Redstate

Why is it that people keep making this claim but I have yet to see any comment from Fred Thompson at any point in time where he was pro-choice? He seems pretty clear thet Roe v Wade was a terrible decision by the court and should be overturned. It seems to me that these comments are always coming from the Romney camp, as they are a bit self-conscious of their candidate's obvious flip on the position right at the time he was deciding he'd run for President.

Thompson has an unequivocal pro-life voting record. The "pro-choice" story originates, like so much other monkey poo being flung at candidates, with the Romney camp, in this case it comes from "Evangelicals for Mitt."

I give a link, down thread, to the National Right to Life Committee's response to that.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

It'll turn out that one of Fred's characters mentioned it once.

If you always find yourself arguing the exceptions rather than the rule you just might be rapidly sliding down your own slippery slope to irrelevance. -CommonCents

http://www.nysunpolitics.com/blog/2007/05/thompsons-1994-issue-positions...

http://www.myelectionanalysis.com

Fred Thompson said he though abortion should be legal for any reason in the first three months of pregnancy during his 1994 campaign for Senate.

The reason why his voting record in Congress is 100% on direct abortion votes is that all votes have been on regulating abortion on the margins (banning partial birth abortions, parental consent, informed consent, etc.)

Here is a link and a quote that shows his position.

http://vote-smart.org/npat.php?can_id=22003#408

"Abortions should be legal in all circumstances as long as the procedure is completed within the first trimester of the pregnancy."

I hope Fred Thompson changed his mind and is now pro-life but he was not pro-life in 1994.

I am not surprised by Rudy and Planned Parenthood but hopefully it will make more pro-lifers aware of how pro-abortion Rudy is.

Kevin Allen

that weren't "at the margins"? Or are you agreeing with National Right to Life on his record. Just trying to clarify this.

You've seen this, right?

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

I am agreeing with National Right to Life on his record. However all of the votes in question were on issues at the margin.

I did see the post you linked to. Like I said before I hope he is pro-life now but I need to hear more detail on his position on abortion.

but this really isn't responsive to the question.

It seems to me that you are criticizing Thompson for votes that were "at the margin" when, in fact, those were the only abortion related votes before the Senate.

How, exactly, was he supposed to vote on issues that were never submitted to a vote?

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

I was not criticizing Senator Thompson's voting record on abortion votes. My point is that Senator Thompson could have (and did) voted right on all of those votes and still be pro-abortion. Nothing in his voting record contradicts his answer to the survey that abortion should be legal in the first three months for any reason (article drudge linked to today) or that he didn't want to criminalize abortion (from you tube clip somebody posted today from the 94 campaign).

Senator Thompson has said that he is pro-life and believes that Roe vs. Wade was a bad decision.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258222,00.html

Ironically, it is the Romney supporters who try to bring up his previous positions on the issue. Unlike Mitt Romney, who until 2004!! was pro-choice, Fred Thompson has a solidly pro-life record.

Mitt Romney, on the other hand, was pro-choice throughout his campaign against Ted Kennedy, for his campaign for governor in 2002, and only when, conveniently, he decided to run for president, he "changed his mind."

If he and his forces are going to criticize other people for "changing their mind" many, many years before he did, they better be prepared to be called hypocrites.

The Difference with Romney is that he confronted his past and has taken all comers and questions. He was talking to Alan Colmes just last night about abortion. He'll talk to anybody, he will articulate his position and he will fight back.

Rudy hides behind innuendo and double-speak and got caught looking foolish during the debate. Rudy is stubborn and just tries to avoid the issue. Thomspon is nowhere to be found. Even on this post, you can read many naive and deluded Thompson supporters adamantly refusing to believe he was moderately Pro-choice.

Thompson and Rudy do not confront their past, do not answer the tough questions, and no not talk in favorable forums like Romney. Everyone knows where Romney stands because he put all his baggage out there, which in the long run will benefit him.

Rudy has confronted his past. He stands by his position - that's what is hurting him!!

Thompson isn't even a candidate. But even so, he has stood by his pro-life position for over a decade through his votes in the Senate, and the National Right to Life agrees that he is a solidly pro-life politician.

Mitt Romney, on the other hand, is a creature of convenience. "Hmm, I think I'll run for president. I guess I better be pro-choice!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9IJUkYUbvI

"I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country." - Mitt Romney 1994

http://web.archive.org/web/20021218005104/www.romneyhealey.com/issues/

"Mitt Romney would protect the current pro-choice status quo in Massachusetts...Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not the government's." - Mitt Romney, 2002

Well.

I guess "confronting your past" is easy when it wasn't so long ago.

"Mitt Romney, on the other hand, is a creature of convenience. "Hmm, I think I'll run for president. I guess I better be pro-choice!""

Should've read pro-life. See - I get so confused by Romney's abortion position that I type the wrong thing.

Then why were so many people suprised Rudy still think Roe was good Consitutional law, and so suprised that he supports taxpayer funded abortions, and so suprised that he has repeatedly given to planned-parenthood, ad so suprised that he cam out during the debate and said that it was okay if strict contrictionist judges overturned Roe and its okay if strict contructionists judges saw it as precedent and kept Roe.

Mealy-mouthed, Clinontesque doueble-speak. That's how. He just said I like strict constructionist judges and let conservatives assume he was with them.

And hey, weve all seen those clips of Romney about a thousand times now. Rudy and planned parenthood - brand new info. Thompson and the NY Sun article - brand new info. People are still learning about those two.

Tell me something about Romney I dont know, You can't. You rehash the same stuff over and over again because you don't have anything new. That one trick pony is getting lame. The people who see Romney on national shows like Leno and Hannity or saw him on the debate are all presently suprised because they realize he is not half as shady and opportunistic as his detractors make him out to be. You've used up that canard.

One can believe that Roe vs. Wade was a bad decision and still be pro-abortion.

I would very much like Senator Thompson to be pro-life but I need to hear more detail from him before I will be convinced.

Rudy said that he was in favor of strict constructionist jurors and everybody thought that meant he would appoint anti-Roe judges. Then he later clarified that he thought that a strict constructionist could vote to uphold Roe. Rudy's clarification tells me that he will NOT appoint strict constructionists to the court.

There's no quote there. Someone from that website simply checked a box. I have yet to see any quote from Thompson that is anything less than 100% pro-life. One article mis-stated his belief in 1994 and has been disputed by the NRLC. Romney, on the other hand, changed his position when it was politically convenient. I disagree with Rudy and I know he's trying to make his pro-abortion stance seem like no big deal, but at least he's standing on principle (albeit a flawed one) rather than trying to change course altogether simply because it is politically convenient. I wouldn't trust either of them to appoint constructionist judges who would overturn Roe v Wade because I don't see any record that proves they would do this. Thompson, on the other hand, has a record to back up what the NRLC says about him.

Since lame old youtube clips seem to be the flavor of the day for Romney haters:

Thompson:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5a_Fpu_8KE

Rudy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVBtPIrEleM

Oh come on. Thompson has remained consistent in his position that states should decide (which he very plainly said both there and recently with Fox News). There's simply no comparison between Rudy's continued pro-choice position, Mitt Romney's "evolution" on abortion, and Fred Thompson's federalist stance.

This is downright silly and pathetic what the Romney people are doing. It isn't surprising though. I would be angry if I had raised 23 million, spent a lot of it, and still was only at 10% behind a candidate hadn't spent a dime.

I disagree with his position that it should be left up to the states, but that doesn't conflict with his position that Roe v Wade was bad law, which he has consistently stated, and that the federal government should not support abortion. I personally think the federal government has the responsibility to protect all human life and that there should be a law defining when life begins and when it ends. However, I have supported candidates in the past with Thompson's views and I think his views certainly would have him appointing constructionist judges that would overturn Roe v. Wade. Romney's views? I don't trust him (or Rudy) to do the same. Both of them have been blatantly pro-choice and think that Roe v Wade was good law. This whole attempt by the Romney people to make people think that Romney has some pro-life record and Thompson is pro-choice is pretty disturbing and certainly does not give me a favorable opinion of Mr. Romney.

Romney's actual record is pro-life. He vetoed an abortion pill bill, for example. That said, I think Thompson's past positions were better than Romney's, though being mildly pro-choice in Tennessee was hardly a profile in pro-life courage. But on the whole I'd give Thompson a slight edge on pro-life issues, assuming he no longer supports first trimester abortions.

But what bugs he is how dishonest the Thompson camp has been about his past pro-choice positions. Thompson himself has acted like the whole thing was just someone misquoting him or something, but the evidence that he used to support first trimester abortions keeps piling up.

They that are with us are more than they that are against us.

They that are with us are more than they that are against us.

...reflects most of the country. Let's say you took a poll and asked:
Which is CLOSEST to your personal position on abortion:
1) It should never be legal regardless of the circumstances.
2) It should he legal for a short period of time (weeks not months) in cases of rapes or incest and illegal after that except to save the life of the mother.
3) It should be legal for the first trimester with only some restrictions like parental notification for minors and/or a 24- or 48-hour waiting period and illegal after that except to save the life of the mother.
4) It should be legal pretty much any time for any reason except partial birth abortion should be banned except to save the mother's life.
5) It should be legal any time for any reason using any method.

I'd think the results will be something like 10-10-60-10-10 or maybe 5-15-60-15-5. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think the people at either extreme represent majority opinion - not even close.

Thompson's old position is pretty mainstream. It won't harm him if he doesn't bungle by pretending that his views haven't changed since. Unfortunately he already sort of has.

They that are with us are more than they that are against us.

I wasn't trying to draw an analogy. The Fred story is reported right under the Rudy story on Drudge today. I've heard Fred trumpetted as the real conservative who can win. I was merely asking if he becomes less attractive if he has a pro-choice background, as the Drudge story would imply.
Sorry for the threadjack, though. Back to piling on Rudy!

Streiff is referring to Fred! not Rudy. But let's not get hijacked on the Fred question. It's a red herring.

The question is whether giving money to Planned Parenthood is a deal breaker. I'm fairly certain it is.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

I also seem to recall that his name is often spoken in the same breath as Ronald Reagan, and I presume he supported his wife.

So you tell me, how different is Rudy from AuH2O?

---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community

between what a candidate's spouse does and the actions of the candidate.

Let's see. Rudy is alive. Goldwater had more hair.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

But I also recall that he did not speak well of the religious right, Jerry Falwell in particular.

Can you imagine any Republican, except for the obvious RINOs, saying anything close to what Barry said? Nowadays even John McCain goes to speak at Liberty College.

---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community

It was not an issue when Goldwater was running for president. His support for abortion is a lasting stain on his legacy and it is certainly something no conservative should laud.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

The abortion issue was a non-issue when Goldwater was a conservative hero. It is widely acknowledged he went off the rails as a conservative in later years.

So I can only deduce that your definition of conservatism moved away from him, instead of him moving away from conservatism.

---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community

Compare his speeches and policy positions in, say, 1964 to his speeches and policy positions in 1986.

He changed, after he remarried. Oh, not on everything, or on most things; but on a lot of things.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

It was originally the national birth control league. It originally focused on reproductive information and birth control methods. Thats not what it does now.

If this is so its sad, because Rudy is a slam dunk against anything the defeatocrats can toss into the fray.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

now it just advocates killing kids in utero regardless of race, creed, color, or national origin.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

I don't think that aspect of PP was well-identified yet back in the 1990s, however. A lot of nominally-left groups went radical left then, such as Amnesty International.

---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community

Planned Parenthood was started in 1916 by Margaret Sanger. Sanger promoted abortion from day one. Except that she promoted abortion for blacks and other minorities because they were inferior.

To say that PP has a "checkered" past is like saying that the KKK got started to help out southern cotton farmers by increasing consumption of white cotton sheets.

The people who run PP, and those who support it, from day one were the worst of racists and butchers, and still are. They haven't changed, they've only accomplished much of what Sanger promoted in her writings.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

PP may have always had such an agenda, but they weren't terribly obvious about it until the 1990s. I recall a lot of moderates that had supported PP up until then withdrawing ther support as they became more obvious in their goals and methods.

---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community

to reduce the non-white population. Maybe things have changed less for PP than they did for Goldwater.

According to Blackgenocide.org, 78% of PP clinics are in black neighborhoods.

According to cnsnews.com, blacks make up 12% of the population, but 32% of the abortions. Or maybe 37%, depending on who you read: capoliticalnews.com.

Raising the specter of Goldwater is a red herring to prove that "real" conservatives can support or tolerate abortion. Goldwater was a Cold War warrior that understood the threat of Communism. He wasn't fond of taxes, either. Both issues are/were near and dear to conservatives. However, that doesn't grant special sainthood privileges to Goldwater. Where he was wrong, he was very wrong.

until the organization got more radical and signed on to a pro-abortion agenda.

I remember reading about this in her autobiography.

Why is it that the Romney and Giuliani supporters are so adamant to make it seem okay that their candidates support abortion? To make a comment suggesting that Goldwater was okay with abortion because his wife had links to Planned Parenthood would be like saying "Reagan would support embryonic stem cell research because Nancy does."

Not yet, anyways, though he is one of my leading two (Newt being the other). I'm just making a point that many of the same types of issues that would cause some here to abandon Rudy would also cause them to abandon Barry. Remember how he wanted to line up the entire U of Arizona football team to each individually kick Jerry Falwell in the posterior?

---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community

First of all, the Goldwater of 1964, in today's terms, would be more of a Libertarian than a Conservative Republican. Remember, most of what IS the federal government today didn't exist in 1964. There were no federal welfare programs. HUD didn't exist. Social security was nothing more than a tiny check to supplement private retirement savings. Medicare didn't exist. The Voting Rights Act didn't exist. Etc., etc., etc.

The federal government was, in 1964, at a jumping off point. The Democrats wanted it to grow and to reach into every facet of our lives. Goldwater believed in something called "States Rights". SR is nothing more than the 10th Amendment. It says, "Hey feds, do the enumerated powers written into the Constitution and take the rest of the year off..."

Abortion was not an issue, Roe didn't get to SCOTUS until 1973. Teddy Kennedy was opposed to abortion in 1964 (really!).

Bottom line, if Goldwater'64 were alive today, he'd look more like Ron Paul except he'd be stronger on defense.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community

Views changed drastically when Friedan published "The Feminine Mystique" in 1963. She then co-founded NOW in 1966 and NARAL in 1969. Things pretty much went downhill from there.

C'mon. If you are going to be involved in this discussion get familiar with the subject.

Barry Goldwater was fine with abortion. Wikipedia gives the global view here, Buckley elaborates but here is a taste from 1994:

"A lot of so-called conservatives don't know what the word means. They think I've turned liberal because I believe a woman has a right to an abortion. That's a decision that's up to the pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some do-gooders or the Religious Right."

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

BS. Romney supporters don't justify abortion. They support their guy because he's pro-life now. End of story.

I think its ridiculous that all you little clones out there are busy trying to smear Romney and Thompson because Rudy personally funds abortion. This isn 't about Romney or Thompson. This is about Rudy.

They that are with us are more than they that are against us.

Zing! 5 points to the gentleman with the succinct rebuttal to the asinine accusation Romney supporters dig abortion.

Regardless of his past, of the big three Romney has the most invested in the social convervative movement. He is not only pro-life, his vocally and adamantly pro-life. That's a big plus in my book.

There are lots of people that have had their eyes opened in recent years by simply looking at an ultrasound image. Once you see it, it's hard to keep pretending that abortion is the moral equivalent of removing a tumor.

That I remember...

or a very long time ago...

that he is not done, when the time comes that he does not have a chance I will stop talking about him.

Rudy should come out w/ his hands up on this one.

If you always find yourself arguing the exceptions rather than the rule you just might be rapidly sliding down your own slippery slope to irrelevance. -CommonCents

means he's lost 12 points of his lead. At this rate, will he still be up by any points by September? Don't think so. By Sept, the Rudy balloon will have expended all inflating substances.

But this is news. And it's NEW news.

Planned Parenthood has not yet registered in any of the polls so what RCP says at this point is kind of irrelevent. But then I don't know how much his support for this organization will hurt him, people like me allready were not planning on voting for him. The only thing I see as hurting him now his views getting more publicity. I don't know that a lot of people will vote for someone that has stated support for Roe, wont say Roe is bad law, is in favor of public funding for abortion, and has described NARAL as champions of liberty, but then won't vote for that person if they donated to Planned Parenthood. What the story does do however is gives his views on abortion more publicity.

To prohibit abortion in the first trimester, as federal law stands today, is to blatantly defy the US Supreme Court. For that reason, any legislative tinkering that limits abortion can't (by law) apply to the first trimester. The Court has spoken. So the question could be interpreted as asking Thompson whether he would abide by US Supreme Court rulings. What is he going to say?

It is absurd to compare PP to the KKK. The KKK are pikers compared to PP when it comes to body count.

giving money to an organization that promotes killing is so much differnt than giving to an organization that promotes racism. To me it seems worse. Also since when did doctors get to decide whether to murder this is a legitimate legal issue. As far as limited government a lot of conservatives are for limited federal government which would mean that the federal government does not get to decide whether state government is limited. In other words they would support the overturning of Roe V. Wade. Rudy has stated support of Roe, and he now says that he doesn't care.

are not paying attention to the election, when they start I think Rudy may continue to drop. Also the more publicity this issue gets the more people will know. This story might get the story some more publicity. Judging from my state (Nebraska) I don't see a pro-choice candidate succeeding in the Midwest and I imagine the South is similar. I have to hope anyway.

I agree people aren't paying attention. I think there is this assumption that Rudy is a solid Republican who happens to be moderately pro-choice. I think most Republicans are okay with that if he promised to select pro-life judges.

But Rudy is not moderate. He is a radical. His attempt to play both sides with his double-speak on strict constructionist judges was Clintonesque. He is being outed for being the NARAL poster boy, a beleiver that pro-lifers kill poor women, supporter of partial birth abortion, supporter of taxpayer funded abortion, and a beleiver that Roe is good Constitutinal law. Rudy is a radical hding in moderate clothes. That's what's hurting him. Not that he happens to be moderately pro-choice.

What we're learning is all the activists who say, "I'm prolife" but continue to support Giuliani really aren't prolife. Not in any meaningful sense.

The humiliating way the Giuliani apologists have to keep reformulating their justifications for him is embarrassing.

First, it was, he'll really be good for the prolife movement because he was sorta, part-time prolife, so he'll be with prolifers on some things that can actually pass. Partial-birth abortion was cited.

Then, when hiding his support of tax-funding of abortions became untenable, we were told he'd be non-activist in promoting a pro-abortion position, while he'll support great justices, which is all prolifers need...

Then, when he said his idea of great justices would just as easily uphold Roe as set it aside, we were told, "yeah, but he at least thinks abortion is terrible, he's personally against them--isn't that awesome, wonderful?" (Gee, that's why Geraldine Ferraro was the great prolife candidate in 1984, right?)

Then, when it turns out Giuliani personally paid for abortions by donating to the world's largest abortion industry, the Giuliani apologists said?

"Hey--look at that suspicious Mormon over there! And who can trust an actor, anyway?"

I am pro life and support Giuliani. It just so happens I don't believe Mitt's professed views and the actor isn't running yet. I may have to reevaluate if the lineups change.

P.S. Ferraro had other problems in 84. Like having a personality and attitude that would drive people to vacation in Beirut
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

what you see as meaningfully "prolife" about Giuliani?

Maybe we should define terms, to avoid confusion. When you say "prolife," do you mean, against legal abortion? That's the usual meaning of the term, particularly in right-leaning contexts, such as Redstate. And usually, when people say they are prolife, they mean they favor public policy against abortion.

So is it fair to say that's what you mean?

If so, what meaningful addition of prolife policy do you expect a President Giuliani to support?

He's said his idea of a great "strict constructionist" justice on the Supreme Court could just as easily uphold Roe v. Wade -- and that would be "okay" with him -- so is there any basis for hoping he'll help us make progress there?

He favors keeping abortion legal.

He favored tax-funding for abortions in New York, and has given varying answers about the Hyde Amendment (most recently he says he supports it).

So...on the abortion issue, how much difference is there between him and say, Clinton (either Bill or Hill)?

The difference I see is that they pushed for tax-funding (but didn't get it), and their pro-Roe justices use less-impressive reasoning to support it.

(In my judgment, Giuliani would, in several respects, be worse than a Democrat -- because nobody would ever mistake Ginsburg or Breyer for "strict constructionists." Giuliani might succeed in discrediting that school of legal thought, much as Bush's big-governmentism has done so much to discredit the Republican Party's small-government reputation.)

I don't mean to say you don't care about abortion; but I do say you're either fooling yourself, or trying to fool others, if you say claim Giuliani is going to do anything meaningful for the prolife cause.

Unfortunately I do believe Giuliani's professed views.

They that are with us are more than they that are against us.

The saddest part about the abortion issue is that many men took on the position of their female partner. It is as simple as that. There is probably not one male candidate who has not been thus influenced. Some walked through those coals and bear the scars. I can deal with those candidates. I'm not sure I can deal with those who were so heavily influenced that they came through with no battle scars at all.

Dangit, and here we were hoping no one would be sharp enough to realize it! Years of tacit coordination, wasted, because one internet commenter found us out!

Zounds! Foiled again!

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

you get the idea that Rudy is the only candidate to defeat the democrats. McCain has been polling very closely to the other candidates. There is a chance that Rudy would make it so that enough southern votes would go to a third party (and just to democrats) that we would have to compete for the south. You could argue that he is the most likely to win, but to say that he is the only candidate that could win is going to far.

If protecting innocent children from being killed means I am "far right" I'll have little to do with the moderates on this issue.

This is priority one, folks! This is not something that can be traded for a "strong communicator" or whatever Giuliani's supposed to be...

your knowledge of Rudy on other people. Sure if you have been following election news you know about it, but I don't think everybody is. Of course sometimes I underestimate how much people know concerning politics - I have a roommate who didn't know what a Purple Heart is, and several of my peers didn't know who Rehnquist was.

the Dems have succeeded in tearing down the various tenets of Conservatism each of our little subgroups may espouse, further putting gaping holes in the roof of that once BIG tent...it's raining in here.

In the end of course, you are partly right-on Nov. 2008 any anti democrat will vote Republican.

Truly Conservative minded folks may, again, stay home rather than vote for someone who will say and do (fill in the blank) things counter to our principles.

Might it result in a Dem house, senate, and exec? Absolutely. Might it further push a generic Conservative of today into a future "far right wing" stereotype? More than likely.

We continue giving up principle for victory...much the same as what brought the Dems to power...great result for our efforts, dontcha think?

haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).

You're a great conservative.

But if we can't sit 2008 no matter what are leaders say. The damage to the country will take another 20 years to fix a la the first Clinton.

Oz

Signature disclaimer: I'm not currently paid by any campaign, but I am available. Current preferences for President: 1) F.Thompson; 2) Romney; 3) McCain; 4) Gingrich; Guiliani removed 04/03/07

I guess this one is even more slightly less well known than "Never start a land war in Asia" and "Never go in with a Sicilian when death is on the line!"

Run like Reagan!

When you give money to help pay for abortions -- which is what you are doing when you give your own money to what is not only the world's leading lobby organization for abortion, but in fact the leading abortion provider -- then you have by definition earned the title, "pro abortion."

Paying someone to commit abortion is as close to being pro-abortion as you can get, except for actually killing the baby yourself.

Rudy helped pay for abortions. He's pro-abortion.

If Fred Thompson announces, I believe he will become the front runner in no time at all. I will support him. That said, the concern will be choice of running mate. I think McCain is out. I like Hunter, but there is no name recognition, and he will not draw from the left or the independents. Neither will Romney. Giuliani would. And yes, winning is everything.

someone who is completely in line with the Democratic views but we'll call them a Republican, then?

There's a line you must draw. You can't sacrifice principle for a "victory," because eventually, you won't win and you'll have lost your identity. As someone else mentioned a couple of comments back, the more "moderate" of a Republican we nominate, the more "far right" a genuine conservative is going to look in the future. That is exactly what the Democrats want.

Ronald Reagan won as one of the most conservative politicians in the past fifty years and he did it by telling the American people the truth in a plain, simple, and tough manner. If we can't win an election by nominating a fellow conservative who can do likewise, then we don't deserve to exist as a party.

We shouldn't just be in this to "win" 50%+1. That doesn't accomplish anything.

Babies being half delivered only to have scissors rammed through their skulls and their brains sucked out is only a distraction. To many people (apparantly not Rudy), this is a disgusting blight on our country. I too want someone that will beat the democrat, but when our candidate becomes too much like a democrat then we have just endorsed that which we wanted to defeat. That is how I feel about Rudy.

Bottom line, it the BIG PICTURE, a person that can win without being too much of a democrat (that excludes Rudy).

I don't think abortion is 'nothing but a distraction', but I also think there is a vast gulf between all the Republican candidates, including Rudy, and all the Democratic candidates, on the issue of abortion. If you don't think that having Rudy as president would be a vast improvement over having any of the Democratic candidates as president on just the abortion issue alone, then you're seriously letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Having any of the Democrats elected President would be a total disaster on the abortion issue (as well as just about everything else). If you're going to try to convince me that electing Rudy would be an equally big disaster, then I think either you're seriously mis-stating Rudy's position, or you're so single-focused on the abortion issue that you're willing to recklessly risk the election of a Democrat over a perceived less-than-desired abortion position on Rudy's part, and that scares me.

---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community

Are more extreme than the stated positions of some Democrats. The comments he made about having to publicly fund abortions since it is a constitutional right are particularly disturbing, and not something every Democrat would agree with.

It all comes down to how much he really cares about those positions. I suspect he doesn't particularly care that much and is pretty flexible on the issue, but that is just a guess.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Some of his stated positions are more extreme than the stated positions of some Democrats.

Sure, and there are Republicans more liberal than any of the Republican candidates, and Republicans more conservative than any of the Republican candidates.

But can you show me any of the Democrats that are running for President that have less extreme positions (from a conservative perspective) than Rudy?

I can't think of any Dem presidential candidate that's said anything against public funding for abortion, for starters.

---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community

It's not a good thing, but it's also not clear that Rudy is a viable candidate without the support of pro-life conservatives.

Also it does say that he is donated the money to them. Whether or not they do other things is beside the point (unless he specifically directed his donation to operations other than abortion). His money still went to funding abortion-related procedures and that's a pretty tough issue.

Then again I do believe that, for all of Rudy's faults, he's been one of the more consistent candidates. He stands by his pro-choice views, for better or worse, and a third of our party does hold pro-choice views.

Although the reporter says that Rudy gave to PP, the evidence cited involves joint tax returns. That means either Rudy or his wife gave to PP or they gave together. Even if it was a joint bank account, it still could be from his then wife alone. I do not ok or audit or approve in advance of every expenditure of my wife, nor she of mine. I doubt any married couples do.

I'd rather not jump to conclusions.

Steve Willis
Professor of Law
University of Florida College of Law

to deny that he made the donations on Laura Ingraham's show this morning and he didn't do it. My suspicion is that Rudy is better off to just admit that he made the donations than try to blame it on Donna. Rudy probably doesn't want to go near anything that attaches blame to Donna since it would open up a whole new mess that is probably bigger than the PP donations.

This is true, however you would like to hope that the Mayor of New York, and someone who was considering running for Senate at the time, would be aware of his tax returns, the donations his wife was making on their behalf as a couple, and how that would look to people who examined those returns in the future.

If he didn't personally authorize the donations then he should immediately come out and say his wife did it and he didn't know about it. Of course, that may not look too good either.

I don't suggest he blame anyone. Perhaps he doesn't remember. While that would not be an ideal answer, it would be believable to me. Perhaps his wife did it and he shrugged ok. Perhaps he wants to think about what really happenned. Maybe they argued about it or maybe she did it to hurt him or maybe a lot of things.

All I know is that I don't have the complete facts and I don't like "gotcha" journalism in which we demand an immediate explanation for things that occurred in a marriage ten years ago.

I disagree that he should be "aware" of every small item - and I suspect to them, $900 was small. I also disagree he should insist his wife modify her behavior because of how it might look to others. I realize his marriage issues are not positive for him, but I still want to give the benefit of the doubt that he did not control every expenditure from their accounts or insist on the right to personally authorize them.

You could make a legitimate argument that he should not have deducted the amounts on his returns or at least not list them separately. I'm not sure why the information is even on the return if it was a cash donation: identifying the recipient was not then required (although many tax preparers list such things). Again, it was a joint return and not under his sole control.

Steve Willis
Professor of Law
University of Florida College of Law

The problem is that there is a consistent pattern (and consistency seems to be a virtue in politics) of support for abortion rights and abortion-related institutions by Rudy Giuliani. If this was, for instance, John McCain and his former wife who had donated to Planned Parenthood, an argument could be made that she was pro-choice and he simply didn't know about it. His record is solidly pro-life. But when you have a candidate who has made pro-choice views a rather open part of his campaign, it isn't that big of a stretch to think that he was aware of the donations to Planned Parenthood.

I'll also note that, throughout Giuliani's career, he's been strongly supported by groups such as NARAL and NOW. While Planned Parenthood isn't the same thing as activist groups such as those, there isn't a huge leap of logic to be made that says donations to Planned Parenthood - an organization many would associate with abortion procedures - are explicit endorsements by the Giulianis for all of the activities of Planned Parenthood.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9502E6D7173FF935A15752C1A...

I personally find this article quite interesting.

much who made the donation. The man has praised NARAL so he is apperently in line with the principals of PP whether he agrees with them or not. What this story does is give his views more publicity which I think is a good thing.

If the donations were his wife's, he should say so. He had an opportunity to say that today on the Ingraham show and he didn't.

So either they were his donations or else he can't remember but he thinks they might have been.

They that are with us are more than they that are against us.

The day it becomes clear that just one single issue has become the overriding factor in determining the viability of a Republican candidate, is the day I give up on the party completely. If it's true, as you say, that a Republican presidential candidate isn't viable without the support of pro-life conservatives, then we've become a single issue party. And a single issue party has no future, no matter what that issue is or how important is is.

Fortunately, that's not the case yet, and I hope it never is. This party has always been inclusive a fairly wide variety of viewpoints and hopefully always will. Admittedly, I know a lot of people who are now registered Independant because they don't like the direction the party has taken in recent years, but IMHO, that's a mistake on their part - they lose their voice if they don't stay registered.

That said, I think there are still a whole lot of people in this party who would be perfectly happy to see