Rudy Digs In: Roe V. Wade "Not Something That I Would Seek To Change."
Rudy Giuliani seems to be divided over which way to go on abortion today, now that the revelation yesterday that he favors public funding for abortion — a position well to the left of even many Democrats — is provoking a harsh conservative backlash.
On the one hand, he's trying to boost his anti-abortion bona fides. National Review reports that the Rudy campaign sent out an e-mail to supporters, quoting Rudy saying, "As I have indicated before I will not seek to change current law as described in the Hyde Amendment," and boasting of the decrease in abortions during his tenure as Mayor of New York City.
On the other hand, however, he's continuing to make statements that run squarely against what the base wants to hear. The Associated Press reports that at a campaign stop in South Carolina — a deep South, socially conservative Bible-Belt state, no less — Rudy continued to insist that his pledge to appoint strict construction was emphatically not code-talk for overturning Roe v. Wade:
"If I’m going to appoint strict constructionist judges, which I’m going to do, for the reason that they are going to strictly interpret the Constitution, then, as president, I have to be a strict constructionist," Giuliani said. "The present state of the law on these issues is not something that I would seek to change."
Will the base of the GOP support a man who defends abortion as a Constitutional right, and strongly insists that he won't try to change Roe?
Huh?? Are you sure he's backing Roe v. Wade here? Strict constructionists don't believe in a constitutional right to privacy. An "implied" constitutional right of privacy was the basis for the Roe v Wade decision. It sounds like Rudy is saying, he doesn't believe in the constitutional right to privacy and that he WOULD support overturning Roe v. Wade.
April 5, 2007 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rudy is tripping over his own words. Read the whole article and you can see what he means. Rudy is saying that overturning Roe could be seen as activist position, since it's been settled law for so long.
April 5, 2007 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe he got his mistress pregnant and he wants her to have an abortion. Once it's taken care of he'll switch back.
Trouble makes us alter our beliefs until the trouble passes.
http://www.goNODL.com
April 5, 2007 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's Guiliani being a slick lawyer. He'll appoint more Scalias so he himself won't have to seek to change current law. It may not fool all of the people all of the time but it might fool enough.
April 5, 2007 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wouldn't be surprised to find out there's an old girlfriend (or wife) out there he bought an abortion for. I also wouldn't be surprised that she let him know if he changes his position she'll go public.
April 5, 2007 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
But if he's going to do that, in what real sense is he pro-choice? It becomes entirely theoretical, since appointing judges is the whole ballgame here.
April 5, 2007 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rudy should be asked about his views on stare decisis.
April 5, 2007 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Will the base of the GOP support a man who defends abortion as a Constitutional right, and strongly insists that he won't try to change Roe?"
Are you kidding? The base of the GOP would support Ronald MacDonald if he decided to throw his hat in the ring. Anyone who's been on television or in a movie is fine with them.
April 5, 2007 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
In no real sense. Any more than Bush is compassionate in any real real sense. It's bamboozlement pure and simple.
April 5, 2007 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know that it's fun to poke the hypocrites, and I enjoy it as much as the next person. But then I wonder if poking him for saying something slightly less than his batshit crazy normal (like he approves of public funding for abortion, or whatever) serves us in the long run.
April 5, 2007 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a thought folks. Maybe he has thought this through and with the plethora of people vying for the title of most backward conservative, Giuliani figures that he can be as right wing as he wants on lots of other stuff but capture the very numerous pro-Choice Republicans (especially women)as a result of this stand and thus remain the winner over all as the rest splinter the right wing into a million pieces. Think about it. Rough going perhaps, but also possibly a winning strategy.
In any event it will be fun watching the wingnuts foam at the mouth pull out the knives on their hero of 9/11 because of this. They probably won't be able to contain themselves. Very entertaining I should think.
April 5, 2007 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey all, we should be emphatic for Rudy's position. Sure, he's a total shmuck, but he is at least living in reality, something I can't say for any other GOP candidate, and something I can't say for half of the people who vote republican. The fact the the FRONT-RUNNER of the political party that caters to christo-facists acknowledges that abortion is necessary for gender equality and a more lawful society is frankly extraordinary. o matter how you shake it, its progress.
April 6, 2007 12:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Haven't you ever heard that "consistency is the sign of a small mind"??????
Rudy has a great big mind - it flips and flops all over the place.
April 6, 2007 1:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
i'm curious. what are the percentages of pro-choice republicans overall and what are the percentages of pro-choice republicans in the first handful of primary states?
i'd also be curious about the percentage of pro-choice republicans who are also diehard pro-iraq-war holdouts (not that there could possibly be data on such a thing) but it would be irrelevant anyway because i honestly think that by the time the presidential primaries roll around, in the face of overwhelming public opinion the republicans will all have done what will amount to or at least 'appear to be' to less skeptical voters an about-face on the war. to stand any chance of winning the general election, the republican candidates will calculate a position like "the surge has not worked, we must now look at ways to bring this war to an end" (never mind that it will be an empty promise)....
April 6, 2007 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
How about this: Guiliani thinks he can win the GOP nomination without the help of the religious right. After all, is Mitt Romney really going to beat Rudy Guiliani in a head-to-head contest? And who else does the religious right have, beyond Romney?
Personally, I see this as very positive development, since it drives a wedge between the factions on the religious and authoratarian right. I would love to see bible thumpers marginalized and exluded by a Guiliani campaign.
April 6, 2007 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
"...since it drives a wedge between the factions on the religious and authoratarian right."
Isn't the religious right by definition also authoritarian?
The religious right I know are equally authoritarian, and are quite willing to be hypocrtical with their religious principles provided they maintain their authoritarian posture. With that in mind, a fraudulent leader is still a winner, in their eyes, provided he's a bully who despises those liberals.
April 7, 2007 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rudy has a great big mind - it flips and flops all over the place.
By such a measure Rudy has a pea-size brain compared to the universe-sized monstrosity possessed by Mitt Romney that just coincidentally, I am sure, tends to accord with reactionaries now being asked for votes compared to a former more liberal electorate.
Is it not a bit disconcerting to others that mindless slogans like "flip flop" are now being utilized even by thoughtful posters?
Rational, reasonable = maybe I should say "sentient" - people do change their minds. They do not always change them in order to curry favor but often to their detriment.
Best, Terry
April 8, 2007 4:15 AM | Reply | Permalink