The Evangelical Outpost lists seven reasons why Rudolph Giuliani can’t win the Republican nomination:

Rudy is pro-choice — Since the Roe v. Wade ruling in 1973 there have been 29 Republican candidates over eight Presidential elections. Only three candidates (Arlen Specter, Morry Taylor, Pete Wilson – all in 1996) were pro-choice. None of them won a single primary.

Rudy is anti-gun – In June 2000, the Giuliani Administration was “pleased to announce” that they were suing 26 gun manufacturers because the companies were “Deliberately undermining New York City’s gun control laws by flooding other markets which have less stringent gun laws with firearms that the manufacturers know are destined to be illegally resold in New York City…” The mayor’s police commissioner, Howard Safir, even proposed a nationwide plan for gun licensing, complete with yearly “safety” inspections. Kiss those NRA voters goodbye, Rudy.

I agree with EO that anyone pushing Giuliani as a genuine contender simply isn’t worth taking seriously. While the Clinton camp would love to go up against Rudy, I suspect Pataki is more likely to be selected for the role of sacrificial lamb.

Let it die

Episcopalians continue to abandon the rotting corpse of their former denomination:

The vestry — or governing board — of Truro Episcopal Church, an 18th-century church in downtown Fairfax, voted unanimously Saturday to depart from the 2.2-million-member Episcopal Church over questions of biblical authority and the 2003 consecration of New Hampshire Bishop V. Gene Robinson, an active homosexual.

Monday night, the vestry of the Falls Church, an equally historic Virginia congregation in the city of Falls Church, voted 15-2, with one abstention, to leave the Episcopal Church, a denomination it has called home for more than 200 years.

Once a Christian church accepts the anti-Biblical concept of female leadership, it begins its death spiral. First the women, then the gays. This is a reliable pattern, with the exception of the post-Vatican II Roman Catholic Church, which seems to have reversed the usual order. In fact, it was the breezy acceptance of female pastors that always concerned me about Woodland Hills, thus I was not terribly surprised to see that particular church, for which I still harbor great affection, begin to see a not-insignificant exodus about two years ago.

It will be interesting to see if the same holds true of the United States once Hillary and Nancy are running the show together.

By their fruit, you will know them.

UPDATE: on a related note, the Archbishop of Canterbury considers reconsidering:

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has reopened the debate on women priests by suggesting that the Anglican Church may one day “think again” about the issue.

Speaking a week before his first official audience with Pope Benedict XVI in Rome, Dr Williams made clear that he remained a firm supporter of women’s ordination and that “practically” he did not see how the Church’s position could be reversed.

But in an interview with The Catholic Herald published today, he said he could “just about envisage a situation in which, over a very long period, the Anglican Church thought about it again, but I would need to see what the theological reason for that would be”….

Traditionalists said that Dr Williams’s measured assessment of the reform was in contrast to the enthusiastic claims of its advocates, who had predicted that it would trigger a major revival in the Church.

I see two obvious reasons, one theological, the other practical. As to the first, the Bible is quite clear on what manner of individual is to be in positions of authority in the church. As to the second, you don’t need priests of any kind once the entire congregation has departed.

But if by “major revival”, advocates of female ordination meant “slow death”, one would find it hard to argue with their assertion.

Mailvox: they just never learn

Adam is rightly unimpressed by ESPN’s latest effort in gender equity:

ESPN.com is obviously obligated to hire women for…some inexplicable reason. Yet, given the ridiculously self-centered, useless columnists they’ve used before, they wouldn’t possibly get another one who seems to think she’s more interesting than her subject matter, right?

Given how fast the last one disappeared, you wouldn’t think so. But now they’ve found the new Ralph Wiley, only female, uninterested in sports and without any discernible literary talent:

Me on Me
In her debut column for Page 2, Jemele Hill conducts a hard-hitting one-on-one interview with… herself.

You can’t parody this, even the most cynical mind can’t keep up with the reality. Unless a woman has posed in Maxim, wears a cowboy hat and truly madly deeply loves football, she has no business writing anything that appears on a sports page.