On Point: A serious option (Vince Carrol piece on Rudy Giuliani)

Rocky Mountain News ^ | Thursday February 8th, 2007 | Vince Carroll

[Spiff]

Giuliani supports Partial Birth Abortion

TUCHMAN: Giuliani was then asked whether he supports a ban on what critics call partial-birth abortions, something Bush strongly supports.
GIULIANI: No, I have not supported that, and I don't see my position on that changing.
- CNN December 2, 1999

---

BLITZER: If you were in the Senate and [President Clinton] vetoed, once again, the [ban on the] so-called partial-birth abortion procedure, you would vote against sustaining that against the -- in favor of the veto in other words, you would support the president on that.
GIULIANI: Yes. I said then that I support him, so I have no reason to change my mind about it.
BLITZER: All right. So the bottom line is that on a lot of these very sensitive issues whether on guns, abortion, patients' bill of rights, taxes, you are more in line with the president and by association, with Mrs. Clinton, than you are against them.
- CNN February 6, 2000

---

[GEORGE] WILL: Is your support of partial birth abortion firm?
Mayor GIULIANI: All of my positions are firm. I have strong viewpoints. I express them. And I--I do not think that it makes sense to be changing your position....
ABC News February 6, 2000

---

MR. RUSSERT: A banning of late-term abortions, so-called partial-birth abortions--you're against that?

MAYOR GIULIANI: I'm against it in New York, because in New York...

MR. RUSSERT: Well, if you were a senator, would you vote with the president or against the president? [Note: President Clinton was in office in 2000]

MAYOR GIULIANI: I would vote to preserve the option for women. I think that choice is a very difficult one. It's a very, very--it's one in which people of conscious have very, very different opinions. I think the better thing for America to do is to leave that choice to the woman, because it affects her probably more than anyone else....

MR. RUSSERT: So you won't change your view on late-term abortion in order to get the Conservative Party endorsement?

MAYOR GIULIANI: It isn't just that. We shouldn't limit this to one issue. I'm generally not going to change my views
- NBC Meet the Press, February 6, 2000

***Note: the version of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban that Giuliani opposed in 2000, that he said he supported Bill Clinton in vetoing the Republican-controlled Congress's legislation, contained the provision for the life of the mother that Rudy is now trying to pretend is a prerequisite for his support of it.

[ffusco]

Rudy's not a social conservative, But a true conservative is un-electable. Face it- government is not going to get smaller, some people will have abortions, guns will be regulated like everything else, and most all you can really do is make those personal choices for yourself.

[Spiff]

Did I mention that this constitutional scholar likes McCaine-Feingold?

And that constitutional scholar didn't like the Federal Marriage Amendment which was crafted by strict constructionist constitutional scholar Judge Robert Bork.

[dirtboy]

But if you really want evidence of Giuliani's credentials as a credible Republican candidate, you need to know only this single fact: In the 1990s, the political left in New York despised him.

So because the left hates him, we're supposed to love him. Gotcha.

[dirtboy]

(CNSNews.com) - Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani told a Silicon Valley business group on Monday that he "definitely'' believes in global warming, the San Francisco Chronicle reported. He also praised Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger for being a "progressive'' leader on the environment and calling for immigration policies that welcome "people who make contributions" to America's economy.

So now Rudy is pro-choice, pro-gun-control, pro-gay-rights, pro-amnesty, pro-CFR AND pro-global warming.

But trust us, he's a conservative! /Joe Isuzu mode

[Condor51]

[MMcC]

(CNSNews.com) - Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani told a Silicon Valley business group on Monday that he "definitely'' believes in global warming, the San Francisco Chronicle reported. He also praised Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger for being a "progressive'' leader on the environment and calling for immigration policies that welcome "people who make contributions" to America's economy.

I'm not sure I understand what is wrong with either of those two statements. The globe is warming up over the past few years. The question is whether it is man made or a naturally occurring event. To me the evidence looks like it's naturally occurring and while part of it may be man-made, that part is relatively insignificant. As far as immigrants, this country has been built by immigrants who can make contributions. If a person can contribute to the US Society, let them in.

[madprof98]

Oh, yeah. The GOP "progressive" standard bearer: pro abortion, pro gay rights, pro gun control, pro illigal immigration, pro environmentalism. Go Team!!

I can understand the MSM's push for this candidacy. I can even understand the push from radio pundits. What I cannot understand is the enthusism for Rudy displayed on this forum. It seems as if many FReepers - perhaps even most - are eager to concede defeat in the Culture War and are turning on those who still think it is worth fighting. On some of these threads, it looks as if FreeRepublic has morphed into FreeAbortions (at taxpayer expense). How do you account for it?

[freedomfiter2]

Here are some examples:

He says he hates abortion, but in the next breath he says, he believes in a womann's right to choose.

He says he was against the ban on partial birth abortion, but he's ok with it as long as it has an exception for the life of the mother.

He says he's against gay marriage but for gay unions and that we must protect the rights of gay people.

He says he understands the second amendment and knows that he can't just take the guns, so he must regulate them "consistent with the second amendment.


His supporters keep telling us that it doesn't matter what he did, since he's changed his positions. If he wants to lie about where he stands he should try to be convincing.

[freedomfiter2]

But will the 'stay at home and not vote unless they agree 100%' pubbies repeat that mistake?

I don't know any of those. You must mean the 'stay at home and not vote unless they agree 50%'pubbies.

[Jim Robinson]

I don't know. Maybe someone should ask the FReepers where they stand on Rudy:

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/poll?poll=170;results=1

[soccermom]

There is no whitewashing Rudy's personal life, but I do think people tend to over-generalize his abortion and gay rights positions. On abortion, he supports the PBA ban, so long as there is a provision for the life of the mother, which there is. And he has said he would appoint Alito-type judges, so I'm not worried about abortion. I am concerned about him funding stem-cell research. As for gay rights, again, that is a broad issue. Rudy opposes gay marriage, but supports civil unions. I have no problem with civil unions -- so long as they don't force private businesses to treat the union as they would a traditional marriage. For example, I don't think an employer should be forced to pay health benefits for the "domestic partner" -- gay or straight -- of an employee, unless he chooses to. I am very confident in Rudy's ability to fight the War on Terror, so I think, in that respect, he would be a great president. He wouldn't be my first choice, but I would certainly support him in the general.

[silverleaf]

It might be worth supporting Rudy just to observe him making mincemeat of any democrat he debates. Especially Her Heinous.

[MMcC]

That sums up a lot of my views as well.

[azhenfud]

Every appointment to any position RinoRudy has made is cut from the same liberal-left mold. I think Spiff pointed that out the other day. Someone's trying to fool us into thinking RinoRudy'd be different in the WH.

Even Al Gore knows, "A leopard never changes his stripes."

[freedomfiter2]

It might be worth supporting Rudy just to observe him making mincemeat of any democrat he debates. Especially Her Heinous.


I don't see how he could debate when he can't even answer questions like "what does the second amendment mean?".

[azhenfud]

Consistantly third - IOW, his Balloon Stuffing hasn't exactly got the lift he and MSM thinks it has.

[soccermom]

With all due respect to the normally well-informed Ann Coulter - is that who A.C is? - that is a false analogy. Gerald Ford was never "elected" to anything in the first place. He was basically a sacrificial lamb. Likewise, I don't know anyone who considered Dole "electable". He was about as uncharismatic as they come. He got the nomination because he was the elder statesman and had the establishment behind him. Again, he was more like a sacrificial lamb because Clinton was going to coast anyway. I don't think there was a soul in America who thought he would actually win. And, while I was too young to remember, I don't think Reagan was ever considered a "kook" by the GOP establishment. (Maybe Goldwater was?) "Electability" is more about personality than it is about policy. When are people going to wake up and realize it wasn't merely Reagan's policies that made him popular -- it was his personality?

[soccermom]

Yep -- I don't really have a favorite in the primary. There are people I don't want to see win the primary because they would be trounced in the general, such as Newt.

[azhenfud]

"It might be worth supporting Rudy just to observe him making mincemeat of any democrat he debates. Especially Her Heinous."

To debate - and REALLY mark your territory - you MUST possess a net DIFFERENCE.
I see no real difference apparent to warrant debate of any significance. Rudy's boat would capsize when it's pointed out, "Well, you stand for the SAME thing."

""Most of Clinton's policies are the same as most of mine." - Rudy Giuliani.