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.
Who was the last bald president to be elected?
Who was the last guy to go from Mayor to the whitehouse?
How about the last pro-choice GOP candidate to get the nod?
"What's not to like about Rudy Giuliani?"
Where do I start?
No pro-choice GOP candidate has been nominated since abortion became a prominent national issue. I think Gerald Ford was pro-choice -- someone correct me if I'm wrong -- but he never won a national election. Reagan used to be pro-choice, but switched in time for his winning presidential run. Bush Sr. also was once on the pro-choice side of things, but started singing a different tune eventually.
I think the last bald president was Ike, though Nixon and Bush Sr. had receding hairlines...
Will Rudy return to the combover?
Oops, true conservatives wouldn't vote for Reagan...he's too much like...ah...umm..Mitt Romney!
I can not support a Northeast, liberal, RINO cafeteria "Catholic" republican.
Conservative California Catholic
Who was the last guy to go from Mayor to the whitehouse? Never happened (was Jefferson prez more than 150 years ago? I think he or Madison one was once a mayor)
How about the last pro-choice GOP candidate to get the nod? Ronald Reagan was mildly pro-choice
...And Rudy told Sean Hannity (on H & C) that he admires Ruth Bader Ginsberg, as I recall.
I don't remember the exact wording, but it was definitely positive.
Reagan was VERY pro life by the time he ran in 1980.
All your guns are belong to......Rudy
"What's not to like about Rudy Giuliani?"
I don't know him enough to know if I'd like him or not.
I don't support his politics and he doesn't represent mine (in most cases)
The ONLY place he does is the WOT. That simply is not enough.
"Good, cause Rudy is no liberal."
Yes he is
Wanting to allow gays to openly serve in uniform, stating that "hunters and gun collectors" rights aren't in jeopardy with regards to his gun grabbing past, and being against the ban on PBA aren't exactly conservative positions.
Cmon, you know he supports hunters' rights. LOL
McCain: Rumsfeld One Of Worst Secretaries Of Defense In History
Uhhhhhggggg.
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.