Archive for the 'Faith and Morals' Category

“Moral Equivalency” Charge Indicates Lack of Moral Discernment

October 15, 2007

The hyperventilating among our more strident social conservative brethren over Rudy Giuliani’s likely nomination to be the 2008 Republican candidate for President has now officially gone from “hysterical” to “surreal.”

Two weeks ago, Focus on the Family’s James Dobson declared that none of the leading Republican candidates for the nomination were pure enough to earn his support, and he floated the possibility that he and other old-guard social conservatives might opt to supporting a third party candidate. Who that candidate might be, Dr. Dobson didn’t say, and frankly, one doesn’t easily come to mind. A third-party possibility has since been dismissed by more thoughtful conservatives, being characterized as “irresponsible” by Pat Shortridge at “Truth vs The Machine,” as reported in the previous entry to this blog.

But not to be outdone by Dobson’s tantrum, Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council (not, as one blogger noted, the actor in such movies as “Psycho,” “The Edge of Sanity,” and “I’m Dangerous Tonight”) gave an interview published in Newmax this week in which he declared that “GOP presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani is virtually ‘indistinguishable’ from Hillary Clinton on core social issues.”

More red meat for the strident right.

As the aforementioned Pat Shortridge wrote in his article,

Off the top of my head, here’s a quick list of reasons why, if he is nominated, I would support Rudy Giuliani and actively work for him against Hillary Clinton, especially with Democrat majorities in the House and Senate:

  • Hillary Clinton appoints 2-3 liberal activists to the Supreme Court and makes hundreds of
  • lower court appointments.
  • Hillary signs government run health care.
  • Hillary signs expansion of taxpayer financed abortion and a repeal of the partial birth abortion ban.
  • Hillary signs massive new taxes and spending.
  • Hillary is Commander-and-Chief in a time of war.
  • Hillary presides over more government control of education.
  • Finally, look at any survey of “Most Important Issue” among conservatives. Life and marriage isn’t in the top three. The War, the Economy, and Health Care all prevail, even among the most conservative voters. Even more crystal clear is the phenomenon I noted in an earlier post: many conservative, pro-family voters cast ballots for very socially liberal candidates in the ’06 elections.

    Pro-life, pro-marriage conservatives care deeply about winning the war on terror, job creation, health care costs, education, wasteful spending and taxes – issues where Rudy probably has the most stalwart combination of record and issue positions in the Presidential field — in addition to life and marriage.

    Add to this rationale the solid reasons why social conservatives can and should support Rudy Giuliani, given by Bill Simon, the GOP candidate for governor of California in 2002, and himself a social conservative:

    Those who remember New York City prior to Rudy’s tenure may recall its depraved state. Prostitutes and porn shops lined Times Square, the center of the city. Violent criminals ran roughshod over defenseless tourists and residents alike, turning America’s most recognizable city into what some called the crime capital of the Western world. Drug dealers, beggars, the infamous “squeegee men”—they all contributed to the moral decay of what was once a proud, vibrant, quintessential American city. And over one million New Yorkers — one of every seven residents — was on welfare.

    But Times Square is a dramatically different place today, as is almost all of New York. That is no accident. Rudy systematically went after the root causes of the dramatic social decline that had occurred in New York, and he did it successfully.

    I guess in Tony Perkins’s book, improving the cultural environment of a major city by getting rid of prostitution and porn don’t count as “socially conservative” acomplishments.

    And on the all-important issue of judicial appointments – all-important to the progress of pro-life objectives – Simon continues:

    …the primary battles on the life issue are being fought in the courts, and the ultimate determination regarding our nation’s policy on abortion will come from the nine Justices of the Supreme Court. We have made tremendous progress over the last six years in populating the Federal Judiciary with judges who are committed interpreting, not inventing, the law — with the culmination of that effort being the confirmation of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. That is progress we simply cannot afford to lose. Rudy Giuliani, relying on the advice of such conservative legal stalwarts like Ted Olson, Miguel Estrada, and Steve Calabresi, will appoint strict constructionist judges in the vein of Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas. I assure you that’s not the type of justice we’ll get out of another Clinton administration.

    Rudy has also pledged to uphold the Hyde Amendment’s restrictions on the funding of abortions here at home, and the Mexico City Policy, ensuring that taxpayer dollars will not be distributed to non-governmental organizations that perform or promote abortions overseas. He supports parental notification laws and agrees with the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the partial-birth-abortion ban

    With Mr. Perkins’s admission that he is unable to discern a distinction between Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani on social issues, we have the ironic situation of a spokesman for a conservative values organization basically saying he lacks moral discernment in declaring Hillary and Rudy to be “morally equivalent.”

    At this point, I would think that Mr. Perkins, as well as Dr. Dobson, would be more concerned with their own reputations as “values” leaders – the fact that their ability to make thoughtful, discerning judgments regarding Hillary Clinton and her likely opponent, Rudy Giuliani, seems to be so lacking.

    Greg Alterton
    SoConsForRudy.com

    Advertisements

    “The Height of Irresponsibility”

    October 11, 2007

    Following the Dobson Third Party fiasco at the end of last month, political experts and conservative pundits are increasingly coming out against the silly notion of a third party run against Giuliani.

    Pat Shortridge at Truth vs. The Machine calls an anti-Giuliani third party run the “height of irresponsibility,” and very intelligently articulates the reasons pro-lifers should rally behind Giuliani in his recent article:

    In the case of whether conservatives should support Rudy or back a third-party candidate, Dobson, Viguerie, Weyrich, etc, could not be more wrong.

    First of all: Is conservatism so weak, is its hold on the GOP so tenuous, that nominating a social moderate is the end of both the conservative movement and the Republican Party?

    Only a seriously declining movement would be so threatened by the prospect of nominating Rudy Giuliani. The Republican Party is, and will continue to be, a conservative party. Though, if it doesn’t get its house together in quick order, fiscal and economic conservatives will continue to abandon it at an alarming rate.

    Supporting a third-party candidate who will get 3-8 percent of the vote and allowing Hillary Clinton to be elected President is the height of irresponsibility.

    Off the top of my head, here’s a quick list of reasons why, if he is nominated, I would support Rudy Giuliani and actively work for him against Hillary Clinton, especially with Democrat majorities in the House and Senate:

    • Hillary Clinton appoints 2-3 liberal activists to the Supreme Court and makes hundreds of lower court appointments.
    • Hillary signs government run health care.
    • Hillary signs expansion of taxpayer financed abortion and a repeal of the partial birth abortion ban.
    • Hillary signs massive new taxes and spending.
    • Hillary is Commander-and-Chief in a time of war.
    • Hillary presides over more government control of education.

    Read More>>

    Next, RealClearPolitics contributor Tony Blankley explains how we can remain 100% committed to our pro-life values and still vote for a candidate who may not personally think 100% like we do:

    It is the same argument that Barry Goldwater made so many years ago, when he told the conservatives of his time to grow up politically and not always threaten to walk off with the ball when they didn’t like every play their team called. Only a supreme dictator can get everything he wants out of politics. For the rest of us, politics is a team sport. Even vastly popular presidents — from FDR to Ronald Reagan — had to compromise on things they felt passionately about.

    And whether one is a Washington professional or a citizen voter, anyone who considers himself a person of good conscience must have the courage to judge whether the net effect of his political decision advances his moral objectives.

    Politics is the zone where one’s religious and ethical habits are not always the only and best guides. We can make a 100-percent commitment to, for example, obey our marital vows or adhere to the teachings of our churches — and consciously strive never to fall short.

    But in the practicality of democratic elections, we cannot make such a similar commitment to every one of our governing ideals. Elections are very specific and limited choices between different outcomes. The decision not to vote or vote for a third-party candidate with no hope of winning is itself a moral choice for the outcome such a vote will effectuate. People of conscience will have to decide whether feeling pure by voting “none of the above” is the highest ethical act or not.

    Read More>>

    W. James Antle III writes for the American Spectator about how the “third party” talk by the more extreme Christian right elements is actually marginalizing the entire social conservative community:

    Ever since James Dobson threw down the gauntlet against the Republican Party nominating a pro-choice presidential candidate, the focus has been on the intransigence of the religious right. Obdurate evangelical zealots are said to be tearing down GOP frontrunner Rudy Giuliani and paving the way for Hillary Clinton’s presidency.

    [Rudy Giuliani is] simply not your father’s Rockefeller Republican and cannot be campaigned against as such. On taxes, spending, and healthcare he is running well to Huckabee’s right. His record in New York City contains conservative accomplishment on crime, tax cuts, and welfare that few of his rivals can match.

    Giuliani has cleverly pitched himself as the Republican best equipped to confront two challenges that concern religious conservatives: Hillary Clinton at home and radical Islam abroad. Combined with assurances on judges and exceedingly minor rightward adjustments on abortion, he hopes to win at least a critical mass of social conservatives.

    So far, these efforts are paying off. According to a Sept. 28 Gallup poll, Giuliani wins plurality support from self-described conservatives and voters who attend religious services regularly — even though large majorities of both groups prefer other candidates.

    Read More>>

    Others have also chimed in, like Steve Kornacki at the New York Observer, who points out that the vast majority of social conservatives are far more realistic and level-headed about politics than Dobson and co.:

    Forget the endless talk about a mutiny from the right: Most “social conservatives”—a term that casts a much wider net than most analysis allows for—have been in awe of Rudy Giuliani for six years now and would be plenty comfortable with him leading the fight against Hillary Clinton.

    Read More>>

    Rudy Continues To Lead Amongst Self-Described Conservatives, Evangelicals, Church-Goers, Pro-Lifers

    October 2, 2007

    Kavon Nikrad at Race42008.com (one of the best political blogs on the web) has done an excellent job compiling some fascinating numbers from recent national polls that show Rudy maintaining healthy leads amongst Christians, social conservatives, pro-lifers, and all manner of mixture between the three.

    More on Giuliani’s Conservative Support…

    On Friday, Aron posted a review of the crosstabs from the latest Gallup survey. I thought further analysis from the other polls released last week may be of interest as well:

    CNN/WMUR NEW HAMPSHIRE SURVEY – Conducted 9/17-9/24

    Mayor Giuliani Fav-Unfav among:

    • Conservatives: 71%-22%
    • Protestants: 71%-17%
    • Catholic: 70%-23%
    • Attend Church 1 or more times a week: 66%-25%
    • 1-2 times a month: 71%-29%

    Read More>>

    Will James Dobson Split the GOP?

    October 1, 2007

    James Dobson is at it again.  After blacklisting virtually the entire Republican field of presidential candidates, the founder of Focus on the Family is continuing to shift his focus away from the family and onto presidential politics.  Dobson met with about fifty powerful Christian leaders in Salt Lake City earlier today, including 2000 presidential candidate Gary Bauer and the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins, to discuss the possibility of supporting a pro-life third party candidate should Giuliani earn the Republican Party’s nomination.  The group met unofficially under the umbrella of a powerful, secretive organization called the Council for National Policy.  The group was formed in 1981 by “Left Behind” author and pastor Tim LaHaye as a non-profit organization to benefit the public good, but over the years has gradually become more and more exclusive and tight-lipped about its internal goings-on.

    While the group houses some extremist wings of Christian conservatism (i.e. theocrats and Christian Reconstructionists, who advocate abolishing the U.S. Constitution and replacing it with ancient Biblical Law), that is only one wing of the organization.  There are many intelligent and reasonable figures in the group who care more about lowering taxes and reducing the size of the federal government than they do about establishing a neofascist theocracy in the States, and many members who are quite friendly toward Rudy Giuliani in particular (televangelist Pat Robertson, anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist, and NRA Exec. VP Wayne LaPierre being notable examples).  However, James Dobson has arisen as a sort of leader of a more extreme brand of CPN’s conservative Christian movers-and-shakers who would actually advocate introducing a third party candidate who would have basically the exact same platform as a Republican nominee Giuliani, but would just be farther to the right on the abortion issue.

    First of all, the CPN’s own description hails itself as a “an educational foundation organized under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code” that explicitly does not “support candidates, or issue public policy statements on controversial issues.”  So, perhaps, Dobson and Co. should be careful where they tread while meeting under the umbrella of the CPN.

    Second of all, the folly of a major third party conservative candidate who would basically be a carbon copy of Rudy Giuliani, except for being to the right of Rudy on abortion, should be self-apparent, but apparently it’s not.  At least not to people like Dobson, Perkins, and Bauer.

    It should be understood that the office of the United States President has remarkably little influence on abortion policy.  Of the few things that a Commander in Chief can do on the issue, signing the rare pro-life legislation that happens to come through the Oval Office, putting conservative justices on the Supreme Court, and using the bully pulpit and sparse powers to generally discourage abortion and promote adoption as an alternative are about it.  The most important of those tasks is arguably the appointment of Supreme Court justices.  But other than that, the real battle for the lives of the unborn is taking place not in the White House but in the minds and hearts of individuals across America.

    Yet, even in those rare areas of overlap between a President’s constitutional powers and the realm of abortion policy, Rudy Giuliani, though personally pro-choice, sides with conservatives on every policy matter.  The former Mayor has voiced outspoken support for keeping the Hyde Amendment and Mexico City policy (which ban virtually all federal funding for abortion) in tact, enforcing parental notification laws, and keeping the landmark Partial Birth Abortion Ban law on the books.  And, of course, on the key issue–that of judicial nominations–Rudy lets us know exactly what kind he’ll appoint: strict constructionists (a judicial perspective which almost invariably leads the perspective-holder to oppose Roe v. Wade as unconstitutional).  And just to be sure there’s no confusion, Rudy has specifically named John Roberts, Sam Alito, and Antonin Scalia as “ideal” justices.  And just to be sure that we’re sure, Rudy also formed a judicial advisory committee to guide him on such matters that includes such sterling names as former Solicitor General Ted Olson (recently considered for Atty. Gen. by Bush), Michael Mukasey (recently picked for Atty. Gen. by Bush), Steve Calabresi (founder of the Federalist Society), Miguel Estrada (2001 Court nominee), and Maureen Mahoney (commonly known in conservative circles as “the female John Roberts”), among many others in that stripe.  Finally, Rudy isn’t just settling for the status quo, but is making a promise to significantly reduce abortions in America by working with faith-based groups (like, oh, say, Focus on the Family perhaps?) to promote adoption instead of abortion and to make sure pregnant women are fully-informed before making a decision.

    So, wait, if Rudy Giuliani wins the Republican Party nomination, James Dobson is threatening to organize an effort to support a third party candidate who would be virtually identical to Rudy Giuliani on presidential policy matters, including abortion, with the only difference being that this third party candidate would get to those same policy conclusions as Rudy by a political reasoning that was just more in line with James Dobson’s?

    Yup.

    Seeing how ridiculous this is, yet?  If not, think about what it could mean.  If enough conservative votes are siphoned from Giuliani, we’re going to get a Democrat in the White House.  One who will probably not sign the Hyde Amendment or the Partial Birth Abortion Ban law if it comes across their desk.  One who will pack the Supreme Court with liberal justices, setting pro-lifers back decades on the quest against Roe.  One who will offer platitudes about abortion unfortunately being a necessary evil, but will have no motivation to actually try to reduce abortions.  All this to stop a President Giuliani, who will defend all of the hard-earned successes of the pro-life movement in the last 30 years, who will put more Robertses, Alitos, and Scalias on the Court, and who won’t just say that abortions should be “rare,” but will actually do something to make them rare (and will even get federal abortion statistics up to date so the American People can hold him accountable on this promise!).

    People like Dobson must come to understand that the abortion issue isn’t just politics.  It’s not just some battle of abstract ideas.  There are actual, real, living, thinking, feeling human lives at stake, here!  Throwing a temper tantrum (which is exactly what this is) by using your vast wealth and influence to sabotage the significantly more pro-life-friendly of the two major American political parties, just because your favorite candidate didn’t win would be a disaster.  And it will not be nearly as much of a disaster for the GOP as it will be for millions of unborn children across America who would be spared the fate of abortion under a President Giuliani, but not under a President Rodham.

    Perhaps we forget that even Abraham Lincoln did not originally favor the passage of federal laws to abolish slavery.  While he was personally opposed to slavery as a matter of private choice, he for a long time felt that the institution was a necessary evil of sorts that would have to be gradually phased out over a long period of time.  Even in the early stages of the Civil War, Lincoln thought it would be unconstitutional for the federal government to mandate the immediate abolition of slavery.  Though Lincoln said he personally “hated slavery,” he for a long time thought it practically necessary to keep legal (sound like anyone else we know?).

    Basically, what James Dobson is proposing doing today would be the equivalent of if the Radical Republicans in 1860 had run a major third party right-wing candidate in opposition to the fellow right-wing Abraham Lincoln just because he wasn’t a hardcore enough abolitionist.  Imagine if they had actually done this and John Breckenridge had been elected President instead of Abraham Lincoln.  This country would likely be a very different place today if that had happened.

    The importance of the Republican Party remaining both the pro-life party and the big tent party cannot be overstated.  The GOP must remain united, even if Rudy Giuliani is nominated.  Why?  Because Rudy Giuliani sides with pro-lifers on all the actual policy matters that a United States President can touch, even if he gets there through a different line of reasoning.  That’s the whole meaning of the big tent party!  We can have people with different views, but ultimately, our goals point in the same direction.  And that is the only way we will ever see our goals accomplished.  Pro-lifers will see much of their hard-earned success erased away if we disunite.

    And yet, Rudy Giuliani is not the real danger here.  Almost every poll shows that Rudy remains the favorite of we evangelical and social conservative voters.  As he should.  Rudy Giuliani is our best hope to continue the success of the pro-life movement.  If you were to ask me what I really believe, I don’t think a third party challenge by an uber-pro-life candidate will cost Giuliani the general election when all is said and done.  I think pro-life voters are sophisticated and intelligent enough not to embark on such a stupid venture.  And I should know–I speak with average, normal pro-life Republicans every day, and, heck, I am one.  The vast majority of pro-lifers who are motivated enough to get up and go to the ballot box are also motivated enough to really think objectively and pragmatically about their best option in 2008.

    No, the real danger is not Rudy Giuliani.

    The real danger is, surprisingly, people like James Dobson.  Big-wigs like Dobson have political power, influence, loads of money, and probably most importantly, spiritual and emotional sway.

    Rudy Giuliani will not split the GOP.  But James Dobson might.

    Josiah Schmidt
    SoConsForRudy.com

    What Is A “Social Conservative?”

    September 28, 2007

    This blog and accompanying website is entitled “So-Cons for Rudy.” There has been a lot of consideration given by the media, with no little head-scratching, trying to figure out why social conservatives would, or should, support Rudy Giuliani for President. He’s supposedly “too liberal” on social issues. So, how does one explain the apparent disconnect between supposedly supporting conservative values in society, and supporting a candidate for President who doesn’t fit cleaning with those conservative social values?

    The body of posts to this blog and to the website address that question, but as one who considers himself a social conservative, let me define what I think the term means.

    I believe that our nation, our system of government, and our freedoms were built upon the exercise of personal responsibility. The nation protects liberty, not license, and a society reflecting a “do your own thing” set of values will be coercive to the nation. I agree with John Adams who wrote, “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.” But I believe, ultimately, that the character of the nation isn’t determined by those in power, but by the character of the people themselves. Of course, the character of the people should be reflected in the character of the people we elect to public office, but the character of the nation cannot, ultimately, be something that is imposed from the top down.

    And this is where I probably part ways with many of my social conservative brethren. Many social conservatives believe that government should reflect traditional, even religious values. I believe that our society, made up of hundreds of millions of people, should reflect traditional, even religious values…but only if there’s a traditional-values consensus within the society. These values cannot, ultimately, be imposed from the top down by government policy or edict. Yet many social conservatives think they can, and should. Ultimately, however, it isn’t the power of government and politics that will change people’s hearts, and hence the values in our society. And, so, for the important task of forming the values inherent in the society, as a Christian, I trust in the gospel of Christ, and the working of the Holy Spirit, not in the platform of the Republican Party or the values of a few key office holders.

    So, why am I, a social conservative in the tradition of the Founders, supporting Rudy Giuliani for President? My blog entries here answer that question, but to address it briefly:

    • Because Rudy is the most conservative person in the race. His record as mayor shows that he governed with conservative principles, and that he is willing and quite able to fight for those principles, successfully so, and that he did this in an extremely liberal city such as New York inclines me to believe that he’s up to the task to lead this nation.
    • I support Rudy Giuliani because, while many people have fallen asleep on this point, we’re still a nation at war, working here and abroad to assure America’s security against Islamist terrorists. Rudy Giuliani clearly understands this, and is, in my opinion, the only one who can refocus the nation’s resolve on this issue.
    • Finally, I think Rudy stands the best chance of beating Hillary Clinton. For me, the most important “traditional value” in this election is keeping the Clintons out of the White House. In this, I believe that social conservatism should, ultimately, be pragmatic. 

    On a personal note: I have worked in government relations and politics for the past 34 years. Thirty-five years ago, in college, I came to Christ, expressed faith in who he is and what he did on the cross, so I’ve spent my entire professional career considering how my faith impacts, or should impact, the arena I work in.

    A number of years ago, I was asked to speak to a group of students from a number of private Christian high schools who had come to Sacramento for a week-long Model Legislature. I was asked to talk about the role of Christians in politics and government. What I told them is that the role of Christians who in government is the same as the role of Christians who are lawyers, teachers, doctors, engineers, or greeters at WalMart – to reflect the fruit of the Spirit and the character of Christ; to treat people with respect and deference; to conduct oneself with civility, honesty, and integrity; to approach one’s profession with the spirit and attitude of a servant; to bless one’s enemies and not curse them. If Christians do that, they will have a far greater impact for good in this country, and for the advance of Christ’s kingdom, than they will in pushing any particular political agenda. My observation is that many of my socially conservative brethren have lost sight of this.

    Greg Alterton
    SoConsForRudy.com

    Democrats Court Conservative Evangelical Voters

    September 25, 2007

    Newsweek (Oct. 1) is running an article about how Democrats are attempting to reach out to conservative evangelical voters as a way of diluting what has been one of the most solid voting blocks for Republicans over the past 28 years.

    This is really not that surprising. What I find astonishing is the reaction of certain so-called evangelical leaders. To quote from the article:

    Richard Land had never met one-on-one with a chairman of the Democratic National Committee. The Tennessee evangelist, an influential force in the Southern Baptist Convention, generally views such people as adversaries, if not enemies. So consider his surprise when, at a nonpartisan leadership conference over the New Year’s holiday, Howard Dean leaned in and said he’d love to get together for a private chat. Land agreed to meet for coffee at a downtown Washington hotel. He was wary: “I brought a witness,” he jokes now. Dean was there to chip away at Land’s loyalty to the GOP, and strangely, Land found himself warming to the liberal Democrat.

    What impresses Land most about Dean? That he apparently carries his own luggage!

    Among other things, he [Land] admired Dean’s frugality. “He hauled his own suitcase around, and the Capitol Hill Suites isn’t exactly fancy,” Land tells NEWSWEEK. “I was impressed.”

    The article continues:

    Front runner Rudy Giuliani leaves conservative Christians particularly cold. “If the Republicans are foolish enough to nominate the pro-choice Giuliani, that will give the Democratic Party license to hunt for evangelical votes,” says Land, who has been contacted by both the Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton campaigns. “I don’t know how successful they’ll be, but at least they’ll have that license.”

    So let me get this straight: Richard Land, and his ilk, oppose Rudy Giulani – Rudy, who has pledged to appoint conservative judges to the federal judiciary (which, if memory serves, was quite enough reason for pro-life voters to support George W. Bush in 2000); Rudy, who supports parental notification prior to minors getting abortions; Rudy, who supports the restrictions on federal funding for abortion embodied in the Hyde Amendment; Rudy, who more than most pro-life office holders actually reduced the number of abortions while mayor of New York City by increasing adoptions in the city – these self-appointed champions of “traditional values” oppose Rudy, and yet they are willing to consider the possibility of voting for a candidate from the “Party of Death,” the party of abortion-for-convenience, the party that imposes a pro-abortion litmus test on judicial nominees?

    As we have argued on this blog, one can still be a social conservative and support Rudy Giuliani. Support for Rudy doesn’t mean we give up our efforts to change the nation’s policies on such issues as abortion or Roe v. Wade. It simply means that we’ve taken a pragmatic and realistic view of the upcoming election, and see a different means to the ends we all support. But this willingness to be schmoozed and courted by the political party that is the embodiment of everything we oppose, is beyond reason. Frankly, when it comes to “single issue politics,” my “single issue” is keeping the Democrats out of the White House.

    Since the disastrous results of the 2006 election, I’ve been toying with a hypothesis that American conservatism, at least on the national level, at the level of Washington politics, is something of a spent force. Supposed conservatives in Congress couldn’t seem to hold the line on all sorts of spending, including “pork” for pet projects; couldn’t bring President Bush’s more conservative judicial nominees to a vote in the Senate, despite the fact that the GOP enjoyed a majority in that house (couldn’t seem to grow a spine, in other words); have for years given lip-service to the pro-life agenda, but done precious little to advance that agenda. The failure of American conservatism to produce an appealing, articulate, and visionary leader since Ronald Reagan is testimony to the vacuum of leadership within conservatism in this nation.

    Conservatism on the national level appears to be fatigued, intellectually. And now, as reported by Newsweek, conservatism seems to be losing its moral foundation as well.

    Greg Alterton
    SoConsForRudy.com

    American Family Association Resorts to Defamation in Anti-Rudy Push Poll

    September 20, 2007

    AFA's defamatory push poll.ATTENTION:

    The American Family Association, an organization that has traditionally been a reliable promoter of family values, has stooped to a truly low level today.  In a blatant act of dirty politics, the once-trustworthy AFA has shown it has no intention of living up to its own high moral standards, as it trashes presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani and spreads falsehoods about where he stands on the issues.

    The AFA today sent a push poll to an estimated 3+ million voters, asking whether or not they would vote for Rudy Giuliani knowing that he was “pro-abortion and pro-homosexual marriage.”

    Calling Rudy Giuliani pro-abortion (which is basically akin to calling someone who in favor of keeping the death penalty ‘pro-death’) is a bit misleading.  The office of United States President has very little influence on abortion policy, but on every abortion-related issue that a U.S. President has the power to influence, Rudy Giuliani sides with pro-life conservatives.  From maintaining the Hyde Amendment and Mexico City Policy (which ban almost all federal funding for abortions) to the Partial Birth Abortion Ban to parental notification laws to promoting adoptions as an alternative to abortions to his (probably the most important) belief in sending conservative judges to the Supreme Court, a President Giuliani wouldn’t be any different than President Bush on the matter.  But AFA’s misleading generalization on this issue isn’t the real problem here.

    Calling Giuliani “pro-homosexual marriage” goes beyond misleading to outright falsehood.  Rudy Giuliani has always been in favor of preserving the traditional institution of marriage between one man and one woman.  Here’s what Rudy has had to say on the issue:

    • 2006: “I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, that it should remain that way, it should remain that way inviolate, and everything should be done to make sure that that’s the case.”
    • 2000 (even before he was running for President):”The institution of marriage should remain defined as a man and a woman.”

    Social conservatives, regardless of whom they support for President (if we let the AFA get away with slandering Rudy, then they can get away with slandering any candidate) should speak out against the “American Falsehood Association.”  We should demand that they (1) send out another e-mail to their mailing list subscribers to correct the error, (2) correct the statements on their website (AFA.net), and then (3) issue a written apology to Rudy Giuliani for defaming his name.

    We urge all social conservatives to contact the AFA at http://www.afa.net/contact.asp to demand that they take actions 1-3 mentioned above.

    We also urge you to go here and sign the petition urging the AFA to renounce its dirty politics and apologize to Rudy.

    AFA Defames Rudy.  Sign The Petition Demanding An Apology.

    Rudy Recap — Educate Yourself On The Truth:

    Anti-Roe and Pro-Rudy

    September 14, 2007

    Excellent article in the New York Times today by Eric Johnston.  He takes a fascinating new perspective on the pro-life case for Rudy Giuliani by arguing the point that Rudy will be able to present an anti-Roe case from a democratic perspective, and might just help shake up the popular thinking that being anti-Roe is simply a “Christian thing.”

    TO the disbelief of the political class, Rudy Giuliani still leads the polls in the race for the Republican nomination for president. Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson seem unable to compete with conservative affection for a thrice-married, twice-divorced, socially liberal New Yorker.

    Perhaps I can help alleviate the pundits’ bafflement. I am a fervent pro-lifer, and I like Rudy Giuliani. And it’s not because, as some suggest, I think national security is more important than abortion. I think Mr. Giuliani will be the most effective advocate for the pro-life cause precisely because he is unreligious and a supporter of abortion rights.

    Read More>>

    Fred Thompson Stumbles Out Of The Gate

    September 13, 2007

    After months of slouching toward a campaign, Fred Thompson finally breaks out of the gate, it seems, only to immediately stumble over his own lack of focus or ability to run a campaign, coupled with his hazy record on the issues and a weeklong slog of lackluster performances:

    A Rocky Rollout For Thompson – George Will, Washington Post

    Fred Thompson’s plunge into the presidential pool — more belly-flop than swan dive — was the strangest product launch since that of New Coke in 1985. Then, the question was: Is this product necessary? A similar question stumped Thompson the day he plunged.

    New Coke was announced on April 23, 1985, with the company’s president piling on adjectives usually reserved for Lafite Rothschild — “smoother, rounder yet bolder.” Almost 80 days later, the public having sampled it, the company pulled the product from stores. Perhaps Thompson’s candidacy will last longer than New Coke did.

    The Thompson Campaign – Paul Weyrich, Townhall.com

    It is not entirely clear what Thompson believes. When he was Senator he seemed to support an open-borders approach to immigration. In recent speeches Thompson has not supported President George W. Bush’s comprehensive immigration reform bill, which was soundly defeated.

    If the Thompson balloon were launched high but then returned to earth, with Thompson falling behind other candidates, that would mean the several-month tease in the form of his exploratory committee would have been for naught.

    Fred Thompson’s Campaign Clarifies Marriage Amendment Position – David Brody, CBN

    [Thompson will] take some heat for that but the larger issue for social conservatives may be this: If California start to have legislatures endorse gay marriage and have a liberal Governor sign it into law then what Thompson is saying is that he’ll live with that because it didn’t come from an unelected judge but rather elected representatives. How will that go over with conservative pro-family groups?

    An Almost Unforgivable Mistake That Should Not Have Been Made – Erick, Redstate.com

    One would hope that on the fundamental, driving issue of national security — the issue that is driving so many as we head toward 2008 — having to backtrack on the very basic issue of what to do with Osama would be unnecessary.

    The first Thompson statement was a tacit endorsement of the Clinton policy this nation repudiated after September 11th.

    And at this stage in the game, even Hillary Clinton has answered more competently on that subject that the Thompson campaign’s first stab at it.

    That the campaign required a second stab at that basic question makes me shudder with disbelief.

    Sleepwalking in September – Gail Collins, The New York Times

    When it comes to overhyped underperformers, Fred Thompson’s entry into the presidential race was right up there with Britney Spears at the MTV awards.

    The Republican Party’s great tall hope announced his intentions on Jay Leno’s show, and timed it to coincide with his avoidance of the candidate debate in New Hampshire. That was supposed to send the message of – what? A fear of crowds? A preference for answering questions only while seated? His performance certainly could not have been more low-key. You do not often hear somebody say “I’m running for president” in the same tone Jay’s guests use to announce that they’ve signed on for the next season of “Dancing With the Stars.”

    The Field So Far – Rick Brookhiser, National Review

    Now that Fred Thompson is officially in the race, it is appropriate to say that he is, on the face of it, by far the weakest potential president of the top tier Republicans.

    Strongest is Giuliani who, alone of all the candidates in both parties, has done something. Two things—saved New York City; and led America for two days six years ago.

    Fred Thompson came to the offices of National Review some years when he was still in the Senate. I liked him fine. He has done nothing, anywhere, ever. The Hubble Telescope could not find what he has done, because he has not done it.

    It would be unwise to put such a man in the White House at this moment in history.

    Hat-tip to Race42008.com.

    Ward Cleaver For President 2008?

    August 10, 2007

    For those who grew up in the 1950’s and 60’s (or for those with access to Nick at Night or TV Land in later decades), the show Leave It To Beaver epitomized the way a healthy, normal suburban family should work.  Most notably, the ideal parents in this post-War sitcom, Ward and June Cleaver, have become the golden standard of wholesome child-rearing.  It should come as no surprise then, that many Americans want those same Cleaver-esque qualities in our leaders, especially our President.  There’s something heart-warming about photo ops of our Commander-in-Chief finding the time to play catch or throw the ol’ pig skin around with his children.  Polls have shown that the most likeable First Ladies are those who are most June Cleaver-esque: quiet, submissive, noncontroversial, modest, and matronly.

    Well, to put it straight and honest: Rudy Giuliani is no Ward Cleaver.  At least not in the public eye.  There’s no doubt that Rudy really does love Andrew and Caroline as much as Ward loved Beaver and Wally.  Rudy is fiercely protective of his kids, and he tells the political paparazzi where they can stick it when they violate his children’s privacy.  However, Rudy Giuliani has made several big mistakes in regards to his personal and family life, and he takes the heat for them everywhere he goes.

    Let’s get it all out in the open: In 1968, after graduating from college, Rudy married his second cousin, Regina Peruggi.  After a trial separation in the latter half of the 70’s, they got their marriage annulled in 1982.  In 1984, Rudy married local television reporter Donna Hanover.  Together they had two children (the aforementioned Andrew and Caroline).  The latter half of the 90’s saw Rudy and Donna’s marriage slowly fall apart, leading to a separation.  Tabloids raging with rumors of secret affairs, the entire ordeal culminated in a messy 2002 divorce, which Rudy announced in a public press conference before telling Donna.  Rudy revealed that he had begun a relationship with a friend of his who had been helping him through his prostate cancer treatment, nurse Judith Nathan.  Rudy tried to move Judy into Gracie Mansion (NYC’s mayoral home), Donna protested and won, and Rudy was out of the house.  After that, a couple of Rudy’s gay friends offered him a place to stay, and in 2003, Rudy officially married Judy.  Rudy’s relationship with Ms. Hanover and their children has been visibly strained over the past several years, and for one period of time, Rudy and Andrew didn’t speak for almost a whole year.  Both children have said they won’t actively campaign on their father’s behalf (Andrew citing his attempts at starting a career in professional golf, and Caroline being in school).  In fact, Rudy’s daughter (a self-described “liberal”) has even expressed some level of support for Barack Obama!

    How on earth, one must ask, could a man who divorced his wife so publicly, who had started a relationship with another woman before he’d even finalized his divorce, who has had such strained relationships with his children, and whose own daughter doesn’t even support his political ideals be fit to lead this nation, much less this political party?  Surely a man with this kind of personal history would do unthinkable damage to the institution of the family in America.  Surely, a man with so many private mistakes would be incapable of attending to such higher duties as the Oval Office would require.  But, perhaps, it’s not so sure.

    We conservatives tend to idealize and immortalize our most successful leaders: Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich.  We remember them favorably, and curiously forget the shortcomings of their personal lives.  We forget the rocky marriage of Abe and Mary Lincoln, we mentally erase from history Reagan’s made-for-tabloids divorce of his first wife and his painfully distant relationships with his wayward children, and we amnestically overlook the mastermind of the 1994 Republican Revolution’s embarrassing indiscretions.  It is unthinkable, nay impossible, to assume that God and destiny would use such deeply flawed, morally wanting, thoroughly human people to accomplish such great things, right?

    Conservatives drink up the magazine gossip about Judy Giuliani, who reportedly (and unverifiably) uses her position as Rudy’s wife to push people around and is so arrogant to actually demand an extra airplane seat for her Louis Vuitton handbag.  Could a man with such a choice in women really make good decisions in a time of war?  Of course, people retrospectively praise Abraham Lincoln’s almost divinely providential victory in the Civil War, concurrently ignoring Mary Todd Lincoln’s reputation as the White House “hell-cat,” the eccentric and difficult First Lady who reportedly used taxpayer money to fund her lavish personal shopping sprees, who (it was rumored) used her influence to subvert her husband’s policy-making decisions, and who was later committed to an insane asylum by her own son.  Hardly a 19th century equivalent to the Cleavers.

    The Christian right vehemently denounces Rudy’s conduct in divorcing Ms. Hanover and finds grounds enough for rejecting him in his strained family life alone.  Could a man with so many mistakes in raising his children be trusted to run a government?  Of course, we conservatives politically deify Ronald Reagan for his strong foreign policy, his unwaveringly supply-side economics, and his promotion of culturally conservative family values, but how often in our discussions of the Gipper does it come up about how he divorced his first wife (Jane Wyman) in typical Hollywood apathy in front of all the tabloids and how distant he was from his own children during his political years?  We moralizers scoff at Giuliani because his daughter joins an Obama Facebook group, yet conspicuously never mention how Reagan’s daughter went off and posed nude for a Playboy cover.  We values voters laugh off Giuliani because his son chooses not to publicly campaign for his father, yet conveniently sweep Ron Reagan, Jr. (a self described “liberal atheist” activist) under the rug.  Surely a man who demonstrated such masterful control of conservative governance would evidence an equal immaculacy in the leadership of his own household.

    We evangelical activists can’t fathom claiming Rudy Giuliani, a man who carried on a public affair and has taken two women to divorce court, as a leader of the conservative movement.  Could a man who showed such carelessness and unrestraint in his personal life at one point in time possibly be expected to restrain the growth and spending of a now-massively outsized federal government?  Of course, we conservatives reminisce nostalgically about the leadership that Newt Gingrich provided Republicans in 1994 when he led us to historic victory and we laud him as one of the greatest conservative thinkers of our time, but hesitant are we to mention how someone who accomplished something so great carelessly treated his second wife, when he came to her hospital bed when she was suffering of cancer not to console her but to discuss divorce proceedings.  We pat Newt on the back for getting the adulterous, perjuring Bill Clinton impeached, but reluctant are we to mention Speaker Gingrich’s equally abominable affair that he was carrying on at the same time.  Why is it again we are so eager to claim Mr. Gingrich as a spokesperson for our beliefs and values?

    We are told to disregard Rudy Giuliani’s appeal to look more at his public record as prosecutor, US Attorney, and Mayor, and less at his personal shortcomings.  But really, when we are perfectly honest and realistic with ourselves, we have to ask the question: Lincoln, Reagan, and Gingrich were all three no Ward Cleavers–but how did it affect their leadership?  Lincoln unified a country and ended one of the most vile forms of oppression in human history.  Reagan re-energized a nation and stared down an evil empire.  Gingrich brought conservative values back to the forefront of the Republican Party and gave us a long-awaited majority in Congress.  These were some of our most imperfect people, and yet they were used to accomplish some of our greatest successes.

    Now, with 2008 fast approaching, presidential candidates are playing into this unrealistic perception that they must have the most Cleaver-esque family — that family-life stability somehow directly translates into governability and leadership material.  When candidates release Norman Rockwellian home videos of their family Christmases with the grandchildren, it’s certainly heartwarming.  And it’s hard not to like a candidate whose kids get together to tour the country like the Partridge Family in order to help their pop get elected.  However, how much does it actually help these candidates in the long run?

    True, you can’t help but smile a little when you see stories like this, but deep down, there’s something just a little bit disconcerting.  Every other normal person in America came from a family that was dysfunctional in one way or another.  You and I, normal average real American folks, had problems.  We had fights with our siblings, we had issues with the way our parents raised us, we had schisms in the family sometimes.  To many, whether we admit it or not, a candidate and his or her family who try to cast themselves as the Brady Bunch smells a little bit of dishonesty.  It maybe just makes that candidate seem unrealistic or inhuman.  For some reason, it’s just harder to relate to a candidate who has, apparently, never made a single identifiable mistake as a parent.

    Also, candidates who play this role run another risk — that of setting the bar too high.  If you want to make yourself the trademark of all things wholesome and perfect, you’d better be expected to live up to that standard.  And when you make Ward and June Cleaver your standard, any slip-up or cracks that might appear become a big deal for you in a way that they wouldn’t be for other candidates whose private lives had already been vetted by the media.

    Here’s the real question: Why do some voters think it important for a candidate to have a neat ‘n’ tidy personal/family life in the first place? One answer: Because, they want their leaders to use their influence to strengthen the societal institution of the family.  Can Giuliani do that?  Let’s see:

    Finding Homes For Children

    Giuliani has actually made the strengthening of the American family a seminal part of his campaign.  Rudy often points out that hundreds of thousands of children are currently in foster care, and though many of them are up for adoption, it is extremely difficult for families wishing to adopt to cut through all the red tape.  Rudy has committed to making the promotion of adoption a significant aim of his presidency, and he will do this by streamlining the process and cutting federal bureaucracy.  He did this as Mayor of New York, when he created the Administration for Children’s Services, the first NYC government agency of its kind.  While Giuliani had a tendency toward reducing the size of government (he cut city-funded bureaucracy by nearly 20% as Mayor), he did increase focus on children’s services, education, and law enforcement.  This resulted in a 133% increase in adoption during Rudy’s administration over the previous 8 years (as a side-note, the increase in adoption also contributed to NYC’s decline in abortions, which fell even faster than the national rate while Rudy was Mayor).  As President, Rudy has vowed to fix the problems of unreliable court schedules and overburdened case workers, give states control of child welfare spending instead of the federal government, make sure pregnant women are fully informed about the realities of an abortion and the benefits of putting the child up for adoption instead, and build partnerships with faith-based organizations to encourage adoption and provide assistance to women who choose adoption.  Also, being the tax-cutter he is, Rudy has proposed making permanent a $10,000 tax incentive for adoptions.  A President Giuliani means more orphaned children getting into good homes, faster, and he has the record to back up the rhetoric.

    Cleaner Neighborhoods

    Part of Rudy’s approach to strengthening the family means helping to create an environment where wholesome families can flourish.  A big piece of that means reducing crime and combatting drug use.  Rudy proposes sustaining drug prevention funding levels in the federal budget, which would otherwise be cut, and he wants to reform and focus interstate and intergovernmental cooperation in going after drug dealers and traffickers.  We can trust Rudy on this because he has the record to back it up–not just because he took down some of the most infamous drug and crime rings as a New York prosecutor, but because he remarkably cleaned up New York City while Mayor.  Using innovative Compstat programs that tracked and pinpointed the most effective ways to combat crime, as well as the “Broken Windows” approach that created an environment inherently inhospitable to criminal activity, Rudy and his Police Chief Bill Bratton dramatically cut crime in half, and now localities across the country are taking their lead.  However, perhaps the most notable success Mayor Giuliani had in his battle for cultural conservatism, was the turn-around in Times Square, the face of the city, where he cleaned up the dump of sex shops, porno theaters, and prostitution by using creative zoning laws.  When other candidates speak of cleaning up pornography and promiscuity in America, they speak idealogically, but Rudy has actually done it, and any one who has been in New York pre- and post-Giuliani can attest to the night-and-day difference in the cultural atmosphere.  When Rudy took over the city, it was the crime capital of America, and when he left, the FBI declared it the “safest large city” in America.  A President Giuliani means preserving the innocence of our children, and he has the record to back up the rhetoric.

    Protecting Children From Predators and Abusers

    Rudy is fierce when it comes to protecting children, and his vitriol against child abusers, predators, and pedophiles has been cultivated from his years as a tough-as-nails prosecutor who brought such creeps and scum to justice.  Rudy has committed to ensuring the full implementation of the Adam Walsh Act of 2006, which will expand the national sex offender registry, toughen federal penalties for crimes against children, make it much harder for predators to reach our kids online, create a child abuse registry, and require investigators to do background checks on adoptive/foster parents before they take custody of a child.  Rudy will also toughen child porn, abuse, and trafficking laws, he will work with private organizations to kick sexual predators and pedophiles off social networking sites, and he will undertake coordinated international efforts to bring an end to sex tourism, human trafficking, and Internet child porn.  When Rudy talks about cracking down on creeps, he speaks from extensive experience in the justice system doing just that.  A President Giuliani means preserving the safety of our children, and he has the record to back up the rhetoric.

    Encouraging Parental Responsibility

    Finally, Rudy also emphasizes the need for parents to take responsibility for their children.  This means that parents need to be working, need to have more opportunities to create a successful life for their family, need to have more options in educating their children, and need to be held accountable for their legal responsibilities to their children.  As Mayor, Giuliani was known for his crackdown on bum dads who didn’t pay child support, but he also realized the need to create as much incentive as possible for parents to be as responsible as possible.  Rudy did this by creating an economy and an education system that allowed and encouraged parents to raise their child in the best possible way.  By slashing the individual citizen’s tax burden by 22% and moving 60% of the city welfare rolls into employment via a “workfare” system, Rudy encouraged parents to work harder toward providing a better future for their families.  Rudy is also a crusading pioneer of school choice–he established the nation’s first and most generous charter school fund, and opened school choice to many New York families for the first time ever.  By allowing families to spend their hard-earned paychecks in the way best suited to their needs, and by allowing parents greater choice in where to send their children, Rudy promoted possibly the most key family values of them all: the benefit of hard work, and the dignity of personal responsibility.  A President Giuliani means stronger, freer families, and he has the record to back up the rhetoric.

    So, we know that Rudy Giuliani, as a policy-maker, would make the absolute right choices for our nation’s families, however, there is another answer to our question that must be addressed.  The question is: Why do some voters think it important for a candidate to have a tidy personal/family life? The second answer: They want a leader who is decent.

    Giuliani’s private failures must be seen in their proper context.  The fact is, Giuliani has admitted that he has made mistakes in dealing with his wife and children, and he’s talked about how he’s learned from those mistakes.  Often, those with acknowledged mistakes under their belt are the wisest.  But those who can’t acknowledge any mistakes in their personal or family life raise an interesting question about themselves: Would they know how to deal with a tough personal issue when it arises if they’ve apparently been so spotless all their life?  But, acknowledged mistakes or no, the desire is a rational one.  We want our President to be a decent person.  And by that, we mean that we want him or her to be respectable, modest, fair, kind, generous, and appropriate.

    One can sit and read through the tabloid accounts of Rudy’s second divorce, and say, “Gosh, well, Rudy certainly wasn’t fair or kind here… What he did here certainly wasn’t respectable… And that there was totally inappropriate.”  However, we must not forget that a decent man is still capable of being disrespectful, immodest, unfair, unkind, selfish, and inappropriate.  He is capable of being those things once, twice, or many times throughout his life.  But, what we really want to know is: Is this man, at his core, a decent person?  When all is said and done, is he still, deep down inside, decent?

    It’s certainly hard to picture Rudy Giuliani embodying all those aforelisted qualities of “decency” when you look at the specific chapter of his life that included his divorce with Donna Hanover.  However, we must understand that people slip up, good people do bad things, and sometimes really truly decent people do things that are contrary to how they normally act.  There is one chapter of Rudy’s life in particular that really gives us a glimpse into his soul, his core being, who he really is deep down inside, and that is 9/11.

    I realize that the last thing anyone wants, including me, is for the “9/11 card” to be overplayed on behalf of Rudy.  What happened on September 11th, 2001 is a national tragedy, whose sorrow and remembrace belongs to all Americans, regardless of their political party, political philosophy, or whom they’re supporting for President.  However, to bar Rudy Giuliani from talking about the events that happened on 9/11, and what they revealed about him, and how they influenced him, is as inane as barring George Washington from talking about his leadership at Valley Forge, or Dwight Eisenhower from talking about his leadership on D-Day.  The truth is that the events of September 11th opened, quite possibly, the clearest and purest view into the innermost soul of Rudy Giuliani that we ever have, and ever will, see.  It is said that as flame tests metal, so also the deepest view into a man’s soul can be seen when he is under the most intense pressure.

    When his very life is in imminent danger, how does he respond to the needs of others?  An indecent man would put his own survival first and shut his ears to the suffering of others.  A decent man has a sense of duty and responsibility that would compel him to walk into the very flames of hell if necessary in order to ensure the safety of others.

    When he has nothing to lose and nothing to gain, what roles and responsibilities does he take on?  An indecent man cares only about covering his own hide, trying to ditch as much responsibility as possible onto others.  A decent man rises to the occasion, and does anything and everything in his power to do what’s right.

    When he is going through the most emotionally trying time of his life, how sensitive is he to the feelings of others?  An indecent man spends all his time weeping and bemoaning his own problems, while not caring about the problems of others.  A decent man has a genuine love for human beings that compels him to console and support as many people as he can. 

    Here’s what Rudy Giuliani isn’t: Rudy Giuliani is no Ward Cleaver, but he is a decent man.

    Here’s what Rudy Giuliani is: Rudy Giuliani is an occasionally-insensitive, sometimes-selfish, oftentimes-egocentric, and historically-tempermental man.  He is a man who, as NYC historian Fred Siegel put it, “made his own enormous ego serve [his] city’s well-being.”  Rudy Giuliani injected his flaws into the service of overarching ideals that transcend politics as usual.

    It’s not unreasonable to desire a President who has a nice family life.  However, we should also want a President who we know has the focus and moral sense of obligation to do what’s right for the country, no matter what personal difficulties may arise during that President’s tenure.  We should want a President who learns from their mistakes and applies that gained wisdom in the most positive ways possible.  We should want a President who is real with us about just how human he is, and a President who will do what’s right for the nation, even if he once did what was wrong in his own personal life.

    Rudy Giuliani may not be the most flawless man, but he is the most experienced, the most tested, the most focused, and the most capable to lead, and that’s what should really count.

    Josiah Schmidt
    SoConsForRudy.com