Dan McLaughlin of RedState pens an excellent piece entitled, “Why I’m With Rudy (Part I).” In this piece, Dan discusses the many reasons that Giuliani stands head-and-shoulders above the rest of the GOP field, including Rudy’s innate ability to lead, his stance on the war, his ability to flip blue portions of America, and his conservative positions on the issues. Money quote:
That said, and while I recognize that there are other Life issues on the agenda, the core battlefield for abortion – the battle we need to win before we can fight any others – is in the composition of the Supreme Court. A pro-choicer who appoints good judges is as functionally pro-life as Harry Reid is functionally pro-choice. (I have discussed this issue in much more exhaustive detail before). And while we need to hear much more from him on this issue, there is, thus far, every indication that Rudy is both willing to appoint conservative judges and able to sell them against a hostile Senate – he’s spoken favorably of John Roberts and Samuel Alito, who he knows from their days in the Reagan Justice Department.
And while Mike Huckabee is a solid pro-lifer and Sam Brownback is a genuine hero on life issues, the other top-tier candidates are less obviously reliable on this issue. Romney, of course, declared himself a committed pro-choicer in 1994, though his repeated conversions on the issue lend a lot of credence to Ted Kennedy’s description of him as “multiple choice” on abortion. McCain has a more consistent pro-life record and voted to confirm the likes of Alito, Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork to the Supreme Court, but three things concern me about McCain on judges – first, his demonstrable willingness to sell out the base to win media plaudits, second, his statements in 2000 that he’d like Souter-backer Warren Rudman as his Attorney General and that he remained proud of all the GOP Justices he’d voted for (which implicitly included Souter and Kennedy), and third, the fact that McCain’s political identity is so wrapped up in his campaign finance crusade, a crusade that may influence him to pick judges who take the written constitution with its pesky free-speech guarantees less than seriously. I’m not saying I’m sold that Rudy would be necessarily better at appointing judges than Romney or McCain, but (1) it’s a close contest and (2) he’d obviously be better than any Democrat.
Life issues are, indeed, important. And if this were peacetime, they would preclude me from supporting Mayor Giuliani. But there’s a war on, folks, and a lot of lives (born and unborn) depend on that, too. In this field, if Mayor Giuliani can make the sale that he will, in fact, appoint solid constitutionalists to the federal courts, that will tide us through.
Tide us through it will. Chalk up one more conservative in the Rudy camp.
January 31st, 2007 at 3:41 pm
If Mayor Giuliani does not come out against partial-birth abortion, he will not only lose most pro-life voters but will also create a third-party conservative candidate in the 2008 presidential general election if he gets the Republican nomination, regardless of what he says about judges, which will make it a nomination not worth having because a credible conservative third-party candidate will throw the election to the Democrat nominee. If the U.S. Supreme Court upholds the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (oral arguments were heard this past November) and Mayor Giuliani supports the decision, he should be covered here as long as he emphasizes that abortion should be minimized, even though he supports a woman’s right to choose as a matter of conscience.
January 31st, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Good piece. I’m still not sold on Rudy’s committment to appointing originalist/constitutionalists, because of words of praise he’s spoken about Ginsburg. I’d like to believe him, I really would, because much like articulate pro-life converts aid the cause, articulate social liberals with a judicially conservative temperment could do an awful lot to shed light on the situation. They could let the American people know that devotion to the constitution is neither conservative nor liberal but wholly American. I think Giuliani would do well to talk about justices like White and Black, who held liberal views, but nonetheless saw the constitution as a higher obligation. I think we’re in a rather unforunate position this time around in that our leading candidates have serious pro-life difficulties, to the extent that all three will likely be forced to publicly come out against Roe v. Wade (both Romney and McCain have already done so), something which Bush never had to do because of his credibility on the issue. In fact, I’m fairly certain that Bush never referred to himself as pro-life during that campaign, but instead used euphemisms like “the culture of life”. Coming out against Roe is going to make things more difficult for the GOP, but it’ll present an articulate candidate to explain the decision to the public in a way that years of liberal obfuscation has prevented. I tennd to think that, when presented with a thoroughly argued defense of Democracy at the state level, we win. And I’d trust both Romney (who has made repeatedly a similar compelling justification for democracy on gay marriage in Massachusetts) and Giuliani to do this. But I tend to trust the former (for now) more to actually appoint the justices who’ll make that dream a reality.
January 31st, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Matt, I agree with many of your points, but I never understood why Bush was so credible on the issue back in 2000. What had he done that allowed him to skirt the issue without even having to call himself pro-life? I believe he even said that the country wasn’t ready to overturn Roe and he still got a pass. A part of me suspects that it was identity politics at play, i.e., a guy from Texas who went to an evangelical church just HAD to be pro-life. This is one of the things that has frustrated me about Bush’s presidency; I feel he’s gotten a pass from some of his supporters by giving off conservative cultural cues without actually governing as a strong conservative.
January 31st, 2007 at 4:23 pm
I agree completely DaveG. I don’t even recall the issue of Bush’s 1978 pro-choice stance ever coming to the fore. Admittedly, he “seemed” very much pro-life, whatever that means. And I think there was a sense, even then, that Bush wasn’t a good enough salesman to fake that sort of vibe. In contrast, I’ve never felt that John McCain “seemed” pro-life, despite his exemplary voting record. Even without his 1999 comment suggesting that Roe ought to remain the law of the land, he’s simply never been a cultural warrior of any kind. I don’t know exactly what Bush had that made him so palatable to pro-lifers, without becoming specific on the issue, but I’m beginning to appreciate aspects of Bush’s personality and appeal, that managed to keep a diverse GOP base together remarkably well- aspects that simply haven’t come together in any candidate this time around. Huckabee is probably the closest and has indeed already begun to model himself on Bush by sounding squishy on Meet the Press on social issues, while giving the old “wink-wink you know I’m really with you guys” to so-cons. Unfortunately, this is a different world and someone so similar to Bush in ideology and demeanor is not going to play in either the Republican primaries or the general election. Huckabee’s insistence on running leftward before the primaries even begin likely won’t help much.
January 31st, 2007 at 5:02 pm
I think that there’s a darn good chance that PBA will be taken off the table by the time that 2008 rolls around.
January 31st, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Does anyone who followed the arguments in Gonzalez v. Carhart closely have any impression about how the justices are likely to rule on the case? I was pleased to see that Roberts seemed quite receptive to our side, while Alito didn’t seem to tip his hand very clearly in my mind. Kennedy seemed, and perhaps I’m reading my own hopes into this too much, as hostile to PBA as ever. So my guess is, this will really turn on Alito (though I’d of thought him more reliable then Roberts on the issue intitially) and I’m cautiously optimistic that the ban will be upheld.
January 31st, 2007 at 6:37 pm
If the SCOTUS ruling on PBA comes down in the midst of the primary campaign, all J-Mac/Romney/B-back/Huck/etc. will have to say is, “With a President Giuliani instead of a President Bush, this would never have been passed into law.”
The SCOTUS rulings on PBA and CFR will play a huge deal into the primary campaign, I think, giving Rudy and J-Mac some pretty big headaches.
January 31st, 2007 at 6:39 pm
The ad against Rudy would be complete with video from his speech accepting the NARAL award, or hosting the pro-choice dinner for the group that wants to remove the abortion plank from the GOP platform.
January 31st, 2007 at 7:03 pm
Matt, most observers believe that Alito will fall on the conservative side. I think Alito is the type of judge who rarely “tips his hand” but will vote reliably with the conservative block. Kennedy is really the woldcard justice. He does seem somewhat hostile to PBA, but with his new position as the swing-vote he has edged leftwards as the adoring media cheers him on (see Hamdan v. Rumsfeld). I think we have a 60-70% chance of winning this one with Kennedy’s incoherent jurisprudence posing the biggest possible problems. What we really need is one more strong conservative on the Court. I wish Justice Stevens a long and happy life… in retirement.
January 31st, 2007 at 8:53 pm
Indeed, I’ve actually come to despise Kennedy’s brand of conservative living constitutionalism. At least libs like Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Souter are coherent in their incoherence. Kennedy jurisprudence is not moored to anything. So I’m certainly hoping for an additional solid conservative. Has anyone noticed how this court has no liberal “intellectual heavyweight”? No one on the liberal side is advancing “the law” in any particularly brilliant (if insane) way. As much as we despised Brennan, he was clearly a genius and man who fundamentally shaped the way constitutional law was viewed (well, shaped the way living constitutionalism was viewed anyway). At the very least the conservative side of the court has two intellectual titans in Scalia and Roberts and Thomas and Alito are no slouches. Whenever I watch Scalia go on some program with Breyer I cringe. THIS (Breyer) is the “adversary” the most significant legal thinker of his era? Pathetic.
January 31st, 2007 at 10:13 pm
Matt, you are correct except in regards to Souter who has actually put together some strong liberal opinions (I know, an oxymoron). Unfortunately, Souter would probably qualify as an intelectual heavyweight. However, you are right in saying that Alito/Scalia/and Roberts form an intellectual tandem of brilliance. Kennedy is the only Supreme Court Justice I truly believe that I could out-think, and that is a sad state of affairs. Sometimes I begin to wonder how the court would look if Bork got through, and then stop because I dont like self-inflicted pain and agony. One of the blessings in disguise is that if Stevens does step down in the nest year and a half the Dems can no longer use the fillibuster (they are no longer the minority) and Im confident we could flip at least a few Dem Senators.
Heavy M, Im not sure, but I believe the decision will be handed down in a matter of months. I only see it hurting Rudy if they strike down the law and it becomes a hot potatoe issue where Rudy can’t just say the court did the right thing without elaborating.
January 31st, 2007 at 11:56 pm
On the other hand, HeavyM, Mayor Giuliani has said publicly he is for the type of justices who are going to be the ones who support the legality of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, which might make those running such ads look foolish, especially if the SCOTUS upholds the statute and Giuliani supports their decision.
February 1st, 2007 at 11:25 am
Rudy’ll say anything to get elected.
February 1st, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Republius, then the contrast can be made using Rudy’s own words against him. He either completely flip-flops on this issue, or he runs as a liberal on the issue of abortion.
If we tar and feather guys who say “I’m personally pro-life, but support a woman’s right to choose,” why do we make an exception for a guy who says, “I’m personally pro-choice, but will work to end the woman’s right to choose?”
How can you trust the guy who says that????
February 2nd, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Because people trust Rudy.
He has stated that he will appoint judges like Alito and Roberts. I think that will satisfy the majority of the social conservatives.
And most important, he defeats Hillary:
Giuliani 49%
Clinton 43%