It's absolutely crucial to the conservative pro life movement to block Giuliani!

Vanity/The American Spectator ^ | 4/19/2007 | By W. James Antle III

[Jim Robinson]

It's absolutely crucial to the conservative pro life movement to block the pro choice, pro gay agenda Rudy Giuliani from obtaining the GOP nomination. It would kill the movement and ultimately destroy the credibility of the GOP.

Excerpts from the American Spectator:

The Real Deal

4/19/2007

~~snip~~

"Despite the calls to leave litmus tests behind, pro-life Rudy reluctance is justified. If nominated, Giuliani would be the most pro-choice Republican presidential candidate in history. Even Gerald Ford, an archetypal Republican for choice, backed a constitutional amendment overturning Roe v. Wade during the 1976 campaign. Barry Goldwater, who was nominated before abortion became a national issue and outspokenly pro-choice in retirement, backed the human life amendment in his final Senate race."

"Giuliani has feted NARAL and Planned Parenthood. He has praised Margaret Sanger and repeatedly accused mainstream pro-lifers of wanting to put pregnant women in jail. His concessions to date have been minor and offered without enthusiasm."

"Abortion opponents can ill afford to give up their leverage in the GOP. Their position has little support among the cultural elite; many in the Republican establishment would like nothing better than to “get beyond issues like that.” If pro-lifers support Giuliani because he “hates” abortion, it will be difficult for them to criticize “personally opposed” Democrats like John Kerry in the future. Their campaign to get bishops to withhold communion from pro-choice Catholic Democrats will seem partisan and hypocritical. And the whole movement may be seen as less serious and less influential."

~~snip~~

Don't be fooled. Don't betray your principles or the cause due to fear of Hillary and the moonbats. Would Ronald Reagan cower in fear and betray his principles?

Keep the faith!!

[WorkerbeeCitizen]

It's absolutely crucial to the conservative pro life movement to block the pro choice, pro gay agenda Rudy Giuliani from obtaining the GOP nomination. It would kill the movement and ultimately destroy the credibility of the GOP.

Agreed

[Cindy]

I am pro-life.

I’m not voting for him.

[durasell]

It would certainly re-define conservatism.

[Omega Man II]

Ignoring the social issues for the moment...

There’s another good reason that Rudy shouldn’t be the nominee...

BERNIE KERIK.

[Elyse]

I couldn’t live with myself if I voted for him. It’s just not going to happen.

[TheSpottedOwl]

I find Rudy’s name on a company that does business with cuckoo Chavez more disturbing than his age old position on abortion.

You’re up late. Got insomnia? I do, and I might break my three day record of no bleepin’ sleep.

[TheSpottedOwl]

See my post #7.

[PGalt]

Good article. Thanks for posting. Jim, thanks for everything that you have done.

[GSlob]

"It would certainly re-define conservatism."
Conservatism is already defined as a reasonably broad notion, including "social conservatives", "economic conservatives", "libertarian" and so on. If anything, the attempt to restrict "conservatism" to its "social" branch only would be a re-definition. And since any social movement in a democratic system needs to be sufficiently attractive to the mass of electorate outside of itself, one could argue that the "base" - any base [ours, sharptonite, or moveon variety] - is good only at foaming at the mouth and scaring everyone else away. Joe Lieberman in his most recent election provided an excellent example of where the "base" rightfully belongs.

[WildcatClan]

I would vote for Rudy over the pantsuit or the emptysuit if I were forced to vote. I am, however, not forced to vote, and would choose none of the above. The final result will be the same and by 2012 a 2008 victory for “our side” will be cold comfort when the demographics have changed in such away as to make a conservative POTUS nearly impossible. In my opinion, so far, there is only one real choice, someone who will put political correctness and multiculturalism aside and enforce our existing immigration laws, fight terror (without our hands tied behind our backs), put the ChiComs on notice and deal a major blow to Roe vs Wade. No, I don’t mean Rudy McRomney, or that we need to unpack an actor out of mothballs or waste time salivating over any other future “fantasy Candidate”. We already have a man who will do all that is needed and more, Duncan Hunter.

[durasell]

A discussion of the concept of “base” would be of great interest to me.

Any chance of getting a new “base” thread going?

[GSlob]

Well, maybe trying to bring concept of “base” from chemistry could give us insights. Bronsted base is something capable of absorbing a proton [not usable for us, at least not directly], while Lewis base is the source/carrier of unshared electron pair available for binding. Similarly, political “base” could be seen as a source/carrier of “ideas” [usually half-baked in any mass implementation]. More, the base ideas better be wrong - but simple and catchy, i.e. infectious. The test of the “base idea” is its capacity to form slogans, like “workers of the world, unite!” The right ideas normally do not make good slogans, and take too much effort for comprehension and transmission, i.e. have low affinity for the potential recipient [aka voter to be attracted]. Thus one could say that their Lewis basicity is low.

[durasell]

Typically I distrust analogies like the one you presented, but as analogies go, that’s pretty good.

I would counter that the slogans adopted by a “base” are:

A)A short hand for broad and more complex ideas that aren’t always perfectly understood by even the base, i.e. “workers of the world unite!” or “dyslexics of the world untie!”

B)there is some other broad idea or demographic that unites a base other than slogans.

[LegendHasIt]

I'm not a hard core pro-lifer as would be indicated by my otherwise paleo-conservative philosophy.

(I'm not pro-abortion either; I'm kind of a weaselly moderate in that one respect. While I think that most women who get 'abortions of convenience' will 'burn in hell' for it, I don't think it is MY right to force them not to.... I know I'd rather have been killed before I reached full awareness than grow up unwanted and despised by my parents.)

I'll work against Guliani until the primaries are over. If, God Forefend, he is the Republican nominee, I'll hold my nose and vote for him as the lesser of the evils. (There is only one GOP candidate that I will not vote for under any circumstances... {Call him 'Maverick'}).

But in the meantime, I'm praying that FRED! enters the race soon, or that a miracle happens and Duncan Hunter, (or even Tom Tancredo) get competitive enough to stand 'a snowball's chance".

[don-o]

When Giuliani was first blipped on the radar screen, it took me about five minutes of looking around the net to make my decision.

The right to life is fundamental and vital to ALL our rights.

[sonic109]

Another good reason he SHOULD be president ...terrorism...
Unless we pick someone who can ACTUALLY WIN ,Klinton will be president and then it will be all over for the USA.
If we get nuked a lot of social issues wont seem so important . I’m pro life for sure but unless we win you will see major terrorism deaths in the USA .

[sonic109]

Then be prepared for Klinton in the White House .

[GSlob]

I would argue that the base [by its definition as a mass phenomenon] is not capable of understanding anything beyond the level of slogans. Thus whatever unites it, has to be either slogan-primitive, or primitivizable to the level of a slogan [for example, "demographic ideas" are perceived at "us vs. them" level - try to make it more "basic" [pun intended] and slogan-like!]. Now, how many correct conservative ideas are driveable to such level? - not many, beyond national security and low taxation. One could include "limited government" in its slogan form "ef off and leave me alone!"

[cloud8]

I’ve said it before and I’m going to keep saying it. This election isn’t about abortion. Or guns. It’s about who is the best choice to defeat the clintns and lead the Global War on Terror.

Think about it: is President Giuliani going to force your daughter to have an abortion? Is he going to take away your precious gun? Of course not.