Rudy donated repeatedly to Planned Parenthood in the 1990s
posted at 11:55 pm on May 7, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
At least six times, maybe more, according to copies of his tax returns provided to Politico “by aides to a rival campaign, who insisted on not being identified.” The obvious (if unpersuasive) spin would be to insist that the money was meant for lobbying, to defend the right of privacy, not for the actual performance of abortions, which of course Rudy deeply, personally opposes. Instead his camp offered this non-answer:
“Mayor Giuliani has been consistent in his position — he is personally opposed to abortion, but at the same time he understands it is a personal and emotional decision that should ultimately be left up to the woman,” said Maria Comella.
Comella added that, “from the start, Mayor Giuliani has been straight with the American people about where he stands on the issues and saying exactly what he thinks.
“Ultimately, this election is about leadership, and it’s a sign of leadership to stand by your position in the face of political expediency.”
It’s a sign of leadership to insist that you despise abortion after having donated six times to America’s most notorious abortion provider?
Rudy may already be starting to crumble, but hopefully it’ll be a long, long while before he’s out of the race for good so that we can keep this increasingly amusing game of abortion follies going. First he declared himself pro-choice; then he reiterated his support for public funding of abortions in certain limited circumstances; now it turns out he used to hit the PayPal for Planned Parenthood. The only thing left would be to find out he was allowed to do the honors himself a few times during some PP clinic tour back when he was mayor. No doubt Romney’s people are looking into that as we speak.
Update: Anybody but Hillary!
Update: “Giuliani has been pounded by pundits for his answers on abortion at the first GOP debate. But he didn’t commit a gaffe. He only suffered from the contradictions of a position that appears to be the product of poorly thought-out political calculation.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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
Actually, I think the obvious spin would be that the donations are to fund birth control and education to prevent abortions, and to pay for treatment for STDs etc. Planned Parenthood does more than just abortions.
That said, it speaks poorly of Rudy that he entered the race knowing he has this negative on his record. If there is much more of this to come, he is toast and has wasted a lot of effort and money that could have gone to viable candidates.
Bad Penny on May 8, 2007 at 12:04 AM
Yeah, but that’s dicey with some social cons, too.
Allahpundit on May 8, 2007 at 12:06 AM
Money is fungible. Giving a dollar to PP is freeing up a dollar they can use to fund their abortion-mills. It’s like saying you believe giving money to Hamas would be used for education and other social services, when all it does is free up more money they can spend on weapons and bombs.
Guliani is toast.
Sydney Carton on May 8, 2007 at 12:08 AM
Time to stick a fork in him.
F15Mech on May 8, 2007 at 12:09 AM
Indeed. That’s why even the best spin here is unpersuasive.
Allahpundit on May 8, 2007 at 12:12 AM
Rudy’s out.
All that is left is:
John McCain(too old–presidency ages you faster in a year than lassie)Fred Thompson(for reasons unknown, undeclared. Is Fred scared of the big, bad Hillary?)Mitt Romney (are you are only hope?)
Note: Until Fred? is brave enough to declare, I will assume that he doesn’t care. And yes, the question mark was intentional.
Run, Romney Run!
Darnell Clayton on May 8, 2007 at 12:16 AM
Agreed. My point was that there was a better spin than the one you thought of, almighty one. Admit it, I’ve got mad rationalization skillz.
Bad Penny on May 8, 2007 at 12:17 AM
Yours is a hell of a lot better than theirs.
Allahpundit on May 8, 2007 at 12:18 AM
The reasons are well known. He has contractural obligations regarding a movie showing on HBO May 27th. If he announces before then they’ll have to pull the movie (which HBO spent a lot of money making) or have to give equal time to all candidates.
No link, I’m running on memory. Make like Rosie and google it!
Bad Penny on May 8, 2007 at 12:19 AM
Oy, Rudy. Not good, buddy. You know, I like ya, but your wasting of the pro-life movement’s unprecedented pass they gave you and now this might sink you. Combined with his gun control policy and the fact no one trusts him on that front, I think this will sink him. I don’t think he can win the primaries. I actually think he could have gotten away with being pro-choice had this not surfaced, but now I’m not sure.
I think you can get away with going against ONE of the GOP Big Planks, and a few small ones. Rudy clearly breaks two on guns and abortion, and he better have an 11th hour conversion on one if he wants a snowballs’ chance. Until he says definitively that there will be no weapons bans or registries when he’s in office, and means it, they aren’t going to trust him. Or he’ll have to go aggro against abortion, and court the prolife crowd. I think he can survive if he courts one absolutely, and promises damn near everything they want, and actually mean it, because those groups know a BS artist when they see it when it comes to their issue.
Bad Candy on May 8, 2007 at 12:20 AM
Thank you, sir.
Bad Penny on May 8, 2007 at 12:20 AM
Some Catholics won’t accept it. Lotta Catholics don’t really care about the contraception thing(I don’t), but there are a core of devout Catholics who absolutely do, and they’ll be pissed off by this.
Bad Candy on May 8, 2007 at 12:26 AM
I disagree with Lowry on this. I thought Giuliani made it quite clear–to those thinking about what he said–that he would welcome an overturning of Roe v Wade. He said in no uncertain terms that the states should be able to make their own decisions on the issue, although he supported the laws they have in NY.
I think he has shown himself to have some pretty big cohones on this one.
DaveS on May 8, 2007 at 12:26 AM
Conservatives will not vote for a pro-abortion AND anti-gun ex-mayor; regardless of who he is; plain and simple.
If republicans nominate him there will be a mass exodus from the Republican Party (more then what they already seen).
F15Mech on May 8, 2007 at 12:28 AM
Oh c’mon is anyboby serious about Rudy since the photo’s of him in drag showed up? He a dead man walking. Can you imagine the TV ads during the campaign? OH GOD! Now this PP contribution revelation, How can he say his personal view is anti-abortion while at the same time donating SIX (6) times to PP. Hell I don’t even donate to the RNC that many times during an election campaign, and I love the RNC.
sonnyspats1 on May 8, 2007 at 12:29 AM
The Presidental election can’t be one by trying to peel votes from the moderate dems while alienating the Repub base. Can’t be done.
sonnyspats1 on May 8, 2007 at 12:32 AM
won (sp)
sonnyspats1 on May 8, 2007 at 12:32 AM
Now if Rudy was the Mayor of Vegas he might have a shot. Cause everybody knows what goes on in Vegas stays in Vegas.
sonnyspats1 on May 8, 2007 at 12:34 AM
Oh, that’s gonna leave a mark ….
Ali-Bubba on May 8, 2007 at 12:34 AM
So it seems that Fred may declare as early as May 27th or at the latest on July 31st.
I hope that there are enough donors left to fund his campaign. Perhaps Rudy’s will bolt on him and the other mini-GOP candidates will defect towards Fred?.
But then again scenario’s like that usually work in Hollywood.
Darnell Clayton on May 8, 2007 at 12:36 AM
It astounds me that PP gets a pass from the left year after year since it was founded for the purpose of eugenics. By contrast, any climatologist who doesn’t toe the line on global warming who so much as drives a car to work is accused of being on the payroll of Exxon-Mobil-Gestapo.
pedestrian on May 8, 2007 at 12:36 AM
Ah yes, the political calculation always trumps the politicians personal morals. I understand now. Yes I’m nieve(ni-eve)(whatever)………something as deadly serious as abortion deserves more then ‘political calculation’. I guess politicians would rather build an oven instead of not having a oven if they need it.
Limerick on May 8, 2007 at 12:38 AM
I personally like the position he’s pushing now (as I understand it). It should have gone to the states in the first place, Roe/Wade decision shoulda never happened. I’d like him to say he’d like to actively work to overturn Roe, let the states decide, and let people make their own decisions and live with the consequences.
I don’t think the Pro-Life lobby will swallow it, but he can try and make them do so if he can convince people to make their backyards pro-life, and let the left do as they will in theirs, which is my attitude on most things. Make liberals live in their self-inposed hellholes borne of their ideology. Hey, it worked on the USSR, and if it ain’t broke…
Bad Candy on May 8, 2007 at 12:41 AM
If he took that position on gun control as well, we could have the primary right now and save everybody a lot of time and money.
pedestrian on May 8, 2007 at 12:45 AM
Not that I was voting for him anyway, but this is definitely bad news.
I think he would be a good Secretary of Defense, though.
bookwurm322 on May 8, 2007 at 12:46 AM
Don’t forget Howard Dean’s fundraising during his campaign. It was the only thing Screamin’ Dean did right,but it was an amazing thing. There are a lot of grassroots conservatives who are holding onto their checks waiting for Fred!, and a lot enthusiastic people who will campaign for him if he runs.
Oh, and thats self-iMposed at 12:41, ugh. Me seplls gud.
Bad Candy on May 8, 2007 at 12:47 AM
True ’nuff. But he’d really have to pound that message and mean it, no bans and no executive order shenanigans like Clinton either.
Bad Candy on May 8, 2007 at 12:53 AM
That combined with (paraphrased) “it’d be okay if the SC upheld R v. W as precedent” has just about done for him in my book.
Yeah, with some, but for more than some I’d have to say that it’s a lack of belief that Planned Parenthood actually *does* more of those things than abortions. If it’s education and prevention you want to fund, don’t look there.
Anwyn on May 8, 2007 at 12:56 AM
More then just grassroots… Last poll posted showed Fred in the lead among all Republican candidates. (How sad is that)
F15Mech on May 8, 2007 at 12:56 AM
Speaking of Mitt!, he looked pretty awsome on H&C tonight.
Colmsey asked him some pretty pointed questions that I thought he answered pretty well.
Notice how Ann gets a lot of face time? A 38 year marriage contrasts pretty well against Rudy’s three marriages and freds? (I’m co-opoting your (?) Darnell. Great catch) divorce, years of fornicating around DC and then his cradle robbing for his new wife.
With Mitt! showing the stones to put it on the line, and freds? non-candidacy (while acting like he’s a candidate), Rudy has some abortion issues and McCain cheated on his first wife. Mitt! has a much more presidential demeaner, history, and experience than either McCain or Rudy.
Someone mentioned that they were a evangelical Christian and that Mitts! LDS faith wasn’t a problem for him, and that I was mistaken to be suspicious of all evangelicals. Well, I don’t know where Roberts fits in the scheme of evangelical Christianity, but even though he disagrees with Mitts! religion, he still was invited to speak because the values he espoused were in line with their beliefs.
He/she was right and it appears that I was wrong and my fears seem to be an over reaction. I am glad they spoke up.
csdeven on May 8, 2007 at 12:58 AM
Are elections decided by the base or by swing voters?
/just asking
Bad Penny on May 8, 2007 at 1:00 AM
Primaries are won by the base and generals are won by the swing voters.
csdeven on May 8, 2007 at 1:03 AM
Does this mean the question was tounge in cheek?
csdeven on May 8, 2007 at 1:07 AM
Last I checked abortion does not = contraception.
F15Mech on May 8, 2007 at 1:07 AM
Doesn’t matter, some Catholics oppose contraception, and aren’t gonna be thrilled by it, maybe they won’t be as angry about it as abortion, but they probably aren’t gonna like it. Isn’t Rudy Catholic too?
Bad Candy on May 8, 2007 at 1:16 AM
No, it means I just think it’s something to think about, relating to what people are posting about the base.
Bad Penny on May 8, 2007 at 1:20 AM
Just to make sure. You are saying contraception = abortion?
Does not matter they are not the same thing.
F15Mech on May 8, 2007 at 1:26 AM
The problems that evangelicals have with Mormons is theological. As far as moral issues are concerned there is no problem. And since doctrinal issues are not relevant for the position of president but social issues are, his religious beliefs are not an issue for most evangelicals.
Rose on May 8, 2007 at 1:26 AM
Does not matter they are not the same thing.
should be
Does not matter they are not the same thing?
F15Mech on May 8, 2007 at 1:28 AM
Is that your opinion or the Pope’s? Does the church consider preventing conception as less of a sin than preventing implantation? I was never very knowledgeable about this stuff even when I was a practicing Catholic, and now, fugeddaboutit.
Does anybody here know what Vatican II says about this and is that still the official last word on this? What about en human vitae or whatever it was called?
Bad Penny on May 8, 2007 at 1:32 AM
The next thing you know, we’ll learn this guy actually performed abortions on the mayor’s desk.
He’s done. All the sniveling in the world about centrism isn’t going to save this dude.
jaleach on May 8, 2007 at 1:33 AM
You know how when you really want something to work out, you tend to overlook little things from the very beginning, little whispers of justifications and rationalizations, but you know down deep that if a matter is questionable from the get-go, it just isn’t right - no matter how much you want it to be right? That’s what it is with Rudy’s candidacy. I want to like Rudy, because he’s so strong, and is a great leader, and did great things in NY…but ther are just too many buts. If true, I don’t care how many times he says the words “strict constructionist judges.” All educated people who have looked into it know what PP is about, and why they go into the schools so early to start sex ed, and Rudy surely is informed. He. Is. Done.
JustTruth101 on May 8, 2007 at 1:37 AM
csdeven on May 8, 2007 at 12:58 AM
Granted Mitt has all the right stuff, but his verbage is a little canned for my liking . I get suspicious of polished/salesman types, I equate them with pathological liars. I will be looking for inconsistencies within the content of his dialog before I can feel compfortable with Mitt.
sonnyspats1 on May 8, 2007 at 1:53 AM
I like what Mitt says, but the problem is when I see him he reminds me of a used car salesman for some reason.
djohn669 on May 8, 2007 at 2:36 AM
The Thompson tsunami shall wash them away. McCain and guiliani will wither like raisins in the sun.
Theworldisnotenough on May 8, 2007 at 3:21 AM
Rudy’s running out of good will fast.
spmat on May 8, 2007 at 4:00 AM
I dont see anything wrong with Rudy’s position. He’s said he is happy with the two new Supreme Court justices and thats what he should be pushing from a Roe V Wade perspective if that’s all you people care about. As long as he picks another Alito and Roberts type, his personal opinion doesnt matter at all, nor does his financial contributions to PP which may or may not have been done out of political expediency running as a Republican in NYC.
Push the supremes on Roe V Wade, make assurances you wont take peoples guns and lets move. If Thompson is going to ride in on his white horse thats all well and good, lets see it. I’m not going to lionize the guy before he even declares.
Dash on May 8, 2007 at 7:13 AM
You guys are going to stubborn yourselves into a quarter decade of democrat control.
tomas on May 8, 2007 at 7:21 AM
Is anyone surprised by this announcement? I’m not.
I like Rudy as a candidate, and it’s clear to me that he’s Pro-Choice. And I realize that’s a position that many who read Hot Air don’t support.
As everyone knows, in the primaries, you go as hard as you can to the right (or left if you’re a Democrat) to win the nomination. And then when you get it, you change course and go as far as you can to the center.
If Rudy gets the nomination, of course he’s going to trot out his Pro-Choice record. And no one should be shocked about it, or felt they were lied to.
asc85 on May 8, 2007 at 7:29 AM
As opposed to the position he was pushing before?
Keep throwing spaghetti against the wall, Rudy. Sooner or later, something will stick.
BacaDog on May 8, 2007 at 7:41 AM
Rudy will make a great President.
MayBee on May 8, 2007 at 7:47 AM
I think Rudy’s answered the question in the “debate” honestly, but more like he was speaking in a law school class than as a politician. Speaking more from legal philosophy, rather than trying to inspire the audience.
I do think he would be a great Prez, despite my own Pro-life position.
mikeyboss on May 8, 2007 at 8:29 AM
why should this surprise anyone. everyone knows that Rudy is a supporter of abortion.
mfnorman on May 8, 2007 at 8:53 AM
Yeah, he’s pro-abortion.
Obama has publicly endorsed infanticide in Illinois.
Hillary has led the cheers for abortion since Roe was first passed.
Abortion isn’t going anywhere; abolish Roe v Wade tomorrow, and the states will all independently reaffirm the legality of abortion. Hell, if South Dakota couldn’t pass their own ban; whose going to?
But, how to convince the single-issue people that this is the wrong issue to take a stand on?
Jaibones on May 8, 2007 at 9:01 AM
I am much more concerned with the judges that he appointed in New York, than his position on abortion. If the election were about one issue, to me, it’s SCOTUS, and not because of Roe.
Jaibones on May 8, 2007 at 9:03 AM
I don’t think there is a candidate that has an untarnished record. It’s already established that the base will reject Rudy, right? You may be able to overlook Mitt’s reversals, but he’s going to get hammered on them sooner or later, no?
Plus, Drudge has this up as well concerning Fred:
What to do?
SouthernDem on May 8, 2007 at 9:17 AM
Yeah, I have heard that from others about Mitt! also. It seems a little “off” that we are suspicious of someone who seems to have a real command of his chosen profession. The funny thing is that we all try to be as accurate as we can. We NEVER try to sound inconsistant or unpolished yet we are suspicious of it when we see it in others. It just doesn’t bother me that Mitt! is well informed and has command of the issues he will face. He could either be he understands the MSM and knows what questions they will try to skewer him with, or he really is passionate and is very knowledgable of the issues that face this country at this time.
If your fear is that Mitt! seems to good to be true, well his weaknesses are not as evident as others are. IE Everyone has problems. A fat person has a weakness that is quite obvious at first glance. A poor speaking person’s weakness is not obvious until they speak. Mitts! weaknesses are not evident at first glance, nor are they when he speaks, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t there. And just because his weaknesses aren’t evident, doesn’t mean we have to fear them. Have some faith. It may be that he is simply a decent, knowldgable man.
I believe Mitt! will ultimately restore this country’s (and the worlds) faith in the office of president that Clinton destroyed and Bush has begun to heal. Mitt! understands how to be an executive and his policies are very conservative, notwithstanding the abortion and second amendment issues.
csdeven on May 8, 2007 at 9:22 AM
Wow. The reaction is so predictable.
amerpundit on May 8, 2007 at 9:37 AM
Again the GOP stands on the verge of another blow-out in 2008, but still doing what it takes to lose.
Note to GOP: YOU WILL NOT GAIN ENOUGH SUPPORT FROM THE PRO-ABORTION VOTING-BLOC TO RISK ALIENATING YOUR PRO-LIFE VOTER BASE. IF YOU RUN AS A CONSERVATIVE ON A PRO-ABORTION PLATFORM YOU SHOULD EXPECT TO LOSE.
Pundits argue otherwise, but when the voters themselves are asked, that along with immigration issues, a very significant number of voters stayed home in 2006 in protest of no true pro-life platforms to vote for. This includes many socially conservative Democrats in my region of the country.
The only think the GOP currently has on it’s side is the Democrat candidates are also not inspiring the larger American voter base.
Lawrence on May 8, 2007 at 9:46 AM
He hasn’t got a prayer of my vote in a primary but of course, I would take him over any of the lefties.. Sounds like what happens just about every time eh?
RobertCSampson on May 8, 2007 at 9:49 AM
No, I’m not. I think *THINK* (again, I’m not good with this stuff) that abortion is considered more severe in church doctrine, but contraceptives are definitely not allowed, and some doctrinal Catholics will still not be happy. I’d say its like hearing the HeadOn commercial for the fifth time vs. hearing it the twentieth time. It was annoying and made you kinda mad at five, at twenty you wanted to throw the remote through the TV.
/HeadOn Apply directly to the forehead
//HeadOn Apply directly to the forehead
///HeadOn Apply directly to the forehead
Bad Candy on May 8, 2007 at 9:57 AM
This is a hit piece on Rudy and I’d be more likely to feel unfavorable towards the campaign that released it than I would toward Rudy for making the donation.
Having said that, Rudy has got to be the guy for us as long as he polls well against the traitorous dems front runner. As much as I like Mitt! I will not be looking to catch a signed pair of his skivvies that I can frame and hang in a place of honor in my home until Mitt! polls better than Rudy does against said dem front runner.
csdeven on May 8, 2007 at 9:57 AM
Not the war? Not corruption? Not the media attacks on us making us look like the bad party? Not the Mark Foley scandal? Not the Democrats attacks? The fact that the Congressman wasn’t pro-life?
I have to beg to differ. I happen to live in the district of former Congressman Mark Foley. The man who replaced his name on the Republican ticket, was pro-life. He lost to the Democrat, pro-choice.
amerpundit on May 8, 2007 at 9:58 AM
Bing.
Jaibones on May 8, 2007 at 10:03 AM
I respectfully disagree with Lawrence.
IF Rudy gets the nomination, his Pro-Choice position makes California, New York and New Jersey (and I’m sure other States) a lot more winnable for the Republicans than if a Pro-Life candidate gets in.
And do you really think the Deep South is going to vote for a Woman or Bi-Racial candidate for President?
asc85 on May 8, 2007 at 10:12 AM
Agreed. Except on the bi-racial and woman part. I think it’ll have more to do with the fact that they’re Dems.
amerpundit on May 8, 2007 at 10:14 AM
I agree with what you’re saying, but I don’t think the Woman or Bi-Racial aspect “helps” Democrats with the Undecided vote, nor helps with those who base their votes on the Abortion issue.
asc85 on May 8, 2007 at 10:26 AM
This is interesting, too. Seems as late as 1994, Fred! thought abortion should be legal in all cases, as long as it’s in the first trimester. A few other interesting, self-admitted, stances:
Oh, and finally, this little gem:
Oh, snap! Sounds like what Rudy said the other night at the debate. The decision on abortion should be left to the states. Jump ship! Everybody! Jump ship!
amerpundit on May 8, 2007 at 10:30 AM
fred? is starting to sound more like a snake oil saleman the more we find out about him.
csdeven on May 8, 2007 at 10:33 AM
Hey! You stole my thunder! Copycat.
/kidding
SouthernDem on May 8, 2007 at 10:36 AM
Plus, you left out the best part:
SouthernDem on May 8, 2007 at 10:37 AM
Sorry.
amerpundit on May 8, 2007 at 10:41 AM
I didn’t want to rain on the love-fest on this site with Fred! earlier, but this is exactly what I thought would happen.
When you don’t know where someone stands on the positions, you just assume it’s the way you think. And then when that person has to state positions, that’s when the fur flies.
This helps explain much of the initial exuberance over Barack Obama, I think. Although I STILL don’t know where he is on many of the issues. Pin him down, and by definition, some people are going to disagree.
asc85 on May 8, 2007 at 10:48 AM
I think another interesting question is who leaked this. From the story I read it was another anon. campaign but I am about 75% sure that anotherRepublican would not have done this. Nobody likes a snitch and any Republican that was caught snitching on Rudy would have hell to pay. Also, no Republican could trust the media to keep the secret. That leaves the Dems.
That being said I think Rudy will be severely wounded by this. Its time for Fred and Mitt to get together and do something really unusual. Mitt’s young enough to be VP. Fred’s got the charisma. Mitt’s got the cash and organizing acumen. It’s a match made in Republican heaven.
Anybody else agree?
Bill C on May 8, 2007 at 11:28 AM
Yawn.
Abortion again. Is there any other topic on Giuliani’s agenda or is that it. If you follow the MSM (and conservative blogs) you would think he was a mad eugenics scientist!!! Realy guys, get over it. He is pro-choice. We know that. HE IS PRO-CHOICE. HE IS PRO-CHOICE. HE IS PRO-CHOICE. There. Can we move on. Now, if you told me he was schooled in a madrassa or believe sharia was appropriate as a constitutional admendment, I would be concerned.
He is our only real chance to keep the WH and you guys are so &^%$$*(’ed up on this one stupid issue you are going to hand over the keys to Hillary. (Hint — she is pro-choice too, and so apparently is your beloved womanizing Fred!)
You guys need to get on the good ship Rudy before it is too late.
tommylotto on May 8, 2007 at 11:33 AM
Except that Fred! can’t exactly claim he’s always been pro-life, either. As late as ‘94, he was in favor of abortions, in all cases, in the first trimester. Romney was also pro-choice earlier on. All three were pro-choice.
amerpundit on May 8, 2007 at 11:34 AM
OHNOES Fred! is center right moderate on abortion too and wont ban it in all cases just like most of the rest of the nation!
Sounds good to me. I mean I’d rather a candidate be too pro life than too pro choice if i absolutely had to pick, but I’m glad to see these two are not on a hard edge of the debate.
If you’re going to stay home because the candidate says he’s fine with RvW being overturned and it should be left to the states but wont commit to 100% full on pro-life complete with video of him protesting a clinic… well then stay home I guess.
Dash on May 8, 2007 at 12:02 PM
So? Why should I care if a pro-ABORTION Democrat is in the WH, or a pro-ABORTION Republican is in the WH?
If I’m gong to vote for someone just like Hillary, I might as well vote for Hillary.
The fetus-murder issue is less important to me than his cavalier attitude toward the 2nd Amendment.
I might, maybe, consider Romney as VP candidate for Tancredo, but Tancredo is the only candidate thus far I’d trust as POTUS. And I don’t trust him entirely.
If not Tancredo, I might as well put Stalin Rodham Clinton in the WH and get the destruction of America over with quickly, rather than slowly as with Guilliani.
Hiraghm on May 8, 2007 at 12:54 PM
Let me reiterate. Like many other conservatives (I believe), I don’t care if there’s a Republican in the White House or a Democrat. What I require is a real conservative in the White House. Anyone else just promotes the slide into the liberal abyss, the only difference being how fast we slide.
So, no, I won’t sell out my conservative principles just so the Republican party can be in the White House.
Hiraghm on May 8, 2007 at 12:57 PM
Don’t worry about rain. I’ve been CRAPPING all over the fred? love-fest for about a week now.
csdeven on May 8, 2007 at 1:14 PM
So now it turns out that there are three main Republican candidates, one of whom I probably will not vote for out of spite (McCain), one that I will have to debate very hard whether or not I will vote for (Guliani) and one that I will vote for, but won’t much like it (Romney). Boy, we got ourselves some winners here, huh?
Wolfman on May 8, 2007 at 1:18 PM
Hey Rudy, be a man, come out pro-choice and get my vote. ;)
Seixon on May 8, 2007 at 1:20 PM
You do understand that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure right? Rudy is prevention and a dem would require a pound of cure.
csdeven on May 8, 2007 at 1:20 PM
I read an article on Rudy in the most recent Vanity Fair by a journalist that covered him while in New York. Basically the whole article was about Rudy being crazy. I mean like “lost his mind” crazy. They interviewed people saying he was crazy, remembering things he did that were crazy, both personal and political.
I found the link if you want to read it. It’s interesting if not biased
Rightwingsparkle on May 8, 2007 at 1:30 PM
csdeven,
No, Rudy is not an ounce of cure; he is the difference between being hanged and being shot. The idea is not to be executed at all.
Understand… there is no cure. If we do not stand up and stop this now, we won’t EVER be able to stop it in the future. Conceding ground to the enemy does not result in victory. And I’ve lost any hope that the American people have enough sense to eventually choke on this nonsense and turn conservative; they have demonstrated an unerring capacity for forgetting hard truths and embracing feel-good idiocy.
Hiraghm on May 8, 2007 at 1:53 PM
Gee, I wonder if there are still some NYC liberals who have a case of GDS (Giuliani Derangement Syndrome) from his mayor days. HE’S CRAZY!!!!! Well, according to them, everyone is crazy who has not bought into the progressive, liberal, multicultural, politically correct mud swamp.
I read the Vanity Fair hit piece. I kept waiting for it to make a point as to why he’s crazy. I just kept seeing a guy that the NYC liberals hated and are trying to smear. If they hate him so much, doesn’t that really make him look good?
tommylotto on May 8, 2007 at 2:00 PM
RUDY IS A MAJOR PLAYER IS SPP. Just thought you should know he will have a major conflict of interest as POTUS and, IMHO, should not ever run for any office again.
tormod on May 8, 2007 at 3:02 PM
That is such sophistical reasoning. I can form my own opinion as to whether Giuliani’s any good or not, based on his own speeches and deeds, and without any respect for the opinions of New York’s left.
Kralizec on May 8, 2007 at 3:16 PM
Who does this guy think he is fooling? He is a politician through and through. He’ll lie like Hillary and Bill.
I’ll hold on for Fred!
Fred! get into the race and save us from this Rockafellers…
Tim Burton on May 8, 2007 at 3:43 PM
Please, do tell me how well your Conservative principles will be presented, under President Hillary and her Democratic Congress? I’m guessing less than under Giuliani.
Yeah, except Fred was “in favor of abortion in all cases, in the first trimester”, as late as 1994. There was also previous reports that he had been pro-choice.
amerpundit on May 8, 2007 at 3:54 PM
this=these
Tim Burton on May 8, 2007 at 3:56 PM
That is fine, but he has always said that Roe v. Wade was bad Constitutional Law.
I can take someone who is less than perfect socially, if he has always held to Federalism.
Tim Burton on May 8, 2007 at 3:58 PM
Note to the GOPers.
I can tell you that a victory for Rudy in the Primary will mean a victory for the Obama/Hillary team.
Just because Rudy represents the “lesser of evils,” doesn’t mean that the pro-life crowd (especially evangelical christians and conservative catholics) will vote for him.
From most (if not all) of my conversations with this red political force, they would rather abstain from voting than vote in a pro-choice candidate.
If Rudy gets in, Hillary/Obama will win.
Darnell Clayton on May 8, 2007 at 9:04 PM
Oh yeah, for all of you who think Mitt! is too polished to be president, is it me, or does that sound a little moonbattish?
If that’s the reason why you (and most GOPers) voted for Bush, then I should probably reconsider joining the Democratic party as most of my family (99.99%) think Republicans are “not that bright.” (and they are fairly pissed that I became one)
I’m not interested in the “fire in the belly” or how close to Reagan a person was in life. I’m interested in what plan they have for the country. Fred? has yet to announce one, and until then, I’ll take Obama over him.
“Where there is no vision, the people perish…”
~Proverbs 29:18a
Darnell Clayton on May 8, 2007 at 9:12 PM
Ouch. That’s a little too harsh, don’t you think?
That, rather than a snake-oil concession, is what’s at the heart of this methinks.
RD on May 8, 2007 at 10:02 PM