The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Life of the Party

3.9.07 @ 12:01AM

CHOOSE RUDY?
Re: Daniel Allott's He's Not for Me:

Although I certainly respect the views of Mr. Allott regarding abortion, I also have deep fears that if enough purists make the serious mistake of eliminating Rudy Giuliani from contention, we are on the way to another loss at the polls. And we may never recover from it. I am undoubtedly in 99% agreement with Mr. Allott on the immoral practice of abortion, but I'm not crazy about suicide, either.

I have no reason to doubt that Giuliani means it when he says he will appoint strict constructionists and originalists to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court created the constitutional right to abortion out of whole cloth, and it can and must be the sole actor in returning that "right" to the hell it richly deserves. Once the states and their respective citizens have control of the issue, the President becomes irrelevant. Ditto for gay marriage.

On the other hand, the President, and to a lesser extent the Congress have direct impact on waging war, establishing and protecting ordered liberty ("law and order"), controlling taxes, and reducing the size of the federal government (the "nanny state"). Check Giuliani's record in New York on these issues (the war on crime is an apt analogy).

Only on immigration am I fearful of Giuliani's liberal side because it's the only place his liberalism could have substantial effect. My belief is that a Republican Congress, swept back into office on a Giuliani wave, would be more conservative than the President on this issue. Or we could vote for say, Brownback, and learn to speak Arabic.
-- Larry Hawk
San Francisco, California

Dan Allott's article on Rudy Giuliani should wake-up true pro-life conservatives. Giuliani now emphasizes that he would appoint "strict constructionist judges" (a sloppy term at best). But this empty talking point begs the question: how can a man who considers abortion to be a constitutional "right" have any idea what it means to enforce an original or strict meaning of the Constitution? If Reagan and Bush 41 had such a poor batting average in appointing justices, only denial, insanity, or suicide could cause pro-lifers to believe that an avowed pro-abortion candidate will do better, especially when we might only need one more good justice. And take note: both Giuliani and John Kerry are "Catholic," so if the pro-life movement gives Giuliani a pass because he's a Republican, the effort in 2004 to expose Kerry's religious duplicity will itself be exposed as nothing more than partisan politics, as liberals had alleged.
-- Matt Bowman
Hyattsville, Maryland

This is the type of thinking that will only deliver victory after victory to the Anti-American Party (Dems). We voted for W even though it has always been evident he wasn't a true conservative, yes he is against abortion but unfortunately he is not against spending. His "compassionate conservative" campaign defined conservatives as not compassionate, yet we still voted for him. Why? We thought he could do the job and he was our best chance to win. Bush has done more to destroy the conservative movement than any Democrat or Media forces, not by the Iraq War, but through his love of spending, his attempt to gain favor with Dems (the Kennedy education debacle), and an inability to communicate and sell ideas because of his inability to speak coherently.

Well in '08 Rudy is going to be our best chance to win, and just because I disagree with his stance on abortion, I will not deliver victory to the Dems by voting for someone unstable and consistently undependable like McCain or another big spending Republican like Bush (and his dad, who is a great guy, a true American hero, but not a conservative).

The sometimes unholy alliance between the far right Christians and fiscal conservatives brought us Bush's biggest gaffe, his threat for an anti-gay marriage amendment. If this isn't a violation of civil rights and everything this country has stood for, nothing is. This sent the country on a detour from the country's real problems, cutting government regs, individual freedom, SS reform, lower taxes, and cutting entitlements. It also increased the left's hate that fuels their determination to destroy Bush, and it seems they have been very successful in that endeavor.

Rudy has proved he can get things done. NYC was a cesspool before he was mayor. He has a chance to pull Dems who might disagree with the party's anti-American all-the-time stance who have been put off by the social conservatism that Bush represents to them. You throw a strong Southern social conservative on the ticket as VP and you have a winner.
-- Jack

Generally speaking, I wouldn't lift a finger for any GOP candidate who wasn't pro-life, pro-gun, and anti-tax. Unless his Democrat opponent were even worse.

And even in such a situation, I'd support a third-party conservative, or even sleep late on Election Day, if the best the GOP could offer were one of the garden-variety RINOs who never tires of attacking me and my ilk as Bible-thumping, Colt-toting greedheads who just won't fall in line with what passes for family values at Bennington College or on Castro Street.

But so far, Rudy Giuliani has refrained from that sort of thing. And even though he may not support the Human Life Amendment or nationwide concealed carry, if he were just to refrain from making things worse during his administration, it would be a heck of a lot better than the alternative.

So for now, I'll refrain from opposing America's Mayor. I'm going to watch, wait, and see what else he says and does. And doesn't do.

And you know, now that I think of it, I have yet to hear anybody call him a RINO, or see that odious label applied to him in print. It just doesn't seem to fit him.
-- Doug Welty
Arlington, Virginia

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Taxes, Education, Entitlements, Islam, Abortion, Environment, Global Warming, Constitution, Law, Supreme Court, Iraq, Fascism, Conservatism, Immigration