Hillary Clinton vs. Rudy Giuliani - A pro-life dilemma

Warren Throckmorton ^ | Warren Throckmorton

[cpforlife.org]

The recent articles regarding Hillary Clinton have been quite popular. I am following up with a series of interviews with friend, colleague and presidential historian Paul Kengor regarding the role of faith and social policy in the upcoming election. This interview presents Paul’s take on the religious views of front-runners Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani, specifically with regard to abortion policy. Would Rudy be denied communion? Does Hillary think of abortion as a kind of sacred right? Read on…

THROCKMORTON: Just a basic question for foundation: Why do you believe that the religious views of politicians are relevant to their campaign for the presidency?

KENGOR: To quote FDR, the presidency is preeminently a place of moral leadership, and religion is the foundation of morality. George Washington noted that religion and morality are the “indispensable supports” of a successful democratic republic. There is no such thing as a legislator or policy-maker who leaves morality out of his or her decision making. All of our figures impose some kind of personal morality, whether flawed or not. Religion is usually the basis for that morality, and, in American history, typically the Christian religion.

Presidential candidates often point to their faith as justification for the policies they promote during their campaigns.

I believe, the scandal is when you have a liberal Democrat like John Kerry who stated in the final 2004 presidential debate, “My faith affects everything I do, really,” and then cites how his faith influences his desire to end poverty, to clean up the environment, to hike the minimum wage, but then, suddenly, completely separates his Roman Catholic faith from life-death issues like abortion and embryonic research. In my view, that’s outrageous. Kerry does it, Mario Cuomo does it, Ted Kennedy does it, and, most recently, from the Republican side of the aisle, Rudy Giuliani is doing it.

THROCKMORTON: Your new book examines the religious views of the current democratic front runner, Hillary Clinton. How about the Republican leader, Rudy Giuliani? What is his religious background?

KENGOR: He says that he studied theology for four years in college, after completing 12 years at a Catholic private school. By studying theology, I think he means that he was probably required to take some religious education courses at Manhattan College, which was the Catholic college that he attended, where I believe he studied politics and philosophy. He says that at one point he considered becoming a priest.

THROCKMORTON: What are his current religious leanings and how will these impact his policy making?

KENGOR: He has been quite private about that, knowing that any mention of his faith will get him in hot water as the first major pro-choice Republican with a legitimate crack at winning the party’s presidential nomination. The Republican Party has become the Party of Life, and nominating Rudy might well change that image. There are numerous pro-life Christians, Protestant and Catholic, who are going to fight that possible shift, from the likes of James Dobson at Focus on the Family to the pages of the National Catholic Register. They are not pleased that after all of these pro-life gains that have come only because of Republican presidents fighting abortion extermists in the Democratic Party, there is a sudden chance of a course reversal under a Republican president named Rudy Giuliani, no matter what his guarantees about appointing “strict constructionist” judges. They understand that in the real world there will be an untold number of pro-abortion executive orders and initiatives and decisions that would come across a President Giuliani’s desk, and that concerns them. As president, he might at best get to appoint two Supreme Court justices, but he will constantly be dealing with a flurry of pro-life and anti-life legislation.

THROCKMORTON: I have heard Mr. Giuliani say, I hate abortion. How does he reconcile this statement and his Catholic affiliation with his abortion public policy?

KENGOR: Hopefully, everyone hates abortion. The burning question in response would be to ask him why he hates abortion. Naturally, one would presume, he would say that he hates abortion because it terminates a human life. That being the case, how can one support the termination of human life? Once he concedes that point, he knows he’s in trouble. His church is very clear on this, from encyclicals like Humanae Vitae to Evangelium Vitae to Veritatis Splendor to the Catechism to the very recent eloquent remarks from Pope Benedict XVI.

Imagine this striking scenario: a Catholic president of the United States who is denied Holy Communion in certain dioceses because of his stance on abortion. That would be truly remarkable.

Non-Catholics have trouble understanding this, so let me try to explain Catholic thinking: Catholics believe that at Holy Communion they receive the literal body and blood of Christ. The recent Vatican document Redemptionis Sacramentum affirms Church teaching that “anyone who is conscious of grave sin should not celebrate or receive the Body of the Lord without prior sacramental confession.” The document restated the church’s position that anyone knowingly in “grave sin” must go to confession before ingesting the consecrated bread and wine that Catholics consider the literal body and blood of Jesus Christ. Cardinal Francis Arinze said that “unambiguously pro-abortion” Catholic politicians are “not fit” to receive the sacred elements.The Vatican has spoken on this. It is up to American bishops to decide whether to carry out the policy.

In 2004, a number of Catholic archbishops suggested or flatly stated that if a President John Kerry presented himself for communion in their diocese he would be turned away. Among others, these included Archbishop Raymond L. Burke of St. Louis, Archbishop Alfred C. Hughes of New Orleans, and even Archbishop Sean O’Malley of Boston—Kerry’s home diocese. Most recently, in Giuliani’s case, Archbishop Burke has spoken up.

THROCKMORTON: Compared to Hillary Clinton, who would be most pro-choice, if such a comparison can be made?

KENGOR: That’s a no-brainer: Hillary Clinton. If you’re a pro-lifer, and if no issue is more important to you than the right of an unborn child to have life, then nothing could be more calamitous than a President Hillary Clinton. I don’t know of any politician who is more uncompromising and extreme on abortion rights than Hillary Clinton. I know this well and don’t state it with anger or hyperbole. Her extremism on abortion rights was the single most shocking, inexplicable find in my research on her faith and politics. I couldn’t understand it. No question. It is truly extraordinary. Nothing, no political issue, impassions her like abortion rights. For Mrs. Clinton, abortion-rights is sacred ground.

By the way, speaking of Catholics, Mother Teresa and Pope John Paul II saw this abortion extremism in Hillary, and both confronted her on it repeatedly, especially Mother Teresa, right up until the day she died. I have a chapter on this in the book. It’s a gripping story.

THROCKMORTON: Of Hillary and Rudy, who would most likely make abortion rights a litmus test for Supreme Court appointments?

KENGOR: Hillary, no question. She has made that clear. Rudy would not.

[gscc]

Your correct - I am saying he is no different then Hillary.

[longtermmemmory]

This just means we can’t sit out the PRIMARIES!

The second and third tier candidates must be skipped. We have to focus on the first tier candidates.

[cpforlife.org]

From the article: “For Mrs. Clinton, abortion-rights is sacred ground.” which I don’t think anyone doubted.

But for Rooty it’s still important enough to him as his record clearly proves.

I used to agree w “the lesser of two evils” in this type scenario but Post # 11 outlines serious reasons why Rooty may actually be worse than the hilldabeast.

Please see 11 and let me know if you at least respect the premise.

[okie01]

And until recently, the "illegal immigration is good for the US" lobby.

Aside for his tough talk and leadership in the wake of 9/11, there aint much else I can support him on.

Actually, I believe illegal immigration can and will do far more damage to America than alQaeda ever could.

We (the US) is far too strong militarily for the backward Islamo nutjobs to invade and destroy our American lifestyle.

You are correct. The US is, indeed, far too strong militarily for the Islamo nutjobs to ever defeat us militarily. But the fact is they don't have to.

All they have to do is defeat our will to win -- which, you have to admit, they've made substantial progress in doing. Thanks to their allies in the MSM and the Democrat Congress.

Osama bin Laden is on record as favoring a Democrat President. Given that, you really think electing Hillary Clinton is a good idea?

I'm with you on illegal immigration, the Second Amendment and the pro-life issue.

I can't really find a whole lot to support Giuliani on -- except I would trust him to prosecute the War on Terror and to keep taxes from going back up.

But that is a damn sight more than I would trust a Clinton administration to do.

[okie01]

Your correct - I am saying he is no different then Hillary.

So, Roe v Wade is the only issue you care about? You don't care about the WOT or taxes or federalism or judges on anything else?

And you are convinced that, under no circumstances, would the country be better off with Giuliani than having a committed socialist totalitarian in the White House?

Understand that all of your answers to the above questions have to be consistent for your stance to make any sense.

[billmor]

Speaking of candidates and tiers, here is the AP/IPSOS Poll of Oct 9th...

http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/client/act_dsp_pdf.cfm?name=mr071009-1topline.pdf&id=3673

[cpforlife.org]

If you are so sure of that do you also know who WILL be the nominee?

LOL-Do you also know who will win the election? It would save many people from many gray hairs.

[gscc]

You are once again correct. Giuliani would mean the destruction of the Reagan legacy and the conservative movement, so long term it would have a much greater impact on principles I hold dear.

[Man50D]

A noble but dangerous idea. Right now it looks like it will most likely be Hillary v. Giuliani in 2008 and, if so, the Conservative movement in the United States risks tearing itself apart.

Conservatives won't tear themselves apart. On the contrary they are as sure about their principles, as evident by conservative comments on FR, as they socialists are about theirs. The difference is socialists, such as Giuliani, have to deceive the masses to further their agenda while conservatives aren't afraid to say what they believe. Anyone who considers voting for Giuliani is not a conservative.

It's a very big assumption to assert they will be the Presidential candidates considering conventions for both parties are several months away.

We can be reasonably certain that Democrats will vote as a solid block.

Based on what hard evidence? You have apparently not been listening to reports outside the socialist media of many socialists not being pleased with Hitlery's veiled attempt to play the centrist, specifically regarding the war in Iraq. The reason being the socialist media doesn't want you to hear this fact.

We can also be reasonably certain that a large percentage of independents and even ‘moderate’ republicans will vote against whoever the Repubs nominate, simply as a repudiation of the Bush administration. It’s looking more and more certain that whoever the Dems nominate will take the White House.

This is all mere conjecture absent any facts. Everyone assumed right up to election day Dewey would defeat Truman but nobody told a majority of the voters.

If we conservatives are going to hope to remain in a position where we will have any chance of stopping the liberal agenda, it’s going to require us to act as a group, not tear ourselves apart over our candidate.

You are assuming everyone in the GOP is Conservative. Socialism has crept into the GOP incrementally over many years to the detriment of conservatism. Many such as George Bush, Rudy Giuliani, Arlen Specter and John McCain just to name a few have latched onto socialism in order to appease the socialist Democrats under the misguided notion of compromise. Ironically the socialist Democrats have never compromised their beliefs. Consequently the GOP has sacrificed its conservative ideals. It is the appeasers in GOP who are tearing the party apart.

I’m not saying that people should vote against their conscience, however, if the issue of abortion does cause the right-wing to split into two parties, one of them occupying the far-right and the other the center-right, the almost certain outcome is both parties being whoppingly defeated by the single left-of-center party.

This is center, left of center, right of center is a bunch of politically correct garbage. The center are those socialists attempting to disguise themselves as Conservatives in order to deceive Conservatives of their true socialist ideals.

:If the schism were to get severe enough, the Democrats could be looking at a solid eight years of dominating both the executive and the legislative. Imagine how entrenched they could become in that time?

Then it is imperative for the GOP leadership change its course by spending much more time appeasing the Conservatives by supporting conservative principles instead of appeasing the Socialist Democrats.

Don’t vote Giuliani if abortion is a make-or-break issue for you. But don’t fool yourself into thinking that making a moral stand on this issue will definitely result in positive change for the conservative movement.

The Republican party has been fooling itself for many years thinking appealing to the masses by supporting some socialism will eventually result in more conservatism. The Conservatives have been honest, forthright and consistent in their principles. The same can't be said for the rest of the GOP. It is reprehensible the Republican party spends more time castigating Conservatives that used to be the base of the Republican party instead of castigating the socialist Democrats.

[bpjam]

Dilemna??? Try, Nightmare. Or maybe ‘quagmire’ (that’s old school for FUBAR in liberal parlance).

Hey, I have an idea. Lets just tell the 40,000,000 or so Christian conservatives in the country that we don’t find them to be all that useful anymore and that they should either find their own party or simple stop voting for the next four years. Yeah, that’s a freakin’ brilliant idea. (and i’m not a Christian Conservative).

If 50% of the country thinks that abortion ain’t a great idea and 80% think that gay marriage isn’t right and 90% think that partial birth abortion is immoral, why are we tripping over ourselves to create a general election where BOTH candidates will be AGAINST American voters on these issues? I cannot, for the life of me, see how this turns out well. I just cannot. I see us wandering around in the wilderness blind, lost and hopeless until at least 2012 when the Senate seats realign themselves towards our favor and we get another shot at the White House and there will be a handful of candidates who will be clearly, obviously and overtly socially conservative candidates.

Can you guys imagine the DNC nominating a Pro-Life candidate? Or one who was pro-choice on schools or FOR teacher testing? Or even a candidate who would support a fence on the Border? It would be freaking suicide and the Dems would never do it. But apparently, we would. I have no idea why.

[okie01]

Please see 11 and let me know if you at least respect the premise.

Yes, I respect the premise. But I don't agree with it.

Hillary will make little progress because there will be tremendous Republican opposition. Rudy would do much to advance the leftist agenda precisely because, being a Republican, he’ll get more support.

When the Clintons were in office before, we saw what the usual checks & balances meant: absolutely nothing.

If they are re-elected, they will have the support of a Democrat Congress -- who, this time, will share their primary goal of never losing power again.

If we lose this next election, there will never be an another opportunity to re-gain power...or to reverse Roe vs Wade ever again!

We need to understand that. The fun and games will be over. There will be a National Health Care system. The "Fairness Doctrine" will be back. It will extend to the internet -- and FreeRepublic will be regulated. We'll be out of the loop when it comes to politics.

And the Republicans you expect so much of will be cowering in a corner. Again.

Our elected officials are not the backbone of the Republican Party. We are. And a Clinton administration in '08 runs a very strong risk of our teeth being pulled.

If we lose in '08, we may lose...forever.

So, yes, I respect your premise. But I believe it is, in all practicality, totally wrong.

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

liberal verses liberal light. No damn thanks.

[billmor]

Also remember what we are trying to do here is to send a message to the Rep Party that we want some good choices, not some RINO goofball who just happens to lead in the polls..

What is a poll?—if only 7 or 8 people are running or are prominent enough, they are the ones mentioned in the poll..We are saying we want more names, and better candidates so we don’t have to make this a one issue vote..If the party pros insist on shoving a loser down our throats we can tell them try again- til they get it right...or go down in defeat. It’s their choice first, then we’ll make ours...

[cpforlife.org]

“Giuliani is a scumbag—a suborner of perjury (such as in the Michael Milken case), all-around prosecutorial abuser, and a license egomaniac. But Hillary! is worse.”

ROFLOL—You’ve just made the point of why it’s such a VERY BAD dilemma. And not just a pro-life one but essentially on every level. I read your accurate description of him and think WHAT A CHOICE!!!

We all know the hildabeat is evil but Rooty is only marginally less.

[Man50D]

I may not get what I favor on the pro-life issue, but the country won't be dragged further into socialist totalitarianism.

Bull. The list below comparing Giuliani's position on the issues with Hitlery proves otherwise.

Giuliani/Clinton/Dem vs. GOP Platform Comparison
Issue	Giuliani	Clinton	Dem Platform	GOP Platform
Abortion on Demand	Supports	Supports	Supports	Opposes
Partial Birth Abortion	Supports Opposed NY ban	Supports	Supports	Opposes
Roe v. Wade	Supports	Supports	Supports	Opposes
Taxpayer Funded Abortions	Supports	Supports	Supports	Opposes
Embryonic Stem Cell Research	Supports	Supports	Supports	Opposes
Federal Marriage Amendment	Opposes	Opposes	Opposes Defined at state level	Supports
Gay Domestic Partnership/ Civil Unions	Supports	Supports	Supports	Opposes
Openly Gay Military	Supports	Supports	Supports	Opposes
Defense of Marriage Act	Opposes	Opposes	Opposes	Supports
Amnesty for Illegal Aliens	Supports	Supports	Supports	Opposes
Special Path to Citizenship for Illegal Aliens	Supports	Supports	Supports	Opposes
Tough Penalties for Employers of Illegal Aliens	Opposes	Opposes	Opposes	Supports
Sanctuary Cities/ Ignoring Immigration Law	Supports	Supports	Supports	Opposes
Protecting 2nd Amendment	Opposes	Opposes	Opposes Supports bans	Supports
Confiscating Guns	Supports Confiscated as mayor. Even bragged.	Supports	Supports Supports bans	Opposes
'Assault' Weapons Ban	Supports	Supports	Supports
Frivolous Lawsuits Against Gun Makers	Supports Filed One Himself	Supports		Opposes
Gun Registration/Licenses	Supports	Supports		Opposes
War in Afghanistan	Supports	Supports Voted for it	Supports	Supports
War in Iraq	Supports	Supports Voted for it	Supports Weak support	Supports
Patriot Act	Supports	Supports Voted for it 2001 & 2006	Opposes	Supports

Giuliani/Clinton/Dem vs. GOP Platform Comparison
Issue	Giuliani	Clinton	Dem Platform	GOP Platform
Abortion on Demand	Supports	Supports	Supports	Opposes
Partial Birth Abortion	Supports Opposed NY ban	Supports	Supports	Opposes
Roe v. Wade	Supports	Supports	Supports	Opposes
Taxpayer Funded Abortions	Supports	Supports	Supports	Opposes
Embryonic Stem Cell Research	Supports	Supports	Supports	Opposes
Federal Marriage Amendment	Opposes	Opposes	Opposes Defined at state level	Supports
Gay Domestic Partnership/ Civil Unions	Supports	Supports	Supports	Opposes
Openly Gay Military	Supports	Supports	Supports	Opposes
Defense of Marriage Act	Opposes	Opposes	Opposes	Supports
Amnesty for Illegal Aliens	Supports	Supports	Supports	Opposes
Special Path to Citizenship for Illegal Aliens	Supports	Supports	Supports	Opposes
Tough Penalties for Employers of Illegal Aliens	Opposes	Opposes	Opposes	Supports
Sanctuary Cities/ Ignoring Immigration Law	Supports	Supports	Supports	Opposes
Protecting 2nd Amendment	Opposes	Opposes	Opposes Supports bans	Supports
Confiscating Guns	Supports Confiscated as mayor. Even bragged.	Supports	Supports Supports bans	Opposes
'Assault' Weapons Ban	Supports	Supports	Supports
Frivolous Lawsuits Against Gun Makers	Supports Filed One Himself	Supports		Opposes
Gun Registration/Licenses	Supports	Supports		Opposes
War in Afghanistan	Supports	Supports Voted for it	Supports	Supports
War in Iraq	Supports	Supports Voted for it	Supports Weak support	Supports
Patriot Act	Supports	Supports Voted for it 2001 & 2006	Opposes	Supports

[okie01]

For those of us that have core values it is a dilemma.

A conundrum, perhaps. A problem to be solved. But not a "dilemma".

[Man50D]

All your arguments are very valid...when they are applied to the GOP primary.

But, should Giuliani win the GOP nomination, they become irrelevant.

Rudy's socialist beliefs won't suddenly disappear if he becomes the Republican nominee. He's held these beliefs for many years. It's ludicrous to assume otherwise.

The pro-life issue will survive a Giuliani. It will not survive a Clinton administration.

Even if your statement was true for arguments sake there are many more issues Giuliani takes a socialist position. Read post #95.

All your statements are vague and lack any credibility. I provide you with cold hard facts based on his record and yet you still deny they exist. It is this blind GOP loyalty that has caused the rift in the GOP party.

[okie01]

Your arguments are very valid. But I'm not asking you to vote for Giuliani in the primaries. I won't be voting for him either.

But, if he's the nominee, just the last two items on your list should assume some importance...

[okie01]

All your statements are vague and lack any credibility.

Thank you for your courteous response.

[cpforlife.org]

Thanks for that response. I respect your points and frankly I agree with most of them.

I think your good posts and the thread in general illustrates how terrible a situation we are in.

I’m nearly convinced that Rooty will cause many to stay home or vote 3rd Party giving it to Hildabeast. We DO NOT want that and that’s why he cannot win the nomination.