[areafiftyone]

(((((RUDY PING)))))

[CharlesWayneCT]

Well, there are more things the president can do:

4) He can use strictly pro-life principles when enacting executive regulations, Clinton did a lot of pro-choice stuff by executive order, a good pro-lifer can do the same.

5) He can use the presidency to push for new pro-life legislation, rather than simply promising not to veto it. He can include it in his budget for example.

I'll gladly argue against people who, at this stage of the race, assert that a good conservative would have to stay home rather than vote for Gulliani if he was the nominee of the party.

At this point though I can't go along with arguments from supposedly "pro-life" voters that they are backing Gulliani. There are too many other good candidates that lack little more than exposure. If they can't GET exposure by next january, then jump on the gulliani bandwagon if you must, but why settle so early on in the process?

[VRWCmember]

One, he can appoint strict constructionist judges who interpret the Constitution as written, as opposed to the hocus-pocus, magical finding of things that are not there in reality. Guiliani has demonstrated to my satisfaction that he intends to do exactly that.

In other words, Rudy said he believes in strict constructionist judges, so the author takes him at his word with no ACTUAL demonstration of his actual commitment to do so.

[quantim]

The article contains a logical approach to practical politics. Nothing one could really add it to it, thanks for posting.

[Spiff]

Why I - a Staunch Pro-Lifer - Am Voting for Guiliani

...because you're a damned sellout.

[Spiff]

Rudy Giuliani Supports Partial Birth Abortion...Republicans Don't.

[GEORGE] WILL: Is your support of partial birth abortion firm?
Mayor GIULIANI: All of my positions are firm. I have strong viewpoints. I express them. And I--I do not think that it makes sense to be changing your position....
ABC News February 6, 2000

---

TUCHMAN: Giuliani was then asked whether he supports a ban on what critics call partial-birth abortions, something Bush strongly supports.
GIULIANI: No, I have not supported that, and I don't see my position on that changing.
- CNN December 2, 1999

---

BLITZER: If you were in the Senate and [President Clinton] vetoed, once again, the [ban on the] so-called partial-birth abortion procedure, you would vote against sustaining that against the -- in favor of the veto in other words, you would support the president on that.
GIULIANI: Yes. I said then that I support him, so I have no reason to change my mind about it.
BLITZER: All right. So the bottom line is that on a lot of these very sensitive issues whether on guns, abortion, patients' bill of rights, taxes, you are more in line with the president and by association, with Mrs. Clinton, than you are against them.
- CNN February 6, 2000

---

MR. RUSSERT: A banning of late-term abortions, so-called partial-birth abortions--you're against that?

MAYOR GIULIANI: I'm against it in New York, because in New York...

MR. RUSSERT: Well, if you were a senator, would you vote with the president or against the president? [Note: President Clinton was in office in 2000]

MAYOR GIULIANI: I would vote to preserve the option for women. I think that choice is a very difficult one. It's a very, very--it's one in which people of conscious have very, very different opinions. I think the better thing for America to do is to leave that choice to the woman, because it affects her probably more than anyone else....

MR. RUSSERT: So you won't change your view on late-term abortion in order to get the Conservative Party endorsement?

MAYOR GIULIANI: It isn't just that. We shouldn't limit this to one issue. I'm generally not going to change my views
- NBC Meet the Press, February 6, 2000

---

***Note: the version of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban that Giuliani opposed in 2000, that he said he supported Bill Clinton in vetoing the Republican-controlled Congress's legislation, contained the exception for the life of the mother that Rudy is now trying to pretend is a prerequisite for his support of it.

[dirtboy]

Unfortunately, in 2008, we Americans do not have the luxury of focusing our votes towards any domestic agenda.

That is pure nonsense. Unless you can agree to have the Dems refuse to pass any domestic legislation from 2009 to 2013, we need a conservative veto in the Oval Office, and not someone who has pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-amnesty, pro-CFR, pro-gay and pro-global warming inclinations. That's the difference between the Fairness Doctrine passing and not passing, for example. Or a repeal of the PBA ban passing or not passing. Or the latest gun control nonsense from Mary McCarthy passing or not passing - and Rudy has stood with her before.

[ex-snook]

Nah. Guiliani is more interested in saving the world than in saving American babies. Wrong priorities.

Author's justification is just alarmist. We don't have to fear a bunch of Arabs together without a world force anything. They need to blow themselves up, improvise car bombs or steal planes to threaten us. Plus there is India and China in their backyard and they don't seem to fear an Arab takeover of the world. Rudy get a life and save some.

[nutmeg]

BTTT

[Condor51]

American Thinker

Rudolph Giuliani?
By Selwyn Duke, Feb, 21, 2007

Rudolph Giuliani for president? Please. There's more chance I'll simultaneously be made head of NOW and the NAACP and be invited to George Soros' next soiree.

I know a little something about Giuliani. Although my politics, faith, appearance, gun case and, well, most everything about me say otherwise, I was raised in New York City.

I'm not herein trying to sound the alarm. Rather, I simply point out that Giuliani is a ship that only floats in New York Harbor. He is far too liberal to get the Republican nomination.

I've never witnessed a more laughable game of collective "Let's pretend" than the media's Giuliani coverage. Even Dick Morris, the erstwhile Clinton propaganda minister who fancies himself the Niccolo Machiavelli of the third millennium, has called Giuliani the man to beat.

He's more like the man who will be beaten - and by more than one candidate, mind you.

~~~ snip ~~~ What I find truly amazing is that this reality escapes Giuliani. What is this man thinking? Does he fancy that the average Republican voter is a Times Echo? Talk about believing your own press clippings.

It's also possible some in the Media wish to secure a Hillary versus Rudy match-up, thereby ensuring that a liberal will take the oath of office in 2009. Then there's the fact that press lunkheads live such an insular existence, surrounded by so many fellow travelers, that they start to view themselves as the true center. They then come to believe they represent a fair cross-section of America.

Anyway, I don't know what Giuliani's presidential "exploratory committee" told him a while back, but I could have provided the truth at a tenth the cost. Mr. Mayor, you'd stand a better chance running as an independent; then you might at least be able to make a respectable showing. But, really, you'd be best off devoting your resources to any PGA Tour ambitions your son may be nursing. You miss left far too much to be a contender.

---

Rudy's chances are 'slim' and 'none' -- and 'slim' left town.

[BunnySlippers]

Another pro-lifer for Rudy. Thanks for posting!

[Recovering_Democrat]

Pro-gay marriage? Pro-gun control? Pro-abortion? I dunno. I like Rudy, don't get me wrong. And I'll consider this as I try to make a primary decision.

[Tax-chick]

Gilligan ping. Not just the title this time, but the whole piece!

I'm not all that fond of the Candidate Formerly Known As to start with, but when his biggest fans can't even spell his name, that *really* makes me dubious!

[Bernard]

First of all, if Roe v. Wade was repealed, my understanding is that the issue would revert back to the states to decide for themselves. So, most likely places like New York and Massachusetts would have legal abortions, and other states would not. The panic over Roe is a ploy the left uses to panic their one-issue voters.

Is that accurate?

[Barnacle]

Vote Conservative. Duncan Hunter '08!

[Sun]

Single issue voters - SCRATCH THAT - QUADRUPLE+ issue voters are against Rudy's nomination, because he is 1) pro-abortion; 2) pro-gun control; 3) pro-special rights for gays; 4) believes in MAN-MADE global warming; and 5) pro-illegal immigration.

Damn those quadruple+ issue voters.

[Conservative til I die]

Who's to say Giuliani would veto anti-life legislation? He certainly won't do jack to push pro-life legislation, that even the author could agree with. But putting aside the abortion issue, does anyone feel confident he would do anything to help out conservatives on other family-related issues like gay marriage/unions or embryonic stem cell research.

I honestly think it's pathetic how conservatives are bending over backwards to make excuses to vote for Giuliani. Just be honest and admit it's A) they want a Republican to win and B) they just want someone who can beat Hillary or Obama and nothing more. Giuliani offers absolutely squat as a candidate. He's a liberal, incestuous, and a serial adulterer.