Posted on 05/11/2007 11:17:53 AM PDT by Petronski
HOUSTON -- Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani on Friday urged conservatives to look past his support for abortion rights, arguing that his divergence on the issue should not disqualify him from being the party's GOP nominee.
***snip***
Describing his belief that abortion was "morally wrong," Giuliani said he has opposed it all his life. But he said he believes the decision should ultimately be left to individuals and that their decisions should be respected.
"In a country like ours ... I believe you have to respect their viewpoint and give them a level of choice. I would grant women the right to make that choice," he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
CFR, global warming, McCain-Kennedy immigration, stem cell, gun show loophole, gang of 14. But if it came down to him or Rudy, I'll go with McCain as long as he swears not to pick Lindsey Graham as his running mate.
What a rotten choice if it comes down to those two lemons.
Agreed.
Although I’ve somewhat warmed to McCain, in a world gone mad, maybe just maybe, we a need a president who has done as such.
Emphasis on the word maybe.
It’s Duncan Hunter all the way for me.
Questions to ask Rudy.
"WHY is abortion wrong?"
"Why do you hate abortion?"
Just a suggestion...when I find an AP story on a source that must be excerpted, I go find another source for the AP story so that I can post the whole thing and not have to excerpt it. You can usually go to Google News and find dozens of sites hosting the same AP story and use one of those. That way, we get to read and archive on FR the entire story and we don't give any free traffic to fifth column, anti-American dinosaur MSM sites like the Washington Post.
Here's the full story that is out on the AP wires now:
Giuliani Reaffirms Pro-Choice Stance
Giuliani Reaffirms Support For Abortion Rights, Urges Conservatives To Look Past His Stance(AP) Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani on Friday urged conservatives to look past his support for abortion rights, arguing that his divergence on the issue should not disqualify him from being the party's GOP nominee.
The former New York City mayor has struggled in the last week to explain his personal opposition to terminating pregnancies with his long record of favoring a woman's right to choose. He has defended his positions _ and some say contradictory comments _ on late-term abortion, public funding for abortions and the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.
"Everybody's got to make a choice," Giuliani told about 500 students, faculty and staff crammed into an auditorium at Houston Baptist University. "How important are the differences and how important are the other issues we may agree on."
Giuliani emphasized his conservative credentials on tax cuts, crime and the war in Iraq before clarifying his support for abortion rights, a position he acknowledged was unlikely to be shared by those listening.
Describing his belief that abortion was "morally wrong," Giuliani said he has opposed it all his life. But he said he believes the decision should ultimately be left to individuals and that their decisions should be respected.
"In a country like ours ... I believe you have to respect their viewpoint and give them a level of choice. I would grant women the right to make that choice," he said.
Several students praised Giuliani's speech, but said it was unlikely to make them support his candidacy.
"Overall, I thought it was a great speech," said Erik Mignault, a 25-year-old political science major. "I think it was a good political stance to take. He's sitting right in the middle."
But Mignault and several other students said they were strictly anti-abortion and likely to support a more conservative candidate.
Giuliani's appearance was greeted warmly, and he appeared playful at times, hoisting a child with an "I Love New York" T-shirt and laughing at boos when he spoke of his love for the New York Yankees, the team that this week acquired Houston Astros star pitcher Roger Clemens.
But Giuliani told the audience at the small Christian school that they should support a candidate who could protect America from terrorism and from Democratic assaults on the economy. He acknowledged that abortion was the issue that most divided them.
"I have profound respect for your views," he said. "I have profound respect for your education, and I have profound respect for your religion." But, he said, it is uniquely American to disagree on some political issues while agreeing on many others.
"We understand how to respect each other's differences," he said.
Sarge, you know as well as I do... this guy is full of crap. I was listening to him being interviewed by Laura Ingrahm the other night.... Laura hammared him pretty hard on most of the main issues, especailly abourtion and guns. At the end of the interview.. I said to myself.. ‘there NO way in hell that this guy is getting my vote’.
His choice of words gives away his authoritarian streak. If he truly thought it a right, he would use the word protect. One more reason, besides all the baby killing, to fight against him being nominated.
Furthermore, the use of the word grant also shows more than just a willingness to accept abortion, but to promote it. By saying grant, it’s as if he sees it as a duty to push for abortion.
Then again, I probably just suffer from RDS. I am, after all, just an unprogressive anti-abortion extremist. I just never thought I’d be called that by people who consider themselves Republican and/or conservative.
That’s a good idea.
RDS? Not sure about that one?
I see the linguistic subtleties that you see and I don’t like them. Truly, this has been a form of brainwashing by the left and they’ve been rather successful in having used Hollywood and the media, just as McCarthy warned.
Abortion was sold as individual rights...for the wrong individual.
It doesn’t make sense without an explanation such as yours.
i agree totally. if someone wants to vote for him, knowing he is full on prochoice, that is their business. i resented like anything being lied to that he really HATED abortion and would appoint judges that would overturn Roe. he was trying to walk the fine line and he got called out. now he sinks or swims as the pro-abort that he is.
Rudy Derangement Syndrome, that we must be deranged/mentally ill for not supporting Rudy.
It’s interesting that these same people feigned outrage at being called liberal or left-leaning when they are using the same tired arguments as the left; that we must be mentally inferior to them to not support their leftist candidate. Here’s another tired axiom, “If the shoe fits...”
Giuliani emphasized his conservative credentials on tax cuts, crime and the war in Iraq before clarifying his support for killing babies, a position he acknowledged was unlikely to be shared by those who value life and have a moral compass that's working .
Anyway Rooty, what conservative credentials are you speaking of???
NYC had and still has the highest taxes in the USA. What you did was nothing, meaningless political window dressing. If you were 'series' about cutting taxes you wouldn't have went ballistic about Pataki proposed 25% cut, or whined like a girl over eliminating the commuter tax.So on taxes - you suck. Next question?
Immigration politics have similarly harmed New York. Former mayor Rudolph Giuliani sued all the way up to the Supreme Court to defend the city’s sanctuary policy against a 1996 federal law decreeing that cities could not prohibit their employees from cooperating with the INS. Oh yeah? said Giuliani; just watch me. The INS, he claimed, with what turned out to be grotesque irony, only aims to “terrorize people.” Though he lost in court, he remained defiant to the end. On September 5, 2001, his handpicked charter-revision committee ruled that New York could still require that its employees keep immigration information confidential to preserve trust between immigrants and government. Six days later, several visa-overstayers participated in the most devastating attack on the city and the country in history.BTW Rooty, it was your first Police Chief, Bratton, who was responsible for the new policing techniques, you just took the credit, In addition, at that time crime dropped all across the the USA. What happened in NYC was nothing special.New York conveniently forgot the 1996 federal ban on sanctuary laws until a gang of five Mexicans—four of them illegal—abducted and brutally raped a 42-year-old mother of two near some railroad tracks in Queens. The NYPD had already arrested three of the illegal aliens numerous times for such crimes as assault, attempted robbery, criminal trespass, illegal gun possession, and drug offenses. The department had never notified the INS.
So on 'Crime' - you suck. Next?
As POTUS what would you do that's so special? Get in a B-52 and personally bomb the terrorists?Plus you're a stinking low life DRAFT DODGER. What you did was slimier than what Clinton did. And ya puke, compared to YOU, John Kerry IS a War Hero. You have zero credibility on anything military.
So on 'the war' - you suck. Next?
What's that Rooty? There is 'no next'. Okay, see ya buster.
What the hey, except for stem cell and gang of 14 (which was a compromise to get Alito confirmed), Bush has backed every one them too. And, on stem cells, McCain is only proposing that zygotes (which have not been implanted and therefore not fetal matter) be studied.
Can someone who speaks at the "Champions of Choice" luncheon, donates to Planned Parenthood, accepts campaign donations from NARAL, opposes the PBA ban while running for the Senate, praises Margaret Sanger, and supports federal funding of abortion credibly claim to personally oppose it and feel it's morally wrong?
If he does he certainly has been active in his support of something he opposes and finds immoral.
BTW, where was the talk of "strict constructionists" and "states rights" during today's latest bull session.
Yes. But I was hoping for something better than Bush this time around. Looks like the chances of that are slim.
If I was advising McCain I'd have him only address Gang of 14 when asked directly. Bringing it up on the stump proudly just shows how out of touch he is the right wingers like me.
The strict constructionist thing got old a month ago when he started saying "well they might view it as precedent".
I understand but at the same time I don’t like that some people will sit it out altogether if it’s Rudy.
I’ve given it a lot of thought today in particular. grassroots.org has a ‘straw poll’ going and it made me think more closely.
I honestly think either McCain or Romney may get the nomination, no matter who has said that Rudy is the ‘only electable’ candidate. Dick Morris said McCain and Rudy both have a lot of baggage so maybe it will be Romney. I’d rather Hunter, but at least I know I can vote for Romney.
Rooty will not go lightly...he thinks of himself as the annointed one and will become increasingly bitter as his polls show him losing due to eeevill Conservatives.
He will try to take the republican party down for spite...he is a big danger, just like the Log cabin Repubs...
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.