Rudy: Mr. Conservative?

Photos

Rudy: Mr. Conservative?

see larger image

uploaded by BigT

Rudy Giuliani’s biggest problem is that he is not a Conservative.
There’s no need to rehash all his right wing delinquencies because you
already know them. The real question that we’re going to have to answer
is whether or not we believe that Rudy, as a “moderate,” can be enough
of a conservative. Or if that even matters right now.

One of biggest domestic issues, in my mind, that the president has control over is the appointment of judges. Mr. Giuliani recently told the Federalist Society that he would appoint judges along the lines of Alito and Roberts.

“We’re seeking to find judges who understand the very,
very important concept that judges exist to interpret the law, not
amend the law,” he told the group. “We believe in the rule of the law,
not in the rule of judges.”

“Our constitutional principles instruct us that we have to recognize
the limitations on power as a way protecting our liberty,” said
Giuliani.

I desperately want to believe that he can personally be a moderate
but appoints judges who are strict constructionists. Giuliani is a
law-and-order type himself and, at the very least, understands what
conservatives want to hear. But is that going to translate into more
strict constructionist judges if Rudy were president?

Remember how one of the most important issues in the 2000 presidential elections was judges? President Bush
is not a conservative himself but his pledge to appoint strict
constructionist judges was believed by the electorate. And he has
pretty much come through with his pledge. Sure, there was a problem
with Harriet Meyers but he eventually relented and gave us John
Roberts. And there is no complaint from this quarter about either
Roberts or Alito. The very fact that the democrats went to extreme
lengths to oppose the president’s nominations means that his
nominations were reliably strict constructionists.

Can Rudy follow the current president’s performance and walk the
tightrope of judicial conservatism? I think he can. He wants to be
president and appointing strict constructionists would not seem to be
that big of a problem for a Reagan-era federal prosecutor.

“Fine,” you may be saying, “he probably would appoint strict
constructionist judges but what about gun control, abortion, and gay
marriage?” Yes, he’s for all of those things (Cheney isn’t against gay
marriage, should he not have been VP?) but what can a president do
about those things? Plus he’s not a dumb guy, he’s not going to push
for federal regulations regarding those subjects.

President Bush was against all those things. But without the
republican congress and senate we would not have seen movement on
restricting federal gun control laws or increased limitations on
abortions. And Bush wasn’t able to do anything about gay marriage
except for an ill-fated Constitutional Amendment proposal.

There are legitimate worries that a President Giuliani would give
away the farm on gun control and abortion so he could gain some
traction on his proposals with a democrat controlled legislature. I am
personally worried about this. Couldn’t you just see him acquiescing to
increased gun control laws in exchange for safe passage for his
flagship agenda item? It’s a legitimate worry and cause for pause in
the voting booth.

But all of this may be overshadowed by the fact that Giuliani would
actively continue to fight the War on Terror. This may trump his lack
of conservative credentials. Hillary Clinton would not give a second
thought about fighting terrorism until after we were attacked again
(and again). Would this be enough to make me vote for Giuliani?

Not in the primary elections. There are good options available in
the primary that don’t come along with liberal leaning attributes. But
in the general election I would most certainly vote for the
law-and-order Giuliani. Giuliani is not Mr. Conservative but it doesn’t
matter as much anymore because we are fighting a generational struggle
against radical Islam. He has proven that he will do everything within
his power to stop crime and there’s no reason to doubt he wouldn’t be
the same against a much bigger foe.

I’ll never call him Mr. Conservative but I wouldn’t mind calling him Mr. President. BigT