Posted on 02/19/2007 1:15:06 PM PST by 300magnum
What's not to like about Rudy Giuliani? After all, he's got charisma, style, name-recognition and now apparently, even sex appeal. He's from New York City, where he cut taxes and cleaned up the mobsters and petty crime. He's tough on terror; he told that Arab sheik where to get off when he offered $10 million to NYC after 9/11 and he even kicked Yasser Arafat out of a Lincoln Center bash. So what's not to like?
Well, if you're a mainstream media type or one of their beloved Independent voters, nothing. The man is everything that liberals love in a Republican. He's a gun-grabbing, pro-abortion, gay-rights-supporting, cross-dressing, thrice married "Catholic." When asked about his differences with the Church on issues like abortion, he dutifully gives the answer that makes left-wing hearts sing: "I oppose it. I don't like it. I hate it. I think abortion is something that, as a personal matter, I would advise somebody against. However, I believe in a woman's right to choose."
Let's face it. The man has been in the Northeast long enough to know the code words. Take his stance on the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act: "[I]f it doesn't have a provision for the life of the mother, then I wouldn't support the legislation. If it has provision for the life of the mother, then I would support it." As anyone who opposes the grisly murder of nearly born children knows, the "life of the mother" clause remains loophole language, even though the 2003 Act is an improvement on its 1995 predecessor.
More straightforward though, is he on the issue of gay rights. He openly professes that inalienable 'rights' should be accorded to those whose claim on this special protection is based solely on sexual proclivities. Add to this his record on guns--remember, he and his Constitution-busting Attorney General Elliot Spitzer brought the first-in-the-nation lawsuits against gun manufacturers--and you'd think that his candidacy as a Republican would have nary a chance.
Yet shockingly, in the face of these stances and the attendant liberal love heaped upon him, Rudy may be the choice of some Republicans. The reasons for this vary; some supporters pooh-pooh the effect his social liberalism would have at the presidential level, others believe his claim that he will appoint originalist justices to the Supreme Court, while many of his backers think that his tough stance on terrorism trumps all else. And besides, they ask, what other "name" candidate is there who can be counted on to "win?"
This kind of thinking plays right into the hands of the opposition. Those who buy into the notion that his support of abortion, for instance, will be a kind of benign, non-event are as gullible as the media believe them to be. Ask yourselves, who vetoed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act in 1995 and who signed it into law in 2003? In the same vein, what was the subject of President Bush's first and only veto?
While trying to appeal to the conservative base of the Republican Party, Rudy has claimed he would appoint originalist judges to the Supreme Court because he has, "a very, very strong view that for this country to work, for our freedoms to be protected, judges have to interpret not invent the Constitution." This would seem just a tad at odds with someone who supports a right to abortion which is decidedly not in the Constitution, and infringing on the right to keep and bear arms, which certainly is.
While his liberal social agenda is disturbing, it is his status as another high-profile 'cafeteria Catholic' that troubles me most. Although he doesn't try and make his faith an issue--as do Joe Biden and John Kerry, whose similar "I'm personally against abortion but..." statements have been ridiculed by conservatives for years--the bottom line is this: How can anyone trust a man who freely admits that he leaves his religious and moral beliefs at the church door?
A man who would publicly repudiate the dictates of his conscience is much more dangerous to the GOP than one who is intrinsically liberal. This notion that deeply held beliefs, religious or otherwise, should not enter into public life is a cancer on that life. Who would hire an accountant that professed a personal dedication to honesty, but was unable to transfer that into his business dealings? Or a car manufacturer whose innate sense of integrity did not inform his workmanship?
Politicians, because they craft the laws under which we all must live should, at all times, bring their personal and/or religious sense of ethics and values to their work. And these should be a matter of record while they are campaigning, so their constituents can decide whether or not those ethics are in line with theirs.
There are those who say that certain social issues won't matter if we don't elect a leader whose number one priority is the defense of this country. But what kind of a country are we left to defend if, at its core, it is morally decadent? John Adams famously said, "Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other."
Many conservatives have asked a question that could not be a better tactic for the mainstream media than if they composed it themselves: If it came to a choice between Rudy and Hillary, what would you do? This liberal win-win scenario can only be forestalled if the GOP sticks to its principles, come what may.
----------
Lisa Fabrizio is a columnist who hails from Connecticut. You may write her at mailbox@lisafab.com.
--------------------
Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.
I am concerned that some conservatives in my party (I'm proud to be a Reagan Republican)would seem to want to stay home on election day rather than vote for Rudy (if it comes to that choice). That attitude will(God forbid) put Hillary in the White House.
The issue that concerns me most is winning the war against Islamic fascism. With the Democrats and white flag Republicans scrambling to get us out of Iraq and that Iran will likely get the bomb, the world becomes infinitely more dangerous for all of us. This issue to me far overshadows right to life and other issues at this time. We need a Churchillian leader who will stand strong against Islamic fascism and win this war. Of all the Republicans running or thinking to run for President, Rudy is the strongest on this issue.
(((STOP GIULIANI 2008 PRIMARY PING!)))
If you want on or off this ping list, please send me a Freep mail.
Agreed ... God bless President Reagan; God help Reagan's widow.
Gotta love the man and what he did for this country. Nancy is just Nancy, but he loved her unwaveringly.
If you have not been to the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, CA, it is a MUST see destination.
"Good, cause Rudy is no liberal."
Thanks, I needed a laugh!
If he had a (D) next to his name instead of an (R), all the rudybots here would be lambasting him.
My rhubarb refuses to rise
To its natural size,
Market garden size,
Oh my rhubarb refuses to rise
'Cause my baby don't love,
Oh my baby don't love,
No my baby don't love me no more.
Won't somebody make my rhubarb rise.
(Sorry, couldn't resist.)
My last Prez library was Truman's. I'll visit President George W. Bush's library but never darken the doors of degenerate Willy's in Arkansas. I may make it to President Reagan's library someday ... I live in East Tennessee so it is a long drive. Would enjoy that very much though.
The Congress has before it several measures that would enable our people to reaffirm the sanctity of human life, even the smallest and the youngest and the most defenseless. The Human Life Bill expressly recognizes the unborn as human beings and accordingly protects them as persons under our Constitution. This bill, first introduced by Senator Jesse Helms, provided the vehicle for the Senate hearings in 1981 which contributed so much to our understanding of the real issue of abortion.
The Respect Human Life Act, just introduced in the 98th Congress, states in its first section that the policy of the United States is "to protect innocent life, both before and after birth." This bill, sponsored by Congressman Henry Hyde and Senator Roger Jepsen, prohibits the federal government from performing abortions or assisting those who do so, except to save the life of the mother. It also addresses the pressing issue of infanticide which, as we have seen, flows inevitably from permissive abortion as another step in the denial of the inviolability of innocent human life.
I have endorsed each of these measures, as well as the more difficult route of constitutional amendment, and I will give these initiatives my full support. Each of them, in different ways, attempts to reverse the tragic policy of abortion-on-demand imposed by the Supreme Court ten years ago. Each of them is a decisive way to affirm the sanctity of human life.
Who was the last Mayor nominated?
Who was the last Congressman nominated and elected?
"Who was the last bald president to be elected?" LBJ
"Who was the last guy to go from Mayor to the whitehouse?" We will have either the Mayor or the Senator.
"How about the last pro-choice GOP candidate to get the nod?" Since the Conservative movement was hammered badly last fall no credible alternative exists. FR's favorite candidate, George Allen, was defeated for re-election along with EVERY single conservative running for re-election to the Senate.
Thanks to the all out effort of the Treason Media Conservativism has been discredited among the mass of moderate voters.
How so?
I always wondered if I looked back at old Kerry threads, if the same ppl that think Rudys social values are no big deal-what they thought of skerrys stances on the 2A, abortion, gay rights, the enviroment etc.
Was it unacceptable in kerry, but okay for Rudy?
Some day when I have alot of time........
I don't think we really know how he would handle the War on Terror. This is more of that hype that he was some sort of a hero after 9-11. I maintain he handled it no differently than most any other elected official (outside Louisiana).
James Garfield, I believe.
Agree!
FYI..the author of this piece is Freeper "LisaFab"
Just for the record.
Reagan was not "pro-choice" and never supported abortion on demand. As Governor of California, Reagan signed the 1967 Therapeutic Abortion Act, that was for the three exceptions only, rape, incest and health/life of the mother. The three exceptions amount to roughly 5% of all abortions performed. A decision Reagan regreted within a year. That was 1968. Reagan wasn't elected POTUS until 1980.
Cool....thanks for the info and for pinging her.
Good, cause Rudy is no liberal.
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.