I once imagined a disastrous scenario in which conservatives became convinced Rudy Giuliani was the only "viable" candidate to take on the Democratic nominee for President, Hillary Clinton (shudder). The pressure compounded as Giuliani supporters adopted the motto "a vote for (fill in a third party pro-life candidate) is a vote for Hillary" and some conservative pragmatists began to point out that Giuliani pledged to nominate a strict constructionist to the Supreme Court while Clinton promised a Ginsburg clone (actually, Giuliani is capable of the same).
Giuliani's candidacy should be unacceptable to pro-life voters. Yet, many conservatives seem to be in denial when it comes to his liberal social leanings, including his positions on abortion, homosexual marriage and gun control.
However, Politico reports that a growing number of influential social conservatives are speaking out against Rudy Giuliani, with some threatening that they will take flight from the Republican Party in 2008 if the former New York mayor is the GOP nominee.
Among them is the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins:
"Speaking as a private citizen, no, no, I could not support (Giuliani)," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, which has about a half-million members. "The 20 years I've been involved in politics, the life issue has been at the very top. How could I turn my back on that?"So what would you do if the main event was Hillary versus Giuliani? As for me, I'm with Tony (a Giuliani nomination means a third-party candidate will get my vote).Perkins said that should Giuliani win the nomination, he would vote for a third-party candidate who reflected his values. "It wouldn't be the first time," Perkins added in an interview last week.
Absolutely, I agree. I will not vote for Giuliani. This "strict constructionist" thing is a sham and is playing on conservatives' gullibility. If they elect Rudy, they will deserve what they get. If only conservatives could show a united front on this one against a President in Drag instead of openly resigning themselves to vote for him.
It appears that conservatives are slowly loosing their identity.
I support your site and carry its logo on my left sidebar. I am pro life. But I disgusted how the far right, and your site is misrepresenting Giuliani. Did not one of you hear what he said? He said he hates abortion, that it is dispicable, but that the laws allow choice. He said he would NEVER counsel a woman to have an abortion, but would not judge a woman that did abort. He stated this is the law in the nation - choice, and that he did not believe it was the governments right to interfere with choice. Hence, the same thing that Justices Roberts and Alito said regarding the law. And you should know by now that YOU CANNOT REGULATE MORALITY - that is a personal choice.
Giuliani also pointed out how abortions dropped in NY when he was Mayor because he instituted a wonderful program that increased adoptions allowing for abortions to drop in number. Now if you chose to derail Giuliani be armed with the facts and truth - not personal opinions and emotionalism. I am disappointed in peoples denial of truth and reluctance to accept truth. Get your facts straight, in the interim I have lost respect for what you are doing here. It is akin to the pro-abortionists and their leftist lies, no facts, just pure emotionalism. Shame on you here for stooping to the lefts methodology!
What amazes me is that Republicans are unable to see past the political posturing of Giuliani on social issues are so desperate that they are attempting to present him as a social conservative. His line on abortion is not much different than that of the Clintons and comes directly from the work of Mario Cuomo. Why does he "hate" abortion? Why does he think it's bad/immoral? Is it because a child is killed? If he truly believes this where is his sense of justice?
It's interesting that you say "you cannot regulate morality" - the related argument often, and in this case, may be presented as an equivocation. You see, the statement is true statement if it applies to the internal belief system of the individual. However, legislation directing or restricting human conduct is inherently moral. In this sense, laws against murder, theft, incest and rape are legislating morality. So to are laws that seek to protect the sanctity of human life by simply making it illegal to kill a child who is in his or her mother's womb.
Rudy said he hates abortion. PERIOD. Second, MORALITY CANNOT be regulated. There are laws against murder but people still continue to murder. Your argument is weak and that is why Justices Roberts and Alito know they cannot reverse Roe v. Wade-as Giuliani do--it is too late, the damage has been done. Now the point and focal point is not to hinge ones views on one issue and judge a candidate by it. Ronald Reagan himself said, "If you can agree with a candidate 80% of the time then you can vote for him." Bush is pro-life--look at all the so-called "good" he did for repealing Roe v. Wade. Nothing my friend, nothing.
I use justice as a litmus test for individuals seeking to serve as President. I may agree with Rudy on a lot of issues but some are more weighty than others.
Re:Bush - yes, he's "pro-life". I do appreciate his selection of Supreme Court Justices and veto of ESC funding.
Regarding, morality, I do appreciate your argument but this feels really strange. Usually it is a liberal who indignantly tells me, "You can't legislate morality!"
My point of contention is that all laws legislate morality (even speed limits imply a moral right to life). Therefore, to assert "you can't legislate morality" as the reason abortion should be legally protected (or not outlawed) is immaterial.
All lawmakers legislate morality. They develop directives for human behavior and apply consequences to those who transgress. They cannot change the moral fabric of the individual, make them morally responsible or good, but they add consequences to what is determined to be immoral behavior and seek justice by using the strong arm of the law to protect the innocent and punish the wicked.
You may be concerned about the practical consequence of banning child killing in the womb and the fact that our society has now practiced it for almost 35 years. I advocate for justice and believe that the right to life trumps the perceived right to this immoral practice.
Moral imperatives in government seem to abound when the issue is global warming, world peace, social programs, etc. Liberals and conservatives alike tend to agree on the nature of law when the legislation conforms to their moral ideals. In fact, the 13th Amendment ban of slavery is probably one of the most obvious examples of Congress "legislating morality".
The true debate and our underlying disagreement is not whether or not laws are a reflection of some moral standard. The controversy is over what standard.
Yes, Giuliani gives lip service to the line "I hate abortion." Bill Clinton did the equivalent. So did John Kerry. All three adopted a calculated position designed to appease (some) pro-lifers without inflaming their supporters who advocate for abortion.
You do not get it, like most far right radicals. Time will prove you wrong. Thank God that I still remain open minded and my faith shows me that it is God, not man that should be the judge of anothers heart.
What gives you the right to be so critical and at the same time hypocritical? There is no perfect candidate, not perfect law, and no legislation irregardless if it is about abortion or murder that will stop either horrific act of immorality.
It is people with your views and those that comment here that will hand the White House to the Dems, then cry, "well my conscious is clear because I did not vote," but you will all be more guilty than if you had voted.
If we held individuals to the impossible "moral" standards we hold politicians to so individuals would be continually allowed to vote--no one would be allowed to vote.
And who in their lifetime never changed their mind, or held one opinion but later changed their mind.
You all need to wake up! We will lose the WH and America with you alls views - attitudes and rigidity.
Bush did nothing for the cause of pro-life and he and his justices will not overturn Roe v. Wade - it will not happen. It is wrong, it is immoral, but face the facts--it will not happen. Move on.
Plb, Layla _is_ a liberal on the abortion issue. Anybody who echoes the Giuliani line that it isn't the government's role to interfere in "choice" is obviously not pro-life at all. Sorry, Layla, but if you think it should be a woman's choice to have her child torn limb from limb or have his brains sucked out--as Rudy does--then you can call yourself anything you like, but you aren't pro-life. All that "I hate abortion" stuff from Mr. Giuliani is obvious deception. The guy GAVE MONEY TO PLANNED PARENTHOOD. Hello?
But, again, I don't think I'm talking to somebody here who is interested in legal protection for the unborn. After all, we have laws against murder and people keep doing it, right? So I guess, yeah, let's just give up on outlawing murder.
Don't bother, Plb. Folks like this are not logical.