Ignoring abortion flip-flops, Luntz claimed Giuliani "defines the phrase 'Says what he means, means what he says' "
On the March 13 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, while discussing the abortion rights views of former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R), Republican pollster Frank Luntz said: "This is someone who defines the phrase 'Says what he means, means what he says.' " In fact, Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented (here, here, here, and here) Giuliani's inconsistent positions on abortion.
In 2000, Giuliani said he agreed with President Clinton's veto of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997. On the February 5 edition of Hannity & Colmes, however, Giuliani expressed support for the current law banning partial-birth abortion. When pressed by co-host Sean Hannity about the perception that he had previously "supported partial-birth abortion," Giuliani attempted to reconcile his two positions by noting that the current law contains a "provision for the life of the mother." But as Media Matters noted, several federal bills to ban the procedure proposed in 1997 through 2000 -- including the one vetoed in 1997 by Clinton -- also included "an exception to save the mother's life."
Furthermore, according to a February 22, 1989, Newsday article, leaders of New York's Conservative Party said Giuliani -- then a candidate for mayor of New York City -- "assured them he was personally opposed to abortion, did not favor government funding or criminal penalties, did favor an exemption in cases of rape or incest, and was in favor of overturning the U.S. Supreme Court's decision legalizing abortion, Roe v. Wade." But following the U.S. Supreme Court's July 1989 decision in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, Giuliani reportedly shifted his position to one favoring abortion rights. Indeed, as Media Matters noted, in an October 13, 1989, article, The New York Times called Giuliani a "support[er of] the right of a woman to choose an abortion." Giuliani said he had "talk[ed] to [his] wife" about the issue following the Webster decision. On October 13, 1989, the Associated Press reported: "Once an outright opponent, [Giuliani] now says he supports abortion rights, and would not seek to reduce funds or services, even though he remains personally opposed."
From the March 13 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
ALAN COLMES (co-host): All right, let me play that back -- back to the abortion issue. Here's what Rudy Giuliani said when he was mayor of New York not too long ago.
GIULIANI [video clip]: There must be public funding for abortions for poor women. We cannot deny any woman the right to make her own decision about abortion, because she lacks resources.
COLMES: Unlike Mitt Romney, he hasn't really changed his position. He affirmed that just last week in South Carolina. What does that do in terms of his candidacy?
LUNTZ: Well, I think that that clip actually comes from before he was mayor. I believe it comes from --
HANNITY: It's 18 years ago.
LUNTZ: -- 1989, but I'm not --
HANNITY: Eighteen years ago.
LUNTZ: Yes, so that was before he was mayor. Giuliani's a different character, and he will rise and fall based on who he is himself. This is someone who defines the phrase "Says what he means, means what he says."
Correction.
I think it should read,
"Says what he says, and means what he means".
"when he means it, sometimes"
Lest we forget:
" I Do..now I don't"..."I Do again, I don't again"...I Do again, T/B/A." I am sorry, they are probably talking about his political career. Shame on me this time. They were not talking about Family Values.
So what do you suppose are the odds Catholic groups will go after Giuliani for being a pro choice Catholic like they did with Kerry?
The emperor has no clothes. I think that every time I see or hear Frank Lutz.
The liberal media is just obsessed with the emperor's clothing choices because of their irrational emperor hatred!
Maybe it is because of the Emporer's irrational decisions.
"This is someone who defines the phrase 'Says what he means, means what he says.'"
That's particularly funny coming from Luntz, a man who has made a career of advising Republicans how to craft their messages so that they appear to not be saying what they are saying.
right. use this word or that one to describe your opponent. doesn't matter what the truth is, just apply the label.
Poor Alan Colmes. He reminds me of that team that always played against the Harlem Globe Trotters...the name of which no one remembers.
Nerzog, were they the Washington Senators or Generals? I brought them up in reference to the Fox News "Democratic Strategists" a while back.It's good to have some warm bodies there to make it look like a real game.
Well, curiosity got the best of me, so I looked it up. Apparently the original team was the Washington Generals, replaced by the New York Nationals in 1995. Our little trivia fact for today.
He meant what he said and he said what he meant,
An elephant faithful one hundr...
I hate to say it, but I was thinking the same thing. Of course Horton was an elephant of his word and would not have had much to say to the pachyderms of today's GOP.
FRANK LUNTZ made his bones being the rightwing "wordsmith", designing strategies for how the Right can sell their people and ideas.
In this example, he demonstrates how to ignore all facts and simply STATE a virtue for a favored candidate. Merely SAYING it makes it true.
As Rush Limbaugh is fond of saying, "words MEAN things". In the Rightwing's case, words mean the opposite of what is TRUE. Thanks, Frank! The Rightwing follows your guidance obsessively.
And Frank will indeed fool the dim-witted, the dull and the gullible. Might even call that the "Republican Base". Nah, the Republican BASE is the very few very wealthy. The people they wish to FOOL are just the SHEEP who swallow the rightwing lies and smearmongering (an ever dwindling minority). Oh, Tommy!
What's the big deal about abortions? They are allowed. The left has won this battle. However they lose at the same time. You gotta figure at least half of the aborted babies would have been liberals. The number is probably higher since liberals would be the majority of those getting aboritons. So, actually we have to thank the left for allowing unrestricted abortions, they help keep the liberal population in check.
I mean what I say and say what is mean. Wait, I mean't to say, I mean to say what I say is mean. No, wait.....man...this is just to complicated for my small brain
The number is probably higher since liberals would be the majority of those getting aboritons.
Really? That's very interesting. Can you support that statement?
Actually, I think Autopsychic may be on to something. If Republicans can be convinced ( and convincing Repubs ain't that tough) that most abortions are performed on potential liberals, it may be possible to reframe it as a "greater good" issue.
Putting aside that liberals may be more likely to use birth control and not need as many abortions, let's sell it like this;The "liberal mother", if prevented from getting an abortion, will probably have several children in order to increase her welfare nugget.As she'll probably indoctrinate these children into liberalism, the number of abortions will naturally increase exponentially, unless they are all forced to have more babies, in turn producing more liberals.
We won't use the word "exponentially", might not work on the math-averse crowd that doesn't get evolution or the defecit.
I think it's pretty clear that criminalizing abortion would have one of two effects; more liberals or more abortions, both pretty unsavory thoughts to the Pro-Life gang.
Pro=lifers easing up on their crusade, conversely, would have two possible effects;
1. Fewer liberals- this would put the Republicans in ower permanently, while not affecting any important national interests like military strength or revenues, since liberals don't serve in the military or have jobs.
2. Fewer abortions - due to the face that all those liberal babies wouldn't be born just so they could have abortions.
The net result could be that family planning groups could concentrate on education and pregnancy prevention, thus causing what the anti-abortion people claim to want all along- fewer abortions.
Problem solved.
" The net result could be that family planning groups could concentrate on education and pregnancy prevention, "
That's pretty funny. I've always wondered, what is the left's stance on 'sex education'? Is it to teach them how to use the pill or condom? Or, do you actually approve of teaching things like...gasp...abstinance?
All of the above.Just like in driver's ed., you learn how to drive,how to back up, and how to park.
Sex ed. is like any other science- the more information, the better.Abstinence doesn't really need to be taught, as it's basically doing nothing.That would be like teaching "standing on the sidewalk" in driver's ed. You might avoid auto accidents by doing that, but it wouldn't make you a safer driver.
I know this: My former Senator Paul Wellstone, perhaps the MOST liberal senator at the time of his service, agreed that partial-birth abortion should be banned provided that the clause was included to protect the life of the mother. The pro-choicers were hiding behind that clause NOT being there as an excuse to not support the partial-birth abortion ban.
Now, according to MMFA that clause WAS included and it was vetoed anyway, so really which side is being reasonable about this?