A Vote For Giuliani Is A Vote For Hillary

Here we go. Earlier I posted 'Be Careful Who You Vote for' in regards to the support of pro-choice, anti-marriage candidate Schwarzenegger for governor of California from 'conservative' talk show hosts because he was a Republican and he was 'electable' and voting for someone else was 'a vote for the Democrat'. What did they get Arnold is now proposing to eliminate marriage from the State of California entirely. Nice.

Did we learn anything? Apparently not because now we have round 2 on a much bigger scale. I listened in horror this weekend as one of my favorite talk shows The Northern Alliance (that's not sarcasm - I really do like their show, just not this week) lamented the fact that many pro-life leaders are protesting the fact that the Republican party seems to be flirting with the idea of nominating a pro-choice candidate for the Presidency.

Captain Ed (one of the Northern Alliance) of Captain's Quarters thinks that we don't know how the primary process works:

Along with the splintering rhetoric from James Dobson and others, it shows an immaturity and a complete rejection of the primary process. It's a form of extortion; select a candidate despite the voters' own preferences, or they walk out of the party. If the party nominates someone who cannot win a majority among their own voters without the threat of extortion, what chance do they have in the general election? None.

It's not extortion to state the facts. If the Republican party thinks that it can nominate a pro-choice president and still have the backing of many of the party faithful, then they have sorely underestimated the pro-life faction. It doesn't show a misunderstanding of primaries. Candidates need support; and Dobson and co. are giving a shot across the bow: Don't support pro-choice candidates. They are not asking the Party's leaders to choose which candidate should be the nominee.
Now if Bill Clinton or Tom Daschle wanted to run for President as a Republican, would they be taken seriously? Neither should Giuliani.

Ed goes on to show his complete misunderstanding of the religious right in this country:

The silliness extends to the general election. On the radio shows I do, I hear the same refrain I heard in 2006 -- "We'll stay home and teach the party a lesson." What lesson -- that its allies are completely unreliable?

No, Ed. The lesson that you cannot support killing babies and expect to get votes from the religious right. This is not a side issue, it is THE issue of our time. Anyone who cannot understand that killing babies is wrong, has a serious judgement problem. I don't care what other issues I agree with him on, the fact is anyone who says they hate abortion but thinks it should be legal, that Row V. Wade is good constitutional law, that has personally donated to Planned Parenthood, that supports partial birth abortion, and that the public should fund abortion [source]; is not capable of making the decisions necessary at a presidential level. So if you want me for an Alli, we can negotiate on taxes, immigration, war funding, border control etc, etc. Fine, let's build a coalition (I did vote for Bush Sr, Dole and Bush Jr twice despite my misgivings) , but if you want to support killing babies, you're right! You cannot count on this Alli, as far as I am concerned you just violated the terms.

[What lesson? -- ] That those who claim to speak for a majority would rather marginalize themselves and the rest of the agenda on the Right rather than accept the conclusion of the party's own voters in the primaries? That's not democracy, it's petulance. All elections are cost-benefit choices, at all levels. If people can't understand that much, they have no business leading any kind of political movement

Which would marginalized the pro life movement more -- Hillary Clinton or a Pro-Choice Republican elected president? Think about that for a moment. What happens to the Republican party when the top Republican leader is Pro-Choice? Do we even have a pro-life party any more? We've just told every republican candidate that life issues are not important. Go ahead and Nominate anyone you want, we're all just mindless robots who'll pull the lever for anyone with an R behind their name.

The spokesmen for Ed's point of view often say that given the choice you have to vote for Giuliani because a vote for anyone else is a vote for Hillary, who is more pro-choice, anti-marriage etc, etc. Well I'm here to tell you that the Pro-Life crowd is not about to hold their nose and then deal with a Republican president who is vehemently pro-choice and anti-marriage. He is in fact unelectable, therefore if you vote for Giuliani in the primaries then you are voting for Hillary for president.

Read More at Thoughts of a Regular guy Why Not Giuliani?

UPDATE: The debate continues on Catholic Dads: Sound Off: Giuliani Vs. Hillary