Crazy Rudy

James Fallows notes that Rudy Giuliani's around the bend:

Is this how he's been all along? To start with, he doesn't know anything. To be more precise: not a single sentence that he utters suggests any familiarity with what people have been saying and arguing -- about terrorism, Iraq, the situation of the military, security trade-offs, etc -- for the last few years. He's out of date in two ways: He displays the "fashionable in 2003 and 2004" assumption that if you say "nine-eleven, nine-eleven, nine-eleven!!" enough times, you end all debate about military policy. He displays the "fashionable about three weeks ago" assumption that if you say "General Petraeus, General Petraeus, General Petraeus" enough times, you've offered an Iraq policy. And through it all he seems totally self-confident. Hmm, have we seen anything like this combo before?

Meanwhile, Brendan Nyhan wonders if Giuliani really thinks people "should not be allowed" to criticize General Petraeus.

Comments

I don't read Fallows. Is he always this substance-free?

Posted by Al | September 14, 2007 9:59 AM

As I recall Giuliani's SAT scores were about 200 points lower than George Bush's (10xx something, I forget the exact number). So yeah, he would appear to be kind of a dim bulb to be president. Something I noticed in the last Republican debate: he was wearing glasses, which is normally a peculiar choice for a politician. But this might have been an attempt to make him look more intellectual, since his relative stupidity is likely to become an issue at some point.

Posted by bbartlog | September 14, 2007 10:06 AM

Its amazing to me that someone whose SAT scores are around the 50th percentile would even be considered a viable candidate. This is taking anti-elitism and anti-intellectualism a bit far.

High intelligence should be considered a necessary but not sufficient precondition for the presidency.

Posted by Jim W | September 14, 2007 10:16 AM

From what I saw on CNN:

Obama made a solid case for his position, but had a hard time answering some of Larry King's typically nonsensical questions. Didn't even mention his candidacy or any of his opponents.

Giuliani is a raging nut case. Fallows is absolutely dead-on right.

Edwards looked good, and made a good case. Unlike Obama, however, he couldn't help himself and took a swipe at Hillary.

McCain seemed decent and thoughtful. Wrong. But decent and thoughtful.

Posted by LaurenceB | September 14, 2007 10:42 AM

Meanwhile, Brendan Nyhan wonders if Giuliani really thinks people "should not be allowed" to criticize General Petraeus.

Given that he believes that the role of Congress is to always agree with the president ("The task of a president is not merely to set priorities but to ensure that they are pursued across the government." - from his essay in Foreign Affairs), yeah, I'd guess that he really believes people should not be allowed to criticize Petraeus.

Posted by Peter Bautista | September 14, 2007 10:57 AM

I don't read Fallows. Is he always this substance-free?
Posted by Al | September 14, 2007 9:59 AM

Oh no, he's much less subtance free than you Al, ya lovable big ignoramus.

Posted by Northern Observer | September 14, 2007 11:00 AM

I dunno, Jim. Back in that era, a person would typically take the SATs "cold," without any preparation, not like today, where most college-bound members of the middle classes and up spend a lot of time preparing. I don't think that SAT scores should be used as a stand-in for IQ.

I don't think his SAT scores from, something like 45 years ago should really be a factor. Giuliani is a raging, ignorant nutcase, and he'd still be one even if he got 1200s on his SATs.

Posted by Tyro | September 14, 2007 11:05 AM

I have said it before and I'll say it again, Giuliani is the worst Presidential candidate I have ever seen.

Granted, I am only 25, but still. I remember Alan Keyes. The fact that he has been leading the polls on the R side says it all.

Posted by Joshua | September 14, 2007 11:40 AM

well...nice to see James Fallows has finally caught up. I've been on to Rudy's game since before he was a candidate. Hey James, his campaign strategy is to say "9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11" as much as possible with the hope that people will fall for it. Frighteningly enough, many republicans have. I'm surprised James didn't pick up on that before now. He's a smart enough guy.

Posted by freaktown | September 14, 2007 12:54 PM

I think if Rudy becomes the nominee he'll take a swing Hillary during one of the debates. Mark my words.

Posted by judson | September 14, 2007 1:28 PM

Isn't it about time someone redub that classic Phil Hartman/Simpsons bit, the "Dr. Zauis" song, with new lyrics about Gen'ral Petraues?

Posted by dadanarchist | September 14, 2007 3:45 PM

The Onion was on to Rudy's game long ago.

Posted by Derek Scruggs | September 15, 2007 1:13 AM

Yeah, it's really embarrassing to watch Rudy do his thing, because it's so transparent and fumbling, and you get the sense he has no idea. The funny thing is that his whole "9/11 aura" would actually be more effective if he sounded like he actually knew stuff. It's weird, because it's not hard to pick up on the day's CW and just say that, like a normal candidate, so is he just tone-deaf, lazy, or what?

Posted by Toadmonster | September 15, 2007 3:56 AM