Asymmetrical Information

Well, it could be that Giuliani is mistaken in talking about 9/11 too much. But the fact remains that he did handle himself then under pressure, which is what Americans want in a leader.

It will be a difficult case for Clinton or Obama to make that they would be tougher on terrorism than he would. It just isn't credible. When some liberals call the war on terrorism merely a "bumpersticker" and others seem more worried about the supposed rights of terrorist than they are about protecting the country, Amercian voters will think twice before making a liberal Democrat Commander in Chief in a time of war.

I think your point is well taken, Janegalt. If there is someone who doesn't know RG wasn't mayor of NY on 9/11, they don't live in the US and aren't part of the electorate.

The 9/11 disaster/terroristact/tragedy is in danger of becoming a cliche of sorts, if only because of the many ways in which it is invoked. Also, it can become cheapened by the playing card of "don't you remember what city the planes hit the building in?"

Rudi would be better off if he played it straight on the topics asked, and didn't always refer to terrorism. After all, Bush lost his base support due to illegal immigration and wild spending, not support for the WoT.

"Maybe having been mayor of the city, I know that your first defense against terrorist attack is that local police station, or that local firehouse."

How ridiculous. He mistakes defense for cleaning up the mess. How many terrorist's have NYC police arrrested? Intelligence is obviously the first line of defense against terrorism, but that sounds to passive for a republican to run on. The dept of homeland defense obviously agree's when one examines how they disperse funds. Want to talk about pandering to the police and firefighter vote. It boggles the mind that anyone would attempt to run as the anti-terror candidate and focus on anything other then securing the border. I don't know if there has ever been another politician that has benefitted as much from being an ill prepared victim. WTC was a great place for the NY emergency response center considering it was such an obvious target.

For the life of me I just can't figure out precisely what Guiliani did in the aftermath of 9/11 that any political leader would not have done. Sure, he showed calm leadership, but he would have been grossly deficient as a mayor if he hadn't.

A few years ago an important figure in the Clinton administration said that the Republicans would keep their grip on power indefinitely, barring some great catastrophe. I'm not sure if isocrates has noticed, but the catastrophe has occurred. It's called Iraq, and it's going to have the same effect on Republicans as the Vietnam War had on Democrats. Every Republican presidential candidate will have to support the Bush administration's Iraq policy to hold on to the Republican base, and the result will be a landslide for Clinton or Obama.

It boggles the mind that anyone would attempt to run as the anti-terror candidate and focus on anything other then securing the border.

Because we all know about all those Mexican and Canadians who have flown airplanes into our skyscrapers.

The long and short here is pretty simple. Questions on social issues, at this stage of the game, are a problem for Giuliani. The more his primary opponents can keep those issues front and center in primary voters' minds, the harder sell he becomes. What he's doing here is what he should be doing, changing the subject to a topic where he is very much part of the Republican consensus. While he may be overplaying the national security issue, it comes down to that, taxes/the economy, and crime (which is tough to see translating as a federal issue) as the issues he needs to push.

If you are going to run as the anti-terror candidate, you have to control access to the country. But if you think Al Qaeda will attempt to exactly repeat 911 you should be very concerned about all those Saudi student visa's Bush renewed. Especially when you consider they estimate half of the suicide bombers in Iraq originate in Saudi Arabia.

latest dress rudy,

But that's not what you said. Your quote was that an anti-terror candidate should not "focus on anything other then securing the border.". And the reality is that there's not exactly a whole lot of evidence of Al Quaeda operatives sneaking over the border. That suggests to me that, whatever merits or lack of merits you want to attribute to border security, there's probably relatively little per dollar security payoff for it. That means to me that there's plenty of other things an anti-terror candidate should focus on.

Imo, you can't run a "dem bad terrorists" campaign and say, "but don't worry about locking you're back door." I'll admit to having not done the research, but I think most security experts would say the Mexican border is our most exploitable weakness. That's what the dude that wrote "Imperial Hubris" said on O'reilly anyway, and I tend to agree.

Rudy would be just like W if he had to say "noone could have imagined terrorist's coming across the Mexican border." Not that I think he will be elected. But I do think he wins the nomination.

Imo, you can't run a "dem bad terrorists" campaign and say, "but don't worry about locking you're back door."

Well, not necessarily. Let's say "locking your back door" costs you five programs that would be better for protecting yourself (locking the front door, finding the guy trying to get into your house, having a dog, etc.). Are you still going to say "locking your back door" is what its all about? And I think the analogy works pretty well here. You note, rightly, that the Al Quaeda is unlikely to repeat their previous tactics. But, "sneaking over the border" isn't the only, or even necessarily most likely, means to attack us. And sealing the border is an extremely expensive proposition. So much so, that if your goal is to maximize security, you're much better off allocating those resources to other projects that would wind up being starved on the alter of border protection.

For the life of me I just can't figure out precisely what Guiliani did in the aftermath of 9/11 that any political leader would not have done. Sure, he showed calm leadership, but he would have been grossly deficient as a mayor if he hadn't.

Counterpoint: Nagin, Katrina. It IS quite possible to do worse.

Comments are Closed.