Burris to Leave GOP.
From Delaware Politics:
If Michael Steele gets forced out of his role as GOP Chairman by the pro-life movement as a result of his remarks, which, I’ll remind people, were pro-life remarks, then I’m leaving the party. And I’m pro life.
I am not sure how they were pro-life remarks. Steele himself may be pro-life, but his remarks definitely offered quarter to those who think abortion is a choice. An individual choice that only women can make. The Pro-Life movement, and the Republican Party, has long sought to give no quarter to those on the pro-choice side. Indeed, if you were pro-choice, you were a murderer. You were killing babies. That has been the mantra of the Pro-Life movement, and Republicans seeking the votes of the Pro-Life movement, since at least 1980. It did not matter that Roe v. Wade was the law of the land and that women did in fact have the ability to make the choice. According to the Pro-Life movement, they shouldn’t be allowed to make that choice, even in cases of rape and incest, and even in cases where the woman’s life was in danger. For if a woman chooses abortion, she and all involved in the decision, including the doctors and nurses, were immoral.
There is no middle ground there. That is the belief of the Pro-Life Movement. While Dave says he is Pro-Life as well, he now believes that the Pro-Life Movement has too much power over the Republican Party and should be focused on reducing abortion rather than fervently condemning people who chose it and acting like a movement. I have news for Dave. The Pro-Life movement has NEVER been focused on reducing abortions. For focusing on reducing abortions assumes the notion that abortion can be chosen as an option, and you are trying to persuade another option. Only the Pro-Choice side advocates reduction of abortion. The only presidential administration that had reduction as a policy was the Clinton administration, which was the safe, legal, and rare policy.
More news for Dave: I am anti-abortion. If the decision ever fell to me (however unlikely that would be since I am a man), I would never choose it. I believe adoption is a much better way to go, since there are many couples out there that are childless and can give a baby a good home. My religious beliefs also inform my stance, since I am Catholic, and do believe that life begins at conception. But, I also understand that abortion cannot be outlawed, for there are many situations where it may be the only choice. And I also feel, since my own position is based on religious belief, that I would be enforcing that belief on others that may not share it, the belief that life begins at conception. So, I consider myself pro-choice, because it should be a choice. People should be free to choose the option of abortion, and the moral consequences of that decision will fall on the man and woman choosing the abortion and their God.
Abortion is a gray issue to me. The Pro-Life Movement sees it as a black and white issue. If it truly is a gray issue for Dave, then yes, he should consider leaving his Party, for his Party has really left him. The Pro-Life Movement is pretty much indistinguishable from the GOP.
And if he is serious about leaving the party if Steele goes, then I promise you, Burris will be leaving the GOP for Steele is a dead man walking. The job of the national committee chair is not to be advocating policy. It’s mostly an operational position; nuts and bolts of raising money, helping state parties and getting Republicans elected. That is what Howard Dean really did. He left policy pronouncements to Pelosi and Reid. Sure, there is a public relations side to it where the chair will be asked about policy positions, but when that occurs, the chair better be damn sure he represents the views of the party he chairs. Or else there will be an uproar, as we have here. Steele, when he speaks, should be reinforcing the message of the elected leaders of his party. He should be taking his cue from Boehner and McConnell, Cantor and Kyl. He should not be prattling on about reproductive rights and the fact that homosexuality is not a choice (the other tidbit in the interview dooms him as well).
Before this week, Steele was already the target of a possible no-confidence vote. Steele already lost his battle with Rush Limbaugh for control of the Republican party. Now he’s gone on to champion two positions that’s not only against the party platform, but opposite to the very essence of conservative evangelical politics. That all but ensures that along with losing in his battle for control of the Republican party, he’ll also lose his position with the Republican National Committee.
And thus, Dave will have to leave the GOP.
Here is the thing, I will bet real money that Dave never does it.
He has left himself some wiggle room with “If Michael Steele gets forced out of his role as GOP Chairman by the pro-life movement as a result of his remarks . . . . ”
So for Dave to leave, it would take the following to occur:
1. The pro-life movement would have to do it
2. It would be because of his abortion statement
He’s not leaving.
True. How it will happen is that there will be a no confidence vote at the end of the month, and he will be removed due to incompetence. Hell, if the GOP loses the special in NY-20, that alone will give the party cover.
So this was an empty proclamation by Burris. He will never leave the GOP. Being a Republican is too much of his identity.
Nemski is right. It’s an overly qualified statement.
But really, did it take this long to sort out the fact that the GOP has morphed into a dogmatic, religious party that requires conformity on ALL cultural issues?
How would McCain have faired if a reasonable “pro-choice” Repub was selected as VP (I’m thinking Ridge or Rudy or Bloomberg).
I believe that Dave is a man of his word, and will leave the party.
DD, my views on abortion match yours, pro-life, anti-abortion, pro-adoption, pro-choice.
That said, there is more to the pro-life political folks than just being anti-abortion/anti-choice. They are also against euthanasia, they are pro-death penalty, and they are war hawks, thus rationally inconsistent and indefensible!
Pro-lifers will claim Steele’s exit as a victory. Not only that, Steele’s abortion comments give excellent cover for racists in the party – “I’m not racist, I’m pro-life!”
When the no-confidence vote comes, I predict an upswelling of outrage among Southern Republicans against Steele’s abortion comments.
Remember when it leaked that Ridge and Lieberman were being considered. Talk of voting third party filled the air. Talk of staying home was an option. If McCain had chosen Lieberman (and Lieberman was his first choice), I think McCain would have lost at least half of his support. Barr or the Constitution Party candidate would have received 10% of the vote. Obama would have won nearly all the states due to the divide. And the GOP knew that and put the kibosh on Lieberman.
If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a God-given right.
That is probably true Reis.
There might actually be an associated religious ceremony.
It is impossible to imagine a more hollow threat than Dave’s threat to leave the GOP.
Perry wrote that Dave ‘is a man of his word, and will leave the party.”
Just like he’s proven to be a man of his word the five separate times he announced that he’s quitting blogging.
Breaking up over abortion, huh? That’s a laugh!
What the right doesn’t understand is that pro-choice, for most in the center and the left, is purely a pragmatic decision. Most understand that banning it won’t reduce the number of procedures; it will take it underground, away from regulation and the control of qualified personnel, eventually making it less safe for all involved.
Yeah, party schism over some cultural matter… well, they made their bed… now lie in it.
You nailed it, Perry. Look at the website of the American Life League (www.all.org). It says right there “from conception to natural death”. What’s natural about lethal injection? But they don’t take on capital punishment. Neither do local organizations like A Rose and a Prayer or Delaware Right to Life. The only lives they really care about are the unborn ones.
Like Del Dem and Perry, I am anti-abortion, but I have a hard time telling anyone else they should not have it as an option. Would I want to lose my wife and have my kids grow up without a mother because her life was legitimately threatened by a pregnancy or birth? Fortunately, that is a question I have not had to answer, but I have thought about it. It is one reason I have accepted that abortion should be a legal option, although I think we should work to eliminate the need for it.
The pro-life no-exception, no-exception stance has done more damage than they realize.
Ciderhouse Rules
Should have read no-exception, no-compromise.
I am pro-choice. It comes down to me as whether you think a woman can make her own decisions, and whether you think she can’t. There is no gray area there for me.
If the so-called pro-life movement was really interested in reducing the need for abortions they would support increasing contraception access. Instead, it was one of the first items that got taken out of the stimulus package.
I don’t like the “life begins at conception” argument. For one, it is not historically the position of many religions. “The quickening” (first movement) and viability have been the traditional means of when life begins. The problem I have with conception as the starting point is that it gives all the power to the sperm. Pregnancy is actually a cascade of events – from ovulation, conception, implantation, formation of the umbilical cord, etc. all of which are equally important to maintaining a pregnancy.
Dave,
I love Steele, he is perfect for your party. Please do all you can to keep him as your Chairman and Limbaugh your dear leader.
And whatever you decide, please don’t become a dem. We have enough blue dogs, thank you.
Just like he’s proven to be a man of his word the five separate times he announced that he’s quitting blogging.
Are you talking about Dave or Jason?
C’mon…that was funny!
Here’s the odd thing with pro-choice and pro-life, in general. There are obviously individual exceptions, but not the majority.
Pro-choice: abortion-OK, death penalty-bad
Pro-life: abortion-bad, death-penalty-OK
😯
Pssssst – anybody surrounded yet?
The Delaware Republican party is already in shambles. Also Dave has plenty of enemies within his own party, any of you think about he may just be using the National party implosion as cover for his own ass?
How is it odd to value innocent life. The death penalty is about valuing innocent life over murders. Abortion is about devaluing innocent life for money. If government exists to protect the innocent not the guilty, than how would it be odd to oppose murder at every level and stand for justice?
He acts like if he leaves it matters. What is Burris, Rush now?
besides, when he leaves where is he going to go?
wait a minute,
it’s a lot of ass to cover
:rimshot:
Abortion is about devaluing innocent life for money
lmao
Smitty,
I think the difference is the care for already living people. That’s why we’re pro-choice, we care about the already-living woman. I think that fits with anti-death penalty and anti-war.
Oh, I get it, UI. It’s still an odd connection, tho.
On a personal level, I am where DD is, I don’t think it’s a good choice, but it is a choice. I’ve made that known before, as well as on my old blog smallwonderings.
It is an interesting correlation (or anti-), though. To express it in a way like a friend of mine does often:
FWIW, UI (and anyone else curious), that post I mentioned is here. It was fun going through that blog again. Phew. Good times, good times.
My point, David, was that the pro-life groups advertise that they protect life from conception to natural death, when in fact they do not. If they are in favor of capital punishment, fine, but perhaps they should change their slogans.
And what of the innocent who have been convicted and executed? Shall we assign the death penalty to the justice system that killed them?
Wingnut logic: The goverment can’t do anything right, except figure out who’s guilty and deserves to die. When they ban assault weapons, it’s an attack on civil rights, but when they put you on death row rather than life in prison without parole, it’s because protecting innocent life is important.
Death penalty vs. life in prison? “Hey, he might break out of prison and kill someone!”
Assault weapons: “Hey, we might need to kill somebody!”