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.

"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."

Symmetry -- as in equal but opposite viewpoints.

I am still sitting on the fence . I don't like Rudy's ideas on issues which are important to me and why I vote.One issue is he wants people to take a test to have a handgun. The only ones taking the test are the legal handgun owners. The issue of abortion, maybe he can take that position , but not me. I still don't like the actions in his personal life and I was always taught , you have marriage between a man and a woman.Also the Hampton's are about as connected to me as John Edwards with his too Americas while I build this huge house. Nope I am still looking for a candidate.

I spent a little time this morning reading some of the usual "anti Rudy rants". Rudy - a tax-and-spead liberal is one I saw. Tax-and-spend?

How can anyone say that - when his record in New York as a massive tax cutter and budget cutter is there.

Our party has always led the fight with good debates based on history, facts, and THEN simple opinion.

Maybe it's simple because it's Friday - but I do wish people would engage in debate and not simple slander every time their fingers hit the keyboard.

FR has really enlightened me with regard to our parties minority population of social zealots.

That said - at least they are zealots on the right side of the issues.

I spent a little time this morning reading some of the usual "anti Rudy rants". Rudy - a tax-and-spead liberal is one I saw. Tax-and-spend?

Well you have to realize they figure if they say it over and over again you will start to believe it. It's the old brainwashing trick! LOL!

My concern is that if Giuliani is the Republican candidate some conservatives will pout and stay home from the polls. This is in large part why we currently have a Democrat controlled Congress. The prospect of President Hillary is so odious to this conservative that I would gladly vote for John McCain, Romney or any other Republican regardless if their individual beliefs exactly coincided with mine. God save our Republic if we get another Clinton in the White House.

Well National Review isn't exactly MSM. To be fair, I think they make a good point. They are trying to say to Rudy that he needs to convince us on these issues. If he expects to win he need to energize his base, and that won't be happening with his current position set.

They are trying to show him a way to change his mind and not sound like ... well... a liberal NYC politician.

There are more than enough genuine criticism's of Rudy... no need to invent any.

It was probably just someone being sloppy.

It's going to be tough to vote for this guy if he wins the nomination. However, it's a lead pipe cinch that the dim nominee will be pro choice, and probably in a much worse way than Gulliani.

One thing is for sure--I will vote, and I will vote for the Republican nominee.

Also, Gullani is a gun grabber, which I certainly don't like. Again, though, the dim candidate will no doubt be a much more committed anti Second Amendment person.

It seems to me that if we are going to be "one issue" voters in this election, our one issue better be the war on terror. If we're attacked again, and many of us are dead....well, I guess we won't care much about anyone's stance on anything.

I agree. Rudy's not a dummy. And if he states his case fairly, and makes palatable promises to conservatives as this piece suggests, then I'm inclined to believe him.

I live in the NYC area I'm not aware of one major promise or policy statement that Rudy's made that he's lied about to his constituents.

The real problem here is not with the electorate... it's with the politicians. Republicans lost congress because they forgot who's interests they were supposed to serve. They started acting in their own self interest (by acting like big government Democrats) and ignored the interests of the people that put them there. THAT is the problem... not someone's mood.

I believe we can find a better choice than Giuliani, and this is the time to think that way.

I am not so afraid of Hillary that I'm willing to accept the first liberal who comes along in a "Republicans for President" hat.

Giuliani also says he would look for “strict constructionists” in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito to fill judicial vacancies.

That is why he endorsed Mario Cuomo over George Pataki???

That's true... he doesn't lie, and he doesn't pander (at least not to anyone he isn't married to). Now if he could just get his head straight about the role of government he'd be my guy.

Many good people have made mistakes in endorsing, or nominating, others. Look at some of the awful judges Reagan and Bush Sr gave us.

You know, Sir Francis, that is one position that Rudy will be hard-pressed to explain away. But while Pataki was much better than Cuomo, he sure wasn't a solid principled Republican Governor himself. I don't remember what the "city-state" issues were at the time Rudy made that unseemly remark but I'm sure it will come back to dog him in this election cycle.

All that said, I still think Rudy is the best choice for the GOP just on the leadership front alone but also his consistent conservative fiscal record in NYC. JMHO.

19 posted on 02/09/2007 6:24:39 AM PST by ReleaseTheHounds (“The demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots.”)

Gee, that's odd?!?

I searched the article three times and nowhere is Rudy's EXTREME, LEFT-WING view on gun control and confiscation mentioned.

Oh well, I guess he hasn't had his 'Come to Jesus' moment on that yet. /s

(or ... is the 2A the 'thing not to be mentioned' in Rudy's presence)

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.