Asymmetrical Information

Hope you're well rested (slacker). Once again I couldn't disagree with the post more (I do note it's not your opinion, but Ellis').

Giuliani was a fairly lousy mayor (and I voted for him twice). He was terrific in a crisis (post-Dinkins as an example other than 9/11) and lousy when he actually had to play politics. He was pushy. He flew off the handle. He told people they were idiots. He cheated on his wife and dumped her quiet viciously. He is barely a Republican where all conservatives would think it counts.

I find it doubtful that either Hillary or Rudy would have any chance in 2008. Both have alienated too many people to ever make a sucess on the national stage. While I love the idea of either running for office, Rudy is a liberal who cheated on his wife. Hardly a candidate that the conservative right will have any interest in electing.

On the other hand, it warms my liberal democratic just to think of it...he he he.

Cheated on his wife! Fie! Shocking!

But he'd be running against a cheated-on wife who ACQUIESED in the deed, by defending the Evil Husband and slandering his critics.

Aint no simple answers, but she loses as many points as she gains.

In 2002, Giuliani traveled the country speaking at Republican candidate fundraisers. The fund raisers sold out wherever he spoke.

There are now Republicans all over the country that owe him favors in case he should run nationally.

The people who vote Republican are much more likely to care about a guy who cheated on his wife (actually, several wives) than the woman who was cheated on and then took the marriage vows seriously enough to stick with it. Regardless, Rudy will have a more difficult time running on "character" issues than a traditional conservative candidate.

My point is that I doubt Rudy will be able to win a national republican primary.

In addition, as we all know, political campaigns are much more difficult then speaking engagements. Think about Wes Clark. Before he ran...Hero of Bosnia, committed husband and father, attractive, brilliant speaker, new ideas...etc. Now, Hot-head, foot-in-mouth, bossy, no clear idea for the future...etc.

The current image of Rudy is the mayor-hero of 9-11, but before 9-11 he had a popularity rating of 35%. No one thought he did a good job in the beginning of his second term.

I would love to see Rudy run for Pres. in 2008. If he received the republican nomination I would, for the first time, NOT be voting against the scary republican candidate, but could vote for him. However, in my experience, the guy I would be willing to vote for is the guy the Republicans least want on their ticket. Rudy might as well be a Dem as far as social issues go. Do you think the right is going to want him peppering the supreme court with justices who are for gay marriage? I don't. And if he gets elected, as you point out, there are so many people who owe him at this point, do you think they'll be able to stop him from doing it? I don't think that either.

Okay, just dreaming out loud here...

What if the ex-prosecutor were to, say, take on the challenge of getting a conviction of Saddam Hussein in an internationally-viewed trial in Iraq?

This, particularly in contrast to the long drawn out Hague tribunal case against Slobbo Milosevic?

Or maybe the nation is tired of Tom Ridge (God knows _I_ am ...) and Rudy could take the helm at Homeland Security in 2004 for a couple of years.

Rudy has significant drawbacks as a candidate but I can see ways for the GOP to burnish his halo sufficiently to outshine his hooves and tail...

Kate,

I think you underestimate Republican antipathy towards Hillary. As far as a senate seat from New York goes, I think Republicans ask for particularly much. We know it's a liberal state and we're not going to be getting anyone conservative any time soon. However, to guarantee that Hillary will never be president, I'd cast a Giuliani vote for Senate in a (forgive the pun) New York minute.

Now, everything you say is more than true if Rudy were to ever run for the presidency. There's no way that he would get out of the primary because more conservative folks would (correctly) point out as John Ellis did that he is a Rockerfeller Republican that is out-of-sync with the national party.

Pouncer -- good points, except that Homeland Security would be a dead end for anybody. All the options are negative. No attack: then why all the silly orange alert stuff? Attack: then why didn't you stop it?

R. Alex

I completely agree. My point was only about Rudy on the national level, not on the state level. On the state level I think Hillary would win a landslide in Manhattan, it would be close in the outer boros (minus S.I.) and Westchester and the further north you got the more would vote for Rudy. I think it would be a close race that anyone could win. I speaking entirely on the idea that Rudy could win a national election.

Much as I wish it would happen, (because I think he's the only one who could ever beat her) I don't believe that Rudy will run against Hillary for the '06 Senate. If he wanted a Senate seat he'd be running right now against Schumer, who he could beat like rented mule. Even though, "every Senator sees a future president in the mirror when he shaves in the morning" Nowadays Presidents come from Governor seats, not Senate Seats. He's going to run for Governor of NY instead, His "take charge" attitude means he'd prefer a governership to a Senate seat anyway. Rudy v. Hillary will take place not in '06 for the Senate, but '08 for the White House. Arnie's win in Cali despite his pro choice views and checkered past shows that the GOP will no longer let the perfect become the enemy of the good, especially if the alternative is another Clinton in the White House.

"the further north you got the more would vote for Rudy."

I tend to doubt that myself. One of Hillary's advantages over Lazio was that she carried no downstate v. upstate, city v. suburbs baggage with her. Her midwestern vowels are as flat and nasal as anything you'd hear in Elmira. Hillary has a natural base in the city and would be able to spend the whole campaign in western New York running on behalf of the whole state.

My partner is from Rochester and says that most people can't imagine how much New York City is resented outstate. The (R) after Giuliani's name won't do much to counteract his identification as the mayor of The Enemy.

I dunno, Brit33, it seems to me that Hillary (there's two L's in it, btw, Megan) campaigned very hard upstate last time, won big in the city, and it still wasn't a blow-out. Isn't upstate NY still pretty depressed economically? Has Senator Clinton done anything for upstate?

But I think MarkD is right. Giuliani could beat Schumer pretty easily, so if he wanted to be in the Senate he'd be running now. If he's still interested in politics, he's probably thinking of running for governor when Pataki packs it in.

Kate, I think you're exaggerating Giuliani's negatives. He got a lot of credit for cutting crime in NYC (probably some of it was deserved). I agree it's hard to see him attracting a national Republican following; if national office is his goal, he'd do better to join the Democrats. :-)

Thinking about this more, maybe the benefit of beating Hillary in 2006 is worth waiting two more years. In which case, I'd expect Rudy to campaign hard for whatever Republican runs against Schumer in November, especially if said Republican looks like s/he has a chance.

BTW, if John Ellis is Jeb Bush's first cousin, doesn't that make him GW Bush's first cousin, too?

"Kate, I think you're exaggerating Giuliani's negatives. He got a lot of credit for cutting crime in NYC (probably some of it was deserved)."

Rudy is great in a crisis and when he was elected the city was in the midst of one. It took him about three years to clean it up and then he got board. By the time his second term hit he started harassing hot-dog vendors and cab-drivers.

I was not in any way impuning Rudy's abilities as mayor, as I mentioned before, I voted for the man twice and, were he to become the Republican nominee for president, I would even consider voting for him again.

But realisticly he's a totalitarian S.O.B. (remember when Letterman would call him Benito Guilliani?) and that will come out in a years worth of campaigning. He'll piss people off.

A race with Hillary could be interesting, but I suspect it would be a toss-up who would win and, again, I think a national race for Rudy would be an unmittigated failure for all of the reasons I mentioned above. Wouldn't prevent me from voting for the guy, but heck, I'd vote for Clark or Dean, certainly not republican poster children.

Hillary's last election wasn't a "blow-out" but it wasn't all that close either. I recall that she won by a respectable 14 points. Not a landslide, but certainly not a close election. Certainly not for a woman who has the stench of Clinton-hate tatooed to her. Given, Lazio had just about given up by the end and he ran a terrible campaign. Maybe someone who ran a better campaign could do a better job against her. Certainly be interesting to see.

Rudy was the best mayor NYC ever had.

His administration was in the lead on welfare reform, privatization of gov't services, tax cutting, and crime reduction. Billions were outsourced. He also attempted to outsource grade-school education.

This adds up to more privatization then what D.C. Republicans have done, and more then any other mayor but Goldsmith of Indianapolis. I think D.C. Republicans privatized the House barber shop.

Conservatives need to get over their obsession with sex issues: gays and abortion. As for marriage, I will remind readers that Reagan, Newt, and Rush have all been married more then once.

Britain33 -- Hillary indeed carried the upstate, but she wasn't exactly playing against the varsity. Lazio was a relative unknown, and he didn't do *anything* upstate, which is why he lost it -- he took it for granted that he would carry it, as Republicans almost always do, and they resented being taken for granted. By contrast, upstate loves Rudy, and he's wildly popular in the swing districts in the suburbs for making New York safe to shop again. Hillary does have incumbent's advantage, and NYC loves her -- but they also love Rudy. My guess is, she's toast if he contests her.

"upstate loves Rudy"

That's the assumption I question, but I can't argue this beyond citing anecdotes from a few upstaters I know. I'd certainly toss that aside in the face of poll numbers.

"if he contests her."

This, to me, is the much more interesting and relevant issue to debate. It's a question I feel we can assess more accurately with the information we have.

I also question Rudy's desire to run. He's an executive branch type of guy - Mayor, "3rd ranking official in the Reagan Justice Department" as an old Dinkins radio commericial warned NY'ers.

Don't know if Rudy expressed any desire to work in the legislative branch except for his brief campaign against Hillary, though Pataki was legislator and governor.

I also question Rudy's desire to run. He's an executive branch type of guy - Mayor, "3rd ranking official in the Reagan Justice Department" as an old Dinkins radio commercial warned NY'ers.

Don't know if Rudy expressed any desire to work in the legislative branch except for his brief campaign against Hillary, though Pataki was legislator and governor.

While I respected his handling of the post-9/11 situation, Rudy's political instincts have to be called into question when one remembers that he was the most notable backer of the human punchline candidacy of Bill Simon for Governor of California last year. Of course, Davis' victory turned out to be shortlived, but it doesn't make Rudy look any brighter for having been prominently involved in the most notorious political train wreck of 2002.

I thought at one point that if Cheney didn't run, Rudy would make a politically sound running mate for GWB in 2004, but I'd guess that he's got way too much baggage on the social issues to be acceptable to the right wing of the Republican party, 9/11 halo or not.

During Hillary Clinton's race against Rick Lazio, all the minor parties got out of the way and chose sides. In the general election there were only two names on the ballot.

An unequivocal victory by either Hillary Clinton or Rudolph Giuliani in this race might make the victor his, or her, party's leading contender for President. It also might do the same for the loser, if the race is close, especially if Hillary loses and thus won't be seen as faltering in her lifelong home. (Think of the Lincoln vs. Douglas elections in Illinois: in 1858 they faced each other for the Senate and in 1860 for the Presidency.)

So, for all you New York Americans who don't want either of these titans to rule your nation: It's time for a Nader. Maybe his name is Tom Golisano. Maybe Ralph Nader himself can be lured back to Manhattan now that he's lost most of his friends in Washington. How about Ani DiFranco? Or Bill O'Reilly?

An unequivocal victory by either Hillary Clinton or Rudolph Giuliani in this race might make the victor his, or her, party's leading contender for President. It also might do the same for the loser, if the race is close, especially if Hillary loses and thus won't be seen as faltering in her lifelong home. (Think of the Lincoln vs. Douglas elections in Illinois: in 1858 they faced each other for the Senate and in 1860 for the Presidency.)

<Incredible_Understatement>Things have changed a lot in American politics since the mid-19th century.</Incredible_Understatement>

Hillary is toast if she loses in 2006, period. Instead of being "Hillary!! the invincible Candidate of Destiny and Anointed Savior of the Democratic Party," she'll be the one-term loser from NY who only got elected because Guilliani had to withdraw in 2000 for health reasons. The mantle of Destiny will pass to Bill Richardson, who will be the Democratic nominee if he runs in 2008.

Comments are Closed.