Posted on 04/05/2007 4:41:48 PM PDT by Zack Nguyen
It appears that Rudy Giuliani, intelligent man that he is, understands the damage he did to his efforts to connect with conservatives in his CNN interview yesterday. As Kathryn Jean Lopez posted at The Corner, Giuliani has started to climb down from his support of funding abortions with tax dollars:
MAYOR GIULIANI: "What I said yesterday is what I've been saying throughout, I think in the last number of months publicly and privately for quite some time, which is I'm against abortion, I hate it, I wish there never was an abortion and I would council a woman have an adoption instead of an abortion but ultimately I believe an individual right and a woman can make that choice. I also, on public funding or funding of abortion said I would want to see it decided on a state by state basis. And what that means is I would leave the Hyde Amendment in place. It's been the law now, 17, 18 years, it's part of the constitutional balance that I talked about yesterday and the Hyde Amendment leaves the funding issue largely to the states. They have to decide how they're going to do it. And same thing on the issue that you're giving me now, which is I believe that the state should decide. And that's largely my approach not only in the area of abortion but in the area of guns and other things. I think these things are best decided on a state by state basis and would have as limited a federal role as the law requires." (Mayor Giuliani, Press Availability, Columbia, SC, 4/5/2007)
That tends to take us back to status quo ante. We knew that Giuliani supported choice while arguing for judicial restraint on the federal bench. When he started talking about abortion as a right and the requirement to fund abortions, that flew in the face of judicial restraint and fiscal conservativism. He has the date of the Hyde Amendment wrong (1976, 31 years ago), but if he will not act to end it or expand abortion funding past its limits on the federal level, he may have an argument that will mollify at least some of the people he angered yesterday.
Does this make it any better for CQ readers? I'm going to keep an open mind and open ears, but his interview stunned me yesterday with its tone-deafness.
Why are Republicans angry at Giuliani for not lying to them, for not maintaining the deception that he is "moderate" on abortion? I have a suspicion that Washington Republicans are hoping against hope that Giuliani will finesse the issue, allowing them to support him without having to face too many painful questions.
ping. Rudy spinning like a weathervane over his CNN interview.
Burn Rudy Burn.
No, it doesn't. Giuliani's true beliefs slipped out in the CNN interview and now he is backtracking and resorting to lying and trying to convince conservatives he is something he isn't.
Rudy is a life long liberal and has always supported abortion rights and taxpayer funded abortions. Being personally against abortion is the position most liberals take. Liberals like John Kerry, Algore, Bill and Hillary Clinton and Giuliani. Rudy is fooling no one.
Why do you look to a politician to solve problems of the soul?
Just like Bush on amnesty for illegals. Just look at how well that turned out.
And now he supports the Hyde Amendment? That's a finesse flip flop!:
Leaflets distributed by the Giuliani campaign .... said that he opposes restrictions to Federal Medicaid financing for abortions and opposes the Hyde Amendment, which is intended to deny support for that financing.
--New York Times, June 18, 1993
” Why do you look to a politician ..”
I don’t. Roe v. Wade was wrong Constitutionally and, of course, the baby’s soul doesn’t matter to too many people.
A better question would be : “Why have so many people made a religion of abortion?”
Solid answer. Thank you.
Hey, that'd make a great fortune cookie line!
We're not living up on the mountaintop breathing rarefied ideality, gov.
If I misunderstand you...you were rather cryptic. Feel free to elaborate!
Actually, the operative word is “politician” Even ones with the best of intentions tend to sell out a bit at a time.
(and the road to where? is paved with good intentions?)
He implied that it was a local church, community, cultural issue and was not going to be impacted by government action.
I don't believe the government should be paying for the procedure. However, I also believe the Federal government cannot legislate morality. Couldn't do it with booze, can't do it with drugs, prostitution, gambling.
Change the heart, change the outcome and that is not the government's job.
I agree. The “I just hate abortion (look how anguished I am!) but I won’t get between a woman and a doctor” is a sham at best.
Bush said that he wanted to “change one heart at a time” because it sounded good to and pro-choice Republicans.
Abortion is murder, and while as a Christian I am delighted to change one heart at a time, I expect government to do its job. And that is job is to preserve life and liberty.
Because the Rudybots have been telling us that either he has changed on these issues, or that, as Mayor of NYC, he had to have a specific take on these issues in a way that benefitted NYC, but it doesn't mean that he would feel that way as President.
It was obvious that was all BS, but now that Rudy has admitted it is all BS, it is a newsworthy event.
Fair enough, but should the government pay for abortions? There is no reason why all Republicans shouldn't agree that the answer is no.
Yet murder is illegal, theft, fraud, kidnapping, etc. Why is it ok for the government to legislate morality there, but not on abortion? Or do you think that all governments should repeal the laws against murder and theft?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.