Giuliani on abortion: Suicide, or smart?

May 11th, 2007 11:06 am · 5 comments

After months of conflicting signals on abortion, Rudolph W. Giuliani is planning to offer a forthright affirmation of his support for abortion rights in public forums, television appearances and interviews in the coming days, despite the potential for bad consequences among some conservative voters already wary of his views, aides said yesterday.

-New York Times, May 10

Well, if you want to put some distance between you and the pack, this is the way to do it.

It could, of course, put him some distance behind the pack, scuttle his candidacy. My suspicion, though, is that it may actually strengthen his candidacy. My suspicion is that there are a lot of Republicans out there who are dismayed by the constant pandering to “the base”; who in fact are fed up with the base, have come to believe to believe that the base, which helped propel the party and the conservative movement itself to power, now is detrimental to the party.

The rap on the Democratic Party as it rusted in the 1970s, and to an extent now, is that it had become a motley collection of interest groups. The Republican Party itself now bears a resemblance to this; though the interest groups are far fewer in number, they wield considerably more influence within the party than any one left-wing group could have. The perception - among Democrats, a growing number of libertarians, among moderate Republicans themselves - is that these interest groups have come to dominate the party, to define it. And the fear, then, is that the Republican Party, by permitting this, may cease to be a truly national party.

Giuliani’s move either short-circuits that - or, if he’s chewed up and spit out by the culture warriors, if his candidacy now fails, he reinforces it, he hastens it. But on another level, isn’t it curious - nice - to see one of the perceived front-runners say, “Screw it, I’m not going to pander.” Giuliani’s past, of course, makes that pandering virtually impossible anyway. So maybe this is less bravery on his part than a realization that this might be his only hope.

Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Netvouz
  • DZone
  • ThisNext
  • MisterWong
  • Wists

  5 comments  Tags: presidential campaign · national politics

There are currently 5 comments on this blog post
View Topic | Comment on this blog
harv1
5/13/07
2:34 AM
Gil, here's the deal as I see it: The Pope just made an official decree that any Catholic who wants to remain in good standing with the Catholic Church cannot, in any way, publically espouse any form of abortion or vote in any way that allows abortion. It's my understanding that there are now five practicing Catholics who are Supreme Court justices. Any case that reaches the Supreme Court bench that is concerned with the right to have an abortion will fail because of this. The 'partial birth abortion' ruling is just the beginning. People do not want to remember all the women who testified before congress ... 100% of them who had had to have this type of abortion for medical reasons said that if they could have done anything to have saved their fetuses, they would have. We now have a law in effect that can kill a mother of five who happens to have a pregnancy that the law now forbids.

Guiliani has been married three times and is really only a nominal Catholic. For him to support a woman's choice in abortion matters... everyone knows that if a case can make it all the way to the SCOTUS, it's doomed. So, in actuality, whether a candidate supports the right or not is immaterial.

Gone are the days when, during JFK's run for the presidency, folks painted a 'skullcap' on the US quarter to try to subtlely imply that a vote for JFK meant having religion in the White House that was not of their choosing. Conservative Christians were overtly opposed to JFK because of his Catholic background. I remember seeing those quarters when I was in grade school. They aren't an urban legend.

The Catholic Church has become a 'player' in conservative theology where once it was considered a threat to religious freedom in the US. The deck has been stacked so it doesn't really matter what a candidate stands for. You can't veto a Supreme Court decision.
justplainjoe
5/13/07
6:25 AM
this is a lose lose proposition for rudy g.

first of all bush jr all but ruined any chance for any republican to win the white house in 2008 regardless of how intelligent, capabale, or moderate.

second most repubs who vote in primaries are conservative and anti abortion.

third all rudy has is the 9/11 card which will evaporate when the public learns that after the first wtc attack rudy was warned to put his command and control center somewhere underground in brooklyn.

he did not listen and instead it was in the wtc when the buildings came down.

that's why we all saw rudy walking the streets ,he had no where to go.

harv1
5/13/07
1:28 PM
The WTC command center will never be a hot button issue in the election, IMHO. Bloomberg reports that Guiliani has come out and said that he would not be opposed to placing an 'outspoken' anti-abortion judge on the SCOTUS but that he is all about not taking away the right to abortion.

Unless one of the five Catholic justices who are on the court now is willing to be excomunicated from their religion, he really can say whatever he wants because unless all abortion rights cases are turned down by the SCOTUS for hearing, it's going to happen. No matter who the president is and no matter what the president says publically. The job of preserving a woman's right to choice now rests in those who can deter such cases from reaching SCOTUS. Because after it gets there, it's over.

And then what's next? Birth control availability? A lot of us who were around for the Roe v. Wade decision thought that, well, that's that! What if the pope speaks in the same manner about birth control and a case like that reaches SCOTUS? Or any other issue where mainstream folks will be impacted in a way that they now feel is their right to choose? What if a case about in vitro or some other artificial means of conception makes it all the way up the 'ladder?' And as forceful an edict is pronounced, i.e. excommunication? I never thought that we would be fighting this thirty years later...
twinmom
5/13/07
1:56 PM
Why should what the Pope says matter to the supreme court judges? I thought judges were to base their decisions on the constitution and laws in place, not their privately held religious beliefs. I know it must be hard for them to separate out the two and if they are unable, perhaps they should not be looking at the case or recuse themselves.

harv1
5/13/07
2:12 PM
Twinmom: The pope has spoken. He has said that any Catholic in private or public life who speaks out or votes in any way to allow abortion or to preserve a woman's right to choose, will be excomunicated. You are correct in what you say, but the line has been drawn. We've had one vote on the issue and it was 5 to 4. This is how it's going to go no matter who the president is, if the case reaches the top. Anti-abortion activists know this and that is why there is a big push to get something more sweeping to be heard at the top. As far as recusing goes, it's not going to happen.
View Topic | Comment on this blog