GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
Rudy Giuliani’s brash “New Yawk persona”, his image as “a tough guy in the Big Apple”, may well have been a liability on the national stage during the GOP primary season. But, from Broadway to Broad Street, from Boca Raton to Little Havana, Hizzoner remains a very strong asset to Senator McCain. With Barack Obama’s struggles among white working class voters, Catholics, Cubans and Jews likely to linger into the fall, Giuliani is uniquely positioned to help the Arizona senator secure not only New York transplant-filled Florida, but more significantly, the elusive northeastern swing states of New Jersey and Pennsylvania; that, if won, would almost certainly ensure electoral victory for McCain in November.
May 22nd, 2008 at 3:37 am
How many more of these are we going to have till the last week of August??
Only person who knows is J/Mac.
May 22nd, 2008 at 6:08 am
Fantastic interview. I’d take a McCain/Rudy ticket over the idiotic McCain/Lieberman suggestions any day of the week.
May 22nd, 2008 at 6:32 am
but does rudy want the veep spot? he doesn’t strike me as the wingman type…
May 22nd, 2008 at 6:35 am
2, true that. mccain-giuliani > mccain-lieberman.
May 22nd, 2008 at 6:53 am
Terrific video! enjoyed it immensely. Rudy is the icing in the cake for MCain’s candidacy.
I’m wishing, wishing hard that the ticket will be a reality.
May 22nd, 2008 at 6:53 am
Pawlenty was just on Fox and, for me, he’s far more appealing and trouble-free than Giuliani. He has a softer edge frankly.
May 22nd, 2008 at 7:18 am
I think it’s a good idea to send Giuliani out to campaign for McCain in liberal districts.
That said, I’d not vote for McCain if he put Giuliani on the ticket.
May 22nd, 2008 at 7:39 am
Some would say that Lieberman was my Machiavellian suggestion to make all of the other squishy GOPers that I’ve favored in the past (Rudy, Condi, Pawlenty, etc) more acceptable to the base once one is ultimately picked.
SOME would say that. I didn’t say it was true.
Anyway, I doubt Mac will pick Rudy, and I’m not sure that he should. If Rudy is a game changer in PA, then go for it. But McCain is down by about 7 pts in PA, which means that a veep is not going to make up the difference. McCain is going to have to win PA on his own. And I think he can do it.
Polling thus far illustrates that McCain’s veep makes very little difference ultimately. But a fi-lib/so-con selection like Huckabee does seem to add a couple of points here and there. I say go for the couple of points and pick Pawlenty, who is a Huckabee who won’t rock the boat.
At the end of the day, I’m still probably right of center on fiscal issues and left of center on social issues. But I know how to read polls, and this just isn’t the year for a fi-con/so-lib candidate. Voters want a mushy candidate who feels their pain this year. I say give ‘em whatever it takes to stop Barack Obama from becoming president.
May 22nd, 2008 at 7:47 am
I’d rather see Rudy as AG. God forbid if we don’t placate the so-cons - but they’ll throw a hissy fit with a pro-choicer as Veep because McCain isn’t enough of a zealot on the issue for them.
Much better for Mac to install Rudy as AG after the election is over.
May 22nd, 2008 at 8:02 am
The chances of having three GOP presidents in a row is about 10 percent. That means that McCain’s veep is almost assuredly never going to become president. I say let McCain/Pawlenty take down Obama this year, and then in 2012 or 2016, we can all fight over who our next movement leader should be.
Personally, I am awaiting the arrival of Sarah, Queen of the North.
May 22nd, 2008 at 8:17 am
With oil storming toward $150/bl aka $5/gl the chances of even a second GOP president are slim.
May 22nd, 2008 at 8:30 am
We really did have a terrific field of candidates. We were disgruntled at the time, because they were all flawed. But, they all had wonderful strengths too. Rudy is a terrifically capable guy. Mitt is a terrifically capable guy. Fred was wonderfully principled, and hit a serious vein towards the end of his campaign. Huck is a marvelous campaigner. The Democratic candidates had no analogous set of strengths; they just lucked out in having no major ideological weaknesses, and most of them weren’t burdened by a past (save Obama and Hillary, and the media skated over all those issues, until time had ellapsed). Give any of our candidates moderately conservative positions across the board, and any one could have captured the hearts of Republicans.
May 22nd, 2008 at 8:42 am
Daveg,
Oh, and Pawlenty isn’t a fiscal liberal. He’s a fiscal conservative. In just the last month or so he’s passed a state-wide property tax increase cap, he’s vetoed a minimum wage bill, vetoed a health care bill to the right of Romney’s, and hammered out a very lean and fiscally responsible budget with huge DFL majorities. It’s quite possible that Pawlenty will accomplish the rather remarkable feat of having a more fiscally conservative second term, and his first term was plenty fiscally conservative. What Pawlenty is, is rhetorically fiscally moderate.
May 22nd, 2008 at 9:08 am
DaveG, Pawlenty might be the one person you and I could agree on, so he’d be a good compromise choice. His low polling numbers when added to the McCain ticket worry me a little, but I’ll take your word for it that it’s just lack of name ID. I think he has been vetted enough since he’s a 6 year Governor of a medium size state. I get a kick out of how you even use the word “squishy” yourself, very self-deprecating. Obviously, someone very polarizing like Ann Coulter would not get elected, but I’m not sure a wishy washy message is the key to Republicans winning. When your campaign theme is, “I’m not really that conservative you know.” “I’m not as bad as the Democrats say I am.”, that just doesn’t sound like an inspiring message. Rudy Giuliani himself said, “We need to be Republican srong, not Democrat lite.” And you still haven’t told me what a South Park Republican is yet.
May 22nd, 2008 at 9:13 am
DaveG, I disagree with you that voters want a mushy moderate, but I agree with you that they want someone who feels their pain. McCain could make the case that he feels their pain but with conservative ideas like tax cuts, and they can be middle class tax cuts as opposed to the ones Bush did. Voters clearly DON’T think Obama feels their pain. The exit polls have shown that.
May 22nd, 2008 at 9:15 am
Clarence,
Pawlenty is the one guy pretty much everyone can agree on. Yes, he has a global warming problem, but with the exception of possibly Romney, Sanford, Palin, and Jindal, all the names that have been mentioned have far bigger problems from a conservative perspective.
May 22nd, 2008 at 9:21 am
I find both sides too extreme on global warming. Liberals want people to drive less, turn the thermostats down, and drastically change our way of life. Conservatives freak out if McCain even considers the fact the temperature might be rising. I wish the two sides could reach a consensus on it, but I’m no scientific expert, so I don’t know what to say. I saw the daily Rasmussen poll today, and we went up, now leading 46-42. Plus our net favorability rating is better than Obama’s. Furthermore, most electoral college maps such as electoral-vote.com show us leading Obama (but trailing Clinton). Things are looking alright, but it will be a tough race to be sure.
May 22nd, 2008 at 9:23 am
Matthew, can you picture what it would be like to be one of them? “YAY!!! McCain picked someone squishy!! Let’s go have some champagne.” How do you get inspired by wishy-washy people?
May 22nd, 2008 at 9:27 am
CC-.
This is a quote from Dave G re: South Park Republicans-he did answer your question!
“Broadly speaking, economically center-right, socially libertarian/secular, internationalist on trade and hawkish.”
May 22nd, 2008 at 9:31 am
What the **** does that have to do with the TV show South Park?
May 22nd, 2008 at 9:41 am
The same way that the Daily Show has a clear pro-DNC bias, South Park essentially champions (in a much more round-about way) those particular points of view.
And for better or worse that tag has come to define a group of people who end up voting republican, but aren’t what you would call conservative.
I think one of the two writers of South Park summed it up by saying something like “I hate conservatives, but I really F$#$ing hate liberals.”
May 22nd, 2008 at 9:41 am
Clarence,
Yeah, I don’t quite get it. I’m just looking for, broadly speaking, a smarter framing of conservatism as it currently exists. I’m probably going to write an article about this soon. But, as an example, don’t say “cutting” spending or “slashing” spending. Cut and slash are hard words. They’re impersonal, and they further the image of a Republican Party that doesn’t care about people, but is instead a bunch of bean counters and accountants. Instead, say “government needs to live within it’s means, just like families”. People can understand that. It goes to the heart of the American ethos. And Pawlenty does that sort of re-framing wonderfully.
May 22nd, 2008 at 9:42 am
Actually, shows like Family Guy and American Dad are probably more true comparables to South Park but that have a DNC bias.
May 22nd, 2008 at 9:45 am
Rudy gives one of the best interview/press conferences. He also has the credibility and gravitas to attack Obama on his idiot foreign policy without sounding petty or crass. I think he would be a real asset to the ticket and not only help McCain squash the Obama media lovefest but also help him compete in PA, NJ, NH….My only concern with Rudy is what skeletons lurk in the closet that would become a distraction to the campaign.
May 22nd, 2008 at 9:48 am
Right now the most important numbers are money, staff, and volunteers, which can be summarized as organization. I don’t think its rhetoric at all to say that this campaign is going to encompass more states than usual. Thus, to have a single state strategy is myopic. Sen Burr thinks NC will be contested, for example (he also says “the Obama juggernaut is formidable”).
This leads me to conclude that McCain may seek more from a running mate than usual. He needs an organization or at least someone able to organize and rally volunteers on a national level (something McCain has not used the last two months to do).
To be blunt, Crist, Jindal, Giuliani and Pawlenty are not capable of this. They might have the skills but not the base to build upon. That leaves the two most obvious selections, Huckabee and Romney. Huckabee has his core following of evangelicals and Romney has the financial connections and management skills to put together an organization.
May 22nd, 2008 at 9:51 am
Haha that reporter is out of her league trying to debate Rudy. Normally I can’t stand their agenda, but with Rudy you know he is going to tear them apart.
May 22nd, 2008 at 10:04 am
I can’t stand the show South Park. I am too prim and proper I guess. I do like Family Guy, on rare occasions I get to see it. People say I look like Quagmire..giggidy giggidy. I even dressed up as him for Halloween last year. On another point, when DaveG says the odds of three Republicans in a row winning the White House are 10%, that is pure speculation! There is no database to figure something like that out. Neither DaveG nor anyone else has any idea what the odds are of having three Republican Presidents in a row. We’ve only had 27 Presidents since Lincoln. We had three Republicans in a row in the 1920s and I think in the latter part of the 19th century also. FDR and Truman had a 20 year run. Heck, House Democrats had a 40 year run between 1954 and 1994, then Republicans only had a 12 year run from 1994-2006. Bush could have won in 1992 under different circumstances. The Democrats could have nominated a dull Northeasterner instead of Bill Clinton. Then the economy could have gotten better, and we could have had another Republican elected in 1996. If you keep saying it enough that “we can’t have three Republicans in a row”, then it might come true, but if you go in with a positive attitude, we can have Republicans for 100 years if we fight hard enough. This pessimism kills the Republicans. Can anyone recall a Democrat in the 1990s saying, “If Al Gore wins in 2000, he probably won’t win after that. We would never have 16 years of Democrats in a row.” Now, will Democrats control the White House again someday? Probably. But if you think you can predict when, you are crazy. It could be 2008, it could be 2020.
May 22nd, 2008 at 10:08 am
It’s funny how many things about future elections people have said that were wrong. In the 1980s, they thought Republicans had a lock on the Presidency for the rest of the century. I guess Bill Clinton proved them wrong there. People in the late 70s thought whichever party won in 1980 would lose in 1984 for sure and would lose for the rest of the century, since things were so bad in the country around 1980.
May 22nd, 2008 at 10:10 am
#7 Econ Grad you are snob. Why don’t you admit that you hate yankees and Italians.
May 22nd, 2008 at 10:11 am
I’d rather see Rudy as AG. God forbid if we don’t placate the so-cons - but they’ll throw a hissy fit with a pro-choicer as Veep because McCain isn’t enough of a zealot on the issue for them.
Much better for Mac to install Rudy as AG after the election is over.
Hey, Reagan picked a pro-choice VP, and he’s revered among social conservatives.
May 22nd, 2008 at 10:22 am
Haha that reporter is out of her league trying to debate Rudy. Normally I can’t stand their agenda, but with Rudy you know he is going to tear them apart.
Most people are out of their league when trying to debate Giuliani. As a prosecutor, he had about 4,000 convictions with something like 20 reversals. As Mayor, he dealt with the NYC media in person every day. He knows how to argue his case, and has been up against much tougher characters than CNN reporters.
May 22nd, 2008 at 10:32 am
Ladies and Gents, you just saw a CNN reporter get beat by the next Attorney General.
May 22nd, 2008 at 10:33 am
I would welcome a John/Rudy ticket. Rudy already has a national presence and would help in some of the important swing states. God forbid something happens to John but if it did Rudy would be able to step in and handle crisis as he has shown in the past.
I guess we will know in a month or two.
May 22nd, 2008 at 10:37 am
Interestingly, McCain releases his health records tomorrow and a reporter on MSNBC speculated that the whole VP weekend is an attempt to change the subject.
Giuliani as a surrogate doesn’t get asked the same questions a VP would. Compare his interview with Tim Russert.
May 22nd, 2008 at 11:14 am
And right on cue - SUSA releases a poll showing Obama leading McCain by 7 in Virginia.
I fully believe that VA is going to be close this fall but I’m really starting to have my doubts about the partisan breakdown in SUSA polls. From the crosstabs SUSA shows a breakdown of 41D, 33R, 22I. In 2004 it was 39R, 35D, 26I. I don’t see how the pollster can justify that sort of a swing. Sean O, are you around? Does this partisan breakdown seem reasonable?
May 22nd, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Interesting thing about NY politicians — they went from the #1 commodity at the national level in the first half of the 20th century to being electoral poison — and it happened in a flash.
From 1900 to 1948 the Republicans nominated a New Yorker for president five times: 1904-16-40-44-48. They nominated a NYer for VP in 1900-08-12.
The Dems had a NYer for prez in 6 of those 13 races: 1904-28-32-36-40-44, and for VP in 1920.
Ignoring 1952, when Ike was officially listed as from New York, from 1956-2004 (again 13 elections), the Reps have had two NYers for VP candidates (1964-96), and the Dems one (1984). All three of those tickets lost badly.
From 1900-48, that’s 15 nominations, 11 for president, and 5 presidential elections won.
From 1956-2004, it’s three nominations, none for president, and no wins. No real New Yorker has won a national election since 1944.
Could be coincidence, but I don’t think so.
May 22nd, 2008 at 6:35 pm
NY had a great percentage of the population probably and there was of course the machine.
May 22nd, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Of course, population matters, but NY is not exactly deserted today.
May 22nd, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Adam, are you suggesting that SurveyUSA is biased in favor of the Democrats and are releasing these polls to make McCain look bad, or do you think they just happen to oversample Democrats, but not necessarily because they are biased?