The Candidates
Featured Archives
A friend (a pro-life, socially conservative Republican) recently expressed a frustration with some of our ideological brethren:
“When did abortion start dividing people within our own party in this manner that we’re fighting with each other and trying to provoke fights? I see a lot of conservatives fighting with each other, fellow Republicans, with far more vigor than they go after the Democrats. This is outrageous behavior.”
In short, why are conservatives, whose differences amongst themselves have more to do with tactics than objectives, seemingly intent on devouring one another?
In response to this friend, I commented that American conservatism suffers from the lack of an identifiable consensus leader that can unite us all. Not since Ronald Reagan left office has conservatism produced a leader of national stature that we could all rally behind – and this lack of leadership since Reagan has been one of the great failings of this generation of conservatives. Leaderless, conservatism has deteriorated back to base instincts: eccentricity, paranoia, and nostalgia (to borrow an observation made by authors John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge in their generally positive history of contemporary American conservatism, The Right Nation). Under Reagan, conservatism was forward looking, positive, pro-active, visionary, out-reaching, appealing, unifying, and rational. Conservatism since Reagan has become stuck-on-stupid, negative, reactive, single-issued, inward-looking, strident, off-putting, divisive, and emotive. We keep looking for the next Reagan because conservatism hasn’t been as appealing or as victorious as it was in the Reagan era. Until we have a leader who can turn conservatism around to make it a positive force in American politics, I’m afraid that “appealing to the base” (meaning, as I’m using the term, appealing to the “base nature” of conservatism today) is a recipe for electoral disaster.
I would add that many conservatives have become overly idealistic, and consequently have become unrealistic about the progress of their issues. Many pro-life voters, as an example, reflect this unrealistic perspective on the politics of abortion. Here’s the reality: It’s been almost 35 years since Roe v. Wade. Over that time we’ve had almost 19 years and counting of pro-life presidents (Reagan, Bush-41, Bush-43), 12 years of Republican majorities in the House, and 16 years of Republican majorities in the Senate. And what do we have to show in terms of substantive progress on the abortion issue for all of that political advantage? The only issue that has passed Congress is the partial-birth abortion ban, but even that had to be affirmed by a recent decision of the Supreme Court.
The fate of Roe v. Wade, and pretty much the entire abortion issue, rests with the courts. A president can do very little on the issue, as we’ve seen over the past 35 years. Even the current President Bush, probably the most pro-life of presidents since the Roe decision, has talked about the importance of developing a “culture of life,” because he knows that ultimately the issue will be decided out in the culture, not in Washington. No one, not even each of pro-life candidates for President this go-around who have served in Congress, sponsored a Pro-Life Amendment to the Constitution. Roe pretty much took the issue out of the hands of the legislative and congressional branches. The best we can expect and hope for is a president who will appoint strongly conservative judges to the courts with the hope that legal travesties like the Roe decision will never again be handed down by the Supreme Court, and that Roe will either be chipped-away at around the margins, or will be overturned and the issue returned to the states.
There are some in the pro-life movement who have said it is vitally important that the GOP nominate a candidate for president who is personally pro-life. I ask, “Why?,” again citing 35 years of pro-life activism since Roe, which, if anything, have proven how unrealistic it is to assume that the issue can be progressed simply by electing a pro-life president, or even a pro-life congress. Those who say that the GOP needs to nominate a pro-life candidate are going to have to convince me why it’s important, considering 35 years of the near fecklessness of the pro-life movement.
Getting down to what this all means in the campaign for the nomination…Rudy’s pledge to appoint strict constructionists to the courts is about as good as it’s going to get for the pro-life movement. Even Reagan was spotty on his appointments to the Supreme Court, which means that Rudy’s appointments might actually be better for the pro-life issue than Reagan’s were (heresy, I know). And while GW Bush has been strongly pro-life, and the GOP had a majority in the Senate for four years of his Administration, some of Bush’s more solidly conservative judicial nominations never even came to a vote. So, to threaten to sit out the election if “pro-choice” Rudy Giuliani is nominated, or to hold the party, the nation, and every other issue of importance in the election hostage to the single issue of abortion, is unrealistic, naive, and just wrong-headed.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
Good post Greg. People like you are the people who will be driiving the conservative agenda tomorrow.
Many people are starting to realise that Giuliani’s postion actually makes sense. How many candidates can lay
claim to a 16% drop in the instance of abortion and a rise in adoptions to their record? How many candidates have
actually done something to curtail abortions?
Actions speak louder than words.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
Damnit. I’ve spent the last six or seven hours working on a post with a somewhat similar theme
November 29th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
I am not sure I agree with you. I am typing this quickly, so please pardon my mess. I think the major cause of the conservatism falling apart is that none of the persons we elected to positions of influence (president and congress) have followed through with their campaign promises. True, they may be limited on what they can do to override the decisions, but there are check and balance aspect that they have not taken advantage. They have not gone to press to ring out the issues that matter. They have allowed Democrats to toss them around. Sorry, but most of the Republican officals are not true conservatives. A lot of people out there have not been taught the conservative principles (myself included), and as such, they see conservatism as something that those Republicans have illustrated — bigger government, fights everywhere, problems at home unsolved, and more. I know this is not true, and we have been fighting uphill via our radio and blogs against this incorrect vision. We are getting better. But we have reached only a small segment of the population. There is nothing more visible than the President of US and the Congress. For instance, my own Idaho House Representative — Mike Simpson, voted for every single increase in government, even that joke of expanded child health — TWICE!!! He kept getting voted in just because he has (R) next to his name, but he has not voted conservatially (is it a word?).
November 29th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Well, as I said, pardon my mess. I said “none of person”. It is not exactly true. We do have some good leaders in the Capitol, but they remains significantlly small – comparing with others from their own party.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
Greg: The best we can expect and hope for is a president who will appoint strongly conservative judges to the courts with the hope that legal travesties like the Roe decision will never again be handed down by the Supreme Court…Rudy’s pledge to appoint strict constructionists to the courts is about as good as it’s going to get for the pro-life movement.
And this is the crux of it for me. Rudy Giuliani has long held that Roe v Wade was correctly decided, and good constitutional law. He doesn’t think it’s a travesty at all. He likes it. He also defines himself a strict constructionist.
Allow that to sink in for a moment. Rudy Giuliani will appoint strict constructionist judges, because he will have stripped all meaning from the term.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
Kris: How many candidates can lay claim to a 16% drop in the instance of abortion and a rise in adoptions to their record?
Bill Clinton comes to mind. He presided over a nearly 50% national drop during the very same time period as Rudy Giuliani. In fact, Bill Clinton seems to have done 3 times the good that Rudy has in this regard.
Correlation is not always causation.
November 29th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Rudy made a really good speech to FedSoc, and it might convince me to vote for him in the general. However, the claim that he couldn’t have said anything more to assure SoCons is false, he could have condemned Roe like it seems all the other candidates have done.
November 29th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Oops. My math was off. Bill Clinton presided over a 36% drop, not a 58% drop. So he’s only twice as good as Rudy.
Pesky denominators.
November 29th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Rudy Giuliani has committed to nominating only strict constructionist judges if elected. Giuliani has been on a rightward faith walk for some time now. I think that if elected historians will likely look back and wonder why anyone was ever suspicious of his allegiance to the cause of life. He may end up being the greatest champion of the Pro-Life cause due in part to circumstance and timing and in part to his own evolving value-based principles.
November 29th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
JA Pruce,
It really doesn’t do Rudy any good at all to paint him as the shining white knight of the pro-life movement. Just last month Rudy himself denied the “effectively pro-life” label.
November 29th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
I realize that pro-life Presidents can only do so much about abortion.
The answer to that isn’t to just give up and nominate a pro-choice candidate like Giuliani. We don’t need a shady candidate who doesn’t care whether Roe is overturned or not. That just takes the issue of human rights off the table.
Now I don’t vote for pro-choice candidates ever so if the Republican Party wants to nominate that type of candidate I’ll have to withdraw from national politics.
November 29th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
JA Pruce,
You miss the point, entirely. Yes, Rudy has said this. However, as murphy pointed out above and as I have pointed out in the past, when Rudy defines Roe v Wade as good constitutional law he redefines strict constructionism to his definition. That then allows him to appoint judges that would, had Roe v Wade never happened, rule that a “woman’s right to choose” is in the constitution.
November 29th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
Murphy,
Giuliani will appoint strict constructionist judges if he’s interested in a second term.
I thought Rudy came pretty darn close in last night’s debate to satisfying pro-life Republicans who are actually receptive to voting for him in the primary, but first want some assurance that he does not consider Roe to be correctly decided or good constitutional law.
Rudy Giuliani: “The problem with Roe against Wade is that it took the decision away from the states. If Roe against Wade were overturned because it was poorly decided, if the justices decide that, it would them go back to the states, and it would seem to me that that would be the answer.
“The answer is that each state would make a different decision. I don’t believe, in the circumstance that you asked before, that it should be criminalized. I think that would be a mistake unless we’re talking about partial birth abortion or late-term abortion.
“I think you should have parental consent. I think we should have access to adoptions instead of abortion. But, ultimately, I think these decisions should be made on a state-by-state basis.”
November 29th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
murphy,
I am not saying that Rudy is the most ideal candidate ever, but if he is the nominee we have to get Values Voters on board and stress the harmony and agreement we have not the frissures and fractures. I could easily vote for any of our candidates and Rudy is currently my third choice, but we should not disparage him on one issue that I can see him evolving on and growing in office. Maybe, he won’t but we just can’t say for certain. We certainly could not have predicted from his assertions ten years ago that Mitt Romney would be the most Pro-Life nominee running today.
November 29th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
Very well said Greg.
November 29th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
JA Pruce
“We certainly could not have predicted from his assertions ten years ago that Mitt Romney would be the most Pro-Life nominee running today.”
That’s because he isn’t.
November 29th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
Aron,
I’m sorry. I missed last night’s debate. Thanks for the quotes. Three questions for you.
1. Does this mean that Rudy has flipped on Roe v Wade being good constitutional law?
2. If so, do you think it’s out of political necessity to win the nomination, or out of a change of heart?
3. Has Rudy admitted that this constitutes a change from his previous view?
The answer to #3 is the most basic criteria for evaluating a candidate’s honesty. If Rudy admits that his view on Roe v Wade has now completely changed, ONLY THEN can we ponder if he is sincere. But if he denies an obvious change of position, there is no reason to trust him whatsoever.
And I disagree regarding the idea that he has to appoint the right judges if he wants to get reelected. If we are this close to nominating a candidate so diametrically opposed to social conservatism, I can’t imagine why we would have any hope of unseating our own sitting president in 2012.
November 29th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
This post is absurd. Do you realize how the partial-birth abortion ban was upheld?? Roberts and Alito. And do you know why there is no federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research (that of which creates new lines)? Because Pres. Bush vetoed the legislation! Do you realize how detrimental Clinton was to the pro-life movement? And you wonder why we are demanding a pro-life president? You are very, very ignorant of the pro-life movement. You also seem very ignorant that pro-lifers are the ones who knock on doors, make GOTV phone calls, etc… Why? Because they have an issue that actually motivates them: an issue of life or death.
November 29th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
All three networks ran stories about Giuliani’s billing records problem during the evening news. And each story included that the expenses related to Giuliani visiting his “mistress.” One broadcast called it an extramarital affair. CBS showed a copy of the New Hampshire Union Leader with the story on the front page.
I don’t think there is a scandal here, but it is curious that these expenses seem to have been hidden. And the only expenses hidden were those for visiting his mistress. Even a hint of scandal is more than the electorate can bare.
November 29th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
Billy,
What could Mayor Giuliani say to you that would persuade you to change your mind about him? Can you not agree that his commitment to the nomination of strict constructionist judges is a good first step?
November 29th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
This post is absurd. Do you realize how the partial-birth abortion ban was upheld?? Roberts and Alito. And do you know why there is no federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research (that of which creates new lines)? Because Pres. Bush vetoed the legislation! Do you realize how detrimental Clinton was to the pro-life movement? And you wonder why we are demanding a pro-life president? You are very, very ignorant of the pro-life movement. You also seem very ignorant that pro-lifers are the ones who knock on doors, make GOTV phone calls, etc… Why? Because they have an issue that actually motivates them: an issue of life or death.
AMEN…Preach it Billy…This post is so out of whack it makes me question how sincere a Pro-Lifer this person really is…If they knew anything about what Clinton did they would know he important it is we avoid another pro choice president…Your talking about SC justices who could sit on the bench upward of 40 years(not to mention lower court justices)…Mexico City Policy…ability to veto Stem Cell measures (like the ones Bush has vetoed)…Clinton opened up Taxpayer funds for
abortions…there is so much more that a president can do…
November 29th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
I’ll second what econ grad student said…It would be really…REALLY…hard to vote pro choice…Right now there is no way i will do it…
November 29th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
When did abortion start dividing people within our own party in this manner that we’re fighting with each other and trying to provoke fights?
I can tell you it’s been around at least 8 years. Observe:
In any event, two National Right to Life Committee chapters began running ads simply stating facts about McCain: his vote in favor of experimentation on aborted baby parts, his support for Roe, and his jokes about the old folks’ home and Alzheimer’s disease.
-Ann Coulter Jan 18, 2000
Emphasis mine. Only Ann with a straight face could portray McCain as an abortion flip flop and then support Romney as the conservatives’ best shot just a few years later. So what if you don’t care about Ann. Lot’s of people do. She’s a NY Times best seller.
November 29th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
Having a President who’s willing to stand up for the pro-life side matters.
If Giuliani was President abortion wouldn’t be an issue anymore. We’d have a pro-choice Congress and a pro-choice President. The issue of human life would be ignored for years.
Sorry, but what does Giuliani offer to a pro-lifer that negates his disrespect for human life?
Is he going to veto any bill that advances the pro-choice agenda?
Probably not. If he’s nominated it shows respect for human life isn’t a defining issue in the Republican Party anymore.
November 29th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
murphy,
Compare what Rudy said last night with his words of nearly 10 months ago, from an interview with Sean Hannity. Look at what he said during the May debate in California, and in an interview over six months ago with Chris Wallace. Then tell me if you really see a significant shift in philosophy or legal reasoning.
February 5, 2007
HANNITY: Is Roe bad?
GIULIANI: I think that’s up to the court to decide. I think that it’s been precedent for a very, very long time. There are questions about the way it was decided and some of the bases for it. At this point, it’s precedent. It’s going to be very interesting to see what Chief Justice Roberts and what Justices Scalia and Alito do with it.
HANNITY: Partial birth?
GIULIANI: Partial-birth abortion, I think that’s going to be upheld. I think that ban is going to be upheld. I think it should be. And I think, as long as there’s provision for the life of the mother, then that’s something that should be done.
HANNITY: There’s a misconception that you supported partial-birth abortion.
GIULIANI: Yes, well, if it doesn’t have a provision for the life of the mother, then I wouldn’t support the legislation. If it has provision for the life of the mother, then I would support it.
HANNITY: Parental notification?
GIULIANI: Parental notification, I think you have to have a judicial bypass. If you do, you can have parental notification. And I think the court — I mean, that’s the kind of thing I think the court will do with abortion.
During the California debate, Giuliani said, “I think the court has to make that decision [to overturn Roe] and then the country can deal with it. We’re a federalist system of government, and states can make their own decisions.”
Then, from his appearance on Fox News Sunday…
GIULIANI: I’m going to select strict constructionist judges. They’re free to take a look at Roe against Wade, take a look at the limitations. But I believe I should leave it to them to decide that.
WALLACE: But just to revise your answer last week, then, you personally, supporting choice, would not feel it’s OK if the Supreme Court…
GIULIANI: What I meant to convey — if I didn’t convey it correctly, I’ll convey it again. The country could handle it. I mean, the country — we’ve got a federal system. What would happen is states would make decisions.
We’re already doing that with the Hyde amendment. Federal funds for abortion are limited. States make their own decisions.
November 29th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
econ erad stud:
“f he’s nominated it shows respect for human life isn’t a defining issue in the Republican Party anymore.”
I totally respect your opinion and convictions econ, but this sounds a little like a September 10th mentality. There are many issues that weigh heavily on the minds of Values Voters not the least of which is defeating the terrorists and spreading freedom and liberty throughout the Middle East.
November 29th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
Holy Crap – I just found myself agreeing with Rett. The moon must be full tonight. Maybe I’m the one smoking the good stuff.
Perhaps this just shows how the issue of life can bring real pro-lifers together.
November 29th, 2007 at 8:15 pm
Aron #25,
Regarding the statement that you highlighted from Rudy. That is possibly a dodge, in that he is stating an obvious fact without taking a position. OR, if he’s stating his opinion, that’s a flip from his position that he took several years ago when he declared Roe v Wade to be correctly decided and good constitutional law. Either way, it seems Rudy has flipped his position. Either 10 months ago with Hannity, or in last night’s debate, or some time in between. And now I refer back to questions #2 and #3 in my #17 post.
Also, I’m glad you included the rest of that text of the interview. Rudy has denied ever opposing a ban for partial-birth abortion in the presence of a mother’s-life clause. Or, in other words, he denies that he has completely flipped his position on PBA bans. This is a complete lie. The previous PBA ban Rudy opposed had a similar provision for the mother.
That’s why pro-lifers shouldn’t trust Rudy’s promises. He lies to us.
November 29th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
JA Pruce, voters like me might not be very common out in the electorate. I don’t know.
Perhaps I’m not as morally evolved as some people. I’m just not capable of voting for a pro-choice candidate.
If others can vote for Giuliani (in the general election) I don’t judge them. That’s a matter of their conscience. I do think those that would vote for him in the primary are either willfully deceiving themselves or betraying our moral principles.
November 29th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
Rudy says it was pre-debate hit job, dirty trick.
CBS Evening News Giuliani Transcript
November 29th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
econ grad stud,
Could Rudy say anything to you that would persuade you otherwise?
November 29th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
JA Pruce #31,
Perhaps a good start for Rudy would be to be honest about his former positions, and to clarify exactly what has changed.
November 29th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
muphy,
What about Mayor Giuliani’s commitment to nominate only strict constructionist judges. I understand that this promise is pacifying previously hesitant Values Voters.
November 29th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
He could have pulled a “Romney” and been convincing. I’d likely have voted for him in the general then giving him the benefit of the doubt.
At this point it’s too late for him to do that.
I can’t be persuaded to vote for a pro-choice candidate in good conscience. As I said I don’t fault others who would vote for Giuliani against Hillary.
November 29th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
#26 “[T]his sounds a little like a September 10th mentality. There are many issues that weigh heavily on the minds of Values Voters not the least of which is defeating the terrorists and spreading freedom and liberty throughout the Middle East.”
Um, this sounds as if being opposed to pro-abortion Giuliani is equivalent to being pro-terrorist.
November 29th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
JA Pruce #33 – Rudy has already lost that battle as he called Roe v Wade “good law.” If that is how he describes a strict constructionist then I don’t want him appointing “strict constructionists.”
November 29th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
I can accept that some have very strong convictions and choose to oppose Giuliani based on a potential misunderstanding of his positions and I respect that, however, one of the most underreported undercurrents in this campaign has been the subtle anti-catholic and anti-Italian-American bigotry covertly targeting Rudy.
November 29th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
HOLY S**T!!! THAT WAS THE MOST MORONIC AND BLATANTLY RIDICULOUS COMMENT EVER MADE ON THIS SITE. RON PAUL MAKES MORE SENSE THEN YOU DO WHEN HE TALKS ABOUT A NORTH AMERICAN UNION. I CAN NOT BELIEVE I JUST READ THAT. WHAT ABSOLUTE BULLSH****
November 29th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
Is it just me? Or does Mitt Romney look really uncomfortable talking about whether he believes in the Bible or not?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cyl_BedV8KY
November 29th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
Who cares how he looked? That question was completely out of line for a Presidential debate! And I’m one of those evangelical Southern Baptist Convention conservatives that are supposedly so concerned about my President’s religion. I wish he would have said this is a debate to become Commander in Chief not Pastor in Chief.
November 29th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
JA Pruce,
No. When Rudy said he wouldn’t pass a national ban on abortion passed by Congress he lost my vote, because that shows he is pro-abortion no matter what representatives of the people say.
I would vote for Romney before I’d ever vote for Rudy in a primary, and people on this site know how I feel about Romney.
I want a nominee who will not only nominate presumably pro-life justices but also:
1) Will sign ALL pro-life legislation and push for legislation that has not yet been passed, such as the Child Custody Protection Act, which got stalled in the Senate two summers ago.
2) Pledge to veto all pro-abortion legislation
3) Hold the line on stem-cell research, at least adopt Bush’s policy on stem-cells (research existing lines, even though I am morally opposed).
4) Veto all cloning related bills.
5) Do everything in their power to stop federal funding of abortion, especially upholding the Mexico City Policy but also stopping domestic funding
And other items on my wish list include, but are not as important as the other ones:
1) Speak In-Person at the March for Life (and it would be nice if the candidate had done it in the past, before deciding to run for president
2) Lay out a pro-life agenda each year at the State of the Union.
Please tell me which of these demands (and I mean demands) Rudy can fulfill.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
JA Pruce,
I don’t see any anti-Catholic bigotry, and certainly not among the online community. If it exists, it’s not subtle, but virtually invisible.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
Ray there are Southern Baptists in NH?
That’s news to me.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
Hello people. Just a little reminder of reality here.
There is a reason that the pro-life movement has accomplished little over the past 35 years.
We live in a democracy. The fundamental principle operating here is that the people get the government and the laws that they want.
Over these 35 years there has been a stable and substantial majority of Americans who support the basic Roe framework on abortion.
Whether couched in terms of a family’s or a woman’s right to control her own reproduction, or in terms of who it is that gets to decide when an embryo is to be considered a person – the American people support the idea of keeping the decision making power in the hands of the individual, and not turning it over to the state. There is no prospect of that changing.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
At least 2 – my wife and I. Actually, there are at least a dozen Southern Baptist Convention churches up here.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Dear lord, when did Tano get back? I wish he’d disappear again. Your comments are useless and based in your own little reality but not the real world.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
Ray,
I think Tano is fun.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Ray I had a friend of mine who was a Southern Baptist and a Youth Minister in Maine and I don’t think he could actually find an SBC Church to serve in.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
Maine is not New Hampshire. We are much more developed than the Mainiacs are. He should have just driven down the road to NH as there are at least 2 SBC churches with over 500 members each. One of them is right in Portsmouth which is the last NH town before Maine.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
JA Pruce #37: I can accept that some have very strong convictions and choose to oppose Giuliani based on a potential misunderstanding of his positions and I respect that…
What is the misunderstanding? Strict constructionist judges? Rudy’s unconventional definition for strict constructionism has come up a few times in this very thread, and you never address that. Nor do you address why pro-lifers might not trust a guy on one issue when he lies to them on another.
I’m perfectly willing to accept the idea that I’m wrong, but from what I’ve seen you have yet to even acknowledge the arguments.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
If I misunderstand Rudy on abortion it’s because he won’t come out and say exactly where he stands on the issue.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
actually, we live in republic.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
Marcus Jones post 39- nice effort to try to hijack the debate on a non issue but it wont work. Mitt agrees with the Bible. Im mormon and so do I. I studied it for 2 years while in high school each morning, so save it if you dont think mormons believe in the bible. R42008 isnt really the place for that debate.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
Rudy is pro-choice.
Rudy is a strict constructionist.
Obviously, to his mind, those two positions are not incompatible.
Which makes sense. Our rights represent all those free actions that we can engage in that are not forbidden or regulated by the government. And the government is given no mandate by the Constitution to regulate abortion.
I would not be surprised to see him appoint strict constructionists who strictly restrict the power of government in this area.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
I agree with Ray post 38– “one of the most underreported undercurrents in this campaign has been the subtle anti-catholic and anti-Italian-American bigotry covertly targeting Rudy.”- post 37 was one of the stupid things written on this website, perhaps ever.
The only bigotry that I see occassionaly is Mormon bigottry. Rudy doesnt even seem to act like a Catholic or make that a huge part of his person (pro choice, thrice married, etc). So why would anti catholic bigotry (if there really was any) have an effect on Rudy, who doesnt seem to live the “died in the wool Catholic” part.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
hey, I see a lot of anti-liberal bigotry in these campaign
November 29th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
Honestly I find that these never ending debates about Rudy, abortion, conception, pro life, socail conservative, etc, etc are really old and tiresome.
Many of his supporter are either pro choice, pro civil union, or they give the guy a pass because he is Rudy.
The real debate should be centered on big state vs early state, campaign funds and resources, IA and NH, polls, etc. That is what will decide this thing, and not where life begins or was Roe v Wade good law. Nobody will change anybody’s mind.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
I can accept that some have very strong convictions and choose to oppose Giuliani based on a potential misunderstanding of his positions and I respect that, however, one of the most underreported undercurrents in this campaign has been the subtle anti-catholic and anti-Italian-American bigotry covertly targeting Rudy.
This is the stupidest thing I’ve read all day.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
Rudy is pro-choice.
Rudy is a strict constructionist.
Obviously, to his mind, those two positions are not incompatible.
They’re not.
I’m anti-Roe, a strict constructionist, anti-partial birth abortion, and pro-choice.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
So, TLG, are you anti-Griswald too?
November 29th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
I’m pro-Constitution. Everything not specifically outlined in the Constitution is left to the states.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
“Our rights represent all those free actions that we can engage in that are not forbidden or regulated by the government.”
in one sentence you have completely obliterated the western concept of rights which took nearly a 1000 years to get…..our “free actions” derive from our rights…our rights do not simply “represent” all those free actions that gov’t allows us….a little slip of the tongue like that in lets say the medieval city states where much this debate started and we would look like the rest of the mediocre world today
November 29th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
“Everything not specifically outlined in the Constitution is left to the states.”
sort of …you are forgeting the progressives’ most reviled amendment (and the one that has been totally destroyed by progressives during the last centurty)…ole number 9….
based on the 9th amendment alot is also left to individuals..
November 29th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
No disrespect to those who contribute to this site but today was honestly a very boring day for posts. Following what i thought was the best debate thus far, we had no new polls, no new “this just out” kind of stories, no endorsements, nothing really. Just tired, old arguements about things like abortion, etc.
I hope there is some story or poll tomorrow with real meat on it that can give Rombots and Romnots something to fight about.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
Au standard,
Man, I dont know what planet you live on.
“you are forgeting the progressives’ most reviled amendment (and the one that has been totally destroyed by progressives during the last centurty)…ole number 9….”
Thats my favorite amendment.
It is the right-wingers (like Bork) who refer to that amendment as “a mere inkblot”.
The 9th amendment is precisely the basis for the concept of freedom for the individual that all the social conservatives revile. When they talk of judges who “invent rights” not listed in the Constitution, they forget the ninth amendment which recognizes that our rights are nearly limitless – restricted only by those actions that the government is allowed to regulate by the powers enumerated to it.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
AS,
And I dont know how to make heads or tails of your first comment, so….
November 29th, 2007 at 10:42 pm
the destruction of the 9th amendment was initiated and brought about (oh lets say 97% destruction) by progressive courts, the FDR court being the most widely known……
“restricted only by those actions that the government is allowed to regulate by the powers enumerated to it”….
enumerated powers were enumerated to limit the state, not limit individual rights….of course you make the very incorrect argument that progressives have made all along….the state can limit individual rights,(and hence the current state of ole number 9)
November 29th, 2007 at 10:42 pm
TLG,
Please answer my question re. Griswald.
It might help to get some sense of what you mean.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
“And I dont know how to make heads or tails of your first comment, so….”
…its really basic stuff…try harder
November 29th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
As,
Still dont know what you are talking about.
Maybe you can explain how FDR’s court destroyed individual rights. That might be a start.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
Husky – the David Keene announcement came out today. I realize it was early in the day and most everything since then has been dull but the Keene announcement is big. I think what happened was that all of the Romnot front page posters (including the new one brought in to move this site even more pro-Rudy) saw the Keene endorsement so they came up with 100 fluff posts so that the Keene post would be so far down on the front page that nobody would even see it.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
GWB has vetoed any bill that would promote or fund abortion providers in any way. Rudy has said that he believes that abortion is a constitutional right and so should be funded by the government. That puts him to the left of Joe Biden.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:07 am
[...] sucks!! –Does being a Woman or a minority change your perspective on the issues? –Conservatism’s Self-Inflicted Wounds–This article is a MUST READ –Today’s Republicans might not elect Reagan [...]
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:21 pm
“Damnit. I’ve spent the last six or seven hours working on a post with a somewhat similar theme”
Tommy, post it anyway.
Regards.
Greg
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:23 pm
“I think the major cause of the conservatism falling apart is that none of the persons we elected to positions of influence (president and congress) have followed through with their campaign promises.”
SGS, you’re right. There are very few good examples of conservatism in action.