WHOA! Did the Dems Just “Get It”?

by Jimmy Akin

in Current Affairs

CNN is reporting:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Sen. Harry Reid of
Nevada won election as leader of the shrunken Democratic minority on
Tuesday and said he stands ready to cooperate with Republicans or
confront them as he deems necessary.

With the exception of abortion rights and gun control, both of which he
opposes, Reid’s recent voting record on major issues puts him in the
mainstream of Senate Democrats [SOURCE].

Confirmation of Reid’s pro-life votes (and his stance on other issues) HERE.

This could make things interesting. It could be a sea change in party. If this isn’t a fluke and the Dems are really ready to let pro-lifers into leadership positions then the party might stop serving as the outer garment of the abortion industry.

Will be interesting to see what, if anything, happens on this front.

If you liked this post, you should join Jimmy's Secret Information Club to get more great info!

What is the Secret Information Club?I value your email privacy


Esquire November 16, 2004 at 1:17 pm

This is encouraging indeed.
However, like much of what the Senate Democrats will do for at least the next 2 years, it is largely symbolic. But the right symbolism is at least a good start.
I for one will be working very hard to nominate Bob Casey, Jr. to take on my junior Senator Santorum.

Ben November 16, 2004 at 1:24 pm

The link above makes Senator Reid appear to be 100% pro-life. The National Right to Life page states that he voted for the pro-life issue 21 out of 37 times. Most of his pro-life votes appear to be early in his career.

BillyHW November 16, 2004 at 2:37 pm

If abortion is really to be made illegal in America for good, it will be necessary that both parties eventually adopt a pro-life stance. The natural fluctuations in the economy ensure that sooner or later the incumbent party will lose, as they will be blamed, rightly or wrongly, for “destroying the economy” and “losing jobs”. And the abortion industry can ride in on the tailcoats of any pro-choice victory, even if it is infrequent.
Since Supreme Court Justices can often just “wait it out” and keep delaying their retirement until an idealogically friendly President can appoint their replacement, it would take an incredibly long string of consecutive pro-life Presidents (and a pro-life Senate) to completely change the shape of the Court. We have won some battles recently, but how many will have the stomach to keep up the fight for the next 20 years, without relenting, not even for a moment?
Which is why I find it so frustrating when some complain that “so-and-so big talk pro-life President didn’t bring an end to all abortions everywhere in his first term so therefore I can in good conscience vote for his pro-choice challenger this time”. Unfortunately the public is woefully ignorant of the nature of the battle against the culture of death. Even the election of one pro-choice President for one term could destroy all the gains that have been made.
So this is definitely good sign from the Democrats, but I’m not too excited about it. It reeks of tokenness. They are so far down the pit of destruction that climbing up an inch doesn’t matter a whole lot. The worst thing that could happen is that they pretend to be all “values” oriented, fool people into voting for them, and then continue to advance the liberal agenda in Washington.
I’ve met a few “pro-life” politicians that were “pro-life” when talking to pro-life voters but I knew (because they had told me when they thought I was pro-choice) that they had absolutely no intention of ever mentioning the topic again as soon as they got elected (and these were candidates for the “right-of-centre” “Conservative Party” here in Canada). Just because a politician is publically “pro-life” doesn’t mean he isn’t a slime. Don’t forget that he’s still a politician.

BillyHW November 16, 2004 at 2:48 pm

In the last sentence of my above post I didn’t mean to tar all politicians. There are quite a few who are genuinely decent and deserving of our respect.
Also, my apologies if I started to ramble off there, I kind of forgot what my whole point was as I carried on.
I was just saying that, in the long run, for true victory in the war against the culture of death it will be necessary to convert both political parties to the pro-life side.
In the very long run it will be necessary for christian churches everywhere to start countering the “contraceptive mentality” of our culture, which is the root of the problem.

Matt C. Abbott November 16, 2004 at 8:56 pm

A positive development, it seems.

mike the amateur apologist November 17, 2004 at 11:18 am

Hey, don’t start popping corks yet! The link providing Reid’s “prolife” bona fides seems a little too cut and dried — this is more detailed and much more suspicious…
According to vote-smart.org, Reid got the following ratings from the following groups:
National Right to Life –
2003-04: voted 55% of the time for their issues
2001-02: voted 33% for their issues
1999-00: voted 66% for their issues
Planned Parenthood –
2001: voted 50% for their issues
1996-2003: voted for their issues 56% of the time.
2003: voted 29% for their issues
2001: voted 100% !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hello? And we prolifers are excited by him because………?
Link: http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=S0561103

mike the amateur apologist November 17, 2004 at 11:20 am

Based on the above, it seems that the Democrats don’t “GET” anything except that they still have someone in leadership who will CONTINUE to filibuster REAL pro-life judges. Repeat– Reid may be anti-PBA, anti-funding etc. but he still believes abortion should be a woman’s fundamental right. This is not a real earthshaking development.

Polycarp November 17, 2004 at 2:55 pm

Reid may be an improvement over Daschle (or not — we’ll see), but let’s not forget that the rabidly pro-abortion heretical Catholic senator Dick Durbin was elected Senate Whip, the no. 2 Senate Democrat, right after Reid.
No, the Dems have a lONG way to go before they become a party a Christian can support again.

GenXsurvivor November 17, 2004 at 9:15 pm

This may be the path that the next “Kerry” will take. Claim to be “pro-life” by voting for bans on partial-birth abortion that wouldn’t save babies anyway, but that constitute most of the pro-life movement’s agenda. Exploit the pro-life movement’s tendency to water down what it means to be pro-life in order to “win.” Thereby gain a victory-margin of votes of pro-lifers who are convinced by their own organizations that opposing most partial-birth abortions makes someone pro-life, while legitimately telling your pro-abortion consituancy that there will be no real curtailment of abortion. Specter pioneered the latter part of this strategy, and Bush has given the whole thing his imprimatur. Be sober and alert.

Previous post:

Next post: