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)
Sorry Dude, the pro abortion Rudy is a disgusting degenerate. He has proved to also be a big fool. He is the only candidate we could run that COULD not beat Hillary.
So, anyone else agree that this is horse manure?
So, let me get this right. What you’re trying to say is the pro-abortionist candidates like Rudy Giuliani are winners and that pro-life candidates are losers. Did I hear that right?
We're not destroying our own candidates. What we are seeing on Free Republic is all part of the process, as it should be. Sadly, Giuliani is not a conservative. It is better to acknowledge that now, get him out of the picture as soon as possible and start building support for a more suitable candidate. There are some who claim he can beat Hillary. I say he cannot, and that putting him up as the Republican nominee will lead to a party split and Hillary as president.
Not necessarily. I am saying that Rudy Giuliani is the only candidate in the stable of potential Republican nominees with the capability to win the general in 08. His abortion position is really beside the point, although he does triangulate the Dems on the issue, which may be why he is polling so well.
Only all of America:
Yeah, sure. Most of America ain’t even paying much attention yet.
A true conservative position. Good.
"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 dont want any discussion of amnesty until there is a wall."
For me, this is a no compromise issue. While the invasion of Hispanics may very well have a positive effect on abortion, that is not good enough to overcome all of the other negatives. You're good on border enforcement but willing to discuss amnesty after there is a wall. We differ here. I oppose any and all forms of amnesty because it rewards lawbreakers. No amnesty under any circumstances--no compromise.
"I wanted to declare war on 9/11."
Your comments here mirror my own feelings. The problem was not the decision to take out Iraq but rather the limp wristed approach of trying to fight a politically correct war. Too little, too late. As you say, "another Vietnam-style police action".
"I oppose this 'Surge'.
As do I, but only if it continues the "too little. too late" approach. If there is the necessary heavy commitment of military resources, then I would support a "surge" because I believe we need to establish a military base in the middle east. There is nothing wrong and everything right about fighting terrorism over there and not here.
"And thanks to the incompetence of Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld, the Army is...broken now..."
That's what happens when the GOP Big Tent goes for wildly increased domestic spending (which funds your social programs) and either cuts back or does very little to properly fund military resources and operations. Too little for the military and too much for the domestic black holes.
"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."
"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."
"I blame George Bush and the Republican Party for the defeat in Iraq, not the Democrats,..."
Agree in part and disagree in part. You are willing to give the Rats a pass in the blame game. I am not. The constant barrage of attacks on the President and the total lack of any Rat support must be considered part of the reason we are in this mess. Even though much if not most of the fault lies with the Bush administration, I will not absolve the Democrats because they behaved then, and continue to behave, like a pack of traitors. That has had its affect.
"I want to win the war.
We cannot possibly win the war the way we are fighting it.
We never could."
Agree. Kind of makes one wonder why we ever thought the people in the White House were smarter than we were and must know what they were doing. Guess not.
"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,..."
Well, it wasn't that obvious to me but then we try to elect people smarter than we are about such matters. And as for the enemy, don't mistake Islamist terrorist zealotry for strength.
"So, does that make me a Democrat?
Of course not.
"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 wont arm them and unleash them, because they will do very bad things (they will. So what? Its better than losing to the OTHER GUYS doing very bad things.).
"...Hunter is the best candidate for winning the war."
Agree. Until someone better comes along, I support his presidential candidacy.
"So, how is this MY tent?"
You provide at least a partial answer to your own question in the succeeding paragraph of your excellent post: "I dont think that Social Security, Medicare and public education are socialism. I think they are public insurance programs and investments in human capital."
They may not meet the technical definition of socialism in all respects, but make no mistake they have a large socialistic/nanny state component. Moreover, it has been the Republican wild spending and expansion of entitlement programs that is denying you and me what we know we need far worse: more defense spending. So long as you support such programs as the valid business of government, conservatives will get nowhere. Your position in this area of social spending is simply not a conservative position. While it may not make the GOP Big Tent your tent, it does exclude you from the conservative base, and therefore tends to point you in the direction of that Big Tent..
" So, where can I go?"
I have no idea. You don't like the GOP Big Tent and yet your support of big government entitlement spending would make it difficult to say you are a conservative (at least as I see that term). You seem to be more GOP Big Tent than conservative.
"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."
You are polite, and I cannot imagine you being unwelcome on FR, even though you may be missing a few conservative checkmarks on your card. As for "tent", I assume you mean the FR tent. If he felt otherwise, I am sure you would have heard from Jim by now.
"How is it My Party at all, given these views.
Just my own view, but your big spending tendencies are a better fit for the GOP Big Tent than the conservative base. Besides, look at it this way: with the conservative base having largely departed, there is more seating room. You no longer have to sit "cheek to jowel" jammed up against conservatives. We agree on much, but I just cannot swallow that lump called big social program spending.
"I continue to support Hunter for as long as Hunter is in the race, because Hunter is right."
"In truth, I hope to persuade the Rudybots that the abortion issue cannot be overcome."
Good. But you won't.
"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."
A change in the conservative position is unlikely.
"If Rudy Giuliani is the nominee, I will vote for Hillary Clinton, and I will tell you why."
Mere words fail me.
"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 its Hunter (or maybe Thompson). Then Im enthused. You tell me if that makes the current party My Party.
I remain speechless.
I don't think anything I've said here should offend you, at least I hope not. I simply felt that your long post to me deserved a reply. I apologize for the time it took me to navigate among your various points, which you have argued well.