Again, unable to view the video, I didn't actually hear what he said. Captain Ed has a transcript, and there is hope for Giuliani to de-sabotage his campaign, if he's at all interested in doing so.

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani told CNN Wednesday he supports public funding for some abortions, a position he advocated as mayor and one that will likely put the GOP presidential candidate at odds with social conservatives in his party.

"Ultimately, it's a constitutional right, and therefore if it's a constitutional right, ultimately, even if you do it on a state by state basis, you have to make sure people are protected," Giuliani said in an interview with CNN's Dana Bash in Florida's capital city. ...

When asked directly Wednesday if he still supported the use of public funding for abortions, Giuliani said "Yes."

"If it would deprive someone of a constitutional right," he explained, "If that's the status of the law, yes."

Not the "if's." As Captain Ed says:

This is an absurd statement on two levels. First, while Roe v Wade acts as precedent for the Constitutionality of abortion, nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the government must provide its citizens with what it allows. If that were true, the federal government would be required to arm every citizen.

Indeed, it is an absurd statement, and so absurd, therefore, that he can recover from it if he's still interested in being president, which his recent actions suggest he isn't.

He can claim -- again, unless he's really running for DHS, which, um, I don't think he needs to fund-raise for -- that of course he wasn't saying what he's been interpreted as saying, he's only saying that to the extent the current law requires abortion rights to be protected, he supports enforcing the law as it currently is, i.e., he only meant he would not intentionally subvert it, which is a silly statement to make, but whatever.

And as evidence that he didn't mean what he seems to have meant he can point out the sheer absurdity of reading his words as they seemed to read. While the constitution may guarantee a woman's right to have an abortion, it simply does not guarantee a woman's right to have the federal government pay for her abortion out of federal funds. Such a position is patently absurd and, ipso facto, is evidence he didn't intend to say that.

Now, the thing is: I think he he did intend to say that he supported public funding of abortions, and he's using the "constitution made me do it" as his spurious defense.

Still, if he'd like to walk back this particularly smelly cat, he's got about 12 hours left to "clarify" his remarks.*

Here's a YouTube clip I actually can watch:

* Not that I expect him to. But in case he's never discussed the issue with anyone outside the five boroughs, here's the skinny: It matters to Republican voters. And no, 9/11 is not going to get you through the primaries if you stick your thumb in the eyes of the Republican base.

McCain: Not Quite Dead? Doing well in polls of the key state of New Hampshire. Though I don't know how key it is anymore, now that we're pretty much going to nominate the candidate on, what, February 5th's Super Duper Tuesday?

A Clemson political science professor and MFO (Master of the Friggin' Obvious) agrees that Giuliani is now all done:

“He’s toast,” said Clemson University political scientist Dave Woodard. “I think it’s going to be really hard for him to overcome this in South Carolina.”

While Republicans in South Carolina oppose abortion by degrees — allowing abortions in certain circumstances, such as a mother’s health, rape or incest — there’s little room on public financing, said Oran Smith, executive director of the Palmetto Family Council, an anti-abortion group.

Indeed.

Such a minor point, really, in the scheme of things. And yet he couldn't concede it.

Pride goeth before a major fall in the polls.

He Didn't Take The Out: Doubled down. On paired eights. Kind of a, ummm, bad move.

Addressing the discontent over his pro-funding-for-abortions remarks:

"If that's real important to you, if that's the most important thing, I'm comfortable with the fact that you won't vote for me."

Prepare for a great deal of comfort, Mayor. Hey, I don't even care about this issue and I'm now off the bandwagon simply because I no longer consider him a serious candidate.

Influence Peddler also notes that Rudy's stock has tumbled. No, really, his stock on InTrade. Fell 15% in just one day.

Eh. I'm not sure a guy who's not smart enough to realize public funding for abortions is a dealbreaker in the Republican Party is smart enough to take on Al Qaeda.

Mixed Prognosis? Wait, he's saying a lot less than I thought:

Although Giuliani said he is does not like abortion, he said he would not change the standing law. Specifically, he said would not change the Hyde amendment, which restricts federal funding for abortion to cases of rape, incest and to save the life of the mother.

"I'm against abortion, I hate it, I wish there never was an abortion and I would counsel a woman to have an adoption instead of an abortion," the former New York mayor said. "But ultimately I believe it is an individual right and the woman can make that choice."

Giuliani also said this to CNN's Dana Bash in an interview Wednesday.

The current law also leaves the decision up to each individual state and Giuliani said he agreed with that. South Carolina is in the process of passing a law that would require pregnant women to see an ultrasound before having an abortion.

Now wait-- if conservatives have lived with the Hyde Amendment since 1976, and Bush has also not sought to undo it, I think I'm with Rudy on this.

It seems silly to demand he be more conservative than recently elected Republican Presidents have been. He's never going to be that. The question is whether he'll be passably conservative. If he's taking the same position on this Amendment that Reagan and Bush have, what's the problem, exactly?

Manic Swings Update: Wow! I feel like Andrew Sullivan!

What a rush. No wonder he likes zooming up and down every five minutes. It's like a little roller-coaster in your brain!!!

Posted by: Ace at 12:17 PM | Comments (51)
Post contains 1100 words, total size 7 kb.

Something ABCNews curiously omits from his official bio. Gee, wonder why.

Check out his headline for the controversy over the Sam Fox nomination for ambassador to Belgium:

Bush Swift Boats Belgium, Congress

He swift-boated them? Really?

It didn't seem to occur to him -- or any of his other felllow-travellers -- that it might be a bit contradictory to claim that Bush isn't permitted to fire political appointees for political reasons but that liberal Senators like John Kerry are permitted to deny postings to political appointees for political reasons.

People For The American Way. What a shock.

The media-DNC complex just keeps on chuggin' along.

Posted by: Ace at 12:07 PM | Comments (9)
Post contains 137 words, total size 1 kb.

Via Fausta, whose not happy with Blair's praise of the Iranians even before the hostages were freed.

Thanks to Larwyn.

Spare me the "it's old" stuff.

Posted by: Ace at 11:50 AM | Comments (11)
Post contains 34 words, total size 1 kb.

Getting ugly at the Corner, where Andy McCarthy knocks Ramesh Ponuru as McCain's "chief apologist."

Ponuru, for his part, referred to conservative Giuliani supporters a "cheap dates," apparently meaning we're content with so little.

So one would imagine McCain is a big-spender in wooing conservatives.

Not so much. As McCarthy notes, the First Amendment was apparently repealed, as McCain finds it illegal for a pro-life group to run ads noting that certain senators were fillibustering (pro-life) judicial nominees. And of course citizens ought to be protected from learning of this information.

Thanks to Slublog.

Speaking of cheap dates, here Mickey Kaus knocked NRO (well, specifically Ponuru) for calling pro-amnesty McCain's support of the Issakson plan "a move to the right."

Sure enough, it was. A move to the right that was also itself pro-amnesty, and thus tended to legitimize the pro-amnesty position among conservatives -- hence, in effect, moving the entire debate to the left.

I have a feeling, though, we're going to have to be content ourselves to be cheap dates whatever happens, happy our candidate has decided to lavish us with the Wings & Things special (half-off because some of the "things" may not technically be food, and the wings themselves are "irregulars" and possibly not chicken, but a close Swedish imitation food called "Chooken").

Posted by: Ace at 11:23 AM | Comments (14)
Post contains 247 words, total size 2 kb.

it's REM's birthday too, yeah.

I'm glad it's your birthday. Happy birthday to you.

That's right musicologists. Today is the birthday/anniversary of one of Athens, Georgia's finest contributions to the rock and roll world. By which, of course, I mean the one and only REM.

April 5, 1980: Debuting as the “Twisted Kites,” R.E.M. plays its first show in its Athens, Georgia, hometown. They perform at a party in a converted church that serves as the group’s rehearsal space.

I had the luck of watching REM play in Athens several years later alongside a band you may have heard of called the Ramones. There wasn't a whole lot of decent music being played in the mid-late 80's, but these two groups were rock solid.

I still think Murmur is my favorite REM album. And, although in my opinion they jumped the shark when they started teaming up with the B-52's for songs like "Shiny Happy People" I will always be glad they were around to keep rock alive until Nirvana could come along and knock UB40, Debbie Gibson, Tiffany and all those crappy 80's bands on their ass once and for all.

And, you have to admit, "What's the Frequency Kenneth" (off of Monster) was a pretty kick ass song. It rocked and it ridiculed Dan Rather. What more could you ask for?

So happy birthday REM. And if you should share a April 5th birthday?

Then a happy birthday to you as well.

Posted by: Jack M. at 10:31 AM | Comments (54)
Post contains 254 words, total size 2 kb.

Freddy Krueger fan repeated shred's terrified friend with Krueger's glove of knives.

A horror movie fanatic who repeatedly slashed his terrified friend with a home-made Freddy Krueger glove was jailed for life yesterday.

Jason Moore was obsessed with the Nightmare on Elm Street killer and spent hours crafting various recreations of his 'horrific' weapon.

His final model featured four curved steel blades - each as sharp as a cut-throat razor - that were attached to a welded brass amulet.

Deranged Moore, 37, used the glove to attack his friend John Skamarski as he slept, causing slash wounds to his face, neck and hands.

...

Mr Bhatia said Moore put "time and effort into his creations", adding: "It is clearly a labour of love. He practised slashing curtains with the glove."

...

Mr Bhatia told the court: "He said that he enjoyed how the gloves looked - menacing - and that he enjoyed 'the power' he felt when he put them on."

On August 30 last year Moore met Mr Skamarski in a park before they went back to Moore's flat in Clarendon Park, Leicester, for a drinking session.

The pair consumed around four litres of cider before Mr Skamarski dozed off after taking a sleeping tablet - only for Moore to slash him as he slept.

Mr Bhatia said: "He awoke to find Moore attacking him with a bread knife and clawed glove. He fought him off in a struggle lasting around 10 minutes.

"At one point Moore said 'I am going to do you', which he took to mean he was going to kill him. He managed to calm Moore, who apologised."

Sorry about trying to slash your face to bloddy ribbons, man. It happens, you know?

Stat rapist swears "She looked 16, your Honor!" Judge agrees: She did look pretty tasty.

A man who raped a 10-year-old girl was spared a jail sentence yesterday after a High Court judge agreed that the victim looked older.

Describing the case as "wholly exceptional", Mr Justice Roderick Evans said he understood why Liam Edgecombe, a 20-year-old painter, had thought that the child was 16 when they had sex last year.

...

That night she met Edgecombe outside a pub in the centre of Haverfordwest, west Wales, and he invited her back to his nearby flat in Hill Street, where they had intercourse twice.

Mr Clee said Edgecombe raised the subject of the girl's age but she asked him: "Does it matter?"

Um, yeahhhh... see, that right there is kind of clue you're having sex with a child.

Judge Evans viewed photographs of the girl before deciding on a non-custodial sentence, and told the accused: "She was a girl of 10 and you are a man of 20. Those bald facts do not properly represent the true facts of this case.

"The prosecution accepts that you believed she was 16 and that that belief was reasonable. She was looking for a man and got what she wanted."

She got a man, the guy got to pork a ten year old. It was win-win all around, I guess.

30-year-old woman poses as 17-year-old boy in order to have sex with 14-year-old girl.

A 30-year-old woman who posed as a teenage boy to win the affections of a 14-year-old girl - and the trust of her family - has been charged with child rape.

Lorelei Corpuz lived in her young girlfriend's home for more than a year after convincing her parents that she was a 17-year-old male orphan, police said yesterday.

During their relationship Corpuz beat and abused the teenager, twice biting her on the back, police allege.

Despite the sexual nature of their relationship, police claim "the suspect never let victim see her/his private parts" so that the girl and her parents remained unaware of her true sex.

...

The two are thought to have met at a shopping centre in Everett, Seattle in 2005, and Corpuz, acting as a boy, told the girl that his mother had died of cancer and that his father committed suicide. They talked on the phone and went on a date, and soon her family let him move in.

"They were all surprised that this individual was not who she said she was, both in name and sex," a police spokesman said.

Corpuz has been charged with two counts of third-degree child rape and one count of third-degree child molestation.

The parents were apparently comfortable with providing room and board to a 17 year old boy living with, and porking, their 14 year old daughter, as they slept just down the hall.

It's only once they found out she was an adult woman it all seemed a bit weird.

Nuance.

Thanks to dri for those, I think, though others may have tipped me too.

Posted by: Ace at 09:52 AM | Comments (30)
Post contains 807 words, total size 5 kb.

I'm trying to repair my operating system. The standard method doesn't work, because the thing keeps asking for CD2 of my OS CD, which I don't think I've ever had.

This page suggests taking my I368 folder and copying it to my computer. Sounds okay. But it specifically wants me to add it to my "system root." It doesn't say how to do that.

I guess I could rename it "C/I368," maybe, which is what I'm supposed to wind up with, but I'm not sure it's that simple.

Anyone know how to do this? And am I playing with fire here?

Posted by: Ace at 09:32 AM | Comments (77)
Post contains 105 words, total size 1 kb.

On that latter point: How do you imagine the MSM would have reacted had Newt Gingrich, when he was considered perhaps the most powerful Speaker in recent times -- attempted to establish a Shadow Presidency and run American foreign policy from his office?

Perhaps the words "outrageous and unconstitutional attempt at power-grabbing" might have been used?

The WaPo is more indulgent of liberal Nancy Pelosi, of course, but nevertheless critical.

HOUSE SPEAKER Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) offered an excellent demonstration yesterday of why members of Congress should not attempt to supplant the secretary of state when traveling abroad. After a meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in Damascus, Ms. Pelosi announced that she had delivered a message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that "Israel was ready to engage in peace talks" with Syria. What's more, she added, Mr. Assad was ready to "resume the peace process" as well. Having announced this seeming diplomatic breakthrough, Ms. Pelosi suggested that her Kissingerian shuttle diplomacy was just getting started. "We expressed our interest in using our good offices in promoting peace between Israel and Syria," she said.

Only one problem: The Israeli prime minister entrusted Ms. Pelosi with no such message.... Ms. Pelosi not only misrepresented Israel's position but was virtually alone in failing to discern that Mr. Assad's words were mere propaganda.

Ms. Pelosi was criticized by President Bush for visiting Damascus at a time when the administration -- rightly or wrongly -- has frozen high-level contacts with Syria. Mr. Bush said that thanks to the speaker's freelancing Mr. Assad was getting mixed messages from the United States. Ms. Pelosi responded by pointing out that Republican congressmen had visited Syria without drawing presidential censure. That's true enough -- but those other congressmen didn't try to introduce a new U.S. diplomatic initiative in the Middle East. "We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace," Ms. Pelosi grandly declared.

... The really striking development here is the attempt by a Democratic congressional leader to substitute her own foreign policy for that of a sitting Republican president. Two weeks ago Ms. Pelosi rammed legislation through the House of Representatives that would strip Mr. Bush of his authority as commander in chief to manage troop movements in Iraq. Now she is attempting to introduce a new Middle East policy that directly conflicts with that of the president. We have found much to criticize in Mr. Bush's military strategy and regional diplomacy. But Ms. Pelosi's attempt to establish a shadow presidency is not only counterproductive, it is foolish.

How about mentioning it is not only foolish, but illegal.

Logan Act. Google it!

Posted by: Ace at 09:15 AM | Comments (27)
Post contains 470 words, total size 3 kb.

I wasn't embargoing this -- it's just I couldn't watch the video. Still can't. My Firefox browser won't play embedded video and my IE browser is totally screwed and shuts down upon starting. (Yeah, I re-installed it. Helped nothing.)

So I'm linking this without knowing precisely what he said. I assume Allah's digest is reasonably accurate.

Anyway, Rudy pretty much destroyed himself as a candidate, I think.

The other day I saw Rich Lowry note (sorry, no link) that Giuliani was calculating that he couldn't really reverse himself too much without destroying his credibility, so he's decided to go with his old positions. He figures, I guess, his opponents all have their own problems with liberal flirtations, so he's partly insulated.

Edit: Actually, Allah says the same thing.

IÂ’ve already written about his strategy in this vein before. Suffice it to say, itÂ’s too late for him to flip-flop convincingly, and so, with his two rivals looking squishy in their own commitment to social issues, he figures he might as well position himself as a man of his word whoÂ’ll stand on principle. Because if heÂ’s willing to do that for principles conservatives donÂ’t like, heÂ’s probably also willing to do it for principles that they do.

But Giuliani's wrong. I've said it before and I'll say it again, now that it's too late: Between pandering and "authenticity" which directly repudiates a party's core planks, voters have historically chosen pandering, and they always will.

Sure, they'd like both agreement on the issues and authenticity. But if they have to chose -- they want agreement.

The social right, the pro-lifers, were willing to cut Rudy so damn much slack on this, and yet he couldn't manage to concede one fairly minor point in return.

So Rudy's pretty much done. Romney has the money and now a bit of media momentum to start overtaking him.

Ah, well. It was fun while it lasted.

I Guess Karol Was Right: For a long time Karol was saying Rudy coud never, ever win the nomination. I finally got her to admit that maybe he could. I was wrong, she was (originally) right.

Why Erlich Supports Giuliani: Rob Bluey interviewd the former Maryland governor about his support for Giuliani. To be honest, I think this train has already left the station -- and in the wrong direction -- but it's still interesting.

Perhaps it's a good reason for making Giuliani DHS or something.

Mary Katherine Ham also writes about Iowa conservatives' receptiveness to Giuliani. Again, though: more of a what could have been piece.

Posted by: Ace at 07:39 AM | Comments (121)
Post contains 448 words, total size 3 kb.

I didn't mind the British offering empty gestures of non-apology apologies, but this is not an empty gesture. It's a capitulation.

For what?

The decision to release Jalal Sharafi on Tuesday was made at the White House, according to an administration official who asked to be anonymous because of the sensitivity of the information. The release took place over the objections of some commanders in the field. Mr. Sharafi, the second secretary of the Iranian Embassy in Baghdad, is believed by American military intelligence also to be a member of the lethal Quds Force, the terrorist-supporting organization whose members have been fair game for American soldiers and Iraqi allies since a change in the rules of engagement was issued in DecemberÂ…

The release of Iranian nationals detained by America was one of the primary Iranian demands during the negotiations. “They think they won this round. They were able to take the hostages and suffer no consequences,” an American official said…

They "think" they won this round.

Posted by: Ace at 06:56 AM | Comments (37)
Post contains 200 words, total size 1 kb.