In a comment on my post earlier today about Rudy Giuliani’s evolving and complicated position on abortion, Hunter Baker of RedState.com fame says that Rudy is a goner, in his book:
He has said something else that makes all this less okay. I’ve seen a statement where he says it would be "OK" if a "strict constructionist" were to leave Roe in place.
Leaving aside the problem that it is impossible to put strict constructionist and leaving Roe in place in the same sentence without cognitive dissonance, I do not view this to be a positive development.
Rudy is out for me right now.
The idea that Rudy would seek out Supreme Court nominees who are "strict constructionists" who support keeping Roe v. Wade in places strikes me as extremely weaselly and not one that projects integrity and philosophical consistency. If we add that factor to our chart of Rudy’s abortion logic, his position looks even more convoluted and devious:
- I am personally very strongly opposed to abortion.
- I enthusiastically support the Supreme Court’s 1972 decision to remove voters’ rights to decide whether to allow abortions in their respective states or otherwise to regulate the practice in any effective way.
- As President, I would appoint "strict constructionist" judges, which most people think are the type who will probably overturn Roe v. Wade.
- It will be "OK" with me if they do that.
- But not all strict constructionist judges want to overturn Roe v. Wade, at least by my definition of the term.
- So you have no way of knowing which way my nominees would move the U.S. Supreme Court on abortion.
- Trust me to do the right thing—remember how decisive and valiant I looked after 9/11.
Hunter Baker is a classic social conservative, and his opinion on these subjects carries a lot of weight with me. My doubt about Rudy’s ability to woo social conservative Republicans (something of a redundancy, perhaps?)—already expressed several times on this site and reiterated this morning—just increased a notch or two.
Thanks, Mike. The redundancy to which I was referring was in describing social conservatives as Republicans, not the other way round. The point was that as bad as the Repubs have been in recent years, social conservatives have no other practical alternative.
You’re absolutely right to mention the power of the abortion industry and other economic interests that promote what is typically called a left-wing agenda but is really simply the most common form of statism in our time. These interests look to use the state to enrich themselves and enhance their own power. These arguments are all about who gets the money and power, which is what you get when governments take authority over all things. The idealists are just tools of these powerful interest groups.
Dear Mr. Karnick:
On a lighter note: Since this is the beginning of the latest political season, it might be instructive if we keep everything in perspective and respond in proportion to the provocation. To that end, here are some “measures” by which to judge the candidates and their pronouncements (from Willard R. Espy’s AN ALMANAC OF WORDS AT PLAY, 1975, page 130, attributed to Joe Ecclesine):
POLITICAL OPPONENT’S MEASURE
2 nincompoops = 1 fathead
2 fatheads = 1 incompetent
3 incompetents = 1 opportunist
2 opportunists = 1 machiavelli
If everything goes swimmingly, then we apply the
APPLAUSE SCALE
2 salvos = 1 accolade
2 accolades = 1 triumph
3 triumphs = 1 ovation (sitting)
4 ovations = 1 lionization
2 lionizations = 1 outtasight
If, however, the debate deteriorates, then we must apply the
ALTERCATION SCALE
2 tussles = 1 fray
3 frays = 1 fracas
2 fracases = 1 skirmish
2 skirmishes = 1 fight
But if you’re like me and your eyes rapidly glaze over during debate (due to the poor forensics skills of the candidates), then it’s time to apply
THE I-DON’T-CARE SCALE
2 jots = 1 tittle
3 tittles = 1 continental
2 continentals = 1 tinker’s dam
4 tinker’s dams = 1 damn
Respectfully,
Mike (not Linda)
Dear Mr. Karnick:
Abortion isn’t really a “social movement” in America any more than being a Trekkie is. It’s an INDUSTRY, well-funded and vetted by the elitists who evidently control “social movements” (e.g., “global warming”) for their own ends.
Rudy’s moral relativism shines through with every wishy-washy statement that escapes his lips; sadly, he ain’t the only one.
When you wrote “social conservative Republicans (something of a redundancy, perhaps?)” I grew confused; I hope you don’t mean that all Republicans are social conservatives, for that is demonstrably untrue. (I love Bryanna Bevins’s characterization of a “moderate Republican” as a Democrat with good fashion sense.)
In fact, my inability to distinguish between exponents of the two major political parties–“the bigger the government, the better” seems to be their paradigm–has led me to conclude that there’s no real choice to be made between them. Oh, they TALK big before elections but return to their own vomit afterwards.
If all of the preceding sounds “conspiracy theory”-minded, so be it; however, I’m neither a conspiracy theorist nor an ideologue, just one confused citizen looking for someone to vote for with confidence–but there’s no one fitting that description visible anywhere in the media or on the wall at the post office (where, come to think of it, the mugs of some of these Presidential “candidates” really belong).
So much for my “cognitive dissonance.”
Respectfully,
Mike (not Linda)
I think the conservative electorate is going to go through the same process I did with Rudy. Observe:
1. I like him. He worked miracles in NY!
2. Listen to him campaigning for Republicans, even GWB. What a team player!
3. This is a guy who knows how to fight a liberal press and win!
4. He said what?
5. He said what?
6. He said WHAT to WHOM?
7. Find me another candidate.
I’ve been through the cycle. Many of Rudy’s current supporters are just hitting step 4.