Rudy Giuliani On Hannity & Colmes

The video above is also available here: Rudy Giuliani on Hannity & Colmes (Part 1 of 2)

The video above is also available here: Rudy Giuliani on Hannity & Colmes (Part 2 of 2)

Instead of sharing my thoughts, I'd rather hear yours.

Is his stance on judicial appointments enough to overcome his position that people should ultimately be allowed to "choose" to abort?

Any other thoughts?

Comments

[The Griper]

my humble opinion. his position on abortion is irrelevant. for as President of the United States he has no say in the interpretation of the Constitution. that is the responsibility of the Supreme Court. it is his position in regards to the judicial philosophy of interpretation that is important.

the only time that a candidate's position on abortion would be relevant would be at a time that the issue was placed into the hands of Congress where he would have veto authority to affect its outcome.

[Anthony]

I couldn't make myself listen to him longer than 5 minutes into the first video, sorry. He just kept saying the "womans right to choose" but kept forgetting the "...to kill her baby." I could not,in good conscience vot for some one who is either completely ignorant of the facts (that a baby is present), or just doesn't care. If their judgement is so skewed on this, how can they be trusted to do anything else right?

[Hammerbrecher]

Anthony, exactly! If they can't get that right, then they are not fit to run anything else.

[T. Shaw]

I can only vote for Rudy if his opponent's positions on abortion and the regularization of sodomy were even more (as if that were possible) despicable.

[David1]

Our President has two critical powers regarding abortion.

1. The power to appoint Supreme Court judges.
2. The Bully Pulpit. The President can set the tone and the national discussion of topics.

[jimbo]

I really wanted to like Rudy...I really did. The current crop of leading Presidential candidates, both Republican and Democrat, are really very bad. But it is unmistakable that Rudy is quite liberal on social policy...pro-abortion (if he hates it so much, he must think it's wrong, so why not outlaw it?), pro-gay civil unions, de facto open borders and offering citizenship to illegal aliens...it's just too much for me to support him.

[Steve]

I cannot fathom orthodox Catholics and Evangelicals voting for Rudy Giuliani-despite his effort to triangulate himself out of his pro-abortion position. Appointing strict constructionist jurists is not enough for me to vote for him when I can just simply vote for a pro-life Senator McCain or a late-converted Governor Romney.

Making it all worse, Giuliani is the only Roman Catholic out of the three main contenders, and the only candidate who is in favor of abortion.

If the choice to abort a child is murder, than the woman should not have that choice.

I view abortion in a similar lens as the slavery issue that plagued the United States from its inception as a country until the end of the Civil War. Justifying slavery and/or abortion because it is up to the individual's choice regardless of morals is simply not acceptable.

Also, from an electability perspective, how will a Republican candidate get elected president when his opponent in the Democrat Party will have the same position on abortion and gay marriage? Pro-life voters will simply stay home, which will give the election to the Democrat candidate.

[dmedici]

There is absolutely no reason for a Catholic to be voting for a pro-abortion candidate.

[roger h.]

Appointing strict constructionist jurists is not enough for me to vote for him when I can just simply vote for a pro-life Senator McCain or a late-converted Governor Romney.

The odd thing about McCain is that while he has a generally pro-life voting record, he has indicated that Roe v. Wade should not be reversed. Romney also indicated this as late as 2002.

Also, from an electability perspective, how will a Republican candidate get elected president when his opponent in the Democrat Party will have the same position on abortion and gay marriage?

Which is probably why Giuliani is saying what he is saying about the kind of judges he would appoint as President. As far as issues like abortion and gay "marriage" is concerned, this is what distinguishes him from whoever the Democrat nominee is going to be - probably Hillary.

[Kris]

two words. baby killer.

[Qualis Rex]

Just as an update, I watched Ann Coulter again tonite on Hannity and Colmes. I couldn't believe how disrespectful she was to Geraldine Ferraro.

[Hammerbrecher]

We need Brownback to get through or it will be a situation of lesser evils..

[Carlos]

While I respect Sam Brownback's ideas, the dude didn't have an Iowa team in place until about December '06, while Mitt Romney and John McCain had Iowa teams in place well before. In a caucus state where retail politics is the norm, not having this type of foresight is the kiss of death. In short, he's not going to do well in Iowa and, therefore, he's not going to do well racking up delegates either.

While Romney's recent conversion to the pro-life cause must certainly give one pause, his move was toward the correct position. Moreover, his move was prompted by discussions with scientists about embryonic stem cell research. Accordingly, he is able to point to a scientific, causal factor in his conversion.

With respect to Rudy Giuliani: while he may appoint strict constructionist judges, his support of abortion and gay marriage would possibly lead him to veto pro-life and pro-marriage bills, approve pro-abortion and pro-gay administrative rulings, etc. One of the greatest administrative rules that the Bush Administration enacted was to allow federal employees to choose a healthcare plan that did not pay for abortions or contraceptives. This type of revolutionary thinking would not occur in an administration that is pro-abortion and pro-gay.

[Ian]

I commented about this on our blog. The man is mentally incoherent.

[Walt]

I give great creedance to his statement that he cannot imagine our jailing women who had an abortion. I can't either, sorry! This requires the full throated "abortion is murder under any circumstances" position, which I agree with morally, but would find it hard to implement literally.

I do not agree with Guliani's position (very common in New York and San Francisco) of staking ou the personal objection, BUT.....! and i wish he and others would simply say that they personally oppose abortion under any circumstances, other than the life of the mother in early pregnancy. Then point out that the powers of the office he is running for, if elected to it, does not provide for him to effect this situation without legislation coming to him from the congress. And that he will evaluate such bills, if and when they reach his desk, on their own merits consistant with his personal beliefs.

As for gay marriage, Mr. Guliani states clearly that he does NOT support marriage for any other than a man and a woman. He does, and I do, support some sort of government imprimateur for gay couples to organize their lives around, and hopefully reduce the promiscuity rampant in the gay community.

So far I think that Rudy would make the best president of all the currently announced candidates.

[Boston Catholic]

Life is not a political position. It is a philosophy. Guliani will say whatever we need to hear to make us forget that he does not possess an intrinsic love for human life. Why isn't he vehemently in favor of defending life? People here are already acquiescing into the reasoning that he "won't be bad" for the life issue. What can't you a say he will be great for the life issue. You can't say that because he isn't. Guliani wants the vote of the Christian right. He had every opportunity to earn it. He failed.