Pro-Lifers Can't Support Rudy Giuliani Over Abortion Despite New York Times Op-Ed
From LifeNews.com:
Sometimes (more often than I care to admit), something has to be seen to be believed. You actually must read/see something with your own two eyes to figure out how in the world anyone could possibly believe what was just said.
Enter "Anti-Roe and Pro-Rudy," a mind-bending op-ed that runs in today's New York Times. The author, Eric Johnston, says he is a "fervent pro-lifer," and since we don't know him, we take him at his word.
Johnston supports pro-abortion Rudy Giuliani: "I think Mr. Giuliani will be the most effective advocate for the pro-life cause precisely because he is unreligious and a supporter of abortion rights."
Well, that's the kind of statement that'll get your attention. Let's see how Johnston attempts to square the circle.
To understand his approach, it helps to recall the now familiar "Nixon goes to China'" historical reference. Johnston doesn't use the parallel and no doubt would reject it, but as you remember the idea was that only Nixon, a fervent anti-communist, could have gone to Communist China to begin the normalization of Sino-American relations.
Likewise, only Giuliani, who has a long track record of support for abortion, can "shake up the nearly 35-year-old debate over Roe v. Wade," according to Johnston.
Note that Johnston begins with an argument Giuliani supporters often make to soften the resistance of people who would otherwise not even consider the former Mayor of New York City. And that is that even though the Republican party is against abortion, Giuliani has been ahead in the GOP presidential polls for months.
Understand what Johnston is doing: combining an "is" --Giuliani is leading in the polls--with an "ought"--pro-lifers should get behind him because Giuliani can best shake up the "status quo" on the abortion debate.
***
We've heard a ton of arguments why pro-lifers should make their peace with Giuliani. Most of them center around the likelihood of his winning the nomination. As we have seen, that rationalization is wearing thin.
Eric Johnston's complementary argument--that Giuliani would actually advance the cause quicker and more effectively--is both bizarre and unpersuasive.
I'm sure you won't be fooled, even for a second.
[Read the whole thing]
Labels: "Religious Right", Constitutional Jurisprudence, Culture of Death, Dissident Catholics, Judiciary, Pro-Life, RINOs, Rudy, Social Conservatives, Supreme Court, Voting Your Values
posted by Pro Ecclesia 12:07 AM
3 comments
3 Comments:
Thanks for this. I'm getting sick of hearing pro-lifers rationalize their vote for Rudy. It all boils down to their pro-life views taking a backseat to other issues. BUT there's no reason we need Rudy for any of those other issues because there are plenty of pro-life candidates who are also strong on Iraq, etc.
Josh - Exactly. It's not even clear that Giuliani himself is any more qualified to be C-i-C and to lead the war effort. When it came to running New York and cleaning up the city, I am second to none in my appreciation for what he did. But there's nothing in his pedigree to suggest that would make him a particularly effecive military strategizer. Throw in his socially liberal attitude, and the support he's receiving from conservatives is simply quixotic.
Even more aggravating is the sense that many support him because he's perceived to be the most "electable" Republican. Considering that his nomination could cause up to 20% of the base to stay at home or vote for a third party, that idea is nonsense on stilts.
The only thing that Mayor Giuliani will "shake up" if nominated, is the coalition of interests that make up the Republican Party.
I, for one, seriously doubt that there exists any large cohort of pro-war, pro-abortion voters who will switch to the Republican side to offset the large number of pro-life voters who'll be lost to the GOP (including myself) with Giuliani's nomination.
Post a Comment
<< Home