Posted on 02/21/2007 1:59:42 PM PST by dangus
A voter can discern honesty by examining what a candidate believes is a "winning issue."
Rudy Giuliani has flipped on abortion several times. Does that mean he is too liberal or too dishonest for a conservative to vote for him?
In 1989, he informed the Conservative Party of New York that he was pro-life. That stance was reported in local newspapers, and he lost to Mayor David Dinkins.
In 1993, he dropped the pro-life plank, asserting that he believed women had the right to abortion. The decision was nakedly political, and the New York Times published the paper trail to prove it.
In 1999, with an eye on running for the U.S. Senate, he announced that he supported abortion right, and that he wouldn't seek to overturn President Bill Clinton's veto. (He did not run due to health problems, but speculation Hillary Clinton would turned out true, of course)
Now, Giuliani says he would appoint "strict constructionists" like Roberts and Alito. When pro-lifers groused that it wasn't certain that Roberts or Scalia would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, Giuliani added Antonin Scalia, father of the constructionist movement and adamant pro-lifer. And he now claims that he would allow "partial-birth" abortions only if they would save the life of the mothers, a rare condition that is within the mainstream of pro-life thought (that being that the life of the mother is at least equal in value to the life of the child).
Giuliani also arouses skepticism on recent claims he would vigorously oppose illegal immigration and believes in the second amendment.
But which Giuliani should conservative voters believe in?
I submit that someone from an extremely liberal place, such as New York, who professes to be conservative despite having governed as a liberal, may be at least as conservative as someone from a conservative place. I further submit that you cannot trust a politician to tell the truth, but you can examine which issues that they believe are "winning issues."
Consider President Bush. He claimed he opposed illegal immigration, but supports legislation that is an ongoing amnesty for illegal immigration in every way except for in name. He has left in place, or even strengthened, "language rights" orders written by none other than Bill Lann Lee. No amount of persuading will make him change his views because he firmly believes that La Raza speaks for all Hispanics, and picking up their soap in the shower is the only way for the Republican Party to hold power in the future. According to mainstream press reports, he is totally unfazed by recent losses and his own political weakness, because Karl Rove assured him that present losses were necessary for future success. Even though he announced he was against illegal immigration, he believes that position is ultimately a losing political issue, so he avoided bringing the subject up as much as possible, and governs contrarily.
No candidate ever campaigns hard on an issue he believes is a losing issue. This is not cynicism; it's the way democracy works. If an honest candidate has firm beliefs that are contrary to majority opinion, he hopes to change majority opinion, he waits out the election, or he downplays the issue.
So, how do we read Giuliani? Early on, he expressed he opposed Roe v. Wade. Later on, he seemed to change his mind, at one time, even suggesting his then-wife convinced him, too. Now, he says he "hates abortion," but hasn't taken back his qualifier that he does believe it is a woman's legal right. Isn't this the same cover for opposing abortion as President Clinton's claims he detested it?
No. President Clinton was elected from Arkansas, a very pro-life state, where he downplayed his pro-abortion views in order to be elected. When he went national, he campaigned on what he believed to be a winning issue: he was personally opposed to abortion, but it was a woman's right.
Well, that's Giuliani's belief as to what a winning issue in New York was. And guess what? If he hadn't won that election, there would be 3,000 more murders in New York per year and 300,000 more unemployed New Yorkers. He turned New York from a failed ghetto back into the global face of America. But Giuliani has made it clear that he does not consider that a winning issue, nationally.
Instead, he has put the emphasis on strict constructionism. If Giuliani is nominated, but loses the 2008 election, Republicans will pass up the chance to create a solid pro-life majority on the Supreme Court.
Is Giuliani pro-life, or did his ex-wife (and/or his apostasy from Catholicism) change his mind? We have no way of knowing.
We do know this: Giuliani's top priority for New York has been making the city safe to live, in spite of all the "civil-rights" charlaitans. He fought hard, even when it looked to outsiders like it was an issue he couldn't win. Those who suggest he would vote for Ruth Bader Ginsberg are taking his quotes out of context. (He was insisting that the Senate had the duty to approve John Roberts, unless they doubted his honesty, ethics, or fitness for office. He was not saying he'd ever dream of nominating someone like Ginsberg.)
Selecting a liberal judicial activist would go directly opposite Giuliani's core issues. It's inconceivable that he would nominate a Harriet Meirs or a David Souter. And his selection of judicial strict-constructionists would accomplish the first and foremost goal of the pro-life movement.
It's posted under "Vanity/Questions"; It's title includes, "(Opinion)," and it links to my own page.
Oh, bullcrap. That is the biggest whopper I have seen yet from a Rudy booster. Rudy took guns away from long-time NYC permit holders. None of the other guys did anything like that. He joined with Mary McCarthy after the 1997 Empire State building shooting to support a call for more federal gun control. He sued gun manufacturers - and Hunter voted for legislaton to end such nuisance suits.
If you decide the 2nd Amendment isn't a big deal for you, that's your perogative. I would disagree, but leave it at that.
But don't come around telling a lie of this magntitude and not expect to be called on it. And, having told this whopper, it calls into question the veracity of your vanity post as well.
From another Thread:
If you want to know what kind of judges Guiliani will appoint, just look at... Rudy Guiliani. Rudy Guiliani is a lawyer himself, and he undoubtedly thinks that Rudy Guiliani is a "strict constructionist" in his interpretation of the Constitution, whatever that means to him.
Rudy Guiliani will appoint judges who mirror Rudy Guiliani's Legal Philosophy, because -- get this -- Rudy imagines that his own Legal Philosophy is Correct. Stunning, isn't it?
How anyone could think otherwise for one instant... how anyone could be wantonly sold such a blatant bill of goods... is utterly beyond me.
With "Pro-Lifers" like these, I need to start printing up Deeds to the Brooklyn Bridge for sale. My ill-gotten fortune awaits!
If Rudy will submit to an examination of his record, and personal questioning by James Bopp, Jr., the prominent attorney and leading figure in the pro-life movement, to ascertain the degree of Rudy's commitment to the sanctity of life, I will accept the findings of Jim Bopp without question.
I have accepted Jim Bopp's informed judgment regarding the sincerity of Mitt Romney's conversion to pro-life, and I feel I owe the same consideration to Rudy.
Will Rudy take me up on my offer?
NO.
Next question?
What in the hell is happening on FR that the web's premier 2nd-A political website is being subjected to Brady-Center caliber nonsense? THERE IS NO TENSION. Law-abiding citizens have a right to bear arms for self-defense. Criminals do not, but also don't obey gun-control laws that end up disarming law abiding citizens.
And you have NO RIGHT to be kept free of crime by the government. Try suing the police department if you are robbed and see how far that gets you.
Joe, please banglist this one for target practice.
Must learn spell thinking, gar.
No, I'm not kidding. Does this sound the same to you?
1) "I used gun control as mayor," he said at a news conference Saturday during a swing through California. But "I understand the Second Amendment. I understand the right to bear arms."
He said what he did as mayor would have no effect on hunting.
2)It seems every election year, some liberal politician dons an NRA cap and grabs a shotgun for a hunting photo-op, as if that means they support our right as Americans to keep and bear arms. I, myself, thoroughly enjoy hunting, having just recently spent a great weekend hunting elk in Arizona. But, the second amendment is not about hunting. It is about the right of you and me to be secure in our homes. We must vigorously defend against all attempts to chip away at the Second Amendment. You know as well as I do that there is one thing criminals prefer over any other: unarmed victims.
I don't need to tell you who said what
And for him to even compare Rudy and Duncan Hunter regarding gun rights is the height of absurdity. Hunter gets an A+ rating from GOA. That is no small feat. I'm not sure GOA has a rating low enough to adequately describe Rudy - after all, he took guns away from long-term NYC permit holders who never had them taken away by the likes of Koch and Dinkins.
Sorry we aint buying. Duncan Hunter 08
Who cares?
I know he's a flip-flopping poll-watching liar and he advocates gun control.
That's enough for me.
He might be a fine mayor (maybe Podunk, Iowa needs one) but he ain't POTUS material.
He's a RINO.
Period.
Oh, yeah, just as a by the by, where did you pull that out of?
The nether regions?
Please show me in the Bill of Rights, the US Constitution or the charter of Springfield, Illinois, for that matter, where any citizen is granted the right to be kept free from crime by the government.
Next time you need a cop, you just point that out to him, after the crook has broken into your home and stolen your goodies, raped your wife and daughter and killed your goldfish...and you didn't do anything because you don't think the 2d Amendment meant you, as a citizen, didn't have the right to bear arms with which to protect yourself.
Another thread where the Rudybots couldn't make a dent. It must be frustrating for them.
I'm no RudyBot. I fully intend to vote against him in the primary. But I am very concerned he will defeat the candidates more acceptable to me (Brownback, Tancredo, Hunter), and grumbling from well-meaning conservatives will hurt him in the general election.
I did write, "what will make me vote for him in the general election is if he pledges to nominate strict constructionist judges, like Scalia"; The next day he announced he would nominate strict constructionist judges like Roberts and Alito.
I wrote that I'd be much more comfortable if he had mentioned Scalia; The next day, Rudy announced that he would nominate strict constructionist judges like Roberts, Alito and Scalia.
I wrote that I thought it was really neat that he was reading my comments on Free Republic; The next day, Rudy announced, "Dangus is delusional if he thinks I read his comments on Free Republic."
OK, I made that last paragraph up.
>> Please show me in the Bill of Rights, the US Constitution or the charter of Springfield, Illinois, for that matter, where any citizen is granted the right to be kept free from crime by the government. <<
Rights are not granted by any Charter, Bill, or Constitution, but are granted by our Creator. Government has the obligation to secure those rights for us.
>> Next time you need a cop, you just point that out to him, after the crook has broken into your home and stolen your goodies, raped your wife and daughter and killed your goldfish...and you didn't do anything because you don't think the 2d Amendment meant you, as a citizen, didn't have the right to bear arms with which to protect yourself. <<
I fully believe that I have the right to protect myself with firearms. However, it is the unanimous opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court that I do not. I disagree with that opinion.
The position that the Bush administration has, which is that the right to bear arms is an individual right, not a collective right, is also dead wrong. It is a collective right which can exist only when it is held by freely associating individuals. The purpose of the second amendment is explicitly stated that so that militia can form. The U.S. Army is not a militia. Permitting state militaria to form, with the approval of the U.S. government does not fulfill the purpose of a militia, either. A militia is "a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government."
The right to form militia depends on the individual right to bear arms (or else how can one form a militia), but to state that the right to bear arms is an individual right presumes a meaningless purpose of the right to bear arms.
"Rudy Guiliani will appoint judges who mirror Rudy Guiliani's Legal Philosophy, because -- get this -- Rudy imagines that his own Legal Philosophy is Correct."
Please learn what strict constructionism means. It means that the Constitution means what it says. This is contrast to those who assert that the constitution is a "living" or "evolving" document.
Darn, you almost had me. I was gonna ask you to say that Rudy was going to retire out of the race in favor of Hunter and drink tulip juice in the bahamas while waiting for his hair implants to grow. ;-)
Do you think that Giuliani believes himself to be a strict constructionist?
"Selecting a liberal judicial activist would go directly opposite Giuliani's core issues. It's inconceivable that he would nominate a Harriet Meirs or a David Souter. And his selection of judicial strict-constructionists would accomplish the first and foremost goal of the pro-life movement."
I don't think it's so inconceivable.
For a man who thinks that abortion is "a woman's constitutional right," Ruth Bader Ginsburg may look like a "strict constructionist."
sitetest
So much for your strict Construtionist routine.
However, it is the unanimous opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court that I do not.
My gawd, please point out that decision, and the relevant sections that lead to that belief. This ought to be good.
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.