Redstate

It would be a tempting ticket if you want two candidates that support big government and think that the government's job is to solve all our problems. Besides, what social conservative is going to want someone with 90% liberal positions one step away from the presidency?

be ashamed of the flag

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

This is probably one of the first things you have said that I agree with. I could be a single issue voter on abortion, gun control, fiscal issues, and even on homosexual marriage, but to focus on the FMA by itself is rather ignorant.

is why they felt they could.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Bush was not exactly that great and Clinton at that time wasn't universally hated by the right enough to get people to the polls no matter who they had to vote for. I know Perot was the only reason I voted at all.

My policy positions-

Non-Interventionist.
Unrestricted Free Trade.
Abolish the Fed.
Abolish IRS and use Sales Tax.
Privatize Social Security.
Government out of marriage.
Pro-Choice.
No Amnesty.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters

I can tell you that I definitely would have voted for Bush if Perot had not been running.

Oz

www.first-cut-politics.blospot.com

Giuliani has already stated that his ideal Supreme Court Justice would be in the mold of John Roberts or Samuel Alito. Very likely, Hillary's ideal Justice would be in the mold of Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Laurence Tribe.

Even if you don't fully trust Rudy on that statement, in a Rudy v. Hillary match-up, you know what Hillary would do, and the choice should be clear. One, John Paul Stevens likely won't make it through January 2013, leaving whoever is President with an empty seat. Hillary will nominate a liberal and they will pass. Furthermore, Antonin Scalia is getting up in age and we can't be certain that Anthony Kennedy wouldn't do something crazy. A loss of either of them, with a Tribe or Ginsburg redux replacing them, would be disastarous.

He said his judges could uphold Roe.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters

a prospective justice could not uphold Roe.

Molon Labe!

But I don't think we've had a Republican since Reagan who has some out and expressed support for upholding Roe.

Saying nothing, as previous Republicans have done, is not equivalent to saying he's against us, as Giuliani has.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters

Giuliani said he would appoint "strict constructionist" judges, and he didn't know whether those strict constructionist judges would vote to uphold or overturn Roe. How could he say otherwise without saying that he would make Roe a litmus test, a litmus test every other Republican President has repudiated?

Oz

www.first-cut-politics.blospot.com

HTML Help Central for Red Staters

minority that agrees with the majority on many other things, some of which are of paramount importance in this election. Giuliani is the candidate that resonates on those other things. He has moderated, but not abandoned, his pro-choice position and will not shove it down the majority's throat.

The DEM are so pro-choice that they have a lot of trouble allowing pro-life positions to be DISCUSSED, and rely on courts to promote abortion through the backdoor.

if Giuliani wins, why would Republicans feel the need to ever nominate a pro-life candidate again, when they know we can nominate a pro-choice candidate, put a bunch of blue states in play, and not lose a single vote?

All you have to do is convince Republicans that there's a better candidate for the nomination who is pro-life, with whatever weight his pro-life position contributes to being a better candidate. That probably will happen in 2008, if enough pro-life Republicans consider it important enough to unite behind whichever of Thompson, Romney, Huckabee, etc. shakes out as the alternative to Giuliani; whether or not that happens this time, nothing stops the pro-life majority of Republicans from uniting to nominate a pro-life candidate in future elections.

We have a democratic process for selecting the Republican nominee (with all the imperfections that make democracy the worst possible system except for all the other ones tried). The way to nominate a pro-life candidate is to convince your fellow Republicans that your pro-life guy is the best candidate, and to elect him in November you have to convince your fellow Americans that he would be the best President.

The vast majority of social conservatives understand how democracy works, and that's enabled them to strongly influence the American politics, in particular in the Republican party. Unfortunately their are a few who see their fellow Republicans and their fellow Americans as "the other", an adversary they must bend to their will with threats.

Americans don't take kindly to threats, and that's especially true of Republican Americans. When purported Republicans threaten to elect Clinton so we can get a few more Ginsburgs on the court and surrender to al Qaeda in Iraq, we regard that as too kooky to take seriously; the only serious reaction to threats to shaft America with Clinton as Commander in Chief is an inclination to stick it to the kooks to show that kind of extortion is counterproductive.

The way to put a pro-lifer in the White House is by conducting yourself as "one of us" even if some of us, Republicans and Americans in general, don't agree with you on the necessity of keeping Giuliani out of the White House. That means you try to convince enough of us that your pro-life candidate is the best one to vote for.

Democracy is tough. To get your way you have to convince a bunch of other people to agree with you. Threatening people will get you no where.

I don't think it's correct to say that the American way is to fight within a party. I think the Constitution defines what the American way is when it comes to government, and parties have nothing to do with that.

Personally I will always express my views on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November and never feel badly about wishing to do so.

And that's not a threat. Some would say the threat is to the millions of babies Giuliani doesn't wish to save, I'm sure.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters

you might have a point in your last sentence.

I would say the people who are willing to risk a Hillary SCOTUS lock in Roe, possibly forever, are much more of a risk.

The way to get your way in a democracy is to persuade your fellow Americans to cast votes that agree with yours. If you fail to persuade enough of your fellow Americans that you're right, Americans and especially Republican Americans aren't the kind of wimps to submit to threats of dire consequences (President Hillary Clinton) for not letting you have your way.

I don't think it's correct to say that the American way is to fight within a party.

OK, so why are you fighting within our party right now to stop Giuliani? More seriously, my point was that when we fight within our party, the way to do it is the American democratic way of trying to persuade other Republicans to agree with you, not by threatening us.

Personally I will always express my views on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November and never feel badly about wishing to do so.

If it turns out Clinton vs. Giuliani in November 2008, anybody that sincerely believes that America would be better off with Clinton as President rather than Giuliani has a patriotic duty to vote for her. More precisely, that applies to states in play.

I take it you believe America would be better off (in the long run at least) with Clinton rather than Giuliani as President; please correct me if I'm mistaken. If I recall correctly, you live in California which is guaranteed to the Democrat except in a 400 EV Republican landslide. Since your vote (like mine in CA) has no chance of influencing who wins the Presidential general election, I make no criticism of you for voting for whichever third party joke stirs your passions, rather than casting a vote for Clinton to save America from Giuliani.

Since when is being a party hack the American way? I think your post would strike the Founding Fathers as absurd.

If you honestly believe America would be better off with Hillary Clinton as President rather than Giuliani, then in a Clinton-Giuliani general election your moral obligation to your country is to vote for Clinton. I wouldn't criticize you for disloyalty to the Republican party. My only criticism would be for being silly enough to believe Clinton would be a better President for America.

If you really believe America would be better off with Clinton as President, that tells most of us all we need to know, about how seriously to take you in a debate over who should be the Republican nominee.

in the primary unless there is a major collapse from both Thompson or Romney.

Oz

www.first-cut-politics.blospot.com

A traitor is one who commits treason, or who goes back on an oath or obligation (Webster's 10th collegiate), not one who leaves a political party that has turned against him.

If the Republican Party is going to start mandating oaths of loyalty to Mel Martinez, then I'm out of here.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters

leaving a group you have fought with, and THEN fighting to destroy them, is exactly a traitorous action. Dobson would be better off preaching and not trying to play puppet master. It seems the Republican party and the Republican electorate have grown tired of this game.

Molon Labe!

Sorry, the Republican Party doesn't exist solely to eleect Rudy Giuliani President. Fighting him may do many things, but destroying the Republican party is not one of them. And he knows it, too, or he wouldn't bother.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters

... over Dobson's whining about Thompson not being Christian enough for his tastes.

I'm not worried about "Christian leaders" or any other " leaders". Americans aren't led around by the nose by those the MSM anoints as their group's "leader."

Molon Labe!

But of course, if the "unity" candidate flops, Rudy might have turned out to be the better choice.

The best unity candidate would be McCain, as he leads the preference polls vs Hillary. But then some people would threaten to bolt over him, too. And then some are doing same over Romney.

This election has complex risk assessment attributes.

I read the lefty blogs and they never mention "bolting" over x, y, or z candidate. As a party, we seem to be turning into a bunch of bores.

It is a shame we can not all agree on limited government and maximum liberty. These people who want to write crayon all over the Constitution and create so many more laws, seem to have so much more faith in the federal bureacracy as the ultimate arbiter of mankind than do I.

If you are against abortion, don't have one. If you are against gay marriage, don't have one. Those that think the government in Washington should make us more moral, don't seem to understand what morals are and where they come from.

Molon Labe!

In one breath you preach party unity and with the next you caricature and trivialize issues that are important to Conservative Christians and basically tell us to go pound sand. Not a very effective means of persuasion.

I preach unity BECAUSE one group is making threats to leave, which group would that be? The fiscal cons? the War on Terror folks?

I am a CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN, my argument is with those that think the federal government can solve all our problems by passing new laws and putting trivialities in the US Constitution along with the right to keep and bear arms and the right of free speech.

Also, I have no theoretical problem with those that want to add a bunch of new federal laws , I think they are silly but they have the right to believe it is a good thing to do. I do have a problem with people who have used the Republican party to push their not particularly conservative agenda and now want to threaten us to pick their candidate or they will bolt, showing exactly how limited their loyalty was all along.

again, the key is do you have faith in the federal government, or is your faith in something else? That is the question, it is stark and uncomfortable, but that is how it goes. A Christian big government type is just the other side of the coin to a socialist big government type.

btw, I am pro life, so you will have to do better than cast aspersions if you want to debate me. I think morals come from our creator, not the Office of Management and Budget.

Molon Labe!

I think the message people are trying to get across is that politics, particularly in a 2-party democratic system, often requires coalition building. And, by definition, coalition building requires the allowance of ideologies that, in some respects, may be in conflict.

I'm not a SoCon -- but I support a fair bit of their agenda. And most of the ones I know feel about the same way with my agenda. It's not exactly the same as theirs, and there are areas where we disagree...but, at the end of the day, our values are more congruent with each other than any of those on the left.

It's starting to look more and more like we're going to have two choices for president: Hillary Clinton or Rudy Giuliani.

Anybody else on the ballot is going to be there to make a point -- and they won't even make much of one when they do.

Part of the downside of coalition governance is that sometimes, in service of your own priorities, have to do things while holding your nose. I certainly know that I've had to. I've never liked it -- but I didn't create the system, I just live within it.

Most of your issues are epicentered in the courts. And, so, the biggest thing you need from a president are good judges. You may get some judges from Giuliani that you won't like. But you aren't going to like a single one of them that Hillary will nominate.

I can't even see why this is a hard decision.

LibHawk, you seem like a rational, non-insulting poster, unlike a couple of the other Guiliani supporters on this thread, so I'm happy to respond to you.

"I'm not a SoCon -- but I support a fair bit of their agenda. And most of the ones I know feel about the same way with my agenda. It's not exactly the same as theirs, and there are areas where we disagree...but, at the end of the day, our values are more congruent with each other than any of those on the left."

So far, so good . . . I'm not particularly a LibCon but I can support most of the agenda.

"It's starting to look more and more like we're going to have two choices for president: Hillary Clinton or Rudy Giuliani."

I think you're dead wrong here. Anyone who is the Republican candidate for president will have a substantial chance for victory. Giuliani has done best so far in head to head polls, but I think it's waaaay too premature to suggest that he's more electable than any other Republican candidate, let alone assert with any certainty that he's the only electable Republican candidate. History teaches that polls this far out are not good predictors--things change once the general election campaining begins. Also, Giuliani clearly has a name recognition advantage over the other candidates that is inflating his numbers. Finally, the head to head polling doesn't measure voters who will vote for a third party or stay at home. Even if you convince me that the best decision is to vote for Giuliani in the general, you know as well as I do that a large percentage of SoCons will not vote for Giuliani out of principal. This is certain. Even if it's only 5-10% of SoCons who stay at home, vote third party, or vote for the Dem, that will be catastrophic to Rudy's chances. Personally, I think it's more like 20% of SoCons who will sit out or vote third party. For this reason alone, I think Rudy is the least electable of any Republican candidate.

I'm far from the only one who thinks this. See http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/CampaignStandard/2007/10/kristol_i...

"Part of the downside of coalition governance is that sometimes, in service of your own priorities, have to do things while holding your nose. I certainly know that I've had to. I've never liked it -- but I didn't create the system, I just live within it."

Agreed. I'm willing to hold my nose and vote for Romney in the general election, even though he seems way to slick and flip-floppy for my taste. I'm also willing to hold my nose and vote for McCain, even though I'd prefer to have a better choice. I'll vote for Thompson without holding my nose, although he's done nothing to make me enthusiastically support him so far. I could vote enthusiastically for Brownback or Huckabee, but understand that Huckabee's compassionate conservatism may be a bridge too far for some in the party. In sum, I'm willing to play along . . . up to a point. Thrice married Giuliani, the pro-abortion friend of NARAL and Roe v. Wade and whose beliefs on abortion are anathema to mine, crosses the line and I will not vote for him, period.

"Most of your issues are epicentered in the courts. And, so, the biggest thing you need from a president are good judges. You may get some judges from Giuliani that you won't like. But you aren't going to like a single one of them that Hillary will nominate."

First, I have absolutely zero confidence that Guiliani will appoint a judge who will overturn Roe. I've read his own words on the subject and seen his fervent support for abortion. This will be especially true if there is a Democrat Senate. No way Guiliani will go to the mat to get a Scalia/Thompson type judge confirmed. Second, there is much than just judges who will overturn Roe. Overturning Roe is just the first step. We must win the hearts and minds of the electorate and outlaw abortion throughout the USA. We need a leader who can fight for this rather than someone who supports NARAL and will actively oppose us. Rudy will set back the SoCon movement by a generation if elected President.

You and other Guiliani supporters also make a serious logical error when you assume that the issue is which candidate will best advance my issues over the next four years. The real question is which which candidate's election will best advance my beliefs over the long run. A Guiliani victory would push SoCons to sidelines of the Republican party for at least eight years. Even longer term, the movement would be set back as it would be crystal clear that the concerns of SoCons could be ignored and SoCons taken for granted because they would always "hold their noses" no matter who the party nominated. At least if Clinton wins, then that non-SoCons Republicans will learn their lesson and avoid shoving an unacceptable candidate down our throats ever again.

So, let's all get on the same team and nominate a candidate that all major constituencies of the party can support in good faith.

If you are against abortion, don't have one.

That's the argument people used before the Civil War. If you are against slavery, don't own one.

I think abortion is the slavery of our day. And the core issue is the same: who's afforded basic human rights and who isn't?

But I've concluded that (perversely, I admit) the pro-life cause in this primary is actually better served by supporting a pro-choice candidate over the pro-life candidates.

None of them have a chance to win -- and President Hillary Clinton would be a disaster for the pro-life movement...at the just time when we're starting to get the courts going in our direction.

Standing on principle is a great thing to do - usually. But losing never served anybody's purposes.

but I said it to make a point. I do not believe government is a moral authority, I do not believe if Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer pass a law, then they are making our country more moral. Now I understand you think banning women from having abortions, threatening them with prison if they do not have their child, will make us a more moral country. But I do not think that is so. I think morals are what you do when you are not physically threatened, they are what you do because you think it is the right thing to do.

I am not pro choice. I favor repealing Roe and leaving it to the states. I also favor severe restrictions on abortion. I really favor teaching morals and citizenship so people can make the right choices. The reality is if we do ban abortions in our Constitution, only the well off will be able to have them safely. The rich will go to Canada or wherever, the poor will go back to coat hangers.

Not to get into an abortion debate, but say we do ban all abortions and then everyone gives the kid up for adoption. What happens if there are way too many kids and not enough adults that want to adopt? Does the government start raising the kids as well? Do we create a corps of people raised by the government because abortions were banned by the government? Or do we make new laws that say mothers can not only not have abortions, but they must raise their children to the age of 18 and can not give them up for adoption under penalty of prison?

One thing about government solutions, they are never solutions, they always warp society and create new problems. Personally, I hope all that get pregnant want to raise a child and love them.

But even after saying all this, I do not think this is really about your views on abortion. It is about your views on morals and the role of Federal bureaucrats in our lives.

Molon Labe!

It is about abortion. It's not about being in anyone's lives or federal bureaucrats. The Constitution even guarantees a right to life. That should apply to the born as well as the unborn. Obviously, it should at least be decided by states until an amendment is possible.

You claim to be pro-life but sound just like the liberals about the "rich" and "poor" and "coat hangers" and "safe" abortions. The problems created by a bigger population (or a bigger poor population), no matter how devastating and severe, is not a reason to allow murder on request. There is no such thing as a "safe" abortion, legal or not. If women threaten to harm themselves if they can't kill their child, then they are a danger to themselves and another and need to be placed in a mental institution. That would be a very rare occurrence. While "the rich" rarely seek abortions anymore, that is a very bad argument since "the rich" can probably also get away with a lot of other crimes that lower income people cannot.

Prohibiting abortion is a necessity to protect human rights. It's clearly not an attempt to solve society's problems or get involved in others' lives. It's not some little side issue or policy preference. We're talking about genocide here, another war on terror. Millions of human lives are being killed, often by cruel torture. Stopping that is about the most basic function of government there is.

in the cause of life. God bless

I also appreciate the fact that you, like I, mostly use objective facts to try and convince the pro-abortionists on the legal issue and also on the moral issue. I think that is best.

But, I think their is deep moral issue here that goes to the very essence of our worth as a people, and when it comes to converting most people only the moral argument will do. Why? Because most people know a fetus is a human life, know that its wrong, but have accepted the court's invitation and pandora's box into barbarism.

The best way to change them is thru SHAME. By showing pictures inside the womb and challenging them morally.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

I think true morality comes from God and is manifested from within each individual. I am not saying there is no place for laws, as some are trying to suggest,that would be absurd. I was trying to get into a more philosophical discussion on what actually constitutes morality. For some reason, 99 percent are against murder, slavery, and theft, yet the majority supports "abortion rights".

I think abortion is a terrible wrong. I hope there are no abortions. Yet, how can we think it is not enough to leave the issue to the individual states? If we as a nation choose to amend the Constitution, then let our choice stand.

I hope my words are understood in the context of why we are arguing. We are arguing on a Republican site, not a religious site, as to whether it would be a good or bad thing if a group of Republicans left the party over our choice of a presidential candidate.

I am no more a Rudy supporter than I am a Fred supporter. The Dobson followers seem to have a personal animus towards Rudy that he can not even change if he agreed with them. Yet Dobson seems to have also black balled Fred and McCain. He has a right to say and do what he wishes, but why will he not attack Democrats more often?

I have said all I am going to say (for now :) ) on this issue. Everyone can decide for themselves what is most important and what is not. I remember not long ago when we were united by the War on Terror, someone or some group has changed the subject and now we are fighting about a party split. I just find it sad, I think we will lose if this keeps up. Why can't people just argue for "their guy" and let's see what happens?

Molon Labe!

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

If you're against stealing, don't steal.

If you're against murder, don't kill.

If you're against terrorism, don't hijack planes.

Do we see how silly this line of reasoning is now?

HTML Help Central for Red Staters

Premise (1) assumes social conservatives are idiots. OK, there are a few idiots among socons just like in every other group, but too few to make a difference.

How many socons are dumb enough think Clinton appointing a few more Ginsburgs is no better than what they would get from Giuliani? Like I say, too few to care about.

Of course some who aren't idiots will threaten to vote for Clinton or a third party if Giuliani is nominated, but that's just a bluff. Obviously they don't have to be an idiots to prefer somebody besides Giuliani as the nominee, and it could be rational to make unrealistic threats in hopes of persuading others to vote against Giuliani. Once he's nominated though, the bluff is called and they'd have to be idiots to carry through on the threats. I don't believe they're idiots.

But they're guided by principle. Pragmatism, when it comes to a handful of key issues, just isn't in their vocabulary.

Of course it's pragmatically better for the social conservatives to have a President Giuliani than to have a President Hillary. But, again, pragmatism just doesn't carry the day for many of these kinds of voters.

The thought of casting a vote for a pro-choicer is anathema to their very soul.

The odd thing is: I'm a principle guy when it comes to many things...but I always wear the hat of pragmatism when that little curtain shuts on my booth. So, while I can sympathize with the 'no compromise' attitude, I just can't help but think that, sometimes, my causes are served better by one step back than 3 or 4.

This isn't about SoCons being stupid, or whatever. It's about their (honorable, in some respects) unwillingness to concede the slightest bit of ground on several large issues.

... unless you honestly believe your country is better off with Clinton as President, with a surrender to al Qaeda in Iraq and a few more Ginsburgs appointed to the Supreme Court.

The thought of casting a vote for a pro-choicer is anathema to their very soul.

Anybody narcissistic enough to believe how they cast their vote is less about what kind of person is Commander in Chief of their soldiers and who gets appointed to the Supreme Court, but is more about what is "anathema to their very soul" is too silly to take seriously. Fortunately their are too few social conservatives that silly to worry about in calculating electoral prospects.

This isn't about SoCons being stupid, or whatever. It's about their (honorable, in some respects) unwillingness to concede the slightest bit of ground on several large issues.

Right, that's why SoCons would prefer Clinton appointing a few more Ginsburgs to the Supreme Court, rather than vote for "anathema to their soul" Giuliani. Leaving aside too few idiots to care about, I don't believe social conservatives are as dumb as you apparently do.

I don't think they're dumb. I just think they tend to be more ideologically rigid than most other voting blocs. That's not being stupid. And, unlike you, I don't think the number of defectors will be small.

I've chaired or managed 5 campaigns -- 4 of them for state office. Particularly in those races, you met with and dealt with leaders of various constituencies in the hunt for endorsements and the like.

There is no compromise there -- at least, not in my experience. You were either basically 100% with them...or they weren't going to support you. Most groups weren't like that.

But Dobson is the one who is pushing for #1 to happen instead of doing something like:

1) I'm a big evangelical leader who wants to see Roe vs. Wade overturned.
2) Rudy, who I dislike, will elect better judges than Hillary.
3) I should pick someone other than Rudy to support in the primary and then throw my support behind the GOP winner no matter who he is

(My logic except change the first part of #1 to "I'm an evangelical")

In the primaries: Rudy or Mitt. In the general: The Republican.

Oz

www.first-cut-politics.blospot.com

gop congressmen and senators were happy with golf dates with Tip? When neither party was pro-life, we lost.

Then along came one of those zealots that led us to victory: Reagan

Then came another: Newt

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

(Nixon actually did try and appoint strict constructionists.)

The court changed the law. Usurped the right of We the People to self govern on a basic issue.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

1. Please tell me where abortion was an *acceptable* practice in America in '52 and '56, the years Eisenhower ran, let alone legal on demand.

2. Nixon was elected in '68 and '72. Please tell me how many states abortion was legal on demand in in those years.

3. Name what year Roe v. Wade was handed down in.

And for extra credit, please tell me the two elections that bookended the realignment of the parties, pulling southern conservatives from the Democratic party and into the Republican party.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters

My point is, Social Conservatives like to rewrite history. It's their contention that before the abortion issue, Republicans had nothing to run on and were a party that could never win elections. Republicans, however, did win elections before this divisive issue, and won elections in "Blue" states, not just the Bible Belt.

Abortions were legal in many states before Roe Vs. Wade, but most states had laws forbidding them. Abortions did occur in the U.S. before Roe vs. Wade, it just wasn't blown up into such a major political issue that candidates campaigned on.

No matter who is President, abortion will continue to be legal in this country. If James Dobson became President, abortion would still be legal. The best one could hope for is Roe vs. Wade be overturned, in which case the states would decide the legality of abortion.

Then, 45 out of the 50 states would make abortion legal. The people in the remaining 5 states would just drive across state lines to have their abortion procedures.

The number of people deciding to have an abortion is not going to change based on which politician is in office, it's only going to change when people decide on their own that abortion is immoral.

Social conservative should be more active in their church and less active in political campaigns if they really want to reduce the number of abortions.

Newt coalition. 50 YEARS 1944-1994

But no, abortion is not the only reason at all, but the Roe decision brought a lot of the Reagan dems over, and without them we would not have won the House in 1994

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Sadly, you are probably close on the number of states that would do anything. I would like to think more states would at least ban second trimester abortions, a ban 70 percent of the nation would support.

It's not an issue so much for the church as you say because murder and torture are wrong whether one has faith in any religion or not. It would seem to me any reasonable person would see it as instinctively wrong upon hearing the definition, whether one had ever even heard any church's teaching or not. Apparently not.

I would also argue that the people to try to convince are medical school students and the people who control their cirricula. Though still unlikely, it would be a far more attainable goal to simply convince them not to want to provide abortions. I think it's been trending in that direction for some time, and a lot of states already have to fly in abortionists. I have to wonder if it has anything to do with why so many of them now, even outside the US, are from Africa and Asia.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

I know the pro-life community thinks that abortion is an issue that all people, even those without any religious beliefs, should see as "wrong", but that's just not the case. You will meet very few, if any, athiests that have any moral or legal problem with abortion. I don't ever see this dynamic changing.

If I didn't believe in concepts such as God or human beings having a soul, I know I would have no problem with abortion, legal or moral. I would just view it as a form of birth control.

It's the same with people and embryonic stem cell research. If I had no religious convictions, I too would look at something in a petrie dish as nothing more than a clump of cells.

The Republican Party can't just be a" Christian" party, or we will forever be a minority party. The Religious Right did help the Republican Party's fortunes 20 years ago when Americans were overwhelmingly more socially conservative on most issues than they are now. this country has moved solidly to the left on social issues regarding morality.

It's foolish to lose elections on moral issues, especially moral choices that are ,in the end, up to the individuals themself, and not laws that are on the books.

As America gets more secular, the Republican Party either needs to adapt, or it will become extinct and the Democrats will turn this nation into their Socialist "Utopia".

First, you are obviously misinformed since the percentages of young people who oppose legal abortion are the same as the percentage of other age groups. There has also not been any decline in pro-life support since it became an issue. The same cannot be said for other issues or for people who have Christian or any other religious faith.

Second, why should a human being need a soul? Isn't the fact that one is living and human enough? By the time most abortions occur, you can easily tell just by simple observation that a living human is being attacked, often violently and brutally. Why not condone infanticide? The only difference is physical location. What about the second trimester when the child is tortured, stabbed, beheaded, and dismembered and likely feels excruciating pain? I just can't see why belief in any religion would be necessary. It's plain to see.

I don't even see Christianity as necessarily being opposed to abortion. I don't see it opposing slavery either, but I don't want that legal. If I had no belief in God or a soul, I would be just as opposed as I am now for the same reasons.

A few quick responses:

1. I think you are off on the number of states that would make abortion legal (at least to the same extent that it is today). States that I believe would restrict abortion much more severely than currently if Roe were overturned--AL, AR, GA, ID, KS, KY, LA, MS, MT, NC, ND, NE, OK, SC, SD, TX, UT, WV, and perhaps even states such as IN, IO, MO, OH, and TN would at least tighten up abortion laws.

2. If driving across state lines to get an abortion were always so easy and never a deterent to getting an abortion, why do all of the abortion rights groups complain whenever there is not an abortion mill conveniently located for everyone? It's just simple economics that the easier and less expensive it is to obtain an abortion, the more there will be.

3. Even if some would cross multiple state lines to get an abortion, Congress could easily outlaw the transportation of minors across state lines without parental consent for the purposes of getting an abortion.

4. I do agree with you, however, that simply overturning Roe is not nearly enough. Overturning Roe is just the beginning. That is why it is so important to have a pro-life President and Congress to champion the cause and advance the pro-life agenda. Even if I believed Giuliani would nominate judges who would overturn Roe, he is still the wrong choice. As you correctly note, laws need to be changed througout the country and this will take changing the hearts and minds of voters everywhere.

Americans may not be as religious, and more may favor same sex "marriage," but there is no less support for defending life than there was several decades ago, and the youngest demographics show no less support (and even more in some polls) than the oldest ones. It would be interesting to see the issue actually switch sides over the next 40+ years.

I do think it has a negative impact on the nation's Christian faith when all the well-known pastors and evangelists become so strongly tied to and affiliated with political activism. I don't think it is "wrong" to be active in both areas, and I favor their right to do so; but I think it misleads people who might otherwise come to Christ. People do not trust policians or political activists very much in general, so when they tie it to evangelizing; the arguments will not be seen as credible. Similarly, expecting someone to follow Biblically-based commands (without credible secular arguments) before he or she has accepted Christ is putting the cart before the horse. Those actions follow belief and should be enforced within the churches (something FAR too many churches are failing to do). In either case, it's a poor strategy, IMO.