The American Spectator

p>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. br> — Doug Welty br> Arlington, Virginia /p>

While Rudy Giuliani certainly would be a strong candidate, the crucial problem in his stance on abortion would provide a major disruption of the “long march” the pro-life cause through the institutions of influence and power — let alone in the hearts and minds of our fellow Americans. While it is true that Giuliani could not end abortion by signing a presidential order, what is clear is that as any pro-life measure makes its way through Congress he will not do anything to help it and probably do all he can to kill it.

The Republican Party is the one platform the pro-life cause has to speak with a political voice in the halls of power. That is precisely why there has been so much liberal and media effort to move the pro-life clause off the party platform at every Republican national convention. As is clear in the discussions among talking heads on cable, the media will inform the public that because the Republican Party would have subordinated social issues to traditional domestic and international issues it has finally “matured.” The Republican Party itself does not need to “grow” in that sense. The last thing it needs is to measure up to the expectations of its enemies.

p>Selecting and then possibly electing a pro-abortion candidate is not a benign move. It would push the center of gravity of the party, the government, and public concern away from protecting the unborn. The proclamation of abortion’s injustice to the very weakest among us will be shoved away once more. br> — Michael Wm. Dooley br> Indianapolis, Indiana /p>

Daniel Allott has articulated the pro-life position in regard to Mayor Rudy’s abortion stance extremely well. I applaud him for taking on the issue head on. He will not receive any credit from anyone in the “Anybody but a Democrat” crowd.

Might I simply say that virtually the same argument applies to the “pro-gun” or “anti-gun control” folks like myself. Mayor Rudy would promote and sign a gun registration program in a New York heartbeat. He would institute a Clinton style “assault weapon” ban in a heartbeat. The good folks of Canada, Britain, and Australia, who went along with “reasonable” controls in the beginning have found out the act three conclusion to the mystery, complete gun bans and rendering the citizenry defenseless before the criminal element, to whom no law means anything. In Britain, they long ago lost their right to own and maintain swords and the like. Now there is a very real possibility that they will not be allowed to possess butcher knives unless they are registered professional butchers or chefs. Anyone that thinks that Mayor Rudy wouldn’t cooperate with the Schumers, and Feinsteins, and Bloombergs, and the United Nations in foisting off on us laws to void the Second Amendment to our Constitution, is seriously delusional.

Then there is the issue of controlling our borders and protecting our sovereignty against the illegal invasion of our country by the Mexicans. Mayor Rudy’s position is a mirror image of the open borders and amnesty position that George Bush insists upon. (We now have over 10% of Mexico’s population in America, unassimilated, legal or illegal.) Remember that as you are dodging all the Mexican trucks on our roads under the control of all those highly skilled Mexican truck drivers. We don’t inspect 10% of these trucks now, but we are supposed to believe that 100% will be inspected once they are permitted to go anywhere in the U.S.A. that they like. Bah and humbug.