Friday, May 11, 2007

RUDY - ??

Forced by political pressures to declare his position one way or the other, Giuliani affirmed to a crowd at Houston Baptist University that he is pro-choice although he believes abortion is "morally wrong." I am confused by this for a number of reasons.

1. It may not have been necessary. Saying "I will appoint strict constructionist judges, which is how these issues should be decided" which is code to pro-values conservatives, may have been sufficient. But he is kind of stuck because he has funded abortion out of his own budget and (if you can believe some recent reporting) out of his own pocket, or his wife's. He does have to answer for that.

2. It seems politically stupid. His pro-choice, pro-Scalia position seems logically inconsistent (it's not, but it seems that way) and loses both pro-life and pro-choice voters. Moreover, most observers believe he cannot get the nomination without the support of "the base" which is decidedly pro-life in the Reagan tradition.

3. He cedes the values vote to Romney or whichever late entrant (Gingrich? Romney?) is able to pick it up.

4. It threatens to make him a single-issue candidate on an issue that is a loser nationally. See also Bush's 28 percent approval rating. His "I'll take it to Abu" rallying cry is not resonating right now with a strong majority of voters.

5. He repeatedly fails to raise the larger issues, that we are a nation of laws, a federation where decisions should be delegated to the states wherever appropriate, that we have a duty to preserve the separation of powers, and that representative government should be representative not dictatorial. Or it may just be that you don't get a chance to explain what you think in our sound bite culture.

6. The political miscalculation calls his judgment into question, and sound judgment is a key quality that voters look for in a presidential candidate.

Good day for Mitt Romney but frankly I am becoming resigned to the fact that Hillary is our next president. Someone please make it not so.

2 comments:

Sir Saunders said...

Why don't we nominate an actual conservative/libertarian like Fred Thompson. Even Mitt Romney is preferable. Republicians will screw up and nominate some middle of the road goofball. At least if we go down, lets go down swinging! Can somebody say Pat Bucannan?
-Sirsaunders

Tom said...

Rudy has had the last 6 years to devise a strategy to deal with the abortion issue and it's like he barely anticipated the questions anyone would have predicted. Strange.

Post a Comment