The Other Side of Giuliani
Well, Rudy Giuliani has made it official. He's running for president. I'm sure we'll be treated to a number of glowing profiles of "America's mayor" over the next few days. I agree completely with Kevin Drum, though:
And it's not only that. For someone with a reputation as a moderate, Giuliani has shown himself time and again to be capable of amazing feats of hackery.
Remember back in 2004, just before the election, when Osama bin Laden released his "October Surprise" video? In the days following the release of the video, nearly every politician (including both Bush and Kerry) had the decency (and tact) to refrain from publicly speculating about who Bin Laden wanted to "win." Not Giuliani. He went on Meet the Press less than 48 hours before the polls opened and told Tim Russert that Bin Laden "certainly wants George Bush out of the White House. . . . that's one of the reasons he put in all those criticisms of President Bush." Not only was this a breathtakingly hackish thing to say, but as we know now, the CIA had reached the exact opposite conclusion, almost instantly (as had most intelligent people).
And on the most recently anniversary of 9/11, a day that should have been about putting aside partisanship and honoring the memory of the dead, Giuliani penned an op-ed in the USA Today accusing war critics of wanting to "negotiate with fanatic Islamic terrorists":
Some might think it tasteless to debase the 5th anniversary of 9/11 by lashing out wildly at political opponents with crude straw man arguments. Not Giuliani.
What should be obvious to everyone about Giuliani is that he compensates for his perceived weaknesses--his liberal positions on social issues--by trying to be the biggest partisan hack on the planet on foreign policy issues. He clearly believes that if he toes the party line hard enough on the issues of terrorism and war, Republicans voters will give him a pass on everything else. That's why he always sounds like he's regurgitating RNC talking points whenever he talks about the War on Terror. That's exactly what he's doing.
His shtick is so transparent and calculated that I'm surprised he's been able to get away with it for so long. It won't work this time around, though. People are sick of the war and they're sick of all the straw man garbage that Republicans like Giuliani have been spewing at them for the past five years. Giuliani, like McCain, is going to have a real problem distancing himself from the policies he has so aggressively championed over the years. It serves him right.
The average voter has vague, positive impressions of Rudy thanks to his 9/11 heroics, and these people are going to be unpleasantly surprised when they see him for the first time in years and he turns out to be nastier than they remember (not to mention being freighted down by a closet full of skeletons they didn't know about). He has nowhere to go but down.
And it's not only that. For someone with a reputation as a moderate, Giuliani has shown himself time and again to be capable of amazing feats of hackery.
Remember back in 2004, just before the election, when Osama bin Laden released his "October Surprise" video? In the days following the release of the video, nearly every politician (including both Bush and Kerry) had the decency (and tact) to refrain from publicly speculating about who Bin Laden wanted to "win." Not Giuliani. He went on Meet the Press less than 48 hours before the polls opened and told Tim Russert that Bin Laden "certainly wants George Bush out of the White House. . . . that's one of the reasons he put in all those criticisms of President Bush." Not only was this a breathtakingly hackish thing to say, but as we know now, the CIA had reached the exact opposite conclusion, almost instantly (as had most intelligent people).
And on the most recently anniversary of 9/11, a day that should have been about putting aside partisanship and honoring the memory of the dead, Giuliani penned an op-ed in the USA Today accusing war critics of wanting to "negotiate with fanatic Islamic terrorists":
Some argue that our enemies seek negotiation and understanding. But our enemies have made clear to us that what they seek is the annihilation of our most precious freedoms. . . . There are those over the past 30 years, and even to this day, who want to negotiate with the fanatic Islamic terrorists. But the fanatics don't want to negotiate.
Some might think it tasteless to debase the 5th anniversary of 9/11 by lashing out wildly at political opponents with crude straw man arguments. Not Giuliani.
What should be obvious to everyone about Giuliani is that he compensates for his perceived weaknesses--his liberal positions on social issues--by trying to be the biggest partisan hack on the planet on foreign policy issues. He clearly believes that if he toes the party line hard enough on the issues of terrorism and war, Republicans voters will give him a pass on everything else. That's why he always sounds like he's regurgitating RNC talking points whenever he talks about the War on Terror. That's exactly what he's doing.
His shtick is so transparent and calculated that I'm surprised he's been able to get away with it for so long. It won't work this time around, though. People are sick of the war and they're sick of all the straw man garbage that Republicans like Giuliani have been spewing at them for the past five years. Giuliani, like McCain, is going to have a real problem distancing himself from the policies he has so aggressively championed over the years. It serves him right.
13 Comments:
He clearly believes that if he toes the party line hard enough on the issues of terrorism and war, Republicans voters will give him a pass on everything else.
Sorry - respectfully disagree with this issue, but in a subtle (yet important) way. The chimperor is simply a tool, providing the public face and voice for an agenda by others that know they cannot profit from the criminality without having a tool.
It is a fact that an incompetent alcoholic/cocaine addict that was AWOL during Viet Nam has been fraudulently hoisted upon the American public by special interests that manipulate the process in the background.
If the chimperor can be installed as POTUS - WHY CAN'T GIULIANI!?!?!?!?
It isn't about competence or even about honestly winning elections - its about gaining favor of those that successfully orchastrated the theft of 2 presidential elections.
In mnay ways, Giuliani is the perfect candidate - a past that he needs to keep hidden, probably plenty of corruption, and he is the only voice that will be able to constantly beat the 9/11 drums for another 4 or 8 years.
WAKE UP - Karl Rove and the public morons that get paraded infront of the curtain did not game our media and political system to steal the 2000 and 2004 elections. The real players have largely remained in the background.
911 was an inside job - the real players still remain in the background.
It Giuliani can win the backing of these same special interests, he can become the next POTUS.
Remember, we live in a "democracy" where the Supreme Court has ruled you cannot tell who wins an election by actually counting votes.
FOLLOW THE MONEY TRAIL!
The "opposite conclusion" link does not seem to work. I found another entry on this blog on September 12, 2006, which apparently references the same source and is also labeled "opposite conclusion," but that link does not work either.
The link is fixed now. Sorry about that.
I'm sure you know already, but Glenn Greenwald has a post up about Giuliani challenging what I've personally come to believe about the possibility of his candidacy.
Look at how the media is already "catapulting" propaganda to justify his questionable past (in a post-monica/clenis era) - from the NEW YORK POST:
"I've always liked strong, macho men, and Rudy - I'm not saying this because he's my husband - is one of the smartest people on the planet," gushed the former Judith Nathan to Harper's Bazaar in editions due out Feb. 20.
"What people don't know is that Rudy's a very, very romantic guy. We love watching 'Sleepless in Seattle.' Can you imagine my big testosterone-factor husband doing that?"
Describing Rudy, a former federal prosecutor, as "the Energizer Bunny with no rechargeable batteries," Judi said, "One of the most remarkable things about my husband, who sleeps three or four hours a night, is his energy level and stamina.
=================================
If they can put lipstick on a chimpanzee and make the public kiss it, they can dress up this pig too.
I'm sure you know already, but Glenn Greenwald has a post up about Giuliani challenging what I've personally come to believe about the possibility of his candidacy.
Yeah, I just read it. I agree with Glenn that Giuliani's positions on social issues won't necessarily doom his candidacy. I disagree with him, however, about Giuliani's political skills. I think Giuliani's success in New York had a lot more to do with the perceived results of his policies than his political skills. I think he comes across as exceptionally hackish when he speaks, and I think that his hardline rhetoric on war and terrorism won't play as well in 2008 as it might have in, say, 2004.
I agree with you completely. I think that almost all of Giuliani's appeal rests in this perception that his having been mayor of NYC when 9/11 happened makes him somehow uniquely qualified to lead our country in the "War on Terror." Pish posh.
Nobody seems to realize what the big drawback to Rudy's candidacy is. Simply put, the man is just not demonstrably dumb enough to gain the trust and support of many in the south and west.
While eastern and northern Republicans and independents may like their candidates intellectual, southerners and westerners prefer candidates cut in the mold of Dubya and Reagan. Someone giving the impression of intellectual independence is going to frighten these folks badly.
This is one reason Bush 41 didn't make it in 1992. While he had only the hapless Dukakis to face in 1988, which made it a choice between a smart yankee democrat (we're talking perception here) and H.G.W. Bush, who played down his eastern and elitist roots so successfully they didn't show (which tactic later worked so well for Shrub), Rudy can't play that card. He has only one hope, namely that the Dems nominate Hillary or "draft" Kerry.
Otherwise, Rudy is not going to be able to carry anything west of the Mississippi and south of the Mason-Dixon line with authority.
Can't have it both ways, AI. Is Giuliani going to try to "distance himself" from his views on the War on Terror or will his adherence to those views sink him with voters in 2008.
I think Giuliani has no intention of altering or softening his views on the War on Terror. Not the mere regurgitator of GOP talking points (whatever the hell those are), Giuliani has his own distinct -- and more hawkish -- vision of the War on Terror than does the Bush Administration or the average republican. Giuliani as president would be far tougher on the Saudis, and other faux-friends/allies of the US.
While voter support for Bush's foreign policy may right now be at an all time low, a Giuliani may be able to reenergize the electorate in 2008 by running as a more decisive, hawkish, and competent wartime leader than Bush. This is a position which could draw support not only from the GOP but the electorate at large.
Think about it. If one wants to take a no-holds barred approach to the War on Terror (and many do), who do you want running the show? Watch Giuliani win the nomination and then the general election in 2008.
Can't have it both ways, AI. Is Giuliani going to try to "distance himself" from his views on the War on Terror or will his adherence to those views sink him with voters in 2008.
Not sure I follow. My point was that Giuliani will have to distance himself from Bush's policies if he wants to win, but he'll have a hard time doing so, especially given that the only thing that really defines him as a Republican is his support for Bush's war policies.
Given the overall weakness of the GOP field, it wouldn't shock me if Giuliani managed to win the nomination (though it will be an uphill battle for him). And you may be right, maybe people will be suckered in by someone who promises to be "more hawkish". I hope not, though, because it would just be rhetorical bullshit. We literally cannot be "more aggressive" in the War on Terror. We just don't have the resources, especially while we stay in Iraq. And "aggression" is not what we need. The War on Terror will be "won" by being smart and patient, not by being reckless and bellicose.
As for Giuliani's supposed "own distinct" approach to the War on Terror, what exactly are you talking about? Point me toward one thing the man has ever said that is "distinct" or somehow uniquely insightful. The man spews empty talking points on these issues. He has never had anything original to contribute.
Actions can speak louder than words. After 9/11 Giuliani pointedly returned the donation of some half-assed Saudi prince who made comments critical of US policy after making the donation. One major weakness of the Bush-approach to WOT; and one Bush weakness generally -- with both GB1 and GB2 -- is sleazy coziness with the Saudis. The Saudis at the end of the day are CENTRAL to the war on terror. Giuliani clearly sees this. Bush does not.
Also, I reject your "resources" argument. Whether you are measuring by percentage of GDP spent on defense; percentage of the US population in the military or otherwise fighting the war on terror; or nearly any other metric; we have barely tapped our resources in the WOT. We have done nothing approaching the efforts expended during WWII or even the Cold War. Fewer men/women are in uniform now than they were in 1993. We sure as hell of the resources; its really more a question of will.
Oh, and how is one supposed to be "smart and patient" with a terrorist or islamic jihadist?
Oh, and how is one supposed to be "smart and patient" with a terrorist or islamic jihadist?
That's not what I said. I said we have to be smart and patient in our strategy of fighting terrorism. The kind of policies Bush has pursued (i.e, invading Iraq) has made the problem worse; it's created more terrorist than there were before. It's counterproductive. Sure, we have all sorts of resources we can theoretically throw at this problem, but if they're put toward a counterproductive strategy, what good is that? I'd like to hear Giuliani say something, anything, that sounds remotely intelligent about terrorism, before I give him any praise.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home