The Ultimate Sin

Well, if you are running for the Republican nomination for POTUS at least…
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0507/3876.html

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.

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.

If you’re keeping tabs, I just pissed off 50% of the citizens Peachpunditopia with my last two posts.  I’m not sure if that’s a record.

Bull Moose for POTUS.

41 comments

  1. Doug Deal says:

    I wish Republicans would get of abortion on the national level. I support the repeal of Roe v Wade, on constitutional grounds, but the federal government has no business legislating the issue of abortion, one way or the other.

    When the Republican party makes it a litmus test for who runs for President, they violate the principles they claim to support which seems to always be the case with modern day Republicans.

    What ever happened to states rights and federalism? Oh yeah, THIS issue is “too important” (TM)

  2. Ray4VP says:

    Gee, is anyone surprised that a politician will say one thing while he is doing another? Is that the standard for a politician in America?

  3. Bull Moose says:

    Anyone who saw Fred Thompson’s lackluster performance in California knows that Fred Thompson isn’t the savior that everyone was clamoring to see.

    The real conservative and leader in this race, and the one with the fire in the belly is John McCain.

    To my knowledge, McCain has never supported pro-abortion groups like Planned Parenthood.

  4. kendrial says:

    Well, according to the RCP Avg. Rudy is now leading McCain by 7.8 points. That’s alot! Also, my man Fred still has BUZZ and is only behind McCain by 6.8 and he hasn’t annouced. That’s all I am saying. My prediction as Rudy sinks, Fred raises. But, I’ll still vote to free you!

  5. jsm says:

    “I wish Republicans would get of abortion on the national level. I support the repeal of Roe v Wade, on constitutional grounds, but the federal government has no business legislating the issue of abortion, one way or the other.”

    As long as there are nuts out there (like me) who believe abortion is murder, it will be a national issue. Call us whackos, or stupid, or whatever–we stand for protecting life, which is worthy of national level attention.

  6. Jace Walden says:

    Vote Romney!

    Yeah, because what is his current position on abortion? Oh, he’s against it for the time being.

    If Romney wins the nomination…which he won’t, but if he does, I could almost gaurantee you he would change his position on abortion back again to make himself more appealing to independents. He’s about as consistent as John Kerry.

  7. Doug Deal says:

    jsm, you said:

    “As long as there are nuts out there (like me) who believe abortion is murder, it will be a national issue. Call us whackos, or stupid, or whatever–we stand for protecting life, which is worthy of national level attention.

    The crime of murder is murder, but I do not see you out there demanding that it be made a federal crime. It has no business being an issue at the national level, but you Demonbeck “Conservatives” always have some excuse for your own personal pet programs.

  8. jsm says:

    Doug, I don’t get your point. I don’t care if murder is a federal crime, as long as it is punished. Roe v Wade made abortion a national issue.

  9. Doug Deal says:

    jsm,

    Then try to get Roe v. Wade overturned.

    Otherwise, you are no better than any Liberal who interprets the Constitution on what is convenient at the moment. Like so many CINO’s, you claim to support a smaller federal government only for the things you oppose. When it is something you support, you seem to ignore that rhetoric and rationalize away.

    You have to stop looking to the federal government to solve your problems if you want others to stop looking to the federal government to solve their own.

  10. Holly says:

    Fred Thompson is known for thinking anything not in the Constitution should be left for the states to decide. He says that quite often. I’d think this survey shows how he felt he would vote in the U. S. Senate, given his stance on states’ rights.

  11. joe says:

    Fred Thompson is known for thinking anything not in the Constitution should be left for the states to decide.

    I thought the tenth had been repealed, or at least forgotten.

  12. Demonbeck says:

    “It has no business being an issue at the national level, but you Demonbeck “Conservatives” always have some excuse for your own personal pet programs.”

    First of all, the idea I proposed is a state level proposal.

    Secondly, it would make government smaller by decreasing the amount of revenue they are required to spend on our transportation infrastructure.

    If you’d like to discuss this more. Take it to the appropriate thread.

  13. Doug Deal says:

    Demon,

    You said:

    If you’d like to discuss this more. Take it to the appropriate thread.

    I did not birng this topic to this thread, so I think you should follow your own advice.

    I was just recognizing and then commenting upon a pattern with certain types of “conservatives” who claim they support federalism, smaller government, tax reform, a strict construstionalist view of the Constitution, and the rule of law, but only when it is for something they oppose.

    When you guys want the big government solution, all of this is somehow forgotten.

    The federal government involving itself in state matters (abortion, Terry Shiavo) is big government. The state government using the tax code and appropriations to influence behavior is also big government.

  14. jsm says:

    “Then try to get Roe v. Wade overturned.

    “Otherwise, you are no better than any Liberal who interprets the Constitution on what is convenient at the moment. Like so many CINO’s, you claim to support a smaller federal government only for the things you oppose. When it is something you support, you seem to ignore that rhetoric and rationalize away.”

    I AM trying to get Roe v Wade overturned. To do that, our President must appoint judges who correctly interpret the Constitution. Therefore, this affects my vote. How have I supported a larger government to accomplish something I support? I think you’re assuming something that isn’t there. Having the abortion debate among our presidential candidates has nothing to do with bigger government.

  15. Doug Deal says:

    jsm,

    So if a presidential candidate said “Roe v. Wade is wrong, but if a state wants to keep abortion legal, it is that state’s right.”, you would not use that against him?

    If you truly are just working to get Roe v Wade overturned, this would not be an issue.

    If not, you are instead working to use the power and might of the federal government to bully states into your way of thinking. Then, you are no better than the liberals that you rail against.

    I do not like the former mayor of NY any better than you do, but to eliminate him from federal office solely based on his abortion stance is destructive to the party and the nation.

  16. jsm says:

    “So if a presidential candidate said ‘Roe v. Wade is wrong, but if a state wants to keep abortion legal, it is that state’s right.’, you would not use that against him?

    “If you truly are just working to get Roe v Wade overturned, this would not be an issue. ”

    No, I would support his position on allowing states to decide. From there, I would work against legal abortion state-by-state.

    It seems you have assumed what my position is on this instead of finding out what I really believe. I guess, in the current political environment, I’m somewhat of an anomaly. I, like you, support repealing R v W on purely constitutional grounds, and I know that some states allowed abortion before the SCOTUS decision. However, I’ll always support the right of a baby to see the light of day.

  17. Demonbeck says:

    Don’t pin my name and statements to anything being labeled as falsely conservative and expect me to sit idly by. Your doing so is clearly an attempt to bring our previous discussion to this thread.

    Since you are unwilling to take the conversation back to that thread, but oh-so-willing to associate my statements on another thread as being part of a pattern “with certain types of “conservatives” who claim they support federalism, smaller government, tax reform, a strict construstionalist view of the Constitution, and the rule of law,” I guess I’ll have to remain off-topic here and defend them.

    The Tenth Amendment of the Constitution specifies that “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.”

    According to Answers.com:
    James Madison, in The Federalist No. 45, maintained that the powers of a federal government are “few and defined” and extend “principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce,” whereas the powers reserved to the states are “numerous and indefinite” and “extend to all objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.” In The Federalist No. 46, Madison reiterated the separation of powers doctrine by stating that the “Federal and State Governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, instituted with different powers, and designated for different purposes.” Thomas Jefferson described the Tenth Amendment as “the foundation of the Constitution” and added, “to take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn … is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.” Jefferson’s formulation of this doctrine of “strict construction” was echoed by champions of state sovereignty for many decades.

    Clearly, Publius would agree with me that the states should and do indeed have the power of taxation. I trust you already knew this, but I want to be sure that we are on equal footing when it comes to the powers of the state to levy taxes.

    Since these folks essentially wrote the Constitution, I take it that their statements is indicative of the “strict construstionalist view of the Constitution.”

    Seeing as how the judicial system has yet to strike down these powers as being un-Constitutional in over two hundred years, I’ll take it you agree that these powers are supported by the rule of law.

    The very definition of “federalism” is “System under which a national government as well as regional governments (the states) have certain powers of legislation.”

    I will assume the provided evidence is sufficient for you to agree that the state of Georgia in support of federalism, “a strict construstionalist view of the Constitution, and the rule of law” can indeed levy taxes and – better yet – offer tax incentives to its citizens. As a result, anyone pushing for the state to impose new taxes, to cut old ones or to amend the current tax structure in anyway is doing so in support of these three things.

    As a “true” conservative, I would hope you would hold federalism, the rule of law and your “strict construstionalist view of the Constitution” quite dear and wouldn’t be so quick to trot them out just to be grandiose.

    Your argument with me is on tax reform and size of government and nothing else. I’d appreciate it if you held it to just those things.

  18. Doug Deal says:

    My point in regard to you is that you are supporting bigger and more intrusive government (in this case, the state), but excusing it because you like the outcome.

    I make no claim that you are against federalism or the rule of law in this one area, but I do make the claim that “conservatives”, in general, (in the case of your support of subsidies, specifically) sacrifice various “principles” when they favor the outcome of that sacrifice.

    Your support of the state government manipulating the flow of revenue in order to achieve a desirable social end is in violation of the general principle of less intrusive government.

    Anti abortion activists’ dream to use the federal government’s authority to force states to make abortion illegal is a violation of federalism.

    People clamoring for the intervention of the Federal government to save Terry Shiavo’s life when the state ruled against it is a violation of the rule of law as well as Federalism. As wrong as I think the state was, the Federal government still had no standing.

    All of these are related because they demonstrate a lack of principle by the people who claim they are the bearers of principle. If something is a principle, you will support it, even if it is against your own self interest.

    If you decide every case based on what outcome you want, and you routinely set aside principle “for just this one case”, how can you stand against those who want the same types of exceptions for their own pet causes?

    Reform does not fail because there is an organized opposition to it. It fails because individually people want to exempt their own issues and excesses. If you truly believe in smaller government, federalism, tax reform and everything else conservatives claim to believe in, you have to stop looking to the government, be it local, state or federal to give you what you want.

  19. Demonbeck says:

    I am not “supporting bigger and more intrusive government (in this case, the state), but excusing it because (I) like the outcome.”

    I am supporting smaller government that is less intrusive and provides a positive environment for business growth. My idea to provide tax breaks to businesses who telecommute would be completely voluntary for businesses but would also cut down on the government’s need for maintenance revenues for the state’s transportation system. In essence, it cuts down on the size of government twice.

    If I were for bigger and more intrusive government, I would be calling for government mandates on telecommuting.

    I still support tax reform, but, unlike you, I believe that our elected officials can continue to improve the current system while working to reform it at the same time.

    So if the pursuit of smaller government and a better environment for businesses in this state portray a lack of conservative principles on my part – then so be it. I’ll bet a majority of folks don’t see it the same as you.

  20. Demonbeck says:

    Demon,

    …I was just recognizing and then commenting upon a pattern with certain types of “conservatives” (as in “Demonbeck conservatives?” – ed.) who claim they support federalism, smaller government, tax reform, a strict construstionalist view of the Constitution, and the rule of law, but only when it is for something they oppose.

    When you guys want the big government solution, all of this is somehow forgotten.

    I ma(d)e no claim that you are against federalism or the rule of law in this one area, but I do make the claim that “conservatives”, in general, (in the case of your support of subsidies, specifically) sacrifice various “principles” when they favor the outcome of that sacrifice.

    Yes you certainly did.

  21. jsm says:

    Doug, don’t you hope no one ever relegates your life to a “pet project” for their own “self interest?”

  22. Doug Deal says:

    Demon,

    If you think your “evidence” was anything close to proof, then you have deeper problems than inconsistency on this one issue.

    I lumped your behavior into a general category. Now you are trying to argue that every detailed component of every specific case that fits under this general category has to apply to every other specific case, in its entirety.

    It’s as if I had said:

    …I was just recognizing and then commenting upon a pattern with certain types of “home appliances” that cool homes, blend delicious margaritas, bake bread, wash laundry, and open cans, in that they all require electricity.

    I simply replaced each conservative principle with an appliance, and replaced the last clause with something that applies to appliances; hoping analogy will ease your misunderstanding.

    At no point does that sentence say that all appliances cool homes or open cans. The concept that was lost is that there are people who claim hold this one group of ideals sacred, but they are willing to sacrifice them one at a time when the ends apparently justify the means. I am not suggesting that at every opportunity each and every principle is sacrificed, which is a ridiculous claim to make and an equally ridiculous conclusion to draw.

    If you truly want to continue arguing about what I mean when I made a completely rhetorical comparison, go ahead, but I find it pointless, since it fails to debate the substance of the issue. The substance is that too many “Demonbeck Conservatives” will excuse something that they spend countless hours complaining about when the end result is something they find desirable. You are ordinarily fairly consistent in your views, so your name is infinitely more effective in DEMONstrating the concept than one such as a “jsm Conservative” or an “Erick Conservative”.

    If, on the other hand, you want to debate the merits of your highway plan and why it makes you a big government conservative, I agree that it should be moved to the appropriate thread.

    See that one for my response in due course.

  23. Doug Deal says:

    jsm,

    Would you care to be specific, or is it your goal to just use hazy innuendo in order to prevent having to defend yourself?

  24. Demonbeck says:

    Doug,

    You hardly have any room to admonish anyone for using hazy innuendo in order to prevent having to defend yourself.

    Try using a blender or an ice cream machine instead.

  25. Doug Deal says:

    jsm,

    Sorry, through no fault of yours, I misinterpreted the following passage.

    Doug, don’t you hope no one ever relegates your life to a “pet project” for their own “self interest?”

    I was thinking that you were trying to set up a situation where I would say something like, “well to save my life, I would support unconstitutional action X” or something like that.

    Instead you are getting all touchy feely and pasting randomly selected quotes in a sentence to infer a meaning which wasn’t originally present.

    If you want to debase the discussion into senseless emotionalism, you can, but I would not likely participate. I could go into a long winded explanation of why it is a character flaw to attack the style, or in your case, perceived style, of debate of your opponent instead of the substance of their argument, but I prefer to direct it back to concrete issues.

    If it helps you think that your shaky argument is sounder by trying to characterize me as someone who relishes the unfortunate situations that people find themselves; then have at it. I will indulge you, and congratulate you on your convincing arguments.

    I think abortion is repugnant. I think pro-business is a good thing for a government to be. I think burning flags are stupid and provocative.

    I do not, however, try to demonize every political opponent of mine into Satin. I assume that you eat meat, and operating on that assumption, there are people who think killing animals is murder and by extension that you are a murderer. I think those people are kooks.

    However, they can demonize as well as you can. They can also justify any action they do because they are “stopping murderers”.

    When one is so intently and so narrowly focused on one issue and enflames that with a whole lot of emotion filled rhetoric, one is a danger to the party and to the nation. If this is the means that Republicans will select their leaders, then the party will be destined to be rightly returned to the firmly entrenched minority status that it has previously occupied.

    Anyway, if no other poster but you and Demon have anything to add, we are talking in circles, and further debate is futile.

  26. jsm says:

    Doug, you’re making mountains of molehills here. My last comment is not as argumentative as you take it. I was only making the point that a life is worth more than just someone’s pet cause or their own self-interest as you alluded to earlier regarding unborn babies and Terry Schiavo. I would not want my life to be devalued to the point that it is nothing more than the subject of a political cause.

    I’m not at all worried about the kooks who find animal life as valuable as human life. Their view is not prevalent.

    However, human life has value, and I will fight to protect it as long as I am able–not just to beat my chest over my personal issue, but because I take the sanctity of life very seriously.

Comments are closed.