Hey, that could be a rock band. Kind of like Hootie and the Blowfish.
Anyway, as Giuliani’s poll numbers go up… and up… the so-called experts are apparently scratching their heads because Republicans are supposed to be opposed to him on the social issues. The WaPo had a thumbsucker about it this morning (via Glenn).
I have my own theory about this (and, yes, you can discredit me because I am more or less in synch with Rudy on these issues anyway).
I think the social issues are pretty much over and done with and everyone, deep down, knows it. They have been resolved, as we say in Iraq, by “the facts on the ground.”
Let’s take the two biggies one at a time:
GAY RIGHTS: Anyone who’s been living in real life America the past twenty-five years has been surrounded by gay couples living together. Oh, you say, but what about somewhere-in-North Dakota? Okay, what about New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, San Francisco, Portland, Denver, Seattle, Houston, Dallas, Austin, Atlanta, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Washington, Baltimore, Miami and New Orleans (of course)… I could on. Am I getting boring yet? You add it up. I don’t want to be bothered. Meanwhile, in most of these places, probably all, thousands of gay couples are living together, sharing households, raising children, etc., etc. If this bothers you, it’s already happened. Get used to it. It’s not going to go backwards, not a chance. Oh, yes, there is one way it could change – Sharia law. If you don’t like gay America, root for the Islamists.
The issue of marriage is also over. Substantially anyway. A huge number of those gay couples are living normal, domestic “married” lives. You can call it marriage, sarriage, carriage or Fibber McGee and Molly, but that’s what they’re doing. You want them to stop? Also, more and more of them are getting domestic partnership benefits, which no candidates in either party seem to object to (and the public doesn’t either). So what’s the fight about – the name “marriage”? Okay, fine, many Americans object to the name marriage being used for same sex couples. Ultimately, however, this is a trivial distinction. They’re still there, living as if they’re married, and everybody knows it. So what kind of an issue is this really for a presidential election? It might sell newspapers, but I doubt it influences very many votes.
ABORTION? Every politician says says he or she hates abortion. And they should. You have to be a pretty creepy (sick) person to like abortion and I doubt there are very many people who do. But the repeal of Roe v. Wade is another matter and I don’t think most people, again deep down, really want it. The complications would be tremendous because it would not even remotely stop abortion, unless you want to see our own version of the Basij (Iranian religious police) roaming the streets. Otherwise the rich will continue to have their abortions by flying somewhere or other and the poor will be back in the modern equivalent of Victorian back alleys with their own grisly solutions.
So are these issues worth deciding a presidency on? I don’t think so. And this may account for why Republican voters are not so worried about Rudy’s social views. They’re just normal life.