Topic: Presidential Campaign 2008
Giuliani Quits -- Thank You Dr. Paul! Rudy Giuliani drops out of Republican presidential race because of Ron Paulby Jeff Wrobel
(libertarian)
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Last summer things looked pretty good for Rudy Giuliani. He was well ahead of the neo-con pack. Fred Thompson came into the race and produced a challenge for a while, but after the shine wore off of him, Rudy regained the lead. About 1/3 of Republicans favored Rudy throughout the summer and well into the fall (so to speak).
What happened? The conventional wisdom is that Rudy lost the nomination because he ignored the early voting states; waiting for Florida instead. Pundits say that he should have concentrated his efforts in Iowa or New Hampshire so that he could continue to be viewed as a top tier candidate.
But an analysis of his poll numbers tells a different story of Rudy's fall. His decline started well before the first ballot was cast in Iowa in January. The last time he had 1/3 of the vote in any national poll was in early November. His numbers have gradually declined since then. These are national polls, so his decline had virtually nothing to do with his campaigning or not campaigning in Iowa or New Hampshire.
What really happened to Giuliani was Ron Paul. The beginning of the end for Giuliani was his arrogant smack-down of Ron Paul in the first debate, twisting Paul's words into "We deserved 9/11." Despite mob-like cheering from the neo-cons, Paul's reasoned, informed explanation of blowback placed more than a hint of doubt in the public's mind about the ability of Rudy to see subtlety in foreign relations. As the campaign has continued, Ron Paul has grabbed every opportunity afforded him to shout to the world the folly of the current Republican way as epitomized by Giuliani.
Ron Paul may have gained a few votes at Giuliani's expense, but most of Rudy's votes went to the other neo-cons. Did voters switch to Romney because of his and Rudy's witty banter about who cut taxes the most in their state? Did they switch to Huckabee because he spends more time in church? Did they switch to McCain because he has a better plan for managing the war? No. Rudy lost votes mainly because Ron Paul continued to hammer away at the neo-con mantle, leaving Rudy the most naked. Most voters were not brave enough to switch to Paul, but they were smart enough to run from Rudy.
Giuliani would have been a terrible president. He had no plan to do anything other than continue Bush's disastrous policies. His judgment is probably worse than Bush's, as shown by his continual support of Bernard Kerik. His 3 marriages with well-documented infidelity makes him even less trust-worthy than Bush. And like Bush, as well as all the other neo-cons running, he has no plans to get us out of Iraq, no plans to cut spending, no plans to stop the plummeting dollar, no plans to slow the military industrial complex -- no plans of any sort to reduce government.
Chances are that if Rudy were the Republican nominee he would lose big to any Democratic nominee, but you never know what set of circumstances might have occurred between now and November to put him out in front. Perhaps another terrorist attack will send the horde running to the nearest man standing on a pile of rubble with a megaphone. But we can all thank Dr. Ron Paul that that man won't be Rudy Giuliani.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 137 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Jeff Wrobel only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Jeff Wrobel is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Though I now live in LA, I am from NY and remember the days that Judy went after the mob. He did a good job you just felt this he was cold and would do what it took to get the job done. This same characteristic is what also made him a little unlikeable. It reared it's ugly head up when he attacked the good Dr. Ron Paul. There was something repulsive about his obvious lawyerly attempt at twisting a mans word and gloating at his self-righteousness. Talk about "blowback" and unintended consequences. So You absolutley called it correctly on the cause for Judy's demise. I am sure that none of the candidates will confront Ron Paul they are worried about the unintended consequences. That's too bad as they too would be squashed. Let's hope the the voters aren't too weak to vote for the best candidate Dr. Ron Paul, but so far I only see weak.
I like Ron Paul, but I think Guiliani's problem was Guiliani. I read some where that the more people got to know him, the less they liked him. I think "weasel" whenever I see him.
A mans' personal life can be a reflection of how he would operate in public office, Statist...and a lot of other people know this as well. That is why it's a pertinent statement. Would you hire an known drug abuser to work in a pharmaceutical warehouse? Same principle applies here. The risk would outwiegh any potential gain.
When interviewing for the most important job in the country, all aspects of ones life must be explored...only a fool would hire the least qualified, or highest risk applicant.
I agree Giuliani's problem was himself. I think Giuliani failed because he least reflected Republican ideology and voters figure it out. I mean he is pro-choice, pro-gay, anti-gun rights and pro-illegal immigration (sanctuary city policy). Add to that his family problems which tend to make voters not trust him...
Pro choice, pro gay and illegals are libertarian principals, but not conservative. Ron Paul has taken flack for being too Libertarian in his values. His appeal to conservatives would be his fiscal constraint his enduring marriage, and his stances on abortion and immigration. It's a tough ballance.
I agree with most of what you say about Giuliani, but Statist is right on the personal life. You're kind of contradicting your Libertarian views by attacking Rudy's marriages. My mother in-law was married three times but she's still a great woman (not that Rudy is a great man, point is his marriages don't have anything to do with how he poorly ran NYC). Rudy's problem really is the same as Bush, he trumpeted the 911 hero roll far too much. Unwilling to admit that mistakes were made in New York he set himself up on a very high pedestal and eventually fell off.
"Pro-Choice, Pro-gay, and illegals are libertarian principles."
I've read an article here and there on this site and everytime I see a comment from the Statist, I see ignorance, childishness, naivete, and at times, outright belligerance. I take it that the statement quoted above is meant to be a smear toward Ron Paul, but it really further cements the fact that the Statist has no real credibility where his comments are concerned.
Pro-Choice, Pro-gay, and illegals as the "labels" they have become on the political landscape, are not libertarian principles in the form you've listed here. "Pro-Choice", as a title is the belief that the woman has the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion AND that the government should establish laws to protect and even fund that "right". This is far from a libertarian ideology.
Pro-Gay is in a similar category. This "label" is the belief that to be gay is something that the government must enact legislation to protect and that the government must somehow legislate behavior on the part of those who are NOT gay to not discriminate against those who ARE. Again, none of this falls into the libertarian ideologue.
Not sure what your point is in saying "illegals"... but being for amnesty or ignoring current immigration law is hardly a libertarian point of view.
Paul has opinions on each of these issues and the only thing libertarian about what he is saying is that the Federal government has no business legislating in the areas of abortion or gay rights. The Federal government has a certain degree of right to be involved in the immigration issue, but the states are best equipped to handle their specific situations.
"Pro-Choice, Pro-gay, and illegals are libertarian principles" is a blatent LIE.
The first bit is a lie because sexuality and reproductive choice are not even addressed by a libertarian value system. The federal governemnt has no business regulating such things.
And as far as "illegals" goes, I assume you mean immigrants, and that is simply a lie because it is the opposite of the truth.
How a man conducts his life in private says volumes about who the man actually is and that tells the whole story of how he'll behave in office. That being said it's not neccessary to belabor it and drag him through the mud especially when everyone makes a mistake at one time or another.
I agree Rudy's problem with his campaign was himself but it was also his strategy. They both played a part.
Republican ideology? Oh the same thing now as Democratic ideology? There's no difference anymore. It used to mean something more but now the biggest difference is whether you like being an elephant or a donkey.
I think people favored Giuliani when they didn't really know anything about him, except that he was the NY Mayor involved in post-911 stuff, and that he had appeared on Seinfeld, which made him seem relevant and hip. Then when it came time to find out about oh, let's say, where the candidates stand on ISSUES, it became obvious that he was liberal and lacking substance, two bad things when you're running as a Republican (although apparently no hinderance when running as a Democrat).
Ron Paul certainly assisted when it came to showing the world how truly unconservative Rudy is, and how lacking in knowledge he is for the position of President. Hopefully people will pick up on these same things when it comes to McCain, and sooner rather than later!
As to the comments about Giuliani's personal life, I DO think that is relevant, as do many other voters. Even John Edwards made a good point on this. Why should we SWEAR into office a man who has repeatedly broken the biggest VOW one makes in life, the marriage vow? The President's personal life does come into play when he steps into that highly public office, and it is appropriate to consider the candidate's private life in this public job interview. This nation does NOT need another disgraceful Clinton scandal.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
