Giuliani Time

Nothing in his lackluster Presidential campaign suggested any real appetite for the rough-and-tumble of politics, or any ambition for higher office beyond the sense of cosseted entitlement associated with being a rich celebrity. So it’s hard to imagine Rudy Giuliani mustering the energy to run for governor of the Empire State in the looming post-Spitzer era. I will say, though, that if Rudy did still harbor political ambitions (and its hard to imagine that a man with his ego is thrilled to have the ’08 primary season remembered his political swan song), a term in Albany would offer certain attractions. He could govern from the center-left and try to revive the Rockefeller-Republican brand for a new era of Democratic dominance. Or he could govern from the right, picking fights with blue-state interest groups in the hopes of retooling his image with conservatives in time for the 2016 Presidential race. (He’d only be 70 – younger than McCain!)

Laugh if you will, but stranger things have happened, and the Republican Party will look very different eight years from now than it does today. Rudy won't try it, but he wouldn't be crazy if he did.

Comments

Who says that there will a Republican party in eight years. With a lack of the next generation of Repubicans, with a large inability to recruit new candidates, with no credibility on most issues, and with the changing demographics of the U.S. , there is no reason to believe that there be a Republican party in eight years.

Posted by superdestroyer | March 10, 2008 8:56 PM

How about Rudy as the Republican nominee, Hillary as the Dem nominee and Bloomberg running as an independent?

That would be something.

Posted by right | March 10, 2008 9:34 PM

My Dad always told me--Don't ever run for mayor of New York city. The mayor has never been able to get elected to a higher office after his mayorship.

Posted by Robert | March 10, 2008 9:53 PM

As for whether Rudy would wish to be governor, I've got my doubts. New York State is, to be polite, virtually ungovernable because of intractable upstate-downstate political and cultural issues.

Albany has been dysfunctional since Al Smith was up there...probably not going to change now.

On the other hand, Rudy might like to have a cushy job that would leave him free to pursue his hobbies. I refer, of course, to being a United States Senator from New York.

Posted by John Rich | March 10, 2008 10:17 PM

"Who says that there will a Republican party in eight years."

Don't be ridiculous, I mean the Prohibition Party is still around. It's true that relatively few 18-29, 23% according to Pew, came out as "high" on social conservative. Still that's not zero. In fact it was the same as the percent of 50-64 year-olds who came out as socially conservative.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=283

Social liberals were more common with those under 30 while social moderates were common with the 50-64 group.

Economically young people have at times come out more libertarian/pro-capitalist.

"Don't ever run for mayor of New York city. The mayor has never been able to get elected to a higher office after his mayorship." Robert

I didn't think that was correct, but I had trouble disproving it. The only exception I've found is DeWitt Clinton from the early nineteenth century.

Posted by Thomas R | March 10, 2008 10:57 PM

“If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.” - Winston Churchill

Posted by anon | March 10, 2008 11:17 PM

There are plenty of next-generation republicans, they are called "young Democrats".

Posted by Grant | March 10, 2008 11:51 PM

Or, more accurately, "Democrats who haven't had to work for a living, yet."

Posted by BC | March 11, 2008 2:08 AM

superdestroyer--

Eight years left for the Republicans? Maybe twenty, though--and I am a GOP county chairman in rural Nevada.

On the other hand, the long-term prospects for the Dems survival don't look too good either.

I've always stood by the two-party system, but have never felt that they always have to be D's and R's.

Posted by Howard Hirsch | March 11, 2008 2:22 AM

Demographic changes were eventually going to eliminate the Republican party. Whoever is the big government party can tolerate a diverse electorate more than the small government party.

However, the incompetence of the Bush Administration, former Speaker Hastert, former majority leader Frist, and the the rest of the Republican leadership has basically destroyed any chance that the Republican Party can make a comeback before being buried by demographic changes.

The Republicans wasted the six years between 2000 and 2006 by throwing away their credibility on virtually every issue. They also failed to develo the next generation of Republican leaders. Look at Hastert's former district where a four time loser was the Republican nominee that lost. That is not the actions of an organization that is going to be around for very long.

Posted by superdestroyer | March 11, 2008 7:33 AM

Discouraged Republicans - look up Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana. We're okay.

Posted by Assistant Village Idiot | March 11, 2008 8:26 AM

Funny, I remember comments about the Democratic party being finished as a national force just a few years ago: an ascendant Christian right, low birth-rate (& high abortion rates) in the blue states, out-of-touch leftist rhetoric, etc. etc.

The larger point is whether there will ever be a point where America gives up completely on economic freedom in favor of a savage exploitation of the productive classes. Right now we have the Dems promising everything to everyone by taxing "the rich" and the Repubs giving corporate welfare to yesterday's success stories to help them keep their markets intact.

Personally, I'd like to see more Liberals like Larry Lessig and more Conservatives like Bobby Jindal.

Posted by Wildmonk | March 11, 2008 9:28 AM

As for there being no Republican party in 8 years....As soon as Hil or Obama get elected and begin self-destructing, the republican party will have a huge resurgence.

Posted by JBH | March 11, 2008 10:01 AM

Why not Bloomberg for governor? While backing out of the presidential race, he's supporting State Senate Republicans- that implies to me that he is coming home to the Republicans, and that he has ambitions for higher office. And I think he'd be much more interested in the mundane details of governing than Giuliani would be.

And if he was governor and was reasonably successful, I would think that would make him much more qualified to be President a decade or two down the road.

Posted by Mike Lewyn | March 11, 2008 10:58 AM

This is nitpicking, but Giuliani will be 72 on election day in 2016.

Highly unlikely that either major party will disappear any time soon. The parties' coalitions will change as they always have, but a 3d party only replaces one of the 2 major parties when you have a single dominant issue (e.g., slavery in the territories in the 1850s) that unites the 3d party and splits the 2 established parties.

For fun, check out the 1896 election map. With a few exceptions, Kerry won McKinley's states and Bush won Bryan's.

Posted by nodakdude | March 11, 2008 11:36 AM

nodakdude,

Old Historical comparison are of limited value. In 1896, the parties really did not need a large campaign chest.

These days, elections are expensive and if a party is going to be totally out of power, why will people still give money to it.

If the Republicans shrink to 35% of congress and most Democratic congressmen are running unopposed, there is no reason for anyone to give to the Republican party, no reason for anyone to vote in the Republican Primary, and no reasons for any one running for office to run as a Republican.

The Republican party will soon hit a tipping point where the money, candidates and support will quickly evaporate and the party will cease to be relevant.

Posted by superdestroyer | March 11, 2008 11:56 AM

NYC was widely considered to be ungovernable too, until Rudy governed it. If anyone could make NY State work, he could.

But if McCain wins, he might tap Rudy for Attorney General.

Posted by Yehudit | March 11, 2008 12:22 PM

Rudy does have one thing going for him: He can't cheat on Judy.

Posted by Alan Vanneman | March 11, 2008 1:41 PM

super--as you just said, it takes a lot of money to compete these days. Even if the GOP weakens as much as you say it might, it would be easier to build a legitimate opposition party starting from the existing GOP infrastructure than starting from scratch.

Posted by nodakdude | March 11, 2008 2:19 PM

For a book about prostitution, you may be interested in Naked in Haiti: A Sexy Morality Tale About Tourists, Prostitutes & Politicians. www.dankingbooks.com will get you there.

Posted by Dan King | March 11, 2008 10:37 PM

Superdestroyer,

Congressional districts are far too gerrymandered for Republicans to drop to 35% of Congress. And despite their current troubles, Republicans have two things going for them:

1) The real estate crash is slowing down and possibly reversing to some extent illegal immigration. That takes off some demographic pressure.

2) There are still plenty of white men and married white women who are naturally conservative. While some have voted for Democrats (particularly as the Democrats have recruited conservative candidates such as Webb, Casey, Schuler, etc.), these voters aren't permanently lost to the GOP. America still is, as Gingrich has pointed out, a center-right country. These voters will be back. They'll probably bring some conservative Dem politicians back with them.

Posted by Fred | March 13, 2008 1:39 AM