Captain's Quarters -

G clumsy. Hil cutesy. What next?

Will someone point out the article, section, and paragraph in the Constitution that says abortion is a right?

Okay, for the sake of argument, say it’s a right. Why would I have to pay for it for someone else? I have a right to keep and bear arms, but I don’t expect the Feds to buy a gun for me. I have the right to freedom of speech and the press, but the Feds aren’t going to buy me a printing press or TV station.

Rudy is losing points.

It's a "right" because the constitution doesn't explicitly mention all of our "rights", it mostly covers what rights the Federal government can't take away. So, if it isn't listed as a "you can't", that must mean you can.

What I'm hoping the campaign is saying (badly saying, but still saying), is that while Mr. Giuliani is personally pro-life, he realizes the goal of government is tread a lightly as possible on personal freedoms (choices). I can't say I disagree.

Whatever I, you, or anyone may or may not think about abortion, why on Earth should our views have any impact on what someone else can choose to do or not do? We shouldn't and as our proxy, government shouldn't interject itself in any way into this conversation other to say, the choice is yours.

RUDY NEEDS SOME REDIAL READING.

Allow Jane to assist:

http://www.thekidalog.com/seejanemom/2007/04/rucy_giuliani_c.html

Roe is a terrible decision as constituional law, there is nothing in the Constitution about it at all. I am pro-choice, but there should not be public funding of abortion; Guliani's logic is abysmal here. What is next -- public funding for people to receive newspapers (at least the press is specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights.)

Hmm, does the Second Amendment mean that the government has to buy me an Uzi? I just might have to switch my position on this.

RUDY NEEDS SOME REMEDIAL READING.

Allow Jane to assist:

http://www.thekidalog.com/seejanemom/2007/04/rucy_giuliani_c.html

It might help if Jane could SPELL "remedial". heh...

mr. apropos,

Your logic is impeccable as long as all of us are prepared to assume that the victim is not human in any sense. Once that assumption comes into question, the entire logical structure of your argument collapses. Once we begin to attribute elements of humanity to the proto-human here, we cannot escape the logical conclusion that no one has the right to use privacy to commit murder, any more than we can use the right to property to own slaves.

My doctor and I have no more right to get together in his office to plan and execute the murder of my aging mother, than my wife has the right to similarly plan and execute the murder of my unborn son. This is the hard kernel at the center of the issue, and is really not debatable. You either believe it or you don't, and all else builds upon that belief.

The real question for Rudy is whether or not he believe's that the "Right" command's the funding, and I've never heard a better argument than the ones posted above. It seem's to me that if Miranda requires the government to provide an attorney if I can't afford one, and Roe requires the government to provide an abortion if I can't afford one, then the same government must be equally obliged to provide me a gun if I can't afford one.

Unless, of course, some "Rights" just aren't as respectable as others?

It's a "right" because the constitution doesn't explicitly mention all of our "rights", it mostly covers what rights the Federal government can't take away. So, if it isn't listed as a "you can't", that must mean you can.

No, if the Constitution doesn't say "you can't" it doesn't mean you can. It means it's up to the states.

Tenth Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

On various subjects, the Supreme Court has given themselves the power to amend the Constitution by themselves, minus any democratic process, by first creating a popsicle-stick structure on top of the Constitution called "evolving standards," and then several years later, they spray the concrete on, and call it "following the established precedent." That's how it's done. That's how we get these flimsy, results-oriented, decisions that soon become rock-hard precedent in law.

What is the difference between paying the cost for poor women to have abortions and Social Liberal Nanny Bloomberg's suggestion to pay poor people to live responsible lives.

No difference at all.

What both have in common is that both Rudy's and Bloomie's road to serfdom breeds infantilism.

This country is not divided by redstate/blue state the division is between individualism and collectivism.

By definition a Social Liberal cannot be Fiscally Conservative

Abortions became legal in 1972, when the supremes extended the rights to ALL STATES.

But if you knew your history, you'd know Ronald Reagan also legalized abortions, for Californians, when he was governor. Year: 1970. Two years before Roe.

What I find interesting, is that at one time the word "conservative" held broad views. Today? Just another special interest. Limited to the cries and wails of prohibitionists.

I also know the WHIGS collapsed by 1856. They couldn't cope with the increased immigration to America. So they housed the philosophy of the "nativists." Losing the Irish Catholics. And, the german voters.

Go ahead. Toss aside lots of voters. Because you're on this strict diet.

But there was once a time that lots of people gathered around the idea of Conservatism. Heck, Ronald Reagan swung that banner! And, basically, he wanted to REDUCE THE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT.

Making abortions illegal just increases the size of police powers. It would give you the kinds of headlines you saw during Prohibition.

Prohibition. Came to pass when women got the rights to vote. But as a topic? IT WAS OUT THERE IN THE 1840's. And, that was the other hot topic that reduced the WHIGS to nil.

Well, Lincoln learned that you needed to offer party jobs, and have a party machine, to get elected. (Can't get elected all on your own.)

What do you know about Guiliani, really?

He's got Schwartzenegger doing heavy lifting; now that Californians go to the primary polls on February 5, 2007.

He's got Ohio. And, Pennsyvlvania. Probably also New York. And, that gives him leverage.

The old idea that conswervatives were selling smaller governments, so that people who earned money didn't get it taxed away; has dropped by the wayside BECAUSE OF BUSH!

Bush will prove to be the albatross. Trusted by the conseravtives, who thought they'd own the supreme court. 1/3 of the government. Without having the people vote.

But the mainstream votes.

And, the mainstream wants "their man."

Going into Chicago, in 1860, Lincoln knew he was favored by the PEOPLE! But not the insiders, where Stanton had tied up the first position.

Ah. There was even a rules change. That could have devastated Lincoln's ambitions. The gathered GOP members "voted" that "popular" did not mean 2/3rd's of the vote! Stanton won that round. Only to find the PRINTER had not shown up with the ballots! And, they wouldn't come until the next morning.

Working through the night, Lincoln's supporters chewed into Stanton's lead. So that when the morning's vote came; and there were now paper ballots to fill out as well; Stanton's numbers were reduced. Chase did not gain one vote. Nor did Bates. The gain's were Lincoln's.

It took a 3rd vote for Lincoln to make it to the top.

As far as politics is concerned, that 1860 GOP Convention, in Chicago, should be taught in schools. Lincoln did everything right! His cousin, Tom Hanks, brought in a RAIL, and there was born this idea that Lincoln was a "rail splitter."

Men in yellow oilskin coats, also paraded around. Even into the wee hours of the morning. (Again. This is the days before TV.)

And, today? TV's are not what they used to be.

Today, you have the Internet.

While it is a shame that what once brought the mainstream to the Conservatives; LESS GOVERNMENT. LESS TAXES. Fell by the wayside.

Today? Being a one-note group; forbidding abortions, just makes ya all a Special Interest.

Things won't change. Because you can go to small groups, even when they are poor people, and you can get them to drop their Jackson's into the Collection Plates. (That's why you see all this obscene cash floating around.)

To be in politics? You wake up every day knowing you're gonna be "speaking" for money.

The only other comparitive life belongs to Call Girls. Whatever it is you think transpires, when men hand over Jackson's, love has nothing to do with it.

It's just the way it is.

Wait until you wake up and realize what Dubya did to your movement! It's not a bridge! It's Dumb. And, dumber.

The preamble to the Constitution specifically states the document serves to "secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."

It would be well for some to read the Preamble before skipping along to the Tenth Amendment. I know. I know. Justices Blackmun and Stevens skipped the pesky Introduction part, too.

The abortion industry also shows its bloody hand when it attempts to substitute "fetus" for human. Those familiar with the Latin realize that the word fetus also means offspring or newly delivered instead of how the word has been repackaged in the name of clinical convenience just as untermensch was utilized for killing in the Reich.

Unfortunately, it appears Rudy is confusing presumed rights with more government entitlements, If that is his true feeling then he's obviously been emanating from his penumbra.

Carol unfortunately since Roe v Wade was judicated into law Americans were denied the right to legislate (as in vote) their voice on the subject, when it comes to abortion law, we do not know what is the majority rule. The lastest indicator however is in the 2006 election in North Carolina (red of red states) who voted to restrict but not ban abortion. 'Back-ally abortions will lead to a police state' is an unfounded Planted By Parenthood fear.

That said, this issue is about Rudy's stance on public funding of an unjust law, not about the law itself.

If abortion is legal and for now it is, it should also be safe and sanitary. If a woman qualifies for medicaid, she probably cannot afford a safe legal abortion and may attempt a risky cheap shortcut. Allowing medicaid to cover this legal procedure is not unreasonable to prevent the loss of mother as well as child.

On the other hand, if Giulliani does as he says and appoints judges who strictly interpret what the constitution really says, and they decide that abortion is not a protected constitutional right, and some states choose to outlaw it, medicare obviously should not cover any procedure where it is illegal.

I think Giulliani's postion is defensible on this basis.

Folks,

This upcoming Presidential election is about one thing--a Republican winning. There are ways, as chronicled in this blog, to try to make Republicans more responsive to its base. But right now, unless you want eight more years of Pelosi with no veto in sight, find a candidate that can beat the Democrat and put your muscle behind that person.

The CNN interviewer did not ask, 'if the law were to change slightly would you hold firm to that position, if the Supreme Court loosened Roe in some way, would you hold this position?' Because all Rudy was saying was that he would follow the law, and sometimes this requires government assistance.

Ed wrote yesterday that by this logic the government should provide everyone with firearms. Maybe. But the government did assist Blacks to attend schools and universities in the sixties. That's just the reality of politics and government.

The CNN interviewer did not ask whether this means Rudy was backtracking on his desire to appoint conservative judges. In essence, that's all he was saying, he'll let the judges and courts lead on this issue.

Polls are saying most voters identify as Democrats--Rudy had better come out with statements staking out a middle position, and Republicans and conservatives need to play this election with both feet on the ground as opposed to feet on the soapbox.

People like their President to seem moderate. Congress seems to think they like their representatives (at least conservative congressfolk) moderate also. This is wrong. Representatives and senators should run on strong convictions. If you are in a red state and your Republican senator said this, be upset. But anger in this presidential election is best expressed after a Republican victory.

After any Republican (or Democrat) wins the nomination, they always run for the center. We just need to make sure that the Republican starting point is far enough away (to the right) that they never quite get there. We know the Soros/Democrat candidate will need binoculars to see the center from where they end up. So I think the Republican Party can afford to nominate a traditional smart solid conservative like Fred Thompson. (or Tancredo if you leave out "smart.")

An habitual adulterer has a VESTED INTEREST in abortions, and in making sure the women in question don't have to approach the men who got them pregnant for the funding of them.

Why anyone thinks we "HAVE" to trust this man and the campaign promises he makes, any more than his THREE WIVES could trust him for all the promises he made to THEM as well, I simply cannot see.

Straw polling certainly doesn't make it an imperitive - the history of straw polls certainly have no validity, themselves, to be able to "lend credibility" to such a man.

This is a man who puts himself above EVERYTHING - including his own word.

In the old west, folks wouldn't trade horses with him.

That seems an excellent standard for me.

RBMN,

Hillary is not a Soros funded candidate. She knows how to run to the center. The Republican candidate needs to be able to beat her. If you want conservatism, well, the last congressional election killed that ideal for a while.

The Republican winning Presidential candidate needs to be able to work with a congress that, if conservative, will provide him or her with political backbone. Conservatives need to stop trying to enforce their platform in the general election, in the last election by not voting, and put their muscle into the primaries. And if you get a squishy Republican, form organizations that raise money and dialogue while that person is in office. But completely losing elections just isn't smart.

An habitual adulterer has a VESTED INTEREST in abortions, and in making sure the women in question don't have to approach the men who got them pregnant for the funding of them.

Why anyone thinks we "HAVE" to trust this man and the campaign promises he makes, any more than his THREE WIVES could trust him for all the promises he made to THEM as well, I simply cannot see.

Straw polling certainly doesn't make it an imperitive - the history of straw polls certainly have no validity, themselves, to be able to "lend credibility" to such a man.

This is a man who puts himself above EVERYTHING - including his own word.

In the old west, folks wouldn't trade horses with him.

That seems an excellent standard for me.

Sorry for the double post, didn't know the first one went through.

Carol,

Finding and prosecuting murderers and thieves increases the size of government too.

As does the bureaucracy involved in government funding of abortions.

I'd welcome the criminalization of abortions; that way, fewer males would die from them.

As for the center, it's a place where people who have forgotten the tenets of their faith go. Giuliani counts himself as a Catholic; I have my doubts both with his multiple divorces and his Culture of Death viewpoint.