Giuliani Shoots Himself in the Fetus

Did Rudy Giuliani just blow his chances of getting the Republican nomination for president in 2008?

Giuliani is gambling that his image as the hero of 9/11 will more than make up for his heterodox (for a Republican, anyway) views on abortion and gun control. He seems to think that being a tough guy will more than make up for his deviation from conservative orthodoxy -- and it might, in a general election. But before that he has to win Iowa and New Hampshire, and the voters in those two states are hard-right true believers. Those 200,000 voters are unlikely to be willing to vote for a pro-choice, pro-gun control candidate -- no matter what he did on 9/11.

This is how Giuliani defended his position at Houston Baptist University on Friday (text from the AP):

"This is a matter of deep and profound judgment. It's a matter of morals. It's a matter of your interpretation of how laws should operate, your interpretation of how respect for the rights of others should operate. But in a country like ours ... I believe you have to respect their viewpoint and give them a level of choice. I would grant women the right to make that choice."

Sounds pretty reasonable, doesn't it? Almost rational, coming from a Republican. There are of course some interesting and revealing caveats in that otherwise reasonable statement. For example, he says he would give women "a level of choice" (my emphasis), and that "I would grant women [again, my emphasis] the right to make that choice." It's as if the right to choose was a personal gift of Giuliani's, something he can bestow and/or take away any time he feels like it.

But soon Giuliani was backtracking even from this position, saying on Sunday in an interview on Fox News that, "I am open and will continue to be open to ways to limit abortion."

How do you reconcile these two positions? Are they reconcilable? Women have the right to make the choice to terminate a pregnancy but Giuliani is open to ways of limiting that choice? Imagine a similar argument on, say, gun control: would he really say words to the effect of, "I am in favor of gun ownership but I'm open to the idea of taking those guns away"? Would he really get away with such an idiotic statement?

Giuliani is stuck between a rock and a hard place -- and, typically, he's trying to have it both ways. He knows that if he shifts gears and retracts his original position in the way that Mitt Romney did he will lay himself open to the charge of being an opportunist and a flip-flopper. If he holds firm to his position he risks alienating the very people who are in a position to deny him the nomination.

Abortion is "morally wrong" (Giuliani's words) but should be protected. Now that's something the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire are just dying to hear. As an article in the International Herald Tribune about his interview Sunday says:

The high stakes he faces, and the strain of having to explain the more conservative views he has adopted, were evident Sunday when Giuliani, after a 10-minute grilling in the Fox News interview about his abortion views, began to quite visibly perspire.

That's probably symbolically appropriate. In his place, I'd be sweating too -- because I would have, in all likelihood, thrown away my chances of the nomination.

Tom Moran

Will He or Won't He? Check His Pants

Everyone seems to be reading the tea leaves in order to ascertain whether or not Al Gore will run for president in 2008.

Eleanor Clift in Newsweek (full disclosure: my former employer) reports that Gore is losing weight, and that this might be a sign that he's thinking of running:

A leading indicator of his intentions could be Gore's waistline. The theory is that slimming down will be a signal he intends to run. "He has lost a few pounds, and Hillary can read into that what she wants," says a longtime adviser who declined to be identified discussing his boss's figure. Gore has always been a voracious eater, and at 58, the pounds don't come off so easily. He is trying to be healthier, working out daily when he can.

So Gore losing (or trying to lose) weight means he's running? I'm not so sure. Elsewhere in the same Newsweek piece, Clift reports that Laurie David (wife of Larry David and an environmental activist) has openly advocated that Gore should run:

Laurie David, who helped bankroll Gore's film, and whose "personal fantasy" is that he run, says that when she presses him, he's always coy and says his cell phone is breaking up. "I believe him when he says he doesn't have any intention of running," David told NEWSWEEK. "But I also believe the door is not completely shut."

But how long can that door stay ajar? This is turning into the most ridiculously front-loaded race in the history of presidential primaries, and chances are that whoever wins Iowa and New Hampshire will be unbeatable. How long can Gore hold out if he wants to get into the race? Even now we're hearing stories of Hillary Clinton making phone calls to prospective supporters only to find out that Barack Obama had gotten there first. The people who would ordinarily support Gore are going to be snatched up by other candidates very soon.

Gore says he has not intention of running, and I respect that: the fact is that anyone who is willing to do what it takes to be president should probably be disqualified for the job anyway. But whoever moves into the White House in January of 2009 will have an awesome (in the true sense of the word) job on his or her hands -- dealing with an economy that may well be in shambles by then; trying to get legislation passed through a Congress that has a very thin Democratic majority -- and of course, trying to muck out the steaming abbatoir that is Iraq. It's not an enviable job. One can certainly understand why Gore might want the cup to pass from him.

But the country needs him. I honestly believe that -- as well as I believe that Gore is the best and most qualified person to run the country and clean up the mess that George W. Bush and his band of criminals have made.

Half the country, and quite possibly more than half, hates Hillary Clinton with a passion. And the left wing of the Democratic party isn't crazy about her either.

Barack Obama has had exactly two years experience in Congress (to give you some perspective, when JFK ran for president at a similar age he had 14 years experience in Congress).

Al Gore is the best candidate the Democrats can find.

But will they find him? Better yet, will he allow himself to be found?

Tom Moran