The American Spectator

Reader Mail

p> CHOOSE RUDY? br> Re: Daniel Allott's He's Not for Me : /p>

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).

p>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. br> -- Larry Hawk br> San Francisco, California /p> p> 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.

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