Wednesday, October 10, 2007

Giuliani, abortion and Christians

I feel a couple of comments need to be made about John Galt's posting of The Hill's article on the third party controversy that has arisen in the last severals day, as well as the incoherent blabbering over at the re-activated RockyMountainPolitics.

It isn't news that the leaders of the major Christian groups didn't agree on a potential pro-life third party candidates. That was reported in the original article.

The larger point is they were all in unanimous agreement that they would not support Rudy Giuliani for President.

Additionally 27% of Republican voters say they would support a pro-life, third party candidate over Giuliani. Regardless of what Gary Bauer and Tony Perkins do or say, the natives are restless.

I will not vote, under any circumstance vote for a pro-abortion Republican for President. Enough of my fellow Christians feel the same way, that it will be next to impossible for Giuliani to win.

I highly recommend this post from It is a passionate response to the knuckle-heads in the Giuliani personality cult.

Money quote from Red Sox Republican:

...what my pro-Rudy friends don't seem to understand is that for guys like me, support for Rudy is a non-negotiable proposition. And it's not just (or even primarily) because he's a dirty, stinking Yankees fan. It is, of course, the abortion thing.

Now, a lot of people say that abortion is just an "issue" and that it's wrong to let a single issue dictate your whole politics. Generally, that's a sound proposition. I guess there are a wide variety of reasons that people might oppose abortion - but I oppose it because I think it's killing. And the way it's practiced in this country, it's a *lot* of killing. It's killing in numbers per annum that roughly equal the holocaust. And so I'm sorry to say that it's simply not an option for me in my conscience to pull the lever for a guy who supports the continuation of current abortion policy in the United States.

This is the point in the conversation where my pro-Rudy friends generally interject, "Yes, but, *HILLARY!!!*" And then I have to wonder whether I'm speaking clearly or something, or whether my pro-Rudy friends have somehow gotten the idea that the concept of supporting a candidate who would stand by and allow what I consider to be mass infanticide is a negotiable one. So let me just say it: it isn't. Sorry if you got the wrong impression, here, but I'm not really interested in being persuaded on this point.

I think that part of what makes this so insulting is that there's so little else about Rudy which might even make me think about at least standing aside for him, if not actively working for him. At this point, the only arguments I have ever heard for why Rudy would allegedly be good for this country are these:

1. He's not Hillary Clinton
2. He'd aggressively continue the war in Iraq

Well, put me on the growing list for whom #2 isn't such a high priority any more, and as for #1, well, the country survived Andrew Johnson, Jimmy Carter, LBJ, and Bill Clinton; it will survive Hillary Clinton. And the parade of horrors that would supposedly attend a Hillary Presidency are simply not enough for me to vote for a guy who is pro-legal-abortion. Not even close. So, I mean, thanks for the effort, Rudy fans, but perhaps you'd better move on to someone else in that 27% group, because the issue is not up for negotiation here.


The Real Sporer said...

I must respectfully but strongly disagree. Although I don't endorse any Presidential candidate it is important to remember that you will be knowingly complicit in the greatest victory not just pro-choice but pro-abortion has ever achieved if you sit this one out.

Do you really think that any Republican Presidential administration could support public funding of abortion for minors who have been taken across state lines without parental consent? That's Evita's starting point, read the legal writing of some of the judges that are Hillary's ideological mates.

Wars are won in small victories and evil flourishes when good men do nothing. Not supporting our nominee is worse than doing nothing.

John Galt said...

Mr. Lyman if Giuliani is the nominee I will buy you and perhaps 2 of your cohorts a steak dinner if the 3rd party candidate gets not 27%, not 17% but just 7% of the vote next election. I will disavow all my crazy ideas about why electing Hillary Clinton might be a bad idea and follow in your teachings.

Sound good?

If Josh Lyman Were Conservative... said...

the real sporer:

Honestly, I believe that Giuliani would support public funding of abortion.

Additionally, the NYC judges that Giuliani has appointed have been JUST AS BAD as judges that Clinton would would appoint.

Rudy has a HORRIBLE track record

Evil also flourishes when good men divorce themselves from principle to blindly follow an immoral leader (Giuliani).

Marilyn said...

It's all wrong what you're writing.