Posted on 03/02/2007 8:40:17 AM PST by areafiftyone
All day today we are covering speakers and panels at the 34th Annual Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, DC. This morning, we'll hear from Republican presidential hopeful former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. He will be followed by Reps. Scott Garrett (NJ), Tom Tancredo (CO), and others.
CLICK ON THE MAIN CSPAN PAGE HERE
The photos of the candidates were taken front and center about 8 feet from the podium. With all the agitation, immature name calling, and other childish behavior around FR lately, I am glad to hear you appreciated an honest report from CPAC.
I understand. I had to wade through all of that to find your authentic reporting.
Another thing: SPC Joshua Sparling was there? Did you meet him?
More power to LtCol Frances Rice (Ret). She is a great American!! My regards to her and to you from California....
I explained it. If Rudy believes you have to let a woman have a right to choose, he would be a vocal advocate for that position, and the spokesperson for the GOP, at a time when what we needed was a strong and convincing advocate supporting the movement to ban abortion.
Yes, each state would be passing it's own laws, although frankly it would be the first time we put the basic life to human life on a state-by-state basis since we abolished slavery. But in any case, even though each state would be fighting the battle, the president would be a powerful ally or enemy, and the GOP standard-bearer would be supportive of, or in opposition to, our cause.
Also, you would want a national law forbidding interstate commerce in abortions, if you were allowing each state to make their own laws. While that would mean a woman could MOVE to another state to kill her child, she wouldn't simply be allowed to spend the short trip in a car, or at most the inconvenience of a few hours in a plane that cost less than the abortion, in order to kill her child.
Would Rudy support a ban on interstate abortion? Would he even support a ban on transporting minors to other states to get abortions? Would he still show up at annual NARAL meetins and support their cause? Would he still advocate for medicaid funding for abortions?
Of course, if that was the ONLY issue against him, it wouldn't be disqualifying to me, as odious as it would be.
For example, I think the Patriot act goes to far in taking away our liberties. I think we search too much, we pry too much into people's private lives. I'm a minority here at FR, and I don't bother arguing much. And I'm pretty much resigned that any solid conservative is unfortunately going to forget the liberty that conservatives once held dear, and support most of the patriot act and the spying and all the intrusions into our security that gives up liberty.
However, there was a vocal minority of conservatives opposed to parts of the patriot act, even in congress.
IN any case, that's one issue I gave up because of the unlikelyhood of getting the "perfect" candidate for me. But with Gulliani, that issue is just one more out of every issue that makes him not so much a true conservative as more of an authoritarian.
So while some people point to his strong support of all the spying and patriot act stuff as another reason to believe him to be a conservative, it doesn't help me out at all.
First,
Yes, each state would be passing it's own laws, although frankly it would be the first time we put the basic life to human life on a state-by-state basis since we abolished slavery.
Corrected: Yes, each state would be passing it's own laws, although frankly it would be the first time we put the basic life to human life on a state-by-state basis since we abolished slavery Roe vs. Wade (1973). You see, that is why I believe Rudy's strong belief in states' rights is so important.
Second,
Would he still advocate for medicaid funding for abortions?
I haven't seen any evidence that he ever has advocated for medicaid funding for abortions. In fact, during Rudy Giuliani's terms as Mayor, medicaid funded abortions declined at a higher rate than on the national level. This during a Clinton Presidency. Go figure that, huh?
According to the state Office of Vital Statistics, total abortions performed in New York City between 1993 (just before Giuliani arrived) and 2001 (as he departed) fell from 103,997 to 86,466 -- a 16.86 percent decrease. This upended a 10.32 percent increase compared to eight years before Giuliani, when 1985 witnessed 94,270 abortions.
What about Medicaid-financed abortions? Under Giuliani, such taxpayer-funded feticides dropped 22.85 percent, from 45,006 in 1993 to 34,722 in 2001.
The abortion ratio also slid from 890 terminations per 1,000 live births in 1993 to 767 in 2001, a 13.82 percent tail-off. This far outpaced the 2.84 percent reduction from 1985’s ratio of 916 to 1993’s 890.
And all that in a Democratic state with a Democratic President. If he was advocating for abortion at all, much less medicaid-funded ones, he certainly didn't do very well. I'll take that kind of pro-abortionist any day. LOL
As for the Patriot Act, yes, you are in the minority and I can respect that, especially since you are in the minority. :-)
However, I think you should know that Duncan Hunter voted for HR 5825: A bill to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. This bill is sometimes known as the "wiretapping" bill.
Duncan Hunter also voted against restricting federal funding to abortion clinics unless the parent of a minor were involved in the decision-making process (HR2264 and HR3755).
He has a few other skeletons in his closet, but I'm not here to expose them. I'm just letting you know that when you start throwing rocks from glass houses, some windows are going to break and while no candidate is the perfect candidate, we should learn as much as we can about each in order to make an informed and educated decision.
I am foolishly hopeful that this forum will return to a place of education and discussion by and for conservatives and not continue to be a breeding ground for new victims of a not-so-innocent agenda-of-the-day.
The statistics about abortions dropping during his term in New York City are unpersuasive, as there is no evidence that he did anything to actually effect them, other than the obvious side effects of him driving down the welfare roles would have also reduced the number of medicaid abortions.
He didn't ask the legislature to stop funding abortion. He didn't make any speeches decrying medicaid abortion spending. He didn't make a PSA asking women to stop having abortions. He DID say nice things about NARAL, and was considered a solid supporter of the pro-abortion movement.
But I'd be happy to see how he will not fund abortions with federal money, either through medicaid or foreign aid. I can't find that on his issues page on his web site, maybe it's an oversight?
I remember not too long ago how one of Rudy's strengths was that at least he stuck with his positions, even if they weren't popular with the conservatives.
I would like to see them as well. Those I gave you above are all I have been able to find so far.
The statistics about abortions dropping during his term in New York City are unpersuasive, as there is no evidence that he did anything to actually effect them, other than the obvious side effects of him driving down the welfare roles would have also reduced the number of medicaid abortions.
Do you distinguish between a welfare embryo and an independently wealthy embryo? Do you think a woman seeking an abortion is too ethical to use medicaid to fund it?
Your specific comment was regarding medicaid-funded abortion - you say he advocates funding abortion through medicaid, but the numbers don't back you up on that.
I've said that I'll uphold a woman's right of choice, that I will fund abortion so that a poor woman is not deprived of a right that others can exercise, and that I would oppose going back to a day in which abortions were illegal.
I think that is a pretty clear statement that Rudy wants to use government money to fund abortions for poor women. It's an old quote, but people tell me Rudy is great because he doesn't change his positions.
If people got off welfare and got real jobs, they would get off medicaid, which is offered to poor people with little or no income.
As to "distinguishing", no, it's offensive to kill any unborn child. However, while I find murder offensive, it's worse when someone makes me pay for it.
A true limited-government conservative wouldn't pay for ANYBODY'S medical care. But even a big-government conservative shouldn't make me pay for things I think are immoral and against the laws of God and man.
Newsday - Long Island, N.Y. Author: By Kevin Flynn Date: Aug 4, 1989 Start Page: 03 Edition: Combined editions Section: NEWS Text Word Count: 971
Feb.21. Giuliani meets with Conservative Party leaders, who had been disturbed by his earlier comments on abortion. Giuliani assures them that he is personally opposed to abortion, does not favor government funding or criminal penalties, does favor an exemption in cases of rape or incest, and is in favor of overturning the Supreme Court's decision legalizing abortion, Roe vs. [Wade]. Despite assurances, Giuliani does not win the Conservative party endorsement.
I think I'd believe a direct quote from Gulliani in 1999 over somebody's summary of what they thought Gulliani promised to a party organization in 1989.
It could be Gulliani did evolve his position. Heck, if he'd tell us he saw the light and was pro-life, I'd cut him a little slack. But from 1989 to 1999 it looks like he might have gone the wrong way.
Part of my problem with Rudy is that he seems "pragmatic". Pragmatic people tend to make decisions based on outcome, rather than philosophy. A principled person sticks to his principles regardless of the outcome, a pragmatic one won't let his personal feelings get in the way of a goal they set. Being "too principled" or being "too pragmatic" are considered bad things by some or the other people.
I tend toward principled people over pragmatic, because I can guess better what they would do in circumstances that I forget to ask them about. A pragmatic person is a crap shoot.
That's funny considering the fact that I got that paragraph from the direct source NewsMax supposedly copied from in your previous reply.
No.
The biggest thing that the President can do is HIS JOB, as described by the Constitution.
As we continually seek to pick leaders who are willing to make symbolic gestures about issues that have no bearing on their job, we slip further and further away from FUNCTIONAL, EFFECTIVE leaders.
Let the leaders of our religious communities speak about why abortion is wrong, and let the President attend to the BUSINESS of running this country.
ping
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.