Is It To Early to Start Dissecting 2008?

Patrick Ruffini has an interesting analogy when analyzing Rudy and/or Condi's chances of snagging the GOP nomination in 2008...

There's no doubt that there a significant number of primary voters, perhaps 15-20%, who are motivated primarily by the life issue. But that doesn't mean they'll necessarily be able to swing anything -- not so long as the movement's idea of a standard-bearer is Alan Keyes or Gary Bauer. The fact is that there are at least as many Republicans who object to McCain on political grounds as do to Rudy and Condi on ideological grounds. Probably the best hope for a pro-life nominee is for someone now at 5% or below to surge -- and that's asking for a lot in notoriously insurgent-averse Republican politics.

But wouldn't pro-life voters abandon the party in droves? I'm not saying this wouldn't be a problem, but I'll bring this up by way of playing devil's advocate: How is this any different than Democrats and the war? In 2004, the Democrats nominated a candidate who voted for the war despite the rank-and-file's overwhelming opposition to it. Anti-war sentiment was at least as prominent among Democrats as pro-life sentiment is among Republicans. And yet, Kerry effectively maxed out his support among the party's base despite a newly-minted anti-war position that was muddled at best. His problem in the general election? He wasn't pro-war enough, and swing voters questioned his ability to follow through on a war he (falsely) claimed not to support. In 2008, Hillary is angling for a position that's even more at odds with her party's base. That doesn't seem to be hurting her.

I don't know that the analogy fits perfectly, as Lorie Byrd at Polipundit noted. I think the Kerry analogy is a stretch, because it would have been difficult to convince anyone, either on the right or on the left or even in the middle, that Kerry would stay the course in Iraq. I think by contrast to both HRC and Kerry, Guiliani and Condi have been pro-choice forever, while Kerry adopted a pro-war stance for his Presidential run (and Hillary still has to convince me that she hasn't done the same).

On the other hand, I think Guiliani in particular can convince some (if not all) pro-life voters to follow him, at least in the general election (especially if he's running against the GOP bogeywoman HRC). I think many conservatives, including pro-lifers, admire Rudy's leadership and his trust him as a man of his word. In the end, the President's impact on the abortion issue is limited to promoting or denying federal funds to abortion providers (here and abroad), and judicial nominations. I think Rudy can be pro-choice while also stating that he will oppose federal funding for abortion services. He can also get out in front on the judicial nomination front by carrying some water for the President in the upcoming confirmation battles.

In the end, I tend to agree with Ruffini that conservatives are more likely to trust the pro-choice Rudy over the pro-life John McCain. And this comes from a conservative who hasn't forgotten Rudy's endorsement of Mario Cuomo over George Pataki in 1994. McCain is firmly pro-life, but he's also more than willing to tack to the middle to win media plaudits for being conciliatory. If Rudy tells the GOP base that he will nominate and fight for conservative appointments to the federal bench, I'd have more faith in him than Senator McCain.