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 also evaded the draft during Vietnam. So much for his 'leadership'.

So did Cheney - But I love our Vice President and so do alot of Freepers! NEXT!

[perfect_rovian_storm]

I'd probably feel the same if I hadn't lived in NYC during his tenure as mayor. The first time he ran and lost to Dinkins, I really wasn't very enthusiastic about him, but I voted for him anyway. At his concession speech, he was trying to give a very gracious concession and his supporters wouldn't stop yelling. He told them, literally, to "Shut up." They did so immediately. At that moment, I knew he was exactly the man we needed as mayor of NYC.

I realize that this doesn't go to backing up his statement about judges, but in my experience with Rudy, when he says something, he not only follows through, but does so with a voracity that I've not seen in another politician. In other words, not only do I think that he'll appoint strict constitutionalist judges, but he won't take an ounce of crap from the Dems about it.


I'm not one of the Rudy horn blowers on this board, but in my opinion, many of the people who say that they'll 'never vote for Rudy' will be the ones that will be the happiest with his political tactics. He's one tough SOB that won't shy away from getting in the Dems' faces. If you think the Dems hate Bush, just wait till they get a load of Rudy.

[BunnySlippers]

Another pro-lifer for Rudy. Thanks for posting!

[Recovering_Democrat]

Pro-gay marriage? Pro-gun control? Pro-abortion? I dunno. I like Rudy, don't get me wrong. And I'll consider this as I try to make a primary decision.

[VRWCmember]

I think he was probably the perfect guy to be Mayor of NYC and from the people who hated him I would say he must have done a great job. But that doesn't necessarily translate into being a great -- or even a good -- president. I am very concerned about the kind of crap he would tolerate and even condone and promote from a democrat congress.

[Tax-chick]

Gilligan ping. Not just the title this time, but the whole piece!

I'm not all that fond of the Candidate Formerly Known As to start with, but when his biggest fans can't even spell his name, that *really* makes me dubious!

[spikeytx86]

"School choice (vouchers)"

He favors school choice.

[Constitution Day]

Paragraph 2 makes sensible points, typsos notwithstanding.

[Tax-chick]

You're right.

Maybe one of RudyG's supporters should come up with a mnemonic to remember how to spell his name.

GIULIANI: George Is Usually Lying In A ... what starts with N?

[EternalVigilance]

We best be as careful of our leaders as we are our security, or the first will cost us the second.

Wiser words have not been spoken in this place.

[Constitution Day]

GIULIANI: George Is Usually Lying In A ... what starts with N?

Sorry, I am very much under the weather right now.

The only "N" word I can think of is "nap".

[Tax-chick]

I hope you feel better soon!

[Constitution Day]

Thanks very much.

[merry10]

Sell Out - one who decides to go for the guy who will keep American safe and Secure, i guess, in your way of thinking.

[TommyDale]

And you think that he is the only person who will keep America safe and secure? President Bush has done a pretty good job of it, why couldn't someone else? Accepting your man blindly is ridiculous.

[merry10]

I think he will keep America more safe and secure than John Edwafds, Hillary Clinton and Obama.

If Duncan Hunter or Tom Tancredo are the nominees I will support him. But I am not going to be blind to the fact that these guys may not be doing as well as Rudy at this stage of the game. They're just not. Yes, it's early. And I have met some of Duncan Hunter's staffers and he is very pro troop.

But there really is no other Republican candidate, or any candidate that gives me the same sense of "he's the one" that I had with George Bush - except for Rudy Giuliani.

[TommyDale]

I cannot accept Rudy Giuliani under any circumstances. That's just my sense of "he's NOT the one". I am approaching this strictly from a religious and moral direction.

[TommyDale]

"I think he will keep America more safe and secure than John Edwafds, Hillary Clinton and Obama."

A gay dogcatcher from Chapel Hill could keep America more safe and secure than those people.

[Bernard]

First of all, if Roe v. Wade was repealed, my understanding is that the issue would revert back to the states to decide for themselves. So, most likely places like New York and Massachusetts would have legal abortions, and other states would not. The panic over Roe is a ploy the left uses to panic their one-issue voters.

Is that accurate?

[Victoria Delsoul]

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.

Bravo!!! I've always liked Kyle-Anne. She's a very intelligent, strong conservative woman.

Gotta run. I need to prepare tomorrow's classes.