Posted on 02/17/2007 3:16:46 PM PST by Mr. Brightside
Rudy on Abortion
Tom Bevan
Fri Feb 16, 11:01 AM ET
In response to my last post on Rudy's poll numbers, reader AG emails with a good point: the phrasing of the questions in the FOX poll is far too crude to accurately gauge how Republicans feel about Rudy's position on social issues.
AG asks how the numbers might have looked if FOX had instead asked the following: Are you more or less likely to support a candidate who is personally pro-life on the issue of abortion, but believes it is ultimately a woman's decision? Are you more or less likely to support a candidate who will nominate strict constructionists to the Supreme Court in the mold of Scalia, Roberts and Alito?
AG also challenges the idea of labeling Rudy pro-choice: "In your opinion, what makes Rudy Giuliani "pro-choice"? He is personally against abortion, says he "hates it", would advise against it, and would nominate judges to the Supreme Court who would overturn Roe."
Fair enough. But I call Rudy "pro-choice" because that's what he calls himself, and that is probably how most people will come to understand his position.
The debate that's pinging around the blogosphere is whether Rudy's pledge to nominate "strict constructionists" to the bench will be enough to bridge the gap with the base on the abortion issue. Law prof Ann Althouse thinks it will:
Can Rudy walk this tightrope? I think he can. With the level of legal understanding that Giuliani obviously has, it's a very thick, stabilized tightrope. You pick great judges who follow a strong interpretive methodology, and they take their proper constitutional position in an independent branch dedicated to law. How utterly solid and responsible.
Ace points out that Rudy's "pro-choice" position isn't all that different that our current President's "pro-life" one:
He's basically parrotting Bush's position, which is, felicitiously enough, my position, and a principled, coherent position to take on the issue. Put strict constructionists on the court to adjudicate not legislate new dubious rights, and Roe may or may not fall, and then the states can decide on the question.
The Influence Peddler agrees:
A rose is a rose is a rose. Bush describes himself as pro-life; Giuliani as pro-choice. That doesn't necessarily mean that they're all that far apart - in terms of practical effect.
My two cents, for what it's worth, is that Rudy may well be able to paper over differences on abortion with his pledge. But labels do matter, especially the ones we give ourselves, because they offer at least a glimpse into a person's world view - and Rudy's world view is distinctly more liberal than the Republican base on abortion.
Yes, there are Republicans who call themselves "pro-choice." Even many Republicans who "hate" abortion but also begrudgingly recognize Roe v. Wade as the law of the land, don't want to throw women or doctors in jail, etc. (all of which Rudy says he believes) characterize their position not as "pro-choice" but "pro-life with exceptions." Again, it's a world view thing.
And the kicker for Rudy is going to be his public unwillingness to support a federal ban on partial birth abortion in 1999. This is a procedure that is opposed by the vast majority of Republicans.
To give you an idea of where this puts Rudy on the ideological spectrum: when the Senate finally got around to passing the partial birth abortion ban in March 2003 by a vote of 64-33, only two Republican Senators voted against it: Lincoln Chafee and Olympia Snowe (news, bio, voting record). You think either one of those Senators could win the Republican nomination for President?
Seems to me there are too many people having to explain Rudy's positions.
I have nothing against Mayor Guiliani. I think the man did an outstanding job as a Mayor of New York and he did a magnificent job holding that city together after 9/11.
That's in the past. To me he has not clearly defined that he is someone I would want as a president. I don't trust ANY politician who changes his views like a chameleon in order to win political office. Now Rudy may NOT be doing that, I don't know. But it sure as hell looks like he is.
I'll stick with one of the only staunch conservatives in the race.
At least he's not trying to redefine himself every other day.
How can you vote for someone that hasn't even declared that they are running yet? Rudy hasn't even filed the papers yet!
Great thing to live in America isn't it?
You can choose to vote for Rudy instead of Hillary.
I can choose to go fishing that day.
Got to love the Republic.
Yep Rudy is the only one qualified to be a War President. Even over those who have actually dug in the mud, dodged the bullets and seen their buddies get blown to hell.
Rudy also claims that the Second Amendment complels government to control the ownership of guns in order to establish a well regulated militia. I don't think his idea of original intent washes with most conservatives.
Good one!
I'm voting for Rudy because, to quote Dennis Miller, he's the one the guys in caves are afraid of.
I guess anyone who supports killing babies would be a logical choice for killing terrorists!
To be "Pro-Choice" means you are not against aborting unborn babies for whatever reason. That sure sounds like pro-abortion to me.
God I hope the GOP can do better than those McCain and Guiliani clowns or a victory next year will still be a defeat.
Why the hell do we have to nominate one?
"can choose to go fishing that day."
Good idea!! I think I'll go pheasant hunting instead!
He is better than any democRAT but it seems to me we could find someone better. Huckabee maybe, Newt definitely.
I'm really bothered by the fact that the democrats only have to run against the center. It encourages them to go as far left as they want and elect who ever they choose.
My dream scenario is for them to run as far left as they can only to find themselves unprepared and facing a conservative at the last minute.
George -- check out the conversation on this thread!
..IMO none of the "frontrunners" can win--BTW thank you for your service...
Compared to far more viable candidates, RUDY IS AN ABORTION. He doesn't have to worry about whether he is for or against it.
He left his party affiliation BLANK when he filed his candidacy for the presidential nomination. That means he can't even decide whether he will run as a Republican or an Independent.
Bad news, Rudy wants to be Mayor of the USA.
I would vote for Hillary before I would vote for Rudy, at least 4 years of Hillary will put Rudy and other RINOS right into retirement, while the strong Pubbies will then come forward. Rudy is no Republican. At least Hillary is what she appears to be. Rudy can't even claim that much.
Good point!!
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.