Giuliani's Abortion Folly

American Thinker ^ | April 07, 2007 | Steven M. Warshawsky

[Josh Painter]

It has long been understood that Rudy Giuliani's pro-choice stance on abortion could cost him dearly among conservative voters who wield considerable influence in Republican presidential primaries and provide a crucial core of support for Republican candidates in the general election. Those, like me, who find many of Giuliani's other positions and qualities highly attractive in a potential president... have been hoping, with fingers crossed, that Giuliani will put aside his personal views on abortion and embrace the "strict constructionist" judicial philosophy that rejects the entire liberal approach to "finding" new "rights" in the Constitution, including the right to abortion created by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade (1973)...

The main point is that there is nothing inconsistent or illogical about believing that some form of abortion should be legal, but flatly rejecting the idea that a "right" to abortion, however defined, is enshrined in the Constitution. This is the "strict constructionist" position that Giuliani and his supporters have been suggesting he holds. Of course, a lot of conservatives have had doubts about Giuliani's sincerity on this issue. These doubts have now been justified...

As someone who supports Giuliani over the other declared candidates, I find his comments... dismaying... It is clear that Giuliani believes abortion is a "right"; that there should be public funding for abortion; and that all his talk about appointing strict constructionist judges is "for a different reason, not necessarily that reason [i.e., to reverse Roe v. Wade]." Does Giuliani seriously expect conservatives to endorse a candidate who holds these positions? Perhaps more importantly, it appears that Giuliani has not been straight with Republican voters on the abortion question. Which inevitably raises the question: What else is he not being straight with us about? Immigration? Health care? Gun control? Taxes?

[Liz]

Ordinarily, I would not deign to help the little Rudester out of his self-made quagmire, mind you. However, due to my niceness, I'll make an exception.

Rudy should claim he's pro-abortion b/c of his overbearing third wife, that Judi demanded Rudy be pro-abortion, or else she would not acccept a Cabinet position.

There. Don't we all feel better now? (/s)

[Condor51]

**** Rudy should claim he's pro-abortion b/c of his overbearing third wife, that Judi demanded Rudy be pro-abortion, or else she would not acccept a Cabinet position.

There. Don't we all feel better now? (/s) ****

(I won't be around long today (maybe another 20 mins.) I have to work (tomorrow too, bah!) - and should be working now. But keep the pings up for when I check in)

[neocon1984]

“Conservatives are better off leaving the increasingly socialist Republicans and forming their own party.”

I have three possible explanations for this insane observation:

1. You do not know what socialism is;

2. You are a DU troll or;

3. You are a Libertarian Party goofball.

My money is on #3. You guys will get 100-200,000 votes in the 2008 POTUS elections? Those votes could help make sure the real socialists do not take charge of the entire government.

[Mom MD]

Rudy also apparently thinks Ms Bader-Ginsburg is a strict constructionist.

[dforest]

The Rudytanic has hit an iceberg, the Fat Lady is singing as the ship goes down!

[Afronaut]

If this country does not lose this two party system it is finished.

The will of the people, the people who vote these leaders into office are ignored over and over. There is no choice to vote them out. We need 5-6 parties. All elected knowing that when they turn their backs on the people who supported them on their promises, they are shown the door.

Right now the two party system could care less about the people of this Country.

[neocon1984]

I guess you favor a parliamentary-type system in which coalition governments usually need to be formed. If you are truly conservative (I have doubts), you would not like the coalitions that get formed in the US because they will vastly over-represent the Leftist fringe.

I really cannot see a valid argument against the notion of “big tent” Republicans. We do not need to agree on everything, except that the Democrats are the party of socialism and anti-Americanism. That said, priority #1 is keeping them out of power.

We got 8 years of Clinton when there was a semi-viable third party running for POTUS. We will get a lot worse with a multiple party system.

[George W. Bush]

However, due to my niceness, I'll make an exception.

I'm surprised they haven't called you up to offer you a paid campaign position yet.

[trisham]

The entertaining part of the whole thing is sitting here on FR and watching so-called "conservatives" make excuses for him.

************

I wish I could be more blase about it.

[Josh Painter]

Fact of life: this is a two-party country. People have started conservative third parties, and they’ve gone nowhere. Case in point: The Constitution Party.

Consider the case of Rep. Ron Paul who tried to mount a run for the White House as the Libertarian Party candidate and had to come back to the GOP, where he has been more successful promoting his libertarian agenda and keeps getting re-elected in his Texas Congressional district.

I’m a member of The National Federation of Republican Assemblies, an organization made up of movement conservatives working within the GOP to rebuild the Republican Party from the grassroots up. We are organized into state chapters, and we’re having quite an impact at the local and state levels in rebuilding the Republican infrastucture along conservative linees.

The Republican Assembly movement started in California, where Ronald Reagan called us “the conscience of the Republican Party.” We call ourselves “the Republican Wing of the Republican Party.”

Each of our state organizations has its own website. Here’s the url for the Narional unbrella: www.gopwing.org

Why did the Reagan Revolution wither on the vine after Reagan died and Goldwater became a senile libertarian? Reagan made one mistake of omission: He never groomed a successor.

Newt Gingrich tried to take the reigns, but he’s too much of an academic. He can articulate conservative ideals and strategies to the faithful all day long, but he’s never been able to sell conservatism to moderates, independents and Reagan Democrats. This came naturally to Reagan, the Great Communicator. He never even had to think about it.

There have been others: Brownback, Santorum, Hunter, etc. But each has his flaws, and there’s not a Great Communicator in the lot.

George Allen seemed for a while to be the logical heir to Reagan, but George stepped in his own macacca, and now he’s out of a job and in no position to lay claim to Reagan’s throne. I often wonder what Reagan would have done had he been in Allen’s shoes at the time and place of the macacca flap. I don’t know exactly what he would have said, if he would have said anything at all, but it would have made everyone at the event laugh, including the opposition’s camera guy, and Reagan’s remark would have been considered non-offensive to everyone in America.

That’s the difference between a communicator and a Great Communicator. Many conservatives believe, like me, that Fred Thompson has the potential to be a Great Communicator in the Reagan tradition. Only time will tell. He certainly has all the momentum right now.

Bear in mind that even though more Americans consider themselves conservative than liberal, neither side can win a national election without the swing vote. That all-conservative third party you’re so eager to desert the GOP for, even if it could attract all of the conservatives in America as members (improbable), would still have to convince a sufficient number of moderates, independents and Reagan Democrats to buy what you’re selling to sway a national election. And you, my friend, don’t seem to be able to make a compelling argument for your own case to conservatives. How are you going to convince swing voters?

And why walk away from all that research, all the voter lists, all the financial backers, the organizers, the volunteers who faithfully pound the sidewalks and knock on doors every election? You want to re-invent the wheel. In politics, that’s pure suicidal foolishness. Al Gore didn’t re-invent government; he just played a shell game with the numbers. Government doesn’t need re-inventing. What it needs is to be put on a diet, put inside a security fence, taught not to poop in people’s yards and made to wear a leash and collar. Likewise, the Republican Party doesn’t need to be re-invented. It needs a good flea and tick treatment to get rid of all the parasites that are sapping its strength and making it weaker.

The bottom line is that the Grand Old party is still the best vehicle available for conservatives to get their candidates for all levels of government office elected.

Join the Assembly movement! Take back the GOP and make what the founders, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan worked so hard to build become what it can and should be.

[Man50D]

I have three possible explanations for this insane observation:

1. You do not know what socialism is;

2. You are a DU troll or;

3. You are a Libertarian Party goofball.

You missed the fourth and most obvious possibility. I'm disgusted with the likes of Guiliani, McCain , Specter, Chafee and President Bush pushing the socialist cause by disguising themselves as conservatives.

Making accusations based on mere conjecture and void of any facts is a poor attempt to ignore what has been happening to the Republican party.

[Man50D]

Fact of life: this is a two-party country.

Wrong. Fact of Life: This is a one party country of socialists disguised as two distinct parties simply because they have different party labels. The ideology is becoming increasingly the same.

People have started conservative third parties, and they’ve gone nowhere. Case in point: The Constitution Party.

Conservatives forming their own party would reestablish a two party system. Assuming for arguments sake there is a two party system, it still wouldn't be the first time a third party replaced another. You should know. The Republican party supplanted the Whigs in the late 1850's, proving a third party can become a major force.

Consider the case of Rep. Ron Paul who tried to mount a run for the White House as the Libertarian Party candidate and had to come back to the GOP, where he has been more successful promoting his libertarian agenda and keeps getting re-elected in his Texas Congressional district.

That has had very little impact nationally as we can see with national figures such as Guiliani, McCain, Specter, Chafee and President Bush condoning illegal immigration. Choosing the lesser of two evils does not justify the decision.

I’m a member of The National Federation of Republican Assemblies, an organization made up of movement conservatives working within the GOP to rebuild the Republican Party from the grassroots up.

So let me get this straight. The Republican party has shifted so far to the left(socialism) it considers pushing the conservative ideology a grass root effort? It can only be considered grassroots if the ideology is deemed a minority position. This begs the question how could members of the Republican party shift from conservatism towards socialism over such a long period of time without doing anything to stop it? Thank you for confirming one of my points that conservatives are a minority in the Republican party!

We are organized into state chapters, and we’re having quite an impact at the local and state levels in rebuilding the Republican infrastucture along conservative linees.

You're doing a lousy job in Connecticut. We have a socialist Republican Governor(Jodi Rell) who is for civil unions, recently endorsed during her state of the state address, increasing the state income tax 10% over the next two years all in the name of increased spending on education and more social programs while receiving support from the super majority socialist Demorat controlled state legislature.

We call ourselves “the Republican Wing of the Republican Party.”

By "Republican Wing" I can only infer you mean "Conservative Wing". This is another very disturbing message you are a minority within a party that once was dominated by conservatives.

Why did the Reagan Revolution wither on the vine after Reagan died and Goldwater became a senile libertarian? Reagan made one mistake of omission: He never groomed a successor.

Newt Gingrich tried to take the reigns, but he’s too much of an academic. He can articulate conservative ideals and strategies to the faithful all day long, but he’s never been able to sell conservatism to moderates, independents and Reagan Democrats. This came naturally to Reagan, the Great Communicator. He never even had to think about it.

There have been others: Brownback, Santorum, Hunter, etc. But each has his flaws, and there’s not a Great Communicator in the lot.

George Allen seemed for a while to be the logical heir to Reagan, but George stepped in his own macacca, and now he’s out of a job and in no position to lay claim to Reagan’s throne. I often wonder what Reagan would have done had he been in Allen’s shoes at the time and place of the macacca flap. I don’t know exactly what he would have said, if he would have said anything at all, but it would have made everyone at the event laugh, including the opposition’s camera guy, and Reagan’s remark would have been considered non-offensive to everyone in America.

This only tells me whatever the reason the Republicans could have prevented the party's shift to the left but failed time and time again over decades.

Many conservatives believe, like me, that Fred Thompson has the potential to be a Great Communicator in the Reagan tradition.
Maybe but right now it's ludicrous to think so given he hasn't declared himself a candidate!

That all-conservative third party you’re so eager to desert the GOP for, even if it could attract all of the conservatives in America as members (improbable), would still have to convince a sufficient number of moderates, independents and Reagan Democrats to buy what you’re selling to sway a national election.

There is the misconception the term "moderate" refers to someone who is at least somewhat conservative. That is a farce. These are people who attempt to play both ends against the middle by seeking some common ground with everyone. They have sacrificed their core conservative principles in the attempt to have everyone agree with them. they are not conservatives. Many independents conservatives were so disgusted with the Republican party they either didn't vote in the last election or voted for Demorats. They are desperately looking for a party who will endorse their ideas and they obviously don;t think the Republicans are up to the task. The behavior of the Republican party is convincing them to think outside the box.

And you, my friend, don’t seem to be able to make a compelling argument for your own case to conservatives. How are you going to convince swing voters?

Then you refuse to accept the reality of what I've stated in previous posts. The positions and behavior of Guiliani, McCain, Specter, Chafee and President Bush are convincing people as time passes.

The bottom line is that the Grand Old party is still the best vehicle available for conservatives to get their candidates for all levels of government office elected.

The bottom line is you can't even control the leader of the Republican party(Bush)who is now agreeing the socialists about one of the most important issues, allowing illegal immigrants to flood into this country and thereby jeopardize our safety.

Join the Assembly movement! Take back the GOP and make what the founders, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan worked so hard to build become what it can and should be.

No thanks. If I want to join the socialist movement I'll cozy up to Hillary.

[Liz]

Obviously, I would be a significant asset to the campaign were it not for the fact that I break out in prayer on a daily basis——hum a few bars of “Jesus, Protect the Little Children” every now and then-—and keep a Bible on my desk.

All of that makes Rudy/Judy feel “uncomfortable.”

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Rudy would also like your guns.

Actually, Rudy will subsidize guns for the poor! I can get taxpayers to pay for my new Mossberg. It's in the Constitution you know.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Even if you think the Republican and Democrat parties are both socialist parties, how would this new party do anything but drain voters from the R while not affecting the D?

Because so-called "moderates" aren't going to vote for the socialist Republican half anyway. They'll vote for the Democrat half.

Conservatives aren't going to vote for a liberal Republican. That's simply a fact and I don't care if it does put Hillary in the WH.

[Josh Painter]

Rome wasn’t built in a day, boy. But why don’t you put you money where your mouth is and start your new political party? Call us when you’ve managed to get a conservative elected to office. Any office...

[narses]

I’m pro-choice. I’m pro-gay rights, Giuliani said. He was then asked whether he supports a ban on what critics call partial-birth abortions. “No, I have not supported that, and I don’t see my position on that changing,” he responded. Source: CNN.com, “Inside Politics” Dec 2, 1999 http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Rudy_Giuliani_Abortion.htm

ANDERSON COOPER 360 DEGREES (November 14, 2006)

RUDY GIULIANI (R), FORMER MAYOR OF NEW YORK CITY: I'm pro- choice. I'm pro-gay rights.

KING: Giuliani supports a woman's right to an abortion, and back in 1999, he opposed a federal ban on late-term abortions.

GIULIANI: No, I have not supported that, and I don't see my position on that changing.

KING: Immigration could be another presidential landmine. Back in 1996, Mayor Giuliani went to federal court to challenge new federal laws requiring the city to inform the federal government about illegal immigrants.

JEFFREY: He took the side of illegal immigrants in New York City against the Republican Congress.

KING: Giuliani opposes same-sex marriage but as mayor, he supported civil unions and extending health and other benefits to gay couples. He also supported the assault weapons ban and other gun control measures opposed by the National Rifle Association.

GIULIANI: I'm in favor of gun control. I'm pro-choice.

Republican Big-Wigs Support Pro-Abortion Event in NY

Pro-abortion Governor George Pataki and New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who also supports unrestricted abortion, are co-chairs of the 2000 Choice Award Presentation to be held on May 30 at the St. Regis Hotel in New York City. The event is sponsored by the Republican Pro-Choice Coalition, a group that is campaigning for the removal of the pro-life plank from the Republican National Platform.


http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200503010743.asp

[George W. Bush]

The bottom line is that the Grand Old party is still the best vehicle available for conservatives to get their candidates for all levels of government office elected.

You're right. Third parties don't work unless one of the two existing ones falls to pieces.

[edsheppa]

The "conservative" approach to constitutional law does not authorize the Supreme Court or any other court to rule that abortion is unconstitutional.

That's a woefully incomplete analysis of what the "conservative" position should be on abortion. Private acts like a mother hiring an abortionist to kill her unborn child cannot be unconstitutional - that property can only pertain to government action. What conservatives ought to find unconstitutional is that states are not giving equal protection of their laws to all persons under their jurisdiction as required by the 14th Amendment.

[Victoria Delsoul]

The entertaining part of the whole thing is sitting here on FR and watching so-called "conservatives" make excuses for him.

Really, well I am having a big laugh seeing how you are unable to reply to a couple of questions I asked you last night.

1) Cite the case where federal funding for abortions have been eliminated.

2) Which candidate do you support?