Posted on 04/16/2007 3:19:27 PM PDT by madprof98
[Rich Lowry]
AUDIENCE MEMBER: I have a question about the former platform in the Republican Party allowed abortion in the case of rape, incest, and life of the mother. I believe in that and I believe that because of the abortion issue in the Republican Party it is dividing this party so badly that we may not be able to elect a Republican president and I hope-I’d like to hear what your thoughts are on that.”
MAYOR GIULIANI: “What my thoughts are on the big question? I can tell you my thoughts on both.”
AUDIENCE MEMBER: “The big question.”
GIULIANI: “On the big question my thoughts are we shouldn’t allow it to do that. Electing a Republican in 2008 is so important to the war on terror, the ability to keep up an economy that’s an economy or growth, or from the point of view of what we believe as Republicans to really set us in the wrong direction. Democrats are entitled to think something different but I think that there will be a major difference in the direction of this country whether we have a Republican or Democrat in 2008 and 2009. On abortion I think we should respect each other. I think that’s what we should do and we should respect the fact that this is a very difficult moral question and a very difficult question and that very good people of equally good conscience could come to different opinions on it. My view of it is I hate abortion. I think abortion is wrong. To someone who I cared about or cared to talk to me about it and wanted my advice, the advice I would give them is not to do it and to have adoption as an option to it. When I was the Mayor adoptions went way up, abortions went down but ultimately I respect that that’s somebody else’s decision and that people of conscience can make that decision either way and you can’t put them in jail for it. (applause) And then I think our party, our party has to get beyond issues like that where we can have people who are very good people who have different views about this, they can all be Republican because our party is going to grow and we’re going to win in 2008 if we’re a party that is characterized for what we are for and not if we’re a party that’s known for what we are against. …” (Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Campaign Event, Des Moines IA, 4/14/07)
Rudy says he hates abortion, but apparently not enough to be against it. How can one actively support something that they believe is wrong? I’m just not buying Rudy’s claim that he hates abortion.
But ... but ..., the Republicans don't need us. We are unappeasable and determined to run the entire party off a cliff. It's one of those two, anyway, because it can't be both!
Anyway, thanks for weighing in on this thread. It's like a shot in the arm after reading the compromising Rudybots all weekend.
I don’t know but if you go with a gun grabbing, illegal alien pandering, gay rights supporting abortionist liberal like Rudy as your “conservative” standard bearer you’re going to have a whole lot more than OH and PA to worry about.
IF any of them back Rudy because he is the Republican nominee, they won't have to wait for the "Fairness Doctrine" to be passed because their conservative audiences will evaporate.
Exactly, O.O.—if abortion deprives nobody of their rights, why hate it? I don’t know why this isn’t asked more to wishy-washy ‘pubs.
“I don’t know but if you go with a gun grabbing, illegal alien pandering, gay rights supporting abortionist liberal like Rudy as your “conservative” standard bearer you’re going to have a whole lot more than OH and PA to worry about.”
LOL!
Looks like Hillary will be our President.
“I foresee Rudy’s numbers going way down when Republican primary voters hear about all this”
That will indeed happen to Rudy.
Only if the Republican Party is suckered and lied into nominating Giuliani as our candidate. I guess you better get busy and get an actual Republican nominated and not the divisive liberal that will lose to Hillary.
Hillary may not even win the primary, so that is quite a stretch.
“Only if the Republican Party is suckered and lied into nominating Giuliani as our candidate”
Correct!
Jim, the PARTY must be pro-life. That is by commonly held morality ... and by the vote of the party. I think we must accept that there will be members of the party who will individually disagree, but in detail, not on the basic belief in the sanctity of life.
If they accept the direction ... and pro-life stance ... of the party, they will remain. That means we might remain strong, and have a chance to remain in power. Those who cannot accept the direction of the Republican Party on this, are of course, free to leave, as I would leave if the pro-life stance were not a key tenet of the party and a main plank of the party platform.
Their points of view on various details failing to carry, having made whatever points it is they are attempting to make, they should stay in the party, and vote for the candidate the party selects. Party cohesion demands sublimation of individual views on many issues.
For example, I will not support certain candidates in the primary. If my point of view does not carry, I will back the candidate whom the party selects, because I can be confident that on the larger issue of life and liberty the candidate, being a Republican, is pro-life. In our two-party system, there need to be "minority" members of both parties on many issues, but who fundamentally agree on the larger, basic tenets of the Party.
Giuliani, Romney, et al have been less than strong pro-lifers at various stages of their previous careers. However, based upon what they have put out so far in their campaigns, I could confidently support either one on the issue. I hope.
I would love to see Thompson get in with a great VP....I think we would have a chance with him.
"[I] touched on this in an earlier post, but I'm disheartened by conservatives who continue to lecture that we must ignore serious defects in a Republican candidate's record. Conservatism is about more than tax cuts and the war on terrorism, it's about more than abortion and illegal immigration. These are certainly important policy aspects of conservatism. But conservatism is about a way of life, a way of governing, and a way of bettering society. When a pundit or candidate demands that conservatives limit their critical thinking to one or two subjects or positions, that's self-serving. They're usually putting their own political preferences and motivations ahead of serious analysis. That's not to say that a candidate must be a "perfect" conservative, as there is no such thing. But a candidate who has a long record of rejecting fundamentally conservative principles — such as those protected by the Bill of Rights (from free political speech and gun ownership to property rights and federalism) — or pandering to populist demands with big-government solutions, can't logically be said to be a conservative. That doesn't mean he's a bad person or doesn't have intriguing things to say or recommend him, but he's not a conservative. And now is the time for conservatives to think and act like conservatives, rather than Republican committeemen. If we don’t, then the Republican party and the movement will suffer more setbacks."
"There's a vacuum in the conservative movement, certainly at the political level, because the last two Republican presidents have been largely centrist Republicans who've viewed conservatives skeptically. They've done some conservative things, but they've never nurtured the movement, let alone adopted it. They've rarely used the presidential pulpit or the machinery of the Republican Party to teach and promote conservative principles, as Ronald Reagan did almost every time he spoke."Looks to me like he's saying we need to get back to our conservative roots and not be led astray by "one issue" [the war on terror in this instance] populists or centrists like the Bush's. Get back to conservative principles or perish as a movement.
You and me both. Not because Thompson is the most conservative candidate, but because Thompson is the most electable conservative candidate.
I think so too.....
The problem is that no one of them has said how far he will go to defend the right of every human being to life. There can be two reasons:
(1.) This is a media-inspired, go-nowhere, trap, which the candidates seek to avoid.
(2.) It is possible that certain candidates do not whole-heartedly accept the Right to Life.
I am confident that the truth will out on the candidates vying for our support.
I will not support an abortionist for President.
You can obviously write English, but apparently you can't read it. Did you not read Rudy's little statement here at the beginning of this thread? Your boy is NOT claiming the "Right to Life" mantle, my friend. He is pro-DEATH.
I don't care who does or does not support Giuliani.
I don't vote for liberals. Ever.
L
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.