Republican gubernatorial candidate Chris Christie’s position on abortion is…murky(?) to say the least. He ran as a pro-lifer in the primary against opponent Steve Lonegan. But truthfully, Christie’s been all over the map on this issue.
Christie was pro-choice. But recently he says he’s been pro-life since he first heard his daughter’s heartbeat. Problem is his daughter was born in 1995 and in 1996 he’s quoted by the Bergen Press calling himself pro-choice concerning a question not just about abortion but partial birth abortion.
Christie said he may have been misquoted.
Many people, including Christie’s GOP opponent Steve Lonegan, warned that soon after the primary Christie would tack leftward and become pro-choice once again. Well it’s not there yet but this is certainly a troubling sign. Just two weeks after his primary win, Philly.com reports:
The “Shared Values” section on GOP candidate Chris Christie’s campaign Web site has been removed.
The section contained anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage declarations from Christie, the Republican nominee for governor.
In the section, Christie explained that the sound of his unborn daughter’s heartbeat 14 years ago made him an abortion foe.
Campaign spokesman Bill Stepien said Thursday the section was taken down for technical reasons.
He said the campaign is planning to relaunch the Web site in coming days and was taking down things added to the original site.
Oddly enough, Christie’s contribution page is working just perfectly. Weird, huh?
Who’d a thunk it? A Republican that chats up pro-lifers during the primary and then forgets them in the general election? We’ve never heard of that before.
Look, I don’t think Christie is such a big deal. The problem is that when guys like Christie succeed in the Republican Party it sends a message to the rest of the party that pro-lifers are rubes that can be fooled. And in politics, if something is successful everyone else is going to copy it until it doesn’t work anymore.
June 22, 2009 at 2:31 pm
If pro-lifers vote for Democrats, no matter how pro-abortion they get, instead of for Republicans, for the sole reason that the GOP candidates aren't pro-life enough, then neither party will ever run a pro-life candidate again.
If pro-lifers will vote for an Obama, why should either party run pro-life candidates?
June 22, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Paul,
I do not need to start my own pro-life party. It’s been started by others before me, but pro-lifers are too afraid to leave the comfort and familiarity (no matter how stinky) of the Republican party. As geronimo said, voting is not about choosing someone you think can win. Voting is about supporting the morally upright candidate. We do our part and God does His. If all pro-lifers had supported and voted for Ron Paul (a Republican candidate…) we might be in a different place right now. One “truly pro-life” president could, actually, do quite a lot of good, just as one “truly pro-abortion” president is doing quite a lot of evil right now.
Library boards, park districts, town councils, board of supervisors, etc. etc. are all fine and good, but they don’t have any impact on the issue of abortion. The Republican party doesn’t care at that level. However, if one were to get to a point where one was to run for an office at a level where abortion issues are voted on, the track record of “the powers that be” in the Republican party clearly shows that they will make sure that one didn’t make any waves.
In my previous comment I showed the consistency of the party to undermine and get rid of viable, “mover and shaker” kinds of candidates. My questions are these: How long are pro-lifers going to continue to butt their heads against the brick wall? Is there a point (any point) where enough is enough?
June 22, 2009 at 3:10 pm
"If pro-lifers will vote for an Obama, why should either party run pro-life candidates?"
Why? Because the republicans would want our votes back. They need us to win, which is why they haven't eliminated abortion – once the issue is gone we're less likely to be motivated to vote for them.
Having said that, I do think that not voting when there are no pro-life options is the best way to go, rather than voting for a democrat. Politicians do look at opinion polls, and when republicans see that pro-lifers have left the party because they haven't done jack about the issue, then they are more likely to actually start saving some lives.
In addition, I'm not sure what your concern is since currently neither party is giving us any pro-life candidates to speak of.
And finally, you didn't really address the issue – why would the republican party give us a genuinely pro-life candidate when they know by simply giving us lip service and token actions they can count on our votes and get away with it? To put it economically, they have a monopoly on the abortion issue, and unless we boycott, there will be no reason for them to have the "consumers" interest (ours) in mind.
June 22, 2009 at 4:34 pm
"And who do you have, not a Republican or Democrat, who has a real chance of being elected?"
I don't vote for a candidate based on their "chance of being elected." I vote my conscience, I vote for the candidate I want to see in office.
I know it's kind of a trite example, but watch any awards show on TV and you'll see conscientious voters. At the Academy Awards, the members of the Academy vote for the movie, actor, actress director, etc., who they think was the best. Sure, the media talks about the "front-runners" but they don't always win. A few years ago, everyone thought that Brokeback Mountain had Best Picture in the bag, almost from the moment it was nominated. Who would have thought that Crash had that much of a "chance"?
The members of the Academy obviously did not vote for the one that was most likely to win, they voted for the one they wanted to win.
I can't believe I'm saying this, but let's take a small lesson from Hollywood.
June 24, 2009 at 7:36 pm
And the Republican Party knows this – that is why they will continue to speak the minimum pro-life talk necessary to get the rube vote, but then will do absolutely nothing of substance to end abortion once they are in office.?
geronimo's argument perhaps held water in the 1980s and 1990s. And we should always vote our conscience even if that means voting for a 3rd party.
But in today's climate I would repeat my earlier comments that there's more at stake now than just ending legalized abortion–the freedom of the Church itself is in peril. And to this end, yes I trust most Republicans (even the lame wishy-washy sorta pro-life ones) over most Democrats any day because at least Republicans WILL uphold conscience clauses, Republicans WILL protect churches that want to uphold their teachings in their hiring practices and Republicans ARE much more likely to put judges on the bench that will respect the freedom and rights of churches and parents.
And I really don't care if a Republican doesn't campaign on my social issues, as long as I can count on him/her to protect me when the vote comes up.
Liberals get this–why don't conservatives?
Perhaps we have to lose even more to get it.