Ok…I can’t let it go at that. We have known all along that Rudy was pro-choice, so this shouldn’t surprise any of the conservatives out there who have been paying attention to the ’08 candidates. Most conservatives who support Rudy do so because they think he would be tough on terrorism and because they like his record on crime in NYC. Those conservatives see the life issue as secondary, so the fact that Rudy Giuliani donated $900 to Planned Parenthood won’t make much difference to that group of supporters.
Rudy’s problem is that he tried to pull a “Mitt”– where his “I hate abortion” line is his equivalent of Romney’s “personally pro-life” line. There’s no question that Romney has some work to do on the abortion question to convince pro-lifers that his conversion is genuine, but at least he has, to some degree, admitted that he changed his mind on that subject. What conservatives respected about Rudy Giuliani is that he was unapologetic at one point about being pro-choice, and that he was willing to defend his opposite views from the SoCons on gay marriage and abortion. He was the “authentic” candidate (for lack of a better word). Giuliani can’t legitimately claim that he hates abortion if he supports taxpayer funding of abortion and speaks at NARAL “Champions of Choice” lunches. Like Matt Lewis said, that looks more like someone who is not simply pro-choice, but an abortion advocate.
Will this matter to the majority of Republicans who would be willing to sell their souls if it meant beating Hillary? Probably not. This sounds a bit harsh, I know. We have to be honest with ourselves about what we are willing to accept in our nominee and whether winning has to mean compromising on issues like abortion and gay marriage.