I hate it when news presenters editorialize. It happens more and more often in all media - television, radio, newspapers, and even the new media of Internet news. It’s all about presenting a particular point of view without apology or even trying to establish a veneer for another motive. Here’s an example from the International Herald Tribune on last night’s debate:
Giuliani, who has said he supports abortion rights, gave conflicting signals on the issue. He joined the other nine in saying he would not be upset if the Supreme Court voted to overturn the decision that legalized abortion. But later he endorsed a woman’s right to make a decision on whether to have an abortion.
“It would be O.K. to repeal,” Giuliani said. “Or it would be O.K. also if a strict constructionist judge viewed it as a precedent, and I think a judge has to make that decision.”
I didn’t watch the debate. I’ll say that right now. I didn’t particularly care to be entertained by a cast of bozos crawling all over each other’s backs to impress upon viewers how much like Ronald Reagan they are. The GOP should just let the man rest in peace, already. None of them are like the Gipper nor will they ever be, and if there was a candidate even remotely like Ronald Reagan he shouldn’t be elected. It’s not that I don’t (or didn’t) like Reagan, it’s just that he didn’t do enough for Constitutional causes (notice I didn’t say conservative?). What I mean is, we still have federal involvement in state-run education, arms control, over stretches of authority at all levels of government, etc. etc.
OK, back to Giuliani …
Rudy said he was against abortion. OK, good. How can anyone be for it?
He also said he respects a woman’s right to choose. Sure, that sounds good too.
The problem is, a lot of people say that. Democrats mostly. Republicans always call it equivocating (OK, I’m sorry, that’s too big a word for most Republicans; they’d actually say “waffling” because it’s fewer syllables). The problem is Giuliani’s position is only “conflicting” if you don’t have any deference for the Constitution.
His real position doesn’t have anything to do with abortion at all. Rather, his real position is “I support the law, whatever the law is.” He said he’d be OK with the Supreme Court, which has the authority, overturning the law (Roe v. Wade) that makes it possible for a woman to choose abortion. He also said he’d be OK with the Court not overturning. In other words, it’s not his decision to make, nor would it be if he were president. The only two branches of government that have the authority to change the way current law is written on abortion are the Supreme Court and Congress (not counting the president’s power of veto, of course), and Giuliani isn’t running for a position in either branch. That’s the kind of president Republicans should be proud to vote for - a strict Constructionist, one that actually believes the Constitution is important and is willing to abide by its strictures.
Now, whether Giuliani would actually do that once in office, that’s another question. Remember, George W. Bush ran on the “strict constructionist” agenda when he ran for office in 2000 and he has been anything but a strict constructionist. In fact, he’s been less strict on constructionism than any other president perhaps since Lincoln. This begs the question as to whether any candidate elected to office would fit that moniker. On the current slate, I’m 100% sure that none of the candidates - Republican or Democrat - would, except for Ron Paul, and he doesn’t stand a snow ball’s chance in hell of getting elected, probably because of views on the Constitution.
Call me an old fuddy duddy, or whatever else you can think of, but it doesn’t matter who you vote for in 2008. You are sure to get someone who is comfortable overreaching on his (or her) authority, and that’s something no self-respecting American should live with.
