The Candidates
Featured Archives
Former Gov. Mitt Romney’s wife, Ann, gave an $150 donation to the abortion-rights group Planned Parenthood in 1994, at a time when Romney considered himself effectively “pro-choice,” the Romney campaign confirmed today.
Campaign spokesman Kevin Madden said Ann Romney had no recollection of the circumstances under which she donated the money.
He said an internal review of Romney’s personal records has not turned up any instances in which Romney, a Massachusetts Republican, himself sent money to groups that supported expanded abortion rights.
“The governor has not donated to Planned Parenthood or abortion-rights groups,” Madden said.
Madden said he did not know whether the former governor was aware of the donation, but he noted that Romney had been publicly committed to upholding a woman’s right to an abortion until late 2004.
“This is an issue that the governor has changed his position on, that the governor was wrong on in the past and believes he is right on now,” he said.
And so it turns out that Mitt Romney, the GOP presidential contender who has spent the last few years confusing the presidency with the papacy and attempting to prove himself papable to GOP primary voters, is married to a woman who contributed to the nation’s premier provider of abortions. Why, who knows how many lives-to-be were extinguished with a flick of Romney’s wife’s pen? This is a deeply serious issue, and likely a death knell for Romney’s quest for the GOP nod.
As such, it’s time for Gov. Romney to come clean on this issue to pro-life voters. Personally, I would like answers to the following questions:
1) Gov. Romney, when did you learn of your wife’s de facto participation in extinguishing young life?
2) Do you now or did you ever approve of or sanction this donation?
3) Was there any conflict in the Romney household over this event upon your aptly-timed “conversion” to the pro-life side of the fence? Granted, such conflict would likely have resulted in the governor sleeping on the couch for a few nights, but given Mitt’s strong respect for abstinence, I’m sure he could’ve taken it.
Gov. Romney, these are questions that demand answers. I await your reply. And I await the discovery of whether or not the same folks who were trashing Mayor Giuliani over his own donations to Planned Parenthood the other night turn out to be hypocrites of the highest order.
May 9th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
And it is idoits like you that keep women in doves from voting Republican……………
May 9th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Paul,
You need to develop a better sarcasm barometer, my friend.
May 9th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
oh sorry……….Was in an agrument today at work over Rudy so I was in a fighting mode………
May 9th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Some questions a Romney supporter might know the answer to
Has Ann Romney ever gone public with her own views on abortion? How do we know she’s doesn’t support a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy? If she’s now pro-life, when did her conversion take place, and what reason does she cite as the basis for a 180 degree shift in position on the issue?
May 9th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Not a romeny support, but gives the Laura Bush answer about diffeneces on issue of she is not going to stay want they all, which is usually code for abortion……..
May 9th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
You know, DaveG, I picked up on your sarcasm. But Argo, are you actually serious?
May 9th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
[...] post by DaveG and software by Elliott [...]
May 9th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
FWIW, Mitt Romney (the one who’s running for President) donated $15,000 to Massachusettes Citizens for Life in 2005.
May 9th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
murphy,
What Ann Romney believes, whether she is pro-choice or pro-life should be irrelevant to the public. What is relevant, however, is the legitimacy of Mitt’s conversion and whether his story constrasts with his wife’s.
May 9th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Argo, what on Earth are you talking about in your #9?
May 9th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
It’s amazing how much negative attention in this race has been paid to the former Mayor and Mitt. If these guys beat each other up it will let a candidate like McCain or Thompson pick up the nomination.
I’d actually rather hear about Tommy Thompson or Duncan Hunter or Mike Huckabee or John McCain or Sam Brownback…. than read more mudslinging.
The GOP seems to be fracturing. It’s as if principle can’t hold the party together anymore so the GOP is splitting on personalities.
May 9th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
Flap trackback: http://flapsblog.com/?p=4910
Mitt Romney Watch: Romney’s Wife Ann Has Donated to Planned Parenthood
May 9th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
murphy,
Is it of no relevance to you whether Mitt Romney is sincere in his new-found “pro-life” beliefs, or does it only matter that he’s singing the right words to the song you want to hear?
May 9th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
Argo, I think Ann Coulter said it best: it doesn’t matter if he panders, as long as he panders to me. Guiliani is studiously avoiding pandering to me, and some people are actually applauding him for sticking his thumb in our eyes. That’s an interesting and masochistic position, but I don’t share it.
May 9th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
Argo,
It is very important to me that Romney is sincere concerning his 2005 pro-life conversion. However, you’ve completely lost me in why Ann’s 1994 donation to PP is significant. I think you need to take a breath and think about this.
Also, I find it pretty funny that you’re often firing questions at Romney about the sincerity of his policy switch as Governor…yet you don’t seem to care much that Rudy hasn’t yet explained why he switched positions on parental notification, PBA, Hyde Amendment, etc.
May 9th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
I don’t want a panderer. I want a leader. Someone who genuflects to kiss your ring will do the same thing to Ahmadinejad.
And Ann Coulter is an actress playing the role of a conservative commentator because it’s easier than practicing law. Anyone who gets her endorsement goes down a few notches in my book.
May 9th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
DaveG, I’m not sure I understand your analogy. Guiliani is running against his base, so that makes him a leader? Don’t you think that makes it more likely he will run against his base in the future, especially if he is elected without the help of said base? Then he won’t anyone in the GOP anything. So when the confrontation with Iran becomes inevitable, he won’t listen to the base’s call for a military strike, and will instead join with his liberal friends and seek accomodation.
As usual, you haven’t thought this through.
May 9th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
Correction: then he won’t owe anyone in the GOP anything.
May 9th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
I don’t like pandering at all. However, I don’t think Ann Romney’s position is very relevant. I also don’t think it is very wise to go pointing fingers at Laura Bush with the “everybody else did it” argument either, because it appears to be trying to shift the blame (nobody has done it here, but I saw somebody at Redstate doing it when I read through there out of curiosity to how they’d react, where there are a few knife throwers, but most are being civil about it at this point).
DaveG.(#16)- Does that mean you won’t support Duncan Hunter?
May 9th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
Wow, when did Ann Romney announce that she was running for President?
May 9th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
JB, I could be wrong, but I think DaveG started out being snarky, but became serious in #16. So I don’t think he even cares about the Ann Romney donation specifically, he’s just looking to follow his usual ill-considered Romney-bashing.
May 9th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
Seems to me that bloggers are uncritically swallowing the MSM baloney that Planned
Parenthood is all about abortion. It isn’t. They disseminate an equal amount of
information about adoption. More accuracy is needed about this.
May 9th, 2007 at 7:35 pm
This just in: Mitt Romney’s second cousin on his former step-mother-in-Law’s side said overturning Roe would be “OK.” Gasp!
May 9th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
“So when the confrontation with Iran becomes inevitable, he won’t listen to the base’s call for a military strike, and will instead join with his liberal friends and seek accomodation.”
Apparently you have failed to engage in any serious study of Rudy’s record. Had you done so, you would realize just how foolish this statement is given his history of combating the leftist NYC establishment.
May 9th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
JF: GIULIANI will ACCOMODATE our enemies?
No comment necessary.
Some people will never figure out that people who are not social conservatives are right-wing extremists on the war. And the economy. Evade it all you like.
May 9th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
JB: I guess one might say that Ann Romney hates abortion about as much as you hate scotch.
Isn’t that how you put it the other night?
May 9th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
David B, agreed. It was an absurd statement fueled by emotion.
May 9th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
Peter (#22), so if Planned Parenthood isn’t primarily a chop shop, why is it on their front page they display:
“Donate online or call 1-800-798-7092 to support Planned Parenthood as we respond to the Supreme Court’s reckless decision.” and “Wall of Protest: Speak out on the Supreme Court’s reckless decision to uphold the federal abortion ban.” It doesn’t sound to me like they’re interested in adapting by counseling more adoption. No, they intend to profit off of the Supreme Court’s decision by appealing to the pro-abortionists.
May 9th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
Tommy,
Of course I won’t support Duncan Hunter. He’s against free trade.
May 9th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
Yawn. Non-story. Who cares? Maybe Judith Giuliani is in favor of raising taxes. I don’t care. I still despise Mitt, but this is a non-starter for me.
May 9th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
JF – I’m not understanding what that has to do with the fact that they counsel equal amounts of adoptin information.
May 9th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
DaveG, interesting point. So tell me: what is Guiliani’s strategy for Iraq and Iran? I have only seen him come out against “artificial timetables” for Iraq, but how is this better than the Democrats?
http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/01/rudy_supports_t.html
May 9th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
DaveG; you’re probably on to something there. thanks, now i’m thirsty.
May 9th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
DaveG- I know. That’s who Ann Coulter said was her favorite last night.
May 9th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
JF, Um, the Democrats are the ones trying to force the timetables.
May 9th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
David B, the article quotes Guiliani as saying,
Monthly, weekly, and daily benchmarks? You don’t think that’s micromanaging the war to an even greater extent than the Democrats are demanding? Also, may I remind you that Guiliani was a member of the Iraq Study Group for the first few months?
May 9th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
JF, He said that not as an argument for pulling out troops but for assessing and revising strategies. Same COMPSTAT approach he used with great effect in NYC. He’s recently on record saying he can convince the American public that we should stay in Iraq for a long time. (See Heritage speech.)
He RESIGNED from the Iraq Study Group early on. Why are you reading the opposite of what’s obvious about that?
May 9th, 2007 at 7:59 pm
Bottom line: Americans know Ahmadinejad and his ilk will be more scared of Rudy than any other President. If you don’t recognize that, you’re not paying attention.
May 9th, 2007 at 7:59 pm
This is going to be a long primary if you guys keep through this cycle:
____________________________
Poster 1: My Candidate is a hero who did ____, ____, and _____. He is obviously the best candidate.
Poster 2: Yeah but your candidate also said this in 1994 “_____”. How can we nominate a candidate who would say that?
Poster 3: Obviously you support the other candidate. Speaking of which he said “_______” as recently as 2002! How can you attack my candidate when your candidate said that?
Poster 4: Well only my candidate can win in 2008 so you need to shut up and get on board. Otherwise Hillary will hand America over to the terrorists, personally carry out abortions in the White House and raise taxes to 110%.
_________________________________
I’m not looking forward to another 8 months of that type of discussion.
May 9th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
“Americans know Ahmadinejad and his ilk will be more scared of Rudy than any other President. If you don’t recognize that, you’re not paying attention.”
David B; I might have to disagree with you there.
May 9th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
Interesting item not being reported in the American press, but being reported in the UK: Israel’s Mossad is taking out Iran’s nuke program by assassinating its top scientist and other key players. Iran has already retaliated by assassinating the Mossad guy in charge at a Paris hotel. (Source for foregoing: Stratfor.) Now, a lot of Iranian generals are resigning and forming an anti-Ahmadinejad party. Thank God for Israel. Keep it up! It’s a brilliant, low-cost, life-saving, conflict-saving strategy.
May 9th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
Econ,
That is a nice summary of the tone and depth of many discussions here.
I hope that the next GOP debate will change the focus of the primary to isssues like taxes, trade, healthcare, education not to mention the two most important, the War on Terror and Immigration.
May 9th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
David B,
Agreed Israel has the guts and political will to do what the CIA ought to be doing.
May 9th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
Tommy: They can look at Rudy booting Arafat and returning the Saudi check, and they can look at his uncompromising statements. They are very well aware of them, even if JF is not.
McCain could be very strong, but our enemies know he has had a track record of compromise on many issues.
Thompson could come across strong, but without the evidence Rudy has already demonstrated.
Romney could not come across convincingly to our enemies.
May 9th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
David B:
I think Rudy would be exceptional with national security. I’m not yet sure he would be the best President to deal with the Wars, but I won’t write him off there yet. I’ll wait and see what happens and what his plan is.
Dskinner: The next debate will have all ten old white guys there also, so I wouldn’t hold your breath on that one quite yet.
May 9th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
David B (#37), the war on terror is not a police action, it’s a military action. Giuliani called for increasing the size of the military, but so have all of his rivals. His one original idea was creating some kind of nation-building force. Do you think that is a good idea?
He resigned from the ISG to prepare for his run for president, and Giuliani is on record as reacting to the ISG report with the following:
http://www.nysun.com/article/44742
No open-ended requirement and linkages to milestones.. sounds familiar.
May 9th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
David B (#41), got any links to the British press? They’ve been fabricating Israeli plans of an Iran attack since two years ago, so I am skeptical that they’ve suddenly got this right. If it is true (which I doubt), it would be a classic repeat of their Osiraq reactor attack; first go after the scientists and equipment, and then go after the reactor itself.
May 9th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
David B,
I disagree with you about who will come across as strong to the Islamic jihadists. All 4 will have the ability to initimidate them. Romney’s refusal to give any protection to Khatami when he spoke at Harvard is basically the same as what Rudy did. McCain is on record with the strongest rhetoric against them and Thompson has a very intimidating presence and evokes sincerity when he speaks. Ahmadinejad will be scared of all of our candidates, especially compared to any of the Dems.
May 9th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
Interesting how we got away from the topic of the post here: the use of Romney funds to promote abortion.
May 9th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
JF, Yes, I think it is critical we change the Middle East with a Marshall Plan of sorts.
You just proved Rudy disagrees with the ISG, as his resignation would indicate.
May 9th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
JF: Exactly like Osirak. Lots of stories here:
http://www.google.com/search?q=mossad+hassanpour
May 9th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
It’s Romney’s campaigns masterful ability to turn the debate away from their candidates own faults (or in this case, his wife’s)
(just kidding)
May 9th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
DaveG,
You are right, but I think that is because most people see this as a non-issue. It does however lower my opinion of Ann Romney. I hope that she changed her view on this issue because it seems that if you donate money to PP then you probably aren’t personally pro-life, regardless of your political position.
May 9th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
Low level assassinations are fairly common in Middle East relations. Kind of like angry diplomatic notes between the US and Europe but with corpses to amplify the point.
To really put a serious dent in Iran’s nuclear capacity you’re going to have to pay attention to the Pakistani nuclear Islamic nexus.
If Iran gets stymied on its own efforts it can still get assistance from Islamists who have influence within the Pakistani government which has nuclear weapons and expertise.
Stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons in the long-term if we wish to do it requires either repeated surgical strikes, a general invasion, or a concerted economic blockade.
May 9th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
Dskinner: A refusal to provide protection is not nearly as strong as ejecting a leader from a UN celebration or sending back a $10M threat. Blow-dried Romney comes across as the weakest of the 4 as far as being believed by our enemies.
Also, a crucial factor in being taken seriously by our enemies is a President who has the charisma to get a Democratic controlled Congress to back him up. Only Rudy and McCain have that going for them.
May 9th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
econ grad: there’s one candidate who has a background in on economic sanctions on foreign countries, and dealing with weapons acquiring in Foreign countries.
His name is Fred
May 9th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
er, $10M check
May 9th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
Could you back that up for our benefit, Tommy, if you don’t mind?
I’d like to know more about Fred’s experience with economic sanctions and weapon proliferation.
May 9th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
murphy,
you wrote: “you don’t seem to care much that Rudy hasn’t yet explained why he switched positions on parental notification, PBA, Hyde Amendment”
I’ve called Rudy out for each of the aforementioned shifts that were predicated in pure pandering. If these relatively minor rightward adjustments don’t gain him support from any substantial portion of the pro-life community, it would behoove him to remain principled and not deviate from his core firm beliefs and let the chips fall where they may. Such a strategy would perhaps alienate the JF’s and Ann Coulters of the GOP, but it would, on balance, secure the independent vote in the general, which is nearly 2-to-1 pro-choice. As long as McCain, Romney and Thompson are in the race, not to mention Gingrich, the SoCon vote will be too splintered to wield sufficient influence to thwart Giuliani’s ascent to the nomination.
May 9th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
JF,
Since you defer to Ann Coulter, I thought you might be interested in seeing her thoughts on Rudy re: Iran.
Ann Coulter: “My thesis is that right-wingers think that Rudy Giuliani would immediately bomb Iran, and so we kind of like that. But I’d like to get that in writing before you make him our presidential nominee.”
During the recent Iranian hostage crisis involving 15 British sailors, Giuliani offered bold advice to the UK prime minister, saying “I urge Tony Blair to stand up to them.”
On the situation in the Middle East, Rudy recently said:
“Hamas or Abbas, it makes no difference. The ball is in their court, and we just have to show patience and not push any peace process until they do what they have to do,” said Mr. Giuliani.
What they have to do, he said, is, at the very minimum, to recognize Israel’s right to exist and to renounce terrorism. Then, he said, Israel and the US should sit back and see if they mean it.
“They don’t just have to say the words. Anyone can say the words. They have to show that they are ending terrorism; they have to show that they are doing what they have to do to end terrorism. I’m a strong proponent of the philosophy that we can trust, but we have to verify,” he said. “If all that happens, then it will lead naturally to a peace process, but we have to wait patiently until they are ready to make it happen. And no one should make any concessions to the Palestinians until they take those steps.”
Rudy’s formula for success in Iraq: “clear, hold, and build.”
By clear, he said, he meant “pacify.” “Hold,” he said, means to keep it that way. And “build,” he said, means to encourage the Iraqis to take charge and reconstruct their country as a free democracy.
He insisted that while a variety of tactics should be employed to prompt the mullahs in Iran to eschew their efforts to develop nuclear weapons, the military option should not be taken off the table.
“The US must make it clear that, under no circumstances, will Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Going to war with Iran would be terrible. The only thing that would be worse would be allowing Iran to have nuclear weapons,” he said.
He dismissed the arguments of those who say the US should be able to contain a nuclear-armed Iran, just as the US contained the former Soviet Union and China during the Cold War. The Islamofascists, he said, “are a different kind of enemy.”
“The communists in the Soviet Union and China were terrible, but didn’t make plans to come here to kill us. They didn’t send suicide bombers,” he said.
May 9th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
Econ Grad: Ask and you shall receive:
Let me get the links together
May 9th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
David B, all of those articles are traced back to comments by a “Rheva Bhalla” of Stratfor, and that’s an Iranian name. It has no credibility, I’m sure it’s not true.
May 9th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
JF: Stratfor are ex-CIA guys. Iran already retaliated by killing the Mossad guy in charge of Iran, in a Paris hotel. Keep digging…
May 9th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
Argo, where did I say that I defer to Ann Coulter? I quoted her because I liked her turn of phrase, not because she dictates what I believe. Nevertheless, I like what I’m hearing about Giuliani in the quote you provided.
May 9th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
Econ Grad: Here is a small sampling, there is more that are on the site, or I have yet to add
fredthompsonpresidency.blogspot.com/2007/04/senator-thompson-balancing-trade.html
fredthompsonpresidency.blogspot.com/2007/04/china-nonproliferation-act-official.html
fredthompsonpresidency.blogspot.com/2007/04/implementation-of-legislation-creating.html
fredthompsonpresidency.blogspot.com/2007/04/senator-thompson-helped-define-new.html
fredthompsonpresidency.blogspot.com/2007/04/1998-thompson-calls-for-arms-and-dual.html
fredthompsonpresidency.blogspot.com/2007/04/leadership-challenges-in-21st-century.html
fredthompsonpresidency.blogspot.com/2007/04/weapons-of-mass-destruction-official.html
May 9th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
JF: Rudy has been saying these things for years. Do you not remember his speech at the 2004 convention?
May 9th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
David B (#63), I find it hard to believe that the Iranian was assassinated on January 15 and the Israeli was assassinated in return just 7 days later. France listed it as a suicide, and Iran claimed credit. It’s a he-said, he-said. Anyway, if it’s true, good, but the Sunday Times has had it in for Israel ever since Mordechai Vanunu and Dimona, so I don’t trust a word they publish.
Also, it’s probably ironic for me to say, but I don’t have the greatest respect for the CIA, let alone ex-CIA
May 9th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
Thanks Tommy I appreciate those links.
May 9th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
David B, in all honesty, I didn’t remember the speech from the 2004 convention, but it’s good. Does Giuliani believe in the Bush Doctrine?
May 9th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
JF: That’s not the only recent Iranian assassination in connection with the nuclear program.
May 9th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
This is great…. lets kill the Republican nominees and let Hillary win….
May 9th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
I am soooo glad I am supporting the only true pro-life candidate… Sam Brownback!
May 9th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
No problem, Econ, here’s a brief outline:
Prior to his election to the U.S. Senate, Fred Thompson served as Special Counsel to both the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. (for Reagan administration)
Senator Thompson was a member of the powerful Senate Committee on Finance, which has juisdiction over, among other things, international trade.While a strong supporter of free trade, Senator Thompson has advocated a balanced approach to trade and national security. He has pushed for an export control policy that protects our country’s national security without unnecessarily burdening American industry with bureaucratic red tape. He has also proposed legislation to curb the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction by China and other countries and to strengthen the United States’ response to such activities. Senator Thompson also served as a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the National Security Working Group, which observes and monitors executive branch negotiations with foreign governments.
In 2002, he was elected to the prestigious Council on Foreign Relations, an organization that promotes improved understanding of international affairs through public and private discussion. A Visiting Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute for Policy Research, Fred Thompson studies national security and intelligence, with a focus on China, North Korea, and Russia. He has authored articles and ahort publications on a wide range of policy-related topics.
Thompson has also served as a member of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission.*
http://www.aei.org/scholars/scholarID.78,filter.all/scholar.asp
http://www.lawrenceburgs.com/fred-thompson.html
May 9th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
JL, come on. Tancredo, Huckabee and Hunter all have perfect pro-life records. I don’t think we need a perfect candidate I believe Romney and Thompson will both do just as good of job on issues of life because their record in office is 100% on the side of life.
May 9th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
From what I’ve seen so far Thompson correctly saw the Chinese role in weapons proliferation and propping up our enemies. He also saw the vital importance of our trade in influencing behavior. Positive signs of good judgment.
I’m waiting to see who else (besides Duncan Hunter) realizes that China is our enemy and that crony capitalism isn’t reforming their destructive behavior.
Thanks again Tommy.
May 9th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
No problem. I’m happy to be of assistance to anyone who is honestly curious to learn more about Fred.
May 9th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
War on terrorism again! David B and guys like him seems to be advocating the blunt or sledgehammer approach. Go against the terrorists with the mighty armies. It worked in overcoming Saddam and the folks in Afghanitan. But are we done there? No! It has failed in destroying the ideology itself! We had to change our strategies to success, and even then, it is progressingly slowly.
If we are in the environment of WWII, then yes, Rudy is best for it. This type of warfare is new for all of us. We need someone who know how to get the experts, to see the big picture, and go against every aspect of that picture – education, employment, diplomcies, etc… and yet, at the same time, strenghten us American for the inevidence that since the Radical Islam has been taught world-wide for over 50 years, it may take that long to get rid of that hatred toward all for which we stand for.
The war on terrorism WILL not be overcome within the next 8 years, nor would it ever go away until we address it at its root, which is how they are indoctrined to hate us!
May 9th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
Back on topic, according to the New York Times, Rudy plans to publicly embrace abortion rights. I’d post a link, but it’s a subscription.
May 9th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
I can’t post the link, but here’s a little part. I will give him credit, Giuliani is showing the backbone it takes to face up to the heat and hold his ground. I don’t agree, but this makes me respect him more.
“Mr. Giuliani hinted at what aides said would be his uncompromising position on abortion rights yesterday in Huntsville, Ala., where he was besieged with questions about abortion and his donations to Planned Parenthood. “Ultimately, there has to be a right to chose,” he said.
Asked if Republicans would accept that, he said, “I guess we are going to find out.”
Mr. Giuliani acknowledged that his stance on abortion alone might disqualify him with some voters, but he said, “I am at peace with that.”
-from the NYT caucus blog
May 9th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
SGS, it all starts with military action against the states that support terror. Turkey did it with the PKK, Israel did it with the PLO and Russia did it with the Chechens.
May 9th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
Rudy figured it out! He can’t compromise his strong-leader integrity creds by being wishy-washy on abortion. This will help him win the general, and it’s a way to get a Republican President elected who will be far to the right on defense and economics, and get the respect needed to get the job done.
May 9th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
I will give credit where credit is due. That is leadership. Like I said, I don’t like his position, but that is the sign of a leader. He is going against the principles of his party and standing up for what he believes is right. He has impressed me with this.
May 9th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Yes, as I pointed out, we did it with Iraq and Afghanitan. But we still have the Radical Islam problem. The polls done in a few nations like Egypt show a high degree (90%+) of population are in favor of Islamic states like Iran. Are you saying we will just attack them all as they go up, then police them? Yes, the military is necessary to render the country less dangerous, but it won’t resolve the islamic problem itself. They may lie low for a while, but they will come back again and again until we get at the root of the problem itself. I am all for bombing Iran personally, but we cannot do it again and again without causing the fatique in America. We also are losing the support from American population. We may be able to boost them with a “few” bombs, but the policing part will wear them out. We need someone who could look beyond overcoming the evil empires like Iran.
May 9th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
Well he wasn’t exactly treading water with his attempts to pander so a play for principle may succeed after his pandering has publicly failed.
I would have respected it more if he had started out with principle instead of trying to pander when his intentions have always been to provide pro-lifers nothing on their issue.
It was overtime that he did this because he was never going to sway the Religious Right to support his candidacy as he represents everything they abhor. He still may be able to win the nomination as the candidate of New Englanders, New Yorkers, and Californians. That’s why he focusing on those voters and leaving appealing to the rest of the party for the other candidates.
May 9th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
SGS, ideally, the way it works is that the tyrant is removed, civil institutions are built, and then democracy is instituted. We can do the first and the last, but we have trouble doing the middle part. The thing is, we have lost the ability to accomplish the second stage since WWII. That said, there’s another way, although a little bit more unpalatable: follow the example of South Korea and Qatar (and to a lesser extent, Chile)–remove one dictator and install another of our choosing, who can then build up the institutions of government, and after a few decades, grant power to the democratic movement. It’s also worked in Eastern Europe, but we weren’t directly involved in that.
The upshot is that we had the right idea in Iraq, but we did it too fast. We shouldn’t have had elections there until a professional bureaucracy was established, and there would have been less sectarian violence as a result. But the military must get things started.
May 9th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/10/us/politics/10giuliani.html?hp=&pagewanted=print
Looks like Rudy is not going stop trying to two-step around it and be straight Foward. Smart move, through he should make it clear he will not try to changed the party platform.
May 9th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
JL #72 and Dskinner #74,
Dskinner is right that Tancredo, Hunter, and Huckabee have been consistently supportive of pro-life causes, and there is reason to believe that Romney and Thompson would be in the future as well. But the question is, do we want someone who is merely supportive of pro-life causes, or one who will actually lead the fight in them? Brownback has been a (and possibly THE) primary leader on pro-life causes in the federal government, and if we actually want things to more substantially change, Brownback would be the best choice in this category. There’s a difference between appointing good judges (which one can argue all of the above six probably would do) and actively fighting to limit abortions (like proposing more bans like the Partial Birth Abortion ban, but targeting procedures that would have more effect).
Brownback’s stands out for economic conservatives as well. The Club for Growth says, “Senator Brownback has proven himself to be, on balance, a strong defender of limited government and pro-growth policies … “On taxes, Social Security reform, school choice, and tort reform, Senator Brownback has demonstrated an outstanding commitment to fighting for American taxpayers. His record on trade, political speech, and government regulation of business is generally pro-freedom, with a few exceptions.” The National Taxpayers Union gave him an “A” and called him a “taxpayer friend.” He’s also been given a 100% rating by CATO.
May 9th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Sharpton hits back at Romney:
http://qconline.com/archives/qco/display.php?id=337738
May 9th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
“I intend to engage on this. He’ll find out rabbit hunting ain’t fun when the rabbit’s got the gun,” Sharpton said.
May 9th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
Only Reverend Al could say something like that.
May 9th, 2007 at 10:52 pm
Smart move my Rudy…
May 9th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
very smart.
May 9th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
Hopefully he’ll do the same thing for gay rights.
May 9th, 2007 at 11:08 pm
Ditto on that, Nusrat.
May 9th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
Glad to see this went off-topic so quickly, since this is a non-starter. Who here remembers that Laura Bush, Dubya’s wife, is pro-choice? Raise your hands, now!
How about everyone who remembers that Barbara Bush, Dubya’s mother, is pro-choice? Raise your hands!
Now, everybody raise your hands if you remember how badly that influenced abortion policy toward the pro-choice side during Dubya’s stay in office. No hands? Good.
May 9th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
DaveG, “extinguishing young life” is pretty tough language. But I completely agree with it.
Do you believe Mayor Giuliani is similarly guilty of “extinguishing young life”?
Is your standard of support for a GOP presidential candidate in 2008 now going to be that they must be genuinely pro-life?
May 9th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
By the by, here’s the link for that info.
May 9th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
I agree Nusrat. Rudy needs to stop hiding his liberalism. It’ll be easier for conservatives to defeat him.
Perhaps he can run on the libertarian party ticket after he loses.
May 9th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
Where are all of the Flipper Romneybots?
They kind of shut up, no?
May 9th, 2007 at 11:31 pm
econ grad stud, What you miss is this will clear the air to emphasize Rudy’s intransigence on defense and economic conservatism.
May 9th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
“Do you believe Mayor Giuliani is similarly guilty of “extinguishing young life”?
Is your standard of support for a GOP presidential candidate in 2008 now going to be that they must be genuinely pro-life?”
While the post must be read with the proper dose of sarcasm, the truth is that, yes, I do believe that abortion is ending, or extinguishing, a life, and I would certainly never give money to an organization that provides abortions, nor would I support public funds going towards abortions. I don’t really care too much about the “genuinely” part of the pro-life position of the GOP presidential candidate, as long as they’re willing to cut a deal with the pro-life base and promise to uphold Hyde, appoint anti-Roe judges, etc. One of the things that irritates me about Romney supporters is that they’re willing to suspend their clearly strong intellects (not being sarcastic at all) and believe a fish story regarding Romney’s conversion while trashing Rudy for basically coming to the table to make a deal and for not pretending to have some last-minute conversion on abortion right before he decided to run for POTUS. And I have been critical of Rudy for not always seeming like his heart is in the deal that he’s making, such as refusing to call Roe bad law and always inserting the caveat in his abortion language that his judges “might” uphold Roe.
I think Rudy’s clear discomfort with the “deal” and Romney’s brazen opportunism has the potential to drive voters back into the arms of the always pro-life McCain by default.
May 9th, 2007 at 11:44 pm
DaveG: Rudy is taking the exact same line Roberts and Alito did in their confirmation hearings, for the same reason.
May 10th, 2007 at 12:04 am
I couldn’t care less about Rudy’s supposedly good views on those issues. He’s an inferior conservative who doesn’t hold consistent positions. If he’s all for killing millions of third trimester fetuses why do terrorists killing a few thousand New Yorkers bother him. I want a genuine conservative for President and there are 7 other options.
I wish you Rudy supporters the best. I’ll do everything I can in Missouri (where I’m a resident) to campaign for the candidate most likely to beat him.
I’ll also be working to re-elect Matt Blunt and Jo Ann Emerson. I support real Republicans, not politicians from places so liberal they think they’re conservative just because they don’t like crime, appeasement or taxes.
May 10th, 2007 at 12:07 am
I believe it is absolutely consistent to defend FREEDOM in 3 ways:
1. Economic freedom (economic conservatism)
2. Personal freedom (social liberalism)
3. America and its freedoms (national security conservatism)
You may have a difference of conscience on abortion, which is a difficult issue.
May 10th, 2007 at 12:07 am
I believe that triad is more consistent than traditional conservatism or traditional liberalism.
May 10th, 2007 at 12:08 am
The other consistent position is its inverse: pacifistic populism. Consistently anti-freedom.
May 10th, 2007 at 12:09 am
Econ,
I am trying to remember, do you support anyone yet? If not how do you view Romney, McCain and FDT? Just curious.
May 10th, 2007 at 12:25 am
I don’t support anyone yet. I’m a paleoconservative which makes picking a candidate early a bit difficult.
I’ve got positive views on all of the candidates you mentioned though.
McCain’s got a strong sense of patriotism and a sense of national greatness/responsibility. I also respect his willingness to buck his party and national opinion when his conscience demands it.
Romney reformed healthcare in a way that is consistent with conservative principles. I think that is a wonderful achievement for any GOP governor let alone one in Massachusetts.
Fred Thompson was for playing hardball with China. I don’t enough about him now to say any more about him.
In addition;
I like Huckabee’s rhetoric because it frames conservative stances as common sense.
I like Sam Brownback’s commitment on life issues.
I like Duncan Hunter’s realism on the need to stop China and Japan from taking advantage of America with unfair trade policies.
In general I like all the candidates but I’ve got disagreements with all of them on some issues.
May 10th, 2007 at 12:38 am
Sharpton intends to stop Romney’s campaign now. My suggestion is to follow this advise from Jesus Christ: “For if you forgive men their
trespasses, heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if
you forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses”. So will Al take this opportunity of being forgiven of his sins and forgive the Mormon church for not giving up a bigoted practice before 1978? Will the people who were offended by Al (including those in the Romney campaign) take this opportunity to be forgiven of their sins by forgiving Al Sharpton for his remark? I doubt it, but we will see.
May 10th, 2007 at 12:43 am
econ,
Obama wants to unite the country for the sake of unity itself, but McCain understands that the nation must be united in order to return to strength and greatness. His sense of patriotism is truly rare in American politics these days and is something that greatly resonates with me as well.
Out of curiosity, what disagreements do you have with him?
May 10th, 2007 at 12:52 am
I’m for a much more humble role for America internationally _after_ we stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan. I didn’t support the invasion of Iraq in 2002 so that’s an area of disagreement. I also disagree with McCain over China. I see China as a more durable, subtle and economically savvy USSR. We shouldn’t be accommodating them and allowing them too much influence on our economy.
Those are my main areas of disagreement with McCain.
May 10th, 2007 at 10:13 am
OFCOURSE Rudy is taking a firm stance on his pro-choice position. HE IS A LEADER.
May 10th, 2007 at 10:23 am
PS Don’t you think he is really STICKING IT to the ones who dig up the dirt on him with Planned Parenthood??
I told you all before, Rudy cannot be messed with. It is true he could lose the nomination…nothing is guaranteed….but he will prove himself as the leader he is.
May 10th, 2007 at 10:26 am
re: Sharpton and Romney: Romney is just jumping all over this to make himself look good. Its a given that Romney is an A-hole of the first degree, but Romney is desperate for attention OF ANY KIND.
May 10th, 2007 at 10:26 am
OOOPS………Sharpton is the A-hole… sorry
May 10th, 2007 at 11:23 am
Lapsus lingua, huh?
May 10th, 2007 at 11:38 am
Hehe, I just realized that last night, I posted this on the wrong thread. I was a little tired, and obviously thought I was somewhere where I wasn’t.
So here it is again, on the right thread:
Not really relevant, but when I got married, I didn’t have insurance and couldn’t afford to go to the doctor to get a prescription for birth control. I went to PP and got birth control from them. I went home all excited about how cheap their birth control was (it was something like $6 a month, whereas if I had gotten it from a pharmacy, it would have been in the $30 range.) I told my mom how grateful I was for PP. She got a funny look on her face and told me that some people didn’t like PP. It wasn’t until later I found out that they did abortions.
Yes, I am completely oblivious at times, why do you ask?
So that’s my own contact with PP. I know they’re bad (ie, provide abortions,) but they certainly helped me out when I needed it. I used the birth control from them for a year, and saved quite a bit of money because of it, at a time when my husband and I made church mice look like millionaires. We were very, very poor, and the fact that the birth control was offered at such a low price was a huge deal to me.
I’m not about to go donate money to them, but I’m also not going to go protest outside of the clinics and throw rotten eggs at them. I’m on the fence about PP.
Regarding Ann’s donation, considering the Romneys are multimillionaires, $150 is a drop in the bucket. I’m not going to get riled up about it. And since when was Ann Romney running for president anyway?
Hava
http://mittforpresident.wordpress.com/
May 10th, 2007 at 11:48 am
A very eloquently written piece by one Dr. Steven Taylor:
Former Gov. Mitt Romney’s wife, Ann, gave an $150 donation to the abortion-rights group Planned Parenthood in 1994, at a time when Romney considered himself effectively “pro-choice,” the Romney campaign confirmed today.
Campaign spokesman Kevin Madden said Ann Romney had no recollection of the circumstances under which she donated the money.
One sometimes thinks that the the political class needs to take ginkgo biloba
Seriously, how does one contribute money to a highly controversial group, when one’s husband is a prominent politician, and not remember doing so?
Ultimately this will fuel the fire that Romney is a flip-flopper who has changed his views not for principle, but for political expediency.
Such revelations will not help Romney with hardcore evangelicals who are already skeptical about his religion.
May 10th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
I would say one Dr. Steven Taylor needs to get a sense of perspective.
(1) This happened thirteen years ago during Mitt Romney’s pro-choice days.
(2) Ann did it, not Mitt.
(3) Do you remember every little penny-annie donation you made back in 1994? Do you remember ANY donations you made back in 1994?
(4) Mit was not a “prominent politician” back in 1994. He was, at best, the sacrifical lamb that the GOP was offering up as token opposition to Ted Kennedy. It was his first time running for public office. That he did so well came as a shock to everyone, including Teddy. Quick, name the GOP opponent to Kennedy in 1988, in 2000. Howabout just last year in 2006? Would you call them “prominent politicians” when nobody can even remember their names?
May 10th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
KT,
Firstly, do you think the Romney’s are really going to remember a donation from 13 years ago for $150, when they regularly donate millions to various causes?
As for your charge that this will fuel the flip-flopper charge on Romney, you seem to have missed the boat. Mitt never donated to PP and Ann is not running for President.
You’re suspending your higher thought processes in favor of criticizing candidates not named Rudy.
May 10th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Murphy, even though Romney’s WIFE and not himself made the contribution, it goes to show what a fake he is, for POSSIBLY having been the one to dig up the dirt on Rudy. The man is a shallow, flip-flopping FAKE and he will never be elected president. If you (and most of you other Romneybots on here) cant take the heat get out of the kitchen. Listen closely: I AM AGAINST ROMNEY. PERIOD. GET OVER IT.
May 10th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
here is an article for some of you who wish to be open minded and reasonable:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_carlson&sid=aLt4iUxN6jSU
May 10th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
KT,
What heat?
May 10th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
KT,
How does Ann Romney’s donation to PP show that he possibly dug up the dirt on Rudy?
As for the dirt, I really don’t care where it comes from so long as it comes now. Did you really think that the Clinton machine was going to miss Giuliani’s donations or Ann Romney’s donation. It is much better for the GOP to know all of our nominee’s warts ahead of time than to get suprised In Oct. 2008.
This is a non-issue. Can we please talk about substantive politics. Who has the best immigration plan? Who has the best plan to fix Social Security and Medicare? What will each of the candiates do about China and the rest of Asia? What about energy policy? How about the trade deficit? How long until the budget will be balanced? What will they do if the surge doesn’t work? How will they handle Iran? What can you do to fix the education system? What will you do to fix/simplify the tax code?
These are the issues that people care about. In addition to making sure we have seen all of our candidates skeletons how about we let them (or make them) put for ideas about all of these issues.
May 10th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
KT,
So, because Romney’s wife donated $150 to PP in 1994, it means Mitt is a fake because he became pro-life in 2005? And not only that, but you suspect (out of paranoia perhaps) that Romney dug up dirt on your guy? No offense, but I’m over the fact that you’re a Rudy guy. I’m quite happy about it, in fact. But that’s not gonna stop me from pointing out the inaccuracies in your anti-Romney shills.
Nice pro-abortion article, by the way.
May 10th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
How does a donation his wife made 13 years ago for a cause neither of them had any real problem with at the time show what a fake he is?
KT, you are veering into Republius territory for condemning a candidate for something that he possibly might have done.
Giuliani is a big fat target. So is Mitt Romney. So is John McCain. So is Fred Thompson. The notion that only their GOP opponents are doing opposition research on them is hopelessly naive. Any reporter with any ambition at all is just itching to bring down a high profile Presidential candidate. It would set them up for life. They are doing their own digging.
Did you never hear of Gary Hart? He challenged the media to find dirt on him. They did. End of campaign for President.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
KT,
Perhaps you are mixing up your candidates. It was Giuliani that told Barbara Walters that his wife would be sitting in on Cabinet meetings. That would make Judith Giuliani’s views far more important in the Presidential race than Ann Romney’s, would it not?
May 10th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
What a stupid post.
ZERO lives were wiped out by Ann Romney as $150 was less than the cost of an abortion in 1994. Mitt has given at least $15,000 to pro-life groups. Do the math.
May 10th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Mitty and Sharpy are using one another for political gain: Mitty is attacking Sharpy to look strong to conservatives, and Sharpy is attacking Mitty to HELP Mitty look strong to conservatives, so that he and not RUDY will become the nominee (remember, the dems fear Rudy like the second coming).
May 12th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Y’know, at least Rudy respected Donna and Judith enough to make them legal. I mean, what if he had just kept them mistresses and not married? So that says something for the guy. And then on top of that he’d give Judith a cabinet position. That’s even MORE respect for the girl from Rudy, bless his heart.
Honestly, figuring out where Giuliani is coming from is too taxing for my simplicity-loving brain cells.