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]

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.

Rudy is not going to touch your guns (what he did for NYC - which worked very well - he knows does not apply to the U.S. and he knows it.)

Rudy does not believe in Gay Marriage - that has been said over and over again

What do you mean Freedom of Religion? Rudy is a Catholic is there a problem with that?

As far as abortion is concerned Rudy said he will nominate anti-abortion judges. That is all a president can do.

Anything else?

[Neverforget01]

Careful--Rudy is Catholic in name only--truth is, I'm not voting for someone's religion. I think Rudy's "Catholicism" should be left out of the conversation, it's irrelevant.

[areafiftyone]

To me it's irrelevant too. But I was trying to figure out what he/she meant by freedom of Religion.

[Roland Hand]

I know it was posted around here somewhere maybe Area51 knows, that the NYC Mayor has to contend with a list that he doesn't get to create in terms of judicial nominees and a liberal city would tend not to have a lot of Republican career jurists to choose from? :).

[VRWCmember]

They are starting to realize the WOT trumps social issues.

Not if it means that we allow the democrats to shred the 2nd Amendment, redefine marriage, raise taxes, expand government control over areas like health care, and otherwise advance the socialist agenda, emboldened by the fact that the GOP nominated a candidate who has given us and them every reason to believe he will not stand up against them on ANY of those issues. But somehow he will be strong in the war on terror (with a democrat congress opposing him ALL THE WAY on that issue as well) and he will appoint and fight for strict constructionist judges (again with the democrats controlling the senate and never letting any of those nominees see the light of day) so we should jump on the Rudy bandwagon now? I don't think so. You need to pull your head out of the sand (or wherever else it is lodged),

[HitmanLV]

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.

He hasn't had an ACTUAL opportunity to nominate an appellate judge during his political career, either. Holding him to your proposed standard is silly.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Not pushing him on you, but what is it about Romney that makes you think he won't stand up to terrorism?

[CharlesWayneCT]

I think the general level of discourse on FR lately has been in the sewer. Not just here but on a lot of different threads and topics.

I know I've taken a few shots at Tancredo, so I'm not guiltless.

[TommyDale]

FYI, when people use the term "Freedom of Religion" they are likely referring to the current trend to remove anything of a religious nature from the public's view.

They may be asking where Rudy stands on the removal of the Ten Commandments from government offices for example, or the cross from the government property in San Diego. Or the crosses from Arlington National Cemetery. I think that one will be the next target.

[OldFriend]

All we're getting is that Rudy is bad and there are other candidates.........who are nameless mysteries at this point.

I'll listen to positive comments about other candidates......gladly. I will not listen if those comments are prefaced with outrageous slams against Rudy.

[VRWCmember]

By Freedom OF Religion, I mean a reading of the First Amendment that recognizes that the establishment and free exercise clauses go together and that the concept of Freedom of religion does NOT mean there is some inalienable right to never be confronted by a religious symbol on public property. It really goes back to the issue of judicial activism and standing up to the likes of the ACLU, etc. to prevent the courts and religion-hating attorneys from telling local communities what kind of themes and symbols they can use in observance of holidays, memorials to fallen soldiers, etc.

[quantim]

I believe Rudy can sort out priorities - things like gay marriage, abortion, and other issues that many of us see as states' issues that aren't generally pertinent at the federal level for old-fashioned types like myself.

He understands the meaning of: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States" and consequently will not help find things that are not there - and that will reflect in the appointment of replacements in the SCOTUS.

Romney could very well be a good candidate down the road, and the only thing I don't trust about Hunter is that he is one of 'them.'  I distrust legislators, Newt being an exception.  Thankfully, McPain won't make it through the first few primaries.

[Joan Wilder]

"I know I've taken a few shots at Tancredo, so I'm not guiltless."

I will give you a pass on that one! :)

[VRWCmember]

He hasn't had an ACTUAL opportunity to nominate an appellate judge during his political career, either. Holding him to your proposed standard is silly.

But looking at his performance in the appointment opportunities he HAS had is not silly. Blindly accepting a statement that he supports strict constructionists (when he knows that he has to say that if he wants the GOP nomination) and ignoring his history IS silly.

[HitmanLV]

But looking at his performance in the appointment opportunities he HAS had is not silly.

What does that have to do with abortion? Are you looking for a history of nominating anti-abortion people in nyc? Your point is valid as a general principle, but specifically what does that have to do with the abortion issue?

[Peach]

Rudy cut taxes 23 or 24 times in NYC and is pretty well known for being a fiscal conservative. As well, he is completely for individual responsibility and cutting the nanny/welfare state and he succeeded beautifully in both regards in NYC.

[Neverforget01]

As I said, I'm listening and watching. I haven't eliminated any candidate other than McCain. For some reason I'm suspect of any Republican who gets elected in MA. What "compromises" did he make to get the libs to vote for him there? His recent conversion to being pro-life scares me not so much about the issue but in the fact that he seems to change to accommodate whomever the voters want. He converted two years ago regarding an issue that's been around for nearly 40 years? He just reminds me of a slick used car salesman.

[VRWCmember]

Your point is valid as a general principle, but specifically what does that have to do with the abortion issue?

What does the abortion issue have to do with this discussion? I'm talking about strict constructionist judges, which is important for SO MANY reasons beyond the abortion issue. The funny thing is that I have demonstrated that my reluctance to jump on the Rudy bandwagon is NOT a one-issue problem with Rudy, and yet here you are trying to bring it back to the abortion issue.

[Spiff]

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

...because you're a damned sellout.

[merry10]

Define Sell Out.

Sell Out - a conservative who does not agree with me?