Why Rudy Giuliani Really Shouldn't be President
The deluge of commentary on Rudolph Giuliani's presidential prospects has forced me finally to break my long silence about the man. Somebody's gotta say it: He shouldn't be president, not because he's too "liberal" or "conservative," or because his positions on social issues have been heterodox, or because he seems tone-deaf on race, or because his family life has been messy, or because he's sometimes been as crass an opportunist as almost every other politician of note. Rudy Giuliani shouldn't be president for reasons more profoundly troubling. Maybe you had to be with him at the start of his electoral career to see them clearly.
Throughout the fall, 1993 New York mayoral campaigns, I tried harder than any other columnist I know of to convince left-liberal friends and everyone else that Giuliani would win and probably should.
In the Daily News, the New Republic, and on cable and network TV, I insisted it had come to this because racial "Rainbow" and welfare-state politics were imploding nationwide, not just in New York and not only thanks to racists, Ronald Reagan, or robber barons. One didn't have to share all of Giuliani's "colorblind," "law-and-order," and free-market presumptions to want big shifts in liberal Democratic paradigms and to see that some of those shifts would require a political battering ram, not a scalpel.
I spent a lot of time with Giuliani during the 1993 campaign and his first year in City Hall, and while a dozen of my columns criticized him sharply for presuming far too much, I defended most of his record to the end of his tenure. He forced New York, that great capital of "root cause" explanations for every social problem, to get real about remedies that work, at least for now, in the world as we know it. Some of these turned out to be preconditions for progress of any kind: I saw Al Sharpton blink as I told him in a debate that twice as many New Yorkers had been felled by police bullets during David Dinkins' four-year mayoralty as during Giuliani's then-seven years and that the drop in all murders meant that at least two thousand black and Hispanic New Yorkers who'd have been dead were up and walking around.
Giuliani's successes ranged well beyond crime reduction. As late as July, 2001, when his personal and political blunders had eclipsed those gains and he had only a lame duck's six months to go, I insisted in a New York Observer column that he'd facilitated housing, entrepreneurial, and employment gains for people whose loudest-mouthed advocates called him a racist reactionary. James Chapin, the late democratic socialist savant, considered Giuliani a "progressive conservative" like Teddy Roosevelt, who was a New York police commissioner before becoming Vice President and President.
Yet Giuliani couldn't carry his methods and motives to the White House without damaging this country, for two reasons that run deeper than such "horse race" liabilities as his social views and family history.
The first serious problem is structural and political: A man who fought the inherent limits of his mayoral office as fanatically as Giuliani would construe presidential prerogatives so broadly he'd make George Bush's notions of "unitary" executive power seem soft.
Even in the 1980s, as an assistant attorney general in the Reagan Justice Department and U.S. Attorney in New York, Giuliani was imperious and overreaching. He "perp-walked" Wall Streeters right out of their offices in dramatic prosecutions that failed. He made the troubled daughter of a state judge, Hortense Gabel, testify against her mother and former Miss America Bess Meyerson in a failed prosecution charging, among other things, that Meyerson had hired the judge's daughter to bribe her into helping "expedite" a messy divorce case. The jury was so put off by Giuliani's tactics that it acquitted all concerned, as the Washington Post's Ruth Marcus recalled ten years later in assessing Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr's subpoena of Monica Lewinsky's mother to testify against her daughter.
At least, as U.S. Attorney, Giuliani served at the pleasure of the President and had to defer to federal judges. Were he the President, U.S. Attorneys would serve at his pleasure -- a dangerous arrangement in the wrong hands, we've learned -- and he'd pick the judges to whom prosecutors defer.
As mayor, Giuliani fielded his closest aides like a fast and sometimes brutal hockey team, micro-managing and bludgeoning city agencies and even agencies that weren't his, like the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and Board of Education. They deserved it richly enough to make his bravado thrilling to many of us, but it wasn't very productive. And while this Savonarola disdained even would-be allies in other branches of government, he wasn't above cutting indefensible deals with crony contractors and pandering shamelessly to some Hispanics, orthodox and neo-conservative Jews, and other favored constituencies.
Even the credit he claimed for transportation, housing and safety improvements belongs partly and sometimes wholly to predecessors' decisions and to economic good luck: As he left office the New York Times noted that on his first day as mayor in 1994, the Dow Jones had stood at 3754.09, while on his last day, Dec. 31, 2001, it opened at 10,136.99: "For most of his tenure, the city's treasury gushed with revenues generated by Wall Street." Dinkins had had to struggle through the after-effects the huge crash of 1987.
Remarkable though Giuliani's mayoral record remains, it's complicated by more than socio-economic circumstances and structural constraints. Ironically, it was his most heroic moments as mayor that spotlighted his deepest presidential liability. Fred Siegel, author of the Giuliani-touting Prince of the City, posed the problem recently when he wondered why, after Giuliani's 1997 mayoral reelection, with the city buoyed by its new safety and economic success, he couldn't "turn his Churchillian political personality down a few notches."
I'll tell you why: Giuliani's 9/11 performance was sublime for the unnerving reason that he'd been rehearsing for it all his adult life and remained trapped in that stage role. When his oldest friend and deputy mayor Peter Powers told me in 1994 that 16-year-old Rudy had started an opera club at Bishop Loughlin High School in Brooklyn, I didn't have to connect too many of the dots I was seeing to notice that Giuliani at times acted like an opera fanatic who's living in a libretto as much as in the real world.
In private, Giuliani can contemplate the human comedy with a Machiavellian prince's supple wit. But when he walks on stage, he tenses up so much that even though he can strike credibly modulated, lawyerly poses, his efforts to lighten up seem labored. What really drove many of his actions as mayor was a zealot's graceless division of everyone into friend or foe and his snarling, sometimes histrionic, vilifications of the foes. Those are operatic emotions, beneath the civic dignity of a great city and its chief magistrate.
I know a few New Yorkers who deserve the Rudy treatment, but only on 9/11 did the whole city become as operatic as the inside of Rudy's mind. For once, his New York re-arranged itself into a stage fit for, say, Rossini's "Le Siege de Corinth" or some dark, nationalist epic by Verdi or Puccini that ends with bodies strewn all over and the tragic but noble hero grieving for his devastated people and, perhaps, foretelling a new dawn.
It's unseemly to call New York's 9/11 agonies "operatic," but it was Giuliani who called the Metropolitan Opera only a few days after 9/11 and insisted its performances resume. At the start of one of them, the orchestra struck up a few familiar chords as the curtain rose on the entire cast and the Met's stage hands, administrators, secretaries, custodians -- and Rudy Giuliani, bringing the capacity audience to its feet to sing "The Star Spangled Banner" with unprecedented ardor. Then all gave the mayor what The New Yorker's Alex Ross called "an ovation worthy of Caruso." A few days later Giuliani proposed that his term be extended on an "emergency" basis beyond its lawful end on January 1, 2002. (It wasn't, and the city did as well as it could have, anyway.)
Should this country suffer another devastating attack before the 2008 primaries are over, Giuliani's presidential prospects may soar beyond recalling. But the very Constitutional notion of recall could soar away with them. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and Giuliani was right for his time on a stage with built-in limits. But we shouldn't have to make him the next President to learn why even a grateful Britain dumped Churchill in its first major election after V-E day.
George W. Bush should have a third term.
March 8, 2007 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
The irony of these character traits is that despite his positions on gay rights and abortion (which the right despises), his penchant for authoritarianism could easily appeal to the current crop of Bush supporters. That would be a disaster.
March 8, 2007 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Those more familiar with opera than I might just be able to come up with an appropriate opera buffo role to hang around the neck of that arrogant bastard.
March 8, 2007 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with everything in this post. Giuliani, with his imperious nature and bulldozer MO, could be right for times of crisis (and New York in the early 1990's was in a state of crisis) but wrong for just about everything else.
But what interests me is whether the public will care, post-Bush, about such things. How much is the public really engaged in the Bush-era incompetence and abuse of power? Democrats tend to assume quite a bit. I'm not so sure. People tend to judge politicians based on results, not their operating style.
March 8, 2007 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Then, it may be time to challenge the claim that Giuliani and his excuse the cops no matter what policies lowered the crime rate in New York.
The fact is that crime fell everywhere during his time in office -- and for a simple reason -- the cohort responsible for crime (18-25+ year olds) fell. And that's not even to mention the improvement in job opportunities made possible by the Clinton Boom.
March 8, 2007 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just for the sake of accuracy, it should be noted that in terms of the City's overall economic health, Dinkins did not have to "weather the huge crash of 1987." Dinkins' mayoral term did not begin until January 1990, more than 26 months after the crash. When he took office, the Dow stood at 2753. After lingering in that vicinity for about a year (mostly due to the Bush I recession of 1990-91), the market began a fairly steady climb over his remaining three years in office to finish at the aforementioned 3754. That 36% gain during his term was nothing to sneeze at, though of course it paled with the run-up during Rudy's tenure.
March 8, 2007 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brilliant!
Coherent, literate, documented, well-reasoned, and as lacking in snark and meanness as anything I've read here or elsewhere, since Chalmers Johnson put fingers to keyboard. A 10.
You are hereby ordered to write for us at least once a week.
aMike
March 8, 2007 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
How much is the public really engaged in the Bush-era incompetence and abuse of power?
See: Elections, 2006.
The key to defeating Giuliani, it strikes me, in addition to tearing down the whole 9/11 Changed Everything (tm) sloganeering, is painting him as "resolute," just like you-know-who.
I see the same "I'm right and you're wrong" traits, and Democrats should hammer that home.
Dissent Protects Democracy.
March 8, 2007 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent essay, just about sums it all up for this New Yorker. Just one question: do you really think he could make it through primary debates and the numerous press gaggles on the road without letting the authoritarian side shine through? Has he really gained that discipline? I remember radio shows where he basically called meekly complaining constituents stupid selfish whiners; that just won't do in a presidential campaign town hall meeting. This is a sincere question since I wonder how much life has changed him. Plus the spouse & I have bets on how long it will take him implode with something New Yorkers suffered with a shrug during his tenure but which the majority in flyover country would not.:-)
March 8, 2007 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suppose that every president has to be like Bush... past presidents probably could keep it under wraps since they didn't have the internet to deal with.
My beef with Giuliani is that NYC is pushing out its poor like many cities. Nobody seems to have answers for the "poor problem."
March 8, 2007 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not only that, but the NYC law enforcement reforms started and the crime rate started dropping during Dinkins' administration, not Giuliani's.
How come these pseudo-liberal gasbags never get the story right?
March 8, 2007 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
But he did have to weather the national recession of 1990-91 and a pretty lousy labor market for the whole of his term.
March 8, 2007 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree. I think the abuse of power issues played a very minor role if any in the 2006 elections. The issue was the Iraq war. As in: we're not winning it. If we were winning the war, no one would give two shits about abuse of power.
I also disagree that painting him as resolute is an effective strategy. The last thing Democrats need is to come across like they aren't resolute or don't think being resolute is an important value. The issue is when does being resolute cross the line into boneheaded stubbornness.
The key to defeating Guiliani will be to show that he's not very likeable. There are endless clips of him publicly berating, harrassing or humiliating people. That's what will turn people off, not that he's a strong leader.
March 8, 2007 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
New York's 1993 "State of Crisis" has been vastly overstated; and Giuliani's greatest successes were the result of work done by his predecessor (like the Lee Brown "Community Policing" strategy begun under David Dinkins' administration) and the dot-com boom feeding Wall Street and the New York City real-estate frenzy of the 90's.
Serious crime had already fallen by 16% during the last three years of the David Dinkins administration, and violent crime was 27% lower nationwide in 1998 than in 1993 when Giuliani first took office; the latter occurred for largely demographic and economic reasons, and owed more the the Clinton administration than the Giuliani administration.
--
March 8, 2007 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
George W. Bush should have a first term. In a federal prison.
March 8, 2007 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
March 8, 2007 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Supporters of the old New York Democratic machine are also liberal gasbags. If Dinkins et. al. are so wonderful, how come they still can't win another election in a city that votes overwhelmingly Democratic in national races? Mho, there's still a lot of cleaning to do in this town. What happens in Democratic political circles in my borough of the Bronx is not always very pretty. This Spitzer thing with the health care unions is getting interesting....
This New Yorker lived through David Dinkins tenure as a recent transplant and was horrified weekly if not daily in what I read in the papers, comparing it to the way I saw other cities run until age 29. The corruption was insidious and widespread, it worsened from Koch to Dinkins, lots of it still remains in the lower levels. Guiliani is not an angel and a lot of things broke his way. That does not mean if Dinkins was re-elected that we would have ended up in the same place.
March 8, 2007 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dinkins was a terrible mayor especially following Koch. New Yorkers seem to like loud brassy mayors whom we ultimately get tired. However we expect mayors who wade into the muck and get thinks done for everyone.
It one reason why New York, the most Democratic of cities is soon to be in its 16th year of Republican
mayors.Daniel A. Greenbaum
March 8, 2007 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Guiliani also needs the spotlight and the credit. It may explain his dumping Bratton as NYC police commiissioner even though he did a very good job. It is one thing for a mayor to always demand attention it is hard to see it being a good thing for a president of the United States who will have cabinet officers and other high powered people to work with.
Jim Sleeper was always a pleasure to read in the NY Daily News. It has been a loss that he has not been a regularly columnist.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
March 8, 2007 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't disagree with your cautionary comment.
On the other hand Wall Street's contribution to New York City's fiscal wellbeing is related to transactions -- bond trading, M & A activity, and stock exchange volumes -- the amount of which (and the high wages and overall industry employment strength associated with that activity when it is high) is dependent upon the strength of the US economy -- a Clinton/Rubin gift to Giuliani.
March 8, 2007 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yup, Dinkins sure was an irresponsible extremist liberal all right. In addition to his police reforms, Dinkins turned a $1.8 billion budget deficit when he took office into a $200 million surplus when he left. So he left the city safer and in better fiscal shape than when he took office. Yet he, not Koch or Beame, gets blamed for all of NYCs problems. Wonder why that is?
Oh yeah, any, you know, specifics on the corruption issue? Doubt it, since you don't have a shred of actual evidence to back up any of your other claims.
Just why do you people have it in for Dinkins, anyway?
March 8, 2007 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is an excellent piece. Thank you for posting it. It provides plenty of food for thought and stands out from most of the partisan talking points we're often subjected to here.
March 8, 2007 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shouldn't Dems be rooting for the weakest Republican to get the nomination (and vice versa)?
Rudy won't be liked by the South because he is a brash New Yorker, he won't be liked by the Dobson religious types because of his "liberal" social views and he won't be liked by the neo-cons who support a muscular military posture because of his lack of foreign policy expertise. He sounds like the perfect candidate to me if the Dems want to win.
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
March 8, 2007 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't begin to tell you how much I disagree with this analysis!
Each of the groups you mention are first and foremost suckers for the strong leader type and each is fully able to rationalize any particular past policy of their current "hero" that runs up against their so-called values.
Rudy would be a very strong candidate.
March 8, 2007 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Ellen has it right. It's worth reading Steve M's posts about Giuliani for some perspective. Steve lays out a pretty solid case for why a) most of the conservative evangelicals will turn a blind eye to his 'moral failings', and b) he would be the most difficult to defeat in a general election.
March 8, 2007 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that the members of such groups are "followers", but who they follow is a function of what their leaders tell them. I may be wrong but their leaders don't seem to like Rudy.
If you are interested in the mindset of such followers you should take a look at the recent, online and free, book by psychologist Robert Altemeyer. He's the one whose research was used by John Dean in "Conservatives without Conscience".
Here's a link, I think you'll like it.
The Authoritarians
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
March 8, 2007 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, the causes of the crime drop in New York and other places has been endlessly debated and I don't necessarily disagree that Giuliani took credit for things that happened on his watch but weren't necessarily his doing. But it's important to realize that is ALWAYS the case. One could just as easily argue - as Republicans do - that the 1990's boom was a result of Ronald Reagan's policies.
Whatever the true causes of what happened, the widespread perception is that Giuliani managed to tame an ungovernable city and preside over the renaissance of a city that many had assumed was dead. Quibbling over how much credit he deserves will have limited effect, in my opinion.
March 8, 2007 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK. I'll bite. Why should he have a third term?
Does it bother you that we have a two term limit for presidents, or are you justifying it based on the fact that he really lost the first term?
Jan Knaus
March 8, 2007 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you have any references to the budget shift under Dinkins? That is pretty amazing if true.
March 8, 2007 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think maybe he is suggesting "Anything to keep Rudy out."
But I could be wrong.
March 8, 2007 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
One of the problems for any Dem facing Rudy in the general election is having to work to keep NY in the Dem column, which will take valuable resources from other states.
March 8, 2007 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right. And when the questions come, despite his orders NOT to inquire about his family, it will be very revealing how he handles himself. He has so much baggage, and it's the kind that sink candidates. The points brought up in the original essay are probably more important, but the same kind of analysis didn't sink Bush. He had a trail of failures behind him, but all his personal baggage was long ago and they swept it under the rug. I don't think Rudy can do it.
Jan Knaus
March 8, 2007 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, don't "quibble"! Just say he's full of s**t.
March 8, 2007 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with these comments from Brad.
1)If we were winning in Iraq, NO ONE would care. The ends justify the means in this country. 2) The Dems need to realize, as mentioned, people want leaders perceived as strong. They don't want wimps or people perceived as wimps. On this matter, if the Dems DON'T stop the war, the will look like they are looking now . . . no spine. They were elected to stop Bush's (loosing) war. 3) Show Rudy for the crazy he is. We have a nut-job in the WH currently and if nothing else, I think people want someone who is operating in the real universe and not the one their minions have contructed for them.
March 8, 2007 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think that's a serious concern.
March 8, 2007 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ici, le TJKING célèbre n'est pas connu comme ironist.
March 8, 2007 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
This took 27 sec, not including the formatting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Dinkins
UPDATE: Everything else I read says Giuliani inherited a deficit from Dinkins. So things must have gone South for NYC in 1993, the year Giuliani was elected, but before he took office.
Here is the flavor: http://tinyurl.com/28sz8o
"New York City is heading for its most dangerous fiscal problems in nearly 20 years. And while this time there is no threat of bankruptcy . . ."
March 8, 2007 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
"suckers for the strong leader type"
I have lived in South Carolina for a few years (a lot longer than I wanted to, because of illnesses in the family).
What I have observed here is a strange mixture of an individualism that is not based on a true respect for individuals and an authoritarianism that is not based on a true respect for authority.
Could they vote for Giuliani despite the fact that he is a brash New Yorker?
In a way that is a tough call, but, yeah, probably.
Once I was standing in line at a KFC where the service is always slow and somebody said, "What they need is for a New Yorker to come down here and kick some butt."
March 8, 2007 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I kept looking for a solid and understandable reason why Giuliani should not become president. I have one.
B E R N I E · T H E · K.
March 8, 2007 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I am giving him the benefit of the doubt. His tongue is not, after all, completely dull.
March 8, 2007 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
One didn’t have to share all of Giuliani’s “colorblind,” “law-and-order,” and free-market presumptions to want big shifts in liberal Democratic paradigms
Well, you got 'em, chump! How's it taste!
March 8, 2007 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
And then there's also the fact that this is the guy who thought it was a great idea to move the city's emergency response bunker--his anti-terrorist headquarters during an attack--in the 23rd floor of not just any skyscraper, but in a skyscraper that had already been attacked by terrorists.
If he becomes president, he'll probably move NORAD into the attic of the White House. He'll move our National Hurricane Response Center into New Orleans's 9th Ward. He'll move our national earthquake response center into a rickety old building in the center of San Francisco. Wildfire response center? In the middle of a forest. Flood response center? On the banks of the Mississippi.
The guy's core competency is PR stunts, okay? It's certainly not planning, building, or anything involving real leadership as opposed to simply posturing for the cameras.
March 8, 2007 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Giuliani is nominated Giuliani wins. Most Democrats can't crack the Solid South, and crucial states like Pennsylvania, which are historically close but go blue, will go to Giuliani. Edwards might make it close by picking off a southern state or two, but Edwards would probably lose some of the Northeastern states to Giuliani, including Pennsylvania.
In times of peace, the wise man prepares for war. -- Horace
The blade itself incites to violence. -- Homer
March 8, 2007 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rudy Guliani may not make a good president, but judging from this commentof Sleeper's ("The first serious problem is structural and political: A man who fought the inherent limits of his mayoral office as fanatically as Giuliani would construe presidential prerogatives so broadly he’d make George Bush’s notions of “unitary” executive power seem soft.") he would make a perfect replacement for Vice President Dick Cheney....maybe before 2008!
March 8, 2007 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, it's just too depressing to seriously imagine the GOP staying in charge at 1600 Penn. Ave. for me to think about who they nominate.
Walden Pond beckons, too bad I'm still working for a living.
March 8, 2007 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Merci ellen. C'est la joie de ma vie pour exprimer mon individu librement et pour faire prier aux observateurs enfoncés pour mon silence. Peut-être je peux être un Ironist parfois, non ?
March 8, 2007 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like George Bush. He was always nice to me. I think he has made good choices overall. I want him to be President longer.
[Another clever joke, Jan....this is your week I suppose]
March 8, 2007 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
It sounds like we might do well with Giuliani checked by a Democratic Congress.
Unless he murders someone between now and November 2008, I'm voting for him ahead of Hillary. Obama might get my vote, but only if he promises not to lose Afghanistan in addition to Iraq. Losing one war is bad enough.
March 8, 2007 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
The reason that most people admire Guiliani's "leadership" on 9/11 is because consciously or unconsciously they were comparing it to Bush's lack of leadership.
Absent that contrast effect, Guiliani merely showed up.
Granted, Woody Allen once said that 90% of life is just showing up, but that's not nearly a sufficient reason to qualify a person to become the POTUS, and that is the only qualification that Guiliani, a person who has never held a national office, really has.
March 8, 2007 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen
In your case TJ hope can spring eternal but weakly.
March 8, 2007 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, if come 2008 our choices are Rudy Guilliani and Hillary Clinton I just have to say: If this is the best we can do in this country after what we've been through we pretty much deserve what we get.
I can't abide either one of them. Why can't we have a true statesperson as a candidate...someone who can actually point to something he/she has personally accomplished; a direction that they uniquely identify with to lead us out of the mess we are in? Neither one of these two come close. We're a big country. Is this really all we can come up with --> People who can raise more money than anyone else?
Jan Knaus
March 8, 2007 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll remind you about when folks said there wasn't much difference between Gore and Bush.
Duty calls.
March 8, 2007 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Implying you'd take Giuliani over Obama? A real check on Giuliania rampant would be veto-proof majorities. Not a safe bet.
The GOP has done nothing but get us into heavy-duty trouble since Nixon.
Vote wisely.
March 8, 2007 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Each of the groups you mention [the religious right and others] are first and foremost suckers for the strong leader type..."
Bingo. This will especially be the case if the Democrats are insane enough to nominate Mrs. Clinton.
I've taken flak for stating this too flippantly elsewhere, but I am convinced that a Rudy/Hillary showdown in '08 is the nightmare scenario that must be prevented at all costs. To get off the path to self-destruction, America desperately needs long-overdue debate not only on foreign policy, but on immigration, outsourcing and international trade too. This will never happen if the Rudy/Hillary circus goes on the road.
The first problem is that the distance between them on the issues, both foreign and domestic, is not so great, even if there are differences in tone and even if they pander to diametrically opposed constituencies. This leads to a second problem. Since the substantive differences will be so deliberately miniscule, this guarantees the campaign will devolve into pissing contests and personal attacks. The voters will then be more hunkered down than ever in their "red" and "blue" partisan sandboxes, and nothing will change. No matter who wins, America loses. Can the country afford another presidential campaign defined by bullshit?
If it actually comes to this, and it so easily could, don't be surprised to see more and more Americans questioning the legitimacy of the two-party system. That might be the one good thing to emerge from the train wreck.
What scares me is that Giuliani could take the nomination and win the election the same way he was elected and re-elected mayor of New York in 1993 and '97: by default. You could not have found worse Democrat candidates than David Dinkins and Ruth Messinger unless Karl Rove built one in his laborartory.
Similarly, Giuliani now benefits from the fact that the Republican wingnuts are more pissed off at McCain (for the moment), and Rudy looks like the only alternative (for now).
However, I take it as a positive sign that even Jim Sleeper is experiencing buyer's remorse regarding Rudy. Maybe this is a leading indicator. Maybe.
March 8, 2007 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
If it isn't reported it doesn't exist.
In times of peace, the wise man prepares for war. -- Horace
The blade itself incites to violence. -- Homer
March 8, 2007 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Was wir nicht sagen können, daß wir nicht sagen können und wir nicht es auch nicht pfeifen können. .so lassen Sie uns tanzen
Thanks Ellen. I would rather be weak and free than strong and a slave.
March 8, 2007 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
You may be right about this. I just found another link saying NYC had a $2.2 billion deficit when Dinkins left office.
If you look at this, NYC spending growth under Dinkins slowed from what it had been in the late '80s, due to the budget cuts outlined above. Giuliani in the first few years of his administration succeeded in temporarily slowing down the growth rate even more, but since the mid-90s city spending seems to have caught back up to its pre-Giuliani trend. At least that's the way I read it.
But I still don't understand why Dinkins gets all this crap from people who really should kow better. They are the ones who created this Giuliani monster. Well Dr. Frankenstein, behold your creation.
March 8, 2007 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
The distance between them is not so great...hmmmm...where have I heard that before? Oh yeah. That's exactly what I heard about Gore and Bush just before the 2000 election. In fact I believe that was Nader's platform.
March 8, 2007 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the abuse of power issues played a very minor role if any in the 2006 elections.
I read your statement about incompetence and abuse of power as meaning the Iraq war. That's his expression of both those things. Lying us into a war, failing to get UN approval and a large coalition, outing CIA agents, etc, etc.
The issue is when does being resolute cross the line into boneheaded stubbornness.
By "resolute," I sarcastically meant "boneheaded stubborness." My sarcasm failed to come through the printed word.
Dissent Protects Democracy.
March 8, 2007 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another vote for Ellen here.
All those groups will completely disregard those factors, because 9/11 happened, and when Rudy talks about that day, they will listen, and they will cry.
Dissent Protects Democracy.
March 8, 2007 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
And then there's this
and This
Gives a whole new meaning to the terms "Lavender Hill Mob" don'tcha think? (It really isn't his color).
aMike
March 8, 2007 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
So wait -- George Bush fucks up Afghanistan to go off and fuck up Iraq, and now you think Obama would be to blame for "losing" Afghanistan?
I think talking of "losing" is simplistic. It's not win or lose, and to put whatever you want to call how we deal with the threat of terrorism in that dichotomy maybe sounds great in speeches, but does no service to a real discussion about this issue.
Dissent Protects Democracy.
March 8, 2007 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The distance between them is not great....I believe that was Nader's platform.".
Don't even think of playing the Nader card against me. I would vote for Al Gore again in a heartbeat. He's a thousand times better than Hillary. He was right from the beginning on Iraq, while she still can't admit she blew it.
I would hold my nose and vote for Hillary if she got the nomination, but don't ask me to like it.
March 8, 2007 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
These are exactly what I have been thinking since the recent deification of Rudy.
Crime is multi-factorial. Conditions in most major cities improved during the nineties. Why? How much was attributable to the improved economy, demographics, the COPS program? These affected most of the country.
How much was attributable to the local politicians and their policies?
Has any reputable group studied this? This is of interest today, not just to give credit to politicians running on their record, but because we currently have rising violent crime rates in a supposedly improving economy. What is causing it now?
March 8, 2007 8:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, now that Condi has gotten too ripe.
March 8, 2007 9:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
AKA, is that really Rudy?
March 8, 2007 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
If one can trust the New York Post, yep. I'm not sure whether pink is a better color for him than Lavender. What do you think?
aMike
March 9, 2007 4:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is true that serious crime was falling in every metropolitan city nationwide at the time Guiliani took office.
I just read "Freakonomics" where the author attributes most of this drop to Roe V. Wade in which millions who otherwise would be a high risk to become criminals were never born. Maybe this is the true reason for Guiliani's pro choice stance, but he would never admit it because that would completely destroy his chances of getting the Republican nomination.
March 9, 2007 5:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gee, you're deep!
Don't you just LOVE those translation sites?
Jan Knaus
March 9, 2007 7:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know, I know. If it comes down to it I'll hold my nose and vote for Hillary. But my point is, why should we have to hold our noses? The process itself precludes the best person from climbing aboard the "candidate express." I still like Obama; he comes closest to what I'm talking about, but truthfully I don't know that much about him. I just like what I hear when he says what he thinks, and I guess that's how we decide anyway!
Jan Knaus
March 9, 2007 7:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Even though the Gore/Bush similarity was complete rubbish, and any respect I once had for Nader disappeared with that; the election was very close. Even if you discount the fact that Gore actually won, the election was still very close. When an election is close, cheaters can win. We have 2 recent elections that show that.
Jan Knaus
March 9, 2007 7:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Look, I will hold my nose and vote for Hillary (as I did for Gore, who I now think is much better than he appeared then). But I refuse to apologize for despising her and Bill as the obnoxious triangulating neo-liberal Republican-lites that they are. I don't know if this was your intent, but bringing up 2000 and its aftermath to shout down any criticism of any candidate with (D) after his/her name is a nasty tactic, and not one I will be intimidated by.
March 9, 2007 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I'm not sure whether pink is a better color for [Rudy] than Lavender. What do you think?"
Definitely pink. Lavender tends to fade him out.
March 9, 2007 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was deeply concerned about Giuliani for many of the reasons put forth in Mr. Sleeper's article...until last week. It was then that I saw some video on a cable news program of Giuliani in a pink dress, pearls and bouffant wig. While there are many in the fly-over states that support gay rights, seeing a potential President in drag, imho, will be something way beyond their ability to tolerate.
Politics being what it is, this video will surely have more extensive coverage as the race progresses. I think it's something that will ultimately neutralize his advantage with those very segments of the voting public to whom his authoritarianism might otherwise appeal.
The hardest thing about any political campaign is how to win without proving that you are unworthy of winning. ~~Adlai E. Stevenson
March 9, 2007 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
"In Zukunft soll ß nur noch nach langem Vokal und nach Diphthong (Doppellaut) stehen. Man schreibt also weiterhin: das Maß – des Maßes; außen; gießen – er gießt. Nach kurzem Vokal soll hingegen nur noch Doppel-s stehen (bisher stand hier je nach dem folgenden Buchstaben teils ss, teils ß). Man schreibt neu: der Fluss, die Flüsse; es passt, passend; wässrig, wässerig (bisher: der Fluß, aber die Flüsse; es paßt, aber passend; wäßrig, aber wässerig). Die Erleichterung, die mit dieser Lösung angestrebt wird, besteht darin, dass in mehr Fällen als bisher die Schreibung aus der Lautung abgeleitet werden kann: das Floß – es floss; der Ruß – der Schluss; das Maß – das Fass." Duden
March 9, 2007 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pardonnez moi, mais je ne parle pas Francais tres bien. D'autre part...
? ? ?? ? ? ?? ??
March 9, 2007 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bush couldn't get elected, his approval ratings are in the mid 20s, that puts you and him in a distinct MINORITY.
Now Bill Clinton, who's ratings were in the mid 60s while he was being impeached, could easily get elected to a third term if the Constitution allowed.
March 9, 2007 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
An example of my fluency in German:
HEROUS SCHNELL, HANDE HEROUF!
That's from memory, don't mind the spelling
March 9, 2007 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
CVille Dem said:
hahahahaha, touche' :)
March 9, 2007 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
What I posted on another thread:
One way I'd try to beat Rudy; I'd attack him by showing how much alike his authoritarian, messianic personality is to Bush. His record in NY shows he's a carbon copy of El Presidente. Didn't I just read "he's Bush on steroids"?
The Dems should follow his campaign around shouting "Four more Bush, Four more Bush!"
March 9, 2007 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Law of the Excluded Middle
aMike
March 9, 2007 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just because crime declined on Giuliani's watch doesn't mean he had anything to do with it.
There was a general decrease in crime in the USA as a whole. (Don't have the stats in front of me, so can't say whether it's coincident with that in NYC, but my best recollection is that it was.) No one really knows why, though things like the crack epidemic burning itself out might have something to do with it.
March 9, 2007 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
We may have to hold our noses a few years more. At least until the bloggers take over the world. :-)
Dissent Protects Democracy.
March 9, 2007 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Si, estoy enamorada con eso, pero cuando quiero leer Wittgenstein, es el mejor para usar la lengua de ello. yo pienso con tu apellido esto idioma es mas tranquilo, porque es el mejor lengua en el mundo, es muy triste no puedes comprender nada en todos lenguas. Me gusta tu chistes tambien.
March 9, 2007 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
We all hold our noses when we think about our own foibles and failings. Successful pols are human, too, and compromised every which way (or they wouldn't last long).
No way can Obama be spotless, but he's pretty impressive at close range, is both ambitious and smart, and actually gets things done.
March 9, 2007 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you knew Klingon, I'd really be impressed.
Dissent Protects Democracy.
March 9, 2007 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, are those on UTube? And if not, why not?
Perhaps you're right, branding Rudy with a "Rumsfeld personality" should be a hard brand to wipe off. Probably better than calling him and Newt "serial polygmists" and questioning their definition of manhood...
But then I do want to see Rudy and Hillary in debate together. I think she can give that scummy bastard that look that only a woman can give and bury him with it.
March 10, 2007 12:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
The press ate it up.
March 10, 2007 3:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with all the above.
Gore's campaign slogan: "I was right."
March 10, 2007 6:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, at LEAST you didn't call him ARTICULATE! (lol)
Jan Knaus
March 10, 2007 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
How about this:
Jan Knaus
March 10, 2007 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Heh, I'm not in the least afraid of Guiliani or any Republican. Guiliani is popular now because most people don't know his views on Iraq and imagine he thinks whatever they think. When his views on Iraq become known, he'll lose half his support.
March 10, 2007 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm planning to throw a party on Inauguration Day 2009. The reason for the party will be to celebrate George W. Bush's constitutional ineligibility for the presidency of the United States. That's right, just like non-citizens, naturalized citizens and people under the age of thirty five, George W. Bush will not be allowed to be president.
It may well be that the person succeeding him in the office of president will not be someone I voted for, or someone I think will do a very good job. But whoever that person is, I will wish him or her well, and give them a chance, because, ya know, I think they will almost certainly do a better job than George W. Bush. So, ironically, no matter what happens in this next election cycle, I will have reason to celebrate.
You are all invited to my party!
April 1, 2007 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maar toch ben je een eikel.
"All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." - I.F. Stone
September 5, 2007 2:39 AM | Reply | Permalink