No lockstep within the GOP's big '08 field, debate showed

On abortion, stem-cell research, and other social issues, clear differences emerged among the party's top-tier presidential candidates during Thursday's first-of-the-season debate.

By Linda Feldmann | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

from the May 4, 2007 edition

Page 1 of 2

Washington - The scene of 10 white men in suits, lined up on stage Thursday night at the Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif., had a certain visual sameness to it. But when the men opened their mouths, in the first debate featuring the 2008 Republican presidential candidates, some clear differences emerged – both stylistic and substantive.

Social issues provided the clearest contrasts, as top-tier candidates disagreed on abortion and stem-cell research. The field also divided itself over the issue of evolution, when the three candidates most identified for their social conservatism – former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, and Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado – raised their hands when asked who does not believe in evolution.

Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who remains a top-tier contender despite losing the first-quarter-of-2007 money race and slipping to second place in GOP polls, has struggled to appeal to the religious conservative base of the party. His follow-up response to the evolution question appeared to be an effort to reach out to those voters: "I believe in evolution. But I also believe, when I hike the Grand Canyon and see it at sunset, that the hand of God is there also."

But it was former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's discussion of abortion that provided one of the standout moments of the evening. Mr. Giuliani, the frontrunner for his party's nomination in Republican polls, has long been known as a social liberal, favoring abortion rights (as well as gay rights and gun control). But when asked if the repeal of the US Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion nationwide would be a good day for Americans, he replied this way: "It would be OK to repeal. Or it would be OK also if a strict constructionist judge viewed it as precedent, and I think a judge has to make that decision."

So what does Giuliani really think? When moderator Chris Matthews pressed for clarity, Giuliani stated that he thinks "the court has to make that decision, and then the country can deal with it." At heart, Giuliani put forth a federalist view on the right to abortion – leave it up to the states, which is what a repeal of the abortion precedent Roe v. Wade would do. In that vein, Giuliani defended his home state's longstanding policy of providing public funds for abortions for low-income women.

In short, Giuliani's position on abortion rights came across as a mixed bag – which could have left viewers confused or, alternatively, feeling that he mirrors the ambivalence of many Americans. But viewers who were looking for a clear rejection of legalized abortion – the view of most GOP base voters – did not find it with the New Yorker most famous for his post-9/11 response.

Giuliani's discussion of abortion was "not necessarily forceful, but it was different," says Jack Pitney, a political scientist at Claremont McKenna College in Claremont, Calif. "That might hurt him, but then again, if you're interested enough to be watching the debate, you already know he's pro-choice. I don't think it will change the basic dynamics of the race."

Page 1 | 2 | Next Page