October 5, 2007
Conservatives Should Stay With the GOP (Frank Donatelli)
A group of social conservatives recently made headlines by suggesting they might abandon the GOP and run a third-party candidate for president if former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani were nominated by the Republicans. Giuliani’s pro-choice views make him anathema for many social conservatives, and these leaders have been expressing the frustration of many who believe they do not have a natural candidate in the GOP field.
This course is a profoundly bad idea for the very cause that these conservatives are trying to advance. Let’s mention five reasons why this would set back the pro-life cause for years to come.
First, splinter parties tend to marginalize the participants and their cause. The history of right-wing parties outside the GOP in the last 30 years has not been pretty. Lacking a credible candidate or a galvanizing issue to a large number of voters, this movement is destined to go nowhere.
Second, past conservative actions have focused on influencing the GOP, not leaving it. The Manhattan 12, a group of conservatives that challenged the wayward policies of the Nixon administration way back in 1971, focused on running a candidate in the GOP primaries, not leaving the party. Parties, after all, are coalitions of people who share the same general values but are certainly not monolithic on all issues. The best way to gain long-term influence is to work to move that coalition in your direction.
Third, your choices are not bad. John McCain has always been pro-life. Even Giuliani has promised to appoint strict constructionists, not judicial activists, to the bench. The challenge is to move abortion questions out of the judiciary and into the political realm so the people, not judges, can make these decisions. A Republican president is unquestionably better in this regard.
Fourth, the Republican Party contains the largest group of pro-life activists anywhere in the country. Why would you want to abandon a party where you have established such a large footprint? It’s not that the GOP is abandoning the pro-life cause. Rather, Republicans are rating security and foreign policy concerns higher than social issues in this election season.
Fifth, you can rest assured that Hillary Clinton or any other national Democrat will have a litmus test of appointing only judges who believe in judicially created and protected abortion rights. If that party won’t even tolerate a pro-life speaker at its national convention, you can bet it will fill the federal judiciary with judges who are itching to make social policy without bothering to run for public office.
With GOP congressional prospects looking bleaker by the day, GOP retention of the White House should be the No. 1 goal of all conservatives.
Permalink TrackBack
Email This Post
Share this post
What's This 13 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
What is 'socially conservative' about denying half of US citizens control over their own bodies?
Oh, they're only females. That explains it. It sure wouldn't be 'socially conservative' if men were denied certain medical procedures on their bodies, would it.
Hey, Frank, you can't get a vasectomy. We're pro-life, 'socially conservative' and we know best.
Comment by Don Bacon — October 5, 2007 @ 12:52 pm
You're absolutely right. As they say, if you let the Democrats win there eventually won't be a country, and the abortion point will be moot.
Comment by Igor R. — October 5, 2007 @ 1:26 pm
Don, the whole abortion argument is useless and pointless. You call it control over women's bodies, "they" call it murder. Can't you realize that this a belief-based argument to the fullest and there is really no way to win it?
Comment by Igor R. — October 5, 2007 @ 2:42 pm
I doubt if anyone is going to waste their time and effort on a third party on this issue.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — October 5, 2007 @ 6:06 pm
Igor, well said.
Government has no place in health care decisions.
Further, I, was taken aback by the Huckabee answer (given without any hesitation) to the question: if your child was raped, and became pregnant, would you consider abortion?
Answer: No
For me, Huckabee's answer is too righteous and less compassionate
than I need in consideration of a child, who is the victim of a crime. And, there in lies the problem. I demand individual consideration for a serious health matter to be decided between the patient and the doctor.
My thinking alligns with that of Rudy Giuliani. We both prefer life, but we realize (as in the example above) that an individual decision is always best by medical, not intrusion by government.
Comment by Cheryl O — October 6, 2007 @ 1:32 am
Dear Don Bacon:
It is not an issue over control of one's body, it is about the butchering of an innocent, not-fully-developed human being.
Leftwingers like to act as if abortion is like getting a wart removed. It is much more than that.
Bill Clinton never got a majority vote. In 1992 Ross Perot siphoned off enough conservative votes from Bush I to allow Clinton to win.
I'd hate to see something like that happen again.
I can understand the angst of many conservatives. However, the perfect human being does not exist; the perfect presidential candidate does not exist, either.
One person's perfection is another person's flaw, anyway.
Comment by DFAL — October 6, 2007 @ 4:42 am
For conservatives, the worst GOP frontrunner is better than the best Democrat frontrunner.
Comment by Ken — October 6, 2007 @ 9:13 pm
"Hey, honey, I'll be a little late this afternoon. In fact, that's why I'll be late–it's because I'm late. I have to stop down at city hall and get a conception certificate. Yeah, it's a new requirement, now that the fundy-wingers are in power. Gotta get a piece of paper when you're P.G. I know, it's none of their damn business. Sure, the government is supposed to protect our rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but you know how these knuckle-draggers are, quoting the bible like in Genesis: "I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." That's the way it is now in this brave new world. Love you, see you when."
Comment by Don Bacon — October 7, 2007 @ 12:18 am
Frank, I find it appalling you'd write this post without consideration of distinguishing 'neoconservatives' from the 'real' conservatives.
It is the neocons Franks says ought to stay GOP.
Comment by Chris in NM — October 8, 2007 @ 1:58 pm
Chris, your type of "conservatives" are the conservative adherents of Karl Marx, basically the strict interpretationists of "Das Kapital"
Comment by Igor R. — October 8, 2007 @ 4:37 pm
1. Pro-Lifers are not trying to form a marginalized third party. We will marginalize the Republican party for walking away from us.
2. All the other candidates ARE pro-lifers. If Republicans must have their genocidal murder, don't look for us to help you. Guey has a terrible record for appointing judges. Reagan and BushI dissed us. No more.
3. Baloney! Reagan and BushI appointed strict abortionists. So will Guey.
4. If Republicans choose abortionists we have NO footprint in the party. You want our support don't diss us.
5. Its true. Hillary will be very bad for America. But without pro-life support the Democrats rule anyway. How many times will Republicans run abortionists if they are guaranteed to loose? If pro-lifers support Republican abortionists, we have no political voice. The Democrats diss blacks yet keep them on their plantation. This will not happen to pro-lifers.
Enjoy your abortions and Hillary plus a Dem congress. Go ahead, see who will not blink!
Comment by RA — October 12, 2007 @ 9:16 am
Biologically, an unborn person is not part of their mothers body. They are a completely unique, different individual. To claim otherwise is to show how ignorant or ideologically stupid you are. The morally ignorant and stupid deserve Hillary.
Comment by RA — October 12, 2007 @ 9:20 am
Young Teenage Nudism…
Young Teenage Nudism…
Trackback by Anonymous — April 3, 2008 @ 12:29 am