Can Rudy Fail

I wonder about things like Wayne Barrett's devastating takedown of Rudy Giuliani in The Village Voice. Mark Kleiman, for example, notes that it appears one factor in Giuliani's otherwise baffling decision to put the NYC command post in the World Trade Center was that he wanted to use it as a love shack in which to conduct his affair with Judy Nathan.

Kevin Drum ponders whether this will be the straw that breaks the camel's back even though "the Christian right has at least semi-forgiven Giuliani for his stands on abortion and gay rights. And the philandering and the messy divorce don't seem to have hurt him all that much either." The attack seems like it could, in principle, be very damaging. But coming from liberals it almost seems to me to help Rudy, whose campaign seems to be premised in part on the idea that if Village Voice writers hate him so much, he must be doing something right. I feel like these kind of stories would need to appear in National Review to draw blood. Otherwise, it's the equivalent of how Hillary Clinton's conservative detractors are her primary campaign's best friend.

Comments

If Romney/Thompson et al don't attack Giuliani on this, it is a clear sign that Karl Rove/Dick Cheney are controlling all the campaigns and are a central clearing house as to what charges are and are not permitted.

I know that sounds ridiculous (or would have before this cabal), but all three of them have tied to the current power brokers. Who knows what is happening behind the scene?

Meantime, maybe Ron Paul or Tancredo will run with this.

Posted by hopeless pedant | August 11, 2007 1:13 PM

Yeah, this kind of stuff should come from the Right or it allows Rudy to benefit from the conservative meme that he is an embattled patriot under seige by the traitorious Left.

But it will definitely hurt him if politically indpendent cops, firefighters, and first responders keep going after him. Their words carry a lot of weight, I think.

Posted by Unreal Veal | August 11, 2007 1:30 PM

"Kevin Drum ponders whether this will be the straw that breaks the camel's back"

It all depends whether it gets widely reported in the MSM.

Remember so far the American people know Rud as; 1) "America's Mayor" 2) "9/11 Hero"

Since 9/11 the MSM has helped build the Rudy legend as the second coming of Winston Churchill. It will take a lot of reporting of facts to overcome that.

Posted by DonB | August 11, 2007 1:39 PM

Liberal bloggers are afflicted with the Chronic MetaAnalysis Diesease.

Why worry if these revelations will bring him down if you can use this space to pile on Rudy?

Posted by gregor | August 11, 2007 1:48 PM

DonB hits nail on head.

Dan Balz, a regular WaPo columnist, was on NPR yesterday to talk about the GOP contenders in the context of the upcoming Iowa straw poll. In the course of his comments he talked about Fred Thompson naming a new experienced campaign manager, and how his proto-campaign is coming along nicely, with a formal announcement coming in September. If all you knew about Thompson's campaign was what Balz said, then you'd have to conclude, yep, that Fred Thompson is a machine.

There was no mention whatsoever of the fact that this is Thompson's THIRD campaign manager in a campaign that isn't even formal yet, nor of the discontent swirling around it due to the involvement of Thompson's wife as the de facto manager. There was no mention that Thompson's campaign people had announced that their fundraising goal for June was $5 million, but they only raised $3 million, or 40% less. And there was no mention of the fact that even among Thompson supporters there has been widespread consternation over why he's taken so long to get into the race.

And then there were Balz's comments about Giuliani. The NPR host raised the issue of whether Rudy's pro-choice stance and less-than-hostile (for the GOP) attitudes towards gay rights was causing problems with the Christian GOP base. Balz responded that the fact that Giuliani is the front-runner is evidence that the base isn't holding it against him.

There was no mention of the fact that very recent polls show that a high percentage of Republicans have no idea that Giuliani is pro-choice, and that a substantial percentage of professed Giuliani supporters also don't know this. These facts call into serious question Balz's assertion that the evangelicals will support Giuliani. Did Balz mention this? Did the NPR host bring it up? No and no.

Neither Balz or the NPR host seemed remotely aware of all this information about Thompson and Giuliani, even though both have been widely discussed on the much-hated and derided blogs, which is where I learned about them. I didn't have to do any digging; both stories were reported on in depth on blogs that are far from fringe, some-guy-in-his-mom's-basement websites. In other words, Balz's comments were essentially fact- and context-free blatherings that could have been written by the Thompson and Giuliani campaigns themselves. There was absolutely no news value in them.

This is yet another reason why I'm absolutely convinced that the vast majority of so-called mainstream media "journalists" are amazingly lazy and ill-informed, considering how easy it is to get all this information. For my money, the large majority (yes, with some notable exceptions) of the hardest-working investigative journalists/reporters/writers out there are working for blogs and websites.

I am most definitely NOT exempting NPR from blame here. The performance of the host yesterday (can't remember her name) was pathetic. You could put someone from the Home Shopping Channel on with equal effect.

Posted by bluestatedon | August 11, 2007 1:50 PM

I really wonder how much good this would do one way or the other. So far this race, and there's a long way to go, has been about personality, not about issues.

This is nothing new in politics, of course.

Posted by Thomas | August 11, 2007 2:08 PM

Otherwise, it's the equivalent of how Hillary Clinton's conservative detractors are her primary campaign's best friend.

What's really interesting to me is that the truth of the above statement appears to have led conservatives to decide that rather than attack Hillary now, the hurt her MORE by being seen as sympathetic/in support of her as "reasonable". In other words, the corollary is that Hillary's conservative supporters are her primary campaign's worst enemy.

I wonder if this would be true for Guliani? I think a reasonable case could be made for liberal pundits to offer bunches of praise regarding how reasonable Rudy's stands on abortion and gay rights are. Wouldn't Rudy be taking more damage in the primary if this had happened (or does happen)?

I don't know. Just wondering. Such an effort would at least resolve the hopless pedant's Reagan Rule concerns...

Posted by keatssycamore | August 11, 2007 2:13 PM

"piling on Rudy?"

Gregor, would you agree, to the extent Giuliani has based virtually his entire campaign on his 9/11 bona fides, that criticisms from his own former constituents on his 9/11 statements are at least as relevant as Al Gore's alleged claim to have invented the internet or John Edward's haircuts?

Posted by bluestatedon | August 11, 2007 2:13 PM

Matt, you've already used that Clash reference more than once. You can do better than that.

Posted by bt | August 11, 2007 2:22 PM

bluestatedon

Perhaps my statement was somewhat obtuse. I was trying to encourage Mr. Yglesias to be more critical of Rudy on the basis of the facts revealed in the VV article rather than waste his time on wondering whether this will have any effect.

Posted by gregor | August 11, 2007 2:33 PM

Confidential to bt: Using the reference twice is annoying. Using it twice on the way to using it an infinite number of times is great.

Posted by Delicious Pundit | August 11, 2007 2:40 PM

The problem is that there is no major, viable candidate for the Christian base. Thompson and Romney can't exactly exploit Guiliani's abortion views given their own vulnerability in the area. And attacks from Huckabee and Brownback only go so far, given their status as minor candidates. Ironically, the "major" candidate with the strongest abortion record is McCain - but he's hated by the Christian right. So really, who is going to complain? The Republican Party is an authoratian movement. Meaningful dissent will always be suppressed if it gets in the way of winning.

Kevin Drum has his areas of expertise. Election forcasting isn't one of them. Despite the guy's status as a "major liberal blogger," he never seems to understand what motivates and animates the hard right. He consistently imputes a level of intellectual honesty and consistency that simply does not exist on the Republican side. He can't see the forest for the trees.

As for the MSM's lack of focus on Rudy's abortion views, it's the same old story: the press isn't going to cover an issue when no major disagreement exists between the candidates or parties. If Republicans actually cared about Guiliani's abortion views, the press would cover it. They don't, so it doesn't.

Posted by owenz | August 11, 2007 2:41 PM

It wouldn't surprise me to see Romney eventually trying to make use of the negative Giuliani stuff. Remember, Romney's main strengths are his overwhelming ambition and his lack of actual belief in anything. I think it's likely that, when the heat is on, this will morph into bad behavior. In any case, one can hope so.

Posted by MattF | August 11, 2007 2:41 PM

The support for Giuliani has puzzled me too, because he carries much more baggage than adultery. Just about everyone who has been closely associated with the guy has wound up in trouble with the law.

However, there are three ugly, under the surface dynamics to this. First, a good part of the Republican base are racist. Guiliani gets support because he made New York City safe for white people. People who think that white Southerners won't support Giuliani because he is pro chocie forget that many white Southerners weren't drawn to the Republican Party because they are evangelicals, they were drawn to the Republican Party because the Democrats ended segretation. Giuliani's bad race relations record is a plus for thse people.

Second, in European multi-party systems there usually is a neofascist party that gets anywhere from 3% to 10% of the vote in each election. These people exist here, though not being a multiparty system they must choose between one of the two parties. Guess which party they support. Guilian's authoritarian persona help him here. I think at least a tenth of the Republican base are people who woudl support Le Pen if they were French.

Third is the bad job the mainstream media does in getting information to voters, and the low curiousity of many voters. Many people support Giuliani because he is a celebrity.

That said, the fact that either Bush didn't offer, or Giuliani refused, the job of heading the Homeland Security Department after 9-11 tells me that the White House doesn't support this campaign, or Giuliani is in the race mainly to raise his speaking fees. I think ultimately the WHite House will determine who gets the Republican nomination, as every outgoing presidential administration in the twentieth century has determined who is the presidential party nominee. It won't be Giuliani.

Posted by Ed | August 11, 2007 2:45 PM

I do agree keatssycamore's speculation that vocal support from the left for Giuliani's pro-choice stance (though not as a candidate in the general election) both makes sense from an abortion politics point-of-view, but also a strategic leftist point-of-view because loud praise from the left for his pro-choice position will be noticed by the not-so-politically aware pro-life right simply because they are sensitive to anything the left likes.

Posted by Keith M Ellis | August 11, 2007 2:58 PM

I find it very odd that some people think that criticism from Village Voice, or from liberals generally, would help Rudy rather than hurt him.

If you think this way as a liberal, you have thought your way out of stating any effective criticism of anyone conservatives could support.

You haven't fallen for the claim that there is a "Bush Derangement Syndrome", have you? Claiming liberals have BDS is conservatives' way of playing with liberals' heads.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | August 11, 2007 3:35 PM

Rudy has the glow like Reagan. Conservatives forgave the latter for legalizing abortion in California and divorcing because he was a tax cutting, commie fighting charistmatic who drove the libs crazy.

When you think about, liberal support for Bill Clinton - a womanizer who kissed corporate ass, slashed welfare, grew the prison state - is equally perplexing.

But Clinton has the glow; he's a natural too. And liberalism was changing.

It's also the case that conservatism may be changing.

The principal preoccupations of the Republican base today are Muslims and Mexicans; man-love is a distant third. And abortion - as many on the right see it - is a matter for the states to decide. With the Robert Court, they may get their wish.

Mr. Giuliani - a terror fighting, (likely) border closing charistmatic who drives the libs crazy - appears to agree with them.

Posted by Linus | August 11, 2007 3:45 PM

I don't know about the primary but this will be a real crippler in the general election. Which would evidence itself probably in reduced turnout. Which in turn will cripple the already crippled GOP congressional election prospects.

I don't think the location is as important as the facts he took her there. Or that someone has stated that he did. While it's been widely reported I don't know if it is actually true that the former Mrs. Giuliani found the couple in the Mayoral Mansion, on fathers day, in a compromising position. Over a chair, probably putting too fine a point on it. In any case this charge is just too lurid for the MSM. Records of visits to the bunker are just so much easier to report, so it will be reported. There is bound to be a significant number of voters who will think back to Clinton and will not be able to make a mark for Giuliani

There are reports bubbling that Rudy's eye has been wandering again. With pants down I can't say. The fact that this stuff is now acceptable chatter bodes ill for Rudy.

If this upcomming Presidential election is close and thus decided at the margin then Rudy has a tough road ahead.

Posted by rapier | August 11, 2007 3:52 PM

No offense, but that's an unrealistic dream, times ten. The best that we can hope for is that several major publications pick on these facts and then run with them. We could also use liberal publications, sites, and personalities to continue pushing the story into the mainstream. Why doesn't one radio host, for instance, have an hour or however long is justified with Wayne Barrett on his program one day?

Posted by Brian | August 11, 2007 4:13 PM

Thompson is a tired old man compared to the forceful Giuliani.

Romney is a Mormon and seems slick. (Cf. Edwards.)

Giuliani plays the repentant rogue very well. (I bet his support among those who do know of his abortion stance doesn't differ from among those who don't.)

That's why, in the odds in Dublin and Iowa City, he remains ahead.

Posted by Watchful | August 11, 2007 5:21 PM

bluestatedon,

"Dan Balz, a regular WaPo columnist, was on NPR yesterday"

I think Dan Balz is in training for the David Broder slot on the WP op-ed page.

Honestly, the man appears on all the TV talk shows and manages to say absolutely nothing.

Posted by DonB | August 11, 2007 5:23 PM

Rudy hasn't taken heat yet because in a fragmented field it usually makes more sense to toot your own horn than to spend resources attacking one of your eight opponents. Once the field narrows, he's going to get a shellacking - assuming of course that any of his opponents still have any money in the bank. The Republican fundraising situation so far shows Giuliani with a huge advantage in cash on hand. Once the social conservatives anoint either Brownback or Huckabee at Ames we'll have to see whether either of them pulls enough funds to launch a serious negative campaign against Giuliani.

Anyone else think that Fred Thompson is taking it easy because his lymphoma is more serious than his campaign is willing to admit? Chronic fatigue is one of the symptoms of his disease...

Posted by bbartlog | August 11, 2007 6:34 PM

This is swift-boat material (with the quaint difference that it's based in facts).

Rudy is the 9-11 candidate. What the Democrats ought to do - when the time is right, is send out the attack dogs. Say he weakened the city before 9-11 to create a love nest for cheating on his wife. Disseminate it, and have people saying it everywhere (keep it out of the mouths of the candidate, obviously).

It's not clear to me that the Dems should go after Rudy right at this moment, but this is information that needs to be used. It's completely devastating, you just need to be ruthless in broadcasting it.

Posted by DivGuy | August 11, 2007 6:42 PM

Count me among those who absolutely believe Romney will go nuclear and use this stuff if needed. It wouldn't make sense, this early, to go negative when he is still establishing his own persona with the voters.

Mitt Romney is DESPERATE to be president, to redeem Dad and self-justify his huge ego. I honestly don't think he cares who wins the White House if it isn't him.

Posted by Andruw | August 11, 2007 7:26 PM

Romney is in the best postion to exploit Dracula's soft underbelly. "The Man From Glad" (Chris Matthews) appears as the anti-Rudy. Foremost, he doesn't look like a sewer rat. Look at the field- they all suck. By appearances- he sucks the least.

Posted by Trevor | August 11, 2007 8:52 PM

Since 9/11 the MSM has helped build the Rudy legend as the second coming of Winston Churchill. It will take a lot of reporting of facts to overcome that. - DonB

That'll be hard considering that St. Rudy is not too much unlike Winston Churchill.

The real question is why do so many people, 6 years after the WTC attacks, think we still need someone like Sir Winnie at the helm? Sir Winnie was a fine, inspiring leader for the British to have when they were being bombed every night, but you'll note the British couldn't even wait until the war was over to get rid of him.

I could understand the appeal of someone trying to be Sir Winnie if we were in the thick of a war, but fearmongering from the right aside, we ain't in the same situation as Britain was in the early 1940s. And let us not forget, Sir Winnie helped draw those bounderies that are causing so many problems in the middle east to this day. Do we really want someone like that in charge at this point?

Posted by DAS | August 12, 2007 3:29 PM

A popular authoritarian is more dangerous than an unpopular one; that's the Giuliani threat.

Democrats dismiss his prospects and obsess over Mr. Bush at their own peril.

The kewl mayor type is a jerk type for the ages.

Posted by Linus | August 12, 2007 9:04 PM

Ah memories, I remember the last time I read a "devastating takedown of Rudy Giuliani" in the Village Voice. It was 1993, and he was elected mayor about 3 weeks later.

Only a fool would ever count Rudy Giuliani out of an election until after the votes are counted.

Posted by Doctor Memory | August 13, 2007 2:28 AM

There are at least a three nukes in the anti Rudy arsenal.

1) moving the command center to the WTC and it's use as a love nest
2) appointing his mob-associated driver (Bernie Kerik) to Chief of Police and convinding Bush to appoint him head of Homeland Security.
3) supporting a pedophile priest (Monsignor Alan J. Placa), including having him on his payroll

If he does get the nomination, I look forward to a swift-boating nastier than anything that's yet been seen. It'll be delicious.

Posted by ramster | August 13, 2007 11:30 AM