When it comes to abortion, GOP leaders are happy to phone it in (literally)

January 24, 2008

This week saw the last “March of Life” of Bush’s presidency, as thousands of opponents of abortion rights gathered just a few blocks from the White House, as they do every year, to protest on the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision. As with every other year, Bush showed his solidarity with the crowd’s cause by picking up the phone and telling them what a great job they’re doing. The invitation to appear in person was, of course, ignored.

Some have noticed the Republican record of snubs.

The annual March for Life has come and gone. One of its more bizarre qualities is the way GOP presidents participate: by recorded message or telephone hook-up, but never in person. This began during Ronald Reagan’s presidency when some advisors did not want a photo beamed around the world of Reagan addressing the crowd, but those same advisors knew they had to at least acknowledge the role that pro-life forces played in Reagan’s 1980 victory. Reagan could look out the window of the Oval Office and see that marchers, as could every president since, but the phone connection has remained the means of participation. Even George W. Bush, who will never face another election and seems plenty unconcerned about the political fallout of other decisions, could not manage to emerge from his office to address the crowd in person. […]

At some point, pro-life groups need to challenge those whose disembodied voices fill their ears every January. This bizarre “telephone hook-up” is, in both the literal and figurative senses of the phrase, lip service to the cause. The loyal pro-life members of the GOP coalition deserve more, to say nothing of the unborn.

Of the pro-life Republican candidates, John McCain sent a letter, Mitt Romney issued a press release, Mike Huckabee was in Georgia, and Ron Paul (who opposes abortion rights despite his libertarianism) didn’t communicate with the crowd, though he did announce an endorsement from Norma McCorvey.

In response to all of this, Kevin asked, “[W]hy do the pro-life forces put up with this?” I’ve been wondering the same thing for years.

I have to assume “March of Life” activists feel the same way the broader religious right movement does: when push comes to shove, most of the Republican Party opposes abortion rights and wants to see Roe overturned, and most of the Democratic Party supports abortion rights and wants to see Roe protected.

I don’t doubt the anti-abortion activists are being used by the GOP. For that matter, I don’t doubt they know they’re being used. But they also know that, over a five-month span in late 2005, Bush put John Roberts and Sam Alito on the Supreme Court, and both are viewed, probably correctly, as the kind of justices “March of Life” activists have been dreaming of.

And given a choice between a president who snubs their rallies but appoints their justices, and a pro-choice president, the activists don’t seem to have any doubts. (Whether the Dems’ pro-prevention tack, embraced by both Obama and Clinton, might make any headway in changing this dynamic is unclear.)

But as long as we’re on the subject, Kevin asks a related question:

[C]an anyone think of something similar on the Democratic side, where candidates are conspicuously afraid to be seen participating in a rally put on by some major liberal interest group? For example, are Democratic candidates shy about attending pro-choice rallies?

Off the top of my head, nothing comes to mind — Dems are willing to hang out with MoveOn.org and YearlyKos, so I’m happy. Which parts of the party won’t Dem leaders appear with?

In the narrow category of “rallies”, I can’t particularly think of anything the Democrats snub liberals on, either. But there are lots of ways most Dem politicians are ignoring the base, like the telecom protection bill. I think this is analogous to the pro-life movement’s frustrations.

  • Which parts of the party won’t Dem leaders appear with?

    None attended DLC this year. 🙂

  • Mike Huckabee was in Georgia as the article indicates, but what the article leaves out is that he was at a PRO-LIFE rally on the capital steps!

  • Which parts of the party won’t Dem leaders appear with?

    Uh, the 80% of us who want impeachment hearings?

  • “[W]hy do the pro-life forces put up with this?”

    What are they going to do? Vote for Democrats?

    The thing that surprises me is that, after all these years, most of the Republican candidates STILL aren’t comfortable stepping in front of the anti-abortion crowd and giving a face-to-face speech. The anti-abortion crowd is, apparently, STILL too radical for Republican candidates to be seen with. Or, maybe, it’s just an indication that the elites in the GOP really don’t actually care about pro-life politics at all but are perfectly willing to pay it lip service and find corporate conservative judges who also happen to be anti-abortion to put on the Court to placate the rabble.

    As for why Bush didn’t go out and meet them, despite the lack of political repercussions? He’s lazy. Why would he want to go out in the cold and give a big thank you to the people who helped keep his butt in office? He doesn’t repay personal loyalty, why would he repay “movement” loyalty? Better to keep with the tradition of separating yourself from the rabble, lest they start heckling you or something.

  • Hows that war in iraq going? I remember seeing all those guys/gals at an anti-war rally, not. Have the dem’s done anything but pay lip service?

  • ““[W]hy do the pro-life forces put up with this?” I’ve been wondering the same thing for years.”

    From a cynical point of view, I would say that the anti-choicers know they’re being used, but they’re using in return. Appearances are everything: even if they don’t have the power to push their agenda through, they maintain the appearance of power by having the GOP suck up to them. This might help them keep their own followers in line, by always dangling a little bit of ‘GOP hope’ in front of them.

  • I don’t doubt the anti-abortion activists are being used by the GOP. For that matter, I don’t doubt they know they’re being used. But they also know that, over a five-month span in late 2005, Bush put John Roberts and Sam Alito on the Supreme Court, and both are viewed, probably correctly, as the kind of justices “March of Life” activists have been dreaming of.

    I think the activists are being used by the GOP. I’m not so sure most of them realize it, except for some of the most savvy, perhaps (this is an opinion based on not personally being acquainted with any hardcore activist leaders, however). I think out of the ones who realize they are being snubbed, probably a lot of them can appreciate the international-political-fallout rationale (I’m not saying they all realize it on their own or tend to realize it, though), and don’t mind it. I think that at least if they don’t know about the concern of how appearing at their demonstration looks internationally and are pacified by that concern, they’re at least sated by, for example, the court nominations, so they don’t feel too burned if he (or any other Republican politician) doesn’t show up.

  • “Ron Paul (who opposes abortion rights despite his libertarianism) didn’t communicate with the crowd, though he did announce an endorsement from Norma McCorvey.”

    That’s not true. I was there. He DID NOT announce the McCorvey endorsement during his talk. He spoke about the value of all life and that real freedom can’t exist in the US until the unborn are protected. In my opinion, the crowd responded very well.

  • It’s not a rally, but there’s one thing Democratic politicians have been ducking for twenty years- the L-word. Not a single candidate proudly proclaims that he or she is a liberal.

    On the Republican side, the candidates are always try to claim, “I am the true conservative,” or complaining the other guy isn’t conservative enough. You don’t see Dems claiming the other guy “isn’t liberal enough.” When did LIBERAL become a dirty word?

    In 1988, that’s when. GHW Bush labelled Dukakhis a “liberal” (which he was, and he should have been proud of it), made it sound like a crime, and no one fought back. To this day, the image that comes to mind for many when they hear the word “liberal” is an ivory-tower do-gooder who tries to look tough by riding around in a tank but ends up “looking like Captain Dweeb of the Dork Patrol” to use Dave Barry’s description.

    Way back when, liberals embraced the term “liberal” the same way conservatives embrace the term “conservative” today. Until Dems get back to that point, they’ll always be playing catch-up to the Republicans.

  • My favorite was when Reagan, via his phone hookup, declared “I am with you!”

    (Whether the Dems’ pro-prevention tack, embraced by both Obama and Clinton, might make any headway in changing this dynamic is unclear.)

    It won’t because the anti-abortion movement isn’t about “life,” it’s about controlling sexuality. See, for example, the Huckabee-supported amendment that would define conception and abortion in such a way as to make most forms of contraception illegal.

  • T Hurlbutt, @12

    I’m definitely “with you” on that. Never *could* understand how, the same Americans who proudly declaim “give me liberty, or give me death”, manage to believe that “liberal” is a dirty word. Both words stem from the same root — freedom

  • I think the Republicans might try to downplay abortion this year. With 5 old justices supporting Roe v. Wade and 4 ready to overturn it, who ever wins in 2008 will put at least 1 judge on the bench and if its a conservative, Roe v. Wade is gone. A majority of Americans support Roe v. Wade, and I think the threat of losing it will swing independents and moderates squarely into democratic territory. But we’ll see. Love your blog by the way.

  • This article is all poppycock. It’s for security reasons that the president isn’t there. And Bush had a breakfast with 500 people at the White House. Give me a break… More politics of division from pro-abortion people who couldn’t care less anyway.

  • “[W]hy do the pro-life forces put up with this?” I’ve been wondering the same thing for years.

    for the same reason that pwogs always roll over and offer their bellies to the soi-disant ‘liberal’ Dumbocraps…they have no other real choice…

  • Everyone should know that Diane Feinstein lied about whether there were 3 rooms reserved for the pro-life demonstrators. She said there were no rooms left in the Senate building for a prayer meeting of all demoninations after it was agreed that there was. Her assistants would NOT go on video to confirm this statement. Only after several assistants refused to be televised and the promise that the March for Life would stand in front of Diane Feinstein’s office did a room on the top 9th floor miraculously come open. On the day of the March, cameramen photographed the three rooms which Diane Feinstein said was occupied only to discover that each of them were completely EMPTY. Diane-Diane-Diane SHAME ON YOU.
    P.S. Watch a sonagram and find out the truth about abortion.

  • For what it is worth, there is still 1 GOP member out there who is willing to “put his money where his mouth is.”

    A crowd of approx 5000 Georgia citizens gathered in front of the state capitol in Atlanta for the Together for Life march. Mike Huckabee was not only present, but active and gave a stirring speech about his pro-life beliefs. In a world full of campaign promises and good will, it was refreshing to see some action as well.

    • Comments are closed.