big tent bogeymen

By Diogenes (articles ) | Jul 04, 2005

An LA Times lapdog shakes a bogey at Republicans in an attempt to spook them away from an anti-Roe Supreme Court nominee. He found some willing shills.

"Smart strategists inside the party don't want the status quo [on legalized abortion] changed," said Tony Fabrizio, chief pollster for the 1996 Republican presidential campaign of Bob Dole. "This may cause Republicans like Arnold Schwarzenegger -- who are strongly committed to being pro-choice -- to flip or to push for a third-party movement," he added. "If they did outlaw it, it would ultimately turn the Republican Party into a theocratic-based party rather than an ideological party, and the party would necessarily start shedding people."

Note the logic. Regardless of the various reasons -- legal, philosophical, political, theological -- for opposing Roe v. Wade, an exodus from the Republican Party on the part of those who find abortion a non-negotiable dogma will leave only theocrats behind. By this reasoning, not to be a pro-abortion absolutist is to be a fanatic. And that's the kind of perspicacity that got Bob Dole to where he is today.

Sound Off! supporters weigh in.

All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!

Show 3 Comments? (Hidden)Hide Comments
  • Posted by: - Jul. 06, 2005 3:00 PM ET USA

    Instead of asking "What Would Jesus Do?", why not ask, "What DID Jesus Do?"? Didn't He sacrifice His own life to keep others from stoning a certain adulteress? Shouldn't we sacrifice our lives to keep others from murdering innocent babies? Are 40 Million (I don't know the actual number) innocents worth a few thousand people that have had their chance to follow Christ? I think so. If a civil war is what it takes, it is STILL justifiable.

  • Posted by: - Jul. 05, 2005 8:02 AM ET USA

    Rowe v. Wade may be "settled law," hUMPTY, but it's settled WRONG law, since it permits the killing of a defenseless unborn human being, no matter what "benefits" one might see in allowing a woman to have the "freedom of choice." Arguing that outlawing abortions would encourage "back-alley" abortions which would then endanger the lives of women is nothing but a straw man. If abortion poses risks to a woman, don't do it! WWJD indeed! I doubt He would approve of abortion.

  • Posted by: - Jul. 05, 2005 6:04 AM ET USA

    It took a Civil War to overturn a decision, Dred Scott, by a Catholic Chief Justice Slaveowner. Roe v. Wade is settled law. Do we need another Civil War to return to back door criminal abortions which kill both the woman and the fetus? WWJD?