Giuliani to Firmly Support Abortion Rights

Adding to Big Tent's post last night....

He's flipped and he's flopped on abortion, but now he's ready to take a stand. Rudy Giuliani will be coming out strongly for abortion rights.

Why? Because his campaign has figured out that with the changes to state primaries, he doesn't need the traditionally coveted states.

....they would focus on the so-called mega-primary of Feb. 5, in which voters in states like California, New York and New Jersey are likely to be more receptive to Mr. Giuliani’s social views than voters in Iowa and South Carolina. That approach, they said, became more appealing after the Legislature in Florida, another state they said would be receptive to Mr. Giuliani, voted last week to move the primary forward to the end of January.

....His aides said that in focusing on the Feb. 5 and Florida primaries, they were not writing off Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina, acknowledging the historic importance of those states and arguing that Mr. Giuliani could do well in South Carolina and New Hampshire. But they said the events of the past week had reinforced the notion that later states were more promising for a moderate Republican, particularly one who was a political celebrity with a big campaign bank account.

Giuliani, ever the opportunist.

< Another US Atty Scandal: Missouri | Moonie Times: GOP Congresspersons Aid Al Qaida >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    you have to appreciate (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by cpinva on Thu May 10, 2007 at 05:11:53 AM EST
    nakedly transparent rank opportunism. of course, this leads to the question of: will he flop back during the general election, assuming he actually wins the republican nomination?

    at least give them credit for being sort of honest about his motivations for his purported "change of heart" on the issue. since his "whythehellareyouaskingmethis9/11" response in last weeks "debate" (for lack of a better term), it wasn't at all clear if he was pro-choice or anti-choice.

    now we know, for the moment, anyway. it's all subject to change without notice. batteries not included. removal of tag is a violation of federal law. you may have an implied warranty of merchantability. breaking the seal voids any express or implied warranties. not to be used by children under 6, contains small parts.

    Ain't gonna do him any good in CA (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by janinsanfran on Thu May 10, 2007 at 10:01:37 AM EST
    The folks who vote in Republican primaries are wingnuts.

    Hmm (none / 0) (#2)
    by jarober on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:41:42 AM EST
    I seem to recall the Gore was against abortion before he decided to run for President.  Each party has litmus tests on a few issues - on abortion, both parties force "purity" on their Presidential candidates.

    You recollect incorrectly (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:59:00 AM EST
    Gore was against federal funding for abortions.

    Gore always supported abortion rights.

    You are thinking of Kucinich, Durbin, Gephardt and a host of other Democrats.

    But not Gore.

    But you are right on your point. The GOP is the anti-choice party. The Dem Party is the pro-choice party.

    It is important that voters understand this.

    Rudy will never be the GOP nominee because of his pro-choice views.

    And that's fair imo. I would never support a Dem candidate for the Presidential nomination who was anti-choice.

    There has not been an anti-choice Dem Presidential candidate in recent memory. So it is a non-issue. Rudy will soon be the last GOP pro-choice candidate in the foreseeable future.


    Either women matter or they don't. (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by lilybart on Thu May 10, 2007 at 08:55:32 AM EST
    I agree with you. No Dem can get my support if they are not pro-women's right to control her own body.

    It IS about respect for women.


    Only on abortion.... (none / 0) (#8)
    by kdog on Thu May 10, 2007 at 10:14:42 AM EST
    are the Dems pro-choice, on several other issues they are anti-choice.  I don't think the Dems have earned a blanket "party of choice" label.

    What other issues are Dems (none / 0) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 10, 2007 at 02:52:36 PM EST
    anti-choice about?

    School choice (none / 0) (#21)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri May 11, 2007 at 10:00:30 AM EST
    People can send their kids to any (none / 0) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 11, 2007 at 11:45:03 AM EST
    school they want.  You are wrong about this.

    Well, his candidacy will certainly (none / 0) (#4)
    by Geekesque on Thu May 10, 2007 at 08:04:25 AM EST
    test just how big the Publican tent is.

    Politics versus Conscience (none / 0) (#6)
    by Oliver W Holmes the 3rd on Thu May 10, 2007 at 09:16:13 AM EST
    When I read the article in the Times earlier, my first thought was Team Rudy must have polled the  heck out of the matter and settled on a decision to say while he personally objects, he would support a woman's right to choice.

    However after reading the article, what is clear (if the reporting is correct) is Team Rudy simply has made a calculation re: primary dates, convention delegates, etc. and has determined that they can "right off" conseratives and fundies in the south and Iowa and still appeal to more moderate voters in larger states with more urban voters.

    While intriguing from a purely political matter, what about credability and a conscience?  Will he now support Judges to the SCOTUS based on personal or political views?

    And again just from a political view, most voters in primaries (Both Dem and gop) are each parties farther right and left voters.  Most primary voters are NOT moderates in either party and thus this may be a very big risk as more conservative and religious right voters will show up in proportionatly higher numbers anyway, at least based on past voting history and patterns.

    I was just stressing.... (none / 0) (#10)
    by kdog on Thu May 10, 2007 at 12:39:56 PM EST
    that the Dems support choice on abortion, but they are most certainly not the "party of choice".  The party is against letting us choose what herbs to smoke, for example.  Here in NY, the local arm of the party is against letting us choose to use certain words, against letting us choose whether or not to eat trans-fats, and against letting us choose whether or not to patronize a bar that allows smoking.  Just a few off the top of the dome....

    I wish they supported more choices is all...choices are cool.

    Not all of 'em (none / 0) (#11)
    by Peaches on Thu May 10, 2007 at 12:50:41 PM EST
    I mean, we don't want people to have the choice of driving while intoxicated or driving over the speed limit.

    I agree with some in your list, but if McDonalds can make French fries that are just as good with oil that is not unhealthy for you, why not take away the choice of Transfats. Or how about those of us that like to go to a bar [or work at one] where there is no one smoking since we choose to breathe clean air [well, cleaner air.]

    I'd like to eliminate the choice that many corporations and companies choose that pollute our air or waterways. I'd like to eliminate the choice that agricultural conglomerates make with GMO's.

    I like choice as much as the next guy, but like everyone, my choices are limited. Life is not necessarily made better when we have more choices. Sometimes, the quality of life is worse. but that's just my opinion.


    Peaches.... (none / 0) (#12)
    by kdog on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:38:00 PM EST
    Obviously, the "right to choose" ends when the choice directly leads to harming another. I agree there is no right to choose to murder somebody.

    I'm weird when it comes to drunk-driving though...I don't think having a B.A.C. over a certain number while driving should be illegal.  I think running red lights, swerving erratically, and reckless driving should be illegal...drunk or not.

    Don't get me started on the 55 mph speed limit....I see it as a govt. tool to legally extort the citizenry.

    As for smoking bans in bars...I think bar owners should have the right to choose if they want to run a smoking or non-smoking establishment.  Then the customer, or potential employee, can choose where to give their patronage or labor.

    Trans-fats....I know they're supposed to bad for you.  I'm not convinced the alternative oils will taste the same.  I don't have a weight problem or diabetes...can't I enjoy McDonald's fries in all their unhealthy glory on occasion?  Can't I get that choice?

    Industrial pollution...I'd argue that leads to direct harm of others.


    You funny (none / 0) (#13)
    by Peaches on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:57:17 PM EST

    I'd love to sit down with you sometime and share a oney. I think we'd have some wild discussions.

    The thing is that no choices are made in a vacuum. In economics, its called an opportunity cost. Simply put, when you choose one choice you give up all other alternative choices.

    When you choose something that has an effect on others (either positive or negative), there are what is called externalities that are not measured by the  personal cost and benefit of a choice.

    That is why society makes restrictions on choices. Also, many choices are manufactured. I am kind of weird in many ways, too (id you haven't noticed by now). If I could I would take away many manufactured choices that our market economy produces cigarettes and trans-fats among them. Lets see, the automobile, most guns, bombs, anything that needs coal, computer games, DVDs, CD's, Computers, ....

    I think we have too many choices in our culture and it is partly responsible for the mental health problems among individuals in our society (which, also inevitably leads to the necessity to choose having a drink, smoke, or whatever substance one chooses to stay sane these days.


    Likewise peaches.... (none / 0) (#16)
    by kdog on Thu May 10, 2007 at 02:39:30 PM EST
    I always search out your comments cuz I like how you think bro, and like how you make me think....we would have some doozy discussions for sure....I'm looking your arse up if I ever roll through Minnesota.

    I see what you're saying, not sure if I totally agree....i'm not sure if there is such a thing as too much choice. Besides, our govt. can't make the choice to take away choices in a vacuum either. That choice has consequences too.

    My libertarianism is shining through here....I forget who coined this phrase, but I like it.  "The answer is freedom, now what was the question?"


    uh-oh (none / 0) (#18)
    by Peaches on Thu May 10, 2007 at 03:10:45 PM EST
    I'm looking your arse up if I ever roll through Minnesota.

    I have an unlisted address, I'm not that easy to find.;) No, actually, I could show you around to some pretty good spots in MN. I hope you do look me up. Although, we're staying away from McDonalds.

    As far as freedom and choices, I don't think they should be mixed. I have a little libertarian in me as well, although I don't seem to get along with most libertarians. I like the Russell Means libertarian perspective.

    My view of freedom follow closely with Take Care of Freedom and Truth Will Take Care of Itself


    Freedom (none / 0) (#19)
    by Peaches on Thu May 10, 2007 at 03:12:58 PM EST
    And if you're ever in New York.... (none / 0) (#20)
    by kdog on Thu May 10, 2007 at 03:28:05 PM EST
    my door is always unlocked, though I'm not listed either:)



    Already Possible (none / 0) (#14)
    by squeaky on Thu May 10, 2007 at 02:07:01 PM EST
    As for smoking bans in bars...I think bar owners should have the right to choose if they want to run a smoking or non-smoking establishment.  Then the customer, or potential employee, can choose where to give their patronage or labor.

    There are bars like that in NYC. Had not the smoking ban gone into effect bar owners and staff that wanted a no smoking environment would have gone out of business.

    Most patrons, smokers, and staff at bars I know are much happier that the place they hang out and work in has relatively clean air.

    As far as trans fats at restaurants it is not because they taste better it is because they are cheaper than animal fats, can be reused longer in the deep fryer, and have a longer shelf life.  Your mcducks fries would not taste worse w/o trans fats.

    Beg to differ squeaky.... (none / 0) (#15)
    by kdog on Thu May 10, 2007 at 02:15:49 PM EST
    Two bartender friends of mine say the smoking ban cost them tips...and liked it better before.  Full disclosure...they're both smokers:)

    I'm no trans-fats expert....I just know that Burger King's fries taste crappy since they changed their recipe...I don't McDonalds monkeying with the best fries in the fast-food business.