The Washington Post has a front page
story on Giuliani's candidacy today. Not much new--i.e., the
article says he'll have difficulty in the primaries because of his
liberal social views, that he hasn't been hiring talent as
agressively as Romney and McCain, and that some experts doubt he'll
end up running. I've already spent a lot of time on this blog
arguing against that conventional wisdom, so I just wanted to focus
on one point of the story:
His strategy will be to capitalize on his status as
a tough and plain-talking hero of Sept. 11, 2001. He believes, say
advisers, that his tough views on national security -- he supports
the USA Patriot Act -- and on Iraq, where he opposes withdrawal of
troops, will overshadow his liberal social views. He will frame
some of those positions as libertarian -- government has no
business interfering in the bedroom.
This is indicative of something I've sensed for a long time. It
doesn't seem like Giuliani is going to flip-flop on social issues
to win the nomination. He'll try his best to explain his positions,
probably promise judges in the Roberts/Alito mold, and emphasize
aspects of his record that would be lauded by social conservatives
(cutting crime, moving people from welfare to work, cleaning up the
city, fighting to kick porn houses out of Times Square and make it
safe for families, etc.). However, I don't expect him to suddenly
become pro-life or pro FMA. At this point he wouldn't gain anything
anyway. Social conservatives who wouldn't otherwise vote for him
wouldn't be swayed by such a transparent flip-flop, and such a move
would turn off voters who respect him for being a real person
rather than a pandering politician. His best bet is to argue to
conservatives that even if they don't agree with him on every
issue, at least they know where he stands, and that's why they can
trust him to lead the War on Terror with steely resolve.