Posted on 04/16/2007 4:25:25 AM PDT by Liz
....Rudy Giuliani will speak tomorrow at the university founded by televangelist Pat Robertson, a major appearance for the former mayor...who holds liberal social views....Giuliani made his sharpest case for moving beyond social issues this weekend in Iowa, telling The Des Moines Register, "Our party is going to grow, and we are going to win in 2008 if we are a party characterized by what we're for, not if we're a party that's known for what we're against." Asked about abortion, he said, "Our party has to get beyond issues like that." Giuliani upset conservatives - and surprised supporters - by saying he favored public funding for abortion....His campaign quickly noted he wasn't proposing changes to current federal laws.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
A ‘yes’ or a ‘no’ would have been so one-dimensional. ;)
OTOH, my answer not only answered your question, it underscored the absurdity of the underlying premise riddling this thread, namely, that the unborn is at increased risk under a Giuliani presidency.
The only person in this scenario who is putting the unborn (and the born and the not yet even imagined) at risk is the person who will place his de facto vote for hillary clinton.
I agree. There are no guarantees with Rudy, or anyone else.
If you had known Bush would give Sandy Berger a pass, hillary clinton a pass, pick Harriet Meiers, for heaven’s sake, watch with hardly a peep as the Left decimated the presidency, would you have voted for him?
It is rare that we can be sure of anything. But this much is certain: All of our children will be in peril if the clintons retake the White House. hillary clinton will pick pro-abortion, activist judges. She will pick up where she left off with her betrayals and abuses and destruction.
You are surely right that he has written off the social conservatives. These last few weeks have proved it.
But as you say, this is extremely stupid. There’s no way a Republican can win without that vote, and it includes tens of millions of Evangelicals who simply won’t vote once they have written him off.
My bottom line is the right to life. But I would have been willing to vote for Giuliani if he had persuaded me that he would do the right thing in that area, because he is so strong a candidate in other ways, especially GWOT. One thing I have seen over the years is that he doesn’t easily give false promises (like Romney). He keeps his word. In fact you could say that he’s doing that now, but it’s a word I cannot accept.
He has kicked away his chance to win over the social conservatives, who were clearly prepared to hear what he had to say and consider whether he would change his ways. There’s no room for him to change his mind now.
Hindsight is easy, and your hypothetical question is really not fair to the discussion, so let me turn the tables on you.
If you had known Bush had lived with a gay couple, was twice divorced, cheated on wife # 2, never served a day in the military, would supported gay unions and marched regularly in the Gay Pride parades, supportd gun control and federal funding of abortions, would you have voted for him?
I bet with that kind of past, Bush would have never won the first election, let alone re election.
No you didn't!
I asked you personally what your opinion was.
Not Rudy's - yours!
You keep saying you answered, but you haven't!
It's as much about Rudy and appointing judges as it is abortion.
And it's about YOU! It's about you answering aquestion about whether YOU think a judge who rules that federal funding of abortions is a "strict constructionist"!
Yes I did give you my personal opinion.
“it isn’t pertinent... unless Rudy plans to nominate himself,” makes sense only if my answer is ‘no.’
My point isn’t “hindsight.” It is foresight. Rudy isn’t a sure thing. But Bush wasn’t, either.
So it took all this time to just say no?
So you think that a judge who will OK federal funding of abortions does not fit the definition of a "strict constructionist". Correct?
And Rudy does think that it's OK to federally fund abortions. Correct?
You're looking at Bush and saying "what if?"
Now look at Rudy, with even more baggage than Bush. With even more liberal views than Bush
Now ask yourself, "Doesn't it make sense to assume Rudy will be even further left than Bush?"
Bush wasn't a sure thing, but compare him pre election to Rudy.
If you don't see the difference, it's because you don't want to.
Rudy maybe a nice guy, and he might have been a good Mayor, but he is not the right man to lead the Repulbican Party.
Unless you don't mind being led to the left!
Unspoken in all these arguments trying to legalize babykilling and to morally castrate the GOP is the private confidence of pro-aborts that morally slovenly (or outright homicidal) juries may engage in jury nullification to protect baby-killing. Well, a restoration of the rule of law (not possible while Roe is not yet overturned) will allow the equity jurisdiction of civil courts to be exercised to provide life imprisonment on the installment plan to abortionists and their facilitators under civil injunctions against abortionists (and those acting "in concert" with them) and contempt citations leading to imprisonment for contempt.
After Roe is sent to the dustbin of history, the states will be re-empowered to regulate or ban abortion. Soon enough, most states will ban abortion or render it effectively unavailable through regulation. The remaining states will suffer sustained legal and legislative assault until they fall.
We are not surrendering on social issues, now or ever. If that bothers you so much, ask the Demonrats to take care of whatever it may be that makes you think you want to be Republican.
Imagine the imaginary conversation:
Herr Braun: Isn't Hitler's rounding up and killing Jews en masse just AWFUL?
Herr Gauleiter: That's only ONE issue. You don't want go be a one-issue voter, do you? He built our autobahn. He beefed up our military. He gives us terrific speeches. He ignores all that burdensome Versailles nonsense to build a thousand year reich! (Pant, pant!) Okay, he kills Jews but who is perfect?
Bottom line: Herr Braun's concerns prevailed (with the help of Patton and of the Army Air Corps). There is still a Germany but it is no longer Hitler's Germany. There will be an America but it will not be Planned Barrenhood's and Sanger's Amerika, narcissistically slaughtering its future.
For whatever reason, Mia T, you may fervently wish abortion would go away as an issue but it will not until it is abolished and effectively suppressed.
Nations and political parties come and go but morality has, does and will linger on as an essential example of "the permanent things." It is also natural that evildoers prefer that their evil remain "private." Bank robbers, murderers and rapists would like to see to it that their depredations are "private." Why should those who would protect or perform the slicing, dicing and hamburgerization of innocent unborn infants want their evils to be noticed by the general public?
The outlawing and punishment of abortion is NEVER a mistaken destination and never will be.
Now, that is a great (Mr. T) post!
Mia T: Speaking of the relatively minor matter (compared to 50+ million dead innocent babies) of whether Rudy lies, just when was Rudy a “colleague” of Antonin Scalia???? Rudy was never a SCOTUS judge, never a DC Court of Appeals judge and never a University of Chicago Law School professor. Did they shine shoes together as children?
Fantastic finds! I’ll flesh out the list and ping you. Thanks!
I keep seeing this sentiment, and I find it frustrating. Various social and libertarian conservatives have said they cannot vote for Giuliani. If you think he cannot win without those votes, then YOU are electing the democrat if you chose to nominate Giuliani anyway.
I'm not going to criticize others for weighing the options and making the choice they believe is in the best interest of the party and the country. But this pre-emptive blame being served to anti-Giuliani voters seems weak. If you want to gamble that somehow Giuliani will pick up enough votes to make up for the GOP votes you have been told he will lose, then at least own your decision.
Answers:
1. No. As I said, I answered it immediately. That you couldn’t decipher it is your problem.
2. Yes.
3. While I haven’t seen the quote, that is what you and others are claiming. But if so, I revert to my originial answer to you.
Why do I get the feeling we are going in circles?
Don’t worry.I’m getting on the off ramp.....
bttt
I doubt that it harkens back to shoe-shining joint ventures. Whereas Rudy was from a working class background, Scalia’s was relatively privileged.
Any use of the word ‘colleague’ was probably a reference to their Reagan appointments: Rudy was appointed Associate Attorney General in 1981, and Scalia was appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1982.
Great post, BlackElk.
BTTT
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.