The Candidates
Featured Archives
When Rudy Giuliani went on Hannity and Colmes the other night, he had this to say about his views on partial birth abortion:
GIULIANI: Partial birth abortion? I think that’s going to be upheld. I think that ban’s gonna be upheld. I think it should be. I think as long as there’s a provision for the life of the mother then that’s something that should be done.
HANNITY: There’s a misconception that you support a partial birth abortion.
GIULIANI: Well, if it doesn’t have provision for the mother then I wouldn’t support the legislation. If it has provision for the life of the mother then I would support. And I do.
This was quite shocking for me because Rudy has been an extraordinarily strong supporter of PBA during the course of his entire political career. His explanation was that he would support a PBA ban if it included a provision about the mother’s life. This runs directly against his statements just a few years ago.
What would we do without LexisNexis?
On 12/2/99, he said:
[GARY] TUCHMAN: Giuliani was then asked whether he supports a ban on what critics call partial-birth abortions, something Bush strongly supports.
GIULIANI: No, I have not supported that, and I don’t see my position on that changing.
A month later on 2/6/00, he said:
BLITZER: If you were in the Senate and [President Clinton] vetoed, once again, the [ban on the] so-called partial-birth abortion procedure, you would vote against sustaining that against the — in favor of the veto in other words, you would support the president on that.
GIULIANI: Yes. I said then that I support him, so I have no reason to change my mind about it.
On the same day, he did a interview with Tim Russert on Meet the Press and said:
MR. RUSSERT: A banning of late-term abortions, so-called partial-birth abortions–you’re against that?
MAYOR GIULIANI: I’m against it in New York, because in New York…
MR. RUSSERT: Well, if you were a senator, would you vote with the president or against the president?
MAYOR GIULIANI: I would vote to preserve the option for women. I think that choice is a very difficult one. It’s a very, very–it’s one in which people of conscious have very, very different opinions. I think the better thing for America to do is to leave that choice to the woman, because it affects her probably more than anyone else….
MR. RUSSERT: So you won’t change your view on late-term abortion in order to get the Conservative Party endorsement?
MAYOR GIULIANI: It isn’t just that. We shouldn’t limit this to one issue. I’m generally not going to change my views unless somebody can convince me that I’m wrong.
Today’s A1 story in the New York Times takes note of this seemingly out of the blue shift. Rudy’s aides explain his shift thusly:
Mr. Giuliani’s campaign aides say his positions on abortion have not changed, and that his stand on what critics call partial-birth abortions has been mischaracterized, saying he opposed a ban only if it failed to include an exception to protect the life of the mother.
But this is, er, not true, because the as this CNN article shows, the PBA ban that both Giuliani and Clinton opposed did have a provision in it to protect the life of the mother.
So, Rudy, what changed?
February 10th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
I really don’t think this is going to hurt him.
If pro-life is your number one issue, you are not going to vote for Rudy, McCain or Romney.
February 10th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
Off topic, but I am very envious of your Lex/Nex access…
BTW LJ, check your email.
February 10th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
Regarding the comment that pro-lifers won’t vote for either of the GOP big three (Guiliani, McCain, and Romney) was most likely posted by someone who isn’t prolife, because I am and at this point support Romney.
February 10th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Oops, typo: the word “either” should only be used in reference to two subjects, not three.
February 10th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
“most likely posted by someone who isn’t prolife”
I am pro-life, but abortion is not my number one issue.
I believe that national security is more important. Without security we have nothing.
I also believe that national security is the only issue that we can win on in 08.
February 10th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
As a prolifer, I 2nd Merkis. We cant be alone either, there are plenty who will support Romney.
February 10th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
GOP Activist, Has there ever been any other former mayors who seriously contended for President before. None come to mind. I have however heard of several governors who have run and won, like Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush 42 to name a few. Also, I get that you like Rudy for his stand on national defense. Do you think Romney would be weak in that area? Do you think he wouldn’t understand the enemy we face, or would be afraid to use the force we need to win? Recently he spoke on Iran and the threat they pose, do you feel like he is right on that
February 10th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
The pro-life issue is the most important issue for me. It is partly for that reason that I like Romney. Converts to the cause are much more articulate defenders, because they tend not to misrepresent the opposition the way most pro-lifers consistently do (although Senator Brownback has no excuse for his regular misrepresentation of the pro-choice position, since he’s a convert as well).
February 10th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
Kavon,
I am very envious of your Lex/Nex access
As you should be!
Free LexisNexis. It’s one of the better perks of being an undergrad, especially if you want to bring up damaging quotes on politicians from years past. Heh. I don’t know what I’ll do after I graduate and I can’t get it anymore.
February 10th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
Pro-life is near the top of my agenda as well which is exactly WHY I am getting closer to supporting Giuliani. Of the Big 3, Giuliani has given the most impassioned defense of originalism as the standard by which he would appoint judges to the federal bench.
It has been said before, but this makes Rudy “functionally pro-life”.
February 10th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
do we know if rudy is running yet cause i have not seen a formal announcment yet other then that interview last week?
February 10th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
Gary,
Giuliani has given the most impassioned defense of originalism as the standard by which he would appoint judges to the federal bench.
But how does that differentiate him from McCain, Romney, Brownback, Huckabee or Tancredo? They, like Rudy, are all going to appoint strict constructionists to the federal bench. Solely nominating SC’s to the Supreme Court does not make one “functionally pro-life.”
What if he appoints jurists that end up overturning Roe and then the Dems in Congress pass a federal abortion bill. Rudy would almost certainly sign it into law.
February 10th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
It doesn’t differentiate him from the other candidates — which is exactly my point. The Mayor would be no better or worse than the other contenders on the life issue which allows us to broaden our wish list of what we would like in a candidate.
And a national abortion bill that makes abortion legal in every instance has about the same chance of passing anytime soon as a bill outlawing abortion nationwide — ZERO. Moreover, even if such a bill did pass, I think the good political sense of Giuliani would make sure it was not signed.
Lastly, even if such a bill did pass Congress and was signed by a President Giuliani in some alternative universe, it would still be done through the democratic process rather than by judicial fiat. In other words, we would then have the opportunity to get more of our guys elected and undo such a travesty rather than have it shoved down our throats by an out-of-control judiciary.
February 10th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
but where is the formal announcment for rudy to know if he’s in this thing or not?. i see nothing offical on his 08 web site?I hate to be harsh but we really don’t know if he threw his hat in the 08 ring or not it is confusing.
February 10th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
Re: to #1, I am strongly pro-life and I strongly support Romney.
Jeremy Pierce (#8) makes a great point regarding converts to the cause. Many Americans have views similar to Romney’s previous position- they personally oppose abortion but want to keep it legal and oppose overturning Roe v. Wade. From the bully pulpit of the Presidency, I believe that Romney could change the minds of many, many Americans toward favoring a more pro-life position.
Re: #13 Although we probably won’t see a “national abortion bill” as described, there may be probably legislation involving federal funding, legislation involving limits on abortion (ie partial birth abortion), and/or other abortion-related legistlation in the next president’s term, not to mention legislation involving embryonic stem cells and other life issues. Here is where you cannot say that Rudy will be “functionally pro-life.” I believe Rudy would refuse to apply this label to himself and continues to describe himself as pro-choice.
In addition, a Republican POTUS would be the face of the Republican party, and there certainly would be implications (whether positive or negative) of having a pro-choice Republican president.
February 11th, 2007 at 12:45 am
I guess this proves what we have always known about people. They change
their minds! Is this is a bad thing? The more we experience and learn
the more likely we are to think differently then what we once did. It only
becomes a problem to me when an attempt is made to cover up the change.
February 11th, 2007 at 11:50 am
Rudy, like Clinton, and their obfuscation of the “life” vs. “health” of the mother exceptions; the slander against the right assumption that pro-lifers favor putting women that have had abortions in jail; and that nails on chalkboard sound of the misleading phrase “I favor a woman’s ‘right to choose’”.
Choose what Rudy? Choose what!!!!!!!!!!!
Hasn’t the hero of 9/11 the courage to say he favors the right of a woman to kill a developing life?
Come on tough guy. Say what you are for. look at the ultrasound and say it. Because before this campaign is over, you will look at the pictures, and they are every bit as bad as the dust you choked on on 9/11.
Jesus help me
February 11th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
I wish Congress would pass a law requiring every pregnant women contemplating an abortion to view an up-to-the-minute ultrasound of her embryo/fetus/baby unless the pregnancy resulted from rape. Women who wish to abort should at least see what they are killing before having the “doctor” do it.
February 11th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Gamecock, you’re never going to get anywhere with that kind of discourse. You’re only doing your argument disservice by shouting and carrying on like that.
“the slander against the right assumption that pro-lifers favor putting women that have had abortions in jail”
I certainly hope you don’t mean going after women who had abortions within the past few years and putting them in jail. Even if we see abortion illegal in our lifetimes (although I highly doubt that a national ban will ever be in place), certainly women who had abortions while abortion was legal would be grandfathered in.
Just present your arguments logically and your movement will have a better chance of succeeding; however, when I see the right-to-lifers marching and screaming on TV and read highly emotional, virulent comments like yours, it reminds me that we need to bring logic and reason into the debate more.
Each side has logical, reasoned arguments; it’s just that both sides are guilty of partaking in shout-fests that do neither side justice.
February 11th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Nusrat,
You’ve got it backwards. Gamecock is criticizing Rudy for using the old, “I won’t stand for throwing mothers who abort their children in jail” canard. The reason it is a canard is b/c no one I know of in the pro-life movement is actually advocating such thing.
February 11th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Ooh…ok. Sorry, I misunderstood.
February 11th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Nusrat, he’s referring to the fact that the pro-life movement has NEVER been about jailing women. It’s been about jailing the doctor’s that perform abortions. That recent national review articl on a lower thread even mentioned it. Rudy needs to stop caricaturing the pro-life movement by setting up false dichotomy’s like that, because he simply ends up making many people, who might be inclined to give him a look, extremely angry. He should just state that he’s pro-choice, then move on to questions of federalism. This “I hate abortion, but I don’t want to jail want to jail women who have abortions” is enfuriating, because it seems like he’s purposely trying to make the pro-life movement seem unreasonable and callous rather then, as many have suggested, admitting that we disagree, but that there are ore significant issues at stake.
February 12th, 2007 at 12:07 am
Nusrat
I know of no pro-lifer that favors putting women that have, have had or will have abortions in jail. Can you understand english? It is Rudy that assumes we do that riles me, and it is Rudy that will get nowhere if he keeps that meme up.
I have made clear that I think Rudy would be a great president based on his tenure as mayor and present rhetoric on the war, and that I would enthusiastiacally support him in the general.
But this ain’t the general, and it’s Rudy that wants to go somewhere, not Gamecock. Gamecock is happy where he is.
Gamecock and the GOP also have a right to choose, and we aren’t tpp timid to name the choices. “Right to Choose?”
I didn’t leave the Dem Party in 2000 to silently endure such rhetorical hogwash in the GOP.
cool?
February 12th, 2007 at 12:07 am
Thanks Matt
February 12th, 2007 at 12:08 am
Thanks Fredo
and misunderstanding accepted Nusrat
February 12th, 2007 at 12:08 am
Good idea Marksal