Posted on 03/15/2007 10:08:08 AM PDT by Spiff
Giuliani and the pro-life vote By John Jakubczyk
There are those pundits and writers who are making the effort to build up Rudy Giuliani in an effort to force him onto conservatives by claiming that he is the only one who can defeat Hillary Clinton. These arguments ask pro-lifers to put aside their deeply held beliefs that only a candidate who hold life sacred can be considered qualified for public office. Claiming that Giuliani has the credentials to fight the war on terror, these apologists for the former New York mayor claim that if he agrees to appoint conservative judges, pro-lifers should not demand that he adhere to a pro-life position.
A recent article in the March 12, 2007 Weekly Standard by Noemie Emery makes this argument. However the argument is flawed for a number of reasons. Emery gets the history wrong as well in discussing the 1976 and 1980 elections, but that is a side issue.
Pro-life candidates who were not wimpy, squeamish or flip-floppers have traditionally done well against pro-abortion candidates all things being equal. There is no reason for any Republican to apologize for being a protector and defender of women and children. There is no reason for any Republican to fear taking a pro-life position. Ronald Reagan took a strong pro-life position and won two elections. The press hated Reagan and his entire agenda. No matter, the people wanted someone who took the view that America was a shining city on a hill. Yet even though in 1980 Reagan won and right to life knocked off ten pro-abortion U.S. senators, the consultants and the pundits refused to give the movement any credit and moved immediately to marginalize the successes we had brought to the table. Indeed the pro-life leadership was not even allowed to sit at the table. And so the incremental; approach was devised.
Years have passed and the Republican leadership in the House and Senate ( Gingrich included) have failed to deliver on the promises made to the right to life movement. There have been some efforts due to the courageous work of Chris Smith, Henry Hyde and lately Sam Brownback. But the failure to eliminate funding to Planned Parenthood, the failure to get more judges appointed to the courts, and the failure to enact legislation to prevent foreign aid from being used to promote pro-abortion policies abroad, offset the various successes over the last many years.
As for Rudy Giuliani, he tells us he thinks abortion is bad. BUT, he thinks it should be legal.
Lets substitute some other issues and repeat the sentence:
He tells us prostitution is bad, but he thinks it should be legal.
He tells us slavery is bad, but he thinks that it should remain legal.
Is there a problem here?
So what is the difference between him and Hillary, or Obama or john Kerry, or John Edwards on the abortion issue?
As long as abortion is legal, babies die.
As long as abortion is legal, women are victimized, coerced, assaulted and injured.
And this guy wants to be president.
Any candidate who thinks it is permissible to allow for the killing of children in the womb does not understand the principles of the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution. Both documents acknowledge that each one of us has a right to life. The Constitution speaks about a process that must be followed if government is to take away that right to life.
Now why would any true blue conservative who honestly respects the right to life of every human being join the Giuliani camp?
Why should they be willing to trust a person who will not protect a little child?
Why should they be willing to trust someone who thinks so little of the institution of marriage?
Why should they think that this guy could beat someone who he was afraid to run against in New York for the U.S. Senate?
It is not enough for Rudy Giuliani to say he will appoint justices to the Supreme Court like Alito and Roberts. The same kind of people arguing that one should trust Giuliani put up the Sandra Day O'Connor and David Souter.
If Rudy Giuliani wants to be taken seriously, then he needs to do one very serious thing. He needs to get right with the Truth. He needs to sit down with someone like Fr. Frank Pavone, Mark Crutcher, Joe Scheidler, Jack Wilke and see for himself the evil that abortion is. He needs to publicly admit that he was wrong do penance for the public scandal he has caused. Then and only then can he consider running for public office. Is it too much to ask? I think that the American people should demand from their politicians some integrity for change. Of course the truth is that we generally get the politicians we deserve. After all they come from our ranks. Yet deep down I think we all want some honesty and straight talk that goes beyond simple slogans. We live in a very dangerous world. The United States has some serious enemies. We need leaders in Washington who appreciate what is at stake. Yet it is only when one has a sense of the core values of this Republic, the ideals that have always been the soul of this nation, that one can be trusted to do what is needed.
Respect for the right to life. Essential. Anything less. Not acceptable.
Mr. Giulani, unless you realize that every human being from the moment of conception has a right to life, you have no business asking anyone to support your bid for public office. Unless you embrace a pro-life position, no self-respecting pro-lifer will vote for you, no matter what the straw polls say. As for the pundits, they do not understand the depth of this movement or the next generation getting ready to take the reins.
(((((STOP RUDY PING)))))
ProLife Ping
I have nothing to add ... the man isn't in any way pro-life, he's merely pro-Giuliani.
I want to be on the (((((STOP RUDY PING))))). Can I huh? Please?
"What do principles have to do with anything? It's Rudy right?"
I refuse to vote for a man that looks better in a dress than his opposition does. It ain't natural.
I believe the author of this article mischaracterizes the underlying theme of the Weekly Standard article. Noemie Emery may have presented the issue in this context, but I suspect the folks at the Weekly Standard don't view a Rudy Giuliani candidacy as a case of "accepting the good with the bad" at all. Rudy Giuliani is a liberal, big-government globalist who has never had any inclination to support legal or cultural values that would be described as "conservative" in any sense of the word.
This is exactly the brand of "conservative" politics that the Weekly Standard has been peddling for years. Ms. Emery knows damn well that Rudy Giuliani has no intention of nominating any strict constructionists to the Federal courts. This whole charade is nothing more than a desperate attempt to paint this liberal, big-government globalist as something he is not -- and never has been.
lol
Yep.
A respect for human life is the first and most important issue for me in deciding upon a candidate. Sorry Julie, you lose.
"He tells us prostitution is bad, but he thinks it should be legal."
I know the author was using this hypothetically, but it wouldn't surprise me if Rudy is a member of the legal prostitution crowd.
BTTT
Pro-Life Bump
Rudy's worship of abortion-on-demand underlines his Playboy lifestyle--- a lifestyle he threw himself into early-on----in his neverending search for perfect extra-marital sex (while he was mayor, and while he was still married to the mother of his children).
To the abortion crowd, the reality of killing innocent life is never factored in.
Abortion is a must-have for Rudy---a convenience (like a good dry cleaner)---so he won't have to deal with the "messy problems" attendant with being a Playboy.
Actually, I was wondering if he had any business affilations in the health care/Pharm industry.
A lifestyle can create an opinion for convenience; but, business interests, well, financial talkikng points.
May be why NARAL loves him so much.
Might surface.
That's because he's already flip-flopped on his abortion position. Did you know when Rudy first ran for mayor he was pro-life and lost. Then Guiliani changed his pro-life position to pro-choice and won the race for mayor.
The pro-choice position has served Rudy well, so I guess he's sticking with it.
At least Romney flip flops in the RIGHT direction.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.