The Candidates
Race42008.com has obtained from a confidential source the 1997 NARAL/NY PAC questionnaire complete by then candidate for Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Nine questions that are asked include whether the candidate agrees with the substance of Roe v. Wade, whether the candidate supports Medicaid funding of abortions “without any restrictions,” and whether the candidate opposes legislation requiring parental notification or consent for minors to obtain an abortion. To each of these Giuliani answered “yes.” The questionnaire also asks whether the candidate would “oppose legislation that would make criminals of doctors who perform intact D&X [partial birth] abortions.” Again Giuliani answered “yes” to each of these. Other questions ask whether he would support inclusion of contraceptive and abortion services in all “health care delivery packages,” requiring OB/Gyn graduate training hospitals to require abortion training and including comprehensive sex education in public schools. Once again Giuliani answered “yes” to all of these.
When contacted this evening and read the questionnaire, a Giuliani aide would not comment on the specific answers to the survey but did say; “The Mayor will be addressing many of these issues in the survey tomorrow and will be explaining how his thinking has evolved over time.” When pressed for more specificity the aide declined further comment.
A source close to the Giuliani camp suggested that the questionnaire’s “yes” and “no” format might not reflect his full thinking but acknowledged it would be helpful for the Mayor to give voters a clearer view of his thinking.
Giuliani of course has been under attack since the first Presidential debate when he said it would be “okay” if Roe v. Wade was overturned and “okay” if not. Within days both John McCain and his campaign chief John Weaver made tough comments suggesting Giuliani was out of the mainstream of GOP voters and would have a tough time winning the nomination. Giuliani campaign officials in a recent blogger call indicated that they recognized that certain one issue voters might refuse to vote for him but were confident that voters would consider the “whole candidate” when deciding for whom to vote. Giuliani, who unlike his opponent Mitt Romney has refused to repudiate his earlier views, will have the opportunity to explain himself tomorrow and at the next Presidential debate and fully test that hypothesis.
May 10th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
What were GWB’s and McCain’s positions 8 years ago on overturning Roe?
May 10th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1619300,00.html
The TIME article outlines Giuliani’s decision going forward to be solidly pro-choice, arguing his forthrightness will consolidate his reputation for toughness.
One could argue he should have done that from the start. Are the Giuliani supporters out there still argue that he’s effectively pro-life cos he’s promised to appoint Scalia types? I think what he’s done is good, its better to be honest than naunced.
May 10th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
Nice exclusive from Jennifer.
As people have been commenting, it appears from all the evidence that the Mayor is as close to being an abortion advocate as he is to being merely pro-choice.
It comes across in his answers about whether Roe v. Wade should be overturned and his statements that he personally hates abortion. The strict constructionist lines get obliterated by the evidence and other statements. Giuliani seemingly is uncomfortable with most, if not all, aspects of the pro-life side of the debate.
Let’s see what light his abortion speech sheds on how he will campaign on the issue from here on out.
Not only is the abortion issue tripping the Mayor up, it is crowding out any other messages he may have.
Does anyone believe the Republican Party is ready to nominate a pro-choice/abortion advocate for president? I don’t.
My guess is that in consolidating his position on abortion, the Mayor will trigger the long-awaited group denouncement from various social conservative leaders that has been kept on ice, which will reflect and give voice to the intra-party civil war his nomination would cause.
I think it is a principled but fatal political position he will be taking.
May 10th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
Yes, crowding out his tough guy messages, and making him not look like a tough guy. Doubly bad. He’s doing the right thing now, as amazing as that may sound according to the conventional wisdom.
Regarding my #1: I had thought serious GOP Presidential candidates were always coy on overturning Roe… am I wrong?
May 10th, 2007 at 10:52 pm
If he gets out of this one, Billy Clinton will be calling him slick.
May 10th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
LOL! I love it, Tommy. My dad has never called him President Clinton. It’s always been “Slick Willy.”
David B: Republicans are pro-life. That’s (one of the reasons) why I haven’t figured out why Rudy thinks he’s Republican. “I say it is, therefore it’s true”?
*shrug*
Don’t ask me, I’m just a Romneybot.
Hava
http://mittforpresident.wordpress.com/
May 10th, 2007 at 11:02 pm
David B (in #4), I think serious GOP presidential candidates lately have been clear on overturning Roe v. Wade (they want to because they believe it was wrongly decided), but hesitate in embracing the 100% Ivory-pure pro-life position that a constitutional amendment banning abortion should be suppported (which realistically the country is not close to being ready for).
In the Reagan Library debate, there were 9 unflinchingly affirmative responses to the question as to whether it would be a good day if Roe v. Wade was overturned, and then there was the Mayor’s response as the 10th…
May 10th, 2007 at 11:02 pm
Hava: The question was not about being pro-life.
May 10th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
Did he run as a Republican to avoid the Dem primary in NY? I know Bloomberg did.
Before Giuliani supporters rush to his defence, I think he sits uncomforatbly in the middle. He is part-Republican, part-Liberal. Hard to be a pro-choice Republican though, just ask Gerald Ford…
May 10th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
And on that question you’re only about 65% right.
May 10th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
Gerald Ford was middle of the road on everything. So are most pro-choice Republicans. Rudy is not. He is an individual man. He is a leader.
May 10th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
#11, what on earth is that supposed to mean? Others aren’t leaders? Others aren’t individuals?
May 10th, 2007 at 11:08 pm
With all due respect, those who believed the Giuliani line about strict constructionist judges was a precursor to him evolving into a functionally pro-life candidate were either deluding themselves or guilty of not researching his background thoroughly.
This was all inevitable. Giuliani is nowhere near pro-life.
May 10th, 2007 at 11:10 pm
David B (in #11), Giuliani is no leader when it comes to protecting the unborn, which is a deal-breaker for a huge number of Republicans.
And what kind of Republican leader supports Mario Cuomo for governor over the GOP nominee, George Pataki?
I could go on. There are a lot of holes, as the campaign will uncover, in the Giuliani as a great leader theme.
May 10th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
Cool! Rudy’s going to explain how his thinking has “evolved” on some of those issues (I’m assuming he means partial birth, mandatory national abortion funding, parental consent/notification). Good thing he’s standing resolute, without any of the wishy-washy waffling that so characterizes Romney.
But seriously, Giuliani explaining how he’s come to believe in parental consent, and oppose partial birth, and national abortion funding, is refreshing. I can’t imagine I’m going to believe him, but he deserves some credit for finally conceding he had to explain some of this stuff. I’m always open to conversion stories.
May 10th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
#14 is true, and a logical fallacy as a response.
May 10th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
Republius,
I will offer a third option for those of us who thought Rudy would run as functionally pro-life. Rather than delusional or misinformed, perhaps we underestimated how important Rudy’s pro-choice views were to him. I suppose that could be a subset of misinformed, but some very informed NR writers saw the Coverdell strategy coming too, just like Kavon and I did. I think it’s just possible that Rudy cares a lot more about keeping abortion legal than we thought he did. If he goes forward with an outspoken pro-abortion candidacy, he won’t be the nominee. And that’s a shame, because he would’ve made a very good president.
May 10th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
DaveG: You may be right. But it’s also a gamble that just may have the math to make it work.
May 10th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
There’s a very good chance that Rudy will not even compete in Iowa & will finish at most 3rd (behind Romney/McCain) in New Hampshire. Can he come back from there in order to be viable for Super Tuesday. Thats quite a gamble, because you can expect most other competitors to drop out and back one of the other pro-life candidates.
I don’t think that will work for him. As 2004 showed, if you can win the first couple, you’re in play. If you do poorly (Lieberman, Dean) you’re out.
May 10th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
DaveG (in #16), I will admit to having deluded myself in this regard from last fall up until a couple of months ago. I knew the Giuliani record but downplayed, if not ignored, it in some significant aspects (including this one).
Had Giuliani embraced the functionally pro-life approach that many of us advocated, I am convinced the nomination (at a minimum) would have been his to lose. Now I am convinced it is just a matter of time before he loses.
The more I look into the Giuliani record, however (and there is a lot there to digest), the less covinced I am that he would have been a very good president. I think he is way overrated as a leader and has a questionable temperament and managerial style for the task.
This is why I am for folks holding back a bit more and allowing the campaign to vet these candidates before we conclude who the strongest nominee would be (and I at least hope most of us can agree that electing a Democrat president is unacceptable in 2008). We all have a lot to learn about these GOP candidates, not to mention the vast majority who are not even paying attention at this juncture.
May 10th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
JayPe: The primary process is fundamentally this year. So it’s hard to say.
May 10th, 2007 at 11:27 pm
“and I at least hope most of us can agree that electing a Democrat president is unacceptable in 2008″
Republius (#20) would you accept Richardson? He is moderate on some issues (e.g. guns - actually better than anyone else in the race on either side I believe), but still pro-choice. He is also definitely a leader. And has only had one wife.
Depending on the Republican candidate, I think he’d be acceptable.
May 10th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
JayPe,
I think Rudy has absolutely no chance if he abandons Iowa and NH. I recognize that not competing is better than losing, but winning is really the only option. With the current primary schedule the GOP has never nominated a candidate that didn’t win at least one of those states. Iowa and NH usually effectively ends the campaigns of everyone except for a couple of candidates. Those votes will consolidate around the candidate with the momentum which will wipe Rudy out in almost every Feb. 5th state.
Even in New Jersey Rudy polls at less than 50%. In most states where he is doing great he polls in the 30s. That isn’t enough support to win a nomination and his new openness about social issues will guarantee that he can’t pull more support that what he already has.
May 10th, 2007 at 11:30 pm
JayPe (in #19) and David B (in #18), I think that JayPe will be shown correct and that if Giuliani does poorly in the first few states (Iowa, New Hampshire, Florida, and South Carolina) that it will significantly eat into his theoretical firewall of large states on February 5. Momentum, I think, will be important, even with a compressed calendar. In addition, Giuliani is going to get pounded in the debates and in national polls and by conservatives until then (after making this pro-choice speech), which is not going to bolster his efforts in larger, more liberal states - especially because abortion is not his only weakness, as the campaign will uncover, I think.
The strategy Giuliani is suggesting is very risky, but if he is committed to consolidating his pro-choice stance in order not to get tripped up on the issue going forward, then it is the only delegate strategy left for him - if he makes it that far.
May 10th, 2007 at 11:32 pm
What proportion of Republicans are pro-choice? As we saw at the debate, he has that segment of the field to himself…
May 10th, 2007 at 11:32 pm
David B,
I may be in the minority on this, but I think the new primary schedule makes it even more important to win and gain momentum in Iowa, NH and SC. The only story that people will hear between those results and Feb. 5th will be who won/lost and who has the momentum. All the ad time in the world won’t change the fact that the news will have much more influence on people’s opinions than 30 second ads “approved by Rudy Giuliani”.
May 10th, 2007 at 11:33 pm
I agree with Dskinner (#26)
May 10th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
If Rudy’s campaign publicly announces they are not competing in early states, and publicly announces a goal to win CA, NY and X other Mega Tuesday states, then, especially if he remains the national frontrunner, that message will be included in every broadcast and story about the results of the early states.
And if he finishes in an early state within a few points of candidates who spent weeks and millions of dollars there, it will be counted as a victory.
May 10th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
JayPe: ~35% of Republicans are pro-choice.
May 10th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
JayPe,
The only problem is that pro-choice GOPers don’t vote on the issue or they would be Dems. It is entirely possible for a majority of pro-choice GOPers to vote for another candidate. Not likely but it’s not like they are a secure segment for Giuliani based on that issue.
May 10th, 2007 at 11:36 pm
I never quite bought the functionally pro-life argument. In my opinion, Rudy should have simply came out against Roe (a flip, but one he’s easily capable of defending articulately, as he surely knows all the bases on which Roe is considered wrongly decided by constitutionalists), and then essentially said “I’m pro-choice, and I know most of you aren’t going to agree with that position, but I have enormous respect for the pro-life movements role in causing society to think more critically about life. 20 years ago, many women were arguing they should able to allow offspring with genetic diseases to die, because had they been able to test them for the diseases, they would surely have aborted them. They called it post-birth abortion. Today, in no small part because of your efforts, even the most staunch pro-choicer realizes the heartbreaking potential moral consequences of abortion.”
And then essentially move on to other issues, like judges, and terror. Compliment pro-lifers, rather then caricaturing them. I don’t think he even needed to flip on partial birth or parental consent (though I think opposing the Hyde amendment would have been too much). He just needed to emphasize that he agreed with their constitutionality. That wouldn’t have gotten him to “functionally pro-life”, because he’d still be willing to sign various types of abortion laws, but it’d give him credibility on judges, which he no longer has, and it wouldn’t openly challenge the pro-life movement, nor infuriate them. At all costs though, he needed to refrain from defending his pro-abortion position in any substantive way. Because when you defend a position, where almost everyone around you disagrees with you, they’re inclined to argue. And they may get quite angry. And they’ll suspect that you’re trying to change the face of the party and, when your supporters defend you using pro-abortion arguments, you’ll feel even more as if your movement being undermined.
May 10th, 2007 at 11:39 pm
David B,
You may be right in 28, but it still means that instead of gaining support and momentum he will just maintain his 30%. While that is happening the winner(s) will be gaining support and momentum which I think will be more than enough to overcome Rudy in every Feb. 5th state other than NY and NJ.
May 10th, 2007 at 11:40 pm
Dskinner: Except delegates are winner-take-all in most states, so 30% –> 50%+.
May 10th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Dskinner (#30) is correct. I’m a pro-choice Republican so it’s a non-issue for me. I vote Republican because I’m conservative on national defense, foreign policy, economy, etc. So even though I fall into that 35%, Rudy isn’t my candidate anyway.
May 10th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Patrick, Why wouldn’t you be for Rudy?
May 10th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
Rudy is my #2, behind McCain.
May 10th, 2007 at 11:43 pm
JayPe (in #22), I think Governor Richardson is running a weasel campaign, trying to find a niche in the Democrat field as a conservative when he is a pretty tried and true liberal. I don’t think he is nearly as small government and anti-tax as he claims, and he is way too traditional a Democrat to avoid the foundational ideological problems that make Democrats unacceptable to me: pro-big government, anti-military, anti-covert intelligence, pro-affirmative action, pro-abortion, pro-taxes, pro-illegal immigration, pro-multiculturalism, pro-economic redistribution, pro-radical environmentalism, pro-class warfare, pro-the Constitution as an evolving organism, anti-free trade, anti-free market, etc.
The only Democrat I could support is Zell Miller, who is functionally a Republican (and refuses to change parties only out of deference to his family history) and would never run as a Democrat. Even Evan Bayh is too liberal for me. Don’t even bring up Joe Lieberman, who is liberal on everything except the Iraq war.
I think Giuliani is a moderate to liberal but would be more conservative than any Democrat who could get nominated.
May 10th, 2007 at 11:43 pm
David,
My point is that Rudy may be stuck at 30-40% while the winner of Iowa, NH and SC would surge to 40-50%.
May 10th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
Patrick: How do you square economic conservatism with supporting McCain?
May 10th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
Dskinner: Yes, that might happen. But so might the scenario I outline. Trust me, a lot of California voters are tired of Iowans and South Carolinians choosing our nominees.
May 10th, 2007 at 11:50 pm
DavidB,
Your scenario is exactly what Rudy’s camp is counting on. I wouldn’t bet on it, but anything is possible when it is still 7 months from Iowa.
May 10th, 2007 at 11:51 pm
David B #39: Spending limits and anti-pork. Look, I’m all for lower taxes, and I cringe every time I look at my paycheck even with the Bush tax cuts, but I believe that we also need to be cutting back and balancing the budget. Take the war, for example, which I fully support. While the tax cuts may help the economy from our perspective, I don’t think it’s necessarily a good idea to have a tax cut while you’re fighting a war. Then again, I’m a sailor not an economist.
An American family does not spend like the federal government. We bring in a certain amount, and most spend less than that. The government should (try to) operate the same way. McCain is very vocal about wasting money, and I like that. I respect that he opposed the tax cuts (standing alone without spending reduction) on principle, but now would keep them in effect so taxes don’t go back up.
On the other hand, Rudy put NYC something like $40 million in debt. That’s the kind of stuff I would like to avoid.
May 10th, 2007 at 11:53 pm
(#37) I think some of that is a little unfair. Bush has been pro big government in all bar rhetoric, and hasn’t been very kind to the military by sending them to the Iraqi quagmire.
I think Richardson’s record in New Mexico has been quite good re taxes & trade & supply side economics.
May 10th, 2007 at 11:56 pm
Patrick: I suggest you consult with Cato and Club for Growth regarding John McCain. He has tried to sabotage over half the economic conservative struggles of the last 10 years.
Regarding tax cuts in wartime: It worked, didn’t it? Rather than having a recession, as McCain and others would’ve pushed us into, we are growing strongly, with the growth adding to tax revenues and paying the war.
Rudy slashed both NYC taxes AND payrolls (and welfare). He recently stated that he would not replace 50% of the federal govt workforce retiring during his term(s), which amounts to a huge cut in government.
I need to research Rudy and NYC debt. He created a surplus, and I’m guessing what happened is the dot-com crash hit Wall Street hard and severely chopped tax revenues.
May 10th, 2007 at 11:57 pm
Agreed, Patrick. I find it awfully puzzling when Rudy supporters say things like “how can you, as an economic conservative, justify supporting anyone but Rudy?” Sure, Rudy’s mostly an economic conservative. But, in some pretty serious ways, his tenure in NYC demonstrated, that he’s not. And McCain, Romney, and Thompson (plus m any second tier candidates) have an awful lot to recommend them in this regard as well. I think a plausible case can be made that Rudy is the best economic conservative in the race. I’d disagree strongly, but it’s not an absurd argument. But I don’t think any case can be made that he’s the ONLY economic conservative.
May 11th, 2007 at 12:01 am
Matt: Exactly. I have nothing really *against* Rudy per se, I just prefer McCain, and have since 2000.
May 11th, 2007 at 12:01 am
Matt: I didn’t say he was the only one. Patrick referred to Rudy vs McCain, and McCain is the worst economic conservative in the race. Well, maybe Huckabee, but when you factor in the damage McCain has done and would do…..
May 11th, 2007 at 12:04 am
David B: See, but that’s why aggravates me about Rudy (and his supporters). Your opinion of McCain is just that: your opinion. I, and apparently a good many other people, fail to see how he would cause “damage”. And as far as Club for Growth…they’re no better than any other special interest group as far as I’m concerned. They’ve done some good and they’ve done some bad. And isn’t there a video of one of their top guys (founder maybe) saying some pretty good things about McCain? I think McCain has it on his YouTube site.
May 11th, 2007 at 12:09 am
David B,
I think McCain’s a bonafide economic conservative. His opposition to the tax cuts was, as Patrick noted, both principled and responsible. Frankly, I think fiscal sanity, slashing budgets and the like, is far more significant to economic conservative, then arbitrary tax cuts. Tax cuts should always be followed by spending cuts. My position on the Bush tax cuts in identical to McCain’s. To be sure they worked, but because no one, other then McCain, was willing to hold the party’s feet to the fire about spending, we have a ballooning government, which by any objective measure, is far larger and far more inefficient then anything Clinton devised. Look at the spending increases during the Clinton years. Even considering his slashes to military spending, he was remarkably more fiscally responsible then Bush. And McCain had every right to insist that Bush show fiscal restraint, before lowering government revenues.
May 11th, 2007 at 12:23 am
Just wondering if others share my thoughts here:
1. That unless Rudy says clearly that, “Yes, Roe is bad law,” that he’s done;
2. That pre-Fred, pro-lifers move to McCain (he’s been more consistent than Romney);
3. That post-Fred, it becomes Fred v. McCain; and
4. That you’re as confused as I am about why Rudy is not taking the easy road to the GOP nomination (apology for PP donations; stays pro-choice while maintaining that Roe is bad law).
May 11th, 2007 at 12:24 am
I forgot to add I’m all for spending cuts, and Rudy would be a big improvement over Bush in that regard.
McCain would cut some spending, and also cut our economy because he doesn’t understand supply-side economics. Neither do the two of you. I suggest you do some reading up on economic conservatism.
May 11th, 2007 at 12:25 am
ben: I don’t share those thoughts, except for #2.
May 11th, 2007 at 12:33 am
Why not Brownback? CATO and Club for Growth think he’s just as good as Rudy in economic conservatism (maybe even better according to Club for Growth) AND we can be certain that he’s realiably socially conservative.
May 11th, 2007 at 12:36 am
Tom: Because he’s a charicature of religious conservative Republicanism that turns off the middle.
May 11th, 2007 at 12:39 am
So I guess he is going to be like JFK going down to Houston Tomorrow to talk about this issue.
May 11th, 2007 at 12:45 am
If Rudy was Smart he will Denouce and attack Dems on the “White Guys with the Confedarte Flag on their Pick Up Trunk” talk. The whole you dumb hicks who vote agisnt their interest on Ecomonic Issues because of the socical issues.
May 11th, 2007 at 12:46 am
I think he can appeal to quite a lot of people when they find out about him… I mean he’s clearly a religious conservative but because of that he reaches out to the left on issues like darfur, prison reform, and he has a clear desire to help the poor, albeit not through government means. I think that’ll appeal to a lot of people.
May 11th, 2007 at 12:46 am
I guess that is why I disagree with many of you about Romney. I believe he will govern as a reliable social conservative.
I think if you look at competence combined with a record of accomplishment, Romney is head and shoulders above the field. I don’t see how anyone can say other candidates will be superior to Romney on economic issues and the size of government. There may be other candidates who could be as good as Romney, but I don’t see how anyone is better.
Romney agrees with all the major points of the GOP platform and is most qualified candidate to enact our platform. He also has a record of being able to work with the Dems and still get conservative results.
I think Romney will be more committed to the Social Conservative agenda than the others because he will have already gotten his one free pass. He could never be re-elected if he betrayed them since he will always be on thin ice with SoCons.
May 11th, 2007 at 1:53 am
(53 & 57) make good points for Brownback. I think once people get fed up with the phony pandering of the likes of Romney & Rudy (& Hillary/Edwards), a candidate like Brownback could really appeal. He’s the sincerest candidate out there.
Or am I just dreaming? Does America prefer its Presidents to be phony media caricatures?
May 11th, 2007 at 3:33 am
Rudy making this move suggests we may have a much longer primary season.
It now seems possible that we could be watching voting in March wondering who the nominee will be. We could be waiting until May for the front runner to actually cinch the nomination.
May 11th, 2007 at 3:49 am
This is VERY exciting.
Rudy should announce NOW that he’s not competing in Iowa (and perhaps SC) and
gamble it all on 2/5.
Why not?
Least he can be himself for the next 9 months.
May 11th, 2007 at 6:04 am
Anyone notice the terrorist plan to attack Fort Dix. Let’s obsess about abortion.
May 11th, 2007 at 7:01 am
What? Rudy’s pro-choice? What? I wish someone on this site would have mentioned this sooner!
May 11th, 2007 at 7:03 am
And as for Brownback — The last thing we need is *another* big-religion President. Brownback’s agenda would NOT be about economics, but about his SoCon base — that’s his “thing.” We have to look at each candidate’s major issues, and thus, what their major agenda will be. Such as — Rudy supports gun control. But do I honestly think he’d do anything about it? Of course not. His agenda will be that of an economic conservative first and foremost. Just like Brownback’s will be that of a social conservative.
May 11th, 2007 at 9:43 am
Heath,
Rudy will not ignore Iowa or other states because he is a leader of “inclusion”, especially when it comes to loyal republicans. Surely, he should concentrate on the states on 2/5, and he has already started doing that.
May 11th, 2007 at 10:02 am
This really limits where Giuliani can appeal during the primary:
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/econ_grad_stud/2007/may/11/how_republicans_divide_on_abortion_by_state
May 11th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
econ grad stud, I’m fundamentally a “libertarian hawk” but I am an incrementalist politically and don’t suggest candidates take views as extreme as my own, so that they can win. I was a vigorous supporter of Bush in 04.