Rudy tries to position himself with the right

Back in June of last year Richard Baehr made this suggestion for how Rudy could possibly overcome the objections of social conservatives to Giuliani's rampant left-liberalism on social issues:

My own view is that there is a third strategy for Giuliani to become an acceptable candidate to religious conservatives. That would be to state publicly that he believed that President Bush had made two very good appointments to the Supreme Court in John Robert and Sam Alito. He could also say that if elected, he would seek to find similar justices for the High Court when any vacancies occurred: men or women of great professional competence and integrity, committed to a serious examination of the language and meaning of the Constitution, and not to making new law on the Court.

The reality is that 'progressive' social legislation generally does not pass the Congress to become law. Law changes to implement the 'progressive' social agenda have been more often judicially mandated. If Giuliani promises to appoint Supreme Court and lower court justices who will be perceived as strict constructionists (even if he does not use those exact words), then he will do no worse in this area than a candidate who has professed a pro—life policy for his or her entire political career.

It would seem that Giuliani has taken that advice as can be seen in his interview with Sean Hannity:

HANNITY: Where does Rudy Giuliani stand on abortion? And do you think Roe v. Wade is a good law, a bad law?

GIULIANI: Where I stand on abortion is, I oppose it. I don't like it. I hate it. I think abortion is something that, as a personal matter, I would advise somebody against.

However, I believe in a woman's right to choose. I think you have to ultimately not put a woman in jail for that, and I think ultimately you have to leave that to a disagreement of conscience and you have to respect the choice that somebody makes.

So what I do say to conservatives, because then, you know, you want to look at, well, OK, what can we look to that is similar to the way we think? I think the appointment of judges that I would make would be very similar to, if not exactly the same as, the last two judges that were appointed.

Chief Justice Roberts is somebody I work with, somebody I admire, Justice Alito someone I knew when he was U.S. attorney, also admire. If I had been president over the last four years, I can't think of any, you know, that I'd do anything different with that.

And I guess the key to it is -- and I appointed over 100 judges when I was the mayor -- so it's something I take very, very seriously -- I would appoint judges that interpreted the Constitution rather than invented it, understood the difference between being a judge and being a legislator. And having argued a case before the Supreme Court, having argued in many, many courts is something I would take very, very seriously.

HANNITY: So you would look for a Scalia, a Roberts, an Alito?

GIULIANI: Scalia is another former colleague of mine and somebody I consider to be a really great judge. I mean, that would be -- you're never going to get somebody exactly the same. You're never -- and I don't think you have a litmus test. But I do think you have sort of a general philosophical approach that you want from a justice, and I think a strict constructionist would be probably the way I'd describe it.

Hannity asks Giuliani if he thinks that Roe v Wade is bad law. Rudy wiggles around the question, but has this to say about partial-birth abortion:

GIULIANI: Partial-birth abortion, I think that's going to be upheld. I think that ban is going to be upheld. I think it should be. And I think, as long as there's provision for the life of the mother, then that's something that should be done.

This is a good sign. The abortion lobby insists that any restriction on any kind of abortion absolutely must include an exemption for abortions which are necessary to protect the health of the mother. Rudy used the phrase "life of the mother". Although it may seem like a minor point there is really a massive gap between the positions. The abortion industry defines "health" to include mental health and defines mental health so broadly that a woman's health is considered to be in danger if she states that she would "feel bad about herself" if she didn't get an abortion.

I find it impossible to believe that Rudy's advisers are unaware of this fact and I believe that this language is carefully crafted to send the message that he will not oppose, and possibly even actively support, the kind of limitations on abortion which conservatives are seeking to enact as a way to at least minimize the carnage caused by Roe.

As long as Roe v Wade stands the outright prohibition of abortion on demand is not possible. The appointment of Supreme Court justices who will recognize it as bad law and have the courage to overturn it is the only true fix for the problem. Rudy has signaled that he is willing to be part of the solution, that is if you believe him.

On the issue of gun control Rudy is also showing himself to be flexible:

HANNITY: Let me move on. And the issue of guns has come up a lot. When people talk about Mayor Giuliani, New York City had some of the toughest gun laws in the entire country. Do you support the right of people to carry handguns?

GIULIANI: I understand the Second Amendment. I support it. People have the right to bear arms. When I was mayor of New York, I took over at a very, very difficult time. We were averaging about 2,000 murders a year, 10,000...

Now at this point we should point out that saying that you "support the Second Amendment" is the next thing to meaningless. Sarah Brady says that she "supports the Second Amendment" and to prove it points to the fact that she has no problem with people joining the National Guard or owning their hunting rifles, as long as they are kept unloaded and locked up.

Of course the Second Amendment has nothing to do with National Guard service or with deer hunting or target shooting.

HANNITY: You inherited those laws, the gun laws in New York?

GIULIANI: Yes, and I used them. I used them to help bring down homicide. We reduced homicide, I think, by 65-70 percent. And some of it was by taking guns out of the streets of New York City.

So if you're talking about a city like New York, a densely populated area like New York, I think it's appropriate. You might have different laws other places, and maybe a lot of this gets resolved based on different states, different communities making decisions. After all, we do have a federal system of government in which you have the ability to accomplish that.

HANNITY: So you would support the state's rights to choose on specific gun laws?

GIULIANI: Yes, I mean, a place like New York that is densely populated, or maybe a place that is experiencing a serious crime problem, like a few cities are now, kind of coming back, thank goodness not New York, but some other cities, maybe you have one solution there and in another place, more rural, more suburban, other issues, you have a different set of rules.

HANNITY: But generally speaking, do you think it's acceptable if citizens have the right to carry a handgun?

GIULIANI: It's not only -- I mean, it's part of the Constitution. People have the right to bear arms. Then the restrictions of it have to be reasonable and sensible. You can't just remove that right. You've got to regulate, consistent with the Second Amendment.

HANNITY: How do you feel about the Brady bill and assault ban?

GIULIANI: I was in favor of that as part of the crime bill. I was in favor of it because I thought that it was necessary both to get the crime bill passed and also necessary with the 2,000 murders or so that we were looking at, 1,800, 1,900, to 2,000 murders, that I could use that in a tactical way to reduce crime. And I did.

This is not great, but it does bring him over the edge of acceptability, if only by microns. I don't care what Giuliani believes in his heart of hearts as long as he does the right thing. I'll take a hypocrite who does what I want him to do over an iron willed man of integrity who does what I do not want him to do any day of the week.

On gay marriage Rudy says he supports domestic partnership laws, but is against gay marriage. This is acceptable to me in that it preserves the distinction between what is a legal contract on one hand and a holy covenant before God on the other. Bottom line is that if you have a man whose wife has to be described as his "current wife" or "the woman he's married to this year" or some such then you know that he just doesn't get the "marriage thing" and probably never will.

Finally on the issue of border security and amnesty Rudy fails the test utterly. When you get past the weasel words he opposes a fence and supports amnesty. This puts him in the same boat as George W Bush and John McCain and Hillary Clinton and Barak Hussein Obama. So on this issue, which is very likely the single most important issue of the century he is no different in his cluelessness than the other frontrunners and the current administration.

Final thoughts. If Rudy's position on gun control stays what it is here, especially if he goes out of his way to praise "shall issue" concealed carry permit laws for the way that they empower individuals to protect themselves against predatory criminals, I will no longer consider voting for a third party instead of for him.

But I will still probably hold my nose.