Video: Rudy stands by support for public funding of abortions; Update: McCain looks “tired and … cranky,” says Rudy

posted at 3:25 pm on April 4, 2007 by Allahpundit

He took that position in 1989 and by god he’s sticking to it. I’ve already written about his strategy in this vein before. Suffice it to say, it’s too late for him to flip-flop convincingly, and so, with his two rivals looking squishy in their own commitment to social issues, he figures he might as well position himself as a man of his word who’ll stand on principle. Because if he’s willing to do that for principles conservatives don’t like, he’s probably also willing to do it for principles that they do.

More interesting than the abortion comments is what he says at the end in response to the question about Peter Pace’s opinion of gays. Is he suggesting that it’s inappropriate, at least for Christians, to make personal moral judgments? Or just inappropriate for Christian politicians?

Needless to say, this isn’t going to hurt him in California. Click the image to watch.

rudy.jpg

Update: Captain Ed says it’s game over for Rudy.

Update: John Dickerson of Slate was in New Hampshire on Monday for a Rudy house party:

After the house party, the mayor met with his hosts and a few influential Republicans in the bar at the hotel where he was staying and where a few reporters had also decamped. In a voice loud enough to be overheard on the other side of the room, he outlined his view that the other candidates would divide up the “right-wing,” voters, as he called them, leaving him to consolidate the moderates and the economic and military conservatives who aren’t fixated on social issues. One participant asked about John McCain: “Has his time passed?” “I think so,” responded Giuliani. McCain, he went on, “looked like he was tired and he’s cranky.”

Per the quote, according to Dickerson, Rudy’s given to referring privately to social cons, in contrast to himself, as “right-wingers.”

Update: Looks like Rudy’s people are already doing damage control for the abortion stuff. No public funding for any abortions beyond what the law now provides for, they insist — namely, cases of rape, incest, or where the life of the mother is threatened. Except that isn’t what Rudy said in the clip. The touchstone for him is whether there’s a constitutional right, and the constitutional right when it comes to abortion certainly isn’t limited to exceptional cases. He’s spinning.


Related Posts:

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

Comment pages: 1 2

Heh. Whoops.

Game over?

Slublog on April 4, 2007 at 3:34 PM

Fred!

Bill C on April 4, 2007 at 3:37 PM

Fred!

I think Giuliani just opened the door.

Slublog on April 4, 2007 at 3:37 PM

Paging Uncle Fred!

Matticus Finch on April 4, 2007 at 3:39 PM

Fred . . . it’s time!

rplat on April 4, 2007 at 3:39 PM

Sigh. Heartache indeed.

Convince me he’s really going to appoint strict constructionists, and I might still vote for him.

But I’m never, ever going to understand this particular logic: “It’s evil, I hate it, but it’s your choice.”

It just doesn’t work. Abortion is a logical question. I don’t care what God says about it, I don’t care what the women’s movement says.

If it’s not a life, it MUST be a choice. If it IS a life, it’ s murder. Simple logic. And since NOTHING proves conclusively when life begins – and since there is overwhelming evidence that it begins pretty damn early – abortion makes no logical sense.

I’ll never get this. There’s no reason to hate abortion if it’s not murder. And if it is murder, it’s not a “choice.” The logic is inescapable.

Rudy’s position is a weasel word attempt to please both sides. Frankly I’d respect him more if he’d at least use better logic.

What’s Fred Thompson say?

Professor Blather on April 4, 2007 at 3:40 PM

Fred!

JustTruth101 on April 4, 2007 at 3:40 PM

Nice song and dance on the homosexuality thing, and his response on abortion rings hollow. He better be a pretty, pretty little songbird singing the praises of Scalia, Thomas and Alito if he expects to undo the damage this is going to do him with the base.

spmat on April 4, 2007 at 3:43 PM

Fred!
I think Giuliani just opened the door.

Slublog on April 4, 2007 at 3:37 PM

He kicked it wide open, and also decided to open the windows.

Rick on April 4, 2007 at 3:43 PM

constitutional right to kill babies? And I’m supposed to *pay* for that constitutional right?

And he seemed scared to death of the question on Gen. Pace’s opinion. Scared to make a committment one way or the other.

dalewalt on April 4, 2007 at 3:43 PM

So not only is he for abortion but he wants ME to pay for them !! RINO !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Maxx on April 4, 2007 at 3:43 PM

Nice song and dance on the homosexuality thing, and his response on abortion rings hollow. He better be a pretty, pretty little songbird singing the praises of Scalia, Thomas and Alito if he expects to undo the damage this is going to do him with the base.

Yup. This is the biggest unforced error he’s made. The base, I think, is willing to forgive pro-life views, but not this particular policy.

Slublog on April 4, 2007 at 3:45 PM

I’ll never get this. There’s no reason to hate abortion if it’s not murder. And if it is murder, it’s not a “choice.” The logic is inescapable.

I completely agree.

Esthier on April 4, 2007 at 3:49 PM

And he seemed scared to death of the question on Gen. Pace’s opinion. Scared to make a committment one way or the other.

I think that pretty much sums it up. He is either afraid of:
1) His own opinion.
2) Being seen as “too christian”
3) Something else

I think Mitt Romney more directly deals with these issues and also his own ‘changes’ regarding abortion etc. Rudy comes off as very dogdy in this interview. Not a quality we need or want in a commander in chief.

I say….. Mitt for pres. Fred as his running mate.

:)

dc84123 on April 4, 2007 at 3:52 PM

this country has become a joke.

darwin on April 4, 2007 at 3:55 PM

I think Giuliani just opened the door.

Slublog on April 4, 2007 at 3:37 PM

I never hated the idea of Guiliani being the nominee but I feared he would say something like this and alienate enough conservatives so that they would stay home for the election and we would lose. Our base is much bigger than the lefts. 2006 was all about conservatives being sick of Republicans governing like liberals so, I believe, a liberal Republican candidate for president is a bad idea.

Bill C on April 4, 2007 at 3:56 PM

Why is everyone so afraid of abortion? I just don’t get it. Why do they keep calling it a right to choose? Isn’t RvW about the supposed right to privacy?

Everyone knows you’re vacuuming out a baby from the womb. If that’s a good thing, then call it what it is: an unwanted baby. An inconvenience. If it’s at all ok to suck a fetus into the trash, then what’s with all the cloak and dagger BS renaming, reframing and obfuscation?

It’s either ok to stick a fork in a baby’s head or it isn’t.

spmat on April 4, 2007 at 3:59 PM

Professor Blather, its even worse than that (if the headline here is accurate, since I’m too lazy to watch the video). He’s saying “its evil, I hate it, but its your choice, and I’ll pay you to make that evil choice.”

This is where I exit the Rudy train. I could abide the lukewarm pro-choice weasle words, but public funding? Public funding? For Abortion? That’s immediate disqualification on multiple fronts.

Paging RWS. Paging RWS. Please pick up the white courtesy phone in the lobby and feel free to beat Rudy about the head with it. This is McCain’s wet dream of a campaign miscue by Rudy.

Fred on April 4, 2007 at 4:01 PM

He came across as weak and indecisive. He looked like a politician…That’s no compliment.

KennyB on April 4, 2007 at 4:01 PM

Strong leaders make really bad politicians.

I had planned on voting for him, but public funded abortions is way over the top. Isn’t fifty million and counting enough?

Hening on April 4, 2007 at 4:09 PM

Guiliani just lost any possibility that I’d vote for him.

VOTE FOR FRED THOMPSON!

VOTE FOR FRED THOMPSON!

VOTE FOR FRED THOMPSON!

msipes on April 4, 2007 at 4:10 PM

Fred / Newt in 08!

Romeo13 on April 4, 2007 at 4:11 PM

Unless Fred jumps in now, Romney will benefit the most from this, as the conservative who isn’t McCain.

I will only cast a vote for McCain in a general election if he’s the candidate. Not in a primary.

Slublog on April 4, 2007 at 4:12 PM

Honestly, this is why I have never liked Gulianni. I mean, he’s a nice enough guy and all, but way too wishy-washy on key conservative principles.

Yes, he’s a “get it done” kind of guy, and I have a tremendous amount of respect for him because of that. My problem with him is the kind of things he’s going to “get done”. Do we really want someone THAT strong pushing ideals we strongly disagree with? I would say no.

As far as Fred Thompson goes, what I have seen about him I like, and he does have “Star Appeal”. But I would like a more comprehensive enumeration of his stands on key issues before giving him an up or down vote.

wearyman on April 4, 2007 at 4:12 PM

Somebody stick a fork in him, he’s done.

I’d much rather see Giuliani as Secretary of Homeland Security.

CP on April 4, 2007 at 4:12 PM

Romeo13 on April 4, 2007 at 4:11 PM

Not so fast, Shipmate.

If Rudy opened the door, then Newt just laid out the welcome mat.

Fred!/Steele 2008

Kid from Brooklyn on April 4, 2007 at 4:13 PM

Oh yeah, and…Fred!

CP on April 4, 2007 at 4:13 PM

Rudy, Rudy, Rudy!

I hate this, but if he IS the republican nominee, he gets my vote because the alternative is further left than he is. We’ll bite the bullet in 08 and keep working on finding an articulate clean conservative to carry the standard in 2012.

csdeven on April 4, 2007 at 4:16 PM

If he’s the nominee, he’ll get my vote. But public funding for abortion may be a bit too far for me. I’ve got some thinking to do.

Slublog on April 4, 2007 at 4:17 PM

Thank God someone’s dragging Republicans into the new millenium.

Someone please explain how it’s conservative to force a woman who isn’t prepared for parenthood to have a child.

We shouldn’t be demonizing abortions, we should be encouraging them. More abortions would reduce poverty.

Enrique on April 4, 2007 at 4:17 PM

We shouldn’t be demonizing abortions, we should be encouraging them. More abortions would reduce poverty.

I’d rather encourage birth control, myself.

Slublog on April 4, 2007 at 4:18 PM

Gosh if more abortions reduce poverty, then killing other “undesireables” like the poor and sick would REALLY reduce poverty too!

Skywise on April 4, 2007 at 4:24 PM

Abortion will eventually take care of itself. Truth be told, though, I don’t see much of a poverty reduction amongst the demographic most likely to abort. What’s one more mouth to feed when you’re already on the government teat? Origins of Planned Parenthood. Google it.

Kid from Brooklyn on April 4, 2007 at 4:32 PM

If support for abortion is so strong, why not let the states decide the matter?

David Obey has your answer.

Kid from Brooklyn on April 4, 2007 at 4:33 PM

Someone please explain how it’s conservative to force a woman who isn’t prepared for parenthood to have a child.

How is it conservative to prevent a woman from killing another human being?

I’m really liking Fred more and more!

jjjen on April 4, 2007 at 4:39 PM

Thompson/Pence’08

tormod on April 4, 2007 at 4:46 PM

We shouldn’t be demonizing abortions, we should be encouraging them. More abortions would reduce poverty.

Enrique on April 4, 2007 at 4:17 PM

Ok, please provide some statistics to show how 50 million dead babies has directly reduced poverty in this country.

You’re making the assertion, now back it up.

(and this doesn’t even get to the insanity of publically funding abortions)

thirteen28 on April 4, 2007 at 4:53 PM

Adios chica

omnipotent on April 4, 2007 at 4:54 PM

Ola senor Fred!

omnipotent on April 4, 2007 at 4:55 PM

So what’s the problem?
A candidate for the Republican nomination spelled out the strict constructionist view of the Constitution and how it would, and should, play out as policy.

billy on April 4, 2007 at 4:55 PM

So what’s the problem?
A candidate for the Republican nomination spelled out the strict constructionist view of the Constitution and how it would, and should, play out as policy.

billy on April 4, 2007 at 4:55 PM

Can you please direct me to the section of the constitution that requires public funding of abortions? Article, section, and clause, please.

thirteen28 on April 4, 2007 at 4:59 PM

We shouldn’t be demonizing abortions, we should be encouraging them. More abortions would reduce poverty.

Lots of things can reduce poverty, things like hard work, good choices, not taking government handouts at every opportunity, education… Free abortion on demand is not one of them.

You know there are alot of other choices that should be made prior to having to decide to have an abortion…
For example:

You could choose not to have sex
You could choose to be on the pill
You could choose to have your partner use a condom
You could choose to use a female condom
You could choose to use a morning after pill (essentially 2 BC pills plus a gravol)
If that doesn’t work for you, you could choose to put your baby up for adoption through any number of adoption services that are out there, some of which have waiting lists that are years long.

Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on April 4, 2007 at 5:07 PM

Can you please direct me to the section of the constitution that requires public funding of abortions? Article, section, and clause, please.

thirteen28 on April 4, 2007 at 4:59 PM

I can’t, for obvious reasons, namely, the Constitution does not mention abortion. At all.

billy on April 4, 2007 at 5:12 PM

I can’t, for obvious reasons, namely, the Constitution does not mention abortion. At all.

billy on April 4, 2007 at 5:12 PM

Which of course means it doesn’t mentiong public funding for abortions either.

Hence, you are full of sh!t when you say Rudy is merely expressing the strict constructionist view on the issue.

thirteen28 on April 4, 2007 at 5:14 PM

Hence, you are full of sh!t when you say Rudy is merely expressing the strict constructionist view on the issue.

thirteen28 on April 4, 2007 at 5:14 PM

Okay.

billy on April 4, 2007 at 5:19 PM

“It’s evil, I don’t like it, I wouldn’t do it or support it.

But it’s legal, and it’s your choice.”

So in the 1800′s Rudy would have Govt funding of Slavery? Or was that somehow different “evil, legal, and something I don’t like” at the time?

Oh, and billy; try the Tenth Amendment. Get help if you have trouble with the wording. Then realize that this amendment, along with your statement at 5:12 should mean the Federal Government has no involvement at all on either side… although the States aren’t limited in that fashion.

Although, if the Government is required to provide funding for all Constitutional rights, I’ll take a .357 Magnum Revolver please. Send the bill to the Government.

gekkobear on April 4, 2007 at 5:23 PM

Alright, lemme say for clarification. On the

Get help if you have trouble with the wording.

I don’t mean that insultingly. But the language has shifted some, so it isn’t as easy as you might expect.

For example, I had to look up a good defintion of the 9th Amendment, but the Tenth should be understandable.

gekkobear on April 4, 2007 at 5:27 PM

Given the results of the first money primary that just took place the Presidential race was just reduced to 4 players. Rudy, Romney, Hillary and Obama. McCain just got killed. Romney has just positioned himself as the true conservative Republican who can actually win. The more Republican voters learn about Rudy the less inclined they are going to be to vote for him (this abortion stuff is just one example). The more they learn about Romney the more they are going to be inclined to vote for him. Advantage Romney. On the Democrat side the nominee is guaranteed to be a communist. My prediction is Romney Vs Communitst for president in ’08. Looking forward to seeing everyone here jump on Romney’s bandwagon once that happens.

Zetterson on April 4, 2007 at 5:36 PM

Rudy for Sec.of State.

Fred’s.

NellE on April 4, 2007 at 5:39 PM

I will only cast a vote for McCain in a general election if he’s the candidate

Except the general election is decided weeks before you actually vote: The Electoral College.

Another, equal, Conservative ideal, is giving power to the states. If a majority of people (keeping in mind this is afterall a Democracy), then it should be decided by the states, where people have the most direct impact.

Abortion is a huge issue for all of you, however, we’ve had a President in office 7 years now, completely dead set against abortion. Has it been outlawed? Stopped? Why?

amerpundit on April 4, 2007 at 5:43 PM

Oh, and billy; try the Tenth Amendment. Get help if you have trouble with the wording

Thanks for the tip, but I’m okay with the wording.

Then realize that this amendment, along with your statement at 5:12 should mean the Federal Government has no involvement at all on either side…

Okay I should realize…

the Constitution does not mention abortion. At all.

billy on April 4, 2007 at 5:12 PM

I think I already realize that. May be you should look for help on the wording of my comments.
But in reference to Rudy, I think I heard him say that if the Supremes, in their infinite, black-robed wisdom, have declared abortion to be an absolute Constitutional right, then the Executive branch is prohibeted from making a distinction between abortion and any other federally subsidized medical “procedure”
Even though people like me (you too?) think that this “procedure” is the murder of the unborn.
The key now is appointing strict-constructionists to the court so that this “procedure” will no longer be regarded as a Constitutionally protected right.
But what do I know.

Hence, you are full of sh!t when you say Rudy is merely expressing the strict constructionist view on the issue.

billy on April 4, 2007 at 5:43 PM

Abortion is a huge issue for all of you, however, we’ve had a President in office 7 years now, completely dead set against abortion. Has it been outlawed? Stopped? Why?

I don’t expect abortion to be stopped, I just don’t support public funding for it at all.

I hope the nominee is not McCain. I’m still hoping for Rudy or Fred, but Rudy has just hurt himself badly.

But if McCain is the nominee, I’ll vote for the guy.

Slublog on April 4, 2007 at 5:47 PM

We shouldn’t be demonizing abortions, we should be encouraging them. More abortions would reduce poverty.

Enrique on April 4, 2007 at 4:17 PM

Why don’t we start gassing retards and weaklings while we’re at it?

spmat on April 4, 2007 at 5:51 PM

Why don’t we start gassing retards and weaklings while we’re at it?

spmat on April 4, 2007 at 5:51 PM

That’s step two.
Let’s not get ahead of ourselves.

billy on April 4, 2007 at 5:54 PM

Why don’t we start gassing retards and weaklings while we’re at it?
spmat on April 4, 2007 at 5:51 PM

Uh, oh…I haven’t been to the gym in years. I am so toast.

Slublog on April 4, 2007 at 5:54 PM

So this is Ghouliani’s final solution for poverty? Off the baby because it’s parents are in poverty?

If it’s ok to condition the payment for abortion on getting abortion, the next step is to condition the payment of other types of welfare on getting an abortion also.

pedestrian on April 4, 2007 at 5:55 PM

I don’t expect abortion to be stopped, I just don’t support public funding for it at all.

I understand that, but my point was that the President obviously can’t make many decisions in this matter, so whether or not he approves of public funding, doesn’t make any more of a difference than if I do. Congress has the ultimate decision in this, and quite frankly, I don’t see us winning a huge majority in ’08.

pedestrian, that was suggested by a commenter.

amerpundit on April 4, 2007 at 6:01 PM

I don’t expect abortion to be stopped, I just don’t support public funding for it at all.
I understand that, but my point was that the President obviously can’t make many decisions in this matter, so whether or not he approves of public funding, doesn’t make any more of a difference than if I do.

amerpundit on April 4, 2007 at 6:01 PM
And if I’m reading Guiliani correctly, there isn’t much a President can, or should, do if the SCOTUS has declared this “procedure” a Constitutional right.

billy on April 4, 2007 at 6:07 PM

Why don’t we start gassing retards and weaklings while we’re at it?

spmat on April 4, 2007 at 5:51 PM

Gassing people? Now that’s way out of line! We should be eating them. Jonathan Swift was right all along.

ReubenJCogburn on April 4, 2007 at 6:09 PM

Didn’t Clinton sign an executive order on abortion? I can’t remember all that well.

Heh.

Maybe I should “Google it!”

Slublog on April 4, 2007 at 6:09 PM

Except that isn’t what Rudy said in the clip.

So, is he not allowed to make a mistake, but every other Conservative is? I guarantee before this thing is over, Fred! will be on damage control, numerous times.

amerpundit on April 4, 2007 at 6:10 PM

And if I’m reading Guiliani correctly, there isn’t much a President can, or should, do if the SCOTUS has declared this “procedure” a Constitutional right.

There’s not much the President can do to prohibit abortion, but Ghouliani has taken this to a whole new level. Poverty affects interstate commerce don’t you know?

pedestrian on April 4, 2007 at 6:12 PM

It’s actually, if you look back, more of a Conservative ideal NOT to get involved in people’s lives, than to ban something. While I don’t approve of public funding, those Conservatives who want abortion banned, need to take a look at Barry Goldwater, aka Mr. Conservative.

amerpundit on April 4, 2007 at 6:12 PM

Rudy: Free Guns for Everyone! : The Crimson Blog

ARRGG!! Beat me too it!!

- The Cat

P.S. His definition of constructionist is squishy.

P.P.S. “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” Was talking about STONING someone. Not saying that you couldn’t tell someone what they are doing is wrong. After those that wanted to do the stoning left, Jesus turned to the woman and said, “Sin no more.”

MirCat on April 4, 2007 at 6:14 PM

The touchstone for him is whether there’s a constitutional right, and the constitutional right when it comes to abortion certainly isn’t limited to exceptional cases. He’s spinning.

So Constitutional rights have to be funded by the Federal government? Is that his argument now that he’s spinning like mad?

Hmmm…

I have a Constitutional right (a real one, as opposed to one dreamed up with the help of penumbras and emanations and a few eighths of Scotch) to keep and bear arms.

I guess that means that the Federal government should pay for my guns.

Damn! THAT I can get behind. I’ll take delivery of three dozen rifles and gross or two of handguns in various calibers tomorrow, Rudy.

Misha I on April 4, 2007 at 6:18 PM

Beat me to it too, MirCat. BOTH of you.

Damn!

Misha I on April 4, 2007 at 6:19 PM

Was talking about STONING someone.

You take things too literal. It wasn’t specifically talking about stoning someone, on a Tuesday afternoon, when the soon is half over the palace, and you ate fish for lunch.

It’s saying that the one who is without sin, should condemn someone, first. If it was a man, who was caught stealing a fish to eat, would Jesus have responded differently? Granted, abortion isn’t the same thing, but my point is, it applies to more than one situation.

If I haven’t attended mass in years, sin constantly, and use the name of the Lord in vain, am I in a position to judge someone else’s sin?

amerpundit on April 4, 2007 at 6:20 PM

It’s actually, if you look back, more of a Conservative ideal NOT to get involved in people’s lives, than to ban something. While I don’t approve of public funding, those Conservatives who want abortion banned, need to take a look at Barry Goldwater, aka Mr. Conservative.

amerpundit on April 4, 2007 at 6:12 PM

It’s a conservative ideal to PROTECT lives, including those of the unborn.

Congress has the ultimate decision in this, and quite frankly, I don’t see us winning a huge majority in ‘08.

The president has the veto pen. The only way the president would be powerless in such a situation is if there was enough of a majority in congress to override, and I don’t see that happening either.

Rudy’s opinion regarding the favoring of public funding for abortion is a big deal, because it infers that he wouldn’t veto a bill in favor thereof even if it was passed by the thinnest of margins.

You’re argument could have just as easily been applied to slaveowners.

thirteen28 on April 4, 2007 at 6:21 PM

I guess that means that the Federal government should pay for my guns.

Not a bad idea, everyone of legal age is permitted (1) weapon, purchased by the government.

amerpundit on April 4, 2007 at 6:21 PM

It’s actually, if you look back, more of a Conservative ideal NOT to get involved in people’s lives,

That’s the Libertarian ideal. Conservatives are all for the war on drugs. Even so, one can be a pro-choice Libertarian since abortion is infringing on the rights of the unborn. It all boils down to whether you think that a fetus has human rights.

pedestrian on April 4, 2007 at 6:22 PM

There’s not much the President can do to prohibit abortion, but Ghouliani has taken this to a whole new level
pedestrian on April 4, 2007 at 6:12 PM

How?

Poverty affects interstate commerce don’t you know?

We’re beyond that now don’t you think?
The Supremes have ruled that CO2 is a pollutant that should be regulated by the EPA.
I produce CO2.
Should I be regulated the EPA?

billy on April 4, 2007 at 6:26 PM

I think Giuliani is just getting this out early. He cannot disavow his earlier comments, unless you’d like our nominee saying “I actually did vote for abortion, before I voted against it”.

If abortion is your litmus test in 2008, you’re not watching carefully enough.

The abortion debate and the gay marriage debate are both irrelevant if we allow those who would stone adultresses and hang homo’s to dictate our lives.

Hillary Clinton would do just that.

Ask yourself which you’d prefer – a strongly anti-abortion candidate that can’t win, and even if he could, can’t hope to see RvW reversed, or a candidate who can win, and who is committed to the only real fight that matters.

Martin on April 4, 2007 at 6:31 PM

Western civilization is in a demographic crisis, and Giulianni wants to subsidize abortion. Brilliant. We’ve murdered the “cheap labor” that we now want to import from the third world with amnesty.

PRCalDude on April 4, 2007 at 6:32 PM

Look, I’m not arguing the case for abortion. I would openly denounce it. All I’m saying is, my biggest concern with the next President, and certainly not the deciding factor, isn’t abortion. If Barack Obama said tomorrow, “I’m against abortion”, would he be the front runner? At one point or another, all of the front runners in the GOP were pro-choice. Ronald Reagan was a Democrat, with many Democratic ideals, the GOP would despise. If he ran today, would he be your front runner, not knowing what you know, today?

I’m not trying to convince you that Giuliani is the best man for the job. I’m not even trying to convince you to vote Giuliani. I’m not thrilled about any of the candidates. I’m just saying not to rule someone out, because of that one issue.

Here’s a question: What happens if Fred! doesn’t run? The other 3 candidates are socially liberal.

amerpundit on April 4, 2007 at 6:36 PM

I think Mitt Romney more directly deals with these issues and also his own ‘changes’ regarding abortion etc.

Romney’s candidacy will grow once more people know who he is. Could be down to him and Fred.

aengus on April 4, 2007 at 6:37 PM

[Insert Picture of fat lady Singing Here]

WTF was he thinking? He must not really want the job.

McCain is done over contemplating becoming a Dem and running with Kerry.

That leads to Fred/Mitt ’08

TheBigOldDog on April 4, 2007 at 6:39 PM

One final thing, then I leave this debate. The Electoral College will decide who is the next President, based on the 2 parties’ nominations. Say Fred and Hillary. We’re not the Electoral College, keep in mind.

They’ll look and go (separately), who is the best candidate.

Fred: Strong Ideals, was a Senator a number of years ago, has served on a few committees and was an actor.

Hillary: Current Senator from New York, First Lady for 8 years, First Lady of Arkansas for a number of years, was named one of the 100 most influential lawyers, currently serves on the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on Environment and Public Works, the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, and the Special Committee on Aging; has promised to keep some troops in Iraq and continue the war in Afghanistan, voted for military action in Iraq, and is strong willed.

Which one will they choose?

amerpundit on April 4, 2007 at 6:42 PM

Forgot to add the “strong willed” to Fred’s, too.

amerpundit on April 4, 2007 at 6:43 PM

Not a bad idea, everyone of legal age is permitted (1) weapon, purchased by the government.

The Seconds says arms.

I demand at least two. :-)

Misha I on April 4, 2007 at 6:44 PM

Romney’s candidacy will grow once more people know who he is. Could be down to him and Fred.

aengus on April 4, 2007 at 6:37 PM

I agree that Romney’s candidacy will grow once more people know who he is, though I’m not sure Fred can get there (and don’t get me wrong I’d love it if he could). I think Romney introduced himself to conservative Republicans in a big way with the announcement that he was the leading fundraiser on the right. When independents and more importantly for now Republicans start listening to Romney they are going to like him. The money primary victory removed some of the “can he win” speculation. That hurts Fred Thompson. Mitt Romney is going to begin to appear like the Conservative Republican candidate who can actually win. Fred Thompson is loved by the Republican base (hence his rise in the polls) but the Vegas odds are not good there and Republicans know it. This math will put Romney on the top of the ticket. Perhaps Romney/Thompson is a distinct possibility. I would really like that!

Zetterson on April 4, 2007 at 6:52 PM

The Seconds says arms.

I demand at least two. :-)

I Second the motion.

amerpundit on April 4, 2007 at 6:57 PM

Western civilization is in a demographic crisis, and Giulianni wants to subsidize abortion. Brilliant. We’ve murdered the “cheap labor” that we now want to import from the third world with amnesty.

PRCalDude on April 4, 2007 at 6:32 PM

That isn’t just a good point, that is a BRILLIANT point.

Mentally buying you a beer now (or other alcoholic beverage of your choice).

thirteen28 on April 4, 2007 at 6:59 PM

The Fred! thing is getting tiresome.

Thompson has never been an executive. That’s a big fat negative. He’s also a McCain-Feingold fanboy. Also a huge negative. On other issues, he’s mostly solid. He is not a silver bullet. We have no idea how he’ll behave in an executive role. We don’t know what he’ll do under pressure. He might just start dialing in once the Washington press starts giving him hell over something stupid. Who would be his cabinet? Who would his advisers be? To my knowledge, we have no way of answering these questions.

That being said, I’d vote for him in a primary without reservations. I’d also vote for Romney. Rudy, meh, not so much. I would vote for him in a general, though. He better realize that this stupid, stupid stance on federally funded abortions is guaranteed to keep the pro-life block home. The last Republican President that was openly pro-choice wasn’t elected. If Rudy thinks he can win a general without his base, he’s a bloody fool.

I have no illusions, though, that a rock-ribbed conservative is still viable as such anymore. To win a general, there’s going to have to be someone on the ticket that can fly, however weakly, over blue airspace.

Reagan ain’t coming back. He’s gone to better things than grubby politics, sweaty handshakes and photo-ops. In the meantime, we’ve got an election to win.

spmat on April 4, 2007 at 7:08 PM

keeping in mind this is afterall a Democracy Republic

There, fixed it for you. (9th grade civics in a public school.)

Laura on April 4, 2007 at 7:10 PM

thirteen28 on April 4, 2007 at 6:59 PM

Beer’s great bro. Thanks. Bitter beer.

PRCalDude on April 4, 2007 at 7:19 PM

We shouldn’t be demonizing abortions, we should be encouraging them. More abortions would reduce poverty.

Nice. Enrique, you’re no economist.

Oh, and don’t forget: Fewer babies = less consumption, less carbon dioxide and less methane gas pumped into our atmosphere.

CliffHanger on April 4, 2007 at 7:19 PM

Abortion is a huge issue for all of you, however, we’ve had a President in office 7 years now, completely dead set against abortion. Has it been outlawed? Stopped? Why?

amerpundit on April 4, 2007 at 5:43 PM

Because he only got two opportunities two fill vacancies on the SCOTUS, both of which were nominally originalist. Blame the good health of JPS and RBG if you wish, but it would be a mistake to claim that the country is pro-choice. Until we have something other than a 5-4 leftist swing in the SCOTUS, nothing is going to change.

spmat on April 4, 2007 at 7:22 PM

Stopped? Why?

amerpundit on April 4, 2007 at 5:43 PM

Because it will only be overturned by a conservative SCOTUS. Which Rudy has promised to nominate.

csdeven on April 4, 2007 at 7:31 PM

Bye, Rudy!

I’m waiting for Fred.

INC on April 4, 2007 at 8:12 PM

Paging RWS. Paging RWS. Please pick up the white courtesy phone in the lobby and feel free to beat Rudy about the head with it.

I don’t want to beat Rudy over the head with it, I want to beat you guys over the head with it!…;-)

Come on! This can’t be a surprise!

To the person who said abortion reduces proverty. Hello! Over 30 million abortions since 1973. Poverty should be eradicated by now! …but it isn’t. Not only that, but every social ill you care to name is up and up. Crime, domestic abuse, substance abuse, depression, suicide. You name it. Killing the “unwanted” didn’t seem to help anything at all.

Abortion is a huge issue for all of you, however, we’ve had a President in office 7 years now, completely dead set against abortion. Has it been outlawed? Stopped? Why?

Not outlawed, but Bush did sign the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. Only the most gruesome sick killing of innocents ever. So yeah, a President’s beliefs on this matter. (Clinton would never sign the ban for example) Bush signed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which made law that in a violent crime where a pregnant woman is killed, there are two victims. Bush also signed the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, where an aborted child born alive must be given medical care. Bush actively encouraged states to pass parental notification for abortions.

These are not small things. If you don’t think a President affects issues of life, then you aren’t paying attention.

Rightwingsparkle on April 4, 2007 at 8:28 PM

And…

If you don’t think issues of life aren’t an important indicator of the moral tenor and health of a society you’re not paying attention to history.

INC on April 4, 2007 at 8:55 PM

Captain Ed’s critique is quite good. He also makes the point that was made above that Rudy’s logic means he’ll have to be handing out guns.

He also says (my bold, his italics):

Did Giuliani think that Republicans want to end judicial activism just to enshrine its idiocy of the past? [boy, is that a great phrase!] Even conservatives who adopt the more libertarian position on abortion as a personal choice object to the government funding of those procedures under any circumstances. Personal choice does not equate to government financing — which makes each abortion so funded a public policy by definition.

It’s hard to see where conservatives of any stripe — social or fiscal — can support Giuliani after this assertion. He won’t do anything to reverse abortion, and he wants to use tax money to fund them. If someone can find the conservative in there, as Giuliani argues, they must have to stare very hard into that abyss.

INC on April 4, 2007 at 9:00 PM

keeping in mind this is afterall a Democracy Republic

There, fixed it for you. (9th grade civics in a public school.)

Laura on April 4, 2007 at 7:10 PM

Very good. Then we should really be setting up a Republic in Iraq, not a democracy. Because this is what’s being set up there. (White House/President Bush). And the fact that the one thing you answered, was how I referred to our government, says a lot.

amerpundit on April 4, 2007 at 9:02 PM

The other thing that really burns me is this calling those of us who are “fixated” on social issues “right wing.” Does he think we’re John Birchers or something?

I am from the South. I have lived in the Chicago metro area, the NYC metro area, and New England (not Boston metro, but the Boston commute range). The Midwest I found to be warm and welcoming, but I have to tell you the contempt of some in the Northeast for social conservatives, Christians, and Southerners is both insular and provincial. Rudy really needs to get out more.

INC on April 4, 2007 at 9:07 PM

So….the other day, I’m looking out my back window while cleaning my legally owned and licenced handgun and notice some commotion in the alley. The bushes were shaking like an animal was rooting around in there. We have some big possums and raccoons so I didn’t think much of it.
I look up again and see a hand reaching out, a woman’s hand by the looks of it. Suddenly the woman, disheveled and bruised bursts out of the thicket and she seems to be screaming. I can’t make out her words so I go back to my task. More motion catches my eye and I glance up again to see here being pulled back into the bushes by a couple of rough looking men. Her clothing is mostly torn away by the time she dissapears back into the undergrowth.
Gee, I hate rape and violence against women and I sure wouldn’t do it myself but hey, what right do I have to say what those men can and can’t do with their own hands? What about the girl? I really don’t think that women have rights of their own, cause I said so and the Constitution does not specify that women should enjoy the exact same rights as a man. So I’m covered.

TBinSTL on April 4, 2007 at 9:14 PM

The other thing that really burns me is this calling those of us who are “fixated” on social issues “right wing.” Does he think we’re John Birchers or something?

Democrats are also fixated on social issues.

amerpundit on April 4, 2007 at 9:15 PM

Comment pages: 1 2