Rudy's Disingenuous Spin
I Hate Being Disappointed In Someone I Like So Much
By Erick Posted in 2008 | Rudy — Comments (46) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
UPDATED: Be sure to read this over at NRO. The Giuliani campaign makes the bold claim that "Abortions declined by 16.8 percent in New York City during the Giuliani administration, according to the Center for Disease Control. And University of Alabama political scientist Michael New told your publication, 'The decline in abortions in New York City under Giuliani was greater than the national decline.' As NRO points out, the same Professor New "cannot attribute this decline to any actual policy Giuliani implemented." Likewise, even with the fall, New York's abortion rate was still much higher than the national average. Giuliani is upset that he was excerpted on the speech cited in my post below. Yet, to defend himself, he has to excerpt himself.
Today's backpedaling by the Giuliani campaign is one of the most disingenuous pieces of spin thus far in the GOP primary. They are relying on the Hotline to try to convince us that what he said was somehow not what he meant, even though it was clearly what he meant.
I'm talking about this Hotline post. In it, we discover that part of a sentence Giuliani uttered in 1989 was left out of a clip. Well, not really. It's just he got interrupted by applause and the original clip stopped at the applause. It seems like there was nothing really sinister about it. There was no "editing" or "splicing." We got the point and the additional five words don't really change anything.
What Giuliani was alleged to have said was "I have also stated that I disagree with President Bush's veto last week of public funding for abortion." What he actually said, once the applause subsided was, "I have also stated that I disagree with President Bush's veto last week of public funding for abortions for rape or incest victims." That last bit was added.
The Hotline then writes, "A single sentence makes a world of difference." Actually, it does not. Giuliani made two separate points in his speech. They were not one thought. That is clear from the audio, from the transcript, and from his interview on CNN just the other day. His two points were, in his own words:
Read on . . .
- "There must be public funding for abortions for poor women [because] we cannot deny any woman the right to make her own decision about abortion because she lacks resources."
- "I also I have also stated that I disagree with President Bush's veto last week of public funding for abortions for rape or incest victims."
President George H. W. Bush vetoed, if you remember, a Democrat initiative that would have paid for the abortions that were caused by rape or incest. Giuliani, in today's spin, is attempting to say that's what this whole mess was over. He's trying to get us all to focus on the five words cut from he YouTube clip about the second point he made in his 1989 speech and ignore the first point. But pay attention to his dodge. He admits he supported a bill to provide tax payer funding for abortions -- it just so happened that the abortions would have arisen from rape and incest. But go back to point one. Rudy favored unfettered taxpayer funding for abortion in 1989 and he said the same thing in 2007.
There are two additional points to be made about this:
- Just last week, Rudy told Dana Bash he still favors taxpayer funding for abortions for poor women and did not add the caveat about rape or incest. He tried to distract from this by saying he would not seek to change the Hyde amendment, though he still left open the issue of what he'd do if a Democrat controlled Congress changed the Hyde amendment. (Hint to Rudy: You say "veto.")
- In the 1989 speech, Giuliani was trying to explain just how much in favor of abortion he was because his opponent was trying to make him out to be something less than solidly in favor of unfettered abortion on demand.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | There's Something About Fred — Comments (6) »
Rudy's Disingenuous Spin 46 Comments (0 topical, 46 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
See Link:
http://nymag.com/news/politics/citypolitic/30336/
What exactly is his position?
Didn't you hear? Rudy liked the appointments of Alito and Roberts. That's all anybody needs know. That way we can all pretend the he is who we want hime be. It's unfair to ask Rudy tough questions.
What has this place become? Over the last 6 months, this place has become a firing squad on our side! I’m not saying we just roll over and elect the Lincoln Chaffee’s of the country, but come on! This is starting to feel a lot more like a left wing site with all the negative news (every day!) I see on McCain and Rudy. If you want to drive this party (or website) off a cliff, can’t you all go somewhere else (Kos?) and run another party over the cliff? Could we get back to helping get R’s elected instead of constantly attacking them!
I know, I know, Rudy and McCain aren’t REALLY R’s because they don’t agree with you 100% of the time and we should run somebody more in line with us right! Forget about the polls that show them down 20 points to the D’s, they don’t matter just like they didn’t matter in ’06 right?
When the top 3 candidates are to the left of the majority of the party, you are going to have this. The question you ought to be asking is, why is the party leadership promoting 3 major candidates who are to the left of the majority of the party. Of course, to ask the question is to answer it.
How is the “party leadership” promoting the top 3 candidates (BTW, I’m no fan of the party leadership either, I just don’t see them “promoting” any candidate)? I receive all of the emails from the GOP and I haven’t seen a single email come out promoting any candidate. Perhaps, I’ve missed something from the president (or McConnell or Boehner) or the chair of the party, but I think it would have been newsworthy if it did happen.
Anyway, I would rather elect someone that I agree with 80% of the time (e.g. Rudy, McCain) then work for 2 years on a losing proposition with someone I agree with 100% of the time (check out the polls with FThompson against Hillary or Obama). We could have Hillary or Obama elected, now that would really teach us Republicans a good lesson!
Take my state of Minnesota for example, the conservatives were up in arms with Tim Pawlenty because he didn’t agree to everything they demanded. A lot of conservatives decided not to vote for him. Luckily he got elected as he will veto a lot of the disastrous bills coming out of our DFL controlled legislature (you wouldn’t believe what they are proposing). Had we stuck with our beliefs that a candidate has to agree with us on everything or else he is no good, we would have trusty Mike Hatch (DFL) to rubber stamp every bill that comes out of the legislature.
I’m just saying lets not demonize (are they really monstrous, or should they really be deported?) the “frontrunners” because at the end of the day they are on our side (most of the time) and I bet you would rather have them then Hillary.
> We could have Hillary or Obama elected, now that would really teach us Republicans a good lesson!
There really are only two choices in the general election: either support every single Republican candidate, regardless of disagreements, or refuse to vote for some of them.
I don't think having the Democrat win in a single race in a single election is always the worst choice. It's because sitting out some races in which the candidates disagree with me too much is one way to prevent the party from shifting too far away from me.
It's true that the other tool is primary elections. But there can be situations in which a candidate wins the Republican Primary partially because of Democratic and independent cross over votes. This leads to a situation where the further left Republican candidate wins, because they have more possible votes in the primaries. If I then follow the rule that I have to vote for EVERY Republican, then I am stuck with a liberal candidate partially because of Democratic voters.
I stated in my first post we SHOULDN’T support every Republican just because of the letter by their name. However, we live in a pretty much evenly divided country and we aren’t always going to be able to get 100% what we want in a candidate AND get that person elected. Sure, I would much rather have Mr./Ms. Conservative 100% of the time, but that just won’t work in a national election right now. At times we have to settle for good enough.
So, instead of turning Rudy and McCain into the enemy, how about we focus just a tad of our energy on the other side as well….
Newt just said that global warming is caused by humans...are we dumping him as well now? Should I fire up the deportation papers for him :)
anyone beside Rudy and McCain against Obama or Hilary are not worth their ink since most people don't know who Thompson, Romney or Brownback are.
A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. -John Adams
Exactly! Thanks for arguing my point :) After the MSM and Hillary finish painting an unknown, how do you think they will look to the general public? Hillary has the strongest machine out there and we are going to run an unknown against her?
"Anyway, I would rather elect someone that I agree with 80% of the time (e.g. Rudy, McCain) then work for 2 years on a losing proposition with someone I agree with 100% of the time (check out the polls with FThompson against Hillary or Obama). "
This is certainly true in general, but it can break down. In my case, I don't agree with Rudy anywhere close to 80%. At best, it is 40-50% and that is probably pushing it a little. Romney is definitely closer, but even he probably can't hit 80% and I don't think that I am all that unusual. If I wanted to vote for someone who I agree with less than half the time, I would vote for a Democrat.
That isn't to say that I would vote for a Dem over Giuliani or Romney, but it isn't like we are just quibbling over a few small details, either.
But it doesn't change my opinion of his statements, especially his later statements, which he didn't qualify with those "missing five words."
And even if he did, I've changed my opinion of public funding for abortion in any form, for any reason. The government should not provide funds for abortion in any way. If private organizations want to step up and "on a state-by-state basis" provide funding for patients, that's their business.
Rudy's spin is disingenuous and it sets up a very "slippery slope" condition that I don't think the federal government should be involved in. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there's a creative Equal Protection argument contained in the "federal funding for abortion in cases of abortion and incest" that would eventually dictate that the government must extend their funding mandate to an expanding class of "reasons."
Just say no to Rudy's spin.
I don't see how those missing five words do anything to change the fundamental nature of the argument. For example:
Samantha and Sarah live next to each other in a low-income area of one of our big cities. Samantha was impregnated by a rapist and went to the hospital and received public funding to terminate the pregnancy. Sarah became pregnant because her paramour is dealing drugs and one night she got wasted and after a night of methamphetamine-fuelled but otherwise consensual sex with several men, she decided that she wasn't fit to be a mother. But she wasn't raped -- instead, she's just decided that it's much better not to have a child at this point in her life, because even though she's unemployed and on government assistance, she's living that way deliberately because her boyfriend is a professional drug dealer and her family life would be too chaotic.
So Sarah and her boyfriend invent a plan to say that she was raped by one of the "transients" who happened to be in the room the night she got pregnant. Or, perhaps they just look at Samantha and her relatively easy, government-funded abortion and think: "You know, I should be able to have a government-funded abortion too, because I'm poor!"
They contact Cass Sunstein and he finds a formerly-homeless lawyer to argue their case based on an Equal Protection argument, because it's manifestly unjust for Samantha to recieve an abortion on the federal dime just because she was a victim of a one-time event, while Samantha will have to suffer in perpetual poverty because the government won't pay for her abortion just because her boyfriend is a drug dealer who likes to have wild parties, and obviously because of her attraction to that lifestyle she's diagnosably mentally ill and possibly suicidal.
Any idea if the Embryo/Fetus becomes evidence in either a rape investigation or an investigation of a false rape report?
And I don't know the answer to it. I do know, however, that people lie about abortions and the causes for those abortions on a regular basis. In fact, it happened to me. I dated a woman who had me convinced for more than five years that she had had an abortion when in fact it never happened. It was all a fabricated story to get back at her ex-boyfriend and extort more than $2,500 out of him. He didn't ask for proof of the abortion and I doubt he could have.
The federal government should stay out of this funding completely. It's the worst possible thing they could do.
on a weekly basis.
McCain, Kennedy and Guliani are open borders crusaders. We need to make sure none of these sympathizers are ever elected again if at all posssible.
why would he not also support funding aborions for the poor?
how is that a dodge?
Presidents don't make law, the Congress does.
If you want to stop abortion, gay marriage, and illegal immigration. Then, elect a Veto-proof social conservative majority to both houses of congress.
Even if the Pope was elected President all he could do was nominate social conservatives to the SCOTUS.
This is a stale arguement at this point. Either find a social conservative with Rudy's economic record or get behind Rudy.
The facts are any Democrat will nationalize gay marriage and give illegals and convicts the vote. So, the worst Rudy can do is the status quo or a Democrat can destroy this nation.
If illegals, foreigners, and convicts get the vote. We will be set back to where we conservatives were in the 1940s. So, stay home Nov. 2008. If you really are pro-life, staying home approves or abortion, gay mariage, etc.
So, stay home in "good conscience". Stand on your morals!
Morality means nothing when good people do NOTHING!
Florida just passed a law giving most of the convicted felons their votes back after they are released from prison and/or finished with their parole.
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0516735220070405
"TALLAHASSEE, Florida (Reuters)- Florida officials on Thursday voted to end the practice of stripping ex-criminal offenders of their civil rights, including the right to vote.
Florida is one of just three U.S. states, all in the Deep South, that have maintained long-standing constitutional barriers to restoring civil rights to those that have committed serious crimes, rights groups say.
Meeting in a special session, the Florida Clemency Board agreed by a 3-1 vote to allow some 950,000 ex-felons to automatically have their civil rights restored, removing a barrier that goes back 140 years."
This was passed by a Republican Governor in a republican dominated state.
Vermont and Maine even allow inmates to vote while they are in jail or prison.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060128-104343-6528r.htm
I'm sure that most felons that want to vote can anyway due to the difficulty in tracking them once they are released from prison or parole.
we end the demand for cheap foreign labor.
Putting a fence up is like putting a band-aide on a shot-gun wound. I'm all for ending illegal immigration and deporting all illegals. However, we'll keep having this debate until we solve why they come here.
Or we could nuke Mexico or we could decide we are willing to work for their wages.
Or maybe we can make it cost more to employ an illegal that people won’t take the chance. Or we could make the personal cost for being caught as an illegal that people would not think it is worth it. or....
Come on use your imagination.
A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. -John Adams
For those of you unaware, there already is a border fence which starts at the pacific ocean and extends about 10 miles inland bordering San Diego County and Tijuana. The fence, along with border patrio agents has done an excellent job reducing illegal immigration. The problem is that the coyotes who smuggle illegals now avoild the area with the fence and instead smuggle illegals near "open" territory near Tecate.
The solution to the illegal immigration problem is very simple. Extend the existing fence all across the border, increase the number of border patrol agents, and crack down on employers who hire illegals.
The politicans ALREADY KNOW the above three solutions would go a long way to ending illegal immigration. The problem is corporations, The Chamber of Commerce, and the government of Mexico ahve all put pressure on US politicians to keep things the way they are..meaning weak enforcement. Until politicians grow some cajones and ignore the special interests that want cheap labor, the problem will only get worse. Fortunately, Duncan Hunter's campaign might have an opportunity to expose what is really going on.
Erick, there is still plenty of time for you to seriously become a Fred Thompson supporter should he officially become a '08 Presidential candidate. I'm hoping for an eventual Fred Thompson/Duncan Hunter Presidential ticket.
By the way, Erick, did you see all of the questions that I ask of Fred Thompson in the comments of his first blog? These are all pretty decent questions for you to ask of Fred Thompson during any possible future Red State Radio interviews that you may have with Fred Thompson.
Please deport McCain and Guliani. Then build the fence.
let's deport "America's Mayor" and a war hero because you disagree with their policy platforms. I see someone was sniffing glue the day they taught "thinking" in kindergarten.
In the first sentence, "back peddling" should be "backpedaling".
For those of you unaware, there already is a border fence which starts at the pacific ocean and extends about 10 miles inland bordering San Diego County and Tijuana. The fence, along with border patrol agents patroling it, has done an effective job reducing illegal immigration in that area. The problem is the "coyotes" who smuggle illegals avoid the patrolled area with the fence and instead smuggle illegals near "open" territory near Tecate, etc...
The solution to the illegal immigration problem is very simple. Extend the existing fence all across the border, increase the number of border patrol agents, and crack down on employers who hire illegals.
The politicans ALREADY KNOW the above three solutions would go a long way to ending illegal immigration. The problem is, corporations, the Chamber of Commerce, and the government of Mexico have all put pressure on US politicians to keep things the way they are...meaning weak enforcement. Until politicians grow some cajones and ignore the special interests that want cheap labor, the problem will only get worse. Hopefully, Duncan Hunter's campaign might have an opportunity to expose what is really going on.
McCain is a not a RINO, he's a Democrat who has infiltrated the GOP. Ted Kennedy is his puppet master.
...that the surge seems to be working, Iraq is safer, and that we must not accept defeat in Iraq. Ted Kennedy is the one who sent him the kevlar vest to wear while he said these things.
must be mistaken since we've all been told how Rudy, unlike the perfidious McCain and flip-flopping Romney, always says what he means and means what he says.
I really hope that social conservatives have stopped deluding themselves into believing that Rudy will appoint anti-Roe judges because he supported Alito and Roberts. Some social cons had a bad case of seeing what they wanted to see.
I'm libertarian when it comes to abortion and I think state funding is appropriate when a woman has been raped. Think about it this way - if the kid is born and goes on welfare - why should our government pay to raise a rapist's child? It's known that proclivity rape is genetic (it's actually a reproductive strategy!) and it seems to me aborting the children of rapists is a reasonable role for a government to play. I don't think it serves a purpose to be knee-jerk about abortion; hell, more than half the time a woman's BIOLOGY terminates the pregnancy before anyone knows it exists.
...not-as-rare-as-some-might-think birds, a pro-life Democrat. And it's ideas like these that confirm my feelings on the matter.
Good God - welcome to Weimar.
Absolutely terrifying.
a general election, but I can't say that he has done much to make me want to support him in a primary.
I don't know that he has much choice but to spin the abortion issue, given that he has a pretty complete record of supporting choice and Roe.
I keep wishing for the perfect candidate to show up. Thompson could be it, but I am not convinced he will run, and I can't say that I am overly impressed with any of the candidates currently in the race.
I have a pretty long list of "I won't vote for in the primary" and some "I can't vote for in a general" but I just haven't see the candidate I feel passionate about or one I would want to support with time or money to get elected.
It is almost depressing.
I immediately wanted to jump behind Rudy, all the way. But, I had serious doubts as to his ability to wage a meaningful campaign, with skeletons in the closet I was sure exsisted.
I think we will see more of them as the media digs deeper.
Managing Editor
YEP, me too, to your title.
Visit: http://OsiSpeaks.com or http://OsiSpeaks.org
With malice towards none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see right.
I'm building some malice toward you. Try posting an actual thought or opinion.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
Just based on my own feelings and thoughts when I hear about the candidates and their positions on various social issues, I am willing to give a true "Hawk" a complete pass!
Abortion will not be issue that elects the next President. And the next President will likely have little or NO impact on the abortion debate.
Quite obviously it will be the candidates willingness to carry on the War on Terrorism, Borders/Immigration, Foreign Policy
As someone who had a nephew fall victim to his selfish mothers need to continue a life of impropriety, I have strong feelings about abortion. My feelings were only strengthened as I watched my sister mature. It has a lasting toll on women with even the mildest conscience, but...
I can vote for Mitt, Fred or Rudy if they are aligning themselves with and commit to fighting and winning, defending the forces that are working to defeat terror, change the negative aspects of multiculturalism and secure our borders all while bringing our system of government into the 21st century.
My whole thought process will be skewed by National Security and I have a sneaking suspicion that when the rubber meets the road, a whole lot of Americans will do what their hearts tell them to do...vote to protect the Homeland and fix our broken Government!!
I thought Rudy didnt "spin" things like this? I guess he's not as straight a shooter as many of his supporters claim he is.