Giuliani to stop playing games with abortion

May 10, 2007

Rudy Giuliani’s handling of abortion-related questions the past couple of months has varied between awkward and embarrassing. He’s annoying both sides of the divide and making himself appear foolish in the process.

Giuliani has apparently decided to stop playing games and admit the truth.

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.

At the same time, Mr. Giuliani’s campaign — seeking to accomplish the unusual task of persuading Republicans to nominate an abortion rights supporter — is eyeing a path to the nomination that would try to de-emphasize the early states in which abortion opponents wield a great deal of influence. Instead they would focus on the so-called mega-primary of Feb. 5, in which voters in states like California, New York and New Jersey are likely to be more receptive to Mr. Giuliani’s social views than voters in Iowa and South Carolina.

There are really two angles here — Giuliani coming to grips with his own beliefs and his campaign’s electoral strategy. Only one of these makes sense.

Admitting that he’s a full-blown, regular ol’ pro-choice Republican is definitely the right call for Giuliani. After donating repeatedly to Planned Parenthood, opposing the GOP’s proposed ban on so-called “partial-birth” abortions, backing public funding of abortions, and accepting an award from NARAL, Giuliani’s drive to “moderate” his position was transparently ridiculous. He could have followed Romney and gone for the wholesale flip-flop, but Giuliani knew no one would buy it. He’s left with only one option — grudgingly admitting reality.

As for the politics of all this, Giuliani’s totally screwed.

According to the NYT, which appears to have spoken to Giuliani and his campaign about this at some length, the former NYC mayor thinks he’ll just tread water through Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, but break through in early February when less ideologically-rigid states like California host their primaries.

This is folly. For one thing, if a candidate (in either party) fares poorly in the first three contests, he or she is done for. For another, Giuliani seems confused about Republican primary voters in some of these Feb. 5 states. The California GOP is not remotely moderate; it’s run exclusively by rabid conservatives. They’ll be no more impressed with Giuliani’s pro-choice policies than Republicans in the Bible Belt.

Mr. Giuliani hinted at what aides said would be his uncompromising position on abortion rights yesterday in Huntsville, Ala., where he was besieged with questions about abortion and his donations to Planned Parenthood. “Ultimately, there has to be a right to chose,” he said.

Asked if Republicans would accept that, he said, “I guess we are going to find out.”

Mr. Giuliani acknowledged that his stance on abortion alone might disqualify him with some voters, but he said, “I am at peace with that.”

“Conventional wisdom says he can’t” win the nomination, said Giuliani’s campaign manager Mike DuHaime. “But we believe that based on his record in New York City, based on his leadership when America was tested on Sept. 11, that he can.”

Once his 9/11 “leadership” is subjected to some additional scrutiny, all Giuliani has left is a liberal record on social issues and a complete lack of familiarity with foreign policy.

Bet on the conventional wisdom.

“…I grabbed the arm of then-Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik, and I said to him, “Bernie, thank God George Bush is our president.”

I say it again tonight. I say it again tonight:

Thank God that George Bush is our president, and thank God that Dick Cheney, a man with his experience and his knowledge and his strength and his background, is our vice president…”
-Giuliani 08/30/04

  • Hm, so Giuliani is out of the running as well, after McCain degraded his campaign to utter rubbish. So the GOP is stuck with Romney then?

    Why not thank God for thát. Gore, Edwards, Obama, Clinton… who cares. Anyone of ’em will beat that nut.

  • “Rudy Giuliani “has been seen on the campaign trail wearing a World Series ring, a valuable prize we never knew he had,” reports the Village Voice. Indeed, the New York Yankees “have told Voice that he has four rings, one for every world championship the Yankees won while he was mayor… If it sounds innocent, wait for the price tag. These are certainly no Canal Street cubic zirconia knockoffs.”

    “With Giuliani’s name inscribed in the 1996, 1998, 1999, and 2000 diamond-and-gold rings, memorabilia and baseball experts say they are collectively worth a minimum of $200,000. The Yankees say that Giuliani did pay for his rings — but only $16,000, and years after he had left office. Anyone paying for the rings is as unusual as a mayor getting one, since neither the Yankees nor any other recent champion have sold rings to virtually anyone. The meager payment, however, is less than half of the replacement value of the rings, and that’s a fraction of the market price, especially with the added value of Giuliani’s name.”

    “What’s more troubling is that Giuliani’s receipt of the rings may be a serious breach of the law, and one that could still be prosecuted. New York officials are barred from taking a gift of greater than $50 value from anyone doing business with the city, and under Giuliani, that statute was enforced aggressively against others.””

  • I have mixed feelings about this. I’m no Rudy fan, regardless of his position on choice. But in some ways it would be a great triumph for moderation in American politics in general if he bluntly defended a woman’s right to choose, and said “but vote for me anyway, because everyone disagrees on some things, and you should still like me for x, y and z” — and the silent majority in the Republican party rose up and took their party back from the bullying charlatans who stole in in the 1980s.

    The bigger strategic issue that I am interested in is what happens if Rudy is nominated and loses in the general. Does it create momentum for a move back to normalcy to have both parties field candidates who are from the real world on social issues, or would a socially moderate Rethug running and losing strengthen the wingnuts who would argue “we tried it your way, moderates, and lost, so go to hell (like we know you heathen will anyway), the Taliban wing is, to quote our hero Al Haig, in charge here now!” (That outcome may actually be very good for Dems electorally for the near future, but partisanship aside I think it would be very bad for the country as a whole.)

  • My perspective (from someone who grew up in a Christian household in a small southern town) for some time now is that abortion and homosexuality drive large portions of “the base”.

    To write off a cross-dressing abortion rights supporter seems like a no-brainer. Having said that, I’ve also wondered how well the base have been manipulated to ascribe the same spiritual/moral attributes to real issues (e.g.: taxation, defense, environment), that have solidified their stance on the “big two”.

    In other words, it’s these “real issues” that matter to those who have used the media and political machinations to drive otherwise unqualified citizens to the polls. Their ultimate goal is to conflate non-morality issues (the inheritance tax, tort reform, increased military spending, reduced domestic spending, deregulation, etc.) with the issues that matter to the well-meaning but ignorant church-going masses.

    Whether this sinks Giuliani will serve as a revealing test of my theory that the right have largely succeeded in convincing millions of Americans that Federal Bankruptcy laws are as immoral as “baby killing”.

  • I don’t know, Zeitgeist has a good point. Combine Rudy’s atytack of honesty, teh 11 from congress telling Bush/Cheney/Rove they are no longer credible, and the story about Gilchrist from yesterday maybe Rudy is betting on moderation in the GOP.

    If I were a GOP strategist and I new I had to run from Bush Co. I would say be agressive, put on your dress, and walk down the middle of the road giving the finger to Dobson and Robertson as you go.

    JTK has a valid point, reflexive votes from the Jesus crowd are troubling but think about Rudy running a Dean style 50 state strategy. A moderate Republican could win every suburb from Jersey to Seattle as well as part of the looney South.

    It comes to this…Rudy G. (former mayor of NYC, New York City- get a rope) versus Hillary Rodham-Clinton (Senator from NY and obvious America hating she-devil) – If you are a bible thumping, god fearing, Dobson donating Christian, whom do you choose?

  • Why does everyone assume that the New Hampshire GOP is socially conservative? I haven’t seen the numbers, but aren’t these people mostly “leave me alone” Republicans? And isn’t it an open primary anyway? If he wins N.H. (or runs second to almost-favorite-son Mitt), maybe he still has a shot.

  • Your choices are a Mormon or a pro-lifer if you are in the GOP.

    A) Isn’t it nice to see the other side finally without a credible candidate.
    B) Rudy can go center with his stiffest competition being Mormon.
    C) Even if we lose the election, it looks like we are going to have a fairly moderate R in the office, and I am in no way thinking we are going to lose.
    D) EVERYONE keeps saying that a pro-life R can not win the nomination, BS, every election has a candidate who has never does this or that. Military, Foreign Policy, Woman, Black, Son, Wife, and on and on….
    E) I just don’t see the base picking a Mormon over a Christian, no matter the views.

    Rudy screwed up by trying to hid the fact. now no one trusts him.

    And I am shocked that he didn’t say the ex donated the funds, seriously $900 over 4 years is nothing, Small enough that people would have believed that they never discussed it. So why did he, I doubt it was some sort of epiphany.

  • ScottW–never for a second think of Rudy as a “moderate.” What he is, is a fucking nut with a mean streak and a God complex. Period, full stop. His “moderation,” on issues that aren’t all that relevant to most people anyway, were fully a function of where he was running.

    If he’s going to alienate the Christatollah wing of the Republican Party, he’ll hew even closer to the free-market fundamentalists–who are a lot scarier. Giuliani’s deficits could make Bush deficits look small and reasonable.

    The only way he can win is, as MNProgressive implies, that we nominate the candidate whom half the country has already written off. Of course, from a strategic POV, if we do that, we deserve to lose, and we will.

  • Those of us New Yorkers and former New Yorkers really haven’t worried about a Rudy Presidency, because we remember him as Mayor at a time (pre-9/11) when he was largely unhinged. Affairs, affiliations with mob related people (Kerik), temper tantrums, mean spirited decisions, and, best of all, the spectacular bizarre behavior. Ain’t no way this man will cut it with the national electorate, 9/11 heroism or not. Sooner or later he will explode out like a stellar supernova spewing craziness over everyone in a very public fashion.

    To see a New Yorker’s insight (I’ve been gone for most of this), read Michael Wolff’s article in Vanity Fair. It’s online. “Crazy for Rudy.” Indeed.

  • I don’t see it as a contest between Rudy and Mitt. Like a serpent in the tall grass, Newt Gingrich is waiting for the right time to strike. After his come-to-Jesus talk with Dobson, I’m guess that the base will be overjoyed to embrace the newly-born-again jackass.

  • I’m holding out hope this issue will cause some big rifts in the Repub party. What makes this situation so unusual is that for the first time a Republican candidate is being forced to admit the truth and not just keep telling the base what they want to hear. Will it finally get through to Republican voters that the only way a candidate can get the party’s nomination is to shamelessly lie about what they believe in?

    • Comments are closed.