Posted on 05/05/2007 2:03:28 PM PDT by Reagan Man
SIMI VALLEY, Calif. - Rudy Giuliani got tangled up in the hot-button issue of abortion last night, saying in the first GOP presidential debate it would be "okay" if a woman's right to abortion were overturned - then made several attempts to explain himself.
Giuliani, who was staunchly pro-choice during his eight years as mayor, seemed surprised when asked about the possibility of repealing the 1973 Supreme Court Roe vs. Wade decision that protects a woman's right to choose abortion.
"It would be okay to repeal," Giuliani said, then quickly added, "Or it would be okay also if a strict constructionist judge viewed it as precedent."
Giuliani has said before that he supports the right of states to set their own policies on abortion, but he has never been pressed so pointedly on Roe vs. Wade - and his answers last night left him open to attack from both sides.
The Republican front-runner later tried to clarify his position in two follow-up questions, but his answers are unlikely to please either camp. He said he supported the recent ban on partial birth abortion and a federal ban on using tax dollars for abortions in most cases - both key views among social conservatives. But he then added, "Ultimately, I think when you come down to that choice, you have to respect a woman's right to make that choice differently than my conscience."
What was clear was that Giuliani staked out a position to the left of the other nine Republican hopefuls on the stage. All said that a Supreme Court decision overturning Roe vs. Wade would be a cause for celebration - "a glorious day of human liberty and freedom" according to Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback.
The debate was held at the presidential library of Ronald Reagan, whom to many GOP loyalists has become a symbol of all that President Bush is not - a sunny conservative who moved effectively on the world stage and defeated the Soviet Union.
With his now frail widow Nancy Reagan sitting in the front row of last night's debate, virtually all the candidates paid homage to Reagan - while saying almost nothing nice about Bush.
The debate offered no knock-out punches but certainly did reveal differences in the crowded field.
Three of them - Brownback, Arizona Gov. Mike Huckabee and Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo - raised their hands when Matthews asked who does not believe in the theory of evolution.
Sen. John McCain was the only one to forcefully state that he supported expanded federal research into embryonic stem cell research.
For the most part, all sought to cast themselves as the rightful heir to Reagan with policies supporting a strong national defense, lower taxes and fiscal restraint.
Romney, who was a pro-choice governor of Massachusetts but has since come out against abortion, conceded that he had indeed flip-flopped on the issue. "I changed my mind" - just as Reagan once did, he said.
For many of the lesser-known candidates - who included Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore, California Rep. Duncan Hunter, former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson, and Texas Rep. Ron Paul - it was a rare chance to be seen, and very briefly heard, on issues central to their campaigns.
But most of the attention focused on the three front-runners - Giuliani, Romney, and McCain - who avoided making any direct attacks on one another.
McCain, who has been hurt by his overt support for President Bush's Iraq War "surge" and who lags behind Romney and Giuliani in fund-raising, took pains to distinguish between the Iraq War and Bush's prosecution of it.
"The war was terribly mismanaged and we now have to fix a lot of the mistakes that were made," said McCain in a clear jab at Bush. "\[But\] if we withdraw, there will be chaos there will be genocide and they will follow us home."
As for Osama Bin Laden, McCain added with a grin, "I'll follow him to the gates of hell."
Their rhetoric underscored what has become one of the most fundamental divides in the election: While Democrats last week spent much of their debate vying to establish their anti-war credentials, none of the Republicans said they would support a scheduled pullout from Iraq, and most insisted the fight must go on indefinitely.
Giuliani also appeared to buck his party on the right of foreign born citizens to become President - an issue dear to Austrian-born Arnold Schwarzenegger, whose endorsement is being actively sought by all the front-runners.
“Giuliani also appeared to buck his party on the right of foreign born citizens to become President - an issue dear to Austrian-born Arnold Schwarzenegger, whose endorsement is being actively sought by all the front-runners”
Rudy the “Ho”
2. Rudy's stated position on federal judges is indistinguishable from every past republican candidate and president's position. Every one has said they would appoint strict constructionist judges. Every one has said there is no "litmus test" (appointee is never asked how they might vote on Roe). Every one leaves it up to the judge to decise whether to overturn Roe or to uphold it as existing precedent.
Maybe you think there was a wink and a nod with the republican presidents and they had secret commitments, in which case they were lying and the appointees lied under oath when confirmed. I doubt it.
Bald headed ho!
Rudy is a lifelong liberal.......and you trust him to appoint good judges.......amazing!
LOL!
I don't know if it's true, but I read somewhere today that Rudy thought all of his questions were going to be about how he lowered crime in NY. I did notice almost all of his answers included that fact. He DID seem surprised at the abortion question & was clearly not prepared with a good answer for it. That was mystifying to me.
Out of 100, I'd have to give Rudy about 40 for his debate performance. Truly pathetic - considering so many people think he is "the only one that can win".
I hope it's the beginning of the end for his candidacy.
Rudy has been fairly straightforward on abortion, if you read carefully. He personally believes that legal abortion is sound public policy. However, he will never ask anyone up for a judgeship how he or she would rule on the issue. Furthermore, he believes that the issue should be dealt with in the political system rather than be decided by the courts, a position that is supported by the right to life movement.
I beileve he has said he is personally opposed to abortion and would never have one.
Rudy who? This guy is such a non-starter.
“Sen. John McCain was the only one to forcefully state that he supported expanded federal research into embryonic stem cell research.”
Wrong, Rooty was right there with McCain on that issue.
“While Democrats last week spent much of their debate vying to establish their anti-war credentials, none of the Republicans said they would support a scheduled pullout from Iraq, and most insisted the fight must go on indefinitely.”
Wrong again, Ron Paul.
I've been reading Rooty carefully and his position on abortion has been consistent his entire political career. Since 1989 Rooty has been consistently pro-choice. Rooty has no problem with Roe v Wade, abortion on demand or partial birth abortion. Rooty believes a woman has a constitutional right to kill her unborn child. Even though nowhere in the plain language of the US Constitution does it mention anything about such a right. Roe v Wade came about through "an act of "raw judicial power". This was legislation by judicial fiat. A power not in the Constitutional purview of the Judicial Branch of government.
Stop playing the Left's game with this choice crap. Rudy is more than just pro-abortion. He supports both taxpayer-funded and partial-birth abortions, something that even some Democrats don't support.
2. Rudy's stated position on federal judges is indistinguishable from every past republican candidate and president's position. Every one has said they would appoint strict constructionist judges. Every one has said there is no "litmus test" (appointee is never asked how they might vote on Roe). Every one leaves it up to the judge to decise whether to overturn Roe or to uphold it as existing precedent.
Bull! What exactly does "strict constructionist" means? It means the words in the Constitution can mean anything to the Black Robes. That judges can use Roe vs Wade as precedent.
Rudy deserves neither sympathy nor support from anyone calling themselves conservative.
That answers several questions, all of them biological, none surprising. :)
For the record, I'm personally opposed to murder (even of really small, defenseless people who cannot speak for themselves yet), AND I support strong prohibitions on murder (murder != killing) put in place by the government. It is all part of that pesky libertarian streak I cannot shake off, the one that views life as the most important liberty, and causing the side-effect of viewing as the SOLE purpose of legitimate government to help protect our individual liberties.
This statement is not consistant with a strict constructionist veiwpoint. Since the Constitution doesn't give women the right to have an abortion a strict construtionist would have to vote to overturn Roe. Rudy is NOT going to appoint strict constructionist judges to the Supreme Court.
**************
Amen!
Ruling by precedent, while offering short-term continuity and predictability in law, also has the nasty problem of creating catastrophic legal messes - for example, by overruling a long-held precedent, all cases which had been decided upon primarily by invoking that precedent will be void, and must return to court.
Rudy does not even have a rudimentary understanding of the Constitution (I assume most lawmakers do, and simply find it convenient/politically expedient to develop new and exciting ways to defecate on the Constitution every day!), and thinks Ginsberg is a great judge.
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.