Posted on 02/21/2007 1:59:42 PM PST by dangus
A voter can discern honesty by examining what a candidate believes is a "winning issue."
Rudy Giuliani has flipped on abortion several times. Does that mean he is too liberal or too dishonest for a conservative to vote for him?
In 1989, he informed the Conservative Party of New York that he was pro-life. That stance was reported in local newspapers, and he lost to Mayor David Dinkins.
In 1993, he dropped the pro-life plank, asserting that he believed women had the right to abortion. The decision was nakedly political, and the New York Times published the paper trail to prove it.
In 1999, with an eye on running for the U.S. Senate, he announced that he supported abortion right, and that he wouldn't seek to overturn President Bill Clinton's veto. (He did not run due to health problems, but speculation Hillary Clinton would turned out true, of course)
Now, Giuliani says he would appoint "strict constructionists" like Roberts and Alito. When pro-lifers groused that it wasn't certain that Roberts or Scalia would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, Giuliani added Antonin Scalia, father of the constructionist movement and adamant pro-lifer. And he now claims that he would allow "partial-birth" abortions only if they would save the life of the mothers, a rare condition that is within the mainstream of pro-life thought (that being that the life of the mother is at least equal in value to the life of the child).
Giuliani also arouses skepticism on recent claims he would vigorously oppose illegal immigration and believes in the second amendment.
But which Giuliani should conservative voters believe in?
I submit that someone from an extremely liberal place, such as New York, who professes to be conservative despite having governed as a liberal, may be at least as conservative as someone from a conservative place. I further submit that you cannot trust a politician to tell the truth, but you can examine which issues that they believe are "winning issues."
Consider President Bush. He claimed he opposed illegal immigration, but supports legislation that is an ongoing amnesty for illegal immigration in every way except for in name. He has left in place, or even strengthened, "language rights" orders written by none other than Bill Lann Lee. No amount of persuading will make him change his views because he firmly believes that La Raza speaks for all Hispanics, and picking up their soap in the shower is the only way for the Republican Party to hold power in the future. According to mainstream press reports, he is totally unfazed by recent losses and his own political weakness, because Karl Rove assured him that present losses were necessary for future success. Even though he announced he was against illegal immigration, he believes that position is ultimately a losing political issue, so he avoided bringing the subject up as much as possible, and governs contrarily.
No candidate ever campaigns hard on an issue he believes is a losing issue. This is not cynicism; it's the way democracy works. If an honest candidate has firm beliefs that are contrary to majority opinion, he hopes to change majority opinion, he waits out the election, or he downplays the issue.
So, how do we read Giuliani? Early on, he expressed he opposed Roe v. Wade. Later on, he seemed to change his mind, at one time, even suggesting his then-wife convinced him, too. Now, he says he "hates abortion," but hasn't taken back his qualifier that he does believe it is a woman's legal right. Isn't this the same cover for opposing abortion as President Clinton's claims he detested it?
No. President Clinton was elected from Arkansas, a very pro-life state, where he downplayed his pro-abortion views in order to be elected. When he went national, he campaigned on what he believed to be a winning issue: he was personally opposed to abortion, but it was a woman's right.
Well, that's Giuliani's belief as to what a winning issue in New York was. And guess what? If he hadn't won that election, there would be 3,000 more murders in New York per year and 300,000 more unemployed New Yorkers. He turned New York from a failed ghetto back into the global face of America. But Giuliani has made it clear that he does not consider that a winning issue, nationally.
Instead, he has put the emphasis on strict constructionism. If Giuliani is nominated, but loses the 2008 election, Republicans will pass up the chance to create a solid pro-life majority on the Supreme Court.
Is Giuliani pro-life, or did his ex-wife (and/or his apostasy from Catholicism) change his mind? We have no way of knowing.
We do know this: Giuliani's top priority for New York has been making the city safe to live, in spite of all the "civil-rights" charlaitans. He fought hard, even when it looked to outsiders like it was an issue he couldn't win. Those who suggest he would vote for Ruth Bader Ginsberg are taking his quotes out of context. (He was insisting that the Senate had the duty to approve John Roberts, unless they doubted his honesty, ethics, or fitness for office. He was not saying he'd ever dream of nominating someone like Ginsberg.)
Selecting a liberal judicial activist would go directly opposite Giuliani's core issues. It's inconceivable that he would nominate a Harriet Meirs or a David Souter. And his selection of judicial strict-constructionists would accomplish the first and foremost goal of the pro-life movement.
This is quite an . . . analysis . . . in fact, it sounds very much like something that might have been penned by Harriet Miers herself.
Rudy has been doing more tap dancing then Michael Flatley. His history shows liberalism thru and thru. Sean "I need a bib" Hannity gave him a softball on the 2nd amendment, and he whiffed badly, yammering on how "hunter's rights" would be protected.
No thanks, but nice try.
NO.
The Gallup Organization polled registered Republicans with this question: "If it was proven without a doubt that Rudy Guiliani was not Hillary Clinton, would you vote for him?" Results: 99.2% said yes.
What are you smoking? Of course Giuliani would. He says he's a strict constitutionalist, but he also says that a woman has a right to an abortion. Therefore, he would not knowingly nominate anyone who would overturn this so-called right.
let's see:
Pro roe v wade, including government funding of abortions
Anti - gun, proposed "assault weapons" ban and handgun licensing on a federal level
Pro campaign Finance Reform
Pro illegal immigrant (fought to keep NY a sanctuary city against the feds)
Forget "is he conservative enough". The question is "Is he conservative at all"??
see tagline......
Nice one! You can add:
Partial Birth Abortion
Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Amnesty/Safe havens for illegal border invaders
Homosexual Civil Unions and/or marriage
Personal character issues
Dodged the Draft by getting a deferment as a Judge's Clerk.
Link or is this a vanity?
I considered piling on and making some snarky comment, but what's the point.
We aren't going to waver and neither are they.
Stalemate.
how about the same question, but replacing "hillary clinton" with "a space alien"?
This is much larger than just abortion. See my earlier post.
He's liberal through and through.
For those that missed the implied thesis, a represent of the people may decide differently on issues if he is representing different people. For all those who would elect a John McCain or a Chuck Hagel, or a Newt Gingrich: how do you know your candidate would be pro-life if they weren't elected by such an adamantly pro-life electorate?
On the gun issue: From strictly a legislative standpoint, there is a tension between a citizen's right to protect themselves, and that citizen's right to be kept free from crime by the government. In rural areas, self-protection is sometimes the only feasible protection. In New York City, most people are far more concerned that someone ELSE will have a gun, and a shoot-out means danger to others. Giuliani believed that law and order was better maintained if cops alone had guns.
I'm not endorsing that viewpoint, because I have constitutional issues with it. But you'd be damned hard pressed to find anyone from the Republican Party who believed that second-amendment rights trumped safety. If the right to bear arms really does mean the right to form independent militias capable of resisting government intrusion (as I actually believe the founding fathers meant), than that right includes the right to possess weapons of mass destruction.
Don't kid yourself: Rudy Giuiani's position on the constitutionality of gun control is identical to that of George W. Bush, John McCain, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, and almost certainly Duncan Hunter or anyone else (with the possible exception of Ron Paul).
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.