A Response by Founding Father
In a recent SD Rostra blog comment, I asked Rostra regular, Brian Brady, to explain his apparent dichotomy as to how he could profess a Sanctity of Life moral position and yet support an Abortion candidate for the GOP nomination, in the 52nd Congressional District race in particular. His response to that inquiry is linked here.
I want to thank Thor’s Assistant for allowing me the opportunity in a “guest” blogger format to address Mr. Brady’s article. It was a well-thought out and in-depth response to my initial comment inquiry. As promised, Mr. Brady illuminates precisely what I was looking for; the impetus and reasoning behind the apparent shift in GOP ideology, support, and direction primarily with regards to Abortion by people (at least one man) of conviction. It is a noble and sincere effort for which I am honestly grateful and honored to have been the recipient.
On the sheer, political practical front, there is mutual clarity on the distinct need of priorities for political governance. We are in violent agreement that compromise is a necessary constant in the democratic/representational political calculus and I would add often becomes the defining legacy of leaders. More disturbing, yet equally as real, is the apparent influence referenced in the post of a powerful few that, at a minimum, tacitly set the agenda for thousands of others in San Diego County before a candidate is even presented or a single vote has been cast…let alone not one debate in the case of the 52nd District held by the Republican Party of San Diego County…not one…between GOP candidates…the RPSDC made its choice.
For context, see this September 2013 article in Voice of San Diego.
On that, warts and all, we are also clear. Where we will diverge is on the agreement of those priorities.
A primer– Negotiation 101: One needs a position from which to compromise. The value of one’s position is fundamentally based on what one is NOT willing to compromise; one’s conviction. (i.e. the compromise is only a true compromise if one has conviction, a moral or conscience “price-point” if you will…otherwise it is just political haggling and retains no value to those being represented) This is where our national, social, cultural, faith, and historical positions within our political views are represented by one’s political affiliation. But how far does one compromise to where one is now abandoning their convictions?
For me, over 30 plus years, and my parents and grandparents before them, that political affiliation was the GOP. When I moved back to San Diego several years ago, I immediately donated a relatively sizable amount of money to the RPSDC GOP…not because I was trying to influence people I did not know (I knew no one) or expect some quid pro quo… but, because that is what good, GOP-backers do. That is how much faith I had in the platform, the WHOLE platform. Not a purist, rather a “generalist,” confident the GOP represented my values, convictions, and positions across the conservative spectrum. It “prioritized” my politics in a way I was satisfied.
For millions of Americans, including me, that conviction, from where the value of what we are willing to “give up” or not, was defined within the tenets of the Republican Party as I had known it. Contrary to dis-informational campaigners on Rostra railing against those that have been questioning the GOP’s clear and admitted shift on Life and Marriage, these did not become “single” issue battles for me before the GOP itself decided to abandon my position. This assuredly woke the politically lethargic and socially comfortable “non-purists” within the GOP in large measure because it was simply something unfathomable for them as an issue from where to “compromise.” This could not have been something unforeseen by the local GOP leadership; a markedly and definitive change as this is, it was bound to elicit blowback and equally reasoned and sincere criticism (and “no” not “extremism or intolerance” as some have impugned, but reasoned criticism of the GOP, its selection for endorsements, and its future based on those choices).
Additionally, for most Evangelicals and Faithful Catholics, this came as an equally debilitating “compromise.” For them, the Judgment of their actions as professed by Our Savior, are not negotiable. Christ is abundantly clear as to His position on the life and treatment of children. Though there are a few ambiguous and loose references to actual abortion in the Bible, what is thoroughly clear and universally acknowledged is the persistent call for great benevolence and practical concern for the most vulnerable and least powerful members of the community. The implication here, and inherently understood by our extraordinary, albeit fallible, Founders was a just society based on Judeo-Christian precepts that will adapt its laws to protect, in particular, pregnant women and unborn children, and will provide refuge for both in times of peril. This transcends their practical political calculus. As for members of profound faith, “compromise” and the right for them to express their religious freedoms and convictions were not previously threatened or abandoned in the political process…and why would it? They had the GOP and the GOP had them.
What is now clear, and where the GOP has chosen to compromise, is on the Sanctity of Life. All the standard euphemisms of “right to choice, reproductive rights, better support, fund other options” etc. while intellectually curious, and perhaps politically assuaging, do not negate the fact that the GOP is NO longer the Party of Life.
…In San Diego County, the GOP is no longer the Party Of Life…
Sadly, that is irrefutable at this point, and to have GOP politicians (and their websites, including the California GOP and Republican National Committee organization sites claim otherwise) tap-dance with understatements and exhaustive explanations that they may be or not, is moot, disingenuous, and insulting. (This, btw, is not you, Mr. Brady)
The GOP is now something else…It has prioritized other issues. Where Mr. Brady, I, and many agree, the fiscal calamity facing our nation has such widespread economic, social, and even cultural and national security implications that encroach on the very nature of our existential being. I get that. And, when the GOP was the Party Of Life, the fiscal threat as Mr. Brady adroitly illustrated was a Tier One imperative for me as well that must be dealt with. I didn’t have to deal with the other…precisely because it was implicit of the position of the Party Platform.
As Mr. Brady may know (outside of my Rostra Nom de Plume), I have lectured, participated on panels, spoken to meetings, rallies, and been interviewed locally and nationally on national security issues and have spoken myself directly and passionately on the nexus of our security posture, vis-à-vis our debt/fiscal policy crises, and the vital need for retaining our ability to project all the tools of our national power to remain geo-strategically relevant. As Sun Tzu stated, “The Defense of the State is paramount, for all other endeavors are moot without it.” This has been a passion of mine in addition to my vocation for many years both in and out of government service. I have consulted both publicly and privately as to my views on such issues. So…
“The country has a bigger problem”…
This was a standout statement for me. As expressed above, I have dedicated a great deal of my personal and professional “capital” on these issues and the articulation of said policies as they related to a healthy, vibrant, and prosperous national posture. And if we are concerned about the impact a particular policy may have on Americans, their well-being, safety, security, etc., what can be more pressing than the systematic deaths of 55 million of our own children…and counting? Unlike the characterization of some flaming-pitch throwers regarding “extremism” and “purity,” the Abortion issue, while a conscious concern of mine, was something so matter-of-fact and boiler plate as a life-long Republican, it was a fait accompli because the GOP was the Party Of Life…we inherently new the GOP, at various levels, and with varying degrees of voracity, was going to stand against Abortion. If a secular fiscal-conservative, social-progressive, Pro “Choice/Anti-Life” proponent had issue with that, they could feel free to accept that precept or go somewhere else and back another candidate.
The reality is that I, and thousands of others in San Diego County, and millions of Americans across the nation, are being told, “Feel free to go somewhere else and/or back another candidate.” Another reality is millions within the GOP find both Abortion and Marriage other than One Man/One Woman incongruous with their faith and religious freedom, while others, more secular, philosophically equate the horrific deaths of aborted children in America today as morally misaligned with other 20th Century horrors such as the Jewish “Final Solution” or Soviet “Centralized Economic Planning” leading to the deliberate starving deaths of millions of Ukrainians, or the reprehensible “one-child” rule in China, where millions and millions of young baby girls are snuffed out over the economically more desirable boys. Even Belgium recently has adopted a euthanasia policy for infants. All of these secular, humanistic-centric libertine constructs believe (ed) they also have more urgent matters; Racial purity, political genocide, population control, or selfish and ruthless “child” selection. Yet, the GOP leadership has “prioritized” supporting Abortion candidates as the new “normal”, and that though many sympathize with the 55 million children killed since Roe v. Wade, even struggle morally, religiously, and ethically, it doesn’t reach the level of urgency currently occupied by other issues; for Mr. Brady, well articulated and sincere, it is the fiscal crisis. For others, less noble, it is personal political aggrandizement in the form of political influence and sweeping social correctness. For others, it is precisely that the GOP is not the “purist” party of “intolerant” swamp rubes, aka Duck Dynasty that they desperately attempt to craft as a demonizing and ad hominem narrative of “racist/homophobe” etc. and they can now tackle the fiscal and prosperity issues in a broader irreligious, libertine, “reasonable” way within the New Generation/Majority GOP without being associated with those “fanatics” and “zealots.”
However, the GOP switched out morally convicted “fanatics” for more fiscally convicted libertine “fanatics” (…and “no” again, this does not refer to you, Mr. Brady)
OK. I get that…but if that’s the case, then why proceed with the offensively blatant and duplicitous platform notions of “Life” and “Marriage” within a recalcitrant GOP strategy? It is either done out of a sense of ignorance or patronizing, or is a deliberate act of disinformation that is perpetrated on the less informed…in either case, it is wrong.
I see Mr. Brady made what he and ultimately the RPSDC thought was a practical choice in backing DeMaio over Jorgensen in the 52nd. He articulated this well as such with regards to the Abortion issue. Yet, what had initially infuriated many others, including me, regarding the 52CD race are the patent obfuscation of the other issue raised; powerful backers and inside influence in the form of media brokers, realtors, high-level business execs, and select political power agents in the form of the Lincoln Club and the New Majority within the SDC GOP. This is unconscionable not because we were splitting fiscal approaches on a tax percentage point or two, or whether we should have a 300 ship navy or not, or if candidates should sign a term-limit pledge, or varying degrees of school-choice options between two strong Republicans…it was the fact that the “New GOP” influencers decided essentially unilaterally that the backing was going to be de facto for DeMaio…at the EXPENSE of the platform of the GOP, and if you all, the Exec Committee and the Central Committee, don’t get on board, well…their will be political hell to pay…That aspect, Mr. Brady, is NOT the political pragmatism that you so aptly, and no doubt sincerely, articulated that got overtaken in what appears as political cronyism, opportunism, and manipulation…and it was at the expense of fracturing the party and deeply held convictions by a large percentage of its members. A Party I staunchly supported, even through the difficult Bush years, and weak presidential candidates like McCain and Dole, and failed senate races such as Fiorina.
So, those of us formerly of the ideology and position of the previous GOP are left with a choice of our own; 1) Accept the “new normal” and abandon our own deeply held convictions of faith or philosophy for the new priority, or 2) rally to the “new” priorities that were once accepted and recognized” boiler-plate” issues as their own priorities within their own calculus for candidates, compromise, and conviction. That is what I, and others, have been doing both here and in other fora regarding the abandonment by the “New” GOP.
In my calculus, Mr. DeMaio’s candidacy simply was not worth all that. Contrary to what some desperately try to paint as intolerance, extremism, and various “phobias” the truth is Mr. DeMaio as a Republican is not very strong. What added insult to injury, is we advanced a weak Republican AND felt we needed to throw our convictions away to do it.
Convictions that, for many, are simply not “compromise-able.”
Comments 41
FF, your conviction and column are well stated. Thank you.
Coincidentally, James Taranto in The Wall Street Journal’s Best of the Web has something relevant to say about the debate going on here. Here’s the link to read the entire article:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303519404579354923676782880#printMode
And here’s the quote:
One can take an extreme antiabortion position without engaging in such psychology. Krauthammer is advising Republicans to favor one policy over another–to pursue moderate antiabortion legislation and forswear the extreme position, whose relative unpopularity is a problem for the party.
The shortcoming of this advice is that it ignores a countervailing political problem–namely, that a substantial minority of Americans favor restrictions or an outright ban on even early-term abortions. That minority is substantially overrepresented among Republican primary voters and would be less inclined to support a more moderate GOP in general elections. The Democrats have the same problem in reverse: The extreme pro-abortion side–those who, among other things object to restrictions even on late-term abortions–wield disproportionate power in their party.
Those on the extremes of each party are a problem for it and an opportunity for the other party. If Republicans could all coalesce around a middle ground, as Krauthammer advises, they would have an insurmountable advantage. The same is true of Democrats. But a political party is not a unitary organism; it is an unruly coalition of individuals and interest groups. Neither party can win elections without the support of its abortion extremists, which means neither party can will or wish them away.
Lost among this entire discussion is the relevance that particular issues bear in relation to the political office sought by the candidate.
The House seat up for grabs in CA-52 will have practically no relationship to the issue of abortion. The only body that will change that is the Supreme Court. While abortion could be an issue for Presidents (who nominate the justices) and Senators (who must approve the nominations), it has almost no relevance to the House seat Mr. DeMaio seeks.
Sure, there might be issues of federal funding for abortion providers like Planned Parenthood, but even Rick Santorum (the epitome of religious conservatism) voted for that. Indeed, if the only abortion-related issues facing a House member will be spending issues, I would much rather have a dedicated fiscal conservative like DeMaio than anyone else.
Mr. King,,
Precisely. The “issue” of abortion is NOT going to be a practical political issue..we have established that. However, is says volumes to one’s character if one is convicted to the Sanctity of Life or not. It is a barometer on how one thinks, believes, and may act in the dark, unforeseen places of political power.
Conviction is not a political strategy…it is a strongly held belief that is one’s anchor point in turbulent times, regardless of where the politically expedient and opportunistic winds may try and take them.
Bernard King: The problem that you and other so-called “fiscal conservatives” – including DeMaio – fail to recognize is that abortion IS an economic issue as well as a moral one. We have killed 55,000,000 babies since Roe v. Wade. Estimates are that we have lost over 37 TRILLION dollars in economic benefit that these lives would have contributed to our nation’s economy. Stop viewing this as purely a moral or social issue, if you must, and look at its economic impact. How is it even remotely possible that we would wipe out a whole generation of children or more and not feel the economic impact? It may be convenient to ignore that out of political expediency, but that doesn’t mean the impact isn’t very real and that we aren’t already beginning to feel it. Here once again, is the reference to just one article describing this impact: http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2013/09/the-economic-impact-of-abortion.html
Knowing this, it would be a complete misnomer to label anyone who supports abortion, a “fiscal conservative.” So please, don’t use that label when referring to DeMaio when all you’re really trying to do is justify your own inaction to stop what you know is morally wrong. For a child losing its life to abortion, there is no such thing as being “moderately” dead.
Founding Father:
I don’t even think it’s that great of a barometer on how anyone will act on other issues. Far too many people who profess support for the sanctity of life also support policies which are by their very nature anti-life, e.g. military aggression, torture, extra-judicial killing, etc. Unlike abortion, these other issues are more likely to be directly confronted by members of the House.
Thank you for writing this. Unfortunately we are advising true conservatives living in the 52nd CD to abstain from voting in the general election should DeMaio win the primary.
It truly saddens my heart to see these irreligious (defined in the bible as “one who fights against the sacred”, like life and marriage), rise up within a Party whose very platform reflects and defends these values that are near and dear to our hearts, as well as our founding fathers.
Shameful. Forgivable if repentance takes place, but truly shameful and embarrassing at this time.
Mr. King,
Do not conflate anomalies in American military and foreign policy as the barometer for an American military ethos based highly on long-standing Christian precepts. American policy and those in significant military and civilian positions do not conduct “military aggression” has seen in adventures such as Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or Saddam Hussein. The US leads the world, and the history of military operations execution, utilizing the Christian Doctrine of Just War Theory.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/justwar/#H2
It is universally recognized as the premier construct for how civilized nations justify, conduct, and prosecute warfare.
In the case of “military aggression,” America doesn’t “conquer” land or oppress their defeated enemies as a means to a political or military end. Germany and Japan, along with Korea all show a direct desire to create a viable, stable, and cooperative partner post-conflict with like-minded political, geo-strategic, and economic philosophies. Our lead in several interconnected, partner arrangements in security, diplomacy, and security in the forms of NATO, ASEAN, the UN, OAS, and other coalitions and constructs that demonstrate America’s prime desire to work multi-laterally to the greatest extent possible.
WRT to torture, I can speak to this with authority; despite the fervent narrative hoisted by liberal, progressive anti-American voices and forces both within and outside the government, and other official establishments (the media, entertainment, and academia) America does not torture. Torture, in and of itself, has no military or intelligence value. It is used for the sole purpose of intimidation, compliance, punishment, and, in many cases, political and personal humiliation. The US utilizes methods and procedures that, while stressful and very uncomfortable, must have an intelligence and military purpose. In all candor, fraternity initiations, sophomoric “hazing” rituals in various athletic, club, or military organizations are far more arduous than what is the current official methods and policies regarding Enhanced Interrogation Techniques. http://www.csmonitor.com/Books/chapter-and-verse/2012/0430/In-Hard-Measures-former-CIA-official-Jose-Rodriquez-defends-waterboarding
Our enemy has found the soft and exposed seam between our demand as a citizenry for legal, moral, and ethical values as underscored in our Bill of Rights, and Constitution, and the ugly, unorthodox, and asymmetrical nature of modern counter-terrorism and irregular warfare against non-state actors. It hasn’t been easy, and we haven’t always gotten it right. But as a nation, we do not have a propensity nor do we purposely act as the “aggressor, torturer, or unsanctioned “wet-workers” with extra-judicial assassinations.
In the case of abortion, the sole purpose for the act is to dispose, kill, a child by design.
warfare.In the case of “military aggression,” America doesn’t “conquer” land or oppress their defeated enemies as a means to a political or military end. Germany and Japan, along with Korea all show a direct desire to create a viable, stable, and cooperative partner post-conflict with like-minded political, geo-strategic, and economic philosophies. Our lead in several interconnected, partner arrangements in security, diplomacy, and security in the forms of NATO, ASEAN, the UN, OAS, and other coalitions and constructs that demonstrate America’s prime desire to work multi-laterally to the greatest extent possible.”
FF – if you don’t mind, I’d like to know which institutions, civilian and military, brought you to this conclusion. Too keep your anonymity here, you can find me on linked in or email me at my first and last name at gmail.com. Thanks.
“FF – if you don’t mind, I’d like to know which institutions, civilian and military brought you to this conclusion. Too keep your anonymity here, you can find me on linked in or email me at my first and last name at gmail.com. Thanks.”
Elliot,
I am certainly amenable to do so. Just so we have clarity; the “conclusions” are not mine. They are the stated and practiced polices for the US military, and its civilian leadership, codified in US Law, the Constitution, and historical precedents. Of course, there have been deviations, and much debate within the populace and around the world as to America’s perceived “imperial” role and as “policeman” to the world, etc..(a burden and function of geo-strtegic leadership) I would simply say, as a habit, mindset, and by the vast majority of the actions sanctioned by the US Government, we do not have policies or sanctioned practices that promote what Mr. King was eluding; “aggression, torture, and extra-judicial-killings.”
My point I was making with Mr. King was that while there are anomalies, and stated policy has been circumvented (Iran Contra, recent Drone Strikes on American citizens, Libya intervention, etc) the American military as an extent of her foreign policy derive from two key elements of Just War Theory; TARGETING, i.e. what we will prosecute on the battlefield, and PROPORTIONALITY, what we use to prosecute targets on the battlefield. We have had exceptions to this precept, most notably were the Dresden Bombings in WWII, or the recent drone strikes on Americans (Were they “still” Americans under the Constitution, or did they forfeit their citizenship by becoming enemy combatants under the Laws of Land Warfare??). The “violations” to Just War theory are not only exceptions to American security policy, they are often and swiftly dealt with as in the case of My Lai in Vietnam, the Abu Ghurib Prison abuses in Iraq, and reparations for the reprehensible actions by FDR regarding Japanese internment camps, among others.
There are open chapters of US action across our 250 year military experiences that have been, and still are, debated vigorously (The dropping of the Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki underscore that). What separates the US from nearly any other major power is we actually debate it, and have taken action internally, without external force or mandates, to rectify them, often setting the ethical and moral precedent for others to emulate.
FF – It wasn’t Just War Theory I was questioning, USMA drilled that into me plenty. I just didn’t want to discuss foreign policy and take away from this great social political discussion. My question was on the statement about “America doesn’t “conquer” land” and “Germany and Japan, along with Korea all show a DIRECT DESIRE (my emphasis added) to create a viable, stable, and cooperative partner post-conflict with like-minded political, geo-strategic, and economic philosophies.” I’m pretty versed in American strategic history and I’m curious as to the sources for those these points because I haven’t seen it supported in my previous studies.
Also the comment: “Our lead in several interconnected, partner arrangements in security, diplomacy, and security in the forms of NATO, ASEAN, the UN, OAS, and other coalitions and constructs that demonstrate America’s prime desire to work multi-laterally to the greatest extent possible” I recognize this as neoliberal international theory but never put water in it because I think our policy is clearly a Realpolitik echo of Rome’s patchwork of agreements and alliance that modern historians label today label as “empire.” But my disagreement here is rooted in my world view.
If your inclined we can discuss this “offline” in an email or facebook so we don’t detract from your original post. Thanks.
Elliot,
Absolutely!
For further discussion, I would just lead with, The Marshal Plan, The Japanese Constitution, numerous UN-sanctioned peace-keeping/enforcement actions under both Dem and Rep administrations for thought-provokers and not to be out done, the State Department, USAID, Commerce and others have similar trade and prosperity arrangements that add to the quiver of national power arrows we can bring to bear to shape our FP without having to “occupy”.
Also, I 100% agree we do take on the Realism approach..of which I am an strong advocate. However, we have used Neo-Liberal Wilsonian Idealism approaches to lever our Realist goals. …and that’s ok, (UN as an example) as long as we understand it is American foreign policy objectives that we will support in these various international/allied arrangements.
WRT- “conquering land”, please do not misconstrue military operational maneuver and “occupying ground” in a militray campaign with what the strategic objective in the political context may be. i.e., we gave back Germany, Japan, and Italy, where at least two of those three became vibrant and stable political and economic juggernauts. Compare that with Iraq…no Status Of Forces Agreement, no stability, ergo, no investment. We left, and it went to hell in a hand basket.
See Weigely’s (spelling..??) -“The American Way Of War; A History of American Military Strategy and Policy”
and Peter Paret’s “Maker of Modern Strategy from Machiavilli to the Nuclear Age.”
I’ll contact you.
Thanks.
FF – looking forward to it. Both books are in my library and well annotated. Let me know what addition of Paret you have. 1986?
As for conquest – see Mexican-American War & Spanish-American wars. But yes the 20th century were not wars of conquest.
On topic – a timely article:
“America’s abortion rate drops to its lowest level in four decades”
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2014/02/daily-chart-2
I invite FF and Karen Grube, both members of the Republican Purity Police, to sit out the general election and increase Scott Peter’s chance of winning. One has to wonder why they even live in California. There are certainly more pro-life red states out there.
As for me, Carl DeMaio was the only choice for mayor, and is the only choice for Congress. Mr. Jorgensen can get back to his stereotypical ex-military Stepford Wives-esque life on June 4th.
Whether Jorgensen has a chance to win is one thing. But, Kirk, an honorable man and a patriot, has every right to run. Carl would be the first to say that, I expect. Anonymous attacks on his personal character and life are really uncalled for and childish.
Union Buster (though I believe this guy didn’t meet a union he didn’t like),
You clearly didn’t read the article..sad too…you may have been able to add some interesting perspective opposed to your predictable anti-Jorgensen twaddle.
What an unnecessary and inappropriate comment…truly…”ex-military”…as if that were an indictment of some kind. More insight into the “New Majority” GOP.
The irony is, the freedom to make crass and lowbrow comments by Union Buster and his ilk were courtesy of a long line of noble, brave, and selfless warrior-patriots like Kirk Jorgensen.
I see no reason to support Jorgensen. His website is as remarkably devoid of content as it was months ago. Nothing but a few platitudes — assertions that I suspect 90+% of our Congressional incumbents from both parties could heartily agree with.
Now, to be fair, ALL politicians include platitudes in their campaigns. Even issue-oriented DeMaio. But when that’s ALL one has to present, it’s disappointing.
I suspect Jorgensen’s consultant has told him to keep it general — avoid thorny issues. That way you don’t make enemies.
But, while I’m strongly supporting Carl, I see no reason to denigrate Jorgensen. I’m sure he’s a decent man, and genuinely hopes to make a good, honest Congressman.
Often times I vote for the “lesser evil.” In this race, I’m pleased to enthusiastically vote FOR someone. I’m not voting against Jorgensen.
But I suspect many if not most Jorgensen supporters are really voting against Carl — they’d support just about ANY Republican against Carl.
Except another gay, of course.
“Mr. Jorgensen can get back to his stereotypical ex-military Stepford Wives-esque life on June 4th.”
That’s completely unacceptable. Both Jorgensen and Simon are great Republicans and honorable men. I sincerely hope one of them faces Mr. DeMaio in the run off.
You’re right, I apologize for the value judgement of Mr. Jorgensen. His service to the country is honorable.
However, he meets the checklist of the Republican stereotype that just isn’t marketable to a 2014 electorate anymore.
FF – thank you for your heartfelt sentiments and views.
I do disagree (strongly) with them because I believe that there are certain areas where state power simply is pointless and, indeed, may be counterproductive. I take VERY seriously Pope Paul the 6th’s Humana Vitae. But I also am, I know in a way that is frustrating to many, a realist and ask myself whether it could ever, in a post Roe v. Wade world, be the case that all abortions would be outlawed and that we would want to exist in a world in which doctors and women were incarcerated for it. I then ask myself if that is realistic than why not the REST of Humana – where we would outlaw all forms of contraception except the natural method.
Now morally I can see the beauty in those exhortations. I think they are a wonderful call to how we should strive to live our lives in Christ. But I balance that with a deep fear of a state that powerful. In the end, I want a world in which abortion is legal, safe, and rare…not because I believe in abortion but because I absolutely do not believe in a state powerful enough to enforce a prohibition.
Again, apologies for denigrating Mr Jorgensen. I would proudly support him as the Republican nominee.
After 41 years, it seems that pro-life groups have become enamored with the idea of “making abortion illegal” instead of “eliminating abortion.” Almost if victory legally would be a validation that the govt has returned to judeochristian precepts instead of 1960s counterculture.
The difference between illegal and elimination is that illegal only drives the demand for abortion to a black market or in the case of legal abortion for rape & incest an increase in reports of those crimes in order to have an abortion. Whereas elimination requires an effort to address why people are having abortions and addressing that and this doesn’t have to be done by govt programs. Merely going for the ban doesn’t confront the societal problems we have that got us to this point.
I want abortion eliminated but I think 41 years of trying to ban it has been a failure. Address why its happening and it will fade on its own. That’s where I think money and effort should be going.
“But I suspect many if not most Jorgensen supporters are really voting against Carl — they’d support just about ANY Republican against Carl.
Except another gay, of course.”
Richard,
tisk, tisk…There sure is an intolerance here, and it is assuming anyone that disagrees with Carl is in fact intolerant. My Amicus Curie against the Leadership of the GOP is based on their pushing a “DeMaio”, hypocritically and diverging directly from their own precept…theirs…not just mine, or Ms. Grube’s, or anyone individual that doesn’t share your libertine world view…their own. This is, as I mentioned in the response to BB is disingenuous, either by ignorance and poor guidance, or by design.
Riddle me this….
Why did the SDGOP move up the 52CD endorsement by 3 months?
Why were dissenters within the Central Committee limited to time to make cases for others than Carl in the November meeting?
Why didn’t the SDGOP leadership question Mr. DeMaio more thoroughly when he threatened the SDGOP CC that he would “move out” with or without their help intonating he had the NRCC in his back pocket, and the GOP locally would be left “high and dry” for national support?
Why wasn’t there a debate sponsored by the SDGOP between the candidates prior to the de facto anointment of Mr. DeMaio?
Why has the SDGOP abandoned the national Platform in the case of Mr. DeMaio? Here is the statement from the RNC on its national platform vis-à-vis marriage:
Preserving and Protecting Traditional Marriage (Top)
The institution of marriage is the foundation of civil society. Its success as an institution will determine our success as a nation. It has been proven by both experience and endless social science studies that traditional marriage is best for children. Children raised in intact married families are more likely to attend college, are physically and emotionally healthier, are less likely to use drugs or alcohol, engage in crime, or get pregnant outside of marriage. The success of marriage directly impacts the economic well-being of individuals. Furthermore, the future of marriage affects freedom. The lack of family formation not only leads to more government costs, but also to more government control over the lives of its citizens in all aspects. We recognize and honor the courageous efforts of those who bear the many burdens of parenting alone, even as we believe that marriage, the union of one man and one woman must be upheld as the national standard, a goal to stand for, encourage, and promote through laws governing marriage. We embrace the principle that all Americans should be treated with respect and dignity.
Coupled with Mr. DeMaio’s questionable contracting history, his embellishment of his efforts with regards to his cornerstone klaxon “Reform” as called out by Gerry Sanders (“Bullsh*t” I believe was the direct quote) , his diametrically opposed views on two key and longstanding precepts held deeply by the GOP in decades past…other than those, he is a wonderful candidate.
Mr. Jorgensen has an impeccable reputation.
Mr. Jorgensen has been tested in arduous and difficult situations beyond the cat-fighting that is local inside city council politics.
Mr. Jorgensen is poised and ready to debate Mr. DeMaio…alas, Mr. DeMaio apparently lacks the basic fortitude to debate Mr. Jorgensen because everyone knows the optics are lousy…Either he or his campaign staff are scared…if DeMaio can’t debate Mr. Jorgensen, this supposed “weak” candidate,” in the comfort and ease of his own backyard, how the hell is he going to debate with Scott Peters, Nancy Pelosi, Debbie Wasserman Shultz, or tackle the myriad of issues that will confront him as a standing Congressman?
Mr. Jorgensen understands (because he is one) the vast majority of San Diego 52CD residents and the industries they support; Veterans and defense.
Mr. Jorgensen has signed a term-limit pledge-…because his character and values see the careerist aspirations of professional Pols like Mr. DeMaio and Scott Peters as detrimental to the representational process…Will your candidate sign a term-limit pledge? I doubt it…Papa Doug wants his return on investment.
Mr. Jorgensen is proposing a network of Video-conferencing used by military and intelligence agencies that would negate the longstanding idea that congressmen must spend the vast majority of their time in DC..a place where all the K Street sharks (like Mr. DeMaio was) can lurk in the shadows and influence their votes and agendas. The VTC system would have representatives in their districts, beholden to their constituents, thus turning the lobby construct on its head…
Mr. Jorgensen can add to his website…Mr. DeMaio is still a weak…very weak…Republican candidate.
That is why I am voting for Kirk Jorgensen, and not because DeMaio is a homosexual or not. Your repeated and empty refrain of “intolerance” begins to reek of the same tactic used by Mr. Obama’s virulent proponents; you must be a racist if you do not agree with Mr. Obama…It is a real turn off to Republicans after 6 years of this presidency.
And 52CD residents are watching.
Erik,
You are sincerely welcome.
So, what is the answer to “while I think abortion is wrong, I still support a woman’s right to choose to kill her own child?”
For me, a follower of Christ, I am hoping I can weather the final inquiry that will be, “and what did you do to mitigate the deaths of innocent children?”
That is my barometer. Libertine, secular, athiests will never understand that. This is what is meant by conviction. It isn’t situational or predicated on a political construct. While I too understand the practical nature of the need for pragmatism, I cannot allow it to skew or malign my conviction and discernement regarding abortion. All the rhetoric about “illegal” and “goverment” limitiations etc do not prevent the ongoing killing either. Yet, no one believes the “pro-Choice” proponents are advocating anything other than the choice to kill (let alone the horrific concept of late term abortions). The numbers clearly bear that out.
In the end, Mr. DeMaio chooses to support. albiet tacitly, a construct where children can and are being killed at the rate of nearly 4000 a day….and so is Mr. Peters. Though Mr. Jorgensen would not have more or less any power to legislatively prevent more abortions, I do know where his convcition is..and that comforts me to know his heart and soul are in the right place. This transcends the abortion issue and crystalizes for me, and an increasing number of constituents in the 52nd, what motivates, drives, and guides him.
FF,
You are choosing to change the argument (which is sadly typical of the some in the pro-life movement). No one is disagreeing with you that abortion is wrong. We just believe that to try to outlaw it and actually enforce such a prohibition would create the kind of police state most of us would not want to live in.
I also would point out that many in the pro-life community, by doing what you did in your post, HURT your cause, not help it. Those that care so strongly about “killing babies” are already with you. You have to convince folks that a prohibition would actually work and not be impracticable.
I say again — Founding Father ably (and verbosely) demonstrates this fact — the strongest Jorgensen supporters are voting against Carl, not for Jorgensen. They’d be equally as enthusiastic for ANY GOP candidate against Carl (unless the candidate is — well — I better not say it).
The list of grievances against Carl listed by FF vary from quarter truths to hilarious falsehoods — talking points from the anti-Carl labor union literature. “K Street crowd”??? Oh my!
Jorgensen’s big reform? Videoconferencing. Yeah, THAT will save the REPUBLIC.
Jorgensen has been a candidate for what — six months? And still he has an issue-empty website. So just when does he plan to “add to his website” some — ya know — issues and his concrete positions on same? December of this year?
I don’t blame Jorgensen. He’s hired consultants who have told him to run on image, not substance. Taking positions only costs candidates votes. So he doesn’t take positions, as per the guidance he’s received. But that’s not inspirational. We’ve elected far too many Republicans based on image.
Richard,
I’ll break it down Barney style for you..
Peters is Pro-Abortion
Peters is for SSM
Peters is not a homosexual.
I will not vote for Peters either…
It is DeMaio’s positions, equal to Peters, that I oppose…not his sexual preferences.
——-Richard, you can stop reading now————-(…In the immortal words in Cool Hand Luke..”some men, ya just can’t reach…)
Now, for the more intellectually honest…
Richard continues, and rather ham-handedly, yet dogmatically, equate my not supporting for DeMaio as some charge of homophobia (how deliciously progessive)…yet, if that were true, then I would be voting for Faulconer..with virtually the same positions…and I’m not..and I would then consider voting for Peters..because he is NOT a homosexual, with the same postions as DeMaio,…and I’m not.
RR arguments continue to consist of berating those that oppose him (the DeMaio folks are becoming increasingly desperate…it’s understandable)…But I don’t need to raise Mr. DeMaio’s issues…I’m sure Peter’s multi-million dollar funded investigatory team will have this teed-up for consideration. God only knows what else they will have uncovered…You’d think the SDGOP, and all the Lincoln Club, New Majority Libertine “moderates” would have considered that as they roll into the campaign…but they didn’t.
As a gay Republican, I would vote for the Republican nominee, no matter how much they oppose my ability to get legal recognition for my relationship. I shouldn’t have to compromise my belief in lower taxes and less regulation for my belief in same-sex marriage.
With that said, I would expect all of us to vote for the Republican nominee for any office, no matter their views on the social issues. I supported Ron Paul in the 2012 primaries, but voted for Romney in the general, and would have been still begrudgingly voted for social crusader Rick Santorum.
I suspect that no matter how much we may disagree on same sex marriage or abortion, if FF ran for office and was the Republican nominee, I would vote for him. If I ran for office and was the nominee, I would expect Republicans to vote for me.
The Romney-Ryan ticket took a position that favored rape and incest exceptions for abortion. Did you vote for Romney-Ryan, or did you aid the Obama administration in sitting out the general.
I apologize for my mischaracterization of Mr. Jorgensen earlier and as I said, I would wholeheartedly vote for him were he the nominee. I just hope for a Republican cease-fire on the issue soon.
“Those that care so strongly about “killing babies” are already with you. You have to convince folks that a prohibition would actually work and not be impracticable.”
I guess I have to take it here– how far are you really willing to go in your commitment to stop people from killing pre-born babies, FF? Are you willing to try different strategies for victory or die on the hill in vain?
If your only commitment is to support only pro-Life candidates, you’ve already lost. Republicans had a majority in the Senate & The House, and controlled the Executive Branch for 6 out of 10 years last decade and did nothing. For all the pro-Life rhetoric from the legislators, Roe v. Wade, as flawed as the SCOTUS decision is, remains “law of the Land”.
It is the efforts of science, religion, and civil society which have reduced the number of abortions and shifted Americans’ attitudes against abortion rather than legislation. Ironically, that is the exact approach DeMaio wants to take.
Should the GOP change it’s platform? Absolutely not but to suggest that DeMaio’s approach is flawed is rejecting the ACTUAL approach which has worked.
I doubt that I”m going to change your mind but, after careful consideration this week, I”m not going to die on the hill with you–I want to save more babies.
While we’ve been debating, somewhere between $15-25 billion was added to the federal debt .
BB,
Fair enough…but I think the argument has been made that this was never about one (or two) issue (s)…that has been conflated, and frankly high-jacked by detractors desperately trying to craft the narrative of anyone opposed to DeMaio “is a homophobe.”.
It was a twofold critique; 1) The complete abandonment by the Local GOP leadership to endorse a candidate that was diametrically opposed to STATED GOP platform issues, subsequently confirming the “abandonment” of thousands of San Diegans in the 52nd of deep-faith convictions, thus limiting the support power by thousands of (former) stalwart GOP supporters, and 2), the apparent shenanigans portrayed by the inter-sanctum powerbrokers that shaped, crafted and guided the atmospherics to skew the endorsement in DeMaio’s favor. As I said in my response…it was not an issue until the Local GOP leadership made it an issue…both on SSM and Abortion.
I am still opposed to the Local GOP, and the National Platform, that duplicitously and hypocritically says one thing, yet is clearly influenced to do the opposite. The silver lining; apparently I’m not alone in my frustration and pointing out those not adhering, in part, to the GOP platform, as I have discovered others find frustration in the actions of some that “are in direct refutation of the Republican National Platform.”
http://delmar.typepad.com/restore_the_gop/2014/01/sdgop-meeting-january-13-2014-endorsement-considerations.html
From the above article- “[Local GOP CC member(s) ] discovered that 11 of the 12 candidates on the list voted for federal intervention into the local school curricula (Common Core Standards Initiative), a direct refutation of the Republican National Committee platform.
Common Core= Bad, because it is not in line with the GOP platform. SSM and abortion=OK…, though ALSO not in line with the platform, it is because political pragmatism, correctness, and social engineering are the “evolutionary” steps to get on the “right side of history”…to quote Democratic Presidential Spokesperson, Jay Carney.
So the local SDGOP leadership selectively enforces or refutes positions that may or may not countermand the State or National platforms as they are stated.
I have clarity now.
And BB…while we’ve been debating, 4000 children were aborted. But that isn’t the hill you’re willing to die on. Fair enough.
UB,
You appear to demonstrate some sincere remorse and contrition regarding your previous comments about Mr. Jorgensen…I’m sure you saw it for the unnecessary and snide comment that it came across to be…that was a class act to apologize..it’s not easy, and Lord knows we can all get caught in the fervor and the illusion of anonymity here…
Having said that, I do not have issue regarding the Romney-Ryan position on abortion. There are many biblical scholars that even struggle with this issue.
May I ask a sincere question? What precisely is your definition of marriage? Not just that you support a particular deviation from the traditional definition..what IS your position?
“So the local SDGOP leadership selectively enforces or refutes positions that may or may not countermand the State or National platforms as they are stated. ”
You’re conflating me with the RPSDC Central Committee; I am one of 60 Committee members. I may be the only one to publicly explain my votes as well.
“And BB…while we’ve been debating, 4000 children were aborted. But that isn’t the hill you’re willing to die on”
No…I”m not willing to die on a hill which isn’t saving babies.
We agree a LOT more than we disagree but I made a choice this week– I”m no longer letting people who confine their pro-Life work to the political process define me as anything but pro-Life.
FF,
Brian Brady (for whatever reason, but probably because he is a gentleman and has character) is the only one here treating your circus like malarkey posts with an ounce of respect and you choose to distort what he writes and what he stands for like that?
Class act, FF.
Ah Michael…and I thought we had come so far…you are right, BRIAN is a gentleman…and I admire he takes the effort to explain his votes. We do agree on a lot more than we disagree…but he will remain with his position/conviction, and will in mine.
That’s life!
I’m not losing any sleep because you, and the SDGOP, pissed away a very simple endorsement that probably would have avoided the clear “shooting” war between the New Majority types, of which I can anticipate you support, and the multitudes of the 80K former GOP registered voters in SD.. (80K…what a number…)
What did you think, Michael? All the former GOP registered voters were just going acquiesce? Cancel on account of rain? Sand in the belly-button…be deterred because some loud mouths say they don’t like what is being said…as accurate or informed as it may be?
Grow a pair!
I will continue to support our candidate, win or lose, and sleep knowing I followed my conviction, and wasn’t deterred, or swayed by political correctness, or allowed myself to be cajoled or intimidated to vote a certain way or abandon my beliefs in the stated platform….but that’s just me!
Contrary to the “malarkey” accusation, dozens, nay, scores of people formerly with the SDGOP have contacted me and have been sharing with me ALL the reasons why they left the SDGOP. Many of them have expressed a willingness to “slap on the cleats” once again and support a candidate behind whom they can actually back…
The real “malarkey” is the unmitigated failure of a once proud and convicted party. But there are no bad members…just bad leadership! It is you and your supporters that think if we just try to out left the left, the cool kids will like us…well…here’s a secret…they don’t! And neither do the thousands of former GOP types that you have ostracized from the party…
Support your candidate FF and get him to the run off, As I’ve said, nothing would make me happier than to see two Republicans on the ballot in June.
Brian,
You can count on it, my Friend! There is an unbelievable amount of positive energy for KJ. Most people do not spend the time, effort, and personal capital to work simply against someone…his supporters are all in for him, and really believe in him.
I would encourage those skeptics to hear him speak…he is adroit, in command of the issues, and truly formidable. Too bad CD will not debate him..it really is our loss as 52CD residents. I am pretty sure his handlers are avoiding that like the clap.
And so we’re clear, BB….though I disagree with even the tacit support and mind set to the pro-Choice agenda, I can, and do, respect YOUR choice to support a candidate that thinks such…I do not have to like it, and you can count on me, and scores of others working hard to support a Republican who actually adheres and promotes the party platform, but the fact that men like yourself consider it even gives this staunch GOP-er a moment to at least reflect. 🙂 …and it’s appreciated.
Like the Knights of old, we can still lift our visors in respect.
Cheers!
So here’s an interesting argument:
http://m.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/02/the-end-of-american-exceptionalism/283540/
“But it’s not just changes in family and work patterns that drive the growth of religious nonaffiliation. It’s politics. In the mid-20th century, liberals were almost as likely to attend church as conservatives. But starting in the 1970s, when the Religious Right began agitating against abortion, feminism, and gay rights, liberals began to identify organized Christianity with conservative politics. In recent years, the Religious Right’s opposition to gay marriage has proved particularly alienating to Millennials. “The actions of the Religious Right,” argue sociologists Michael Hout and Claude Fischer, “prompted political moderates and liberals to quit saying they had a religious preference.” In their book, American Grace: How Religion Divides and United Us, Robert D. Putnam and David E. Campbell cite a study suggesting that many “young Americans came to view religion … as judgmental, homophobic, hypocritical, and too political.” Today, according to Pew, the religiously unaffiliated are disproportionately liberal, pro-gay marriage, and critical of churches for meddling too much in politics. Not coincidentally, so are America’s young.
What is growing in contemporary America, in other words, is something long associated with Europe: anticlericalism. In Europe, noted the late political scientist James Q. Wilson in a 2006 essay on American exceptionalism, the existence of official state religions led secularists to see “Christians as political enemies.” America, Wilson argued, lacked this political hostility to organized religion because it separated church and state. But today, even without an established church, the Religious Right plays such a prominent and partisan role in American politics that it has spurred the kind of antireligious backlash long associated with the old world. Barack Obama is the beneficiary of that backlash, because voters who say they “never” attend religious services favored him by 37 percentage points in 2008 and 28 points in 2012. But he’s not the cause. The people most responsible for America’s declining religious exceptionalism are the conservatives who have made organized Christianity and right-wing politics inseparable in the minds of so many of America’s young.”
So how much has the politicization of Christianity (trying to be like Caesar and not like Christ) not only hurt the GOP but also hurt Christianity in America??
I never saw FF reply to my or Erik’s comments that the politicization (pro-bureaucracy view) of anti-abortion efforts has been ineffectual.
I don’t think it’s possible to legislatively ban abortion in all circumstances since it’s been declared a constitutional right. That being said, it is possible to limit it with legislation, regulations, and taxes. As somebody once said, if you want less of something, tax it. And if legislation and regulations don’t reduce access to abortion, then pro-choicers lie when they say it does.
It’s reasonable for a pro-life party to expect a willingness to regulate abortion from their candidates. But given California’s blue-state politics, it’s also reasonable to give GOP politicians here some slack to lay off the absolutist pro-life rhetoric favoring a ban while still expecting them to promote incremental regulations whenever they can.
It’s a false choice to say pro-lifers should give up politics and legislation as means of reducing abortions and only concentrate on civil society and technological solutions. “Both and” not “either or.”
Finally, it might be interesting to compare the charts on the following webpages to see if there’s a correlation between abortion rates and laws. The first is the abortion rate broken down by state. The second is a state by state breakdown of abortion laws. Just comparing the rates of top two and the bottom two jurisdictions shows the two jurisdictions with the highest rates — DC and NY — regulate very little and the two with the lowest rates — KY and ID — regulate much more. Whether that’s just correlation or whether it’s causation, I don’t know.
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/hea_abo_rat-health-abortion-rate
http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_OAL.pdf
And here’s US Census data, which may be more recent than statemaster’s.
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0103.pdf
“Grow a pair” said the guy who anonymously posts vague, inaccurate drivel rather than actually shows up and does anything.
Again, class act, buddy. Real proud of you.
…”rather than actually shows up and does anything.”
Newsflash- Insurgencies are not “announced”!…
http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/100000002499262/the-republican-insurgency.html?action=click&contentCollection=Politics&module=RelatedCoverage®ion=Marginalia&pgtype=article
Fights On!