http://news.aol.com/elections/president/story/_a/abortion-rises-anew-for-giuliani/20070506221209990001
2007-05-08 13:06:40 · 13 answers · asked by gaahgasjhagshjkgahksjaghjks 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
Well I'm glad abortion doesn't effect your vote.
That is why I hope Hillary looses. People will come out to vote AGAINST her
2007-05-08 13:21:13 · update #1
Not at all. I will vote for whatever Rep runs against Hillary. If Hillary doesn't run - I won't vote. Because I really don't care who wins as long as it isn't Hillary.
2007-05-08 13:11:19 · answer #1 · answered by Moondog 7 · 2⤊ 4⤋
Guiliani does not impress me with his statement on abortion. It is just another way to distance himself from GWB. He did it in a manner the other wanna-be's didn't think of. And it doesn't surprise me.
Back during the gubernatorial campaign in my state durring 2002. The Republican campaign started using those automated telephone services to call my house just before dinner time, to mention abortion. And that if we elect the Democrat, 10000 more babies will die over the next year. Now there was an interesting topic to think about during dinner.
For me, this showed me that abortion as a topic of discussion is really a moot issue between the parties. Then I could not help but try to imagine how many of our tax dollars are being spent or have been to discuss this in the political arena over the history of the topic.
So I got to thinking on the politician whose campaign had issued this statement. I got to figureing that if he were a conservative he would have rounded down to that number 10000. If a liberal he would have rounded up to the number of 10000. Me being the conservative Republican (not one of those neo- versions) got to thinking on the politicians performance in office of Lt. Governor for the previous 12 years. I did not recall once where he had put out a bill in the states legislature that called for an outright ban, or a ban of any sort, for abortion. Not even a minor restriction or call for a rewording of the rules. So I got to thinking on that number 10000 again. Umm, this Republican has been in office for 12 years as Lt. Gov. I thought that if his number were anywhere near the true number, he was responsible for letting up to 120,000 abortions get by him without a word of dissent.
I figure abortion is one of those neccessary evils. However, I cannot see where the state should be paying for those unwanted pregnancies where someone wants an abortion, whose families income is above poor. I just wonder how many of our tax dollars have been spent on generating paper and rhetoric over abortion. These are monies that could have been better spent on making more options of contraception available to the poor and educating them better on the subject abortion to the effect that both sides of the topic can be served.
If I were a smart politician I would realize that the ad time to get my point of view accross costs money too. I would be speaking to people in a manner that does not waste time distancing myself from an unpopular point of view that I had helped to generate.
I just wish more people knew how to reverse engineer the words they hear coming out of the mouths of politicians.
The way I see these Republicans distancing themselves from Bush. Is like they are showing us the holes in the dike and that Dutch boy doesn't have enough fingers and toes to plug the holes. Mind you these are the folks that helped put the holes in the dike.
2007-05-08 21:20:20 · answer #2 · answered by eks_spurt 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hillary Clinton just like any other Democrat is pro-abortion and this might affect her plan to run as President.
VOTE for your choice as US President on my 360 degrees blog and know if Clinton will probably win.
2007-05-08 20:26:33 · answer #3 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No.
I totally agree the chief executive should be focused on those two things: national security and economic security.
Government and morality rarely mix.
2007-05-08 20:14:27 · answer #4 · answered by musashi 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Guiliani has major problems in that he'll never be able to mention "family values."
2007-05-08 20:13:59 · answer #5 · answered by Raven 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No. That issue is not at the top of my agenda. Natonal security is.
2007-05-08 22:11:15 · answer #6 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, I already knew what his stance was on this issue and had made my decision on him as a candidate.
2007-05-08 20:21:53 · answer #7 · answered by Pamela K 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, I'd never vote for a Republican...Reagan was the last good one
2007-05-08 20:20:18 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Maybe for those leftist... they are just bigots at hart
2007-05-08 20:25:17 · answer #9 · answered by lordkelvin 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No. Would never vote for a republican no matter what.
2007-05-08 20:15:41 · answer #10 · answered by walyank 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋