Giuliani Sharpens Liberal Credentials

[JeffWartman]

How can true Republicans honestly support this guy?

May 11, 2007
In Houston, Giuliani Sharpens Liberal Credentials
By MARC SANTORA and MARIA NEWMAN
HOUSTON, May 11 — Rudolph W. Giuliani sharpened his liberal credentials before a conservative crowd in Houston today, as he worked to present a more consistent platform on the campaign trail.

At an appearance at Houston Baptist University, Mr. Giuliani said that he favors abortion rights, certain restrictions on gun ownership and gay rights — he is for civil unions, he said, although not for marriage between people of the same sex.

During last week’s debate among Republicans vying for their party’s 2008 presidential nomination, the former New York City mayor was criticized for his halting and apparently contradictory responses to questions about his views on abortion rights. Critics have said that he is trying to run from a record that is much more liberal than the views of the Republican Party’s core voters on the issue.

Today’s speech was part of a concerted effort that his aides said he would be making to be more open about his support for abortion rights — a sharp departure from the usual route of Republican nominees, who during the last 30 years have highlighted their antiabortion views.

Mr. Giuliani told his audience today that he knew that some voters might disagree with him. But he urged the party to become a “big tent” that could include people with a range of views on the subject. At the same time, he said he owed it to them to be forthright about his own views.

“I should honestly tell you what I believe,” Mr. Giuliani said. “I should honestly tell you the things that I can evolve on, and the things that I can’t, and then you should decide.”

He said, as he has before, that he personally opposed abortion but believed in a woman’s right to make her own decisions; that he believes in the right to bear arms, but that as mayor of New York, he favored certain aspects of gun control; and that while he opposes gay marriage, he supports protecting gay rights, something he said he did as mayor.

On abortion, he said he was open to seeking ways to limit the procedure, but he was not open to limiting the right to have it.

“In a country like ours, where people of good faith, people who are equally decent and equally moral and equally religious, where they come to different conclusions about this, about something so very, very personal, I think you have to respect their viewpoint,” he said. “I would grant women the right to make that choice.”

He said that while his views might put him at odds with many in his own party, he said he did not believe many of them would base their votes on a single issue.

He asked the crowd to weigh other factors too, including “fighting terrorism effectively, being on offense against terror, having a growth economy, having a fiscal conservative.”

Mr. Giuliani appeared relaxed, and spoke from note cards instead of a prepared text.

Mr. Giuliani’s aides say their polling has found a relatively small number of voters who would base their vote solely on abortion. They have also said that they are counting on the impression many voters seem to have of Mr. Giuliani as a tough leader who helped turn around New York City in the 1990s, and carried it through the attacks of Sept. 11.

Marc Santora reported from Houston, and Maria Newman from New York.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/11/washington/11cnd-giuliani.html?hp

 

[liberalogic]

How can true Republicans honestly support this guy?




http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/11/washington/11cnd-giuliani.html?hp

I've been trying to figure this out as well. My political science professor said that he would not be the republican candidate, but, as of this moment, he seems to be incorrect.

He certainly is not getting the majority of his votes based on fiscal conservatism. Yes, that is appealing to the hardcore republicans, but the average American will more likely look at security and social policy because both parties always promise to cut taxes. It has to be his role during 9/11 and the fact that he just gets things done.

 

[Annie]

I've been trying to figure this out as well. My political science professor said that he would not be the republican candidate, but, as of this moment, he seems to be incorrect.

He certainly is not getting the majority of his votes based on fiscal conservatism. Yes, that is appealing to the hardcore republicans, but the average American will more likely look at security and social policy because both parties always promise to cut taxes. It has to be his role during 9/11 and the fact that he just gets things done.

There is not so far a Democrat I'd vote for. I will not vote for McCain, though it's becoming more difficult to say that. i keep reminding myself of the 14. With that said, Guiliani most represents my important cause, the WOT. Now if Thompson or Gingrich were to actually enter?

 

[Alucard]

I dont think republicans like him at all.... The catch is democrats do...

 

[liberalogic]

There is not so far a Democrat I'd vote for. I will not vote for McCain, though it's becoming more difficult to say that. i keep reminding myself of the 14. With that said, Guiliani most represents my important cause, the WOT. Now if Thompson or Gingrich were to actually enter?

What's the difference between his policy on the WOT and the other Republicans running?

 

[Annie]

What's the difference between his policy on the WOT and the other Republicans running?

He sounds like McCain, but without the baggage. While I'm pro-life, it's not my numbers 1-3. McCain has too many dings for me.

 

[onedomino]

In the end, the most difficult Democrat for the Republicans to beat will be Edwards. While Clinton and Obama have a better shot at the nomination, I do not think that either one can be elected. If I were a Republican strategist, I would be hoping that either Clinton or Obama win the nomination. Giuliani is the most electable declared Republican candidate. While Romney showed well in the debate, he just does not seem to be getting the traction necessary. He may yet surprise. Much is yet to be learned about Fred, but I am guessing that Thompson is the most formidable candidate that the Republicans can muster. If I were a Democratic strategist, I would be hoping that Thompson does not get into the race.

 

[UnAmericanYOU]

How can true Republicans honestly support this guy?

Couldn't, won't. Giuliani's a New York City Republican, they are on the far left of the big tent. This latest "admission" of his that he has the same views as Hillary Clinton or any other Democrat on abortion mean he's done.

The only way he could win the nomination is if the Democrat is very strong and there's a well-timed terrorist attack in this country and there's still no consensus mid-primary. He is a Catholic Joe Lieberman with a Gingrich-like family problems to boot.

Without a FDT, it'll probably be Romney by default. I don't think John Edwards is as formidable as Hillary Clinton, she knows how to fundraise, has a charismatic spouse and can actually win her home state.

 

[Gunny]

How can true Republicans honestly support this guy?




http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/11/washington/11cnd-giuliani.html?hp

Guiliani is a pipe dream. He will NEVER carry the Republican/conservative vote. Not enough to win. He's the best hope the Democrats have.

 

[Psychoblues]

As the polls reflect,,,,,,,

How can true Republicans honestly support this guy?




http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/11/washington/11cnd-giuliani.html?hp

He is the best the rEpublicans can produce for the time. They will get better, but they will never get good, at least for Americans.

 

[William Joyce]

Maybe I'll just write in David Duke. But I think they made voting for him a civil rights violation... dang.

 

[Truthmatters]

damn wishing for David Dukes is the best your team can do?

I feel for you guys

 

[Care4all]

damn wishing for David Dukes is the best your team can do?

I feel for you guys

that was funny!

 

[JeffWartman]

damn wishing for David Dukes is the best your team can do?

I feel for you guys

Please don't be so unintelligent that you lump in William Joyce as a standard Republican.

 

[red states rule]

I dont think republicans like him at all.... The catch is democrats do...

I like Rudy and so does Ted Olson

Two for the Price of One
The presidency and the judiciary.

By Theodore B. Olson


A powerful case can be made that the most important and lasting decision a president can make is the selection of a Supreme Court justice.

The Constitution describes the president’s authority in just a few paragraphs. At the core of executive power is the duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” but a massive federal bureaucracy does much of that work, and there is often very little discretion in how laws shall be enforced. Moreover, Congress decides what laws will be enacted and the courts have the final say in how they will be interpreted. The president makes foreign policy and serves as commander-in-chief, but congressional approval is required to implement policies such as treaties and trade agreements and to finance military ventures. The presidency is a powerful office, of course, but fears of an “imperial presidency” are quite overblown.

When it comes to Supreme Court (and lower federal-court) appointments, however, the president has an extremely important constitutional role. Only the president can select persons who will be judges and, once appointed, they serve for life. While the Senate must confirm judicial appointments, it seldom withholds its consent if the nominee is truly well-qualified.

Supreme Court justices often hold office for decades. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who resigned in 2005, served for 24 years. Chief Justice Rehnquist, who died that same year, joined the Court in 1972 and held his position there, first as justice, then chief justice, during seven presidencies. He and his two predecessors as chief justice held office collectively since the first year of the Eisenhower administration. On the current Court, Justice John Paul Stevens, the senior justice, is going strong at age 87, a veteran of 31 years on the Court — nearly eight presidential terms, an appointee of President Ford.

Three additional factors make every Supreme Court appointment extraordinarily significant. First, the Court is nearly evenly divided in a third of its decisions every year. Thus, one or two justices can change the outcome of the most controversial cases. For example, midway through the decisions the Court will render between last October and the end of June, there have been twelve cases where a one-vote shift would have produced a different result. Justice Anthony Kennedy, appointed in 1988 when Judge Robert Bork was rejected by the Senate, was the decisive vote in all twelve.

Second, the power and reach of the federal judiciary, is vast — virtually limitless. In just the past five years, closely divided decisions have resolved important questions concerning public displays of religious symbols, tuition tax credits, government takings of private property, partial-birth abortion, campaign financing, sentencing in criminal cases, physician-assisted suicide, medicinal marijuana, Internet pornography, affirmative action, punitive damages, judicial elections, redistricting, states’ rights, the death penalty, gay rights, detention of enemy combatants, and the interstate shipment of wine. And that is just a partial list.

Third, Supreme Court decisions are generally irreversible. If based on the Constitution, they can be changed only if the Court reverses itself — a rarity — or by a constitutional amendment, an extremely difficult process that has been accomplished only four times in our history. Even interpretations of statutes are seldom overturned by Congress.

No wonder appointments to the Supreme Court have in recent years became so contentious; “mini-constitutional conventions” in the words of Justice Antonin Scalia. Indeed, if a change in one justice can alter the result in judicial rulings involving virtually everything we do, and if the person casting that vote may hold office for a generation or more, the selection of a Supreme Court Justice may arguably be as important as electing a president.

That is one very important reason why this conservative Republican is supporting Rudy Giuliani for president. I know the qualities he will look for in the persons he will appoint to the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts: Individuals of talent, quality, experience, integrity, intellect and conscious of constitutional limits on judicial authority; men and women who will respect and defer to the wisdom of the framers of the Constitution and the rights of the citizens to make policy through their elected representatives. Jurists in the mold of Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito and Chief Justices Rehnquist and Roberts.

I know this because I have known Rudy Giuliani for 25 years. We first met when we served together in the Justice Department in the early years of the Reagan administration, where Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito were young lawyers honing their conservative legal instincts, and where jurists such as Bork, Scalia, and Thomas were first being considered for judicial positions. We have been close friends and colleagues ever since.

Rudy holds our judiciary and the judges who serve our nation, in the highest esteem. Our courts are the envy of the world — independent, honest, and fair. They make tough, often controversial, decisions every day, and they must be respected and supported. At the same time, Rudy knows that grave damage may be done to our democratic institutions and principles by judges who exceed their authority and take decisions away from the political branches of government, the people, and the political process. Except where clearly limited by the Constitution, policy judgments must be debated and decided by citizens and the individuals they elect. Judges who reach out to decide things because they believe they know better or because they believe Congress is not doing its job are taking from the people their right to govern themselves, even if popular sentiment or congressional actions may occasionally be misguided.

As Justice Scalia said in a dissent from a decision holding single-sex colleges unconstitutional, “[t]he virtue of a democratic system . . . is that it readily enables the people, over time, to be persuaded that what they took for granted is not so, and to change their laws accordingly. That system is destroyed if the smug assurances of each age are removed from the democratic process and written into the Constitution [by judges] . . . . [O]ur ancestors left us free to change. That cannot be said” of judges who inscribe their own preferences “into our most basic law.”

Our next president will appoint at least one, perhaps as many as three, justices, and countless other federal judges. More than nearly any other consideration, the person we elect must be committed to finding and appointing the very best judges.

Rudy Giuliani, I am certain, will strengthen our judiciary and respect and preserve its independence by appointing judges who will equally respect the role of the judiciary and the limits on its authority.

— Theodore B. Olson, former U.S. solicitor general, is chair of Rudy Giuliani’s Justice Advisory Committee.




http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=N2ViNzlkZWFkNDc5Y2IwN2IzMWZmYmY4NGJiNGRiOGU=

 

[JeffWartman]

RSR, Rudy is pro-choice, anti-gun, and pro-gay marriage. If you support him, you are a lib!

 

[Gunny]

How can true conservatives honestly support this guy?




http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/11/washington/11cnd-giuliani.html?hp

Beats me. I definitely don't, and won't.

 

[Annie]

How can true Republicans honestly support this guy?




http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/11/washington/11cnd-giuliani.html?hp

Unless another gets in here, he's the best the GOP is offering, which is better than the Democrats. When a 3rd party offers up a viable candidate, watch out.

 

[red states rule]

Beats me. I definitely don't, and won't.

I consider myself a Ronald Reagan conservative and I like Rudy very much

 

[JeffWartman]

I consider myself a Ronald Reagan conservative and I like Rudy very much

That's because you don't know what you're talking about.