Skip to comments.Giuliani stands by support of publicly-funded abortions
Posted on 04/04/2007 7:07:11 PM PDT by Ol' Sparky
TALLAHASSEE, Florida (CNN) -- Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani told CNN Wednesday he supports public funding for some abortions, a position he advocated as mayor and one that will likely put the GOP presidential candidate at odds with social conservatives in his party.
"Ultimately, it's a constitutional right, and therefore if it's a constitutional right, ultimately, even if you do it on a state by state basis, you have to make sure people are protected," Giuliani said in an interview with CNN's Dana Bash in Florida's capital city.
Giuliani also vowed to appoint conservative judges to the bench, though denied such a promise was a "wink and a nod" to conservatives in support of overturning Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision on abortion.
"A strict constructionist judge can come to either conclusion about Roe against Wade," he said. "They can look at it and say, 'Wrongly decided thirty years ago, whatever it is, we'll over turn it.' [Or] they can look at it and say, 'It has been the law for this period of time, therefore we are going to respect the precedent.' Conservatives can come to that conclusion as well. I would leave it up to them. I would not have a litmus test on that."
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
I will never vote for Rudy unless he is the nominee
But at least it helps voters make an informed choice.
I think I see a little smoke coming out of the starboard engine....somebody better start passing out the parachutes.
“In his entire political career he as only acted on the pro-life side.”
Nimje, you can’t be this dense, and I hesitate to suggest that you’re intentionally lying. The only conclusion left is that you resort to Clintonesque, Romneyesque word-parsing to post such a demonstrably false statement.
Moving one’s lips and tongue and exhaling air to produce speech is an action.
And Mitt Romney insistently used his physical and mental capacity for the act of speech to insistently, even indignantly promote Roe v Wade and abortion on demand.
VIDEO: Romney gubernatorial debate, November 2, 2002
VIDEO: Romney senatorial debate, October 1994
No honest person can watch these videos of Mitt IN ACTION and then post the false statement you did.
“what are you going to tell poor women who get medical care through public assistance?”
That pregnancy is preventable in the first place? That they should, perhaps, consider self-control and personal responsibility?
That means you vote based entirely on FEAR and are willing to vote for any or anything if they at least say they’ll protect you.
That’s not historically an American trait.
What was that he said about ruling out tax increases was pandering?
“He is for a strong military.”
Is he? BASED ON WHAT?
“He has strong leadership qualities.”
What leadership qualities? Taking credit for others work?
“I believe Reagan would support Rudy, just as he did Barry Goldwater, even though they were not eye to eye on every issue.”
You must be too young to remember Reagan.
No, I’m not giving you a platform to attack others people’s candidates until you develop enough manhood to put your choice for a candidate up for scrutiny like everyone else has.
You’re not playing your “problem profiteer” game with me on this issue.
Yours is a typical Liberal’s game...point out the problem, but never offer a solution.
Who do you support for the Presidency in this coming election?
Be a man and answer the question.
I respect your stand.
Hey, if you and your leftwing guy want to parade around on the field of battle wearing a target on your chest, that’s your problem.
Again, Mitt Romney's socialized medicine scheme, which he signed into law, contained tax-payer funded abortions.
Be a man.
Stand and be counted...who do you support?
Quit being a jerk, Luis. Cripes, this time in 1999, candidates were nowhere close to officially entering the race. It is not absurd for someone to have not decided. What is absurd is demanding that they should have decided.
I may have a target on my chest, but at least I wear pants.
Be a man and stand for something, instead of just against everything.
Who do you support?
This is a forum made up of political junkies, I don't believe that you believe your own response.
The leading edge of support in FR is going to a guy who has NOT entered the race, and EV is trying to convince me that he doesn't support anyone?
You know WHY he says that?
Because it's easier to attack the choices of others, than to defend his own.
Hardly. Given the large number of candidates across the GOP spectrum, from Rudy on the far left of the GOP to the candidates to the far right, someone can honestly say they haven't made up their mind.
You're just trying to come up with a line of attack against EV. And it's just that. An attack.
So, explain to me why you are fighting EV’s battles for him?
I'm just calling your spam on this thread for what it is - an unwarranted attack.
You’re the only one “battling” Luis.
Also, I don’t think Romney appointed even one of the justices who issued the gay marriage ruling.
Want to guess who said that on this thread?
Want to guess who said that on this thread?
EV's positions on the issues are quite clear. I doubt he's considering Rudy McRomney.
“I’m more worried about stopping these nutjob radical muslims.”
I’m sure there are people here who would vote for a radical Muslim for president as long as he wants to outlaw abortion.
Isn’t EV man enough to fight his own battles?
It’s an open forum. If you’re being a jerk, I will call you on it.
So is every single candidate out there, including undeclared ones. So it should be a rather easy thing for EV to do to match up his positions, with those of a candidate.
"I doubt he's considering Rudy McRomney."
Me too...I just want to know who he IS considering.
Maybe, if I examine his choice, I could be swayed to walk away from my camp.
I just want him to answer a simple question...given the choices, declared or otherwise, which candidate does he support.
Simple enough question.
I know who you support.
As a matter of fact, I think know who everyone on this thread supports with the exception of EV...doesn't that strike you as rather odd?
Or maybe disingenuous.
This forum is SUPPOSED TO BE made up of conservatives. It is not a discussion forum for just any political junky - but for conservatives who are promoting conservative candidates and causes. Remember that.
Those you accuse of only attacking the choices of others are not equal opportunity attackers. They attack the LIBERAL candidates just as we've done on Free Republic since it was created. We promote conservatives and attack liberals. We ally with conservative supporters and attack those who support liberals and liberal causes. THAT IS WHAT WE DO HERE. Just because liberals Romney and Giuliani have an R after their names DOES NOT shield them from being attacked for the liberals that they are.
Please keep that in mind. And if you find yourself (as you often do) on the same side as the liberals or liberal thought, you better be wearing asbestos undies because you're going to get flamed here. Not that you don't already know that, but you continue to side with liberal candidates and their supporters while attacking those who oppose the liberal candidates and their supporters. How about standing with conservatives for a change or how about getting lost and finding a liberal forum that would welcome your liberal crap.
And if I think that EV is being a jerk, I’ll call HIM on that.
So, your problem is that I am exercising the same freedoms on an open forum that you exercise?
In that case, I’ll call you a hypocrite.
Perhaps rather than attacking the choices of others, more time should be spent elevating your own choices, and advancing their positions.
If I support Giuliani, and you support Tancredo, do you honestly believe that you will get me to support your candidate my calling me names for supporting mine?
I guess we should have never been an anti-Clinton site, then.
Or are we only allowed to attack liberalism when it's promoted by Democrats?
Except you weren't attacking him for that. You were attacking him for not making a choice. So in that case, I'll call you two-faced.
I just glanced at your FR home page...it is entirely devoted to “STOP RUDY”
Do you know HOW to best stop Rudy?
To promote the candidate of your choice.
Why aren’t you using your time, your energy, and this forum to advance something rather that to tear something down?
If you tear something down without setting something in place to fill the void, you’re not helping anything.
If you support a liberal on a conservative website, do you honestly think you won't catch grief for that?
Whoops, they do. Often. And it works.
Methinks you want to take the most effective tool away from those opposed to Rudy. Namely, using Rudy's past (and more and more, his present) against him.
Let me ask you something...in my conversation with EV, where did I attack you so that you felt that you had to retaliate and attack me?
I just want to know who EV supports, and now I have two people who aren’t EV attacking me for asking him a question, and not believing his answer.
Are you guys all dating or something?
So you support mud slinging as an effective political tool?
And he told you. No one.
But you kept haranguing him.
How is that any of your business, and why did you feel that my conversation with him entitled you to attack me?
...and I don't believe him.
Is that your business as well?
Anyone who wants can scroll back and see that it is you who has been a "jerk" on this thread, and that I responded to your constant badgering calmly and matter-of-factly.
Everyone catches grief on this site from someone else as a result of who they support, some take the cheap and cowardly route, and claim that they support no one, while throwing out plenty of grief to those who do admit to supporting someone.
I never realized telling the truth about a politician's past was mud slinging.
There's not much point trying to promote a conservative candidate when the top 2, frontrunning candidates with all the cash are flaming liberals. The first item of business is to knock them down so that the conservative campaigns have a fighting chance. Free Republic should be a hive of activity working to knock the liberal candidates out so that the conservative and even semi-conservative candidates have a prayer. All things are not equal here. All candidates are not equal here either. Despite the subversives here who have been working tirelessly to promote the liberal candidates and demoralize the supporters of the conservative candidates, the overarching goal of Free Republic is to promote conservative candidates and causes and to fight liberals and their causes. The infestation of subversives here working for liberals and against conservatives, that has been evident since the California Recall Election, has become intolerable.
Personally, I don't care which specific candidate you support. But if you openly support and promote a liberal candidate - whether it is Obama, Romney, Giuliani, Clinton, or whomever - you're going to get flamed on this CONSERVATIVE forum. If you promote anyone other than a conservative here, you're going to get what you deserve. And yes, that may include being called names. I don't care when I hurt a liberal's feelings, they are scum. Lie down with liberal dogs and you're going to get fleas and we don't need that kind of pest here.
Who do you support EV?
“Mudslinging”? Hah. The vast majority of my posts against Giuliani and Romney have focused on their words and record.
To borrow a phrase from Truman, “I’ve just told the truth and they think it’s hell.”
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.