February 19, 2006

Rudy Runs, and Republican Heads Explode

For as long as conventional wisdom has existed, it has been sure that the Republican Party would never nominate a pro-abortion, pro-gay rights candidate for president. And it is an article of faith among some Republicans that to ever nominate such a candidate would be to compromise crucial principles.

Rudy Giuliani looks ready to tear convention to shreds.

Approaching 2008, the GOP is in a position it has not occupied in more than a generation. It cannot do what it normally does, which is to nominate the guy whose “turn” it is. (How else to explain the choice of Bob Dole in 1996?) It is no one’s turn in 2008.

And it cannot count on the Democrats to helpfully nominate an unelectable dud – not with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in the race. Granted, either could reveal himself/herself in a general election campaign as eminently beatable, but it is not apparent at this point that either fits that description.

The Republicans have to think this time. Make a dumb choice, you probably lose in November. Make a choice based on irrelevant factors, you’re being dumb. So who do you really want as your standard-bearer?

Giuliani will not please many of the people who supposedly control the GOP nominating process. Right to Life will not endorse him. The Christian Coalition will fret over his ambiguity on gay rights issues, and perhaps even more so over his three marriages and undeniable adulterous behavior. (At least, on this score, his behavior is tame compared to that of his pal, Bernard Kerik.)

The National Rifle Association will not like Giuliani because he is mildly pro-gun control.

Conventional wisdom holds that you don’t get the nod in the GOP unless Right to Life, the NRA and the Christian Coalition support you – so supposedly powerful are these interests in the Republican Party.

But are they really? Or do they only appear that way because the strongest candidates to emerge from recent Republican nominating contests just happen to agree with their positions?

George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole, neither with a history of embracing positions favored by the aforementioned groups, tepidly accepted these stances as they sought the presidency. Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush were more authentic in their pro-life, pro-traditional morality stances, but it is far from clear that these are the reasons they were nominated or elected.

When you assess each candidate solely on the basis of what presidents actually do when in office, it’s hard to develop a serious conservative objection to Giuliani. He has never joined the antiwar crowd, and recently lambasted members of Congress for their silly nonbinding resolution that takes no action and undercuts support for the war effort and the troops.

All indications are that he would pursue the war on terror every bit as aggressively as Bush has done.

When asked recently who he would have appointed to the Supreme Court with the last two vacancies, he named John Roberts and Samuel Alito. Got a problem with that, Right to Life? When pressed on gun control, he said he supports the Second Amendment. Got a problem with that, NRA?

Of course, if the GOP nominates Giuliani, it will be admitting to some degree that its recent moral trepidation over Bill Clinton’s marital infidelity was somewhat hollow and quite partisan. Maybe that would be a good thing to admit. Maybe there were far more substantive issues to be raised about the way Bill Clinton ran the country, and a Republican Party confident in its own ideas would have focused on these issues and not final the resting place of the president’s semen.

The primary remaining mystery concerning Giuliani is his view on economic issues. We know that he turned a deficit into a surplus in the city of New York City, but that does not excite this conservative. I want to see a commitment to the kind of pro-growth, tax-cutting policies that have led to national prosperity under the Reagan and Bush 43 administrations.

Giuliani has not yet tipped his hand on these issues. Even his campaign web site offers no insight, and an extensive search of interviews he has given does not yield an answer to the question.

But if he proves to be a true economic conservative, Republican primary voters face a moment of reckoning. Are you willing to nominate a tough, courageous man who may not think everything you think, but is likely to do what you would want done?

It’s enough to make a pro-life, traditional-values conservative’s head explode, isn’t it?