The Dog That Barely Barked -- Part One of Two

Editor's note. Please send your comments to daveandrusko@hotmail.com.

Fans of Sherlock Holmes know this headline is a take-off on a line from one of Sir Arthur Conrad Doyle's most famous short stories, "Silver Blaze." (Holmes deduces that the reason that the "dog did not bark" at the scene of the crime was because the murderer was familiar to the animal.)

In the September issue of National Right to Life News, I wrote in great detail about former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, the only Republican presidential candidate who has not taken a pro-life position on abortion. I expected a lot of response to that editorial, but, in fact, it was negligible. Why?

There are a number of possible explanations, including the most obvious: why write to the editor of NRL News to say that you, as a pro-lifer, could not possibly vote for a pro-abortionist?

I mention this as a preface because pro-lifers continue to encounter variations of the specious argument that I critiqued last month: that pro-lifers would vote for Giuliani, either on prudential grounds (he's ahead in the polls and Hillary is worse), or because--in a curious twist of logic--a pro-abortionist at the top of the GOP ticket could "shake up" the debate on abortion!

An article that appeared in this week's Weekly Standard takes this emerging line of argument a few steps further. Again, as always, I am not challenging the sincerity of the proposal, only its correctness.

It assumes that Giuliani could win the Republican presidential nomination without the help of "social conservatives," but not the general election. What should Giuliani do?

Some would argue that Giuliani has supposedly already taken "positive steps," such as offering assurances he would nominate "strict constructionist" judges and justices. But to the author of the Weekly Standard piece, to win over pro-life skeptics, Giuliani must also offer assurances that, as President, he would not do anything to increase the number of abortions, would veto legislation that, for example, overturned the pro-life Hyde Amendment, promise not to try to change the party's pro-life stance or veto "reasonable legislation" to "reduce the number of abortions."

Let me offer a brief rebuttal.

Giuliani's lead is soft for loads of reasons we've already discussed in TN&V and in NRL News. The margin will continue to decline over the next month or two.

And, if history is any guide, candidates who receive only a miniscule portion of the vote in the caucuses and primaries in January/early February will leave the field. One of the four or five current leaders could also drop out as well. Especially if the latter is true, the electoral dynamics would be completely altered.

Moreover, to buy into the argument offered in the Weekly Standard would require pro-lifers to ignore that Giuliani tried to finesse the abortion issue earlier this year, only to return to home base when his overtures failed to pass the straight face test. More recently, on his own (and with the encouragement of others in the media), Giuliani is retooling yet again, trying to figure out how much rhetorical ground he must concede to prevent pro-lifers from drawing a line in the sand.

Amazingly, these Giuliani "concessions" are likened to the behavior of other politicians who changed from pro-abortion to pro-life. But these others were not dragged to their positions, kicking and screaming, nor (in the space of a few months) did they feint in the pro-life direction and then retreat to their pro-abortion comfort zone, nor did they float one trial balloon after another to see if pro-lifers would settle for rhetorical crumbs.

When you receive your October issue of National Right to Life News, you will find a full-page explanation of Rudy Giuliani's pro-abortion history. Read it, share it, and keep it in mind when more and more commentators publicly counsel Giuliani how to romance pro-lifers.

Please send your comments and questions to Dave Andrusko at daveandrusko@hotmail.com.

Part Two