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)
“Me? Support a gun grabbing abortionist?”
I can’t either.
I am having a harder time deciding about Romney and McCain.
Romney now SAYS he is pro-life. Do I believe him?
I doubt he is in his heart, but what will he do in office?
McCain has been pro-life for a long time, but he supports federal funding of fetal stem cell research, which is to say, federal funding of abortion. If he’s the nominee, do I vote for him?
I have been wavering on the latter two, but I think the answer is no. I think the answer is that the GOP has to nominate Duncan Hunter or Fred Thompson, someone who isn’t a “little bit” pro-abortion, like McCain, and someone who can be trusted on the issue, unlike Romney.
I have a question for you, though, concerning your view of conservatism. We are clearly on the same wavelength regarding abortion and national defense. Can a conservative, in your view, be in favor of Reagan-style Social Security (what we have today) and Bush-style Medicare-cum-prescription drug benefits. I am. Unapologetically. I think that public insurance is the proper way to deal with pensions and health care finance. For this I am often called a socialist, by others, and encouraged to get off of Free Republic.
I think that these programs ARE conservative, in a Christian sense, but not in an Ayn Rand sense: there is a social obligation to care for the sick and the old, and Reagan and W are no socialists! But what do YOU think?
I think that there is a great compromise out there to be had, by conservatives redoubling their efforts on moral and family issues, holding the line on national security, but rethinking the Wall-Street-uber-alles-export-the-manufacturing-sector-to-China economic policies of the current Republican agenda.
This is where I think we can make the tent bigger.
What I want to know is whether or not you think you and I can sit in the same tent if it’s economics that wer the place where the compromises are made, not life and not national security.
I hope your answer is yes.
That we should compromise and negotiate with the liberals for our fundamental God-given unalienable rights?
Got one word for you: NUTS!!
I realize your question is not directed to me, but I will give you an answer anyway, an answer that I believe is shared by most true conservatives.
No.
No. The government has no constitutional right or power whatsoever to be in the retirement or health insurance businesses. Leave it to the people and private enterprise.
Amen. And far better to be true to principle than to be successful in elections. It is moral courage that tames the evils of the world, not elective office and certainly not another truckload of stupid laws and regulations.
Power corrupts. When we elect "our" people, we mostly turn them into statists and scoundrels. Better to stay on defense if it comes to that, and use the bully pulpit of Free Republic to raise our collective voice for what is right.
Interesting question. Here are my answers: 1. Economics and national security are inseparable. Economic might underlies our military might, so anything that compromises our economics makes us less secure. 2. Big spending equals big government equals increased federal trampling of the limited Constitutional government our Founders intended. I'll compromise on a lot, but not on the Constitution as far as I can help it.
I cannot say that I blame you. It is a perfectly valid position. In the coming decades some will choose to be conservative and irrelevant; some will choose to compromise in order to be relevant. Right but irrelevant is the position of conservatives in California and Europe, and soon the USA if the Republican Party does not figure out a way to grow.
I must say I admire your position. It is laudable to have principles, after all.
What I wrote: “What I want to know is whether or not you think you and I can sit in the same tent if it were economics that is the place where the compromises are made, not life and not national security.”
What I answered: “I realize your question is not directed to me, but I will give you an answer anyway, an answer that I believe is shared by most true conservatives.
No.”
My follow-up question: You don’t think we can sit in the same tent. Should I, then, cease posting here on FR? Should I re-register as a political independent, leaving the Republican Party behind?
“In the coming decades some will choose to be conservative and irrelevant; some will choose to compromise in order to be relevant.”
In this life. But then we die. And after we die, we wake up. If we compromise on fundamental moral duties to be relevant in this life, we may discover that we have chosen to be irrelevant in the next one. And that one lasts a lot longer.
I cannot compromise on infanticide, because I don’t want to go to Hell.
Horse hockey. Nothing like surrendering to the socialists before the battle even commences. Sure glad our founders and the generations before us were made of sterner stock.
It is interesting to me that you seem to dismiss what I am suggesting, and yet you are confronted with conservative irrelevance every single day as far as your state politics are concerned. And FR, the religious right, nor the NRA could prevent it. The state simply evolved into socialism, as the tyrannical majority grabbed more and more for itself.
We are at a similar crossroads in the USA. Here's the polling.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html
You are indeed of sterner stock, I will give you that. But we conservatives are indeed losing relevance in this society, and if we overreach in this election our demise will last for the rest of my lifetime.
In my opinion, GWB is a socialist as far as spending and government activism are concerned. I voted for him, so I feel like I made the decision to surrender some time ago.
Arnold is a liberal like Giuliani and has done absolutely nothing for the conservative movement. Never again. Do NOT vote for or support or cave-in to liberals for any reason whatsoever. You’ll come out the loser in the end.
I think it’s absolutely brilliant the way we destroy our own candidates.
We don’t need no stinkin’ dimocrats - we’ll do it ourselves!
This way we can avoid the humiliation of having leftists pointing out reasons that voters don’t want to vote for our candidates - we will preempt them and point out all their weaknesses ourselves - real or imagined! Even if the perceived weakness is not an area that a President would have any influence in.
And, to add to the deliciousness of the situation, this means that we really never have to a choice to make. By the time any of our candidates get to the convention, we will have destroyed any shred of credibility or impetus they might have had going.
Get ready for Hillary in 2008. Barf, Gag, Barf!
(And, for the record, I don’t particularly like Rudy. Unless he’s the choice against Mrs. clintoon.)
Well, there’s another way. We can just become leftists ourselves and then our side will never lose.
Let’s just say that Roe v. Wade gets overturned, and the issue goes to the States.
Barone says that abortion would only be banned in two (maybe three) States, let’s say that he’s off by a few, and imagine that voters in a total of ten States ban abortions.
So now, you can get abortion on demand in some States, and not on other States.
Then, someone in one of the States that banned abortion challenges the ban on Constitutional grounds, claiming that it violates Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution (privileges and immunities clause), as well as the Fourteenth Amendment (privileges or immunities clause).
Article IV, Section 2 — The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.
Fourteenth Amendment — No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.
I can’t believe you are actually arguing the case FOR abortion. What happend to you Luis? When did you go over to the other side?
Where exactly did I do that Jim?
Immediately above. Apparently you’ve decided to surrender to the abortionists?
There is the distinct possibility that overturning Roe v. Wade may lead to a stronger pro legal abortion case based on actual Constitutional grounds.
Horse hockey! Are you arguing this because you support Rudy the abortionist?
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.