Stones Cry Out

Surely you can be serious about the Democratic party's "shift" on abortion? When it comes to opponents of abortion, the Democratic party has sent a very clear and concise message: You are not welcome.

I'll praise the Democratic party when I see evidence of a genuine shift, not just the hollow platitudes of people like Hillary Clinton who are opportunistically positioning themselves for a presidential run in 2008. Her record and the longstanding record of the Democratic party speak louder than words ever can.

In no way, shape, or form is the party about to actually abandon Planned Parenthood and its many other campaign fund-providing special interest groups that are dead set against any restrictions on abortion, even partial birth abortion.

Sorry, but it is never going to happen, a few pandering and meaningless words to red state voters notwithstanding.

That's because Hillary's "new tone" has absolutely nothing to do with her stance actually moving. Her feelings havn't changed one iota - she's merely saying, "let's talk nice to the Nazis."

Or, let me put it another way, because that last comment was not a good one: Notice that the line Hillary uttered, which you liked, "Does not ever have to be exercised..." says nothing about actually bringing in restictions to Roe v Wade. She's doing what she has always done, she's using nice-nice words, but the core of her message is: nothing changes. We'll just keep "educating" people and hope that someday abortion doesn't HAVE to be used...but we'll not place any restrictions on abortion itself.

It is literally hot air...sound and fury signifying absolutely nothing. Don't be fooled by her. Her words are empty. Her throat is an open grave.

Don't get me wrong. I am no Hillary Clinton advocate. But there is some movement among the Democrats, at least in their rhetoric. The movement is a result of the voice of the people in the last election, no doubt, not Hillary and the others "coming to Jesus," so to speak.

While rhetoric is empty if it produces nothing, it is, nonetheless, important. It changes people's minds, it can make a difference. NARAL and the others recognize this, and that's why they are up in arms about some the softer rhetoric from the Dems.

I'm not naive enough to think we're going to see the Democratic party seeking the reversal of Roe v. Wade. But when the abortion cabal is upset, it should tell us something.

I do believe it is helpful to the process to recognize a shift in even rhetoric by the proponents of abortion.

The softening of rhetoric is not really something to be celebrated. As long as it's the same ideas being packaged nicer, nothing has changed.

Now... the fact that a few pro-life Democrats have actually had a shot at significant positions within the party... that's something to be celebrated. For years, the message has been "if you're pro-life, get out." (My mom was kicked out of the National Organization of Women back in the 70's for her pro-life positions, and I know many others who've been pushed out of the Democratic party for it.) This newfound inclusivism is refreshing...

I'll side with Jim here; softening of rhetoric does make the abortion at any cost crowd look like extremists.

To me, the big test is a stance on the partial birth abortion ban. If a smart Republican (or reporter) can corner Hillary into a position condemning the courts for declaring the partial birth abortion ban unconsitutional, then we're making progress.

This type of test would also be very telling of Hillary's "true" feelings. If she can't bring herself to give unwaivering support to a law that is supported by more than 2/3 of Americans, America will know her other words on abortion are hollow.

What is worrisome about the softening of the rhetoric is that it tends to soften the opposition, meaning the squishy middle who don't really like abortion, but don't really want to see RvW overturned, either.

Hillary doesn't need to make her base happy right now. They might complain, but they're already hers in '08 and she knows it. She had them at "hello" so to speak. But I fear that people who are basically of a non-confrontational bent, people who really "want" to all "get along" (and I am not saying I am not a softie in my way, but you know what I mean...) this softening of the rhetoric will play as not merely a rhtorical event, but as real "movement."

Those folks with busy lives who only scan the headlines or listen to the news with half and ear think, "oh, look, Hillary isn't so pro-abortion anymore...well, if she's toned that down, maybe she's not so objectionable..."

A change is rhetoric is only valuable when it is followed up with corresponding action. Otherwise, it is nothing more than a kid-gloved attack on the opposition, with a bit of smoke-and-mirrors thrown in.