Why Rudy is Striking Out (Excellent editorial on the demise of Rudy's candidacy)

Townhall.com ^ | May 13, 2007 | Kevin McCullough

[dschapin]

Why Rudy is Striking Out... By Kevin McCullough Sunday, May 13, 2007

Mayor Rudy Giuliani intended to use the chance to address students and faculty at Houston Baptist University on Friday to boost his image and clarify his position - particularly on abortion. He also hoped to energize what is beginning to look like a campaign that is in complete meltdown.

Republican presidential hopeful and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani speaks to over 800 people gathered for a breakfast sponsored by The Tuscaloosa County Republican Party Wednesday, May 9 2007 at the Bryant Conference Center in Tuscaloosa, Ala. He failed on every level.

Coming out of the first Presidential Candidate debate he was established as the clear loser in many respects. His mumbling, stumbling, bumbling and shrugging of the shoulders on the simple question put to him on the issue of Roe v. Wade truly isolated him from the rest of the field.

He is also bending believability.

In his address at HBU on Friday he took more time than I had heard him use in the past to describe the "two pillars" of his thinking on the matter.

The first pillar is his supposed personal belief that abortion is "deeply, profoundly, and always morally wrong." He belabored the point by emphasizing that if he were to counsel someone personally, that he would always advise them against abortion and would encourage them to have the baby. Once born, if they were unable to care for it, he would encourage them to consider the adoption option.

His second pillar was his belief that our society "must always grant the woman" the "right to make the choice". He didn't really elaborate on the specifics of what they would be choosing, but we are to assume that the choices are somewhere between the "always morally right" decision to have a child, or the "always immoral" decision to kill one.

The Mayor continued by addressing the issue of partial birth abortion. He added that he felt it should have been kept legal to protect the life and health of the mother. Interestingly enough the American Medical Association has denounced this method of ever being medically necessary to "save a woman's life." And the word "health" could be interpreted as lightly as "mental health" which could be interpreted as lightly as "I just don't FEEL like having this baby" which you then realize is in fact a term that means nothing.

Giuliani also seemed to imply that he opposed federal funding for abortion as part of his "giving the woman the option."

He then pledge to work to limit abortions, put restrictions on them, and for added good measure he bragged that adoptions went up under his administration in New York by some 130%.

The problem was the entire pretense of Giuliani's position on abortion is a sham, at least the side of viewing it as "always morally wrong." Moments before he was to give the address in Houston, Fox News Channel's Carl Cameron did a cut-in with an exclusive discovery. Cameron had uncovered a National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) Survey that Giuliani had filed with them in running for office back in 1997. In the Mayor's own handwriting exists the proof that Giuliani opposed parental notification, and any limits on the always unnecessary procedure of partial-birth abortions. He also advocated more federal funding for abortions. He has also given multiple donations to the racist genocidal organization that was founded upon the desire of eliminating blacks - Planned Parenthood.

Discerning people don't even need the evidence of a NARAL survey to see through Giuliani's ineptitude on moral issues. His stated "pillars" tell us everything we need to know.

With the discovery last week that gender can now be identified in the unborn child only six weeks after conception, coupled with the increasing abilities to see a child survive to a healthy life outside the womb, earlier and earlier in the pregnancy, the issue of personhood continues to be Giuliani's downfall.

Since he was in Houston, let's use a local example.

Many remember Andrea Yates who systematically drowned her five children in her own bathtub. Certainly Mayor Giuliani would share our horror and condemn such actions as "always morally wrong." Surely he would have - had he been given the chance - to counsel Andrea to not go through with such a procedure. He would have attempted to convince her that it would be better for the child, and for her to give those children up for adoption. There is no doubt in my mind that he would have even called for police intervention had he been able to divine ahead of time her intent to murder her children.

But by using the Mayor's own logic and his "other pillar of thinking" he would have felt that it would have been equally important to "give her the option, to make the choice" to carry out her plan.

This is where Rudy's logic is so flawed that it defies explanation. And it is this confusion in the arena of moral clarity that calls into question his ability to be morally clear in his governing skills.

The problem with his two pillars is that even Rudy Giuliani doesn't fully believe them both. It is also obvious from his record which of the "two pillars" he believes, and which one he is now giving lip service to.

If he wished to disprove this and in fact attract genuine pro-life voters let me propose a specific tactic for his campaign. In his discussion of "compromise" and the need to hold to his "two pillars" how about this:

Propose sweeping legislation to ban all abortions with the exceptions of rape, incest, and the mother's life.

This compromise would eliminate roughly 98% of all abortions performed, and even though we truly pro-life types would still work to ban the remaining 2%, it would allow the "needed exceptions" that the Mayor espouses are "so important."

Rudy Giuliani is the most full throated pro-abortion Republican candidate for President in history. In all transparency he must be acknowledged as such.

Rudy's poll numbers are sagging in Iowa and New Hampshire, and without radical change in his thinking those trends will hold, and somewhere around South Carolina the Mighty Mayor will strike out.

[dschapin]

I was excited to find this new editorial on Tohnhall which is basically saying that Rudy's candidacy is now dead on arrival. Hopefully, more and more articles like this will be written and Giuliani's campaign will lose any claim to frontrunner status.

[Calpernia]

Of course it is an excellent editorial! It is from Kevin McCullough!

Bump!

[Calpernia]

The demise of Rudy, bump.

[Calpernia]

prolife ping

[NittanyLion]

Rudy and his handlers had to know that abortion and gun control will be his biggest hurdles to clear if he is to win the GOP nomination. The fact that his answers on abortion have been so muddled boggles my mind. He had months to come up with clear and concise answers; what was he doing all that time?

As I see it, he must be either hopelessly out of touch with everything west of the East River, arrogant, stupid, or all of the above.

[don-o]

Agree. I have to think that he is gambling that he can win w/o pro lifers. So, his defense does not even matter. He's reaching out here.

I always have said it's not going to work.

[Christian4Bush]

bump

[Jim Robinson]

Dump him!

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

Where are all the rooty supporters? This place used to be over run with ‘em. The elite are just crazy to think they will gain any ground without the conservative base.Northeast nonsense.

[TomGuy]

clarify his position

Most candidates who are all over the map on their positions do the 're-inventing' [ala Kerry] and 're-introducing' [ala Gore] between the nomination and general election.

Rudy, and a few others (both parties) have already had to clarify their positions. Some are flipflopping around like a flounder on dry land.

Rudy is finding himself facing a new phenomena he had not previously had to face: The Internet and the availability of historical and immediate information.

The debate this week could start whittling down the field of wannabes.

[don-o]

This place used to be over run with ‘em.

I think they got a ride on a ufo.

[APFel]

Where are all the rooty supporters?

They didn't like reading the truth here so they either left or self immolated (some even begged to be banned).

I don't miss them in the slightest. Rudy is a poison candidate and I loathe to think of the damage he would do to conservatism if he gained the White House.

APf

[TomGuy]

frontrunner status

So who do you prefer as frontrunner?

Giuliani who abhors the Second Amendment or McCain who abhors the First Amendment?

What a choice. Select one of those and you determine which Amendment right you choose to lose.

[Thank goodness, it is still a long way to the first actual voting primaries. The upper tier pushed for years by the MSM may not even be on stage by the end of this year.]

[TomGuy]

Kerry thought his ‘I fought in Vietnam’ would carry him to the White House.

Giuliani though his mayoral actions associated with the 9-11-01 attacks would carry him to the White House.

That shows that both are out of touch with the voters.

Giuliani’s liberal positions will not play well in fly-over country. As some have stated, in a match-up, he makes Hillary Clinton seem conservative.

[TomGuy]

Where are all the rooty supporters? This place used to be over run with ‘em.

Yeh. I used to get skewered every time I asked: Why did Giuliani really drop out of the Senate race against Hillary? Kerry had the same health situation just months before he managed to run for the presidency.


[Had Giuliani run and won that Senate seat, Hillary would be nothing more than a footnote in history alongside Geraldine Ferraro. One could say that Giuliani's dropping out of the race actually created politician Hillary.]

[Condor51]

His second pillar was his belief that our society "must always grant the woman" the "right to make the choice".

Ergo, everything Rooty has said about appointing 'strict constructionist judges' was a load of .... 'hooey'. As he surely wouldn't take a chance that one of his judges would tear down one of his pillars. It also means Rooty was lying through his teeth in the debate when he said it would be okay with him if SCOTUS overturned Roe.

On the other hand it also means he was 'series' as a heart attack when he praised Ruth Buzzy Ginsburg.

Rudy, you're a Mutt.
Go home and get your shine box.

[sittnick]

Yeh. I used to get skewered every time I asked: Why did Giuliani really drop out of the Senate race against Hillary? Kerry had the same health situation just months before he managed to run for the presidency.

An important point. Thanks to Giuliani running and then dropping out (largely over his weird marital situation, which at the time was too weird for New York State), are one chance to dispatch the infant Damiené was wasted. Lazio was a weak candidate who ran a weaker campaign.

Now what other Democrat senatorial campaign turned out to be a cakewalk because of a candidate's late withdrawal over scandal? Answer: Barack Obama was the beneficiary of Jack Ryan's very late withdrawal due to a very high profile scandal that marred his squeaky clean image. So, the two Dem front-runners both got their positions due (at least in part) to Republican self-destruction.

[Candor7]

His second pillar was his belief that our society "must always grant the woman" the "right to make the choice". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No one needs Roe vs Wade for that.

People seem to never mention that the medical technology of birth control medication and devices is so advanced IN FACT, that the abortion issue itself is simply a red herring now politically, socially and economically

Abortion should be outlawed unless performed pursuant to a court order in the most extreme circumstances ( multiple embryos with in vitro insemination, rape pregnancy, incest pregnancy)

Women (and men now)do have birth control choices, ante coitus.

I do not know why anti-abortion candidates do not make that point over and over.

Choice is a scientific fact.

[ops33]

I have heard the phrase “...rape, incest, and to save the mother’s life...” many times. The first two I understand. Could someone with medical knowledge explain to me what conditions require an abortion to save a mother’s life?

[Carry_Okie]

coupled with the increasing abilities to see a child survive to a healthy life outside the womb, earlier and earlier in the pregnancy,

Inasmuch as I oppose abortion, many low birth-weight babies have consequent health problems all through life. There is also indication that many have mental difficulties as well, possibly resulting from the pain of the many procedures they must undergo while in the NICU. My wife is currently researching procedures to mitigate that latter difficulty.