I think that perhaps you’re reading more into what Mrs. Gallagher wrote than perhaps she meant.
In some sense, we want presidents who are “big and strong.” We want folks who can project their leadership presence (big) and who are principled and will stand by their principles, especially when the going gets tough (strong).
Mr. Giuliani has been seen in the past as such a leader, especially in the immediate aftermath of September 11. That’s pretty much the rationale for his entire candidacy - that he would be a strong war president.
Some weeks back, Mrs. Gallagher had been leaning toward Mr. Giuliani’s candidacy for that reason - that he’d make a strong war president. Now she sees that a strong president is good if he does what is good, but perhaps not as good if he does what is evil.
It’s the difference between pushing the little old lady into the path of the oncoming bus, and pushing the little old lady out of the path of the oncoming bus. In both cases, one is pushing a little old lady. But there’s a difference in the moral valance of the two actions, physically identical though they may be.
Myself, I’d certainly prefer a strong war president. But one that understood that the right to life is a fundamental human right, and who would use his leadership presence and his strength in the face of difficulty to defend human life, all human life, rather than to defend the lives of the born against external enemies while funding the death of unborn human beings procured by their own mothers.
I think that perhaps Mrs. Gallagher is starting to think that way, too.
sitetest
That's entirely possible. Certainly my reponse to this particular column is influenced by the her strong, and growing, tendency to favor big-government initiatives.
What’s with the big and strong stuff? Giuliani is a little wimpy metrosexual with a lisp.
Fred Thompson is big and strong. Not that it matters, much.