Rudy's Run (Editorial by Nat Review editors)

Rudy Giuliani is a compelling candidate for the Republican nomination for president in 2008. He saved New York City, by restoring law and order and breaking with the disastrous urban liberalism of the 1970s. He will forever be honored for his leadership after the 9/11 attacks. And his effective, no-nonsense management style and straight-talking persona are enormously appealing. Our colleague John Podhoretz is correct when he points out that conservatives want to like Giuliani, and we would add that there is a lot to like.

But there are serious obstacles to Giuliani’s winning the embrace of conservatives. Putting aside his tumultuous personal life, his positions on many national issues, from tax reform to the environment, are largely unknown and will be more closely examined. On social issues, however, his liberal views are well known and so present a threshold question for many conservatives. Giuliani’s most important flaw in this regard is his denial that unborn children have a right to life.

We are glad to see that Giuliani is now reaching out to conservatives on these issues. In many cases over the years, pro-lifers have been willing to overlook politicians’ pasts and embrace their conversions. It is never too late to begin protecting life. In other cases, pro-lifers have reached a modus vivendi with politicians who continue to disagree with them. The late Sen. Paul Coverdell, for example, supported legal abortion. But once he won his primary, pro-lifers supported him since he promised to vote to ban partial-birth abortion, oppose public funding of abortion, and support conservative nominees to the judiciary. He lived up to those promises. He stayed theoretically pro-choice, but was operationally pro-life. The bar for Giuliani will be higher, since he is running for president — and so far he has done less.

He has moved on partial-birth abortion. On Meet the Press in 2000, he said he would “vote to preserve the option for women.” He also said, “I think the better thing for America to do is to leave that choice to the woman, because it affects her probably more than anyone else.” Partial-birth abortion is inches away from infanticide, and more than 60 percent of Americans — including many people who consider themselves “pro-choice” — think it is abhorrent and should be prohibited.

Giuliani has now joined this consensus, which is the bare minimum a presidential candidate who wants to find common ground with pro-lifers must do. On Hannity & Colmes on Monday night, Giuliani said that he supports a ban on partial-birth abortion, so long as it allows the procedure when necessary to save the mother’s life. The qualification is puzzling: Nobody has ever presented a persuasive hypothetical case in which a woman’s health would depend on partly delivering her child and then crushing the child’s skull and sucking out the brains — let alone an actual case in which her life was at stake. But we applaud the mayor’s newfound willingness to endorse a ban at all.

Giuliani also says he would look for “strict constructionists” in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito to fill judicial vacancies. This is important for all conservatives who believe that judges should be bound by the Constitution and not free to impose their own policy preferences by fiat. It is particularly important for social conservatives. Roe v. Wade was a foundational act of judicial activism that made it impossible to have any meaningful restrictions on abortion, and the courtroom remains the preferred governmental venue for social liberals seeking to overcome what they regard as the retrograde moral views of the people.

Giuliani surely hopes that social conservatives will think he is promising, sotto voce, to appoint justices who oppose Roe v. Wade. President Bush sent that signal in code. But code won’t be enough for Giuliani. He needs to be up-front about his views on Roe. On Hannity & Colmes, he dodged the question. He said that it’s “up to the court to decide,” and that “it’s been precedent for a very, very long time.” He suggested that this court would not fully overturn Roe, an obvious truth delivered in a too-complacent manner.

This is troubling. President Bush, in 2000, said that Roe “overstepped the constitutional bounds.” While he has declined to call explicitly for its reversal, he has said that the law should protect unborn life and has done what he could to bring that wish closer to reality. He has thus, in practice, stood for the principle that in this country we govern ourselves rather than simply accepting gravely mistaken edicts from the courts.

Giuliani once opposed Roe himself, according to press reports when he first ran for mayor in 1989. He ought to say clearly that states should be allowed to enact protective legislation. His current muddle raises the possibility that “strict constructionism” is, for him, nothing more than a slogan.

He would also be well-advised to quit caricaturing the pro-life position. Giuliani often justifies his support for the abortion license by saying that he did not want to put women “in jail.” That isn’t on the pro-life movement’s agenda. Changing public policy to discourage people from going into the abortion business is. Where does Giuliani stand on that?

In the past he has evinced an interest in challenging the Republican party’s commitment to life. He has said the pro-choice position is “more consistent with the philosophy of the Republican party.” Presumably he no longer wants to confront pro-lifers head-on.

He will have to answer questions about other social issues as well. Has the development of alternative methods of deriving stem cells convinced him that taxpayer funding for research that destroys human embryos is unnecessary? Stem-cell research involving human cloning raises the prospect of the routine creation of human embryos to be destroyed in research. Is Giuliani willing to draw the line before that point?

Giuliani says he opposes both same-sex marriage and a federal constitutional amendment to ban it. Does he also oppose the judicial imposition of same-sex marriage? If so, what would he do to make that opposition effectual? He says that he supports civil unions. But civil unions come in different configurations. Does Giuliani want civil unions that allow any two adults to sign up for certain legal privileges? Or does he want the government to give its affirmative blessing to homosexual relationships?

Many conservatives understandably don’t want to shut the door on Rudy Giuliani. He is very effective at fighting for, and implementing, those conservative causes with which he agrees. Indeed, he represents one of the best examples of executive ability over the last 15 years.

But for four decades, pro-lifers have resisted intense pressure from journalistic, political, and legal elites to declare the abortion question closed. Those elites would surely treat the Republican party’s nomination of a pro-choicer as their final victory. Having blocked that bipartisan ratification of abortion-on-demand for so long, pro-lifers will be especially disinclined to accept it now, after several years in which they have gained ground. (Even Democrats realize that their pro-choice extremism is an electoral loser.)

Many pro-lifers, and many conservatives, may eventually decide that for all his obvious strengths they cannot support Giuliani for president. For now, however, there is a certain symmetry of interest between conservatives and Giuliani. Conservatives should want Giuliani to agree with them on as many issues as possible. And Giuliani should want to win the nomination, without triggering any rush to the party’s exits. We hope he campaigns like it.

One scenario in favor of late term abortion is where the mother has a life threatening cancer, requiring chemotherapy, but the baby is not old enough to live after a Caesarean section.

That exact thing happened recently, in a case where the mother decided to let the cancer progress untreated, giving up her own life for the child.

That was a heroic choice, but we don't live in a country that would force a woman in that situation to choose the life of her child over her own life.

Freeper Pharmboy had NYC gun permits for nearly two decades. Ed Koch never tried to take them away. David Dinkins never tried to take them away. Rudy tightened the screws for getting permits renewed and took them away.

The murder/crime rate fell through the floor during Rudy's tenure. I'm arguing in favor of gun control but the stats speak for themselves.

The murder/crime rate fell through the floor during Rudy's tenure. I'm arguing in favor of gun control but the stats speak for themselves.

Rudy's gun control had nothing to do with the decrease in crime.

But maybe you could start "Gun-Grabbers for Rudy".

We must do what we must do :)BEWARE!... Social-conservatives, Christian conservatives or moral-conservatives of ANY KIND..

*** WE NEED TO UNITE ***

WHO? I don't know, but here we are, in the middle of the Internet revolution, and yet, I feel as if someone, somewhere, is pulling the strings to elect a LEFTY 'Republican.'

Who is calling the shots here?... I guess special interest(s) with MONEY, I "hear" someone literally telling me, "Go, go little unimportant people, go home... Leave this to the EXPERTS, We the smart people will let know when to vote! - LOL.

I believe Guliani's CONSULTANTS team tactic is simply to DIVIDE the Republicans. Attract as many Lefty Republicans (I still don't get used to the label /s) by selling Mr. Guiliani as the CHAMPION OF NATIONAL SECURITY!... Just because, yes he cleaned up N.Y. and acted with leadership on 9/11... Great as those things are, does not make him the Republican Presidential candidate by default...HARDLY!

And I should say, if he were a social-conservative (as DUNCAN is) THEN, I would be pulling hard for him!... But as it is, NO WAY IN HELL I WILL VOTE FOR HIM!... Because if he gets elected, well, social-conservatives LOSE AND the LEFT WINS... That simple. All true social, Christian or Moral conservatives should above all, DENY our vote to the Left... And Rudy is the LEFT on social issues, and those are our issues.

I haven't seen anything or heard anything from Rudy Giuliani that leads me to believe he's a "true" conservative. A lot of double-talk and Rudy disagreeing with himself. Pure propaganda. Rudy has made endless public statements over his entire career that shows his liberal politics. By NYCity standards Rudy maybe a conservative. Outside of NYCity most folks see Rudy for what he is. A liberal politico, attempting to hoodwink conservatives into supporting him. Rudy may try, but can't run from his liberal record. Rudy wears his liberalism proudly, we're everyone can see it.

While he [Bush] has declined to call explicitly for its reversal, he has said that the law should protect unborn life and has done what he could to bring that wish closer to reality. He has thus, in practice, stood for the principle that in this country we govern ourselves rather than simply accepting gravely mistaken edicts from the courts."

Incomprehensible. Bush did very little to move the ball forward in a time when the public itself was moving away from unrestricted abortions. If a born again Christian like Bush couldn't get anything done other than judicial appointments then we shouldn't worry about being a "one issue" political movement.

Winning isn't the best thing--it's the only thing.

Gentlemen, it seems painfully obvious that between Rudy and whomever the dem candidate turns out to be, we are faced with a textbook case of a choice that sucks and choice that sucks worse. The Constitution is no winner here in any circumstance. You hold your nose and you vote on this one.

In the larger view, it tells us something is terribly wrong with our Republic that, at this period in our history, there isn't at least one person out there with a half-chance of winning who doesn't daily use that document as toilet paper.

But we're still over a year and a half away, and as we all know, in politics, especially those of a Presidential sort, is an eternity. It will be interesting, for sure.

The murder/crime rate fell through the floor during Rudy's tenure......but Rudy's gun control had nothing to do with the decrease in crime.

This is true----Rudy did it by juggling the way NYC compiled crime statistics. For instance, he made breaking windows a crime. Since that happens more frequently, the stats looked lower for crimes like murder, compared to window-breaking.

Then-police chief William Bratton also reduced crime----but when Bratton became a media darling, lionized by the NY elite, invited to all the A-list parties, Giussolini was incensed that Bratton was getting the credit for lower crime rates-----Rudeinsky summarily fired Bratton.

Didn't actual murders in NYCity come down under Dinkins, from 2200 to 1900 a year? I think so. IIRC, overall crime rates began coming down under Dinkins too. And crime came down under Bloomberg also.

Looking at the crime issue in NYCity, maybe conservatives should consider Dinkins and Bloomberg for POTUS in 2008, along with Rudy. Why not.

Rudy tightened the screws for getting permits renewed and took them away.

And you think Hillary would do what?

My whole point is that we must work very hard to help our favorite candidate win the nomination. Once the nomination is sealed in concrete, it is my thinking that we better vote for him/her. Haven't we had enough of "showing" those Republicans? Just imagine that the dims control both houses and the White House--especially with the terrorists threat that exists today.

I fear this country, as we know it, will be gone with 4 or 8 years of dims/lefties controlling all three branches of our government.

This may be our last chance to try to save it.

And you think Hillary would do what?

My point is, I do not see Rudy in the Oval Office as a vanguard against 2nd Amendment erosions.

Saying Rudy isn't Hillary is a much harder sell when there is not much difference between Rudy and Hillary in key conservative interests such as abortion, guns and amnesty.

Rudy did it by juggling the way NYC compiled crime statistics

They caught the liberal inner-city politicians (Bill Campbell) and his PO-lice chief down in Atlanta doing the SAME thing a few years back. They just can't HELP themselves, since to a liberal, LOOKING good is more important than BEING good, effective, honest, etc.

This tactic is especially evident with northeastern liberal politicians (whether there's a "D" OR an "R" after their names) and their appointed, suck-up police chiefs. If they pronounce "law enforcement", "LAWR enforcement", they're more than likely yankee liberals running some northeastern Peoples Republic as their very own Nanny/Police-State.

Gun-grabbing RINO-rudy and jack-booted-thug desk-jockey police chief bratton were (and ARE) two of the worst.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.