There's no way Rudy will get my vote
If the GOP nominates Giuliani, I'll either vote third-party or not at all (for President). I think that having a Republican president who supports abortion rights will do more harm than good to the pro-life cause in the long run, no matter what he says about judges.
I'm familiar with the argument that voting for Giuliani (as opposed to Hillary or any of the other Dem candidates) would be voting for the lesser of two evils (which is legitimate, from a Catholic moral perspective), but I'm still not sold... obviously, anyone who is pro-life would be voting for Giuliani in spite of his views on abortion, but if it was impossible for someone to support Kerry "in spite" of his views on abortion, how can someone do so with regard to Rudy?
My position doesn't have anymore weight behind it than my own solitary vote, but I don't care: I don't see anyway in which I can vote for Rudy for President.
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Rudy S A Y S he'll appoint judges who'll strictly interpret the Constitution, and invites us to vote for him.
So he's OK with the murder-for-hire of tiny helpless infants, but he'd never tell a lie ?
Before we even consider taking him at his word he should have to post a bond:
ALL of his present and future net worth--salaries, pensions, book deals, speaking tours, presidential libraries, all of it--to be held in trust.
A consortium of, say, James Dobson, Frank Pavone, and Joseph Scheidler would then give it all back to him after he leaves office--IF they feel he hasn't disappointed them as President, as respecting a list of items to be agreed on in advance.
Pretty sure Rudy's not gonna go for this.
Accordingly, you and I can't vote for him.
I agree we should vote for the lesser of two evils, but then I'm not at all convinced that Rudy IS the lesser.
Especially after you factor in the damage to the Republican party of having a pro-choice standard-bearer.
Pro-choice people will be coming out of the Republican woodwork all over.
What if Hillary's campaign melts down over another scandal or there's a terrorist attack, and everybody to the right of Howard Dean jumps ship and Rudy wins by a landslide ?
A Rudolf Giuliani who is suddenly "America's President" might suddenly find himself with a foggy memory:
"Did I say that specifically about the Supreme Court ?" Rudy might say. "You must have quoted me out of context. But make no mistake, Eve Gartner will make a fine Justice."
But if the general election is close, and we have a President Hillary because you and I stay home, a slew of conservatives will say it's our fault.
In fact they are already waving around this scenario at us !
Yet, in this scenario, a different set of Americans first nominate Rudy in their respective state primaries.
Why not blame them ?
Anyway, what about the Republican party ?
It had no technical problem being an Abolitionist, anti-slavery party.
Why can't it somehow be resolved that it is a pro-life party, and so by its own internal constitution, pro-choice candidates cannot use the Republican 'brand' ?
The Party doesn't seem to even own its own name, as proven by the David Duke disaster.
Remember that ?
A Klansman ran as a Republican in Louisiana. The Republican Party had to endorse the Democrat.
The slogan was, "Vote for the crook. It's important."
If some bloke on the side of the road opens a pub and calls it "McDonald's" there will be lawyers parachuting in from all over.
Yet ANYBODY can run for public office as a Republican ?
What's up with that ?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/14/opinion/14johnston.html?ex=1347508800&en=06a26fa2666a647f&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
Fortunately, this is a moot issue because Rudy will not be the nominee. There's a reason Rudy makes the judges argument though - really, that is the only way a President can/should impact any laws on abortion (other than signing or vetoing a bill).
I'm torn on whether an Amendment is proper. The most Constitutional way to address the issue is for the Supreme Court to overrule (either through one decision or many) the original decision that was so horribly decided... Generally, I think the Federalist position is the correct one for issues such as abortion, homosexual "marriage", etc.
tommy law:
Overturning Roe v. Wade, and its companion case Doe v. Bolton, plus related cases like Planned Parenthood v. Casey, etc, etc might indeed 'put the clock back' in the abortionists' horrified phrase, to 1972.
Then it would indeed be up to the states to ban abortion.
But if the Supreme Court or an Amendment decides that the unborn are 'persons' under the Constitution, then no state can then allow abortion, any more than they can, today, re-impose slavery, even if that is the people's will.
Roe v. Wade overturned or overruled the laws of 48 states. I doubt that many would ban abortion now if they had the chance.
Now that Rudy's out of the race, the conservative cry is for Huckabee to drop out to help Romney fight off a McCain victory, McCain being seen as liberal.
In other words, a vote for Huckabee is ultimately a vote for McCain.
I see their point, but, um, whom would they have me vote for to get Huckabee ?
They'd say, well, Huckabee doesn't have a chance, and they're likely right that the numbers and momentum aren't there for him.
But the Huckabee surge, in the face of funding levels 20-1 against him, is rightly seen as a surge of the rock-solid pro-life bloc.
I plan to vote for Huckabee on Super Tuesday next week, to make that bloc as large as possible.
Even if Romney or the hated McCain is ultimately nominated, they'll know that they need our votes in the general election.
Pro-lifers were said to stay home in droves in 1996 because they weren't sure they would gain very much from Robert Dole.
Any votes for Huckabee now, I'm thinking, might send a signal that this would be a good time for them to burn all their residual pro-choice bridges, in their campaign, platform, choice of Vice President, etc.
Post a Comment