Kind of a weird Times article. It's all about how Giuliani has turned away from his pro-immigrant views now that he's running for president. That should surprise exactly no one, since, as far as I can tell, playing on fears of Blacks and Arabs is already shaping up to be a centerpiece of his electoral strategy. Why not the Mexicans too, right? On the other hand, when you read what he says by the end of the article, it just doesn't sound that bad.
pg. 1: "And while he once pushed policies like providing schooling for the children of illegal immigrants by saying, “The reality is that they are here, and they’re going to remain here,” now he emphasizes denying amnesty."
pg. 2: "These days, when he says he opposes amnesty, Mr. Giuliani says he does not mean that the millions of people here illegally should be deported, but rather, that they should have to earn their citizenship and that nothing should be accorded automatically."
I'm a big fan of the kind of not-amnesty that involves a path to citizenship without deportation or prosecution.
Showing posts with label Giuliani. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Giuliani. Show all posts
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
McCainiacs United!
Well, I thought John McCain was probably doomed in the presidential primary, but now he holds the distinction of being the only major Republican candidate for president who hasn't lost embarrassing campaign materials. Given the competition, he basically just needs to overcome the fact that his base hates his guts, he's too old to get elected and he's more closely tied to the astoundingly unpopular war in Iraq than any other person in congress.
Meanwhile, the Democrats are in the awkward position of deciding between a supremely competent and ambitious former first lady with unparalleled fundraising ability, a brilliant and eloquent speaker who is already drawing crowds of tens of thousands two years from the election, and an energetic and charismatic former vice presidential candidate with a populist platform that will resonate in the mid-West and upper-South.
Meanwhile, the Democrats are in the awkward position of deciding between a supremely competent and ambitious former first lady with unparalleled fundraising ability, a brilliant and eloquent speaker who is already drawing crowds of tens of thousands two years from the election, and an energetic and charismatic former vice presidential candidate with a populist platform that will resonate in the mid-West and upper-South.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Ann Althouse
Ann Althouse, New York Times guest columnist and insufferable blogger, has a column out today begging to be dissected. She starts out recognizing that Giuliani and Romney were both totally pro-choice, and that Rudy is now insisting that he'll elect strict constructionist judges (but being coy about whether they'd overturn Roe) while Romney is saying that he doesn't think his position could be described as pro-life or pro-choice.
Althouse then inserts this gem. "Compare them with straight-talking John McCain, who said: “I do not support Roe v. Wade. It should be overturned.” That’s harder to mock." Well, it would be really hard to mock him if he wasn't, you know, also a pandering liar. In '99 McCain said that "certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations."
Althouse then refrains from discussing McCain any more, and settles on the thought that we should all like(!) Romney and Giuliani because they are totally incoherent. "If we listen with a decent sympathy, the things Giuliani and Romney say about abortion make sense. When Romney ran for governor, he made a commitment to Massachusetts voters not to attack the law he knew they supported. That was politically expedient, of course, but it also took an admirably limited view of executive power and acknowledged the independence of the legal system."
Ok, first of all, it did not take an admirably limited view of executive power. Massechussettes doesn't run on a federalist system. He wasn't respecting an independent legislature, he was choosing not to exercise his power because he wanted to win an election. There is nothing honorable in that. He either supports the right to an abortion, or he doesn't and was lying about it. If he's going to settle on supporting it, then the best he can do is the Giuliani states rights bullshit. If he's going to settle on opposing it, he's have to deal with the debates for Massachusetts Governor in 2002, in which he said that "and I've been very clear on that, I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose, and I'm devoted and dedicated to honoring my word in that regard."
Giuliani's slippery position is that he doesn't like abortion, but he personally wouldn't vote for a state law banning abortion, but he is pretty clearly comfortable appointing judges who would overturn a 40 year precedent which end up banning abortions for millions of women in this country. Althouse thinks it's taking "account of the deep beliefs Americans have about both reproductive freedom and the value of unborn life."
John McCain in fact has a 0% rating from pro-choice groups, but he's spent the last decade convincing everyone that he's a moderate, and, unfortunately for him, his lying actually worked.
Pro-lifers don't like McCain because he hasn't given them proper respect in the past, and they don't like Rudy and Willard because there is zero guarantee that they won't completely drop the pro-life thing in the general election. Pro-choice people don't like McCain because he has a terrible record, and don't like Giuliani or Romney because they are lying panderers.
Althouse clearly really really wants one of these guys to come out of this looking good. But they were all either pandering then, or pandering now. Lying then, or lying now. In the case of Romney, it appears to be both.
Althouse then inserts this gem. "Compare them with straight-talking John McCain, who said: “I do not support Roe v. Wade. It should be overturned.” That’s harder to mock." Well, it would be really hard to mock him if he wasn't, you know, also a pandering liar. In '99 McCain said that "certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations."
Althouse then refrains from discussing McCain any more, and settles on the thought that we should all like(!) Romney and Giuliani because they are totally incoherent. "If we listen with a decent sympathy, the things Giuliani and Romney say about abortion make sense. When Romney ran for governor, he made a commitment to Massachusetts voters not to attack the law he knew they supported. That was politically expedient, of course, but it also took an admirably limited view of executive power and acknowledged the independence of the legal system."
Ok, first of all, it did not take an admirably limited view of executive power. Massechussettes doesn't run on a federalist system. He wasn't respecting an independent legislature, he was choosing not to exercise his power because he wanted to win an election. There is nothing honorable in that. He either supports the right to an abortion, or he doesn't and was lying about it. If he's going to settle on supporting it, then the best he can do is the Giuliani states rights bullshit. If he's going to settle on opposing it, he's have to deal with the debates for Massachusetts Governor in 2002, in which he said that "and I've been very clear on that, I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose, and I'm devoted and dedicated to honoring my word in that regard."
Giuliani's slippery position is that he doesn't like abortion, but he personally wouldn't vote for a state law banning abortion, but he is pretty clearly comfortable appointing judges who would overturn a 40 year precedent which end up banning abortions for millions of women in this country. Althouse thinks it's taking "account of the deep beliefs Americans have about both reproductive freedom and the value of unborn life."
John McCain in fact has a 0% rating from pro-choice groups, but he's spent the last decade convincing everyone that he's a moderate, and, unfortunately for him, his lying actually worked.
Pro-lifers don't like McCain because he hasn't given them proper respect in the past, and they don't like Rudy and Willard because there is zero guarantee that they won't completely drop the pro-life thing in the general election. Pro-choice people don't like McCain because he has a terrible record, and don't like Giuliani or Romney because they are lying panderers.
Althouse clearly really really wants one of these guys to come out of this looking good. But they were all either pandering then, or pandering now. Lying then, or lying now. In the case of Romney, it appears to be both.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Rudy!
Looking forward to 2008, I can say that I don't envy the Republicans one bit. I see three fairly strong Democratic leading Candidates (Obama, Clinton, Edwards) with a strong pool of possible breakthrough or vice presidential candidates (Richardson, Clark, Warner, Sebellius.) The three leading Republicans (Giuliani, McCain, Romney)all have serious personal issues and political issues that are likely to be problematic in the primary, general election, or both. I find their second tier of "true conservative" candidates to be a mix of terrifying (Brownback, Newt Gingrich) and odd, (Huckabee) but not very threatening in terms of the general election.
But about Giuliani.
The bad: The man is a complete and total asshole, personally and politically. He has no ability to build personal or political coalitions, because he's not a nice person, and he's more interested in carrying out personal vendettas than getting things done. He has had a truly messy and public divorce, which he came out of looking like a jerk. He tried to use 9/11 to change the city charter and extend his term as mayor. His one moment in the national spotlight since 9/11 involved getting the incredibly corrupt Bernard Kerik (his former police chief) nominated for Homeland Security Secretary for about two minutes, until he withdrew amidst several different simultaneous corruption scandals. His campaign managed to lose their campaign plan, so the entire thing is now available online.
The good: He's a competent manager, sort of. He was mayor of NYC when 9/11 happened.
He has major problems in the primary. Giuliani's current position is that he hates abortion, but he's pro-choice, but "mumble mumble states rights, strict constructionists mumble mumble." Color me unimpressed. The Republican base is not gonna go with that unless they have to. He's also catholic. Anti-catholic racism is something you don't hear about that much, but only three Catholics have ever been nominated to be presidential candidates, and they were all Democrats. Both Al Smith and John F. Kennedy had to defend themselves against accusations that they'd be taking orders from the Church, and Kerry (ironically) had to defend himself against accusations that he wasn't taking orders from the Church because he was pro-choice. Maybe the Republican primary voters are ready to elect a Catholic, but I don't think it should be assumed.
The real reason for Giuliani's pre-9/11 popularity in NYC, as far as I can tell, (I'll admit to not remembering his terms all that well) is that he made middle-class white people feel safe, partly through OK police policies, and partly through playing up racist tensions, locking up homeless people, and generally being an SOB. Playing up racial tensions against blacks has certainly a successful electoral strategy for Republicans in the general election before. It has a name; the "Southern Strategy." The problem with Rudy Giuliani being the heir to the Southern Strategy is that he's an Italian, Catholic, New Yorker who is on the record as pro-gay and pro-choice. If there is anything that would give Virginia and North Carolina to the Dems, it would be a Giuliani/Edwards race.
Occasionally you hear people say that Giuliani could win the general election because he could take New York State. I can't imagine he could run far enough to the left to make NY competitive, but even if he did, New Yorkers (Upstate and down) would almost certainly still vote for Clinton over him.
Finally, there is 9/11. He will have to wrap himself in September 11th and hawkishness if he hopes to have a damn chance of winning anything ever again. He's certainly proved to be shamelessly adept at doing this, but it just won't last. Republicans used 9/11 successfully in 2002 and 2004, but the war vastly overshadowed it as an issue in 2006. And in case you didn't notice, people aren't holding the Democrats responsible for that disaster. There isn't really any way for Giuliani to position himself as an anti-war candidate without giving up the 9/11 talk, so he's basically stuck embracing what will be an even more hugely unpopular war in 2008.
Obviously, there are many many things that could totally alter the landscape before the primaries happen, but looking at how things stand now, I see his chances of making it through both the primary and general election as close to zero.
But about Giuliani.
The bad: The man is a complete and total asshole, personally and politically. He has no ability to build personal or political coalitions, because he's not a nice person, and he's more interested in carrying out personal vendettas than getting things done. He has had a truly messy and public divorce, which he came out of looking like a jerk. He tried to use 9/11 to change the city charter and extend his term as mayor. His one moment in the national spotlight since 9/11 involved getting the incredibly corrupt Bernard Kerik (his former police chief) nominated for Homeland Security Secretary for about two minutes, until he withdrew amidst several different simultaneous corruption scandals. His campaign managed to lose their campaign plan, so the entire thing is now available online.
The good: He's a competent manager, sort of. He was mayor of NYC when 9/11 happened.
He has major problems in the primary. Giuliani's current position is that he hates abortion, but he's pro-choice, but "mumble mumble states rights, strict constructionists mumble mumble." Color me unimpressed. The Republican base is not gonna go with that unless they have to. He's also catholic. Anti-catholic racism is something you don't hear about that much, but only three Catholics have ever been nominated to be presidential candidates, and they were all Democrats. Both Al Smith and John F. Kennedy had to defend themselves against accusations that they'd be taking orders from the Church, and Kerry (ironically) had to defend himself against accusations that he wasn't taking orders from the Church because he was pro-choice. Maybe the Republican primary voters are ready to elect a Catholic, but I don't think it should be assumed.
The real reason for Giuliani's pre-9/11 popularity in NYC, as far as I can tell, (I'll admit to not remembering his terms all that well) is that he made middle-class white people feel safe, partly through OK police policies, and partly through playing up racist tensions, locking up homeless people, and generally being an SOB. Playing up racial tensions against blacks has certainly a successful electoral strategy for Republicans in the general election before. It has a name; the "Southern Strategy." The problem with Rudy Giuliani being the heir to the Southern Strategy is that he's an Italian, Catholic, New Yorker who is on the record as pro-gay and pro-choice. If there is anything that would give Virginia and North Carolina to the Dems, it would be a Giuliani/Edwards race.
Occasionally you hear people say that Giuliani could win the general election because he could take New York State. I can't imagine he could run far enough to the left to make NY competitive, but even if he did, New Yorkers (Upstate and down) would almost certainly still vote for Clinton over him.
Finally, there is 9/11. He will have to wrap himself in September 11th and hawkishness if he hopes to have a damn chance of winning anything ever again. He's certainly proved to be shamelessly adept at doing this, but it just won't last. Republicans used 9/11 successfully in 2002 and 2004, but the war vastly overshadowed it as an issue in 2006. And in case you didn't notice, people aren't holding the Democrats responsible for that disaster. There isn't really any way for Giuliani to position himself as an anti-war candidate without giving up the 9/11 talk, so he's basically stuck embracing what will be an even more hugely unpopular war in 2008.
Obviously, there are many many things that could totally alter the landscape before the primaries happen, but looking at how things stand now, I see his chances of making it through both the primary and general election as close to zero.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Weird
So, I am planning to write up my thoughts on Rudy Giuliani as presidential candidate shortly. I went to the New York Times search page and typed in "Giuliani." Here is the page I got. Notice anything odd? Look at the second of the paid Advertiser Links. It says, "Giuliani Learn More About The Exploratory Committee", but it is sponsored by JohnMcCain.com. The link takes you to McCain's (really, really creepy, cultish) website.
If you search "John McCain", the first paid link to come up is MittRomney.com, though it at least says Mitt Romney's name on the link that directs you to his site.
If you google Romney, the two that come up are for Romney related sites, and for Clinton, Obama and Edwards, only sites relating to the candidate searched come up in the Advertising link section.
So are the Republican candidates paying to have their websites come up when their oponents are searched? Is McCain paying to have a misleading link with Giuliani's name direct people to his own website? Do the paid advertisements in the Times just work in mysterious ways? Very strange...
If you search "John McCain", the first paid link to come up is MittRomney.com, though it at least says Mitt Romney's name on the link that directs you to his site.
If you google Romney, the two that come up are for Romney related sites, and for Clinton, Obama and Edwards, only sites relating to the candidate searched come up in the Advertising link section.
So are the Republican candidates paying to have their websites come up when their oponents are searched? Is McCain paying to have a misleading link with Giuliani's name direct people to his own website? Do the paid advertisements in the Times just work in mysterious ways? Very strange...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)