by Rudy Guiliani recently ensured that anti-abortion Republicans would have to look elsewhere for a candidate who represents them on that issue by re-stating his belief in the procedure. Speaking at Houston Baptist University’s Mabee Teaching Theater, he said:
“I believe you have to respect their viewpoint and give them a level of choice,” the former New York City mayor told a crowd of about 300 students and faculty
…
In a stump speech outlining his plans to battle terrorism and tackle economic and social issues, Giuliani urged listeners to find common ground with him even though they may disagree with him. Tolerating differences makes the country what it is, he said.
Contrary to what some writers mistakenly choose to print, Guiliani has held this belief since before announcing his intention to seek the Republican nomination, as I first noted here back in February:
I am pro-choice, yes,” he said. “But I’m also, as you know, always have been, against abortion — hate abortion, don’t like it, wouldn’t personally advise anyone to have an abortion. But I believe a woman has a right to choose, and you can’t have criminal penalties… I think that would be wrong.
To accuse him of changing his position is simply incorrect and a simply hack typical of politics in America. Did he botch the question in a debate? Maybe. But has he reversed or even altered the meaning of his position? Hardly.
It’s exactly this sort of common-sense approach to difficult problems that Americans need in a leader. Setting one’s personal views aside and bowing to the need for reasonable compromise is the essence of a successful executive in a republic like the U.S.
Another important leadership quality is having the ability and courage to articulate such a nuanced position on a complex issue and stick to it, regardless of whether either friends or foes agree.
The reality is that abortion is – or should be – only a second or third tier issue when it comes to choosing a president. It’s a testing ground and one that Guiliani has placed himself squarely where a leader ought to be – in the right.
To this point I have not heard anyone else in the pack make this kind of sense. Finally.
While I disagree with Mr. Guiliani’s position, I understand it. Why is it then such an issue in the election. IT boils down to one of two competing theories. The first is that his lack of stolid support for a Pro-Life Agenda means that the the rank and file GoP will not support him in the primaries (where he most needs his support). This is a valid argument. When the most motivated of the primary voters are staunch pro-lifers, gaining their support is critical to getting the nomination. The other reason is that some of the movers and shakers in the MSM see Guiliani as a threat and by attacking him now and pointing out his conservative weaknesses, the make it less likely that he will be faced in the General election.
My thought is that it is about 90/10 in that breakdown.
I don’t know that much about Guiliani but I like his approach to this particular problem as it may indicate Rudy will be a pragmatic leader.
I think that GOP voters will be in the mood to be pragmatic as well after the debacle of the 2006 mid-term election; ideally Republican voters will be focused on issues of more immediate importance such as immigration reform, border security, and global Islam.