Bush, Benedict and Babies
Here's an NCR article written by a friend of mine, Dr. Paul Kengor. Excerpt:
In fact, the big story between this president and this Pope — as it was with this president and the last Pope — has been their remarkable unity on the sanctity and dignity of human life.
Neither man majored in math in college, but they easily understand that 1,000 tragic deaths per year among enlisted soldiers in an American military operation is a smaller number than 1 million deaths per year among innocent babies in American abortion businesses.
Then Dr. Kengor goes on to remind us of the awkwardness of the former President's meeting with John Paul II and that President Bush banned all US funding of international abortion groups on his first day in office. He concludes:
The United States of America is the world’s most influential nation. The Catholic Church is the world’s most influential church. Abortion is the world’s most destructive force, and one that must be stopped, not encouraged — the leader of America and the Catholic Church, mercifully, agree on that.
Update: Dr. Kengor is currently on Michael Medved's show. Check it out.
If Bush cares so much about the unborn, why the hell hasn't he done more to protect them?
ReplyDeleteAnd don't just give me the Roberts and Alito line. Remember that after Roberts he tried to appoint his flunky Harriet Miers, not exactly an anti-Roe firebrand, to say the least.
Pro-life people should stop making apologies for Bush and the GOP, and start holding them accountable.
Andy, thanks for pulling me back down from my euphoric, effervescent enthusiasm — my ecstatic adulation of Bush in order to remind me of the timeless truth that the glass is indeed half empty.
ReplyDeleteI will attempt to be more of a "firebrand" in the future. I am currently on my way out the door to go to my weekly scowling lesson and I promise to purchase a pitchfork on the way home.
Yawn... defensiveness and sarcasm functioning as (non)argument-- what I've (sadly) come to expect from you, Pauli.
ReplyDeleteIt would be nice if you could actually engage, rather than deflect, and uncharitably caricature, challenges to your assertions every once in a while.
This site has become quite intellectually insular and dull.
Andy, engage what exactly?
ReplyDeleteI think Bush was wrong to appoint Harriet Miers, but it's a better argument against his judgment as a leader that against his pro-life cred. It would have been similarly bad judgment to appoint a so-called "anti-Roe firebrand".
There. How's that?
Engage "what exactly"? How about my initial post? Specifically my opening question. I'll repeat it here for your convenience: If Bush cares so much about the unborn, why the hell hasn't he done more to protect them?
ReplyDeleteThe Miers appointment shows Bush's lack of leadership AND his lack of pro-life cred. It's not an either-or proposition.
This is simply an example of our half-empty/half-full temperament differences showing, Andy. If I was praising Bush to the heavens as a knight in shining armor then your accusations might make more sense. But what about just pointing out what he did do? It's a given that no one is perfect, least of all politicians -- other than Ron Paul, of course. I could be doing more good in the world and so could you.
ReplyDeletekeep going andy. tell everyone how lame pauli is. and don't forget to let us know when you're yawning, because it conjures up some really delightful imagery.
ReplyDeleteMaybe I'll start telling everyone when I'm yawning, scratching, burping, grunting or clearing my throat. That ought to add some color to this boring ol' washed-up blog.
ReplyDeleteThere is some dissonance between asserting the dignity of every human life, and dismissing the loss of US soldiers (and not even mentioning the greater loss of Irawi lives) because they are smaller in number.
ReplyDeleteThere were a million abortions a year when Bush took office. There are a million abortions now.
There were not soldiers getting killed overseas when Bush took office. They are getting killed now.
Torture was not part of our interrogation techniques when Bush took office; it is now.
Indeed, Bush has faced a more challenging global picture than existed, but he has moved us toward greater toleration of affronts to human life in general.
So, yeah, I'm not surprised that the Holy Father's view of our president is less than rousing.
--
Catholic voters are often asked to place abortion and life issues above all else in making voting decisions. I'm quite sure we'll hear the same arguments again this cycle. It is not too much to ask that the officials elected this way also make it a priority.
Bush has not done that. He has exercised zero leadership on this issue. He has not taken chances. He has had other priorities.
He has done just enough that people will respond to this about how he did meaningless gestures.
In short, Bush has not slowed the progress of abortion, and has in general moved the country's culture away from reception of the pro-life message.
I'd say half-empty is too rosy an assessment.
In my last post, I was about to write: "Cue Kathleen with a caustic retort." Things are so damn predictable around here.
ReplyDeleteLook Pauli: you posted this article by your friend, which glowingly depicts Bush as a champion of the unborn on par with Pope Benedict XVI. You didn't take issue with this (in my mind, ridiculous) depiction of our prez. So it wasn't unreasonble to conclude that you agreed with your friend about Bush being a pro-life stalwart. Hence my pointedly worded first post.
To imply afterwards (as you did in your second post) that, "of course Bush isn't really THAT great on abortion-- I never said he was..." is extremely disengenuous. If you felt that way in the first place, why did you link to your friend's article, which puts Bush on par with the Holy Father, without attaching a caveat?
Please try to understand what I've said before making a smart-ass, defensive, or sarcastic reply. If you would like me to clarify, I will.
By the way, good post John. I'd say the glass is about 1/8 full, at best.
ReplyDelete"things are so damn predictable around here"
ReplyDeleteLOL!
Yeah pauli. if the president is not a good catholic then how dare you say anything good about him. YOU SUCK!
ReplyDeleteAndy:
ReplyDeleteEvery time somebody says something even remotely nice about the President of the United States, your paelocon ears go all aflutter, and yet you have the temerity to call other people predictable. I didn't even click on the comments, but I saw there were 13 and I said, "Aha! Andy's objected." Sure enough.
And if you had bothered to read the article, you would have noted some of the of things that GWB has done to advance the pro-life cause. It was he who cutoff funds for overseas clinics who provided funds for abortion - a fact my leftist ex-girlfriend consistently bitched about. There was the pba ban, the ban on continued federal fundsing of embryonic stem cell research, etc. You can dismiss these all you want, but they are real accomplishments, and certainly about as much as can be expected within a system confined by an absurd 35-year old Supreme Court ruling.
In fact, what more can this President, or any President for that matter do? That's it, I am laying down the gauntlet. For all of those that continuously harp on the President for not doing enough, please inform us all of the specific things that he should have done or that future presidents should do to further advance the pro-life cause.
There were not soldiers getting killed overseas when Bush took office. They are getting killed now.
ReplyDeleteThis is your criteria for judging how one defends the sanctity of life. First of all, this assertions is factually false. More soldiers died in conflict during the Clinton administration than have been killed in Iraq. The criteria should not be how many armed men and women have died, but are they dying for a just cause? That's another debate.
Torture was not part of our interrogation techniques when Bush took office; it is now.
To quote Al Pacino from The Godfather, now who's being naive? In all seriousness, what evidence do you have that torture has been ramped up during the Bush presidency? All of you who pretend that America was some golden and sacred place where nothing bad was ever allowed to happen should read some histories of the Civil War. Not only did the allies at times employ torture, there was that whole thing about rounding up American civilians of Japanese dexcent and putting them in camps. But yeah, Bush is the real modern day Hitler.
In short, Bush has not slowed the progress of abortion, and has in general moved the country's culture away from reception of the pro-life message.
sorry to do this - I know the sentiments expressed on these sorts of images - but, yaaaaaaaaaawn.
Crabby Con-man, you can say something "remotely nice" about Dubya anytime you want and I won't object; I promise.
ReplyDeleteJust don't say he's got pro-life convictions on par with Pope Benedict XVI (like Pauli's friend did in his column). That's just laughable.
By the way, anyone interestd should read Hadley Arkes's article "Bush's Second Chance" available on www.firstthings.com
ReplyDeleteArkes, who is a big supporter of Bush, admits that the president's leadership vis a vis pro-life issues has been deeply disappointing.
there's nothing more depressing than a self-righteous pro-lifer who insists that President is evil because he doesn't end abortion with the stroke of a pen, or "move the culture". brush up on your government 101 andy. the President is not the Supreme Leader. You sound uninformed because you are.
ReplyDeleteRead the Arkes article, Kathleen. See what you think. Think what you want about me, but a fellow like Arkes (being a neocon Bush supporter) is a lot harder to dismiss.
ReplyDeleteAndy:
ReplyDeleteI noticed you offered absolutely no substantive rebuttal. What's the matter? pat Buchanan never write an article you can crib? You are allowed to think for yourself you know. So, once again, I ask you to put forward to the policies that you, as a pro-lifer, think would be more effective in ending abortion or at least in putting a dent in it. Really, maybe Pat Buchanan wrote about it somewhere and you can copy and paste.
Crank-- As I said above, see Hadley Arkes. One of your guys. (Not a Buchananite paleocon by any stretch.) Tell me where he's wrong.
ReplyDeleteI would also add: Bush's budget continues to fund Planned Parenthood. During all of his time in office, he's made no effort remove this funding. He wanted to nominate Miers, and practically needed a gun put to his head before he would do otherwise. To say Miers was unreliable on the pro-life front is putting it mildly. He has seldom, if ever, used the bully pulpit of the presidency to draw attention to the plague of abortion and the spiritual, moral, and physical toll it is exacting on our nation.
Bush is willing to stick his neck out about lots of things, but protecting the unborn isn't one of them. I just don't think it's a matter of much importance to him.
As I said above, see Hadley Arkes.
ReplyDeleteWhat I got is that Bush should have been more vocal in support of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. That's it. He also mentioned the PBA ban, except that subsequently Bush, you know, did something. He appointed two SCOTUS Justices who were the deciding votes in upholding the federal ban (and thus rendering much of Arkes' subsequent analysis fairly moot).
Sorry, but I need a little more than that. Is there anything the President of the United States can do to truly eradicate abortion and make a severe dent in the number performed? Yes, the President ought to use the bully pulpit more often in defending the sanctity of life, but that is not going to end abortion.
So I ask one last time - is there any serious, meaningful thing that this or any President can do to end abortion or get us on the way there?
I agree with several of Arkes's points. Some conservatives would argue that it's a feature rather than a bug that a President doesn't make use of the "bully pulpit" a great deal. "All action no talk" sums up the son of George 41 as well, and possibly for good reason. If Ronald Reagan was the "Great Communicator" then GWB can be called the "not-so-great communicator."
ReplyDeleteI thought immediately of two significant examples of former pro-choice politicians who "grew" and became pro-life, those being Steve Forbes and Mitt Romney. Of course, if you want to go back further, Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush could be cited.
Crank, yes there are at least two things a President can do. He can refuse to fund Planned Parenthood, or allow Medicaid to pay for abortions, and he can refrain from appointing cronies with nonexistent prolife credentials to the Supreme Court.
ReplyDeleteHe can refuse to fund Planned Parenthood,
ReplyDeleteOkay - but he kind of needs Congressional approval on that.
or allow Medicaid to pay for abortions
But the federal government doesn't provide funds for abortions except in the cases of rape and incest. Still bad, but not exactly full federal funding.
he can refrain from appointing cronies with nonexistent prolife credentials to the Supreme Court.
So you're basically still bitching about an error Bush corrected by appointing Samuel Alito. You've basically got nothing and have to stretch to find things to complain about.
I'll grant you the Planned Parenthood funding, but after that, you're not offering me much here. The Hyde Amendment prohibits federal funding of most abortions, and I am sure the rape/incest exception had to be in there to get that passed. The President simply can't decree that the government will not fund Medicaid abortions that are the result of rape and incest.
The caricature of GW Bush as some sort of dictator persists, especially on the paleo right, and yet we have the same people complaining that the President doesn't act like a dictator when it comes to abortion.
He "corrected" the Miers fiasco after practically having a gun put to his head over the matter. He stubbornly stuck with Miers until he pretty much had no choice but to ditch her and nominate Alito instead.
ReplyDeleteGiven that pro-lifers are constantly told to vote Republican for the sake of the life issue as it plays out in the Supreme Court, I'd say Bush's behavior with Miers shows his lack of interest in stopping abortion. It's an afterthought for him, at best.
Given that pro-lifers are constantly told to vote Republican for the sake of the life issue as it plays out in the Supreme Court, I'd say Bush's behavior with Miers shows his lack of interest in stopping abortion. It's an afterthought for him, at best.
ReplyDeleteReally, how? I personally thought the Miers selection was egregious, but I think it showed more about Bush's overemphasis on loyalty over credentials. If you read the Jan Crawford Greenberg book on the Court since 1980, she examined the Miers selection and what she found was that Bush tapped Miers simply because he knew her and figured she would simply vote the right way on most issues. I think it's quite possible and maybe even probable that Miers would have voted to overturn Roe, but she was simply not qualified to be on the Supreme Court.
Moreover, I don't care if he had a gun against his head - he still made the flip. And yet Reagan went through and appointed O'Connor (and later Kennedy, but I can't totally blame him for that since he initially tapped Bork). In the end, Bush's two selections are likely going to be much better - on all fronts - than Reagan's.
Look, I gave Bush as much hell as anyone for the Miers selection. But he did the right thing in the end. And I think he selected Miers because he actually thought he was doing the right thing from the pro-life perspective.
It just seems to me that if Bush had cared about stopping abortion, he would have immediately appointed someone to the Court whom he was sure would vote against it. But he clearly had a different agenda: cronyism.
ReplyDeleteI remember an interview with Fr. Frank Pavone on EWTN, where Pavone (the head of Priests for Life) recalled Bush as a presidential candidate, answering an interviewer's question about where he stood on abortion. "I'm pro-life," Bush said, declining to say anything further. Pavone, who is also a Bush supporter, thought that the lack of elaboration was a tactical error. This struck me as quite naive. Bush didn't elaborate because he didn't WANT to elaborate. He didn't wish to dwell on the matter; he just wanted to send the right signal to pro-lifers ("vote for me") and then move on to something else. I think that this is symptomatic of Bush's attitude towards this issue in general. He successfully used it to get votes, then wanted it to go away.
he would have immediately appointed someone to the Court whom he was sure would vote against it.
ReplyDeleteHe thought he did with Miers. Again, Bush showed lack of judgment, but not lack of commitment to the pro-life cause.