Rudy Or Not Rudy?

That is the question:

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."

But:

In most of the Presidential elections since 1973, I have been what the pollsters refer to as a "single-issue" voter, being ever stalwart in my support for vigorous pro-life candidates. But this primary, I'm voting for Guiliani, despite his pro-choice stance. Here's why.


First of all, contrary to a great deal of hysterical feminist rhetoric, the President of the United States can really only do three things to advance the pro-life cause as long as Roe stands. One, he can appoint strict constructionist judges who interpret the Constitution as written, as opposed to the hocus-pocus, magical finding of things that are not there in reality. Guiliani has demonstrated to my satisfaction that he intends to do exactly that.


Secondly, a President can avoid vetoing any pro-life legislation - such as the ban on Partial-Birth Abortion - that happens to find its way to his desk. I would like to see Republicans urge Mr. Guiliani to make this a formal commitment.


Lastly, he can veto any anti-life funding bills. In reality, those are the only areas where the President has influence in the pro-life arena. I could argue all day and all night with Mr. Guiliani over the "rightness" of any woman's choice to kill her offspring in the womb, and it still would not change the current Law of the Land one iota. Despite NARAL propaganda, the President of the United States does not wield lawful control over any American woman's body or what she does with it.


Unfortunately, in 2008, we Americans do not have the luxury of focusing our votes towards any domestic agenda. That we have some very large, ever-looming domestic problems - health care crisis, out-of-control entitlement programs, an irresponsible deficit, to name a few - goes without belaboring. But to give any of those center stage right now is, in my view, pure folly. Whether we like it or not, we are in a war, a war we neither asked for, nor started. And, no matter what happens in the short run in Iraq, we are going to be at war for a long time.


The last thing we need in the White House is an equivocating, sloganeering, poll-obsessed politician worried about his/her image. This time around - when we are fighting for our very way of life - we do not need a President who cares more about his coiffure than his message. The time for smooth-talking, carefully-stepping, popularity-wooing candidates bit the dust on 9/11/2001. And, in my opinion, the one person we have in America right now who fits the bill is Rudy Guiliani.

I'm personally hoping we don't have to choose between pro-life and commander-in-chief come November 2008.