As an organization, LTI cannot and will not officially endorse candidates for public office. Thus, what follows is my own personal opinion, an opinion that in no way represents an official position of LTI, its staff, employees, or board of directors.
With all that legal stuff out of the way, let me end months of speculation for the two people who care and simply say that Scott Klusendorf, the individual, speaking strictly on his own and for no one else, likes the content of this article
That same individual will order a bumper sticker for his personal vehicle, but not one for the LTI limo or private jet.
Others within LTI will likely disagree with me. They are wrong, but they are free to disagree nonetheless.
For now...
Oh, man, you're going to get SO much flak for that, Scott! I guess you're used to it. I'm interested in a little more of your thought process here. I'm assuming (correct me if I'm wrong) that Huckabee and the other most consistent pro-lifers aren't viable, and Romney is a better choice than Giuliani and Thompson? Did Romney's recent interview with Katie Couric make this a harder call for you?
ReplyDeleteJosh,
ReplyDeleteYou are correct that Romney is not the perfect pro-life candidate. Nevertheless, I think he's the best pick for two reasons.
First, Hillary must be beaten at all costs (for reasons I've discussed elsewhere), and Romney understands the larger metaphysical framework driving her populist ideas--namely, the false belief that religious and moral truth claims don't count as real knowledge but instead are matters of personal preference. With his speech last week, Mitt went on the offensive and redefined the debate: While sectarian doctrines should never be imposed on anyone, religiously informed morality should never be driven from the public square. Indeed, the republic can't survive without it, as our Founders made clear.
Hillary, of course, is pitching a radically different view of religion, one that says that it's okay for religious conservatives to believe anything they want as long as they don't act as if their beliefs are really true. If that metaphysical view carries the day, pro-lifers are toast. Romney knows this.
Indeed, with that one speech, he turned the tables on her and made it clear he'll fight for religiously informed morality. He did so by going right to first principles, thus staking out a position that allows him to ground his pro-marriage, pro-life views. I don't hear Thompson providing any such grounding for his pro-life position. So far, Romney is the only one laying down a strong metaphysical foundation from which to battle liberalism.
For that reason, I don't think Huckabee wins against Hillary, though I could be mistaken about this. My hunch is that she'll paint him as a “fundamentalist” (a term she'll never define and one I don't think he'll make her define) and he'll be playing defense from then on. We already see that happening with his alleged comments about gays. Of course, if Huck is the nominee, he'll certainly have my support. But from where I sit now, Mitt's the man.
Second, although Romney is wrong about using leftover embryos for research (a position he can’t reasonably defend), the practical result is no different than George W. Bush saying he would allow abortion in cases of rape. In both cases, the real battle is being fought elsewhere. Remember: The abortion-advocates who attack conservatives don’t want abortion to be legal only in cases of rape. They want it to be legal through all nine months for any reason or no reason. They only hide behind the rape issue to disguise their true position.
Likewise, while Democrats and their allies in the media bemoan all those leftover embryos going to waste, their real agenda is cloning. They want to clone, then kill, human embryos for grisly medical experiments. Thus, you will never see a Democrat congress send President Romney (should he win) a bill that only allows funding for killing leftover embryos, but strictly forbids all types of cloning. The Dems aren’t smart enough to damage him politically by sending him that kind of bill. No, the Dems in their thirst to kill as many unborn humans as they can will go for full-fledged cloning, which Romney, as he did in MA, will veto.
I have to agree with you here. Huckabee may be a consistent pro-lifer but he is an inconsistent conservative at best. Guiliani is a leader but I have to question his personal ethics and not too long ago we had 8 years of that kind of president. I like Fred Thompson, but he has not run a strong campaign and, as you said, lacks experience in leading a large organization. For those who don't want a Mormon president we all need to keep in mind, as the article says, we are not electing a pastor.
ReplyDeleteDo you have a second choice, Scott?
ReplyDelete