It's Not About Perfection

So stop pretending it is.

Tony Blankley continues disingenuous:

...possible conservative religious resistance to Giuliani on the basis of his opposition to outlawing abortion at the federal level...

"His opposition to outlawing abortion at the federal level" is NOT why social conservatives oppose Mayor Giuliani. That opposition is shared by Fred Thompson and Ron Paul at least, among the Republican candidates.

What we object to is Giuliani's history of actively pro-abortion governance, including, as mayor, campaigning as an explicity pro-choice candidate, hosting three celebrations of the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, telling an interviewer that he would pay for his daughter to have an abortion, and donating his own money to Planned Parenthood.

And then he has the unmitigated gall to claim that he personally "abhors" abortion.

Much -- far too much -- has been made of Giuliani's promise to appoint strict constructionist judges to the courts. But this is a smokescreen, because as Giuilani himself admitted in the first debate, it would be fine with him if one of those strict constructionists voted to uphold Roe.

Fred Thompson is a federalist who believes Roe was wrongly decided, and that the issue of abortion should be decided by the states.

Giuliani is a pro-abortion social liberal who supports abortion and would be content to keep Roe. He supports embryo-destructive stem cell research, and opposes efforts to defend traditional marriage. He also lacks the decorum to refrain from cross-dressing in public, and carried on a public affair with his mistress, whom he then married and would like to make First Lady.

This is not about perfection. This is about the bare minimum of decency in public policy and comportment.

But Tony Blankley and the rest of the neocon punditocracy keep trying to tell us that since we'll never have a perfect candidate, that we must be willing to accept any candidate.

We can make compromises. But with Giuliani, we are being asked to overthrow our most deeply cherished beliefs entirely.

Asking pro-lifers to vote for Giuliani in return for his promise to appoint conservative justices is like asking Israel to give land to the Palestinians in return for promises of peace. It might be an OK deal if the promises are kept, but who really believes they will be?

The outright refusal of our partners in the conservative coalition to understand this viewpoint is demoralizing. It's not that we're demanding absolute fealty to our goals. But we can't go with a candidate who holds us in such contempt as to tell us to "get past" our issues.

Blankley writes that our objections to Giuliani, and our willingness to endure another Clinton presidency,

...points out how little partisan loyalty may have been built up in the past quarter century of the coalition's dominance.

He's got that right. But the lack of loyalty being shown is the lack of loyalty from the rest of the party to the largest, most loyal segment of the coalition.

We're not betraying you, Mr. Blankley. You're betraying us. And it's your willingness to endure another Clinton presidency that is driving you and your neocon buddies to nominate Giuliani, playing a game of political "chicken" with your own political allies. If you want us on your side, pick a different frontrunner.

Or, perhaps, as a commenter told me on another blog, there's really no place for us in the Republican Party after all.