‘He’s toast’

On Wednesday, Rudy Giuliani told CNN that he still supports public funding for abortion. On Thursday, Giuliani took his message on the road to South Carolina.

Rudolph W. Giuliani, campaigning in South Carolina, firmly stated that as president he would not seek to make abortion illegal.

Aware of the damage his position might do to him among some conservative voters, Mr. Giuliani said that if someone was inclined to vote against him solely because of his stance on abortion, then so be it.

“I think abortion is wrong,” he said. “But ultimately, I think it is a woman’s right, a woman’s choice. And government should not interfere with it by imposing criminal penalties on people.”

Oddly enough, he even stepped on his own anti-abortion message from a month ago, when Giuliani started telling audiences that his own pro-choice beliefs don’t matter, because he’d overturn Roe through right-wing judicial nominees. Yesterday, however, Giuliani even backpedaled away from this line, telling South Carolinians, “The present state of the law on these issues is not something that I would seek to change.”

Clemson University political scientist Dave Woodard said, “He’s toast. I think it’s going to be really hard for him to overcome this in South Carolina.”

I find it impossible to come to any other conclusion. If Giuliani supports public funding of abortion, he necessarily supports repeal of the Hyde Amendment, a landmark policy for conservatives for the last 30 years, which prohibits use of Medicare funds going to abortion except in the case of rape, incest, or the life of the woman. I don’t care how much fawning publicity Giuliani got in the immediate aftermath of 9/11; the Republican Party’s NARAL wing simply doesn’t exist.

Atrios noted that Giuliani is “either more honest than I expected or no one has sat him down and taught him the proper code words on this issue…. If he knew the right language he could get away with expressing almost the same thing without pissing off every conservative voter.”

I agree, and suspect this is where Giuliani’s arrogance gets in the way.

One almost gets the sense that the former NYC mayor thinks he can excel despite his progressive pro-choice beliefs because, he’s Rudy Giuliani.

Especially after the CNN interview of Wednesday, Giuliani’s staff must have had a chat with the candidate about the issue and it’s likely impact on Republican primary voters (who have backed a pro-choice GOP presidential nominee exactly zero times since Roe v. Wade was decided). Did Giuliani not listen? Or does he just not care because, well, he’s Rudy Giuliani.

As for the broader implications, I think Giuliani’s chutzpah-driven pro-choice position makes John McCain look a little worse. As Edward Copeland said in comments yesterday, “Maybe McCain should give [Giuliani] the keys to the Straight Talk Express.”

Indeed, McCain can’t answer questions about any social policy without a) flip-flopping; or b) stuttering while pondering what James Dobson might want him to say. In contrast, Giuliani is taking a firm-but-unpopular stand. It’s going to cost Giuliani the nomination, but it most definitely qualifies as “straight talk.”

I’d add just one more thought: I think this helps former Sen. Fred Thompson (R) of Tennessee. The top three GOP candidates look less and less impressive as time goes on. Giuliani had a very strong March, but this week reminds the political world of why his appeal is limited. The party’s base still doesn’t trust McCain, can’t quite stomach Romney, and doesn’t believe that Huckabee or Brownback can win the general election.

By announcing his support for publicly-funded abortion, Giuliani is opening the door to a credible outsider to get into the race. That almost certainly means Thompson, doesn’t it?

It could be a clever gambit for Rudy. It makes him far more appealing in the general election, and if polls show that every other Repubilcan candidate would be creamed by Hilary, the Republicans will hold their noses and nominate what they see as the lesser of two evils.

  • There’s a side issue here that I think everyone’s missing. First, a Republican who openly endorses a woman’s right to an abortion—not to mention allowing public funds to pay for it—is going to appeal to a very large segment of “one-issue” voters. There is such a thing, by the way—how do you think George/Dick got re-elected? They played a “single-issue” card.

    Second, there’s been bits and pieces of grumbling among the Reichsters for years now about how “abortion rights” primarily benefit Democrats, and “social subgroups” who are prone to support Democratic-party issues. Roo-Dee might be playing the “let-them-kill-themselves-off-slowly” card here. It’s been played before—in the competing-kingdom constructs of early Medieval Europe and Asia….

  • Too early to call anyone toast. The primaries are still along way off and a lot can happen to or around any of these guys. My opinion, anyway.

  • Definitely too early, but you have to wonder what he’s doing. I think there is a little Keith Hernandez from Seinfeld attitude, and I also think he believes he will be able to save the GOP from the Dobsons and Falwells of the world. Um…good luck with that.

  • I’m not a big Rudy Giuliani fan, but I find this post (and others by Leftie bloggers) disappointing. Beyond disappointing — hack-like and partisan.

    A Republican states his pro-choice position. Clearly. Taking pains to even renounce the code words. I’d call that unambiguous. Arguably commendable.

    The only reaction from the Left? To attack Giuliani, more or less on tactical grounds, “ah, he’s losing the horse race,” or, as in the weeds of this post, to stretch for some imagined mis-playing of the code words (as evidence of arrogance?). Please.

    If any lefty blogger has said something like “Rudy shows some integrity and firmness here, on an issue that I favor. I’m impressed,” let me know.

  • How long before some archbishop says Rudy can’t take communion?

    Would this Easter Sunday be too early? Or is this another case of IOKIYAR?

  • commissar-while his position on abortion may, in fact, be appropriate to left-leaners and commendable in that respect, when contrasted with his other positions, it still leaves him totally unacceptable as a presidential candidate imho. so i would hardly congratulate him for getting one thing right when everything else remains so wrong.

  • I agree with The Commissar above. I don’t particularly like Guiliani, and would never vote for him, but I do approve of his coming out and saying what he believes in. Whether it’s arrogance or truth-saying, I don’t know, but it’s certainly better than Mitt Romney, who will clearly say anything to anybody to get elected.

    Read this week’s strips in Doonesbury to see some first-rate skewering of Romney.

  • “so i would hardly congratulate him for getting one thing right when everything else remains so wrong.”

    Why not?

    But even your comment is atypical. So far, I haven’t seen the Leftie blogger that even says what you say. Not at all. On this event, they suddenly deem it appropriate to switch into “horse-race” mode … “Rudy made a big mistake. He’s toast. The base will kill him. It’s his arrogance.”

    Sheesh.

  • Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is “settled law”. The minority who favor re-criminalizing abortion is truly minuscule. Unless and until we have a Theocrat revolution — in which case the United States will have ceased existence — it will remain that way. I’m very happy watching Republicans and religious fanatics shrilly tearing themselves to pieces over this silly issue. Which raises the questions: is there any way to get them to waste what’s left of their precious bodily fluids internally debating the repeal of other decisions, like the 15th (race), 19th (gender) or 21st (booze)?

  • Guiliani’s comments, recently highlighted by Glenn Greenwald, that he thinks presidents have an intrinsic power to suspend any citizen’s rights to due process, make him utterly unacceptable to me as a candidate. What he is saying here about abortion cannot make up for his believing authoritarian nonsense.

    On the horse-race question, I think CB is right. There’s no way the GOP primary electorate will look past open defiance on the abortion issue.

  • re The Commissar, various posts and responses…

    If this recent statement represents the position Giuliani sticks with, I’ll be happy to give him credit for showing moral courage and political independence. I’ll also offer that it’s refreshing and welcome to hear even this much movement off the dime from a currently top ranking republican candidate. But as noted earlier, we’ve a long way to go.

  • I have grudgingly gained some respect for Giuliani on this. Insofar as an election is about the issues and personalities, AND an election is about the horserace, I will also add that he is arrogant and is most likely toast.

    If you want to accuse me of trying to have it both ways, go for it. But the fact is that I don’t vote in the Republican primary, so while Rudy may have just (somewhat) endeared himself to me, I also believe he has shot himself in the foot tactically.

  • Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is “settled law”.

    Unless and until you get five supreme court justices to say otherwise. We are quite close to this right now.

    Also, settled law or not, if it becomes a practical impossibility to keep open an abortion clinic due to constant harassment, the ruling is moot, de facto if not de jure.

  • Here’s a scary thought: what if Giuliani is actually campaigning to be the Democratic VP candidate? Clinton could not legally use him (they are both from the same state) but Giuliani’s position clarified just about the same time that Clinton started looking less inevitable.

  • To me this proves that Rudy’s mindset is still stuck in New York City politics where he excelled. The Republican political glue was tax cuts for the rich and social ultraconservatism for the poor. I wonder what Rudy will offer to hold the mix together for the election.

  • Is this a personality quirk, i.e arrogance, or a tactical decsion by the Giuliani campaign? I am not sure, but this is a false dichotomy. The tactics could be molded around Giuliani’s personality, that is he speaks reflexively and can’t be counted on hewing to disingenuous positions when under pressure. And the tactic may have bee born out of observations of McCain’s self-destruction as he literally wrapped his arms around Junior and figuratively around Falwell.

    As much as I’d like to write Rudy off-he’ll be a formidable candidate in the general election, if he continues to be the new McCain and the anti-Romeny- I won’t just yet.

  • All this shows is the Guliani knows a LOT more about the Republican party than you think you do.

    Democrats blithely assume that if a Republican takes a position diametrically opposed to the Republican position on an issue they scream regularly about — say abortion — that means he won’t win the nomination.

    Wrong! Republicans love Rudy for his militarism, his gung-ho jingoistic nationalism, his authoritarian-loving “hippie-hating” prosecutor-in-chief personality. In short, it’s a tribal thing and he’s “one of them” in a way that McCain never was and never will be.

    Just like Rush Limbaugh can get away with being a pill-popping womanizer without losing support from the fundies, Guliani gets a pass on abortion. It doesn’t matter if Rush is caught smuggling viagra in from the Bahamas or wherever. They believe and that’s all their is to it.

    They want to win and hold power. Guliani gives them the best, indeed the only chance to do so. Thus, the Sheeple of the Republican party will do what they are told and vote Guliani.

    They will even take delight in the consternation in the rest of the country about “why don’t they care about Guliani’s former positions on abortion and gun-control and immigration?”

    “We’re confusing the hell out of the faggots and the hippies and the librul media aren’t we? Heh, heh!”

  • Being a GOOPer myself, I wouldn’t word it the way Cugel did, but he is onto something. He has a more productive (if shrilly-worded) perspective on the matter.

    I appreciate and thank the commenters who tossed out some nice words. (And I bet it didn’t hurt a bit … Okay, only a little.)

  • Commisar: I don’t think CB said that Rudy is toast. It was actually said by a polysci prof from Clemson and is attributed to him. That is an unbiased opinion from someone who watches politics in the South.

    That said…Rudy shows some integrity and firmness here, on an issue that I favor. I’m impressed.

    Still, if he is looking to win the GOP nomination, I don’t believe his position on this issue is going to help him. Other than pointing out the difference between him and the flip-floppers (McCain, Romney), I don’t think it does much to improve his chances. In fact, and maybe Commisar would care to comment….I believe that a majority (not all) of GOP “values” voters would vote for candidates in this fashion:

    1. Those truly conservative on social issues (Tancredo)
    2. Those who are willing to bend their beliefs to fit conservative social agendas (Romney, McCain)
    3. Anyone but Clinton (Giuliani)

  • So then Commissar, am I to believe you are a true conservative Republican (ie small government fiscal conservative)?

    If so, then this admin must have you banging your head on the wall.

  • As a longtime NYC resident, I can give you dozens of reasons to vote against Il Rudy, and heretofore just one to vote for him: his strong support for gay rights. I always figured he’d stick with that one and ditch his moderate views on abortion; that he’s sticking to his guns on both is, I guess, a tribute to his integrity, and a surprise to me.

    He still stinks on ice. He blew a $6 billion hole in our city’s budget (given Bush’s enduring popularity with the Zombie Army, this presumably won’t hurt him amongst Republicans, but it should amongst thinking conservatives), gave away the store to corporations, greatly heightened racial tensions in NYC, and failed conspicuously in counter-terrorism leading up to and on the day of 9/11–which, of course, is almost the entire rationale for his candidacy.

    Rudy’s had it easy so far–the press has been good to him until very recently, and he’s raised a lot of money. Now with less flattering coverage, I think it’s only a matter of time until he blows up at a town hall questioner meeting, or spits an obscene insult at someone on a handshake line, and that’s what will sink him. He’s not a nice guy, to say the least, and he hasn’t been in a really tough political fight since he edged Dinkins in the 1993 mayoral race. I don’t think he has the stomach for it, frankly. Don’t be shocked if he’s out even before Iowa.

  • Cugel,

    Just like Rush Limbaugh can get away with being a pill-popping womanizer without losing support from the fundies, Guliani gets a pass on abortion.

    Only if he recants on gun control or gays. He can’t have the socially liberal position on all three and win the GOP nomination IMO. Given his uncompromising stance on abortion, he may actually need to move right on both gun control *and* gays. I think Mr. Carpetbagger has it right though. Guiliani’s arrogance just took him out of the running. I predict we’ll see a much worse campaign finance report for Q2.

    I think Giuliani’s chutzpah-driven pro-choice position makes John McCain look a little worse.

    This is where I diverge from Mr. Carpetbagger. I think this actually strengthens McCain’s chances, unless Thompson can steal some talent away from the top 3 front runner teams. absent that it solidifies McCain’s chances to win the GOP nomination, IMO.

  • Rudy is fine. His brand of facism will win over the South Carolinian evangelicals, who will use his facist state to impose any damn limitations on abortion they like.

    If the President can ignore Congress cutting funding for a war or throw Americans into jail without due process, what chance does a woman’s right to choose have under Guiliani?

  • Comments are closed.