Many of the social conservatives over at NRO seem to be getting worried that Rudy is not courting their brand of conservatism and yet still seems to be winning. With increasing evidence that Rudy’s social views aren’t hurting him among conservatives, it’s getting to the point where the mountain is about to come to Mohammed, instead of the other way around. Here’s Lowry with full poker face on:
I missed the debate, but I’ve been meaning to comment on something for a while. McCain’s fall is a big deal for Rudy because it seems to have convinced his campaign he has an opening to compete seriously in Iowa and New Hampshire. So far this year the race has been a competition between Romney’s traditional model (become pro-life, bank everything on the early states) and Rudy’s non-traditional model (don’t become pro-life, bank it all on Feb. 5). Outside of any considerations of their strengths or weaknesses as candidates, I thought Romney’s model was the much stronger one on the theory that that’s the way things have always worked and they will probably work that way again. But Rudy now seems to be paying more attention to the early states, and why not? If he finishes strong in the three early states (the definition of strong will obviously depend on expectations at the time) or wins one of them, it will be a huge momentum-builder for Florida and then Feb. 5. That still leaves his non-traditional strategy on abortion and the social issues. But one of the things that has impressed me most about Rudy’s campaign is how shrewdly and seamlessly he has slid to the right on key issues (immigration most importantly). There is still room for him to move right on abortion without becoming pro-life and if his campaign is as shrewd on abortion as it has been on other issues, he’ll do it. If he can start to talk about his conservatism having three legs to its stool like Romney does, he will have at least minimized a huge strategic vulnerability.
My emphasis. First, Mr. Lowry should realize, if he doesn’t already (and being a particularly bright bulb, I suspect he already does), that Rudy doesn’t need to add any new legs to his stool, as the stool seems to be functioning quite well as is. Rudy is expanding his lead over his rivals, not the opposite, and should McCain at some point throw in the towel, Rudy will almost certainly grab the bulk of McCain supporters and land somewhere between 40 and 50 percent — just short of a majority. As Darth Vader said at least once in the OT, and probably should have said more often, no one can stop us this time.
That said, I am not opposed to a third leg for Rudy’s stool, both because it is the right thing to do policy-wise for the country, and because a real difference between Rudy and Hillary on, say, abortion, will ensure that Rudy’s gains among suburban voters in states like Michigan and Pennsylvania aren’t canceled out by defecting rural voters who only vote GOP because of social issues. Any third leg, though, should most certainly not emulate Romney’s, “strong families” prong, a catch-all that is comparable to Maude Flanders begging us to, “think of the children,” and one that pretty much justifies government action anywhere, anytime. In other words, such a prong is the quickest route to the nanny state.
No, a third leg for Rudy’s stool, and one that would be quite compatible with his current prongs of Thatcherite economics and a Churchillian foreign policy is best described as the leg of constitutionalism. Such a leg would encompass respect for many of those First Principles that began the conservative revolution in the mid-20th Century, such as a respect for federalism, the separation of powers, and the intent of the Framers when interpreting the Constitution. A constitutionalism leg would encompass Rudy’s current support for the Second Amendment, as well as his decision to leave marriage laws to the states to work out, as well as his support for conservative judges. Further, it would be the polar opposite of the “strong families” prong, as a constitutionalism leg implicitly suggests that there are limits to state power, while the families prong implies the opposite.
Finally, the constitutionalism prong would allow Rudy to further emphasize the real difference between a Giuliani Administration and a second Clinton Administration on abortion. It’s not too late for Rudy, under the guise of constitutionalism, to call Roe bad law and to call for its overturning while still adamantly supporting legal abortion. This would give Rudy the opportunity to do what so many before him have failed to do: explain to the country that overturning Roe is not equal to a national ban on abortion. I point you again to this nifty map of Europe detailing abortion laws across the continent. Note that throughout Protestant Europe, which is culturally more like the US than Catholic Europe, abortion is generally available during the first trimester of pregnancy and generally unavailable afterward. This is the likely political solution that most jurisdictions here in the US would reach as well in a post-Roe world. Considering that nearly 90 percent of abortions here in the US take place in the first trimester, very few abortions that take place now would be prevented if Roe were overturned and the issue was resolved politically. No, abortion will be reduced via other means, such as the adoption measures that Rudy is currently backing. But by making the case against Roe as a pro-choice Republican from a constitutionalist perspective, Rudy will reassure single-issue pro-lifers that his presidency is worth fighting for and he may even win converts from the pro-Roe community after effectively separating Roe from the legal status of abortion. Let the Democrats try and argue that Roe needs to be upheld in order to protect a woman’s right to destroy her seven-month-old fetus in the womb and see how much public opinion changes on the issue. That’s a corner that Hillary Clinton does not want to be backed into. A traditional Republican candidate can’t make it happen, but a pro-choice Republican like Rudy can, should he choose to make the move that I’m suggesting.
Of course, there’s a good chance that Rudy likes his lead and won’t be eager to make any sea changes in his campaign platform that would endanger it. He is, after all, the frontrunner. Still, if Rudy does decide to add a third leg to his stool of conservatism, a constitutionalist leg would be the best tack to take, and would be beneficial to the GOP as well, pulling it away from the temptation for ubiquitous government and towards the traditional conservative belief in government restraint.
August 6th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
Dave, I continue to be impressed with your writing and your well thought out ideas…too bad you’re writing for the wrong guy!
You’re most accurate statement is, of course, comparing Giuliani to Darth Vader. “No one can stop us this time.” How’d that work-out for ‘ol Darth in the end?
August 6th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
It was the Empire’s own fault for constructing a mobile battle station the size of a large moon that could be destroyed via a chain reaction resulting from a single shot. To be fair, the Emperor was warned of this, but he insisted that the Empire “stay the course” and didn’t turn to Grand Moff Petraeus until after the Galactic Senate changed hands during his party’s electoral wipeout, and by then the damage was done.
August 6th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
Alright, four points:
1) Yes, Rudy is doing much better than Romney right now. But, he doesn’t carry flip-flop or Mormon baggage, and has 9/11 on his resume. He is better known, and seen (rightly or wrongly) as a stronger figure. Even through all of that, Romney is moving in and out of the 10% gap nationally (yes, I use Rasmussen).
2) The problem is, abortions will not be reduced by encouraging adoption. Why? Becuase, too many women use abortion as a get-out-of-jail-free card, where they can do whatever they please without any consequence. Adoption is not new, and I see no reason why it would suddenly start working if Roe is overturned. The only way to significantly reduce the number of abortions is to place large limits on the procedure itself.
3) This “Constitutionalist” leg that you talk about would, according to you, allow Rudy to be in favor of abortion. The problem is that the idea of unrestricted abortions go against the Constitutional principle that no person should loose “life, liberty, or property without due process of law”
4)There are some who say that first term abortions should be allowed because, at that point, the fetus cannot survive outside the womb. There is one problem with that, who determines at what point life actually begins? As medical technology improves, its conceivable that, in the next 20 years, the fetus will be able to survive after only, say, a week inside the mother. Isn’t it best, when dealing with life and death issues, to alway side with life? Conception is the earliest point that life can begin, so isn’t it best for our government to adopt conception as the beginning of life?
August 6th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
DaveG (#2) love it!
August 6th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
#2 LOL – very good!
August 6th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
ACT blog, will be interesting to see whether 9/11 will carry him all the way to the nomination. If he does, I’m sure it will tarnish the bravery of various people that day, as the firefighters come out swinging, etc.
The recent story about where the emergency center was put was a foretaste of what could come.
August 6th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
“Giuliani’s Daughter Backing Obama”
Giuliani-Obama ticket? Or, the result of poor parenting?
August 6th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
“If he does, I’m sure it will tarnish the bravery of various people that day”
They are paid to serve and protect, we already know of their sacrifices.
Rudy’s performance on that day, despite the assertion of a biased and envious union, gives him the justification to be where he is now.
I want a President who can respond to pressure and crisis— Giuliani solidified my choice.
BTW, Dave G/Kavon/Libertarian Guy/Flap… Team Giuliani is very lucky to have you all, to have people such as you guy’s batting for Giuliani gives me confidence.
August 6th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
Giuliani can certainly win the primary but he’s not as sure a bet as any past GOP frontrunner. He’s weaker than Gerald Ford was at this time in 1976. For history buffs Gerald Ford never actually won a majority of delegates and the nomination was in doubt on the convention floor.
This means that Giuliani still has to face the prospect of either losing or winning such a divisive primary that the party falls apart (see Democrats 1968).
No GOP candidate has ever had as weak a lead as Giuliani and went on to win the general election.
If Rudy’s interested in winning the general election as opposed to just the primary his team ought to make moves towards the majority of the party that prefers someone more socially conservative.
For me, Rudy would be acceptable if he took an anti-Roe stand in public. Currently his stand on Roe vs. Wade is pusillanimous and cowardly. Too cowardly to defend the hated decision but too rigid to admit he was wrong. It’s the worst of Bush and Clinton on a single decision.
Given the top tier (Rudy, Mitt, FDT), I think our chances of winning are incredibly low even if there’s a positive shift in Iraq.
While I’m not a fan of McCain, he probably had the best shot of winning as he’s a crusading reformer war hero (populist mojo galore).
August 6th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
Off topic…
You didnt read this in the more biased “essential reads” but it was found on Drudge today. Rudy’s daughter supports Obama!
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/
Interesting when you consider that Mitt’s 5 sons have esentially quit there job (from places like the Dodgers, etc) to campaign for their dad. Yet Rudy doesnt have the support of his own daughter, and his son wont speak of his relationship of his dad.
August 6th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
I stand corrected… I didnt read the story till later and it states that it shouldnt be seen as an endorsement to anybody and she has no comment on the race. No comment, like her brother.
Rudy fans, sorry for the misinformation.
August 6th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
EGS, care to explain who you think could win?
I mean, yes, Thompson seems like a weak candidate, but Rudy is not, and neither is Romney.
August 6th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
EGS,
If no GOP candidate has gone on to win the nom with as weak a lead as Rudy has, what does that say about Mitt or Fred(I think we all agree it’s over for McCain)?
According to the avg of all polls, Rudy currently has about a 10 pt lead nationally. In a multi candidate race, that’s not too shabby. More to the point, has anyone gone on to win the nom with an avg of 10% nationally, trailing the front-runner by 20 pts around Labor Day? Has anyone won by jumpin in after Labor Day and basically not even getting involved or considered until this late in the game. Regardless of who wins, trends will be smashed this cycle. So the history argument doesn’t quite hold up. Someone is going ot go against history next year.
Rudy could unify the party by selecting Fred Thompson as his running mate well before the convention and the two of them campaigning together. It would be kind of hard for the base who supports Fred to opppose Rudy if Fred is out there with him.
As for Rudy’s kids, who cares who they support? If anything everyone has been competing to claim the Reagan mantle. Hmm, let’s see, divorced, married a younger woman, some of his kids aren’t on great terms with him and support other candidates if not other parties. Seems like someone is on his way.
August 6th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
OK folks…this is getting out of hand already. It’s still summer!!! Nobody is paying attention yet!!!
41% of Republican Primary voters do NOT know that Rudy Giuliani is pro-choice.
Wait ’till that 41% finds out Rudy is pro-choice.
His poll numbers will tank.
August 6th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
Husky, your point still stnads though.
The fact Rudy’s daughter was leaning to Obama, and has now shut down all ties is hardly a ringing endorsement of her father.
However Romney’s family offers him a resounding endorsement.
August 6th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
DaveG, I was concerned that there was no one out there pushing Goldwater conservative’s view of things. I continue to be impressed with your call to a conservatism that is actually conservative. Federalism, fiscal restraint (both taxes and spending), GOVERNMENT restraint) – these are the thing our party is supposed to stand for. You correctly point out that the segment of the social conservative movement who want government action to enforce their religous beliefs on others is NOT conservative and is antithetical to Republican philospohy.
As to ACT BLOG in #’s 3 and 4:
Most, if not all, people agree that there is value in potential life like a fetus or even an embryo. The difference is that some people view the constitutional (#3) and moral (#4) balance to be in favor of already existing individuals over potential individuals. In any case, anyone of our stripe who is intellectually honest would still hope for the end to Roe v. Wade so that our democratic processes can resolve the issue in a way that, if not appeasing everyone, will at least end this charade of a “culture war.”
August 6th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
A new Gallup poll with good news for Rudy. he leads 33-21-15-8. If you include Newt the #s go down a tad and Mitt has a whopping 6%.
Also, Rudy beats Fred 55-34 in a 2 way and McCain 61-32.
Hillary crushes Obama.
Yet, in favorables she has 47-49 unfavorable. Rudy is 55-32 favorable. That’s a -2 vs a +23, a 25 pt swing.
August 6th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
I think Rudy’s lead can still be explained in large part by the fact that values voters (such as myself) are split between Romney, FDT, and a few others. Also, sjd already mentioned that it is still too early for most to be following the race.
By the time people start paying attention, Romney will have won IA & NH. McCain will be gone along with most the 2nd tiers, and maybe by then FDT will have announced.
The sum of Romney’s & FDT’s votes beat out Rudy in most any poll (and I’m assuming that most FDT’s votes are value voters). Say, split the difference between Rudy and Romney/FDT for the undecideds and your winner will still be Romney or FDT.
Rudy’s plan banks in large part to us values voters remaining divided. The longer that holds out, the higher the likelihood of Rudy winning the nomination.
August 6th, 2007 at 10:52 pm
sjf— I have heard all this before, you guys said that Rudy would tank from the day he announced…. well it has been a good six months now.
August 6th, 2007 at 11:02 pm
I wonder if people will be posting in Februrary and March of 2008 that x% still don’t know Rudy’s pro choice?
He’ll be accepting the nomination in Minneapolis on 9/4 and people still won’t know he’s pro choice.
People keep expecting this Usual Suspects like ending where everyone realizes they’ve been played, the GOP drops the coffee cup and you see Rudy straighten out his limp and get into a limo driven by Kobayashi.
It would be ironic if ater all these years a pro choice, thrice married paisan from Brooklyn and Long Guyland is the guy who makes it to Mordor, throws Ring of Roe into Mt. Doom, fulfills the generation long quest of the Religious Right.
It would be like when Samuel chose David as the next King of Israel. There were plenty more traditional candidates and David was the just the shepherd out in the field, the one least likely to be picked, but he was and he succeeded.
August 6th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
Rudy is David? Give me a break…
Kris (#19) it is instructive to see how two frontrunners have been able to hold on as everyones watched for them to fail (Hillary & Rudy). They’ve both made mistakes but managed to solidify 1st place by running generally savvy campaigns.
The fall of McCain & Edwards (latter to a lessor extent) shows that frontrunners don’t always stay that way.
August 6th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
#13 jim,
The lack of a strong front runner suggests we’ll have a very weak nominee. Traditionally Republicans have won by being a tightly united party that was more unified than the Democrats.
The party won’t be competitive in bad year if no candidate can unify the party. This is especially true with none of the top candidates running away from Bush.
In fact for all his moderate politics, Rudy has given Bush a proverbial bear hug, going out of his way to speak kindly of the unpopular President and embrace Bush’s stands.
August 7th, 2007 at 1:34 am
#8 — Thank you, Kris!
August 7th, 2007 at 1:35 am
#7 — Or — or — or — the result of ideological differences?
August 7th, 2007 at 8:51 am
The weakest part of Clintonian politics was the constant position shifting and pandering. I admit that all candidates have to do a certain amount of this tactically by revising and amending their earlier stances, but no one was better skilled at doing complete about-faces than Slick Willie, in particular while unchallenged by a fawning press.
The candidates who try to run against Billary will only be able to bring up the Clintonian lack of a real political compass effectively and demonstrably if they themselves show some spine.
In sum, Rudy should not pander to the anti-abortion absolutists by reversing himself. Especially if he should have to do so at the expense of keeping the country on the offensive against militant Islam and on course for lower taxes and less government interventionism.
Some seem to have forgotten that the country faces real threats and challenges that the Democrats will most certainly ignore. Boiling all this down to a nationwide prohibition of abortion completely misses the point.
Frankly, I remain an independent because the modern Republicans seem too obsessed with telling me and millions of others not entirely unlike me what to do, what not to do, how to think, no matter what it might cost. The Republican party too often plays the apologist for national busy-bodyism at the expense of personal liberty, while downplaying their supposed commitment to less government and lower taxes.
I don’t generally like telling others what to do. But allow me to give it a try: Anti-abortion absolutists, please post a sign at the nearest Planned Parenthood office offering to pay any woman considering abortion for carrying the child to birth and then offering to adopt the new member of the human race. I find abortion repugnant. Yet I can think of more constructive ways of opposing it.
Now can we please get back to looking for ways to make America stronger and more competitive?
August 7th, 2007 at 9:24 am
It’s been fun watching SoCons on blogs – as well as ‘pundits’ like Charlie Cook and Martin Frost, who write columsn for which they are extremely well paid – twist in the wind as they *still* keep trying to rationalize their earlier predictions as to why/how Giuliani will not be competitive for this nomination.
August 7th, 2007 at 11:25 am
We are just going to have to wait and see. If the above numbers are correct (41% do not know Rudy is pro-abortion) – and I have no reason to believe they are wrong – then Rudy is going to have problems.
Also, is ther eanyone here who can honestly tell me that, had Rudy not been mayor on 9/11, he would still be a major candidate?
August 7th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
Ridiculous…
Rudy is one of the most anti-gun Republicans in recent memory, and you want to try to brand him as “pro-2nd Amendment”?
This is the guy who supports sanctuary districts in New York City for illegals, and you want to brand him as the Constitutional/rule of law candidate?
Rudy is what he is, which is a fairly liberal Republican. Those are the things he believes. The only way he gets the nomination is if the res of teh field is just too weak to compete. At this point, that looks possible…
August 9th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Sorry I have been late in reading DaveG’s posting, but as usual, I find little with which to disagree. Once again, Dave, you are on the mark. The GOP is very badly in need of a refresher course in Constitutionalism or what some of us still call Goldwater conservatism. And to ACT Blog’s comment #27: Rudy’s real claim to fame is not 9/11, but his effective management and reform of New York City. 9/11 was the finale, the day on which the country and the world got to see him perform as the “acting president” in a sense. That is why it is not difficult for most people to comfortably envision him as president. Contrast that to what we saw in New Orleans with Katrina or with Pres. W dancing around on the deck of that aircraft carrier in a flight suit declaring victory in Iraq in May 2003.