polls at this point, the social issues don't seem to be hurting him much among likely Republican voters. Whether that will continue is unknown and my guess is unlikely.
What I'm struggling with is how right I think Giuliani is when it comes to the War on Terror. He's the one I trust most.
On the flip side, there's no question that I'm uncomfortable with his position on abortion. I don't think one can say that something one believes to be murder should be a choice. That requires moral gymnastics with a high degree of difficulty.
I used to be one of those "personally abhors abortion but doesn't want to infringe on others' rights to terminate a pregnancy" types. I admit that I used to be OK with that and still maintain a clear conscience.
That was before I had children. Then, I got it. Then, I couldn't play that game anymore.
I honestly don't understand how a woman can carry a child for nine months and give birth and love and care for that child and still think that abortion on demand is a moral option.
So do I abandon Giuliani?
I think that would be a mistake.
Why?
I think that in terms of the federal government, national security is its top priority and purpose.
The social issues are matters for state legislatures to decide, not federal courts.
And I just keep thinking that our enemies, the terrorists, want to abort us all.
________________________
Read excerpts from Giuliani's speech.
No comments:
Post a Comment