10 reasons why it has to be Giuliani not McCain

I like Senator John McCain, really I do. I think he is often brave and often right. I like his style. But, well, Rudy is Rudy.

Here are the ten reasons why it has to be the Mayor not the Senator:

1. He's been a Mayor, not a Senator. Giuliani's an executive kind of guy, not a legislator. That gives him the skills to be President.

2. He's been a Mayor, not a Senator. Senators talk an obscure legislator's language that loses elections. All other things being equal, the Republicans are more likely to win with a candidate from outside the Senate.

3. Age. By the time of the next election Giuliani will be 64. McCain will be 72. That's too old. And increasingly, he looks his age. This will be an issue.

4. Charisma. McCain is loved by journalists, who find him charming. But strangely, he can be rather boring on the stump. Giuliani is not a natural orator but he is good enough and he has great authority and presence.

5. Agenda. Both McCain and Giuliani hold out the promise of a new kind of Republican message - one that goes beyond traditional small government conservatism. They are both advocates of free markets and limited government, but see the need to have more to say about the things that concern middle class voters. McCain's talk of duty and sacrifice is attractive rhetorically, but is, in the end, a bit wooly. What does it all mean? Rudy gets to the point on issues like crime, tax, welfare and education.

6. Relationship with the Republican base. McCain has always had a difficult time with the Republican base. As a result he feels he has to make peace with the grassroots in order to win the nomination. Rudy should, theoretically, have the same problems, given his views on issues like abortion and gay rights. But somehow his status as a Republican hero has allowed him to escape McCain's problems. He can win over social conservatives by talking about issues like school choice. I think he is much less likely to be force to tack away from the centre in order to conciliate the base. This gives him a better chance of winning.

7. Tetchiness. They're both tetchy. McCain's tetchiness is more of a political liability.

8. Independence. The Republican candidate will have a hard time in this election. Rudy will find it easier to sell himself as independent and win support from those who didn't back the Republicans in the midterms. And in office he might find it easier to appeal across parties.

9. The record: Giuliani's record on crime is a very strong card for him to play.

10. Bigness. This isn't a scientific point, I know, but while they are both big figures, somehow Rudy is bigger. He can appeal to the centre and the right in a campaign but in the Oval Office you sense he'd take tough decisions and sell them.

So, with it all, between McCain and Giuliani... it's got to be Rudy.

Comments

[yucca]

coming from the rural south rather than the urban east coast might well overwhelm many of your considerations. on mccain being a boring speaker, have a look at this video:

http://insatiableyucca.wordpress.com/2007/02/08/mccain/

[adam]

I find it hard to root for Guiliani. He's a liberal whose main achievement (a good one) was in running New York City but whose real appeal to voters is based on a few brave-sounding words after a terrorist attack. I don't know if there are any issues with his NYC past as Mayor (I haven't heard any, but I hadn't heard anything about Kerik, either, until it all blew up).

Despite early promise, I also can't see how he's going to win over the socon element of the Republican Party; he's a philandering, pro-abortion, pro-gay gun restrictionist (part of which was mentioned in the main article). Each of those issues have their own constituency and in part they overlap, but the gun thing is a big deal with a lot of people who wouldn't care if the President was screwing someone else's chicken so long as he was strong in support of gun ownership. He's going to have to massage that lot with some care.

Myself, I'm a McCain guy, even with his overtures to the socons. I also think that even though there's a tradition of picking executive over legislative experience, that this might be the time for a Senator. Kerry came close last time and Bush, the 'Washington outsider with executive experience' can't sell beer in the Betty Ford clinic right now. If Romney or Brownback can really rally the socons behind them (Romney has some problems of his own, mind you, with that constituency) and McCain and Giuliani both raise a bunch of money and stay in it, it's going to be interesting. Giuliani is the closest thing the GOP has to a rockstar at the moment but he has to look like a bit of a risk.

[Mike Wingard]

Amen, Guiliani, my man.

[Akram]

Giuliani is man who was much criticised before 9/11. One may even say ridiculed. Somehow although 9/11 may have reprieved him somewhat, I doubt whether that will retrieve his image given the impact the war will have on the republican vote. Keep in mind we probably have over 18 months still, of bad news from Iraq to drip drip into american living rooms.
Somehow I think its a red herring, the Republican candidate will not matter much.

[adam]

It seems to me that, while you might think that successfully addressing many of the challenges of running NYC would be relevant to running New York City, wanting to live in New York City makes him pretty unusual for an American, let alone a Republican primary voter. New York City can't help but be run on big government and it really is the melting pot'. A lot of Republican voters don't like a big government that takes away their guns to improve the safety of others (they want to be able to own guns in part to assure their own safety without relying on the state to turn up in time) and they don't have much enthusiasm for the 'melting pot'.

How it pans out depends in part on how Giuliani's opponents play it, but it looks to me as if taking the gloss off Giuliani (who I suggested yesterday on my blog should have a koala bear as his emblem: loved by people who don't know anything about him) should be a priority for the more traditional candidates. Once he's tarnished then they can get back into the more normal campaigning business; while he's a 'rock star' candidate, he's hard to hurt.

[adam]

Jesus wept. My last post should read '...addressing many of the challenges of running NYC would be relevant to running the Federal Executive...', not '...to running New York City'.

Or if an editor could put that into the last post (pretty please)?

[Debbie]

Unfortunately there are many conservatives like me, who are not happy with either one of these guys. Why should we have to settle, isn't there one politician who is truly conservative? If so, then I wish he/she would stand up. Mitt Romney has lots of folks talking, but he's not the one. Duncan Hunter has some folks eye and money, but he is so far down in the polls now it doesn't look promising.

But we all need to remember, it is still VERY EARLY. Anything can happen. One slip of the tongue for any of them and they are history. That means the cream can still rise to the top.

[mark baker]

Giuliani has proven himself a "go-to guy" but only when you're ready to suspend civil liberties and the Bill of Rights. He was in big trouble politically in N.Y. city due to his intrusive approach to governing until the events of 911 restored some credibility to him again.

By far the best and most experienced candidate is Gov. Bill Richardson. He has a proven record as a diplomat, legislator, & executive.

[Ken Leyland]

I get the feeling that most of the "defects" that count against McCain would have disqualfied Lincoln were he running today. Mind you, I do like his oven-chips.

[Verity]

Someone above pointed out that it's early days. I favour Guiliani because he has been the chief executive of a huge, complicated city and for the way he tackled crime - and won.

I don't know that his opinions on abortion are going to be that damaging. Voters know they cannot get a perfect match.

Although I favour Guiliani over Mr McCain, though, I hae ma doots, and I am keeping my eye open for a dark horse. It should be a former governor; not a senator. (It would help if Americans posting and suggesting the names of governors would tell us in which state they hold office.)

[stephanie]

Could someone please explain the "oven chips" comment re. McCain. Is this some kind of, like, Euro/British code???

[Mariel]

Two good governors: Bill Richardson of New Mexico and Tom Vilsack, former governor of Iowa. Vilsack has not received as much coverage as warranted. He has an outstanding record of achievement as both a mayor and a governor, and his private life is beyond impeccable as far as I know. Richardson has the overseas negotiation experience. Chris Dodd, senator from Connecticut, seems to be OK so far, although I know little about him except what I heard on C-Span. All of these guys are Catholics of varying degrees of devotion, so socons could hope for moderation on the abortion issue; that is, removal of late term abortions, at least. Obama has come out in favor of late term abortions, which I think eliminates him at the starting gate for socons.

Mariel

[Julian]

Could someone please explain the "oven chips" comment re. McCain. Is this some kind of, like, Euro/British code???

Posted by: stephanie | Monday, 19 February 2007 at 10:55 PM
-----------------
McCain is the brand name of a make of oven chips. Or as Americans would call them - french fries - but designed to be roasted instead of deep fried.

That's all.

[Cliff]

Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa has dropped out of the Democratic Presidential race due to lack of money. He states there should be some kind of reform so it does not always end up a contest to see who can raise the most money, as it seems to be now.

[digbydolben]

The President of the United States on January 20, 2009 will be either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. I prefer Barack but, like most Americans after six years of Republican disasters, want significant changes, particularly in foreign policy. The leading Democratic contenders are far superior to the Republicans, and will beat any one of them.

[adam]

The more the campaign goes on, the more it has to be McCain, for me. Giuliani is horrible, a populist rabble-rouser who appoints ill-qualified loyalists (does this sound familiar?) and who claims an expertise on the subject of International Terrorism based on a few good performances in front of the cameras after the big attack in 2001.

Give me a break. I'd almost rather see another President Clinton (not joking; I don't see much difference between them, except that more people adore him, and that's dangerous).

As for Fred Thompson, who had looked quite promising, he's looking like another populist hack.

[Hermann Burchard]

Your candidate calculator popped my 95% to Fred Thompson, a joke: He has not impressed me at all as a person, -- true, I have not watched his TV shows. I don't DO network TV, have not in years. But he's a good thing advocating the right issues. Daniel, you are absolutely right that Rudy Giuliani is the guy, and for the right reasons. He is my choice and one should care less about a few issues (a miserly 76% calculator points for him from me). McCain has been a shill for the Democrats all along (Ok with the press), and he now backs the war in Iraq only to turn conservative voters against the other candidates.

[Joe Six-Pack]

The Democan and Republicrat candidates are ALL the same. Big government, big spending, high taxing war-mongers. Two cheeks of the same backside. Guiliani? Gimme a break. No foreign experience whatsoever. Even the NYFD and NYPD are questioning his claims about how long he spent at Ground Zero (For the record, he spent more time watching baseball!).

Their is only one candidate the American people should vote for. He would cut taxes (and abolish the illegal IRS), scrap the Federal Reserve (about as "Federal" as Federal Express!), no unnecessary foreign intervention, secure our borders, give powers back to the local and state level, HONOR the constitution and a foreign policy based on mutual respect and mutual trade. He is the last honest politician. America and the rest of the world needs him. Vote for DR RON PAUL.

[Patrick]

I consider myself a fiscal conservative, moderate on most social issues, but dissillusioned with the politics of the past decade. When I took the political match-up test I was quite shockingly told I was most like Kucinich. Anyway, thanks to Guliani's blunders, more firefighters and emergency workers died during 9/11 than should have (if you don't know about this, find out where G. put the emergency response HQ... I'll give you 1 guess). I laugh whenever G. touts himself as the hero of 9/11. When the NYC Firefighters don't even support him, it sort of undermines his credibility, doesn't it? IF it were only McCain and Guliani, then of course McCain. McCain is a real hero at least.

[infragreen]

Mccain, Ghouliani, Clinton, Obama, Thompson.

Same big government warmongers. Throw in a little empty healthcare reform pie-in-the-sky promises on the Dem side. Otherwise, IT'S THE SAME THING.

Ron Paul, Kucinich, Gravel. The only ones not in the club, and the only ones speaking the truth. To HELL with the big $$$ MSM candidates. We don't want them, we sure as hell don't need them.

[David]

I've heard he pocketed 10% of the Motorola radio contract which left 300+ firefighters to die - just because they couldn't hear the evacuation orders on their walkie-talkies which were known to be worthless in mountain or skyscraper filled areas. He set up a personal love nest in the building outside the towers against the recommendations of advisers, just so he could walk to trysts in a building that would ultimately collapse. He then oversaw the destruction of tons of evidence from the scene of the greatest crime ever committed on U.S. soil. How ignorant - nay, stupid - do people need to be to consider this criminal for president ?