Stop Rudy

Andrew notes that Randall Terry of "Operation Rescue" fame says that "we must deny him the White House at all costs - even if it means Hillary becomes President." His analysis tracks mine:

As President Giuliani would be the de-facto head of the GOP; he would systematically destroy the political power of the pro-life movement within the GOP; he would pressure the party to take the pro-life plank out of the party platform; he would declare the "abortion issue" is divisive, and should not be part of federal races; he would make the GOP the mirror image of the DNC regarding child-killing, thus insuring that there is no pro-life party.

This seems about right to me. Giuliani's fine if you're just someone who deems abortion vaguely icky and wants it a bit more restricted, since judges he appoints will probably be fairly unfriendly to reproductive rights, but if you want a serious nationwide abortion ban you can't let the pro-life movement's control over the GOP slip away.

Comments

So wait -- like now, the pro-life movement is the captive of one party, which party counts on its votes without the party ever giving it what it really wants. A bit like African Americans on the Democrats' side, no? Why is it beneficial for the pro-life movement to restrict its agitation to one party? Wouldn't both pro-lifers and African Americans be better served by serving as a swing vote, the crucial demographic wooed by both parties?

Posted by Martin | October 11, 2007 4:30 PM

Wouldn't both pro-lifers and African Americans be better served by serving as a swing vote, the crucial demographic wooed by both parties?

No, Martin, because the GOP is the party of racists and the abolition of privacy, while the Democrats take the opposite view of those two issues.

For blacks to expect the racists and the nonracists to get into a bidding war for their votes is not realistic. It is similarly unrealistic to expect the party which supports privacy rights to bid for the votes of those who oppose privacy rights.

Should the Jews stay neutral between the mainstream parties and the neo-Nazis, in the hopes that the neo-Nazis will woo their support?

Goodness, High Broderism at its most inexplicable . . .

Posted by rea | October 11, 2007 4:42 PM

but if you want a serious nationwide abortion ban you can't let the pro-life movement's control over the GOP slip away.

I don't agree. They elected an openly pro-life president in George Bush and we haven't seen a real attempt to ban abortion yet. Republicans and most of their pro-life supporters have decided on an incremental plan - let the states decide, then start attacking at the state level, meanwhile appoint judges who'll put restraints on the exercise of the right to abortion - rather than an outright ban.

Mitt Romney was perfectly explicit about this. And the recent SJC decision is a preview of rulings to come.

Even the partial-birth abortion ban was more about unfinished business from the Clinton years than an actual push to end abortion by legislative means.

Posted by Jinchi | October 11, 2007 4:45 PM

The only thing they can really do right now is get someone elected who will appoint a reliable anti-Roe justice. There's not really any legislation sitting around that Romney would be able to get passed a Dem Congress than Rudy wouldn't push.

I think that's their only real valid concern: that Giuliani can't be trusted to appoint a supposed "strict constructionist" Supreme Court justice a la Thomas/Scali/Alito/Roberts, despite the fact that Giuliani has said that he will.

They have long memories of George H.W. Bush and his appointment of David Souter to the Supreme Court in 1990.

Posted by bob | October 11, 2007 5:06 PM

Rea, it's got nothing to do with Broderism. Disgruntled white male small business owners (roughly) occupy the exact center of the political spectrum, and for a long time the entire process was about courting them. Recently soccer moms or security moms or whatever have been a bit more prominent. If you can get to the center of things, both parties will want you -- hiding out in one party is not self-evidently the right strategy for increasing one's influence.

Posted by Martin | October 11, 2007 5:11 PM

Matt you keep overlooking the fact that as long as the Republicans can keep 40 Senators there won't be any pro-choice judges appointed.

Posted by Rob | October 11, 2007 5:14 PM

Actually, there are a few Senators who cross party lines on this issue, but whether they would actually filibuster a Supreme Court nominee is a different question.

Clinton got his choices, and Bush got his choices, so there will be a lot of pressure to allow the next President to choose. But the GOP might buck the trend and press Bob Casey and Ben Nelson to join them. We shall see.

Posted by bob | October 11, 2007 5:34 PM

Wouldn't both pro-lifers and African Americans be better served by serving as a swing vote, the crucial demographic wooed by both parties?

It seems to me that a lot of African-Americans are very interested in having the Republicans as a plausible choice, perhaps for this very reason, but that the Republicans keep telling them to fuck off.

It's hard for anyone to take the Republicans seriously when all the leading candidates can't even be bothered to show up at a debate. You don't wipe all this other stuff away by getting Ken Mehlman to make one nice speech.

Posted by Steve | October 11, 2007 5:37 PM

The anti-abortion crowd can't "get to the center of things" and become a swing vote bloc. They live and/or die by a POV that is extreme. To get to the center they would have to alter their POV. And they won't.

Posted by Woody Bombay | October 11, 2007 5:53 PM

"Giuliani's fine if you're just someone who deems abortion vaguely icky and wants it a bit more restricted, since judges he appoints will probably be fairly unfriendly to reproductive rights,"

Judges he nominates will probably be fairly unfriendly to rights, period, but I doubt they'd be particularly hostile towards 'reproductive' rights. You've got to stop taking his pandering to social conservatives seriously; Why should the left prove so much more gullible than the right, when Republicans lie to Republicans?

Posted by Brett Bellmore | October 11, 2007 5:55 PM

Hey, at least credit Randall Terry for suggesting -- wrongly, I believe -- at least one positive thing which could come out of a Giuliani presidency -- those cro-Magnon morons in the "pro-life" movement would be finally put to pasture.

I'm kind of confused why four years of absolute Republican control of all branches of government under Bush Jr. Republicans didn't prove that the Republicans, who did NOT attempt to override Roe v Wade or outlaw abortion during those 4 years, did NOT have the effect a Giuliani presidency supposedly would.

Posted by El Cid | October 11, 2007 6:38 PM

Abortion is not a big issue for Guiliani. Power is the issue. If he thought reversing himself on Roe would get him into the White House, he would do it. He thinks appearing as a Romneyesque flip flopper will hurt his chances to get in the White House, so he has stuck to his guns. What matters is the big wink: he'll appoint strict constructionist judges i.e. anti-Roe people. He's going to do that, and given the age of Justice Stevens, that might be enought to turn the tide.

The Right might not see it that way, but there it is.

Posted by Unreal Veal | October 11, 2007 7:21 PM

What matters is the big wink: he'll appoint strict constructionist judges i.e. anti-Roe people.

He's already stated that being pro-Roe is compatible with his definition of "srict constructionist."

Besides, there's not just the abortion issue; there is the gay issue, the guns issue, and the fact that Giuliani practically celebrates his sordid personal life. At least when Bill Clinton screwed around, he didn't try to advertise it.

Posted by Glaivester | October 11, 2007 8:24 PM

He's already stated that being pro-Roe is compatible with his definition of "srict constructionist."

Good for him. How remarkably self-serving. I wonder: Will the right-wing judge feel the same way? Will Rudy care? I get the feeling that both answers might be no.

Posted by Unreal Veal | October 11, 2007 8:49 PM

It seems to me that a lot of African-Americans are very interested in having the Republicans as a plausible choice, perhaps for this very reason, but that the Republicans keep telling them to fuck off.

Depends what you mean by Republicans.

You know Arabs broke for Bush Jr. something like 70% in 2000? I had a Palestinian friend in college who gave me what at the time sounded like incredibly sound reasons to do so.

Clinton sure as hell wasn't their friend, people were being scrutinized and disappeared to Syria before 9/11...then Bush just made all that seem like the good ole days by building a single wierd, no-laws zone, concentration camp that they seem to admit to just to prove that they can and ringing the globe with sorta-secret prisons (I guess to show they can do that if they want to also).

The RNC spent years building up a hispanic outreach, spent tons and tons money, and then their own voter base turned rabid and started sending their congressmen death threats if they didn't start sending ICE out to start cracking heads (like that isn't an even *worse* deal if you have nothing to hide but you've got an accent and look wrong). Whole project burnt to hell, they've lost nearly everyone.

The Black outreach is just funny, they can't do that because all the rest of the party wants to tell them why the Bell Curve is a great book (the same people always ask your question).

Republican strategists know this and they are reduced to finding that tiny percentage of the Black vote that would benefit from repealing the estate tax, has children in private school, etc..

When they find them, this man or woman will get signed, framed pictures of Bush and the Republican candidates for the district. Every last piece of possible expensive propaganda and gift will bust their mailbox out every single day telling them how important and crucial they are and it's all a success if they pick up single digit conversions.

So yeah, the RNC would love to pick up the votes, the problem is that when the elected ones deviate from the White People's Party dogma their voters start threatening to off them.

Posted by Ed Marshall | October 12, 2007 3:57 AM

Actually, according to an Economist article I read a couple of years ago, Bush only got roughly 45% of the Arab-American vote in 2000 (a plurality), with about 35% going to Gore and about 20% going to Nader (after all, Nader is the most high-profile Arab-American to run for president).

Posted by Reality Man | October 12, 2007 4:07 AM

"They elected an openly pro-life president in George Bush and we haven't seen a real attempt to ban abortion yet."

That's because during Bush there were only 2 Supreme Court openings - O'Connor's retirement and Rehnquist's death. If Ginsberg or Souter left, Bush would probably have appointed another anti-Roe justice. Congress can't pass a law criminalizing abortion and not having it declared unconstitutional as long as enough Supreme Court justices recognize a right to privacy in the Constitution.

Posted by Reality Man | October 12, 2007 4:10 AM

because the GOP is the party of racists and the abolition of privacy, while the Democrats take the opposite view of those two issues-- Rea

I'm sorry Rea, but that's just laughable. As much as you and I would like to think that that's true, it isn't. The Democrats don't seem to care about anyone who makes under 100k a year, and the endless FISA capitulations proves that they don't really care about privacy either.

Some of us here have to acknowledge that there's something very sick in the Democratic party. It's leaders, like the leaders of the Republican party, don't truly seem to believe in the constitution or democracy. They both clearly believe that enlightened dictatorship is the best for of government, and that doesn't stop being true just because we don't want it to be. I honestly don't believe that Hillary or Obama would be any different on Privacy than Guliani is (indeed, Bill Clinton certainly wasn't). The only difference is that Guiliani is a bigger asshole, so it just seems like he's more malicious.

Posted by Soullite | October 12, 2007 8:02 AM

Moreover, why think RG would appoint pro-life judges? He will have a hostile Senate, and not really caring much about right-wing ideology, he'll just appoint easily confirmable moderate Republican judges in the Sandra Day O'Connor mode.

That's what Reagan did for 2 out of 3 of his Supreme Court picks, and what Ford did for his one pick. Of those 4 GOP court nominations, 3 are pro-Roe, with only Scalia anti.

A president with a hostile congress must choose his battles. I strongly doubt RG will make his getting Alito types onto the federal bench.

Posted by jerzy cow | October 12, 2007 9:13 AM