This has the potential to hurt Giuliani quite tremendously:
Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani in his campaign appearances this year has stated that he personally abhors abortion, even though he supports keeping a legal right to choose. But records show that in the ’90s he contributed money at least six times to Planned Parenthood, one of the country’s leading abortion rights groups and its top provider of abortions.
Federal tax returns made public by the former New York mayor show that he and his then-wife, Donna Hanover, made personal donations to national, state and city chapters of Planned Parenthood totaling $900 in 1993, 1994, 1998 and 1999.
Social conservatives who support Giuliani right now, might reconsider. If this gets more attention, if more social conservatives will find out about this, quite some of them will, I fear for Giuliani, decide that he is definitely not their man, not even as a lesser of several evils.
More:
The returns have been on the public record for years, but the detail about Giuliani’s support for Planned Parenthood — along with e-mailed copies of the returns — was provided to The Politico by aides to a rival campaign, who insisted on not being identified.
Giuliani’s old contributions could echo throughout the 2008 GOP nomination battle, as he seeks to lessen the political impact of his support for abortion rights — an unpopular position among the social conservatives who in recent elections have weighed decisively in the primaries and caucuses. The issue was raised anew at last week’s debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, when Giuliani gave a noncommittal answer to the question of whether it would be a good day for the country if Roe v. Wade were overturned.
“It’d be OK,” Giuliani responded, adding that it would also be all right if the Supreme Court decided the other way.
Giuliani also (repeatedly) stated that he “hates” abortion and that he wished “there never was an abortion,” and that he “would counsel a woman to have an adoption instead of an abortion.”
Talking about bad publicity. He’s not politically dead (yet), but he will have a hard time overcoming this problem. This is one of the major issues for many (social) conservatives. That he is pro-choice might be acceptable to some of them (as long as he would appoint judges like Alito to the Supreme Court), but donating money to Planned Parenthood is a deadly sin to most, if not all social conservatives.
More at News Hounds, Hotline on Call and Red State (title of the post: Rudy’s Done). Red States’ Hunter Baker writes: ‘There’s nothing short of “I was wrong” that will cover this. For conservatives, a donation to Planned Parenthood is just slightly more excusable than a donation to the KKK. There’s a big difference between being ambiguous and giving money to the biggest abortion providers in the nation.’
UPDATED
Again oops?
I’ve often stated to anyone who will listen.
We are not electing Saints. We are electing sinners.
Confession is good for the soul. Guilanni is confessing. I am pro choice yet I believe a woman should have the right to defend her life at the expense of a fetus that is threatening her life.
I do not believe in abortion as birth control. I do not believe in abortion funded by the state. If the pro choice want free abortions then let them pay for it.
The government does not need to offer up laws that benefit one group while punishing the other group. Abortion should be left to the states. Some states are very liberal and would have no problem funding abortion from their own state coffers. Other states are Conservative and it would be a cold day in hell before the citizens approved any funding for such activity.
This would not infringe on a womans rights. She would just have to drive 100-300 miles to have a Safe and effective abortion. A small price to pay to put this issue to rest and come to grips with it as a nation.
Neoconservatives. Social conservatives who believe that everyone should be included in society and that you do this by putting the states back in control of their citizens.
I think this could well damage Guiliani. Saying that he’s pro-choice even though he hates abortion is a position that is at least palatable even to pro-life conservatives, but actively supporting the business of abortion through contributions goes farther than that.
Also, there are tapes of Guiliani giving speeches where he states that govt funding should pay for abortions. That’s also a position that isn’t teneble for most in the Republican party.
I’m conflicted about this because I’m NOT a one issue voter. Of the current candidates I find Rudi the best on the GOP side and certainly if he gets the nomination and runs against a presumably pro-choice Democrat (ironically the GOP is more ‘big tent’ on this issue than the Dems are because there are more pro-choice Republicans than there are pro-life Democrats), then I’d vote for Guiliani (that is assuming that there’s nothing new that I learn between now and the election that would change my mind).
But in the primaries, I do wish that there were a candidate who was moderate enough on social issues to tone down the polarity without being on the opposite side of the abortion issue from me, and one who was a fiscal conservative and moderately hawkish on foreign policy.
I actually agree with you CS. Many think McCain or Fred Thompson will get the nomination, because abortion is such a sticking point for social conservatives who dominate the party. A lot of them have been saying that although Rudy has been a hit on the campaign trail with Republican audiences, that his poll numbers would flag once his true views and past actions related to this issue became more widely known.
Imo, its a shame because the pool of qualified candidates gets severely limited when you apply this type of litmus test.
Lthomas: I can agree, or at least sympathize with your comment. In America, it should be left up to the states.
Christine: I know one candidate who might be a better choice for you. I wonder whether you know who I am referring to?
One issue voters: always wrong. Never vote solely based on one issue. Very dangerous.
Kim: like the Democrats and Iraq you mean?
That being said, I agree.
Micheal,
I guess that you probably mean Romney. I’d say that he and McCain might both fit the profile I described (and maybe Fred Thompson if he runs).
I prefer Romney over McCain (McCain’s maverick label, I think, increasingly seems like a label of opportunism and he’s a maverick when it suits him). One reason I’ve so far been a Guiliani supporter is that I find Guiliani to be more genuine than the others. Whether or not he is, or if he’s just a better actor, I don’t know, but I think one reason he strikes me this way is because he doesn’t pander. Ironically, the abortion issue proves that. His is a difficult position to hold within the GOP but he holds his ground, and although I completely disagree with him I find that his pro-choice stance proves to me that he believes what he says.
Romney may be just as genuine, but I don’t have the same gut feeling or sureness about that; he just comes across as a bit too slick and rehearsed. I think that both he and Guiliani might have the electibility factor (if anyone among the GOP does), and between that and a lack of serious disagreement with him on issues and respect for his resume, I wouldn’t object to him at all but I can’t put my finger on why he doesn’t wow me and I wonder how many other people feel the same (perhaps enough to prevent winnning in the general election.)
See also:
The Yankees’ Clean-Up Man - Rudy went to bat for the Yanks, and look what he scored. - The Village Voice
http://hammer2006.blogspot.com/2007/05/yankees-clean-up-man-rudy-went-to-bat.html
and if you’d like to just bypass that link which just copies text.
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usrudy095205263may09,0,577333.story?coll=ny-uspolitics-headlines
MvdG- I think that there is less unity on within the Democratic party on Iraq than the GOP. Most want to withdraw right away, and had to be talked into a compromise bill. I know of no major candidate who does not want to pull out- but the approach and timetable differs.