2008 Polls National Iowa New Hampshire General Election GOP | Dem GOP | Dem GOP | Dem Head-to-Head

---

May 11, 2007

Special Report Roundtable - May 11

FOX News Special Report With Brit Hume

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RUDY GIULIANI (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We have to remain on offense against terrorists and we have to remain on offense to preserve, protect and expand our growth economy. We have got to unite if this election, because if we don't unite and we don't find a way of uniting around broad principals that will appeal to a large segment of this country, if we can't figure that out, we're going to lose this election.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANGLE: OK, there's Rudy Giuliani today, who was explaining once again his stance on abortion as he asked how important that is and how important differences are on that compared to other key issues as he talked about how other Republicans can win the next election.

Now some analytical observations from, Fred Barnes, executive editor of the Weekly Standard; Nina Easton, Washington Bureau chief of Fortune magazine; and syndicated columnist, Charles Krauthammer -- FOX NEWS contributors, all.

So, did Rudy Giuliani clarify his position today or just suggest that it was not the be-all and end-all of ways voters should evaluate whether or not they support him?

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Well, he certainly did the second by emphasizing how good he is on the other stuff and by showing himself to be very articulate and easy with those issues. He tried on abortion, as you know, I tried to explain his position here now twice and once in writing, I could be the only person who understands his position on abortion including Rudy Giuliani.

(LAUGHER)

But, I'm not going to do it a third time; all I'm going to say is this appears to be this argument over his position on abortion is, I think, a distraction because, in fact in our country the judges have taken over abortion, it's not like western Europe where it's done by the people. And the only relevant question for a president is: what kind of judge are you going to appoint?

He's told us, he says he will promise to appoint either someone like Alito or Roberts. And you can't do any better than that. You can't guarantee that you're going to have somebody who will overturn Roe v. Wade. Look, our most revered conservative president, Reagan, appointed three justices, two of whom, O'Connor and Kennedy, wrote the Casey Decision upholding Roe. So, you never know. But given the constraints on our system on what a conservative president can do on abortion, why would he be unacceptable for any reason?

ANGLE: Nina -- I mean, so Charles is suggesting this is a distraction, really, and that I, in essence, what Rudy Giuliani is arguing.

NINA EASTON, FORTUNE: Right.

ANGLE: That, look, you know where I feel, if we differ, fine, but that is not the most important evaluation you can make when you decide who to vote for.

EASTON: Right, and I, first of all, I need to make my disclaimer that my husband works for the McCain campaign, but then -- Charles' point, I think it's a fine intellectual nuance, but this is presidential politics here, Charles.

KRAUTHAMMER: I feel a whack coming.

(LAUGHTER)

EASTON: I think what -- this reminded me, this whole week has kid of reminded me of Hillary Clinton's safe, legal and rare moment, where she stood up to the base and she said -- base of her party and said: look, we can't go around and act like abortion is something we like. You know, we want it safe, we want it legal, but really we want it rare and let's see how we can reduce the number of abortions.

Rudy Giuliani is doing the same thing to his base. And I think on one level it's an interesting strategy on his campaign's part, keep in mind, we haven't really had a presidential election nation elect -- contest over the abortion issue since 2000, since 2004, we already had a Republican candidate, so is abortion really the defing element that it was in 2000? They're betting not because they're looking -- they're hoping for California, New Jersey, these more liberal states coming up front and their bet is that abortion won't matter as much as these other big issues.

ANGLE: Fred.

FRED BARNES, WEEKLY STANDARD: Yeah, probably won't. The -- but I think it's a measure of the problem that Rudy Giuliani has created for himself that he needs one of America's most preeminent columnists to interpret for him, Charles -- namely Charles Krauthammer. And Charles does a much better job than Giuliani has done. And I agree...

KRAUTHAMMER: And you are just setting me up, guys.

(LAUGHTER)

You're just setting me up.

BARNES: No, I'm not, really. I agree if there's a debate that goes on far long time without abortion in the Republican presidential debate, that is not helpful and I do think that Giuliani helped himself today because he I think he did clarify his position and what he said was, basically, I agree with the majority of Americans who think there should be a legal right to an abortion, but we need to have lots of limitations and restrictions. He didn't elaborate what those ones were, except for the ban on partial birth abortions. So, we'll see how he -- his next test is the Tuesday presidential debate in South Carolina. If he can get through that, maybe the issue will die.

ANGLE: Well, he also needed to get this off the table before that debate, so that wasn't the only issue people paid attention to.

BARNES: Indeed.

ANGLE: Yeah. All right, next on SPECIAL REPORT, the FOX all-stars take a closer look at what Congress is doing about the war in Iraq after the House voted first on withdrawing, then limiting funds in two months. Now the Senate leaps in. We'll talk about that, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HARRY REID (D-NV), SENATE MAJORITY LEADER: But there's a new reason to believe a bipartisan consensus in Iraq is emerging. It's what the American people want. A recent poll, in fact it was just a couple days ago, shows that 75 percent of Americans favor benchmarks and 60 percent favor a timetable for reducing combat forces.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANGLE: But 171 members of the House, including all but one of the Democratic leadership, voted in favor of withdrawaling all troops within 90 days. No reductions, complete withdrawal. That failed, of course, then the House approved war funding for only two months.

Senator Reid has made clear that will not pass the Senate. We're back with the panel now.

So, where are we in this mess, Charles? Obviously the Senate is going to reject what the House did. But they have to come up something and then sit down with the House to workout a compromise.

KRAUTHAMMER: Oh, the House is obviously pretty radicalized. That's a large number for immediate withdrawal, essentially surrender. Senate Democrats are not anywhere near there. I think what the Senate will try to do is give the president benchmarks, non-binding, which he can accept because he actually is in favor of them in principal, but in the end I think you're going to have a second veto, perhaps even a third. But in the end, the Congress will not cut off the troops.

EASTON: By the way, I think on this question of the Democrats, last night voting, for immediate withdrawal. I think one of the reasons is they don't perceive there's a political price to be paid because nothing's going to happen and nobody forces the question "what next, what if we do withdraw?" Nobody in the party is forcing that question with the exception maybe of Joe Lieberman. And so...

ANGLE: You mean it was a cheap way to appease the anti-war left and...

EASTON: Yeah. And I think -- but I do think that there is a political price and we're starting to see it in polls showing that the approval rating of Congress is down around the Bush ratings, right now.

ANGLE: You know, it is interesting Nina, that no one -- very seldom do you hear anyone ask the question: "what do you think will happen once the U.S. leaves?"

EASTON: Absolutely. That's the $64,000 question and it's very -- but they have not had to answer that. Bush has to answer those questions. He also has to answer the questions on Iraqi progress and I think all this noise ignores the fact that they're unhappy with the Iraqi government's progress and he sent Dick Cheney over there this week to tell them, you guys need to operate on our clock, not your clock.

ANGLE: Fred.

BARNES: Yeah, the Iraqi government's progress only matters in terms of fielding a stronger and stronger army. Whether or not they -- you know whether or not they pass some oil on now or in September really doesn't make any difference. The Sunni insurgency is not based on lack of oil revenues. It's based on they want to take over power again.

And the truth is there has been progress there. I see the Democratic National Committee says it's been 90 days and counting, escalation plans still not working. The truth is it is beginning to work. The last two American battalions, of 5,000 troops each, are not there -- I guee they're bergage (sic).

ANGLE: They're not all there yet.

BARNES: Yeah, they're not all there yet. But in neighborhoods, I hear from e-mailers from people who've been to Baghdad that it is markedly different. The Iraqi people are behind this plan of counterinsurgency, and that's where Democrats may get in trouble. They're not getting in any trouble now because the public doesn't believe the war is being won. But if it starts to look palpably like it can be won, that will change the political dynamic, as well.

ANGLE: OK, so we're waiting until falls, Charles, and then we've got 30 seconds.

KRAUTHAMMER: Clock strikes midnight in September when Petraeus returns and it'll depend on what he says. And if his news is reasonably good I think you will get a change in public opinion and a second chance.

---

Sponsored Links

About Us | Contact | Advertise | Privacy Policy         © RealClearPolitics 2006