Agreeing to Disagree?
A piece in USA Today argues that the nomination of Rudy Giuliani -- pro-choice, anti-gun -- would mark an ideological revolution within the Republican Party.
Either this is a profound misunderstanding of the conservative mind, or else a deliberate attempt to infuse the choice of Giuliani with a meaning that's certain to spook many in the party's base.
The fact is that the nomination of Rudy Giuliani would mean less that the GOP has decided to "agree to disagree" on fundamental questions than it would represent a decision that Giuliani is the candidate best-positioned to defeat Hillary Clinton in the election. Lest one read too much into conservatives' acceptance of Giuliani, it's predicated on the understanding that he will nominate strict constructionist judges to the court and curb whatever socially liberal impulses he might possess by surrounding himself with advisors like Ted Olson and Texas Gov. Rick Perry -- both of whom have endorsed him.
The other, equally important reason conservatives might embrace Giuliani is because they believe he is the best-equipped to wage the war on terror. Indeed, his unapologetic, un-politically correct attitude toward confronting America's enemies and defeating the forces of Islamofascist terrorism are a large part of his appeal to many conservatives.
In short, if Giuliani is nominated next year, it won't mean that the GOP has backed off on its traditional pro-choice and socially conservative beliefs. Rather, it will signal that the party is mature enough to recognize the greater danger posed by the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency -- and/or the possibility of any member of the Democratic field (weak-kneed defeatists that they are) taking the reins in the war on terror.
Either this is a profound misunderstanding of the conservative mind, or else a deliberate attempt to infuse the choice of Giuliani with a meaning that's certain to spook many in the party's base.
The fact is that the nomination of Rudy Giuliani would mean less that the GOP has decided to "agree to disagree" on fundamental questions than it would represent a decision that Giuliani is the candidate best-positioned to defeat Hillary Clinton in the election. Lest one read too much into conservatives' acceptance of Giuliani, it's predicated on the understanding that he will nominate strict constructionist judges to the court and curb whatever socially liberal impulses he might possess by surrounding himself with advisors like Ted Olson and Texas Gov. Rick Perry -- both of whom have endorsed him.
The other, equally important reason conservatives might embrace Giuliani is because they believe he is the best-equipped to wage the war on terror. Indeed, his unapologetic, un-politically correct attitude toward confronting America's enemies and defeating the forces of Islamofascist terrorism are a large part of his appeal to many conservatives.
In short, if Giuliani is nominated next year, it won't mean that the GOP has backed off on its traditional pro-choice and socially conservative beliefs. Rather, it will signal that the party is mature enough to recognize the greater danger posed by the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency -- and/or the possibility of any member of the Democratic field (weak-kneed defeatists that they are) taking the reins in the war on terror.
posted by LadybugUSA at 2:51 PM
2 Comments:
Coyote here.
Federalism is a core Republican principle.
Why should abortion be a federal issue?
Giuliani's position on strict-constructionist judges along with abortion restrictions being decided at the state level has a greater claim to true Republicanism than federal bans or socially conservative legislation that would expand the power and reach of the federal government.
"...the possibility of any member of the Democratic field (weak-kneed defeatists that they are) taking the reins in the war on terror..."
That phrase right there is the core reason no Democrat will be elected President in 2008.
Post a Comment
<< Home