An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Giuliani: Continues to Support Public Funding for Abortion
In an interview with CNN, Republican candidate (and frontrunner) Rudy Giuliani said that he continues to support public funding for some abortions. He explained: “Ultimately, it’s a constitutional right, and therefore if it’s a constitutional right, ultimately, even if you do it on a state by state basis, you have to make sure people are protected.�
For those who do not remember, Giuliani said in a speech back in 1989: “There must be public funding for abortions for poor women,� Giuliani says in the speech that is posted on the video sharing site YouTube. “We cannot deny any woman the right to make her own decisions about abortion.�
opinions powered by SendLove.to
17 Responses to “Giuliani: Continues to Support Public Funding for Abortion”
Excellent.
Unlike McCain and Clinton, who pander to their respective bases, Giuliani remains true to his convictions.
This won’t help him with the evangelicals, I shouldn’t imagine, but it will go over like gangbusters with moderate women.
Look for this story to be buried by the MSM as fast as possible. I can already hear the liberals at Digg burying it.
I expect that soon Rudy will be making a campaign appearance in a devastating Chanel gown! Can this election get any better!!!
I used to babysit for a kid who, when he lost a football game on his Saga Genesis accused the machine of “cheating”. I think that’s very close to the mistake your making here.
PS, I ‘dugg’ the story =)
Guiliani probably won’t lose other than evangelicals, but others will note his liberalism, not so much on abortion rights, but on what aren’t rights, namely the demand of public funding for abortions that aren’t medically necessary. (Just wait until Medicare for All, and the issue of federal provision of abortions.)
At least,
“We cannot deny any woman the right to make her own decisions about abortion.”
while coming annoyingly close, he did not engage in the irritating misuse of language of the Left in saying “choice” or “right to choose.” (Choice of what? To choose what? Ford rather than Chevy?)
What a RINO — take the Dims’ weasel words and change them slightly and clarify them …
All interesting but still irrelevant.
McCain, Guilliani, Romney, Newt, et al.
None of them have a snowballs chance in hell of being elected president in 2008 anyway.
Davebo Giuliani might, if he got the GOP nomination and Clinton was his opponent. At this point that’s the only way I see republicans winning the White House in ’08.
Lynx
I suppose a Gulliani win in a general election is possible.
But a Gulliani win in a GOP primary? I seriously doubt it.
Fortunate for you guys you needn’t disclose your polling results in support of your opinion the way all the recognized pollsters have to do.
RealClearPolitics has about 10 of them that are reporting something considerably different.
casualobserver: indeed, giuliani leads in the republican polls and has a fair chance of getting elected, as it appears now, in the national elections.
Bravo to his candor!
The republicans certainly need Rudi within their ranks. They are woefully low on socially open-minded intellect. However Mayor of new York hardly makes him qualified to be president. Maybe he should try being Senator first.
Remember we control the voting machines and there is no way the Democrats will be able to get Hillary and Obama Elected this time around. I’ve been telling them this time we need to make it a mandate like 60 percent. A landslide for Rudi and Fred Thompson. I even told them to let us win California but they are not sure we should go that far. So we are thinking about New York instead that would be plausible with Rudi on the ticket.
Nobody- right, but how will you justify the ongoing poll numbers? 30% favorably will stand out like a rotting fish in Demark. The people will storm the Capital and drag out the republicans for public whippings. There won’t be a hole under the White House deep enough for a republican to hide in. Manipulate the voting machines? Ha! Fat chance!
WE don’t need to control anything we’ll just blame it on the democrats and then quickly start another war with someone and everyone will forget about election scams
For some reason I think that Nobody is being snarky W.A.
Yes WA in another article you accused me of being a Neocon so I thought I would play up that card. We all know that a majority of the far left conspiracy theorists believe that the Republicans manipulated the voting machines to win 2. Not 1 but 2 elections so I was just playing up that card for ya.
Giuliani’s comments certainly took me by surprise. It’s one thing to be pro-choice on abortion. It’s quite another to expect taxpayers to pay for abortions. And although it’s unclear by the way he was quoted, Giuliani appears to be arguing that under certain circumstances, women have a “Constitutional right” to have their abortions funded by the government. Even most liberals won’t go that far. I’m curious as to what pro-life Republican think about this.
On the other hand, it’s amusing to listen to liberal Democrats (who are supposedly pro-choice on abortion) raise a stink every time a pro-choice Republican runs for high political office. I can still remember Democrat Gray Davis running attack ads against moderate Republican and former mayor of Los Angeles Richard Riordan during the 2002 governor race. Riordan was locked in a very close primary race with Republican Bill Simon who was much more conservative than Riordan and also adamantly pro-life. It was clear to everyone that Riordan was much more in touch with Californians on social policy than Simon, which is why Davis feared him so much–he knew that he would have a much more difficult time defeating a moderate Republican than a conservative Republican. Thus he deliberately ran attack ads against Riordan with regards to his pro-choice views, tipping the outcome of the primary in Simon’s favor.
Liberal Democrats ought to be asking themselves, if they’re truly pro-choice on abortion, does it really make sense to attack Republicans who are also pro-choice?
I suspect that the “Riordan”ing of Giuliani has only just begun.
Note: This comment was cross-posted at Centerfield.
Agreed Nic. One should be asking themselves should Hillary and Obama be bashing each other as well.
Unfortunately its the nature of the beast. Politics is hell and Politicians prove it daily with negative, hurtful, spiteful attacks on each other and then stand back and bluster”
“All this hate should stop. All these Negative attack adds should stop.” While approving the next hate, negative add.
Obama are hurting each other and do not know it yet because while negative attack adds work, they do not work for long and so you have to be careful lest you bring about sympathy for the person being attacked. Much as Bush is soon to start receiving kicks in the polls because Americans by nature are going to grow weary of all these Attacks they consider hateful and mindless.