Monday, February 4, 2008

Obvious? Or Not?

Commenting on my post last week where I opined that it was "bleeding obvious" that Giuliani had no chance of ever getting the Republican presidential nomination, faithful Lunch Break reader, fellow parishioner, fellow blogger and all-around mensch "The Dutchman" commented thusly:

Obvious? I don't think it is so obvious when 47% of Republicans and 65% of the total electorate are "Pro-Choice."

We are seeing more and more "Pro-Choice" Republicans like Arlen Specter, Fred Thompson, and George E. Pataki, not to mention flip-flopers like Mitt Romney because two-thirds of the electorate favors access to first-trimester abortions and Republicans are simply not willing to fall on their swords for abortion at the polls.

Maybe I'm just being cynical, but I think that until we change the way Americans think about abortion, no politician is going to buck a 2/3 majority, and a vote on that issue is simply wasted.

I wanted to bring this comment to the main page because he raised some points here and in a previous related post on his own blog that I wanted to speak to, but haven't yet had the time to do so. I'm hoping that by posting this, it will prompt me to do so one of these days in the not too distant future.

My Response


I don't have time now to offer anything more than a cursory reply, but I hope to spend some time later this week or next speaking to some of the points you made here, as well as in your recent post on your blog about voting. I plan to do that in a post of its own.

For now, what I can say regarding what was, in my opinion, the inevitability that Giuliani would not get the GOP nomination, is this:

To be sure, there are plenty of Republicans — elected officials, movers and shakers within the party's power structure, and rank-and-file voters — who are "pro-choice". (Although it seems odd that Fred Thompson was included in your list. Did you mean to say "Big" Jim Thompson instead?)

There are also plenty more Republicans — again, elected officials, movers and shakers within the party's power structure, and rank-and-file voters — who, at best, merely pay lip service to the concerns of pro-lifers.

My point, though, is that there are enough people in both of the aforesaid camps within the GOP — especially the latter — who plainly recognize that it would be impossible for the party to win an election if it nominated a pro-abort. Doing so would lead to a mass defection of those for whom opposition to abortion is the issue. Many would vote third party, or simply stay home.

The day may well come when the GOP moves to definitively break with pro-lifers and nominates a pro-abort for president.

But that day was not going to come in 2008.

No comments: