Video: Rudy on abortion, 1989 edition

posted at 5:30 pm on March 11, 2007 by Allahpundit

Via Hotline. Another day, another embarrassing 20-year-old Giuliani video posted at YouTube by someone with a new account. Fancy that.

Dedicated with playful antagonism to Rudy-basher Number One, who just yesterday finally found something to like about the guy.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Right… Rudy is pro-abortion. Rudy is also a gun grabber. Rudy is a RINO. Who doesn’t know that?

Maxx on March 11, 2007 at 5:38 PM

Who’s the guy with the hair?

PinkyBigglesworth on March 11, 2007 at 5:39 PM

Awkward, sad, and not surprising at the same time. I’m hoping that Fred Thompson will come along and save my perfect voting record.

Buzzy on March 11, 2007 at 5:43 PM

Gross.

If he will put a textualist/originalist on SCOTUS Roe v. Wade is moot. The question is will he make federal funds available for abortions? The answer it seems is yes.

Theworldisnotenough on March 11, 2007 at 5:43 PM

Why did anyone bother to post this on youtube? Everyone already knows Rudy is pro abortion.

SnakeintheGrass on March 11, 2007 at 5:44 PM

Maybe by bringing all this stuff up more than a year away from the election it will be a total non-issue by the time November rolls around. For the 7 of us in the United States who don’t already know which party we’ll vote for this is going to be an extremely expensive election. Mr. Soros will that be cash or charge?

Mojave Mark on March 11, 2007 at 5:45 PM

*sigh* I so liked Rudy…

Oh well. Screw em.
*plays air guitar to AC/DC*

Theworldisnotenough on March 11, 2007 at 5:45 PM

Awkward, sad, and not surprising at the same time.

Oh come on. Allah’s stalking, er, courting of KP is kinda cute.

JackStraw on March 11, 2007 at 5:59 PM

If Rudy really is this liberal, and not just playing politics, why isn’t he a democrat?

jp on March 11, 2007 at 6:11 PM

You know what’s sad? Allah’s taking the time to post these. 20 years ago. Let’s remember something, shall we? Reagan was a Democrat, and president of the Screen Actor’s Guild Union. He was a “Hollywood type” and was liberal on several issues, hence his supporters, the Reagan Democrats.

Barry Goldwater (aka Mr. Conservative)’s daughter had an abortion, which he approved of. His wife was associated with a Planned Parenthood type center.

amerpundit on March 11, 2007 at 6:16 PM

If Rudy really is this liberal, and not just playing politics, why isn’t he a democrat?

I believe he once was. So were a lot of people.

JammieWearingFool on March 11, 2007 at 6:33 PM

Let’s remember something, shall we? Reagan was a Democrat

amerpundit on March 11, 2007 at 6:16 PM

His party affiliation changed, but I’m sure his core values did not.

- The Cat

MirCat on March 11, 2007 at 6:35 PM

personally I think it would be preferable to have someone of strong character, a family man type, etc. but that said, assuming Rudy persues pro-family policies(which the electorate the puts him in office would demand), nominates judges in mold of scalia and thomas and his other liberal issues he leaves to the states and isn’t an activist on then he’s far different than what any Democrat will do. I don’t care about electing a King I can worship, I want someone who will puch the policies I prefer.

jp on March 11, 2007 at 6:37 PM

Isn’t his comments exactly why abortion is not a right?

A right doesn’t demand something from someone else in order to be used.

lorien1973 on March 11, 2007 at 6:48 PM

His party affiliation changed, but I’m sure his core values did not.

Reagan actually liked FDR and the New Deal in his early political years. Eventually, he switched sides in favor of smaller government, though. His core values changed considerably.

lorien1973 on March 11, 2007 at 6:49 PM

Well I wouldn’t exactly consider economics core. :)

- The Cat

MirCat on March 11, 2007 at 6:52 PM

I would, considering the Misery Index was 28.3% under Carter, and Reagan lowered it to 7.2%. Reaganomics wasn’t so important, for nothing.

lorien1973, is right. He did change several ideals, including his ideology on taxes. He was originally in favor of big taxes, the opposite of Bush’s tax cuts.

Reagan was also married twice, divorced once.

amerpundit on March 11, 2007 at 7:06 PM

My point, is that people change. We can’t rule out that Rudy could change his views on abortion and other issues, he already has shown he’s changed a bit on gun control (see Fox News interview).

amerpundit on March 11, 2007 at 7:07 PM

Already knew Rudy was pro-choice, but…OUCH!

CP on March 11, 2007 at 7:14 PM

What’s that “republican-liberal” party tag on the screenshot? You can see it on the shot on the main hotair page.

Were republican-liberals different than democratic-liberals back then?

BacaDog on March 11, 2007 at 7:41 PM

Reagan wasn’t the best father in the world, see Fredo Corleone(Ron Reagan) and his daughter who refused to take his last name.

Reagan was also divorced, I’ve read he was pro-choice while a governor of California but not sure about that…point is, whats important is to get a Republican in the whitehouse and keep Hillary/obama out!

jp on March 11, 2007 at 8:02 PM

Good question. This seems to be the answer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Party_(New_York_State)

lorien1973 on March 11, 2007 at 8:03 PM

Giuliani’s Private Life May Hurt His Run [Associated Press]

Extremely ironic and funny, in a strange way.

Entelechy on March 11, 2007 at 8:46 PM

All politics is local. NYC is no exception.
Hence, the embarassing Rudy clip.
And as for the Romney flip-flops, anyone surprised?
He’s been the governor of Taxachusetts.

Next RINO please.

CyberCipher on March 11, 2007 at 8:54 PM

Oh come on. Allah’s stalking, er, courting of KP is kinda cute.

JackStraw on March 11, 2007 at 5:59 PM

There’s nothing like situation comedy, also referred to as sitcom.

Sitcoms are based on such premises as the fish out of water, the foil, the young protagonist’s point of view, misunderstandings, and the parody of serious versions of their characters or genres.

Entelechy on March 11, 2007 at 8:55 PM

Rudy is not pro abortion, he is pro choice (as is the majority of the country). By the way what did Richard Nixon, Jerky Ford, Ronald Reagan, G.H.W. Bush and George W. Bush do to make abortion illegal? I know – they gave us Harry Blackmun, John Paul (George and Ringo) Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, Sandra Day O’Connor and David Souter (as well as trying to give us Harriet Miers) for the Supreme Court. (In other words they were full of shiite.) Sometimes I need reminding that the rightists can be almost as ideological crazy as the leftists. The people bashing Rudy and touting toxic candidates such as Newt Gingrich are a reality bite for me. When Hillary raises her hand on the Bible in Jan. 2009, a lot of people will deserve to see that because they put ideological purity over winning.

Hilts on March 11, 2007 at 9:22 PM

When Hillary raises her hand on the Bible in Jan. 2009, a lot of people will deserve to see that because they put ideological purity over winning.

Hilts on March 11, 2007 at 9:22 PM

Hilts, I agree with you – now, let’s make sure this never, ever, will happen!!!

Entelechy on March 11, 2007 at 9:29 PM

Entelechy

Hilts, I agree with you – now, let’s make sure this never, ever, will happen!!!

Thanks.
People fail to remember that a Duncan Hunter type of conservative has absolutely zero chances in New York City or Massachusetts. Besides what a mayor thinks about abortion is irrelevant. He cannot order abortion to be illegal (and neither can the President). There were some conservatives in NYC who hated Rudy so much that they supported Ron Lauder and later George Marlin even though neither had a snowballs’ chance in Hell of being elected Mayor. They thought that there actually was no difference between Rudy Giuliani and David Dinkins and Rudy Giuliani and Ruth Messinger. I almost pitied them for there ideologically driven insanity. Rudy’s enemies all came for the Left – Al Sharpton (my former calssmate) whom Rudy told to go to hell, The Municipal Unions, The New York Times, The Village Voice, the New Amsterdam News, Jimmy Breslin, Alton Maddox, and unfortunately (even though he endorsed him) a jealous Ed Koch (admittedly no Leftist). If a man is judged by his enemies then we know that Rudy is quite a leader. Rudy telling that Saudi Prince to go to Hell was his finest individual moment.
By the way Donna Hanover was a harpy shrew (who also appeared in “The Vagina Monologues”) who when Rudy (who was sleeping on the couch) was suffering from the ill effects of radiation treatments for his prostate cancer) would wake him up at 5:00 AM as she noisily did her aerobics. She also refused to even say if she voted for him.

Hilts on March 11, 2007 at 9:52 PM

Hilts, I agree with every point you make. Bravo.

amerpundit on March 11, 2007 at 10:43 PM

I haven’t read the comments so someone may have already covered this… but I think most of us recognize that Rudy isn’t “our candidate”, but when the alternative is Hillary it’s not time to be sitting this one out in protest. It’s not like you’re going to “send a message” to anyone (see 2006 elections). All you’ll have done is ushered in the beginning of the end of this country, and I’m not being dramatic. You can’t say “I’ll show ‘em! I won’t vote, and see how they like it when Hillary gets elected!” Sadly there are I’m sure thousands, if not millions who are thinking like that at this point, but they aren’t recognizing that this isn’t a game. This would mean AT LEAST 4 years of Hillary. I guess if you think such a scenario is something we can survive, do what you gotta do… but I’ll be voting Rudy (if, as seems likely, he’s the nominee).

RightWinged on March 11, 2007 at 11:37 PM

…. oh, and I want to add that I think Rudy needs to be pressed about this… something along the lines of “do you still feel the same way?”… It’s 18 years ago and people can change. I’m not assuming he has by any means, but he should be given the opportunity to say that he has, IF he has.

RightWinged on March 11, 2007 at 11:48 PM

Soooo whoop-te-dooo Show me one dem that can
hold a candle to Rudy . . . OK, Zell Miller can.

Texyank on March 11, 2007 at 11:52 PM

Hilts, that was a great assessment. I never saw Donna Hanover as a sympathetic figure, not even when Rudy announced his divorce. I feel for the children. She leaves me cold and always did.

Yesterday I caught Karl Rove on C-Span, as a guest at the Clinton Library in Arkansas. He said the win for the liberal congress was only a matter of a few thousand votes. I was shocked. The independents/conservatives sent a message – but what did we end up with? Hopefully they’ll be scared enough in ’08 to realize the short/long-term consequences of ‘teaching lessons’ and na-na-na-ing.

Entelechy on March 12, 2007 at 12:20 AM

Entelechy and amerpundit
Thanks again.

Those conservatives who wanted to “Send a message” in 2006 have no right now to complain about “Generals” Pelosi and Murtha calling the shots.
I happen to live in the real world, not some ideologues world – and for whatever faults Rudy has, he was a terrific mayor of NYC and the only one who I am fairly confident would have the cojones to stand up to the mullahs of Iran as well as Hamas instead of sending Clueless Condi of the Veil on one of her endless “peace missions” to Ramallah.

Hilts on March 12, 2007 at 8:00 AM

Sorry Entelechy but it was quite apparent that the GOP learned nothing from November 06 and the “Republican Liberal” party is cruising ahead towards their own agenda thumbing its nose at its conservative base. We saw that with President Bush’s comment that Michael Steele would make a good talk radio host and the appointment of Mel Martinez as RNC head.

The Republican front runner is Pro Iraq, pro abortion, anti gun, big government, amnesty for illegals and the Democratic front runner is anti Iraq, pro abortion, anti gun, big government, amnesty for illegals. I like many others fail to see a whole lot of difference there. Its hard to carry water for the party on Iraq when you keep getting kicked in the teeth on domestic issues day in and day out.

The GOP cannot win without its base but apparently they haven’t figured that out yet.

Buzzy on March 12, 2007 at 8:25 AM

20 years ago. Let’s remember something, shall we? Reagan was a Democrat

amerpundit on March 11, 2007 at 6:16 PM

There’s one major problem with this common desire to think Rudy might have “changed.”

HE HASN’T! As recently as last week, he’s been doing interviews talking up his liberal stances. He hasn’t changed his stance on a single thing. If I can compliment him on anything, it’s his honesty.

Gregor on March 12, 2007 at 1:40 PM

he already has shown he’s changed a bit on gun control (see Fox News interview).

amerpundit on March 11, 2007 at 7:07 PM

No he hasn’t. He openly claims that the government should be allowed to violate the constitution “if it helps reduce crime.”

Gregor on March 12, 2007 at 1:42 PM

From the FoxNews interview:

HANNITY: Let me move on. And the issue of guns has come up a lot. When people talk about Mayor Giuliani, New York City had some of the toughest gun laws in the entire country. Do you support the right of people to carry handguns?

GIULIANI: I understand the Second Amendment. I support it. People have the right to bear arms. When I was mayor of New York, I took over at a very, very difficult time. We were averaging about 2,000 murders a year, 10,000…

HANNITY: You inherited those laws, the gun laws in New York?

GIULIANI: Yes, and I used them. I used them to help bring down homicide. We reduced homicide, I think, by 65-70 percent. And some of it was by taking guns out of the streets of New York City.

So if you’re talking about a city like New York, a densely populated area like New York, I think it’s appropriate. You might have different laws other places, and maybe a lot of this gets resolved based on different states, different communities making decisions. After all, we do have a federal system of government in which you have the ability to accomplish that.

HANNITY: So you would support the state’s rights to choose on specific gun laws?

GIULIANI: Yes, I mean, a place like New York that is densely populated, or maybe a place that is experiencing a serious crime problem, like a few cities are now, kind of coming back, thank goodness not New York, but some other cities, maybe you have one solution there and in another place, more rural, more suburban, other issues, you have a different set of rules.

HANNITY: But generally speaking, do you think it’s acceptable if citizens have the right to carry a handgun?

GIULIANI: It’s not only — I mean, it’s part of the Constitution. People have the right to bear arms. Then the restrictions of it have to be reasonable and sensible. You can’t just remove that right. You’ve got to regulate, consistent with the Second Amendment.

So basically, he loves the Constitution, but will ignore it in certain situations if it makes fighting crime easier. My question is … where is that line going to be drawn. Will he have it re-written to say “the right to bear arms … except in areas that are densely populated?”

Gregor on March 12, 2007 at 2:10 PM

Buzzy, I am with you on “no lessons learned” and I understand what you are saying. However, never in a million years will I agree that Rudy is not different from Hillary/Edwards/Obama. I am too much of a freedom/independence-lover, socialism-hater, individualist and realist to ever get there. I’ll also never be principled enough to allow a Hillary to take the office just to teach any RINO a lesson.

Having said that, I fully believe Mr. Thompson will run and then it’s going to be a very different picture for both parties. Lots of wet panties on both sides, but more on the Left.

Entelechy on March 12, 2007 at 7:09 PM