Following reports that leading Christian Conservatives were floating the idea of running a 3rd Party candidate if Rudy Giuliani were to win the Republican nomination, the Giuliani camp sent out a surrogate in Congressman Pete Sessions to do its spin.
Sessions tries to make the case that Giuliani is actually pro-life; that he favors restrictions on abortion and would appoint 'strict constructionist' judges...whatever that means.
The problem is that favoring restrictions isn't what makes one pro-life. This is an example of the word pro-life being corrupted, or co-opted if you will, by the abortion movement. It's a trend that started as the public slowly learned the brutal realities of abortion and abortion became a dirty word. For one to be pro-life, they must fight to restore the right to life that is guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence and the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Sessions is a collaborator in this "movement". Harold Ford, Jr. did this same thing a year ago when he was running for office claiming that he was pro-life despite having a record that showed the contrary.
Giuliani is no different: his record shows the contrary. He has stated time and again that he supports public financing of abortion and that abortion exists somewhere in the Constitution. It's bad enough we have public financing of elections, the last thing we need it for is abortion.
More:
Marc Ambinder's take
As the folks learn, apparently slowly, who Rudolph really is any previous support will soon give way to revulsion.
Guns and Rudy: The Whole Story
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.ht ml?id=25471
Why Rudolph Giuliani Really Shouldn’t Be President
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/specialguests/2007/mar/08/w hy_rudy_giuliani_re ally_shouldn_t_be_pr esident
Read the editorial reviews of the following books at Amazon;
Grand Illusion: The Untold Story of Rudy Giuliani and 9/11 by Wayne Barrett and Dan Collins
http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Illusion.../dp/0060536608
The Full Rudy: The Man, the Myth, the Mania by Jack Newfield.
http://www.amazon.com/Full-Rudy-Man-...76679&s;r=1-1
Rudy!: An Investigative Biography of Rudolph Guiliani by Wayne Barrett.
http://www.amazon.com/Rudy-Investigative-Biography-Rudo lph-Guiliani/dp/0465005241/ref=sr_1_1/002-6972407-2757625?ie =UTF8&s;=bo oks&qid;=1188176754&s;r=1-1
“I used gun control as mayor,” he said at a news conference Saturday during a swing through California. But “I understand the Second Amendment. I understand the right to bear arms.” He said what he did as mayor would have no effect on hunting.
http://www3.whdh.com/news/articles/national/BO42897
MAYOR GIULIANI AND SPEAKER VALLONE ANNOUNCE
CITY LAWSUIT AGAINST GUN INDUSTRY
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/republican_michigander/20 07/feb/12/rudys_lawsuit_against_firearms_industry
Rudy led the charge in the spurious lawsuits designed to bankrupt the gun industry. Following New York, New Orleans, Chicago, Los Angeles and a score of other cities piled on trying to get some free money or just bankrupt the gun industry. The suits were ultimately thrown out and Congress eventually protected the gun makers with the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Nevertheless, the damage was done, and I notice that most quality handguns have about doubled in price since 2000, in part due to the legal fees incurred by the gun makers.
In an e-mail to David Hardy, Don Kates analyzed Giuliani’s attitude toward guns in this way:
Throughout his political career Bill Clinton’s “position on the Second Amendment” was a bald-faced lie. Every time the subject arose he falsely proclaimed his “belief in the Second Amendment.” Insofar as there was any truth in this scam, what Clinton meant was that he believed that the Second Amendment does not mean anything.
Rudy Giuliani employs the exact same scam in the exact same way by proclaiming that he believes in the Second Amendment. By carefully reviewing his assertions in the context of his record it is possible to ferret out his real beliefs and intended program. He believes that people living in low crime areas may be allowed (as a privilege, not a right) to have guns for sport. But no one other than public employees and the politically powerful has a right to possess firearms for self-defense. Worse yet, he believes the key to reducing crime consists of disarming everyone who believes in a right to possess arms for self-defense and who lives in an area where the incidence of crime is such that they have some likelihood of using arms for self-defense…
…If I were Sarah Brady faced with a contest between Hillary and Rudy I would vote for Rudy. Each wants to ban and confiscate guns. But it is far less likely that a Democrat could get away with trying to outlaw gun ownership than that Rudy could do so…
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2007/03/don_kates_take.php
Posted by: Winghunter | October 3, 2007 8:14 AM | Permalink to Comment