Rudy Issues

ACU ^ | 3/6/07 | Lisa Fabrizio

[pissant]

Many of the emails I received regarding my recent column on Rudy Giuliani agreed with my premise that the problems with his social liberalism outweigh his positive stances on national defense and fiscal conservatism. Still, many more are willing to overlook this; they remain convinced that Rudy is their guy, based mainly on his promise to appoint originalist judges and the “fact” that no other candidate can beat Hillary Clinton.

As to the first, what, besides his say-so, gives so many conservatives the idea that he’ll appoint strict constructionalists? One reader lauded Giuliani’s “consistency of sticking to his views” as one reason. But consistent or not, his view of Second Amendment rights is surely not that of someone with an “originalist” mindset:

"[I]'s part of the Constitution. People have the right to bear arms. Then the restrictions of it have to be reasonable and sensible. You can't just remove that right. You've got to regulate, consistent with the Second Amendment".

Besides his disingenuous use of the word “regulate,” the notion that he favors restrictions on the liberties enumerated in the Bill of Rights--from which governmental interference is strictly prohibited--is disturbing. Worse yet, what sort of originalist would make this compromise:

"I was in favor of it (the Brady Bill) because I thought that it was necessary both to get the crime bill passed and also necessary with the 2,000 murders or so that we were looking at, 1,800, 1,900, to 2,000 murders, that I could use that in a tactical way to reduce crime. And I did."

It seems to me that he is open to adjust the U.S Constitution in order to serve a ‘greater good’. I suspect that the overwhelming majority of conservatives would agree that when the supreme law of the land is at stake, the end can never justifies the means.

Also, someone who suggests that there is a “right” to abortion, is clearly not thinking along originalist lines either. But for this stand he is lauded by the liberal media as a mainstream Republican who is independent from the religious fanatics of the party’s far-right wing. Are they correct? Here’s a little quiz. Whence comes the following quote?

"We must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence. That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the 14th Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions".

Was it uttered by Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell or some other “kook” member of the dreaded “religious right?” No, it is simply a plank from the Republican Party platform. The point being, that attempts to paint those who do not endorse Rudy as some kind of fringe group, are way off the mark and only meant to divide the GOP as a means to pave the way for the future coronation of you-know-who.

And it doesn’t have to be that way. This is a choice which need not be made. Let me repeat, the only people who can give us Rudy vs. Hillary are Republicans. This win-win scenario is one slyly crafted by the media in order to terrify those of us for whom the words “President Clinton” are a recurring nightmare.

Liberals and their media wing long for the days of the sweet sounds of GOP discord, like the fractious Harriet Miers flap or a Pat Buchanan candidacy. So they’ve abandoned former darling John McCain for one who is much closer to their idea of the ideal Republican. For a good indication of once and future candidates who are utterly unloved by the left, consider the attacks on the “racist” George Allen, “Mormon” Mitt Romney or Newt “the Grinch” Gingrich.

No, the media never trash those they do not fear, and their mendacity should be apparent to all who are paying attention. For a group who howls every time President Bush mentions 9/11--remember the indignation registered when the 2004 GOP convention was held in New York City--the media can’t write enough about the valor of “ America’s Mayor.”

Rudy Giuliani surely deserves kudos for his handling of what was arguably the worst day in American history and he certainly displays some admirable conservative qualities, but why must anyone commit now? Doing so at this early date is playing right into the enemy’s hands; divide and conquer.

[pissant]

Add to that, he ain't too bright to be hoodwinked into believing Algore's global warming nonsense.

[ClearCase_guy]

the media never trash those they do not fear, and their mendacity should be apparent to all who are paying attention.

I'm not choosing any sides quite yet, but the above is certainly part of my method.

The Republican candidates who are constantly slammed in the media will go up a few points in my book.
The Republican candidates who are treated respectfully by the media will need to be very, very, very closely examined before I consider voting for them.

[alisasny]

It seems to me that he is open to adjust the U.S Constitution in order to serve a ‘greater good’.

Are the thousands and thousands not murdered due to his strong stance on crime not the "greater good"?

I think when looking at Rudy you must take into account the hell that NYC was before he was Mayor and the vast population of NYC.

I can not think of one other potential candidate who has the ability to govern 280 million Americans and lead this country in a positive direction forward with the potential of holding the White House for another 16 years.

The damage to loose the White House to Hillary/Obama will see a catastrophe worse then the perceived social "ills" of a President Giuliani.

[freedomfiter2]

It seems to me that he is open to adjust the U.S Constitution in order to serve a ‘greater good’.

Are the thousands and thousands not murdered due to his strong stance on crime not the "greater good"?



It may be necessary to adjust the Constitution occasionally, that's why the amendment process was included in it. There is a name for people who govern outside the Constitution, they're called despots.

[showme_the_Glory]

Arguably one of the best Mayors ever. POTUS, hopefully never.

[flashbunny]

"The damage to loose the White House to Hillary/Obama will see a catastrophe worse then the perceived social "ills" of a President Giuliani."

They're not just "perceived" ills, and they're not just "social".

Calling Roe v wade "good constitutional law" is a legal and constitutional issue, not just a "social" one.

His support for publicly funded abortions is also a fiscal issue, not just a social one.

Rudy's hostility towards the 2nd amendment and gun owners is a legal and constitutional issue, not a social one.

Rudy's support for mccain / kennedy "amnesty" bill, and his fight to have NY be a "sanctuary city" for illegal aliens is a law and order and fiscal issues, not a social one.

His support for campaign finance reform is a legal and constitutional issue, not a social one.

His advocating for "hate crime" laws is a legal and constitutional issue, not a social one.

His promotion of the global warming agenda is a political and economic issue, not a social one.

And his hostility against personal freedom in favor of government control isn't a social issue - it's an issue at the very heart of this country since it was founded.



If hillary had said that instead of rudy, you know damn well every rudy booster would be jumping all over her. Instead, since it's rudy, they'll either ignore it or cheer the sentiment.

[pissant]

Any good GOP nominee can beat the weakling dems. The fight over Rudy is to avoid causing long term damage to the GOP as a conservative party.

[stockstrader]

Ref, first paragraph "....and fiscal conservatism".

Fiscal conservatism???

As in USING OUR TAX DOLLARS FOR PUBLIC FUNDING OF ABORTIONS? Give me a break!!!!

[neverhillorat]

Wonder who is the choice of the Mad Mullahs in Tehran, Hillorat or Rudy?

[AlaskaErik]

"[I]'s part of the Constitution. People have the right to bear arms. Then the restrictions of it have to be reasonable and sensible. You can't just remove that right. You've got to regulate, consistent with the Second Amendment".

This is the sole reason I will refuse to vote for Giuliani. If he were to come out and publicly state his opposition to ABW2 and all those other bogus RAT gun control bills, he would have my vote. The liberalism on the social issues I can live with. The gun control, I can't.

[Emmett McCarthy]

It's my opinion that some of the elements pushing Rudy are doing so precisely because he'd lose to Hillary and/or Obama. Liberals are going to vote for the liberal Democrat, not for the liberal Republican, and many conservatives are not going to vote for either. And, as many media-orchestrated things of this nature, it's being presented as a fait accompli. I think conservative are being "had" on this one.

[madprof98]

Was it uttered by Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell or some other “kook” member of the dreaded “religious right?” No, it is simply a plank from the Republican Party platform.

Whether Rudy wins or loses, his nomination itself would necessarily transform the Republican Party into one in which social conservatives are no longer welcome. The GOP so many of us support--the one in the party platform--will be gone for good.

[massadvj]

If George Allen cannot win in Virginia, what conservative can? If Rick Santorum cannot win in Pennsylvania, what conservative can? If Jim Talent cannot win in Missouri, what conservative can? Until you folks come up with an answer, Rudy will be the front-runner, because most Republicans prefer winning over ideological purity.

Not one pro-life, pro-life conservative beats Hillary or a generic Dim nominee head to head, and none will, for the simple reason that the tide has shifted in the swing states. These states are now more urban and suburban, more antagonistic toward conservatives, and unlikely to support candidates in the vein of Allen, Santorum and Talent.

What Republicans tend to win in states where Dims and Independents outnumber us? Republicans like Schwartzenegger and Specter.

Beyond being an expression of your ideology, voting is a strategic act. You must realistically assess what the situation is and take what the situation gives you. Until or unless a conservative with crossover appeal comes along, Rudy's my man.

By the way, I and Rudy supporters are not the ones being divisive. We will support the nominee, whoever it is. You guys are the ones threatening to bolt the party, or stay home, if Rudy is nominated. Most people can see that, and recognize that when the schoolyard whiner says he's going to take his ball and go home, you should probably let him.

[Dead Corpse]

Wouldn't cross the street to pee on him if he was on fire...

A "New York Republican" anywhere else in the Nation is a DEMOCRAT.

Not what we need on our Ticket in 2008. I don't give a rats arse how much the liberal Main Stream Press loves him.

[noname07718]

There are many examples where there are unconstitutional laws are on the books. The whole EPA scam is totally unconstitutional. The law that was set allowed the EPA to set up enforcement and set penalties for non-compliance. Every law that is passed should be signed off by the Supreme Court. If it is unconstitutional, then it should be sent back. While that is not practical, it should also be pointed out that the Supreme Court is not set up by the Constitution as the final arbitrator of constitutionality of laws or of any action by the other two parties in the Balance of powers.

[pissant]

None of the conservaitves in the race stack up in polls agaisnt dems becasue they are unknown at this point, largely. Rudy is running mostly on name recognition and celebrity as well as being a guy most people "like", including most hard core conservatives.

This is not the general election, it is the primary. Whoever wins it will have plenty of name recognition and celebrity by the time its over.

The meme that only Rudy can beat the dems weak sisters is nonsense.

[noname07718]

As a % of tax burden, Rudy cut NYC’s taxes by much more than Bush cut the nation’s taxes.

[stockstrader]

Ridiculous comparison. What mayor has to fund NATIONAL DEFENSE responsibilities? What mayor has to fund intelligence agencies? What mayor has to fund Defense Dept. research and development? What mayor has to fund foreign aid (military and otherwise)? Want me to name more differences?

[FreeInWV]

BTT for a fine article!