The 2020 presidential hopeful Kirsten Gillibrand is desperate. Very desperate.
Gillibrand is polling at or below 2 percent in almost every national poll. Other candidates are finding their voice while Gillibrand’s campaign is sputtering as it runs on the last of its fumes.
In an effort to raise her numbers from the ash heap, Gillibrand decided to do an interview with The Des Moines Register editorial board on Monday. But it did not go well for her. At least not from where I sit.
The New York senator actually compared pro-life ideology with racism.
Yes, the same philosophy that no innocent life is worth taking, the same philosophy that says God is the creator of all beings, the same philosophy that encourages personal responsibility and justice for unborn babies — that philosophy is, in Gillibrand’s mind the same as the atrocity of racism.
Her statement came in response to a question about the impact of her stated willingness to impose a pro-abortion litmus test on all judicial nominees.
“I think there’s some issues that have such moral clarity that we have as a society decided that the other side is not acceptable,” Gillibrand said.
“Imagine saying that it’s OK to appoint a judge who’s racist or anti-Semitic or homophobic. Telling – asking someone to appoint someone who takes away basic human rights of any group of people in America, I don’t think that those are political issues anymore.”
Right, Kirsten. How could we, as a country, take away rights from any group of people in America? Oh. I’m assuming Gillibrand didn’t mean the hundreds of thousands of abortions that occur every year in America. It seems sickeningly clear that Gillibrand sees the sin of racism as the moral equivalent of killing an unborn baby.
And it’s clear because Gillibrand doubled down and actually said it.
“There is no moral equivalency when you come to racism and I do not believe there is a moral equivalency when it comes to changing laws that deny women reproductive freedom,” she said.
But what may be her most disturbing comment in the entire interview is when Gillibrand said that the religion of her political opponents has no place in political discussions or judicial decisions.
“And all these efforts by President Trump and other ultra-radical conservative judges and justices to impose their faith on Americans is contrary to our Constitution and that’s what this is,” Gillibrand said. “And so I believe that for all of these issues, they are not issues that there is a fair other side.”
So not only does Gillibrand think the pro-life cause is the same as racism, she thinks it doesn’t even hold up to being considered as another side worth debating. To her, abortion is not an issue where there is “a fair other side.”
And that is the ultimate tactic of the left.
Refuse to engage on the merits of an idea. Claim the other side is so repugnant, so backward, so hateful, bigoted and selfish, that to even discuss an idea with them is to entertain lawless, immoral idiocy.
Let me be clear: We as conservatives must do better. We must engage. We must take our ideas to the forum and be articulate and prepared.
There is a path to persuasion, respect and civility.
But Gillibrand has chosen the path of division.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.