Ex-NRA pres Sandra Froman has an oped over on WorldNetDaily warning us that if we vote for a third-party in 08, we’ll lose the Second Amendment by letting Hillary!™ wins the election. While I have lots of respect for Ms. Froman (and have no doubt that Mrs. Clinton hates the Second Amendment as much as she hates the First), this article left me scratching my head. After filling in the back story about how some Christian conservatives are threatening to jump ship and that the Supreme Court’s balance is important, she hits us with this one:
Every Republican candidate – including current front-runner Rudy Giuliani – has promised to appoint originalists and textualists to the Supreme Court.
The same Giuliani who pretty much started the modern trend of trying to bankrupt the gun industry with frivilous lawsuits (which Emperor, err, Mayor Bloomberg has taken up)? The same Giuliani who supported Clinton’s cosmetic feature gun ban? The same Giuliani who said the NRA were extremists because they believe the Constitution means what it says? I’m sorry Ms. Froman, but if Giuliani told me the sky was blue, I’d go outside to double check.
The man has flip-flopped so much it would make John Kerry dizzy, yet we’re supposed to believe him now? Are we supposed to believe him more or less than George HW Bush, who nominated Justice Souter? A Justice, who, ironically enough, Ms. Froman goes on to label as the “third most liberal.” If that was Bush 41’s idea of an “originalist,” I shudder to think who Rudy might pick. Next up, the Democats:
Every Democrat candidate – led by Hillary Clinton – has promised to appoint justices who would continue supporting a liberal social agenda. History shows that the activist agenda includes holding that the Second Amendment does not give you the individual right to own a firearm.
Err, did you forget about Bill Richardson? Last I checked, he was a Democrat with a better record on gun rights than MSM anointed Republican “front runners” Giuliani, McCain, and Romney put together. Granted, he’s a bit of a long shot at this point, but if some group like, say, oh, I dunno, the NRA acknowledged his existence and supported pro-gun candidates on both sides of the isle, we wouldn’t have to play this stupid “lesser of two evils” game. And they wonder why the gun grabbers refer to the NRA as a Republican shill group..
As for the initial question of whether a “3rd-party vote = loss of 2nd Amendment,” well, speaking of supporting someone other than a Republican, you know, if the NRA urged its members to support a third-party, maybe one could actually win? Believe it or not, there were parties before the Republicans and Democrats who have gone the way of the dodo once the voters got sick of the “lesser of two evils.” Does nobody remember the Whigs or the Federalists?
At any rate, if it does come down to Giuliani vs. Hilary!™, we might actually be better off with the latter. As stupid as this may sound at first glance, at least with Clinton we’ll know where she stands. With Rudy, not only do we have to worry about him pulling out another Justice Souter (or two or three..), Republicans in the House and Senate will be more likely to let him get away with anti-gun stunts due to blind, partisan loyalty. Whereas with Clinton, they will fight tooth and nail to block everything she does.