What Rudy should say
A commenter on this thought-provoking blog piece made the observation that presidential hopeful Rudolph Giuliani is “as likely to appoint conservative Justices as any other candidate.”
Really, I thought. More so than Brownback? Newt? Hunter? Tancredo?
Anyway, this really is the key question for me concerning the Giuliani candidacy; I’ll frankly admit that a pro-life Giuliani would be something of a perfect candidate for me, a somewhat more moderate GOPer than many of y’all. Maybe I just haven’t followed his statements carefully enough, but I have no firm idea that he’s a vociferous proponent of federalism, and I have no firm idea on how he views Roe. And I don’t think that’s by accident, because I get the impression that Rudy doesn’t want us to know what he thinks of Roe. Maybe that’s because he loathes the 1973 decision and doesn’t want to offend moderates or liberals (so as to be competitive in a general election), but maybe it’s because he has no intention of using the office of the presidency to protect the lives of the unborn because, he’s, you know, “pro-choice”.
If my state’s primary were held tomorrow morning, I couldn’t bring myself to vote for Rudy, either. Fortunately for the Giuliani campaign, he’s still got lots of time to win over some of the pro-life voters he’ll need to win. And make no mistake, any GOP hopeful who completely stiffs us and gets ZERO percent of our votes is done. Period.
Of course, it won’t be credible for Rudy to “pull a Romney” and convert on the eve of the election. His best bet is to avoid the obvious, Romneysque pander session and, instead of attacking abortion head-on, attack the wrongness of Roe versus Wade.
Rudy should, in other words, make a speech containing language something to the effect of:
“Although I was brought up to believe that human life is a supremely precious, sacred, gift from our Creator, it is true that as mayor of New York City — the nation’s largest and one of its most liberal communities — my record of supporting the status quo with respect to abortion is well-known. I have nothing to hide in this regard. But even though many would use the label ‘pro-choice’ to describe my position, I have never favored the idea that courts ought to usurp the role of legislators, and I have always regarded abortion in particular as one of those contentious moral issues that would be best decided at the state level. Let the people’s voice be heard, is my view. And yet the voices of the people — whether they’re liberal Californians or conservative Kansans or anything in between — are effectively blocked from the political process by the 1973 decision — a ruling that even many liberal jurists have admitted was poorly reasoned, and that has had highly damaging consequences. As your president, I’ll use my power to shape the Supreme Court to ensure that the people do have a say in the great moral controversies of our day, because federalism has served our country well, and abandoning it has caused us great harm.”
Otherwise, Romney here I come. And Rudy, one more thing: lots of time till Iowa doesn’t mean infinite time.
Cross-posted on RedState.com.