Skip to comments.No deal, Rudy
Posted on 03/06/2007 5:39:37 PM PST by markomalley
They are saying that the next GOP presidential candidate might very well be a pro-abortion Republican who promises not to push that issue and is strong on other issues.
They hope that pro-lifers will “be reasonable,” not let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and go along quietly.
Republicans and Democrats in 1980 took radically different approaches to the right to life. Republicans wrote into their party platform that all abortions should be outlawed. Democrats wrote into their party platform that not only should abortion be legal, but families should be forced to pay for others’ abortions through their taxes.
Democratic leaders have been utterly committed to their party platform. But there’s a movement afoot for Republicans to shrug off this plank of the party platform altogether, and give a pro-abortion politician the reins of the party and, they hope, the White House.
In particular, Rudy Giuliani has become a favorite for president of conservative talk-show hosts, and pro-war and tough-on-crime Republicans. He’s also way ahead in polls like Newsweek’s, though it’s anyone guess what such polls mean so early in the process.
The way the pro-Rudy argument goes is this: For the past three decades, social conservatives have had the luxury of insisting on purity in the Republican Party. Their clout was such that any candidate had to undergo a “forced conversion” before running for national office. But 9/11 changed that. Now, extremist Islam and the war on terror are such all-consuming issues, and we can’t be so caught up with abortion anymore.
Since Giuliani is committed to the war on terror and is a great crisis manager with a track record rooting out the gangs of New York, we shouldn’t demand that he be pro-life, but instead we should be willing to make a deal.
Rudy’s deal: He’ll promise not to push the pro-abortion agenda, and he’ll nominate judges in the mold of Samuel Alito and John Roberts. Pro-lifers in the Republican Party in return would support him, but keep insisting that the party stay pro-life, and fight our fiercest pro-life battles at the state level, where they belong.
That seems like a good deal, at first blush. We’re well aware that “forced conversions” to the pro-life fold are far from the ideal. Think of the candidacy of Bob Dole in 1996. And it is true that the fight against judicial tyranny is an immense front in the battle for the right to life. Transforming the courts is a prerequisite to victory elsewhere.
But what dooms the deal from the start is the fact that it totally misunderstands what pro-lifers care about in the first place.
When they ask us to “be reasonable” and go along with a pro-abortion leader, they assume that there is something unreasonable about the pro-life position to start with.
We’re sorry, but we don’t see what is so unreasonable about the right to life. We’ve seen ultrasounds, we’ve named our babies in the womb, we’ve seen women destroyed by abortion. What looks supremely unreasonable to us is that we should trust a leader who not doesn’t only reject the right to life but even supports partial-birth abortion, which is more infanticide than abortion.
We also see the downside of Rudy’s deal. If pro-lifers went along, we’d soon find out that a pro-abortion Republican president would no longer preside over a pro-life party. The power a president exerts over his party’s character is nearly absolute. The party is changed in his image. He picks those who run it and, both directly and indirectly, those who enter it.
Thus, the Republicans in the 1980s became Reaganites. The Democrats in the 1990s took on the pragmatic Clintonite mold. Bush’s GOP is no different, as Ross Douthat points out in “It’s His Party” in the March Atlantic Monthly.
A Republican Party led by a pro-abortion politician would become a pro-abortion party. Parents know that, when we make significant exceptions to significant rules, those exceptions themselves become iron-clad rules to our children. It’s the same in a political party. A Republican Party led by Rudy Giuliani would be a party of contempt for the pro-life position, which is to say, contempt for the fundamental right on which all others depend.
Would a pro-abortion president give us a pro-life Supreme Court justice? Maybe he would in his first term. But we’ve seen in the Democratic Party how quickly and completely contempt for the right to life corrupts. Even if a President Giuliani did the right thing for a short time, it’s likely the party that accepted him would do the wrong thing for a long time.
Would his commitment to the war on terror be worth it? The United States has built the first abortion businesses in both Afghanistan and Iraq, ever. Shamefully, our taxes paid to build and operate a Baghdad abortion clinic that is said to get most of its customers because of the pervasive rape problem in that male-dominated society. And that happened under a pro-life president. What would a pro-abortion president do?
The bottom line: Republicans have made inroads into the Catholic vote for years because of the pro-life issue. If they put a pro-abortion politician up for president, the gains they’ve built for decades will vanish overnight.
Then there are a number of issues that are unbecoming a Republican presidential candidate in the minds of many e.g., two divorces, appearing publicly in female dress, his participation in GLBT parades including some whose content was primarily homoerotic and/or cross-dressing.
The secondary cluster gets a great deal of energy from some sectors but the real question on credentials centers, I think, around his support of gun control and abortion on demand.
What's up with the constant invocation of the "author of this website" who shall not be named?
Is his opinion "more equal" than others?
I'm not going anywhere! That would be like admitting they're right, and they aren't.
It is a very good article. Thank you, dear Pyro.
Clinton was elected twice because many conservatives took a hike from the Republican party and voted for Ross Perot or stayed home.
Imagine how much worse off the country would have been if George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole had been elected instead. /s
Of course it is. He owns this website. We are only here because it pleases him to welcome us until we violate his patience and his requirements.
You don't have the slightest idea of what you are talking about. Catholic.org uses the Catholic News Service and aggregates CNS with the National Catholic Reporter, Catholic News Agency, American Catholic, UCAN, Interfax, Commonweal, et al.
There is a great tradition of Catholic journalism in this country and frankly there is no pardon for someone so ignorant of that history.
Good Lord nobody is being "run off FreeRepublic". Don't be a drama queen.
"At least you're consistent"
More or less... Actually I don't take the position on either of these issues because of what the church says. And I have different reasons to oppose abortion and to oppose the death penalty, and I would oppose both even if I were not Catholic.
"Given that the "organization", the wretched state of the US penal system could not possibly be considered as qualifying under "steady improvement", the death penalty in the US is conscionable in cases where it is not possible to otherwise defend society."
Praise the Lord and pass the munitions.
If you are correct, this post needs to be edited or pulled. An inflammatory allegation like that cannot stand if it is not true.
Thanks for the ping.
As a Duncan Hunter supporter I am choosing not to engage in debate on this Rudy Giuliani thread on Free Republic. As a freeper I am disappointed that there are fans of a liberal presidential candidate trying to push socially liberal views on this socially conservative forum. In particular, I have noticed that the Rudy G fans do not answer posts questioning the qualitative substance of their candidate, or the posts are met merely with insults.
Duncan Hunter's campaign website
Statement of Jim Robinson, Founder of Free Republic:
As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc.
Video of Rudy Giuliani in his own words
Transcript of video below.
Will the real Rudy show up at CPAC?
Culture of life:
George Will: "Do you think Roe v Wade was good constitutional law?"
Rudy Giuliani: "Yes I believe, I believe it is."
Cnn Clip December 2, 1999:
Announcer: "Giuliani was then asked whether he supports a ban on what critics call partial birth abortions, something Bush strongly supports."
Rudy Giuliani : "No, I have not supported that, and I don't see my position on that changing."
Announcer: "Back in 1996, mayor Giuliani went to federal court to challenge new federal laws requiring the city to inform the federal government about illegal immigrants."
Rudy Giuliani: "There isn't a mayor or a public official in this country that's more strongly pro immigrant than I am. Including disagreeing with President Clinton when he signed an anti-immigration legislation about two or three years ago."
Rudy Giuliani: "I'm in favor of gun control"
Meet The Press:
Tim Russert: "How about registration of all handguns?"
Rudy Giuliani: "You know I'm in favor of that. I've been on your show many times."
Announcer: "As mayor he supported civil unions, and extending health and other benefits to gay couples."
ABC Clip: "I supported domestic partnership legislation and signed it"
Meet The Press:
Tim Russert: "So should gay people be openly allowed to serve?"
Rudy Giuliani: "I think people should be judged on the merits. And there should not be a specific focus on someone's sexual orientation."
Cokie Roberts: "Would you vote in the senate in favor of Mccain / Feingold?"
Rudy Giuliani: "Yes, I'm a big supporter of Mccain / Feingold. I have been for a long time."
Rudy Giuliani: "Frankly George, I'd like to run on all the lines. I'd like to run on the liberal line, the conservative line, I'd like to run on the democratic line if I could figure out how to do it."
Meet The Press:
Tim Russert: "Whether it's gays in the military, gun control, campaign finance, late term abortion - you and Hillary Clinton are in sync on those issues."
Rudy Giuliani: "Well then maybe the other side should stop the 'He's part of the vast right wing conspiracy'."
Welcome To CPAC, Rudy!
No-I am not areafiftyone
-I know this is a heavy prayer thread here and will not joke but.:)
Sex shops, Times Square and Rudy.
First, he didn't get rid of all of them. Second, sex shops closed simply moved elsewhere in the City and just kept on doing what they do. And third, Giuliani did the big clean up of Times Square for economic development -- a very good thing! but not related to any pious clean up of sex shops in Manhattan.
The fact that he owns this website and allows us to post here says nothing about whether his opinions on any particular subject are wise or unwise.
So I do not see touting his opinions as coming down from on high.
If you agree with him, or disagree with him, fine. If he posts here, he is in the same position as every other poster.
"As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc. We also oppose the United Nations or any other world government body that may attempt to impose its will or rule over our sovereign nation and sovereign people. We believe in defending our borders, our constitution and our national sovereignty. If you can't figure out my answer to Rudy, you're lacking an important understanding of FReep."
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.