Rudy Giuliani in 2008 on Guns,Abortion and Immigration

[OSR stands with Israel]

His answer on Gun Control starts at 7:50 in this video : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZnAxbTSZWw

His answer on Abortion starts at 8:50 in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PScGnRr9xoc&t=39s


His Answer on Immigration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbw_2__K1cM


Wow so basically he ran to the left of McCain that year and wow he has changed a lot since then

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Has he changed, really?   Or is he just discussing totally different things?

[Progressive Pessimist]

He never had any principles or morals to being with. Much like his pimp, President Trump, he will do and say whatever benefits him in the short term. Birds of a feather flock together.

[OSR stands with Israel]

he never had any principles or morals to being with. Much like his pimp, President Trump, he will do and say whatever benefits him in the short term. Birds of a feather flock together.

He endorsed Cuomo over Pataki in 1994 : https://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/25/nyregion/1994-campaign-mayor-giuliani-defying-his-party-backs-cuomo-for-4th-term-sees.html

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Not shown, Rudi getting grabbed by the "pussy".

 

[America Needs R'hllor]

It's curious that people are clapping for Giuliani saying he wouldn't sign an anti-abortion law. The Republican Party really changed a lot.

[Blair]

Giuliani is a reminder that you can be a moderate, whilst still being an unashamed hack.

[Intell]

It's curious that people are clapping for Giuliani saying he wouldn't sign an anti-abortion law. The Republican Party really changed a lot.

No, It hasn't, historical revisionism has got to stop.

[OSR stands with Israel]

It's curious that people are clapping for Giuliani saying he wouldn't sign an anti-abortion law. The Republican Party really changed a lot.

No, It hasn't, historical revisionism has got to stop.

On Immigration, Free Trade and Foreign Policy it has changed a lot

[America Needs R'hllor]

It's curious that people are clapping for Giuliani saying he wouldn't sign an anti-abortion law. The Republican Party really changed a lot.

No, It hasn't, historical revisionism has got to stop.

I mean, if someone dared to say they wouldn't ban all abortion tiday in a Republican debate they'd get massively booed. Though they certainly helped cultivate it, the Tea Party taking over Republicans is real.

[Intell]

It's curious that people are clapping for Giuliani saying he wouldn't sign an anti-abortion law. The Republican Party really changed a lot.

No, It hasn't, historical revisionism has got to stop.

I mean, if someone dared to say they wouldn't ban all abortion tiday in a Republican debate they'd get massively booed. Though they certainly helped cultivate it, the Tea Party taking over Republicans is real.

Movement Conservativism of various forms has been the bedrock of the Republican party. Whether it was the white backlash fuelling Nixon in small non-industrial towns and cities as well as  suburbia to the middle-class discontent of unions, inflation, welfare and the poor fuelling Reagan to the Social Conservatism fuelling Bush back to this time the WWC/lower-middle-class white backlash fuelling Trump on the basis on nationalism and the country of the  post-war consensus (unions, solid middle class jobs, pride in country, family, cultural conservatism and a sense of an America based upon the work of white men). The Republican ideology has been the same, dividing people on key issues in order for them to vote for you; even though they may not agree with you on the vast majority of issues.

[mvd10]

It's curious that people are clapping for Giuliani saying he wouldn't sign an anti-abortion law. The Republican Party really changed a lot.

To be fair about 25-30% of Republican voters have always been pro-choice and that's also the case now. Heck, with Trump they probably care less about abortion than they did a few years ago. If Trump said something like that they would be cheering (except for the committed socons). Pro-choice Republicans and pro-life Democrats are the least heard sizable minorities in their party, but I suspect a lot of them actually just don't care whether abortion legal or not (especially the pro-choice Republicans, I think they just don't care about it).

[Progressive Pessimist]

Giuliani is a reminder that you can be a moderate, whilst still being an unashamed hack.

[Take your vitamins and say your prayers, Brother!]

Rudy Giuliani was always a right-leaning Republican, and a partisan.  He leaned to the right even when he positioned himself slightly left of center.

Giuliani was the big GOP hope for the NYC Mayoralty in 1989 and he won it in 1993.  Giuliani could NEVER be as conservative as the GOP (even New York's GOP) was, but this was NYC, and this begs a discussion of New York City's history of "Fusion" tickets.

In 1993, Giuliani was the candidate of a significant number of prominent Democrats who viewed David Dinkens' Mayoralty as a failure, and sought an alternative.  This list included Former Mayor Ed Koch and Manhattan Borough President Robert F. Wagner III.  This was made palatable by making Giuliani the nominee of New York's LIBERAL Party.  (You read that right!")  New York allows for people to receive the nomination of multiple parties, and appear multiple places on the ballot (so that a Democrat can vote for Giuliani as a Liberal and not as a Republican).  New York has a Conservative Party, (it no longer has a Liberal Party; it now has a Working Families Party) but its endorsement would not have helped Giuliani, and it made the difference.

I am also not convinced that Hillary Clinton would have beaten Rudy Giuliani if he had run.  If he had run, Giuliani MIGHT have run with the Independence Party's nomination; he MAY have had the Liberal nomination in 2000, but probably not.  The Conservative Party might have run their own candidate, but that might have actually helped Giuliani.  Giuliani's ACTUAL issue positions are closer to the consensus of NY politics than Hillary's were in 2000, and that may be true today.  Of course, Rudy's now old and he looks like a hack, instead of "America's Mayor".

[Robert California]

It's curious that people are clapping for Giuliani saying he wouldn't sign an anti-abortion law. The Republican Party really changed a lot.

No, It hasn't, historical revisionism has got to stop.

I mean, if someone dared to say they wouldn't ban all abortion tiday in a Republican debate they'd get massively booed. Though they certainly helped cultivate it, the Tea Party taking over Republicans is real.

Movement Conservativism of various forms has been the bedrock of the Republican party. Whether it was the white backlash fuelling Nixon in small non-industrial towns and cities as well as  suburbia to the middle-class discontent of unions, inflation, welfare and the poor fuelling Reagan to the Social Conservatism fuelling Bush back to this time the WWC/lower-middle-class white backlash fuelling Trump on the basis on nationalism and the country of the  post-war consensus (unions, solid middle class jobs, pride in country, family, cultural conservatism and a sense of an America based upon the work of white men). The Republican ideology has been the same, dividing people on key issues in order for them to vote for you; even though they may not agree with you on the vast majority of issues.

1. I’m afraid you may be conflating Nixon with “movement conservatism”. The GOP right was griping about Nixon as early as 1960, and it took Goldwater’s loss for them to half-heartedly accept him in the late 1960’s. I’m not entirely sure why this is—the caricature of early Nixon is that of a mini-McCarthy, but his internationalist record and association with Ike can’t gave helped his reputation with a base that was at first isolationist.
2. More in response to Parrotguy’s comments, there were multiple early “movement conservatives” who were pro-choice, including not only Goldwater and Reagan, but Texan John Tower and Bill Buckley himself (despite his brother’s legislative record). Had things fallen differently, is it that hard to imagine a pro-choice right? We can cast it a number of ways—curbing the “surplus population” or concerns over minority numbers for the frothing at the mouth types, and something about the importance of childbirth in marriage or capitalism for the mainstream voters.
3. And yes, the steady trimming of the moderate wing of the party has been going on since the 1960’s; such has also happened with the Democrats, but we can debate the extent of each elsewhere.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

It's curious that people are clapping for Giuliani saying he wouldn't sign an anti-abortion law. The Republican Party really changed a lot.

No, It hasn't, historical revisionism has got to stop.

I mean, if someone dared to say they wouldn't ban all abortion tiday in a Republican debate they'd get massively booed. Though they certainly helped cultivate it, the Tea Party taking over Republicans is real.

Movement Conservativism of various forms has been the bedrock of the Republican party. Whether it was the white backlash fuelling Nixon in small non-industrial towns and cities as well as  suburbia to the middle-class discontent of unions, inflation, welfare and the poor fuelling Reagan to the Social Conservatism fuelling Bush back to this time the WWC/lower-middle-class white backlash fuelling Trump on the basis on nationalism and the country of the  post-war consensus (unions, solid middle class jobs, pride in country, family, cultural conservatism and a sense of an America based upon the work of white men). The Republican ideology has been the same, dividing people on key issues in order for them to vote for you; even though they may not agree with you on the vast majority of issues.

1. I’m afraid you may be conflating Nixon with “movement conservatism”. The GOP right was griping about Nixon as early as 1960, and it took Goldwater’s loss for them to half-heartedly accept him in the late 1960’s. I’m not entirely sure why this is—the caricature of early Nixon is that of a mini-McCarthy, but his internationalist record and association with Ike can’t gave helped his reputation with a base that was at first isolationist.
2. More in response to Parrotguy’s comments, there were multiple early “movement conservatives” who were pro-choice, including not only Goldwater and Reagan, but Texan John Tower and Bill Buckley himself (despite his brother’s legislative record). Had things fallen differently, is it that hard to imagine a pro-choice right? We can cast it a number of ways—curbing the “surplus population” or concerns over minority numbers for the frothing at the mouth types, and something about the importance of childbirth in marriage or capitalism for the mainstream voters.
3. And yes, the steady trimming of the moderate wing of the party has been going on since the 1960’s; such has also happened with the Democrats, but we can debate the extent of each elsewhere.

Reagan hadn't spent much time thinking about the issue when it came up in 1967 but he regretted when the health provision of the bill he signed was interpreted liberally.
Bill Buckley had disagreements with the Catholic Church's teaching on birth control but I'm pretty sure he was always strongly anti-abortion.   One might imagine a more pro-choice New Right but in that scenario National Review and its associated Catholic conservatives would have to play less of a role.

[Robert California]

I recall reading that Buckley had stated that he was against the practice but didn’t feel it should be legislated or somesuch. As for Reagan, I’ll grant that.