Posted on 05/07/2007 9:59:44 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
Rudy Giuliani is supposed to be the candidate of authenticity, the tough-talking former New York City mayor who sticks to his beliefs no matter what. But he is repeating a line that is so flagrantly insincere, it makes any of Hillary Clinton's canned talking points seem free and natural by comparison.
Giuliani claims he "hates abortion." Oddly, this hatred didn't manifest itself until Giuliani realized he had to have something to say to pro-lifers besides that he supported abortion on demand in any circumstance.
Giuliani has been pounded by pundits for his answers on abortion at the first GOP debate. But he didn't commit a gaffe. He only suffered from the contradictions of a position that appears to be the product of poorly thought-out political calculation.
The Giuliani camp figured he couldn't abandon his pro-choice position when running for president. His political appeal is based on his strength, so he can't be seen as wavering on so fundamental an issue. Besides, he already had changed his position once before -- when first running for New York City mayor in 1989 -- from pro-life to pro-choice.
A funny thing happened, however, to Giuliani's strength of conviction on the way to the Republican primaries. He has moved right on the Second Amendment, on civil unions for gays and on partial-birth abortion. It seems that he is willing to bend on everything, except that which is most important to social conservatives -- the right to abortion itself.
Instead, he has crafted an exquisite muddle. He reaches out to anti-abortion Republicans by saying that he would appoint "strict constructionist" judges, widely construed as code for judges who would oppose Roe v. Wade. At the same time, Giuliani casts doubt on his own constitutional judgment by refusing to say that Roe is wrongly decided. Even liberal legal eminences like Lawrence Tribe and Cass Sunstein say Roe is constitutionally dubious, but Giuliani, the strict constructionist, won't go there.
He likes to say that the constitutionality of Roe is up to judges to decide. This is a transparent dodge. It also plays into one of the profoundest defects of our political culture, which is overly deferential office-holders allowing judges to occupy an outsized place in our public life.
Giuliani should abhor Roe since it tramples the constitutional virtue that he has been trumpeting lately, federalism. He explains his new tune on gun control by saying it should be up to states to decide their gun laws. But Roe prevents states from passing any meaningful restrictions on abortion.
Giuliani apparently thinks that saying he hates abortion is enough. But pro-lifers will want to know why he hates abortion. Because it's taken the lives of 48 million unborn babies since Roe? Giuliani's "hate" line rings so false because temperamentally he is not one to hate something without outlawing or attempting to discourage it.
So far what Rudy has most effectively communicated is his distaste for people who actually hate abortion. He says pro-lifers want to throw women in jail, the canard that pro-choicers always throw at them, and he has implied that pro-lifers hurt the GOP.
Giuliani can upgrade his position by pronouncing Roe a constitutional monstrosity. Is opposing Roe and being pro-choice too confusing? Giuliani can give everyone a basic lesson in self-government -- you can hold a position without insisting that the Supreme Court mandate it. He should vow to veto any expanded funding of abortion. And in keeping with his (supposed) hatred of abortion, he should make it clear that he values the work of anti-abortion activists and understands why they would vote to prohibit abortion in a post-Roe world, even if he would vote the other way.
This would make Giuliani as acceptable as a pro-choicer is going to get to social conservatives. His position would still be a contrivance, but at least it would be a coherent and shrewd one. The alternative might be watching his campaign founder on an issue about which he cares very little.
Lost for words, yes, I’ll go with vile for now.
B/S and more B/S.
Well stated!
“Selfish women choose to have abortions. Selfish men believe it should be a woman’s choice thereby absolving them of any responsibility. I know men who believe this. I consider them cowards”
Have you looked into Duncan Hunter at all? For my money, he is the strongest military minded candidate and would make a far better Commander in Chief than Rudy Giulianni. And he is pro-life!
Mr Jim, who DO you like (they must be able to beat whatshername)?
: )
I don’t think or believe or feel abortion is a woman’s choice. Abortion, murder of unborn babies, shouldn’t be a choice, a woman’s choice or anyone’s choice. There’s the whole no valuing of life, imo, and that’s ok. And not ok with me.
Why is abortion just a woman’s choice? Does the man, the father who participated in the conception, not matter? According to NOW and Planned Parenthood, the only person who matters is the woman cos it’s her body and all that.
Guiliani supports the ludicrous claim of a woman’s right to choose to murder an innocent baby. Many politicians go this way, claiming it’s about a woman’s right to have that choice. I don’t think or believe murdering babies should be a choice. It’s murder regardless. But we don’t value children and it’s showing.
If Rudy gets the GOP nom, I’ll vote for him, and I do like a few things he stands for, like a few of his positions. I’m still hoping for an anti-abortion/pro life candidate.
A conservative of course. Liberals need not apply.
Interesting choice of wording. Unfortunately, abortion is not an idea. It’s an act and it’s murder, and thanks to the pro-choice mindset and liberal infested Justice system, now a protected right.
You don’t deserve Liberty or the Pursuit of Happiness.
I got tripped up on the pro-choice sentiment. Had to clear my focus...
When a man supports opposition to the ban on Partial Birth Abortion: HE IS PRO CHOICE!
Thank you!
To liberals murder is a choice.
Possibly, but Rudy hates abortion so much he wants to subsidize it with tax dollars.
Exactly. And so typical of liberal thinking. It’s not me, so sure, kill him/her...tax more spend more, hey, it’s not our money. Open the borders, we’ll just tax the citizenry to foot the bill, because, hey, it’s not our money. Tax refunds, no way...this is OUR money!
I really have a strong distain for Liberals, since as early as I can remember as a kid I actually understood the conservative vs. liberal mindset.
“I really have a strong distain for Liberals, since as early as I can remember as a kid I actually understood the conservative vs. liberal mindset.”
I found National Review in the library when I was 14. Thirty nine years ago. Been a conservative ever since.
I was just thinking of you! I admit to logging on here, virtuallly everyday, without thinking "Jim Robinson", much at all. Then here, top of the list upon log-on, is an article brought here by you! Right as I'd just been having little' 'ol you, in the forefront of my thoughts, while trodding up the stairs to the electronic machine that connect me with the world beyond the puny little "Goldilocks Zone", not-too-hot, not-too-cold, sleepy-little-drinking-town with a fishing problem I call home.
Though I cannot say that the issue discussed here in the article you have posted is generally in the forefront of my own day-to-day thoughts, neither are you, yourself, except for at this moment. Why is that?
I am otherwise so flooded by various thoughts and emotion concerning the subject matter of this article you have forwarded here, I cannot bring positive comment, except, 'I was just thinking about you'.
Agreed.
If I may toss some of my own thoughts out here: Even if one is “pro-choice” (I will NOT be stating my own beliefs on the matter here), there are many other reasons why one should not support Rudy. Here are some.
Rudy has a long long track record of:
1. Denying the right to keep and bear arms. This alone should disqualify the man, because this is the right that ensures all the other.
2. Denying other civil rights - because of his gun-phobia, Rudy turned to questionable means to clean up crime in New York. Sure, crime went down, but he trampled a lot of innocent people in the process.
3. Erratic private behavior. “The Mayor In Drag” and his very strange gyrations in his personal life should be all I have to mention.
It is certainly possible that this man could have had a conversion on the road to Damascus, but I’m really skeptical. In no case should he be seriously considered for high office by anyone with a brain.
Rudy’s “integrity” is a ruse. He’s compromised and shifted with the winds the way many, or even most big-city politicians do. Now he’s trying to sell conservatives a bill of goods. He only agrees with us on a few things but says we can trust him to deliver on those things because “he is what he is” and he “tells it like it is”. Well, the fact is we don’t know entirely what he is and he’s telling us all kinds of contradictory things that are inconsistent with his past actions. I say “no sale”.
Nope. Hating abortion, hating murder of innocent babies, doesn’t coincide with being pro choice. A person can hate abortion and still be pro choice, means they’re not pro life, means they’re pro murdering innocent babies cos it’s convenient. A person cannot hate abortions, or care very much that abortion is legalized murder, and still be pro choice. The whole pro choice thing is nonsense, legally, socially and religiously.
So it’s ok for me to be “murdering whomever I please if it’s a choice issue” and if it benefits me in some way, cos it is my choice if it’s a baby, but say it’s an adult. I can hate killing that adult or hate others killing that adult but since I’m pro-choice (ooops, that whole pro choice thing only applies to unborn babies who don’t have a say in the matter) it makes it my choice, since I’m a female and we all know males have no say whatsoever despite they contributed to the life being murdered.
No, a person can’t hate abortion and still be pro choice. It ain’t a matter of choice, life is not a matter of choice. The value of life is not a choice issue. It’s not about a woman’s right to her body or her right to choose but it’s become that. Until we understand that abortion is murder and has nothing to do with women’s issues or women’s rights, and about common decency - hell, we care more about animals than we do about humans- we won’t understand that abortion is murder and murdering of innocents is never ok regardless of how they came to be.
Abortion is murder, state sponsored and tax payer funded murder. NOW and especially Planned Parenthood is a lucrative, profit making business - nothing to do with rights, planned parenthood is a money manking machine. It’s a huge corporation and it’s bringing in the bucks or it wouldn’t be so successful and financially secure.
And stupid people still don’t see it for what it is. It’s all about a woman’s choice and her body and all that. We don’t value the human life of a baby so it’s no surpise we don’t value human life or the tenets that make living bearable. But we value monkeys, and polar bears, and other animal life, but heaven forbid we value human life, unborn babies - we should be shot. They’re just embryos or masses of nothing - or when science can save them, those nonhuman masses of something, is it a plant or an animal?, we cheer as long as its a life wanted. But it’s not a life or a viable life should the mother (?) deem it necessary to kill it. Cos it’s a woman’s choice or choice. The same people who claim it’s a woman’s choice to literally kill the human inside them fight for the trendy animal to save or something the human killing environment is trying to save. Makes no sense to me but then again I’m not a liberal know it all who wants the working people to sacrifice while I continue to break all the rules of the enviro friendly world. It’s a do as I deem necessary but not as I live nonense.
I hate abortion. It’s never right to kill/murder innocents even if it’s legal. Even if it’s a woman’s choice, cos we all know it’s the only damn thing woman have control over, rme.
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.