What Rudy says, and what he does, are two entirely different things.
Posted on 02/06/2007 10:43:27 AM PST by ElkGroveDan
“Murder and graffiti are two vastly different crimes,” Rudy Giuliani once said. “But they are part of the same continuum, and a climate that tolerates one is more likely to tolerate the other.”
Good point, Rudy.
Now, what about a climate — not to mention a Republican presidential candidate — that not only tolerates, but allows unelected judges to legalize the practice of delivering a child until only its head remains within its mothers womb so the child can be killed by sucking out its brains?
What about a climate where same-sex couples are given the same legal status as married couples, whether the resulting arrangements are candidly called “same-sex marriages,” or are semantically papered-over with terms such as “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships”?
Apply the Giuliani Continuum to fundamental issues such as marriage and the right to life, and where does it lead?
Not where conservatives want America to be.
Rudy Giuliani’s observation about the “continuum” running from graffiti to murder was quoted in a piece in the winter edition of City Journal by Steven Malanga. The title of Malanga’s piece neatly encapsulates his argument: “Yes, Rudy is a Conservative — and an electable one at that.”
I believe Malanga is wrong on both counts. Rudy is neither conservative, nor electable — at least, not as a Republican presidential candidate.
As Malanga seems to define it, a politician dedicated to good police work and free-market economics qualifies as a conservative. “Far from being a liberal,” Malanga writes of Giuliani, “he ran New York with a conservative’s priorities: government exists above all to keep people safe in their homes and in the streets, he said, not to redistribute income, run a welfare state, or perform social engineering. The private economy, not government, creates opportunity, he argued; government should just deliver basic services well and then get out of the private sector’s way.”
But that’s not enough. While advocating law and order, self-reliance, and capitalism is laudable, it does not entitle a politician to a free pass for advocating other causes that are deeply destructive of American society.
While it is always wrong to take an innocent human life — whether on a New York sidewalk or in a mother’s womb — Giuliani is highly selective in applying this principle. In 1999, when he was pondering a run for the U.S. Senate, he was asked whether he supported banning partial-birth abortion. “No, I have not supported that,” he said, “and I don’t see my position on that changing.”
“I'm pro-gay rights,” he also said. Indeed, his position is so radical in this area that as New York City mayor he promoted a city ordinance that removed the distinctions in municipal law between married and unmarried couples, regardless of their gender.
“What it really is doing is preventing discrimination against people who have different sexual orientations, or make different preferences in which they want to lead their lives,” Giuliani said, explaining the ordinance to the New York Times. “Domestic partnerships not only affect gays and lesbians, but they also affect heterosexuals who choose to lead their lives in different ways.”
In other words, preserving a legal order that prefers traditional marriage and traditional families is “discrimination.”
Giuliani’s positions on abortion and marriage disqualify him as a conservative because they annihilate the link between the natural law and man-made laws. Indeed, they use man-made law to promote and protect acts that violate the natural law.
Given his argument that there is a “continuum” between graffiti and murder, you would think that Giuliani would understand the importance of the link between the natural law and the laws of New York City, let alone the laws of the United States. At the heart of Rudy’s “continuum” argument, is the realization that when society refuses to enforce a just law it teaches people to disrespect the moral principles underlying just laws.
The late Russell Kirk argued in The Conservative Mind that the first canon of conservatism is “[b]elief in a transcendent order, or body of natural law, which rules society as well as conscience. Political problems, at bottom, are religious and moral problems. … True politics is the art of apprehending and applying the Justice which ought to prevail in a community of souls.”
It is simply not justice to take the life of an unborn child. Nor is it justice to codify same-sex relationships so that, by design of the state itself, a child can be denied a mother or a father from birth, which is one thing legalized same-sex unions would do.
By advocating abortion on demand and same-sex unions, Rudy is doing something far more egregious than, say, defacing a New York subway train. He is defacing the institution that forms the foundation of human civilization.
That is not conservative.
Rudy will not win the Republican nomination because enough of the people who vote in Republican caucuses and primaries still respect life and marriage, and are not ready to give up on them — or on the Republican party as an agent for protecting them.
So, I would advise the more secular minded members of the G.O.P. to nominate a candidate amenable to the CR. Do otherwise and the more secular minded members of the G.O.P. will be responsible for President Hillary Rodham Clinton.
What Rudy says, and what he does, are two entirely different things.
bttt
LOL. That's why I said I wasn't sure if it was accurate. Heck, I might even vote for him too. I don't know enough yet. But on H&C last night, he came across as being more conservative than his previous stances would indicate. What he's done in the past is more important to me than what he says he will do in the future, simply because anyone can say anything. That's the easy part.
...and if Arnold hadn't won, it would definately be much worse!! Cruz Bustamante or Phil Angiledes? Remember them???
"It's about CORE values, and Rudy is nowhere near the real Republican core values."
So let's just stay home like we did last November and hand not only the House and Senate BACK to the Socialists but suffer another Clinton administration for 8 years.
Yeah, we'll teach them like we did in 1992 and 1996.
If Duncan Hunter could beat Hillary by winning the Primaries great, I'll vote for him. At this point I'll vote for anyone who has a chance at beating her. The moderates will vote for Rudy and that could be the turning point.
That is your opinion.
Like I said, right now I am working hard for Duncan Hunter, but I if Rudy wins the nomination, I will vote for him.
Count me as another vote for Rudy. If McCain wins the primary, I'm voting 3rd party.
Realistically, for a president to actually review 1% of what he's responsible for would be a Herculean undertaking. That (among other things) was the downfall of Bill Clinton. He surrounded himself with a bunch of people that were as amoral and corrupt as himself, and he largely destroyed the prestige of the office.
I think that Rudy understands how to act like a leader (seeing him after 9-11 proved that). I'm not sure about the other two pieces of the puzzle yet - that'll come out in the campaign.
Hmmmmm, now that's an idea worth pondering.
and remember that the conservative candidate was shouted down by the (R)nold fans saying he could never win?
So instead of riding a wave of revolt with a more conservative candidate, the rino lovers declared their candidate the only one that could win, shouted down the conservatives, and ended up electing someoe who is more liberal than they ever admitted he would be, and closer to a liberal than a conservative.
Look at everything Rnold has done and proposed. Expect WORSE with a bald faced RINO like rudy.
I swear every RINO lover must have french ancestry. They all want to surrender before any fighting begins.
HANNITY: There's a misconception that you support a partial birth abortion.
GIULIANI: If it doesn't have provision for the mother I wouldn't support the legislation. If it has provision for the life of the mother I would support
Think that pretty well puts that "he doesn't support PBA" to rest.
The link to the transcript is here
Calling all of the "all or nothing Conservatives" out there.
Rudy Giuliani is not a viable national candidate.
I'm very curious as to why you feel the former acceptable and not the latter.
Perhaps you don't live in California. I do. There was NO WAY that McClintock could have won in this state. NO way!!!
I don't love everything Arnold has done, not by a long shot, but he's still better than the two democrats.
Such a position puts you out of the electorate permanently, because the Constitution requires the candidate for president to be a Human Being.
I will support someone like Mitch McConnell or maybe Hunter in the primary, but I will vote for the GOP winner of the primary, either because I can support them, or if not, in order to offset at least one God-hating, USA-hating moonbat.
South Dakota passed an abortion ban, which failed, but they're working on passing another one.
Utah is also working to pass an abortion ban.
Dozens of states have concealed-carry.
Conclusion: A President has no impact on social policy.
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.