This is Judge Roy Moore

Judge Roy Moore has had a busy day in Iowa today.  The potential candidate for President, who earlier formed a presidential exploratory committee, started the day off on Jan Mickelson’s program on WHO-Radio.  He made news with the statement that he does not really support the 20-week cutoff abortion bill currently being debated in Iowa.  He is troubled by the contradiction of having a bill claim that life begins at conception, yet does not call for an end to all abortions, only those after 20 weeks.  This position might ruffle some feathers in Iowa, but it one of principle.  He believes as some other pro-lifers do, that this bill institutionalizes abortion in a way that compromises the legal standing of personhood for the unborn.  He believes life begins at conception, or more accurately, fertilization.  He does not consider himself an incrementalist, though he has been accused of being one because he supports the “heartbeat” bill in Ohio that reputedly would ban abortions after a heart beat is heard (about 21 days).

I was able to secure a phone interview with Judge Moore on behalf of Caffeinated Thoughts and Race42012. Recognizing that our country is “in dire straits”, he began the interview with a portion of this quote from Noah Webster about electing just men to office:

The preservation of government depends on the faithful discharge of this duty; if the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made, not for the public good so much as for selfish or local purposes; corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed

This is Noah Webster

to execute the laws; the public revenues will be sqandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizens will be violated or disregarded. If a republican government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the divine commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the laws.

The first thing he’d do to reduce the debt that is crippling our nation “is fire a lot of people”.   The debt when Reagan was in office was a trillion dollars.   The current debt is higher than all other deficits combined, over $14T dollars.   Though he considers himself a constitutionalist, he does not consider himself a libertarian.  He would maintain the ban on women in combat and wants to return the position of the military to the way it was BEFORE President Bill Clinton instituted the Don”t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) policy. That would allow the government to ban all know homosexuals from serving.  He also opposes same-sex “marriages” AND civil unions.

He would eliminate the Department of Education, and opposes Race to the Top.

Judge Moore will be speaking this evening at Indian Hills Junior High in Clive, Iowa at 7:00 p.m.   He was invited by Pastor Tom Colson.   The speech is open to the public.

10 comments
  1. Although I have friends and colleagues who are supporters of his and whom I respect very much, I was saddened by his comments today. He spoke in ignorance of the context of the pro-life debate in Iowa. I haven’t heard the complete segment yet, but I doubt he mentioned that, when asked after a recent meeting with a group of Iowa’s conservative leaders how he would address this kind of situation as President, he indicated that he knew his answer would be a cop-out but would probably just ignore the bill and let it become law without his signature. This isn’t leadership, and smacks of hypocrisy. I’m hopeful he finds more productive ways to deal with these types of issues. His comments today do nothing to advance the issue or help his cause as a potential presidential candidate in my opinion.

    1. You say, ”
      This isn’t leadership, and smacks of hypocrisy.” You are wrong.

      His reasons for refusing to advocate for the partial ban make sense. But how can any pro-life person actually veto a partial ban? His position does not smack of hypocrisy; it suggests that the pro-abortion crowd have woven us a tangled web.
      Perchance your real objection is with his objection to the partial ban itself, you will need to find a more meaningful argument.

      1. He admitted, twice actually to me and another participant of the meeting, that his own answer to the question about what he would do with a bill that is “incremental” was a “cop-out” and “not a good answer.” He summed that up better than I could.

        If you oppose a bill, veto it. Your premise that no pro-life person can actually veto a partial ban” is flawed in that you oppose something before you don’t oppose it with a veto? Convenient to armchair quarterback and complain loudly until it hits your desk…then you can shut up and let it pass without action? I stand by my original comment. I hope I never hear Moore or his supporters get on someone’s case for voting “present” in any legislature or Congress…because that is, in essence, what his defense of negativity-until-its-my-turn approach to issues like this are.

        I have other concerns about Moore after spending an hour with him at the aforementioned meeting but this appearance on WHO Radio sealed the deal for me. Others who have spent time with him can and I respect their decision. I have at least two friends whom I admire a great deal supporting him wholeheartedly.

      2. “If you oppose a bill, veto it.”

        Illogical. It is the error of the false alternative.

        There is a massive difference between “does not really support” and absolute opposition. One may “not really support” a bill because of indirect consequences but not oppose every aspect of it.

        What can a person do who opposes some of the effects of a bill but values other of its effects? There are more alternatives than 1) absolute opposition and 2) absolute support.

        Surely you think of examples of legislation that you thought had both good and bad elements? Did you support such bills? Would you have vetoed them? Could you not have opposed the bill because of some elements and yet declined to veto it because of other elements? Perhaps you could have looked at the bill and wondered what is a person to do in this convoluted situation? Are there not many possible responses to such legislation?

      3. You are ignorant of the debate over this issue in Iowa.  Moore is aligning himself with the purists who have declared bills that are “incremental” as “evil.”  Your last comment is out of the context of the overall conversation.

      4. You are ignorant of the debate over this issue in Iowa.  Moore is aligning himself with the purists who have declared bills that are “incremental” as “evil.”  Your last comment is out of the context of the overall conversation.

      5. I do not make my comment in light of an overall conversation; I make them in light of your specific comments.

        You wrote: “If you oppose a bill, veto it.” That is indefensible. If it can be defended defend it (the remark in question, not the overall conversation about Moore.)

        You wrote to me “Your premise that no pro-life person can actually veto a partial ban is flawed in that you oppose something before you don’t oppose it with a veto?” I think you mean to suggest that I cannot consistently oppose something without also vetoing it (or calling for its veto. If that is what you are saying, you are wrong.

        I am not talking about Moore, this law, or any broader conversation. I am narrowing in very specifically upon your rationale that I allege is illogical. Do I need to create an example of a law that one could both oppose and decline to veto, so that you can see the correctness of my point?

        I am not trying to defend Moore, attack a bill, or engage in the broader conversation. I am simply suggesting that you have expressed a logical fallacy. If the good guys cannot remain logical, then we have nothing to say when the other side discards logic.
         

      6. I do not make my comment in light of an overall conversation; I make them in light of your specific comments.

        You wrote: “If you oppose a bill, veto it.” That is indefensible. If it can be defended defend it (the remark in question, not the overall conversation about Moore.)

        You wrote to me “Your premise that no pro-life person can actually veto a partial ban is flawed in that you oppose something before you don’t oppose it with a veto?” I think you mean to suggest that I cannot consistently oppose something without also vetoing it (or calling for its veto. If that is what you are saying, you are wrong.

        I am not talking about Moore, this law, or any broader conversation. I am narrowing in very specifically upon your rationale that I allege is illogical. Do I need to create an example of a law that one could both oppose and decline to veto, so that you can see the correctness of my point?

        I am not trying to defend Moore, attack a bill, or engage in the broader conversation. I am simply suggesting that you have expressed a logical fallacy. If the good guys cannot remain logical, then we have nothing to say when the other side discards logic.
         

  2. His conviction on the abortion issue is impeccable timing. This should grab him some headlines.

Comments are closed.

Get CT In Your Inbox!

Don't miss a single update.

You May Also Like

Patty Judge: Balanced Budget Amendments Not The Wise Thing to Do

Former Lt. Governor Patty Judge tells the Sioux City Journal editorial board that balanced budget amendments at both the state and federal levels are unwise.

Mike Huckabee Pledges to Not Sign Any Pledge Except His Own

Former Governor Mike Huckabee (R-AR) released his “Pledge to the People” today and said he would not sign any other pledge during his presidential campaign.

Sarah Palin: “I Do Have That Fire In My Belly”

Well if former Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK) decides to run for President…

Primary Day in Delaware: Christine O’Donnell Pulls Ahead in Latest Poll, Mike Castle Melts Down

Congressman Mike Castle lost some of his luster going into today’s GOP…