Genuine Presidential Candidate Or Political Opportunists

Giuliani Shifts Abortion Speech Gently to Right

Rudy Guiliani is out stumping for his presidential bid by recalling his fame for responding to the events of 9-11. Like many that have run for high office, Rudy is resting on his laurels that were awarded during a momentous tragedy where heroic deeds were done. But, despite the accolades heaped upon Guiliani, the true heroes of 9-11 were not those holding high office, but those that have always behaved in a heroic manner on a day-to-day basis. The entire City of New York responded in a heroic manner. Its police force, firefighters, transportation workers, emergency medical technicians and even its commuters were the heroes of that day, and the days that followed... and Guiliani got a lion's share of the political credit.

Even giving Rudy his due, the fact that Guiliani is now hemming, hawing and wavering on matters of record and principle, demonstrates what those of us with an eye on history already knew: Guiliani is a political opportunist. His role as a prosecutor was all about the political limelight, with the spotlight being on him rather than the numerous investigators, litigators, researchers and clerical supporters that provided him with the base for his success in that role.

One of the questions that we, the electorate, have to answer in the coming months leading to the presidential primaries and the final presidential election is which of the candidates is the least opportunistic and most principled. The real question on my mind is whether or not we Americans have the will and ability to ask these questions.

Then, too, is the question as to how religion plays a role in presidential candidacy. While we are sure we want a person with spiritual values in office, we are not certain that we want another member of the ultra-conservative Christian Right to hold our highest office. Bush's hyper-religiosity has been disastrous, and the ultra-conservative hyper-religiosity offered by Guiliani, Romney, Huckabee and others is significantly scary for most of us.

As he prepares for a possible run for president — a road that goes deep into the heart of conservative America — Rudolph W. Giuliani takes with him a belief in abortion rights that many think could derail his bid to capture the Republican nomination.

But in recent weeks, as he has courted voters in South Carolina and talked to conservative media outlets, Mr. Giuliani has highlighted a different element of his thinking on the abortion debate. He has talked about how he would appoint “strict constructionist” judges to the Supreme Court — what abortion rights advocates say is code among conservatives for those who seek to overturn or limit Roe v. Wade, the 1973 court ruling declaring a constitutional right to abortion.

The effect has been to distance himself from a position favoring abortion rights that he espoused when he ran for mayor of New York City, where most voters favor abortion rights.

“I hate it,” he said of abortion in a recent interview with Sean Hannity of Fox News. “I think abortion is something that, as a personal matter, I would advise somebody against. However, I believe in a woman’s right to choose. I think you have to ultimately not put a woman in jail for that.”

For Mr. Giuliani, a Brooklyn-born Roman Catholic who once considered entering the priesthood, the issue has been a source of discomfort throughout his political career, especially during his first bid for mayor of New York nearly two decades ago.

Now, as he courts voters in more conservative areas, Mr. Giuliani is turning to the same nuanced approach he used back then to explain how he can be both for abortion rights, while being morally opposed to abortion.

While Mr. Giuliani also faces obstacles for his stands favoring gun control and gay rights, perhaps no social issue resonates as deeply in the hearts of Christian conservatives as abortion.

In his recent travels, he has directed questions on the issue toward a discussion about judges, saying he would appoint jurists who believe in interpreting, not making, the law: judges, he said, like Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel A. Alito Jr., who he has said he believed would place limits on Roe v. Wade.