Because, unlike Romney, he knows they’re not dumb enough to believe he’s completely changed his mind, right on schedule.
What makes you think that approach would work?
And, if he suddenly announced he was pro-life now, everyone in the country would immediately hear the drumbeat of “Flip-Flopper, Flip-Flopper”.
Couldn’t he just say that because of 9/11 he now believes women shouldn’t have the right to choose? Wouldn’t that make sense to conservative Republicans?
How could anyone plausibly link those two ideas? “Up until those planes slammed into the world trade center I believed that women had a right to do what they chose to do with their bodies. Now I believe _______________because ___________”?
Plausibly. Fill in those blanks in such a way that he’d come off sincerely, not like a raving loony or as someone who’s just found Jesus. (he should have *already * found Jesus, being Catholic and all.)
He told the NRA that 9/11 had made him change his mind about gun control. Those two ideas have no linkage.
He’s the Republican’s front runner yet his pro-choice stance is an albatross around his neck that threatens to scare away right-wing voters. It only makes sense that he say he is now pro-life. I don’t believe his target audience will care that he has flip-flopped, I think they just want to vote for somebody who says he is against a women’s right to choose.
The anti-abortion group likes to portray their side as “pro-life” and the other side as “pro-abortion.”
The other side likes to portray their side as “pro-choice” and the other side as “anti-legal abortion.”
Third poll down on that page. 39% of those who want abortion to be legal want stricter limits on it vs 34% who don’t. The rest don’t want it to be legal at all. That makes 64% of the population in favor of stricter limits, including the 25% who want it to be illegal. (Note: 2% were unsure.)
Jeez. I thought you were kidding about the abortion thing and 9/11. Surely you can link terror attacks with a sudden change of thinking about gun control. And it could work either way-- the terror attacks made me realize that we need to put more restrictions on weapon ownership; the terror attacks made me understand the benefits of a better armed citizenry wrt to security from such attacks.
I can see how conservative Republicans can make the connection if they believe the 9/11 hijackers used guns or if they believe an armed citizenry could have shot the hijacked planes out of the air. If they believe this, why would it be such a stretch to believe that 9/11 caused Guiliani the re-think abortion rights?
In what way would it have caused him to rethink that issue? What is the connection between terror attacks and abortion? I can’t think of one.
As a purely intellectual excercise, I think you could say something about how seeing thousands of lives snuffed out by hatred made you realize the sanctity of all life, and how preserving life is any government’s highest priority.
But there is a difference between this and the gun control issue: with guns, it’s easy to see and say that what makes sense for NYC is NOT the same as what makes sense for the country as a whole. The moral issue behind abortion, on the other hand, is not related to context. Shifting perceptions to the national scene is not the same as shifting a fundamental moral priniciple.
Yeah, and I’m sure some people would believe him. But it’s a bit of a stretch. He could just as well say that when his close relative (pick whichever one you want) died, he realized how precious life is. But what he really should do is convince the pro-life folks that the president has no real control over the abortion issue, except in nominating SCOTUS justices-- and he’s already said he would nominate (supposedly) anti-*Roe *justices. He can say that he’s pro-choice, but thinks abortion law should be decided at the state level, not at the federal level.
It’s an enormous stretch. I was just musing.