Redstate

Another way to look at Rudy's remarks today is that this is his Sister Souljah moment -- He stood up to extremists in his party and made himself look palatable to the great majority of Americans who are in the middle on this issue.

Ok, before 80 percent of RedState readers come totally unglued and start screaming that I am comparing pro-lifers to an idiotic, flash-in-the-pan rapper who advocated shooting white people instead of black people, I am not. I am just saying that Rudy might score points in the long run with voters who make up the majority in this country by distancing himself from hard core pro-lifers who are a small minority. Yes they are. Remember, even South Dakota (the most pro-life state in America) voters overturned their legislature-passed and governor-signed total abortion ban by 10 points in Nov 2006.

But I agree with those who say Rudy should have advocated the repeal of Roe v Wade. That would have been much smarter and is still arguably consistent with his pro-choice views. Roe was a badly reasoned decision. And of course if SCOTUS ever overturned Roe, state legislators in NY, CA, MD, MA etc would scamper to Albany, Sacramento, Annapolis, Boston, etc faster than Rosie O'Donnell to an all-you-can-eat buffet to legalize abortion in their state. And they would have that right.

The point of a "Sister Souljah" moment is taking on the extreme of one wing to unify the middle and rest of the country. The problem is Rudy is to the left of the center on abortion.

A Gov. Gilmore position of first trimester legal might do such a thing to a "no exceptions" ban advocate. But supporting public funding for abortion, partial birth abortion, and opposing parental notification put Rudy in a small minority (20-30%) of the country that want abortion-on-demand.

There are places for such shun the far right, embrace the middle efforts, but this is not one of them. Perhaps embracing civil unions for same-sex couples or opposing hardline-only immigration policies. But opposing ANY real restriction on abortion is not some kind of moderate position.

Most people don't vote based on abortion, but that is far different from saying their view is the same as Rudy's.

______________________________________
Bobby Jindal Saves Louisiana

Rudy may be personally pro-choice, and ever more so than the average American, but he's also said that he would nominate judges like Alito. That moves him back, on balance, to the right. Few other pro-choicers would appoint such judges.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out over the coming weeks and months. Most Republican voters are not single issue pro-lifers. If they were, Brownback and Huckabee would be above low single digits. Instead, all of our top three candidates (Rudy, Mc, and Romney) cannot be classified as hard core pro life. We must actually be a big tent. Ain't no way the top three Dem candidates would have a whiff of pro-life in them.

led to a lot of change on the issue.

So did his nominees, O'Connor and Kennedy. This is the "red herring" issue of the '08 election.

http://avoiceofreason.wordpress.com/

Some slack can be cut with regards to Kennedy, since he was the third choice, and the Dems had control of the Senate (didn't they???). Still, its now known that some in the administration knew Kennedy would be a disappointment, so Reagan and his team could have tried harder.

With O'Connor, however, there is no excuse, and along with the illegal alien amnesty, she must go down as Reagan's biggest mistake. It was an easily avoidable mistake too, and that is what makes it so bitter. Reagan just had to make that ridiculous promise to put the first woman on the Sup Court, a promise that very likely gained him zero votes because, after all, its liberals and Democrats who are most likely to respond to such pandering, not conservatives and Republicans. So when the first opening came up, Reagan pretty much had to fulfill that promise immediately, since there was no guarantee he'd get another shot. The bench of women candidates at the time was not that deep, which made O'Connor's chances all the greater. So in the end, Reagan wasted an opportunity to put a conservative on the bench when he had a Republican Senate. Just imagine if he had gone with Scalia first, then Bork or some other conservatives with the second opening, and then did whatever with the third. Roe would have been overturned with the Casey case, and the matter would have largely worked itself out in the past 15 years democratically.

Still, its not a red herring issue for 08. At the very least, conservatives have a right to demand and expect their nominee to be genuine on the issue of judges. With Giuliani, I can't quite buy his talk.

Do you believe Giuliani is sincere in his talk about the type of judge he would appoint?

I wouldn't give too much weight to how aggressively pro-life a candidate is with regard to what kind of judges they're going to appoint. The Democrats know as well as you do that the replacement of the next retiring justice will either preserve or fundamentally alter the ideological biases of the SCOTUS. Even assuming that a Republican president wins the White House in '08, he will have to deal with the reality of a Democratic Senate that has a strong likelihood of increasing its majority. A Roberts or Alito simply has no chance of confirmation.

I'm not saying that pro-life principles are meaningless, or that you shouldn't vote based on yours. Just don't focus on the hope of an anti-Roe justice to the exclusion of other aspects of a candidate that are meaningful to you.

Agreed. The Democrats will increase their majority in the US Senate and still maintain a majority in the US House.

The Bush tax cuts will expire in 2010, which will result in a recession. The Democrat Congress could, but won't, extend these tax cuts. So, if a Republican wins the presidency in 2008, he will be a failed president who, according to the spin and the belief of most voters, "mishandled the economy" and "doesn't care about unemployment" and "is too worried about things happening in distant shores to help the American economy."

Sound familiar? It should. It is what happened when a Republican named George Herbert Walker Bush was elected president in 1988 with a Democrat Congress.

The result will be a Democrat presidential victory in 2012, after the Republican congressional represenatation shrinks (due to the 2008, 2010 and 2012 elections) to what it was after the watergate elections of 1974. The Democrats will have a filibuster proof Senate.

If a Democrat wins the presidency in 2008, the Republicans will be poised to win congressional seats in 2010 and 2012 and will likely win the presidency in 2012, along with a Republican Congress.

If I am a Democrat, I'm hoping the Republicans win the presidency in 2008, setting up a "punching bag presidency." See my blog with this title.

The Left thinks that the "axis of evil" is Wal-Mart, Haliburton and Enron.

Pro-Roe justices are generally terrible on most other issues, as its a good indicator of what type of judicial philosophy one has. Pro-Roe 'moderates' like O'Connor and Kennedy are typically bad on most other Culture War issues. So if the next President is a Republican, and he cannot get a conservative confirmed, then it isn't just that Roe will survive yet again, but its also that we can expect a lot of similarly bad jurisprudence on a whole host of issues. Under this scenario we can, for example, pretty much bank on the Sup Court imposing gay marriage/civil unions on the entire nation.

Even with a likely Democratic Senate, a Republican successor to Bush would have no excuse whatsoever to not nominate conservatives. For one thing, it would be breaking a campaign promise not to do so, as all the GOP candidates talk the talk on this issue. For another, putting up another O'Connor-Kennedy type is destructive from a public relations point of view, because it allows the likes of Senator Schumer and the mainstream media to define them as a 'mainstream conservative', (when in fact they are nothing of the sort) in contrast with 'radicals' like Scalia and Alito (who are in fact outcome-neutral on most divisive issues).

Finally, it may be possible to get a conservative through. As a pessimist, I doubt this myself, but even with media bias, a debate over the proper role of judges is one we can win, because most people do not want activist on the bench setting social policy. Let's have an all out battle over judges, and put pressure on red state Democrats. Its certainly worth a try, especially when the alternative is that end up with judges like O'Connor, or even worse, like Souter.

But we should not fool ourselves into thinking there is some judge out there who would be pro-Roe, and thus garner Democratic support, and who would then go on to limit his bad jurisprudence to abortion related issues. Again, if he or she is bad on that, then they'll like be horrible on pretty much everything.

...a candidate like Giuliani, who has been bestowed with the 'moderate' or 'centrist' label, would have a great opportunity (and obligation in my opinion) to use his moderate credentials to engage the public on this debate over the proper role of judges. If Giuliani is out there saying that, as a pro-choice person, he welcomes the return of the matter to the people/states, then it might just go a long way in undermining the public's support for Roe. And that would be fitting, since support for Roe is based on lies and misinformation.

No way you'd think he is left of center on this if you saw him today. No how. He was very convincing, very articulate on life. Wait till the youtube clips come out b4 you rely on AP snippets or bloggers' takes on what they read (clearly not Ben, who was there)...the whole social issues thing is about 10 minutes long. He addresses (paraphrasing):

-- PBA: "too gruesome to even read parts of the SCOTUS opinion" (also explained very convincingly how he had "evolved" on PBA and Hyde - it made sense, seemed logical, and, hold your laughter, I actually believed him.)
-- 2nd Amndmnt: "I completely agree with J. Silberman's recent DC Circuit opinion.
-- Gay Marriage: "not for civil unions if it exactly same thing as marriage with another name." "marriage between a man and woman important institution we must preserve"

Sure, those thoughts aren't socon...but left of center????

Also, I recorded the audio, so if not video is available soon on the internet somewhere, I'll try to figure out how to put it up, or at least social issues part, so y'all can decide for yourselves.

Again, today's speech was not like any other I had seen him make. He was firm, clear, and convincing and all the social issues, didnt shy away from explaining and taking a stance.

Everything I wrote up there in the "paraphrasing" section won't come as a surpise to any of us (though that is by no means a leftist vision), but my point is that today he presented it in a way the clicks and makes sense and should be, at the least, palatable to the R base.

Just a different Rudy today.

Clips are out.

Watch the speech, about 30 minutes (does not include a half hour Q and A following) at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsqvUkzpjC4

If you just want to see the abortion discussion, including PBA, Hyde, Judges, etc., it comes in at 7m 54s here:

http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/156054.aspx

If possible, watch the whole thing. Whether you like it or not, you can't call him "waffles" after watching this.

From the David Brody post at CBN, where the 7 minute abortion clip comes from:

If you are pro-life, if you are thinking about voting for Giuliani, you really should watch the clip above. It's about 7 minutes long. I've lifted the part on abortion only. Decisions for President are crucial and shouldn't be made by watching 10 second sound bites. You need to hear the candidates fully explain their position. I hope this helps.

...if he is okay with all the states (a majority) that choose not to recognize same-sex unions at all, no matter what nomenclature is used, or does he think that the courts should impose his favored not-quite-the-equivalent-of-marriage civil unions?

The same should be asked of all the Democrats who claim to support both civil unions and states rights.

But sadly, this is just another in a long list of questions (from a conservative point of view) that will never be asked of any candidate.

Embracing civil unions is not some way to stick it to the far-right. Voters have had no qualms about banning both gay marriage and civil unions when given the chance, and the one instance where a comprehensive marriage amendment failed -- Arizona -- the failure was due more to the clever tactics adopted by the Left whereby they attacked they amendment on the grounds that it would interefere with heterosexual relationships. They did not go around championing civil unions. And in Colorado the voters comfortably rejected an initiative that established domestic partnerships. So its hard to see how 'embracing' civil unions will do much for Giuliani, other than win him a temporary rush of favorable media attention.

And what do you mean by 'embrace' anyway? He is already on record as supporting civil unions, so long as they are exactly equivalent to marriage (whatever that means). What should he say about the majority of states that do not now, or will not anytime soon, recognize gay unions at all, no matter what they are called? Is this tolerable? Should Giuliani call for federal courts to strike down such laws, and impose civil unions? Surely not, since that would completely torpedo all of his talk about favoring Alito-like judges.

No, the best way to strike out a position on marriage that would please most on the political spectrum raning from moderately liberal to conservative is to support the federal DOMA, and to leave all questions of state policy to the states, and in furtherance of that goal, to put the type of non-activist, conservative/orginalist judge on the bench who will refrain from imposing any outcome. One should make it clear that they are fine with the actions taken by either the Connecticuts or the Louisianas of the nation, and that the courts should stay out of it.

With regards to immigration, the question here is how exactly one should go about 'opposing hardline-only immigratin policies.' That we'd have a Republican nominee who is liberal on immigration would be nothing new. But for it to be any sort of Sister Souljah momement, then it would require Giuliani to scold the 'hardliners' in some manner, most likely in some self-righteous, platitude-ridden manner. That should be avoided.

The danger in either of the examples you mention is that it would be very easy for Giuliani (or whoever) to fall into using very leftist language and rhetoric to chastise those you consider to be the far right. It would be very easy for such a candidate to sound as if he were calling conservatives intolerant, bigoted, homophobic, xenophobic, anti-immigrant yahoos.

I actually agree with you completely on abortion. Giuliani is left of center on abortion, and his history on the matter, as well as his present rhetoric, really makes it hard to buy into his talk about judges. Something would have to give. If he were serious and genuine about nominating conservative judges, then he'd have to accept that the absurd Roe would likely be overturned, and then the phony Constitutional right to abortion would be gone. If he wants Roe to survive, then the best he could do would probably be O'Connor-Kennedy type judges, who would be be terrible on many other issues in addition to abortion.

As you can see from my .sig, I'm not going to vote for Rudy in the primaries, but if it came to it, I think our chances of getting a 5th vote against Roe from a President Guiliani is strikingly higher than getting it from a Democratic president

Signature disclaimer: I'm not currently paid by any campaign, but I am available. Current preferences for President: 1) F.Thompson; 2) Romney; 3) McCain; 4) Gingrich; Guiliani removed 04/03/07

...that Giuliani is genuine in his talk about judges, and more importantly, that he'd come through with actual nominations?

If Giuliani is elected, and he has the retirement of Ginsburg or Stevens, do you think he would come through and finally deliver a 5th conservative on the High Court?

could be that he does offer such a nominee, only to see him Borked. Then he'd offer someone more "palatable" and we'd end up with another justice like Kennedy.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

If the Dems try to filibuster a conservative justice, then we should be prepared to fight an all out battle to get the justice confirmed. If this fails, then Giuliani should nominate another, equally conservative nominee. And so on and so on, at least until the next election.Getting another O'Connor or Kennedy might be worse than just leaving the seat vacant.

Or we could try for a stealth conservative, a sort of reverse David Souter. Unfortunately, I don't think such a person exists.

...I think it would be pretty obvious is Giuliani just put up some sacrificial conservative so that he could go with a 'moderate' (i.e. socially liberal activist) when the conservative got shot down.

This next Presidential election, in my view, will literally decide if this Country will survive or not and thus, I agree with the importance of ANY Republican winning.

Besides that, if Giuliani was to receive the nomination, I would thoroughly expect a very conservative Republican as his running mate and when Elected, a conservative cabinet. Rudy Giuliani is smart enough to know that he can take TONS of conservative democratic votes away from Mrs. Clinton in the general election but it will do him no good if he can't "beef up" his ticket with a conservative, pro-life VP.

I could see Thompson or Romney or even Brownback / Huckabee / Gilmore fill that bill.

Signature disclaimer: I'm not currently paid by any campaign, but I am available. Current preferences for President: 1) F.Thompson; 2) Romney; 3) McCain; 4) Gingrich; Guiliani removed 04/03/07

I am a huge Romney supporter, but he and Giuliani could never be on a ticket together. They probably would be the two most competent ever, but Romney would bring no geographic diversity and he wouldn't help hold the South which along with the Midwest is where Rudy is would be weakest.

...if he didn't deliver on judges. And I mean deliver every time. There can be no more mistakes like the ones make by Reagan and Bush the Elder if the Sup Court is ever to behave as it should.

I agree that the GOP should have more going for it than a single issue (although our elected officials are driving all of us crazy on many issues!). I might also agree that the party sometimes tends to be a little hysterical on abortion, although that is understandable given the importance of the issue not only as an issue unto itself, but also as a reflection of a person's thinking, etc. But what I won't agree with is the garbage that one of the GOP's leading presidential candidates -- who supposedly is morally opposed to abortion -- gives money to Planned Parenthood. There better be a helluva good explanation for that.

If you're referring to Romney, he's just "flipped" on abortion, he's never "flopped." He's changed his mind once, just as HW BUsh and Reagan did.

Giuliani has not exactly been honest and straightforward about abortion in the last few months. He's been doing an awful lot of vaciallating and winking and code talk.

I'm interested to hear why you think he is immune from a flip-flop charge.

Thompson has said that he believes in abortion on-demand in the first trimester. He has also said that believes that Congress should leave legislation restricting abortion to the States, yet he voted for the federal partial-birth abortion ban.
http://vote-smart.org/npat.php?can_id=22003#408

Is this not a flip-flop? I say, thank God he did!

"That questionnaire was filled out by a campaign staffer without Fred's knowledge," said Mark Corallo, a spokesman for the former Tennessee senator. "As you can see, he has voted in every instance along pro-life lines."

http://draftfredthompson.com/index.php/topic,5318.0.html (quoting a now-subscription-only LA Times piece)

there is a video on youtube of Thompson saying he is pro-choice. He was pro-choice in a state where that was a liability, not where it was a necessity like for Romney.

Hey be happy that both Romney and Thompson governed as solid pro-lifers and welcome them to our side with open arms.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5a_Fpu_8KE&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Erace4...

I had not seen the LA Times piece or Thompson's response to the 1994 questionnaire. (By the way, I was able to access it here: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-abortion9may09,1,34...)

Don't you think it's a little late (and convenient) for Thompson to be correcting the record now. Ultimately, Thompson is responsible for information his campaign disseminated, especially where that information stood uncorrected for over 13 years.

And how do you explain the youtube video linked by dskinner11? dskinner11 raises interesting points about the political landscape in Tennessee versus the political landscape in Massachussets. It's much easier for pro-life candidates to be viable in Tennessee than in Massachussets. Other things being equal, it is possible that Romney was/is personally more pro-life than Thompson was/is.

Look, I like Thompson. I hope he joins the race, and if he convinces me that (1) he is viable and (2) that he is the candidate that will appoint the best judges (originalists), he can count on my vote.

However, Thompson must compete with Romney, and the rest of the candidates, on a level playing field, and right now I don't see how Thompson is better than Romney on judges. Romney has been brilliant in decrying judicially imposed same-sex marriage.

Bobby Jindhal in LA was winning in his first run for governor. Then he indicated he was against abortion. Those Republican's that can think and the swing voters stayed home and he lost.

Uh, what????

You are completely and totally off on this. There isn't even a single nugget of truth to that statement.

Consider: Bobby Jindal lost his first election, demographically, because he underperformed in the conservative, traditionally Republican districts...districts that are overwhelmingly pro-life.

Consider: He lost after a late-election series of ads in those districts that used a darkened photo and implied, incorrectly, that he was a foreigner.

And finally, consider: BOTH Bobby and his Democrat opponent Blanco claimed to be pro-life!!!!

I'm just going to assume that you are extremely misinformed on this.

I live in Louisiana. Your argument made the point for me. Jindhal did preform bad in pro Republican areas for the very reason that I said. He had a considerable amount of support for his run from these areas. But when he mentioned the abortion issue, he died. Now this is in a pro-life state. The dardened photos were an effort by the MSM and Blanco to make Jindhal appear as if he were African/American. This play on prejudice thrilled the national MSM but was not the case if you knew what was happening in the state.

I see little difference between the religious right trying to use the government to push their version of morality and the Democrates trying to push for socialism. They both seem to be the same, only a slightly different agenda. For that matter, what is the difference between Christians telling a woman what she can do with her body and the various Muslim laws that we find repugnant? It is all the same thing.

Finally, have you ever seen what happens to a child that is not wanted? I can assure you that if you would sit in the ER or peds clinic for a month you would insist that abortion is an absolute necessity. Your argument will be that social organiztion would help with unwanted children, but they don't do that very well now, imagine what would happen with the extra children that are produced by your moralism.

And you managed to show, rather decisively, that you're either ignorant and lacking in the ability to analyze even straightforward news reporting or, your a moby. Of course, you could be both.

I'm voting for the latter.

The good news is that you can go away now and we'll forget you quickly. Stick around, you've got a shot at the RS Hall of Fame for ignorant posts.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

I was living in Louisiana in 2003 and even campaigned for Jindal, door to door.

Jindal lost the election, according to Vern Kennedy's exhaustive post-election analysis, when the normally conservative voting rural areas of central and north Louisiana bailed on him and voted for the "whiter candidate" a direct reaction to the darkened photos of Jindal that had been on the airwaves in the week prior to election day.

Now you can delude yourself if you wish. but blaming Jindal's loss on his pro-life stance in a pro-life state is just idiocy.

Your next argument in its favor is your last.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

I know of what happened to at least one child who was not wanted, by your definition.

I see her almost every day. She's my little adopted sister.

First, your analysis is just bad. LA is the most pro-life state in the country. In case you forgot to research the topic, the DEM nominee was also pro-life (Blanco) as is true of almost every statewide candidate in LA. Jindal did not lose b/c he was pro-life. If he had been pro-choice the outcome would have been much worse.

Second, you are right that there is more focus on social issues now than in the past. The Contract with America was devoid of social issues but in its wake, Rs did not implement term limits or changes to the system to prevent earmarking and pork barreling. These good/small government efforts are not at the forefront anymore and that is unfortunate.

However, it might be important to note that Rs hadn't won Congress since the 50s until the 90s. So any change in the 80s worked. Maybe pro-lifers no longer felt at home in the Democratic Party.

And finally, "Those Republican's that can think and the swing voters stayed home and he lost." Watch the insults. The 100 million + pro-lifers are not people who can't think. And the idea that protecting innocent human life from a pair of scissors to the back of the skull is only a position of the ignorant is offensive. There are differences of opinion on how to weigh life and liberty in cases of abortion, but that doesn't make anyone ignorant.

______________________________________
Bobby Jindal Saves Louisiana

You write:

"As such, I can remember a time when Republicans and conservatives fought hard to obtain a government that was small, with few taxes, and dedicated to a concept that basically said that people should be free.

Since the mid 80's those principles have been lost."

When precisely was the time when Republicans were united in explicitly or implicitly endorsing open-season on the lives of unborn children?

I suppose there was some time in the 70s when the Republican Party was less emphatically pro-life than it is now--and the Democratic Party was less emphatically pro-choice than it is now. Compare their platforms in 1976.

http://andrsn.stanford.edu/Abortion/Platform_Planks.html

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/print.php?pid=29606

If this is the time period you have in mind--were those the golden years for the GOP--when the Democrats had massive majorities in both houses of Congress?

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

We don't know whether the million or so babies that are aborted each year in the US would have been Republican if they had not be been murdered; but we do know they are all dead. They cannot speak for them selves.

As a grown human being, Who Can Think, I choose to support those
unborn children who's Right to Live should be unchallenged.

Therefore I am a Republican that can think, and I think abortion is wrong and I will vote accordingly. I think those unborn inconvenient children that are to be aborted would want to be allowed to live.

Would the RNC ever have the imagination and chutzpah to run a single line of unassailable copy:

Abortion: Leading Killer Of Potential Democrats

soli Deo gloria

Its not just about abortion. Its about the courts, and the proper role of judges in this republic of ours. The ONLY reason abortion is such a hot-button national issue is because the High Court hijacked and usurped it from the states.

And as it turns out, a judges position on Roe is a pretty good indicator of what type of judge they are overall. Judges who are good on Roe are generally good on most other issues (like Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist), while pro-Roe judges are generally terrible on most other issues as well.

The part about President Bush is sort of puzzling. His troubles have nothing whatsoever to do with his pro-life views and policies.

And what do you mean by 'those Republicans than can think' not voting for Jindhal because of abortion? Are you saying that only non-thinking Republicans would vote for a pro-life candidate? If pro-life Republicans are petty and small-minded for not supporting pro-choice Republican candidates, then wouldnt' pro-choice Republicans be just as small for refusing to support pro-life candidates?

And it is true that most Americans support legal abortion...but not to the extent dictated by the courts. Most Americans oppose abortion on demand, and their support for Roe is built upon lies put out by the left and their mainstream media allies about both the extent of that decision, and about what would happen if it were overturned.

If you really want less national bitterness over this issue, then you should support the jettisoning of Roe specifically, and keeping the courts out of it generally.

I came straight from the event, and nothing had been posted yet. As it stands, I encourage you to read this piece:

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=local&id=5295978

I've seen several posts about concerns that "outlawing abortion is the only issue the Republican Party stands for."

This is emphatically not true. There are at least two other core issues- minimizing taxes and promoting a strong national defense. There is nothing wrong with having a core set of beliefs with at least a few issues we don't compromise on.

Republicans are the big tent party that does tolerate different points of view, compared with the dems special interest group orthodoxy. But if we are going to turn the keys to the party over to a leader who is not strong on at least our three core issues, then the Republican party starts to lose its meaning.

Rudy would be in just as much political trouble, and justifiably so, if he was perceived as pro-tax hike or pro-defense cut.

That's the problem. Don't get me wrong, I'm not voting for Rudy in the primary mainly because I think F.Thompson or Romney would be better presidents, but I don't have an iota of dread about voting for Rudy over any Democrat.

Signature disclaimer: I'm not currently paid by any campaign, but I am available. Current preferences for President: 1) F.Thompson; 2) Romney; 3) McCain; 4) Gingrich; Guiliani removed 04/03/07

And I think pro-life, low-tax, strong defense are the three well established issues that the base overwhelmingly supports.

this proves that we are not a single issue party.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released this week shows terrorism is the top issue on the minds of Republicans as they look ahead to the 2008 election. Abortion ranked seventh on the list of 17 issues, with 35 percent of Republicans nationwide saying that issue is extremely important to their vote.

I got to the link for the CNN story that talked about abortion as 7 out of 17th for Repubs, and tried to follow the link to find the poll, but was only able to find a poll that looked like it was surveying all Americans, not just Republicans, and abortion was like the 14th most important issue.

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/05/09/rel6e.pdf

The good news- in this cnn poll, 50% self identify as pro-life, 45% as pro-choice.

If you have the Republicans only poll, I am interested to see what Republicans rank as their top issues ahead of abortion.

You make an error if you think that California Republicans vote like strong Democratic states in the northeast. California isn't Connecticut; it's a diverse state with a wide range of regions that have their own voting patterns. We have enclaves of staunch Republicans than bigger than some whole Republican-leaning states.

And you know what? It doesn't matter if Los Angeles and the Bay Area were possibly pro-Rudy, thanks to numerous lefty types drawn here from across the country, because California Republicans aren't the type to nominate liberals for statewide and national office. We choose conservative candidates like Tom McClintock, Bill Simon, and Dan Lungren when we're not bandwagoning onto a freak like Schwarzenegger who can dazzle Hollywood types.

I have to think Fred Thompson would dominate California in the primary: he's an actor AND is conservative-friendly like Schwarzenegger never was.

Run like Reagan!

I can't say how Californian Republicans will vote -- but do keep in mind that it's an open primary state, so Independents may choose to vote for Rudy. But my main point is that Rudy's announcement is only a death-knell for a segment of the Party.

I'll say this with certainty, if I were against Rudy's nomination, I sure wouldn't make the mistake of underestimating him or his support.

as a result of "crossover" as McCain got help in 2000. Both parties have primary contests and I doubt Dem's will be crossing over to vote for Rudy or John. They've got their own axes to grind.

The independents voting R or D will be interesting though.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

although I have heard that in September the Republican party of California will decide on whether or not to allow Independents to vote in their primaries as well

California Democratic Party

Yes, lefty independents (but not Democrats) could ask for a Republican Primary ballot, but that comes at the expense of getting to choose Democrats for the entire ticket.

I'm not so sure that's a risk.

Run like Reagan!

All those independents didn't seem to help guys like Richard Riordan...

Run like Reagan!

I'm somehow surprised there are [i]conservatives[/i] in California. I mean, didn't leftist Borg succeed in assilimating the rest of Californians? [i]Conservatives[/i] in California? Are you sure about that? ;)

I'm sorry if I seemed like badmouthing California, it's just like when Philip told Nathaniel in the Gospel of Matthew about Jesus Christ who was raised out of Nazareth. Nathaniel retorted, asking Philip whether any good can come out of Nazareth. Therefore I have to ask whether there is anything good out of California these days.

I suppose it must be an act of Providence that Reagan managed to survive and even prospered politically over there, how else can one call it? A stroke of good luck charm? Perhaps...

------------
Daniel 2:20 And he [God] changeth the times and seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding.

..we'd put the DOCTOR in jail, not the mother. No one's talking about putting the mothers in jail. As far as I'm concerned, the mothers do not know what is going on because they can't really see it when it's happening. When you're on your back and sedated you think it's a blob. It's the doctor who knows otherwise.

...ignorance of what abortion is doesn't fly.

it's real simple... no strawman here, jail for murder or not?

blame the doctor, is that like put the bartender in jail for serving the drinks?

Obviously my point makes you squirm and to the bob and weave so where does that leave us?

Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin

One big fear of pro-lifers is that Rudy will give cover to pro-choice arguments that are wrong. For example, the idea that mothers would go to jail. The vast majority of pro-lifers want to go after abortionists, not mothers.

I can think of nothing that would hurt Rudy more on this topic than to parrot false statements like those in this comment.

______________________________________
Bobby Jindal Saves Louisiana

You got me thinking ... suppose a fair number of women decide to go Canada or Mexico for abortions. Wouldn't you have to prosecute the women since the doctor are outside federal/state jurisdiction?

of pro-life efforts is that no one thinks all abortions will end. But dropping the 1.2 million a year down to a 20,000 would be the same as saving 1.18 million lives from that perspective.

And probably more important than your distinction is that some states will have legal abortion. So people will not need to leave the country. People in pro-life states could just go to NYC (as they did in the 70s) to get abortions. But there were far fewer then than now. The illegalization of abortion would lower its incidents but not eliminate them.

On the original point, I don't know of any organizations who are pushing for punishment of mothers. So the original comment is fighting a major straw man.

______________________________________
Bobby Jindal Saves Louisiana

and a doctor does it, she is innocent and the doctor a murderer.

You really want to make that argument? I'm not talking about who's proposing what punishment for whoever, but the basic question at the core.

I'm not at all surprised that so few of the absolutists bothered to respond.

Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin

(My previous question was based on the assumption that Roe vs. Wade would be overturned and abortion would be illegal throughout the U.S. -- sorry I didn't mention that)

Suppose it's decided by the States, I still can't help but wonder if pro-life states really would allow its citizens to travel to pro-choice states for abortions without imposing some kind of penalty -- otherwise you'd have a huge loop-hole and never come close to a 99% reduction in abortions.

a class warfare issue then, as seemingly only people who could afford to travel to those places would avail themselves of it.

It's just going to be more ammunition to be used against us.

Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin

This is how it's already been framed and is going to be used so there's no point in making claims against me. At least I'm intellectually honest about it.

A quote from Rudy on the H&C show a few weeks back...

“I hate it,” he said of abortion in a recent interview with Sean Hannity of Fox News. “I think abortion is something that, as a personal matter, I would advise somebody against. However, I believe in a woman’s right to choose. I think you have to ultimately not put a woman in jail for that.”

Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin

someplace? Because I would really like to see it and evaluate whether the Rudy bashers were bringing bad, but real, news, or doing some character assassination.

havent found anything yet, but if something doesnt come up soon, I recorded just the audio, and will try to figure out how to put it up. at least the social issues part, about ten minutes long. hopefully, though, there will be video available soon.

Sorry you didn't make it in. Shame we couldn't get together for a drink after. Obviously we would've had much to discuss, despite our differing opinions of his speech.

I certainly think that Rudy will remain an excellent politician. But this was a profoundly bad political move. Given the opportunity to make a federalist argument against Roe, or take small but important steps in the direction of the majority in his party, he chose the other path...and it's a path that I believe ended his campaign for the nomination.

Charisma can cover up a great deal of sins. But I believe this is an argument that will not be accepted by any significant number of pro-life voters. An attempt by the former mayor of NYC to redefine the party in his image is in Rudy's character, but it is hardly reasonable to expect him to succeed at such a goal.

Definitely would've been great to discuss. I was annoyed that I couldn't see it in person, but, that's the breaks...early bird and all.

Don't know about that drink, though. Aside from the fact that I was very late for work already, don't think it would look good if I came in with beer breath at 10:30 in the morning. Burgers would've been good, though. Next time, it's on me.

Watching it again -- clips are posted; see, http://tinyurl.com/2lsz9e -- you are right, it's not a monumental shift in argument substance, more in style. But, I think that style will help immensely for a number of reasons:

1. He is, finally, incredibly forthright and clear about where he stands; I think that will enable him to to at least move past the issue somewhat. It may bury him with some primary voters, but for those with whom it does not, he can refocus on other parts of his message without constantly being diverted by other candidates in the GOP, and, of course, the MSM. If he gets the opportunity to explicate on other parts of his platform, I believe he will present Republican voters with a very tough decision, because he is so appealing on every other part of the platform. Not only do his views on social issues and everything else, views which he is starting to combine very effectively into a thematic whole if this speech is any indication, make logical sense, and in a very believable, "non-pandering, non-waffling" way, but you also instinctively believe him on a personal level. Love him or hate him, you just the get feeling you're seeing a bit more into the real person and core beliefs of the guy, as opposed to what you see of other politicians (not that Rudy isn't a master politician). Then again, I'm sure many will disagree with that take...to each his own, I guess.

2. By embracing that style of laying all his cards on the table, it seemed to me that Rudy finally felt free to be himself, and could focus on the message substance in a way that makes sense and is substantially more convincing than the ad hoc, hodgepodge way he had been addressing the social issues up to this point, especially the last month. His explanation of his "evolution" on Hyde, PBA, and other restrictions was nothing earth shatteringly new, but it was just presented it a much more convincing, coherent, and ultimately believable way than he had done before.

We'll see who is right in the next few weeks once polls start coming out. But, if he can consistently do from now on what he did in Houston, starting with next week's debate, I really think we'll see him start to put distance between the other top tiers, and may ultimately prove more attractive than FDT. Time will tell...

P.S. Of course, I still would've preferred him using those communication skills to articulate a strong federalist position and advocating the overturning of Roe. While that would've worked a few months ago, can't put the milk back in the bottle once it is spilt.

We are suppose to overlook all of Rudy's personal flaws and social positions because there is this assumption that he is so great in other areas, but its simply not true.

McCain and Thompson have substantive foreign policy experiecen while Rudy has none. Rudy has no military, diplomatic or foreign policy experiecen. He has nothing that would indicate that he would be good in foreign affairs. He was a lawyer and mayor. How exactly does that prepare him for dealing with North Korea? Rudy supporters look at him through 9/11 colored glasses.

Same with fiscal conservatism. Romney was a first rate CEO. He saved company after company. He is a business man, not a lawyer or politician like Rudy or like Fred and McCain for that matter. After his life in the private sector, he turned around the fiscal mess that was the olympics and then turned around the fiscal mess in blue state Massachusetts. Rudy's record on fiscal matters is far less accomplished than Romney's yet were just suppose to assume that Rudy is this great fiscal conservative and the only reason people don't support him is abortion.

Also, his comminication skills are suppose to be great, but he's been outshined and outmaneuvered by Romney and Thompson repeatedly.

Its not that he is pro-abortion. He's just overrated in general.