'Run-around Rudolph' is a conservative?

Manchester attorney Ed Mosca has long been associated with politically conservative causes, most notably in his opposition to judicial lawmaking by the New Hampshire Supreme Court in the Claremont school-funding decisions. But he risks stretching both Republican credulity and the party's famous "big tent" to the breaking point when he contends that among leading Republican candidates for the '08 presidential nomination, the one with the best claim to be bearer of the "Reagan legacy" is ... Rudy Giuliani. ("Giuliani: the heir to Reagan?" Feb. 16-March 1 New Hampshire Business Review.) Now is the time for all good Republicans to come to the aid of the Gipper.

We need to be honest in so doing, however, and not only about the abandonment of fiscal conservatism that occurred in Reagan's eight years in the White House. (I considered celebrating my old hero's birthday a few weeks ago, but quickly realized I was in no position to borrow and spend an amount nearly adequate to the occasion.) Mosca seems to forget that during his first term as governor of California, Reagan signed into law a liberal abortion statute that resembled what the U.S. Supreme Court would later decree for the whole nation. I believe Reagan's conversion on that issue was genuine, but it did coincide with his pursuit of the presidency at a time when opposition to abortion had hardened within his party's conservative "base." Regardless of what one might think of the sincerity of former Massachusetts Governor Romney's recent conversion from "pro-choice" to "pro-life," the facts belie Mosca's claim about Reagan: "Unlike Romney, he wasn't a flip-flopper on abortion."

Mosca acknowledges that Giuliani is the candidate "furthest to the left on abortion and gay marriage." (He neglects to mention the former mayor's fondness for gun control.) In fact, Giuliani favors "civil unions" for same-sex couples without calling it "marriage." But Mosca rationalizes that Reaganites may overlook Giuliani's stand on the abortion and "gay" whatever, because "under the federal constitution these are supposed to be state, not federal issues."

Supposed to be, but are not. That is especially true of abortion, a matter on which the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled the states may not proscribe the "right to choose." But it is worth noting that Mosca is not willing to use the same federalist rationale to overlook Romney's healthcare plan in Massachusetts that affects only the residents of that commonwealth. What about Madison's notion of the states being "laboratories of democracy"?

On the hot-button social issues, it is enough for Mosca that "Giuliani has said that he would nominate judges like Reagan appointee Antonin Scalia, who would return those issues (abortion and "gay" marriage) to the states."

I don't doubt Giuliani has said that. What's surprising is that Mosca and apparently many other conservatives believe it. Supreme Court picks often surprise their sponsors, but why would Giuliani even try to put someone on the Supreme Court who would vote to overturn the constitutional "right" to which Rudolph has plighted his troth? Because presidents, once in office, never break their campaign promises?

Perhaps Giuliani has calculated that no Republican nominee is going to get either the NARAL or NOW endorsement, anyway, so he might as well throw a rhetorical sop to the social conservatives in an effort to appear acceptable to them. "Pro-choice" Republicans, meanwhile, knowing where the candidate's heart and mind really are, could still be comfortable in voting for Giuliani in the confidence that he won't do anything too "radical right."

Perhaps I'm being cynical, but when conservatives start looking kindly on a presidential bid by Run-around Rudolph, a bit of cynicism seems appropriate.

Jack Kenny is a freelance writer who lives in Manchester.