Debate Thread

So I hear that while I was on the plane, the Republicans had themselves a debate. Did people watch? What did you think? This bit from Rudy Giuliani jumped out at me:

MR. COOPER: If Roe v. Wade was returned, Congress passed a federal ban on all abortions, and it came to your desk, would you sign it? Yes or no.

MR. GIULIANI: I probably would not sign it. I would leave it to the states to make that decision. (Applause.) I think that that -- I think -- look, the problem with Roe against Wade is that it took the decision away from the state. If Roe against Wade -- if Roe against Wade were overturned because it was poorly decided, if the justices decide that, it would then go back to the states, and it would seem to me that that would be the answer. The answer is that each state would make a different decision.

I don't believe, in the circumstance that you asked before, that it should be criminalized. I think that would be a mistake, unless we're talking about partial-birth abortion or late-term abortion.

This manages to make even less sense than the general abortion federalism position. It's a state issue unless it's late-term? Why would that be? I suppose this is politically smart terrain for Rudy to stake out, but it's terribly incoherent on the merits.

Comments

"Did people watch? What did you think?"

Lively and entertaining. Very active crowd that participated in odd ways. Both Willard and Rudy were booed multiple times.

Giuliani's "YouTube Ad" was pretty clever.

Posted by Petey | November 29, 2007 3:21 AM

More than in any previous debate, Giuliani seemed to be reveling in his deviations from party orthodoxy, much like McCain in '00 and Lieberman in '04.

Romney gave an answer about the Confederate flag that had phrasing that seemed as if it could possibly lose SC for him all by itself.

No one took swings at the Huck.

I find it eerie how much the '08 GOP field on the debate stage resembled the '04 Dem field with the two "nominatable" candidates, McCain and Thompson, fading into the background the way Kerry and Edwards were fading into the background during debates at the same point of the cycle.

Posted by Petey | November 29, 2007 3:30 AM

" I think that that -- I think -- look, the problem with Roe against Wade is that it took the decision away from the state."

Which means that you'll veto any sort of federal "Marriage is between a man and a woman" nonsense?
That you're happy to allow states to define and deal with euthanasia as they wish?

How about a REAL reporter actually ask Giuliani (and all the other "abortion is a states rights issue" republicans) these questions?

Posted by Maynard Handley | November 29, 2007 3:47 AM

Nah, makes perfect sense on the merits. If you think post-viability fetuses are people, (Which is the non-nutty middle ground in the abortion fight. The two nutty extremes being personhood for fertilized eggs, and non-personhood for a baby in the birth canal.) then the failure to ban pre-birth murder is a straightforward equal protection violation, authorizing federal law. While abortion earlier in the pregnancy remains a state matter.

Really, Matt; Sometimes I think your apparent inability to comprehend any position you disagree with isn't just a rhetorical pose.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | November 29, 2007 6:55 AM

"It's a state issue unless it's late-term? Why would that be?"

I understand Brett Bellmore's point, but I think the salient difference here is that there is a law against partial birth abortion that was voted for by (a wide majority in) Congress and signed into law by President Bush. I'm assuming that's what Giuliani was referring to. The problem with Roe v. Wade for opponents isn't as much that the decision was federal as that it was decided by judicial fiat.

Posted by Fred | November 29, 2007 7:03 AM

Giuliani's position on the issue, or at least as he states it here, doesn't seem all that odd to me. Like Bellmore says, it's inbetween two extremes, which is how politics works. A lot of Americans are repulsed by late-term abortions, but there's a big range of opinion on earlier abortions, which might be better sorted out at the state level. Personally, I'm against abortion, but I'm also a political realist, and this is the sort of middle ground that people might agree on ... or, if not agree upon, then at least disagree less with.

Posted by Adam Villani | November 29, 2007 7:05 AM

non-personhood for a baby in the birth canal

this is not "nutty". It is, in fact, the law. A doctor is allowed to kill a baby in the birth canal if this is necessary to save the life of the mother. A doctor is not allowed to kill a person in order to save another person's life. Killing of babies in the birth canal is (except in the cases I just mentioned) illegal, but it is not tried as murder, for the specific reason that a baby in the birth canal is not a person.

Posted by dsquared | November 29, 2007 8:30 AM

I ve been saying it since yesterday and I am still astonished.

The amount of parsing in which Romney and Giuliani engaged in was incomparably higher to anything Hillary has ever done; and yet not one single mention in the media.

The double standard is breathtaking.

Posted by Nick Kaufman | November 29, 2007 8:30 AM

As a certified Rudy-loather, I have to say his position makes perfect, reasonable sense to me. Not only do I not agree with you, Matt, I can't even figure out what your objection is to his statement in the first place.

Posted by Slippery Pete | November 29, 2007 9:19 AM

I think it makes a certain amount of sense:

1. As a procedural matter, Giuliani thinks the abortion question should be resolved by state legislation.

2. On the substance, he doesn't believe abortion should be criminalized by the states with the exception of late term abortions.

Posted by southpaw | November 29, 2007 9:22 AM

What he's saying is that where there's a clear consensus on the issue, he'd be happy to take credit for signing a bill at the federal level. Where it's a closer question that might hurt him, he'd prefer to leave it up to the states.

Of course, that same train of thought is the reason we will never have a ban on abortion at the federal level.

Posted by Steve | November 29, 2007 10:09 AM

Far be it from me to defend Giuliani, but his position here is coherent. I understood him to mean:

1) This is an issue for the states, not the federal government, to decide.

2) My view is that states should not criminalize abortion, except late-term [although different states might have different answers].

I'm not sure why he mentioned part (2), except perhaps to telegraph that a post-_Roe_ world doesn't necessarily mean an end to abortion, which is pretty ballsy for a Republican primary but which actually might be an appealingly centrist position for the general election.

Posted by Allan | November 29, 2007 10:16 AM

Allan-

Then what's he mean by "in the circumstance that you asked before"? The "circumstances" he was being asked about Congress passing a federal abortion ban.

Your position is coherent (albeit still wrong), but it pretty clearly ain't Giuliani's.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | November 29, 2007 10:36 AM

Is there an echo in here, Allan?

lemuel, I'll grant that the phrasing is sloppy, I think--having dispensed with the federalism objection--he was returning to the previous YouTube question:

"Hi. My name is Journey. I'm from Texas. And this question is for all (inaudible) pro-life candidates.

In the event that abortion becomes illegal and a woman obtains an abortion anyway, what should she be charged with, and what should her punishment be? What about the doctor who performs the abortion?"

Posted by southpaw | November 29, 2007 11:09 AM

Huh. Southpaw, you might be right. In which case Giuliani does deserve some credit for sticking to his guns. Telling a Republican audience that you would veto a federal abortion ban and oppose state bans is not an un-gutsy thing to do.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | November 29, 2007 11:33 AM

I, too, think that Giuliani's answer was commendably fair, though not necessarily politically salient. The abortion issue should be decided at the state level.

Posted by Jeff Goldman | November 29, 2007 5:42 PM

Let me elaborate the defence of Mr. Guliani.

His position is that freedom to have abortion is a good thing, but of minor importance. Thus it is easy to justify restrictions, e.g. for "partial birth" procedures. Because it is a good thing, he would not sign a ban. Because it is of minor importance, there is no reason to override the wishes of people living in various states.

This begs a question: why is a freedom to choose to terminate pregnancy of minor importance? Simplicity itself: it is a personal freedom, and to a moderate fascist, no personal freedom is very important (except when it is important to abolish it, which is not the case here).

Posted by piotr | November 30, 2007 10:52 AM