Rudy Giuliani is going to stop muddying his stand on abortion, the New York Times reported. That’s probably smart. The GOP presidential candidate isn’t winning over many in the pro-life community by emphasizing his personal opposition to abortion and his preference for “strict constructionist” judges. Meanwhile, he is losing respect among those who valued Giuliani’s decisive, independent leadership but now see him as pandering to pro-lifers. But Giuliani’s move will be an interesting test of how well a pro-choice presidential candidate can do in the GOP primaries.
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
- Jed on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
36 Comments
I think the time that Pro-Choice or Pro-Life matters in a candidate is over.
Doesn’t say much about the American public if an individual who happens to be a Presidential Candidate is not entitled to their own opinion.
The decisions are made in the Supreme Court anyway. If the ideology of the “nine” sways one way or the other, then that’s life. Put “your guy/gal in office.
Rudy is just being shown for the phony he really is and now that he is “pro choice” he is gonna show the Republican Christian Taliban types for the phonies they are too. People that, for the most part with a very few exceptions, love little fetuses and hate children.
What, a politician take a stand on an issue?
Why not talk about Rudy’s stand on gun control next?
Or how about Hillary’s stand on gun control?
Oh, that’s right, that would mean the Democrat front runner would be subject to criticism, and we can’t allow that.
Rudy G. tried talking around the issue one way and now he plans to try another. Does he still plan to nominate strict constructionist judges? He already ran his mouth quite a bit about that and I imagine Tim Russert will be playing back the tape. It does not matter one iota how Rudy feels about something in his heart. What matters is the type of Supreme Court Justice that he nominates. If he plans to lob another Scalia on the bench, then his pronouncements about choice don’t mean much. Bush already added enough strict constructionists to the bench. They are human like the rest of us and they don’t know everything. I would like to see the next president nominate a moderate judge or two. Extremism is simply not necessary.
Which brings me to another thing I noticed. In the article that Brownlee linked, the Michigan Republican Party Chairman said that people “fear” a Clinton or an Obama presidency. Americans ought to chill just a bit and tone down the rhetoric a notch when it comes to fearing things. People fear this and people fear that. The word gets beaten into the ground. Fear is part of life but it’s always a mistake to live in fear of something. Fear is irrational. FDR had another way of putting it.
Here’s the point: I don’t want to see another ultra conservative president for a while and I plan to argue against it. Do you have to fear it, though? If America elects another one, I will go about my business, just as I have done with Bush in office. It’s not the end of the world if the opposition wins an election in a Democratic system. Power always shifts. And that can be seen as a good thing.
Sammy on the right, Rudi on the left! This it? This all we got? I had thought Geo Bush did in the GOP with his mad war in Iraq, now I think maybe we are a party of wingnuts. Could I get one of those paper sacks the New Orlean Saints wore years ago and become an “Ain’t”?
Rudy’s personal position on abortion is not important. He has promised to appoint strict constructionist judges. Practically, that is all you can expect a president to do.
I agree with Repub. Religious leaders need to get over their narrow focus and look at the big picture.
“Rudy is just being shown for the phony he really is and now that he is “pro choice” he is gonna show the Republican Christian Taliban types for the phonies they are too. People that, for the most part with a very few exceptions, love little fetuses and hate children.”
What a stupid sterotype…I suppose that if you think the way to deal with the problem of unwanted children is to kill them means that you love children?
what I find interesting is that Guilani is courting the Religious Right with his flip-flopping on abortion but yet his personal life, which is anything but moral, he does not say a word about.
Why are the Evangelical Chrisitians not in an uproar about Rudy’s several marriages, adultery, the humiliation he has heaped on his wife and kids? This behavior tells me more about Rudy Guiliani than any stance on abortion that he might utter just to get votes.
There is a good point here:
Where is the nit picking of the Democrats?
Why is the press not trying to find and exploit their stances with their own base?
This obsessions with Rudy’s stance on abortion seems like little more than a huge effort to destroy any base of support he might have simply because he has taken the Democrats to task for being weak on fighting terror.
Oh well.
Face it Wingers…..Rudy is a flip flopper that likes to dress in womens clothing. If you live in a glass house…..you know the rest. You bashed Kerry for flip flopping and now you are willing to endorse a GOP candidate that is about to do the samething.
GOP–Hyprocrisy lives here!
I may or may not be a winger, but I am a Republican. I am not supporting Guiliani for two reasons1) His flip flopping on issues to garner votes2) His lifestyle. Unlike many, I do think personal lifestyle counts when it comes to how a public official carries out his or her business. It’s called integrity
This presidential election is very important and the character issue of the candidates is very important! As an evangelical christian I am concerned about where candidates stand on the issues, and certainly abortion is an issue that I care deeply about. However, if a candidate agrees with me on many issues but lacks character then the likelyhood of them receiving my vote is diminished. I have a problem with both Rudy and Newt. Their actions with their family concerns me.
So, Rudy, tell us what you really believe and let us decide if you would represent us well, and by the way – take care of your family!
Pastor Mike
Nathan – perhaps you have missed it but the media has been all over Hillary about her vote to give Bush discretion about going to war. Other Democrats haev also questioned her on that.
Rudy’s is an egnima for republicans, of all the candiates they have he has the best chance of actually winning against whoever the democrats, yet his social views on abortion, gay rights and his support of gun control as mayor put him at odds with large segments of his own party.
Tom PaineYou forgot the fact the he has been photographed wearing a dress more than 4 times. Please GOPer’s explain how you could support a candidate that cross dresses?
Nathan did not address the real issue being discussed, which is Rudy Guiliani’s flip flopping on the abortion issue and Guiliani’s lack of moral integrity in his personal life. Why else would Nathan turn it around as to why the media has not picked on the Democrats for their shortcomings.
Typical Republican response when they have no defense other than to throw mud at any wall and hope something sticks.
I agree with Littlejohn. Anyone who moves their new girlfriend in before their old wife has moved out … that just doesn’t fit my view of integrity.
If you really want to know what Rudy Guiliani is about, ask his kids. Any wonder why his son won’t campaign for his father?
Mike maybe we are just trying to be more enlightened in our thinking. Do you think you libs are the only ones who can tolerate ‘differences’ in others?
Abortion is one of our most vital issues in federal elections. Pro-abortion candidates like Rudy Giuliani are morally and mentally unfit for federal office, especially when their personal funds go to promote the mangling, dismemberment, poisoning, and beheading of babies in Planned Parenthood abortion mills. Rudy’s lame argument that Planned Parenthood promotes adoption didn’t work, Planned Parenthood kills 180 babies in abortion mills for every one adoption referral.This week, Giuliani tried to sell Baptists on legalized taxpayer-funded infanticide at Houston Baptist University, urging them to respect the choice for the contract killing of children.You don’t get no respect, Rudy.
The hypocrisy of the Republican party is the real issue. The flip flops by the candidates and the support that they are receiving from the same right wing that invented rhetoric like “culture of death” to describe pro-choice Democrats is proof that they will say and do anything it takes, including abandoning their own platform and base of voters to maintain power. After several years of using social issues to divide the country along moral lines based on a Christian fundamentalist worldview, the GOP has now found that their party’s platform is out of touch with the mainstream and aligned with a small but vocal group of religious freaks. In order to appease the fundie right, the GOP has had to adopt positions that have led to the loss of the vital moderate and independent voters. The public is no longer buying the brand of religious extremism that the Bush era GOP is selling and the flip flop by Giuliani on the abortion issue is proof.
“Planned Parenthood kills 180 babies in abortion mills for every one adoption referral.”
Can you substantiate that?
I think Rudy has aborted his chances.
“What a stupid sterotype…I suppose that if you think the way to deal with the problem of unwanted children is to kill them means that you love children?”
As I have said before- I FULLY and PROUDLY 100% support a woman’s right to choose for herself whether to have a baby or not. For the first 3 months of pregnancy, that decision rest with her and her doctor only. It is simply nobody else’s business. Not mine, not Rudy’s and not the governments. After 3 months, government does have an interest in the process and may impose reasonable restrictions such as allowing it only in the case of a deformed fetus or a threat to the health of the mother. After 6 months, I would ban it except for the life of the mother.
Wow Kev, you’re starting to sound a little anti-choice!
Those who are “pro-choice” believe in the right for a woman to terminate her unborn child right up to last month. If you believe in any restrictions on abortion at all then you’re “anti-choice”…just ask PMom.Geez, you must hate children like the rest of us prolifers!
Rudy’s position may be unclear, but it’s very clear where Hillary Clinton stands.
She clearly supports partial-birth abortion and any other kind of abortion.
This is the ONE issue Hillary hasn’t flip-flopped on – Abortion by God, it’s a woman’s right!
Now as far as Hillary’s other flip-floppy views, say Iraq for example, let’s see some news stories reporting on how she claims to have moved to the middle of the road in a vain attempt to gain some conservative votes.
Max,
Straight away, you’re sounding like another one of those persecuted conservatives who never seem to get a fair hearing at We Blog. You most certainly have the option to only tune in once in a while, but when doing so, it might be wise to consider the possibility that you missed a few posts along the way. Concrete example: last Saturday, we discussed Hillary Clinton’s shifting positions on Iraq. Peace, brother.
Max, I’m not aware of any medical procedure listed as partial birth abortion. Could you point me to a medical text that includes it? Or should I assume by your use of the neo-con catchphrase “flip-flop” like Bush’s flip-flop on protecting children but also grants immunity to those in a pedophile probe, that partial birth abortion is another meaningless catch phrase.
Just for once – just one time – I would like to hear the media and the candidates tell us what they want to do to PREVENT unwanted pregnancies!
Not yada, yada abstinence only. Not yada, yada, families. Not yada, yada adoption. Not yada, yada values.
I want to hear a candidate stand up and say “I support comprehensive sex education including the proper use of condoms and other contraceptives.”
I want just ONE candidate that will say out loud what everyone knows – people are going to have sex and unwanted pregnancies will result, therefore………
Safe, legal and RARE should be the goal.
The symptom is abortion.
The problem is unwanted pregnancies
You cannot achieve a cure by addressing just the symptom, you must address the problem.
And don’t get me started on public funding of abortion – how many condoms could you buy for the cost of just one abortion?
Doug, the “meaningless catch phrase” as you call it, was a grueseman procedure used to kill thousands of babies. Do a google search if you are so ignorant of what partial birth abortion was. (I handed you one link below, if you can figure out how to use it.)
Congress made the practice illegal and the Supreme Court recently affirmed this law that bans partial birth abortion.
And your kind-hearted neo- Socialist Democratic party was pissed-off that this law was passed and approved by the Supreme Court, thus banning partial birth abortions – at least until the Democrats pass a law to allow it again.
CLINTON and OBAMA Obama both voted against BANNING partial birth abortions. They can’t get enough partial birth abortions.
To summarize the procedure for you Doug, the baby is partially born, with only the top of the head sticking out, when they stab the skull with a knife, then vacuum the brains out, just seconds before the baby would have been born alive.
Dead on arrival. You have to be one evil human being to support this. And your party fought hard to allow as many partial birth abortions as possible, even voting to have the taxpayers pay for the procedure.
And to TR, missed your lovely blog last week, as I don’t spend 24 hours a day sitting on my ass in front of a PC. I’m sure I missed another gem of yours. Oh well.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/22/AR2007042201162.html
For the abortion lovers out there, the law banning Partial Birth abortions did NOT ban the late-term procedure where even in the 9th month, the Doctor inserts a surgical knife into the womb, and decapitates the baby. So, you can still kill your babies, though you may not want to hear or see the details of how the murder actually is conducted.
“Abortion opponents say the law will not reduce the number of abortions performed because an alternate method — dismembering the fetus in the uterus — is available and, indeed, much more common”http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,266724,00.html
Ben,To substantiate,In its FY 2004-2005 annual report, Planned Parenthood reported committing 255,015 abortions in 2004 (up 4.3% from 2003), generating an estimated $95 million. A scant 1,414 customers were referred to adoption agencies; down more than 20% from 2003.That makes 4 million dead babies in Planned Parenthood’s abortion mills so far in America. Planned Parenthood is killing another 5000 American babies every week, and gets another $270 million in taxpayer funds every year.Stop it.See news pagehttp://www.lifenews.com/nat3104.htmland America’s busiest abortionist pagehttp://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/annual-report.htm
The way to stop abortion is to stop unplanned pregnacies…maybe we can start putting birth control in the water?
I don’t know Marge, so many people are so happy with abortion, and they are too stupid to use a Condom, the Before Pill, the After Pill, etc…
You think if they are not smart enough to take a pill or use protection, they will ever voluntarily give up their beloved abortions?
The only way for abortions to be reduced or eliminated is through legislation that is then enforced.
Someone suggested, and I agree, that a good start would be to absolutely limit abortions to the first trimester. The only exception after 3 months would be if the life of the mother is in danger.
That’s not ideal for pro-abortion people or pro-life people, but maybe it’s a compromise all can live with.
Don’t know how many babies that would save, but at least the mother would have to make a decision in the first 3 months.That should be enough time, but apparently for some women they care so little for their bodies or what’s inside of them, for some reason they wait 9 months to kill their baby.
Maybe the baby feels less pain at 3 months vs 9 months, I hope so anyway.
Oops, I didn’t mean Marge, I meant Mary in that last post.
Pain, you think that bunch of cells inside a pregnant lady feels pain? It’s just a bunch a cells. It don’t matter if it’s done at 1-2-3, or 9 months, it don’t feel pain! It ain’t human yet! Besides, a woman can do whatever she wants to with her body.