Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Rudy on Abortion, Feb. 5, 2007
Some interesting quotes from last night's interview on Hannity and Colmes:
While I made several comments on this interview at Race42008.com, perhaps the most on-point comment I read came from LJ, a contributor over there (bold emphasis is mine):
And one other spot-on piece of commentary from frequent RedState poster HeavyM:
In all fairness, Rudy is (IMHO) right there with Mitt as the most accomplished manager of the potential GOP candidates, but pro-lifers really need to start contemplating if they want a GOP standard-bearer who is admittedly pro-choice. What will the ramifications be? While I'm not quite as pessimistic, Matt over at R4'08 summed up my fears:
Cross posted at RedState
“Abortion…I hate it. As a personal matter it is something I would advise someone against. However, I believe in a woman’s right to choose...You have to leave that to conscience...You have to respect the choices that people make.”
"I think that's up to the Court to decide...at this point, it's precedent. It's going to be very interesting to see what Chief Justice Roberts and what Justices Scalia and Alito do with it. I think they're going to limit it rather than overturn it."
"Partial-birth abortion, I think that ban's going to be upheld. It should be. As long as there is a provision for the life of the mother..."
"[As mayor] we worked on adoptions as an alternative so that there would be a real choice, so that ultimately you respect a woman's choice but it should be a real choice. Adoption or if they make that choice, I don't think the criminal law can interfere with it."
While I made several comments on this interview at Race42008.com, perhaps the most on-point comment I read came from LJ, a contributor over there (bold emphasis is mine):
Well, speaking as a McCain guy and probably the biggest Romney basher on the site, I have to say that this interview really made me view Giuliani is [sic] a much worse light. I’ve railed against Romney’s countless flip-flops for months on end, but at least he tried to explain his conversion(s) with the stem cell meeting with Doug Melton on 11/9/04. As crazy as that is, at least it’s something. But Giuliani offered no explanation at all and no one called him on it.
I understand why Giuliani had to flip on some of these issues, especially PBA, because he would’ve been eaten alive in the primaries, if he hadn’t. But to flip in such a rank opportunistic way, just insults my intelligence and makes me devalue his vaunted authenticity. And that’s a shame, because that’s one of the things I liked best about him.
And one other spot-on piece of commentary from frequent RedState poster HeavyM:
How can we so quickly forget Rudy accepting the NARAL “Champion of Choice Award” just three short years ago? And now, with no explanation, he expects us to believe he is not only shedding everything he has ever worked for in his moral crusade for abortions, but in addition to that, will actively work against it?
That’s why I was disappointed in the interview. The guy couldn’t even say Roe was bad law, but then said he’d work to overturn it.
In all fairness, Rudy is (IMHO) right there with Mitt as the most accomplished manager of the potential GOP candidates, but pro-lifers really need to start contemplating if they want a GOP standard-bearer who is admittedly pro-choice. What will the ramifications be? While I'm not quite as pessimistic, Matt over at R4'08 summed up my fears:
I cannot accept a charismatic, titular head of the Republican Party, trying to sell a sort of “safe, legal, and rare” rhetoric. He’ll win too many converts and the pro-life movement will collapse into the abyss.
Cross posted at RedState
Labels:
2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
AddThis
Always sniffing for the truth
Contributors
Links
- Love and Lunchmeat
- Long Island Prepper
- Fredo's Mets Blog
- Continental Sausage
- Human Events
- Maker's Mark
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Newt Gingrich
- NRO
- Pro Ecclesia
- Ralfy's Whisky Reviews
- Red Albany
- Res Publica et Cetera
- Sour Mash Manifesto
- Straight Bourbon
- Taki Mag
- The American Conservative
- The American Spectator
- The Anchoress Online
- The Politico
- The Weekly Standard
- Wild Turkey Bourbon
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(477)
-
▼
February
(50)
- Hunter on Red State Radio
- Romney's game plan...
- Al Bore
- Romney
- US Archery Budget v. Pyongyang
- A Rudy Haiku
- Benedict Arnolds in the Faculty Need to Go
- BoA Update
- Dem in-fighting
- Why France (still) sucks
- Update on the Anglican-Catholic dialogue
- Welcome Linderman!
- Mitt's first TV ad
- Happy Florida Day!
- Romney Gaining Some Important GOP Backing
- Duke Lacrosse: More than rich white snobs?
- Anglicans returning to the fold?
- Gingrich
- James Sherley
- Bank of (Illegal) America
- Read it. Love it. Memorize it.
- AMT
- US Muslims
- Primaries
- Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is
- An Acceptable Public Display of Religion?
- Mitt and Mormon
- Rudy as terror-fighter
- Quote of the Day
- Rudy on immigration (and good timing)
- Welcome, Mr. Mayor
- Lieberman tax
- James Sherley
- NRO Double Feature:
- Happy Birthday, Mr. President
- Whales are great, but please, save the Christians!
- Rudy on Abortion, Feb. 5, 2007
- Don't say we didn't warn you...
- T.R. on immigration
- Glad to put that one to bed
- '08 candidates
- Will Saudi Arabia ban the letter "X"?
- The Iraq Civil War spreads to the Homeland
- RSC invites the candidates
- Rudy
- Iraq
- Patty B on W's shady history
- Romney gaining traction in the midwest
- You gotta be s'ing me
- Norwegians deliver U.S. ultimatum: Go green or els...
-
▼
February
(50)
4 comments:
Right according to schedule. As mentioned yesterday, while I think Rudy probably could win party nomination without changing position on gun control or marriage, I don't see him winning in this strong field of candidates while staying staunchly pro-choice.
The interesting question will be whether he is (a) willing to move off of his staunch pro-choice position, and (b) enough Repub voters are willing to accept his new position to pick him as the party nominee. He is certainly a tempting candidate in that he is a true leader, he is intelligent, he is very strong on two matters of great importance (terrorism and crime), and I think he would beat any Dem candidate. In the case of an election with an otherwise tepid pool of nominees I might consider him. But with Mitt and others as viable alternatives, that's not this election.
Here's another interesting question, will the Repub vice presidential candidate come from the pool of present presidential candidates, or someone completely off the radar now? I don't seen McCain or Rudy interested in VP role, maybe Mitt (but I doubt it). Stronger chance that Hunter, Huckabee, etc. might consider it.
McCain has already made promises to people, and those are the folks who've lined up for him. Graham is his long-time lackey, and I'm sure he thinks he's got a great chance at the #2 spot. Gov. Pawlenty has recently come on as a notable McCain supporter. If you want to realize how rare this is, go over to the Gizzette at Human Events.com and check out why McCain didn't show up at last week's RSC meeting: the House Conservatives would've approached McCain as an adversary, not an ally.
So my question is this: why would Pawlenty, a noted midwestern conservative with a bright future in front of him, buck the conservative wing of the party to get on the "straight talk express?" Could it be that McCain has already promised him something?
It would seem probable to me, especially since Pawlenty is the governor of a very purple state that McCain could swing to the GOP for the first time since Reagan. South Carolina, on the other hand, is going GOP no matter what.
I think Sen. Graham is in for a rude surprise at the GOP convention if McCain goes wire-to-wire.
BTW, when I said "McCain has already made promises to people...", I'm merely reading the tea leaves and engaging in idle speculation. As I'm sure OccObs readers know, I don't actually have any inside info, but since this is the internet, I figure I should be clear about it.
While "I'm smart," I've never been in the inner circle. My brother tells me that's just how Pop wanted it.
FYI, old news but I just saw it: general counsel to National Right to Life Committee has endorsed Mitt:
(http://www.lifenews.com/nat2903.html)
Note that NRLC itself has not officially endorsed anyone yet, this is just a personal endorsement. If NRLC follows in Bopp's footsteps, however, I think it effectively kills any of the 2nd tier SoCons.