Posted on 04/07/2007 5:02:56 AM PDT by 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?
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
You asked me these questions last night?
And read this, too.
And assuming that you didn't notice them last night, you had the chance today to reply to my post above. Let's try one more time:
1) Cite the case where federal funding for abortions has been eliminated.
2)Which candidate do you support?
I'm going out so I won't see you answer until tomorrow, or should I say... not anytime sooner?
You are right. I looked it up in the Constitution, and it is a couple of paragraphs under the right for some bimbo to abort an 8 month old unborn child.
As for your second question . . .
Who do you support, AC? Please, tell us who is your choice. I'm not taking anything less than a name, not... "I wish a true conservative comes along," or some ambiguous statement like that.
Why do you insist that I have to openly support a person right now? I don't cast my lot with a "person" -- I vote based on principle. And any candidate who doesn't meet my standards doesn't get my vote . . . it's really that simple.
Having said that, I would point out that almost every other Republican candidate is more acceptable to me than Rudy Giuliani. If the Republican primary in my state were held tomorrow and I was able to vote in it, I would probably cast my vote (among candidates who are more or less "real" candidates with campaigns in place) for Sam Brownback. Tancredo and Hunter would likely be my second and third choices, but this is not a complete list of those candidates who I would find politically/philosophically acceptable.
Well, you said that Rudy isn't doing anything to curtail federal funding. So I posted that no GOP president since Hyde Amendment passed in 1977 has sought to change it, and subsequently I asked you to cite the case where federal funding for abortions was eliminated. The fact that federal funding was never eliminated and has been in place since 1977 is proof that Rudy isn't the one creating a problem, but simply following the lead of 18 years of GOP presidential watch.
Why do you insist that I have to openly support a person right now? I don't cast my lot with a "person" -- I vote based on principle. And any candidate who doesn't meet my standards doesn't get my vote . . . it's really that simple.
That pretty much reminds me someone saying, “we don't vote for a candidate just so he can win, we vote issues not people.” All I can say to that is that politics goes beyond ideology and pragmatism and reality is central.
I would probably cast my vote (among candidates who are more or less "real" candidates with campaigns in place) for Sam Brownback. Tancredo and Hunter would likely be my second and third choices, but this is not a complete list of those candidates who I would find politically/philosophically acceptable.
Thanks. See, that wasn't difficult. :-)
Get a new one. I’ve seen that one about 100 times before.
And you still embrace the gun-grabber? Wow.
Embrace is a strong word. I just don’t believe your spin, sorry.
The republican party is not GOING to split its already split.. into smithereens.. Bush did it or started it with the immigration fiasco.. Sandy Berger.. and a hundred other things.. The tax cuts just threw a bone to the base.. Tha base is starting to get it.. Consider.. that there is no longer any organized right wing, evident.. They are hiding or watching..
Something is happening I don't know what it is..
Civil War war brewing maybe.. Many, like me, have about had it with the republican party.. we are just treading water.. The boats done overturned and on its back.. makeing funny sounds from the boiler room..
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.