Skip to comments.Full Rudy Context [Rudy's Latest Abortion Stand]
Posted on 04/16/2007 3:19:27 PM PDT by madprof98
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-Id 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 shouldnt 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 thats 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 thats 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 thats somebody elses decision and that people of conscience can make that decision either way and you cant 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 were going to win in 2008 if were a party that is characterized for what we are for and not if were a party thats 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. 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.
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.
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?
Jim, it saddens me to think that any true conservative would ever vote to put this man in our White HOuse.
I pray we have an alternative.
Can we discuss the actual post rather than me Jim?
Last year South Dakota voters rejected a ban on abortions authored by a Republican legislature and signed by a Republican governor.
Six out of the nine SCOTUS justices were appointed by Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II...and Roe v. Wade is still on the books.
I don’t think it’s going away anytime soon.
As far as who I support...when the rubber hits the road, I will always vote Republican.
There are tens of thousand of laws that differ from state to state. Driving age, sentencing guidelines, professional licensing requirements, the list is endless. Why would abortion be any different than any other state regulated practice?
Because no one has ever tried to get elected to Congress or the Presidency based on the issue of professional business licensing.
I would imagine it would be simpler to campaign on a platform of "I'm going pass legislation to get the ban overturned" rather than "I'm going to work to achieve an unprecedented and unworkable Supreme Court decision to overturn the ban".
The Court is far easier.
Ask Texas about a guy named Lawrence.
Sean likes Rudy because he saw him “up close” in NYC.
Rush and Levin do not like Rudy.
The right to bear arms is an enumerated constitutional right that has been found to be applicable to individuals yet every state in the union has seperate and distinct laws regarding the ownership of firearms. If the Supreme Court has found that to be constitutionally sound on what grounds would abortion receive higher standing?
We better get an alternative.
Right now the way it looks, Hillary will win.
If Rudy wins the "R" nomination, there will be some Johnny-come-lately, so-called "conservative" candidate who will run third party.
Never-mind to some that such a candidate didn't have the courage of his convictions to run in the Republican primary.
Just enough conservatives including more than a few here at FR will be duped by such a demagogue.
Hillary would win. The country would be lost for generations.
After, we'll get to talk in hushed tones, far underground about what great conservative principals we have.
I can’t discuss this with you any longer, as I’ve been warned that I can be banned from this site as a result of it.
Let it just rest with this...
Anything that the government tries to “fix” results in a bigger problem being created.
Each and every one of us is the head of the government in our homes...end abortion at that level, and it effectively ends at every level.
how can that happen, abortion isn’t in the constitution - either pro or con. a SCOTUS that tosses Roe, sure as hell isn’t going to invent some new right on the heels of that. Hell, they might as well just leave the one invented in 1973 in place if they are going to do that.
the “right to life” may well apply federally to ban 20+ week abortions, because viability can be demonstrated scientifically. but first trimester would return to the states. which states decide to ban it, and whether they can sustain that decision in their legislatures/governerships - its in their hands.
Each and every one of us is the head of the government in our homes...end murder at that level, and it effectively ends at every level.
Each and every one of us is the head of the government in our homes...end slavery at that level, and it effectively ends at every level.
Each and every one of us is the head of the government in our homes...end terrorism at that level, and it effectively ends at every level.
We're not talking about a simple "personal" issue. We're talking about killing a human being who deserves the protection of his or her God-given right to live.
Yes, the court is easier. Which is why, if you really want to protect life because it’s sacred, you have to change tactics.
The current tactic focuses on a “strict constructionist” approach, which strikes down Roe and thereby throws abortion back to the states. South Dakota shows that even red states, when given the choice, will vote to maintain abortion rights. So, a constitutional point is made by striking down Roe, but no babies are saved, because the majority of Americans WANT the convenience of being able to kill babies, when the rubber meets the road.
The Court is the anti-majoritarian branch. Strict constructionism may restore constitutional purity, but it won’t save babies’ lives. I am interested in saving babies’ lives. And I understand that the only way to do that, in America, is to find a way to override the will of the majority of the American people, from sea to sea. The only way to do THAT is to get a Supreme Court decision that doesn’t strike down abortion rights on federal grounds, throwing the issue back to the states, but strikes down abortion period, on human rights and due process grounds. Aborting a child kills a human being without due process of law. A court needs to be empanelled that will find, in a judicial opinion, that an unborn child is a legal person, and thereby protected by the Constitution, thereby removing abortion completely from the political process just like Roe did, but in the other direction. The answer to abortion is NOT democracy or federalism. Americans WANT THE CONVENIENCE of killing babies.
The answer is that babies are human beings, and human beings are protected by the Constitution, and the constitution overrides all state law and Congress too. Abortion should be unconstitutional, period. The majority of Americans do not agree with that, but not a BIG ENOUGH majority to be able to amend the Constitution and override a Supreme Court decision which strikes down Roe by protecting the unborn as a matter of Constitutional right. It takes 2/3rds of both houses of Congress and 3/4ths of the states to override the Supreme Court by amending the Constitution. The votes are not there to do that IF the Supreme Court abolishes abortion by fiat. That is the only way to protect the babies, and I think that protecting millions of innocent lives is more important than the counter-arguments.
So, that’s what we have to do if you really want to protect babies. We do not need “strict constructionists” on the high court, who will strike down Roe but then send it to the states where abortion will be protected. We need principled judges who will outlaw abortion as a matter of the federal constitution. This is conservative judicial activism, I suppose, but when I come right down to it, abstract principles of federalism are not nearly as important as the lives of 2 million children every year.
I do not want any more “strict constructionists”. I want pro-life judges who will impose a no-abortion rule on the whole country as a matter of constitutional law.
We didn't destroy Pres Bush43 EITHER TIME did we? Quite the opposite--we rallied big time!!! We didn't destroy Bush41 or President Reagan EITHER TIME did we? Again, we rallied big time!!
If we want a UNITED Party--then there is ONLY one answer,,,,nominate a conservative (Fred comes to mind),,,,and NOT a LIBERAL!!!
If you want a Party that is SPLIT WIDE OPEN--a liberal like JulieAnnie is JUST THE MAN FOR THE JOB!!
Scientifically and medically, the unborn child is a living human at every stage of development.
Which is why I will never, under any circumstances, support a presidential candidate who supports abortion. Anyone who is unable to understand an issue as fundamental as the right to life is unfit for office.
Precisely. The 14th Amendment protects human life from being taken by anybody, including the states, without due process. If the Supreme Court rules that human life exists at conception, then from that point onward it cannot be taken without due process.
Now, a court could still rule that doctors deciding to abort is “due process”, which is why it won’t do to get a subterfuge victory. We need strong pro-life judges, not strong “constitutionalists” to abolish abortion. A constitutionalist might look and say that all that is required is “due process”, and a doctor and mother agreeing to slay the child, who is admittedly human, meets that standard.
This battle is about principle, and the whole strict constructionist/penumbra’s business, or states’ rights arguments, are all subterfuges. The two issues in conflict are the sanctity of human life versus the convenience of post-conception birth control. That’s what’s at stake. Plenty of people acknowledge that a fetus is a human life, but think that the mother ought to have the right to terminate anyway.
Sadly, I don’t see a victory on this issue, ever. The lure of sex and the need for a quick exit to unwanted consequences is too great. And, absent a cholera epidemic at the Supreme Court, building an activist pro-life court would take years and years of a party winning election after election on an overtly pro-life, judicial activist stance.
I think we are fighting the long defeat here, and in a sense it’s a shame that folks like me simply will not compromise with electoral reality and stop holding Republicans’ feet to the fire on the abortion issue. But I won’t. Sorry, Rudy.
Hi Jim. I have not yet read this. Would you recall the title of the article so I can read it? I did FR thread and keyword searches and could not find it. Thanks!
“I dont know but if you go with a gun grabbing, illegal alien pandering, gay rights supporting abortionist liberal like Rudy as your conservative standard bearer youre going to have a whole lot more than OH and PA to worry about.”
Oh my, my thoughts exactly. It may SEEM good in the short-term, but in the long-run there’s so many bad things that can come-out of it. It’s a gamble.
Exactly! 46% of suggested voters have said they WILL absolutely not vote for her. That sets her apart...
“Exactly! 46% of suggested voters have said they WILL absolutely not vote for her”
I believe this number will increase over time : )
Regardless of whether your party registration is "independent" or "republican" or "socialist" or "green" or "constitution" or "reform" or "communist" or "Let's ..." the only realistic choices we have in a Presidential race (and with very few exceptions congressional and gubernatorial races as well) are between the democrat and republican nominees. Given those choices, in general you can count on the democrat candidate to support a position of higher taxes, higher government regulations of just about everything (except they will oppose any and all regulation of abortion on demand), and gun control legislation. You can also count on the democrat candidate to support legislation strengthening the organized criminal institutions known as labor unions. If you want to register as a member of any of those other parties, that is fine, but just remember that if your vote choice helps elect democrats then you are voting for higher taxes, more regulation, more restrictive gun control laws, and in general an economic and political system that leans more toward socialism than toward free-market capitalism.
Well, theres another way. We can just become leftists ourselves and then our side will never lose.
I would no more suggest we go to the dark side and become leftists, than I would suggest you become a tadpole.
However, I am very, very concerned that we are working ourselves up to ensure that hillary clintoon becomes the next President. (Even typing that makes me nauseous).
I think we are very wrong to attack potential candidates like we do. As I said before, I am not a Rudy fan, but the constant sniping and distortion of his record is self-defeating and just flat wrong.
Does anyone really think he is a transvestite?
Bill clintoon was never divorced - how does that speak to his morals?
Is abortion (as abominable as it is) a Federal issue? If not, then why would we want to use it as a litmus test?
I think we should stick to the issues - the War, the border, appointment of federal judges, presence or lack of spinal fortitude, etc.
And, on that note, I come out of the closet and declare myself as a Fredhead. Run, Fred, run!
Whether you cease posting on FR is something only you can decide, the same as your question on re-registration. Right now, I would say you and others [somewhat] similarly situated are in the drivers seat. It is the GOP Big Tent that has abandoned conservatives--it's your tent now, not ours. Haven't you noticed all those empty seats where conservatives used to sit? Most of us are long gone as a consequence of the hijacking of the Republican party by the big government/expanded entitlements/open borders/NWO yahoos. If we don't see some prompt and dramatic course corrections, we won't be returning. I'm not interested in supporting a Republican party that is tainted with the diseases of European socialism. In other words, it is we conservatives who should be asking whether we should re-register, not you. It's your Big Tent--at least for now.
Having said all that, I would be quite disappointed to see you depart. It is undeniably true that FR is a conservative site (as strongly reaffirmed by Jim Rob on 3/02/07):
" The words of Jim Robinson on pushing a liberal like Rino Rudy. How many times must I say FR is a conservative site? We do not support abortionism, homosexualism, feminisim, environmentalism, gun control, liberalism, socialism, etc, etc, etc. When I say I suspect we will become even more conservative than we already are, possibly via attrition if nothing else, what do you think Im referring to? When FR starts pushing hard and I mean hard against abortion, gay marriage, homosexual education forced on our school children, pandering to illegal aliens, gun control, McCaine-Feingold type usurpation, global warming, etc, etc, even if supported or advanced by the GOP, then I fully suspect certain types of moderate/liberal Republican supporters are probably going to be a little uncomfortable here. We will be fighting for traditional American conservatism no matter who we have to fight against and Im afraid thats going to piss off some folks. Jim Robinson, 3/2/07
Nevertheless, your posts here are always on point, articulate, and sometimes brilliant. I look forward to seeing what you have to say on various issues of particular interest to conservatives. While you haven't changed my mind on the issues, I (and others, I believe)have benefitted from your always well reasoned and thorough analyses. I would hate to lose that.
“Most of us are long gone as a consequence of the hijacking of the Republican party by the big government/expanded entitlements/open borders/NWO yahoos. If we don’t see some prompt and dramatic course corrections, we won’t be returning. I’m not interested in supporting a Republican party that is tainted with the diseases of European socialism. In other words, it is we conservatives who should be asking whether we should re-register, not you. It’s your Big Tent—at least for now.”
It’s certainly not MY party now!
Rudy Giuliani supports abortion, and he’s the frontrunner.
I reject abortion.
Romney used to, and McCain supports federal funding for abortion in the form of fetal stem-cell research.
I reject abortion, and that includes fetal stem-cell research.
Although I have argued that the influx of Hispanics may well have a long-term positive effect on the abortion debate, I oppose open borders. I want a wall, and I don’t want any discussion of amnesty until there is a wall.
George W. Bush doesn’t want a wall and does want amnesty.
Ditto for Rudy and McCain.
I reject that.
I don’t care what people do, so long as they don’t do it in the streets and disturb the horses, but I oppose gay marriage.
Rudy supports it.
I wanted to declare war on 9/11.
The GOP chose to go for another Vietnam-style police action in several countries. And we are now reaping Vietnam-like results, for precisely the reasons I enunciated in September, 2001 and have been repeating ever since.
I support the war, but that means WINNING THE WAR.
I did not support the Rumsfeld strategy of going in with too few troops to secure the country. It was stupid then, I said so, and I was right. I was vilified, then, for “Not supporting the war”. Bullshit. Rumsfeld and Bush were the ones who led us off a cliff, lemminglike. I refused to jump. I was not a traitor, I was RIGHT.
And NOW I am still right. I oppose this “Surge”. It does not go far enough. It cannot possibly win. We never had enough troops on the ground, and we still don’t. And thanks to the incompetence of Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld, the Army is so broken now that we have to extend tours of duty to 15 months, and jam Navy guys into Afghanistan to plug the gaps.
I support winning the war. THAT MEANS ARMING THE KURDS AND THE NATIONALIST IRAQIS, AND GETTING OUT OF THE WAY AS THEY WIN THE CIVIL WAR. It means allowing them to do what they have to do to their domestic enemies, just like Sherman did what had to be done to the Confederacy. It means atrocities and carnage, but WE won’t be doing it. We need more men, and it has to be IRAQI men, and we cannot control them, but have to let them settle the scores and destroy their domestic enemies. It will be bloody and horrible, but what will come out of is an allied nation not shooting at us, not in Iran’s watchpocket, and not a source of terrorism. That is winning the war. It is the ONLY WAY to win the war now that we have so few troops, the Army is broken and the Civil War is raging. George W. Bush has said three times, publicly, we will NOT do that in any case. He is an idiot. His strategy is the REASON we are losing in Iraq. I blame George Bush and the Republican Party for the defeat in Iraq, not the Democrats, because they have demonstrated the intelligence of Maginot: unbelieveably stupid strategic decisions, overriding their military commanders advice (remember Shinseki? Everybody in the military noticed. Use the templates and say what we NEED TO WIN, and get fired. Of course, therefore, no general ever “asks”. Ask and get relieved? No thanks.)
I want to win the war.
We cannot possibly win the war the way we are fighting it.
We never could.
It was obvious to me from the beginning, but I had hope that the enemy, maybe, would not be so tough. I never had any confidence in the strategy, and now that I have been proven consistently right for four years running, since the very week of the attack on 9/11 (which I survived; I worked at World Trade), I REALLY don’t have confidence in the strategy. I have said what will work. The President has shot it down thrice. It’s Bush’s fault we are going to lose. He refuses to win.
So, does that make me a Democrat?
Those lily-livered bastards WANT TO LOSE THE WAR. Except Hillary (and Lieberman). She still has some spine. But by the time she gets the office (and she WILL win the office if we have not won the war by 2008, and we will NOT have won the war by 2008 with the current absolutely hopeless strategy) it will be too late to do anything. The people who should be under arms fighting on our general side in the civil war in Iraq are the ones who are UNARMED, because we won’t arm them and unleash them, because they will do very bad things (they will. So what? It’s better than losing to the OTHER GUYS doing very bad things.).
So, who do I vote for?
I CAN’T vote Democrat.
The Republicans’ hearts are in the right place. A new GOP Commander-in-Chief may be competent. McCain or Hunter are the two experienced military men. McCain’s pro-abortion (stem-cell), which means Hunter is the best candidate for winning the war. Giuliani, Romney and Thompson don’t know a damned thing about war.
So, how is this MY tent?
I don’t think that Social Security, Medicare and public education are socialism. I think they are public insurance programs and investments in human capital. This leaves me in the cold on Republican economics, supposedly, but George W. Bush is the one who expanded Medicare to cover drugs. I think he was right to do so. Reagan was the one who deepened Social Security. Again, I think Reagan was right. I guess that makes me a Reaganite, over and against all of these Republican “conservatives” who seem to hate Medicare, Social Security and public education as socialism. I will stick with my good socialist buddies Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon and George W. Bush on this one, over and against the Ayn Rand conservatives.
So, where can I go?
I asked “Should I post here” because it’s Jim Robinson’s website. Had he told me “No”, publicly or privately, I would leave. But he did not. So, even though I am quite at odds with “conservative” thought on Social Security, Medicare, public education, trade policy and general tax policy, I am still welcome in the tent for other reasons, apparently, so long as I am polite.
So, although I do not agree on economics, at all, I will remain here. I have noplace else to go.
But I will not vote for Giuliani. It’s a bridge too far. And anyway, he can’t win. Neither can McCain or Romney. I don’t know if Duncan Hunter can win or not. Against Hillary, maybe. Against Obama, probably not. Thompson has a good shot at winning against either, so I guess he’s the best option right now. I continue to support Hunter for as long as Hunter is in the race, because Hunter is right.
How is it “My Party” at all, given these views.
In truth, I hope to persuade the Rudybots that the abortion issue cannot be overcome.
I hope to persuade everybody to press Bush on the war to arm the Kurds and Iraqi nationalists and let them fight and win the civil war.
And I hope to persuade conservatives to think more carefully about social welfare, tax and trade policies.
That’s why I am staying, until I am asked to leave by the owner of the site, at which point I will go.
I support Duncan Hunter and will support Fred Thompson if he enters, without qualification.
I do not trust Romney, but if he shows something like a pro-life conversion I can believe, I will probably vote for him if he is the nominee.
McCain is dead wrong on stem cells, which is abortion, but although I hate abortion, McCain is dead right on the need to fight the war. If he’s the nominee, I will vote for him, unenthusiastically.
If Rudy Giuliani is the nominee, I will vote for Hillary Clinton, and I will tell you why.
Rudy is to the left of Hillary on abortion - HE wants to publicly fund it! She’s never said any such thing. By running Rudy, who is vocally pro-abortion, the Republicans are kicking me directly in the groin. Voting for Hillary kicks them back.
Number two, Rudy’s no more pro-war than Hillary. Hillary has taken a lot of heat for refusing to apologize for her war vote. If she inherits the war, she isn’t going to want to lose it. She is a tough bitch. I think she’ll fight. And she’ll be better advised than Rudy. Rudy will get holdovers from the current team, and they’re incompetent. Believe it or not, Hillary is respected by those military officers who have appeared before her in the Armed Services Committee, because she does her homework, asks cogent questions, and is not anti-military. She does a decent job, they report, quietly. I think she will put military men in the security positions, because she won’t trust Dem politicians on the subject, and won’t want to lose. Also, Giuliani’s deferral to be a law clerk bothers me. Not enough to disqualify him. He has no military experience, has not sat on the Armed Services Committee. And frankly, he’s an asshole. He doesn’t like anybody showing authority in his presence at all. I remember how he treated Bratton, who was the real force behind bringing down crime. Hillary is more likely to listen to her generals than Rudy is. I think she would be a better commander-in-chief for picking up the pieces of this broken Republican war than Giuliani.
Then we come to the business of personal morality. Giuliani has the morality of an alleycat, and is estranged from his children. Hillary has played Tammy Wynette to erring Bill, and is adored by her child. She is Lady MacBeth, but once again she looks less bad than Giuliani.
And, of course, I agree: we need universal health insurance. Hillary’s first plan was flawed, but if, as President, she tries again, using a model more like extended Medicare and less like Germany’s model, I would support that. I’ve already said that I think Social Security and health insurance are not socialism at all, but investments in maintaining human capital.
Bottom line: kick me in the groin and name Giuliani, and I vote for Hillary. Otherwise, I probably unhappily vote for the Republican candidate, unless it’s Hunter (or maybe Thompson). Then I’m enthused. You tell me if that makes the current party “My Party”.
From the Senate: Senator Clinton's Statement on Supreme Court's Gonzales v. Carhart Decision
Washington, DC -- "This decision marks a dramatic departure from four decades of Supreme Court rulings that upheld a woman's right to choose and recognized the importance of women's health. Today's decision blatantly defies the Court's recent decision in 2000 striking down a state partial-birth abortion law because of its failure to provide an exception for the health of the mother. As the Supreme Court recognized in Roe v. Wade in 1973, this issue is complex and highly personal; the rights and lives of women must be taken into account. It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito."
No matter who the Republican Candidate is, after the primaries and the Convention, and even if he wins, somewhere a substantial number of the voters in this country subscribe to the ideas behind this chilling statement from Hillary: an endorsement of imposed death sentences in the operating room that they feel should be sanctioned by law.
Although each of the Republican candidates has now issued a 'pro-forma' support of the Supreme Court ruling on late-term abortion, none has given a clue as to how he intends to roll back the tremendous number of abortions now occuring.
Who will be the first candidate, or potential candidate to lay out his program for accomplishing an end to what is now permitted, in the face over what is sure to be an overwhelming MSM onslaught?
And that is what every Republican candidate, whether we like it or not, is afraid of; coming out and laying out that roll-back program, for fear of being divisive.
Rudy doesn’t need the American Spectator or anyone else to tell him how to finesse the abortion issue. He put the issue out there in the worst possible light, including his support for public funding. He took a 5 point hit in the polls, and now the public has absorbed the information. Giuliani is back to where he was before he took the hit, and never relinquished his front-runner status.
Republican activists are going to find out that abortion is a back-burner issue for a majority of party voters. His abortion position actually helps him, because it increases his viability in the general election, and his support in the primary is driven by that.
You are spinning horse manure.
Stop it. Killing babies is a Rat issue and it is not popular.
The only horse manure being spun around FR these days is that there is a pro-life candidate in the Republican stable who can win the general election of 08.
A lot of true-believing conservatives are letting their political hopes and dreams cloud their political judgment. It would be laudable but for the fact that the stakes are so high.