The Candidates
Check out the 20/20 interview with the future President and First Lady here.
K-Lo posts Greg Pollowitz’s thoughts on the interview:
1. If Rudy was our rock post 9/11, Judith was his.
2. Judith is from Hazleton, PA. America loves its first ladies - lots of electoral votes in PA. Maybe she can help.
3. She won’t say how she met Rudy…kinda strange.
4. After marriage number 2, she went back to school. Had to take her daughter with her to night school. This could be a powerful part of her story to tell on the trail.
5. During 9/11, Judith was working to get info from the hospitals to Rudy. Didn’t know she was involved actively.
6. Not to sound sappy, but they seem to really, really care for each other.
7. The pre interview hoopla of Judith sitting in on cabinet meetings was WAY overblown. From the narrative tonight, Judith was instrumental in getting Rudy through his prostate cancer - explaining the “ologies” as she called them. Radiology, oncology, etc. The idea that Judith would sit in on cabinet/policy meetings was in relation to health care issues, nothing more.
8. Overall, I thought it was a good interview. She comes across a lot like Laura Bush, while the pre interview perception was that she was going more like Hillary.
Judi Giuliani has always come across to me as a charming and sweet woman who would definitely fit the role of First Lady. I honestly don’t understand why the Hillary comparisons are being made, unless they are the product of some sort of latent bias against women with careers. Like many First Ladies, I’m certain that Judi would take an active role fighting for causes that she cares about. Unlike Hillary, she won’t set up shop in Karl Rove’s office.
Update: Apparently, the first video I posted omitted the segment of the interview that included Rudy. It should be all fixed now.
March 31st, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Dave, if you didn’t know what role Judi played during 9-11, you haven’t read Rudy’s book. You haven’t?!? She was a key daily player, at the office, not just the homefront.
March 31st, 2007 at 5:03 pm
Dave G and B,
Thanks for the info. I saw the interview, and was impressed with Judi. Her role
in helping Rudy through prostate cancer and 9/11 was new information to me and
I think will impress the general public.
March 31st, 2007 at 5:13 pm
“I honestly don’t understand why the Hillary comparisons are being made…”
One possibility is that Rudy has said recently that he’d be open to his wife attending cabinet meetings on issues in which she’s interested. This made me think that Judi could be creating & influencing policy for any cabinet meeting of her choice. Think Hillary who had a prominent role in her husband’s administration, including a failed effort on health care reform.
However, Rudy has receded that as this is now being reported:
“Republican presidential contender Rudy Giuliani said Friday his wife will not be a member of his Cabinet or attend most high-level meetings as he sought to clarify his previous statements suggesting she would play a significant role in his administration.”
There is a definite role for a first lady. I think both Barbra & Laura Bush have been wonderful first ladies. They did not exactly stay at home & bake cookies, but they did not create & force policy as Hilary did. There is a fine line.
If some here wish to let the first lady do what ever whenever whyever - as she chooses, then she ought to be elected to office
March 31st, 2007 at 6:13 pm
I think Judi’s status as wife #3 will be offset by the fact she played a key role in getting Rudy through cancer in 2000 and the aftermath of 9-11 in 2001, two life-changing events that helped make the man who he is today.
March 31st, 2007 at 6:15 pm
Comparing Rudy-Judi to W-Laura is nuts. Both are on their third marriage.
Nor is Judi going to help carry PA. Nobody cares that she’s from PA and she has no PA campaign infrastructure.
Rudy was NOT our “rock” post 9/11. The man simply knows how to get in front of the parade.
The real heroes are the NYPD and NYFD who risked their lives and died.
Less of them would have died if Rudy provided the equipment they asked for after the 1st WTC attack.
He did nothing to help 1st responders except steal their limelight after it was too late to help them..
Rudy’s “clarification” on Judi’s role doesn’t cut it either. Its way too ambiguous for anyone
to know what her role would be.
March 31st, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Noonan wouldn’t know what moral leadership was if it hit him in the face. The world hasn’t seen a better example of it in half a century.
March 31st, 2007 at 6:28 pm
You forgot to add what K-Lo said after your quote.
March 31st, 2007 at 6:32 pm
David B, nice counter analysis. I don’t know anyone who has been “hit in the face” with “moral leadership”
I guess your neanderthal overly aggressive metaphor is based on your dislike of my position and your inability to form a response. Typical liberal nonsense.
How long do you think the MSM is going to keep up their lovefest with Giuliani? All his nebulous positives - such as “moral leadership” as you put it are going to be forgotten. He’s completely unelectable on his stances. You may consider someone who can support abortion to be a “moral leader” but if the party gives the nomination to somone who is pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, and pro gun control, (even if only by region on that last one), the heartland and Christian base will not see him as a “moral leader.” I guess in the past half century you’re forgetting Reagan, Thatcher, MLK Jr., etc.
I don’t hate Giuliani, I just don’t think he’d be a good president nor do I think he’d stand a chance of winning with his positions. Where would he find passionate volunteers? He should run for Senate, if he has enough “moral leadership” to not quit this time if he should find he can’t beat Hilary like he did in 2000.
March 31st, 2007 at 6:51 pm
Noonan,
While I agree that Rudy’s ‘moral leadership’ is not absolute (at home or in office), he quit the senate race due to reasonable health reasons. Life threatening prostrate cancer is a pretty valid reason to drop out. Perhaps the Edwards clan could look to Rudy as an example as ‘knowing when to fold them’ in regards to campaigning with illness.
March 31st, 2007 at 7:02 pm
It was such an overwhelming example of moral leadership– the best we’ve seen in our lifetimes– that you don’t need a point-by-point defense. Either you recognize it, or you are incapable of it.
If you are interested in conservatism, politics, and polls, then you’ve seen many examples about how Rudy enjoys strong support among conservatives. Not all, of course. And you’ve seen many conservatives quoted on it. This is in large part due to the example of moral leadership you somehow missed. Along with his moral clarity in fighting the liberal establishment in NYC.
But you’re limited to a laundry-list litmus test. That is not how you judge human character.
Reagan won huge majorities not because of his social conservatism, but because of his optimistic message about the American economy and national defense. When you emphasize the social conservatism, you are arguing for a 2000/2004 recipe requiring a very precise Rovian method to add up to 51%. And totally divide the country. And end up where we are now, where that strategy will certainly not elect a Republican in today’s political climate.
Where would he find passionate volunteers? RIGHT HERE! I’ve never been this passionate in favor of a Presidential candidate since Reagan’s 1984 Morning in America. More to the point: The GOP is made up of 2/3 social conservatives and 1/3 libertarian economic conservatives. (Roughly speaking.) Those of us in the second camp have been waiting for decades for our kind of candidate– while dutifully voting GOP and holding our noses for particularly religious conservatives the whole time. We are overjoyed at this opportunity! And our camp is presenting you with a candidate who’s offering your camp a very strong deal on your issues.
Yes, the country will vote for a pro-choice, gay-tolerant, gun-control-tolerant candidate. His name was Bill Clinton. And he didn’t mitigate those positions like Rudy is. And offer the moral clarity Rudy does on terrorism, crime, the economy, etc.
You are arguing for an approach that (used to) yields 51% and 275 electoral votes and an urban-rural divisive devide. Rudy redraws the red-blue map in a landslide and charms the country into moving rightward on economics and defense. Have you noticed how he continues to poll far better than other Republicans against the Democratic candidates?
March 31st, 2007 at 7:20 pm
P.S. How do you get away with claiming Rudy supports gay marriage? He doesn’t and never has. He supports civil unions. Which, by the way, is the exact same position as our Vice President and President (as of his appearance on Larry King in Oct 04).
No one running against civil unions in the 2st century is electable as President. And will taint the GOP with bigotry.
March 31st, 2007 at 7:27 pm
BarkTwiggs, cancer is indeed a valid reason to drop out, though I suspect the real reason was that Hilary was spanking him in the polls. Edwards will not bow out, and I would anticipate that he will continue to deploy his wife as long as it behooves him in the polls.
David B, thank you for your more thoughtful response. I would disagree with only two things you said.
First, I’m not listed to the laundry-list litmus test as you put it, but much of the base is. My objection is he’s unelectable. He polls slightly ahead of the leading Dems now, but the MSM lovefest with him will end once its a general election if he’s our guy. Also, have you noticed the polls that most GOP voters
mistakenly believes him to be Pro-Life and/or don’t know his stances on gay marriage and gun control?
How do you think that will impact his support once the Dems make sure that comes out? More poll numbers for you if you remain unconvinced he’s unelectable on the issues - fully 7% of all voters refuse to vote for any Pro-Choice candidate. 7% is a lot, and amounts to 14% of our base. There are plenty of others who’d consider it a big minus too.
Yes, the COUNTRY has gone for a Pro-Choice, gay-tolerant, pro-gun control President, but on the Democratic ticket. Each party needs the support of their own base. This is a purple nation, and the red part aint having it.
Second, on the point of passionate volunteers and the loyalty of the 1/3 libertarian economic conservatives I would simply point out that there are many other candidates that meet the litmus tests of both these factions within our coalition and that we need both to win, both the social conservatives and the fiscal conservatives. While many of our fiscal conservatives are libertarian, most of them are not, and from an electability standpoint, we should go with somebody who both parts of the party can rally around. It may not be fair, but there it is.
I myself am both a social conservative and a fiscal conservative. On the latter count, Giuliani has done reasonably well in a tough city and I really would love to see him in the Senate on that count. The “deal” with social conservatives though won’t hold up. Even if he can follow through and convince social conservatives he really will put Pro-Life strict constructionists on the bench, the use of his bully pulpit, veto power, support of embryonic stem cell, etc. involve a lot to give up on when most social conservatives feel they have the momentum and don’t need to be brokering deals. Some will buy it, most won’t, and most likely a 3rd party candidate would rise up and flank his right.
March 31st, 2007 at 7:35 pm
David B, if I misquoted Giuliani on gay marriage, my apologies. I can only plead that everyone seems to say he is pro gay marriage. Would have responded in my last post, but was posting it before yours came up on my screen.
Didn’t Giuliani join a gay pride parade or something though? Where is that image coming from? For what is worth, you’re probably right about the civil union thing and the taint on the party, but his big problems remain on abortion and gun control with the base.
March 31st, 2007 at 7:38 pm
Noonan, I suggest you consult some polls on what percentage of the GOP is pro-choice or moderate on abortion. And on civil unions, like Cheney, Bush and Rudy.
You’re still not seeing the forest for the trees. You’re not recognizing the platform you advocate wins 51% of the vote– and not any longer. And divides urban vs rural voters in a hateful way.
You need to think much bigger than that, like Reagan did. And Rudy does.
March 31st, 2007 at 7:42 pm
Noonan—- you are way off mark. People like you will lead us to a HRC presidency….
March 31st, 2007 at 7:53 pm
Listen,
Everyone here knows that I am a BIG Rudy supporter. During the past few days, I have had some concerns regarding some news-making issues facing Rudy, namely that he said he would allow Judy to sit in on cabinet meetings that were of interest to her, and also the Bernard Kerik thing. After seeing the 20-20 interview (it was the very first time I even saw Judy speak), I have to tell you, she comes off as a very down to earth, charming (if not utterly sophisticted) lady. I think she would make a wonderful first lady. As for Bernard Kerik, I think Rudy should address this issue up front and directly. I dont think Rudy should be held responsible for someone elses deceptions and wrongdoings.
March 31st, 2007 at 7:55 pm
And let’s not forget the GOP and GOP-leaners are currently under 40%.
So, to get to 51%, a winning Republican President needs a good part of the social conservative wing of the GOP, the economic conservative/libertarian wing, moderate GOPers, and a sufficient number of swing voters. The latter will be more than 20% of his votes. Social conservatives will not likely be a majority versus the other groups combined.
March 31st, 2007 at 7:58 pm
Moderate on abortion?
How about just telling it like it is “moderate on murder”.
I’m sure if the Republican party had been “moderate on slavery” they wouldn’t have divided the nation between north and south in a hateful way.
March 31st, 2007 at 8:09 pm
I’m open to thinking “bigger” if you can persuade me. Not sure which polls you mean, we all see polls on those numbers a lot, but I don’t recall seeing a large percentage of pro-choice in the GOP base nor a large percentage of “moderates” on abortion anywhere.
Not sure how Giuliani will reconcile the urban-rural divide. Simply telling me to think bigger is like saying vote for Giuliani’s “moral leadership”. Nor is uniting the fiscal and social conservatives the worst way of rising above 51%. Bush got 51% last time despite an unpopular war and got the most votes of any American candidate in history. Managed to get a winning plurality with this formula against an 8 yr VP in 2000, Dole was just a bad candidate, Bush I lost when Perot split the ticket, and Reagan won by uniting these same elements of the colaltion well twice. If not for the war in Iraq, 2006 would probably have been another good year for the GOP.
Show me an argument how Giuliani overcomes the obstacles I argued makes him unelectable that doesn’t involve “moral leadership” “forest from the trees” thinking “bigger” and telling me I’m just “way off mark” or avoid these meaningless platitudes. From an electability standpoint, the only way I see of beating HRC involves not alienating a huge portion of our base at the risk of splitting the ticket.
March 31st, 2007 at 8:21 pm
econ grad stud, Yes, look at years’ worth of polls of the public on abortion. If framed as abortion is murder and should be banned in almost all cases, right up to the morning after pill, a vast majority of Americans rejects that. A vast majority of Americans also reject abortion of later term fetuses when the life of the mother is not at stake. So, yes, a clear majority of Americans are moderate on abortion.
P.S. If you want fewer fetuses killed, not calling it murder and insisting on banning abortion the morning after– and instead working incrementally on restrictions and # of weeks– you’ll make much more progress. If your purpose is truly to save more fetuses, you’d be doing that, rather than scaring away Americans by calling it murder.
March 31st, 2007 at 8:25 pm
Noonan, I’ve done so in details in the previous weeks… don’t have time to recapitulate now. Short answer: Rudy beats HRC and other Dems by the biggest margins in current polling– when cable and other news is *saturated* with how liberal he supposedly is on social issues and that’s been almost the only dicussion of his chances and surprisingly high polling. Yes, some polls show a substantial fraction don’t know all his views, but when informed very few say they’d change their mind.
March 31st, 2007 at 8:35 pm
If a majority of Americans want to vote for a politician that is pro-choice they can. I am not willing to sell my soul. In the fight against slavery abolitionist only had the high moral ground. In the fight against abortion we only have the high moral ground. Why forfeit that for a politician that will likely nominate another Souter or O’Conner?
March 31st, 2007 at 8:53 pm
Rudy doesn’t make major deals and then break his word. That’d be McCain. He helped select and fight for Reagan’s SCOTUS nominees. He was on the airwaves fighting for Roberts and Alito. He said he’d have appointed Scalia to Chief Justice.
It’s not a campaign promise, it’s a decades-long, lawyer’s lawyer support of strict constructionism. And he is a man of honor in his promises. He was the single biggest factor supporting the GOP in 04 (strongest convention speech) and 06, on the road for months, and always drawing the largest crowds and biggest fundraisers for the GOP candidates. He is loyal to the party and he knows this is major item #1 in his position with the party should he win the nomination.
March 31st, 2007 at 9:01 pm
Also, as I’ve noted in previous posts, in a Nixon-in-China way, he’d be much more likely to succeed in getting the right judges and justices confirmed, with the standing and respect he has from the public and their representatives in Congress. Merely by being a national hero and nominally pro-choice, he’d be more effective in confirming, say, Janice Rogers Brown, than would a religious social conservative who doesn’t get respect from the middle, the metro, the elites.
March 31st, 2007 at 9:01 pm
I’m not ruling Rudolph out completely, but I’m going to be keeping an eye on Rudy to see if he can be trusted on judges. At this point I think his record points to no.
March 31st, 2007 at 9:05 pm
His NYC criminal judge appointments are another story. He had to do the best he could find within NYC for those. The city’s 80%+ Democratic, and among those with law degrees, probably 95%. His field was limited. Luckily, criminal judges don’t need to be held to as high a standard as federal/appeals judges and especially Justices.
March 31st, 2007 at 10:29 pm
I just had a realization. I understand why conservatives aren’t inclined to trust a Rudy. It’s because we usually only see principled conservatives who are both socially and economically conservative– and wishy-washy moderates like Arlen Specter, Lincoln Chafee, the Maine ladies, Pataki, etc.
It is really quite rare to find someone who takes a lot of *extreme*, principled positions– but in combinations that are not typical. Rudy is not like that previous list in that he takes a very principled/moralistic view about things like the war, crime, welfare, public decency, etc. He’s now endorsing extreme views on tax reform and healthcare. (Hallelujah!)
Myself, I take extreme positions on most issues, but moderate on the so-called social/moral/lifestyle issues, so I immediately “get” Rudy. I’ve studied his history, read the books, etc. But because he’s a rare bird, I understand the default attitude about considering him a wishy-washy moderate– when that is not what he is. Can you imagine Lincoln Chafee waging holy war like Rudy did in NYC?
But there are other examples. Pat Buchanan, for example, is an isoloationist rather than a hawk like most conservatives. On economics, he is no friend of free trade, capitalism, and supplyisde economics, vs. most conservatives. He is extreme in all his views, in a populist type combination.
April 1st, 2007 at 7:30 am
An across the board conservative like Thompson or Gingrich would be destroyed by the Clintons.
Utterly annihilated. And so far in this campaign Giuliani has not trotted out his heavy anti-Hillary
artillery such as “I threw Yassar Ararfat out of NYC - here’s a video of Hillary hugging his wife.”
Neither McCain nor Romney has this kind of red meat, extremely emotional imagery to offer to rally or
to sway voters. And that’s just one example.
April 1st, 2007 at 9:37 am
This is a great video
April 1st, 2007 at 9:51 am
Did Rudy really say Judi would attend cabinet meetings?
That would be great to have an ordinary person there to put in their 2 cents on all the issues of the day!
Has any President done that before??
April 1st, 2007 at 12:11 pm
David B,
This is revisionist history at its worst. Rudy fighting for decades for strict constructionism is pure fantasy, and denied by any of his closest associates in the justice department. Rudy was not a movement judicial conservative. He did not try to advance the law in a particularly strict constructionist way. To the extent that he had legal prioties at all, they involved, and by all indications continue to involve, crime issues. Rudy took a Nixonian, tough on crime posture. To be sure people who have executive power and crime as major priorities could potentially appoint “strict constructionists”, but they could just as easily appoint a Harry Blackmun, a John Paul Stevens, or a Warren Burger. There’s no real way to know, beyond looking at their other policy preferences. And Rudy’s policy preferences, simply put to rout the idea that he’s likely to choose a true blue originalist, instead of a merely law and order type judge.
April 1st, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Matt,
While I think you raise some valid points, you have to come back to what Giuliani is saying today. I keep going back to the time he told Hannity that, given his druthers, he would have made Antonin Scalia Chief Justice and that he preferred stricvt constructionist judges. You can raise issues about the past, that’s fine, but I really don’t think that Giuliani is the type to blatantly lie about his intentions on national TV (especailly when naming specific people he would have appointed).
April 1st, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Palin,
It’s not a question of lying. It’s a question of definitions and priorities. Rudy may well have appointed Scalia to Chief Justice. I personally don’t know many Republicans or conservatives who thought, given Scalia’s age, that that would have been a good idea, but I’ll assume he had the best intentions when he stated that. Even assuming that, we still don’t know whether or not Rudy’s definition of strict constructionism is the same as ours. In fact, all available evidence (his position on Roe, gun control, campaign finance reform), suggests that it isn’t. He might well have appointed Scalia simply because they’d known each other in the justice department and he didn’t feel free to comment on hypothetical appointments (i.e., he felt he had to confine himself to the associate justices). But its hard to believe that he meant to appoint Scalia because they shared the same judicial philosophy. The fact is, strict constructionism can be quite a broad concept and if we have evidence to suggest that a candidates type of strict constructionist is different from actual “strict constructionists” then we’re foolish not to consider it. For my money, I think Rudy has a law and order, activist conservative judicial philosophy. In fact, as a big time prosecturo in a crime ridden city, its hard to imagine him having any other type of philosophy. His entire persona, and platform, was built around the idea that criminals ought to be in jail, which leads one to favor a “by any means necessary” throw away the key, type of jurisprudence. And that does not lend itself to serious textualists or originalists.
April 1st, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Matt,
You may be right about his attutude as a procecutor, but he also seems to be a strong federalist, prefering that powers be devolved to the states (something he often states in regards to guns, saying that regulations should be left up to local communities). A person’s philosophy concerning how to be a good prosecutor may not always be the same as their philosophy on how to be a good president, and I think that this may be the case with Giuliani on some important issues. The stong states-rights streak that Hizzoner has displayed so far on the campaign trail is one of the primary reasons I’m supporting him. So, while he may be in favor of a “throw away the key” approach to justice, he seems like he will appoint judges that know where the line is between federal and state spheres of influence.
April 1st, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Money is usually dispositive in these things. And Hillary Clinton will have the money to win the Democrat nomination. So the issue for Republicans may well be which GOPer can beat her. And it would not surprise me, even as a conservative, to find that the Republican Party needs a much more moderate nominee to have a chance in 2008 given who the opponent is going to be, how the Bush Administration is collapsing in the eyes of the public, and the continued waves from the 2006 midterm elections that are beating on Republican shores and eroding their beach head.
Christy Todd Whitman for President! Just kidding…
April 1st, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Noonan, WHY DO YOU BOTHER??? Your comments about Rudy are so blind to the real facts and the great leader he truly was in New York. Not to mention MISLEADING (gay marraige, etc.)
If one wants to write a thesus criticizing someone, he should get his facts straight.
Obviously a New Yorker, or New York admirer, you are NOT.