Posted on 02/18/2007 4:12:23 PM PST by Jim Robinson
I don't know about you, but I doubt the Christian conservatives throughout the red state farm belt and especially down in the South are going to cotton to a liberal New York Yankee coming down to try to clean up crime by taking their guns and bringing abortion and gay unions (gay marriage) into their families, schools and churches.
Putting aside PBA, I don't see all that much weaving by Rudy. It is more a matter of emphasis. In that sense, Rudy is simply not in Mitt's league.
Now run along little Rudy Bot you're not worth anymore of my time; I'm finished with you.
It seems as though a bit more convincing is necessary. From the horses mouth:
Dr. Haskell told the American Medical News: `And I'll be quite frank: most of my abortions are elective in that 20-24 week range. * * * In my particular case, probably 20% are for genetic reasons. And the other 80% are purely elective.'42
Shocking?
To be honest here, anything you have to say is simply unconvincing. Thus far our little colloquy has revealed you as somebody who doesn't know what the hell you are talking about.
Regards.
Giuliani once contemplated the Priesthood. He took the issue of the museum art that was profane personally. He wore ash proudly on his forehead all day. Attended Church regularly.
Arm chair psychology.
In his inner soul, I think he may feel comfortable getting right with his Church (and his Party's core).
He may be ambivalent on the issue. Figure he will appoint the best strict constructionist he could find and let the chips fall where they may (where they will anyway with any President).
Ok then. Duncan Hunter it is. On to victory. LOL
Sabra, John knows the abortion issue, inside and out. It is a hot button issue with him, and he spends a lot of time researching it. As one less informed than John, I was suprised to learn that so many late term abortions, and just because the mother didn't get around to it earlier, or is having a panic attack about giving birth, or being a mother or whatever. In fact, I found it jolting. My faith in our species was further eroded.
Dear Torie,
I agree that Mr. Giuliani isn't quite in Mr. Romney's league, but Mr. Romney is truly in a league of his own.
However, the primary difference between Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Romney is that Mr. Giuliani's dissembings are not quite as flourescent as Mr. Romney's.
So, Mr. Romney, pro-abort, by his own testimony, since before 1970, suddenly sees the light in 2004 or 2005 while discussing the deaths of a few hundred embryonic human beings - but who apparently was oblivious to over a million deaths per year prior to that.
Mr. Giuliani - give him credit - is far more subtle. Adamantly pro-abort since at least Sept 1, 1989, he's now dropping hints that maybe he's pro-abort, but anti-Roe, and also that he hates abortion, too.
That's funny. The dissembler lavished praise on Roe, on the idea that there is a constitutional right to abortion, at Roe v. Wade anniversary celebrations held by NARAL. He's repeatedly called abortion "a woman's constitutional right" over the years.
But now, he's hinting that maybe he never really thought Roe was such a good idea, after all.
Certainly a more subtle prevarication than Mr. Romney's, but it's dissembling nonetheless.
Similarly on gun control, many posters here have noted that Mr. Giuliani praised Mr. Clinton's efforts to pass additional federal gun control laws. We know that the lawsuit filed by Mr. Giuliani against gun manufacturers was meant to: legislate through the courts and; to nationalize the results of that judicial legislation by fiat.
It is now ironic that Mr. Giuliani is saying that gun control should be a state issue, and that he would nominate judges who wouldn't legislate from the bench. Anyone who thinks that Mr. Giuliani really cares whether his Supreme Court nominees are "strict constructionists" by conventional conservative measures is self-deluding.
The dissembling is more subtle than Mr. Romney's recent joining of the NRA, but it's still something more than shading the truth, nonetheless.
On special rights for homosexuals, Mr. Giuliani was loud and proud to be out in front of the crowd back in the 1990s pushing to eliminate any legal distinctions between homosexual "couples" and married heterosexuals. But now, he hides behind the semantics of saying he's not in favor of homosexual marriage. Certainly not! He's just in favor of legal relationships for homosexual "couples" that provide every benefit, every attribute of legal heterosexual marriage.
And of course, you mentioned the ban on partial birth abortion. Before he was runnin' for president, he was agin' it. Now that he's trying to run for the nomination of the [pro-life] Republican Party, he's for it.
I'm sorry - he looks like just another politician, willing to say anything to get elected, to gain power. The principled fellow who led the city through Sept. 11 clearly has feet of clay.
He's just another shady politician.
I'll grant you that he's more subtle than Mr. Romney.
But who isn't?
sitetest
There is a ban in place, is there not.
Is all politics now going to be controlled by a fear of the ban being reversed.
Wouldn't that entail the Republicans in Congress pretty much getting wiped out?
Now what is likely to wipe out the Congressional Republicans other then a nominee who will be slaughtered in a nationwide race.
Thus I will never vote for, inter alia, John Edwards, and it just isn't his accent, which I loathe in and of itself.
There is a ban on what?
The thing is, is that stipulating to all that, I am a firm Rudy supporter. Granted, I am in favor of gay rights, middle of the road on abortion, and guns too for that matter. Rudy is a good fit for me, assuming he doesn't go nutter on SCOTUS nominees.
Better than having Hillary.
John
Bush signed a ban on PBA, did he not. The case is in front of the Court I believe.
And I think the issue is precisely lack of a health of mother exception.
I admit to not following the issue closely.
I hardly consider abortion when picking a President. I choose on the issues that dominate the President almost all of his time.
Rudy was once pro life until he decided the apostate route could win him the Mayorship in New York on the backs of unborn children. So Rudy wears ashes on his head on Ash Wednesday and shame for 365 days for being a hypocrite. Very tough asking pro life Catholics to vote for such a man. For me the answer is clear, I won't do it.
OK. PBA seems such an emotional deflection in any event. Isn't this issue more about, or should be more about, aborting fetuses that would survive outside the womb?
Nations have gone to war over less emotional issues.
But. Today, nations go to war about other issues and I choose a President over how he would handle those issues.
The President's opinion on abortion is so way down on my list that is is rendered irrelevant.
Pick up a newspaper and find me the last time Bush dealt with the abortion issue. Or guns. Or gays.
On the other hand, Korea, Iran, Israel, Russia, the economy, et al.
Dear Torie,
"I am a firm Rudy supporter."
I understand entirely.
You actually agree with Mr. Giuliani on many, perhaps even the vast majority of issues.
It seems perfectly reasonable that you would vote for him.
What seems unreasonable to me is that folks around here would pummel social conservatives who say that we will not vote for Mr. Giuliani.
What reason are we given? That even though we disagree with him on pretty much every issue that is important to us as social conservatives, he'll do a great job on the war.
Why? we ask. Did he ever serve in the military? Did he serve in some defense role either in the executive or in Congress? Did he ever command an army?
Well - he's such a strong fellow! Look at his leadership and integrity that shone forth after September 11! He was resolute! He was bold and brave!
Look how he shoved that $10 million back down the throat of that Saudi prince! Look how he treated Arafat!
He's not afraid of ruffling feathers when he's doing what he thinks is right! He's a "let the chips fall where they may" type of guy! You social conservatives should vote for him based on his CHARACTER!
But it's not really true. He's not brave or forthright.
He's just another common politician.
Which isn't a reason to vote against him. At least, not if you agree with him on the issues.
But certainly, if one doesn't agree with him on the issues, it's no reason to vote for him.
sitetest
Or he just decided- and knew- that any American office holder has to follow the law. And the law of the land makes abortion a legal right. Like it or not.
I guess my one last note to y'all would be this:
Vote your conscience in the primary, and then support the nominee, whoever that is.
This is what Ronald Reagan would do and did. Even in 1976.
If you stick your head in the sand, stay home or vote for some third party/Losertarian candidate, you are effectively disenfranchising yourself and helping a doctrinaire Marxist in her quest for the WH.
And you will NOT be helping the nation in any way shape or form if you throw that kind of childish tantrum.
That's right. Re-read that last sentence again. Hot under the collar? GOOD. Everyone must grow up sometime. But don't shoot the messenger. That is your CONSCIENCE informing your emotions that I am CORRECT in the above analysis.
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.