September 9, 2007

"Rudy Giuliani wouldn’t stand much chance in a squishy election."

But if it's going to be a crunchy election, look out.
Squishy elections, like the one in 2000, are ones where the candidates attempt to blur the differences among them on major issues and run, instead, on more ethereal attributes like character and authenticity, the kind of traits best demonstrated by sipping beers or emoting on “Oprah.” Rudy Giuliani wouldn’t stand much chance in a squishy election. But 2008... may be a crunchy year, where the nominees of both parties present sharp contrasts on hard philosophical questions, starting with how to view the threat of Islamic terrorism and what course to take in Iraq. And Giuliani is well positioned for such debate, having defined himself, in the public mind, as the unflinching foe of a radical and dangerous ideology.

38 comments:

Luckyoldson said...

Where do you come up with this silly notion?

Rudy's whole routine centers around him being some kind of unwavering hero on 9/11, while there is plenty of information available that disputes any such claim.

Rudy a liar and time will prove this to be the case.

rhhardin said...

Hard may be the better opposite; it's channeling genders.

Luckyoldson said...

Watch this video about Rudy's 9/11 exploits and false claims...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/09/06/fmr-emergency-director-on_n_63329.html

Jeff said...

If Rudy were running for the office of El Presidente he would be a shoo-in!

Luckyoldson said...

More videos relating to Rudy's lies:

http://youtube.com/results?search_query=On+Giuliani%27s+9%2F11+Record&search=Search

Ann Althouse said...

Lucky, did you read the linked article? Please respond to it. Don't just trot out your old material.

Doyle said...

I read the article and while it does a good job belittling Giuliani's claims to foreign policy expertise, it doesn't adequately convey how scary it is that so many Americans (yourself included, I'm wagering) are prepared to vote for him.

steve simels said...

Jimmy Breslin said it best.

Rudy is a little man looking for a balcony.

Sloanasaurus said...

Rudy a liar and time will prove this to be the case.

Face it, Rudy is tough and he has proved it. It's not just 9-11. Rudy prosecuted mobsters, i.e., Fat Tony and Big Paul... - you have to have guts for that. In fact I can't think of anything any of the dem candidates have done that requires that kind of courage.

ricpic said...

How does Rudy squish his obvious social liberalism with that pesky Republican conservative base, hmmm?

Doyle said...

The Republican base will abide some more dead babies if it means more dead Muslims.

Palladian said...

"Rudy is a little man looking for a balcony."

Is that some sort of underhanded way of comparing Giuliani to Mussolini? Fire Jimmy Breslin! I demand an apology!

Theo Boehm said...

My only question for Rudy is will the trains run on time?

Tim said...

"...it doesn't adequately convey how scary it is that so many Americans (yourself included, I'm wagering) are prepared to vote for him."

Oh, shame on us who do not expect news reports to convey " how scary it is that so many Americans (yourself included, I'm wagering) are prepared to vote for him." That this was from the NY Times though suggests they tried their very best to convey " how scary it is that so many Americans (yourself included, I'm wagering) are prepared to vote for him."

So, chalk it up as another NY Times failure.

You can even send them a letter, still, to register your complaint.

Otherwise, in a head-to-head match up, one only needs to be better than one's opponent. I'm confident most Americans will appreciate Giuliani's attributes vis a vis the Hillary! or any other Democrat he might run against.

Sloanasaurus said...

How does Rudy squish his obvious social liberalism with that pesky Republican conservative base, hmmm

That's easy, by promising to appoint Alito/Roberts type judges. Social conservatives know that this election is it - the first chance in 40 years to return social debates back to the states where they should be.

The bully pulpit was important when the feds via the courts controlled the social agenda. However, it matters little if the states are the ones to decide.

Tim said...

Also, if it's Rudy v. The Manchurian Candidate Hillary!, it won't matter what kind of election it is amongst right thinking Americans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/us/politics/09hsu.html?ex=1347076800&en=61c463a575d96e71&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

MadisonMan said...

You could almost hear a collective sigh among the Iowans, who didn’t consider themselves bigots just because they wanted to seal the borders, and who now felt validated by America’s mayor. They lined up for autographs.

This sentence seems to me to be very condescending towards Iowans. Why does a midwesterner have to hear something from a coastal person for it to be okay?

Tim said...

"Why does a midwesterner have to hear something from a coastal person for it to be okay?"

MM - It validates the worldview (I just know there's a German word for that somewhere...) of the coastal person that they are the arbiter of good taste, values, judgment, etc. It isn't necessary for the mid-westerner, but it sure as hell is necessary for the "coastal person" (I prefer "blue-state cosmopolitan," but there isn't a German word for that, yet...).

Otherwise, I'm confused by your "seems," as it is unequivacably condescending - but maybe you were being polite. You don't happen to be from the mid-west, do you?

peter hoh said...

I love the crunchy vs. squishy election idea. Does it change the rock, paper, scissors election formula discussed here a week or two ago? How about the "Taller guy wins" formula?

It's not exactly Rudy vs. Hillary, but I loved the RedStateUpdate where Dunlap stumps Jackie with the following question: "Would you rather have a terrorist attack on American soil or President Hillary Clinton?"

Simon said...

What Sloan said. I don't agree with Rudy on abortion, but I don't agree with Ann on abortion either. If Rudy's willing to do his part to take the issue out of the federal ambit, he's got my support, even if he thinks it should have a different resolution than I do. I don't care if he's pro-abortion as long as he's anti-Roe-Casey and his Supreme Court appointment reflect that.

Cedarford said...

The media loves a few Fundies that keep up the "we will make abortion a crime of murder nation-wide" scare stories and loves the stories about such rubes wanting the most religiously pure anti-abortion candidate. But the Schiavo Fiasco showed the country wants no Muslim OR Christian theocracy running the show anymore than they want the secular progressives from the Jewish and Gentile atheist Elites calling the shots.

The extremist anti-abortion zealot religious rubes are not the Republican Base. The Base is a bunch with traditional values, that hates Roe more for ripping away their choice in setting societal norms in their communities and States, than for blastocysts.

What they want is strict constructionists in the mold of Scalia, that will overturn Roe and send to to the elected legislatures of States to regulate by law. Which was exactly where the abortion issue was before the court stepped in and usurped the process with yet another "right" not contained in the Constitution.

They know perfectly well that California and New York will have different law than Iowa or Alabama. Likely 30 States will have liberal laws - that is readily acknowledged by all the candidates except Brownback, who is stupid.

So on abortion, there is no difference with the lead candidates - they want Roe gone, states deciding, and The People permitted to have an opinion. Romney, Giuliani, Thompson agree.
But that is different than Democrats who see Roe as sacred wisdom they will uphold at all costs by getting strong activist judges that likely have all sorts of new things they wish to bypass democratic systems in America - to get.

But the public has has a 30-year seemingly interminable fight over abortion when Europe and Asia had Parliaments pass laws and move on to other issues 20 years ago (for most countries, with 3-4 Catholic holdouts and some ex-commie countries now deciding what policy their people want).

America has big, accumulating problems that threaten our way of life and we don't have the luxury of abortion remaining the Big Test of both Parties.

*********************
As for Hillary vs. Rudy, I expect her, but expect the steely-talking Hero of 9/11 to implode - and the nomination to go to Romney or Huckabee. And eventually, people will wake up to Hillary having no executive experience - and despite her proximity to Bill Clinton when he was Governor and Prez - her meaningful personal experience limited to the Rose Law Firm and 7 1/2 years as Senator. Making her just part of the current pack of 6-8 present and former members of Congress determined to not be like the 72 "Bright Lights of Congress" that failed to win since 1920 but be the next Harding or JFK..

Revenant said...

How does Rudy squish his obvious social liberalism with that pesky Republican conservative base, hmmm?

By running against Hillary Clinton, for starters.

If Rudy gets the nom, Republicans will have a choice between a social liberal who is tough on on crime and terrorism, and Hillary -- who is even more socially liberal, and lacking in any redeeming qualities, and who drags her hubby back into the White House again.

hdhouse said...

Sloanasaurus said...
How does Rudy ... the first chance in 40 years to return social debates back to the states where they should be."

Oh won't the "saurus'" world look great? If this is the case why does this blockhead support Bush on everything including toilet paper? What social debates do you want the states to decide? abortion? education? religion in public places? what do you have in mind? honest to god sloanasaurus, when i read your drivel i get sick.

hdhouse said...

going on with that....it seems Rudy's appeal stems from ignorance of Rudy and some sort of libertarian agenda that sounds like South Carolina in the 1850s. What precisely do you want to be a state by state issue?

If the federal government just "bows out" in social issues what do you do for the interval when it is just chaos?...and does the executive have the power and authority to just mandate a retreat from social concerns? I know Bush, if his handlers had their way, would cease all manner of federal programs and happily toss the babies out with the bathwater...always with the excuse that it is the state's responsibilities..

Remember Reagan's great spending limits that simply drove all the issues back to the state's to fund on their own? Federal taxes go down but the States were forced to make up the difference. Is this the idea?

Well Rudy may be your man for this. As an example he instituted the 4 trip rule for single mothers needing help (food stamps - federal, rent subsidies, etc.). First trip was to pick up the form. Second trip was to return the form (in person, no mail, had to wait 72hrs), third trip was to get the results, fourth trip was to correct the results which was ordered 90% of the time, then you had to wait 2 months for processing.

Think of the single mother or abandoned mother with a couple kids...then think of Rudy's compassion and "state's rights".

I don't have a ton of money but if he is nominated I'll put a million of these case studies in the mail...not that it would be necessary in New York where he will be beaten like a rented mule.

Pogo said...

Interesting comment from a Muslim woman on the news this morning about Osama's beard. Both the shorter beard and warning to convert to Isalm are signs that OBL is 'going to war'; necessary actions for a proper Muslim military action.

What Democrats repeatedly fail to understand is that, for now, I don't care two cents about a candidate's social polices. He/she could be for performing post-birth abortions by illegal immigrants wearing baby seal fur while smoking in an SUV on his way to cash a welfare check. I. Don't. Care.

We are in a war. There is only one question: Will you fight it? The social liberal distraction is evidence to me that the left still refuses to acknowledge our situation. Wake up, house. It ain't 1997 any more. Fight or get out of the way.

Tim said...

"Fight or get out of the way."

They can be counted on to do neither.

tjl said...

"in New York where he will be beaten like a rented mule."

What? Hdhouse, do welfare mothers form that large a voting bloc in NY?

Rudy's efforts to curb the more florid abuses in the NY welfare system are a testament to his administrative abilities, and major reason to suport him.

Simon said...

Cedarford said...
"America has big, accumulating problems that threaten our way of life and we don't have the luxury of abortion remaining the Big Test of both Parties."

Which would be fine, but when people like Obama say things like this, Cedarford, the lede is buried in the unspoken coda: "... so drop the subject and move on, pro-lifers."

"'[I]f you want [abortion] gone from the national political stage, you must agree to overturn Roe-Casey. There is no other way. While that framework stands, abortion will remain a paramount national issue, continuing to distort Senatorial and Presidential elections and appointments to the courts. Overturn it, return the issue to the states, and persuade your fellow citizens' that they should not by law restrict a woman's right to choose."



hdhouse said...
"it seems Rudy's appeal stems from ignorance of Rudy and some sort of libertarian agenda that sounds like South Carolina in the 1850s. What precisely do you want to be a state by state issue?"

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." And FWIW, federalism and libertarianism aren't synonyms. "[F]ederalism isn't an expression of libertarianism; it isn't a view of what government can morally do, but rather, an expression of which government can legally do what under Our Federalism."


"If the federal government just "bows out" in social issues what do you do for the interval when it is just chaos?"

I plan on visiting my state legislators and my neighbors. What people in other states do is their concern. What the federal government should do is keep their nose out of it - it shouldn't intervene to help either side. Let the states take care of it.

"...and does the executive have the power and authority to just mandate a retreat from social concerns?"

No, but the executive appoints members of the federal judiciary, which is the body that is wholly responsible for federalizing and constitutionalizing the most contentious issue in modern times.

Richard Fagin said...

CRUNCH! CRUNCH! Hopefully the sound of candiate Hillary's bones under the Rudy steamroller.

Simon said...

Richard - not a very nice metaphor to use. I don't have anything personal against Hillary and I don't want to get into violent metaphors for defeating her and letting her get back to the job for which New Yorkers evidently deem her qualified.

(Not that I expect her to remain in the Senate after she loses, of course - what would be the point?)

Hey said...

Megan McArdle isn't a Rudy fan, but has a great quip: "Rudy might be funny just to see the ACLU get all misty and nostalgic about the current administration..."

What I love about Rudy is that the NYT, lucky, hdhouse, et al HATE him. HATES HIM, HATES HIM, HATES HIM! They make Gollum look like a model of psychological stability on the subject of Rudy Giuliani.

Every hit piece on Rudy goes into his clipping file and gets used as PR material. "Mitt Romney says I'm too liberal, but the Village Voice and the NYT say that I'm worse than the anti-christ (in whom they don't believe)". All he needs is for CAIR and Prince Al-Walid to denounce his candidacy and he's a lock!

Richard Fagin said...

Simon:

Agreed. It wasn't a nice metaphor. I do not know the Senator personally and obviously can't have anything against her personally for that reason. Having said that, I am suspicious, even afraid of any candiate for public office that screams (yes, screams) to a rally of supporters, "We're going to take things away from you for your own good!!"

It was intended not to be a nice metaphor. She scares the crap out of me. She may well close her first State of the Union speech with, "And now, I have no further need of YOU!", a statement last used by a duly elected head of state in 1933.

hdhouse said...

Yes Simon that is true...but what is proposed by your argument is what we used to call the geography puzzle map. ... you remember, all the states pop out and you had to assemble them into the US to fit in the board.

So these few federal powers have expanded over the years so make the US contiguous not a serious of isolated territories where people have to choose social conditions as a prime requisite as to where to live.

It is, as historians and sociologists will attest, a recipe for border wars...a prime example here in the US in slave v. free states.

Look at the grief if, for instance, abortion is addressed on a state by state basis rather than federally mandated rules. There was a time when it wasn't legal to travel "out of state" for an abortion...so it was just bad or good luck, depending on the state majority in which you lived.

Your quick fix seems to rest in the judiciary...and that again is a quick fix that leaves checkered results. Most of this stuff winds up in federal court and federal court judges are appointed and consented to on the national level..obviously...yet they are to reflect the local concensus according to your model.... so state "a" could have a rigid pro-life citizenry yet just by chance an administration and senate could readily appoint pro-choice in a given state or district and therefore be at odds with the populace.

I'm not disagreeing with your observations...just in practicality this is what could happen and given the brainpower running this country, probably would.

Kirk said...

Tim, the German word you're looking for is weltanschauung, and yes--it's sooooo much more meaningful that that silly English term "world view"! :-)

hdhouse,

"Federal taxes go down but the States were forced to make up the difference. Is this the idea?"

And why exactly would that be such a terrible thing? It's exactly how a zillion other day-to-day issues are handled.

Simon said...

hdhouse said...
"Look at the grief if, for instance, abortion is addressed on a state by state basis rather than federally mandated rules. There was a time when it wasn't legal to travel "out of state" for an abortion...so it was just bad or good luck, depending on the state majority in which you lived."

Well, of course, I would far rather it was banned nationally, coast to coast, but I don't believe that the Constitution authorizes the federal government to set abortion policy nationally, one way or the other. Congress presumably has some power in that arena through the spending clause, but I don't believe it has direct regulatory power. After Roe-Casey is overruled, I fully expect to become a pariah in conservative circles, because the immediate desire in those circles will be to pass federal legislation, and I'll be stuck on the other side - no doubt with peculiar bedfellows - arguing that just because the Constitution doesn't prevent the states from legislating, that doesn't mean that it permits Congress to do so. "Abortion becomes an appropriate subject of congressional action when it is (or becomes) one of the policy areas delegated to Congress by the Constitution of the United States, not merely because it's deemed important" - and for good or ill, that ties my hands as much as it ties yours.

"Your quick fix seems to rest in the judiciary...and that again is a quick fix that leaves checkered results."

Well, if by "checkered results," you mean different states would adopt different policies, then the answer's "yes, they almost certainly would." I accept (while not liking) that abortion will probably remain legal in most states, but it will be much more regulated than NARAL et al. would like, which is of course why they don't want to move beyond Roe-Casey. And I can live with that; that's the result that the Constitution contemplates, and I'm very skeptical about amending it, because... Well, because I'm a Conservative, really. ;) I'm generally skeptical about attempts to amend the Constitution, particularly substantive rather than process amendments. And honestly, I think that if a Constitutional amendment on abortion ever passes, either banning it or preventing government from banning it, that'll be the end of the Constitution. It'll be the end of the United States.

Tim said...

Kirk,

Yes, thank you, I know – sarcasm, don’t you know? I vote Republican, ergo, I am illiterate (and seemingly hardwired for mere instinctual responses…).

Or so I am frequently informed by those who vote Left in language that would make an old Gunny Sergeant blush...

Joe said...

I am above all very fiscally conservative and a supporter of a strong military. I'm also what many would describe as socially liberal (though I think it's actually an extension of my belief that government should generally leave you alone. Even as a teenager in the 70s, I often quipped that if someone wants to marry their cat they should be allowed to do so, understanding that the cat gets half in a divorce.)

Rudy Giuliani is the first candidate in my lifetime that I can vote for that aligns so closely to my belief set. Does he have flaws? Damn right, but they're flaws I can live with.

(And Lucky, I wasted my time actually watching your links. If that's the best the anti-Giuliani people can come up with, I'm not worried. Come up with something comparable to Hsu and Hillary and you may persuade me to look elsewhere.)

Mutaman said...

I think Rudy proved his toughness when as a young man he steped up and volunteered to serve in the military and to fight in a war on foreign shores. Or wait, maybe that was somebody else.