What The…? How’d I Miss That?
Rudy G. was in my own fair city Monday night, yet I failed to attend. This is because I didn’t know about it. This is because I hate the local newspaper, and the breakdown of Austin is about 99.9999% radical progressives, and .0001% regular people (I am, of course, Austin’s only conservative).
But I digress…sayeth Rudy:
Former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani said Monday that he might return to politics, but he said he’ll wait until after the congressional elections next year to decide on a 2008 presidential bid.
“Do I plan to return to politics? In the back of my mind, I’d like to do that,” he said before a United Way benefit in Austin. “But I learned after September 11 and having prostate cancer, you don’t plan the future with that type of specificity. I may return to politics, or I may someday be manager of the Yankees.”
…Giuliani said he would consider running for president next year after weighing the “public mood” and what his chances are like then.
“John McCain is a very good friend of mine and a hero of mine,” he said. “I’m not focusing on what happens a year and a half from now. There are 2006 congressional elections, and after that people can think about who runs for president, and what are the issues. It’s a long time away.”
I wish I had been there to put some context to the McCain remarks – surely Rudy is not saying that if McCain runs, he won’t?…Regardless, I think it’s close to a certainty that Rudy will run – after all, the standard response of ‘No, I’m not running’ means ‘I’m trying to get enough backers together to publicly announce’, so the translation of ‘I’d like to return to politics’ means ‘Yes, but I want to be perceived as still considering it to flush out money and supporters who will pledge dollars and time to convince me’…
Giuliani/Allen 2008!
Rudy! Rudy! Rudy!
The lack of McCain context is annoying. I’d guess Rudy was acknowledging the other perceived early frontrunner with standard 11th Commandment tactics, and given that Rudy has made his reputation as being someone above the national fray (as has McCain), it makes sense for him to do so. And if Rudy’s reading the same tea leaves the rest of us are reading and concluding that a lot of Republicans really can’t stand McCain, there’s no sense in flinging mud at a guy whose support might be much smaller than the polls would indicate.
Absent a recurrence of his health problems (God forbid), I can’t see how Giuliani wouldn’t run. He’s tops in the polls, has never shown any lack of ambition in the past and is not exactly the kind of shrinking violet who would avoid a fight just because some people say he can’t win the nomination.
On the other hand, the Yankees haven’t won a WS with a Republican in the White House since Eisenhower was in office, and given what happened this past week, Rudy may be nervous about winning and denying them a championship for four to eight more years. If anything could convince me to vote for the Democratic nominee in 2008, that might be it.
And on a semi-related note, Al Gore has told some Swedes he has “no plans and no expectations” of running for president again. Which is apparently a shame, because then he told them that if he won in 2000, everything would be much better, children wouldn’t talk back to their parents, nobody would get identical gifts on their birthdays, hangnails would disappear, etc. You’d think if a guy was so much better than the current alternative, he wouldn’t be so cruel as to deny us his brilliance.
http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/breaking/101205Sweden_Gore.php
Rudy’s running for prez. One of the few times I have ever met a higher-up in the Republican apparatus, he shared an anecdote with me about Rudy’s preparation for 2008 that he has knowledge of.
There is no doubt that Rudy’s running. Considering Rudy and McCain’s friendship, it will be interesting to see how them competing against each other would fare.
The Bij – I have a suspicion that Rudy’s lack of foreign policy expertise would make Rice a good running mate. How about Giuliani/Rice 2008?
Also, here’s something interesting. I was looking over some polling data and it turns out that Rudy would absolutely clean Spitzer’s clock in a gubernatorial contest, with Hillary being the one to edge him out (verrrrrry slightly) in a Senate race. Where I’m going with this is that I see two scenarios if Giuliani gets the nomination:
1. The Democrats nominate anyone other than Hillary and lose New York, which means they have no chance of winning the election.
2. The Democrats nominate Hillary, keep New York (maybe), and lose virtually every other state.
Either way, hmm…
Hey Ryan- I agree with your assessment on nominating Hillary. Every poll I’ve seen has New Yorkers supporting Hillary in her senatorial role, but that support dropping precipitously if she enters another race (like the presidency).
I am almost completely off the Condi bandwagon now. The only way I would pick her would be if we stall the search process for the VP slot until the Dems have made their choice. If we put Condi on the ticket first, the Dems have to put Obama in their 2nd slot, and what advantage would Condi bring then? We do not make any gains with black voters at all in this scenario and Condi’s affiliation to the current administration would drag the ticket down, not prop it up.
I also feel that Rudy’s 9/11 performance will mitigate any perceived lack of experience in foreign policy anyhow.
I would like Condi to be elected to something first as well. Why doesn’t she try to take out one of CA’s senators, or maybe Ken Salazar (as she has roots in both CA and CO) and then try for the White House.
I think Rudy needs a very conservative southern/midwestern governor/senator in the VP slots to satisfy the hard right. Giuliani/Barbour? Giuliani/Brownback? Giuliani/Sandford? Or my original choice Giuliani Allen?
BTW. Does anyone know the timetable for selecting the VP? Is there a way to stall the process out until the Dems make their choice without appearing to be stalling?
Somewhat O/T, but looking at the race from the democratic side, did anyone see this piece by Arianna? The comments are especially interesting. I’m starting to think Hillary might be the Democrats’ McCain: popular with the people who respond to the pollsters, but too widely disliked by the activists and political junkies in the party to go all the way.
Bij, I doubt it’s a matter of law (though I could be wrong), but tradition seems to dictate the party out of power always has its convention, and thus its VP nomination, first. So yes, the Democrats will have their team announced before the Republicans do. That’s the way it’s been in all the elections I can recall.
utron, that’s a very good analogy that I hadn’t thought of before. I’m sure everytime Hillary gets some “grudging respect” comments from conservatives, it sets the liberal activists’ teeth on edge the same way conservatives get the willies whenever a liberal sings McCain’s praises.
The one difference seems to be a lot of Democrats, whether they like her or hate her, think Hillary can’t win, while many conservatives think she has a better chance of winning than they’d like to admit.
In comparison, most conservatives and liberals seem to think McCain could win, which is exactly what unnerves the conservative base.
Thanks Dennis. I was wondering if that’s how it always worked.
If not Hillary, what Dem does everyone see as being acceptable to the base and actually having a good chance of winning? Does such a person exist in their eyes. It seems unlikely that the people who are in charge of the Dem party right now will nominate a moderate.
utron, I did indeed see the Arianna piece, and I meant to blog it, but haven’t had time yet…
What Democrat is acceptable to the base and could win? I would say John Edwards. He doesn’t have Hillary’s albatross of 40% of the American people who would never vote for her. He is close enough to traditional Democratic values to get the support of unions, blacks, pro-choice, and the other blocs. He does not have the stridency of a Howard Dean or Tom Harkin. He is young, telegenic, and looks fresh when so many others look tired.
This is not meant to be a paean to Edwards — in my opinion, one term in the Senate is a pretty thin resume to run for President — but I see the following scenario: in 2008, the voters are disgusted with Washington, sick of the war, and shaken by another catastrophe (which I believe will be either a second major terrorist attack on US soil or a financial crisis — but that’s another post). The people want someone who offers a different future. Edwards runs as the outsider and takes all the marbles.
peter, one thing I consistently see about Edwards, though, is that party insiders were very discouraged by his performance as Kerry’s VP; the feeling was that he was a bit of a dud…
What about Wes Clark?
I don’t think someone who made his name as a high – profile malpractice lawyer will ever make it as a serious Presidential candidate, particularly with Edwards. The media will no doubt be inclined to bring up one of his famous court victories, where he “channelled” a dead child’s voice during his closing arguments.
Sleazy stuff, even for the political climate we live in today.
The Bij, Wes Clark is indeed doing well in polling among the activists on the left…whether that translates into support among the Democrats at large, I don’t know…
Edwards strikes me as someone like Gary Hart (before the Donna Rice scandal, of course). He’s routinely touted as a fresh face, uniter, new ideas, etc. And as Fritz Mondale famously cracked, “Where’s the beef?”
Wes Clark wins the Kos polls, which indicates they still haven’t learned that no, the populous isn’t lulled into a stupor just because a candidate pulls out some shiny medals. In recent decades, John Kennedy, George McGovern, George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole and John Kerry all were combat veterans, and that got them a record of 2-4 in presidential elections.
Well, Gary Hart coulda been a contender, if it wasn’t for Donna…
Also, I believe that some of Jimmy Carter’s naval experience was during wartime.
Carter never saw combat. He graduated from Annapolis right after WWII (1946) and served until 1953 when he resigned to help run the family farm. So his service overlapped the Korean War and of course saw the dawn of the Cold War, but he was never close to combat. His service was the same as guys like Reagan, Nixon, Dukakis, etc. Honorable and worthy of great respect, but not the same as getting shot at.
By contrast, Kennedy had his PT boat adventures, McGoven was a bomber pilot, Bush was a naval aviator who was shot down, Dole was a wounded infantryman and of course Kerry led a swift boat and was shot.
I stand corrected, thanks –
I would welcome an Edwards nomination. Americans hate trail lawyers. Once the telescope focuses on how he made his fortune by suing OB/GYN’s he’s toast. I doubt Americans would judge one term as a senator to be sufficient preparation for the presidency either.
There are 2 Dems that sacre me whose names shall not be mentioned. I really hope that they will be unable to capture the nomination.