On Abortion, Christian Conservatives Will Never Forgive and Forget
President Bush may in truth be the only person in Washington who does not have an abortion-rights litmus test, but for the sake of his party and his legacy, he better get one. Real quick.
For Democrats, abortion is the very heart of the party, its money and its supporters. Every Democratic candidate, even for state offices, are embraced or rejected based on abortion philosophy. Every Democratic support group, including MoveOn.org, Emily's List, and People for the American Way, worship the culture of abortion like a religion, and would never, ever give money to a non-believing Democrat. Al Gore and Joseph Lieberman were forced to change previously pro-life positions to be palatable to the party, and John Kerry rejected his own Church to run in 2004. Conversely, Zell Miller was ostracized by his own party primarily because he became pro-life.
There may be slight disagreements within the party on other issues, such as support for the war in Iraq, but to be a Democratic politician in America today means that you must unreservedly support a woman's right to kill her own baby. Here's the proof: name even one Washington Democrat who is pro-life. Now that Miller is gone, it won't be easy. And when it comes to the Supreme Court, the only branch of government that can presently affect abortion law, you can bet this party would ignore every other consideration if Bush was to bring a pro-choice nominee to the Senate floor.
Such as Bush Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, for example.
While Democrats have warned that nominees like Michael Luttig and Emilio Garza would instantly bring a Democratic Senate filibuster, there has been muted criticism regarding the possible Gonzales nomination. Little wonder, since Luttig and Garza are known to be solidly pro-life, and Gonzales has proven himself to be a supporter of abortion rights, ruling that children have a right to procure abortions without parental notice, and pledging to support Roe vs. Wade. With those credentials, even Gonzales' most strident opponents during his AG confirmation hearings, who accused him of being the architect of US "torture" policy on terrorist detainees, would probably support him in the end.
Since the Republican Party is more tolerant of diverse abortion views, pressure on Bush to nominate someone like Gonzales will come from both sides. While the party platform officially remains pro-life, advocating a constitutional amendment to ban abortion and calling for the choosing of pro-life judges, many powerful and influential Senate Republicans are unashamedly pro-choice, including Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter. Bush's dismissal of abortion philosophy as a relevant factor in gaining his support was evident when he chose to campaign to re-elect Specter, rejecting pro-life candidate Pat Twomey during last year's Pennsylvania Senate race. Bush has proven his willingness to abandon the conservative base of his party when it was politically expedient, and this precedent, and Bush's angry reaction to recent conservative criticism of Gonzales, is ominous.
But Democratic apologists for Gonzales are as equally troubling. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid called Gonzales "qualified for the Supreme Court", saying the president should not have to respond to such criticism from "the far right", and Sen. Charles Schumer, who voted against Gonzales for Attorney General, issued a statement proclaiming that the potential nominee has a "very strong resume". Similarly, the director of the leftist activist political group People for the American Way, Ralph Neas, criticized the "religious right" for their misgivings about Gonzales.
With Republicans in charge of the Senate, and with politically powerful and well-funded conservative groups like James Dobson's Focus on the Family already warning the president not to pick someone like Gonzales, and instead nominate a judge willing to overturn the Roe vs Wade decision, Democrats are panicked, and ready for war. After all, these organizations are simply reflecting the official platform of the Republican Party. A quick read of liberal newspaper editorials and activist web-sites indicates an underlying level of hysteria not seen until now. As the party continues to decline in influence, progressively losing one political battle after another, the liberal groups that keep the Democrats flush in money will demand what could very well turn out to be the party's last stand over the defining issue of the modern Democratic Party. Radical activists are well aware that American opinion is quickly moving away from abortion support, and therefore cannot afford to lose the courts, for fear the citizens of each state might very well seal the fate of abortion law.
There is also the chance that Bush's political advisors, and possibly Bush himself, may be tiring of the constant battle with a tenacious minority party, which is supported by the powerful mainstream media and which becomes more strident and radical with every passing day. With other pressing matters of interest to the president, such as Social Security reform and a world-wide war against Islamofascism, Bush may view the court fight, and its potential to change the course of abortion law in this country, as a lesser priority. He was, in fact, strangely quiet during the previous Senate battle over his appellate court nominees, and showed little interest in intervening personally to end the Democratic filibuster and get an up or down vote for solidly pro-life nominees. Several languish without a vote even now, some after being blocked for years.
If President Bush is so naive as to believe that abortion should have nothing to do with his choice of the next Supreme Court judge, he may well risk losing the support of his only dependable base. Just as liberals would never forgive Democrats for failing to fight for a woman's right to kill her own baby, conservatives will never forgive Bush if he fails to try to stop them.
For Democrats, abortion is the very heart of the party, its money and its supporters. Every Democratic candidate, even for state offices, are embraced or rejected based on abortion philosophy. Every Democratic support group, including MoveOn.org, Emily's List, and People for the American Way, worship the culture of abortion like a religion, and would never, ever give money to a non-believing Democrat. Al Gore and Joseph Lieberman were forced to change previously pro-life positions to be palatable to the party, and John Kerry rejected his own Church to run in 2004. Conversely, Zell Miller was ostracized by his own party primarily because he became pro-life.
There may be slight disagreements within the party on other issues, such as support for the war in Iraq, but to be a Democratic politician in America today means that you must unreservedly support a woman's right to kill her own baby. Here's the proof: name even one Washington Democrat who is pro-life. Now that Miller is gone, it won't be easy. And when it comes to the Supreme Court, the only branch of government that can presently affect abortion law, you can bet this party would ignore every other consideration if Bush was to bring a pro-choice nominee to the Senate floor.
Such as Bush Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, for example.
While Democrats have warned that nominees like Michael Luttig and Emilio Garza would instantly bring a Democratic Senate filibuster, there has been muted criticism regarding the possible Gonzales nomination. Little wonder, since Luttig and Garza are known to be solidly pro-life, and Gonzales has proven himself to be a supporter of abortion rights, ruling that children have a right to procure abortions without parental notice, and pledging to support Roe vs. Wade. With those credentials, even Gonzales' most strident opponents during his AG confirmation hearings, who accused him of being the architect of US "torture" policy on terrorist detainees, would probably support him in the end.
Since the Republican Party is more tolerant of diverse abortion views, pressure on Bush to nominate someone like Gonzales will come from both sides. While the party platform officially remains pro-life, advocating a constitutional amendment to ban abortion and calling for the choosing of pro-life judges, many powerful and influential Senate Republicans are unashamedly pro-choice, including Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter. Bush's dismissal of abortion philosophy as a relevant factor in gaining his support was evident when he chose to campaign to re-elect Specter, rejecting pro-life candidate Pat Twomey during last year's Pennsylvania Senate race. Bush has proven his willingness to abandon the conservative base of his party when it was politically expedient, and this precedent, and Bush's angry reaction to recent conservative criticism of Gonzales, is ominous.
But Democratic apologists for Gonzales are as equally troubling. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid called Gonzales "qualified for the Supreme Court", saying the president should not have to respond to such criticism from "the far right", and Sen. Charles Schumer, who voted against Gonzales for Attorney General, issued a statement proclaiming that the potential nominee has a "very strong resume". Similarly, the director of the leftist activist political group People for the American Way, Ralph Neas, criticized the "religious right" for their misgivings about Gonzales.
With Republicans in charge of the Senate, and with politically powerful and well-funded conservative groups like James Dobson's Focus on the Family already warning the president not to pick someone like Gonzales, and instead nominate a judge willing to overturn the Roe vs Wade decision, Democrats are panicked, and ready for war. After all, these organizations are simply reflecting the official platform of the Republican Party. A quick read of liberal newspaper editorials and activist web-sites indicates an underlying level of hysteria not seen until now. As the party continues to decline in influence, progressively losing one political battle after another, the liberal groups that keep the Democrats flush in money will demand what could very well turn out to be the party's last stand over the defining issue of the modern Democratic Party. Radical activists are well aware that American opinion is quickly moving away from abortion support, and therefore cannot afford to lose the courts, for fear the citizens of each state might very well seal the fate of abortion law.
There is also the chance that Bush's political advisors, and possibly Bush himself, may be tiring of the constant battle with a tenacious minority party, which is supported by the powerful mainstream media and which becomes more strident and radical with every passing day. With other pressing matters of interest to the president, such as Social Security reform and a world-wide war against Islamofascism, Bush may view the court fight, and its potential to change the course of abortion law in this country, as a lesser priority. He was, in fact, strangely quiet during the previous Senate battle over his appellate court nominees, and showed little interest in intervening personally to end the Democratic filibuster and get an up or down vote for solidly pro-life nominees. Several languish without a vote even now, some after being blocked for years.
If President Bush is so naive as to believe that abortion should have nothing to do with his choice of the next Supreme Court judge, he may well risk losing the support of his only dependable base. Just as liberals would never forgive Democrats for failing to fight for a woman's right to kill her own baby, conservatives will never forgive Bush if he fails to try to stop them.
posted by Mark Outland at 1:58 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home