Posted on 05/05/2007 3:06:35 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
When Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani came to the home county of Terri Schiavo last month, he said he supported the controversial effort by Congress to intervene to keep the severely brain-damaged woman alive.
But now it's not so clear where he stands on the Schiavo case.
In a televised presidential debate Thursday night, Giuliani suggested the Schiavo controversy should have been left to the courts.
"The family was in dispute. That's what we have courts for. And the better place to decide that in a much more, I think in a much fairer and even in a deeper way, is in front of a court, " he said at the first GOP presidential debate at the Ronald Reagan library in California.
In April, Giuliani had explained his position this way: Noting that the controversy had been through the court system for years, he said the 2005 congressional intervention, "was appropriate to make every effort to give her a chance to stay alive. ... My general view is, you should do everything you can to keep somebody alive unless they have expressed a strong interest in not having very, very special things done, extraordinary things done."
Giuliani's campaign spokesman, Elliott Bundy, on Friday tried to clarify Giuliani's apparent contradictions on Schiavo: "Last night Mayor Giuliani said that ideally these types of difficult issues are best left up to families and when there are disputes, it is a matter for the courts to decide. As he said in Florida in April, there are sometimes extraordinary circumstances where the intentions of the person in question are not clear. The Schiavo case was one of those very special circumstances."
(Excerpt) Read more at sptimes.com ...
He is a flip=flopper like someone else.
Giuliani's campaign spokesman, Elliott Bundy, on Friday tried to clarify Giuliani's apparent contradictions on ... everything
Hey Rooty, pick a direction. Come on, it won't hurt - much.
(of late his 'people' are getting more air time than he is)
I was really hoping one of those guys the other night would have said something even more forceful. The three points they should hammer home were hardly mentioned. First, that there was no living will and nothing in writing to indicate what Terri wanted. Second, that as long as her parents and family were totally willing to take ALL responsibility for her, there was no reason to kill her. Finally the most important talking point here that almost no one mentions is the inhumanity of starving any human being to death. You face charges for doing that to an animal. If the left tries to make this 2 year old case an issue in the ‘08 campaign, the GOP nominee had better be very clear on these points.
Excellent points.
Also add the sanctity of life. The first tier candidates agreed that Congress had no right to try and stop the state sanctioned murder of Terri. The second tier candidates were adamant that Terri had a right to live. I am much more interested in the second tier, Duncan Hunter, Huckaby, and Tancredo. They have conservative values and are not afraid to stand by their values.
The governor of a state can commute the execution of a convicted murderer, but the media elite say that one swamp judge has the right to take away the life of a brain damaged young woman, simply because the husband wants her dead.
BUMP! BUMP!
life
I would love to see a poll here, which includes only the second tier candidates. I am impressed with most of them, but one of them needs to break out. How about running a poll to see which one has the best chance with Free Republic posters.
It’s a bit disturbing to me that there seems to be more animus here for Giuliani than for Hillary.
I don’t see Giuliani winning over the Republican base in the primaries, which means he’s got little chance of winning the nomination. Yet you folks spend inordinate amounts of time on this guy.
When are people going to realize Giuliani is just a loose cannon and NOT Presidential material...???
He’s a “likable guy”....so was Bill the Zipper.
As I pointed out yesterday, that compass isn't quite right. It needs to point down.Uh, Hillary's not in the Republican primaries. What do you think primaries are for?
I don’t see Giuliani winning over the Republican base in the primaries, which means he’s got little chance of winning the nomination. Yet you folks spend inordinate amounts of time on this guy.
Because people are idiots and they don't know the real story about Rudy. It's up to us to get the word out. People only know of Rudy because of 9/11 and how he cleaned up NYC.
“It’s a bit disturbing to me that there seems to be more animus here for Giuliani than for Hillary.”
That’s because it’s primary campaigning, not general campaigning. There’s a BIG BIG difference. And beyond that, there are many of us whose consciences would never ever allow us to vote for Giuliani. On most positions, Giuliani and Clinton are identical. On a few, he is quite a bit more liberal than she is. That is unacceptable.
JulieAnnie feels very strongly BOTH WAYS on all social issues.
I don’t see Giuliani winning over the Republican base in the primaries, which means he’s got little chance of winning the nomination. Yet you folks spend inordinate amounts of time on this guy.
Two counter-points. First, freepers are quite concerned about preventing a Hillary win. Second, that is one main reason we are so opposed to Rudy - if he were to win the nomination, it would split the GOP similar to what happened in 1992.
And finally, Rudy simply is not suitable to be the standard-bearer for the GOP, for so many reasons that have been posted on FR for the last few months.
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.