Many of the emails I received regarding my recent column on Rudy
Giuliani agreed with my premise that his social liberalism
outweighs his important stances on national defense and fiscal
conservatism. Still, many more are willing to overlook this; they
remain convinced that Rudy is their guy, based mainly on his
promise to appoint originalist judges and the “fact” that no other
candidate can beat Hillary Clinton.
As to the first, what, besides his say-so, gives so many
conservatives the idea that he’ll appoint strict
constructionalists? One reader lauded Giuliani’s “consistency of
sticking to his views” as one reason. But consistent or not, his
view of
Second Amendment rights is surely not that of someone with an
“originalist” mindset:
[I]’s part of the Constitution. People have the right
to bear arms. Then the restrictions of it have to be reasonable and
sensible. You can’t just remove that right. You’ve got to regulate,
consistent with the Second Amendment.
Besides his disingenuous use of the word “regulate,” the notion
that he favors any restrictions on the liberties enumerated in the
Bill of Rights — from which governmental interference is strictly
prohibited — is disturbing. Worse yet, what sort of originalist
would make this compromise:
I was in favor of it [the Brady Bill] because I thought
that it was necessary both to get the crime bill passed and also
necessary with the 2,000 murders or so that we were looking at,
1,800, 1,900, to 2,000 murders, that I could use that in a tactical
way to reduce crime. And I did.
It seems to me that he is open to abuse of the U.S Constitution in
order to serve a “greater good.” I suspect that the overwhelming
majority of conservatives would agree that when the supreme law of
the land is at stake, the end can never justifies the means.
Also, someone who suggests that there is a “right” to abortion,
is clearly not thinking along originalist lines either. But for
this stand he is lauded by the liberal media as a mainstream
Republican who is independent from the religious fanatics of the
party’s far-right wing. Are they correct? Here’s a little quiz.
Whence comes the following quote?
We must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the
Declaration of Independence. That is why we say the unborn child
has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be
infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution
and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the 14th
Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to
have legislative and judicial protection of that right against
those who perform abortions.
Was it uttered by Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell or some other “kook”
member of the dreaded “religious right?” No, it is simply a plank
from the Republican Party
platform (pdf). The point being, that attempts to paint
those who do not endorse Rudy as some kind of fringe group are way
off the mark and only meant to divide the GOP as a means to pave
the way for the future coronation of you-know-who.
And it doesn’t have to be that way. This is a choice which need
not be made. Let me repeat, the only people who can give us Rudy
vs. Hillary are Republicans. This win-win scenario is one slyly
crafted by the media in order to terrify those of us for whom the
words “President Clinton” are a recurring nightmare.
Liberals and their media wing long for the days of the sweet
sounds of GOP discord, like the fractious Harriet Miers flap or a
Pat Buchanan candidacy. So they’ve abandoned former darling John
McCain for one who is much closer to their idea of the ideal
Republican. For a good indication of once and future candidates who
are utterly unloved by the left, consider the attacks on the
“racist” George Allen, “Mormon” Mitt Romney or Newt “the Grinch”
Gingrich.
No, the media never trash those they do not fear, and their
mendacity should be apparent to all who are paying attention. For a
group who howls every time President Bush mentions 9/11 — remember
the indignation registered when the 2004 GOP convention was held in
New York City — the media can’t write enough about the valor of
“America’s Mayor.”
Rudy Giuliani surely deserves kudos for his handling of what was
arguably the worst day in American history and he certainly
displays some admirable conservative qualities, but why must anyone
commit now? Doing so at this early date is playing right into the
enemy’s hands; divide and conquer.
