Why I - a Staunch Pro-Lifer - Am Voting for Guiliani

American Thinker ^ | 2/21/07 | Kyle-Anne Shiver

[areafiftyone]

In most of the Presidential elections since 1973, I have been what the pollsters refer to as a "single-issue" voter, being ever stalwart in my support for vigorous pro-life candidates.  But this primary, I'm voting for Guiliani, despite his pro-choice stance.  Here's why.

First of all, contrary to a great deal of hysterical feminist rhetoric, the President of the United States can really only do three things to advance the pro-life cause as long as Roe stands.  One, he can appoint strict constructionist judges who interpret the Constitution as written, as opposed to the hocus-pocus, magical finding of things that are not there in reality.  Guiliani has demonstrated to my satisfaction that he intends to do exactly that. 

Secondly, a President can avoid vetoing any pro-life legislation - such as the ban on Partial-Birth Abortion - that happens to find its way to his desk.  I would like to see Republicans urge Mr. Guiliani to make this a formal commitment. 

Lastly, he can veto any anti-life funding bills.  In reality, those are the only areas where the President has influence in the pro-life arena.  I could argue all day and all night with Mr. Guiliani over the "rightness" of any woman's choice to kill her offspring in the womb, and it still would not change the current Law of the Land one iota.  Despite NARAL propaganda, the President of the United States does not wield lawful control over any American woman's body or what she does with it.

Unfortunately, in 2008, we Americans do not have the luxury of focusing our votes towards any domestic agenda.  That we have some very large, ever-looming domestic problems - health care crisis, out-of-control entitlement programs, an irresponsible deficit, to name a few - goes without belaboring.  But to give any of those center stage right now is, in my view, pure folly.  Whether we like it or not, we are in a war, a war we neither asked for, nor started.  And, no matter what happens in the short run in Iraq, we are going to be at war for a long time. 

The last thing we need in the White House is an equivocating, sloganeering, poll-obsessed politician worried about his/her image.  This time around - when we are fighting for our very way of life - we do not need a President who cares more about his coiffure than his message.  The time for smooth-talking, carefully-stepping, popularity-wooing candidates bit the dust on 9/11/2001.  And, in my opinion, the one person we have in America right now who fits the bill is Rudy Guiliani. 

Believe me, I have had to overcome an awful lot of lifelong notions to get to this point.  I'm from Atlanta, Georgia and have always been more than a little suspect of any New Yorker.  I still remember when everyone I knew who ventured to the Big Apple came back with some horror story that included a mugging, public restrooms too filthy for humans, prostitutes everywhere, and drug dealers hustling on street corners.  I kept up with the news that supposedly the hard-nosed, Republican, Yankee Mayor had cleaned up the city, but put little stock in it. 

This past summer, however, I summoned enough courage and took my 20-year-old daughter there for a week's visit.  The streets were clean, the people were nice, and I never even heard a gunshot or saw a mugger.  Anyone who could pull that off - fighting the New York Times and the ACLU at every turn - won't be hoodwinked by CAIR over here or that little madman who claims to be President in Iran.

Would any us even be looking at Guiliani if it were not for 9/ll?  I doubt it.  But a crisis of that magnitude does highlight the leadership skills - or lack thereof - of the person in charge.  I'm not sure I've ever been more proud of any politician than I was of Guiliani when he said, "No, thanks," to the millions offered by that Saudi prince.  And, before that, Guiliani expelled that gangster, Arafat, from New York's Lincoln Center.  I think he will do just fine with the world's hoodlums, and I don't think we'll need to be constantly worried whose interests will come first in his mind.

I got into a bit of a verbal tussle with a Brit this past summer - in New York, of course.  He was demanding to know why W didn't pay more heed to the European interests before starting a bloody war that involved the whole bloody world.  At first, I could barely believe my ears, but then I simply reminded him that we, the citizens of the United States, pay our President to worry about us first - and everyone else after that.  He bolted back that, well, Clinton had cared about them!  I just said that perhaps that was one good reason why his party was out and the ones who put America first - and foremost - are IN.  I don't figure that the Europeans will like Guiliani any better than they like W, but I don't care - do you?              

The bottom line is that when our national security is threatened the way it is now, we simply do not have the luxury of considering every aspect of a candidate's domestic positions.  Because if we are not safe, then nothing else really matters. 

[areafiftyone]

(((((RUDY PING)))))

[Peach]

Great post and the author makes terrific arguments against the single issue voter. Thanks for posting this, areafiftyone.

[areafiftyone]

You are welcome. I'm just trying to get into my armor plated vest waiting for incomeing - I think I gained some weight - it's getting too tight! LOL!

[Corin Stormhands]

Thanks for the ping!

JoinRudy2008 * Virginia is for Rudy * The Ward View

[CharlesWayneCT]

Well, there are more things the president can do:

4) He can use strictly pro-life principles when enacting executive regulations, Clinton did a lot of pro-choice stuff by executive order, a good pro-lifer can do the same.

5) He can use the presidency to push for new pro-life legislation, rather than simply promising not to veto it. He can include it in his budget for example.

I'll gladly argue against people who, at this stage of the race, assert that a good conservative would have to stay home rather than vote for Gulliani if he was the nominee of the party.

At this point though I can't go along with arguments from supposedly "pro-life" voters that they are backing Gulliani. There are too many other good candidates that lack little more than exposure. If they can't GET exposure by next january, then jump on the gulliani bandwagon if you must, but why settle so early on in the process?

[Peach]

LOL.

The ragers are so out of tune with what most Americans thinks is most important that I generally ignore them. They're irrelevant.

[Joan Wilder]

You are certainly helping me get the information I need to decide who I will eventually vote for, thanks. :)

[OldFriend]

I'll guard you!!

[VRWCmember]

One, he can appoint strict constructionist judges who interpret the Constitution as written, as opposed to the hocus-pocus, magical finding of things that are not there in reality. Guiliani has demonstrated to my satisfaction that he intends to do exactly that.

In other words, Rudy said he believes in strict constructionist judges, so the author takes him at his word with no ACTUAL demonstration of his actual commitment to do so.

[TommyDale]

Opposition to Giuliani cannot be reduced to "single issue" voters. There are a number of issues besides abortion, including:

Partial Birth Abortion
Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Euthanasia (What IS Rudy's position on this one?)
Gun control
Amnesty/Safe havens for illegal border invaders
Homosexual Civil Unions and/or marriage
School choice (vouchers)
Personal character issues
History of selections and appointments (Bernie Kerik)
Business practices and conflicts of interest

We don't seem to get a straight answer from Giuliani's campaign or supporters.

[areafiftyone]

LOL! Thank you Old Friend. I glad you're on my side! :-)

[quantim]

The article contains a logical approach to practical politics. Nothing one could really add it to it, thanks for posting.

[Joan Wilder]

Good post and I am myself still hanging out there, but some of the people against Rudy do not help themselves with their rudeness. Instead of showing me a picture of a man in drag, I would enjoy hearing why say Hunter is better then Rudy and this should include all issues relevant to the presidents 'executive' role in government.

[VRWCmember]

Great post and the author makes terrific arguments against the single issue voter.

For those who still believe in most of the traditional planks of the conservative republican party, it is hardly the "single issue voter" that Rudy has to worry about. Instead, it is the 2nd Amendment, Traditional Family, Small Government, Lower Taxes, Individual Responsibility, Freedom OF Religion (not "from" religion), AND Pro-Life voters who will have a hard time supporting Rudy.

[areafiftyone]

You are quite welcome. More and more strict conservatives are going over to Rudy's side. They are starting to realize the WOT trumps social issues. Especially when we have a Democrat Congress and Senate.

[DKNY]

Whether we like it or not, we are in a war, a war we neither asked for, nor started. And, no matter what happens in the short run in Iraq, we are going to be at war for a long time.

Good article ... most people understand domestic issues are on the back burner this time around.

http://www.joinrudy2008.com/

[Roland Hand]

Exactly!

[Neverforget01]

We've had Reagan and Bush--both very pro-life and Roe v Wade rages on. I'm convinced this issue of our times is terrorism and Islamofascists. I think Rudy is the only Republican running who has the guts to stand up to it. I don't know anything about Hunter (there's a problem) and I'm a news junkie. Is he electable? Of course I'll be listening and watching.

[Little Ray]

Actually he demonstrated quite the opposite. He got to appoint a bunch of judges to family and criminal courts - and only two of them were Republicans. There is no reason to believe him about appointing "strict constructionist" judges.

Then again, a man who believes the 2nd Amendment is about hunting probably wouldn't know "strict constructionist" if it bit him on the @$$.