NOTHING IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN LIFE
Don't Cut and Run, vote pro-life always.
Posted on 10/15/2007 4:29:47 AM PDT by StatenIsland
“The most important ‘traditional value’ in this election is keeping the Clintons out of the White House,” says Greg Alterton, an evangelical Christian who has “spent my entire professional career considering how my faith impacts, or should impact, the arena in which I work” — government and politics. Alterton writes for SoConsForRudy.com and counts himself among Rudolph W. Giuliani’s social-conservative supporters.
People like Alterton are important, if overlooked, in the Republican presidential sweepstakes. Anti-Giuliani Religious Rightists are far more visible. Also conspicuous are pundits whose cartoon version of social conservatism regards abortion and gay rights as “the social issues,” excluding other traditionalist concerns.
New York’s former mayor “has abandoned social conservatism,” commentator Maggie Gallagher complains. He “is anathema to social conservatives,” veteran columnist Robert Novak recently wrote. Focus on the Family founder Dr. James Dobson has said: “I cannot, and will not, vote for Rudy Giuliani in 2008. It is an irrevocable decision.” Dobson and a cadre of Religious Right leaders threaten to deploy a pro-life, third-party candidate should Giuliani be nominated.
This “Rudyphobia” ignores three key factors: Giuliani’s pro-family/anti-abortion ideas, his socially conservative mayoral record, and his popularity among churchgoing Republicans.
While Giuliani accepts a woman’s right to an abortion, he told Iowa voters on August 7: “By working together to promote personal responsibility and a culture of life, Americans can limit abortions and increase adoptions.” Among Giuliani’s proposals to achieve this end:
“My administration will streamline the adoption process by removing the heartbreaking bureaucratic delays that burden the current process.” Giuliani notes that sclerotic court schedules, exhausted social workers, and tangled red tape trap some 115,000 boys and girls in foster care and prevent moms and dads from adopting them.
Giuliani proposes that the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives promote organizations that help women choose adoption over abortion.
He would make permanent the $10,000 adoption tax credit.
Giuliani also would encourage states and cities to report timely and complete statistics to measure progress in abortion reduction.
This is no sudden conversion on the road to Washington. As mayor, Giuliani did nothing to advance abortion. That helps explains why, on his watch, total abortions fell 13 percent across America, but slid 17 percent in New York. More significant, between 1993 and 2001, Gotham’s tax-funded Medicaid abortions plunged 23 percent.
Medicaid reimbursement figures from the New York State Division of the Budget allow a rough calculation of the Giuliani administration’s expenditures on taxpayer-financed abortions. This estimated funding dropped 22.85 percent, from $1,226,414 in 1993 to $946,175 in 2001. (See more here.)
Giuliani’s campaign for personal responsibility helped create a climate that discouraged abortion. Moving 58 percent of welfare recipients from public assistance to self-reliance, starting before President Clinton signed federal welfare reform, may have encouraged women and men to avoid unwanted pregnancies. New York’s transformation from chaos to order — which helped slash overall crime by 57 percent and homicide by 67 percent — probably reinforced such self-control.
Compared to the eight Democratic years before he arrived, adoptions under Giuliani soared 133 percent. Fiscal years 1987 to 1994 saw 11,287 adoptions; this grew to 27,561 between FY 1995 and FY 2002.
In another pro-family policy, Giuliani divested 78 percent of City Hall’s vast portfolio of confiscated, property-tax-delinquent homes. These were privatized and sold to families and individuals.
Giuliani proposed eliminating the city’s $2,000 marriage penalty. (As individuals, a husband and wife each would enjoy a $7,500 standard deduction, but only write off $13,000 if they jointly filed taxes.) He chopped it to just $400, letting joint-filers share a $14,600 deduction.
Giuliani also opposed gay marriage in 1989, long before it shot onto the radar. “My definition of family is what it is,” Giuliani told Newsday 18 years ago. “It does not include gay marriage as part of that definition.”
On Day 24 of his mayoralty, Giuliani jettisoned New York’s minority and women-owned business set-aside program. He later explained: “The whole idea of quotas to me perpetuates discrimination.” During the 12-year “Republican Revolution,” Congress deserted the fight for colorblindness.
Giuliani sliced or scrapped 23 taxes totaling $9.8 billion and shrank Gotham’s tax burden by 17 percent. This left parents more money for children’s healthcare, private-school tuition, etc.
On education, Giuliani launched a $10 million fund to support 17 new charter schools. Zero existed before he arrived. Giuliani also ended tenure for principals, fought for vouchers, and torpedoed City University’s open admissions and social-promotion policies.
“I took a city that was also known as the pornography capitol of this country,” Giuliani told New Hampshire voters last June. “I got through a ground-breaking re-zoning that was challenged in the courts. We won. And now, if you go to New York City, you don’t have to be bombarded with pornography. And the city has grown dramatically — economically, physically, and spiritually.”
Giuliani accomplished this and plenty more — not in Tulsa, Oklahoma, but in New York City. He could have governed comfortably as a pro-abortion, pro-welfare, pro-quota, soft-on-crime, tax-and-spend, liberal Republican. Instead, Giuliani relentlessly pushed Reaganesque socio-economic reforms through a City Council populated by seven Republicans and 44 Democrats. What’s so liberal about that?
This record, and Giuliani’s headstrong style, may explain why he leads his competitors and impresses churchgoers. An October 3 ABC/Washington Post poll of 398 Republican and GOP-leaning adults found Giuliani outrunning former senator Fred Thompson, 34 percent to 17, versus Senator John McCain’s 12 percent, and Willard Mitt Romney’s 11. (Error margin +/- 5 percent.) As “most electable,” Giuliani took 50 percent, versus McCain’s 15, Thompson’s 13, and Romney’s 6.
An October 3 Gallup survey found Giuliani enjoying a 38 percent net-favorable rating among churchgoing Catholics, compared to McCain’s 29, and Thompson’s 25. Among Protestant churchgoers, Thompson edges Giuliani 26 percent to 23, with McCain at 16, and Romney at 7.
What do Giuliani’s Religious Right detractors really fear he will do about abortion? If he can overcome their suspicions, secure the GOP nomination, and win the White House, do Giuliani’s critics actually believe he would squander that victory and enrage the GOP base by pushing abortion? Do his foes honestly think Giuliani would request federal abortion funding in violation of the Hyde Amendment he says he supports or appoint activist Supreme Court justices, rather than Antonin Scalia- and Clarence Thomas-style constitutionalists, as he says he would?
Having kept or exceeded his mayoral promises on taxes, spending, crime, welfare, and quality of life, why would he break his presidential promises on such a signature GOP issue? What kind of bait and switch do Giuliani’s foes truly worry he will attempt?
The contrast between Giuliani and Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, could not be sharper. She would appoint pro-abortion justices and lower-court judges. These jurists also would be softer on crime, racial preferences, unions, and eminent-domain abuse than Giuliani’s would be.
Hillary Clinton also would take President Bush’s embryonic stem-cell program and expand it in every direction. If Giuliani does not padlock it, he at least would be more sympathetic than Clinton to privatizing it. If America must banish embryos to Petri dishes, let Lilly, Merck, and Pfizer do this. It is inconceivable that Hillary Clinton would shift anything from Washington to the private sector, especially America’s “greedy, wicked” pharmaceutical companies.
Religious Right leaders should study Giuliani’s entire socially conservative record, not just the “socially liberal” caricature of it that hostile commentators and lazy journalists keep sketching. Giuliani’s October 20 appearance before the Family Research Council will permit exactly that. Also, while Giuliani may not be their dream contender, social conservatives should not make the perfect the enemy of the outstanding. Ultimately, they should recognize that a pro-life, third-party candidate would subtract votes from Giuliani in November 2008.
That would raise the curtain on a 3-D horror epic for social conservatives: “The Clintons Reconquer Washington” — bigger, badder, and more vindictive than ever.
If Rudy is nominated I’ll vote for him. He is a social moderate and a strong fiscal conservative and is solid on defense and foreign policy. His position on immigration has been excellent in the aftermath of 9-11.
The current president (who I voted for twice)is strong on defense issues and the war, naive about Russia and the border, says conservative things about social issues but governs on the left, sticking the Federal Government’s nose into all manner of things it does not belong in, and is a disaster on fiscal matters and the expansion of government.
Rudy, in my judgement, would govern far more conservatively than has Bush, and is so preferable to Hillary that the hysteria on FR about him vs. Hillary is laughable.
I had hoped that Thompson would be a strong contender, but he seems to lack any energy to engage in Retail politics like are needed here in Iowa and his stump appearances lack specificity and and excitement.
I like Romney’s positions but personally the guy gives me th willies. He’s just so perfect-he never seems to sweat!
I’ll probably caucus for Huckabee, but I know he is not going to be nominated. If Rudy wins the primaries and is nominated, I’ll vote for him-and more enthusiastically than I voted for bush in 2004.
Anyone who believes this ought then to be working hard for some Republican candidate besides Rudy.
NO!
Stop promoting liberals. Period.
If you don’t agree with the homo life style, you’re homophobic.
If you state your Christian beliefs, you’re anti-semitic.
If you don’t like uncontrolled illegal immigration, you’re a racist.
If you don’t like Giuliani for President, you’re Rudyphobic.
If you think for your self, you’re not a democrat.
If I hadn't read the thread I would have posted something very similar to what you wrote above. What you wrote is definitely worth repeating.
For those who want an example of how well Schwarzenegger is working out for California, checkout:
Mom' and 'Dad' banished by California
and
CA: Governor Signs SB 777 (New law will open female locker rooms to transgender men)
As I see it, those who support Rudy need to think long and hard about their support.
Mmmmmmm.........that pink spangled number of his with matching faux fur-trimmed wrap would do the trick, you think?
Don't Cut and Run, vote pro-life always.
I rather let Hillary win than have Rudy as President. That will show everyone that I mean business. Wheres the knife? I need to cut my nose off! That will show everyone! (sarcasm)
I don’t know. It is really hard to top that high kicking dance skin number :P. He looked way too proud in that shot of him sitting in the outfit at the table of that event.
Back to the example I posted: Do you think Schwarzenegger is working out well for conservatives in California?
The truth of the matter is he will push the same type of agenda that Hillary will if he is elected. He is a liberal in all but name, he will try to push strong gun control, national health care and all the other entitlement programs Hillary will push. The only hope we have if either one is elected is to get a strong CONSERVATIVE senate and house, notice I didn't say republican. We absolutely can't afford for either Rudy or Hillary to be elected POTUS.
Hmmmmmm.......might take a runoff between MacD and Mortimer Snerd.
Yeah-—you got a point there.
Rooty’s high-kicking in tights is a definite winner.
Like we say in the box,
GOOD LUCK WITH THAT!
This country is still suffering the repercussions of the Clinton presidency, from the changes in healthcare to the from-the-bench legislation in the appellate courts to the exponential proliferation of once taboo sex practices among teens. What Hellary will bring to the table, if given the chance, will make all of that seem like “the good old days”, as her husband ruled by poll numbers, but she has socialist agendas that she will pursue vociferously. The fallout will likely never be overcome.
As for “defending our principles”, that is exactly the kind of thinking that got us Bill Clinton (voting for Ross Perot?), and Nancy Pelosi. It has not done one iota of good for the Republican party, and allowing the Hildebeast into the White House likewise will not do any good for the GOP or the USA.
The power that we have as a voting bloc is to vote “our” people in, and then bombard them with phone calls and emails when issues we care about are at stake. We’ve done it many times before, and when the congresscritters know that their constituents are watching and expecting certain things, they usually will comply. The answer is vigilance, not handing Satan the reins so we can feel morally superior. Its a tremendous price to pay just to be able to say “I told you so!”.
Even more embarrasing though - Hellary as POTUS, and Bubba as “First Gentleman”. That’s just laughable (and sob-worthy).
Two can play the child-psychology game and be just as serious doing so!
Rudy is wrong on abortion but Rudy is no socialist.
Can you imagine Hillary’s first man and his cigars in the White House?
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.