Posted on 05/14/2007 2:28:36 PM PDT by Reagan Man
Rudy Giuliani is taking a big gamble. Rather than fundamentally shift his views on abortion, he is banking that Republicans want a leader and a winner more than a pro-life advocate. In a key speech on Friday and an appearance on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace he made clear he believes in a woman’s right to choose but offered some accommodations to pro-life voters.
THE SPEECH
On Friday he rolled the dice, venturing into potentially hostile territory at Houston’s Baptist University. Like Woody Allen, he apparently hoped his audience would agree that 90% of life is showing up. The speech was necessitated by the rockiest week and a half of his campaign.
At the first Presidential debate his response that it would be “okay” if Roe v. Wade was reversed and “okay” if not engendered loud criticism from pro-life advocates and sharp elbows from John McCain and his campaign chief John Weaver who labeled him out of the “mainstream” and a “long shot” to win the presidency.
When news broke last week that he had donated to Planned Parenthood and completed a NARAL survey indicating across the board support for pro-choice positions, it was clear the campaign had to respond. Having witnessed the fate of Mitt Romney (who is now followed on the campaign trail by people in “flip flop” costumes,) there was arguably little upside in a dramatic departure from his past views.
Giuliani’s approach was three fold: 1) emphasize the leadership skills and issues which he hopes will transcend differences in the GOP on social issues; 2) give a pitch for a “Big Tent”; and 3) tell the audience what “things that I can evolve on and the things that I can’t.”
In an introduction that pleased the Giuliani camp, the president of the University, analogizing to a Houston speech by John Kennedy who came to explain his independence from the Pope’s dictates, explained : “Today’s speech may justifiably raise echoes of 47 years ago as a Presidential candidate, who’s also a Catholic, speaks in the historically Protestant venue of Houston Baptist University.”
The bulk of his speech focused on issues which he deems more critical to the country’s future: being on “offense on terrorism and the private economy.” Reminding the audience of the Ft. Dix plot, he bluntly declared that we “live in a world where people plan on coming here to kill us.” As for economics, he declared himself the strongest fiscal conservative in the race. He also made his most detailed statements on the Second Amendment, praising the recent Parker case striking down the Washington D.C. handgun ban and agreeing with the court’s ruling that there is an individual right to own a weapon akin to individual rights in the First and other amendments. He also said “domestic partnership should not be a substitute for marriage” and clearly said he opposed the recent New Hampshire domestic partnership law.
Giuliani made the Reagan appeal: we agree on many things, especially the big things, and I am a leader to accomplish those big things.
Second, he made the Big Tent appeal, saying: “If we don’t unite, if we don’t find a way of uniting around broad principles that will appeal to a large segment of this country, if we can’t figure that out, we are going to lose this election. We cannot go into the next election the same way that we went into the last two.” He suggested that if the Big Tent breaks apart the Democrats will win the White House and those “very, very big things, like Where do we go on terror? Where do we go on the economy?” will be at risk.
Lastly he drew a distinction between his core beliefs on abortion that he says have not changed and those items where his views have changed over time. He was clear what would not change: his personal opposition to abortion but his belief in ultimately leaving the decision to women. He then explained that he had reconsidered his views on a partial birth abortion ban (now he supports it) and the Hyde Amendment (he now would leave it in place.)
As to Roe v. Wade itself, he offered this: 1) a promise that he would appoint strict constructionist judges who would look at the “the words of the Constitution” and “what did the framers mean,” citing the Parker case as a good example of strict constructionist judging, and 2) a caution that a judge should “not become a legislator,” reasoning that that this is a “guarantee of your liberty” and a protection that democratically elected legislators make decisions. Nevertheless, he did not specifically state -- as many conservative pundits have urged him to do-- whether he thought Roe was an example of just this type of undemocratic legislating by the courts.
Giuliani campaign officials were gratified by the response and the coverage which quoted attendees positive reaction to the speech. Students and faculty gave him a standing ovation and praised his candor. Nevertheless, criticism was swift and severe from leaders like Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention and Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, a sign that one-issue pro-life voters remain an organized and forceful component of the Republican Party.
It is worth mentioning that Giuliani spoke, in the most important speech of the campaign, without a script and in a conversational and at times humorous style -- even interrupting to kiss a baby sporting a “I love NY” t-shirt. A candidate who is not scriptable but who, at his best, connects with voters in a fundamentally emotional way can be a blessing as well as a headache for a campaign.
THE INTERVIEW
Giuliani picked up where he left off on Friday in his interview with Chris Wallace who elicited the most specific answers yet on his abortion views. On Roe, Giuliani reiterated his pledge to appoint strict constructionist judges, with the proviso that those judges may bow to precedent and leave Roe in place. Nevertheless he declared: “We have a federal system. States would make decisions. We're already doing that with the Hyde Amendment. States make their own decisions.”
As he did on Friday Giuliani responded to Wallace’s question by affirming his support of parental notification and the partial birth abortion ban. He also stated that he would be open to other restrictions on abortion and would not seek to tamper with the GOP’s platform on abortion.
On why he found abortion wrong he stated: “I think having the child is a much better decision. I think it's a much better moral decision. I think it's much better for society.” Pressed as to whether he considers embryos which may be used for stem cell research to be human life he demurred, saying “I don't think it's for me to decide. I can't decide when life begins.”
WILL IT WORK?
It remains to be seen whether a pro-choice candidate who promises to appoint conservative judges and support some abortion restrictions can win the Republican nomination. The answer may turn on whether the voters accept that he is the best person to keep people from “coming here to kill us.”
In tomorrow’s South Carolina Republican candidate debate, Giuliani will no doubt face aggressive questions and barbs from his pro-life opponents. With a flock of candidates and strict time constraints, he will need to offer concise explanations of his views and will lack the luxury of time to engage the audience.
If that doesn’t go well, the Giuliani camp can always track down Houston speech attendee, Josh Ureke, described by the Washington Post as sporting a "Jesus Freak" t-shirt and saying that he finds abortion immoral but agrees with Giuliani that the decision "ultimately, is up to the woman." He may be the best spokesman Giuliani will find.
I dislike Rudy more today than yesterday.
Thanks
I keep seeing mention of his answers to a NARAL questionaire, but I’ve not seen the actual questionaire or all of its contents. Has anyone seen the whole thing? Link?
This where so many have a disconnect.
The idea that you can differ with someone and still praise their candor - gets by many of the GOP faithful.
Many (especially young GOP voters) respect Rudy's willingness to go against the GOP conservative grain.
Young GOP voters are not so socially conservative - good or bad - I won't argue that.
OMG! You’re back. LOL
I am back.
I paid the price for an idiotic comment - and I have to admit I am (and was) disappointed with myself.
I got Zotted for a couple days - and deserved to be,
Rudy would not appreciate my acting like an idiot.
So from now on - I will behave myself.
Perfect! Thank you.
The idea that you can differ with someone and still praise their candor - gets by many of the GOP faithful.
***The reason why I have a problem with his sudden candor is because of his LACK of it for several months while he was pretending to be conservative. His followers did the same thing here on FR. So he doesn’t deserve the praise for candor after having already chosen the route of mendacity and then finding it didn’t work for him. Tootyfruityrudy is simply a liar who got caught.
It took me about 3 minutes of Google search when I first heard he was even considering a run to eliminate him.
Oh I completely disagree.
I never misrepresented Rudy inside FR in any way.
I always knew he was pro-choice.
I always knew he was pro-gay-rights.
I also knew he was a lot of things I totally admire - and do today.
I never heard all this hatred toward Rudy after 9/11 or after
the 2004 GOP convention - his keynote.
There’s a lot of anger toward Rudy that underneath represents something outside his views on the issues.
A liar - I think not.
He is now openly thumbing his nose at the Christian Conservative facet of the Republican Party, to appeal to the anti-Clinton-Obama Democrat voter. That, with all the RINOs in our party, makes him a formidable force, people. Do not discount this man! Financially support generously to your CONSERVATIVE Republican candidate today!
Your comments might be right on the money - sort of speak.
I think the separation on judges is this.
Rudy does not put an abortion litmus test on judges.
He has said he wants strict constructionist judges.
That view is far wider than simply abortion.
Again - the GOP has to avoid this one issue barometer.
I never misrepresented Rudy inside FR in any way.
***Maybe you didn’t, but a whole heckuva lotta his followers did. I still reserve the right to comment on whether or not you misrepresented tootyfruityrudy.
I always knew he was pro-choice. I always knew he was pro-gay-rights. I also knew he was a lot of things I totally admire - and do today.
***Those kinds of things are at odds with the core principles of this website.
There’s a lot of anger toward Rudy that underneath represents something outside his views on the issues.
***That’s an argument from silence — invalid.
A liar - I think not.
***If the folks on this thread can prove he’s a liar, will you go over to wideawake and ask what I asked of you just recently?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1833398/posts?page=63#63
Prove yourself trustworthy. Go over to wideawake and ask the following:
Then where are the former freepers who kept saying that he wasn’t pro-abort/pro-gun control/pro-gay activism/pro-open borders? I don’t see many coming back to Free Republic with contrite spirits because they’ve been snookered by this guy. That means they have been caught lying for their candidate, and rather than own up to it, they’re following him down the garden path. The indicator is very high that you are simply wrong in your assessment, because if there weren’t many that would have followed him, we’d be seeing a bunch come back to FR.
I’m voting for whoever will fight Islamic terrorism the best . As anti abortion as I am I just can’t see it as the deciding issue of who should be president. If we’re all blown up the abortion issue won’t matter much . To be honest I seriously doubt Roe Vs Wade will ever be overturned and certainly no one president will do it anyway . We are faced with the end of America at the hands of Islam , I’m sorry thats my main concern by far !
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.