CNN:
Giuliani reiterates his support for public funding of abortions.VIDEO:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZe1j4csMq8&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fblog%2Ethevanguard%2Eorg%2Fcategory%2Fchristianity%2F
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.
I'll try again.
I am a Duncan Hunter girl all the way. I just saw what Rudy did in NY and how he stood up to the Left who tried everyday to destroy him. They hated (hate) him.
He turned NYC from a sewer to an actual city and for his trouble the NY press, Al Sharpton and the Leftwing machines called him a racist, Hitler and all the usual names.
I'm a California, Duncan Hunter girl, but I think Rudy is getting a bad rap. I know there are lots of former lefties (like Dennis Miller) who became conservatives because of Rudy and what he was up against.
Sorry, I don’t believe it. I don’t support him for Prez, but I think he’s a good man who never thought he’d run outside of NY.
Giuliani is really gonna look funny hunting ducks. I wonder if we’ll get treated to that type of “sincerity” later this year.
I support a woman's choice too, IE, keep your legs closed or open them. Thats the choice.
After that choice, I support the babies “choice”. If he/she wants to take their life at the age of 21 because his/her mother is so unhappy with them, then so be it.
We are not Muslims, we are responsible for acting out on our own sexual urges. Its called self restraint, and more people would do well to learn it.
yup
CNN:
Giuliani reiterates his support for public funding of abortions.VIDEO:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZe1j4csMq8&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fblog%2Ethevanguard%2Eorg%2Fcategory%2Fchristianity%2F
Put a monocle in his eye and voila! Colonel Klink!
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!
**********************************
I love the fence he built in San Diego , other than that I know little about him but I’d take pres/vp from any of the 3 ,, Hunter/Thompson/Gingrich .. pick any 2
I’m not a “one issue” voter. My base though is “character.” Where do they stand on that issue? Rudy with regards to the issue of abortion states that he “hates abortion.”
One has to ask why he hates it? Why “hate” abortion if the Supreme court said it is OK?
Rudy’s a leader? An issue that has been around since 1973 and he can’t hold a straight developed position on it? When it came to which group to support - he chose BOTH groups. (Pro-life, Pro-Abortion)
Rudy’s position on the partial birth abortion is the tell all to his convictions. We actually should be very appreciative of the doctors of death who performed partial birth abortion. What they have done is opened Pandora’s box of people becoming familiar with what an abortion really is. At the end of the day when politicians had to look with their own eyes and hear with their own ears the description of a “partial birth abortion” I believe they were convicted. They couldn’t live with it on their conscience to support it. Rudy on the other hand supported partial birth abortion as a woman’s “right.” That’s why I believe his soul was purchased by NARAL and Banned Parenthood and he is and always was Pro-abortion.
*************
If Giuliani really cares about the GOP, that's exactly what he will do.
Does anyone believe that he does care?
Cute, how about a name. Remember, we got to beat Mrs. Clinton.
Well, you sure as hell won’t be beating her with a liberal.
Come on, I hate to beg, who do you like?
Before becoming mayor he was above all else a law-enforcer. He enforced the law. He prosecuted the New York mafia and corruption. No abortion cases came before him. He was pro-life before running for Mayor and I believe he banked left at that time.
That's no excuse...it's a reason and I understand it.
The SC judges he most admires are Scalia and Thomas. He's a good man and his enemies are the real sign of who he is.
I appreciate your stand and you are obviously convinced he was pro-life in an earlier stage of his career.
You’re comment about mayors have nothing to do with abortion though is something that everyone should consider when voting someone into office no matter what the political office is! Mayors become congressman, senators or even possibly President. No matter how insignificant the office a person should be questioned on the issues of our time - 2nd Amendment, Abortion, etc.
I am not from New York but the another question I had is if Rudy did go after the mafia and he was so good at it by prosecuting them... it makes me wonder why the mafia didn’t wack him? It’s a rhetorical question.
You’re an idiot.
Really? Who signed the checks?
He's a good man..
Maybe yes and maybe no. It's not just his abortion position that make him a non-starter for me. There's his outright hostilities to the 2nd Amendment, his refusal to follow SCOTUS rulings, his support for 'gay' marriage, just to name a few.
Rudy may be a fine mayor. He may be a hell of a guy.
But he's wholly unsuitable for the Presidency.
He's certainly no conservative.
L
Wow! Was it something I said? That’s the first post that someone has called me that. Congratulations.
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.
