Pro-choice GOP presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani is trying to appeal to pro-life Republicans by saying that he would appoint “strict constructionist” judges to the U.S. Supreme Court — which is code for judges who would overturn or place limits on Roe v. Wade. Giuliani also has said recently that he supports the partial-birth abortion ban and parental notification laws, policies he opposed in the past. The former New York City mayor is attempting to move to the right some in order to improve his chances in the GOP primaries. But the shift undermines what was his most appealing quality — that he was a strong leader who didn’t pander.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- outlander on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Let immigrants run
- SolDevVB on Let immigrants run
- Monkeyhawk on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Let immigrants run
- littlejohn on Open thread 11/23
- donndublin on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Let immigrants run
54 Comments
The first time Rudy ran for office, he ran as a pro-lifer and lost.His advisors told him he was in New York and to that he had to face reality.By the way, the abortion laws in New York are much stricter than the laws in Kansas, and they enforce their laws in New York.
I would much prefer Rudy over McCain, but there are others I like even better!
Here is Mona Charen’s view of Rudy:http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MonaCharen/2007/02/09/is_giuliani_a_conservative
Overturning Roe would be tough. That’s what the libs said Bush would do – if elected via appointed Justices.
Didn’t happen.
Not gonna happen.
In my opinion, the abortion issue is not the litmus test for a candidate for President. Experience and record of accomplishment on presidential level issues are.
Examine Rudy Giuliania’s long biographical record of accomplishment. It makes John Edwards, Barack Obama and Sam Brownback with their talking point notebooks look like babes in the woods.Can any recent law graduate with a talking points notebook run for President now? Apparently so.
Can you imagine Edwards, Obama and Brownback walking into General Electric Corporation or General Motors and saying, “We are here with our law degrees but no real work experience to apply for the Chairman of the Board job”?
Lets not dumb down the presidential contest as it appears is being done.
JWink,Unfortunately the Presidency has been dumbed down ever since Bush Jr was ‘elected.’
I do agree with your message that the President of the United States is not a job to be taken lightly.
Most companies have higher standards for their CEO’s and corporate presidents, and hold them more accountable for their actions.There are many great leaders in this country, mainly outside of the standard political arena. Maybe it is time we should go historical and look toward some of these people to take their turn heading our Government. Really if you think about it couldn’t they be much more effective than the Bush administration?
But, gee, Brian, when it comes to a dumbed-down Presidency – will anyone ever come close to tying Carter?
Hey brian, ltns!
If Rudy is “talking out of both sides of his mouth”, depending on his audience — slanting innuendo to what they want to hear — he’s no better than Brownback. Maybe even worse, because more one expected Brownback to have an iota of integrity to begin with, not so with Giuliani. In political years, 9/11 was centuries ago — perhaps, Rudy’s “15 minutes of fame” has come and gone.
And don’t even think of a grin, Brownback, your “15 seconds of infamy” will never come … in this, or any other life.
GS: Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, FDR ??
Welcome to the WE Blog where we broadcast all abortion all the time…..
KFG, we are the abortion capitol of the world.Oh, and the airplane thingy too.
Tracy- Sorry for your loss.
Don’t forget we also claim credit to the infamous DPB, who’s clearly ready for the Nationals and beyond!
Everyplace that has an abortion clinic claims to be the abortion capital of the world. That’s an Operation Rescue type phrase.
Abortion may not be the only thing to base a Presidential candidate on, but it does say pretty highly about how they feel about allowing one to make decisions for themselves.
Rudy is a flip-flopper, at least according to the Republican definition in 2004’s presidential race. He’s somebody who believed one thing and then changed is mind not once, but twice according to the audience he’s preaching to. If Rudy becomes the Republican nominee, it will cement their role as hypocrites if that role hasn’t been cemented already.
Rudy is a flip-flopper, at least according to the Republican definition in 2004’s presidential race. He’s somebody who believed one thing and then changed is mind not once, but twice according to the audience he’s preaching to. If Rudy becomes the Republican nominee, it will cement their role as hypocrites if that role hasn’t been cemented already.
There is a long, long list of Democrats who have flipped on this issue.I doubt the Eagle will ever take any of them to task for it!
“There is a long, long list of Democrats who have flipped on this issue.”
Hmmmmmm. Paul how about giving us that long list.
Should be easy, right?
Hi ksfg!
Personally, I have nothing against someone changing their opinion on a matter. New information comes to light every day. I have much more respect for someone that is able to reconsider their position on an issue in light of new facts.When circumstances change such that one must alter their opinion, only the ignorant hold fast.
Note – changing an opinion based on new facts, or rethinking the original basis of your opinion are NOT ‘flip-flopping.’
Wikipedia says ‘flip-flop’ “is a sudden real or apparent change of policy or opinion. Usually it will occur during the period prior to an election in order to maximize the candidate’s popularity.”
I normally don’t mind a change of heart either, but when Republicans were campaigning that Kerry was a flip-flopper because he voted against one resolution but voted for another one, they need to stay consistent even if its one of their own. Rudy’s case is even worse. In Rudy’s case, it has nothing to do with more facts coming to light, just the audience that he’s trying to get votes from. He can’t make any decisions except for the decision that he wants votes any way he can get them.
I normally don’t mind a change of heart either, but when Republicans were campaigning that Kerry was a flip-flopper because he voted against won resolution but voted for another one, they need to stay consistent even if its one of their own. Rudy’s case is even worse. In Rudy’s case, it has nothing to do with more facts coming to light, just the audience that he’s trying to get votes from. He can’t make any decisions except for the decision that he wants votes any way he can get them.
Try these links, you have to dig on the one about Kerry to find the abortion issue, since Kerry has flipped on nearly everything!:
http://www.truthsoup.com/john_kerrys_flip_flops.html
Barrett in Wisconsin:http://archive.wispolitics.com/freeser/pr/pr0207/jul25/pr02072510.html
McGreevy in NJ:http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPrint.asp?Page=\Politics\archive\200108\POL20010831b.html
Gore, Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Gephart and Jessie Jackson:http://www.gargaro.com/lifequotes.html
How is that list WSclark? By the way, “Democrat Abortion Flip Flops” generated over 75,000 hits!Yes, Republicans do it too— my point is that the Eagle only points it out when Republicans do it!
Don’t give me all of these right-wing wacko web sites and tell me that these prove Kerry’s a flip-flopper. Kerry voted against Republican resolutions and voted for Democratic resolutions. Two completely different things. Unfortunately, the people fell for the right-wing wacko lie machine. Hopefully the American people aren’t as easily duped this time around.
Quite a distortion there, Paul.
You would think that you actually had a long, long list of Democrats that changed their positions on abortion.
The gargaro link is a anti-abortion website that provides little or no back up for their claims.
CNSNews.com is a right wing site that distorts the McGreevey position.
The article concerning Barnett was in regards to PARTIAL BIRTH abortions.
Some do change their positions on important topics like abortion. It does take some level of conciousness to review and change one’s position, however, in 2004, the Republicans wanted Kerry to be hung at dawn for his alleged flip-flopping.
That is the hypocrisy.
Travis, take a breath!I was asked for a list of Dem flip flops on abortion.Again, those with a weak case attack the source — instead of going to the merits.
There are countless ways to verify the information given.The brainwashed left would rather believe that their candidates are perfect than deal with reality!
For the record, there could be several errors in the posts and links that I make. That isnt the issue. The Eagle and other media outlets should be doing this research, not me. My point is that Democrats are not grilled on flip flops by the liberal media, only Republicans get this treatment. I claim that many Democrats, a “long list” of Democrats, have flip flopped on the abortion issue.
You need to prove that the list is short to prove me wrong.Minor details dont count.
Paul, if I posted a link from Bartcop that said that Bush was a lying murderer under the control of Cheney would you take it as gospel?
Of course, excluding that fact that Bush IS a lying murderer under the control of Cheney.
Why not attack the source when its a weak source? If someone says that Bigfoot is alive because they saw him in a comic book, should I not attack the source or should I use your argument that arguing against Bigfoot is just a weak argument because I dare accuse it of coming from a comic book? All of those right-wing wacko sites might as well be comic books. They are just as believable.
TravisYour point makes my point.Try this, go to the state affiliate of the National Right to Life Committee in each state where my listed Democrat flip floppers ran their first race.Ask if that Dem candidate rated a prolife endorsement in that candidates first race or any other race.They could give you documentation to that effect, perhaps even campaign contributions from an affiliated PAC.
Yes, some outlets of information can be totally ignored.However, News outlets that frequently interview Democrats dont seem far out to me, for you Democrats.
Why does YOUR point make MY point?Because the mainstream media does very little to hurt liberal candidates, and it has been that way for years. Therefore, publications that YOU respect HIDE information from YOU that YOU would find uncomfortable!
In other words, the liberal media doesnt think liberals can handle the truth.
“In other words, the liberal media doesnt think liberals can handle the truth.”
What a crock, Paul. Tell us that you didn’t write that with a straight face.
You were referring to the same “liberal media” that repeated the Gore invented the internet story. The one that made GWB into a war hero while suggesting that Kerry “may” not have earned his Purple Hearts? The liberal media that called Clinton a draft dodger even though he was classified 1-A and received a high lottery number. The liberal media that NEVER challenged the Bush continuingly evolving rationale for the War on Iraq?
Is it that liberal media that you are talking about?
I sure get tired of hearing about this so-called “liberal media.” I live hearing guys like Rush Limbaugh quote the New York Times whenever he finds an article that he likes. Yet if there’s an article that he disagrees with, it’s suddenly “the liberal media.” If it agrees with you its fine. If it disagrees with you it’s “The Liberal Media.” I know this is the wrong post for this but I’ll say it anyway “The Liberal Media” is no more a controversy than evolution. It’s just BS the right-wing wackos made up to try and get credibility. Attacking the source, isn’t that what you were referring to? If anything the media is too conservative. It’s certainly not liberal. You Republics (If you can call us Democrats, I can call you Republics) go on living in your fantasy world.
Paul Rosell you once used a conversation from a chat room as a link.
You have 0 credibility.
What Rudy is doing is WORSE than flip flopping.
He is taking no position at all and pushing the decision down the road!
Having his cake and eating it too.
He gets to be pro choice but he would appoint a judge who is anti choice?
Dance through the rain drops Rudy!
Welcome to posting travis.
Yeah I puzzled over the “liberal media” thing for a long time.
THEN I figured it out.
You have to remember that conservatives see things in perjorative and stark distinctions.
The media is NOT conservative. Or not conservative ENOUGH.
Therefore the media is by default liberal. Easy.
It’s interesting that the Religious Right would back Guilani even if he panders to them about the abortion issue but Guiliani’s personal moral life has alot lacking in that department. Let’s face it, Guilani is no stranger to adultery, now is he?
But if the Religious Right is so hellbent on getting their power back no matter what they have to vote for, then maybe all their religious moral talk is just that – empty talk.
Besides, if any Republican has a chance at the White House in 2008, then the party had better bring GWB back into line. I believe that whatever Bush does in the next 2 years will determine the fate of the GOP party’s future.
It will be the height of hypocrisy when Rudy, a man that has committed adultery and been divorced talks to the Rapture Right on the campaign trail about the importance of banning same sex marriage in order to preserve the sanctity of the institution.
Rudy will never ever be nominated by the GOP. Not now and not ever. Not with his sexcapdes and 3 divorces and his gay and abortion views. The base of the GOP is largely made up of right wing religious nutcases and no way would they vote for Rudy. And even if he won the nomination, no way would be elected because the GOP base would stay home.
Wichita is called the “abortion capital” because it is perhaps the only place in the USA where you can get an elective 9th month abortion. It is not because more abortions are performed in Wichita.
Show me a 9 month abortion. It doesn’t happen.
Not even if there is something seriously wrong.
rm6046: Please don’t pick on my favorite President of all time, FDR, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
What a life!
Wealthy New York polo playing gentleman. Then struck by polio loosing use of his legs. Then elected Governor of New York in the 1930’s.
Elected President four times. Fought the Great Depression that started during term of his predecessor. Meanwhile Hitler started his invasions through Europe. Then the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and WW II began and continued through the remainder of FDR’s life. So busy Roosevelt reportedly only visited a couple times with his last Vice President, Harry S Truman. Apparently Mr. Truman was the only person in the world that didn’t anticipate Mr. Roosevelt’s death in 1944.
All the while being held up by his son and the secret service so he wouldn’t be embarrassed being photographed on steel leg braces.
Do Edwards, Obama or Brownback even begin to measure up to FDR? I don’t think so.
Abortion is legal up to 40 weeks in Kansas, if a doctor decides it’s in the mother’s “best interest”. That’s why people come from other states to get late term abortions. I know it doesn’t happen very often, but it happens. Sad, but true.
JRI used a conservative from a chat room to prove that I was not the only one in the world who thought something.My post proved my point.You are too stupid to understand such things.You are like the big bully on the playground kissing up to the smarter, richer kids by beating up their enemies.”You want I should take their lunch money” JR says.
Show me a single, well thought out policy analysis you have ever done?
What you say about the media is telling. You, sir, are “projecting” — you are seeing in your oponents those traits you like least about yourself. — And YOU are so far to the left everyone out their looks right wing.
The Boston Globe, more than 10 years ago, did an in depth study of the media bias on the abortion issue. The actually won some awards for the extensive, well researched effort. In every survey ever done of major newspapers and TV stations, like ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, PBS, New York Times, LA Times etc, the vast majority of the staff voted Democrat in the last 3 Presidential races, the vast majority support gun control, support Roe V. Wade and most other liberal causes.It is not debateable that the major media are personally Democrats in their behavior and voting.It strains logic to think that such people would not take their bias to work with them.If the major media was NOT liberal, Fox News and Limbaugh would be looking for work!
As Lucy says in Peanuts, that will be 25 Cents please, lol.
out there, tired again, there not their, I caught it first.
Prollie Paul F Rosell
I will put my credibility on this forum against yours any day of the week!
You want I should get you a hanky for that little hissy fit?
Waaaaaa J R is being mean to me!”Show me a single, well thought out policy analysis you have ever done.”
I’ll show you mine if you show me yours.
“You are too stupid to understand such things.”
What, things like posting lies? I only HELPED you make your reputation here.
And for stupid I sure manage to humiliate you on a regular basis! I’m chuckling away during our exchanges. The reader can almost see the spittle on your monitor!
And just where did you refute my two posts? Calling me names doesn’t count.
Care to compare examples on the conservative bias of your sources of media vs. the “liberal” bias of mine?
HERE Paul
I’LL start.
BIG coverage of those “Iranian” weapons found in Iraq on FOX news.
Elsewhere? Not so much.
Maybe the other media knew better?
YOU know? Since those “Iranian” weapons had English markings???
No Mary, it doesn’t happen at all.
If you can show me just one case of a 9 month abortion in the last 5 years, I’ll kiss your feet.
PM, if you can prove to me that it hasn’t happened, I’ll kiss yours!It’s legal.
JR
Sceptical about Iranian weapons claims? Try this-http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/13/wiran13.xml
Heckler, read the link you posted. Still wondering how that provides proof of anything other than someone (some group) in Iran is potentially supplying the Iraqi insurgents. The issue is, to my mind, is whether the Iranian government is actively involved in such supply; again, to me, the jury is still out on this one.
Now, if it could be shown that in respect to the weapon discussed in the linked article that: 1) the manufacturer has only sold such weapons to the Iranian government who has exclusive and sole possession of such weaponry to the exclusion of all others, and 2) there have been none of such lost, stolen, etc. from the Iranian government so that the only source thereof can be the Iranian government, then I think this shows the government is an active supplier of the insurgents.
VT
1) Serial numbers. I havent heard if the U.S. Military has asked for serial number check from the manufacturer. But easy enough to check.
2) What are you going to do, ask them if they gave them to the insurgents? Will you believe their answer if you even get one?
So, Heckler, if one of those stolen laptops from the FBI end up in the wrong hands it is because the US government sold it to them. And I guess those of us who claim that the decision to allow ammo dumps in Iraq to be looted means that the US delivered material to the insurgents are also correct.
If the numbers match, and the Iranian govt. took delivery of them it would take an utter fool to believe that SOMEONE in the Iranian govt. didnt have something to do with them showing up in Iraq.
Heckler, serial numbers (assuming the rifles had them and the manufacturer kept a record thereof) would be a way of tracking the individual weaponry. Again, having the serial numbers without more, that is, no weapons ever went “missing” for whatever reason, would provide prima facie evidence. I am reminded of the global “black market” in arms; so, frankly, I don’t know how the source of weapons can be definitively traced once the same left the manufacturer. Heck, I was in the Air Force; we lost entire engines, for goodness sake.
Heck, even if that “somebody” is an Iranian soldier?
VT
Trust me, the weapons had serials and Steyr has a record of them. Arms manufacturers are abolutely anal about serial numbers.
Now it’s entirely possible that the rifles never made it to Iran, but you’d think that they might have screamed to Steyr if their 8 million pound order of weapons didnt show up.
u r neva gona get a lady like this