Pro-Life Democrats II

[maytruthabound]

she is in the wrong party.

[GrandMasterFreshMpls]

@maytruthabound social liberals are in the wrong party. They should go join the rest of the anti-government wackos

[anton830]

I also pray for this. These radicals have hijacked the Democratic party and must be stopped!

[JSenator06]

I pray these "Pro-Life" Democats would take back their party from the Radicals..even their own presidential nominee!

[gorgonzolaaa]

I pray these "Pro-Life" Democrats complete their conservative enlightenment. I do not have the hope for the Party that you possess. The Party will not change until the voters do, and the trend does not look good.

[JSenator06]

I am not a Democrat, but I will ally with anyone in any pp who is truely pro-life! I just hope they don't cave into their pro-abortion leaning leadership if (when) elected@!

[gorgonzolaaa]

I understand your view, and agree with you, given that they are honest, and that would not work toward similar evil in other areas. I trust Democrats with neither.

The Pro-Life voice was supposed to speak out at the DNC. They were suppressed, and they have made no issue of their suppression.

[gorgonzolaaa]

*and that they

Excuse my typo.

[paleocrat]

They did speak at the convention, and Barack formally recognized them. The vow to fight towards minimization, though a far cry from criminalization, should be applauded.

Why didn't pro-life people froth over the fact that they were marginalized at the RNC? Their candidate, the keynote speaker, and most of the other notables were pro-choice or not solidly pro-life.

The RNC tosses crumbs, the single-issue voters rejoice and thanks the "Massa" for his kindness.

We get what we deserve...

[gorgonzolaaa]

It is easy, and vacuous, to make a vow to fight toward minimization, as it is for a mass murderer to assert that he is good, because he spared people along the way. This does not qualify as a pro-life speech or position.

Bob Casey said that his presence was testimony to Obama's ability to speak with those who held opposing viewpoints. That was his entire pro-life speech!? What has become of the courage of his father?

[paleocrat]

Well, there are two ways here. One is to support the overturn of Roe (which would not outlaw abortion) and/or support a constitutional amendment (which won't see the light of day). In the meantime, nothing else is done. 1.6 million per annum.

On the other hand, one talks of minimization, and believes in a political philosophy that doesn't bump heads with a commitment to dealing with various socio-economic factors accounting for the bulk of abortions.

Why not make a both/and of an either/or?

[gorgonzolaaa]

This was not the point at hand. The point is that there was no true pro-life voice at the DNC. Anyone can say they're for minimization. It is an empty promise, and one that can be abused to further an ulterior agenda.

[paleocrat]

Are you listening to yourself?

A. The fact that Casey was permitted to get up on stage, in front of millions of people, and talk about how the DNC is willing to work with those they formerly censured speaks volumes.

B. Talk of minimization is empty? Ah, so stick with the all-or-nothing lip-service that has saved just how many children over the past 35 years?

C. What ulterior agenda are you talking about.

[gorgonzolaaa]

A. The fact that Casey was permitted to talk at the DNC means NOTHING. He was NOT permitted to say ANYTHING concerning his pro-life position; he was simply permitted to say that he has a general disagreement with Obama. Abortion was NEVER mentioned.

B. TALK of minimization is EMPTY. ACTION on minimization MAY OR MAY NOT BE empty. For instance, it may be used as a simple excuse for pushing an unrelated, general socialist welfare agenda.

[gorgonzolaaa]

C. I am not talking about any agenda in particular. See B for an example.

[paleocrat]

Here is a quote from Casey's speech. NOTE: the word abortion.

"Now Barack Obama and I have an honest disagreement over the issue of abortion. But the fact that I'm speaking here tonight is testament to Barack's ability to show respect to the views of people who may disagree with him."

He then followed this with talking about his conviction that Obama would seek common good through common ground with those he may disagree with. Contextually?

[gorgonzolaaa]

You are correct, he did use the word abortion. I hadn't remembered it, but just watched it again. However, it does not change my opinion in the least, as it is such a marginal mentioning.

You know as well as I do that Obama will not, in any way, compromise on the issue of abortion, no matter what words Casey may say about him.

[paleocrat]

Marginal? He was speaking in front of the delegates! Delegates, whether Republican or Democrat, are rabidly partisan and tend to be radical in their position. Obama didn't win brownie points with his liberal base on that move.

He will not overturn Roe. Neither will McCain. He will not support an amendment. It wouldn't pass anyway. But he isn't afraid of attacking root causes and dealing with socio-economic issues that, while not being his intention, minimize dead babies.

[gorgonzolaaa]

It was not the audience or attendees that were marginal. It was the mention of the topic that was marginal. It was nothing more than a "thanks for not locking me outside because I'm pro-life".

Neither McCain nor Obama will overturn RvW, because they can't. It's up to the SCOTUS. I was not happy over the McCain Primary victory, but, given the current, unchangeable situation, I will take the less liberal candidate. This is the reality of our current choice.

[gorgonzolaaa]

Is the "he" you are referring to here, Obama? If so, I have no confidence whatsoever in Obama's abilities or desires to "attack root causes and deal with socio-economic issues".

[paleocrat]

Are you even aware of what I mean by the socio-economic root causes?

[paleocrat]

You're missing my point here. Conventions are meant for the rabid partisans. The delegates are the loudest, the proudest, and the ones with the most money. For Obama to allow him to speak, declaring that Obama is willing to find common ground and common cause with a group that most delegates despise would be no different than were McCain to allow the Log Cabin Republicans time at the convention to do the same thing. To underplay the significance is unfortunate.

[paleocrat]

Are you a gambling man? Even if you aren't, just think of the odds here. Say McCain wins. Fat chance, but miracles happen. McCain appoints a judge who wishes to overturn Roe. Not 100% likely given the fact that he admitted to doesn't include that in his litmus test for appointees. But let's say he does. Then what? Dems in majority. Dems make the call. Won't fly. 2nd pick is more moderate. Ghost of O'Connor.

A moderate-liberal Pres + moderate-liberal Congress = pro-life conservative judge?

[paleocrat]

Listen, if the 95-10 and/or the Pregnant Woman Support Act pass, your taxes will go up. This will result in around a $0.10 tax increase per annum.

If you are up in arms over that, I will personally buy you a double cheeseburger from McDonald's. Maybe even two! As you eat it, realize it took no more than that to minimize abortion, even by hundreds of thousands of innocent babies.

What is McCain's "in the meantime" proposals? Or is he going to sacrifice babies for Capitalism?

[gorgonzolaaa]

I am not concerned with taxation over this program, and I never expressed opposition to it. However, programs rarely cost what they are estimated to cost.

McCain is not an issue in this discussion. He is not running against a pro-life Democrat.

[paleocrat]

OK, I'll buy you 2 double cheeseburgers.

And Obama isn't running against a pro-life Democrat. If you want a truly pro-life candidate, you'll stay home this election.

[gorgonzolaaa]

Staying home will give us another 1992. The correct place for this fight is the Primary. Regrettably, conservatism didn't do so well this time around, but I will not sit home over it.

Conservative hope in this election lies more in Palin than it does in McCain, in my opinion.

[paleocrat]

Palin... well, I am not very optimistic. I'll be polite and leave it at that. I've already said all I can say about my take on Palin over on my blog.

[paleocrat]

Both parties want to show they are tolerant.

Republicans ask a pro-choice, pro-homosexual marriage, pro-embryonic stem-cell research, cross-dresser to be the keynote.

Better yet, they have as a presidential nominee someone who takes a Federalist position on Roe (not to be equivocated with criminalization or even pro-life), who supports embryonic stem-cell research, and who (if Palin is to be trusted) has the same view of homosexual marriage that the Obama camp does.

Liberalism all around.

[gorgonzolaaa]

Your "the Republicans are as bad as you are" argument does not work, for so many reasons. As much as I don't like McCain, he is worlds better than Obama. Giuliani has no direct political power at the moment, and was handily rejected in the Primary. These men do not hold the same opinions as all Republicans, and the Republicans which I vote for and support are pro-life, with no pro-life Democrat contending.

[gorgonzolaaa]

*"the Republicans are as bad as they are"

[paleocrat]

He is worlds better than Obama... on a few things. Let's grant that he is more anti-abortion. Let's grant he really wants to overturn Roe, although that isn't a litmus test for judges. Where will all of his lip-service get us? At best, we will only have another 6 million (or more) babies murdered by medical abortion (not including abortifacients)... and this is only within his first term.

The inability to work with minimizers will result in nothing but dead babies, bottom line.

[paleocrat]

You actually trust Republicans? You believe that Republicans won't work towards evil in other areas? You are much more trusting than I.

I think that so long as the pro-life community remains partisan, we will continue to see the holocaust of the innocent in this country. Playing by the same playbook for 35 years has resulted in very little... except for the loss of close to 50 million innocent children through medical abortion (not including abortifacient contraceptives).

Advice: New playbook

[gorgonzolaaa]

The DNC is not a new playbook; it is merely different. It is a very old one. A claim to deviation from party positions is not enough for me to trust them, and it certainly is not reason to embrace their other values.

[paleocrat]

Who said that the DNC position is a new playbook? I simply stated that the playbook for the RNC has been a 35-year failure and that we should begin thinking, and even voting, differently. Unless insanity (doing the same thing again and again, expecting different results) just so happens to be the preferred cup of political Kool Aid.

[gorgonzolaaa]

I did not say that the DNC position is a new playbook; I said the DNC is not a new playbook.

Failure is not part of a playbook; it's part of a record. The playbook is solidly pro-life. The RNC, while not successful, has brought us closer than we've ever been before to a pro-life court. This is in spite of extreme opposition from Democrats in the Senate. Take a look at Harry Reid's supposed pro-life SCOTUS nomination votes.

[paleocrat]

The Republican party has nominated 80% of the judges since Roe. 80%. They need a 5-4 to overturn Roe. What do they need? 8 of the 9???

Worse yet, there was a time when Republicans had a monopoly on the three branches. What happened? More dead babies.

Let's say he is elected. He elects judges. He already said Roe isn't a litmus for him. And what kind of judges will pass a Democratically controlled judicial committee? And what judge is willing to butt heads with stare decisis? Let's be real...

[gorgonzolaaa]

You are neglecting the influence of the Senate in the nominations. Look at the votes, and watch the supposed pro-life Democrats vote against (proclaimed) pro-life judges.

Yes, there were poor nominee choices along the way, but the SCOTUS is closer than ever to overturning RvW, about one vote away. This is entirely due to Republicans.

[paleocrat]

Ah, one vote away. I have only been around for 30 years, but I have heard this line for... well... so long as I can remember. Republicans have appointed 80% since Roe. They currently have 7 of the 9 appointees. They need 8 of 9 to get a 5-4?

What happens when Roe vanishes? Is abortion criminalized? Is it thrown back to the states? What of interstate? What of commerce? What of stare decisis?

Cross your fingers that the Dems will allow a Scalia through... but in 4 years we'll hear the same.

[gorgonzolaaa]

This is the unfortunate consequence of the nomination process and life terms.  The job of the SCOTUS is to uphold the constitution; they cannot come out and say that they would vote against abortion regardless of the constitution. All we end up with is a general feel, and sometimes it is wrong. This effect lasts essentially for the life of the nominee.

Of course, this is not the only case of judicial activism which should be undone, and many rights need to be returned to the states.

[paleocrat]

Your us-them is unhealthy. There are pro-life Democrats, and there are pro-choice Republicans.

Those at the top of the Democrat heap may be pro-choice, but I wouldn't dare say the same of the general populace, not even amongst the Democrats. This is what Kristen Day's book is largely about. The fact that pro-life Democrats are a silenced majority.

To treat cultural issues as if it is an us-them battle between Republicans and Democrats is an oversimplification of political history.

[gorgonzolaaa]

I do NOT possess an us-them mentality. I possess a conservative-liberal mentality. The Democratic agenda is clear, it is pro-choice, and it has a majority of support within. It is not simply the Democrats at the top of the heap.

[gorgonzolaaa]

Again, I point you to voting records on SCOTUS nominations. Their records are there for everyone to see, and their choice is clear: liberalism is more important than pro-life. Know these supposed pro-life Democrats by their fruit.

[paleocrat]

You most certainly possess an us-them mentality. Democrats = liberals; Republicans = us. This even includes moderate (i.e. liberal) McCain.

Of the 32 incoming Democrats representatives in 2006, how many were pro-life and fiscally conservative? Of the 9 incoming Democrat senators, how many were pro-life and fiscally conservative? Pro-life, fiscally conservative Democrats swept Republicans in 06. This deserves smiles from "non-partisan" conservatives.

Vote McCain... but hand your head in shame.

[gorgonzolaaa]

I do not have an us-them mentality. I am conservative. I am not a member of the Republican party. That it appears us-them, is simply coincidental to commonly held conservative principles. I would undoubtedly support a Democrat with conservative principles.

Again, these pro-life Democrats will be known by their fruit, and their record is not good.

[paleocrat]

It is an us-them by coincidence? Commonly held conservative principles? Like what? Those held by McCain?

I'd love to have you call in to my program on Friday. This is an interesting topic that people ought to hear. Message me.

[gorgonzolaaa]

It is quite the opposite, that it is not us-them, precisely because Republicans are not consistently conservative. This is where much of the fight lies, in exposing frauds, and encouraging conservatism in moderates.

Conservative principles include pro-life, smaller government, love of country, pro-2nd-Amendment, lower taxes, controlling our borders, etc.