Jasper Smith

Commentary on politics, economics, culture and sports.

Rudy and Roe

with 2 comments

Ross Douthat thinks Rudy Giuliani has been trying to get too cute in his efforts to square his pro-choice past with his political future. His recommended course of action is not for Rudy to convert to the pro-life position (this would seem to obvious, and artificial), but rather the strategy

…in which he sticks to being pro-choice but attacks Roe v. Wade as bad law…And that seems to be what he’s gesturing at, with his confused talk about being pro-choice but liking strict-constructionist judges. The trouble is that he seems to be hoping he can avoid actually saying that Roe is bad law, which would hurt him in the general election, and simply pull a Bush and refuse to have any “litmus tests” for the bench, while making it clear by implication that his ideal justices would be the sort that pro-lifers would find congenial. But Bush pulled off this trick because he was also personally pro-life and didn’t need to reassure pro-lifers on that count, whereas Rudy is trying to dig himself out of a deep, deep pro-choice and pro-partial birth abortion hole. So while being explicitly anti-Roe might keep him out of the Oval Office in the long run, I think that’s a risk he’ll have to take if he wants to have a serious chance at the nomination.

I will say that a pro-life Giuliani would be something of a dream standard bearer for me: an intelligent, colorful, articulate, pro-free market, non-immigrant bashing, tough on crime (and tough on illegal guns), interesting, pro-military, moderate conservative who’s not from the South (got nothin’ against my southern brethren, I’m just mighty bored with the accent after fourteen years).

Alas, Rudy’s pro abortion rights position really makes his candidacy a disappointment for me. I so would like to be able to back the guy’s campaign. I doubt my conscience will allow me to do so, however, absent a clear cut statement disparaging Roe. I don’t sense Rudy’s moving in that direction, however, and agree with Ross that he fears going on record as opposing the ’73 infamy.

Didn’t see the footage, but I’m told he was awfully kissy kissy with the NARAL folks on his recentHannity/Colmes appearance. And this is a dude I’m supposed to want making Supreme Court nominations? Oh Rudy, didn’t you take any of your CCD lessons to heart?

Advertisements

Written by Jasper

February 7, 2007 at 11:32 pm

Posted in Election 08, Politics

2 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. If Rudy changes to pro-life, wouldn’t he just be pandering? Wouldn’t you rather he go with his own conscience (whatever that may be)?

    David Schleicher

    February 8, 2007 at 1:03 am

  2. David: I agree Rudy could leave himself open to the charge of “pandering”. That’s why I think his position ought to be to oppose Roe’s overreach, and its negation of federalism. I think for prolife voters, that’s the best we’re likely to get from Mr Guiliani. The president doesn’t rule by fiat, after all, but the judges he appoints inevitably exert a huge impact on such issues. So Rudy, IMO, should focus his wooing of the prolife voting block (if he ever deigns to engage in such wooing) on his judicial philosophy, and on pledges to appoint the right kind of judges to the federal bench.

    Jasper

    February 8, 2007 at 7:51 am


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: