Can the G.O.P. Accept Giuliani’s Abortion Stance?

New York Times ^ | May 11, 2007 | By ROBIN TONER

[Jim Robinson]

It is one of the enduring features of the modern Republican Party: Since the rise of Ronald Reagan and the empowerment of the social conservatives, the party has formally stood in firm opposition to a constitutional right to abortion and the Supreme Court decision that established it.

Yes, there were always Republicans who broke with party orthodoxy on the issue, from New England moderates like Senator Olympia J. Snowe of Maine to pragmatists like Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California. But the party’s platform, if anything, grew less pliant on abortion over the years. And the party invariably nominated presidential candidates who embraced, rather than challenged, the full “pro life” position. (Just as the Democrats did, on the “pro choice” side.)

Now, with Rudolph W. Giuliani one of the front-runners for the Republican nomination, the question inevitably arises: Is the party moving on this issue, ready for more flexibility? Can a supporter of abortion rights, even one with caveats and qualifications, make it to the top of the Republican Party in 2008?

~~snip~~

In the past, such a position brought a quick and determined push back from the party’s social conservatives. Candidates lacking strong anti-abortion credentials, in fact, rarely made it to the top tier. Party moderates regularly tried over the years to soften the Republican platform, and were just as regularly beaten back.

The Republican abortion plank endured: “The unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed,” and the party is committed to supporting the appointment of judges “who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.”

~~snip~~

[BlackElk]

Perhaps Giuliani should publicly recognize that his political career has been slain by the jawbone of an ass: his own jawbone.

My last generosity to Rudy: Rudy is America's uber New York Yankee fan and might make a good managing partner to replace George Stenbrenner with the Yankees whom I love. Again, he should agree to have no say on social issues even in that capacity. He would enjoy that job much more than he would enjoy the presidency that will never be his.

[8mmMauser]

No,no

Pinged from Terri Dailies

8mm

[trisham]

Pro-life bump.

[George W. Bush]

Rudi is the last chance for the northeastern liberal Rockefeller Republicans to save abortion rights. And they know it.

They never worried much when we didn't have four solid pro-life votes on the Court. The question was more academic then.

After more than 25 years, 2008 is not the time to waffle on the pro-life cause and let them snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

[George W. Bush]

They fail to explain how he is appealing on terror. Just because he got rid of the squeegee men, kicked Arafat out of a concert, and did a good job on 9/11, really doesn't mean much.

Did he? He wandered around, mugging for the cameras because he had insisted, against the uniform recommendations against it, on building his command bunker in the only known terrorist target in New York, one which had been attacked only a few years earlier and was known to be a high-value symbolic target to the Muslim terrorists.

I don't get why anyone is so impressed by his 9/11 performance.

You know, Richard Daly and other Lefty mayors showed Rudy up on this one. They all built their command bunkers quite a distance from any potential Ground Zero target.

[showme_the_Glory]

The “N” or the “O”.