God, guns, gays -- and Giuliani

Now that Rudolph Giuliani is tentatively throwing his hat into the presidential ring, his candidacy is attracting more attention than ever. Here's Roger L. Simon:

Rudy seems to be running. He did the Exploratory Committee thing today. And I'm a happy camper not just because his views most closely represent mine (they do), but because he appears able to lead, a trait few have and one that will be highly necessary, I suspect, in the years to come. He also seems not particularly bound by party and ideological cant (a Freeranger, in the new Pajamas parlance). That's a good thing to me, although I know "party faithful" are suspcious of that. But I'm suspicious of "party faithful." And I think, as the years go on, there are going to be more people like me.
I don't think I can call myself a happy camper, but I'm not in tears, because I think the GOP needs to take a careful look at how to win, and guys like Giuliani and Schwarzenegger (who don't drink the Party Koolaid) are a lot more popular with the mainstream voters who just kicked the business-as-usual Republicans out or power.

The problem for Giuliani is that some of the GOP's "loyal base" would consider him not not so much the guy who refuses to drink the base's Koolaid as the guy who'd poison it with cyanide:

"Giuliani is an ultraliberal," Sanders said. "He supports gay rights. He supports banning all handguns. He supports abortion. His wife kicked him out, and he moved in with two gay men and a Shih Tzu. Is that South Carolina values? I don't think so."
This position is echoed by many red staters, such as this Second Amendment blogger in South Carolina:
Giuliani was not questioned much about his record on the three G's (God, Guns, and Gays). However, the record will show that Giuliani has supported gay marriage, abortion, and gun control. Most observers would naturally assume that Giuliani won't play well here. But, Bandy seems to think otherwise.

Bandy's flawed assessment is based on his interpretation of the lack of questions on social issues. He surmises that people don't care and are actually focused on other things, namely national security. He may be right about that current focus, but even that won't bode well for an anti-gun Giuliani.

Think about it. What clear thinking person who is actually focused on national security would support someone who wants to take away their guns? If we suddenly find ourselves fighting terrorist here on South Carolina soil, I want every advantage I can have. I'm certain that many people agree.

God, guns, gays.

It has an alliterative ring that just keeps on giving on a gut level, doesn't it?

Regular readers know that the Second Amendment is one of my major concerns, and I share the distrust of many towards Giuliani. But I try to be fair, and I find myself having to ask: is he a true gun grabber, or might his statements be more reflective of the political realities of being mayor of New York?

Recently, the conservative Spectator described Giuliani as "prudently backing off from his history of anti-gun demagoguery," and there's little question that he's trying to create distance between himself as a presidential candidate and remarks he made as New York's mayor.

"The assault-weapons ban is something I supported in the past," is what he said.

Like me, Captain Ed has strong misgivings about Giuliani's gun record:

I like Rudy, but his positions on guns bother me. I'm not as concerned about his pro-choice views, because (a) he supports judges that practice strict construction, and (b) other than judges, presidents have little affect on the debate anyway. I do have tremendous admiration for Giuliani, and not just because of 9/11. People forget that Giuliani took on the Mob and won as a US Attorney in New York, and that takes both guts and brains. He's a terrific speaker and a figure that attracts support from across the aisle. He's the anti-Hillary in more ways than one.
Tracking down precisely what his position is has proven elusive.

As to "banning all handguns," I'm unable to find any statement from Giuliani in support of an outright handgun ban, although I did find a "perhaps" call for licensing handguns like cars:

Perhaps, we should require insurance for handguns. If liability insurance were required to purchase and own a handgun, you better believe that the insurance industry would promulgate a pretty rigorous licensing and purchasing process to control the risk.

As a private citizen, as a prosecutor, as a Mayoral candidate and as Mayor, I have advocated for more regulated and more uniform gun licensing regulations, similar to those for a drivers license.

As New York's Mayor, Giuliani also joined in a lawsuit against the gun manufacturers. I can't find any statement repudiating that, although recent federal legislation has largely mooted the issue.

From my perspective as an NRA Life Member who tries to be fair, Giuliani's Second Amendment position can best be characterized as quite poor, but recently improving. I think it has to be taken into account that he's been Mayor of a very anti-gun city and that some of it may well have been anti-gun demagoguery intended to please the crowd, just as his current flip-flopping may be the same thing.

Would I prefer a flip-flopping demagogue to a true believing, anti-gun ideologue?

You bet.

Continuing with Howard Dean's magic alliterative formulation (I know, I hate it, but they weren't my words), we come to gays and God.

From what I can see, Giuliani opposes the FMA, while favoring civil unions. That's hardly the ringing endorsement of gay marriage some appear to think it is. But he obviously has gay friends, as he crashed with some after his divorce. Not only don't I hold that against him, I think it's evidence that he's a real human being who (a bit like Ahnold) doesn't look over his shoulder worrying about the appearance of every detail. If that's a disqualifying characteristic, I'd say we need more such "disqualified" candidates.

As to the "God" issue, I'm not sure I know what God looks for in a candidate, but he's said to care primarily about abortion and homosexuality. I'm sure Giuliani's friendship with gays makes him anti-God in the eyes of some, but again, I don't think most Americans think that way. (In fact, I think most Americans are repelled by people who think that way.)

On abortion, Giuliani is unabashedly pro-choice, and he does not see that as going against his religious principles or his Republicanism.

....[B]eing in favor of choice is consistent with the philosophy of the Republican Party. In fact, it might be more consistent with the philosophy of the Republican Party. Because the Republican Party stands for the idea that you have to restore more freedom of choice, more opportunity, more opportunity for people to make their own choices rather than the government dictating those choices. Republicans stand for lower taxation because we believe that people can make better choices with their money than the government will make for them, and that ultimately frees the economy and produces more political freedom. We believe that, yes, government is important, but that the private sector is actually more important in solving our problems.

So it is consistent with that philosophy to believe that in the most personal and difficult choices that a woman has to make with regard to a pregnancy, those choices should be made based on that person's conscience and that person's way of thinking and feeling. The government shouldn't dictate that choice by making it a crime or making it illegal.

Nonetheless, Giuliani is a Catholic, and is personally opposed to abortion. At least one Catholic bishop has said this is a "legitimate distinction."

I've never been able to understand why it isn't a distinction. Saying that a woman shouldn't be imprisoned for aborting her fetus is not the same thing as approving of her act, much less saying it is a good thing. I think drugs should be legal, but that does not mean I approve of or advocate heroin. If God disapproved of heroin, does that mean it would be immoral to oppose imprisoning people for it?

In short, Giuliani is a mixed bag. Much as I abhor his Second Amendment record, I'm enough of a pragmatist that under the right circumstances I could bring myself to support him.

Might have to push the "straight Republican" button, but what the hell. I did it before, so I think my finger may be developing a callus...

posted by Eric on 11.14.06 at 09:57 AM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/4216






Comments

You know, I have to thank you for this posting. I knew that RG had some skeletons in the closet but you know what, he does not lie about them. There they are in full sight. Isn't he also a cancer survivor? I wonder how this will play with the fake stem cell research issue and his 'anti-papalist' leanings on abortion. I, a fellow Roman Catholic, have the same conflicted views there so don't take that as a swipe. And as a sufferer of MS, would live to see Cord Blood Stem Cell research get funding at the Federal level. And finally, as a Member of the NRA who owns no guns, I would love to see an aggressive program for the licensing of all firearms. Make it progressive if you must. And for Christs sake, put the damn serial number where it cannot be removed! If you buy a gun and go through the trouble of insuring and licensing it, you can be damned sure you are not part of the problem. More likely, part of the solution.

mdmhvonpa   ·  November 14, 2006 11:02 AM

Interesting reading some more in-depth analysis of Guliani's positions than what I've heard or read before. I'm curious though if for '08 there is even a viable true conservative Republican candidate that can run. I know you never find a candidate that matches all of your beliefs but with the questions about the front runners (McCain and RG) I'm going to have to take a long hard look at how I will actually vote. I'll certainly give Guliani a shot though. McCain just worries me period.

CTDeLude   ·  November 14, 2006 12:36 PM

If liability insurance were required to purchase and own a handgun, you better believe that the insurance industry would promulgate a pretty rigorous licensing and purchasing process to control the risk.

What the hell is he thinking? (Apart from the constitutional issue of "licensing" and "insurance requirements" for enumerated rights.)

The insurance industry wouldn't be able to promulgate a licensing or purchasing process; the State would still control purchasing, since the State would require insurance and the State would still be in charge of commerce, as it is now.

Licensing would be as dubiously constitutional and unpopular as it is now, and the insurance industry likely wouldn't care much about it; they'd base their rates and offers on the actuary tables, just like they do for all other forms of insurance. (Which brings us back to the issue of the constitutionality of requiring insurance to exercise a constitutional right, of course, but still undermine's Rudy's point, whatever the hell it was.)

That level of sloppy policy and economic thinking doesn't endear me to him, though I don't care about his position on abortion or gay rights (which, since these days, it appears to be code for "gay marriage", I'm tempted to just call it "fag marryin'", because that will amuse and enrage exactly the right people in exactly the right ways...).

Sigivald   ·  November 14, 2006 03:24 PM

PS. Do you know that, at least in Firefox, if one his tab while in the "Name" section of comment posting, the field selected is the search box on the left?

Which means not only do you not enter your email address where you thought, but the page scrolls very annoyingly?

I don't know if it'll be easy to fix or worth the effort, but if it is, please look into it.

Sigivald   ·  November 14, 2006 03:25 PM

There are many issues which I don't like being driven at a federal level that I don't have as much of an issue with at a local level.

This may be where Rudy is coming from. I hope it is where he is coming from on guns.


If you don't like Rudy - who else is really under consideration? McCain is a non-starter for me.

Ric in Oregon   ·  November 14, 2006 05:29 PM

Licensing handguns like cars?

In other words, a carry pistol and a grocery getter are licensed, but a S&W460 and a fuel-burning dragster, never used on the street, aren't?

triticale   ·  November 14, 2006 06:33 PM

Pro-life small-government conservative Republican here.

Here's the most important issue for the 2008 election: Iran's getting nukes. It intends to use 'em. Israel first, but not Israel last. Oh, and it's going to team up with al-Qaeda to use 'em. What're you gonna about it?

I'm voting Rudy. I don't know what his answer to that's going to be. But I know his answer (1) will be better than mine; (2) will be better than any other candidate or potential candidate out there; and (3) he will do an excellent job selling that answer to a reluctant American public.

Nuclear terrorism is a more important issue than abortion, affirmative action, government spending, guns, gay marriage (yes, even gay marriage Miss Sullivan).

Nothing else matters.

Rhodium Heart   ·  November 15, 2006 12:25 AM


December 2006
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31            

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits