Rudy's Run (Editorial by Nat Review editors)

NRO ^ | 2/9/2007

[Uncledave]

Rudy's Run

By The 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.

[Uncledave]

ping

[areafiftyone]

(((((PING))))

[TommyDale]

"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.

[areafiftyone]

Thanks for the ping. LOL! It seems like everyone in the MSM has advice for Rudy.

[betsyross1776]

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.

[Jake The Goose]

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.

[areafiftyone]

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!

[The Great RJ]

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.

[tcostell]

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.

[rep-always]

I couldn't agree more. God help us all.

[tcostell]

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

It was probably just someone being sloppy.

[basil]

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.

[Uncledave]

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.

[tcostell]

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.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

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???

[tcostell]

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.

[Uncledave]

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

[ReleaseTheHounds]

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.

[Condor51]

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)

[DocH]

there are serious obstacles to Giuliani’s winning the embrace of conservatives (an UNDERSTATEMENT, if there ever was one).

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(Duh!). Giuliani’s most important flaw in this regard is his denial that unborn children have a right to life(not to mention his anti-gun, anti-freedom, anti-2nd Amendment, I would submit, UN-American positions).

The bar for Giuliani will (and SHOULD) be higher, since he is running for president(THAT's the point!)

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.

On Hannity & Colmes, he dodged the question (I would submit he dodged MANY of the questions).

His current muddle raises the possibility that “strict constructionism” is, for him, nothing more than a slogan.(it's called POLITICAL EXPEDIENCY. RINO-rudy is willing to SAY or DO most anything to get elected President)

He would also be well-advised to quit caricaturing the pro-life position.

Many conservatives understandably don’t want to shut the door on Rudy Giuliani (Maybe SO-CALLED "conservatives". The MAJORITY of TRUE CONSERVATIVES DO want to slam the door on this RINO)

Many pro-lifers, and many (TRUE) conservatives, may eventually decide (We have ALREADY decided!) that for all his obvious strengths (one, MAYBE TWO strengths MAX) they CANNOT support Giuliani for president.

[DocH]

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.

We can NEVER afford to be ONE issue voters.

The WoT needs to be one of the top issues, but what is security (both actual and perceived), without FREEDOM/LIBERTY?

We must have, and there's no reason we can't have, a REAL conservative candidate who will be tough on the WoT, AND will REVERE, RESPECT and SUPPORT our 2nd Amendment RIGHTS and the RIGHT of the unborn to live.

No RINO, and particularly RINO-rudy, makes the grade in this regard.

[basil]

Better work hard to get your candidate elected. We might as well accept that we aren't going to have a perfect candidate that agrees with each of us individually on every issue. That being the case, we better decide which philosophical ideology (party) we want to support. Anyone who sits out this election, or throws away their vote on a third party cndidate, deserves exactly what they get.

[Peach]

Giuliani once opposed Roe himself, according to press reports when he first ran for mayor in 1989.

Well, well, well.

[areafiftyone]

WOW! We need more info on that!

[LiveFree99]

So the girly boys at NRO go all tingly over Rudy the Liberal. Why am I not surprised?

[Peach]

It sounds like he had to change positions in order to win in NYC, but his original position was opposition to Roe!

He wouldn't be the first politician, or presidential candidate, to change positions to gain higher office, that's for sure. But it's comforting to know he was opposed to Roe in 1989.

[areafiftyone]

Yes it is! I'm glad to know that.

[SoFloFreeper]

I like Rudy, but not for Prez. Of course, if it is between him and Hillary, no contest: Rudy all the way. :)

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

It doesn't matter... I won't pull the lever for a liberal...

[Coldwater Creek]

Well whatever the wind blows!

[Coldwater Creek]

correction = whatever WAY the wind blows.

[Brownback08]

I agree it would be very difficult to vote for Rudy. I have never voted for a Pro Choice candidate in my life. I feel that if the Republicans would put up a true Conservative they could win and win big. Remember its the liberals in the GOP that destroyed us in the last election. I also feel that if the GOP decides to become a more liberal party it will shift the Dem party even more left and we will be stuck with two liberal parties.

[dirtboy]

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

You are correct. He's like Bush and Arnold - borrow and spend.

[dirtboy]

Again, though, the dim candidate will no doubt be a much more committed anti Second Amendment person.

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.

[Jake The Goose]

You're wrong - I suggest you do a little research on Guiliani's fiscal record in NYC.

- Came into office with a deficit
- Left office with a surplus
- Cut taxes.

If you did not live it NYC, and worst yet - you don't know the facts - why pretend you do?

You can be against Rudy without presenting yourself as ignorant.

[dirtboy]

- Came into office with a deficit - Left office with a surplus

Now, check into the increase in NYC's debt load during that time before you call me ignorant.

[kalee]

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.)

[Jake The Goose]

Oh brother... get Duncan Hunter a comb - and may the best man win.

BTW - I like Duncan Hunter - he's aggressive with the press - it's just that in Southern California (from San Diego to Orange County) his reputation among my peers was that of a typical member of congress - little legislative track record.

He will help the party with his tough stances however.

I don't think he can win the nomination - then again - I thought Bob Dole was loser... and he won.

Good group, Duncan, Mitt, Rudy, Newt, ---- (I cannot add McQuid - just can't)

Good luck to him.

[TitansAFC]

LOL

I love it.

Post after post saying the same thing
Rudy will be a fiscal Conservative,
Rudy will fight the war.

Nothing else matters and all other Republicans are losers.

We're not gonna swallow that tripe.

[CobaltBlue]

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.

[zarf]

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.

[dirtboy]

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".

[zarf]

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

1) How do you know?

2) There was already relatively strict gun control in effect on the book when he took office.

[ElPatriota]

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.

[Reagan Man]

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.

[wildbill]

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.

[Joe Brower]

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.

[Liz]

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.

[Reagan Man]

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.