Man Bites Blog

McCarthy today:

The Obamas, as they’ve repeatedly emphasized, are not people of great means.  Yet, only a couple of years ago, they chose to give $22,500 of their own money to support Wright and his ministry.  That’s not guilt by association; that’s active, material promotion.  Did anything he said in the speech satisfy you about that?  Me neither.

Who did McCarthy support for the GOP nomination? Why, Rudy Giuliani, Planned Parenthood donor.   You know, the same Planned Parenthood that doesn’t just give incendiary speeches, but actually performs abortions. 

But, yeah, I guess being against the war or the country is worse than actually killing unborn children.

K-Lo, who has been spending the last several weeks (unsuccessfully) trying to convince readers that John McCain is some combination of Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton, writes of the pro-choice, pro-torture, pro same-sex marriage, twice divorced Rudy Giuliani:

It’s a big party… ‘I’m even in this party. It’s a great party.’ It’s a gracious, dignified speech. I disagree with him on some issues, but he ran a race he can be proud of.

First of all, it would be difficult to imagine how Giuliani’s campaign could have been worse.  He staked everything on winning Florida, and won 15% of the vote.  If that’s something to be proud of, then Scott Linehan’s the coach of the year.

Second, this is yet another illustration of what really matters to conservatives.  An anonymous source says that John McCain might not have appreciated Alito, even though he was very publicly supportive, and he’s a weasel.  But since Giuliani is no longer a threat to thre Great Mitt Romney, he’s a great guy.

I hope McCain picks Lieberman as a running mate just to stick it to these people.

• Support for abortion
• Support for torture
• Support for same sex marriage
• Now, not paying his staff a just wage

As the Corner debates how mean they should be to Mike Huckabee, I think it’s interesting to contrast the conversation with the conversation that ocurred as it became clear that Rudy Giuliani was going to run for the Republican nomination as a pro-choice candidate.

I don’t recall the intensely personal, condescending attacks against Giuliani.  I recall considerable debate in finding exactly what Giuliani’s views were, and people expressing the opinion that they were unacceptable.  But I don’t remember the sarcasm, criticizing his college, etc. 

Further, with Huckabee now, I don’t see any current of, “shut up about your complaints and get behind a winner — you don’t want Hillary, do you?” sentiment that was prevalent back then.  It doesn’t seem to matter that Huckabee is the one candidate able to generate any excitement.   He once raised taxes, he’s said some non-mean things about children of illegal immigrants; he’s embarassing; he has to go.

Just another illustration of what’s important to the GOP versus what they say is important.

Some people seem to be under the impression that if the GOP nominates Rudy Giuliani, we pro-lifers will be so frightened by Hillary Clinton and “The Terrorists’ War On Us” that we will rush to support Giuliani.

Let me state for the record:

1. I would vote for Ron Paul or someone representing his positions over Rudy Giuiliani in the general election.
2. I would vote for Hillary Clinton or Barrack Obama over Rudy Giuliani in the general election. (And maybe Edwards).

In short, absent a complete and convincing reversal from Giuilani on abortion, torture, and war, there are no feasible scenarios in which I would vote for Giuliani.

Selecting a pro-life VP candidate will not win me over. Wink-nudge pledges to nominate “strict constructionist” judges will not do this.

This is not a pose or posturing or a threat. This is the truth. I. will. not. vote. for. Rudy Giuliani.

I feel like I write this post every month, but the Cornerites seem convinced that this will all blow over.

Anyone remember 2004?

Back then, we Christians were lecture mercilessly about how abortion and same sex marriage are “non-negotiable” issues, and are the only ones we could possibly use in determining the candidate who would receive our votes. Oppose the war? Fine, but that’s not as important abortion. Don’t wand to open the door to torture? OK, but the scope of that is not the same as 1.3 million babies. Want to do more to help the poor? Well, Jesus never laid out specific means to do that, so you can’t base your vote on who has a better health care plan. A million babies a year, remember?

Fast forward to 2008, and we get this:

Scenes from the news conference in which Pat Robertson endorsed Rudy Giuliani for president: “To me, the overriding issue before the American people is the defense of our population from the bloodlust of Islamic terrorism,” Robertson told reporters. The second-most important issue, Robertson said, is fiscal discipline. And then there are the social issues. “Uppermost in the mind of social conservatives is the selection of Supreme Court justices,” Robertson said, and Giuliani “has assured the American people that his choices for judicial appointments will be men and women sho share the judicial philosophy of John Roberts and Antonin Scalia.”

Asked to elaborate on his decision to endorse a pro-choice candidate, Robertson said, “I think he has articulated a philosophy that he really is for the life of the unborn.” Robertson said that for social conservatives, “the most important thing…is the selection of judges,” but beyond that, “As long as the Supreme Court has ruled as it has, there’s very little a politician can do.”

Apparently, if you oppose aggressive wars, that’s not a good enough reason to support a pro-choice candidate. But if you support them, it is. Pro-war Christians can support Giuliani but anti-war Christians better not support John Kerry. Right.

Remind me why we were listening to these people again? Have the last seven years been so good that we should let them tell us who our candidates should be?

Despite the dismissals from the Corner, I’m going to support Ron Paul, and I am excited about the monetary support he received. Yes, I disagree with him on some things, but I agree with him on the important things — abortion, war, and torture. And when I do disagree, it’s at least on principle. If he were to veto S-CHIP, it would because he genuinely believes in smaller government, not because he discovered fiscal responsibility when it was time to pay for kids’ health care instead of another invasion.

The conservative base has no clue what people want. None. They really seem to think that people want a lot of tough talk against Muslims. Most of us have realized that peace is not going to be achieved by invading countries, and are ready to try something different.

The conservative leadership apparently has a dimmer view of us than liberals do. Liberals think we care more about the unborn than those born. Conservatives apparently think we don’t really care about the unborn either, and will throw them under the bus to support a candidate who is really mean to Muslims.

Let’s show them they’re wrong.

Matthew Yglesias has the thinking of the pro-life movement on a Giuliani candidacy about right. 

I am not assuaged by the idea that Giuliani will nominate the right judges, for the following reasons:

1. An overturning of Roe v. Wade tipped by a justice nominated by a “pro-choice” president will not last.  Pro-choice voters will feel (perhaps rightfully) hoodwinked, and work that much harder to overturn the decision.
2. I get the sense that a Giuliani presidency would piss off a lot of people, and judicial nominations would offer him an opportunity to reach across the aisle and gain some political capital.  In other words, I sincerely doubt a President Giuliani would have the political capital neccesary to push a “strict constructionist” through the confirmantion process, and I don’t think he’d be inclined to do so even if he could.
3. As MY mentions, a Giuliani nomination and win would send a loud and clear message that Republicans need not even feign concern for the unborn in order to be elected, which would be a disaster.

Now, the pro-life movement has a self-preservation instinct just like any others, but I do wish MY wasn’t so dismissive of our motives.  I find it difficult to believe the unborn would be best served by a Giuliani Administration, and think it would be dmaging in other areas — torture, expansion of the war, etc.

Ok, fellow pro-lifers, it’s time to stop kidding ourselves. Rudy Giuliani is pro-choice. He seems to have always been pro-choice, and he will always be pro-choice. On this issue, he is indistinguishable from John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary , Arnold Schwarzanegger, Claire McCaskill, and any other number of Catholic candidates who are unacceptable to us.

If he changes his mind, he will let us know. And he will do so in a blod way. We will not need to carefully parse his statements to see that they are not overtly hostile to the pro-life cause. We should not have to guess and parse.

Andrew Sullivan points to a quote that captues his attitude well.

In 2001, appearing at a NARAL/Pro-Choice America luncheon, he voiced the conservative case for abortion rights, arguing that it “might be more consistent with the philosophy of the Republican Party.”Because the Republican Party stands for the idea that you have to restore more freedom of choice, more opportunity, more opportunity for people to make their own choices rather than the government dictating those choices,” said Giuliani.

Pro-lifers are used to this type of attitude from pro-choice Catholic Democrats — I’m a Democrat; Democrats are pro-choice; you can’t expect me to go against my party, do you? Party loyalty and principles are rock hard; religious beliefs should be flexible and yield to them.

But in a way, Rudy’s right. The Republican Party has always been a but of an uncomfortable home for the pro-life movement. It can be hard to reconcile support for torture, pre-emptive war, and capital punishment with arguments against abortion based on the fundamental dignity of human life.

Of course, I care much more about defending the unborn than I care about being a good conservative or good Republican, and I hope that others will too.