Monday, October 22, 2007

Guiliani Capitalizing On Fear, Insecurity At The Expense Of Life

Political and evangelical conservatives are faced with a difficult choice this fall. The candidate that most evangelicals find most attractive is stuck in the quagmire of a campaign that can't seem to gain any momentum or traction (Mike Huckabee), largely because he doesn't have the deep financial pockets of Rudy Guiliani or Mitt Romney. Evangelicals can't seem to get over over at least two issues with Romney: (1) He is Mormon. Mormonism is a cult. There no way of getting around it. However, does one have to be Christian to be a good leader? (2) Romney historically supported both gay marriage and abortion rights. He says he's changed. Can we believe him? Fred Thompson entered the race too late and doesn't appear to have anything of any substance to say. The GOP candidates have done an excellent job marginalizing Thompson and his candidacy. John McCain is a candidate that some conservatives think needs to be reevaluated. However, McCain isn't without his flaws, one of which is his lack of desire to actually see Roe vs. Wade overturned. While McCain is pro-life, he ultimately sees no benefit to striking down the abortion laws in this country, though he affirms that he would like to see a day when Roe vs. Wade is deemed "irrelevant". This leaves us with Rudy Guiliani, the current GOP front-runner, in spite of the fact that his views on gun control, abortion, and gay rights are antithetical to the strong evangelical voting base whose support Guiliani will need to get elected to the presidency. This fact has everything to do with Guiliani's appeal to conservatives at the Values Voter Summit in Washington recently.

What has become clear to me is that Guiliani is the GOP front-runner because he appears to be strong on the issues of national security and terrorism. I say that he appears to be because this is really nothing more than a mirage. There is no question that Guiliani led boldly and courageously in the aftermath of 9/11. However, he was the impetus behind very little as it related to national security and terrorism in the years that have followed these horrific events. Guiliani led the implementation of a host of security procedures and protocols in New York City. However, this is no indication of his ability to do the same thing when it comes to foreign policy and the delicate issues associated with terrorism, national security and the rights of both citizens and aliens in our counrty and abroad.

Now what we have are Republicans seriously considering tossing aside years of labor to establish the Republican party as the party of life and values in our country by throwing support behind a candidate that may or may not have the best chance to defeat Sen. Hillary Clinton in the national election. One of the few differences between Guiliani and Clinton is the fact that Guiliani states that he will appoint strict constitutionalists to our benches, most importantly, to the Supreme Court, even though in so doing he will violate his personal beliefs about issues related to gun control, abortion and gay rights. Are we really so naive that we should believe that Guiliani will really do this when he couldn't even remain faithful to not one, but two spouses? I believe it was FDR who stated that the personal morality of the President will influence his public policy. This is something we cannot ignore.

If Guiliani wins the Republican nomination we as Americans, but more specifically as conservatives, will be demonstrating that we love and value our own personal comfort and security more than we value the comfort and security of unborn children. Read that sentence again slowly because I believe it is an accurate indictment of what is happening politically within the Republican party. The only two issues that give Guiliani's campaign any traction are national security and terrorism, even while he openly defies and rejects the conservative position of evangelicals and conservatives and many other important social issues. Are we willing to compromise those things that have defined the Republican party for twenty plus years simply because it seems more likely that Guiliani can defeat Clinton? Do we love our comfort so much that we would compromise the right to life of our children to preserve it? Are we so fearful of what might happen that we are willing to sabotage the future of the unborn to secure a false sense of security when the reality is that no President or administration can guarantee our safety long-term? The truth is that if conservatives would mobilize behind another GOP candidate like Mike Huckabee, you may discover that he has just as much a chance of defeating Clinton, a candidate that 45% of Americans say that they will not support under any circumstances, as we think Guiliani does.


At 2:48 PM , Blogger Winnie Spann said...

So why is it that you think Fred Thompson has no substance?

At 3:31 PM , Blogger Aaron said...

I don't believe Thompson's campaign has any substance. He waited too long to get into the race, and now once in the race, he isn't saying anything. All that he has done to this point is successfully attack and criticize Guiliani. Now, if all he does is succeed in turning conservatives against a Guiliani candidacy, then his entrance into the race will have served a good purpose. But to date there is nothing compelling about his platform. Actually, the one candidate that Republicans should get serious about is Huckabee before it's too late.

At 8:56 PM , Anonymous Sandy said...

Huckabee's campaign could be in danger if he does not receive more financial support. I understand that he probably has enough to get through the Iowa caucuses, but after that, he could run out of campaign funds. Considering how little money he has raised, he has done quite well. I stumbled across this blog post today that tells more about it:

At 9:00 PM , Anonymous Sandy said...

That link didn't come through. I'll try again.

At 4:13 AM , Blogger Ramona said...

Check out Joseph Farah's commentary on this subject:

At 4:16 AM , Blogger Ramona said...

The link didn't come out right. Go to and read Joseph Farah's, "Why Dr. Dobson's Right".


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home