tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3709087743016851805.post238901886747365442..comments2023-12-14T21:13:46.857-06:00Comments on Tom Roeser's Blog: Personal Asides: What Happened to Walter Hamilton?...Terrys Trivia
Answered One Sentence Judgments.Jake Parrillohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11195261008177966339noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3709087743016851805.post-88593788329611339972007-03-29T09:08:49.000-05:002007-03-29T09:08:49.000-05:00Dennis, your response would make more sense if I h...Dennis, your response would make more sense if I had endorsed Giuliani for the nomination, which I didn't. Presently, I'm leaning toward Romney.<br><br>Frankly, I don't see the comparison between what I or Tom said and the "seamless garment" theory. After all, we are not placing some other goal ahead of ending legalized abortion. The issue is over what strategy will best achieve the same goal.<br><br>Accordingly, electing pro-life leaders is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. I am less interested in the ritual purity of electing leaders with the right positions than I am in actually getting the laws changed to secure legal protection for unborn life.<br><br>Is this giving away the store?WPDnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3709087743016851805.post-42140442220390565912007-03-28T15:50:43.000-05:002007-03-28T15:50:43.000-05:00WPD,With respect, EVERYTHING does not hinge on SC...WPD,<br><br>With respect, EVERYTHING does not hinge on SCOTUS appointments. Even if it did, what you offer is still a "seamless garment" argument: yes, Rudy openly and unapologetically supports legal abortion, won't commit even in principle to overturning R v W, offers at most "strict constructionist judges." These and his other "good policies" permit Catholics to vote for him despite his position on abortion. We don't like it when liberal Catholics say one can ignore a pro-abort politician's stand on abortion because he favors some other pro-life, good, policy. Why does Rudy get a pass and they do not?<br><br>This is called proportionalism. Your and Tom's reasoning is exactly that of Richard McCormick and the other "consequentialists" condemned by John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor--the notion that some other good goal permits one to overlook an intrinsically evil act.<br><br>And, in the long run, it's not even good political strategery. The "moderate," pro-abort Blue Blood, Combine-Republicans have taken pro-life votes for granted for decades, reasoning that "they'll still vote for us because the Democrat alternative is worse." With Rudy they are pushing the envelope, testing to see just how far that strategy can go before the pro-lifers say, "enough already." I can imagine the pro-abort Blue Blood Republicans chuckling in the back rooms: you see, those schlubs will even vote for an outspoken and unrepentant, unyielding pro-abort if we can scare them enough with The Alternative. In the future we won't even have to bother with the window-dressing, half-hearted effort to be "pro-life." We can be straight out pro-aborts and they'll swallow hard, hold their noses, and pull the lever.<br><br>It's like a parent who says, "cross over this line and you'll get your bottom warmed." The child crosses the line. The parent backs off and draws a new line, "this time I really mean it." The child tests her, she caves, but draws a new line, "This time, I really, really, really mean it."<br><br>I'm asking, as a matter of pro-life strategy, what happens when we draw a line (the condition Tom set: Rudy has to convert to pro-life before we pro-lifers can support him), Rudy crosses it, and then we decide we can support him anyway. One does not have to be too smart to assume that none of the lines pro-lifers draw really matter.<br><br>At that point, strategically, the pro-life game is up.<br><br>Don't give away the store, WPD.Dennis Martinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3709087743016851805.post-52780344665721844492007-03-28T15:35:37.000-05:002007-03-28T15:35:37.000-05:00Tom, if you would read my comment carefully you wi...Tom, if you would read my comment carefully you will note that I did not say you endorsed Giuliani. I made an argument. Sepulchral, finger-wagging, Old Testament prophet language, last I checked, comes under ad hominem rather than engaging substance.<br><br>Tom, originally you said you could support Giuliani only if he changed to pro-life. Now you are prepared to support him despite his reassertion and insistence that he will not change. You've moved the goalposts, closer to him. If I were Rudy, I'd say, "hmmmmm," I can get the prolifers to support me and I don't have to concede anything, really, to them.<br><br>Just from the angle of political strategery, Tom, that seems to me like a raw deal. But then what do I know about politics? I'm just a sepulchral Old Testament prophet.<br><br>All I ask is that you take the argument seriously. Haven't you abandoned your original condition? Exactly how does your seamless garment approach differ from the liberal Catholics' seamless garment approach?Dennis Martinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3709087743016851805.post-68531094981352065682007-03-28T11:38:42.000-05:002007-03-28T11:38:42.000-05:00Dig the crazy wallpaper in the White House bowling...Dig the crazy wallpaper in the White House bowling alley!Freidrich Marchnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3709087743016851805.post-78740195354913570392007-03-28T03:54:32.000-05:002007-03-28T03:54:32.000-05:00Regarding Fitzgerald: Instead of One is constrain...Regarding Fitzgerald: Instead of One is constrained to ask, shouldnt you instead say, One can only conclude?<br><br>Regarding Dennis & Rudy: Any talk about the pitfalls of moving to the center or lesser of two evils tactics treats social issues as if their dynamics were no different from those of other issues.<br><br>With social issues everything hinges upon capturing a majority on the Supreme Court. Until then, we are frozen still on some social issues (e.g., abortion); and on others, we can expect the Supreme Court to be like Forrest Gumps box of chocolates you never know what youre going to get next.<br><br>Hence, we should be willing to make practically any compromise to achieve this goal, but should permit no compromise on this particular goal.<br><br>In other words, any of the present GOP frontrunners (including Rudy) would be worthy of support IF we can be confident 1) that he can win and 2) that he can be counted upon to appoint conservative justices to the Supreme Court. However, if a future Republican president who appoints another David Souter to the Supreme Court deserves to be made a one-term president and the more humiliating the defeat, the better.WPDnoreply@blogger.com