May 10, 2007
Abortion Proving Tougher Issue Than Expected for GOP Field
Two of the GOP’s Big Three for 2008 continue to experience problems with the Republican pro-life base over the abortion issue. First, there’s the fellow who I hoped, and still hope, will be the Man of the Hour, the outspokenly pro-choice GOP contender who was right on everything else and who was perfectly positioned to reach entente with pro-lifers by becoming functionally or operationally one of them via promises of conservative judges and the use of his veto pen on pro-abortion legislation. After going repeatedly off-script for much of the year, Mayor Giuliani has finally decided to admit that, yup, he’s pro-choice:
After months of conflicting signals on abortion, Rudolph W. Giuliani is planning to offer a forthright affirmation of his support for abortion rights in public forums, television appearances and interviews in the coming days, despite the potential for bad consequences among some conservative voters already wary of his views, aides said yesterday.
Does this mean that Rudy will no longer favor conservative judges? Is there now a pro-Roe litmus test? What about Mexico City and Hyde? All of these questions will once again need answers — even though Rudy’s campaign and his supporters on the blogosphere had developed very good answers to all of them up until now. The whole thing is disappointing and frustrating. I guess we’ll finally get to see what would have happened if the popular pro-choice politician Colin Powell had run for the GOP nod back in 2000.
The most interesting take on this development so far comes from Lowry:
Presidential campaigns are funny things. They really have a logic to them that can carry candidates off in unexpected directions. I don’t think Pat Buchanan would have known how far he would end up departing from conservative orthodoxy when he began running for president in 1992. Or that John McCain planned to make a full-frontal assault on the GOP establishment in 2000. But certain departures in McCain’s case, campaign finance reform carried them off into those postures as “A” must follow “B.” Now it looks like Giuliani could end up running a campaign straight into the teeth of social conservatives, when surely that’s not what he intended when he began running. But that’s the “B” that follows from his “A” of being a pro-choicer who doesn’t want to go the Coverdell/Hutchison route of reaching an accommodation with pro-lifers. It seems to me unless the changing primary schedules have utterly scrambled the typical dynamic of the Republican primaries that this is a foolish strategic choice. But maybe that’s the wrong way to look at it. Maybe I’ve been wrong to say that Giuliani doesn’t care about abortion, and he does really feel deeply about a woman’s right to abortion and doesn’t want to be defensive about it any more.
The Coverdell approach that Lowry refers to is the same functional pro-life strategy that Kavon and I penned for the Mayor months ago. If he had simply taken our free advice, or the free advice of many other pro-Rudy bloggers like J-Pod of NR, Phil Klein over at Am-Spec, and numerous others, or the paid advice of his campaign staff, Mayor Giuliani wouldn’t be preparing for the confrontation with pro-lifers that now seems imminent.
Meanwhile, in stately Mitt Manor, it turns out that the same Ann Romney who so enjoyed filling the coffers of Planned Parenthood once assured Massachusetts liberals that her husband would be “just fine” on social issues, with the governor-to-be sitting next to her and nodding approvingly. Watch and learn:
Apparently, the woman who would have President Romney’s ear after hours equates social liberalism with positions that are “just fine.” Kind of makes one wonder just what any social conservative (and again, other than on abortion, I’m admittedly not a so-con) sees in the candidacy of Mitt Romney.
As such, I must second this excellent post on all things Mitt and Ann from Eyeon08:
First, Mitt Romney uses his wife as a political weapon. In 2002, he deployed Ann to be a spokesman about him being pro-choice enough. In 1994, when he was running for the US Senate his wife gave money to Planned Parenthood. The idea that Romney, whose wife is center-stage in his campaign, should not be held accountable for the actions of his wife is absurd. Furthermore, this was almost certainly a joint bank account. And I would be surprised if the donation was not recorded from “Ann and Mitt Romney” or somesuch.
Second, this was in 1994, the year that Romney ran for office. Perhaps this was part of a strategy to try to get (buy?) Planned Parenthood to not be too harsh? I did a Lexis search, and Planned Parenthood did not speak out against him much in 1994, although they did endorse Kennedy. Last year Romney gave $15k to Mass. Citizens for Life. And he’s getting an award and dinner for that. The evidence is clear that Romney has used his donations strategically. I think that it is fair to suggest that this was a donation with a political agenda. That is clearly Romney’s modus operandi.
Third, we know that Romney was pro-choice, just as we know that Rudy is pro-choice. Perhaps Rudy’s donation makes him more of an activist, but the real problem is that it challenges his line that “he hates abortion.” This has a similar impact for Romney. He says that, “I’ve always been personally pro-life.” This is further evidence that this is not true. In addition, it feeds into the narrative of him being dishonest, in addition to the narrative of him giving money for endorsements or support.
This is not a resolved question, and there will be more questions to ask. Some places to start:
1. Was the check from a joint bank account? Is there any record of who the check was “from”?
2. Has Romney also given to NARAL or other liberal groups? That would be consistent with his strategic giving
3. Will Romney release his tax returns? Both personal and foundation?
All are questions that demand answers. And John McCain, once considered to be politically as good as dead, has just proven he has more lives than a cat.
http://race42008.com/2007/05/10/abortion-proving-tougher-issue-than-expected-for-gop-field/trackback/
May 10th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
Ah, Romney, with that same used-car-salesman tone, pandering to whatever electorate he needs the votes of. He’s no better than Rudy on abortion flip-flops… at least Rudy’s decided rather early on to drop the charade and just admit that he’s in favor of abortion rights. Still, we have a lot of silly fundamentalists in the party who might cause a big brouhaha that the media could jump on.
Anyone else considering just giving this big-three stuff up and waiting for Gingrich..?
May 10th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
LOL!
No, I want to win in ‘08.
Though I agree that if I had to lose, I’d want it to be with Newt.
May 10th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
Thanks DaveG
I have been saying since 2006 that abortion was still a defining issue and also a winning issue for pro-lifers in the GOP and America generally.
This is especially so when most all the GOP candidates are strong on the war.
Life is a huge issue in the GOP. Not so much in the Dem party where the dead are still a major voting constituency.
May 10th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
I think Gingrich has a chance. When people see his message and contrast Newt’s towering intellect with Obama’s “charisma,” people will convert — they’ll understand why Newt is the kind of person who would make a fantastic president. With the exception of his weird fixation on religion, the 21st Century Contract With America has some fantastic ideas that make candidates like Romney or Giuliani look kind of silly. Then again, I think most Americans *would* go for that weird fixation on religion, so, forget that.
Don’t knock Newt’s electability — he’s got baggage, but whoever said the American people aren’t up for re-evaluating their pols every decade or so?
May 10th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
As a social liberal, I have to take issue, gamecock! I refer you to Alex Epstein:
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=14507&news_iv_ctrl=1021
I cannot emphasize enough how outlawing euthanasia (part of that “culture of life”) is an attack on the dignity — and natural rights — of the individual. It is fascist government control of one person’s right to make their own decisions concerning their life. Being in favor of abortion is not being in favor of a “culture of death,” either; abortion proponents such as myself are in favor of quality life for all people, not children that won’t be cared for or provided for.
May 10th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
I phrased that rather ambiguously — we’re in favor of sustaining quality life and not allowing children to be born into lives that will be miserable for them; where chances for success are harshly limited, where they won’t be cared for or loved properly.
May 10th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
I’d actually support Romney a heckuva lot more if he were still socially liberal.
And I agree, TLG. Someone should be able to be “put to sleep” if they so want to.
It’s ironic that people who believe in heaven after death are the ones who are most in arms about dying peacefully rather than in pain.
May 10th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
I don’t think Rudy’s position on abortion has changed at all. Only his emphasis. If he is not forthright about his views and attempts a highly nuanced approach, he loses his credibility as a non-nonsense tough guy who can deal with tough issues. Also, the highly nuanced approach is causing a deluge of questions, preventing him from wowing the base on defense and economics. He’s doing the right thing to win.
May 10th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
DaveG, where do you think Rudy departed from your advice? I think his emphasis was off. I think any nuanced/tightrope approach was *bound* to result in him being beseiged, and that isn’t going to work.
May 10th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
TLG…as a libertarian (like me) why the heck are you waiting for gingrich of all people?!
May 10th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
Nicely said, Nusrat.
David B, I agree with you to a degree — Rudy’s position has been basically consistent, but he’s been doing a little bit of pretending on the whole ‘hating abortion’ thing to appease the GOP base. I’m glad he’s given up the ghost, though. I respect him more for it. Maybe we can move on now to his excellent economic and national security positions, as you said.
May 10th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
Nusrat — “Of all people,” Newt’s actually pretty strong on most of the issues that an executive can do something about — his ideas are highly preferable to this maddening welfare state, to take a phrase Gingrich popularized! Rudy’s still my number one — don’t get me wrong there. But if he continues to be a gaffe machine, then I may have to reconsider whether he’s viable. For now, though, I’m sticking with Rudy.
May 10th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
I’m glad to see that my posts are now attracting so many libertarian groupies
Good company, to be sure. And you know that I’m with you guys on gay rights issues and on issues of personal freedom and autonomy. Though I remain solidly pro-life, for similar reasons, as I think that abortion constitutes the taking of a human life against that individual’s will, and that is a fundamental violation of the primacy of the individual. I’m that rare breed: a pro-life social libertarian.
To address David’s question, I agree that Rudy has mostly gone off-script when it comes to emphasis, but emphasis is often everything. Look at how we libertarian types here at R4′08 view Romney for his repeated references to things like abstinence and culture. If Romney were talking about entitlement reform and nat’l security, a lot of the negative feelings we have towards him would dissipate. Rudy should have quickly reminded voters that he is pro-choice, that he supported abortion funding in NYC, etc, and then gone on to craft a deal with pro-lifers that includes conservative judges and his veto pen. Instead, he’s been talking about Roe as precedent, about how pro-lifers want to put women in jail, about how abortions have to be funded because they’re a constitutional right, and now about how there must be a right to choose. It’s entirely the wrong way to go about it, and I can’t imagine this is going to yield the sort of result a functionally pro-life Rudy would have. What a shame.
May 10th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
As a Republican, I think that Democrats have this election in the bag. Why? Because the Republicans will eat their own to death.
I am a Romney supporter, but would gladly support McCain or Giuliani as they are both great leaders. I do not agree with everything
but they both would make good presidents.
It makes you wonder that in this age of You Tube and internet blogs, if a guy like Reagan would have made it.
Here’s to hoping that the GOP doesn’t cannabalize itself before the real fight begins.
May 10th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
DaveG…I, too, am a pro-life social libertarian. We’re not all that rare.
Glad to have an ally on this site. I love reading your posts, and look forward to them…just thought you should know that. It’s a nice breath of what my liberal friend calls “sane conservatism”
May 10th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
DaveG is my hero on this site. But Nusrat, just remind your friend — there’s *no* sane version of liberalism!
Where libertarians part on abortion is an issue of philosophy: what does potential count for? I say that a fetus isn’t entitled to the rights of the individual as outlined in our Constitution, because he is not physically autonomous. He is bound to the mother — the minute he leaves the womb, he is dead. He is, in essence, a possession of the mother, of sorts. Because he can feel pain, however, abortions must be dealt with as humanely as possible, which, of course, the free market will take care of.
May 10th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
DaveG, This is weak. You are better than posting obvious hit pieces.
Are you kidding me with this post? Eyeon08 is a weak anti-Romney site and these sorry arguments support that statement. Where do I begin? This is extremely hypocritical unless these same people attacked GWB over Laura and GHWB over Barbara. I doubt they did seeing how Bush 43 has been a social conservative darling.
Regardless of the the hypocrisy, this is a candidate’s wife. Who cares? As for the claims being made by eyeon08 what a bunch of crap. The record clearly states that Ann Romney signed the check and that it was from her. The whole “I wouldn’t be suprised if the donation were listed as Ann and Mitt Romney” is unfounded and speculation like that is a waste of time.
Next, eyeon08 implies that a man worth 100s of millions of dollars tried to buy PP’s endorsement with $150. That is laughable. We are then presented with the fact that PP endorsed Romney’s opponent and that they spoke out against Romney in the campaign, though not as much as expected. What? This is evidence against Romney?
Finally, eyeon08 tries to put this forth as evidence that Mitt has not always personally been pro-life and is therefore dishonest. Give me a break! His wife made the donation so this couldn’t possibly tell us anything about Mitt. If my wife buys 10 boxes of Girl Scout cookies does that mean I am a liar for saying I think their cookies are disgusting? (For the record the Thin Mints are great) What if she donated money to the American Idol charity event a couple of week ago. Am I a hypocrite for saying I hate American Idol? Get real!
It is a strong indicator that Ann may not have always been pro-life, but even that is up for debate. The Romney’s are extremely wealthy and I am certain Ann gave/gives much more than $150 to causes that she really cares about. Since we are talking about a candidate’s wife it is pointless to speculate on any of this.
For the record I volunteer regularly at the Crisis Pregnancy Center and am responsible for setting up a program for other medical students to volunteer there also. Social issues are huge for me, I vote based on them and I believe Romney’s conversion on the issue.
May 10th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
Agreed, ThatLibertarianGuy…although we would be called “liberals” in the 18th and 19th centuries (classical liberals)…and we are old-school conservatives.
I guess we don’t really have a home now
I do think that the libertarian party really needs to pick up eminent domain as one of their main party platforms, as I think that could gain a lot of supporters.
May 10th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
I thought Ron Paul and I were the only Pro-Life Libertarians until I met Dave…
May 10th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
Kavon, you’re a libertarian, too?
Awesome!
May 10th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
To be fair, I am more of a federalist now than a Libertarian. But my libertarian roots still influence me greatly.
I have learned that there are far more of us out there than I once thought.
My first vote for President was for Harry Browne in 1996.
May 10th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
The organized LP is a bomb (and I will not join it) because it has no principle, cannot stake out a clear claim, and is full of potheads. It nominated socialist Kevin Zeese (who called for a “mega-tax” on people who make $1,000,000 or more to provide massive welfare services for the poor) to run in the Maryland Senate race last year — I mean, my God!
Billie Joe Armstrong, the lead singer of Green Day, is in the Libertarian Party. He is in favor of socialism and hates business. Why is he in the LP? He wants pot to be legal.
The LP is obsessed with the War on Drugs. If you own Ann Coulter’s “How to Talk to a Liberal,” she writes a fine column on this: “Drug Shills.” I think pot should be legal, yes, but she makes some fine points, especially about how in the welfare state, *we* have to pay for other peoples’ dumb mistakes, so we should try to dismantle the nanny state before we focus on anything stupid like marijuana.
REAL libertarians — classical liberals — need to be make their voices better heard *in the Republican Party* on issues like tax reform, eminent domain, PSAs for Social Security, etc.
May 10th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
Really?
Well, I cast my first vote for president in 2008, so I may have to cast my first vote for George Philles or Steve Kubby if things don’t turn out OK in the primaries.
May 10th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
TLG, I agree about the drug thing. They should probably — for now — replace the drug thing with eminent domain, even though they are right about drugs.
There’s a reason I post on race42008 rather than a LP blog. I think you guys are a better medium for libertarianism. It’s the same reason Milton Friedman considered himself a libertarian philosophically, a Republican politically.
“I am a libertarian with a small l and a Republican with a capital R. And I am a Republican with a capital R on grounds of expediency, not on principle.”
Libertarians also have to have an optimistic message of freedom, rather than a pessimistic message of anti-government. No one’s ever won in politics by being a sourpuss.
May 10th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
Harry Browne! I did a KidsVote for Harry Browne in 2000.
— Bob Dole in 1996! — Everyone at school told me I wasted my vote (I actually went online to find information on the candidates at age 10). I only recognize how hysterical that is now. Went through a major conservative conversion and was a conservative activist, self-publishing books through LuLu.com, appearing in the local newspaper, and campaigning for George Bush when I was 14. Now I’m 17, and, having discovered folks like Ayn Rand, Thomas Sowell, Sam Harris, and Milton Friedman, I have turned to, primarily, an advocate for reason, atheism, micro-government, and laissez-faire capitalism. I don’t think I’ll ever be able to tell how I got from Point A to Point B…
The mere evocation of the name Harry Browne got me off on a small tangent there – and believe me, that’s the short version of My Teenage Life In Politics.
May 10th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
(And for the record, I hope to goodness George Philles gets the LP nomination rather than Steve Kubby. If Steve Kubby gets the nomination, I may have to abstain from voting, which is a vote in itself)
May 10th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
Post 24 — How about all the Democrats in 2006?
May 10th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
May 10th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Nusrat — what state do you live in..? I live in Maryland, so I may end up voting for the Libertarian candidate, since our statewide elections are dominated by liberals in Baltimore City and Montgomery County.
May 10th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Indiana…and there’s actually a libertarian who might run as a Ron Paul-esque republican in my district! YAY!
May 10th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
Ron Paul-esque — the esque meaning “without the stupid conspiracy theorists supporting him,” right?
May 10th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
hahahahaha…well…
Not quite. Just a small government conservative.
Although that damn ABC news poll……
May 10th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
no wonder I sometimes feel outnumbered around here. Not much room for an old school hardcore southern federalist.
May 10th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
May 10th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
Yes, that’s very true, nusrat.
May 10th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
Tommy, I don’t think you need to feel bad about being left out of the 19th Century Club.
May 10th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
No, you’re just being ganged up on by all the Internet Libertarians — why do you think Ron Paul wins in all the online polls? The Internet is infested with libertarians. What could be more libertarian and individualist than the Internet! (Hey — that might be a convincing argument for the platform! “You love how the INTERNET works, don’t you..? Imagine a government and economy that works for your interests like the Internet! Well, you don’t have to, because…” blah blah blah … Hahahaha.)
May 10th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
So JF’s big retort against classical liberalism is to call it old-school. Compelling stuff, but I think I’ll stay away from the fallacy-riddled argument.
May 10th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
“You love how the INTERNET works, don’t you..?” You mean all those tubes and stuff?
May 10th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
Actually, I usually get ganged up on by Romney enthusiasts. (most are nice guys), but that’s because we got a large number of Romney’s crew on here.
May 10th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
TLG, we already had that argument in the other thread, and you slinked away after conceding that the libertarianism you advocate cannot exist today and still be compatible with democracy as we know it. Your memory loss isn’t my responsibility.
May 10th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
JF- I know, just playing
May 10th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
The only way Republicans win in 2008 is to take all of these strains – southern federalists (Tommy), libertarian pro-lifers (Kavon and DaveG), pure libertarians (Nusrat), traditional conservatives (Ben, Dskinner, Gamecock), plus social conservatives and economic conservatives and moderates – and unite them in a Republican coalition that can energize and turn out the base. After that, we can worry about reaching out to the middle (which I think can best be done by a principled candidate – either right, center right, or middle).
And I do not think it is at all clear which GOP candidate can do that best in 2008.
May 10th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
Republius, I think libertarians are even more hostage to the GOP than SoCons, so I’m not sure they need to be addressed as directly.
May 10th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
JF — I don’t recall conceding such a thing. No, wait, you conceded that I was right and that the rights of the individual should be supreme to that of the collective mass or the state.
Um — what is “democracy as we know it,” JF? Because if it’s out current situation, no, it’s not compatible with that; I don’t want it to be.
May 10th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
TLG, whoa, you’re laying on the fabrication pretty thick. Provide the link where I made that concession, if you can.
May 10th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
I don’t consider myself a libertarian, but I find that I agree with the libertarian contingent of Rudy supporters, like DaveG, an awful lot. Pro-life, but in favor of civil unions. I think gays should be able to serve in the military or in any other capacity they see fit. I believe strongly in federalism. Though, unlike some others, I don’t feel federalism is violated by constitutional amendments, because of how intimately bound up in the Democratic process, at all levels of government, they are. I’m in favor of legalization of soft drugs, though I agree it’s a relatively minor issue. I’m probably think executive power is more constitutionally limited, then some Republicans. Though, I want, in my leaders, men and women who are willing to, when absolutely necessary, exceed their constitutional authority and accept the potential consequences for those actions (that part’s key, none should be above the law).
I think though, I’m probably strongly pro-life then even pro-life libertarians (I’d like a constitutional amendment, though I’m willing to accept a state by state resolution). I’m also a bit more serious about other life related issues. I remember once taking a health care class, and I was assigned to debate the positive side of “Should end of life care be rationed?”. Rationing meant, in that context, that at a certain point, certain types of end of life care wasn’t an option (they wouldn’t allow, even with insurance).
It also meant, that when you reached a certain point, the state had the authority to euthanize you, without anyone’s consent. It was cost- benefit stuff. I desperately wanted to argue the other side, but felt compelled to prepare a convincing case. I sat up on the stage, and dispassionately argued for a utilitarian, utopian, Margaret-Sangeresque vision of health care. At the end of the debate, every person in the class, including the 3 outside health care specialist judges we’d brought in, thought I won. I’d like to take credit, to suggest that it was my debating skills that won them over. But, I don’t think so. Practically, everyone there, seemed gleeful at the prospects of such a society. And I thought to myself “who are these lunatics?” So I’m entirely against anything remotely approaching serious ethical questions (embryonic stem-cell research of all kinds). I’ve drawn my bright line in the sand, and it’s probably in a much different spot then that of those who’d consider themselves libertarians.
Also, while I’m entirely for smaller government, my chief concern is efficiency in government. Which I think differentiates me from libertarians. I’m actually fairly amenable to things like “congestion” taxes, or other seemingly efficient, and more logically in tune with supply and demand, taxes.
May 10th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
Tommy,
I have evolved to be pretty much where you are now.
Libertarianism will always be a heavy influence on me. But I am pretty darn glad that we have the FDA you know
.
May 10th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
JF :swooshes hand over head:
You didn’t concede such a thing. Nor did I concede that a free society was impossible.
May 10th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
Why, admin, are you glad that we have the FDA?
May 10th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
Matt, I think a purer libertarian view would remove the financial advantages bestowed on married couples and treat everyone instead as an individual; after all, financial rewards for marriage is a form of government social engineering.
Just goes to show that even the libertarians don’t believe in full libertarianism.
May 10th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
JF, I’m against financial advantages for married couples. I don’t think that the state should be endorsing marriage. I’m a full libertarian, talk to me; don’t ignore the purist!
May 10th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
TLG, you make it too easy. You’re right, I didn’t concede such a thing. But you are still guilty of that which I accused you of admitting. In #45, you said:
That was in response to my statement:
I rest my case.
May 10th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
Well, I’d like to know that when my doc gives me a medication, that someone has done a little background work on it to ensure I don’t drop dead.
May 10th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
Dskinner you hit the nail on the head. This is very weak and even laughable.
May 10th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
Haha. I guess you’re right. But then, I guess the original point was pretty dumb, then — so what if I said that it’s incompatible with “democracy as we know it”? I don’t want that. And I certainly didn’t “slink away,” I either went to bed or everyone moved onto a newer post.
May 10th, 2007 at 10:52 pm
Republius, I agree 100% with you about the need for a coalition. The GOP used to have one and the combination Congressional Republicans, George Bush and the Iraq War have destroyed it. It has to be rebuilt.
This is why I think we should spend more time discussing the future of our party, not the past of our candidates.
What about immigration? What about the tax code? What about Asia? What about healthcare? What about education? What about the GWOT? How about reducing the deficit? Balanced budgets? Heaven forbid we talk about how to reform Social Security and Medicare.
Coalitions are built with ideas and plans for action, not with negatives about other candidates. We need to start forcing our candidates to focus on these relevant issues instead of what they did or said in the 1990s.
May 10th, 2007 at 10:52 pm
Kavon, there’s no market incentive for a company to put out a medicine that would make you drop dead. The goal of these companies is to make money, and for them to make money, they have to be putting out a quality product — if word escapes that they’re creating a ‘medicine’ that will make people ‘drop dead,’ they would go bankrupt. It is in their best business interest to create a medicine that will relieve you of your illness. The people that will do the background work are the company officials. It’s their ‘greed’ that gives you safe medicines.
May 10th, 2007 at 10:53 pm
Dskinner, I’d love to agree with you, but only if I’m still allowed to use twenty percent of my posts to bash Mitt Romney.
May 10th, 2007 at 10:53 pm
JF…
I’m a huge advocate of ending subsidization of marriages. Let people deal with marriage by private contract.
May 10th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
TLG,
Of course I agree with you… in principle.
Let’s save this friendly debate for another time though my friend. I have a splitting headache and need to hit the hay.
May 10th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
Nusrat, JF would rather ignore those who truly represent libertarianism and attack those who are more independent by calling them libertarians, then thinking he’s scored big points. It’s like when Democrats point an accusing finger at Karl Rove and say his name in a condescending manner, and then think they’ve scored big shots against all Republicans everywhere.
May 10th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
JF,
Yeah, that’s a part of libertarianism where I don’t find much agreement. I see the government, ideally, as a business with certain interests. Those interests extend to all sorts of things, most of which you can determine by looking at the founding documents of our country. And I think, as a business with interests, it has every right to encourage behaviors that further those interests via incentives.
Marriage, in my opinion, furthers the obvious interest of the society in promoting procreation, and stable nuclear social environments. The first is an interest for obvious reasons, and the second, because stable nuclear social environments tend to produce people, among other things, less likely to require various sorts of governmental assistance. Etc. To the extent that there’s a serious governmental interest involved, and to the extent that the state has constitutional means to further that interest, through incentives and the like, it’s perfectly acceptable for it to do so. But, being a limited government type, I don’t think the government has an unlimited amount of serious interests. Or even an overly significant amount. Largely, I think they should stay out of the business of others.
May 10th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
TLG, I hope libertarians adopt a more incrementalist attitude so that other factions of the GOP can support their vision. I think it’s a measure of your radicalism that you’ve alienated me, a neocon, when I agree with much of what you’re saying. When you call for a radical change in the way our democracy functions, or call pregnancy a form of slavery, it just across as madness. Neoconservatism is far closer to libertarianism than social conservatism or paleoconservatism, and we only differ primarily in our emphasis on a strong culture (specifically, the American culture) and strong national defense. I don’t think that’s enough to make us an enemy, but you seem intent on it.
May 10th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
Kavon, sure, but as a parting shot, remember: *feeling* safe doesn’t make reality any more or less safe. You don’t need emotional comfort with that little government label to actually be physically safe.
May 10th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
Okay, this comment section didn’t turn out how I thought it would! LOL! You just never know what direction the comment section is going to take on this site. My brother’s a libertarian, and I read the Classical Liberal blog regularly. It’s an interesting view of the world, and one that I find myself agreeing with on several points.
But back to the topic on hand here: I’m still trying to figure out how that clip of Ann and Mitt is supposed to be damning. Now, I’ll only say this once, so listen closely: Mitt was pro-choice in 2002!!! He became pro-life in 2004. That is (for those who can’t count) two years later. Do you honestly think that in 2002, he would be saying pro-life statements, considering he was then pro-choice?
This sentence just got to me, “filling the coffers of Planned Parenthood.” Ann “filled the coffers” with $150? That is one very small war chest PP has going on. Sheesh. Do I dare ask what did Giuliani’s donations of $900 did? Were the gold pieces piling up around the treasure chest by time he was done?
I went into much further detail on my blog, but suffice it to say, this is a non-issue. Mitt has been nothing but completely forthright on this issue, and he has always done exactly what he said he would. When he was governor, he said he would not change the law on abortion in the state while governor. And he didn’t. When given the chance to make it easier to get an abortion, he didn’t take it. A person who was pro-choice would have jumped all over that, wouldn’t they? He didn’t – he didn’t change the law at all, either way. He said what he would do, and then he did it. A novelty in the political world.
I can hear it now – people are going to say that the “Romneybots” are coming out of the woodwork to defend Mitt. If being a Romneybot means that I actually sit and think about things and come to logical conclusions, then so be it. I guess I am one.
Signed,
Hava the Romneybot
http://mittforpresident.wordpress.com/
May 10th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
Kavon, I agree wholeheartedly on that one.
May 10th, 2007 at 10:58 pm
JF, that’s why i keep citing Reagan’s 80% rule. We need to join into a coalition together…if not, we risk 8 years of socialism, which will completely toss our economy and freedoms into the sh*thole.
May 10th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
Hava (#66), the main issue that Romney opponents have with Romney is that he wants to win, and structures his rhetoric and policy platform to attract as broad a base as possible. These people suffer the misconception of believing that other politicians serve out of purely altruistic motives and are not interested in power. The Romney exceptionalism isn’t something that can be dealt with rationally, as these opponents don’t respond to reasoning, so don’t spend too much time on it.
May 10th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
Matt, the thing is — those interests are arbitrary. Where in our founding documents is *pro-creation* emphasized as a virtue? It’s suddenly the government’s job to be encouraging people to have children? Where did you get this? Nobody “requires” government (taxpayer) assistance, furthermore, under our Constitution.
What you really want is for government to further what *you* think an ideal society looks like. I want government to leave everyone alone.
JF — The pregnancy-as-slavery (which it is) is not a libertarian thought! It’s my personal philosophic viewpoint on abortion and pregnancy, which is entirely justifiable. There are various arguments in favor of abortion. The radical change in the way our democracy is functions is that the government simply needs to play a referee role — a pro-active government only serves to take away my money and yours for arbitrary purposes that you don’t have a role in deciding. You wouldn’t enter into a private contract where the terms are set by the other person and the other person can change the contract whenever they want — but that’s how government works with your money! I don’t want that. Our democracy needs a change.
May 10th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
That liberal Libertarianguy and the rest of you liberals (Dave G, Kavon) blogging this website are quite entertaining. You must be really worried about Romney’s chances cause you are scraping the bottom of the barrel to find the dirt on this guy. None of you will be voting in the republican primaries anyway – you’d have to be a registered republican to do that. I love your comment…REAL libertarians classical liberals need to be make their voices better heard *in the Republican Party*…as if your a registered republican.
May 10th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
Keith,
Why do you call us “liberal”?
May 10th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
No, JF, that is not my problem; I’m not an altruist and I oppose altruism as a moral precept. My problem is that he doesn’t stand for anything — his political positions change with the political tides. I don’t believe in that kind of government: where popular vote determines truth. We are not a democracy and were never meant to be one. Mitt Romney represents democracy, not republicanism: serving the popular majority.
May 10th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
TLG, but I do have a role in deciding how that money is spent, although indirectly. I vote. A private contract has a limited term and must be renewed periodically, or I can sell my services to a different firm. In the broader sense, if I don’t like the way the US is run and I am not satisfied with my negotiating power, I can always move to another country. Isn’t that the ultimate form of personal freedom?
May 10th, 2007 at 11:08 pm
TLG…a fan of Objectivism, are you?
I just finished rereading “Philosophy: Who Needs It” the other day, and I’ll be reading Atlas Shrugged for the first time in a few weeks
May 10th, 2007 at 11:08 pm
Keith: How do you call people who are far to the right on national defense and on economics/taxes/regulation liberals?
Liberals would laugh you out of town for thinking you had an understanding of the term.
May 10th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
I’m 17, I’m not registered, but I plan to register as a Republican.
Keith, do you even know what a libertarian is? We are socially liberal, economically conservative.
Here’s a rank-and-file “real” libertarian, as I wrote on my old blog about myself:
“Socially, he is pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-drug legalization, pro-prostitution legalization, atheist, anti-school prayer, anti-10 Commandments in the courtroom, and pro-euthansia. Economically, he is pro-voluntary taxation, anti-regulation, pro-big business, anti-minimum wage, anti-socialized medicine, anti-price controls, pro-Social Security privatization, pro-Wal Mart, pro-”big oil,” anti-deficit spending, a global warming skeptic, anti-anti-discrimination laws, anti-affirmative action, pro-free trade, and anti-”buy American.” Foreign and military policy-wise, he is pro-Iraq War (but we’re going to lose because this country doesn’t have the will to win), anti-United Nations, pro-unilateralism (if need be), anti-alliance, pro-Israel, anti-foreign aid, anti-draft, and pro-racial profiling for Arabs.”
That’s basically me today.
May 10th, 2007 at 11:12 pm
TLG: Unfortunately, the libertarian movement is on the other side with respect to national defense. If you call yourself a libertarian hawk, it avoids the bad association.
May 10th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
Haha, Nusrat, indeed. I was wondering if anyone would pick up on that. I just downloaded a torrent of The Fountainhead audiobook. I’ve read “Capitalism,” “Philosophy,” “Return of the Primitive,” “Virtue of Selfishness,” “Anthem,” “Ayn Rand Answers,” most of “FTNI,” “Voice of Reason,” and some of “Romantic Manifesto,” “Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology” and “The Art of Non-Fiction.”
I’ve just never been one for fiction! I got 1/4 into Atlas and put it down — not because I wasn’t enjoying it, but because it was a little too detailed. I’m *not* a fan of fiction, but eventually I will finish Atlas. I’m going to listen to the Fountainhead at work (I just sit there and type for seven-an-hour, and we can listen to Mp3 players — yeah, I’m one of those “working fathers with a family to support” aka an unskilled teenager that liberals like to whine that the low minimum wage is abusing).
May 10th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
TLG: You’ve gotta finish Atlas!!!
May 10th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
David B, I’m more of a “Neal Boortz/Larry Elder” conservative. Libertarians are split 3:1 in favor of total isolationism, though.
You are correct that I mislabeled “real” libertarians as hawks, though. My mistake.
May 10th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
TLG,
I if you want the government to leave you alone absolutely, you want no government or anarchy.
Based on your posts I can tell that you want very little government. Just as you want the government to outlaw murder, robbery, assault etc, I want the government to outlaw abortion. In the 1850s taking the life of a black person was not against the law in the South just as ending a pregnancy is not against the law now. African Americans were property and were not defined as people. (Except for 3/5 of a person in census taking) Fetuses are considered property and not defined as people now. You agree with me that the government can and should make laws to protect people, we just disagree as to what the definition of a person is.
As far as “pregnancy as slavery”, uh the woman had a choice in the matter so that argument falls flat with me.
May 10th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
I like Ayn Rand’s “radical for capitalism,” but it doesn’t mean much to most in the political area, so I use “libertarian hawk” to describe myself.
May 10th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
David — Maybe over the summer, when I have some time to read something weighty. I plan on finishing Thomas Sowell “Basic Economics” and Paul Johnson’s “A History of the American People” as priorities, though, in addition to Thomas DiLorenzo’s “How Capitalism Saved America.” I may end up listening to Atlas as an audiobook, since fiction sometimes becomes tedious to me.
May 10th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
Let’s actually start the Race42008 19th Century Club and be proud of it
May 10th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
Also, I highly recommend Peikoff’s “Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand.”
May 10th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
Dskinner,
Libertarianism is not anarchism. Far from it.
We want a government to protect liberties…total anarchism is indeed a form of collectivism. There is a role for government…just very, very limited.
May 10th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
TLG,
When you say anti-school prayer, and anti-10 commandments in courtrooms, do you mean from a constitutional perspective, or from a philosophical perspective. I’m not terribly keen on school prayer philosophically but I think, it’s entirely consistent with an originalist interpretation of the constitution.
May 10th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
Dskinner, I want the government to play a neutral referee role, keeping individuals from initiating any sort of force against each other. That, of course, includes all of the staples of a just society — banned murder, theft, etc.
Pregnancy is still slavery, regardless of whether she had a choice in conceiving the baby. Let’s go the dictionary:
# The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder or household.
#
1. The practice of owning slaves.
2. A mode of production in which slaves constitute the principal work force.
# The condition of being subject or addicted to a specified influence.
# A condition of hard work and subjection
# The state of being under the control of another person
Regardless of whether she had a choice, it’s still slavery. The mother is forced to provide for someone else, under anti-abortion arguments, against her will. The fetus has no right to be a leech. As soon as it can live outside of the womb, though, abortion is off-limits, *no matter what the circumstances are.* This is assuming that there are no health risks to the mother not to abort the baby — which, as I understand it, isn’t really true. That’s my take on it.
May 10th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
TLG: I think you’re going to get in logical trouble with that argument, because it would apply post-birth as well.
May 10th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
eh, TLG…i’m gonnna have to disagree with you on the whole “pregnancy is slavery” thing…
I think slavery is taking it a bit far.
May 10th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
Matt, Post 88 — From a philosophical perspective. Prayer should be out of schools because it is useless and waste of a time, not because it is unconstitutional.
The 10 Commandments as legal cornerstones is rather dubious, at any rate.
DavidB — I’ve had issue with Peikoff since he endorsed Kerry in 2004 and said to vote for Democrats in 2006. I somehow doubt that Ayn Rand would have been so enthusiastic.
May 10th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
I don’t mean “slavery-as-in-whips-and-chains.” I’m using the literal definition of it. For some women, this “slavery” can be a very rewarding experience; she may view it as a nurturing, enriching time. It’s still slavery, though, and she’s not required to take orders from anyone else concerning her body.
May 10th, 2007 at 11:27 pm
TLG: Me too re Peikoff, but that doesn’t take away from his presentation of Objectivism.
May 10th, 2007 at 11:31 pm
There’s just something I don’t like about Peikoff — I view him as someone who worships, instead of derives great ideas from, Ayn Rand. I look at him and I understand why outsiders who know nothing about Objectivism would view it as a cult. I don’t find his prose to be nearly as illuminating as Rand’s or Nathaniel Branden’s, either. Regardless, I know I’ll check out his work one day, and I’m sure I’ll enjoy it…
May 10th, 2007 at 11:32 pm
Well, I’m exhausted — off to bed!
May 10th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
TLG: I hear ya. Especially as someone who knew him personally. But the book is far more systematic than AR’s writings and you can’t miss it.
May 10th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
Holy libertarianism batman!
May 11th, 2007 at 4:35 am
Discussions like the above demonstrate why I’m an anti-libertarian Republican.
May 11th, 2007 at 5:37 am
DaveG – quoting from Eye on ‘08 doesn’t help your argument at all. It about the worst, most extremely biased site that there could be.
May 11th, 2007 at 6:30 am
Why, econ grad stud? I’m just curious.
May 11th, 2007 at 10:00 am
Nusrat, I view you guys as the communists of the right, ideologues who throw pragmatism, tradition and reason out the window in support of a deified principle of individualism. Just like how communists throw out pragmatism, tradition and reason out the window in support of a deified principle of equality/collectivism.
I don’t go to either unrealistic extreme. There are individuals and there is society. Both have rights, responsibilities and roles in a nation. Individuals must be constrained from violating the rights of society just as society is restrained from violating certain individual rights.
Of course you see things differently. That’s fine. I just view libertarian influence on the GOP as destructive in the same way socialist influence is destructive in the Democratic party.
May 11th, 2007 at 10:54 am
DaveG,
This is one of the most dishonest pieces I’ve seen… quoting eye at the end there just ruined the entire piece, really.
Those “questions that demand answers” have already been answered.
The check was from a joint checking account. It was signed by Ann. Mitt had nothing to do with the donation. According to his campaign, Mitt has never given to any pro-choice organizations, and it seems strange for them to lie about that since it was his own campaign that released the information about Ann donating to Planned Parenthood.
This is a non-starter that Mitt opponents are trying to use to say he’s as bad as Rudy, but it falls completely flat on its face from the get go. Nice try, though.
May 11th, 2007 at 10:57 am
And your plural “issues” when talking about that video is misleading. It’s about abortion. We all know Mitt was politically pro-choice back then. The video is nothing new at all, and doesn’t show Mitt in any sort of bad light like you’re implying.
Sheesh.
May 12th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
So Ann Romney is a mindless lackey for her husband? I’d vote for her before Giuliani, anyhow.
May 13th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
OT I know but I’m curious if she will lose her Temple Recommend over the donation?