Rudy Giuliani: Because Beggars Can’t Be Choosers

NY Observer ^ | 3/14/07 | Steve Kornacki

[areafiftyone]

If pragmatism prevails in the Republican primaries and caucuses next winter—a questionable proposition for a party that once dutifully lined up behind Bob Dole—then Rudy Giuliani will roll to the G.O.P. nomination.

 

Simply put, the former Mayor would flip to the Republican column several deep, dark blue states that the G.O.P. has barely bothered to contest in recent election, gobbling up territory that is pivotal to any Democrat’s hopes of corralling 270 electoral votes. And he could do this without ceding an inch of safe G.O.P. turf to the Democrats. Sure, they may loathe his social liberalism, but will Mississippians really hand their six electoral votes to Hillary Clinton over Rudy?

 

As it stands now, Republicans are in grave danger of losing the White House in 2008. There is a pattern to American politics that has prevailed, almost unblemished, since the Second World War: One party controls the Presidency for eight years, then the other party does. It was the Democrats’ turn in 1992 and 1996, the Republicans’ turn in 2000 and 2004, and—well, you see what that means for ’08.

 

And it’s not as if voters are inclined to buck history: Fatigue with the national G.O.P. is unusually high—and, with every passing, seemingly futile month in Iraq, growing. Against such a backdrop, a Republican Presidential nominee who appeals to the usual G.O.P. cheering sections and antagonizes the familiar Democratic constituencies is going nowhere.

 

To win next year, Republicans need to nominate a map-changer—a candidate who can attract support in unlikely areas and overcome the significant built-in handicaps.

 

Enter Rudy. Say what you will about whether he truly deserves them, but his Sept. 11 tough-guy hero credentials position him perfectly to lead election-swinging Reagan Democrats back into the Republican fold.

 

Consider the electoral map, which has subtly shifted in the Democrats’ favor in the last two years due to Republican bumbling on the national and state levels.

 

Ohio, for instance, famously put Mr. Bush over the top in 2004. Months later, though, that state’s Republican governor, Bob Taft, pleaded guilty to four criminal misdemeanors in an ethics case, precipitating the total collapse of Ohio’s G.O.P. establishment. Now, early polls show Mrs. Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards poised to turn Ohio blue in ’08.

 

Against Rudy’s G.O.P. rivals, the Democratic front-runners would have little trouble doing so. John McCain’s fortunes will be tied to public opinion of the war he has so tirelessly promoted. And Mitt Romney’s politics of convenience—now a conservative, he built his political career in liberal Massachusetts by telling wrenching personal stories about his commitment to keeping abortion legal—will only remind Ohioans of the double-talking governor who until recently occupied their own Statehouse.

 

But Rudy can run as a leader and a hero, the man who stood tall on America’s darkest day—just as the President went into hiding for a few hours. He can call himself a results man too, the mayor who made New York safe for suburbanites again. That appeal frees him from the liabilities of his party or from the kind of single-issue identification that figures to doom Mr. McCain.

 

And Ohio is only one example.

 

Look at Mr. Giuliani’s home region. He’d have a hard time, perhaps, in New York itself. But he’d be favored in New Jersey, a state filled with blue-collar, ethnic Catholics who loved him even before 9/11. At the same time, his social liberalism won’t scare off the state’s affluent, educated suburbanites like George W. Bush’s religious rhetoric has. The same is true of Connecticut, another bedroom state that has turned on the national G.O.P. as it has morphed into a party for Christian conservatives from the South.

 

Between them, Connecticut and New Jersey have 22 electoral votes, and neither has voted Republican since 1988. Before he’s even left his backyard, then, Rudy could produce a 44-vote swing in the electoral math, potentially decisive in itself. And that’s not even touching Pennsylvania, whose blue-collar masses have lined up with the Democrats for four straight elections. And so on.

 

We’ve been down this road before, of course. In 1996, Lamar Alexander, then a likable and somewhat moderate former Tennessee governor, donned a checkered shirt and told Republicans that his campaign was as simple as ABC: “Alexander Beats Clinton.” No one short of Colin Powell could have defeated Mr. Clinton that year, but surely Mr. Alexander would have fared better than the soporific Mr. Dole, who Republicans nonetheless tapped. Similarly, had the G.O.P. simply nominated Mr. McCain in 2000, it would hardly have taken a Supreme Court decision to hand the White House to the party.

 

Maybe, given his well-documented history as a social liberal, it’s naïve to think that Mr. Giuliani will be able to count on Republican support in 2008. But if Hillary Clinton ends up defeating Mitt Romney, the G.O.P. will have no one but itself to blame for the Clinton restoration.

 

Steve Kornacki works as an organizer for Unity08, a group that advocates a bipartisan Presidential ticket in 2008.

[Fierce Allegiance]

It's the dems, via the MSM, doing it! They tell us for months Rudy is our man, and the only one who can win, and the Rutards here suck it up and vigorously support such a foolish notion, then they will tear us down.

Rudy is going to sink. I jus hope it's before the primaries, not between the primary and general elections.

[wagglebee]

The Rudy FRiberals are freaked-out about Thompson getting into the race because whether they will admit it or not, the ONLY appeal Rudy had to the mainstream of the GOP was name recognition. With Thompson in the race, Rudy just becomes another far-left Republican.

They love to say that Rudy is the only one who can beat Hillary. If that's the case, then why didn't he run against her in 2000? The Rudyites say it was because of his health, but he didn't step down as mayor and being mayor of NYC is arguably more stressful than a senatorial campaign. Why didn't he run against her last fall? They say that he didn't want to do back-to-back campaigns, but she doesn't seem to have a problem with it. If Rudy can beat Hillary he should have proved it, the GOP would have control of the Senate and after losing her seat, Hillary would have been out of politics forever.

[FreeInWV]

"Which Red States do you think will flip to the Dems?

West Virginia: The Republicans carried this state in 2000 and 2004 by narrow margins because of Bush's appeal to evangelicals and gun owners. Otherwise, WV is solidly Democrat. With conservative indifference to Giuliani, I could see a Democratic win here.

Ohio: The foul ups and corruption on the part of the state GOP may make the Buckeye State go Democratic in 2008, irrespective of whom the Republicans choose as President."


Yep, Bush squeaked by in Ohio due largely to the efforts of the Amish and farmers. Certain Amish precincts had 100% turnout for Bush. They voted GOP because they feared the liberal agenda of abortion, gay rights and gun control.

Same with WV. Our predominantly Democrat state voted GOP. Many union members were told to hold their noses and vote Democrat. They broke with the unions because of the reasons listed above.

So what does Rudy have to offer? Most of his beliefs are appalling to us. If he is the nominee, the DNC will carry WV. Ohio too, unless something very unusual happens.

[freedomfiter2]

They love to say that Rudy is the only one who can beat Hillary. If that's the case, then why didn't he run against her in 2000? The Rudyites say it was because of his health, but he didn't step down as mayor and being mayor of NYC is arguably more stressful than a senatorial campaign. Why didn't he run against her last fall? They say that he didn't want to do back-to-back campaigns, but she doesn't seem to have a problem with it. If Rudy can beat Hillary he should have proved it, the GOP would have control of the Senate and after losing her seat, Hillary would have been out of politics forever.


Now there you go again, using logic and making sense.

[Fierce Allegiance]

Rudy doesn't have the prostate to run against her.

[concerned about politics]

I would let the country crash and burn before I vote for another RINO, liberal republican for president. We may not be able to rise from the ashes until we do.

After the 2006 midterm elections, RUSH said he was actually relieved, because he was tired of carrying the water for the cowardly Republicans. I understood immediately what he meant.

Now, the Republicans are asking us to support a flaming liberal just because he has an (R) after his name. The cowardly Republicans are once again caving to the liberals, and no way am I going to vote for a liberal just to keep them feeling secure.

My husband and I are not going to carry their water for them this time , either. We'll vote for a Conservative and only a Conservative. Enough of this left wing pandering crap by the Republicans.

[wagglebee]

You must have missed the memo. Using logic, making sense and simply stating the facts is now covered under the term "SMEARING."

[Wallace T.]

VP candidates are meaningless in garnering support, except maybe in their home state. The two most recent successful President/Vice Presidential teams have been between two men (Clinton and Gore; Bush and Cheney) of similar ideologies and residence. (Cheney was raised in Wyoming, but spent most of his adult years in the D.C. area or in Texas. In fact, when he was nominated as VP, Cheney lived in the same upscale community in the Dallas area that Bush had resided before being elected Governor of Texas.) Bob Dole, who had fewer problems with conservatives than Giuliani had, chose Jack Kemp, an articulate conservative popular within the conservative movement. Nonetheless, Dole received virtually the same vote totals (39 million) that the elder Bush had received four years earlier. Neither Lloyd Bentsen in 1988 nor John Edwards in 2004 helped their Massachusetts Presidential running mates carry a single Southern state.

Actually, Giuliani should choose a Vice Presidential candidate who augments his appeal in his native Northeast or in California. If Giuliani can pick up CA, PA, DE, NJ. CT, RI, NH, and ME, he would receive 125 electoral votes. Even if the Democrats carried all the states I listed, Giuliani would lose 98 electoral votes. If he could carry his home state, that would be an additional 31 electoral votes. A win in California is the key to a successful Giuliani campaign. Contrary to conventional wisdom, a liberal to moderate Republican from California (not Schwarzenegger, who was born in Austria) or the Northeast would be a better choice for VP for Giuliani.

[perfect_rovian_storm]

You'll see a mass influx of people moving away from Rudy to FDT as well. What's your point? I understand you want to protect your job and all, but the guy's right. You aren't making any sense at all.

[dforest]

I think people are being wishful when it comes to Rudy, they are projecting what they want him to be.

Rudy actually shows some bad judgment. Even after the 1993 WTC attacks, when the WTC was attacked again, all the emergency agencies were in the WTC buildings. Not good judgment.

If a person has aspirations to Be POTUS, he is careful not to have compromising , gross pictures of himself that can later be used to make him look foolish.

He doesn't flaunt a mistress and lose the support of his kids.

These are just a few. I am sure there is a whole lot more out there that we will all know about in the near future.

I know I am not going to sign on to this Rudy blindness.

We have time to get a good candidate that will be able to focus on issues instead of explaining his past behavior to everyone.

And who ever came up with the idea Rudy would be so good in the WOT? Has he done anything for our troops? He can tell Ahmenutjob, to go to hell. Big Deal. Has he even mentioned any of these issues? Has he ever served in the military? I know the POTUS is not required to, but it is one more negative Rudy issue.

[TommyDale]

Rudy might keep the Red states if they don't find out about his positions on abortion, gun control, homosexual agenda and illegal border invaders. That cannot be kept secret any longer. Southerners will bolt by the millions against that sort of candidate.

[Redcloak]

Oh, all right... If it has to be Rudy, and since beggars can't be choosers, I guess that I'll just have to go along. So to that end, here's my contribution to the cause: I'll give Rudy the winning campaign slogan. Here goes...

Rudy: He doesn't suck as much as the other liberal candidate.

Yup... That's a winner.

[Revenge of Sith]

Bush Sr was also down in the polls by over 30 points during the period that Perot dropped out of the race. Clinton also fooled many conservatives by running as a new Democrat.

[jonathanmo]

Thompson is very similar to Dole in ACU ratings...other than him being a television actor and appearing less stodgy, what's the difference?

[Steel Wolf]

Fred is dull and unknown? He's a well-known, charismatic actor and an experienced public servant and politician with a great sense of humor. And what is with the white guy slam?

I like Fred Thompson. He certainly looks presidential, and that's a plus. He plays enough roles that people will say, "Oh yeah, that guy" if they see his picture, which is also a plus. Still, he's not very experienced or particularly well known as a politician. (Not that experience is apparently a major factor, as both Hillary and Obama are quite short of it.)

The biggest problem I see is that the swing voters are hungry from something different. To be frank, everyone is. That's why Hillary and Obama are doing so well in Democratic polls, and Rudy is doing so well in Republican ones. My concern is that we're going to bring out some a standard issue, sensible, average white guy (again, pardon the expression, I'm just putting it in the context that swing voters will see it in). The last thing the voters are in the mood for is a pleasant, respectable Midwestern governor who seems anything like President Bush.

Granted, Thompson is a lot more engaging and personable than your average Senator. I just don't see him or someone like him being able to get America's attention right now. The electorate (not the MSM) is reaching past the establishments on both sides right now, drawing folks like Obama and Giuliani to the fore. Either we tap that sentiment, or we cede the center to the left. Thompsons a very nice guy with an average acting career, sensible views, and a quiet run in the Senate. Unless he's got some pizazz in the bag, 2008 just isn't his year.

[TommyDale]

Well, for starters, Fred Thompson is a heck of a lot more dynamic. He also speaks with authority in a booming, masculine voice, unlike the lisping Rudy Giuliani.

[neocon1984]

There is a word for people who are willing to "let the country crash and burn" because of their own vain ideals. That word is: traitor.

I will assume that you were engaging in hyperbole and are not actually a traitor. That is, unless you are a Dem troll. Then it is easy to see that the term applies.

[Fishrrman]

Man, ya'll have the manure spreaders going full-tilt today. Fred is dull and unknown? He's a well-known, charismatic actor and an experienced public servant and politician with a great sense of humor. And what is with the white guy slam?

I think Mr. Thompson has his eye on the _vice_ presidential ticket for '08. He could very credibly balance out Rudy at the top spot. And he will make an impressive candidate in the second spot.

If Rudy wins, Thompson is "in" as the heir-apparent candidate of his party, the man with the gravitas.

If Rudy loses, Thompson automatically earns front-runner status for '12.

- John

[Cicero]

Well, I'm willing to consider Rudy as a possibility if he can get his act together on the social issues--which is increasingly more doubtful.

But it doesn't help his cause when he is supported by a flake like this.

"Similarly, had the G.O.P. simply nominated Mr. McCain in 2000, it would hardly have taken a Supreme Court decision to hand the White House to the party." Ugh. If he thinks that, why isn't he supporting McCain now? He's the right candidate for an insane voter to support.