I think I’ve linked previously to this column by Fred Barnes Choosing Life How pro-lifers become pro-lifers. He mentions the abortion bill Reagan signed in 1967, his first year as governor, and says it was the only political mistake he ever admitted.

Lou Cannon in his book Governor Reagan His Rise to Power mentions on page 213, that in 1970 Reagan successfully opposed legislative attempts to further liberalize abortion law. I couldn’t find further comment on the web.

On a Marxist website, (which I won’t link to, but you can search if you like) in an article titled Our Bodies! Our Choice! Winning the Fight for Reproductive Rights by Evelyn Sell, she writes:

For example, an abortion rights rally was set for March 10, 1973, in San Francisco to protest Governor Ronald Reagan’s statements against abortion.

TIME Magazine, Uproar over Abortion, February 16, 1976, discussing Carter, Reagan and Ford on abortion:

Ronald Reagan has come out flatly against abortion on demand and in favor of the constitutional amendment outlawing abortion except in rare cases posing a clear risk to the woman’s life.

From this trend over time, I don’t think Reagan was a flip-flopper on this issue.

Ever think maybe this is his son’s way of getting a little revenge on Rudy for humiliating his mother in front of the whole city?

Allahpundit on March 5, 2007 at 6:07 PM

Yep.

In the case of the 8,000 infants who are born in Washington every year to poor illegal immigrant parents, the state picks up the delivery cost and can attest that the children are, indeed, U.S.-born and thus citizens, she said.

The state pays an average of $120 a month to cover the infants.

Ask Rudy what he’s going to do about this?

This cry of RINO just doesn’t hold water with regards to any of the major candidates except McCain.

Rudy has nearly always been a strict supporter of the President and the party, even when his views on particular issues were at variance with the party baseline views. He’s a true blue (red?) Republican, not a RINO.

spmat on March 6, 2007 at 11:02 AM

Based on what? Not his actions. What do you consider a RINO? What do you consider a conservative? Rudy fits none of the standard definitions, other than being tough on crime. Let’s go through your check list.

Judges? Strict constructionism, so check.

Again, based on what? What he says in an interview? His record of appointments certainly doesn’t agree with your claim, nor does his record back his words.

Via Politico.com:

A Politico review of the 75 judges Giuliani appointed to three of New York state’s lower courts found that Democrats outnumbered Republicans by more than 8 to 1. One of his appointments was an officer of the International Association of Lesbian and Gay Judges. Another ruled that the state law banning liquor sales on Sundays was unconstitutional because it was insufficiently secular.

A third, an abortion-rights supporter, later made it to the federal bench in part because New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a liberal Democrat, said he liked her ideology.

Cumulatively, Giuliani’s record was enough to win applause from people like Kelli Conlin, the head of NARAL Pro-Choice New York, the state’s leading abortion-rights group. “They were decent, moderate people,” she said.

How long has it been since Rudy has actually MADE A DECISION? Conservatives seem to believe Rudy is still holding office. He travels around the country talking tough, claiming to back the President on every issue, and it’s just accepted that it’s who he is?

As I’ve said before … there’s a very good reason Rudy was well liked in the same City that overwhelmingly voted for John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, and it’s definitely not because he’s conservative.

Gay marriage? State issue (to be decided by legislatures, not judges) not to be enforced on any state that thinks it immoral, so check on that.

When a candidate claims that something should be left up to the States, basically he’s avoiding taking a stand. We have Federal law for a reason. Stating that gay marriage should be left up to the States, is in effect, opening up the door for nationwide acceptance. Is this a conservative stance? You give him a check on this, for stating that he’d be okay if every State in the U.S. were to decide to allow gay marriage?

Gun control? Again, regulation is a state by state issue, so check on that, too.

This is even more confusing. So you’re giving the man a check for leaving it up to the States to decide whether or not they want to uphold the Constitution? Really? He gets a check? So the Constitution of the United States is open to debate on a State-by-State basis?

Very scary what so-called “conservatives” are willing to accept these days.

The bottom line is that Rudy’s actions do not fit his words, other than on crime. He’s pro gay marriage, pro-illegal alien, pro-abortion, and not only pro gun control, but he’s for taking them away completely. Of course, violating the Constitution is only okay if it reduces crime according to Giuliani, so maybe that’s okay with some voters. And, only if your particular State says it’s okay.

Does Giuliani admit to having a stand on anything, or is everything a State issue? It seems to me that if Giuliani is elected, there’s not really a need to call us the United States of America any longer. We’ll all be 52 individual States, able to do as we please. And all you people who complain about San Francisco having a habit of violating Federal Law, I guess we should just let each City do as they please also. Who’s to tell Gavin that he has no right to marry homosexuals. It’s his City. Let him do as he pleases. Constitution and Federal Law be damned.

This cry of RINO just doesn’t hold water with regards to any of the major candidates except McCain. He’s a RINO because of his backstabbing with the gang of 14, and his ludicrous pandering to the media to the detriment of his party. He’s not a Republican. He’s certainly not a conservative. He’s John McCain, and it’s his way or the highway, which is hopefully where he’ll stay come ‘08.

Rudy has nearly always been a strict supporter of the President and the party, even when his views on particular issues were at variance with the party baseline views. He’s a true blue (red?) Republican, not a RINO.

He’s just not a social conservative. His stated goals, however, are quite well within the bounds of acceptability for social cons. Judges? Strict constructionism, so check. Gay marriage? State issue (to be decided by legislatures, not judges) not to be enforced on any state that thinks it immoral, so check on that. Gun control? Again, regulation is a state by state issue, so check on that, too.

Rudy is electable. So is Romney. McCain, however, is just not. The man couldn’t win a general against my chia pet. He’s a festering sore waiting to be opened wide for the public to see, which the MSM is just chomping at the bit to do. He’s also burned more bridges than the Russians in retreat.

Then when he saw that was going nowhere, he suddenly veers into this being such a blow to Rudy, completely ignoring the bad press Reagan had re his kids, and the fact that bad relationships with grown children are not an issue voters tend to look at.

Like I said, an idiot.

This break-up with Donna Hanover was over the top. Rudy is a bit of a drama queen IMO.

Newsweek story was pretty interesting. Points out that Rudy’s main appeal may be his aura of competence–contrast his post 9/11 performance (and his whole stint as mayor) with the Bush/Katrina debacle.

Gather round kids, while grandma Honora relates a time ong ago when competence was a given, not a political advantage in Presidential races. Oy.

Allahpundit still likes Giuliani, but he does think it’s pretty audacious for a guy who broke up with his ex-wife at a press conference asks media to respect his family’s privacy. “It’s late in the day and a little too……

I have many questions about him and I’m not sure he’s the best one for the job. His stance on the 2nd amendment is scary….after all, he said he won’t affect hunting /rolls eyes. To think we should give up nearly every conservative value in order to win is nuts…people are discounting some real good runners that have much potential. It’s too early yet.

Without Giuliani or Romney, we don’t have a shot in the dark of retaining the White House.

amerpundit on March 5, 2007 at 6:05 PM

IMO, our’s is a long shot, and Rudy’s our best chance (solely for what he did after 9/11–nothing else).

If he’s worried about press coverage jeopardizing family relations, he could have said, “No comment.”

Ever think maybe this is his son’s way of getting a little revenge on Rudy for humiliating his mother in front of the whole city?

Allahpundit on March 5, 2007 at 6:07 PM

You’ve got a good point, and you very well may be right. But how many 21-yr-old males are super-tight with the old man? (Even the one’s still married to mom?)
Not that I think it will be conveyed by the media, or that those basing their opinions on the NYT will get it, but I think his son gave a pretty good endorsement of Rudy (all things considered).

I think Giuliani agrees with about .05% of conservative principles.
Gregor on March 5, 2007 at 6:56 PM

I’m not sure who gets my vote, but as to Rudy in practical terms, I think there’s a threshold of 50% minimum on one detail – that Constitutional responsibility of the government to “provide for the common defense…” I know he’s a little weak on individual defense. And borders? With his decades of tough work in the areas of crime and security, it’s hard to think he’d be blind to the security implications of weak borders.

Most importantly, you have to consider the alternatives: Hillary would seek to “provide for the common defense a worldwide conversation on the nature of the use of power…”. And Obama, …what?… “provide for the common defense keeping hope alive…”? That’s all I know about his security resumé.

He’s a liberal. On every issue. Unless you think “talking tough” on the war on terror makes him a conservative./blockquote>

Gregor,

You don’t know what you’re talking about. I lived in New York with liberals like Lindsay and Dinkins running the city (or running it into the ground more precisely). That was my first lesson in modern liberalism.

Rudy is not a liberal.

Oh hell. I guess I might as well think of better things.

I want one.

Buck Turgidson on March 5, 2007 at 7:36 PM

As much as I wish we would all come together and vote for a true conservative, I realize it’s a dead issue and Giuliani will most likely win. I guess I need to just get used to it and be happy it won’t be Hillary.

I fail to be too excited however, knowing that my kids will live in a socialist country which is doomed to be patterned after the EU. I already know a little Spanish. I guess I better start learning French.

I can smell the burning cars from the Islamic and La Raza riots now.

Oh hell. I guess I might as well think of better things.

Only if you use his entire record and not just the happy points everyone likes to remember.

Reagan did a lot of great things but he did not solve illegal immigration, he gave amnesty. He did next to nothing about abortion. In fact, he was not anti-abortion as a governor. You could call him a flip flopper. He was divorced and also had some issues with his kids. There are a lot of things that people seem to forget about Reagan but somehow hold current candidates to a bar he never reached.

JackStraw on March 5, 2007 at 7:26 PM

Yes, he gave amnesty. And given the times, without the aid of hindsight we have today, it was the prevailing wisdom from both sides of the aisle that it was the right thing to do. I strongly suspect that if Reagan had the benefit of 9/11 and the current issues we face today, he would have made an entirely different choice.

He was certainly no flip-flopper. As for not being anti-abortion as governor, I disagree. He signed the bill on the advice of Ed Meese and Lyn Nofziger and had believed that the bill would have had little impact. He later admitted his mistake and regretted it very much.

As for the divorce, it takes two. As a son of divorced parents, I’m an expert on such matters. Trust me. And who hasn’t had trouble with their kids especially where divorce is involved? He may not have been the best father as some think he ought to have been, but one of those kids turned out pretty darn good. That’s more than many parents can say today.

IMHO, Reagan is the bar and deservedly so. Yes, he’s had his failures. But the good that he did do is far more than most would ever dream of accomplishing.

.

you make my point for me. you have a holier than thouw attitude. i did not say it was ok to trash anyone. it does not help when we trash our side.

kara26 on March 5, 2007 at 7:01 PM

Huh? I know you didn’t. I didn’t suggest you did, and in fact that was my point. You seem to have suggested that we shouldn’t attack our own when they do something wrong. I say we should. THAT’S why we’re supposed to be better, because we aren’t supposed to simply follow like blind sheep.

As for Giuliani being “our own” … see my previous comments.

I agree with this. The problem is that I think Giuliani agrees with about .05% of conservative principles.

Gregor on March 5, 2007 at 6:56 PM

I can’t agree with that (though I thoroughly understand the sentiment), but he is on par or slightly to the right of most New England Republicans. Besides name recognition, we do have to give him props for demonstrating a leadership quality that has been sorely lacking in the Republican Party of late. He’s demonstrated to me in the past that he’s no Olympia Snow or Lincoln Chafee.

.

Yes, but is it wrong to use him as the standard by which all others are measured?

Only if you use his entire record and not just the happy points everyone likes to remember.

Reagan did a lot of great things but he did not solve illegal immigration, he gave amnesty. He did next to nothing about abortion. In fact, he was not anti-abortion as a governor. You could call him a flip flopper. He was divorced and also had some issues with his kids. There are a lot of things that people seem to forget about Reagan but somehow hold current candidates to a bar he never reached.

Tancredo is not Reagan (he’s a one-trick pony, actually).

I strongly agree with that, btw.

.

Reagan isn’t coming back. We have to move on.

spmat on March 5, 2007 at 7:14 PM

Yes, but is it wrong to use him as the standard by which all others are measured?

.