Fred Thompson and Giuliani on abortion...

[Cali Coug]

For Fred Thompson:

http://www.nysunpolitics.com/blog/20...positions.html

For Giuliani:

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

I can't imagine Giuliani survives news that he donated 6 times to Planned Parenthood, particularly after saying it would be "ok" if the Court didn't overturn Roe v. Wade and "ok" if it did.

Fred Thompson's statement is less damaging, but it hurts him a bit. He would have been better off to say he opposes abortion always. Instead, he said he always supports the right to choose in the first trimester but thinks it is a state matter. A lot of conservatives agree it is a state matter, but the first part of his statement is something most conservatives would emphatically disagree with. In any event, it probably helps Romney the most because now he isn't the only "conservative" running with pro-choice statements in his past.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

For Fred Thompson:

http://www.nysunpolitics.com/blog/20...positions.html

For Giuliani:

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

I can't imagine Giuliani survives news that he donated 6 times to Planned Parenthood, particularly after saying it would be "ok" if the Court didn't overturn Roe v. Wade and "ok" if it did.

Yeah. Giuliani's an incredibly popular figure, but his platform is a mess. He has no experience with foreign policy or defense. I'm not sure how far he can get with likeability alone.

I suspected he was lying about the personally-pro-life, "I hate abortion" thing. This is the first solid evidence I've seen, though.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Fred Thompson's statement is less damaging, but it hurts him a bit. He would have been better off to say he opposes abortion always. Instead, he said he always supports the right to choose in the first trimester but thinks it is a state matter. A lot of conservatives agree it is a state matter, but the first part of his statement is something most conservatives would emphatically disagree with. In any event, it probably helps Romney the most because now he isn't the only "conservative" running with pro-choice statements in his past.

Perhaps. I said over on Cougarboard it's time for conservatives to accept folks who have a change of heart on this issue. The only "purist" in the race is McCain ... so they'll either cast their single-issue vote for him, or learn to accept the diversity that comes with this topic.

[Insensitive PAP]

Why is abortion such a critical issue? It's way down my list of priorities in picking a President. Roe v. Wade will not be overturned, ever, so we are wasting our time using it as a litmus test for President.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Insensitive PAP

Why is abortion such a critical issue? It's way down my list of priorities in picking a President. Roe v. Wade will not be overturned, ever, so we are wasting our time using it as a litmus test for President.

Gotta agree with you.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Insensitive PAP

Why is abortion such a critical issue? It's way down my list of priorities in picking a President. Roe v. Wade will not be overturned, ever, so we are wasting our time using it as a litmus test for President.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Gotta agree with you.

My issue with Giuliani is not his stance on abortion. It's the fact that it's becoming increasingly clear that he's either misrepresenting himself or flat-out lying. He's been trying to take the Mitt Romney "I'm personally pro-life" approach. But someone who's personally pro-life would not donate to Planned Parenthood.

On the issue of abortion, the focus on Roe v. Wade is silly. If Republicans truly wanted to reduce the number of abortions, they would work toward better health care for young and underprivileged women.

[Insensitive PAP]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

My issue with Giuliani is not his stance on abortion. It's the fact that it's becoming increasingly clear that he's either misrepresenting himself or flat-out lying. He's been trying to take the Mitt Romney "I'm personally pro-life" approach. But someone who's personally pro-life would not donate to Planned Parenthood.

On the issue of abortion, the focus on Roe v. Wade is silly. If Republicans truly wanted to reduce the number of abortions, they would work toward better health care for young and underprivileged women.

It's also why I'm still skeptical about Mitt. I'm still trying to figure out if Mitt is simply another politician that will say whatever he needs to to get elected, or if he genuinely changed his position.

I could accept a candidate that changes his position, in either direction, if he came to that conclusion thoughtfully. Rudy is trying to walk a thin line to avoid saying what he actually believes, and that is concerning. This is also why having the abortion litmus is so ridiculous. We are eliminating qualified candidates on an issue that they have no control over.

The irony is, most aborted fetuses would end up voting Democrat anyway but Demos fight vigorously to kill those future votes, while Repubs fight even harder to keep them alive. It's the one issue that actually has politicians working against their self interest.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Insensitive PAP

It's also why I'm still skeptical about Mitt. I'm still trying to figure out if Mitt is simply another politician that will say whatever he needs to to get elected, or if he genuinely changed his position.

I could accept a candidate that changes his position, in either direction, if he came to that conclusion thoughtfully. Rudy is trying to walk a thin line to avoid saying what he actually believes, and that is concerning.

Precisely. There's nothing wrong with changing your mind if evidence or reflection necessitates doing so. Simply changing your story is another matter entirely.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Precisely. There's nothing wrong with changing your mind if evidence or reflection necessitates doing so. Simply changing your story is another matter entirely.

What if one views the role of a politician not as one to set policy but to be an effective administrator?

I'm not saying Mitt believes this, but I'm beginning to believe that may be the most efficient selection criterion. Mitt appears to be effective as an administrator in his past roles.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Archaea

... Mitt appears to be effective as an administrator in his past roles.

In my earlier post I was speaking of Giuliani, not Mitt.

I have not finished researching Mitt. I honestly don't know a lot about his history. I researched Giuliani this week, will be looking into Mitt in the next week.