The Candidates
From CBN’s David Brody:
Obama Hit in Indiana on the Life Issue
May 6, 2008Robo Call alert! Robo call alert! The Obama campaign says they are being hit right now in Indiana by automated phone calls by National Right to Life. Here is what is being said over the phone to voters in Indiana:
“Hello, this is National Right to Life PAC, asking you to vote against Barack Obama in tomorrow’s primary election.
Barack Obama has said that his first act as President would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would enshrine abortion on demand into federal law and would require tax funding of abortion. This bill would legalize partial birth abortion again.
Barack Obama even voted against saving the lives of babies who survive late term abortion.
You can vote in either party’s primary. If you vote in the Democratic primary, please do not vote for Barack Obama
The Obama campaign released the following statement from Former pro-life Congressman Tim Roemer:
“As a pro-life Catholic Democrat, one of the main reasons I endorsed Barack Obama is because he approaches issues from a non-ideological standpoint, and on issues like abortion, he deeply respects the views of folks on the other side of the argument. He believes that if we focus on what unites us, we can accomplish more than we ever will by retreating into our corners and shouting each other.
“National Right to Life is running these calls because they know that Senator Clinton will be the easier Democrat to run against in the general election-and this is their way of giving her a helping hand in this tough primary battle.
“Senator Obama and Senator Clinton have virtually identical records on the abortion issue. I want Hoosiers to be absolutely clear: These calls we’re getting are nothing more than a ploy. Folks who are going to vote in the Democratic primary tomorrow know that we need real change in Washington.”
While it is true that Barack Obama has not demonized pro-lifers, the reality is he is pro-choice and my guess is the National Right to Life may also be concerned that many voters don’t realize that since he doesn’t talk much about it on the campaign trail.
May 6th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama do have different political styles, but on the issue of abortion, there is not an ounce of difference. This probably is a strategy to keep the race going longer. If Congressman Roemer were serious about criminalizing abortion, he would WANT a candidate who approaches these issues from an ideological standpoint. I wonder how serious some of the people on our side are about criminalizing abortion also since some of them supported Giuliani in the primary and now that he didn’t get it, they are hoping McCain picks all these pro-choice people as Veeps such as Rice, Powell, and Ridge. I was just talking to this girl this morning who was complaining that the guy who got her pregnant in high school isn’t supporting her child. She said he encouraged her to “go forward with the pregnancy”. That totally changed my impression of her that she would even consider killing her child like that. I hate that more than anything.
May 6th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Clarence, as I’ve explained before, it doesn’t necessarily matter what your candidate believes about abortion, as the president doesn’t have much say regarding how the constitution is read on the right of privacy and the rights of the unborn. What does matter is who he would appoint to the Supreme Court. I’m fanatically prolife and, having gone to a good law school, I probably know more about the issue than 99.9% of the population.
Presumably, we have 4 votes in favor of overturning Roe/Casey (just because I don’t think Kennedy would switch his previous vote despite the fact that he almost voted a different way and I do think Alito/Roberts would vote to overturn). Couple that with the likelihood that the next president will get to replace Stevens (who is 88) and potentially Ginsburg. That could give us as much as a 6-3 majority PLUS Kennedy to overturn Roe/Casey. Thus, judicial appointments at this time are absolutely critical.
Giuliani had the best chance to win the election of all the Republicans a year ago. He still could very well help propel McCain to a resounding victory with name recognition alone. Why does it matter that he’s prochoice personally if he has vowed to appoint strict constructionist justices?
May 6th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Phillip, it matters very much because it tells what type of a person they are. It says something about character. If he thinks it should be legal to kill babies, that means he’s probably wrong on a bunch of other things too and lacks the proper judgment to be President. That’s why just saying you’ll appoint strict constructionist judges is not sufficient.
May 6th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Clarence,
The difference here is that open-minded people can separate their personal preferences on issues with what they think is the correct interpretation of the issues.
May 6th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Eric, I’m not sure I follow what you’re saying. Maybe Rudy is open-minded enough to separate his personal preferences on issues, but it doesn’t matter. If he thinks killing babies should remain legal, he lacks the judgment to be dog-catcher, never mind President. I have frankly had it up to HERE with these Republicans who don’t care where candidates stand on the issues. They are just political and partisan and just look at who is the most “electable” as if they’re really good at predicting elections. It’s reaching the point where I am only a Republican out of hatred for Democrats and not any fondness for Republicans. And it is not the candidates who tick me off. It is the activists.
May 6th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Clarence, I agree that it is generally much better to have a prolife candidate. However, if the prolife guy can’t win this cycle, then it’s crucial that we put in the prochoice guy who can win and would appoint strict constructionist justices. We’re one vote away from what we’ve fought for the past 30 years…we have to take what we can get now.
With all that said, Pawlenty may be as electable a VP as Giuliani, so this debate may be hypothetical. However, my support for Giuliana stems from the fact that I’m convinced he could give us a much better chance of winning. If Obama or Clinton (or both) wins this time around, our movement is set back another 10 years.
But I do understand where you’re coming from, I’m probably just more of a pragmatist than you.
May 6th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
“Why does it matter that he’s prochoice personally if he has vowed to appoint strict constructionist justices?”
Because of what Giuliani’s idea of a strict constitutionalist is - he has said he supported not just abortion, but Roe itself, and he has said that a “strict constitutionalist” could find Roe in touch with the constitution.
In other words, Giuliani’s promise to appoint a strict constitutionalist doesn’t mean squat.
———–
Also - the President doesn’t have much say on the issue now, but you yourself recognize that we are one vote away from overturning Roe. What do you think happens once it gets overturned? The issue goes back to the two branches of the government which are supposed to make the laws, and we are in for probably the largest political battle since slavery.
So, yes, right now, with Roe still the law, a personal position doesn’t technically matter. But the moment Roe is overturned, personal opinion becomes mission critical.
May 6th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
“we have to take what we can get now.”
You people are automatically assuming that Giuliani’s idea of a “strict constitutionalist” would be pro-life. As he said, that isn’t the case.
May 6th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
I for one won’t trust a pro-abortion candidate in a position of authority. I’d don’t care what they promise. I can’t believe a word they say if they think abortion should be legal.
If I wasn’t already a Calvinist, the fact that most Americans support abortion would convince me of total depravity right there.
May 6th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
I know you’re a pragmatist. I’ve just been snippy lately, don’t worry about it.
May 6th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Doug, I’m not that familiar with Calvinism and I’m not sure what you mean by depravity, but most Americans do NOT support abortion. In recent polls when asked whether people agree with Republicans or Democrats on abortion, they’ve picked Democrats, but only by 2-3 points. People say they’re pro-choice, but they’re thinking in terms of extreme cases like rape and incest. If you ask people whether they think it should be legal for a woman to abort simply because she doesn’t want anymore children, 60% of the public would support that being illegal. However, even though very few cases are because of rape, people think of those extreme circumstances, so they say, “Just leave it up to the woman in all cases.” People are much more anti-abortion than you would think though.
May 6th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Doug,
I am not at all suggesting anything about “most electable” here. I’m not even talking about any specific candidate. Simply that president is a cog in the machine. An important cog, but a cog. My role in the machine is to vote and speak out for the cog that will most likely get the machine to do what I think it should do. I don’t care what the cog thinks to itself or even what it says to partisan crowds at dinner parties, only that the intended results are achieved.
And did you seriously claim that you don’t believe anything anyone says who is pro-choice in post #9? Isn’t that a little aggressive?
May 6th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
12-the first part of 12 was a reply to Clarence.
May 6th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
act: If Roe/Casey were overturned, abortion would be a state, not a Federal, issue. Therefore, the president’s personal opinion would be meaningless.
A strict constructionist is defined by how someone reads the constitution. If indeed Rudy were to appoint a strict constructionist, the justice would overturn Roe/Casey regardless of what Rudy thinks he would do. The only real worry is that Rudy wouldn’t keep his promise and appoint someone with that judicial philosophy.
May 6th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
I agree with ACT - Giuliani would not say that he thought Roe was wrongly decided. I don’t trust him as far as I could throw him to appoint judges like Roberts and Alito. For that matter, I have trouble trusting McCain to appoint the judges that would overturn Roe. I sure hope I”m wrong though. I can’t support a ticket with any pro-choice VP. I think Giuliani would be a catastrophe as McCain’s VP.
May 6th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
15-That is fair, but I thought that even many honest pro-choice lawyers had conceded that Roe was wrongly decided. Is that wrong?
May 6th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Phillip - firstly, I do not believe abortion would be, or should be, a local issue. I think it is one of the few issues that warrents federal intervention, and where federalism wouldn’t work.
Also, Giuliani said that a strict constitutionalist could uphold Roe. IF a true SC can’t do that, then, once again, Rudy’s promise was meaningless.
May 6th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Eric, yes, many pro-choice lawyers have said that….but I’ve listened closely for Rudy to say it and couldn’t hear it.
May 6th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Act: I agree that federal rights should be extended to the unborn, but we won’t see that in our lifetimes. For now, the best we can hope for is state decisions banning it.
Whether or not he thinks a strict constructionist could uphold Roe is meaningless as long as he would appoint such a justice. It just means he doesn’t understand the judicial philosophy. Though I suppose one could argue that the judge wouldn’t want to overturn an extended liberty (which is why Kennedy joined the plurality in Casey).
Regardless, I think we’ll be able to avoid all this with Pawlenty.
May 6th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Act Blog wrote:
“Because of what Giuliani’s idea of a strict constitutionalist is - he has said he supported not just abortion, but Roe itself, and he has said that a “strict constitutionalist†could find Roe in touch with the constitution.
In other words, Giuliani’s promise to appoint a strict constitutionalist doesn’t mean squat.”
Act Blog,
Giuliani never said that a strict constructionist could find the original ruling in Roe to be constitutional. He did, however, say that a strict constructionist judge could decide that, after 35 years, a reaffirmed precedent that has become ingrained in society should not be overturned.
If you recall, Chief Justice Rehnquist originally opposed Miranda, calling it “legislating from the bench.” Yet, in 2000, he upheld it on the grounds that it had become so entrenched in American life that the respect extended to stare decisis in this instance should trump the fact that the constitutional interpretation of the 1966 case was deeply flawed.
May 6th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Giuliani, in an interview with CNN, said:
“A strict constructionist judge can come to either conclusion about Roe against Wade. They can look at it and say, ‘Wrongly decided. … We will overturn it.’ They can look at it and say, ‘It has been the law for this period of time, therefore we are going to respect the precedent.’
“I would leave it up to them. I would not have a litmus test on that.”
May 6th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Reading people their rights and mass killings of 50 million unborn children are two very different things.
Miranda may very well have been legislating from the bench, but reading people their rights has become a commonly respected and expected thing.
Abortion is not the same.
I think there is a clip floating around some place where Giuliani says he thought Roe was correctly decided. Someone might have it.
May 7th, 2008 at 6:08 am
[...] right now in Indiana by automated phone calls by National Right to Life. Here is what is being sahttp://race42008.com/2008/05/06/nrlc-making-anti-obama-robo-calls-in-indiana-obama-camp-responds/Hello there, Pine Bush’s Desiree Cherry Middletown Times Herald-RecordHello there, Desiree [...]