September 21, 2007

"From a grouchy pol slip-sliding into irrelevancy to the Republican presidential candidate introduced as America’s mayor..."

Michael Powell on Rudy Giuliani:
... Mr. Giuliani was led through a basement and out onto Church Street, his head and shoulders dusted white with ash. He walked north into the surreal brightness of that day, comforting a police officer and dragooning reporters....

That walk north, the spareness of his words and his passion became the founding stones in the reconstruction of the mayor’s reputation, transforming him from a grouchy pol slip-sliding into irrelevancy to the Republican presidential candidate introduced as America’s mayor. The former mayor has made this day the centerpiece of his presidential campaign, aware that millions of Americans hold that heroic view in their collective mind’s eye.

Political leadership is an uncertain alchemy, an admixture of the symbolic and substantive and the visceral. In times of consuming trauma, psychologists and historians say, a leader must speak with a trusted voice and sketch honestly the painful steps to safety. A leader must weave a narrative of shared loss while acknowledging consuming anger.

All this Mr. Giuliani accomplished, mourning the dead, comforting the grieving and cheering the living even as the police and the National Guard moved in. His critics have lambasted the rescue failures at ground zero and argued that his inattention before 9/11 cost lives.

But his performance shone brighter for the implicit comparison with President George W. Bush, who initially appeared — fairly or not — frozen in his chair, listening to second graders read as a nation came under attack.
Do we have an irrational attachment to Giuliani? Is he satisfying psychological needs that we ought to start examining objectively?


AllenS said...

Fred is today
Rudy was yesterday

-Peder said...

I know there is this idea that Rudy's supporters (of which I'm probably one) only do so because of 9/11 but that's just not true. The man's record in NYC was good enough that he'd be a worthy candidate even if the terrorist attacks had been elsewhere. Frankly, it's just a way for the opposition to pretend that there is no good reason to vote for him.

shadow said...

Of course.

Prior to 911 most New Yorkers would have laughed at the suggestion that Giuliani run for president. Just because the city rallied around him for two couple weeks after a disaster, there's no reason to believe he'd make a good president.

It's just one more example of how the public and the media focus on incredibly superficial issues during political campaigns, rather than seriously digging into the truly important issues.

rhhardin said...

Political leadership is an uncertain alchemy, an admixture of the symbolic and substantive and the visceral.

The fellow has a tin ear.

A correct usage example for admixture :

The growing medium should be equal parts of sand and loam with an admixture of peat moss and cow manure.

Hoosier Daddy said...

9/11 notwithstanding, Rudy is really the only candidate with any executive or administrative experience, period. Like him or not, he ran a city the size of some countries and did a pretty good job of it.

But the comparison to Bush who continued to read a book is a good one. Bush is lambasted for not immediately jumping up and 'doing something' while Rudy did just that and is still criticized. So either way you can't win mainly because the criticism is ideological and nothing more.

Roger said...

Before anyone else gets it in:
multiple marriages, philanderer, Bernie Kerik, all New Yorkers hate him....... Did that get it all? I am sure we will be informed down thread. (peder and hoosier pretty well sums it up for me).

hdhouse said...

Not all new yorkers hate Rudy. Most.

Only one with executive or administrative experience? please.

His chances of carrying his home state of New York are nil when matched up with Clinton.

He will be the easiest candidate to pick apart.

Porter? Front please....Show Mr. Rudy to the door and take his baggage with him. Next.

peter hoh said...

Yes, Giuliani struck the right tone on Sept. 11, 2001, but if his actions count as heroic, well, we've set the heroism bar too low.

At most, Giuliani is the celebrity of 9/11. And what did he do with the bully pulpit which fate handed him? Other than build himself up, that is?

The Simpsons captured our shallow understanding of heroism in the episode in which Manjula gives birth to the octuplets. As delivery guys are wheeling in assorted baby furniture and a big screen TV, they see a news report about a woman in Shelbyville who just gave birth to 9. One delivery guy says something like, "Let's take this stuff to the Shelbyville Nine. They're the real heroes."

B said...

There is not one person critical of Giuliani that has ever seriously planned to consider voting for him. Why should anyone listen to someone disingenuous like that?. "Gee, thanks, dishonest-motives commenter - you sure have no other motives than my best interest at heart. Uh yup."

Diane Feinstein built her 1994 Senate campaign around a powerful, yet somewhat disgusting commercial that began with the actual recording, with screams of "Both Mayor Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk have been shot and killed." The ad portrayed then Supervisor Feinstein as the one who calmed the city and took control. She was soon "America's Most Effective Mayor". She won her Senate seat because of pity - voters felt they owed her after defeating her and choosing Wilson against her for governor. Pity politics is strong in America.

The only hope that Dems have at this point - the only hope - of defeating Giuliani is to take the pre-emptive strike of slandering a man that New Yorkers would have reelected in a landslide if term limits had not put him out. Funny how politics can make liars out of who you thought were decent people.

Hillary Clinton staring down Iran or Korea or (excuse me for laughing) Hugo Chavez?


B said...


Don't agree with you about Rudy obviously, but "Porter? Front please..." wins for line of the day. Thanks.

B said...

May 16, 2000 - Clinton-Giuliani Senate Race Locked In Dead Heat, Quinnipiac College Poll Finds

First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton and New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani remain locked in a neck and neck race in their U.S. Senate campaign, according to a Quinnipiac College poll released today. Mrs. Clinton has 44 percent to Mayor Giuliani's 43 percent.

3 days later, Giuliani announced that he would not run due to the need to deal with his prostate cancer.

Yup, guess that proved that most New Yorkers hated him.

B said...

Crackdown on Minor Offenses Swamps New York City Courts
New York Times, February 2, 1999

New York City's Criminal Courts are overwhelmed by a flood of cases as the Police Department, responding to the Giuliani administration's quality-of-life campaign, makes hundreds of thousands of arrests a year for everything from subway fare beating to reckless bicycle riding to marijuana possession.

Major crime is at a record low in the city . . .

That Giuliani . . . He's so mean . . .

B said...

Mayor Lashes Out, and Mrs. Clinton Says He's Always Angry
New York Times, December 23, 1999

Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani asserted yesterday that Democrats in Washington and New York were conspiring to discredit him as he prepared to run for the United States Senate, while Hillary Rodham Clinton suggested that Mr. Giuliani was consumed by an anger that could undercut his effectiveness in Congress.

The first lady and the mayor made their remarks at almost precisely the same moment, though in different parts of the state and without knowledge of what the other was saying. In the Bronx, Mr. Giuliani contended that Democrats acting at Mrs. Clinton's behest were waging an orchestrated campaign to damage his candidacy, taking note of an investigation by the Brooklyn district attorney into his chief political adviser, Bruce J. Teitelbaum, and an order by Andrew M. Cuomo, the secretary of Housing and Urban Development, that HUD take direct control over distribution of $60 million in federal money for a city homeless program.

To which even the Clinton-supporting New York Times recognized the Clinton dirty tactics. Times editorial same day:

As housing secretary, Mr. Cuomo has the right to ensure that federal money is spent properly. But seizing control of a $60 million program was an abrupt and extreme step. Since the secretary is a booster of Mrs. Clinton's candidacy, the mayor was also within his rights to see politics behind Mr. Cuomo's action.

I suppose it's too much to wish that Ms Clinton could try and run on her record and not stoop to the dishonest and outright despicable campaign tactics . . . even I can't write that without laughing.

paul a'barge said...

...Is he satisfying psychological needs that we ought to start examining objectively...

Yeah baby, that's the ticket.

Here we are, humans on Earth, blessed to live in the greatest culture ever to rise on that Earth's surface, surrounded by international mediocrity of the first order and infected by a leftist culture that is relentless in it's desire to destroy everything to which that leftist culture can not aspire or achieve, and (wait for it) we need to take a true national hero and start examining him objectively.

Yeah, that's what we need.

Big Sigh.

paul a'barge said...


He's not perfect, but he was never a grouchy pol slip-sliding into irrelevancy.

The man busted the Mafia. The man took on the Liberal culture of death that was killing NYC and bitch-slapped it. The man rose to the occasion on 9/11. Now the man is offering us himself for President when every leader on the DHIMMIcRAT side is solely owned by

If the premise these people put out is ridiculous on it's face, why do we have to even bother paying attention to their conclusions?

Roger said...

Of course I must be under the control of my inner psychological demons, but I SWEAR I looked at his accomplishmentss as Mayor, his demeanor during 9/11, his commitment to national security and the war on terror, and his socially liberal views. Then is looked at his multiple marriages, his support of Bernie Kerik, the criticism he has received from most New Yorkers and the NYT editorial board. I balanced the latter against the former, and then examined the people he is running against. Having done all that I came to the conclusion that among the reinforced battalion of presidential candidates, Rudy was the person I thought would most closely match my interests. I could have sworn I was being objecitve. Who knew I just didnt look at my inner child to help me pick a candidate.

AllenS said...

B brought up an interesting fact:

"May 16, 2000 ... Mrs. Clinton has 44 percent to Mayor Giuliani's 43 percent."

And, this is after what paul abarge pointed out: "The man busted the Mafia. The man took on the Liberal culture of death that was killing NYC and bitch-slapped it."

So, Rudy was losing to someone from Arkansas who shows up wearing a NY Yankees baseball cap, saying she had been a Yankees fan from the get-go. Just how shallow is Ruby's support? Or, perhaps, the question should be WTF is wrong with NY.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Not all new yorkers hate Rudy. Most.

Well as nearly half the state lives in NYC and he as a GOPer won twice, I'd think 'most' is questionable.

Only one with executive or administrative experience? please.

Please tell me who of the slate on either side has any?

His chances of carrying his home state of New York are nil when matched up with Clinton.

Based upon your personal opinion? That won't get me a grande latte at Starbucks.

He will be the easiest candidate to pick apart.

Ok if you say so.

Porter? Front please....Show Mr. Rudy to the door and take his baggage with him. Next.

I will admit you are a witty guy hdhouse but don't have much in the way of substance when making a counterpoint. I know you have your heart set on seeing Hillary captain of Broomstick One so its understandable.

dbp said...

It is no sure thing that Rudy can carry New York in the Presidential election. But what other GOP contender would even bother trying?


btw. Rudy is not alone among GOP contenders with executive experience: There is another guy who ran an olympics, a venture capital firm and a liberal New England state.

demian said...

Giuliani does satisfy a "psychological need," namely survival. He demonstrated leadership, toughness and a coolness of head on a day when many lost theirs.

He also exhibited an early understanding of terrorism's sponsors. He rejected the Saudis' cash donation -- and criticism -- after the attacks. Bush, on the other hand, offered bromides about "our friends the Saudis."

It's entirely appropriate to examine our attraction to Giuliani. But we needn't dismiss it simply because it originates in the psyche. We are sometimes wiser than we know.

Zeb Quinn said...

Rudy is fun to watch, but what's even more fun to watch are those who pop up to snipe and take pot shots at him. It's truly a testament to the Power of Rudy, the raw and unbridled power to win it all, appealing to voters across the board. And what's really a hoot is the realization that if he were Rudy Giuliani (D) instead of Rudy Giuliani (R) these same people would be falling all over themselves fawning over him. The Democrats yearn, in vain, for a candidate of anywhere near Rudy's gravitas. And it's so transparent that it's almost embarrassing.

XWL said...

It's another pre-excuse for the expected 'unexpected failure' of Sen. Clinton to succeed next November.

It won't be because Americans get a whiff of what she will try and sell, and decide the GOP candidate is better.

Instead, it will be because of dirty tricks and playing up emotional issues.

If Mayor Giuliani is the GOP candidate, then it will be playing up 9/11 (unfairly).

If Sen. Thompson is the GOP candidate, then it will be because America wanted a 'daddy' and were afraid of a strong woman (Americans are all sexist pigs).

Sen. Clinton will almost undoubtably win the popular vote, where she will do well, she'll do very well, but I still don't see her winning any swing state that Sen. Kerry had lost in 2004.

She may win the popular vote by 5 million votes, and still lose in the Electoral College.

The editorials on Nov 5th 2008 after a Hillary loss should be interesting.

(Democratic presidential hopefuls never lose cause they ran the lesser candidate, it's always some sort of GOP subterfuge that leads to Democratic electoral defeat)

Roost on the Moon said...

It does seem like there is a certain willful blindness to the Republican base when it comes to Giuliani. I say this as someone who thinks Giuliani is far and away the strongest GOP candidate, and the only one that has a real shot at beating the Democrats in 08.

He gets a pass on an issue that would kill any other major GOP candidate: gun control. He has always supported strong gun control, suggesting in the nineties that we should have national gun laws along the lines of New York's. He has backed off that a little, now taking the federalist position that it should be 'up to the states'. I haven't heard much crowing about it, but that is a call for a very weak interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Maybe I'm wrong about the GOP base, but it seems to me if any other candidate suggested that, they'd be shown the door.

Socially, he's a pretty moderate candidate. He won't do much to advance conservative goals in the areas that often win them elections, the social stuff. His positions on abortion, that "Defense of Marriage" nonsense, and even immigration would be huge stumbling blocks for anyone else.

He's basically an authoritarian free-market democrat. Nobody ever lost an election for being too tough on crime and terrorism. If his tough talk about the enormous imminent threat of "islamo-fascism" can win him the nomination, it might well win him the presidency.

Trooper York said...

Rudy: We're gonna go inside, we're gonna go outside, inside and outside. We're gonna get 'em on the run boys and once we get 'em on the run we're gonna keep 'em on the run. And then we're gonna go go go go go go and we're not gonna stop til we get across that goalline. This is a team they say is... is good, well I think we're better than them. They can't lick us, so what do you say men?
(Rudy (1993)TriStar Pictures)

Doyle said...

Is he satisfying psychological needs that we ought to start examining objectively?


Bea Arthur said...

I know I haven't written anything here for quite a while.  I've been in Europe most of the summer, and I'm really sorry I wasn't around to welcome the Professor to New York.  There's a lot to catch up on, but I'll spare you anything off-topic.  I may be old, but I'm not a complete dingbat just yet.

Anyway, I just couldn't let this topic go by.  As a lifelong New Yorker and someone who's liberal and Jewish, I can tell you that I love what Rudy did for this city.  It was unbelievable.  The fact is that I was ready to move to New Jersey with the rest of my family, and Rudy managed to make this place livable again, and I could stay and enjoy what I love about the City.  In fact, I think it's better than it has ever been in my lifetime, which is getting so long I don't want to think about it.

I want to say I agree with everything Roger wrote above.  I've made the exact same calculations.

But I've come to the exact opposite conclusion.  I'm voting for Sen. Clinton.

I love Rudy.  He did a great job for New York.  I know, everybody wasn't happy.  I have friends who still hate him, and think he was brutal, unfair to poor people, a race-baiter, etc., etc.  The complaints don't end.  And we haven't even started on his personal life.

I have two problems with Rudy for President.  First is what his personal life says about him.  He's a needy guy, and I don't think he is stable enough to be President.

The second problem is that he is a Republican.  The next election is going to be a Democratic year, and we have too many problems to have a divided government.  My biggest reason for voting for Hillary is that she will be in a position to finally do something about health care, which is, in my opinion, either the first or second most important problem we've got.  It can trade places with terrorism/Middle East mess for top honors.  I don't care.

Anyway, Sen. Clinton will finally DO something about this.  AND I think she's tough enough and a realist enough to deal with the security mess we've got on our hands.  People say she's in the grip of the extreme left wing of the Democratic Party.  Bullshit!  I've seen her in action as a Senator, and I think she's a very sensible person.  Every politician has to satisfy some nutcases in their party.  Look at the Republicans.  I imagine Rudy will be down South, talkin' at Bible Thump U. 'bout how close to God he's become.  Give me a break!

So, there you have it.  My reasons for supporting Hillary.  Aren't you sorry you didn't ask?

Roger said...

Roost: I agree with your analysis; and I do think it does speak to the security issue that has come to dominate electoral issues since 9/11. Clearly, Ms Clinton understands that. Rudy looks awfully much like Joe Lieberman in terms of positions--pretty much a Nelson Rockfeller Republican (dated reference, but I am on Social Security so can get away with it).

Roger said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
PatCA said...

Since he's a Republican, the NYT has to check its rear view mirror to nitpick his "inattention" and his failures after 9/11 and of course mention the My Pet Goat episode. After all, they know what's best for the country. They're liberal journalists! Who were probably hiding under the desks that day.

Doyle said...

I have friends who still hate him, and think he was brutal, unfair to poor people, a race-baiter, etc., etc. The complaints don't end.

Neither does the race-baiting.

Roger said...

Doyle: be fair: that's not race baiting, that's religion baiting. And Rudy didnt say it--Peter King said it. The DNC spokesperson is appropriately outraged--outraged!--surprised she didnt use the F word to express her outrage!

Hoosier Daddy said...

He gets a pass on an issue that would kill any other major GOP candidate: gun control.

He gets a pass because he has demonstrated that he is all about law and order and that it will be maintained. Supporting a strong gun control law is quite different than calling for an outright ban and even 'knuckle-dragging' conservatives in Jesus-land understand that.

The fact that he is socially liberal yet still garners support among conservatives says more about liberals who seem to loathe the man despite his support for thier pet issues (abortion, gun control, gay rights).

Again, ideology trumps.

Doyle said...

That Rudy chose that racist whack job to be a national security adviser is nonetheless telling. As is his decision not to disavow the totally unambiguous comment that there are too many mosques in this country.

AllenS said...

Mark me down as someone who doesn't think that Rudy will get the nomination, Fred will.

Roger said...

Doyle: you know, I bet his failure to denounce that is really going to irritate a lot of muslims and PC progressives who would have otherwise voted for Rudy--It will probably lose him the coveted CAIR endorsement :)

Ralph said...

"perhaps, the question should be WTF is wrong with NY."
It's the reversal of the Monty Python cartoon: "Thank you for saving our city!" SPLATT.

Bea, what did you think of Bill Clinton's 8 years of extreme neediness, and the damage/lost opportunities it wrought? At least Rudy seems to have enough self-discipline to make real reforms, and against the tide.

Invisible Man said...

Hoosier Daddy,

The notion that liberals should like him because he isn't anti-abortion or pro-guns is preposterous. Conservatives like Giuliani for the same reason that liberals don't like him, he hates (and I do mean hates) liberals. Never mind that he holds some of our positions, his candidacy is based on little more than 9/11 and hyper-partisanship. I can make an easy case that Mitt, McCain or Fred would be more willing to work with Democrats than Rudy.

Roger said...

IM: "...he hates (and I do mean hates) liberals." Wow! you are employing Rovian tactics to further increase my support of Rudy!

paul a'barge said...

AllenS: Or, perhaps, the question should be WTF is wrong with NY.

I knew you could get there.

Now, do you need us to hold you by the hand and figure that one out for you?

Zeb Quinn said...

Mark me down as someone who doesn't think that Rudy will get the nomination, Fred will.

Could be, but it doesn't matter. Here's why: it's gonna be Fred/Rudy or Rudy/Fred on the ticket, and either way it's a ticket that might run the table.

Too many jims said...

Zeb Quinn said...
Could be, but it doesn't matter. Here's why: it's gonna be Fred/Rudy or Rudy/Fred on the ticket, and either way it's a ticket that might run the table.

You mean, "run the table" like Reagan only losing the home State of the opponent?

AllenS said...


I was stunned when NYers voted for her after the Yankees cap thing. Could anything be more unbelievable? Then I think about her and Bill always being photoed going to church every Sunday. When was the last time she went to church? Has she ever been to a Yankees game?

You know, I'll be 61 yo this Nov., and I'm beginning to be more and more like my father. He was an Ojibwa Indian from the White Earth Indian Reservation, WWII vet, and he never voted in his life. When I would ask him about politics, he would look at me, smile, and grunt. I'm beginning to see why he was like that. Really, who knows more about politics, my father or Bea Arthur?

Roost on the Moon said...

I suspect that if push came to shove, Giuliani might even be left of Lieberman on many issues, especially the ones that put him at odds with the angry protestant right. (Abortion, establishment-clause issues, gay rights...) It's going to be an interesting primary. I think Thompson will actually be a taller hurdle for Giuliani than Clinton would be.

Hoosier Daddy,

Strange post. "Ideology Trumps." It seems like we're talking about a phenomenon exactly the opposite of that. We're talking about ideology not trumping, for both sides.

Then, on gun control, really strange. If the people you call knuckle-dragging Jesus-lovers agreed that the appropriate position was "Strong Gun Control in the name of Law & Order, stopping short of an all out ban", there wouldn't be an issue.

An all-out gun-ban has simply never been on the table. The debate has always been (strong control v. 2nd amendment rights.) The NRA doesn't support registration, waiting periods, or any kind of control, and neither do most GOP candidates. Giuliani is on the hard left side of this one. This is exactly the kind of ideology-blindness I'm talking about. The man wants to radically limit access to firearms. He wants a national database. But somehow, you've convinced yourself that Good Conservative Americans like yourself can see that it's not the bad kind of gun control.

AllenS said...

Dang. I forgot to mention that my father never complained about the political state of affairs.

B said...

Hillary burnished her National Security Credentials yesterday by:

1) refusing to endorse a measure that decrys the General "BetrayUs" ad.
Does anyone honestly believe that if she can't stand up for a general now, that she'll have the undying confidence of the military when she's Commander in Chief?

2)Her comments so far on the reprehensibility of Holocaust-denying and killer of Americans Iranian President Ahmanedinijad coming to speak at Columbia University:

(Yup - she's real qualified
to oversee this nation's national security.)


Roger said...

B: add to that she is apparently using Sandy Berger as one of her national security advisors.

Hoosier Daddy said...

The notion that liberals should like him because he isn't anti-abortion or pro-guns is preposterous

Is it? Why then is a supreme court candidate's position on abortion the litmus test in his/her nomination for liberals?

Strange post. "Ideology Trumps."

Allow me to clarify: Preconceived notions of left vs right ideology. Rudy is a GOPer thus antithema to left ideology, never mind that Rudy is a social liberal. Again, pro-choice, gun control, gay rights yet the knee jerk reaction of the left is Rudy is bad because he's a republican.

An all-out gun-ban has simply never been on the table. The debate has always been (strong control v. 2nd amendment rights.)

Do you seriously believe that any of the Democratic candidates would not try for ban on private ownership of firearms if they thought they could get it? Is it legal to own a handgun in Chicago or Washington DC?

But somehow, you've convinced yourself that Good Conservative Americans like yourself can see that it's not the bad kind of gun control.

Probably because it isn't a bad kind and most conservatives would support it. Law and order. Only the fringe nutballs think anyone should have easy access to firearms

Hoosier Daddy said...

Roost, just one other point regarding your statement:

The NRA doesn't support registration, waiting periods, or any kind of control,

Actually they do.

Wayne LaPierre, the group’s executive vice president, told NEWSWEEK that Cho, the Virginia Tech killer, “absolutely” should have been barred from buying a gun under current federal laws. But Lapierre nonetheless says the group is now working with longtime ally Rep. John Dingell, Democrat of Michigan, on a bill to ensure that mental-health records—such as the December 2005 court order directing Cho to receive a psychiatric evaluation—are entered into a FBI database that is used for background checks of gun buyers. Federal law does bar sales of guns to those who have been found to be mentally “defective,” but most states have a shoddy track record of reporting mental-health records to the feds.

Evidently the President of the NRA is convinced as well.

Too many jims said...

I am curious what people think of this excerpt from Giuliani's speech to the NRA.

hdhouse said...

ohhhh Hoosier Daddy?

Well as nearly half the state lives in NYC and he as a GOPer won twice, I'd think 'most' is questionable.

Well NY is democratic about 60-40. He get's virtually zero votes there and his Republican favorability is under 70% so 40 x's .7 = he should get roughly 28-35% in NY. Had enough?

Please tell me who of the slate on either side has any?

He was mayor for 8 years and his favorables prior to 9-11 were 40%. He started his consultant group with Bernie Kerick shortly thereafter. Want more? There isn't much except for a pretty good career as US attorney SDNY...that I will concede.

His chances of carrying his home state of New York are nil when matched up with Clinton.

Last poll has Hillary up by 10%.

He will be the easiest candidate to pick apart.

NRA will pick him off for gun control. Religious right for infidelity and abortion. Economists for his wretched handling of NYC finances...want more?

Ok if you say so.

Oh I do.

Roger said...

Too many jims--tacking to the right using the cell phone schtick as cover.

blake said...

Boy, the next 400 days are gonna be fun, aren't they? I'm somehow reminded of the Iranian hostage crisis.

I just wanted to give a shout out to Bea Arthur for her excellent voice work on Futurama.

Roost on the Moon said...

Point taken. Saying the NRA is against "Any kind of control" was over-reaching. They support background checks for crime and insanity. But that's about the extent of it. Not exactly controversial stuff; not anything anyone opposes. So again, not really where the action is on this issue.

You think the NRA is convinced? I'd be very surprised; he has referred to them as "extremists"..."terrible for states and cities. They're terrible for America."

Here's a gem:

“The more guns you take out of society, the more you are going to reduce murder. The less you take out of society, the more it is going to go up.”

He supports a pending lawsuit against gun manufacturers by the city of New York:

“This is an industry that is profiting from the suffering of innocent people. What’s worse, its profits rest on a number of illegal and immoral practices. This lawsuit is meant to end the free pass that the gun industry has so long enjoyed.”

According to the analysis offered by the moderate conservative (& around these parts, fairly well-respected) blog The Volokh Conspiracy,

"Rudy Guliani (R-N.Y.) is even worse than his predecessor, Democrat David Dinkins; indeed, based on his record, arguably worse than Sen. Clinton."

That you are stretching so hard as to claim that the NRA supports him(!) is exhibit A for my initial claim. For whatever reason, Republicans are willfully ignoring lots of things about Rudy Giuliani. The trick for him, then, is to make that last long enough to win the nomination. If he does, there is a strong chance we'll have a Republican president. But you'll have already ceded quite a bit of ground on domestic issues to the left.

Roger said...

Roost: Volokh is purportedly a libertarian oriented blog, but on a recent self disclosure survey by the Saintly Eugene, commenters were pretty evenly divided among liberal, libertarians, and conservatives. Which "conspirator" made that statement you quote, if I may ask?

As to your point about republicans "ignoring" Rudy's social liberalism and personal life--I would submit it isnt a matter of IGNORING but rather of balancing his views on terrorism and crime control (ie security issues) against his social liberalism. You choose the candidate who best captures your personal priorities, and I believe security issues tend to predominate many voters political calculus.

John Stodder said...

We've been here before -- electoral results equated to some kind of national mental illness syndrome. Remember the "angry white men" who supposedly had a "tantrum" in 1994?

Here we go again, being irrational.

Electing Democrats is always the better angels of our nature at work. Electing Republicans means we've given into dark, shadowy impulses and need therapy.

I know I sound like a Republican when I say things like this, but what I really am is an embarrassed liberal. Why do my people write such patronizing bullshit?

Roost on the Moon said...

the VC quote was from David Kopel.

That's a good distinction to make, ignoring v. prioritizing/balancing.

Sure, there are many people who have made conscious decisions to put other concerns on the back burner until the terrorist threat has passed. (Picture the press conference: fat chance)

But I think the comments by some up above indicate that many of Giuliani's fans don't really know what Giuliani stands for. He's a lot closer to Hillary Clinton than many people give him credit/blame for.

It's not like Thompson is "soft on terror". If I were a conservative republican, I would much prefer a Thompson presidency. My only question would be, is it worth giving up gun rights, defense of marriage, and immigration in order to have a better chance at a Republican white house? It's Giuliani as tactical retreat, I guess.

Of course, there are also many people who are not "settling" for Giuliani, who have views that he represents fairly well. I'd guess that Ann Althouse is one.

Hoosier Daddy said...

That you are stretching so hard as to claim that the NRA supports him(!) is exhibit A for my initial claim.

Hmmm...I don't think that's quite fair Roost. I don't think I was trying to make a claim that Rudy had the backing of the NRA, if the implication was there, it was unintentional. My claim in the last post was that even the NRA supports common sense gun control.

My point is that despite his social liberal stances, he is viewed by most conservatives as a law and order type and that tends to rank higher than say, whether Tom and Barney can legally get married. Will the hard right Christians vote for him? I dunno but I honestly don't give them as much clout as some others do. Both the hard left and hard right constitute about 20% of the voting population but have the biggest mouths of all. I'm a gun owner myself, a veritable armory I have by some standards yet have never been an NRA member. The vast majority of the country sits on the fence, ergo, moderate.

Can Rudy get the nomination? Jury is out. Then again, I'm not seeing how Hillary can win the whole kitty with a 40% DISapproval rating either.

Kirk said...


I've read a number of mind-boggling things today, but I have to say your equivocation between the health-care "crisis" and terrorist jihadism takes the cake!

Please tell me I've completely missed the point of what you were trying to say...

B said...

This evangelical can vote for Rudy with a clear conscience.

St Paul emphasized the need to be model citizens as afar as possible, in obedience to the elected authorities as much as possible. That would include voting, and taking the time to make a serious informed decision before voting.

That practically translates into making what is often a strategic decision: Candidate A is closer to me on 5 of the 7 positions that are important to me, while Candidate B is aligned with me on only 1, but that 1 is my #One issue. Like everyone else who seriously considers a candidate, evangelicals know they are often taking the "lesser of 2 evils".

IWhen it comes to Rudy vs. Hillary:

I am pro-life, but neither of them is. However, who is more likely to nominate judges that salivate at the opportunity to tell the Judiciary Committee how much they consider Roe to be the Cornerstone of the entire Constitution, after passing the new President's litmus test for being solidly pro-choice?
(Remember - it was John Kerry who promised to appoint upholders of Roe. Yeah, that's not a litmus test)

I believe that Marriage should remain between a man and a woman. Like most evangelicals, I have no problem with numerous benefits that are associated with civil unions - visitation, insurance, inheritance, as examples - being legalized for other relationships. Now I've lost both of these candidates, but who is more likely to press for a national right-to-marry law?

On Taxes: If you can't figure this one out, please don't vote. Please.

Personally I am middle of the road on gun control, so that's somewhat of a wash.

The environment - I avoid discussion of other religions in polite company.

My main concern, as a father and soon-to-be grandfather, is National Security. Is this really now a hard decision? Let's see:

. -- A Hardass talking woman with no administrative experience who is disrespectful towards the military she wants to lead: she just refused to condemn on the Betray Us ad because they're so far up her a-- that they shake hands with Hsu, or

. -- A former United States Attorney and Assistant Attorney General who had over 4,000 successful convictions, broke the back of the Mafia's five largest families in the organized crime trial of the century, restored order and pride in the ugliest city in America - New York, New York - while bringing down major crime.

Oh yeah - tough choice.

Bea Arthur said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hoosier Daddy said...

Oh yeah - tough choice.


Bea Arthur said...

Hey Kirk, I'm a little old lady in tennis shoes, so I don't have much testosterone to spill on these discussions.  I've just got my ideas.  Maybe I'm crazy, but a lot of people are concerned with the same things I am.

I think the two biggest problems we face in the United States are:

1.  The terrorist threat with the related Middle East mess.  This is an international problem with a big domestic component.  Some people call this National Security.  I think National Security is a bigger set of issues than the current GWOT, but that's too big a debate for this paragraph.

2.  Health care reform. This is a purely domestic problem, but a huge one.  We've got pretty good health care in the US, but the administrative costs are killing us.  No other country pays what we do to push paper (now electrons) around trying to shift costs to somebody else.  I just got back from Europe, and, believe me, things are getting weird over there, but at least they don't pour money meant to pay for medical care down insurance company rat holes.  They've got their own rat holes, but we'll get to that another time.

What's to be confused about?  Those are my two big issues.  I don't care which one you put first on the list.  They're BOTH absolutely vital to get right, or we're screwed.

You could also add:

3.  Immigration. You might want to put this under the rubric of National Security, but it's going to need a separate solution than, say, figuring out what to do about Iran.  This is also a Big Issue for many people.  It doesn't bother me as much as Nos. 1 and 2, but if, God forbid, I lived in Southern California again, I might want somebody to look into just who those 17 guys are the neighbor's got putting on a new roof

A little further down the list, but something that's going to bite us in the ass big time unless we do something:

4.  Medicare funding.  This a classic Domestic Issue.  Interesting and scary, particularly if you're a Baby Boomer. All you Boomers could end up with nothing but aspirin to take for your cancer unless we figure out how to pay for this.  Me, I plan to be dead.  I also think we might find a solution for this one if we reform health care in general.

Anyway, we have four or five Really Big Problems we've got to solve.  I expect people should disagree about what's most important.  A lot of people seem ready to dismiss the terrorist threat, and just forget about 9/11.  They think terrorism is no big deal, and the GWOT has been oversold.  I've heard and read a lot of this lately, including the archives here.  Makes me sick.  I live in Manhattan and was here on 9/11.  Like every other New Yorker, I could go on about people I knew who were killed or injured or otherwise badly affected.  But all I'm going to say about this is, NEVER AGAIN.

But National Security isn't the only issue.  If it were, I might be more inclined to vote for Rudy. But even there, as much as I like him, it would be a tough sell for me.

No, there are other problems we've got to solve, and I think, overall, that Sen. Clinton is the best candidate to deal with the whole mess.  She's tough.  She's experienced.  She's got a coalition of Democrats behind her.  And, most importantly, the Democrats are going to wipe floor with the Republicans next year.  That's thanks to George 'Herbert Hoover' Bush, the biggest screw-up President in my lifetime.  The rest of the Republicans screwed up pretty badly, too.

Watching Bill Clinton and Congress play their games was a little vacation from reality we seemed to be able to afford.  So then we elected a completely Republican government, and we had a vacation from both reality AND competence.

It was an interesting little holiday in Republicanland.  Tax Cut Land was OK, if you like that sort of thing. 
All the rides in International Relations Land seem to have broken down  And War on Terror Land was a complete mess.  I want my money back.  Looks like the amusement park is closing, though, and we're all going to be leaving.  I just hope the last shuttle back to reality hasn't left yet.

B said...

You won't get your money back on International Relations Land, Bea, if you get Hillary as President.

You'll get taken to the cleaners in the National Security Pavilion. That's where you'll be hunkered down after the next "Never Again" attack at will on NYC and other cities. Having Bill in bed next to her won't guarantee that she will overnight become respected enough to get the best out of the military. And you know what happened when Bill got distracted last time . . .

AlphaLiberal said...

Giuliani is a fraud. He pretends to have some sort of special skill or knowledge for combatting terrorism. But he doesn't. He was Mayor when New York was attacked and the city was ill-prepared due to Giuliani's insistence that the command center/love nest be downtown. It could not be used because it was too close to the towers.

So, he screwed that up.

When you listen to him on terrorism, he sounds just like Bush. And Bush has been a disaster.

If Ann is using the royal "we" I agree her attachment is irrational and focused on a need for a daddy figure to make her feel safe.

downtownlad said...

One thing I do admire about Giuliani is the way he treats black people like shit.

That's cool.

B said...

Tina Fey, the star and writer of "30 Rock" perhaps says it best:

I have a lot of liberal feelings, but I also live in New York, and I want to feel safe, and I secretly kind of want Giuliani.”

B said...

Alphaliberal, a friendly word of advice:

Using anything posted on a leftwing blog (such as Talking Points Memo)as evidence to bolster your arguments will get you just as far as any conservative linking to Fox News.