November 07, 2007
I interrupt my friendly criticism of Mr. LaTulippe’s article to bring you the breaking news:
Robertson’s remarks on why he would be willing to endorse a man who stands for everything Robertson claims to stand against are revealing:
Robertson said he was willing to overlook Giulani’s pro-abortion rights stance because he takes him at his word that he will appoint “strict constructionist” judges to the Supreme Court and federal bench “- a widely accepted term for judges likely to overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade abortion rights ruling.
This just confirms what I wrote a couple weeks ago, when Sam Brownback met with Giuliani and signaled that he might endorse him: “Giuliani and his handlers are very serious about courting those voters.” It’s also worth noting this, which was stuck in the penultimate paragraph of the AP report on Robertson’s endorsement:
Also Wednesday, Giuliani said he asked two GOP friends in Congress, Rep. Peter King of New York and Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, to introduce bills to keep states from giving licenses or similar identification to illegal immigrants.
That initially seems an odd thing to do, especially considering Rudy’s friendliness to immigrants, and the potential for having his interference in the affairs of Congress backfire on him. But the AP goes on to note:
The Democratic front-runner, Hillary Clinton, was criticized after a televised debate last week when she hedged an answer on whether she supported New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s effort to grant licenses to illegal immigrants. Her aides say she generally supports the idea in the absence of comprehensive immigration reform.
And there we have it. Giuliani’s not only fighting to win; he’s acting as if he’s already got the nomination, and he’s going up against Hillary.
Don’t be surprised when more spineless Christian pro-lifers find that kind of self-assurance attractive.
(Special thanks to Tom Piatak and Aaron Wolf for their assistance.)
Daily updates with TM’s latest