Can Rudy win?

I asked the who would be the Republican nominee in 2008 and reader and fellow blogger Patrick Kelly (of The Pagan Temple) had this to say:

Giulliani is your best bet. . . All he has to do is moderate a relative handful of positions and he is unbeatable.

It started me thinking. What would Rudy have to do to be a viable candidate in '08?

First of all his credentials on crime, national security and general leadership ability are not just good, but practically unassailable from either the left or right. As for his views on military and foreign policy I would not think that he would have too much trouble establishing his credibility.

However there are two areas in which he would be unacceptable to conservatives. One is abortion and the other is gun control. Both of these issues could be dealt with, but he would have to start now.

On the issue of abortion he would have to issue a statement something like this:

As a Roman Catholic I personally oppose abortion as a sin before God. However I also believe that a matter so deeply personal should be left between a woman, her doctor and her God. However as someone who comes before the Republican Party seeking to be its standard bearer in the 2008 presidential elections I am fully aware that the majority position of the Republican faithful is pro life. Let us be aware that abortion on demand is a legal right created by a Supreme Court decision and that no act by the Executive or the Legislature can overturn it. The only impact that a President, or a Senator can have on the legality of abortion in the United States is in the appointment and confirmation of Supreme Court judges. I acknowledge that Roe vs. Wade was bad law. I acknowledge that it was a decision which came out of the kind of naked judicial activism which all conservatives, myself included, abhor. In that vein I hereby pledge to you that when and if I, as president, am called upon to exercise the presidential duty of nominating a new justice to the Supreme Court that I will only nominate the kind of originalist jurist which everyone acknowledges would be the type of justice most likely to overturn Roe and cast the issue back to the states. I will not impose a litmus test on this or any other issue, but in appointing men like Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito I believe that conservatives are very likely to get what they want.

On the Second Amendment issue his task would be even easier. All he need to to is read and heed the opinions of leading constitutional scholars like liberal Stanford Levinson who studied the issue and was reluctantly forced to the conclusion that the constitution does in fact grant an individual right to keep and bear arms upon the individual citizen. He could then have a highly publicized sit down with researchers like John Lott and hear their presentation on how their empirical research proves that firearms in civilian hands reduce crime and save lives. He could then study the actual results of the wave of "shall issue" concealed carry legislation which has swept the nation in recent years and announce that he was completely wrong on the issue of firearms. He could then join the NRA as a life member and confirm what everyone already knows anyway; that he is a possessor of a rare New York City concealed carry permit. He can cap off his conversion by saying that he got tired of being a hypocrite by having a concealed handgun himself while ordinary citizens were denied the same.

This would not convince everyone, but it just might be enough to do the trick. If I am missing any issue which Rudy would need to "adjust" his position on let me know.