@Scott

Probably the choice of Mukasey is another proof of
Shrub’s actual intentions, but, sadly, his betrayal
should have been seen at the outset, when he ordered
the CDC to stop publishing data on abortions. If you
want to cripple a movement, the first thing you do is
to cut it off from information, and that what he did.

In anything we want to accomplish, there are three
questions Where am I? Where I want to be? and How do I
know that I am getting there? You know that you are
getting there when you see more and more of what you
want to see and less and less of what you do not want
to see. But if someone blacks out windows and you do
not see anything, you can end up anywhere else. Or
go around in circles forever.

This is what Bush did to the pro-life movement. He
crippled it by not letting it know how close it was
getting to its goals, and which of the tactics it used
were effective and which counterproductive.

It was a hostile act that Clinton would not have thought
he could get away with.

So, now, what’s the point in finding further proof of
his perfidy. Quoting from Stargate SG-1 “If the candle
is lit, the meal was cooked a long time ago”

I don’t see this as any surprise.  The Republican establishment long ago decided that they can benefit more from demagoguing (if that’s the right spelling) on terrorism than in pretending to give a s*** about the pro-life community.  Don’t you know?  “It’s the most important issue of our time.”

When they want to kick Ron Paul out of the party and embrace Lieberman, it’s over.  Conservatives simply are no longer represented in government.

Did anyone ever think Bush was a true believer in pro-life? It was a marriage of convenience for both sides and prolifers have to know that we got all we could given the current make-up of our political class, the state of our culture and the pre-occupation with the “war on terror”.

Let’s face it Rudy is the man the establishment GOP will rally around and social conservatives will try to rally behind one candidate to stop him, but who will that be?

Should he win the nomination we will be instantly marginalized and have to unite behind a 3rd party candidate and hope he loses (badly). Our next step will be to build on the ruins, shape and design a new party that has at it’s core a platform in line traditional Christian thought. A coalition built on economic populism, social conservatism and a more humble and realistic foreign policy could be very potent. Who will lead it in it’s infancy?

None of this will be easy and the temptation to despair will be great for many. Yet, is there any other alternative if all the tea leaves are correct?

Chesterton once said to the effect; “It really isn’t hope until the situation is hopeless.” I’m filled with hope.

Clarification; Rudy must lose badly in the general election to aid in the development of a viable 3rd Party.

Bush is nothing if not consistent with his AGs.  I mentioned Ashcroft’s prosecution of pro-life demonstrators under the FACE act in commentary on another subject.  And Gonzalez was known for his pro-abort rulings as a member of the Texas Supreme Court.  The information on Mukasey (thanks Scott) is interesting but not surprising.

We’ve got a Likkud-nik for an attorney general.

I’m not looking forward to a Guiliani presidency,
in which we’ll see lot more appointees of this particular
political persuasion running our government.

Kevin: Did anyone ever think Bush was a true believer in pro-life? It was a marriage of convenience for both sides...A coalition built on economic populism, social conservatism and a more humble and realistic foreign policy could be very potent.

I agree completely with Kevin. The Democrats are catering to what Rudy Taxeria calls “America’s forgotten Majority” and their shrinking economic security.  They are the very people who have been giving the Republicans the Congress and the Presidency since Nixon.

Caught between shrinking paychecks, and huge increases in the costs of health insurance, college tuition and housing, the Democrats will pick up enough of their vote to swing the election---unless they screw up again and nominate Hillary. Even Kerry---the poster child for the Vietnam anti-war radicals---picked up enough votes to swing the election.  Ohio is in play, as are Kansas and lot’s of other “Red States”…..

The best thing going for the Republican Party is the idiocy of the Democratic Party.

“Did anyone ever think Bush was a true believer in pro-life?”

Apparently, enough people did to win him two elections.  Even a number of commenters on this site have said that they did--and some continue to do so.  That is, after all, the unstated belief of anyone who thinks that you have to vote for a Republican to avoid a pro-abortion Democrat taking office.  And such people constantly attack those of us who claimed, from the beginning, that Bush et al. were not pro-life.  (See my piece on James Hitchcock.)

Today, we have two pro-abortion parties.  The Democratic Party is pro-abortion in principle and in practice.  The Republican Party is anti-abortion (for the most part) in principle, but it is pro-abortion in practice.  And if you don’t put your principles into practice, then it’s the practice that counts.

That’s why men such as Joe Sobran have claimed that abortion has become an irrelevant issue at the national level.  Pro-life positions are used simply to win elections; they are never put into practice.  Recognizing that reality does not mean, as Hitchcock and others claim, that the person who recognizes it is pro-abortion.  Rather, it means (as it has meant for Joe and me and an increasing number of other pro-lifers) that national electoral politics can, and must, be about more than abortion today.

Correction. I sed: Even Kerry---the poster child for the Vietnam anti-war radicals---picked up enough votes to swing the election. 

What I meant is that Kerry, as bad as he was, came
within 1% of winning in 2004, which is a sad commentary
on the Bush2 leadership, in the middle of a “war”, and
all the tub-thumping he was doing.

Kerry, the Northeastern Blueblood son of wealth and
privilege was about the worst choice the Democrats
could have made.

@Scott

Yes, it is about time for the pro-life movement to give
up on electoral politics. It was a pipe dream anyway.

There is still civil society. That has always been the
Christian base, anyway. Build institutions and currents
of opinion that do not depend on government. Then government
will follow.

There is one thing that goverment must do, and that is
restore transparecy to the process. Have CDC publish
the abortion numbers so that there is feedback to all
the tactics used, and the good tactics kept and the
bad ones rejected. No more, and no less.

@Adriana:

“There is still civil society. That has always been the
Christian base, anyway. Build institutions and currents
of opinion that do not depend on government. Then government will follow.”

You sound like a Chronicles reader. : ) Our guiding principle has always been that there are no political solutions to cultural problems.  About seven years ago, we decided to put that in the form of a motto, which we took from the Psalms: “Put not your trust in princes.” (If I recall correctly, you quoted the Psalmist yourself a day or two ago.)

@Scott,

“And such people constantly attack those of us who
claimed, from the beginning, that Bush et al. were
not pro-life.”
Are you claiming that Bush wasn’t infinitely better
than Gore & Kerry?

“Pro-life positions are used simply to win elections;
they are never put into practice.”
Never?The partial birth ban, the judges, Mexico City
restrictions, our voice at the UN and overseas, the
ban on abortions performed with tax dollars, the ban
on abortions at military facilities. These are all
accomplishments that would not have occurred under
the Gore Administration.

“Our guiding principle has always been that there
are no political solutions to cultural problems.”
Abandoning the political process and heading into a
quietism borne out of despair is the great
temptation. And it should be avoided.
Besides the political process does effect the
general culture. Without the campaign to legislate
the PAB most Americans wouldn’t know such a barbarous
practice occurs. Passing of the legislation has drawn
a line in the sand against infanticide and the
abortion industry has lost the high ground in the
debate. Small victories? Sure, but lives and souls
have been saved.

Many pro-lifers will follow the lead of John Paul
the Great. When an initiative to make abortion a
human right gathered steam in the UN, he formed a
coalition with Islamic states to defeat it. He
practiced the “politics of prudence” and avoided
burning bridges.

A good deal of the commentary here runs contrary to
his example. Instead we are being treated to attacks
on our imperfect, perhaps evem insincere allies. How
fruitful is this approach?

A lot of this in-fighting is the result of
understandable frustration. Yet, in the end we are
called to be faithful, not successful. The victory
wil he His. As these excahnges makes abundantly clear.

Many pro-lifers will follow the lead of John Paul the Great. When an initiative to make abortion a human right gathered steam in the UNI, he formed a coalition with Islamic states to defeat it. He practiced the “politics of prudence” and avoided burning bridges.

A good deal of the commentary here runs contrary to his example. Instead we are being treated to attacks on our imperfect, perhaps evem insincere allies..How fruitful is this approach?

A lot of this in-fighting is the result of understandable frustration. Yet, in the end we are called to be faithful, not successful. The victory wil he His. As these excahnges makes abundantly clear.

Abandoning the political process and heading into a quietism borne out of despair is the great temptation. And it should be avoided.
Besides the political process does effect the general culture. Without the campaign to legislate the PAB most Americans wouldn’t
know such a barbarous practice occurs. Passing of the legislation has drawn a line in the sand against infanticide and the abortion industry has lost the high ground in the debate. Small victories? Sure, but lives and souls have been saved.

Many pro-lifers will follow the lead of John Paul the Great. When an initiative to make abortion a human right gathered steam in the UNI, he formed a coalition with Islamic states to defeat it. He practiced the “politics of prudence” and avoided burning bridges.

A good deal of the commentary here runs contrary to his example. Instead we are being treated to attacks on our imperfect, perhaps evem insincere allies..How fruitful is this approach?

A lot of this in-fighting is the result of understandable frustration. Yet, in the end we are called to be faithful, not successful. The victory wil he His. As these excahnges makes abundantly clear.

Apologize for the format of my comments above.Is
there a night class I can attend?

@Kevin

sorry for your server problems. I guess that you and I
have different yardsticks as to what constitutes
progress, and I see in your list of accomplishments a
series of token gestures to keep the pro-lifers reasonably
content, but without meaning to go any further (when
Bill Bennett said that he attributed lower crime to
abortion which kept a lot of criminals from being born,
that should have put you on the alert - if you were
to dig into a lot of conservatives you might find some
eugeneticist subtratum that thinks that it is better if
“unfit” people are not born).

I frankly did not expect any better from a Bush
administration thatn from a Gore administration (and the
way that Bush smiled made the decision for me. No way
was I going to vote someone who reminded me of the
my former business partner - whom if I ever meet again
I am going to take apart with a blunt nail file). I
doubt thought that the pro-life people would have let
Gore get away with no longer publishing the figures on
abortion. With him they would have shouted bloody
murder, and seen it for the hostile act it was. But with
Bush they were so blinded by his other gestures that
they did not see what was coming.

Adriana, I don’t think it’s fair to claim that Bill Bennett was literally endorsing the “abortion cut crime” theory.  I’m no fan of Neocon Bill Bennett, but he stated at the time the notion of using abortion to cut crime was an immoral idea. 

There is a school of thought that does promote the “abortion cuts crime” theory, and its home is the New York Times.  Author Steve Levitt has a blog/column and it promote his book “Freakonomics” which is the bestseller that has promoted the by now dubious claim that abortion cuts crime.
Here is the link to the New York Times blog. 

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/

Adriana,
I hesitate to reply because I am not sure
how it will format, but here goes.

You’re venturing into a form of nihilism.
These “minor accomplishments” are chipping away at the institution of abortion and serve as stop measures and ways of educating the public. And none would occur under a Democrat. None.

They are also examples of people being faithful to their calling. You are falling for the disinformation of the other side; Bennett’s distorted quote being as John said but one example.

Ask yourselve who benefits from a stance
that essentially makes the perfect the
enemy of the better. It is not the unborn.

Come back. Claiming their is no difference between the 2 parties on this issue is exactly what the pro-abortion side wants you to believe. Come back and fight for life. Not against your less than sterling allies.

Kevin, the only difference between the democratic and republican parties on the issue of abortion is that most political pro-lifers are delusional house slaves and lackeys of the republicans.  You have, for a rather typical example, Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life who advocates voting for pro-abort republicans over pro-life demos so that committee chairs stay in republican hands.  You have Catholic neo-con magazines like First Things which support Bush because of their support for Israel and the war in Iraq and then admit after the election that Bush really cannot be expected to do anything about abortion.  Fighting for life does not mean fighting for the republicans.  One party being able to take the pro-life vote for granted simply because of rhetoric means that neither party has any incentive to actually do anything pro-life.

@Kevin

It is not nihilism to recognize that the political realm
is the wrong arena.  The one place to fight is civil
society. Historically that has been the Church’s
strenght.

REmember that each time the Chruch engaged in politics
it was corrupted, while when it built
institutions from the ground up it prevailed. Did Sain
Vincent of Paul waste time going after courtiers and
ministers to pass good laws? Or did he work on individula
consciences and created the bodies, answering to him that
would carry out the work that needed doing? Could he
have accomplished all that he did by political action?

There is one thing to be sure about politicians. Even
the best of them will disappoint you. So, do not depend
on them, as the psalmist advice.

Adriana,
You sound like you suffer from the “jilted lover”
syndrome that comes with the realization that
power-seekers are not saints. One does not have to
trust politicians. Simply influence them to advance
your agenda.

Protection of the weak, defenseless and vulnerable
historically has required the law to weigh in
their side.  Legislation cultivates, engenders and
enforces justice. The law both reflects and shapes
a society’s sense of justice.

By all means we are called to be active in the private
sphere;volunteering at crisis pregnancy center,
teaching the young in C.C.D. classes, vigils in front
of clinics, and a host of other ways, But to forsake
public policy is exactly what abortion industry wants
you to do. Don’t fall for it!

Kirk,
Father Pavone is a “lackey” who encourages votes for
pro-abortion Republicans? re you referring to the Spector
debacle? If he did endorse Spector he made a strategic
decision that was the wrong one. However to dismiss
the man who has doen so much to energize the people in
the pews and to do it so insolently, says more about
you than him.

A greater sense of charity might be helpful to you.
Absent that you will likely be an ineffective witness
for the Gospel of Life.

@Kevin

Another consideration is that too many pro-life
political activities are marked with extreme naivete
and unwillingess to face certain facts. In other
words, being potentially useful idiots.

I am reminded of the comment that the Peronist Arturo
Jauretche made to the ultra catholics in Argentina and
their political activity

“You supported the overthrow of Irigoyen and helped
bring in the conservatives. They thanked you with a
swift kick in the rear. You supported Peron and he
was with you until he realized you were “piantavotos”
(vote chasers) and got rid of you. You now support the
overthrow of Peron and help these guys, who also are
going to get rid of you. The first time, you were
young, inexperienced men. The second time, you were
grown men. Now you are old men. The one thing that does
not change is that you are a****les.”

Playing politics is not a question only of principles,
but of skill, and too many lack it.

Adriana,
“...politics is not a question only of principles,
but of skill, and too many lack it.”

True, but that doesn’t mean we don’t try. Remember, we
are called to be faithful; giving witness,
speaking truth to power and influencing public policy.

Better to be an amatuer than a deserter.

Boy George W, sure does like the Jews. Bolton, Greenspan, Scooter Libby, Andy Card, Chernoff,etc, and now this guy.

Pablo,
The Aryans are at another site.

“Remember, we are called to be faithful; giving witness,
speaking truth to power and influencing public policy.

Better to be an amatuer than a deserter.”

There’s more than one way to give witness, speak truth to power, and be faithful.  Or was the patron saint of Europe also a deserter?

I agree with Scott’s intuition, that what this
nomination signifies is W’s attempt to create a
transition to a Giuliani-administration. Bush already
had a socially liberal attorney general in Gonzalez,
and what Mukasey, who seems to be in the Lieberman
mold, represents is a personal and familial
association with Bush’s Republican successor, if the
Republicans pull out the next presidential race. For
those who may be laboring under a misapprehension, I
should point out that Giuliani is the real deal. As
a hardline Zionist, global democrat, and supporter
of gay rights and open borders, Rudy is a true
moderate conservative, in the spirit of Pod, David
Brooks and the Wall Street Journal. This is where the
establishment conservative movement is going under its
current leadership.

“There’s more than one way to give witness, speak
truth to power, and be faithful.”

O.k., does it go beyond attacking imperfect allies?

“Or was the patron saint of Europe also a deserter?”
I hope we are not in the same circumstances as
Benedict. Is that your argument?

“...W’s attempt to create a transition to a
Giuliani-administration.”

Agreed. If they succeed it will be 3rd party time.
And all the upheaval that entails. May something good
and noble rise in opposition.

“O.k., does it go beyond attacking imperfect allies?”

Absolutely.  Start reading Chronicles, and you’ll learn how.

“I hope we are not in the same circumstances as Benedict. Is that your argument?”

The circumstances are increasingly similar.

“Absolutely.  Start reading Chronicles, and you’ll learn how.”

Maybe. I’m reading Fleming’s “The Morality of Everyday Life” and loving it!

“The circumstances are increasingly
similar.”
Not there...yet, but may explain the quietist aspect of your commentary. Keep the moat lowered for the rest of us.

@Kevin

you did not meditate enough on the comment that Jauretche
made. The point was that his interlocutor had shown
himself to be a prize sucker.

Now, the worst thing you can do is get into politics
when those in charge have you pegged as someone who
buys the Brooklin Bridge on a regular basis. What, go
with demands while wearing the equivalent “We enjoy
being ripped off” T-shirt?

Unless you are willing to flex muscle and say “Either you
go to bat for this in the next two months, or we
stay out of it the next election” and DO IT, you won’t
get anywhere.

Adriana,
You may be new to the cause and can’t appreciate what has been accomplished. In
‘73 when Roe vs Wade was passed very few
people would have said the backlash would be this strong, for this long.

Look we’ve flexed our muscles aplenty. Do you think Ronald Reagan was a deep-down,
true blue pro-lifer? Bush Sr, Bush Jr, Romney? I don’t. But they knew they were cooked without us and had to deliver on
some items. 

Should the GOP nominate Giuliani we will
go elsewhere. Just be prepared for some very dark days. I just hope when they come your not telling us to retreat behind the walls of the abbey when they come.

This battle is going to be waged for a long time.

@Kevin

Hardly retreat behind the walls of the abbey. You noticed
that I mentioned St. Vincent of Paul, who got nuns out
of the cloister and on the streets where they could do
most good.

But the streets are not the halls of power, do not forget

Adriana,
Nice touch on St, Vinny, Today is his Feast
Day.
Sursum corda.

Sursum corda, indeed.