Rudy: "I Support Taxpayer Funded Handguns for Poor People"
So Much For Strict Construction
By Erick Posted in 2008 | Rudy — Comments (35) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Be sure to scroll down to here and check out Rob's interview with Gov. Ehrlich about Rudy.
Rudy Giuliani announced to CNN today that he supports taxpayer purchased handguns for poor people. It's certainly a novel reading of the constitution. According to Rudy, because the 2nd Amendment is a personal right affirmed by a recent federal court decision in Washington, D.C., the government should fund a citizen's ability to take advantage of that right when the citizen cannot afford to do so on his own.
Well, okay now, not really. But Rudy did say we should pay for taxpayer funded abortions for poor people because they have a constitutional right. And this is not old news, it is today's news in his own words. I realize Rudy is doing damage control by saying he would "not seek to change current law as described in the Hyde Amendment," and thinks it is a state by state issue.
But Rudy is a politician and he is clever. Someone might need to ask this question:
"You've said you won't change the Hyde Amendment, but if a Democrat Congress sought 'to change current law as described in the Hyde Amendment,' would you veto it?"
And then we need to realize a lot of us have criticized Romney for evolving on the position of abortion, yet Rudy today says
"Ultimately, it's a constitutional right, and therefore if it's a constitutional right, ultimately, even if you do it on a state by state basis, you have to make sure people are protected."
Oh, and if lawyer Rudy "I want strict constructionist judges" Giuliani has found a previously invisible "taxpayer subsidization of constitutional rights" provision in the Constitution, we might be allowed to wonder if he might find some invisible streak of strict constructionism in some visibly weak constructionist judicial nominees.
At some point, you just have to ask yourself if selling out your core conservative principles because Rudy makes you feel safe is really a smart thing to do or is some version of Stockholm syndrome setting in.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Bob Ehrlich Puts His Money on Giuliani — Comments (2) »
Rudy: "I Support Taxpayer Funded Handguns for Poor People" 35 Comments (0 topical, 35 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I must have ESP since that was EXACTLY the same thought that I had when I read about his statement on Drudge. I do admit that these rights of his were expanding faster than I could adequately process them. If this is a constitutional issue, then what is really left! The Courts Rule!
And yes, Rudy just dropped about two thirds toward the bottom of my Republican rankings...and rightfully so!
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
"You can't be socially liberal and fiscally conservative, because..."
I've heard a succint version of this where the "because" part is exactly what we see here - if you're socially liberal you're going to end saying the government needs to fund whatever it is you're socially liberal about, and there goes the fiscally conservative part out the window.
Erick's blog or the title. You really had to have been paying attention to a blog I wrote on Newt to appreciate it, the above comment was a direct quote from a commenter on my Newt blog.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
So I know what I am selling out for. Of the current three front runners he is by far the least objectionable.
The rest of the declared field seem to be running on the "I'm jonesing for the elliptical office platform"
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
The ultimate determinant in the struggle now going on for the world will not be bombs and rockets but a test of wills and ideas-a trial of spiritual resolve: the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish and the ideals to which we are dedicated.-Reagan
I guess the truth is tough to swallow. So many people want to pretend he is slightly outside the Republican mainstream. Police State Rudy has a huge big-gov streak in him. Sorry if the fantasy of Rudy being Reaganesque is crushed, but stop living a lie. It's good for the heart and soul.
Well at least McCain is... I have no idea what Romney thinks. If the latest LA Times/CNN poll told him Americans wanted a big-government guy I'm sure he'd be one tomorrow. Unless someone else takes off (like Fred), those are the choices we got.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Strikes again, this time as a hardcore babykiller.
He is unacceptable.
Billy Valentine
Students for Brownback
If those stupid republicans don't nominate a totally unelectable pro-lifer, why we will just stay home, or better yet vote independent.
Now that is brilliant, hand the election to Obama or Hillary, that makes a lot of sense.
You may not like Rudy, OK. But if you haven't learned anything from the last election, voting isn't about sending a message, it is about consequences. And the consequences of the last election in which many of my fellow Americans decided to unseat republicans is that the pro-life forces control everything. EVERYTHING.
And they are convinced they have a mandate. They have passed the biggest tax increase ever. You think before the next election they aren't going to get around undermining the efforts at turning back Roe? Come on.
Here is the reality. If you can't support Rudy, there is someone that can't support McCain. And there will be someone that can't support everyone that might get elected by drawing enough independent voters. That hands the election to the democrats.
While I haven't always agreed with everything POTUS Bush has done, I recognize that he is at least malleable on big issues. Think Myers and Dubai ports.
Better to have a liberal republican that listens to our voice in office than a democrat that considers us enemies to be fought at every turn, unlike terrorists who are only misguided.
Support the Mission - Honor the troops
Exsolvo Orbis Terrarum
if we told him to be more conservative. He has told us clearly what his position is, and he would have no reason to become more conservative because of a conservative outcry.
As far as liberal Republican being better than a liberal Democrat, it can be argued the other way too. The liberal republican will get more support from conservative congressman than what the liberal democrat will.
This is also a poor comparision to democrats gaining control of congress. The republican congress had not been in favor of Roe and funding abortions. There comes a point when to vote for the republican is to give the party permission to be no different than the democrats. When this happens we are just being used. You cannot expect me to vote for someone that is going to spend my tax dollars on Abortions, if I did so I would then become a small part of sanctioning abortion.
(or at least most people aren't.) Rudy may be better than anyone the Dems have any chance of offering up. But better still is someone else not named Giuliani or Clinton or Edwards or Obama.
If we as a party make the poor choice of nominating Rudy, then the only alternative will be a worse choice. It's up to us to make sure we make a better choice.
If the best that the Republican party can do is put Rudy forward as our flag bearer than not only is the party lost, but also the the America as I knew it.
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
"Better to have a liberal republican that listens to our voice in office than a democrat that considers us enemies to be fought at every turn, unlike terrorists who are only misguided."
Neither will provide the warmth you desire...
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
Rudy Giuliani recently gave his views of gun ownership and gun control. Giuliani stated that what works in one part of the country might not work somewhere else. Giuliani gave the impression that he opposed a national mandate for gun control. Yet, I found out that Giuliani supported the Brady bill, which is a national gun control law.
The more I learn about Mr. Giuliani, the more skeptical I get about his campaign for president.
must really be smiling. He continues to sit at 20-25% of primary voters. Most are rather committed to him. Rudy was above him with 30-35%, but that is not going to hold if Rudy is as pro-abortion as this quote makes him seem.
If Thompson does NOT run, then McCain just have to fend off Romney for the nod.
Of course if Thompson DOES run, then we have a new front-runner.
______________________________________
Bobby Jindal Saves Louisiana
McCain almost bolted to become a Democrat.
Giuliani might as well be one (at least on social issues). After those comments there's just no explaining them away so please don't bother to insult my intelligence. I don't even know about Rudy for VP now. That's an extreme position. Forcing me to PAY for abortions?! I can conceive of no circumstance under which I'd vote for Giuliani in the primary now.
There's an opening Mr. Thompson.
This thread is a terrific example of how starved we are for conservative leadership. So far, all the RNC has given us (in terms of "front runners") are RINOs. It wouldn't cause me to stay at home and welcome in a Pres. Hillary or Obama but I don't see myself caring much for the primaries.
When (if) Thompson (or at least someone like him) decides the run, THEN the RNC will get my donations. Did you hear that... um... who's our chairman again?
First of all, no good conservative/strict constructionist would retain Roe because of its 30 years of bad precedence. Secondly, the analogy that started this thread holds; why should a poor person be denied his right to own a gun if its a Constitutional right?
Its getting harder and harder to swallow Giuliani's claim that he'd put conservatives on the bench. Can we really trust a guy to put judges in power who would disagree with him on just about every social issue?
How can Giuliani supporters even begin to defend his statements? "Strict constructionists can be pro Roe", "taxpayers should pay for abortions for poor women".
Give me a break.
By the same logic we can work through all the ammendments.
1st amendment Everyone should have a newspaper, radio station and tvstation
XXIst amendment everyone should own a distillery
Unfortunately McCain and Romney are both worse. Rudy has consistency but its consistently wrong.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
slightly reformulated from previous comments:
First: is that change in SCOTUS is more important than the public funding issue, which only Congress can decide. The funding issue is complicated by legal considerations:
IF a state defines abortion as a medical procedure (why it should is another matter) and IF it covers medical procedures for poor people as a matter of policy, it has no justification to deny abortions to poor people IF abortion is defined by the SC as a constitutional right (the flawed, but entirely legal, position of Roe).
This will be the case as long as all the ifs are.
Second: The public's changing perception of abortion will continue regardless of the election. All those sonograms, all that natal care research is moving the public's perception of abortion. Now once we get a Supreme Court that will objectively evaluate Roe, the law will fall into congruence with society. People have access to information and imagery unimaginable when Roe was decided, such as:
http://www.stronghealth.com/services/womenshealth/maternity/trimesters.c...
Question: If employers offer to pay for abortion services through private health insurance, as I believe probably most do, then in effect we are all funding abortions because our work allows them to pay for that insurance. What do you think?
are not the same thing. By any means. Overturning Roe only allows the States to regulate (or not) as they see fit. Individual states could outlaw abortion, or make it available for 9 months.
Funding abortion is a matter for Congress and/or the States. Unless, and only if, abortion is declared - eventually by SCOTUS - to be murder (or some other crime). Only in that event would funding be denied.
In any state where abortion is legal, employers may chose to cover it under their health plan. Nothing you can do about it.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
within 30 days of FRED Thompson announcing.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Rudy is on his way out.
Perhaps he could slide in as VP, but he's on his way out as a Presidential contender.
Although I will not vote for him in any primary, I like him as a person from what I see. The problem he has is that he believes in his positions - enough to stick by them.
What that ultimately means is that although he will wiggle around and find as many ways to almost say what folks want to hear, he has enough integrity to not go there, not for the money,not for the nomination, not for the prize.
I can respect that quality -it's very rare indeed- but it will lose him the nomination.
At least he'll be able to sleep at night. (Does Hillary or McCain get any sleep?)
I'm a Rudy supporter, and I do take issue with his statement almost 10 years ago that he supports Medicaid subsidies for abortions, but I also understand certain political realities.
In the Northeast, particularly somewhere like NYC, a Republican has to take a position like this in order to get elected. A pro-life politician would never under any circumstances get elected as mayor of NYC.
As a party, the Republicans have two options, we can either only run Social Conservatives in the Northeast and lose every election, essentially ceding control of this entire geographical region to the Democrats, or make certain compromises in order to implement other portions of our conservative policy goals.
I don't think it is a wise strategy to essentially only nominate Republican Presidential candidates from the South, and exclude all others.
There are certain policy goals all conservatives have to comprimise. For instance, most conservatives, if they were honest, would like to end Medicare. Conservatives are wise enough to understand that a position like this would destroy any electoral chances for the Republican Party.
I'm willing to turn a blind eye to Rudy's position on this issue because I understand all politicians have to make certain unfortunate concessions.
Rudy has promised to nominate strict constructionist judges like Alito and Roberts. This action alone takes care of 99% of the goals for Social Conservatives.
I support Giuliani, warts and all, because as a whole I think he would be a more effective conservative than all the other Republican candidates.
"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. "
William F. Buckley, Jr.
When asked directly Wednesday if he still supported the use of public funding for abortions, Giuliani said "Yes." (emphasis mine)
______________________________________
The CIA has better politicians than it has spies - Fred Thompson
Did you see the rest of what Rudy said? If not, I have repeated it below.
Giuliani also vowed to appoint conservative judges to the bench, though denied such a promise was a "wink and a nod" to conservatives in support of overturning Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision on abortion.
"A strict constructionist judge can come to either conclusion about Roe against Wade," he said. "They can look at it and say, 'Wrongly decided thirty years ago, whatever it is, we'll over turn it.' [Or] they can look at it and say, 'It has been the law for this period of time, therefore we are going to respect the precedent.' Conservatives can come to that conclusion as well. I would leave it up to them. I would not have a litmus test on that."
Do you still think he will appoint strict constructionists? I think we would be lucky to get a Maureen Mahoney out of Rudy.
Fred please get in the race. There isn't anyone else out there that is acceptable and that can win.
The issue here is larger than abortion. If a candidate cannot differentiate between a policy like the Hyde Amendment and an actual infringement of a constitutional right, he probably wouldn't appoint strict constructionists to the court. Republicans of all stripes, regardless of their views on abortion, don't like the idea that public funding can be demanded to protect a constitutional right.
Rudy has a lot of work to do now that he didn't face last week.
and a "constitutional right", defining opposition to abortion as not funding it for poor people makes us look both mean and cheap and does nothing to prevent abortion. The states simply rely on indirect subsidies from other federal medical programs and private insurance (yes, our employers) to offset the costs of abortion for poor people.
If we want to prevent abortion, we must go after it at the root. The proposition that it's a fundamental right is a constitutional outrage. The proposition that abortion-on-demand, mid and late term abortions, partial birth abortion sare enlightened policies needs to be exposed for the heartless fraud that it is.
So I take it that you are saying that until Roe is reversed we should provide taxpayer funding for abortion? Your mean and cheap rationale applies to any entitlement that conservatives oppose. I am mean (i.e., I believe in personal responsibility including paying for one's own abortion) and cheap (i.e., I don't want my money being taken by an organization that is as corrupt (not criminal corruption, I'm referring to the influence of special interests) and inefficient as government).
I don't think a tactic of denying funding for poor people who seek abortions is anything but an extremely modest speed bump that has done virtually nothing to deter abortions, except salving conservative consciences, much in the same manner that "the personally opposed" meme salves liberal ones.
The key to ending abortion is to persuade women not to get one and men not to rely on the abortion out when they are having sex.
I guess all public policy could be labeled as such, but the Hyde Amendment seems reasonable enough given such a large segment of the population views abortion as murder and does not want to participate in it.
The problem here is that Rudy implied the Hyde Amendment interferes with a constitutional right. Frankly, that is a bridge too far even for many who are pro-choice but who also oppose judicial activism. The USSC also has found a right to travel, among many others. Would refusal to fund mass transit interfere with such a "right?" This is a pretty close analogy.
This very well may prove a fatal blow to Rudy's attempts to prove he would appoint strict constructionists to the court. Is it fatal to his presidential bid? Possibly.
Worst...title...ever. I mean seriously, I understand if you disagree with his statements on this issue, but unless you are willing to agree that you completely mis-titled this post then it would appear that your purposefully trying to smear [Rudy} (or some other motive).
Sorry, I just couldn't help myself...
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.