Giuliani Rattled, Cancels Remarks as Pro-lifers Disrupt Sunday Bus Tour Stop

Christian Newswire ^ | 1/13/08 | Christian Newswire

[wagglebee]

"A third of my generation is dead because of politicians like Giuliani." -- Steven Pokorny, age 28, at Giuliani during meeting in Miami, Sunday, Jan. 13

Contact: Joseph Landry, 406-860-9738; Steven Pokorny, 216-346-9765; Randall Terry, 904-461-0834; all with The "Stop Rudy" Tour

MIAMI, Jan. 13 /Christian Newswire/ -- Rudy Giuliani was rattled by pro-life advocates and canceled his speech at his first bus-tour event Sunday in Miami.  Activists have planned confrontations with Rudy for every stop of his Florida bus tour.  Photos available online.

On Sunday, Jan. 13, at approximately 12:15 PM, pro-life activists were in the crowd at The Green Street Cafe (located at 3110 Commodor Plaza, Coconut Grove Florida, just outside Miami) waiting for Giuliani to begin his Florida Bus Tour.

When Rudy Giuliani arrived, Joseph Landry (age 26) was within 5 feet of the candidate, and began yelling: You are a baby killer! You are a baby killer! Florida is pro-life! Rudy wants public funding for abortion!"  See news report. Law enforcement officials immediately escorted Mr. Landry from the area, while Mr. Landry continued his monologue.

Within Minutes, Steven Pokorny, age 28, stood to his feet and cried out, "A third of my generation is dead because of politicians like Giuliani! Giuliani wants to kill children and have you pay for it!" Law enforcement did not stop Mr. Pokorny.

At that point, Giuliani left the building, without addressing the crowd.

Mr. Pokorny was able to follow Mr. Giuliani for more than a minute, yelling out about Rudy's pro-choice, pro-homosexual agenda. Again, Mr. Pokorny was not interrupted by police.

Giuliani officials had no idea how many pro-lifers were in the crowd, and how many more times Giuliani would be confronted. This might explain why Mr. Giuliani did not make any remarks - and left the meeting without addressing supporters.

Pro-lifers have scheduled confrontations with Rudy on every stop of his Florida Bus tour.

Video footage of the confrontations with Rudy is available upon request.

[fightinJAG]

Unfortunately for those who intended otherwise, I think Rudy will probably come up smelling like a rose on this one.

Far from “fleeing,” the word will go out that there was a “crazy” in the audience that constituted a security threat. Further, Rudy will be seen as a hero to those who distrust the “religous right” for, in effect, saying “screw you” to the protesters and refusing to give them a platform for national media. Moreover, the Left as well as Rudy’s campaign will use this for fundraising (just like Hildy is using the “iron my shirt” protesters), and Rudy’s supporters, who generally are not social conservatives, will be more enthused than ever.

And any independents who were looking for a WOT guy but wondered about the Republican party will view this incident as Rudy bolding “calling BS” on these dudes and then they, the independents, will start giving him another look.

And not one baby was saved.

It’s all not good.

[fightinJAG]

My teenager argues like this:

You state a principle using a hypothetical fact situation and he comes back with an objection that the facts were not accurate.

You asked me if I agreed or disagreed with K’s assertion that rallies could not be “interrupted.”

That is simply an assertion of what the law is. It has nothing to do with whether any particular rally (i.e., this one involving Rudy) was interrupted. So it was not relevant for you to “come-back” with the fact that the particular rally was not (or was) interrupted.

We are talking solely about whether the law allows protestors to interrupt rallies. Got it?

Now as for your factual point about whether there was or was not an interruption, you seem to think there was not. But at least one protester was hauled off. So that tells me that the police believed that the protester’s conduct constituted an interruption such that hauling him off was warranted.

Maybe we don’t agree with the police on that, but the law says if a rally is being interrupted (probably “disrupted” is a better term to use), the police can haul the protester off. They hauled him off so, at least in their minds, they had sufficient grounds to determine that he was disruptive, a security risk or whatever.

I’m not saying the police are always right on this. I’m just saying if they hauled him off, it’s because they thought they could convince someone they were right in doing so.

So it’s not relevant whether you or I think they didn’t have grounds. And you didn’t ask me that. You asked me whether the law allows rallies to be interrupted/disrupted and I replied that no, it does not. And therefore K was correct.

I respect your opinion on the effectiveness of the protest.

[Syncro]

For most of your post, well we will see.

But I don't believe your projected scenerio at all.

Most of it is pretty farfetched, expecially the part about the independents. I think it will make them think he is a weenie.

Coulter called Edwards on exploiting his deceased son (over and over again and then he lied about it) and Edwards used it to raise money.

It sure helped him huh?

Now:

"And not one baby was saved."

You don't know that. Does saying that make you feel better about your position?

[calcowgirl]

You asked me if I agreed or disagreed with K’s assertion that rallies could not be “interrupted.”

Nope. That isn't what I asked. More below.

We are talking solely about whether the law allows protestors to interrupt rallies. Got it?

Let me try to clarify why we aren't communicating. You are the one that focused in on this "interrupt" concept. I didn't. That was not my focus, nor was it what "we were talking solely about."

One more time, I must quote KeithCU's statement:

The first amendment gives you the right to stand in line and ask a question, but not to interrupt!!

In reading that sentence, the word "interrupt" generated the mildest of my reactions. The whole sentence, particularly that one only has the right to "stand in line and ask a question" was just another reminder of the efforts of many to stifle free speech and to mute all opposition. While there are legitimate limits on free speech (e.g. fire in the theater), nowhere is it written that we must be polite when expressing our opinions in public. No one has to stand in line. The form of our speech does not need to be in the form of a question. (One can argue the effectiveness of various approaches--but effectiveness was not the message of KeithCu's post.)

Bottom line: I found KeithCu's post really, really offensive that he believed that someone at a rally did not have the right to speak out in opposition to a candidate or to cite that candidates position on issues -- that instead they only had a right to ask a question and only after standing in line. That was just ridiculous and contrary to the freedoms we all enjoy. Nicmarlo seemed to be reacting to the same thing in his posts which struck me as right on the mark.

I would have reacted the same way if the activists were rallying on immigration issues, gun rights, or any host of issues. It was the implication that these folks did not have the right to speak out as they did that I reacted to.

Now, if anywhere in any of these reports had they cited that Giuliani attempted to speak and was actually interrupted to the point of not being able to deliver his message, I would have understood someone being removed. But, again, that was NOT reported and that is NOT what KeithCu said. Keith took exception to those people speaking out AT ALL. And that was flat out WRONG, IMO.

As you can see, I feel pretty strongly about this issue. The capitalization of letters is not intended to be screaming at you but just to emphasize that we shouldn't allow politicians of any stripe to go unchallenged. I hope that clarifies a few things for you. Sorry it took 400 posts to get to this point.

[calcowgirl]

Now that makes sense. Thanks

I was just guessing. It's impossible to know what the real reaction or effect was without being there to witness it and/or talking to the people in attendence.

I think Rudy should have stuck around for his event.

Me too. I'd like to see (audience controlled) townhall meetings abolished. Let's see how the candidates deal with people and issues out in the real world.

[endovalve]

This is a good thing - he’s sucking votes away from Romney (I’m sorry, I don’t believe his ‘conversion’ story for a second).

[Recovering_Democrat]

Okay, I understand and appreciate what you've noted. But Kate's report did not indicate Reagan was pro-choice or pro-abortion. He did, though, change his position on abortion. He went from believing in an exception, I guess, to limiting those exceptions.

I really don't think that is in question, and that is what I said.

My opinion is there is enough room in the Republican party for people to change on abortion. My spouse is an example....went from a pro-choice R to a pro-life R. No hypocrisy there.

Romney did change his attitude toward abortion while he was governor of Massachusetts--see how he ticked off the NARAL crowd?

[SeaHawkFan]

Why aren't these people harassing Clinton and Barry?

I think it is safe to assume that they will after one of them is nominated.

[nicmarlo]

You are a broken record. When are you going to quit repeating how it is someone’s right to make an arse out of themselves and tell us your view on the real issue upon which people can disagee: whether today’s protests were an effective making of an arse out of oneself.

Sorry, but you are. See Calcowgirl's response at #504. It states exactly what I have been repeating to your broken record.

[nicmarlo]

it is also my right to decide whether or not I want to support them by purchasing their products. Well, hallelujah! That's ALL that we've been saying here.

Um, no it is not. See Calcowgirl's response at #504. It states exactly what I have been repeating to your continued attempts to make it all about "the effects" of what someone says.

[nicmarlo]

I’ve been eagerly awaiting your answer to Balding Eagle’s question. Could you give a direct answer on that, please?

Um, no. He's been answered, directly. And my position has been reiterated, ad nauseum. See Calcowgirl's post at #504 if you still need further clarification.

[nicmarlo]

Nic: I think your misrepresentations throughout this thread are more obnoxious than the occasional words typed in all caps which you claim is “yelling.”

You: Well, to each his own!

Whatever. As for the rest of your comments in the post: you're beyond ridiculous.

[prairiebreeze]

I don’t believe I ever posted nor inferred this would be a “big victory for the pro-life movement”. There are always concerns that actions will be misrepresented.

But Giuliani stiffing the entire crowd is the real story here, IMO.

[nicmarlo]

Where you got off track was in assuming my comment on "let's evaluate whether this was helpful" was a defense of whatever it was K.

No, that's where YOU got off the track, as I was responding to KeithCU's comment and it is YOU who decided to take it elsewhere. As I said numerous times, your commentary is NOT what was the point, rather, it was KeithCU's intimation that others should be POLITELY listening, or standing in line to ask questions, not interrupting. See Calcowgirl's response #504 for additional clarification on that.

[nicmarlo]

You sincerely think it’s appropriate to take a phrase from 9/11, “let’s roll,” and use it to “give a whole new meaning” to Tiannamen Square? Wow.

Balding Eagle: How are you different than Code Pink?

Wagglebee: Would you have America adopt the same policies that the Chicoms did at Tienanmen Square?

Me: That would give a whole new meaning to the phrase "Let's Roll."

In the context under which it was stated, I stand by my words.

[nicmarlo]

You: Please explain how you have concluded that I “seek to silence” the right to free speech. That’s a quite serious charge and you owe your evidence on that.

Me (again): I am not debating with you the manner and method by which someone could be more effective or less effective in their speech. As I first mentioned in about post #44 or so, the right to speech is what is protected and which you seek to silence, unless it is according to YOUR personal preference.

I stand by these words, as well, your current deflection notwithstanding. See Calcowgirl's post #504; see also all posts to you concerning this matter up thread. They were to you, so it shouldn't be too difficult.

[nicmarlo]

Yes, it is about what "you" think and about what "I" think and so on . . . because, contrary to your endless repetition, it is not about "restricting" a person's right to speech.

That post to which you decided to respond was not directed to you. You have made it plainly clear that you are wishing to do nothing more than argue. See Calcowgirl's post #504, again.

[8mmMauser]

Pinged from Terri Dailies

8mm

[wagglebee]

Rudy borrowed his way through his administration, incurring massive debt servicing costs and leaving the city with a huge deficit. And that was during the dot-com boom when Wall Street, and its tax-paying businesses, was flush with cash and the economy was booming.

That is a fact that cannot be emphasized enough. The stock market was on fire for just about all of Rooty's term as mayor. Everyone in the financial industry was getting huge bonuses and because so many of them live and work in NYC, a lot of this money found its way into the city coffers. So, while NYC's revenues certainly rose during his term, there is NO WAY to give Rooty credit for it.

[stockstrader]

And unfortunately no one is helped more than Giuliani by MSM images of him basically saying “screw you” to “wacky” (their view) members of the “religious right.”

Then Giuliani should start 'soaring' in the polls then--because he'll have lots and LOTS of opportunties to do just that!!!...lol

Just the way it is.