By Lisa Fabrizio
Many of the emails I received regarding my recent column on Rudy Giuliani agreed with my premise that his social liberalism outweighs his important stances on national defense and fiscal conservatism. Still, many more are willing to overlook this; they remain convinced that Rudy is their guy, based mainly on his promise to appoint originalist judges and the "fact" that no other candidate can beat Hillary Clinton.
As to the first, what, besides his say-so, gives so many conservatives the idea that he'll appoint strict constructionalists? One reader lauded Giuliani's "consistency of sticking to his views" as one reason. But consistent or not, his view of Second Amendment rights is surely not that of someone with an "originalist" mindset:
Besides his disingenuous use of the word "regulate," the notion that he favors any restrictions on the liberties enumerated in the Bill of Rights--from which governmental interference is strictly prohibited--is disturbing. Worse yet, what sort of originalist would make this compromise:
It seems to me that he is open to abuse of the U.S Constitution in order to serve a ‘greater good'. I suspect that the overwhelming majority of conservatives would agree that when the supreme law of the land is at stake, the end can never justifies the means.
Also, someone who suggests that there is a "right" to abortion, is clearly not thinking along originalist lines either. But for this stand he is lauded by the liberal media as a mainstream Republican who is independent from the religious fanatics of the party's far-right wing. Are they correct? Here's a little quiz. Whence comes the following quote?
Was it uttered by Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell or some other "kook" member of the dreaded "religious right?" No, it is simply a plank from the Republican Party platform. The point being, that attempts to paint those who do not endorse Rudy as some kind of fringe group, are way off the mark and only meant to divide the GOP as a means to pave the way for the future coronation of you-know-who.
And it doesn't have to be that way. This is a choice which need not be made. Let me repeat, the only people who can give us Rudy vs. Hillary are Republicans. This win-win scenario is one slyly crafted by the media in order to terrify those of us for whom the words "President Clinton" are a recurring nightmare.
Liberals and their media wing long for the days of the sweet sounds of GOP discord, like the fractious Harriet Miers flap or a Pat Buchanan candidacy. So they've abandoned former darling John McCain for one who is much closer to their idea of the ideal Republican. For a good indication of once and future candidates who are utterly unloved by the left, consider the attacks on the "racist" George Allen, "Mormon" Mitt Romney or Newt "the Grinch" Gingrich.
No, the media never trash those they do not fear, and their mendacity should be apparent to all who are paying attention. For a group who howls every time President Bush mentions 9/11--remember the indignation registered when the 2004 GOP convention was held in New York City--the media can't write enough about the valor of "America's Mayor."
Rudy Giuliani surely deserves kudos for his handling of what was arguably the worst day in American history and he certainly displays some admirable conservative qualities, but why must anyone commit now? Doing so at this early date is playing right into the enemy's hands; divide and conquer.