Soccer Dad

Why i like rudy

Matt Bai has a rather cynical profile of Rudolf Giuliani in today's NYT Magazine. The best observation is at the beginning.

Giuliani’s campaign, like his resurrected political career, is built atop the rubble of the twin towers; his appeal is firmly rooted in the visual images of Sept. 11, 2001, and the policy dilemmas that grew from it. As Ken Mehlman, the former Republican Party chairman, explained it to me recently, elections can either be “squishy” or “crunchy.” Squishy elections, like the one in 2000, are ones where the candidates attempt to blur the differences among them on major issues and run, instead, on more ethereal attributes like character and authenticity, the kind of traits best demonstrated by sipping beers or emoting on “Oprah.” Rudy Giuliani wouldn’t stand much chance in a squishy election. But 2008, Mehlman theorizes, may be a crunchy year, where the nominees of both parties present sharp contrasts on hard philosophical questions, starting with how to view the threat of Islamic terrorism and what course to take in Iraq. And Giuliani is well positioned for such debate, having defined himself, in the public mind, as the unflinching foe of a radical and dangerous ideology. To many, he remains the Churchillian figure who strode up lower Broadway covered in a fine dust of plaster, removing the air filter from his face long enough to rally his panicked city.

Truth is that it was his job in making NYC livable again is the main reason I support him. Here's a nice Q&A from Rudy supporter Fred Siegel that sums up the case nicely and fills in some blanks that Bai leaves out. His handling of 9/11 confirms what we already knew, but gave him a platform that he didn't previously have. He has to be careful, though.

Mr. Giuliani has been a regular at the memorial event. But, now that he is running for president, "he has to be careful," said Trevor Parry-Giles, a University of Maryland political scientist. "There's a fine line between exploitation and commemoration."

There are some points of Bai's that are worthy of rebuttal.

It’s not an especially convincing routine, but it may be good enough. Conservatives desperately fear another Clinton presidency and may embrace anyone who seems likely to blunt Hillary’s advantage in moderate swing states. (A button I saw in Iowa proclaimed, “I’m helping Rudy stop Hillary.”) And old assumptions of what an evangelical voter actually wants may no longer be operative. There is a sense among the Christian right, says the Republican pollster Frank Luntz, who isn’t working for any of the candidates, that beating back the global onslaught of radical Islam may be a more pressing religious issue than stomping out liberal judges at home. “These same people who are pro-life, they’ll support Giuliani because he’ll uphold the Judeo-Christian ethic, and he isn’t afraid to talk about it,” Luntz says. “For these voters, the war has become a social issue.”

When Luntz talks about “the war,” he does not draw a hard distinction between the quagmire in Iraq and Bush’s war on terror, and this is one of the differences that now sharply separate the two parties in Washington.

Bai's being dismissive when he describes the war on terror as a "religious" issue. (And I don't think that Luntz is distinguishing himself either.) The second paragraph, is more on target where he attributes the difference of views to political differences. Of course by referring to Iraq as a quagmire, Bai is tipping his hand.

He takes a cheap shot at the end.

Nor is it self-evident, as Louis Freeh puts it, that Giuliani would “put good people in charge” and “hold them accountable.” It was Giuliani, after all, who promoted Bernard Kerik, a former detective and once his driver on the campaign, to become police commissioner, and who pushed for his nomination as Homeland Security secretary. Kerik had to withdraw amid a litany of allegations and is still facing possible prosecution on tax fraud.

Kerik did have problems, but they weren't with his running of the NYPD. There were scandals outside of his professional work that sank his nomination as head of DHS.

Bai's profile and he points to inconsistencies in Giuliani's positions. I suspect if you exposed most candidates to this level of scrutiny you'd find similarly substantive inconsistencies.

But again as Richard Brookhiser writes

Strongest is Giuliani who, alone of all the candidates in both parties, has done something. Two things—saved New York City; and led America for two days six years ago.

He has a record of accomplishment unmatched by any other candidate of either party in 2008.