NYC's former chief executive is trimming his sails, ever so slghtly, to the prevailing winds which blow so fiercely with the GOP on the ever-so-contentious [and personnaly painful] question of abortion.

No big surprise there; this was just a matter of when, not if.  But the talk about "stict constructionalist" appointments to the federal judiciary, that's got a systemic impact far beyond the question of abortion/choice/reproducetive freedom/etc..  And could be a sop to the GOP base if/when they find out he's played them false on abortion.  Oh, well; stayed tuned...

Excerpting in part :

"But in recent weeks, as he has courted voters in South Carolina and talked to conservative media outlets, Mr. Giuliani has highlighted a different element of his thinking on the abortion debate. He has talked about how he would appoint “strict constructionist” judges to the Supreme Court — what abortion rights advocates say is code among conservatives for those who seek to overturn or limit Roe v. Wade, the 1973 court ruling declaring a constitutional right to abortion.

The effect has been to distance himself from a position favoring abortion rights that he espoused when he ran for mayor of New York City, where most voters favor abortion rights."

since I emailed him with advice very similar to his stance.

Appointing more judges like Alito and Roberts will eventually cause abortion rights to be decided by the legislature(s), Federal or States. Which is where it belonged in the first place.

Someone that is pro abortion rights (like Rudy) could still feel comfortable with that approach.

People under estimate the ability of the conservatve right to nominate someone like Rudy, especially when they know they are picking a war time President.


-- Modified on 2/11/2007 9:30:57 PM

Have had multiple marriages except for the Mormon.

But the Chsristian fundies hate the Mormon

held by Republicans are just a matter of semantics. You have just described the spin that a pro-choice candidate will use to do the religious right's bidding. Nice to see that nothing has changed and that Republicans still stand for nothing.

that you still cannot (or choose not to) READ.

gun control than abortion. In some perverted way of thinking I don't mind a bunch of libs taking away their own guns, as in NY and Chicago. If a bunch of libs want to create "gun free zones" (LOL what a joke) and then go live there, fine. Try it on for size.

Just don't try it where I live or on a national scale.

The Repubs stand for plenty -- but the catch is, most of it's [on it's best day] really unpleasant.

all pro-choice people has been to overturn Roe v Wade, right?

my point is that they very rarely come out and say it. Rudy says he is pro-choice while undermining choice. They always feel the need to trick people into voting for them because if they said the truth about what they stood for they would get wiped out.

-- Modified on 2/12/2007 6:59:42 PM

I've linked an esay via TheSmokingGun.com dealing with RG's vulnerabilities as a GOP Presidential hopeful in 2008.  Also included is a documement which purports to be a report to RG re his political liabilities in 1993 during his second bid for the NYC mayoralty.

was that it is entirely logical that one can be in favor of strict constructionist judges and STILL be pro abortion rights. If the SCOTUS overturns RvW it will not make abortion illegal in every state. Each state legislature will then have to work the will of its people. And I believe that it would become legislatively legal in many states.

You can't see this since you live in a world where the ends justify the means. You can't understand how any person would take a strenuous more legal path when a short cut is available.

this position at any point while running for office in NY. Again I have to point out that you only argue in semantics and word games and very little substance. You refuse to tell the truth and accept that he is twisting his position in order to appease the religious right.

http://opinionjournal.com/columnists/bminiter/?id=110009659

I'm mostly underwhelmed by the reasoning offered here, which seems to boil down to :

1. the GOP wants a winner in 2008 ;

2. RG is pro-educational choice/vouchers re schools, and that's going to fly big time in South Carolina during the GOP primary ;

3. Senator McCain does not appeal to the GOP's social conservatives.

what gives you the idea that it is his exact thinking or that he has or should have previously stated the logic in the same way using the exact same words?

All of the words I used including there phrasiology have a very distinct and understandable meaning. No games need apply, but then you missed the point the first time. Why should I expect that you would get it with furhter explanation?

You see, I can figure out for myself the implications of what honest and straightforwad people say. You, on the other hand, need to be told what to think, so you therefore believe that others need to be told as well.

talking about Rudy's position and at some point you realized that it is indefensible so now you are talking about your own position. At least you appear to finally be admitting that Rudy is a flip flopping opportunist.

to comprehend that a person can be pro abortion rights and also, at the same time, be in favor of appointing strict constructionist judges.

By changing the subject you are signaling that you have no defense.

Regarding your other BS argument a true strict constructionist would find that all anti-abortion laws should be unconstitutional because they all come from a religious viewpoint.

you just proved my most previous post.

any time that Rudy has said that while running in NY. It is amazing how you just make up stuff and call it proof.

I simply pointed out a perfectly logical interpratation or understanding of what he said. I wasn't trying to PROVE anything, especially not to you. You have an extremely narrow view of what you think other people should focus on. If you're so into "proofs", then try to stretch your mind a wee bit and prove where I am wrong in my conclusion.


-- Modified on 2/14/2007 10:24:22 PM

Have you ever been responsible for armed people?  

Can you explain what you expect to accomplish by selling firearms OTC?  We don't have enough spastics on the road already, let's give them some Uzis.

My vote is, you can have your sawed off shotgun.   The only time you're gonna use it is jacking off in the shitter, and with any luck, sooner or later, you'll blow yer own head off.  But then we'll have to listen to yer whinging relatives, and THAT's the real reason for gun control laws.

This idea of saving people from themselves is misconceived & counterproductive.  The problem is, they usually take out real people while they're jacking off.

people should focus on the topic of the thread. The discussion was about Rudy and abortion. I simply pointed out that you changed the subject and you have just now admitted that you changed the subject. Since we seem to agree that you do not want to discuss the topic of the thread, I'd say that this debate is over and you lose.

1) Life isn't fair (and rarely are these threads)

2) People don't act right (I'm truly not sorry that I do not conform to your desires and mandates)

and 3) Your mother dresses you funny. (I would just LOVE to see what she laid out for you this morning.)

-- Modified on 2/15/2007 8:05:05 PM

juvenile reaction to being wrong. It is interesting that you would consider it unfair of me to expect you to actually defend the point you brought up. I've said it before. You are not a serious person. I don't know where you got the idea that you were equipped to play these word games but you are pretty bad at it.

You're just upset that I didn't take your bait and chose not to debate YOUR point.

Now pick up YOUR ball and go home.

cannot read too well but FYI it was you who started talking about Rudy and his rationalization about abortion. Since your posts are still there you may want to go and edit or delete them somehow so that you won't look so silly denying things that are easy to disprove.

I am impressed that you did not take my "bait" and try to defend your own argument. You truly are a silly, nonserious person.

then eventually even you will believe it.