Can a pro-choice candidate win through and capture the GOP nomination for President?

Conventional wisdom would seem to mitigate against it. For more than a quarter of a century, the pro-life lobby has been the most consistent and reliable of GOP interest groups. Their ranks have fleshed out GOP presidential campaigns with volunteers and fundraisers. And it is no exaggeration to say that their advocacy contributed mightily to GOP victories in the House and Senate during the decade and a half of GOP control of Congress.

The pro life lobby has also shown that it has muscle at the state level, passing laws in numerous legislatures regarding parental consent, strictures against late term abortions, and something known as “informed consent” where the woman is told about the development of her fetus before the procedure.

But with the Republican party in turmoil and conservatives re-examining everything about themselves, it might just be possible for a nominal pro-choice candidate like Rudy Guiliani to squeak through and capture the nomination.

This is because his main pro-life rival John McCain has his own problems with conservatives despite his near perfect opposition to abortion. If Rudy could capture the bulk of conservatives who don’t assign as much weight to pro life issues as some others (and if Rudy can avoid a few other landmines on guns, affirmative action, and questions regarding his personal life), I think he has a decent chance of winning.

I characterized Guiliani’s pro-choice stance as “nominal” above. In fact, his views are very close to the mainstream of the country which, in the end, is pro-choice but supports most of the restrictions placed on the procedure at the state level. And the out of control, rabid positions of pro choicers with regards to partial birth abortions as well as their curious reluctance to acknowledge that neo-natal science has progressed since Roe v. Wade in 1973 makes Rudy’s views much more mainstream than say, Hillary Clinton who supported a “mental health” exception in a partial birth abortion bill in 2003.

That amendment failed to lower the bar for “viability of the fetus outside the womb” below 24 weeks – a totally unscientific and arbitrary time period given the fact that 21 week old fetuses routinely are delivered and survive.

But “mainstream” views on abortion are different than those held by pro lifers. And as this NR piece points out, if Rudy can make it through the primaries, he can probably expect the support of the pro life crowd in November, 2008:

In many cases over the years, pro-lifers have been willing to overlook politicians’ pasts and embrace their conversions. It is never too late to begin protecting life. In other cases, pro-lifers have reached a modus vivendi with politicians who continue to disagree with them. The late Sen. Paul Coverdell, for example, supported legal abortion. But once he won his primary, pro-lifers supported him since he promised to vote to ban partial-birth abortion, oppose public funding of abortion, and support conservative nominees to the judiciary. He lived up to those promises. He stayed theoretically pro-choice, but was operationally pro-life. The bar for Giuliani will be higher, since he is running for president — and so far he has done less.

He has moved on partial-birth abortion. On Meet the Press in 2000, he said he would “vote to preserve the option for women.” He also said, “I think the better thing for America to do is to leave that choice to the woman, because it affects her probably more than anyone else.” Partial-birth abortion is inches away from infanticide, and more than 60 percent of Americans — including many people who consider themselves “pro-choice” — think it is abhorrent and should be prohibited.

Giuliani has now joined this consensus, which is the bare minimum a presidential candidate who wants to find common ground with pro-lifers must do. On Hannity & Colmes on Monday night, Giuliani said that he supports a ban on partial-birth abortion, so long as it allows the procedure when necessary to save the mother’s life. The qualification is puzzling: Nobody has ever presented a persuasive hypothetical case in which a woman’s health would depend on partly delivering her child and then crushing the child’s skull and sucking out the brains — let alone an actual case in which her life was at stake. But we applaud the mayor’s newfound willingness to endorse a ban at all.

But the primaries is where the power of the pro life lobby is most keenly felt. And from what I’ve read from some of the leading lights of that group, they are by no means taken with the candidacy of John McCain. Aside from McCain’s other problems with conservatives on judges and campaign finance reform, the Senator has actually muddied the waters a bit with regards to his pro-life stance, calling legalized abortion “necessary” at one point while saying he would not be in favor of repealing Roe v. Wade:

McCain said, “I’d love to see a point where Roe vs. Wade is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.” A spokesman said that McCain “has a 17-year voting record of supporting efforts to overturn Roe vs. Wade. He does that currently, and will continue to do that as president.”

This may cause the pro life lobby to either turn to another candidate – someone like Sam Brownback or Duncan Hunter – or perhaps even split their support several ways. This would help Rudy even more in the primaries as he and McCain slug it out.

I frankly think Rudy’s biggest problem will be a limited appeal in the south. He will be competitive in Florida and Texas but I think McCain has a real chance to shut him out elsewhere, racking up large majorities in the old cotton south as well as most of the border states. Perhaps that perception will change but if you think about it you’ll see what I mean: The last northeastern candidate from either party to win the Presidency was John F. Kennedy in 1960. And the last northeastern candidate to win the Republican nomination was Tom Dewey in 1948.