With Brother Neel

This morning we went to the University of Texas campus, walked around and then spet time with Yogi Neel Kulkarni (Authentic Yoga)

It was lots of fun, and I learned stuff.

Running: a short essay about elite athletes and women runners.

Politics: Giuliani to get the Harriet Miers treatment?

No, he isn’t thinking of wearing heavy eyeliner. But rather, some social conservatives are going to go after him. Frankly, I doubt that this will have much effect; even social conservatives such as Cal Thomas realize that they aren’t going to always get their way.

Conservative Evangelical Christian voters have come a long way in a short time. From their nearly unanimous condemnation of Bill Clinton for his extramarital affairs, a growing number of these “pro-family” voters appear ready to accept several Republican presidential candidates who do not share their ideal of marriage and faith.

Among those seriously under consideration by these church-going folks is former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who has been married three times and who had an affair with the woman now his wife when he was married to wife number two. The second wife, Donna Hanover, once recorded a political commercial for Giuliani, touting his virtues as a husband. She called him “honest and very kind” and “this is the kind of man I wanted to be the father of my children” and “Rudy is such a great Dad.” It’s on YouTube. In recent days we’ve learned from his son Andrew that he and his father are estranged, but that they’re working on it. Andrew says he got his values from his mother. [...]

That substantial numbers of conservative evangelical voters are even considering these candidates as presidential prospects is a sign of their political maturation and of their more pragmatic view of what can be expected from politics and politicians. It is also evidence that many of them are awakening to at least two other realities – (1) they are not electing a church deacon; and (2) government has limited power to rebuild a crumbling social construct.
[...]

While “character issues” can overlap with other concerns when considering for whom to vote, conservative evangelicals are beginning to see them as less important than who can meet the multiple challenges faced by the nation. Put it this way: if you are about to have major surgery and your only choice was a church-going doctor with a high mortality rate, or an agnostic with a high success record, which would it be? I’d choose the agnostic.

Conservative evangelicals have grown up. But they still can’t stand Hillary Clinton, though she’s only been married once and is a Methodist. Jimmy Carter, also once married, only lusted in his heart. It makes one nostalgic for the “good old days.”

Fact is: Giuliani is a war-monger, and that is good enough for many wingnuts.

Not to say, of course, that they won’t try to drive Giuliani to the right on social issues;

Imagine a Democrat telling his (or her) party what Giuliani said in his Houston speech: “It we don’t find a way of uniting around broad principles that will appeal to a large segment of this country Š we are going to lose this election.” Would the Democratic Party drop its zealous support of abortion on demand; or its religious zeal over global warming; or its commitment to higher taxes and bigger government? No way! Only Republicans are supposed to compromise their principles and ignore – as liberals do – 40 million-plus dead babies.

If Giuliani believes this, how does he explain Ronald Reagan’s two terms and the presidency of once pro-choice, but then pro-life, George H.W. Bush? The consistently pro-life position of the current President Bush did not keep him from winning two terms.

There is only one reason to “hate” abortion and that is that it ends a human life after it has begun, but before it has a chance to reach its potential. People who hated segregation did not sit back and, because of opposing views, do nothing to stop it. And what’s this business about finding abortion “morally wrong”? Does that not imply a higher standard than a Supreme Court decision, which even some liberal law professors have criticized as constitutionally flawed?

If Giuliani really hates abortion, he will propose steps to reduce their number. If he wants to split the difference on this most contentious social issue – maintaining choice while reducing the number of abortions – he could favor “truth in labeling” legislation similar to a federal law that requires information on bottles, packages and cans. Sophisticated ultrasound machines have been shown to contribute to a sharp reduction in abortions for abortion-minded women. Such a proposal would allow him a rarity in politics: to have it both ways.

Should Giuliani manage to win the nomination – still a dubious prospect given his social liberalism – and should he face Hillary Clinton in the general election, social conservatives would be faced with a choice. Giuliani has promised to name “strict constructionist” judges to the Supreme Court, which is where this issue will ultimately be decided. Would social conservatives be satisfied with such a pledge; or would they stay home and not vote, allowing Clinton to win?

One can be sure any judges Clinton names would have to pass an abortion “litmus test.” No Supreme Court justice nominated by a modern Democratic president has voted pro-life, but several justices named by Republicans have voted pro-choice. They and the presidents who nominated them are: Warren Burger and Harry Blackmun (Nixon); John Paul Stevens (Ford); Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy (Reagan); and David Souter (Bush 41).

It is no guarantee that electing a Republican president will produce pro-life justices, but it is a virtual certainty that no judge nominated by a Democratic president will disappoint the pro-choice lobby.

Here is the problem for social conservatives who view abortion as the ultimate issue. If they vote for Giuliani, can they ever “go back,” or will their political virginity be forever compromised? If they vote for Giuliani and he makes good on his promise to name only strict constructionists, will they be closer to achieving their objective of stopping most abortions? Should they stay home and a Democrat wins and names two or three liberal justices, their goal of halting, or at least sharply reducing the number of abortions, may be pushed back for at least a generation.

Giuliani could offer a plan to substantially reduce the number of abortions, which might cut him some slack with pro-life voters. But voters also have a choice among other GOP candidates who are pro-life. If they’re thinking about supporting Giuliani, they can wait until Giuliani tells them more.

And I’d like to thank Mr. Thomas for reminding those of us who want a liberal Democrat why we should work to help Senator Clinton get elected, should she win the nomination.

Graduation: President Bush’s chief of staff, Andrew Card, gets booed off of the stage at graduation exercises. What made those in the U. Mass administration thought that he should get an honoray degree? Has lying become an academic discipline?