Giuliani candidacy should be unacceptable to pro-life voters

Daily South Town ^ | June 11, 2007 | Daniel T. Zanoza

[Kuksool]

Since former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani officially threw his hat into the ring as a candidate seeking the presidency of the United States, the conservative media have been more than kind to his candidacy.

A number of recent polls indicate the former federal prosecutor leads an ever-growing field of Republicans seeking their party's nomination. Many conservatives seem to be in denial when it comes to Giuliani's liberal social leanings, including his positions on abortion, homosexual marriage and gun control.

For example, one of Giuliani's strongest supporters seems to be Sean Hannity of Fox News. In one interview with Hannity, when queried about the abortion issue, Giuliani, a skillful politician, did all he could to portray his pro-abortion views in the most favorable light. But as expected, Giuliani did not and could not tell Hannity he believed in the sanctity of life because the truth is the popular New Yorker supports abortion rights, even though he addressed the issue with the skill of an experienced tactician.

Unfortunately, Hannity and some other conservatives in the media seem willing to accept Giuliani's shortcomings regarding social issues simply because he could potentially defeat Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama in a head-to-head election. Conservatives must not fall into such a trap. Positive reactions to a Giuliani candidacy by conservatives is troubling for those who believe that overturning Roe v. Wade may be one U.S. Supreme Court justice appointment away. During President Bush's last term, he may have an opportunity to nominate another Supreme Court justice, and, hopefully, Bush will follow his past pattern of choosing a strict constructionist for confirmation to the high court. But if conservative members of the media begin to support candidates of either party for their electability rather than their position on the issue of life, it could lead to a disaster of great proportions.

There is much more at stake regarding the upcoming fight for the White House. With the appointments of Supreme Court Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito, the pro-life movement is closer than it ever has been to reversing the 1973 decision that legalized abortion. If the nation's next president is a pro-abortion Republican, it would virtually guarantee Roe v. Wade will stand as law into the foreseeable future.

However, with the Democrats now controlling the U.S. Senate, the battle to confirm a Bush nominee would be heated, to say the least. But if Bush nominated a bulletproof jurist reminiscent of the Roberts nomination, the Senate would be obligated to fill its mandate regarding Bush's choice. The same can be said for a pro-life president who might follow Bush.

However, if Giuliani wins the GOP's presidential nomination, it would set a precedent that might stand for years to come. There are many Republicans who believe the party should take a turn to the left on social issues. A victory by Giuliani in the primary and a subsequent win in the presidential election would doom Republican social conservatives to the back of the party's political bus.

Indeed, if the next president of the United States is not pro-life and is a Republican to boot, it would skew the political debate over the issue of abortion. The pro-life movement would, essentially, no longer have a political home, and the hopes that abortion would one day become a dark and distant memory of America's past would be dashed.

Social conservatives in the media must stand behind presidential nominees who embrace the sanctity of life. Sacrificing these values is not worth the price of victory.

[WOSG]

“The next president will probably be picking at least 2 Supreme Court Justices.”

The fact that in debate #1 Rudy basically said he thought a pro-Constitutional Justice could uphold Roe v Wade, and the fact that Rudy has touted the horrible Justice Ginsberg as an example of an acceptable Justice tells us all we need to know.

The sorry spectacle of Republicans putting judicial activist liberal Justices on the USSC will repeat itself, if we let Rudy become President.

[WOSG]

” Rudy believes abortion is a Constitutional right. Therefore, to Rudy, overturning Roe v. Wade amounts to judicial activism. When he says he’ll nominate strict constitutionalists, it means he’ll nominate pro-abortion judges.

President Giuliani guarantees 8 years of pro-abortion SCOTUS nominations. President Obama or President Clinton gives us a chance to elect a pro-life President in 2012. Plus, as GWB showed us, it is very hard politically to oppose a President from your own party. It will be very difficult to block the appointment of a pro-abortion judge nominated by Rudy. It won’t be as difficult to do the same if the pro-abortion judge is nominated by a Democrat.”

Well said.

[Secret Agent Man]

I think it pretty much is.

[Coleus]

.

[Lexinom]

There are many Republicans who believe the party should take a turn to the left on social issues.

This is the most widely disseminated and silliest non-sequiturs in recent memory - a line spouted continually by the Rudy advocates.

Those who believe this need to explain why Webb, Tester, and Casey all felt they had to run as pro-life (and pro-2A) Democrats to win. The small difference the pro-life position made (with 10% single-issue pro-life voters vs. 8% single-issue pro-choice/pro-abortion) could very easily have made the difference in at least two of these races by taking abortion off the table.