Excellent.

Are you going to cross-post this at Ace's?

I'm thinking about it. I'm wondering if it's a bit too heated, though.

You should, it's quite good.

I am reminded of an ALL CAPS !!! remark from RWS back in when she was really pimping J-Mac (and I don't mean this unkindly, but I was stunned at the logic),

"it's not about freaking judges"!

Really? How the hell do you think we got here?

You can argue that you don't trust Rudy to appoint who he says he will, "trust me" is certainly open to debate. But to assert that judges aren't important is just myopic.

I used myopic in a sentence. I f'ing rock.

I'm wondering if it's a bit too heated,

No heat detected here.

Very persuasive bit, you should post it over there.

One wing of the GOP says they won't for candidate X.
The rest of the party says they don't want Dem Y for President.
Why not nominate GOP Z? Why isn't it the moderates who are torpedoing the party, picking the one guy the social conservatives don't like?

I feel this is eerily similar to 2000, when people said Bush is a conservative you can trust him. That worked out well.

Why not nominate GOP Z? Why isn't it the moderates who are torpedoing the party, picking the one guy the social conservatives don't like?

Is it really "torpedoing the party" if the candidate in question is chosen by a majority of those who belong to it?

Great post. 2008 is a race for all the marbles, and I don't think the Dhimmicrats will relinquish power again until they have set into permanent motion their domestic agenda of social welfare and a foreign policy of weakness and appeasement. We are approaching a tipping point "tax eater" voters will outnumber taxpaying voters. And THAT, my friends, will be the end of this country's great run.

Petulant social values voters will have harumphed their progeny into values desolation.

Slublog,

This little spat is frankly much ado about what really will not be much. I firmly believe that there are large numbers of GOPers who DO NOT WANT TO WIN IN 2008. The reason: Hillary Clinton. She's much more useful as the She-Devil president and the Perfect Enemy than working for a GOPer that can beat her in '08.

If you were to take a medium-term look (up to '12) at the political and socio-economic landscape, the GOP would be smart to tank the Presidential election. Think about this: the next recession would likely be in the middle of Hillary's term if you go by certain patterns. Then imagine that same Hillary having to run for reelection in '12 with 23 Democrat Senate seats up in the same year. Now imagine her having to deal with a political opposition that will be amped up to 3x the level that either her husband OR GWB ever had to face.

Now, will the GOP totally tank in '08? No, because it's too early to speak of it now and people on the conservative side are more amped up about politics than they were when her husband last ran. Not to mention, the GOP has a LOT of Senate seats in their own territory, whereas there are quite a few big states (CA, NY, PA, OH) that don't have Senate elections in '08.

If the GOP tanks this in 2008, then they will NEVER win the White House (at least, not until the party changes so much it is not recognizable as the GOP by today's standards).

Demographics are going against the GOP, and the long-term result of an all-D government will make it worse. President Hillary would, with the wave of her pen, set in motion a path to citizenship for 10 million illegal aliens. They will bring in more, and have children. Down the road, this will mean 20-30 million new voters, and they will vote 90% democrat.

Even if we did win back power in 2012, it would be too late. The path to amnesty will have already begun (and at least 2 members of SCOTUS will have been replaced by Hillary's chosen). The liberal courts would do everything in their power to ensure more and more immigrants are given the right to vote. They might even declare that all the non-citizens here (legal or not) should have the right to vote because, hey, they live here, right?

Also, if Hillary is in charge, she will have the luxury of taking credit for our eventual win in and withdrawal from Iraq. That will forever take away one of the biggest reasons to vote Republican: the military.

Finally, the scary Hillary monster might help with grassroots fundraising, but the big $ spenders, the people whose millions of dollars have a HUGE impact on elections, spend their money to gain access. That means they back those they perceive as winners. Right now, Ds are kicking R butt in fund raising for two reasons: the grassroots is demoralized by Rs acting like liberals, and the big $ spenders are backing Ds in response to their WINNING in 2006. If the GOP loses again in 2008, we can kiss all our high dollar donors goodbye. They'll be spending on Ds because Ds will be winning and they want to be able to walk into the winner's office and start asking for favors. Money always follows the winners, leading to long-term success.

If any GOP strategist out there is seriously considering letting HRC win in order to better stage us for 2012, that person needs to resign and go pack to grad school PRONTO. The best way to set yourself up for wins down the road is to start winning NOW.

Well said. Although I didn't need the convincing. Though Bush has deservedly taken some lumps from conservatives, how many of them really think we would have been better off (now, or in the future) because of a Gore or Kerry presidency? Not me. Push Giuliani to the right in the primary as much as you can. There are no guarantees he stays there, but I think that's the best we can do.

Please don't use the word "factoid" to mean a little fact.

A factoid is a non-fact dressed up to look like a fact. See, e.g., "humanoid."

I know. It's a small quibble. But why help corrupt the language? It's all we have.

I know. It's a small quibble. But why help corrupt the language? It's all we have.

A comment after my own heart.

I had a bumper sticker that said simpley, "I Blame Ross Perot."

Damn. I really don't want to make another similar rendition of that.

Here is a list of people on Giuliani's Justice Advisory Committee. It's a sneak peek into the people that will be appointed to judicial posts in a Giuliani administration. These are strict constructionists,

Great advisory committee; too bad I have no confidence in the man who would ultimately be making the selection. Mayor Giuliani, after all, thinks that Roe v. Wade is good law, and his support for gun control doesn't speak well of his views on the 2nd Amendment. So is he (a) advocating policies he knows are unconstitutional according to his strict constructionist views, or (b) using the Courts to blackmail pro-lifers to keep them in line, all the while promising judges he has no intention of delivering? Would a President Giuliani really endure a brutal confirmation fight to appoint, say, a Justice Alito, whose expected judicial views conflict with the policies Giuliani supports? Or would we get a "moderate" candidate, while Giuliani supporters tell the pro-life base to "suck it up, you'd get worse under Clinton"? Also, given that the days of the 99-0 confirmation that Justice Ginsburgh received are long gone, just how radical of a Justice could president Clinton appoint? Since the Democrats have, for better or worse, decided that political views are fair game in a confirmation hearing, and that 61 "yeas" are needed for an appointment, then doesn't that hamstring a President Clinton in choosing her candidate?

Based on his record, I have no reason to believe that a President Giuliani would nominate a conservative Justice to the Supreme Court. In the short term, yes, a moderate-right justice appointed by Giuliani would be better than whatever moderate-left justice Clinton could get through the confirmation process. But what about long term? What if Giuliani becomes the new conservative standard in this country? In 2016 and beyond, the choice will be between another RINO like Rudy Giuliani, and someone who can drift even further to the left. The pro-life position will be off the table, since no serious presidential candidate will be advocating it.

Conservatives now are threatening to do what Liberals did in 2000. Remember, the line back then was that there was no difference between George Bush and Al Gore, so they jumped ship for Ralph Nader. It cost them '00 and '04, but look where they are now. Their leading candidate for '08 is a near-socialist and the wife of their Golden Boy; said socialist is currently the odds-on favorite to win the presidency. They've taken back both the House and the Senate, and stand a good chance to increase their margins in '08. Their "nightmare scenario" of two Supreme Court vacancies necessitated the nomination of two stealth candidates who have shown little interest in broad overturn of past precedents. So while things would have been a bit better for them short-term from a liberal perspective had they backed Gore in '00, they're sitting pretty now and for the foreseeable future. Their party has swung far to the left, and is poised to take control of the Presidency and both chambers of Congress in spite of it. So from a long-term view, would a President Clinton facing an energized conservative GOP be that much worse than a continued choice between a far-left Dem party and a centrist GOP? I don't see that it would be. I'd rather see the GOP lose and return to its conservative roots than to let Rudy Giuliani define the right-most bounds of American politics for a generation. The next 8 years would be worse, but the next 80 will be all the better for conservatives taking a stand against him.

The next 8 years would be worse, but the next 80 will be all the better for conservatives taking a stand against him.

Eight years?

Given the fact that Clinton would pick at least three new justices, the repercussions of your decision would last a bit longer.

Also, RINO is an interesting term. Since it's social conservatives that threaten to bolt the party every time they don't get their way, I submit they are the Republicans In Name Only. Surely you'd agree, since principles are more important than party affiliation.

Or so I've been told.

For several years the libertarian wing among Rebublican voters have been insulting social conservatives and complaining about what a stone we are around Republican/Libertarian necks, especially the big name bloggers. Now we are "petulant" because we are talking about looking elsewhere for representation??

The fact is that most Christian voters are small letter liberals. Concern for the poor and lower economic class and social justice, among other issues, have driven Christian voters to vote Democratic in the past. The shift to the Republican party (the stone around libertarian necks) has been about abortion and the growing anti-Christian, anti-Israeli flavor of the Democratic Party.

Sneering at Christian concerns and Christian spokespeople has become the sport of the conservative/libertarian elite. And now we are childish for thinking we deserve representation?

To be sure, I have no doubt that Democrats will be the winners of this conflict. That's politics. Rudy is the wrong candidate for pro-lifers. That's politics too.

There will be no third Christian Party, but pro-lifers will stay home in droves.

Sneering at Christian concerns and Christian spokespeople has become the sport of the conservative/libertarian elite. And now we are childish for thinking we deserve representation?

True. Because it's not as though we haven't gotten a partial-birth abortion ban, a ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research and abortion, abstinence education in schools and an ally during the debate over what should happen to Terri Schiavo.

No, the conservative/libertarians have given us nothing. We should totally stab them in the back.

The real culprits in the abortion issue are the social conservatives. If they'd been willing to compromise back in the early 70s for things like rape and incest, then chances are they could have worked something out with the other side where the purely elective abortions were illegal or severely restricted. That's a lot of dead babies that wouldn't have been killed, and their blood is as much on the hands of the ones who refused to compromise as on the ones who actually do the abortions.

Thirty years haven't taught social conservatives the necessity of compromise for political clout. Their recent influence has been, to use their language, by grace and not by works. Now that it's waning, they are threatening to take their votes and go home. That is the behavior profile of a bully: lord one's power over others, then throw a tantrum when that power is taken away.

"...their blood is as much on the hands of the ones who refused to compromise as on the ones who actually do the abortions."

Great company you keep, Slu. Pro-lifers are the real baby killers!!!

"That is the behavior profile of a bully: lord one's power over others, then throw a tantrum when that power is taken away."

You sure did and you sure are, Joe. You and Slu are just spitting at the mouth mad that pro-lifers are not supporting your boy, Rudy.

Petulant, indeed.

Actually, if you look at the bottom right of the website, you'll see I haven't made up my mind about whom to support. In general, it's best not to make assumptions.

The post is in response to what would happen should Giuliani win the nomination, and a response to what I consider a politically foolish strategy on the part of pro-lifers quoted in the NRO article. It was not intended as a defense of Giuliani, only a warning about what will happen should pro-lifers sit out the election. The other reason I wrote it was to point out that Giuliani, for all of his faults, is far preferable to Clinton.

The information given by Joe originates from C. Everett Koop, the former surgeon general. There is no doubt that had pro-lifers compromised then, the numbers of elective abortions would be fewer now. So in that sense, yes - the refusal of the pro-life movement to compromise is partially responsible for what we face today.

Slu,

That's not "information", that is an opinion, just like Joe's. For me, the idea that the same Supreme Court that ruled for an absolute right to abortion would have ruled against all but the most restricted circumstances is laughable. I can't believe that you or anyone else thinks that the Court was paying attention to pro lifers at all. You are just trying to demonize those who are not willing to compromise over Rudy. Essentially you, or Joe perhaps, are arguing that the principled are the evil ones and the politicians are the true hearts.

That's turning things on their head.

You are just trying to demonize those who are not willing to compromise over Rudy. Essentially you, or Joe perhaps, are arguing that the principled are the evil ones and the politicians are the true hearts.

Again with the assumptions. I would ask you to stop making them, but they seem to be the core of your argument.

I wasn't suggesting Koop could have changed the court - what could have changed is the fact that the laws governing the practice of abortion might not have been as sweeping had pro-life activists not insisted on banning all abortions.

Koop has spoken a number of times on the subject. Here's what he said:

"If the pro-life people in the late 1960's and the early 1970's had been willing to compromise with the pro-choice people, we could have had an abortion law that provided for abortion only for the life of the mother, incest, rape, and defective child; that would have cut the abortions down to three percent of what they are today. But they had an all-or-nothing mentality. They wanted it all and they got nothing."

Pro-lifers are the real baby killers!!!

I didn't say that. I said they are as culpable for our current situation as the abortion providers. Their insistence on utter victory left them empty-handed in the end. All the babies that would have survived had they settled for a partial victory are dead purely because they refused to compromise.

You and Slu are just spitting at the mouth mad that pro-lifers are not supporting your boy, Rudy.

Gee, Mike, you really jumped to a lousy conclusion there. I don't care one bit about Rudy. I don't even care who wins in '08. As I Christian, however, I do care quite a bit about how religious political activism has come to dominate the evangelical subculture. The pro-life movement is one of the biggest offenders, and all the more tragic because it hasn't been effective politically anyway.

For me, the idea that the same Supreme Court that ruled for an absolute right to abortion would have ruled against all but the most restricted circumstances is laughable.

I'm envisioning that the compromise would have taken place sooner in the process, when the legislation itself was being written. The two sides together could have worked out laws that would have left the door open for the egregious situations the pro-choicers were concerned about while closing the door on widespread elective abortions, and done it in a way that would have protected both sides' goals from future judicial review. IMO that is the best that the pro-lifers could ever have hoped for, but it wasn't good enough--and now they're fighting partial-birth abortions and have no chance of ever limiting first trimester ones.

Essentially you, or Joe perhaps, are arguing that the principled are the evil ones and the politicians are the true hearts.

Evil? No, the principled ones are not evil. Foolish, though? Yeah, they were incredibly foolish. Compromise is the currency of politics. Pro-lifers want political changes, but if they aren't going to compromise they are literally asking for handouts. When did you ever hear of a free lunch in Washington?

"That isn't an "opinion," that's the recollection of a man who was in the battle at the time."

I didn't know that women's rights groups, the ACLU and Planned Parenthood (and their lawyers) took their marching orders from Koop. Forgive me for mistaking his assumptions for anything but fact.

I'm 53. I have lived during the abortion march. The both of you are misrepresenting what happened. I recall only a few pro-lifers arguing that abortion should be illegal in ALL circumstances. No one I know thought a woman should have to carry a rapist's child to birth or endanger her life. The argument was over abortion as birth control and the compromisers (the Slu's and Joe's) won out and first trimester abortions were OK, and (shockingly, for the Slu's and Joe's) then second trimester, and then all the way to full term abortions. The compromisers saved so many babies with their political expediency!!

On top of that lesson in history and compromise, Joe and Slu are equating an absolutist approach to abortion with the unwillingness of pro lifers to support a pro abortion candidate. That is not an honest comparison. It is one that has been chosen to make informed voters feel obligated morally to support a candidate who supports something they think of as immoral.

"All the babies that would have survived had they settled for a partial victory are dead purely because they refused to compromise."

See, Slu. That is hate, not reality. Notice how Joe just has to throw in that "purely because". He wants to make sure that he gets across his point that he holds anti-abortionists as the only ones responsible for abortions.

Anyway, thanks for letting me comment. Good luck with your "pro life" work.

For several years the libertarian wing among Rebublican voters have been insulting social conservatives and complaining about what a stone we are around Republican/Libertarian necks, especially the big name bloggers. Now we are "petulant" because we are talking about looking elsewhere for representation??

Yep, exactly what you guys have called us when we balked at supporting a toadie for the extreme Right. The fact remains that neither group comprises the whole of the GOP and need each other in order to win an election. I've voted time and time again against my own interests in certain areas because of that (the DNC is far worse), yet soc-cons have grown too powerful in the party structure. Compromise is something they have forgotten, not to mention that not everyone shares their own religious views or believes that these views should be enacted into law.

And now we are childish for thinking we deserve representation?

Considering the clowns like Dobson who are constantly put forth as being their spokesmen, you betcha! Cheer up though, I am somewhat sympathetic with your angst because just as you refuse to vote for Giuliani no matter I say the same thing about Romney. Guess that makes us more alike than either of us cares to admit.

The argument was over abortion as birth control and the compromisers (the Slu's and Joe's) won out and first trimester abortions were OK, and (shockingly, for the Slu's and Joe's) then second trimester, and then all the way to full term abortions. The compromisers saved so many babies with their political expediency!!

Not quite true there, but nice try rewriting history. Roe v. Wade mandated that rule - there was no chance at compromise at that point. Honestly, I trust Koop on this one.

On top of that lesson in history and compromise, Joe and Slu are equating an absolutist approach to abortion with the unwillingness of pro lifers to support a pro abortion candidate.

Also not quite true - what I'm saying is that your absolutist approach, in this case, will lead to a pro-choice extremist winning the White House instead of someone who would have more incentive to compromise on our behalf. If the extremist wins the White House, it's game over for the pro-life cause for decades.

Good luck with your "pro life" work.

Those scare quotes insinuating I'm not really pro-life? I'm not really into that, and it's the final assumption about me I'm willing to take. Thanks for commenting.

"All the babies that would have survived had they settled for a partial victory are dead purely because they refused to compromise."

See, Slu. That is hate, not reality. Notice how Joe just has to throw in that "purely because". He wants to make sure that he gets across his point that he holds anti-abortionists as the only ones responsible for abortions.

You could address your comments directly to me. Just because Slublog was faster on the draw replying to you does not mean he's my mouthpiece.

I do not understand the "hate" label at all. What is it that I hate: pro-lifers? I don't hate them. I don't think they're helping matters, but that conclusion isn't hate, is it? The hate label is useful, though, for stigmatizing positions you disagree with.

I also do not understand why you are ignoring my clarification that I hold the pro-lifers at the time "as" culpable. See, I put it in italics again. Do pay attention this time.

Thanks for sharing your experiences of the time. It helps me understand why I've made you so angry. Nevertheless, I stand by my position that the pro-life movement, and other religious political activist groups, would profit from learning how to compromise.

Sadly, when "Christians" who want to lose are confronted with bible quotes like The Anchoress provided, they ignore that and just start prattling on about.....
well, whatever.
But their almost martyr like, all or nothing approach will only cause more anger within the party. I almost get the feeling they want a Republican Civil War.

Q: When was Dr. Koop on the Supreme Court?

Answer: Never.

The winner of this comment thread is mikem.

Oh, and don't be a sore loser, ManiacJoe. When mikem noted that your claims amount to crying "Pro-lifers are the real baby killers!!!" mikem's inference from your earlier remarks was absolutely correct.

Face it folks, the Giuliani-or-nothing RINOs are the real dogs in the manger.

Q: When was Dr. Koop on the Supreme Court?

Answer: Never.

What a wonderful non sequitur. I never claimed Koop was on the court, only that he was at the forefront of the battle in the past, and became disillusioned with the inability of certain pro-life activists to engage in long-term thinking.

Dogs in the manger?

I find it fascinating, and telling, that the most un-civil responses on this thread have come from the social conservatives.

What prize do the winners of threads get?

The profit I have gotten from this thread is this:

1. Not everyone shares Dr. Koop's recollections of time around Roe v. Wade.
2. Some pro-life advocates are so passionate about their cause that no departure from decorum is too much cost for making their point.
3. Because Dr. Koop is not one of those described by point 2, I will continue to trust him on this one--but with a more open mind than before.