“look past my position on abortion”
"Abortion is wrong personally, but I believe there has to be a right of choice"
Posted on 05/13/2007 1:13:20 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani says he feels "very, very passionate" about abortion and opposes picking Supreme Court nominees based on their view of the ruling that legalized abortion.
"My view is that there shouldn't be a litmus test on Roe against Wade," the former New York City mayor said. "I'm going to select strict constructionist judges. They're free to take a look at Roe against Wade, take a look at the limitations, but I believe I should leave it to them to decide that."
Giuliani repeatedly has defended his positions, which have been criticized as contradictory, on late-term abortion, public funding for abortions and the Roe v. Wade decision.
"I'm very, very passionate about the issue of abortion," he said. "I oppose it. That's a principle I've held forever, and I'll hold it forever. That's not going to change. But I also believe that in a society like ours, where people have very, very different consciences about this, it's best to respect each others' differences and allow for choice."
For GOP conservatives who could determine the outcome in the primaries, opposition to abortion has been a litmus test. Giuliani's support for abortion rights has drawn criticism from some in the party.
One president rival, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, has drawn complaints for his switch from supporting abortion rights to opposing the procedure. Another GOP rival, Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, has said that an abortion-rights Republican would have trouble winning the nomination.
Giuliani's interview on "Fox New Sunday" was broadcast Sunday.
“I didn’t know Hillary was advocating Federal subsidies for abortion.” .... Well, she wouldn’t publicly admit to it. That’d be immediate and instant political suicide for any Democrat.
***OK, then we have an instance where the public pronouncement of Hillary is to the right of Giuliani on abortion “rights”.
Yes. Do you?
There is plenty of time to select a candidate that is more attuned to the principles of the party. Like it or not, the social conservative hold a pretty effective veto power.
Giuliani goes Mondale!
The only "constitutional right" you and your Rudybot allies actually seem to care about is the "right" to butcher your unwanted offspring. Hillary will take care of that for you. If you ask her real nice, maybe she'll even pay for you to do it, as your boy Rudy promises he will.
He just doesn’t get it. If he truly thought abortion was wrong, there’s no way he could see it as right for other people.
We see that, but he, in typical leftist fashion, believes himself superior in thinking to us “hicks” and can finagle his way around the issue.
Damn him to hell. I've had it with Rudy. In the past I was happy to let those that support him live with their delusions, but now I will actively work against this man at every opportunity.
< /rant > Thanks for listening.
ROFL OH MONK you are badddd
First, its not only about abortion. It is about our 2A rights and no special rights for queers as well. It is about many things.
Yes, we not only have our thinking caps on, as you say, but we also have our core guiding principles intact. Winning an election at whatever the cost is not a conservative principle.
I'm curious as to how many and which of your core conservative beliefs you have had to compromise in order to support Guiliani.
Rudy's political views are nearly identical to Hillary's. Of all the GOP candidates, the only one who CAN'T BEAT HILLARY IS RUDY -- even he knows this as evidenced by his refusal to run against her in 2000 and 2006.
Do those freerepublic conservatives really have their thinking caps on?
This is a conservative forum, Rudy is a bleeding heart liberal. We support conservatives.
“look past my position on abortion”
"Abortion is wrong personally, but I believe there has to be a right of choice"
Yes.
Yeah, abortion... and his support for taxpayer funded abortion (socialism), support and activism for the murdering socialists at NARAL and Planned Parenthood, support and activism for the gay agenda, his support for hate crimes, thought crimes, attacks on first amendment, gun control, sanctuary cities, illegal aliens, welfare for illegal aliens, taking of private property for private developers, asset forfeiture, abuse of power, disregard for due process, disregard for the rule of law, contempt for the constitution, contempt for individual rights, etc.
Yes Jim, however the "ect." is an even more concerning issue.
He really has grayed out the dogma of "Republicans" and of course it isn't what is best for conservatism that has prompted his directive as much as person priority is that has led him to do so.
But lest we forget, he is dead set on stifling those who we are at war with in the WOT.
It's (sadly enough) laughable.
I do. And I think Rudy will NOT be the Republican nominee.
IMHO, all of this is just window dressing. Fluff and nonsense. A mild diversion.
Good question.
However you're "JustaDumbBlonde". ; )
Thanks, but I have little hope of ever getting an answer from anyone. This is at least the fifth time that I've asked that very same question. If you ever want to silence a Rudybot in a hurry ... ask that question.
I haven’t as yet thrown my support, however small it is, to any candidate, but I worry about the anti-Rudy positions taken here on freerepublic, many of them virtual suicide positions — not Rudy! —no matter what happens to the country! Somehow, a lot of good folks here think that, by denying Rudy, they are preserving the republic they believe in. But quite the opposite could be true. Look, you and I probably have many conservative views in common and, perhaps, we both might prefer a candidate with clearer conservative positions on several issues, but given the circumstances of national politics, both of us may have to make smart compromises for the good and the security of our country.
It's a tough question and one requiring some thought.
To many, that's too much to ask for....
Good points. He really should be running as a Democrat. He agrees with them on more issues than he does with us. And as you say, his pro-liberal/anti-conservative candidacy itself is a threat to the continuance of the conservative coalition, which would be a threat to the viability of the GOP, and thus a threat against the successful execution of the war.
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.