Going for broke: Rudy to publicly embrace abortion rights
posted at 12:10 am on May 10, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
He’s got nothing to lose. This “support the right, oppose the practice” two-step he’s been trying isn’t convincing anyone, not with receipts from Planned Parenthood and NARAL luncheons to his credit. Defending another’s right to engage in an activity you find immoral is a respectable libertarian position; inducing them to engage in it by cutting them checks and giving them pep talks is a bit different. The man obviously believes in abortion. Take him or, as most social cons will, leave him.
Either way, no sense anymore trying to hedge the issue.
After months of conflicting signals on abortion, Rudolph W. Giuliani is planning to offer a forthright affirmation of his support for abortion rights in public forums, television appearances and interviews in the coming days, despite the potential for bad consequences among some conservative voters already wary of his views, aides said yesterday.
At the same time, Mr. Giuliani’s campaign — seeking to accomplish the unusual task of persuading Republicans to nominate an abortion rights supporter — is eyeing a path to the nomination that would try to de-emphasize the early states in which abortion opponents wield a great deal of influence. Instead they would focus on the so-called mega-primary of Feb. 5, in which voters in states like California, New York and New Jersey are likely to be more receptive to Mr. Giuliani’s social views than voters in Iowa and South Carolina…
Mr. Giuliani acknowledged that his stance on abortion alone might disqualify him with some voters, but he said, “I am at peace with that.”…
Giuliani advisers, describing their strategy in what has emerged as one of the most challenging weeks of his campaign, said Republican primary voters would forgive their concerns about him on abortion and other social issues if they concluded that his positions on those issues would actually appeal to Democratic voters and thus make him the strongest Republican presidential candidate in 2008.
In other words, shun the social cons in the primary, then hold the “anyone but Hillary” gun to their head in the general. Or, to put it slightly differently, ignore the deep red states he needs to win in November in favor of blue states he has little chance of stealing from the Democrats. Sounds like a plan. Meanwhile, Fred’s next speech is slated to be introduced by Richard Land and involve a “call to arms” about “values.” If he wasn’t planning to devote much of it to the right to life, I’m sure he is now.
What this will do for Rudy is get the abortion issue squarely out on the table so he can get it off again and start talking about terrorism. It’ll work, too; pestering him about it after the media storm blows over will bore people and seem like overkill. Expect the next tidbits from GOP oppo researchers to focus on his terror record, then — malfunctioning radios for first responders on 9/11, putting the city’s emergency crisis center in WTC 7 even though the Trade Center had been targeted by jihadis once before, etc.
Exit question: Hasn’t Rudy already publicly embraced abortion rights? That is to say, what kind of answer is he going to give now that he hasn’t been giving all along? “Roe is good law, root and branch”? I don’t get it.
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
He is trying to play like we’re all Yankee conservatives or something!
Drtuddle on May 10, 2007 at 12:17 AM
Hey, Rudy *BZZZZZT* Wrong answer, dumbass!
Adios candidacy.
Now we wait for Fred!
Bad Candy on May 10, 2007 at 12:18 AM
Yes Rudy, forget the flyover states. Those are only for conservatives.
His positions appeal to Democratic voters because they are liberal positions. That certainly does not make him the “strongest Republican” candidate.
Rudy should’ve run as a democrat. He’d have been the best conservative president since Clinton.
BacaDog on May 10, 2007 at 12:18 AM
He’s changed his position again…
Not someone I want as President.
Besides the Pope is a gonna Excommunicate him…
Romeo13 on May 10, 2007 at 12:20 AM
No offense Allah, but Rudy’s finished.
If he wins the primary, Obama/Hillary will win the general.
Many evangelical christians would rather lose than vote against their conscience. He will face very stiff resistance from the pro-life crowd, dividing the party giving the democratic contender an edge.
It’s either Fred? or Mitt! as far as I’m concerned. Perhaps it will end up an Obama/Hillary vs Fred?/Mitt! in the general (I’ll let you decide who will be the VP on either side).
That is something I could definitely see happening in ‘08.
* For those of you who don’t know, until Fred? decides to run, I (along with several other commentators) will always mark his name with a question mark. No excuses of “but this” or “that.” You’re either in or not. Peace.
Darnell Clayton on May 10, 2007 at 12:25 AM
Nah, actually I take that back, I think if he were to make peace with the 2nd Amendment people and swear there will be no bans, and courts the immigration people, he could weather this.
I’ll confess, abortion isn’t my big issue. I’d like to see Roe overturned, end all federal funding, and the states decide, and if liberals wanna continue destroying people, fine by me, but do it on their own turf and don’t make me pay for it. Let people deal with the consequences of their choices.
Bad Candy on May 10, 2007 at 12:25 AM
He wants to get the issue off the table as soon as possible. He just takes it out from underneath the table and lays it out there for everyone to see discuss and forget. It is the best strategy. Bush admitted to being an alcoholic and smoking marijuana. He hasn’t been asked about it since. Dodging an issue makes it linger, just ask Bill Clinton.
Theworldisnotenough on May 10, 2007 at 12:40 AM
For me it is WOT, abortion, guns, immigration, taxes in that order. But that’s me. This is not going to go over well anywhere other then the ‘big-prize’ states. If he thinks he can win the general just because he pulls CA and NY he is going to be a talking head on Sunday morning shows instead of the CIC.
Limerick on May 10, 2007 at 12:41 AM
Culture Of Life. Wink Wink Nudge Nudge know what I mean!
Drtuddle on May 10, 2007 at 12:46 AM
I don’t either. What does this mean as to what type of judges he will appoint to the courts?
Rick on May 10, 2007 at 12:52 AM
What a douche. Sadly I would still vote for him in the general election though, as the alternative will be Hillary. When there’s a potential for a President Hillary, we can’t afford to sit it out over one, or even a few issues.
RightWinged on May 10, 2007 at 12:55 AM
Without God and Guns he’ll never carry flyover America. Toss pro life in there and he just lost millions more.
The more I hear, I’m not so sore Rudy would even be a good VP for Mitt. Until we get the chance to hold Fred? up to the light, we can’t judge too accurately. For now though, I’m beginning to lean towards Mitt.
But, it is a long time until January 08. I’m sure we will have ran through 4 or 5 trash cycles by then.
BacaDog on May 10, 2007 at 12:57 AM
I think its sad that we are at a point where anything even slightly nuanced is incomprehensible to the electorate. I don’t think it is entirely unbelieveable that the following 4 things can simultaneously hold true:
1) Rudy believes that states should be free to regulate abortion as they see fit (in other words, Roe v Wade should be overturned), and would appoint strict constructionist judges accordingly
2) Rudy believes that NY should be allowed to have legal abortions, as the voters apparently wish–that’s realpolitik
3) Rudy personally opposes abortion on a moral level
4) Rudy donated to Planned Parenthood, which, while the most troubling of the four, could certainly be construed as support for their work in making birth control, etc., more aaccessible for the poor.
DaveS on May 10, 2007 at 1:00 AM
I think Darnell Clayton’s take is spot on.
My prediction, Rudy looks to be done by Labor Day, Thanksgiving at the latest.
rhuppertz on May 10, 2007 at 1:02 AM
To answer your question AP, Rudy did come out in favor of abortion rights already. However, in a world where every answer is carefully hedged, he tried to make it seem as though he had some personal reservation about the issue, so he wouldn’t totally alienate social cons. (”I hate abortion…” etc) This new pronouncement will just tear the hedging away and expose his true feelings about the issue. (Speaking as a devout Catholic, I hope Pope Benedict makes good on his threat to start excommunicating “Catholic” politicians who take positions like this, per your earlier post on the topic today.) Bad call on Rudy’s part - if he starts saying we should respect a woman’s “right” to choose to murder her child, a lot of conservative voters will abandon ship.
redaerobaby on May 10, 2007 at 1:03 AM
I agree. People think the country is polarized now, wait until President Hillary. There is just too much there - especially with Bubba going back to the WH.
Rick on May 10, 2007 at 1:06 AM
Heck, he might as well come out with a unequivocable platform plank in favor of partial-birth-abortions-on-demand and paid by taxpayers even if the mother is rich and heavily insured.
That would get him more respect, (if not necessarily votes) even among the most rabid anti-abortioners, than the incoherent wafflings he has made about it the last few months.
LegendHasIt on May 10, 2007 at 1:08 AM
How many of us will go on record supporting the jailing of women who have an abortion? Let’s see a show of hands:
(- - - crickets chirping - - - )
I thought so.
Now, continue with your Rudy bashing.
Halley on May 10, 2007 at 1:10 AM
I don’t think Rudy is going to make it in the Repub primary. Ironically, if he WERE nominated, I think he’d crush Hillary in a general election. Does anybody here (smart folks I’d say) even KNOW a man who plans on voting for Hitlery? I don’t, and I’m a teacher at a lib school. If you don’t get the male vote, you lose.
Mojave Mark on May 10, 2007 at 1:10 AM
1 hand up here. Put in on the ballot and I would vote it a crime punishable by prison.
Limerick on May 10, 2007 at 1:15 AM
Rudy will be tough in the War Against Islamic Terrorism. We have 18mos til the next election. The stupidest thing for terrorists to do would be to carry out another massive attack. Rudy would win in a cake-walk.
The terrorists are lying in wait, until a weak CiC coupled with the Democrats (there is no such thing as GWOT) sit with thumbs up their butts and worry more about the emergency response to an attack, versus the prevention of an attack and retaliation thereof.
The way I see it, Rudy will put in conservative justices, Rudy has a quality much needed right now “Leadership” and Rudy doesn’t need the Evangelicals. Remember, now, the Evangelicals believe in Global Warming and are allying with the left in that arena anyways and Rudy would do good to tell the Pope to butt out of Politics, Americans don’t like that much.
James on May 10, 2007 at 1:16 AM
Hillary’s running mate in ‘08
Connie on May 10, 2007 at 1:17 AM
The one thing I’ve always taken away from Rudy, though, is that regardless of what he believes he says he will govern as a federalist–ie, someone who believes locals governments can decide best for themselves what they should do.
As long as that bit about him appointing constitutional originalist judges wasn’t pandering, I think he could still be a strong candidate.
On the other hand, Mitt!/Fred? 08
Viewtifulgare on May 10, 2007 at 1:19 AM
I am very much against abortion, but I am a male and feel I have no particular “right” in this regard. Also, the first few weeks of gestation is not “life” and I am fine with morning after pills and other procedures. Heck, 70 ~ 80% of blastocysts are aborted naturally.
I think anything in the late 2nd and 3rd terms is infanticide. There are cases where it is indeed a medical procedure and the life of hte mother is saved, and I’ll support those instances.
Rape and incest as well.
Abortion is not all black and white.
I would prefer more of a focus on adoption and more people adopting and the laws making it easier for people to adopt without fear of the biological family coming several years later to rip apart the new family.
Rudy should come out strong and hard for adoption and the prevention of abortions. That will do the most good.
James on May 10, 2007 at 1:21 AM
Who, Rudy?
Rick on May 10, 2007 at 1:21 AM
Question: Who here virulently opposes something but (seemingly) does everything in their power to promote it? No one? Really? That’s odd…
*Wonders when we are going to see a pro abortion activist march with the right to life crowd because she personally would not have an abortion. Right. That just isn’t going to happen*
Rudy will be looked at with a raised eyebrow from now on. He is the best socially liberal Libertarian candidate in the field. This causes me to wonder-since this issue seems to be the one he has the most personal investment in will he really put another Scalia on the bench; or will he justify an LC judge that has made a handfull of conservative opinions hoping to please the base but keep Roe v. Wade intact? Or will he appoint a liberal outright? That wouldn’t be out of character. Questions, questions.
Theworldisnotenough on May 10, 2007 at 1:23 AM
Like AP said - being pro-choice is one thing, but giving money to Planned Parenthood is something else entirely. How could he possibly think that nobody would find out about that? This is the same guy who thought Bernard Kerick should run DHS. Sorry Rudy, but I just find it really hard to trust you.
WisCon on May 10, 2007 at 1:23 AM
Why not? After all, he is a convert for political reasons only.
And I will be honest with you, until this idiocy, I was considering Thompson/Giuliani to pull in independents. I really don’t know as I can do that anymore. Rudy has pretty much declared war.
Connie on May 10, 2007 at 1:23 AM
That’s what I’m guessing he’s going to do - basically saying that he strongly believes that it’s up to the States to decide.
Rick on May 10, 2007 at 1:23 AM
I am against abortion for reasons that have nothing to do with religion.
But, I have realized that this battle is over. America is not going to outlaw abortion. Period.
Therefore, if you allow the Democrats to win by boycotting Rudy over this lost cause, you are being foolish.
Don’t you realize why the MSM is amplifying this abortion message?
They know that Rudy is the only opponent that can defeat them. And they are bringing out their longknives and placing them in the hands of conservatives that will slay Rudy’s campaign and, in effect, coronate Hillary.
Sad.
JayHaw Phrenzie on May 10, 2007 at 1:27 AM
People, until Iran and Saudi Arabia are radically changed (by massive bombardment from our warplanes), the numero uno issue for us facing the 21st century will be Islamic Terrorism and all the tools they use of our open (too open in the case of the border) society against us.
Look at Europe and project 20 years. That will be the United States, unless we make a stand now. We elect Democrats to Congress and to the Presidency, the terrorists will have won. Not because the Democrats are bad people, but because they are weak and don’t have the stamina or courage to mete it out.
Republicans win as long as this is front and center issue, even if they gave to planned parenthood. Rudy appeals to the 9.11 Republicans and the 9.11 Democrats forced into the Republican camp (like Joe Lieberman) all 12% of them.
James on May 10, 2007 at 1:29 AM
I second that.
aengus on May 10, 2007 at 1:29 AM
You press anyone long and hard enough and they’ll show you their true colors.
- The Cat
P.S. Raises hand. Also for the docs, nurses, drivers . . .This was probably and argument abolitionists had to answer.
MirCat on May 10, 2007 at 1:30 AM
This statement is such total crap.
THis smacks of the “absolute moral authority bullshit” that libs love so much.
Only a woman can have an opinion on abortion.
Only a person of color can have an opinion on Racism.
Only a veteren can have an opinion on war.
Only a mentally deficient person can have an opinion on Mental Retardation.
Want to offer your opinion on fishing? Better grow some fins and gills.
Absolute BS. Plain and simple and a cop-out to boot.
JayHaw Phrenzie on May 10, 2007 at 1:31 AM
I take the first and seconders and tell em to go vote for the Constitution party. Rudy is not your man.
Putting women in jail for abortion is eerily similar to what the enemy we confront now would do if they wrote the laws in this country.
James on May 10, 2007 at 1:32 AM
JayHaw Phrenzie on May 10, 2007 at 1:27 AM
But from what perspective? Is Rudy the only one who can beat Billary? Whoever gets the nod gets my vote. Even Rudy.
But I am not an evangalist. I’m a maybe next Sunday Christian. But my neighbors? My state? Good luck with that.
This is about the primary. A lot of people, including myself, would vote for him against whoever the Dem candidate is, but a lot won’t because of this issue. The base is demoralized enough as it is because of the current wishy-washy state we are in. Keep the base demoralized and you can bet Billary will be CIC.
Limerick on May 10, 2007 at 1:36 AM
So even if you were a male “fetus”, you still don’t have a “right”? This “my body” crap is total BS anyway. It’s not her body, it just happens to be that the child is carried in hers, but it’s as much the man’s. The sad thing is you can do serious jail time and pay tens of thousands in fines if you even touch an eagle’s dead carcass or egg… yet doctors are making millions killing human children.
As I said, the real issue at the moment is the presidency, and as I said:
RightWinged on May 10, 2007 at 1:36 AM
I think Rudy will need the evangelicals to get the nomination.
I’m glad Rudy is going to take a stand on this. I’ll wait out the summer and see how he polls against the front running traitorous dems. If he can continue to poll well, I will have a hard time voting against him, even if he polls poorly against the other republican candidates.
csdeven on May 10, 2007 at 1:37 AM
JayHaw, I have stated I am against abortion. I have stated my opinion. I am for prevention of abortion and promotion of adoption. I am, myself, a product of adoption and a choice made not to be aborted.
I still have no inherent right to tell another independent human being, a woman, what to do with her body. I can counsel and advise against, but ultimately I am not the “decider”.
James on May 10, 2007 at 1:38 AM
By this logic, the woman can’t decide either. A fetus is an individual organism genetically distinct from the mother. Not an appendix with arms and legs.
But, as I said, this battle is lost. Abortion will not be outlawed in America ever again. How silly to lose an election over an issue that is a lost cause.
And the reason I feel Rudy will win is because he will take New York from the Dems. Without NY, the Dems can’t win. Period.
JayHaw Phrenzie on May 10, 2007 at 1:45 AM
It isn’t even slightly similar. First of all they wouldn’t be “[writing ] the laws in this country”. The laws they would institute were written 1,300 years ago. The punishment is death by stoning. I don’t see how that’s eerily similar to jail time.
aengus on May 10, 2007 at 1:52 AM
The problem is that we are ruled by laws and RoevWade is bad law. It was decided from the bench and not as a bill voted on by our representitives.
So yes, you have no right to tell a woman what to do with her body, but the courts had no right to abdicate her responsibilty to her child without due procees under our representitive government. The laws that made abortion illegal were done according to the rules of our government and to make abortion legal the same process needs to be followed.
So, no, you have no right to tell a woman what to do with her body, but you have an obligation as a citizen to demand that the laws of this country are created beginning with the legislative branch.
csdeven on May 10, 2007 at 1:55 AM
Rudy will make a wonderful President.
If abortion is your litmus test, don’t vote for him. But I think social cons are biting their nose to spite their face if they want Rudy out of the race.
I fear the base of both parties are going to leave us with another Bush/Kerry- type choice. Whoever is the most pure on abortion vs. whoever is the most pure anti-war guy. Great.
MayBee on May 10, 2007 at 1:57 AM
Blastocyst, zygote, embryo, fetus…..
Please point me to the end product. Zebra? Rhino? Goose? Cocker Spaniel? Biohazard?….How uneducated and intolerant of me to think it might be human. It requires it’s host to survive, but the host doesn’t require it to survive. So we protect the host’s right to kill and not the blastocysts/zygotes/embryos/fetuses right to live. Makes perfect sense to me.
Limerick on May 10, 2007 at 2:08 AM
Nope, if I were writing the law, mandatory counciling for her, I’d focus on going after the doctors that perform illegally, first time they lose their practice, if they’re caught again, face jailtime and fines.
Of course, I wouldn’t care if liberals wanted to abort all they want, in their own turf and on their own dime. And hey, if you want such a serious operation in a pro life area, buy a Greyhound ticket, they aren’t expensive. Or pro-choice groups could pay for them, they get enough money already.
Bad Candy on May 10, 2007 at 2:20 AM
>How many of us will go on record supporting the jailing of women who have an abortion? Let’s see a show of hands:
Here’s another hand. Murderers should be convicted and punished. Killing your own child is especially heinous.
Doghouse on May 10, 2007 at 2:24 AM
Some comments on here are sounding like it’s a male vs female issue. Might I point out that there are pro-life women as well; and many of them would jail women that commit abortion as well.
- The Cat
P.S. I roll my eyes at ‘Male Guilt’
MirCat on May 10, 2007 at 2:45 AM
I don’t know how some people can “support” abortion. You can believe, ultimately, someone has the right to do it, but I don’t know why people go gung-ho and recommend them (i.e. planned parenthood, apparently rudy.)
And to think, rudy was my first choice after Fred!
Well, I guess mitt fills that position now. He was my governator for years, so I know hes basically clean.
triple on May 10, 2007 at 5:30 AM
So Rudy announces that he is the next Reagan then he flip flops on abortion. He’s already weak on illegal immigration and gay marriage / civil unions. Hmmmmm, wonder when he’ll show his true colors on the 2nd amendment, next week maybe or just as soon as he’s elected?
Rudy just sunk his own campaign, watch his numbers trail south rapidly. So we’re supposed to vote for Rudy because he’s solidly behind the GWOT and to the left of Hillary otherwise? Not me, sorry.
He’s not the only candidate who’ll be tough on the islamofascists ya know.
Buzzy on May 10, 2007 at 5:48 AM
Why do people think Rudy will crush Hillary in a general election? He was running against her when she was carpet-bagging and he dropped out. He didn’t even consider improving his bona fides with the Republican party in ‘06 by running against and beating her in his home state. Rudy could have proven that he is Hillary-bane. He hasn’t.
And why do people think he’ll be some sort of military genius? He’s never led a platoon much less the whole DoD.
If Giuliani wins the primary, expect to see a stronger third party and a lot of apathy from “values voters.” This was Bill Clinton’s recipe for victory in 1992 (after GHWB raised taxes) and 1996 (when the values voters didn’t turn out for Dole).
cmay on May 10, 2007 at 6:23 AM
Excellent points!
I find Rudy’s sudden embrace of abortion disgusting!
Not only does he condone the culture of death, he’s been wishy-washy about it, too.
Combine that with his stance on homosexual marriage and gun rights and he’s done.
I can’t believe that he would advocate abortion not only because he’s a Republican, but also because he’s a Catholic.
And doesn’t he see that Roe v. Wade is not only bad law, but one of the worst incursions of federalism and judicial activism since Dred Scott?!
If it comes down to voting for him or Hillary, it’s going to be a tough call–can you imagine?!?
Jen the Neocon on May 10, 2007 at 7:30 AM
Someone may nominate Rudy for their presidential candidate but I doubt that it will be the Republican Party. Sheeeesh . . . what a dip.
rplat on May 10, 2007 at 7:43 AM
The reason people think Rudy will defeat Hillary in the general is because he polls well against her (and all the dems). Everything about Rudy needs to come out now. The same is true with all the rep candidates. We have to have all the dirt so we can see how they poll aagaisnt the dems before the general.
csdeven on May 10, 2007 at 7:53 AM
Abortion, AGAIN… YAWN.
I think OBL leaked the Planned Parenthood receipts to the news media, because he knows that the cross-eyed rede state retards have such a bug up their butts about abortion, they would perfer a sharia state, rather than give a woman the right to choose. You guys are pathetic and your political analysis bites.
Rudy will lose the early states, capture all the big ones and win the primary. Then he’ll choose pro-choice Mitt or pro-choice Fred! to be his running mate. Chew on that, you gun obsessed, evolution denying country bumpkins. It’s that or Hillary, baby.
tommylotto on May 10, 2007 at 7:54 AM
Excellent. This is exactly what I called for Rudy to do just a little while ago. By doing so, he will be winning a larger portion of the moderate voting bloc, the largest in the country. If conservatives are dumb enough to turn their back against him, then they can pat themselves on the back when Hillary comes to town.
Seixon on May 10, 2007 at 8:09 AM
It is a mistake for Rudi to embrace abortion rights. He cannot win the Republican nomination for President on a pro-choice platform. Also, pro-life is the wave of the future. Rudi si strong on terrorism, but it is right for Republicans to say that they want a pro-life cnadidate.
Phil Byler on May 10, 2007 at 8:17 AM
Hillary beats fred? in Texas, Ohio, Missouri, Kentucky….
Ouch.
csdeven on May 10, 2007 at 8:57 AM
What I don’t get is exactly what ‘pro-choice’ means in this context. When Rudy is ‘pro-choice’ Are we talking about 1st term abortion or 3rd term abortion (where a term is 3 months)? There’s a world of difference between the two, can anyone please clarify?
Aylios on May 10, 2007 at 9:07 AM
Guys, Guys:
The way I understand it-if Roe is overturned DOCTORS would be fined, punished, whatever for PERFORMING abortions.
The woman wouldn’t be punished at all.
and FYI-I’m against abortion for ANY reason.
I was in Rudys’ camp… now… if Fred? doesn’t run…I don’t know who I’ll go with.
annoyinglittletwerp on May 10, 2007 at 9:19 AM
I wish there was a way to elect Rudy for the Economic and WOT issues, and outsource the Social Con issues to a Social Con.
If he gets nominated I hope pragmaticism takes root with social cons and they realize a stay at home or third party vote will be the same as voting for Hillary
jp on May 10, 2007 at 9:38 AM
She’s leading by like 6 to 15 points agaisnt a guy that hasn’t announced. I’m not worried too much.
- The Cat
MirCat on May 10, 2007 at 9:49 AM
It’s really too bad you need us “retards” in order to have a political party.
Esthier on May 10, 2007 at 10:07 AM
Yes it’s one of those “You ain’t a REAL conservative unless” comments, now get used to it. You can’t be a communist and believe in God, that would make you a socialist or something else. So likewise, unless you believe in smaller government, the rule of law, and the protection of life first, then liberty, and finally the pursuit of happiness, you aren’t a conservative. You can argue between flat tax, and sales tax all day, but if you actually think that abortion is not an issue or the right to defend yourself is not an issue, you fail at conservative. Go see yourself to the door. We don’t need a “big tent” so big that it includes socialists, facists, and other assorted nuts.
By the way, us backwards hicks don’t think of abortion as a sexual sin. So don’t play the “it’s her body” card. No pro-lifer I know disagrees with that. We argue that it’s the baby’s body she can’t mess with.
tadams1138 on May 10, 2007 at 10:37 AM
Are we tired of this yet? He is pro choice. If that is your litmus test, game over. If it’s not, stop torturing the poor man, how many times does he have to answer the same question?
I’m not a big Rudy fan, but let it go. Our political discourse in this country has fallen prey to the “least common denominator” effect that infests our culture in just about every aspect.
Just pisses me off.
honora on May 10, 2007 at 10:55 AM
I subscribe tentatively to Futurepundit’s Evolutionary Theory of Unsustainable Selection: Elective abortion seems necessarily to select against gene allotypes that promote personality traits common among women who choose to have an abortion. It seems also to select in favor of allotypes that promote traits common among women who choose to have a baby. If the Futurepundit (Randall Parker) is right, and if the tendency to have an abortion is related to the tendency to favor pro-abortion candidates, women who abort their babies have been killing off millions of likely pro-abortion voters over the last 35 years. That can’t be good for the cause.
Kralizec on May 10, 2007 at 11:05 AM
Oh, hi Honora. You’re not one of those women who have killed a likely “pro-choice” voter before she was born, are you? I mean, if you haven’t, I have a more favorable opinion of you, but if you have, well–thanks!
Kralizec on May 10, 2007 at 11:13 AM
Tommylotto, why don’t you go back to the kids’ table and leave the discussion to the adults in the room.
Perhaps an education in logic would be more to the point. The social conservatives will make or break the winner of the primary in the general. If we stay home, the left wins; if we vote in numbers, the right party wins.
It’s not too hard to remember that this is a complex world. One cannot win everything with one issue. There are several issues on the table, and we are looking for the candidate with the right fit for our political and moral values. I can tell you that personally, I would weigh heavily in favor of a Republican who embraces not only clear national defense, noninfringment of the Second Amendment, but also the clear defense of the unborn. Is that too much to ask? I hope not.
Tennman on May 10, 2007 at 11:14 AM
Torturing?
No one is torturing him by asking this question. It’s elementary to assume that ANY Republican candidate who has a firm opinion, opposing most of his base one of the basic reasons people go to the polls (and yes abortion does that, on both sides) will get this question.
And let’s face it, until now, the man’s been trying to make a dance out of it. I admire him more for now being open about it, but it hasn’t changed my opinion of him.
If he’s our pick, I’ll stand by him because of his stance on terrorism. But I’ll do what I can to make sure he isn’t our pick.
Esthier on May 10, 2007 at 11:14 AM
Just for your own personal edification, maybe you should read a little more. Pro-choice is not in any way shape or form the moderate opinion.
http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
But what do I know, I’m just a dumb conservative who reads a little before taking to my keyboard with baseless insults.
Esthier on May 10, 2007 at 11:22 AM
Rudy the RINO…not that big of a surprise. Although I would much prefer someone else be the Republican candidate, if it comes down to Rudy vs Hillary, will have to hold my nose and vote for Rudy. Anyone else get the feeling that the current crop of candidates on both sides is lacking? Did see a clip on Fox last night talking about Fred, on O’Reilly I believe, and the strategists they had on actually thought that if Fred or Newt is waiting to declare, that is probably the smartest thing they could do.
coyoterex on May 10, 2007 at 11:24 AM
I will never vote for Giuliani.
The Weekly Standard didi a great interview with Fred Thompson. It clearly explains his position and his consistent voting record. If he gets in…he’s got my vote!
CCRWM on May 10, 2007 at 11:30 AM
Not something to joke about, do you think? I am reluctantly pro-choice but support the sensible restrictions–age, notification, no 3rd term, education/education/education/education.
Anyone who doesn’t struggle with this issue IMO is not really thinking it through.
honora on May 10, 2007 at 11:38 AM
Hey Esthier. Bold above, I don’t think this statement is true. It’s like guns–a highly vocal minority on both sides sucks up all the oxygen, when in fact most people see it as an issue of some importance but not a make or break issue. I’m pretty sure I’ve seen documentation of this.
honora on May 10, 2007 at 11:42 AM
The most interesting part of the link was comparing the various questions and % responses to variations of the question are you pro life or pro choice–that question elicits a 50/50 split if you look at the questions (not including the late term one, which is a specific procedure almost everyone objects to); what is interesting is the response to the question about do you want to see Roe overturned. Overwhelmingly, people do not.
How to interpret this: many people object to abortion or at least have grave reservations (myself included) but don’t want this to be in the hands of the government.
honora on May 10, 2007 at 11:48 AM
You guys think Rudy is nuanced or dancin or whatever, but he just so happens to have the exact same stance on the issue that I have always had.
It is a matter of faith as to when that spark of life is put into a fetus. It might be conception, it might be when the kid finally understands integral calculus. I’m not going to change your article of faith on this issue, you are not going to change my faith. In a matter of faith like this, it is down right un-American for any of us to impose our faith on others.
Would Rudy have an abortion if he were a woman (as opposed to just dressing like one)? No, that is his personal choice and his personal faith.
However, as an American he understands that others see this issue differently (and accordng to Esthier’s poll, support for making all abortions illegal is only in the teens). And Rudy does not want to impose his article of faith on other who may legitimately hold a contrary position.
Concerning RvW, Rudy is a lawyer. He believes in strict constructionst judges like Roberts and the Italians. He understands that it was wrongly decided and could be overturned. However, as a lawyer he understands the power of precedent. So, he can understand how any good conservative jurist could decide either to overturn RvW or decide that we are to far gone and the precedential value is too strong to overturn. I frankly believe it is never too late to correct a bad decision, and I think Rudy agrees, because he has actually said he believes it should be up to the states to decided.
I just happen to agree with him through out on this “wedge” issue of very little real relevance. If he is nuanced or dancin’ then I am dancin’ to the same tune.
And if you religious nut jobs want to throw me out of the “tent” just because I will not submit to your article of faith, then maybe you guys really should move to another part of the world where they live in tents and force their women folk to live by their archaic religious beliefs ;-)
tommylotto on May 10, 2007 at 12:32 PM
I’d be happy to see it, because the documentation I’ve seen has shown that because of abortion, those who support it being legal and those who do not, the numbers at the polls have increased.
I’ve also read stories that claim abortion as the number one reason (maybe not a strong number one but still number one) for poll attendance was because of abortion.
There is still a Supreme Court seat up for grabs, and Roe has been on shakey ground for some time. It’s logical in my opinion since so few things change with each passing president.
Esthier on May 10, 2007 at 12:41 PM
You were doing so well up until that last paragraph. Sound thinking, logical progression — incorrect conclusion (but that’s what debate is all about) — and then you have to poot in the pool.
No one wants to silence dissent. But one doesn’t win influence and friendship by calling someone else a nut job.
Good try. Content, B+; Style, solid B until last paragraph; had to return the paper for reconsideration. Result, D-
Tennman on May 10, 2007 at 12:43 PM
That’s one way to interpret it. The other is to see how many people wish there were more restrictions on abortion. A majority of those polled do not want abortion legal in all circumstances.
And since that’s where it is right now, one way to view that poll is to say that many people want the law on abortion to change in favor of making an abortion harder to get.
Bottom line, that does not put Gulliani in line with moderates. It only puts him in line with a little over a third of the population.
Esthier on May 10, 2007 at 12:46 PM
First off, the poll clearly shows that those who want abortion legal in all circumstances are the ones in the minority, around 30%. That’s where Rudy stands.
If your math can somehow turn 30% into a majority, go at it.
Second, YOU’RE the one trying to kick people out of the party. YOU’RE the one throwing out insults like they’ll be going out of style next week. And YOU’RE the one whining.
You like Rudy? Good for you. So what?
No one is stopping from you liking him, even if you prefer the way he looks in that dress.
YOU’RE the one diriding people for their beliefs. So please, if it is all possible, considering you high horse is just that high up, please, come back down to where the rest of us are instead of looking down on us “nut jobs.”
We, unlike you, can accept people in here even if we disagree with them. We just don’t see any reason to elect them as our leaders. I assume you feel the same way.
If you can find it in your heart to come to terms that other people can have different opinions, then you can be welcomed back down to earth.
Esthier on May 10, 2007 at 12:51 PM
Dead is dead.
Abortion isn’t my hot-button issue, but Rudy is making Waffles look good.
omnipotent on May 10, 2007 at 12:52 PM
I agree. Very poor taste on that one.
But to be fair, Rudy isn’t supporting further restrictions. Notification and age restrictions are not an issue.
Esthier on May 10, 2007 at 12:54 PM
According to the site I gave, it was “very important” to half the people who asked and “somewhat important” to another quarter who were asked. Now, that was in 2000. Maybe things have changed.
Esthier on May 10, 2007 at 12:59 PM
For his next Symbolism OF The Honest Man Rudy drives down to our bank of the Rio Grande and strikes a pose dressed appropriately.
Stephen M on May 10, 2007 at 1:25 PM
Did he announce yet? No. Then it doesn’t matter… :)
Entelechy on May 10, 2007 at 2:00 PM
Hey Esthier, here is where Rudy stands (from his own website):
tommylotto on May 10, 2007 at 3:02 PM
this site need a preview post feature. Sorry about not ending the block quotes after the first paragraph.
tommylotto on May 10, 2007 at 3:04 PM
Great points. It seems to me that the pro-abortion nuts prefer defeat to running a pro-life, pro-2nd amendment, strong against terrorism, pro-military candidate.
Despite Romney’s checkered past, most people I see here seem to give him a break. Same with Fred!. How about Sam Brownback or Duncan Hunter (who is, by the way, great on immigration)?
It’s the Giuliani crowd that’s willing to trash the Republican party, not the other way around.
I’ll ask it once again, though: Rudy has a history of running from Hilary Clinton. Why should we let him run against her? She’ll beat him in his home state. Rudy has no history with the military or diplomacy, but I’m to assume he’ll be great on terrorism? He doesn’t seem to have a clue what a constitutionalist judge is, but he’s going to appoint only strict ones?
So, I know Giuliani is horrible on nearly every social issue. But I should vote for him because I assume he might beat someone who he has run from (not against), he might be good in the war on terror and he might appoint a judge like Scalia. If that’s the Republican platform in ‘08 we’ll definitely have a Democrat President.
cmay on May 10, 2007 at 5:45 PM
No, anyone who struggles with the issue doesn’t have a firm grasp on logic and reason.
Abortion cannot be considered a “I’m personally against it but…” problem. It is either murder or it isn’t, and it is from conception or it is not at all. Because we have admitted as a society that we do not know when human life begins (see Roe v Wade), we must err on the side of life. We know life doesn’t exist before conception, and we know that babies can live on their own prior to the 9 month mark. So because of the uncertainty of where it begins prior to birth, we must assume for safety sake that it begins at conception.
Now you can either agree that humans deserve human rights at birth or instead at conception. But this is a cut and dried easy decision to make. Struggling with this issue is like struggling with whether or not genocide is OK. It’s either good for the gene pool to kill the “weaker races”, or it’s evil to murder other humans.
Just make up your mind.
tadams1138 on May 10, 2007 at 8:21 PM
Rudy the RINO is toast. Actually he was toast long ago and this pro-abortion Republican stance is just a silly act of desperation. Of course the main-stream-media was doing all it could to come to his rescue today, calling him brave and bold, but that’s not going to work. Happy trails Rudy.
Maxx on May 10, 2007 at 11:26 PM