Do read Stefan's reporting on Rudy Giuliani's visit to town last week. While you're at it catch David Postman's coverage of the topic.
Here's one thing that keeps nagging at me. The clumsy way in which Postman describes the press being handled for the trip is a not uncommon occurrence with Giuliani's campaign. There's the semi-infamous snub the candidate's staff gave to an Iowa farm family, which required the candidate to personally make amends. And other such reports elsewhere, such as this one in New Hampshire where people skills are expected by that state's electorate in particular. Pay attention to Giuliani's press over time and you'll see more such stories.
Like many conservatives, I want to like Giuliani, I really do. Stefan's post highlights some of the reasons for that. But aside from issues - where there are other debates about Giuliani as the comments at Stefan's post indicate - people of either party are looking for among other things a competent campaign. This ongoing inability to get the little things right on the ground is a dangerous portend of more grievous errors down the road.
That's my experience being on campaigns ranging from local to statewide. Giuliani's campaign staff is no doubt composed of many bright, competent people. But the ongoing, unforced errors are a troubling thought when contemplating a long, demanding general election campaign.
UPDATE: Here's a fairly balanced look from the Weekly Standard, via Yahoo News, at the Giuliani campaign that discusses some of the same issues noted above.
Posted by Eric Earling at June 19, 2007 07:44 AM | Email ThisHe said, "That's an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th."
Of course, Paul never said that. What Paul did say was that one of the reasons al Qaeda gave for attacking us was that we were attacking Iraq. And that is, of course, absolutely true, and how Giuliani could not know that is, frankly, troubling to me.
Whether or not our attacks on Iraq actually were part of the reason is, of course, open to debate. But to say you've never heard that before? Bin Laden himself said it several times, including saying: "we are striking them because of their evil and injustice in the whole of the Islamic World, especially in Iraq and Palestine and their occupation of the Land of the Two Holy Sanctuaries" (meaning Saudi Arabia).
Posted by: pudge on June 19, 2007 08:45 AMSo, if you want nice, Rudy isn't your guy. But, if you want tough, and I think we need tough right now, then Rudy is one of the guys we need.
We just went through a polite President for the last 8 years. We need someone with a little more bite this time around- even if he wore out his welcome in New York since he did clean it up and New Yorkers have the attention span of ....political pundits.
Posted by: swatter on June 19, 2007 08:46 AMAt least from my perspective I don't see that the Giuliani campaign has a ''competency crises'' yet.... but they need to pay attention and get their act together in that area or it could become one.
Posted by: Methow Ken on June 19, 2007 09:42 AMFact: there are something like 75 million people in the New York Metro area....that's almost a quarter of the country. And yet all these candidates have to go pay a visit to Iowa and kowtow to farmers that represent 0.00001 percent of the population.
I think it's high time someone called for fair play -- especially a Republican -- and started realigning politics in favor the the real majorities.
The earlier primaries are step in the right direction.
Let's put it this way. Let's say that a Nazi from 1942 says that it's legitimate to attack a particular city because it's filled with Jews and they hate Jews because they believe Jews aren't even human. The Nazi truly believes it, but it doesn't in any way or form make it JUSTIFIED that the Nazi orders the attack on the Jewish city. The Jewish people in that city didn't deserve to be attacked because some asshole thinks they aren't human and should be slaughtered with less humane treatment than common livestock. They don't magically deserve that treatment because the Nazi really did feel that way and actually made threatening statements to that effect beforehand. Get it now? Do the Ron Paul supporters get why it was not only completely stupid of Ron Paul to parrot the hatred of the Islamists, but that it was very clear someone had to say something against how completely stupid that statement is? Do you?
Posted by: ferrous on June 19, 2007 10:09 AMI'll never vote for that senator from Arizona (not Kyl). Never EVER. If it's the senator from NY or the Senator from AZ, then I'm sitting 2008 out or writing in someone. Senator NY might be terrible as a person, but everyone knows it. The center and right would block most of her efforts to overturn American culture and society.
Senator AZ is completely unacceptable. Never EVER going to vote for him.
As for the pipsqueak congresscritter from Texas - Pfft. Loser and poseur, all in one.
Posted by: steve miller on June 19, 2007 10:10 AM
Senator AZ is completely unacceptable. Never EVER going to vote for him.
Do you have a real reason? Or is it like most McCain hate, totally irrational?
Anyhow, I'm not supporting McCain, or anybody else for that matter, at this point, I think all of them have strong points and weak points. But this sort of statement has bugged me ever since 2000, and almost never can the person give you a realistic, reasonable reason for feeling this way that holds up to even the slightest bit of scrutiny. They always say something like "He's for CFR." Or "He's for the immigration bill," or something like that. Then, when it's pointed out they supported other politicians who also voted for whatever position, they say "Well, sure, but (insert obvious rationalization for an illogical position here)." I swear, it happens every single time.
It always boils down to basically "McCain rubs me the wrong way," which is fine, just don't try to tell me that it's anything else, because it's not.
Posted by: Cliff on June 19, 2007 10:56 AM
But that said on a personal level, Rudy is a well known mean asshole.
It kind of plays well in his tough prosecutor get the terrorists mode. But in the end, Americans don't like assholes.
If you want a president, vote for someone who knows what he wants and knows how to get people to follow him.
If you want someone who has a track record of incredible divisiveness and corruption, well, then, vote for a known quantity in Senator NY.
If you want an odious toad, vote for Senator AZ.
Posted by: steve miller on June 19, 2007 11:31 AMWhich is why we Eastsiders don't like Seattle Democrats!
He's simply rolled over for Ted Kennedy and La Raza, and thus no longer deserves the vote of any conservative or moderate American.
Let's just call him the Manchurian Amigo and wish him well in his campaign for President.
Of Mexico.
Posted by: Rey Smith on June 19, 2007 12:40 PMRudy missing in action for Iraq panel
Giuliani's campaign fundraising kept him from commitment to panel studying Iraq.
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/ny-usrudy0619,0,2577021,print.story
Posted by: Robert on June 19, 2007 01:03 PMYou've got a lot of charges packed in there in two comments so let me try and address them in brief.
First, I've said from the start in posting on the topic of Presidential politics that Giuliani is my 2nd choice and a nominee I could support with some enthusiasm. Even the post alludes to the good things about his candidacy, as Stefan detailed in the post I linked to.
Yet, the last thing I want is for the Republicans to nominate someone whose campaign operation can't match what Hillary campaign apparatus appears ready to bring to the table. If Mitt Romney wasn't even in this race I'd have the same concern as cited above about Giuliani's campaign. And even when I do cover Romney, it's been in the context of the broader GOP field or has generally been focused on what the press and polls have been saying about him, such as in the early states of Iowa and New Hampshire. Is that unreasonable?
Now, you don't like Romney, you've alluded to as much in your past comments. That's fine, that's your right, as is your apparent preference for Giuliani. But to look at the same pollster.com chart I linked to and say Romney isn't making steady upward progress is a bit much. It's like arguing Giulaini and McCain aren't slipping noticeably, Thompson isn't soaring, and Gingrich hasn't taken a modest dip recently either. The link pretty much speaks for itself with the results. Why argue with it?
Also, you're arguing semantics on the Datamar polls. I was the one who said their CA poll was an obvious outlier. Meanwhile, their Florida poll had Giuliani 1st, Thompson 2nd, Romney 3rd, and McCain 4th. That's exactly the order the Real Clear Politics Florida poll average has them stacked at too, even though the numbers clearly vary. As I said, "generally in line."
Lastly, Charlie Cook has a column out today that makes many of the same points I made in the original post. Cook is neither a member of the "liberal" or "hard-line conservative" press that you express concern about. He's a well-known, respected, independent political analyst. You can agree or disagree with his thoughts but they are what they are.
Just because I happen to personally prefer Romney - who has his own well-reported flaws and who is still a serious underdog to win the nomination - doesn't mean I can't be intellectually serious about assessing the other candidates. Furthermore, every single candidate is going to have their flaws questioned. Every top tier candidate still has a long ways to go under that scrutiny. My advice is don't be so dismissive when your guy takes his turn under the gun.
I like Guilliani's leadership, determination and communication skills. If both of them slip up, there's Romney to carry the batton or the shield into battle against ?? (they tell me that even though HIl-Billy is in front, she won't be the nominee)
Posted by: KS on June 19, 2007 09:07 PMI can see Thompson's Head-to-Head improving somewhat, but he'll have to get that up by the end of the year before he has my vote. And if he does get it up there and shows he can beat Hillary and Obama then I'll be voting for him. As of now, though, Rudy is the only one (besides McCain) that has a shot.
Cook is talking about the same long-term trend I noted in the pollster.com graphic. Here's the link again for reference. Look at the chart on national GOP Presidential polls. Cook makes the same point about general trends for other candidates. He's looking at long-term polling trends since the start of the year, not merely recent collections like Real Clear Politics. His comments match the pollster.com graph.
Posted by: Eric Earling on June 19, 2007 10:28 PM