Rudy's Consistency May Trump Some of His Social Policies

I've taken a little heat recently for my initial support for Rudy Giuliani's candidacy for President. As a conservative Christian, I'm supposed to shun any candidate who does not toe the line on abortion, and Rudy has consistently been pro-choice.

I use the word "consistently" on purpose, because unlike many of the other candidates, Rudy does not seem to be trying to remake himself and redefine past statements. He's not running to the right, left or anywhere. He is where he has been all along, and frankly, that's refreshing. The pandering to various special interest groups has become such standard fare in our elections that you're rolling the dice no matter who you vote for since nobody really knows what they believe until they start governing (see Schwarzenegger, Arnold).

Captain Ed points to a London Telegraph profile of Rudy which underscores the issue of consistency:

Whereas his rivals John McCain and Mitt Romney are engaged in attempts to disavow previous statements and recast themselves as social conservatives, Mr Giuliani's pitch is that "for most it's never about one issue" and consistency is preferable to pandering.

"I believe you've got to run based on what you are, who you really are," he told The Daily Telegraph. "I find if you do it that way even people who disagree with you sometimes respect you."

Mr Giuliani noted that his pro-choice abortion position had not changed in nearly two decades. The former mayor declined to draw the contrast himself, but Mr McCain supported the Roe versus Wade abortion ruling as late as 1999 and Mr Romney was pro-choice in 2004 but now declares himself pro-life.

"I'm just telling you the most honest answer to the question, which is the same answer I gave in 1989," Mr Giuliani told The Daily Telegraph. "I would advise my daughter or anyone else not to have an abortion. I'd do anything I could to help and assist with an adoption. I would like to see it ended but ultimately I believe a woman has a right to choose."

I'm just libertarian enough that this stance doesn't really bother me. As I've said before, the president has very limited ability to affect abortion. If he could overturn Roe with a stroke of the pen, I'm sure either Reagan or one of the Bushes would have done just that, but it's not that easy. Therefore, I'm not going to risk handing the keys to the White House to a Dem just to spite a pro-choice candidate.

Rudy is looking strong right now, and as McCain and Romney waffle around trying to redefine what they believe, he looks better all the time. He's also smart enough not to engage in the stupid intramural squabbles that are going on with the Dems right now, and the voters will appreciate that.