Life Lessons for Rudy

National Review ^ | April 6, 2007 | NR Editors

[Kuksool]

When Rudolph Giuliani announced his entry into the race for president, we noted that there were reasons to find his candidacy both compelling and problematic. In the latter category fell, above all, his denial that unborn children have a right to life. Even on that issue, however, we held out hope that Giuliani would try to meet pro-life conservatives halfway. He had already come around on partial-birth abortion, even if he had not come up with a good explanation for his shift. He had said that he favors “strict constructionist” judges, who attempt to determine what the law is rather than to make it what they think it should be. We hoped that he would go further: for example, by joining President Bush in declaring Roe v. Wade a bad decision as a matter of constitutional law, or even by joining Sen. John McCain in calling for its overturning.

Instead, we are sorry to say, he has mostly gone into reverse. Since his announcement, he has said that, in his mind, a strict constructionist judge could as easily rule to keep Roe as to scrap it. He has continued to misrepresent pro-lifers as seeking to throw pregnant women “in jail.” He has refused to rule out signing federal legislation codifying Roe should it be presented to him as president. And, most troublingly, has reiterated his longstanding support for taxpayer funding for abortion.

This is not a moderate position. We are already almost alone in the developed world in having such liberal abortion laws: Thanks to some of the little-known implications of Roe, abortion is legal at any stage of pregnancy for essentially any reason. Giuliani favors, in principle, making that regime more liberal still. Economist Michael New has studied the effect of various policies on abortion rates and concluded that nothing has reduced them more than cutoffs in public funding. We can therefore assume that an America with Giuliani’s favored policies would be a country with more abortion—probably reversing the 15-year trend of decline, including the decline in New York City for which he takes dubious credit.

The last Republican president to favor legal abortion was the late Gerald Ford, and even he did not support taxpayer funding. Every Republican president and presidential nominee since then has favored legal protection for unborn life. Neither morality nor opinion polls suggest any reason to do a 180-degree turn now. Support for taxpayer funding of abortion is a minority position. Seventeen states provide taxpayer funding for abortion, all but four of them under judicial compulsion.

The mayor’s rationale for abortion funding is bizarre. Putting his statements together and reading them as charitably as possible, his argument is that so long as the Supreme Court says abortion is a constitutional right state governments have an obligation to help poor women afford it.

Note that governments have no such legal obligation: The Supreme Court, in a series of cases from 1977, ruled that they do not. So Giuliani must (we again assume charitably) be positing some kind of moral obligation to carry out the Supreme Court’s work beyond its writ. Combine this view with Giuliani’s other constitutional musings, and the results get stranger still. Giuliani has said in the past that people should have to show good character and get federal licenses before buying guns. Now he says, without repudiating those past statements, that the courts should read the Second Amendment to protect an individual right to own guns. So should states spend money to let poor people pack heat? Or will women need to show good character and get federal licenses before they have abortions?

Mayor Giuliani has tied himself in knots. His position makes neither logical, moral, nor political sense. Many conservatives are disappointed, and hope that their disappointment is not going to grow as the campaign wears on.

[flashbunny]

Stop rudy ping list ping.

Only rudy can beat hillary rudy

[dirtboy]

Ping. NR editors nail this one.

[keepitreal]

NR editors nail this one.

---

They just want to see Hillary in the White House. /sarc

[aligncare]

I have leaned towards Mr. Giuliani...

But, this is an accurate statement from the article:

The mayor’s rationale for abortion funding is bizarre. Putting his statements together and reading them as charitably as possible, his argument is that so long as the Supreme Court says abortion is a constitutional right state governments have an obligation to help poor women afford it...

There are so many problems with Mr. Giuliani's statements I don't know where to begin....

[Old_Mil]

It is my right under the constitution to own firearms. Therefore, a Rudy administration is going to cancel all gun control laws and give me vouchers that I can use at my local sporting goods store for ammunition. Right?

(That’s the sound of crickets you hear).

[dirtboy]

The mayor’s rationale for abortion funding is bizarre. Putting his statements together and reading them as charitably as possible, his argument is that so long as the Supreme Court says abortion is a constitutional right state governments have an obligation to help poor women afford it...

Rudy made two statements that just defy belief - that anyone both serious about winning the GOP nomination and saavy enough to win the nomination would make such utterances. The first was the reference to public funding of abortions as some kind of right. And the second was Rudy's interpretation of strict constructionism:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/04/giuliani.interview/

Giuliani told Bash that "a strict constructionist judge can come to either conclusion about Roe against Wade. They can look at it and say, 'Wrongly decided. ... We will overturn it.' They can look at it and say, 'It has been the law for this period of time, therefore we are going to respect the precedent.'

So a strict constructionist can look at precedent ... even if that precedent was NOT based on strict constructionism? If that is the case, the term has lost any meaning and constraint on the judicial process.

Rudy just shattered his carefully-crafted illusion that he could be palpable to pro-lifers.

His handlers better hope he stays away from gun-rights issues.

[flashbunny]

That’s the logic of liberals on the constitution.

Abortion, which isn’t covered by the constitution, is a constitutional right, which must be protected from ANY infringement and even funded with taxpayer dollars.

Meanwhile, the right to keep and bear arms is specifically mentioned in the constitution, but it can be restricted by as severe a degree as you can get away with.

Will the rudyboosters come here again and try to spin this? Or will the retreat to another pro- rudy thread (or forum)?

[beltfed308]

Good article. Thanks for the ping.

The more anyone learns about Rudy the more reason they have to be against him on almost every single issue. Nuff said.

[Spiff]

Awesome! Thank you for posting this. This article by the National Review editors head shots Giuliani with laser-guided precision. I’m going to enjoy watching his campaign bleed out over the next few months and will equally enjoy kicking around its desicated corpse some time in the next year.

[karnage]

The great thing about presidential campaigns is that it puts the spotlight on candidates, forcing them to clarify positions and endure scrutiny. I like Rudy - I think he understands the GWOT - but the primary process will be his crucible. He’ll either come through as an imperfect but still impressive Republican candidate for president, or he’ll be buried by a stronger option from the right.

A lot of people on FR are excited about Fred Thompson, but he has yet to commit. Newt thinks there’s plenty of time.

I just hope that whoever emerges from our primary wars as the standard-bearer for our beloved republic, he’ll be strong enough to unite the party, and - most importantly - defeat whichever commie carries the donkey banner.

[narses]

FYI

[narses]

This is a partial transcript from "Hannity & Colmes," July 20, 2005...

COLMES: Now, on abortion — now, you are pro-choice, right?

GIULIANI: Yes.

COLMES: You're a pro-choice Republican.

GIULIANI: I am.

~snip~

COLMES: Now, Roe vs. Wade -- You are pro-choice. How important is it to you as a pro-choice Republican to have a pro-choice on the court as someone...

GIULIANI: That is not the critical factor. And what's important to me is to have a very intelligent, very honest, very good lawyer on the court. And he fits that category, in the same way Justice Ginsburg fit that category.

I mean, she was — she maybe came at it from a very different political background, very qualified lawyer, very smart person.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/04/giuliani.interview/

Giuliani told Bash that "a strict constructionist judge can come to either conclusion about Roe against Wade. They can look at it and say, 'Wrongly decided. ... We will overturn it.' They can look at it and say, 'It has been the law for this period of time, therefore we are going to respect the precedent.'

[aligncare]

Well...I was for Mr. Giuliani...before I was against him (after that bone headed statement)...

Your comment, I’m disappointed to say, is accurate...I am reevaluating...

[xsmommy]

ping.

[narses]

[Giuliani] would continue the city’s discretionary spending of $10 million a year on abortions not otherwise eligible for state or Federal reimbursement.

New York Times, March 9, 1989

* * *

As mayor, Rudy Giuliani will uphold a woman’s right of choice to have an abortion. Giuliani will fund all city programs which provide abortions to insure that no woman is deprived of her right due to an inability to pay. He will oppose reductions in state funding. He will oppose making abortion illegal.

New York Times, August 4, 1989

[narses]

His handlers better hope he stays away from gun-rights issues.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9054.html

“And even as we grieve for those who lost their lives, and our hearts and prayers go out to the victims and their loved ones, we may be able to find some sort of meaning in this tragedy by using it as a catalyst to revive national gun control efforts.”
Rudolph Giuliani

[mkjessup]

Calling all RudyBots...calling all RudyBots...see the thread, see the thread, suspect name ‘Kuksool’, possible 503 in progress, citation of National Review, excessive hyperbole and verbosity has been authorized, defend Rudy, defend Judi, defend Tooti Fruiti, awww Rudy...that is all’

[Spiff]

Rudy Giuliani doesn't just support Abortion...
He Supports Partial Birth Abortion!

[GEORGE] WILL: Is your support of partial birth abortion firm?
Mayor GIULIANI: All of my positions are firm. I have strong viewpoints. I express them. And I--I do not think that it makes sense to be changing your position....
ABC News February 6, 2000

---

TUCHMAN: Giuliani was then asked whether he supports a ban on what critics call partial-birth abortions, something Bush strongly supports.
GIULIANI: No, I have not supported that, and I don't see my position on that changing.
- CNN December 2, 1999

---

BLITZER: If you were in the Senate and [President Clinton] vetoed, once again, the [ban on the] so-called partial-birth abortion procedure, you would vote against sustaining that against the -- in favor of the veto in other words, you would support the president on that.
GIULIANI: Yes. I said then that I support him, so I have no reason to change my mind about it.
BLITZER: All right. So the bottom line is that on a lot of these very sensitive issues whether on guns, abortion, patients' bill of rights, taxes, you are more in line with the president and by association, with Mrs. Clinton, than you are against them.
- CNN February 6, 2000

---

MR. RUSSERT: A banning of late-term abortions, so-called partial-birth abortions--you're against that?

MAYOR GIULIANI: I'm against it in New York, because in New York...

MR. RUSSERT: Well, if you were a senator, would you vote with the president or against the president? [Note: President Clinton was in office in 2000]

MAYOR GIULIANI: I would vote to preserve the option for women. I think that choice is a very difficult one. It's a very, very--it's one in which people of conscious have very, very different opinions. 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....

MR. RUSSERT: So you won't change your view on late-term abortion in order to get the Conservative Party endorsement?

MAYOR GIULIANI: It isn't just that. We shouldn't limit this to one issue. I'm generally not going to change my views
- NBC Meet the Press, February 6, 2000

Rudy Giuliani doesn't just support Abortion...
He Supports Partial Birth Abortion!

[GEORGE] WILL: Is your support of partial birth abortion firm?
Mayor GIULIANI: All of my positions are firm. I have strong viewpoints. I express them. And I--I do not think that it makes sense to be changing your position....
ABC News February 6, 2000

---

TUCHMAN: Giuliani was then asked whether he supports a ban on what critics call partial-birth abortions, something Bush strongly supports.
GIULIANI: No, I have not supported that, and I don't see my position on that changing.
- CNN December 2, 1999

---

BLITZER: If you were in the Senate and [President Clinton] vetoed, once again, the [ban on the] so-called partial-birth abortion procedure, you would vote against sustaining that against the -- in favor of the veto in other words, you would support the president on that.
GIULIANI: Yes. I said then that I support him, so I have no reason to change my mind about it.
BLITZER: All right. So the bottom line is that on a lot of these very sensitive issues whether on guns, abortion, patients' bill of rights, taxes, you are more in line with the president and by association, with Mrs. Clinton, than you are against them.
- CNN February 6, 2000

---

MR. RUSSERT: A banning of late-term abortions, so-called partial-birth abortions--you're against that?

MAYOR GIULIANI: I'm against it in New York, because in New York...

MR. RUSSERT: Well, if you were a senator, would you vote with the president or against the president? [Note: President Clinton was in office in 2000]

MAYOR GIULIANI: I would vote to preserve the option for women. I think that choice is a very difficult one. It's a very, very--it's one in which people of conscious have very, very different opinions. 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....

MR. RUSSERT: So you won't change your view on late-term abortion in order to get the Conservative Party endorsement?

MAYOR GIULIANI: It isn't just that. We shouldn't limit this to one issue. I'm generally not going to change my views
- NBC Meet the Press, February 6, 2000

[Spiff]

So a strict constructionist can look at precedent ... even if that precedent was NOT based on strict constructionism? If that is the case, the term has lost any meaning and constraint on the judicial process.

Much like the term "conservative" loses all meaning if it gets associated with a flaming liberal like Rudy Giuliani.