Pro-Choice Rudy

It seems like the obvious Rudy Giuliani campaign startegy was to run as a proponent of overturning Roe v. Wade while remaining nominally pro-choice -- joining the Wittes/Rosen/Whomever camp. Instead, though, after a lot of flailing around it seems he's decided to forthrightly take up the doomed mantle of the pro-choice Republican and run as Pete Wilson redux or something. Ross says "it's not entirely out of the question, particularly in a frontloaded primary season where his weaker rivals may not have time to accept defeat, drop out, and allow the anti-Rudy vote to coalesce around a single candidate."

It sure seems out of the question to me. Maybe not if there was some substantial body of thinking that commitment to anti-choice views played a major role in the '06 defeat or something, but that's not really out there. John McCain and Mitt Romney should, in my opinion, be popping some champagne this morning.

Comments

MY: "John McCain and Mitt Romney should, in my opinion, be popping some champagne this morning."

Romney should have champagne with his coffee this morning.

Posted by blatherskite | May 10, 2007 8:14 AM

The one unknown for me is that I don't understand the GOP delegate selection rules nearly as well as I understand Democratic delegate selection rules.

Specifically, I know that Dem primaries are basically proportional. In other words, if you win 30% of every Dem primary, you'll end up with around 30% of Dem delegates.

But I have a vague impression that GOP delegate selection rules include Winner Take All primaries. Or in other words, you could win 30% of every GOP primary and end up with 50% of delegates.

So if Rudy can get the nomination by winning GOP primaries with pluralities, he might be viable, where an equivalent Dem candidate would not be.

Under Dem rules, a Rudy run would be hopeless, since you need to be a majority candidate to win. But if GOP rules are different enough, he might just have hope as a plurality candidate.

Posted by Petey | May 10, 2007 8:18 AM

No, Martinelli's sparkling non-alcoholic cider. The celebratory beverage choice of Mormons everywhere.

Posted by DaveB | May 10, 2007 8:19 AM

What I hate about this issue is that the MSM (or guys like Mickey Kaus) insist on taking Democrats to task for excluding pro-life people from the party. But I don't exactly see Republicans opening their arms to pro-choice politicians.

Posted by Freddie | May 10, 2007 8:25 AM

the whole damned nation should be popping champagne.

The Rule of Law has been giddy since it heard about it, and even the Constitution, currently in a non-responsive coma, seemed to smile in relief when the news was read aloud.

The guy would have been an utter nightmare. I'm sorry he's going to go down for this one--it's a bit like getting Al Capone for *paying* his taxes--but it is really important that he never come near the White House.

Posted by new yawka | May 10, 2007 8:39 AM

Petey's "vague impression" is correct.

Posted by David Weman | May 10, 2007 9:08 AM

While little in politics is certain, I think you can take the notion that an openly pro-choice Republican candidate is going to have serious turn-out trouble in the general election to the bank.

Sure, he can rail about the DFHs, but he's going to do that anyway. And that'll be mitigated by demoralization on the Rep. side over the war.

Posted by CharleyCarp | May 10, 2007 9:16 AM

Kevin Drum: "After all, Rudy's only doing this because he knows he really doesn't have any choice. Today's revelations about his donations to Planned Parenthood took waffling off the table as a feasible campaign strategy. He's screwed and he knows it."

This must be it, because his new strategy makes no sense.

Posted by David Weman | May 10, 2007 9:19 AM

Elaborating on CharleyCarp's comment: wouldn't a pro-choice Republican nominee guarantee a significant independent pro-life candidacy? Conservatives are easier to herd to liberals--they keep their Naders in the tent pissing out--but I don't think they could keep a lid on things if Guiliani was to run as pro-choice.

Posted by CharlieT | May 10, 2007 9:34 AM

Douthat's point about the "front-loaded primary season" is irrelevant, since there's going to be nine months of campaigning, and money-raising, before any votes are case, and Rudi could well find his support drying up during that period.

Posted by DonBoy | May 10, 2007 1:02 PM

"Instead, though, after a lot of flailing around it seems he's decided to forthrightly take up the doomed mantle of the pro-choice Republican and run as Pete Wilson redux or something."

After a brief flirtation with heretically suggesting that Mr. Kewl Mayuh Type may be electable after all, it seems we are now returning to the time-honored (and certain to be accurate) orthodoxy which states unequivocally that a pro-choice Republican can't become that party's presidential candidate.

My belief that Republicans just want to win the White House, and see St. Rudy as that kind of winner is almost certain to be proved false.

Posted by Linus | May 10, 2007 1:50 PM

My understanding is that most Republican primaries are winner take all, but California's in not. That's bad for Rudy, as he'd be more likely to win in California than almost anywhere else.

Whoever wins in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina is going to get a fair share of delegates in the Feb. 5th primaries, so Rudy's only hope under his new strategy would be to get enough delegates to force a convention fight. Any guesses about what GOP delegates are going to think about abortion? He won't be the nominee.

Posted by Blackadder | May 10, 2007 1:51 PM

IIRC, William Safire once said of Arlen Specter's pro-choice-edness and its effect on his Presidential aspirations: "He has no one on his side, except the majority of the voters."

Posted by Thlayli | May 10, 2007 6:09 PM