Republicans Looking for a Pro-Life Candidate

by Mike on January 23, 2007

in Politics

The annual March for Life drew tens of thousands to Washington yesterday in protest of the Supreme Court’s horrendous decision in Roe v. Wade. Because the March was not in support of a liberal cause, Washington was spared from being trashed.

Judicial activism is one of our favorite targets on this site. Usually our objections are based on our respect for the Constitution and our recognition of the separation of powers within our Constitutional system. Since the Constitution is clear that each branch of government has its own role and since the Constitution has its own amendment mechanism, it is not for courts to rewrite the Constitution according to their own warped vision of what constitutes a civil right.

Although it is a travesty whenever courts overstep their bounds, the decision in Roe damaged more than our Constitutional framework. The result of their judicial fiat was the creation of a “civil right” which led to the extermination of 36 to 39 million innocent lives. The March for Life is an annual event designed to draw attention to this travesty and help create a society in which the unborn are protected by law.

The pro life movement has made great strides during the presidency of Bush the Younger. It appears that we have two new Supreme Court Justices who will require the left to implement their radical agenda through the ballot box rather than a dishonest rewriting of the Constitution. Since these Judges actually apply our Constitution which does not require states to permit the murder of unborn children, I’m calling them pro-life. However, we need one or two more Justices before Roe can join Dred Scott and Plessey in the Supreme Court Hall of Shame. This is where the next election becomes important.

The pro-life issue is one of if not the most important issue in a Republican primary. At this point, Sam Brownback and Duncan Hunter are the most credible pro-life candidates. Brownback was elected to the Senate in 1996, defeating a pro-choice incumbent Senator in the Republican primary. Once in the Senate, he built a solidly pro-life voting record while also stepping up as a vocal supporter of the unborn. Duncan Hunter can also claim a solid pro-life voting record. By attending yesterday’s March for Life, both candidates have reinforced their pro-life records.

Brownback and Hunter were the only presidential candidates to attend yesterday’s march. Given the GOP front-runners’ past indifference to the pro-life issue, one has to wonder if they are inviting a dark horse into the race.

{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }

Ryan January 23, 2007 at 3:50 pm

The abortion issue is critically important when selecting Supreme Court nominees. It’s not as if they need to agree or disagree with the immorality of abortion, but they need to, as Mike indicates, read the text of the Constitution rather than reading INTO the text of the Constitution. Hunter seems cool, but Brownback seems to be a wuss on defense, towing the Democratic line on Iraq at the moment. Defense happens to be my biggest issue: followed by taxes and culture closely behind. A “let’s win” attitude on defense, pro-life, tax-cutting machine would be my personal dream candidate. However, Ronald Reagan has not shown up just yet, and Hunter and Brownback need a lot of air-time and money to get in that position at the moment.


Mike January 23, 2007 at 4:03 pm

In Brownback’s defense though, his opposition to the “troop surge” seems to be an honest disagreement within the framework of winning the war. I have no idea whether the troop surge is a good thing or not. My disagreement with troop surge opponents generally is that most of them also have no idea about the logistics of it. The Dems and Collins Republicans are opposing the surge just because Bush supports it. Brownback isn’t part of that camp. He’s on our side.

Now, as for his support of McCain-Feingold, that’s a different story.


Sal January 29, 2007 at 7:54 am

I saw Brownback on Fox News Sunday this weekend, and frankly on issues other than Life, he appeared to be a weak-kneed liberal. He trashed the President’s troop surge, and then recommended implementing recommendations of the Iraq Surrender Group. He kept talking about “diplomacy”, and “talking” and “political solution”. He sounded more like San Fran Nan than a good Conservative. As much as I want a good pro-life candidate in the White House, I also don’t want someone who is going to lead us to the defeat of the United States, and what I saw of Brownback yesterday did not inspire me with confidence.


Mike January 29, 2007 at 3:32 pm

San Fran Nan is a little uncalled for. Unlike her, Brownback’s disagreements are merely tactical. He is a guy who is exploring all options within the framework of winning the war. I don’t know if the surge is the best idea or not. Military tactics are not my expertise.

San Fran Nan takes positions merely because they are the opposite of what Bush wants. When a surge wasn’t being discussed, she was for it. Now that it is, she’s against it. No principles. Opposing a surge doesn’t prevent one from being a true conservative. Otherwise, Charles Krauthammer is also “weak-kneed liberal.”

At this moment, it appears the surge is working. Many terrorists have fled north. But the surge itself is not the test of true conservatism. Commitment to victory and our troops is. Brownback is committed. That’s not to say I support his candidacy, but “weak-kneed libral” and San Fran Nan he is not.


Leave a Comment

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Previous post:

Next post: