be quiet and take your medicine

By Diogenes (articles ) | May 11, 2007

Add the Wall Street Journal editorial page to the list of conservative voices informing pro-lifer Republicans that they shouldn't insist on a presidential candidate who opposes the slaughter of unborn babies.

Sure, Rudy Giuliani has been maladroit in his handling of the abortion issue, the editorial concedes. Still:

Mr. Giuliani has his strengths and weaknesses, but he shouldn't be disqualified for the nomination because of his views on a single issue that a President can't do much to change other than through the courts.

Since the courts have hijacked the abortion issue, the Journal argues, legislation to protect children is effectively blocked, and only court appointments matter. And since Giuliani says he's appoint strict-constructionist judges-- whatever that means to him-- pro-lifers should be satisifed.

If Mr. Giuliani means what he says, then in practical policy terms as President he could do as much to promote anti-abortion goals as any of the other GOP candidates.

Thus with a blithe sentence the Journal dismisses the executive functions of the government: the executive orders, the federal funding, the military policies, the foreign-aid programs, the UN debates-- all of which are under White House control, and all wrapped up in the abortion issue. It almost makes you wonder whether the Journal is paying attention to the argument. Then you read on...

As a resurgent Democratic Party advances all manner of misguided proposals for the economy, taxes, national security, health care, energy and the environment, voters need Republicans to revive their own reform agenda. An abortion fight will make the party seem irrelevant to the main voter concerns, or captive to its litmus test interests.

The truth is that most American voters don't care very much about capital-gains taxes. But don't expect the Journal to accept a Republican candidate who fails that litmus test.

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 8 Comments? (Hidden)Hide Comments
  • Posted by: - May. 15, 2007 6:08 PM ET USA

    Rudy clarifying his position on Foxnews = as my grandfather used to say, "a day late and a dollar short"

  • Posted by: - May. 14, 2007 11:18 AM ET USA

    Rudy = no way! No compromises on life!

  • Posted by: - May. 12, 2007 10:40 PM ET USA

    If Rudy wins the Republican nomination, I think lots of Republicans and pro-lifers will simpy stay home, giving the election to the Democrats. And I think that is the correct course! If "the lesser of two evils" is a big evil, there's nothing gained by supporting it, and a lot gained by teaching the Republican Party a lesson! Sadly, he has a real chance to win by sweeping the big states like New York and California, even if he loses in the smaller conservative states. Tweedle-Dum vs Tweedle-Dee!

  • Posted by: - May. 12, 2007 8:18 AM ET USA

    We already have 5 anti-abortion Catholics on the Supreme Court making strict constructionist law. What more can a anti-abortion Republication add since, J. Brennan, a Catholic, says that the most important criteria in Constitutional Law is the "#5" {Majority Rules!}. And don't forget that CJ Taney was a Catholic also who created his own brand of law by his dicta in Dred Scott. And it was a Catholic Justice who opposed J.Holmes in the Virginia mandatory sterilization case. Sigh!

  • Posted by: - May. 11, 2007 11:49 PM ET USA

    This Republican has seen the gradual increase of influence of orthodox Catholics within the party and I believe it's to the point where Rudy won't be able to win the nomination. The pro-life cause is gaining momentum in spite of the Democrats takeover of Congress. A Guilani presidency would set us back years.

  • Posted by: - May. 11, 2007 4:29 PM ET USA

    this editorial makes the WSJ seem irrelevant to me

  • Posted by: - May. 11, 2007 3:55 PM ET USA

    None of us should miss that on several occasions when Giuliani has mentioned appointing "strict constructionists" to the Court, he said that such a justice might also determine that Roe v. Wade constitutes an essential precedent that needs to be preserved. In other words, he's changing what a strict constructionist is: it's no longer one who interprets the Constitution strictly, but one who interprets Blackmun's and O'Connor's eisegetical interpretations of the Constitution strictly.

  • Posted by: - May. 11, 2007 9:27 AM ET USA

    We've had the Journal-type Republicans in Illinois who have dragged the Party down to one defeat after another, apparently never learning that conservatism is about the strength of moral values that a candidate offers, not their financial portfolio. As a result of weak Repbulicans who resemble Democrats, IL voters simply elect the real McCoy. If the Republican Party is to thrive, its only hope lies in following a Judeo-Christian compass that places morality before passing social fads.