So much has been made about former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s use of his billions to win the Democratic presidential nomination.
The one-time Republican has met some stiff resistance from the Left because of his billionaire status and also because of his “stop and frisk” policy as mayor. Now, add one more headache for the Bloomberg campaign. As promised, Bloomberg dumped big dollars into the Super Bowl ad frenzy — targeted to the issue of gun control.
This one features a grief-stricken mother who lost her young son to gun violence. The ad is poignant and sad, leaving one with serious sympathy for the mom. She moves from her son’s death to the larger issue of gun control, saying that Bloomberg will stand up against the “gun lobby.” But then she says, with the most obvious innocence, this (bold print for emphasis supplied):
Mike’s fighting for every child because you have a right to live.
Uh-oh. Mike Bloomberg is running a commercial — during the Super Bowl, before its massive audience — that casually violates the iron-fisted doctrine of today’s Democrats that there is no “right to life” as far as the pro-abortion Left is concerned.
Recall, infamously, Virginia Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam stirring a ruckus when he said this:
This is why decisions such as this should be made by providers, physicians, and the mothers and fathers that are involved. When we talk about third-trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of the mother, with the consent of physicians, more than one physician by the way, and it’s done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus which is non-viable. So in this particular example, if the mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen, the infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if this is what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physician and the mother.
Note well that Northam never once said what the Bloomberg ad said — that every child has “a right to live.” To the contrary. To Northam a baby — “the infant” — is to “be kept comfortable” while “a discussion would ensue between the physician and the mother.” A discussion about whether the newborn child should live — or not.
Opposition to a baby’s “right to live,” as the Bloomberg ad puts it, is so ironclad as Democratic Party doctrine that when former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg was confronted on the issue by a Democratic voter who is pro-life, he flatly refused to stand up for diversity within his party on the issue. As noted here at National Review, the conversation went like this:
South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg was confronted by a pro-life Democratic voter over the party’s position on abortion during a Fox News town hall event on Sunday.
“I am a proud pro-life Democrat,” audience member Kristin Day said. “Would you support more moderate platform language [regarding abortion] in the Democratic Party to ensure that the party of diversity and inclusion really does include everybody?” Currently, the Democratic party platform supports abortion up to nine months into pregnancy.
“I support the position of my party, that this kind of medical care needs to be available to everyone, and I support the Roe vs. Wade framework that holds that early in pregnancy there are very few restrictions and late in pregnancy there are very few exceptions,” Buttigieg responded. ‘The best I can offer is that we may disagree on that very important issue and hopefully we will be able to partner on other issues.”
Recall the uproar from the left when presidential defense lawyer Alan Dershowitz said this of the president’s conduct of his Ukraine policy:
Neither is it a crime to conduct foreign policy for partisan or personal advantage, a common political sin with no limiting principle capable of being applied in a neutral manner.
Congressman Adam Schiff, the Democrat point-man in this impeachment charade, immediately jumped on this line of reasoning, calling it a defense of a “corrupt motive” — in which the president is running foreign policy to benefit his election.
Ahhhh. But if Schiff is to be believed, this same line of argument would apply to a president conducting domestic policy with an eye to “partisan or personal advantage.” Which is exactly what Mayor Pete is already doing. As Buttigieg — and every political observer — would know, and just illustrated in that conversation with pro-lifer Kristin Day, were he to come out as pro-life, his candidacy would be dead in the water on the spot. So, precisely as Dershowitz has argued, Buttigieg — and for that matter every other Democrat running for president — is already promising to conduct abortion policy for partisan and personal advantage. Call it a “corrupt motive” — which, to listen to Schiff, would make any Democratic president instantly impeachable from the start of his or her term.
So let’s return to the Bloomberg ad.
This was an ad about gun control, not abortion. But in the doing of the ad the mother in question, decidedly not a candidate for president, innocently let slip the most obvious of all truths: every child has “a right to live.”
And so they do.
Unless the “corrupt motives” of the Democratic candidate of the moment are in play.
Right, mayors Mike and Pete?
Let the impeachment movement of the next Democratic president for “corrupt motives” begin.
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://thespectator.com/world.