Personal Aside: Why Some Social Conservatives Pick Giuliani.

Why.

Not only are media lefties wrong (as to be expected from those who have nothing to do with analysis but visceral feeling) but so is Gerald Seib of the “Wall Street Journal” wrong about why some social conservatives are supporting Giuliani. As a Romney guy, I have said I would apply Pascal’s Wager to the test if Giuliani got the nomination—but Pat Robertson aside, whose perspicacity is failing just as his unaccountable and unrelated chuckling fits increase, there is absolutely no dilution of philosophical conviction that have set ultra-liberals pinching themselves with joy. Why do some go for Giuliani?

First, they realize full well that these days are not like the golden era of the 1980s or even close to 1994 when Republicans took over the Congress. Much of the old conservative base has disintegrated because of the GOP’s wrong steps on spending and toleration of corruption in and out of the House with respect to lobbying and evasion of rules. Not only the wink and nod to a prospective child abuser Congressman but a series of leaders who ran into trouble. Newt Gingrich with his womanizing…Dick Armey with his conspiratorial campaign to stab Newt to death and when caught deny it…Bob Livingstone with his womanizing…Tom DeLay with his insistence on using a bogus “foundation” to pay for his golf trips to St. Andrew’s in Scotland…Denny Hastert with his old ol’ boy schmoozing that ignored corruption…and in the Senate under the ultimate pork practitioner Trent Lott (who until he fortuitously had to vacate the majority leadership was a disaster in many ways) and Ted Stevens with his Bridge to Nowhere. These things plus Bush’s prior refusal to veto any bill whatsoever and Bush’s stand on immigration.

Second, armed with that foreknowledge, social conservatives may have some questions about Giuliani but they know for positive certain that no matter what Democratic president gets in, the goals of the movement will be certifiably ended—especially with appointments to the Court. There’s not even a question about that. The courts would go Left, national security would go passive, the Islamo-fascists would take heart at seeing the country repudiate the Bush legacy. Domestic terrorist strikes would increase. And something which is quite hard for the Catholic in me to rationalize—the future of Israel which is so close to the evangelical heart would be jeopardized while an ambivalent Hillary or worse yet Hamlet-like Obama would allow things to happen.

I’m about as interested in Middle East security as the next national security student, but it hasn’t got a thing to do with my religion. That’s not so in the case of my evangelical brethren who see an indissoluble tie with the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob leading them on to Judeo-Christian destiny. In fact it’s an interesting thing but most Jews continue in their routinized way of voting Democrat. But that’s because many are unobservant. What’s the old story? Give a bar mitzvah and that’s it for the remainder of his life since he like most are unobservant Jews.

But to others—and most notably none other than Alan Dershowitz who in his twilight years has decided he wants Israel to survive more than he w wants leftism to make it--Giuliani’s teaming up with Norman Podhoretz has settled it. Armageddon will come when Satan will move the kingdoms of the world to wage war on God’s chosen people ending in his defeat and the thousand-year reign of God’s kingdom over the earth. And for better or worse, many Americans have decided that the man to run things on our side when Gog, king of Magog, collects an army to attack God’s people is Rudy. Evangelicals form a huge cadre within the social conservative ranks—far more than Catholics. But maybe they’ll allow an elderly foot-soldier in that war. If so I’m enlisted.

Third, that certainty means that the choice is not between the most pristine conservative you can find and the others, but between anyone who can offer a smidgeon of hope of moving the courts to sensible status. Here Giuliani has wisely hugged Scalia, Thomas and Roberts. If he’ a liar okay but to evangelicals and others he appears to be the last best hope we will have in 2008. After all they say Romney seems like a plastic man who doesn’t bleed, Fred Thompson like a lumbering ox who can’t get started and McCain is old-old-old and did much violence to the 1st amendment that caused distrust of evangelicals.

Fourth, that doesn’t mean conservatives are suddenly bereft of principles and have embraced a pragmatism that is soul-less which is the point made by my favorite “Sun-Times” Sunday multi-millionaire liberal columnist who doubles on two other TV stations (including one where her salary comes partially from taxpayers’ pockets). It means that in a feared tidal wave you cling to the nearest hope you have to gain survival. Actually there are many things that endear Giuliani to social conservatives apart from his stands on abortion and gay rights. One is the enmity of “The New York Times” toward Giuliani basis his record in New York City. To see the most blatant leftist advocacy journal this side of “The Nation” carry on in editorials and slanted news coverage is a recommendation for Giuliani in reverse. All you have to do is to have had to go to New York as I did often during my Quaker Oats days, get bopped on the head by druggies or prostitutes and see New York after Rudy.

Fifth, don’t kid yourselves. Conservatives know the cards are stacked against Republicans winning the presidency. For one thing everybody is tired of Bush as I am…not because he’s been wrong on so many things (to the contrary he has been constantly right and courageous in this constancy) but the drum-drum-drum of eight years with one whipping boy is wearing. The natural rhythmic electoral cycle is for Democrats to win. But while left-wing media ideologues keep prattling about the necessity of conservatives to “adapt” and be “pragmatic” there is utterly no tolerance within Marin’s own party for diversity. Item: the Republican front-runner, Giuliani, is diverse on abortion and gay rights. What do we have in the highly vaunted, openly “diverse” Democratic party? Do we see any pro-lifers running for president? No. In fact when a pro-life Democrat ran for governor against George Ryan, the liberal Dems on the lakefront refused to support him, choosing to support instead a scoundrel who had cut his deal with Personal PAC in support of abortion and gay rights (the truth of which I was told before election) making him guilty in his licentious black heart just as this bulbous-nosed old fraud was snuffling away at the trough as secretary of state.

Sixth, conservatives know how biased and un-diverse the Democratic party is. It wouldn’t allow a popular Democratic governor of Pennsylvania to speak at the party convention in 1992—a heavy vote-getter—because he was pro-life. Only when they couldn’t do anything else did they embrace Bob Casey’s kid to defeat Rick Santorum. That’s it. Nada. Harry Reid pro-life? Mike Flannery told me that years ago. Huzza! Where does it show? What vote did he cast? He who fought against Roberts and Alito. He who said Clarence Thomas was stupid. Republicans Percy and Thompson and Edgar were pro-choice (Edgar could have received social conservative support fulsomely including from me had he run: he never gave the finger to us as did Tugboat Annie as she rode in a gay rights parades). Who aside from Glenn Poshard is pro-life in the Democratic party? And our ultra-liberal news mavens have the brazen temerity to say conservatives would rather die than embrace electability?

I have said before that I’m for Romney because he has an excellent gubernatorial track record, a brilliant business record, a brilliant Olympics record and is certifiably brilliant. He’s the man you would hire if you could to be president. His changing record on abortion doesn’t bother me. As governor of California, Ronald Reagan signed the most permissive abortion law in the nation when he was 56—in the fullness of middle age—and didn’t change his mind…not in 1968 when he sought the nomination against Nixon…but only until shortly before he ran for president at age 65 in 1976 against Gerald Ford. And he became constant as a pro-life president. George H. W. Bush was even more vigorous a pro-abort proponent all the way through his career, as Congressman, candidate for the Senate, candidate for the presidential nomination, until 1980 when he changed overnight to become Reagan’s vice president at age 56…becoming the second most effective pro-life presidents, having named Clarence Thomas to the Court.

So this stuff that evangelicals and social conservatives are shucking their true beliefs…the stuff that gets doctrinaire liberal media mavens, masquerading as so-called “commentators” shucking and jiving…doesn’t wash with me. They are the real hidebound ideologues. Else where is their tolerance for social conservatives in their party? Look at Democrat Dan Lipinski: he’s got a real primary on his hands, with money coming in to his main opponent from throughout the nation. Where is that Democratic taste for diversity? Nowhere, that’s where. But of course telling the ultra-liberal mavens anything they don’t viscerally feel does nothing. But maybe those of you who think for yourselves will give the mavens another look when they prattle on TV and write their commentaries with crayola.