<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" media="screen" href="http://s2.wp.com/wp-content/themes/vip/newyorkobserver/stylesheets/rss.css"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Observer &#187; A Take-It-Or-Leave-It Moment for Rudy on Abortion</title>
	<atom:link href="http://observer.com/2007/07/a-takeitorleaveit-moment-for-rudy-on-abortion/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://observer.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 00:33:59 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language></language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
<cloud domain='observer.com' port='80' path='/?rsscloud=notify' registerProcedure='' protocol='http-post' />

	<atom:link rel="search" type="application/opensearchdescription+xml" href="http://observer.com/osd.xml" title="Observer" />
	<atom:link rel='hub' href='http://observer.com/?pushpress=hub'/>
		<item>
				
		<title>A Take-It-Or-Leave-It Moment for Rudy on Abortion</title>

		<comments>http://observer.com/2007/07/a-takeitorleaveit-moment-for-rudy-on-abortion/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:42:47 -0400</pubDate>
					<link>http://observer.com/2007/07/a-takeitorleaveit-moment-for-rudy-on-abortion/</link>
			<dc:creator>Steve Kornacki</dc:creator>
				
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.observer.com/2007/07/a-takeitorleaveit-moment-for-rudy-on-abortion/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p style="margin-bottom: 10pt" class="MsoNormal">We&#039;ve always known Rudy Giuliani faced a tricky-to-impossible balancing act among Iowa&#039;s rabidly pro-life caucus electorate – the same folks who gave Pat Robertson 25 percent of their vote (well ahead of the sitting Vice-President of the United States) in 1988.<span>   </span>Indeed, this is one of the chief reasons the former mayor has opted not to contest next month&#039;s Ames Straw Poll, a traditional test of early organizing strength in the state. </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 10pt" class="MsoNormal">But he&#039;s not giving up on Iowa altogether, knowing that a strong second (or even third) place showing in January might still be interpreted as a momentum-building &quot;win&quot; that would bolster his standing in subsequent primary states.<span>  </span>And, for that matter, he doesn&#039;t seem to be giving up on the Christian conservatives in the state. </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 10pt" class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://www.globegazette.com/articles/2007/07/18/latest_news/doc469ec51ca17ce079683575.txt" title="blocked::http://www.globegazette.com/articles/2007/07/18/latest_news/doc469ec51ca17ce079683575.txt"><span style="color: purple">Campaigning in Council Bluffs</span></a> yesterday, the heart of conservative western Iowa, Giuliani pledged to appoint &quot;strict constructionist judges, because judges interpret the Constitution. They should not be allowed to make it up.&quot;<span>   </span>The language is significant because, well, can you think of a single pro-choice politician who has ever talked of appointing &quot;strict constructionists&quot; to the courts?<span>   </span>Only after making that point did Giuliani add that “the abortion question is not a litmus test. Roe against Wade is not a litmus test; no particular case is a litmus test.&quot; </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 10pt" class="MsoNormal">Many would consider those statements flatly contradictory, since it is generally understood that &quot;strict constructionists&quot; favor rescinding Roe. Giuliani, of course, used the &quot;strict constructionist&quot; line earlier this year, before his campaign realized that he would have to come clean about his pro-choice position, which he finally did back in May.<span>   </span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 10pt" class="MsoNormal">The most likely explanation for what Giuliani is doing now is that he sees an unexpected opening among social conservatives.<span>   </span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 10pt" class="MsoNormal">Of the big-name Republican candidates, John McCain had the most reliably anti-abortion record; but he&#039;s tuna fish now, and anyway the right never completely trusted him for other reasons.<span>   </span>And there are still questions about the sincerity of Mitt Romney&#039;s &quot;conversion&quot; on the abortion issue – and on so many others – in 2004.<span>  </span>Most notably, though, is that the news of Giuliani&#039;s remarks in Iowa coincides with confirmation – finally – that Fred Thompson, who was supposed to fill the vacuum on the right, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/19/us/politics/19thompson.html?_r=1&amp;oref=slogin" title="blocked::http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/19/us/politics/19thompson.html?_r=1&amp;oref=slogin"><span style="color: purple">was indeed a paid lobbyist</span></a> for an abortion rights group last decade. </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 10pt" class="MsoNormal">In that context, no one is perfect.<span>  </span>Giuliani seems to be calculating that for conservatives sympathetic to him on other issues, his position on abortion will be good enough. </p>
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="margin-bottom: 10pt" class="MsoNormal">We&#039;ve always known Rudy Giuliani faced a tricky-to-impossible balancing act among Iowa&#039;s rabidly pro-life caucus electorate – the same folks who gave Pat Robertson 25 percent of their vote (well ahead of the sitting Vice-President of the United States) in 1988.<span>   </span>Indeed, this is one of the chief reasons the former mayor has opted not to contest next month&#039;s Ames Straw Poll, a traditional test of early organizing strength in the state. </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 10pt" class="MsoNormal">But he&#039;s not giving up on Iowa altogether, knowing that a strong second (or even third) place showing in January might still be interpreted as a momentum-building &quot;win&quot; that would bolster his standing in subsequent primary states.<span>  </span>And, for that matter, he doesn&#039;t seem to be giving up on the Christian conservatives in the state. </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 10pt" class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://www.globegazette.com/articles/2007/07/18/latest_news/doc469ec51ca17ce079683575.txt" title="blocked::http://www.globegazette.com/articles/2007/07/18/latest_news/doc469ec51ca17ce079683575.txt"><span style="color: purple">Campaigning in Council Bluffs</span></a> yesterday, the heart of conservative western Iowa, Giuliani pledged to appoint &quot;strict constructionist judges, because judges interpret the Constitution. They should not be allowed to make it up.&quot;<span>   </span>The language is significant because, well, can you think of a single pro-choice politician who has ever talked of appointing &quot;strict constructionists&quot; to the courts?<span>   </span>Only after making that point did Giuliani add that “the abortion question is not a litmus test. Roe against Wade is not a litmus test; no particular case is a litmus test.&quot; </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 10pt" class="MsoNormal">Many would consider those statements flatly contradictory, since it is generally understood that &quot;strict constructionists&quot; favor rescinding Roe. Giuliani, of course, used the &quot;strict constructionist&quot; line earlier this year, before his campaign realized that he would have to come clean about his pro-choice position, which he finally did back in May.<span>   </span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 10pt" class="MsoNormal">The most likely explanation for what Giuliani is doing now is that he sees an unexpected opening among social conservatives.<span>   </span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 10pt" class="MsoNormal">Of the big-name Republican candidates, John McCain had the most reliably anti-abortion record; but he&#039;s tuna fish now, and anyway the right never completely trusted him for other reasons.<span>   </span>And there are still questions about the sincerity of Mitt Romney&#039;s &quot;conversion&quot; on the abortion issue – and on so many others – in 2004.<span>  </span>Most notably, though, is that the news of Giuliani&#039;s remarks in Iowa coincides with confirmation – finally – that Fred Thompson, who was supposed to fill the vacuum on the right, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/19/us/politics/19thompson.html?_r=1&amp;oref=slogin" title="blocked::http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/19/us/politics/19thompson.html?_r=1&amp;oref=slogin"><span style="color: purple">was indeed a paid lobbyist</span></a> for an abortion rights group last decade. </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 10pt" class="MsoNormal">In that context, no one is perfect.<span>  </span>Giuliani seems to be calculating that for conservatives sympathetic to him on other issues, his position on abortion will be good enough. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://observer.com/2007/07/a-takeitorleaveit-moment-for-rudy-on-abortion/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/becf95fa833b8aeb13f7720732bd6dc6?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">jhanasobserver</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
