The filibuster showdown: not a Lott to be thankful for

By Bonnie Rogoff

Long before there was a threat of Senate filibusters and before Senator Harry Reid became Senate Minority Leader, there was a tense exchange of words between two Republican contenders for President. The exchange occurred between Senator John McCain (RINO-Arizona) and Dr. Alan Keyes during a GOP debate.

DR. KEYES [to McCain]: What would you say if your daughter was ever in a position where she might need an abortion? You answered [earlier today] that the choice would be up to her and then that you'd have a family conference. That displayed a profound lack of understanding of the basic issue of principle involved in abortion. After all, if your daughter said she was contemplating killing her grandmother for the inheritance, you wouldn't say, "Let's have a family conference." You'd look at her and say "Just Say No," because that is morally wrong. It is God's choice that that child is in the womb. And for us to usurp that choice in contradiction of our Declaration principles is just as wrong.

McCAIN: I am proud of my pro-life record in public life, and I will continue to maintain it. I will not draw my children into this discussion. As a leader of a pro-life party with a pro-life position, I will persuade young Americans [to] understand the importance of the preservation of the rights of the unborn.

The debate took place on January 26, 2000, in Manchester, New Hampshire. It showed the difference between real pro-life champions like Dr. Keyes who would never compromise their principles, and fake conservatives like John McCain whose commitment to ending abortion is unclear.

To gain favor with McCain, President Bush made continuous overtures, reaching out for consensus despite the Senator's volatile nature. One big mistake was supporting campaign finance reform, which discriminates against pro-life groups that want to publicize candidates' views on abortion prior to an election. McCain called evangelical Christians Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell "evil influences" in the Republican Party. His "pro-life position" is mixed; he supports embryonic stem cell research and would not repeal Roe v. Wade. He also opposes the nuclear option.

We now find ourselves saying "Thanks a Lott" to Senator Trent for brokering a deal that would defeat the nuclear option. In exchange, we get a promise by six Senate Democrats to allow four out of seven conservative judicial nominations to proceed without filibusters. Democrats would also have their say as to which Supreme Court nominees are "too extreme." It's a raw deal, and it's no surprise.

It's payback time for Lott, who is furious that President Bush did not offer support after Lott praised Senator Strom Thurmond at his birthday party. Apparently, saying America would have been better off had the former Dixiecrat been elected president in 1948 is worse than agreeing to share power with the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee! The firestorm that followed Lott's comment was outrageous. It was a non-event that unjustly resulted in his ouster as Senate Majority Leader. On the other hand, conceding to anti-life Senator Chuck Schumer should have resulted in his ouster. A critical decision by Lott that led to four years of filibusters didn't upset Republicans, but words at a party did. Say what you want about Trent Lott, President Bush was dumb and dumber to turn his back on a former Republican ally.

We're faced today with a Republican majority that has acted like timid rabbits before the Democratic onslaught. The vicious attacks by Senators Chuck Schumer and Ted Kennedy, and ill-advised adjectives chosen by Senator Harry Reid (calling President Bush a loser) have been met with shrugs of silence.

What happened to the moral backbone of the Republicans so evident during President Reagan's tenure, when we were in the minority? One obvious answer is that the commitment by Republicans to ending abortion died with the nomination of Judge Robert Bork. That victory unified and empowered Democrats and divided Republicans. The big tent approach began, and anti-life Republicans were gradually welcomed into the party. They've been a thorn in the side of the pro-life majority ever since.

Little has been accomplished with the Republicans in power. Bills have been signed into law by President Bush, such as the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act and the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. Partial birth abortions are still performed every day. Two weeks ago, an unborn baby survived a late term abortion and was allowed to die by a Florida abortion facility, in violation of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. The Child Interstate Abortion Notification Law (CIANA) passed by the House will not stop the crime of trafficking of minors across state lines, either. The bill will likely get Senate approval and will be signed by President Bush. However, there are already loopholes in place allowing a Court to easily waive parental notification.

Democrats may be vicious, but they are just doing their job. Why can't Republicans do theirs? Back to the 2000 Keyes/McCain debate:

Dr. Keyes: How can we trust you to move forward and defend our position on this issue (abortion)?

McCain: Because unlike you, I have a 17 year voting record and record of service to this country, including doing everything that I can to preserve the rights of the unborn. I have spoken as eloquently as I can on that issue. I am proud of my record. And that record I will stand on.

Senator John McCain would compromise on judges. He won't promote a strong pro-life agenda. Abortion advocates like McCain and Rudy Giuliani lead among Republicans in early Presidential polls for 2008. Last year, there was a huge, unprecedented turnout of pro-life Republicans on Election Day. GOP strategists seem to prefer polls, not election results. That really says a Lott. Doesn't it?

© Bonnie Rogoff