Posted on 02/17/2007 3:16:46 PM PST by Mr. Brightside
Rudy on Abortion
Tom Bevan
Fri Feb 16, 11:01 AM ET
In response to my last post on Rudy's poll numbers, reader AG emails with a good point: the phrasing of the questions in the FOX poll is far too crude to accurately gauge how Republicans feel about Rudy's position on social issues.
AG asks how the numbers might have looked if FOX had instead asked the following: Are you more or less likely to support a candidate who is personally pro-life on the issue of abortion, but believes it is ultimately a woman's decision? Are you more or less likely to support a candidate who will nominate strict constructionists to the Supreme Court in the mold of Scalia, Roberts and Alito?
AG also challenges the idea of labeling Rudy pro-choice: "In your opinion, what makes Rudy Giuliani "pro-choice"? He is personally against abortion, says he "hates it", would advise against it, and would nominate judges to the Supreme Court who would overturn Roe."
Fair enough. But I call Rudy "pro-choice" because that's what he calls himself, and that is probably how most people will come to understand his position.
The debate that's pinging around the blogosphere is whether Rudy's pledge to nominate "strict constructionists" to the bench will be enough to bridge the gap with the base on the abortion issue. Law prof Ann Althouse thinks it will:
Can Rudy walk this tightrope? I think he can. With the level of legal understanding that Giuliani obviously has, it's a very thick, stabilized tightrope. You pick great judges who follow a strong interpretive methodology, and they take their proper constitutional position in an independent branch dedicated to law. How utterly solid and responsible.
Ace points out that Rudy's "pro-choice" position isn't all that different that our current President's "pro-life" one:
He's basically parrotting Bush's position, which is, felicitiously enough, my position, and a principled, coherent position to take on the issue. Put strict constructionists on the court to adjudicate not legislate new dubious rights, and Roe may or may not fall, and then the states can decide on the question.
The Influence Peddler agrees:
A rose is a rose is a rose. Bush describes himself as pro-life; Giuliani as pro-choice. That doesn't necessarily mean that they're all that far apart - in terms of practical effect.
My two cents, for what it's worth, is that Rudy may well be able to paper over differences on abortion with his pledge. But labels do matter, especially the ones we give ourselves, because they offer at least a glimpse into a person's world view - and Rudy's world view is distinctly more liberal than the Republican base on abortion.
Yes, there are Republicans who call themselves "pro-choice." Even many Republicans who "hate" abortion but also begrudgingly recognize Roe v. Wade as the law of the land, don't want to throw women or doctors in jail, etc. (all of which Rudy says he believes) characterize their position not as "pro-choice" but "pro-life with exceptions." Again, it's a world view thing.
And the kicker for Rudy is going to be his public unwillingness to support a federal ban on partial birth abortion in 1999. This is a procedure that is opposed by the vast majority of Republicans.
To give you an idea of where this puts Rudy on the ideological spectrum: when the Senate finally got around to passing the partial birth abortion ban in March 2003 by a vote of 64-33, only two Republican Senators voted against it: Lincoln Chafee and Olympia Snowe (news, bio, voting record). You think either one of those Senators could win the Republican nomination for President?
Hillary NEVER appears as she is....she is manipulative and a bigger waffler than even Kerry....I for one would never vote for Hillary over Rudy.....
That 'fetus' is a living child, wirh his or her own body. Pregnancy is not the only life support/dependency situation law must consider ... it may come as a shock to you but pregnancy is the ONLY life support/dependency situation where someone is given a right to hire the killing of the depndent one. Until you can make a more reasonable case than you implied, you're on very shaky ground, just as the Blackmon court was in thier fiat ruling. There is a more reasonable perspective regarding pregnancy terminations, but I seriously doubt that you or lioberal Rudy would find it since the current killing process serves a leftist/selfish agenda so well.
That is exactly right! Liberal democrats called Bush's court appointees "activist judges" in that they would overturn Roe v Wade. To them "settled law" of Roe over rules the constitution. I see the same happening with Rudy.
"That 'fetus' is a living child, wirh his or her own body. Pregnancy is not the only life support/dependency situation law must consider ... it may come as a shock to you but pregnancy is the ONLY life support/dependency situation where someone is given a right to hire the killing of the depndent one."
Fine, but you apparently missed or ignored my original point. Pregnancy is the only "life support/dependency situation" in which the dependent is physically *inside* the person depended upon. Like it or not, that makes it fundamentally different from any other "life support/dependency situation."
Guess I missed the part where Cheney was running for President. Could you fill me in?
If we lose the War on Terror, you'll have your wish, except for the gun thing because I guarantee you a Muslim society will not allow abortions and the queers you hate? They'll be dead. So I guess you'll be happy then.
I must have missed that.
Has Hillary ever waffled on abortion?
No. At least Hillary/Kennedy/Barney Frank have the courage to stand up for what they believe in.
Flashbunny brought up the Rudy had draft "exemptions"... and it was used as a character issue....so no, Cheney is not running....but if you bring it up as a character issue, it should apply to everyone.....I try to apply the same rules to everyone so as not to be a hypocrite....just my 2 cents
Not really. He's to the left of Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson, Max Baucus, etc. He's a middle of the road internationalist Democrat. Giuliani would be a formidable Democratic candidate for President in 2008.
Please start endorsing other candidates instead of tearing apart Rudi. You waste everyones time trashing him when you could be promoting someone else who has the best conservative values that we all want....BUT MOST OF ALL....this candidate MUST be able to BEAT Hillary/Obama.
...not on abortion....but if you ever hear the Repub pundits, you'll know she waffles on the WOT big time... no deadline, now she wants a deadline....was touting her vote when Saddam was captured, then dismissing it when necessary....I'm not just talking about one position, but many.....even Chrissy Matthews the other day said she changed positions according to audience....coming from him, that is scathing.....
I didn't think you or liberal Rudy would see a better way. Confirms why not to trust Rudy or folks like you when the issues are life or death.
We are not going to lose the war on terror, no matter who wins the election. We may have setbacks, but we will prevail. I am more concerned about losing our culture from enemies within.
Oh Geez..a tad dramatic, no?
oh sure, we'll prevail. if Hillary becomes president, you are confident we'll prevail.
after all, the Clintons did such a good job the last time they had stewardship of this nation's military and intelligence apparatus for 8 years - we only lost the two tallest buildings in the United States, lower manhattan destroyed, along with part of the Pentagon.
I know alot of freepers don't like Rudy, and that's fine. But some of the claims in these posts are just wild.
actually, Rasmussen is now polling Hillary vs Gingrich. its 50-43 Hillary right now. all the freepers who don't like any of the "top 3" republicans right now, they honestly ought to be making a move to convince Gingrich to get into the race.
I should have known you were not interested in a rational debate.
You might be interested to know that even in North Dakota (or was it South Dakota?), an attempt to make abortion illegal (with the usual exceptions) failed miserably. Such an attempt could possibly succeed in a few southern states, but how do you suppose it would fare nationally?
I'll tell you how it would fare. It would sink the Republican Party into oblivion.
If hard-core pro-lifers refuse to see that and refuse to vote for any pro-choice Republican candidate, that will only make a dire situation even worse for Republicans. And the radical Leftist Democrats will love every minute of it.
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.