The Candidates: Rudy Giuliani
March 7th, 2007 | by Scott |For the entry and discussion on John McCain, click here.
For the entry and discussion on John Edwards, click here.
(Note: I’ve been chided for this not being an in-depth analysis of where the candidates stand on the issues. I haven’t intended it to be. I just want to do a cursory overview of each of them listing points about their candidacy. Of course, John Edwards having a Second Life site is not indicative of his ability to govern. But it is telling of his presence and visibility during a campaign. And let’s be honest, that often matters more than the issues. Any in-depth discussion of the candidates positions will unfold in the comment section.)
Since the speculation that he would be seeking the presidency in 2008 has heated up, Rudy Giuliani has raced to the lead of GOP contenders. At this writing he stands head and shoulders among his competitors in early polling.
Giuliani brings an interesting mix into the Republican primaries, being the least republican of the bunch. Which could be his downfall come primary time.
Pros: America’s mayor, his leadership post 9/11 galvanized the country, sterling record as a prosecutor in his early days, perceived as being instrumental in reducing crime drastically as mayor of New York, most attractive GOP candidate across parties, oversaw the transformation of Times Square, great experience in leadership in times of crisis, moderate.
Cons: Republican :D, his marital history, lack of alignment with GOP power brokers over their key issues of abortion and gay rights, the Bernard Kerik flap, as of this time a lack of clarity over where he stands on major issues
Analysis: At this point in the race it would seem that the nomination is Giuliani’s to lose. He is crushing in the polls. He carries tremendous cachet with GOP voters who long for the ascendancy and good will of the party in the immediate aftermath of September 11th. There is the view that he will be the voice of reason in a “war on terror” that Bush has failed so miserably at.
But we are a long way away from February and Giuliani will be hammered by issues on his family ad nauseum between now and then. At the moment he has a great amount of cachet and appeal that will most likely wane between now and the primaries. It’s hard to picture a pro-choice Republican who is pro gay rights getting the nomination. In addition, as the dust settled on NYC greater questions about his leadership pre–9/11 have emerged.
Ultimately, I differ greatly with him on several important issues for him to have my vote. Then again, I’m not a Republican. However, he does bear watching closely.
Thoughts?
40 Responses to “The Candidates: Rudy Giuliani”
By jasonk on Mar 7, 2007 | Reply
You forgot to mention that he is the only current candidate on either side to have appeared on an episode of Seinfeld. That’s good enough for me.
Seriously, you betray your lack of objectivity when you state that being a Republican is a con (even though you put the emoticon next to it). I know your discontent with the party, and I appreciate it, since I feel much the same way. But I have always said that if the right candidate is the right candidate, I’d vote for him, whether he is GOP or Democrat, or Libertarian, or whatever. That should be what matters. I don’t agree with everything Giuliani stands for either, but right now, he seems to be the most “middle” candidate of all. He is pro-choice, which I don’t like, but he is not so sold out to the abortion rights people that he would cause more babies to be murdered. He is pro gay rights, but limited in that he would favor civil unions rather that all-out marriage. Bottom line, if Rudy were a Democrat, I’d still consider voting for him.
Another thought. His marriage history will only be an issue if people like the Clintons make it an issue, and I doubt they will want to do that. Most people realize that there are many people in politics who stay married for the purpose of political gain, but they do not have much of a marriage. If a candidate were to point to Rudy’s marital issues, it might come off sounding hypocritical, especially to a country where the divorce rate is so high.
Like you, I think the primary is his to lose. But I also think the general election is his to lose as well.
By Scott on Mar 7, 2007 | Reply
Jason, putting it as a con was a joke. A little barb at all my GOP friends (which is most everybody). I, too, will vote for the best candidate regardless of party. I’m not convinced it’s him yet.
But as I said, he bears watching.
And it’s not the Clinton’s who will make it an issue. The head of the SBC brought it up yesterday as a concern. And he has to get by the Dobson-bloc.
By Kevin Bussey on Mar 7, 2007 | Reply
I’m voting for “none of the above.”
By KS on Mar 7, 2007 | Reply
JasonK well said as always. But Scott does have a point that he will have a hard time getting the GOP nomination. I am looking to vote for him (possibly) simply because he is one of the few that has a chance to win in the general election (and I view him as a better choice than the democrats have put forward). However, I am still torn because abortion is a big issue for me, and while he is better about it than the dems, he is not better than many other GOPers as well as his stance on Gay Rights (although that to me is a little lower on the block than abortion).
All in all, I think he’ll get my vote for the primary and of course in the general election.
By justin on Mar 7, 2007 | Reply
If Rudy loses the primary to a Sam Brownback type, I think its possible that he runs on a third party ticket. Which would make this race even more interesting.
By len on Mar 7, 2007 | Reply
The battle for New York will be very interesting if it is Hillary vs. Rudy. I would imagine he is the only Republican that could take NY. If he could deal NY’s electoral votes to the GOP it is doubtful that the Dem’s could win the White House.
He wouldn’t be my first choice but I could definitely vote for him. If he emerges as the frontrunner do you think the democrats will move toward the middle or further left?
By Politics and Culture on Mar 7, 2007 | Reply
Scott,
You said:
“he will be the voice of reason in a “war on terror” that Bush has failed so miserably at”
I think you may be jumping the gun on that a bit. The war on terror is going to last a long time, and to say that President Bush has “failed miserably” is presumptuous to say the least.
Anyway…..
Rudi has my vote for right now, but that could change. His stance on gun control has me a bit concerned. We may need to send Ted Nugent to straighten him out on that.
By Scott on Mar 7, 2007 | Reply
Jeff, we will have to agree to disagree on Bush’s record. But you have a great idea: why isn’t there a “Draft Nuge” movement for ‘08?
Justin, if Brownback gets the nom, I’m leaving the country.
Len, great question. Of course, that presupposes that the Dems have a whole lot of foresight into their campaign tactics. That’s something they have not exhibited in the last 10 years. Ultimately I see the Dems keeping the same mantra that worked for them this time around.
By greg on Mar 7, 2007 | Reply
my question is: how’s his cholesterol?
By len on Mar 7, 2007 | Reply
You’re right Scott. If there is any party which can “blow” all that Bush has handed them it is the Democrats.
By justin on Mar 7, 2007 | Reply
If Brownback gets the nom, I’m gonna keep being Jesus to people here and do my best to show them that JC wasn’t a member of Opus Dei
By Jonathan on Mar 7, 2007 | Reply
P and C,
I think what Scott had in mind was, in particular, the disaster in Iraq as sufficient to brand the war on terror as a whole as a disaster. But you’re right, the war on terror is endless and there have been successes. While being central to it now, Iraq started out being ancillary to the w. o. t. so maybe it isn’t fair to lump them. But Iraq IS a disaster.
Here’s a collection of interesting links regarding Giuliani that I read a while back:
NYT Times article: link
Andrew Sullivan’s analysis: link
Andrew Sullivan’s reader’s anlaysis: link
I guess both McCain and Giuliani are Republicans I could consider voting for, not because I agree with them on all or even most issues, but because I suspect that they could be “good presidents”…i.e. up to the challenge and able to do the job well.
By Politics and Culture on Mar 7, 2007 | Reply
The war in Iraq was a total success. The peace has been the problem. Things happened that we didn’t expect (but should have planned for) and mistakes have been made. This has been acknowledged by President Bush.
And the war on terror, overall, has gone very well so far.
By John on Mar 7, 2007 | Reply
The whole marriage issue which is what will kill him and make it tough to impossible to win the nomination. That’s since the primaries are only about the most dedicated and hard core elements of the parties. Which for better or worse in the republicans means the fundamentalist.
I suspect that all those polls that have Rudy with such a huge lead are of all registered republicans and that isn’t who votes in primaries.
By jasonk on Mar 7, 2007 | Reply
Giuliani exercises regularly, tries to eat right, and watches his weight. His only indulgence is that he eats a lot of frozen yogurt. But its non-fat.
By Belinda on Mar 7, 2007 | Reply
Like I’ve said before, it will take A LOT for me to vote for another republican - at least in the near future. Guiliani did seem to clean up NYC … but most all republicans seem to kiss up too much to Bush for my liking. Right now, Hagel would be the republican I’d most likely vote for. But it ain’t gonna happen. I can’t imagine a bad enough democrat that would make me check a republican block.
Scott, I think your blog is my absolute favorite! Perhaps because we both have been (somewhat for me) republican and have crossed over to the other side. haha
By greg on Mar 7, 2007 | Reply
They got Giuliani and he doesn’t even know it.
By Belinda on Mar 7, 2007 | Reply
check this out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1qE2vJdDw4
By Scott on Mar 7, 2007 | Reply
Belinda, that’s a classic John Prine song. You should check out “Some Humans Ain’t Human” from his most recent disk.
By Scott on Mar 7, 2007 | Reply
Belinda, thanks for the compliment.
Did someone actually say the war was a success? I just don’t even have a response.
By Jonathan on Mar 7, 2007 | Reply
That’s like saying, “When I jumped out of the plane without a parachute, the free-fall was a thrill and a complete success. It was the landing that was the problem.”
By matt elliott on Mar 7, 2007 | Reply
Belinda, thanks for that link. I had forgotten completely about that wonderful song!
By KS on Mar 8, 2007 | Reply
Scott: Do you think any war was a success?
By Scott on Mar 8, 2007 | Reply
No.
By Justin on Mar 8, 2007 | Reply
Kenny,
I don’t mean to be Clintonesque, but it depends on what your definition of success is. If its accomplishing a set of objectives, then there are successful wars. If its being righteous, then no wars are successful. But this war hasn’t been successful on any grounds. Sure, they removed Saddam in record time. Thing was, the Iraqis knew they couldn’t win, so they ran away, dressed like the population, and started guerilla war, which then turned into civil war. Winning the war wasn’t just deposing Saddam. They said we’d get SH, get rid of WMDs, make Iraq a stable democracy so that other middle eastern countries would be scared to support terrorism.
That didn’t happen, and its made thigns worse.
By KS on Mar 8, 2007 | Reply
I wasn’t saying the war was a success, just saying that it was ironic Scott thought this was bad, since he wouldn’t think it was a success if we were “winning”.
Onto Iraq, the war is not over.
By Scott on Mar 8, 2007 | Reply
Good point, Kenny. You are right. i would think it successful in any situation. Yet this war even from a more “worldly” perspective is not widely viewed as successful.
By Politics and Culture on Mar 8, 2007 | Reply
In a (somewhat) related story, The Breck Girl will not participate in the Nevada debates because Fox News is hosting it. I guess he’s afraid of getting some tough questions instead of the softballs he will receive from CNN and PMSNBC. Read about it Here.
Now, there’s no doubt that Fox News leans to the right (just as there’s no doubt CNN and PMSNBC lean to the left). But can you imagine what would be said by the Mainstream Media if a Republican cadidate refused to participate in a debate hosted by CNN because of their liberal bias?
Johnny Boy, if you become President, you will be faced with much more difficult questions than the folks at Fox News might throw at you.
By jasonk on Mar 8, 2007 | Reply
Other than defeating communism, facism, slavery, and evil tyrants, war never accomplished a thing. Right Scott?
PC, you really made me laugh this morning! Breck Girl? Funny! And today I read that liberal groups are complaining that Fox News is hosting the debate.
Truth is, any organization that does NOT lean to the left is considered biased to those who live in the world of the left. Fox News has liberals and conservatives on its staff. They try to strike a balance, but because it is so radically different than the overtly liberal bias on other networks, it looks conservative. Juan Williams is NOT a conservative, nor is Alan Colmes or Geraldo Rivera. But they all work for Fox.
In addition to that, if Fox News is so out of touch, why do they have the most watched news programs on TV? O’Reilly is number one, Hannity and Colmes 2, Van Sustern 3, Hume 4, and Smith 5. You would have to combine the viewers of Larry King, Anderson Cooper, and Keith Olberman to beat the number of viewers on Bill O’Reilly, then you only beat him by a few. The only program that libs have come up with to garner viewers in large numbers is one that pokes fun at the news. Seems like the only solution that liberals have come up with is to laugh at the issues.
By Matt on Mar 8, 2007 | Reply
The O’Reilly Factor is to news programs what pro wrestling is to the Olympics.
By Scott on Mar 8, 2007 | Reply
From a human worldly standpoint war has accomplished much.
But every war has resulted in the loss of innocent people. Precious children of God for whom Christ died. That children have lost parents, that people have suffered needlessly because of our fallenness?
No, I can’t consider that successful.
By jasonk on Mar 8, 2007 | Reply
People who dog O’Reilly…I don’t understand that. I had a hard time accepting him because of his past, hosting that strange quasi-entertainment news show a few years back. But have you actually watched the show, Matt? He does not put up with spin from anyone, right or left. He gives people fair opportunities to speak their mind, but he cuts them off if they start trying to spin their answers into non-answers. It is a quality show, it is “fair and balanced,” much moreso than anything anyone else has come up with. If you don’t like it, that’s one thing, but to compare it with pro wrestling just makes me think you must have blinders on.
Scott, I understand what you are saying. War does take a toll on humanity, in more ways than one. But don’t you think that sacrifices made to bring about change are worth it? Abraham Lincoln talked about the sacrifices made on the altar of freedom. I have a hard time believing that those who laid down their lives on that altar would come back, if it meant that slavery would return, or tyranny were returned to power.
By Scott on Mar 8, 2007 | Reply
But I question the contention that those evils are forever vanquished by our acts of war. Slavery still exists. Tyranny is still out there. And meanwhile people die. And it’s always a tragedy.
It reminds me of an old Hasidic story:
It tells of a great celebration in heaven after the Israelites are delivered from the Egyptians at the Red Sea, and the Egyptian armies are drowned. The angels are cheering and dancing. Everyone in heaven is full of joy.
Then one of the angels asks the archangel Michael, “Where is God? Why isn’t God here celebrating?”
Michael answers, “God is not here because he is off by himself weeping. You see, many thousands were drowned today.”
No life lost separated from the love of God can be equated with success.
By KS on Mar 8, 2007 | Reply
uh-oh, not this path again…
By greg on Mar 8, 2007 | Reply
There’s also the assumption that these things could only be eradicated by war. But, as Kenny suggests, haven’t we been here before?
Pro wrestling… good one, Matt
By jasonk on Mar 8, 2007 | Reply
Yeah, Kenny. Here we go again.
I think that to assume that the problem would not be worse than it is, is to underestimate the depravity of man. I’m not sure where you stand on the depravity of man, so that would make a difference in where you stand on issues such as this. I believe that if there were no compelling reasons to NOT become a tyrant, more people would become tyrants. What was that little weasel’s name, from North Africa? Col. Khadaffi? He made some noise back in the 80s, until Reagan put him in his place, and we have barely heard a peep from him since. How many Husseins would be invading small nations like Kuwait, if they thought there would not be a measured response from the UN? And if you’re the dictator of your own country, why wouldn’t you promote yourself to a rank higher than Colonel?!
By Politics and Culture on Mar 8, 2007 | Reply
Scott (and others),
You don’t believe any of the wars that Israel fought (the ones we read about in the Old Testament) were successful?
You think Hitler would have just come to his senses and stopped killing Jews and “undesireables” on his own? What do you think he would have done with a nuclear weapon (which he would have had if we had not stopped him)?
What about Japan in 1941?
Are you saying that what the Allied Forces did from 1940-1945 was a failure?
Perhaps you have all discussed this before. If so, I apologize for rehashing it.
By Scott on Mar 8, 2007 | Reply
Jeff, go and read the entries under non-violence for a multi-part series I did.
By Politics and Culture on Mar 8, 2007 | Reply
Thanks. I’ll check it out.
By len on Mar 9, 2007 | Reply
The latest issue of Sports Illustrated had a picture of Rudy’s son and a brief description that the two were estranged. I know there is a lot to everyone’s story that we don’t know, but there is a Biblical precedence about judging one’s leadership ability on how he leads his own family. But again, I don’t know the whole story. What is truly sad is that some, on both sides of the aisle, will attack Rudy on this and cause ever more pain in an already painful situation.