It was less than five minutes into the GOP YouTube Debate in Florida for Rudy Giuliani to begin personal attacks on Mitt Romney. As soon as they began discussing Giuliani’s efforts to make and keep New York a sanctuary city, the former mayor started dishing out insults and refused to acknowledge substance to Romney’s position.
The mayor accused Romney of doing nothing about sanctuary cities in his state during his term as govenor. That said, he immediately began firing out quips about how Romney had illegal immigrants doing yard work. At his mansion. (Isn’t class envy supposed to be the Democrat’s game?) Giuliani went so far as to dub Romney’s home a “sanctuary mansion.”
Romney’s response was calm, rational and completely ignored by Giuliani who was far too amused by his own wittiness to actually deal with the issue. Romney repeatedly asked if it was acceptable to single out workers, working for a company hired by an individual, who looked or spoke differently from oneself and demand they prove their legal status to work in the United States. He characterized this thinking as un-American. (Giuliani was too busy trying to catch his breath from laughing so hard at his own jokes to notice that he sounded a little biggoted and racist on this issue.)
The implication was not lost on voters, however. During the commercial breaks, CNN.com offered highlights and viewer commentary on the debate. The first comment addressed Romney’s point and agreed that to suggest we aggressively demand proof of legal status from anyone who works for the businesses we patronize smacked of intollerance.
Meanwhile, Fred Thompson had the only ad that focused soley on the weaknesses of fellow Republican candidates. (Each candidate submitted a 30 second spot and they were aired by CNN periodically throughout the debate.) The first half of Thompson’s spot simply showed Romney stating his pro-abortion position during a debate with Ted Kennedy in 1994. The second half targeted Mike Huckabee’s liberal fiscal record. When asked about the ad, Thompson responded with a sly grin and a shrug. He stated simply that those were his opponents own words.
In the time Romney was given to respond, he passionately repeated that he had a pro-choice position at the time he ran for govenor. As govenor, when actually confronted with the issue, he found that he could not sign a bill that would mean death to thousands of unborn children. He changed his position. He pointed out that the change was not immediate and had been made some years ago. He stated that his record as govenor was clearly pro-life. He told Republican voters that he had been wrong and that if they wanted a candidate who had always been perfect they would have to get someone else.
(You’d think his opponents would figure out that he has a good, solid, rehearsed answer to this charge and quit using trying to trip him up on it. It makes him look good and them look petty. But, with all deference to Thompson, he did all of his “attacking” in a video. It was done with much more class than Giuliani’s taunting.)
I don’t remember Huckabee’s response to the Thompson video. With all due respect to Huckabee and his supporters, after a few minutes all of his pontificating just started to sound the same.
Poor John McCain was asked to relive his years as a POW while others answered a question about interrogation techniques. He was overtly emotional as he persistently attacked Romney’s position on waterboarding when Romney did not actually disagree with him. In fact, Romney stated clearly that he did not approve of and would not use torture for interrogation. He further explained, more than once, that he would seek the advice of Senator McCain and others about the effectiveness and morality of interrogation methods. However, Romney simply refused to discuss the specifics of methods he would or would not use. He was of the opinion that that information could be useful to our enemies and that those enemies might have figured out how to tune into CNN.
All in all, Romney turned in a credible performance. He kept his cool and didn’t let himself get tripped up too much. He did have an awkward moment or two with questions about religion but that is a subject for another post.
The highlight of the debate replays, in my opinion, should be his scuffle with Giuliani over immigration in which he defenitely came off best. But you never know, maybe by tomorrow the Giuliani camp will come up with a really good “Yo Mama” joke to even the score.
“Well there’s no question in my view that one of the ways you instill family values is by having the White House be a place that demonstrates family values,” Romney said earlier this week.
At a forum hosted by the George Bush Presidential Library earlier this year, a young man began the question and answer portion by energetically praising Romney’s values and integrity. Romney responded with the quip, “That’s my son, by the way.”
Anyone who comes within arms length of the Romney campaign will notice the prominent role that his wife and sons play in his life. It is also apparent to anyone willing to scratch the surface that they have the kind of love and respect for their father that makes them willing to be an enthusiastic part of his bid for the presidency. What parent doesn’t want their sons, or daughters, to have that kind of confidence in them?
Romney continued his comments by saying, “And… I think during the last Clinton presidency the White House did not demonstrate that in a way that was helpful to our nation’s culture.”
Almost anyone old enough to vote will remember the nationwide refrain in the late 90s that went something like this: “Well, maybe he isn’t a good person in his private life but he’s doing a good job as president. And his personal life is none of our business anyway.”
I heard this sentiment repeated so often that I wondered if people were actually trying to convince themselves. After all, Clinton’s personal life caused him to commit perjury, encourage others to perjure themselves, obstruct justice in a case against him, and be impeached by the Congress of the United States. It has also been suggested by commentators like Rush Limbaugh (actually, he’s the only one I know of first hand but I believe he makes a valid point) that the lack of personal integrity in Clinton’s life both before and during his presidency made it difficult for him to aggressively command the armed forces and counter the terrorist threat against our nation. *
These serious consequences were in addition to the fact that the Clinton escapades were reported with lavish detail throughout the nation, leaving a trail of disgrace and depravity surrounding the White House where we once had thought to shelter dignity. Romney, of course, realizes the enormity of leading a nation by example. He continued in his remarks, “you’re gonna be under a microscope and at least during the time you’re in the White House you ought to live by a high standard, because the world is looking at you, you’re representing not only yourself but your country. And the kids of America are looking at you.” In this election we can decide much about the future of our nation’s families. How will we define marriage and family? What will we teach our children about morality and personal responsibility? What limits will we place on the sanctity of life? With these issues at stake, we couldn’t do better than to elect a man who has pledged to lead the crusade for family values by example.
*This is in reference to commentary done on the Rush Limbaugh show around the time the film “The Path to 9-11” aired on ABC in 2006. Comments were based on information quoted from Richard Clarke’s book “Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror.”
Is Giuliani creating his own political party? The Demi-Republican Party? Democrat on social issues and Republican on fiscal issues.
Giuliani is often considered a front-runner in the Republican race, however it is often difficult knowing to which party he really belongs. I often think that he could have run as a conservative Democrat as easily as he is running as a liberal Republican.
Why do so many so-called Republicans support a candidate that only stands for a portion of what Republicans really believe?
Giuliani is not the best Republican candidate. He does not uphold the values held by the Republicans in this nation.
Giuliani is socially liberal in nearly every respect—even ask his staff.
Regarding the issue of fidelity within marriage, Giuliani’s track record is not stellar. Most people know he has been married three times—If this isn’t bad enough look at the way he treats the women he marries. The first one was kind of a weird situation. He was married to his second cousin for 14 years; then he had it annulled—how do you erase a marriage of 14 years? Did annulling it make him feel like he had not done something wrong? The end of his second marriage of 17 years, which was riddled with questionable female “relationships”, came after he announced his plans for separation at a press conference—where’s the tact? Regarding his separation, Giuliani stated, “This is damaging and painful for everyone”—yet he still proceeded? His third marriage was, I guess, a “traditional” THIRD marriage—he married a woman who told everyone she had only been married once. As it turned out, her marriage to Giuliani was also a third for her—no surprise? See entire article at CNN
.
In a memo written by Giuliani’s staff, his aids give a harsh assessment of his flaws in a “vulnerability study”.
Giuliani’s staff stated that, “his support for abortion and gay rights may alienate many conservative voters.”—I hope so. Giuliani’s aides were also concerned that, as a former Democrat, he would be painted as a “flip-flopper,” and that his tenure as an official in Ronald Reagan’s Justice Department was an “albatross for a liberal city” (referring, of course, to New York City). “There is not a minute to waste in inoculating against the Reagan Republican moniker,” the memo said, adding that the candidate should emphasize his “independence from traditional national Republican policies.”—Or do as he did and re-define the Republican parties values.
The memo also stated that, “gay marriage really is the only issue where Giuliani opposes the gay agenda.”
While a supporter of abortion rights, Giuliani had stumbled badly on the issue in his 1989 mayoral campaign, sounding like “just another pro-life male politician trying to explain how he wasn’t anti-woman,” the memo said. The advisers said Giuliani could “win over undecided pro-choice activists” by being more “succinct” about his support for the procedure and for public financing of abortions.
The memo also reported the “charge” that “Giuliani received special treatment from a friendly federal judge to avoid military service during the Vietnam War,” and later “hypocritically prosecuted draft dodgers.”
So where does Giuliani stand on complete fidelity in marriage, abortion, gay rights, and war—just ask his staff. His staff would tell you that, “He doesn’t really fit in with the Republicans. Too liberal.” See entire article at The Washington Post The Washington Post
I hope during this primary election people will stand strong with the candidate that truly maintains their values and not their vote simply out of fear. I worry that many people will compromise their values by voting for Giuliani because he will supposedly “relate to both parties” or “have the best chance to beat a Democrat.” Mitt Romney is our strongest candidate for all of these reasons. He has maintained his values as is represented by his intact, faithful marriage. Mitt Romney can certainly relate to both parties and solidly has the best chance to beat a Democrat as he showed as Governor of a mostly-democrat state.
~ Angi Bagley-Hansen
The issue of abortion has blown up in recent elections and passionately divided the electorate between the two different “pros”—pro-life and pro-choice. The main conflict on the abortion issue is that few people fall in the middle and thus fewer are willing to compromise. As a woman, I have given great thought to this issue. If I were in the situation of having an unplanned child—what would I do? After great deliberation, I would posit that we consider the following things:
Given the divisiveness of this issue, policy makers have almost always addressed the sanctity of two groups of rights: women’s rights, and human rights (supposing fetuses to be right-bearing humans). The classical liberal case for individual liberty mandates that individuals be free from the coercion of the state to pursue their own aims, insofar as these aims do not infringe upon the rights of others. Clearly, the issue of abortion comes down to whether fetuses ought to be considered to be right-bearing humans. If so, the state should prevent any person who tries to take the right to life away from an unborn child; if not, the state should allow a woman to do as she sees fit—since she is not hampering the rights of anyone protected under the Constitution. Unfortunately, the point at which an embryo becomes a human is a matter of much speculation, and depends largely on the religious faith of those making the decision. Accordingly, we are unlikely to convince people of our time about whether abortion is right or wrong. Similarly, at the time the Constitution was written, there was not a clear consensus on whether slaves should be part of the group of men that were “created equal,” and should therefore be treated equally under the law. That issue was decided years after the ratification of the constitution, when the moral framework of society had evolved sufficiently to recognize the transgression of enslaving human beings. In the case of abortion, until a similar moral consensus can be formed, we must confine ourselves to determining the interim role of the state concerning this difficult issue.
I would argue, and so does Governor Romney, that people who abhor abortion as murder should not be required, through taxation, to pay for someone else’s daughter to have an abortion. Those that do maintain the belief that it is a woman’s right to control the occurrences within her body through abortion must also recognize the rights of others to not have their resources allocated to what they view to be a morally reprehensible act. Therefore, even though the morality of abortion is a question not soon likely to be decided by a commonly held system of values, the state’s role of funding abortions ought to be more easily decided.
Lets get to the facts and you can decide for yourself. In 2003, women chose to have 1.29 million abortions, totaling 43 million legal abortions since 1973.1 In perspective, the abortion ratio (the proportion of abortions of total pregnancies) was 24%–yes indeed, this means that one-fourth of all pregnancies were terminated by women’s choice. 2
Now that we understand the extent of abortions, we must look at their unit cost. On average, abortions cost $350-$500 dollars in early pregnancy and $650-$700 in later pregnancy.3 Others have reported $487 for a surgical abortion at 10 weeks gestation.4
To calculate that (1.3 million x $487), $621 million dollars is a lot of money.
Clearly the subject of who pays for abortion is not one of insignificant consequence. Today, more than one-third of US women are eligible for publicly funded abortions. This public funding has resulted in 630,000 abortions each year,5 which totals $307 million dollars each year. When we say “publicly funded,” this means that you paid for a fraction of this abortion through taxes. If you wonder about your daughter at home, 4.9 million sexually active teenagers also get publicly funded supported services (abortion is included in these services).6
So alas, abortion is an expensive choice we are providing for many women and especially young women, at the expense of many who believe it is akin to murder. Governor Mitt Romney also agrees that this is too high a cost to American taxpayers and American liberty. Since we can’t agree on the ethics of abortion, we ought to at least be able reach a consensus that it is wrong for the state to force more than half of our nation’s tax payers to fund something they strongly oppose.
Another reason to agree with Romney’s opposition to public funding of abortion is that the Guttmacher Institute found that 20-35% of eligible women chose not to have an abortion when the funding was not available to them to have an abortion. Thus, the occurrence of abortion, which many believe to be an immoral act, can be significantly reduced without infringing upon the liberty of the women who make that choice. In fact, eliminating public funding of abortion would not only preserve the choice of women facing the decision of whether to abort, but also preserve the liberty of taxpayers to use their resources for endeavors that are not against their moral beliefs. Regardless of one’s perception of the morality of abortion, I agree with Mitt Romney that “we the people” should not be forced to pay for what many believe to be immoral.
1.Finer LB and Henshaw SK, Estimates of U.S. Abortion Incidence in 2001–2003, 2006,
2. Finer LB and Henshaw SK, Estimates of U.S. Abortion Incidence in 2001–2003, 2006,
3. ProChoice.org, www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/economics.htm
4. Henshaw SK and Finer LB, The accessibility of abortion services in the United States, 2001, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2003, 35(1):16–24.
5. AGI, Fulfilling the Promise: Public Policy and U.S. Family Planning Clinics, New York: AGI, 2000.
6. AGI, Contraceptive needs and services, 2001–2002,
7. Heather Boonstra and Adam Sonfield, “Rights Without Access: Revisiting Public Funding of Abortion for Poor Women,” The Guttmacher Report on Public Policy vol.3(2) (April 2000).
Emily
From Elect Romney in 2008
ABC News has a story about Ann Romney giving $150 to Planned Parenthood back in 1994. You can read it here.
Get ready for the onslaught of flip-flopper charges. Before anybody hyperventilates about this, however, let’s keep a few things in perspective:
1. It was 13 years ago. I’m speculating, but the explanation could be as simple as Ann giving a nominal donation as a favor to a friend who asked. It certainly doesn’t constitute a pattern.
2. It was a small amount of money. Compare it to the $15,000 that Mitt’s foundation gave to Massachusetts Citizens for Life in 2005.
3. It was Ann, not Mitt. Ann has said on numerous occasions (e.g. Larry King, Hannity & Colmes) that she doesn’t agree with Mitt on everything. I don’t know whether she differs with Mitt on life, but it is possible that this could be one of those issues. That being said, last time I checked, our Constitution doesn’t give the First Lady any powers.
4. Mitt has been very candid…he changed his mind after looking at the cloning issue. There’s no news here.
5. Mitt’s track record as Governor on Life is clear. We don’t just have to take his word for it.
So, look out for the darts that will inevitably fly, but keep it in perspective. This isn’t as big a deal as the Press and Mitt’s opponents will make it out to be.
RHR
Ann Marie