By John Tabin on 5.4.07 @ 1:28AM
The most memorable moment in last night's Republican presidential debate came when the candidates were asked about Roe v. Wade.
The most memorable moment in last night's Republican
presidential debate came when the candidates were asked about
Roe v. Wade. One after another, everyone said what a great
day it will be when Roe is overturned. Then came Rudy
Giuliani's turn.
"It would be okay," he said, almost shrugging.
As Chris Matthews pressed him into elaborating that he'd leave
it to a judge to determine whether it's appropriate to overturn
precedent, the fundamental dilemma of the Giuliani candidacy was on
full display. A Republican can't win without making peace with the
pro-life movement. But Giuliani can't campaign as a pro-lifer
without being rightly pilloried as an opportunistic flip-flopper.
And while promising not to make Roe a litmus test is
regular ritual in general elections, Giuliani actually means it:
He'll appoint judges who would probably overturn Roe, but
he's not going to make it a priority.
There's something refreshing about a politician who can't muster
the energy to care about abortion. There's nothing strange about
not feeling strongly about abortion, after all; it's an unpleasant
topic that lots of people would rather not think too much about.
But lots of other people care deeply about abortion and the
constellation of related issues, and those people make up an
important voting bloc in primary elections on both sides of the
aisle. Republicans get a little more leeway than Democrats on this;
while all the major contenders for the Democratic nomination felt
compelled to denounce the Supreme Court decision last month that
upheld the Partial Birth Abortion Act, there was a split over
federal funding of embryonic stem cell research on the stage last
night (McCain, like Giuliani, is for it). Giuliani is testing just
how far that leeway goes.
Most observers seem to agree that the debate was bad for
Giuliani. To the extent that there was a winner, it was probably
Mitt Romney, who looked and sounded like a credible contender in a
forum where many candidates did not. But the format made it hard
for anyone to really shine. With ten men on stage, the debate
quickly devolved into a cacophony, with the candidates often
brushing aside questions to talk about unrelated topics -- a
defensible strategy, given how inane some of the questions were.
(When Chris Matthews asked if it would be good to have Bill Clinton
living in the White House again, Romney had his best moment:
"You've got to be kidding me.") Fred Thompson's horde of blogging
fans are, predictably, declaring him the winner for staying out of
the fray. It's true that a late-entry strategy may yet pay off. But
it's hard to believe that many people watched this debate and
concluded that Republicans just don't have enough choices.
topics:
Bill Clinton, Abortion, Supreme Court, Energy
