SIX TIMES!

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0507/3876.html

Quote:Federal tax returns made public by the former New York mayor show that he and his then-wife, Donna Hanover, made personal donations to national, state and city chapters of Planned Parenthood totaling $900 in 1993, 1994, 1998 and 1999.

The returns have been on the public record for years, but the detail about Giuliani's support for Planned Parenthood -- along with e-mailed copies of the returns -- was provided to The Politico by aides to a rival campaign, who insisted on not being identified.

Giuliani's old contributions could echo throughout the 2008 GOP nomination battle, as he seeks to lessen the political impact of his support for abortion rights -- an unpopular position among the social conservatives who in recent elections have weighed decisively in the primaries and caucuses. The issue was raised anew at last week's debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, when Giuliani gave a noncommittal answer to the question of whether it would be a good day for the country if Roe v. Wade were overturned.

"It'd be OK," Giuliani responded, adding that it would also be all right if the Supreme Court decided the other way.

On the campaign trail, Giuliani has a consistent mantra when the abortion issue comes up. "I'm against abortion. I hate it. I wish there never was an abortion, and I would counsel a woman to have an adoption instead of an abortion," Giuliani said last month in Columbia, S.C., in a typical comment.

I appreciate that views on this are complex.

But if his view is was resolute enough to give to the #1 Roe political advocacy group, how can he say in the debate that he is just ambivalent about abortion and could go either way on it?

My hunch is that he believes in Roe, but he believes in being President more.

I like the guy. I really do. But he lost me on his views on the second amendment. The second amendment is NOT state specific. I defy anyone to prove me wrong.

Rudy bit the Republican at all cost pill during the last election. He became a candidate and not just Rudy.

Either way, I wouldn't vote for him, but before at least you knew exactly what he stood for. Now he has no integrity.

GrayBeard Wrote:Now he has no integrity.

Why? He's said nothing that deviates from what he's always believed. Would I vote for him? Nope. But he is respected by me as a person that stands by his convictions. As is that fruitcake Kucinich.

RebelKev Wrote:

GrayBeard Wrote:Now he has no integrity.

Why? He's said nothing that deviates from what he's always believed. Would I vote for him? Nope. But he is respected by me as a person that stands by his convictions. As is that fruitcake Kucinich.

I think what he said at the debate, when he said he would be ok with a repeal of Roe, deviates wildly from what he previously believed. I am close to some people that are very passionate about that issue (on the side of choice) and work in advocacy... Nobody who gives to planned parenthood is "ok" with the repeal of Roe.

Half of PP's work is not just clinical but policy advocacy. And while they don't "promote abortions" so to speak, and quite rightly agree with Rudy that they should be rare... the idea that repealing Roe is "ok" would be abhorrent to them and anyone who donates to them.

Something isn't right here. I don't know about anything he's said on guns, but he is decidedly abandoning previous beliefs on abortion in this campaign, and there's no evidence that its due to a change of heart -- unlike Romney he doesn't even try to assert that. He just hides behind federalism. Well, nobody who gives to planned parenthood six times is going to say "strict constructionism is cool, the states can do what they want, I'd be ok with that".

It just doesn't square. He wants to be president is abandoning core beliefs in order to win.

IMO Hillary does the same but to a lesser extent on a few issues, but none so critical. Like I've said I'm an Obama supporter because he sticks to his beliefs, but at least engages those who disagree with them, which I think is a good combination. I also like Edwards and like his wife very much. In fact I'd really rather have her running.

Rudy goes anti-abortion and I really wouldn't vote for him. Why? He would become a Hillary Clinton......saying what's needed to get elected. What the "F" happened to values? Convictions?

RebelKev Wrote:Rudy goes anti-abortion and I really wouldn't vote for him. Why? He would become a Hillary Clinton......saying what's needed to get elected. What the "F" happened to values? Convictions?

I think you would need a time machine to re-visit the eighteenth/nineteenth centuries to find politicians with those qualities.

RebelKev Wrote:Rudy goes anti-abortion and I really wouldn't vote for him. Why? He would become a Hillary Clinton......saying what's needed to get elected. What the "F" happened to values? Convictions?

I think you would need a time machine to re-visit the eighteenth/nineteenth centuries to find politicians with those particular qualities.

RebelKev Wrote:I like the guy. I really do. But he lost me on his views on the second amendment. The second amendment is NOT state specific. I defy anyone to prove me wrong.

Mark Steyn also thinks the 2nd Amendment is the biggest Social Con issue he has to be worried about.

Rudy is brilliant on the big issues like Capitalism and War on Terror, that stuff he gets well, but being a politician from yankee land may well do him in. If he's nominated I will be voting for him, the dem candidates are insane and I'm not doing anything to put them in office. Rudy needs to convince me he will nominate Alito/Roberts types judges and thats about enough, either way I know when to be pragmatic.

he recently said this at a fundraiser in Orange County, California: "The protectionist response of the Democracts to those emerging from poverty in India and China has been perverse. They want to throw tariffs on all this; I want to sell these people something."

he's basically Steve Forbes with charisma on this stuff, its the social issues that could do him in. The Leftist are scared to death of him which is why you'll see them mentioning this stuff, alot.

he also said this about abortion: "Mr. Mayor - do you, or do you not, support federal taxpayer funding for abortions?" He responded, "No, I do not. Period. I support the Hyde amendment, and I will continue to support it."

RebelKev Wrote:I like the guy. I really do. But he lost me on his views on the second amendment. The second amendment is NOT state specific. I defy anyone to prove me wrong.

hel kev, i agree with you. however, i have are a fairly convincing argument concerning the state's rights to organize a militia over the federal govt as the reason for a state's ability to pass very stringent gun control laws. i dont agree with it, but i can see the constitutional argument.

aTxTIGER Wrote:hel kev, i agree with you. however, i have are a fairly convincing argument concerning the state's rights to organize a militia over the federal govt as the reason for a state's ability to pass very stringent gun control laws. i dont agree with it, but i can see the constitutional argument.

The Bill of Rights was created to prohibit the government from infringing on individual rights. Not state's rights.

It essentially states that, since the state's need to have the ability to raise a civilian military, the "people's" right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I've argued this with liberals many times before.

OUGwave Wrote:My hunch is that he believes in Roe, but he believes in being President more.

GGniner Wrote:he recently said this at a fundraiser in Orange County, California: "The protectionist response of the Democracts to those emerging from poverty in India and China has been perverse. They want to throw tariffs on all this; I want to sell these people something."

What are we going to sell them when we do not buy our own goods? Or he is talking about selling them the ideals of capitalism.....

RebelKev Wrote:The Bill of Rights was created to prohibit the government from infringing on individual rights. Not state's rights.

It essentially states that, since the state's need to have the ability to raise a civilian military, the "people's" right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I've argued this with liberals many times before.

Kev,

You are correct, the Bill of Rights is only relevant to the federal government. It does not apply to the individual states. Plus like you said, the Bill of Rights does not override the state's right.

Therefore, if a state does not feel need the have to raise a civilian military, it does have the right to restrict who can keep and bear arms. [/list][/list]

uhmump95 Wrote:Therefore, if a state does not feel need the have to raise a civilian military, it does have the right to restrict who can keep and bear arms.

No where did I say that. No where do I believe that. The state cannot prohibit someone's right when it's explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution.

uhmump95 Wrote:

GGniner Wrote:he recently said this at a fundraiser in Orange County, California: "The protectionist response of the Democracts to those emerging from poverty in India and China has been perverse. They want to throw tariffs on all this; I want to sell these people something."

What are we going to sell them when we do not buy our own goods? Or he is talking about selling them the ideals of capitalism.....

the American Manufactoring Sector alone is larger than the entire Chinese Economy. For every dollar we send out of the country we are averaging around 1.50 back, its a good deal(unless you specialize in something like Textiles, in which case you need to adapt)