Race 4 2008 is proud to present the following interview with the new Sr. Communications Advisor for the Rudy Giuliani campaign, Mike McKeon. Mr. McKeon served as New York governor George Pataki’s Director of Communications, and as the Governor’s chief spokesman. He was responsible for overseeing the State’s crisis communications, during and after the September 11th, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center. Prior to joining the Pataki administration in May 1995, McKeon worked for more than 10 years as a reporter for three New York newspapers, winning several awards for local and political reporting.
_______________________________________________________________
KWN: What drew you to Mayor Giuliani’s campaign?
MM: I’ve known Rudy and his team for a long time. We worked very closely together during 9/11 when I worked for Gov. Pataki, so I’ve seen Rudy in action up close at a time that was of critical importance to our country. So I came to have a great deal of respect for the job he did at the time.
KWN: For those that may be unfamiliar with New York, could you explain the differences between what it takes to accomplish a conservative agenda there versus other parts of the U.S.?
MM: In NYC they have a city council that I think at present has three Republicans and 59 Democrats. In NYC, a moderate Democrat is kind of an oxymoron, at least among the elected officials. There are only a handful of people that I think would even want you to describe them as moderate. At one point there was a candidate running for office in Manhattan here who when he knew that I was going to be on TV talking about his race urged me to describe him as “ultra-liberal” because that was better for him and his campaign. It just happened to be true, so I was happy to do it because he is ultra-liberal. That’s the kind of situation that you have here in the city. So it’s very difficult in that kind of setting to get the kind of things done that Rudy did. It made his accomplishments all that much more significant I think. When you consider the fact that he cut taxes 23 times here in NYC, when you have a city council that has to approve the budget that is overwhelmingly Democrat, which is overwhelmingly self-described as very liberal; then you really get a great appreciation for the kind of job that he did. When you consider the fact that he reduced welfare to record lows… Those are tremendous accomplishments in a city that is 5-1 among Democrat to Republican registered voters. So I think that his accomplishments in that regard are really truly heroic, and required him to demonstrate the kind of leadership that this city hadn’t seen and needed badly.
KWN: Would a good example of the misunderstanding of the way NY politics work be the debate surrounding Rudy’s judicial appointments?
MM: Well, you know there are only so many people to choose from in Manhattan and I think Rudy, when it comes to finding kindred spirits, did as good a job as possible. And when you look at the record on crime, and you look at the historic reductions in crime, it wasn’t because he was shy and retiring and just allowed it to happen, it was because of his active leadership.
KWN: As a top strategist and Chief Spokesman for campaigns that resulted in the two largest margins of victory for a Republican in New York State history, you must have unique insight into what it takes for a Republican to win in Blue States. What should a Republican do to have success in Blue State America?
MM: I think Rudy speaks to that. His whole campaign, his whole person speaks to that. He’s a guy who unites people and draws people from all spectrums to his side. He provides the kind of leadership qualities that we need right now, especially in these troubled times. So I think in the first instance Rudy does very well with voters around the country because they saw him in action themselves. He was on their TV screens everyday for many, many days in a row during a very difficult time for this country. So they came to see him, they came to know him, they came to respect him. But if people understand that that kind of leadership extended itself to reducing crime by historic amounts, by cutting taxes twenty-three times, by reducing the size of government, reducing welfare rolls to historic lows; they’re coming to see that this is a guy who we can unite behind to lead this country. He provides the kind of leadership we need across the board and is a unifier. So I think that’s reflected in the polls in both the Republican primary and the general election. He’s got the numbers that bare out his tremendous record.
KWN: The latest Rasmussen survey showed Rudy pulling 20% of Democratic voters away from a Democratic candidate. Conversely, we know from the crosstabs of GOP polls that Rudy’s base of support is from the most conservative and strident Republican voters, the voters that have stood by President Bush through thick and thin. Is it a miscalculation for someone to believe those two things must be mutually exclusive? Is it realistic to expect that trend to continue to a significant degree as the campaign progresses?
MM: Yes, I would think that that would absolutely continue and even grow. Because I think that a lot of Republicans desire strong leadership in a very difficult time and view Rudy as the guy that can provide that kind of leadership. Democrats on the other hand, Rudy is a guy that can bring the Reagan Democrats back into the fold and he cannot just carry the Red States but some Blue States as well. He has very broad appeal and it all stems from the kind of leadership that he brings to the table. And as people learn more about his record; you know people care about their pocketbooks, the war and the troubled times and the leadership that we need. But they also care about their pocketbooks and Rudy is a guy who has cut taxes, he reduced the size of government, he reduced the welfare rolls, he’s someone that people, across the board, can embrace.
KWN: You were responsible for overseeing the State’s crisis communications during and after the September 11th, 2001 attacks, what would be one thing that you would like to convey to people that were not in NY about that day?
MM: I think there was a heroic response by a lot of people, and it took strong leadership from Rudy Giuliani, from Gov. Pataki and others to really pull together. The kind of leadership that Rudy demonstrated was tremendous: it was hands-on, on-the-ground. But there was also such a great degree of compassion for the people that were lost and for the things that happened that day. It was the kind of leadership you really hope for in an elected official. It’s lucky and fortunate to find. It’s so rare. I think people will remember that, and they value it.
KWN: What is your opinion of the IAFF controversy?
MM: I think there is always going to be some individuals that harbor their own agendas. The truth is that he remains immensely popular among the rank-in-file firefighters. The bottom line is: you saw him, I saw him, everyone all over the country saw him on their own TV sets. They have their own informed opinions because they watched him, they listened to him, they saw for themselves. So if a couple of people or union officials have gripes I think people are going to recognize that for what it is and it’s really not going to have much bearing on people’s opinions and impressions because they formed them themselves. I don’t need the media to tell me how Rudy did on 9/11. I don’t need the union officials to tell me how he did on 9/11. I saw him myself. I have my own opinions, and they’re deeply held.
KWN: Mayor Giuliani has stressed the importance of nominating constructionist judges. What is it in Rudy’s personal political philosophy that makes that characteristic so critical?
MM: Well, I think that’s who he is. Working in the Reagan White House, working in the Reagan Justice Department he developed an appreciation early on for judges who don’t legislate from the bench. That’s the kind of position he took here in NY when he was Mayor. He was very strongly against the kind of junk justice where judges were legislating from the bench and finding new ways to set criminals free; and he was pretty outspoken on that front. It’s very consistent with his record as Mayor and his training from early on.
KWN: What would you say to those who believe that Mayor Giuliani’s own personal social views would prevent him from nominating constructionist judges?
MM: Again, I think you need to take a look at who he is and take a look at his overall record. This is the guy who says what he means and means what he says. He is very straightforward about his positions and his views and he is not looking to get over on anybody and is going to tell you what he feels and he’s going do what he says . His whole record is of a guy who keeps his word. I think people know Rudy, they trust Rudy, so when they hear him make that kind of pledge they can take it to the bank.
KWN: National Review Online’s Contributing Editor, Deroy Murdock, recently wrote an op-ed where he described the lack of understanding of Mayor Giuliani’s complete record of conservative governance in those outside of NYC and conservative intellectual circles. Conservative commentator George Will has described Rudy’s record as the most successful episode of conservative governance in the past 50 years. What are people missing in understanding Rudy Giuliani’s complete conservative record?
MM: I think the people who have watched him closely like George Will and Deroy have seen it all and get it completely. The polls reflect that most Republicans get it as well. There’s always going to be a few pundits and others that want to encourage the scrum because, you know, the scrum is more fun for those who observe. I think that at the end of the day, Rudy Giuliani is a guy who’s going to trust the American people and trust that when they take a full look at his record, will get it. That in an overwhelmingly Democratic city, with overwhelmingly Democratic city council, with a lot of people who are self-described very liberal legislators, he was able to cut taxes twenty-three times, he was able to reduce the size of the welfare rolls by a historic amount, he was able to reduce the size of government. They’re going to appreciate that this is a guy who can get things done in a very difficult place. He was able to work across party lines to get things done in government. At the end of the day, you’re going to have to work with everyone to be able to get things done when it comes to reducing taxes, reducing welfare, and reducing the size of government, he demonstrated that he can get it done even in the most liberal city, at least on the East Coast for sure, and maybe in the country.
*This interview has been cross-posted at new Race 4 2008 affiliate Blogs for Rudy. Please head on over and check out our newest addition.-KWN
March 21st, 2007 at 9:36 am
What can I say, I’m convinced. Despite having no social conservative history, Rudy’s going to answer the SoCon call for constructionist judges. I’m going to construct a temple to St. Guiliani and pray to him every day.
March 21st, 2007 at 9:42 am
Mike McKeon seems to be tightly on message. I read through the transcript to see if some insights into the campaign may have slipped through the advocacy.
I wish Kavon would have asked “How would a Giuliani Presidency differ from the Bush Presidency?”
March 21st, 2007 at 10:50 am
I am by no means sour grapes or anything. (If there is another New Yorker in the know please follow up in my comment!)….
I don’t know McKeon, as he could be a great guy. But I know Mercury Public Affairs reputation and Kieran Mahoney (McKeon’s Bosses.) Mahoney is the one to try to give our New York State Jean Pirro for United States Senate.
Conservatives fought with Mercury’s Mahoney with their other candidate Mayor John Spencer. The fact of the matter is that Mahoney lost it all within one and half months should tell you something. Mayor Spencer became the Candidate for US Senate. Mahoney, the whole GOP Party and Pirro all left the Christening of their candidate, (She went on to run for Attorney General).
Mahoney failures also include Dennis Vacco and many others, etc…..
(Don’t talk about Pataki win because he won with Conservative Party support.)
If Mercury is anyway involved with Rudy it is a safe bet that it is over for Rudy. Mercury record speaks for itself. Mercury is no way on a national level on doing this work. As soon as Mahoney name is mentioned the whole Conservative Party of New York will run away from Rudy (Not that they are not doing so already).
Again, do your homework and see for yourself with NY GOP insiders.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:57 am
So Giuliani’s going to appoint “strict constructionists”? Color me still skeptical. I think if we look back at the history of Supreme Court appointments, we’ll see very serious reasons for that skepticism. We’ve had 6 Republican presidents since the New Deal. Dwight Eisenhower appointed 5 people to the Supreme Court. His motivations for appointments were generally strictly short-term. For instance, he appointed people from particular regions in an attempt to gain votes. He had no particular judicial philosophy, and no particular policies he was deeply invested in. His appointments were Earl Warren, John Marshall Harlan II, William Brennan, Charles Whitaker, and Potter Stewart. Warren and Brennan were the two greatest travesties to sit on the Supreme Court in history. Astoundingly liberal. Brennan in particular was damaging because of his brilliance and his uncanny ability to bring consensus. Harlan was a lone voice of sanity in the wildnerness. Whitaker was ideologically unmoored. And Stewart was a lovely moderate. So Eisenhower, without a particular judicial philosophy, or long-term interest in the judiciary, batted at best 1.5 for 5. In fact, his Democratic successor (Kennedy) was leagues better then him in this departmnet, appointing the ever reliable strict constructionist Byron White. The next Republican President was Richard Nixon. Nixon’s interest in appointments was somewhat longer term, but it was also very specific. Nixon was and will ever remain an ideological cypher, but he was nonetheless fiercely partisan, with specific goals. In particular, Nixon wanted justices who were tough on crime and willing to grant broad executive powers (sound familiar?). He had four appointments to the court. In that pursuit he appointed Warren Burger, Harry Blackmun, William Reinquist, and Louis Powell. Blackmun was the author of Roe and one of the 3 most liberal justices on both the Burger and the Reinquist courts (with Thurgood Marshall and William Brennan). Reinquist was obviously a staunch conservative and a genius. Burger and Powell were mushy moderates in the vein of Sandra Day O’Connor and Kennedy. So Nixon at best batted 2 for 4. Socially liberal Gerald Ford had the next appointment. He chose John Paul Stevens, another somewhat law and order liberal. Stevens went on to become the most liberal justice post 91′ and a vigorous defender of Roe. Next Reagan got a chance. He had 3 appointments. Sandra Day O’Connor, Antonin Scalia, and Anthony Kennedy. One staunch strict constructionist and two moderates. But even this doesn’t show the depth of improvement in Reagan’s appointments. He sent three strict constructionists up to the senate and endured two tough confirmation questions even in the face of an overwhelmingly Democratic senate (Bork and Ginsburg). His one serious failing came about as a desire to make history by appointing a woman. But undoubtedly Reagan’s committment to general judicial conservatism, in the long-term, as opposed to secondary concerns, paved the way to more solid nominations. Next Bush I had two choices. Bush wasn’t nearly as driven by a committment to judicial conservatism and appointed Souter and Thomas. Souter’s been a disaster and Thomas a genius. And the current Bush, who shares Reagan’s ideological committment to the judiciary, has appointed two justices who will, by all signs, be two of the best justices in the last half century. The point is, history is quite clear on this point: when Republican presidents are committed, through their personal policy preferrences and their general view of the law, to judicial conservatism, we get more conservative appointments. When they’re driven by political concerns, or specific, but limited law and order concerns, we’re at best likely to get as many liberals as conservatives. Or, as Giuliani himself once put it, “the president is going to appoint people who agree with him”. There are plenty of law and order, broad executive power type lawyers and justices, who are nonetheless nothing close to strict constructionists in general. And for my money, that’s exactly what Giuliani will give us. Nixon type appointments.
March 21st, 2007 at 1:47 pm
Matt,
I think you raise valid points, but the question is this: which candidate do you trust most to make appointments. I like Giuliani because he has such an amazing depth of legal experience and has made more specific comments about judges than any other candidate (said specifically that he would have made Antonin Scalia Chief Justice if he had ben president) – Rudy has been in the legal system his whole life, and he knows the difference between a real strict constructionist and a fake one.
McCain might try to appoint anti-Roe people, but he’ll want people who share his “clean government before free speech” ideas, not strict constructionists.
Romney might look for strict constructionist, but it’s impossible at this point to figure out exactly what Romney’s philosophy on governing is, or how he will define a “good judge”.
So, based on these facts, I trust Rudy (former Reagan Justice Department official and U.S. Attorney) more than the other candidates to know the difference between a good judge and a bad judge. Plus, Giuliani has Ted Olson on his side, and I would expect Olson (Attorney General Olsson?) to be a major force in picking judges
March 21st, 2007 at 2:12 pm
That’s just my point Palin. Rudy has an amazing amount of legal experience. And that amazing amount of legal experience has led him to call Roe “good law”. He didn’t say, as Romney did pre-2004, that he agreed with the substance of the decision (implying that he thought Roe itself, as opposed to abortion rights generally, was likely a mistake). He didn’t even say that he thought abortion rights could be found in the constitution, but under something other then a general right to privacy (a position taken by most liberals). He, with all his legal experience, called Roe, a decision which simply stated that “the right to privacy is broad enough to encompass abortion”, without anything resembling legal reasoning, was “good law”. Rudy does indeed know what a strict constructionist is. And he certainly knows that this term cannot be applied to someone who views Roe in such a light. He said these things even in an era where it has become fashionable for abortion rights supporters to disagree with Roe as an original matter. Arlen Specter, the most vocal pro-choice Republican, prefaces all his abortion questioning with something to the effect of “it might not have been a good decision in the first place, but don’t we need to follow stare decisis”. Alot of this is margin stuff which might escape the notice of people without much knowledge of the law. But the fact is, not all pro-choicers are alike, and the vast majority display a stricter interpretation of the constitution in this matter then Rudy has through his statements. And I’m sorry, but that’s virtually unforgiveable. Another thing is, the recent articles about Rudy’s tenure in the justice department. Virtually every person who worked with him admits that he was not a conservative warrior in the least. He never went to bat for any judicially conservative causes. He was hardly involved with serious constitutional questions at all, and specifically and purposively dealt in areas more likely to help a future political career, then the advancement of strict constructionism. And this is all in the face of what we already know about Rudy: that when he sincerely cares about something, he fights. And he’s neverfought for a more conservative judiciary either in the justice department or NYC and his pre-2006 statements don’t reflect any committment to that cause. There’s simply no conceivable reason to believe he’s more likely to appoint a Scalia then a Burger. Especially with a Democratic senate.
March 21st, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Matt: “There’s simply no conceivable reason to believe he’s more likely to appoint a Scalia then a Burger.”
He gave his word. However, Bush II promised to appoint Scalias and Thomases, as well. Remember Harriet Miers?
The difference between Bush and Giuliani is Bush claimed to be conservative. Giuliani never has. What he claims to be is Republican.
March 21st, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Indeed marK. Another thing that differentiates Bush and Giuliani, is that Bush was, likely because of his non-existent legal background, largely willing to defer to his advisers in terms of possible judicial appointments. Rudy is a lawyers lawyer and as such is going to pick the candidates himself. And only a complete lunatic wants a lawyer who’s judicial philosophy doesn’t seem to comport with yours (and who’s political principles in serious matters such as abortion, environmental regulations, campaign finance, etc blatantly conflict with that philosophy) picking justices.
March 21st, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Sorry, until Rudy pledges to explain his gun control agenda in New York City, I could not consider him.
Most of the RED states have citizens who are strong gun rights people. NRA would never endorse Rudy
either until he gives a truthful explaination on the gun issue.
Call me a Second Amendment Sister, or whatever, but the right to defend yourself, your family and your
house is the basic right by our constitution. So Kavon, do some research and find the answer.
Has Rudy explained his stand adequately enough for gun rights people?
March 21st, 2007 at 5:18 pm
[...] Mike McKeon, onetime spokesman for ex-Gov. George Pataki and new senior communications advisor to former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s presidential campaign, gave an in-depth interview to Race42008. [...]
March 21st, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Giuliani’s answer on guns, now anyway, is that we don’t need any more gun laws, despite saying once that if the rest of the country had NYC’s gun laws (considerably stricter then even the things Clinton pushed through), the crime rate would drop by 30-40%. I’m not sure how he explains that.
March 21st, 2007 at 6:05 pm
As Justice Scalia has pointed out, what we want are judges who are textualists and apply reasonable construction to the Constitution. The terms originalist and strict construction sound great and conservative but fail upon closer scrutiny.
Nobody on the United States Supreme Court is truly a strict constructionist, though Clarence Thomas probably comes closest to such.
As an example, the Sixth Amendment says that a jury trial is to be made available in all criminal matters. The Supreme Court has interpreted that reasonably to provide a trial for all crimes where the maximum authorized sentence exceeds 6 months. Strict construction just isn’t applicable much to constitutional analysis, and original intent is often impossible to glean.
Justice Scalia’s great book, “A Matter of Interpretation,” is very helpful in understanding all of this, even for non-lawyers.
March 22nd, 2007 at 6:50 am
Yup. I love A Matter of Interpretation. I just use the term strict construction for expediency. Though Scalia very much considers himself an originalist and a textualist. I’d disagree that original meaning (originalists don’t use original intent), is impossible to glean. I think the vast majority of the time, the original meaning of a particular clause can be discerned. Now, when you use the left’s caricature of originalism, original intent, that’s not quite the case. Because then you’ve got the whole “well, nobody agreed on what the constitution ought to mean, so since we don’t know, words have no meaning and we ought to just make it up as we go along based on what’s “reasonable”". The fact is, sufficient historical analysis shows that, indeed, for most constitutional provisions, the ratifiers of the constitution understood and agreed upon what they were getting themselves into. Some are inordinately difficult to discern, such as the establishment clause, but mostly, a competant historian can more or less find the agreed upon original meaning.
March 23rd, 2007 at 4:23 pm
This is what our founders thought of the matter: