Posted on 04/11/2007 2:19:47 AM PDT by Aussie Dasher
Thirty-eight percent for Rudy; 16 percent for McCain. On the surface, the latest Gallup Poll of GOP voters is great news for the Giuliani campaign. Mitt Romney scored just 6 percent, less than Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich (10 percent each) -- two guys who aren't even officially in the race.
But the apparent collapse of the McCain candidacy (it's early yet) may end up being a problem for Rudy. Deep distrust of McCain as the designated GOP front-runner has to some extent shielded Rudy Giuliani from the focused opposition of social conservatives.
Personally, I know I tried really hard to find a way to make the match work. But it takes two to tango, and Rudy's clearly not interested in meeting anyone -- not me, not most of his spouses, not his son -- halfway. Or a quarter of the way. In fact, being Rudy, he's not budging a step. All the deep-seated longing for rapprochement clearly runs in only one direction.
I'm not sure Rudy gets it: Big and strong is good, but only if it's used on our behalf and not against us. A big strong guy who just doesn't care what you think is scary, not reassuring. The same Rudy who cleaned up the mean streets of New York is the same Rudy who used his leadership abilities to dump his wife via a press conference and then tried to make the rest of us feel ashamed for caring about how he treats his family. It's the same Rudy who came out swinging to defend his new wife (whom he clearly loves) and left his son slowly twisting in the wind with dying hopes of some attention from his dad. That's the same Rudy who last week endorsed public funding of abortions as a constitutional right, thus killing two birds of hope with one stone.
In 1989, Rudy stated "there must be public funding of abortions" and criticized President George H.W. Bush for vetoing federal funding for abortions. Asked by CNN if this remains his position, he said: "Probably ... Generally, that's my view." When asked, "Would you support public funding for abortion?" Rudy answered, "If it would deprive someone of a constitutional right, yes." Ultimately, he said that if it's a constitutional right, you have to provide public funding to make sure poor women can do it.
As the editors of National Review recently pointed out, this "makes neither logical, moral, nor political sense." No statements issued afterward by campaign spokespeople can undo the revelations of the way this candidate actually thinks and how he will govern.
Put the abortion issue aside for a moment, and think about what Giuliani has just revealed about how he thinks of the Constitution: If you believe in the First Amendment, does the government have to buy poor people printing presses? If you believe in the Second Amendment, must the taxpayers buy guns for poor folks? What kind of "strict constructionist" would say the government must pay for something if it is a constitutional right? For that matter, what kind of fiscal conservative would ever make such a claim?
Rudy Giuliani has now made it perfectly clear: Electing him for president (given a Democratic Congress) will likely mean taxpayer-funded abortions and Supreme Court justices with some truly odd and unreliable views of our Constitution. No pro-lifer in good conscience can vote for Rudy.
So what are people like me supposed to do? "I'm comfortable with the fact you won't vote for me," Rudy said in South Carolina last week.
OK, Rudy, you got yourself a deal.
I resent being forced to pay for ANYONES abortion.
Take responsibility for you own actions.
He IS a socialist democrat!!!
Ne Zot! Maggie Gallagher used to be something like a conservative, but she's turning into another exhibit in the "Why women shouldn't vote" debate.
He's not running for national hubby, Mags, or universal Daddy.
Rudy, help me out here... I can't afford either a printing press or a rifle, but I have a constitutional right to both.
Re. your tagline: pity Rudy wouldn’t follow suit.
Excellent point.
I don’t support Rudy, either, but Maggie Gallagher’s non-reasoning is pretty goofy.
IIRC, Maggie was for him before she was against him.
Don’t you just love how people who think you shouldn’t have a gun want the federal government to pay for abortions?
Even more, I love those who are opposed to killing the guilty but are more than happy to slaughter the innocent...
I think she’s perfectly right. Do you really want a democratic “leader” who simply does what he wants without any input? Bill Clinton did that. Remember how he signed an abortion bill on the very day 1,000,000+ people turned up in DC to plead for the life of the unborn? Bill made an absolute boast of ignoring anyone who didn’t agree with him, but because he had the support of the press and the chattering classes, this was okay.
Perhaps you’re always convinced that the leader in question is going to be on your side. I’m not.
Rudy accomplished a lot in New York, btw, precisely because everybody was on his side. Liberals were sick of getting mugged and stepping over bums in the subway. Even ACLU types who felt they had to make the routine noises about protecting the rights of bums actually supported him in practice.
I think Maggie Gallagher does have a point here, and it’s something I hadn’t considered before. I lived in NYC when Giuliani was mayor, btw, and while his personal style was not particularly attractive, he was good and effective - but because he was doing what people had elected him to do, not because he was ignoring them and imposing his own goals. I think his image has gone to his head.
No, I basically assume that the government is on its own "side," not on mine.
What surprises me is that she would ever consider someone with Rudy's positions on the issues to be a potential President.
That’s because he’s big and strong and masculine. He made her feel safe and protected.
Choosing a philanderer for one’s ideal husband-figure seems rather self-defeating, but that seems to have been Bill Clinton’s appeal to many. Perhaps Rudy is the Yankee, Republican version of Bill.
Good article. You hit a home run Maggie.
So, if I am part of the unorganized militia, where is my M4A3? If this is Rudy's stance on abortion, why can't it apply to the other rights we have?
Which Amendment covers killing unborn children again?
Good morning..from Maggie Gallagher, as pro-life as you can be..ping the troops, please..
FYI..Maggie wrote a few columns earlier supporting Rudy, but now she has changed her mind..interesting..
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.