The Occasional Observer

As mentioned in the comments to an earlier post, Rudy's recent polling has been looking better and better. This is disconcerting to me as a social conservative who could not support a pro-abortion candidate.

Many social conservatives are also concerned about Mitt Romney's candidacy, b/c of earlier statements, especially from his 90's Senate run against Teddy K., that he would uphold abortion "rights."

So one question worth exploring is this: can a pro-life Republican consider Giuliani and Romney as equivalent--equally unreliable on life issues?

I see some notable distinctions, although I think both candidates will have a chance to define (or redefine) themselves as the election cycle progresses.

Since the time of his Senate run, Romney has steadily tracked rightward on abortion: first declaring a position of neutrality in his '02 gubenatorial race (essentially the most conservative possible in MA for someone who wants to be elected), to opposing embryonic stem-cell research that would destroy human life, to declaring he yearns for an America that embraces a culture of life and wants states to be able decide for themselves (which would mean overturning Roe v Wade). For more on this topic, see here. More resources are here and here.

Giuliani has not shown any evidence of evolving on the issue. When he ran for Mayor he described himself as pro-choice and has never acted contrary to that position. He is not now presenting himself as a pro-life candidate, to my knowledge.

So while both candidates have some history that is not, at a mininum, strongly pro-life, Romney has been talking and acting in an increasingly pro-life manner over a long period of time. Giuliani has not.

While I have not yet decided that I'd vote for Romney, he impresses me greatly, and I'm open to consider supporting him (something I could never do for a pro-choice candidate) because I consider his pro-life conversion to be genuine. While critics are convinced it is crass opportunism, it seems to me that his conversion began at a time when it was of little help to him politically (in Massachussets), and is congruent with the values that are clearly present in his personal life. There's only so much an outsider can know about what's going on within a family, but this much is clear: Mitt and Ann have been married for 36 years, and have 5 sons (who are all married) and 8 grandkids. Rudy is twice divorced.

That said, you'd expect Rudy to be having a hard time in the socially conservative areas of the country--especially the South. And when you add in the fact that Rudy has been both pro-gun control and pro civil-unions for homosexuals, you'd figure an Italian New Yorker with "Mayor" as the biggest job on his resume would be candidata non-grata in the South. You'd be wrong.

Let's take a look at a recent Cook poll.

First of all, it shows that Giuliani gets 32%, McCain 20%, and Gingrich 10%. But that's not the most interesting part. Check out this poll question, which seems to highlight Giuliani's "vulnerability" on social issues:

(ASKED ONLY REGISTERED VOTERS WHO SAY THEY ARE REPUBLICANS OR REPUBLICAN
LEANERS.)
Rep2. Thinking about Rudy Giuliani (JEW-LEE-on-nee),

(ROTATE:)

Some people say he really cleaned up New York City as Mayor and made it a safer place, and then he showed real courage as a leader after the attack on the World Trade Center.

(ROTATE:)

Other people say that his views on some issues—because he is pro-choice on abortion, and supports gun control and gay rights—makes it hard for them to support him for President.

Having heard that, which of the following two statements comes closer to your opinion:

The Republicans should nominate Giuliani for President, or the Republicans should NOT nominate Giuliani for President.

REPS & REP LEANERS

The Republicans should nominate Giuliani for President
[8/27] 56%
[2/23] 50%

The Republicans should NOT nominate Giuliani for President
[8/27] 38%
[2/3] 43%

OK, you might be thinking (as I was), this is a national poll. Show me the crosstabs.

Ask and you shall receive:

Republicans Should Nominate Rudy Giuliani:

Northeast: Yes, 68. No, 25.
South: Yes, 51. No, 44.
Midwest: Yes, 57. No, 36.
West: Yes, 54. No, 44.

While Giuliani's keeping his powder dry and not telegraphing how he'll be presenting his social positions come '08, that strategy seems to be working out well for him. Even in the South, where you wouldn't expect it.

Of course, as I mentioned earlier, it's important to remember that 56% of the people aren't saying they'd vote for him, just that based on his accomplishments the social positions aren't exclusionary.

So an anti-Giuliani way of reading this poll would be to say 38% of GOP voters won't consider Giuliani b/c of social issues, and he still hasn't locked up the remaining 62%.