Three NYC Gaystapo stooges. No thank-you.
Posted on 09/17/2007 4:09:54 PM PDT by wagglebee
Sometimes (more often than I care to admit), something has to be seen to be believed. You actually must read/see something with your own two eyes to figure out how in the world anyone could possibly believe what was just said.
Enter "Anti-Roe and Pro-Rudy," a mind-bending op-ed that runs in today's New York Times. The author, Eric Johnston, says he is a "fervent pro-lifer," and since we don't know him, we take him at his word.
Johnston supports pro-abortion Rudy Giuliani: "I think Mr. Giuliani will be the most effective advocate for the pro-life cause precisely because he is unreligious and a supporter of abortion rights."
Well, that's the kind of statement that'll get your attention. Let's see how Johnston attempts to square the circle.
To understand his approach, it helps to recall the now familiar "Nixon goes to China'" historical reference. Johnston doesn't use the parallel and no doubt would reject it, but as you remember the idea was that only Nixon, a fervent anti-communist, could have gone to Communist China to begin the normalization of Sino-American relations.
Likewise, only Giuliani, who has a long track record of support for abortion, can "shake up the nearly 35-year-old debate over Roe v. Wade," according to Johnston.
Note that Johnston begins with an argument Giuliani supporters often make to soften the resistance of people who would otherwise not even consider the former Mayor of New York City. And that is that even though the Republican party is against abortion, Giuliani has been ahead in the GOP presidential polls for months.
Understand what Johnston is doing: combining an "is" --Giuliani is leading in the polls--with an "ought"--pro-lifers should get behind him because Giuliani can best shake up the "status quo" on the abortion debate.
We talked about the poll numbers on Monday.
To recapitulate: (1) according to Gallup, among those Republican voters who are aware of the broader field of GOP presidential candidates, former Senator Fred Thompson leads Giuliani, 33% to 25%. (2) According to the Rasmussen Report, among the pool of people who will choose the GOP presidential nominee--likely Republican primary voters--Thompson garners 27% and Giuliani 19%.
All this could change again and again, but there is no inevitability to a Giuliani win. His numbers have been dropping.
Johnston leavens this with what might be called the bogeyman argument. Any candidate who sounds too serious about reversing Roe will spook the voters, especially if they are "deeply religious."
Giuliani is just the man, according to Johnston, to overcome this. Giuliani is (in Johnston's overly generous assessment) personally "ambivalent" about abortion but says he will appoint "strict constructionist judges (judges who will not use the courts "to achieve political ends")--and "ducks questions about his personal faith."
And because he is a "constitutionalist who supports abortion rights," Johnston writes, Giuliani "can create an anti-Roe majority by explaining that the end of Roe means letting the people decide, state by state, about abortion."
But precisely why is Giuliani "more persuasive" about this federalism argument than the other GOP presidential candidates? "[B]ecause he will not be perceived as trying to advance his own religious preferences," Johnston argues. "By taking the side of pro-lifers for democratic, but not devout, motives, a President Giuliani could shake up the nearly 35-year-old debate over Roe v. Wade."
It is both insulting and flat-out wrong to suggest that the candidates running for the GOP presidential nomination who oppose abortion are raising (or will eventually raise) the hackles of mainstream America. Whatever their personal faith, they convey their opposition to abortion in language accessible to people of all faiths or no faith.
They have made it clear in a variety of forums that the reversal of Roe is their ultimate objective; that this much-to-be-desired turn of events is not around the corner; that in the interim they are working to hedge in the "right" to abortion; and that when Roe is in ruins, the debate over abortion will return primarily to the legislative bodies.
The "strict constructionist" label is intended to convince skeptics that all the expressly and exuberantly pro-abortion statements Giuliani has made in the past are to count for nothing. That list goes on and on.
To cite just one, speaking at the NARAL's "Champions of Choice" luncheon in Manhattan in 2001, Giuliani said, "As a Republican who supports a woman's right to choose, it is particularly an honor to be here." He added, "The government shouldn't dictate that choice by making it a crime or making it illegal."
But, equally important, every time Giuliani talks about appointing "strict constructionists," inquiring minds think back to his judicial appointments while Mayor. A few months ago, the newspaper, Politico, for example, did a review of "the 75 judges Giuliani appointed to three of New York state's lower courts."
The newspaper first quoted what he told South Carolina Republicans in February: "I would want judges who are strict constructionists because I am," adding, "Those are the kinds of justices I would appoint -- Scalia, Alito and Roberts."
But Politico's analysis found that "[M]ost of Giuliani's judicial appointments during his eight years as mayor of New York were hardly in the model of Chief Justice John Roberts or Samuel Alito -- much less aggressive conservatives in the mold of Antonin Scalia."
For our purposes, no less a source than Kelli Conlin, the head of NARAL Pro-Choice New York, said of Giuliani's appointments, "They were decent, moderate people."
(Johnston also argues that "Mr. Giuliani pledges his support for the Hyde Amendment," which may be true this minute, but hasn't been the case in the past and may well not be in the future.)
We've heard a ton of arguments why pro-lifers should make their peace with Giuliani. Most of them center around the likelihood of his winning the nomination. As we have seen, that rationalization is wearing thin.
Eric Johnston's complementary argument--that Giuliani would actually advance the cause quicker and more effectively--is both bizarre and unpersuasive.
I'm sure you won't be fooled, even for a second.
That rationalization was put forth by pro-abortion Rooty Rooters who DESPISE conservatives!
Pro-Life Ping
Ping
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
Ping
bump!
This is just more from “they think we are stupid crowd”.Nuts!
I can understand opposing Rudy in the primaries, but if he wins it will be him or Hillary in the general election and you can count on Hillary appointing worse judges and trying to overturn any prolife gain she can.
Correction The “They think we are stupid crowd”
Why would ANY president knowingly appoint a judge who they totally disagree with? Rooty’s and Hitlery’s judicial philosophies are essentially identical.
Sure. And I suppose that Pinch and the New York Times are secretly pro-life, too! That’s why they have so kindly commissioned this op-ed piece from a completely unknown writer.
This editorial IS NOT from the New York Times.
Dou you suppose the NYT commissioned this fellow?
No.
Ghouly gets the pro-life vote? What’s this guy smoking?
Ghouly gets the pro-life vote? What’s this guy smoking?
Also, unless things turn around in the Congress, Hillary would proceed with both Houses behind her.
This guy is countering the argument that Rooty would get the pro-life vote.
Mrs. Clinton will have Congress behind her for 2 years. She will deliver a Republican Congress then. Giuliani will have increasingly leftward congresses for so long as he sits there.
Federal judges at the appeals (and Supreme Court) level don’t even hear criminal cases except for appeals on procedural grounds and that isn’t what the debate is about. Rooty’s interpretation of the Constitution (that it guarantees abortion, does not insure the Second Amendment, etc.) are nearly identical to Hitlery’s.
If Rooty Toot was president, the Republicans in Congress would have a difficult time countering his leftist agenda.
Oops. My eyes are on backwards today. Sorry...for the double post too.
I guess prolife, all the way every day, is the litmus test for Republicans. Or is it? The election will tell us. That is why we have them.
There is absolutely no good reason to believe that Rudy will advance the pro-life cause in any way whatsoever. None of his statements made while seeking the Republican nomination count. He has a long and consistent record of being very much for abortion.
Yep. Not even for a second.
...”speaking at the NARAL’s ‘Champions of Choice’ luncheon in Manhattan in 2001, Giuliani said, ‘As a Republican who supports a woman’s right to choose, it is particularly an honor to be here.’ He added, ‘The government shouldn’t dictate that choice by making it a crime or making it illegal.’”
I cannot and will not vote for Rudy.
Three NYC Gaystapo stooges. No thank-you.
Which one of the current DEM candidates would you put in the pro-life category?
So if the Times didn't want this piece to be on their editorial page, how did it get there?
If Rudy gets the nomination, what will the Republican Party stand for? If he should win the presidency, he probably would be a better president than Hillary; but the conservative movement will have come to an end and the long-term damage to the country will be worse than four-to-eight years of leftist rule. I’m not going to vote for him under any circumstances and, if he’s nominated, I hope he loses.
The conservative movement will have come to an end if Hillary is elected. How many people are going to be permanently pissed off if the conservative movement turns its back on a chance to stop HRC.
We need a new one. I propose Fred Thompson as the Dem candidate!
The conservative movement profited from Carter’s presidency. After four years of Hillary, the country would be so sick of the democrats that they couldn’t get back in for 20 years.
Not hardly.
The last time a Clinton was elected to the white house the Conservative movement made many long-term gains.
Since there is hardly a difference in their policy positions, as stated by Rudy himself, what this boils down is getting stabbed in the back by somebody who is supposed to be on my side, or being stabbed in the back by my sworn enemy.
I will take the latter every, single time!
If it is between Rudy and Hillary, I could not in good conscience vote for anyone.
Just for the sake of clarification: the original pro-Rudy op-ed by Eric Johnston was in the New York Times.
FTA: Enter "Anti-Roe and Pro-Rudy," a mind-bending op-ed that runs in today's New York Times
The opposing piece, by Dave Andrusko, topic of this thread, was not in the Times.
I am VERY Pro-Life.
I support nominees other than Rudy.
IF Rudy gets the nomination I will vote for him rather than stay home and let Hillary win.
I believe that it the right thing to do and would NOT be objected to by Rome.
That's the point that gets me. With Hil, we'd have a committd left-wing President and an conservative Republican opposition party roaring back at her within 2 years. With Rudy, we'd have a liberal in the White House, a Republican party with a severely crushed and withered conservative wing (that is, a Republican party without a "Republican wing") and no effective opposition. Worst case scenario, in my opinion.
Rudy will never be the Republican nominee. All the bulls*** editorials in the world won’t change that.
So what? Electing Giuliani would simply reward & incentivize the leftward movement of the GOP, leaving us with a choice between a socialist party & a communist party (and we're almost there already).
Rudy will never get my vote. Sorry.
I thought I was the only one anywhere who could see that.Glad to know I am not alone.
And no matter WHAT Rudy did, I fear the Bishops would NEVER come out in a manly way and confront him for Christ's sake, for fear of being called "too political."
The wee, sleekit, cow'rin, tim'rous Bishops.
Giuliani is the only Republican candidate that would cause me to seriously consider voting for the Democrat.In the end I would not because I couldn’t induce myself to vote for any abortionist, whatever the perceived contingency.
I agree completely. I don’t consider him a true Republican, and would consider voting Democrat before pro-abortion Giuliani...OK, not Hillary. In my opinion, Giuliani is less electable than Ron Paul. At least Paul is pro-life. Giuliani’s popularity is hyped by the abortion-loving liberal media, but in the end he will only divide and weaken the Republican party (something the liberals also want).
Mrs. Clinton will galvanize the Conservatives as her husband did and many more will become “conservative” if only out of anti-Hillary pique. Conservatives can-probably will- ride that sentiment to renewed power AGAIN and then if they can remain conservative, will hold on to the government for a long time. Trouble is, when we do elect our guys, pretty quick they ain’t our guys any more. Once in Washington most of them are blinded by the money and the power and they prove to be generic POLITICIANS.
Wholesale abortion and Homosexualism are Law-and-Order to Mr. Giuliani.
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.
