« Liberal Fascism And Its Critics | Main | The Table Returns »

Rudy Can Fail

14 Jan 2008 10:41 am

Lots of observers, myself included, expected Rudy Giuliani to have considerable difficulty winning the GOP nomination. But it has to be counted as remarkable just how far he’s fallen over the last month, first in early-state polling and voting, and now in national polls. Yes, he’s a social liberal with no political experience outside New York and a host of skeletons in his closet, and yes, it was only a matter of time before all of that caught up with him to some extent. But like most people, I expected that his personal celebrity and (well-earned) reputation as a tough-guy problem solver, when joined to a divided field rife with ideological imperfections, the enthusiastic support of the Manhattan-based slice of the right-wing intelligentsia, and the deep pockets of the remaining Rockefeller Republicans in the party, would more or less guarantee him at least a quarter of the primary vote. Now, though, he can't even manage that level of support in his supposed firewall of Florida.

As unsettled as the GOP race remains, it's way too soon for post-mortems. But it's interesting to contrast the campaign Rudy has run with the one that Reihan and I suggested that he run when he first jumped into the race. Our vision would have taken him in a more populist direction, into territory that Mike Huckabee has owned in this campaign; it would have drawn on the persona Giuliani cultivated, while New York's mayor, as the friend to the city's forgotten middle class. And Rudy wouldn't have had to listen to us: He's got David Frum, who advances a variety of practical ideas for a middle-class-friendly GOP in his new book, as an adviser to his campaign! Yet as Frum himself allows, Giuliani has adopted exactly none of his ideas; instead, on domestic policy he's campaigned as the supply-siders' supply sider. Maybe this was the right choice: Maybe his only chance at the nomination was to lock down the Club-for-Growth vote and build from there. But at the moment, it looks like Rudy should have at least considered a Plan B.

Comments (19)

I've been waiting for someone to appropriate that song from London Calling for a campaign-related pun, but I thought the moment had passed after Giuliani stopped being a front-runner.

Ross.

Rudy was doomed from the beginning. Like you said it was only his national post 911 reputation that gave him national poll standing in places were real conservatives had not scrutinized his record.

As far as your Sam”s-Club republican agenda (one I wholeheartedly support – Did you notice what: Mara Liason’s said on Sundays Fox with Chris Wallace? )

I think this is the best bet for McCain: it seems to be what he needs as it gives cross-over appeal between his fiscal conservative message/ I’m in the middle message/ & economic concerns/ need to shore up support among cultural conservatives!

(By the way – that’s the genius of your Sam’s Club approach! It has broad appeal among multiple constituencies and while getting Republicans out of the “party of the rich” box)

But I believe in this-- and it's been tested by research-- that he who marries cousins, bungles terrorism preparation, and associates with mobbed-up criminals will not get a major party presidential nomination.

Hmm, that doesn't work as well as "Rudy Can Fail." But I'll stick by the sentiment anyway.

I predicted Rudy would fail. But then I also thought Romney and Thompson would be the two main contenders at this point. One out of three right... maybe one and a half depending on your view of Romney's chances. At this point I think a major factor is the extent to which Romney is willing to dig further into his own personal wealth to fund his campaign. His donations for Q1 are likely to barely cover his organizational costs; is he then willing to write his campaign a check for $20 million (or even more) to fund advertising across most of the Super Tuesday states? None of the other Republicans could afford to match the outlay, but I think even Romney may not be willing to bleed that much.

Giuliani is a despicable egomaniac who can't manage to mask his deep personality flaws for more than a few minutes at a time. Even Republicans can't look past the fact that the guy's a major league asshole, as Dumbya would put it. It's been a pleasure watching him fall.

It's hilarious to see Ross (and Salam and Frum) flail around looking for a Republican candidate - any candidate - adopt their ideas to run. Maybe Ross (and Salam and Frum) could ask themselves why all of these professional politicians have rejected their counsel? Could it be, perhaps, that these politicians don't think any Republicans would vote their way?

After all Huckabee's support isn't due to any Sam's Club Republican support - it's solely due to Christian identity politics. Voters who are interested in the Sam's Club ideas proferred by Ross and Salam and Frum already have a party - it's called the Democratic Party.

Just once, I'd like Ross and Salam and Frum to show me an actual Sam'S Club Republican. I don't think such a beast actually exists. It certainly doesn't vote in Republican primaries.

After all Huckabee's support isn't due to any Sam's Club Republican support - it's solely due to Christian identity politics.

And immediately after I write this, I click over to Yglesias and see that he wrote the same exact thing: "The other point to make, of course, is that while in principle I think Huckabee-esque populist positioning could work for the GOP, thus far Huckabee seems to have almost no appeal outside the group of white evangelicals..."

As far as I can tell, Sam's Club Republican = unicorn. Nice in theory, but doesn't actually exist in the real world.

Al writes: "Just once, I'd like Ross and Salam and Frum to show me an actual Sam'S Club Republican. I don't think such a beast actually exists. It certainly doesn't vote in Republican primaries."

I'd like to know if any of the three have been in a Sam's Club themselves.

Maybe, just maybe, America doesn't hate Arabs as much as Guiliani thinks we do?

It pains me to say this, but Al wins the thread. And like Moe, I am curious to know how much time Ross and Reihan actually spend inside their local Sam's Club.

As far as I can tell, Sam's Club Republican = unicorn. Nice in theory, but doesn't actually exist in the real world.

They (sort of) exist in the internet world. At least, it's tolerably close to some of my policy preferences. "Sam's Club" types don't have a party in the Democrats -- unless the Democrats move considerably to the right on social/cultural issues, which I don't see really happening.

And yes, I've actually been in a Sam's Club, though not recently.

TMoC writes: ""Sam's Club" types don't have a party in the Democrats -- unless the Democrats move considerably to the right on social/cultural issues, which I don't see really happening."

You don't think Sam's Club members vote Democratic? You base that on what, exactly?

Moe -- you misread me. I mean "Sam's Club Republicans" (not the most felicitous phrase, really, but it'll do), as targeted by Ross & Reihan, may vote Democratic at times, but they don't have a party in the Democrats, right now.

I think they are unlikely to have "a party" any time soon, but I am a generally pessimistic fellow.

TMoC writes: "I think they are unlikely to have "a party" any time soon, but I am a generally pessimistic fellow."

Given Ross's belief that a worthless creep like Giuliani might have been a good bet to give them (if they exist) that party, I think I'm glad they won't.

I agree with Frum and Reihan that a more populist message would have worked for Rudy. No one speaks more plainly, more directly, with a wonderful bluntness than Rudy.
Two words popped during Russert's interview with Sen. Clinton: "shibboleth" and "Jesuitical". That's what will sink her, for all of her purported underclass appeal: she's an elitist snob. What contemporary political candidate in their right mind would use words 2% of the population know?
Rudy is so clear-headed, it's too bad he's in the pocket of Ailes, Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly and the other apparatchiks of crony capitalism. As a populist, Rudy would have been a shoe-in.

I agree with Frum and Reihan that a more populist message would have worked for Rudy. No one speaks more plainly, more directly, with a wonderful bluntness than Rudy.
Two words popped during Russert's interview with Sen. Clinton: "shibboleth" and "Jesuitical". That's what will sink her, for all of her purported underclass appeal: she's an elitist snob. What contemporary political candidate in their right mind would use words 2% of the population know?
Rudy is so clear-headed, it's too bad he's in the pocket of Ailes, Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly and the other apparatchiks of crony capitalism. As a populist, Rudy would have been a shoe-in.

The picture of those firefighters raising the American flag at the WTC was an iconic image of the national pride and heroism displayed on 9/11. We’ll never forget that picture, yet many of us will never remember—nor ever knew—the names of those men. And this doesn’t matter, because the heroism on 9/11 transcended any one man or one name.

Which is why Giuliani invoking himself as a 9/11 hero really goes against the grain.

Americans are touched by the many stories of heroism on 9/11, but in the face of so much tragedy, it somehow feels wrong to hear someone talk about how they saved-the-day. Most of our heroes talk about how they weren’t really heroes—“they were just doing their jobs”—perhaps because it palliates our collective survivor’s guilt.

I’m not sure any poll will ever reveal Giuliani is doing the wrong thing by talking about his leadership on 9/11, because it’s not really a question of whether or not he displayed strong leadership during the tragedy—but whether we want to hear about it. Certainly I don’t; it makes me uncomfortable.

(well-earned) reputation as a tough-guy problem solver

Except for the "took on the Mafia" part, which wilts under any actual scrutiny, and the "Savior of New York after 9/11", which has to ignore how many bad decisions he made and how groups like the firefighters really hate him now.

But why would the biggest proponent of free trade among the current group of Republican presidential candidates go populist? Okay, I know why, to win the votes of all those people who want to vote for Huckabee based *solely* on his economic policies. I'm sure that's a huge group. Still, maybe Giuliani kind of identifies with, and sort of believes in, the supply-side stuff? Or is that just too out there?


Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.