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.
A decent case can be made against Rudy, just as a good case can be made for him.
Jeffrey's column is pretty lame, though. The anti-Rudy people will need to do better.
IF the Dems are smart, they would support Bill Richardson as their guy. Richardson signed a concealed / carry law. Thus he could get the NRA endorsement and carry a bunch of Southern states as well as making AZ and NV into play.
Saying Rudy's hawkishness is "hypothetical" is just plain wrong. He has been tough on it since Day One. Anyone who doesn't think Rudy, who has strongly backed Bush's war policies, isn't a hawk on security needs a dose of reality. No one has been a bigger supporter of Bush on his war policy than Rudy. Wake up !!
I voted for Arnold for CA Gov.......HUGE Mistake!
Rudy is a RINO. I won't be made a fool again even though I like him.
Rudy is waffling on the outrage called PBA, using the same loophole the rabidly pro-infanticide forces do.
And if you look at my post 177, you can see that I do not trust Romney either, although he is probably a stronger candidate in many ways than Rudy. He has no personal skeletons, and has extensive executive experience.
I see Richardson easily taking the DEM VP spot, especially if the Hillery/Obama battle gets worse...
There's no question if the race were Rudy Vs. Hillary, it's Rudy all the way. Any conservative who stays home during the election is handing the presidential seat to a real liberal. And then I don't want to hear the outrage and whining.
Well, not voting for a Republican will help put MRS BILL CLINTON back in the White House. It is what it is.
Hitlery is immune to attack, except here in the vast right-wing conspiracy. Giuliani, however, will get no mercy from the MSM.
"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."
Romney has flip flopped on a number of issues. He is clearly pandering to the right and has no core beliefs. I would argue that 8 years as mayor of NYC was a tougher job than 4 years as Gov. of Mass. Romney spent the past year out of the state getting his support for 2008.
It's a bit disingenuous for some on this forum to throw around the term "Republican In Name Only" when many of them aren't even "Republican In Name."
hillary is not immune, no more than kerry was to the swift boate veterans. It would require a bit more strong effort, though.
This is the thing about Rudy. The president's views on abortion and homosexuals are much less critical now that the Supreme Court is more balanced. I'm not saying the SCOTUS still can't get crazy, but these issues do belong there and Bush has managed to pull the Court back a little from the brink.
And there is no Republican on the horizon who has the leadership charisma that Rudy has in his little pinkie. Not to mention the willingness and ability to play street ball with the Rats.
I was never enamored of Rudy as a prez candidate, but as time goes on and the field continues to look stupid, I've reevaluated and found that, even though I strongly oppose Rudy's views on social issues, I can vote for him and work for him to get elected. I want someone in the White House with testicular fortitude on national security issues and Rudy's got that.
Thirded.
"...conservative primary voters actually want hillary to be elected president if they don't vote for rudy."
This is one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever seen on FreeRepublic.
It's either Hillary or Rudy, eh?
LOL!
See post #28.....
"IF the Dems are smart, they would support Bill Richardson as their guy."
Rudy may not be near some people's core *moral* values, but he is fairly aligned with Republican core values, key being that Republicanism is a political philosophy, not a morality or theology.
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.