April 16, 2007

Did Rudy Tell Pro-Lifers To Get Over Themselves?

The Des Moines Register reported that Rudy Giuliani told a crowd that social conservatives had to "get beyond issues" like abortion in order to elect Republicans. Thomas Beaumont's report sent a few shock waves through the blogosphere:

Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani warned GOP activists in Des Moines on Saturday that if they insist on a nominee who always agrees with them, it will spell defeat in 2008.

“Our party is going to grow, and we are going to win in 2008 if we are a party characterized by what we’re for, not if we’re a party that’s known for what we’re against,” the former New York mayor said at a midday campaign stop.

Republicans can win, he said, if they nominate a candidate committed to the fight against terrorism and high taxes, rather than a pure social conservative.

“Our party has to get beyond issues like that,” Giuliani said, a reference to abortion rights, which he supports.

Bryan at Hot Air had a typically shocked reaction to the report, which given the way Beaumont framed it, seems like reasonable concern:

I’m a social con. I was giving Giuliani a close look in spite of quite a few things, because he projects strength on the war. But telling social conservatives to “get over it” is arrogant. It also betrays what he really thinks about the pro-life movement. We don’t define ourselves by “what we’re against,” but by what we’re for: the right to life. It’s the most basic right.

Well, I'd agree with Bryan -- as I normally do -- if that's what Giuliani meant. I contacted his office, who sent me a transcript of the entire question and answer:

AUDIENCE MEMBER: I have a question about the former platform in the Republican Party allowed abortion in the case of rape, incest, and life of the mother. I believe in that and I believe that because of the abortion issue in the Republican Party it is dividing this party so badly that we may not be able to elect a Republican president and I hope-I’d like to hear what your thoughts are on that.”

MAYOR GIULIANI: “What my thoughts are on the big question? I can tell you my thoughts on both.”

AUDIENCE MEMBER: “The big question.”

GIULIANI: “On the big question my thoughts are we shouldn’t allow it to do that. Electing a Republican in 2008 is so important to the war on terror, the ability to keep up an economy that’s an economy or growth, or from the point of view of what we believe as Republicans to really set us in the wrong direction. Democrats are entitled to think something different but I think that there will be a major difference in the direction of this country whether we have a Republican or Democrat in 2008 and 2009. On abortion I think we should respect each other. I think that’s what we should do and we should respect the fact that this is a very difficult moral question and a very difficult question and that very good people of equally good conscience could come to different opinions on it. My view of it is I hate abortion. I think abortion is wrong. To someone who I cared about or cared to talk to me about it and wanted my advice, the advice I would give them is not to do it and to have adoption as an option to it. When I was the Mayor adoptions went way up, abortions went down but ultimately I respect that that’s somebody else’s decision and that people of conscience can make that decision either way and you can’t put them in jail for it. (applause) And then I think our party, our party has to get beyond issues like that where we can have people who are very good people who have different views about this, they can all be Republican because our party is going to grow and we’re going to win in 2008 if we’re a party that is characterized for what we are for and not if we’re a party that’s known for what we are against. …”

That isn't quite the same as what the Register described in its headline as "Get past social issues". Giuliani is pro-choice, and he's been very open about that. Of course he will want to play down the differences Republicans have on social issues in favor of national defense and the war on terror. That isn't the same as telling Republican voters to "get over" their values and policy preferences.

Giuliani explained himself clearly enough for the audience member, but apparently not enough for the press. Surprise, surprise.

UPDATE: Bryan has updated his post with the context -- and just to underscore this, I had the same reaction at first when I read the Des Moines Register article.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Did Rudy Tell Pro-Lifers To Get Over Themselves?:

» 2007.04.16 Decision '08/Free Speech Roundup from Bill's Bites
Updated from the top. Please treat this as a blog-within-a-blog, come back often, and scroll down till you hit something you saw on your last visit. Rudy: social conservatives should get over being socially conservative Update: context added McCain Clo... [Read More]

Comments (26)

Posted by RBMN [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 16, 2007 5:56 PM

What really troubles me is Rudy's notion that a "strict constructionist" justice is just as likely to support stare decisis, as they are to support the original intent of the Constitution's text. Six of one, half a dozen of the other according to Rudy. That's scary. Does that apply to Dred Scott? To Plessy v. Ferguson? If stare decisis is obviously inferior to the original intent in those cases, and I assume that Rudy agrees it's an inferior argument, then why is it different with Roe? Original intent has to trump a "well-established" error. Otherwise we have no standard at all. Rudy has disqualified himself for me.

Posted by LarryD [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 16, 2007 6:25 PM

This is another example of the "press" acting as agents of disinformation, one must never forget that the MSM has its own agenda, and will spin, distort, and outright lie to advance it. Treat all output as propaganda, because that is what it is.

RBMN, at the very least, a strict constructionalist won't legislate from the bench, so victories in the legislature will stick (as long as they're done well).

Posted by tony [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 16, 2007 7:47 PM

Yes, the MSM has it's own agenda. The left leaning press tells the lies they want out and the right leaning press tells their own version of the truth. There is not one single person or network that tells the whole truth, only what they want you to know.

And by legislation well written, I assume that means from both sides as well. I know that while both sides write bad laws, they also both write good ones. we all just don't agree as to what is good and what is bad.

Free Tibet

Posted by rbj [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 16, 2007 8:11 PM

I'm not a social conservative, but am willing to work with them in terms of a smaller federal government, lower taxes, and a strong national defense. Democrats fail on all three, but if you are going to be a one issue person, e.g. only vote pro-life candidates as your one litmus test, then you are going to freeze out a lot of us other voters.

What I would like to see is a constitutional amendment process. Use the by now standard seven years; if the pro-life people can get a constitutional amendment banning abortion in that time, fine. If not, then look to other ways of reducing abortions (e.g., real sex ed, including contraceptives.)

Posted by Undertoad [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 16, 2007 8:24 PM

Pro-life voters have unwittingly constructed a political situation where Roe can never be overturned, because if it is, they will stop voting so hard.

Posted by RBMN [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 16, 2007 9:09 PM

Undertoad wrote: "Pro-life voters have unwittingly constructed a political situation where Roe can never be overturned, because if it is, they will stop voting so hard."

How do you figure that? What overturning Roe does is turn all abortion law back to the states. That turns one main battle into 50 battles. It's by no means over then.

Posted by Carol_Herman [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 16, 2007 9:32 PM

Ronald Reagan, when he was GOV. of CA., voted to legalize abortion TWO YEARS BEFORE ROE.

You can go re-write history all you like; but the "one-issue" social conservatives, are like the WHIGS were, back in 1860, when the party died.

True, it didn't just die on Prohibition. And, Nativism. It also died by trying to make due with the democrap's "compromise." And, of course, Henry Clay's double-dealing with John Quincy Adama;

Where the winnah, Andrew Jacison was tossed in favor of a "contrived win."

So what? Politics is full of scum-bags; who run with ideas only to get votes. And, they don't even care "how."

Bush, as a matter of fact, was your "best bet." You chose him, because at Bob Jones University, (which isn't an accredited school), those people who want very conservative social values to win; had their day in the sun.

A lot of misfortune, however, was brought to the republican party.

How so?

Instead of sailing high; far and wide. They're stuck with barely able to grab half the voters.

So the short fall has been noticed.

Guiliani? He comes from a LARGE STATE. Where the anti-Abortionist votes don't count. How do you know when votes count? When the TOTALS put your candidate over the top.

Well, what about a police state? That's something the liberals would love to have! More jobs for marginal graduates. And, after the drug wars, what else would build more jail cells, and take more tax moneys?

When liquor Probition came down the pike (1919). Most people BROKE THE LAW!

Mayor Laguardia said he'd need 100,000 MORE COPS. Plus, another 100,000 to watch those cops.

You just can't legislate, SUCCESSFULLY, social issues.

And, Guiliani already has Ohio, and Pennsvyvania "wrapped." As well as California and New York State (probably.) So to all party level people who want to support a WINNER, he's picking up talent.

Yes. That translates into JOBS. Very few people would devote the long hours, necessary, to elect somebody else, unless there was "something in it for them."

Which is also the principle behind "special interest politics." You can do "special interest" and WIN LOCAL RACES. In some cases? State races.

But to think that the 2008 decision is going to come down the pike in Iowa and New Hampshire? Then you're not computing the data from the whole country.

Besides, if you really want to gain ground across the board; the idea that the conservatives would "own" the supremes. WIthout ever having the voting clout to write the laws they want ...

Hasn't that about gone up in smoke, now?

To Bush? He thought his friend, Harriet Miers, should get the job.

Heck, Whizzer White, the Hyanis Port buddy of JFK, got the job because he played touch football with those guys.

Bush lost so much public support, you have no idea!

As to the senate; where Bush has to send the names of his nominees, hasn't been the most friendly of environments to Bush, ya know?

You elected a rather weak guy. Who also seems somewhat stupid.

Guiliani is neither weak. Nor stupid.

And, NOBODY with brain cells, running for office, is looking for a little niche group to entertain.

One of the lucky things for most politicians? Roe is now the accepted law. And, all the inroads to stop it, actually EXTENDED IT! (The original Roe? Your rights to an abortion ended at week #10.)

By the way, nature is the biggest abortionist of all. Lots of fertilized eggs don't even attach to the uterus. And, women, then, are none the wiser.

Sponaneous abortions also occur. Flopping out before the 10 weeks are up.

That's why a lot of women, who have the habit of losing pregnancies, tend to be very shy about telling people they are pregnant. Usually, waiting until they "show" ... before mentioning anything at all.

The other thing you'd notice? So many people today have smaller families, than say, came down the pike back in the 1940's. When station wagons were designed for American families. So all the kids could fit in the car.

Nothing really stops impregnation, than the steps people take to prevent this.

\And, Roe got started when the Supreme's. Back in the 1950's. Passed laws that stopped the interference of sales of condoms.

For some reason, it makes some people think of themselves as "better" when they're telling other people what to do.


So, yeah. Neither can I. But I'm not changing minds. I'm only one voter going out to vote; who really dislikes the "conservatives" because they hold so many religious hypocrites in their midst.


He memorized Robert Burns poetry. You should take a look at some of this, sometime.

Because to appeal ACROSS THE BOARD, especially when times seem full of crisis (as 1860 certainly did). You need a man like Lincoln to come forward. Where he got the votes, not just from WHIGS. But a lot of Americans who thought he'd do the best job.

Again. Looking at 1860. Lincoln was not the favorite. As there were 3 favorite sons. Not one of them could even guarantee he'd get his own state's votes. ONLY HIS OWN SUPPORTERS.

Push comes to shove. That's what's on the table this time.

And, the Internet is NEW. It wasn't here in 1988, when the elder Bush STOLE the primary votes away from McCain. In New Hampshire.

Different rules.

Let alone WHY do the conservatives keep it up? They've lost this issue again, and again, since 1972.

Maybe? 1970. Ronald Reagan was governor of California, and he signed into law an abortion bill, so kids didn't have to go into back alleys.

The back alleys? Like drugs. Makes the illegal operators rich. No advantages there, either.

Posted by CraL [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 16, 2007 10:34 PM

There is a troubling thing in the broader speech from Giuliani. He implied that abortion laws would jail those obtaining the abortions, when most pre-Roe laws targeted the abortionist and not the client.

This may not look like a big deal, but the pro-Roe side consistently uses this misconception to score points. He either intends his comment of "people of conscience can make that decision either way and you can’t put them in jail for it" as a deliberate insult to social conservatives, or he doesn't even understand their goal on this issue.

An position that is against Roe v Wade but in favor of legalized abortion is a consistent one. It is a position that had a chance to be instructive if it were well articulated. However, Giuliani has not shown the grasp of the issue that is needed to educate the public about the logic behind such a stance.

Posted by TJM [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 16, 2007 10:50 PM

Folks remember I said it: the MSM will bring fascism to America. They will end liberal democracy as we know it. Why? Because they essentially no longer care for facts or the truth. The reporting on Guiliani is just one of several examples I could point to.These "journalists" simply serve as an auxiliary of the Democrat Party and the looney left and will print any lie or distortion for the good of the party. Ultimately this short-sighted approach will expose us to the chief enemy of liberal democracy, i.e. Islamic-terrorism who will use the looney media's obsession with multi-culturalism to destroy the republic. The media thus will have served as the midwife. TJM

Posted by RBMN [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 16, 2007 11:03 PM

I hope people understand that after Mrs. Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, she's going to start sounding just a little like Phyllis Schlafly--as much as she can get away with without any details--wink, wink to the Democrats. She watched the master at this. She knows exactly how it's done. Her strategy will be to stay just to the left of any center-right Republican nominee and fudge the differences. It worked for her husband. It's probably much easier to do when the other guy is near the center, like Rudy.

Posted by M. Simon [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 16, 2007 11:04 PM

It's the war, stupid.

Posted by unclesmrgol [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 16, 2007 11:08 PM

Asking this generation of Republicans to get past abortion is like asking Lincoln's generation of Republicans to get past slavery.

The defining wedge issue of our time just plain can't be got past.

When the humanity of a person is decided by another person, we have slavery anew.

I will use those thoughts as guidance when voting. I will vote my conscience.

Posted by Carol_Herman [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 16, 2007 11:56 PM

Not only did Lincoln's generation "get passed slavery," the PUSHED LINCOLN to do the same!

In 1860? The Civil War started on the issue of: CAN YOU, OR CAN'T YOU PULL OUT OF THE UNION.

Lincoln said no.

And, when the Rebels, the 7 slave states, that had dropped out of the Union, declaring themselves "a new nation" ... Lincoln fought back.

There were, however, still slave states IN the union. They're called "BORDER STATES." And, Lincoln DID NOT PUSH to free the slaves for years and years! He was looking for the South to return. And, he certainly didn't want to push the BORDER STATES OUT OF THE UNION!

General Fremont, in 1861, did write an edict, freeing slaves in the areas where he fought Union battles. Lincoln did his best to put a stop to this! (I'm not sure. But Freemont may have ultimately been recalled. Though he was a very popular general, with his troops. And, Ulyssess S. Grant was one of the commanders under Freemont. All hell broke loose when slaves were freed, because Lincoln, MORE AWARE OF THE BROADER PICTURE: and NOT an abolitionist! Was aware that "freeing slaves" without just compensation; or even any idea of where the freed men could go; presented Lincoln with problems, where he kept looking for solutions.

The Civil War was so brutal; that eventually it was necessary to incorporate in black men (200,000), to help fight the South. It was here that the "changes" in Lincoln's mind would reach fruition. And, you're talking, now, 1864.)

Meanwhile, when Virginia "left" ... It was Lincoln who came up with a plan to fill this void in Congress. He took a piece of Virginia; where the slavery issue was not that hot. And, he renamed this area: WEST VIRGINIA.

1862. WEST VIRGINIA, under Lincoln's signature, became a state "all by itself."

After the Civil War ended, oddly enough, Virginia did not take back her land. So that today "OLD VIRIGNIA DOUBLE-DIPS. Where all other states have 2 senators. If you look at it, the dual nature of ONE PIECE OF LAND, with two names. Gives them 4 senators.

Politics is like that. It works out stuff that men can pass. Lincoln? He was able to create a brand new state. And, he knew the political realities in getting this passed. You could look it up.

Meanwhile, the desire to cancel ROE has really led to bitter feuds. And, then? Putting in the Bush junk into the White House. Because "special interest" politics "held."

Ain't holding.

And, the GOP has to do much better, if it's to lick the real problems we are getting from Fat Albert Gore, and his gang of fascists. They really do want to take over OUR world! And, yes. They're politically close to their goals.

While Bush remains silent.

That's the biggest part of the problem. Bush can't talk. And, has put no words to what needs to be said.

Next month George Tenet's book comes out. Will it die on the vine? You think so? He swings at Bush. And, Condi. And, a few others. So that when you read how Bush fails, you won't be surprised. And, it's only a question if George Tenet sounds spiteful. Or not.

As to turning back the clock; and forcing women into back alleys; after 35 years of a more sane approach; only means SOME in the GOP want to divest themselves of this LOSER TOPIC. It's a loser topic, because it chases away perfectly good voters. And, if you can attract enough voters, the likes of George Soros, or the House of Saud; or any of the other creeps, wanes.

Besides, if ROE ever got over-turned, the turkeys that did this on the supremes would have a worse reputation than the one they got for KELO.

35 years. And, what'da got? A jerk in the White House. And, memories of Harriet Miers. (Oh. And, AG Gonzales.) It seems Bush really does fight for the things that are inside his family. Just like he's the Realtor for the House of Saud.

But valuable time passed!

And, the solution is to put doctors in jail? Give me a break. The drug wars will die before you get to stop women from seeking solutions to pregnancies they don't want. Not just in the USA, either!

SOmetimes, ya have to stand back; and ascertain what strengths your position has.

In today's environment? Where are the benefits?

Some people feel better when they can dictate the terms to others? They go to church, and then they cart this stuff around, like everyone else "believes?"

Nope. Plenty of "border states" to go around.

Plenty of people who want the government OUT of their business.

And, plenty of people would like to see LESS government. Not MORE. (Canceling Roe, and then making it work? More police. More prisons. And, more hate-filled dialog.)

When it becomes apparent that ROE stretched, and didn't shrink; you could guess it's because there are enough people who want this.

I know, Will Rogers line about Prohibition: "The Bible Belters will stagger to the polls to vote it in."

Yeah. And, they did. Knock 3 times and tell them Joe sent ya.

I'm not even sure Iraq is the hot button topic. I think it's IMMIGRATION. And, our borders.

And, if Guiliani runs the way I think he will; he will address America's pocketbook issues. And, he will do it with COMPETENCE. That's his strong suit.

Unlike Bush who hides; the way Guiliani works, is that he's the face that's out there.

It would have been so different if anyone-but-Bush had run in 2000. But you can't re-do the mess we're in with wishful thinking.

As to the old system? Where the social conservatives had clout? Llike everything else, fads pass.

And, like Lincoln recognizing, back in 1860, that he wasn't the "favorite" candidate; among the INSIDERS. But once the insiders saw the writing on the wall; they panicked enough. And, let go of "their favorite sons." To nominate someone who could get elected. Ah. He did. And, he did it again in 1864.

One thing the Internet does is involve lots of people from all over our map. We're no longer waiting for Dan Rather.

Perhaps this is why the issues won't be the old "hot buttons." Because? You haven't gotten anywhere in 35 years.

And, if Powerline is right? And, there's another vacancy? Bush "could be pushed to put in KOH." And uber-liberal. Willing to kowtow to the global fear mongers. The bullshit people, who want you thinking all "bees are dead."

NO, they are not!

Again, the Internet. And, Insta-Pundit. Yesterday, he published the e-mail he got from Steve Den Beste.

Bush, without a voice.

And, the bad guys owning the propaganda from the multi-media nutworks.

And, the reality. People want families of the sizes you see. Not like the old days where one woman could birth a dozen kids.

Even more pronounced has been watching societies keep their kids young LONGER. So that today you don't see kids marrying at 16.

When you want society to accept ideas, they should be based in reality.

By the way, just as people here will "vote their conscience." So, too, ALL the voting public. So, in the end, it's not the individual; but the whole community. Things break according to patterns.

And, to pick up the slack? You get the Ralph Nader's getting their 1%. And, Pat Buchanan, ditto.

Some, making up the majority, however, really do want to vote for a winner. (That was Lincoln's advantage, too.)

Posted by Rose [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 17, 2007 12:07 AM

Original intent has to trump a "well-established" error. Otherwise we have no standard at all. Rudy has disqualified himself for me.

Posted by: RBMN


Me, too. This is a critical issue.

A second thing that bothers me about Rudi is he doesn't consider himself to be indispensible. He's willing to bend the rules to accomodate the people's need for him.

He's expendable.

Posted by Adjoran [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 17, 2007 12:10 AM

I'm a pro-life, pro-traditional marriage and traditional values conservative, but I recognize that if we are determined to exclude all those from our "tent" who disagree on some social issues but would be with us fully on foreign policy, tax policy, entitlement reform, federal power, etc., we aren't going to win many elections.

Abortion issues aren't going to be decided at ballot boxes. We will only win that fight in the end by winning the hearts and minds of those pro-abortion folks who came to their position in good faith. If we deny the possibility of people of good will being mistaken on this issue, and insist instead they all are evil, we will NEVER win in our lifetimes.

If we run away people who agree with us on most major issues, but differ on the social issues, we will never have the opportunity to persuade them. They won't be there at our county meetings or national conventions.

We must remember that Presidents have very limited influence over abortion. The state of the law when Reagan left office was far more pro-abortion than when he entered, for example.

The important thing is to win elections. Without that, pro-life issues will be set back no matter who the Democrat is and no matter who the Republican alternative was. The most pro-choice GOP candidate, Giuliani, supports the Hyde Amendment and says his models for judicial appointments are Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas. Compare that to the most pro-life Democratic candidate's positions and favored nominees, if you can find a pro-life Democratic candidate.

To those who would stay home or vote for a hopeless third party candidate, I would remind them that the highest moral choice is the better of two poor choices, rather than making no choice and allowing the worse to win out.

Posted by Rose [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 17, 2007 12:27 AM

When the humanity of a person is decided by another person, we have slavery anew.

I will use those thoughts as guidance when voting. I will vote my conscience.

Posted by: unclesmrgol



Posted by Rose [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 17, 2007 12:41 AM

To those who would stay home or vote for a hopeless third party candidate, I would remind them that the highest moral choice is the better of two poor choices, rather than making no choice and allowing the worse to win out.

Posted by: Adjoran


Funny how those with the MIDDLE moral choice are always telling those with the HIGHEST moral choice that we HAVE to do it THEIR WAY to get anywhere - when the WHERE they offer us is opposite where WE want to go.

Yet they NEVER figure the best way to get all on board one bandwagon is to go with the more CONSERVATIVES, if the MODERATES really want a broad base of support.

They watch their candidate drive millions from voting, and mourn that WE don't "see reason", while they slap us in the face with something they know full well we find totally intolerable.

They don't even ENTERTAIN the idea of voting with others to defeat the "evil ones" - but WE are always the UNREASONABLE ones.


I'm voting in a manner in which I can stand before God Jehovah with a CLEAR Conscience.

Now, I used to drivew in the Middle of hte Raod - and folks left and right yelled at me to stop taking MY middle out of the MIDDLE of the road.

Now that I have stopped, and I stay FULLY in the LANE that is going the direction I want to go, I feel wonderful.

I require that none go with me, but I require a clean conscience.

Posted by The Yell [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 17, 2007 3:29 AM

Where's the correction? Apparently he just called for pro-lifers to end advocacy and settle for "tolerance" as nothing gets done. Perhaps it is less arrogant than "get over it" but he clearly wants a free-ride on his support for abortion.

This is not about driving people from the tent. This is about offering leadership roles to people who are committing to thwarting the agenda, and refusing to cooperate on a program that requirings coordination at different levels to achieve.

I am not deceived, the ascension of Rudy is about destroying the pro-life platform within the GOP. It is removing it as a goal for action, a purpose of the party, and relegating it to a quirk that the leadership promises--for now--to tolerate.

When did Rudy signal support for the Hyde Amendment? He promised to accept it if Congress maintained it, but I heard nothing about lobbying for it. It remains the law of the land because of strong public support and the veto threat of George W. Bush.

When did he declare that Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas were his models? I read he said a real "conservative" jurist could accept the precedent, which most closely in line with O'Connor.

A President who is fine with government-funding and guarantee of abortion is our opponent, whether he's a Republican or a Democrat. The highest moral choice is to press for action on your principles regardless of election outcomes.

Posted by motife [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 17, 2007 5:13 AM

pro-choice, pro-life or PRO-REALITY??

1) both John Roberts and Sam Alito said in their confirmation hearings that Roe was "settled law". If even the MOST conservative justices are pledging not to overturn it, it's NOT GOING TO BE OVERTURNED...

2) Even if Roe was overturned, what states are going to PUT PEOPLE IN JAIL for having an abortion? Utah?

South Dakota had a referendum in 2006 on the ideal anti-abortion statute and it went down in flames 56% to 44%. If South Dakota is not going to PUT PEOPLE IN JAIL over abortions, which states will? Give me a list.

3) How far is is from Salt Lake City to Las Vegas?

Posted by Muse Unamused [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 17, 2007 6:38 AM

Considering how many pre-conception birth control methods are readily available, it is both no surprise and literally a crying shame that abortion trumps adoption for those who failed to prevent pregnancy.

For the campaign thrust, I agree with RBMN. I was not offended by Rudy's answer. But if Rudy really wants to be President, he needs to find a way towards pro-life.

Posted by english hostage [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 17, 2007 7:20 AM

In my opinion the right to life group have lost sight of reality, abortion as a form of contraception offends me, so to anti- abortion bigots, given the appauling conditions fairly large quantities of kids have to endure, especially the very poor , muslem girls, etc, etc. The bigger picture needs to be used as a reference, it is not a perfect world so dont expect perfection, living kids, the next generation are far more important than unwanted or faulty embrios.

Posted by LeaningRt [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 17, 2007 9:52 AM

I'm going to see Rudy speak tonight...I'm very excited. In reality I could support any of the Rep. candidates (well, not so much Tommy), over the Dem alternative. But I like two things about Rudy....he has proven himself, without question, a man that could turn the fastest city in the world into a fiscally responsible, low-on-crime, admired metropolis...and look how he found it after Dinkins.

Second, he has the best chance to steal the Independent votes and is our best chance to keep the WH republican. Let me ask you one-issue voters this.....if Rudy has a 60% chance of defeating the Dem opponent in the General El., and FT has only a 45% chance, will you still vote for Fred in the primary to stick by your moral guns?

Posted by typekeyspams [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 17, 2007 4:14 PM

i support Rudy Guiliani for President. He jailed a lots of Mafiosi.

He would jail a lot of Mafiosi-like corrupt Democrats. I'd love to use the tools used against Al Capone to inspect the tax returns of shakedown artists like Jackson and Sharpton.

I'd love to see the Planned Parenthood gangsters exposed and jailed for using their government funded abortion "non-profit" earnings. I'd be delighted to see the baby killing industry be exposed for illegal political lobbying. Jail time for the descendants of the "UberMenchen" eugenic movement is appropriate. They are not a whole lot different from Dr. Mengele and friends.

I like the prospect of a 40 or 45 state landslide. That would go a long way to remove the bakers dozen of Party hacks elected by the Left wing Socialists, when they took back the Congress in 2006.

When Hillary has to fight for New York, she won't have the luxury of trying to carry any Red States.

Appointing the next one or two Supreme Justices is the answer to lots of Conservative problems. Four or eight more years of Republican rule will transform the Judiciary from a Socialist haven, to an American institution once again. Sooner or later those 13 communists on the 9th Circuit will die and need to be be replaced.

Posted by wtanksleyjr [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 17, 2007 4:19 PM

"In 1860? The Civil War started on the issue of: CAN YOU, OR CAN'T YOU PULL OUT OF THE UNION."

"Pull out of the Union" over _what_? No, not "States Rights" -- that's just arguing in a circle. States have to argue for a right to do something. _What_ was that?

The answer is slavery.

And by the way, the reason Lincoln didn't emancipate slaves in the North was that they were legally considered property, and the constitution explicitly states that property shall not be taken without due process except during an insurrection. The law had to change before the slaves could be freed.

Another by the way: States Rights was the rallying cry of the North before the Civil War. The Fugitive Slave Act was hated; it allowed slaveowner states to impose their laws on free states.

I'm not arguing that anyone involved was a saint or a devil. I'm pointing out that secession was a means, not an end in itself.

"Besides, if ROE ever got over-turned, the turkeys that did this on the supremes would have a worse reputation than the one they got for KELO."

You're right here -- Roe will without a doubt go down in history as wishful thinking. (I know that's not what you meant, but it's realistic.)

The fact is, abortion needs to be made a matter of explicit law, so it can be guarded by the People. Right now it's guarded only by members of a tiny court, and a large minority on both sides of the issue can do nothing about their beliefs except try to stack that court. If it were a matter of explicit law, both sides would try to convince the people to change or preserve the law -- and you wouldn't have to fret about judges possessing a secret longing to make law on the topic.

How I wish Congress would pass a law.

Posted by owl2 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 17, 2007 7:54 PM

First things first......Have I told everyone lately how verrrrrry proud I am to have George W Bush as my President? Yep, it's truer today than yesterday and yes, I am offended by the nasty remarks regardless if they are coming from France, Sheehan, Code Pink, Rosie, Osama, Chavez, Kennedy, Kerry or someone that I am forced to vote With.

On the ground, Ronald Regan opened the doors on illegal immigration. We saw an immediate difference in Texas. He was NOT perfect but I was really proud to have Regan as my President. This perfection thing did not start with President Bush. I voted for both. Now Rudy.......

I support Rudy. Everyone that is concerned with their issues should ask themselves what the odds are they will get a better deal with a Democrat. We are getting a taste. Just a bit of Pelosi kissing up Syria ought to scare you into voting the Repub candidate that has the best shot of winning the national election. The Democrats run a MSM Army that can equal any campaign the Repubs spend money on.......without them even breaking a dollar bill. I do not care if any of you get your issues ......or if you do not ......but I do care to keep out the ones that will give the nation away to the UN and you might as well quit worrying over spending. Let the UN get a better hold and they will Global tax us into poverty faster than they try to let the terrorist rule supreme. Go Rudy.

Posted by CraL [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 18, 2007 1:37 AM

I'm suprised to see multiple posts on here indicating that the court continued to extend Roe and eliminate abortion restrictions significantly after Roe v Wade. A companion case called Doe v Bolton was handed down the same day - and it said that the abortion 'right' cannot be infringed if it is needed for mental or psycological health, in the opinion of the Dr performing it. That eliminates almost any restriction at all from day one of Roe, it can't get much more extensive than that.

http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/conlaw.htm has some info on the case law history. The only substantial changes to Roe were additional restrictions on abortion allowed by the court in 1989 and afterward. There were no meaningful expansions of the 'right'.

Attempts to limit Roe are neither futile nor foolish. Holding up the attempted South Dakota statute as an example of a post Roe law is disingenuous. If anything, its rejection shows that even the most conservative states will make their restrictions reasonable. An abortion restriction need not 'throw' anyone in 'jail', as there are lesser penalties available, as there are for any other offense. Likewise, the restrictions don't need to be nearly as all encompassing as the South Dakota statute. There are plenty of restrictions that would have public support, but cannot be enforced due to judicial fiat decisions (Roe & Doe) without a democratic basis.

Somehow, the MSM has managed to make everyone assume that the abortion issue is an all-or-nothing proposition. That public assumption, while false, is quite useful for the MSM's social point of view. Many Republican voters are going to have to determine how much Rudy supports the MSM's assumptions on this. His wording could tell a lot about what he really thinks behind the sound-bites.