Oh Rudy, Rudy, Rudy: Giuliani and LaGuardia
Giuliani’s no Cary Grant (who, by the way, did not actually say “Judy, Judy, Judy“in any movie). But nevertheless, to an electorate starved for somebody to love, he’s got a certain rough charm.
John Podhoretz thinks (hat tip: Pajamas Media) that Rudy might just be able to capture the Republican nomination for President in 2008 (although that headline, John, seems to be a case of bad timing: surely “right stuff” can’t be the best phrase to use at the moment, in light of recent events).
How long has it been since a New Yorker–a real New Yorker, not a fake one–has had a chance to be President? New Yorkers tend to be out of the running. Too northeastern, too ethnic, too many names that are too hard to spell–whatever. And Giuliani shares those characteristics, including the Republican-primary-unfriendly trait of being a social liberal, at least relatively speaking.
Podhoretz doesn’t think this will hamper Giuliani unduly in gaining the nomination, as he explains in the column. I’d like to think he’s right, although I’m not at all sure. But after all, I’m a social liberal myself.
I must confess that, prior to 9/11, I thought that Giuliani had long since peaked. His personal life was nothing if not messy, and he was somewhat full of himself (in that respect, probably not too different from most politicians). But he had certainly done yeoman’s duty in making New York a far more liveable city than it had been for decades, no small task.
Rudy was a true hero during and immediately after 9/11. He almost lost his life himself that day, but that’s not the heroic part I’m talking about. He struck precisely the right emotional tone for the city and the nation in that time of extreme tension and sorrow; the perfect combination of grit, determination, and heart.
And it all seemed sincere, not some phony act from a politician looking for votes. No crocodile tears; Rudy was the real thing. The fact that he wasn’t running for anything anymore was part of it, but not a big part. His sincerity was clear from his demeanor and his words–and from his behavior, which included an almost ceaseless attendance at the many funerals of those he had loved, respected, and lost. He didn’t have Churchillian eloquence (who does?) but he demonstrated Churchillian courage.
That’s not altogether what a Presidency is about, of course; other factors are certainly required. But it’s a vitally important trait, especially in these times. And Giuliani, perhaps more than any of the other candidates on either side, has shown us true grit in his public life. His ability to handle difficult and messy executive decisions was demonstrated even before 9/11, in his policies as mayor. But 9/11 cemented the deal, in real time. It also made him famous nationally.
It’s early yet, and Giuliani will have many opportunities to put his foot in his mouth and alienate any number of people. But for now, I’m very interested in his candidacy. Full disclosure: I come from a part of New York that was so heavily Italian that names such as “Smith” and “Jones” were exotic and rare. So, Giuliani reminds me of home, as well.
His psychological profile is a fascinating one. Did you know his father was a convicted armed robber? Giuliani’s early reputation was cemented by being tough on crime. Hmmm. The stuff with the divorce from his second wife was very messy, however, as well as needlessly cruel to her.
Giuliani reminds me a bit of Fiorello La Guardia, whose acquaintance I first made on those “I Can Hear It Now” records. He was another Italian Republican New York Mayor who was very tough on crime (although his marital history was decidedly better). Not exactly a typical guy, however; in addition to being five feet tall (no, that’s not a typo: 5 feet tall), and having that extremely odd name meaning “Little Flower,” Fiorello (born in the Bronx):
…was the city’s first Italian-American mayor, but LaGuardia was far from being a typical Italian New Yorker. After all, he was a Republican Episcopalian who had grown up in Arizona, and had an Istrian Jewish mother and a Roman Catholic-turned-atheist Italian father. He reportedly spoke seven languages, including Hebrew, Hungarian, Italian, and Yiddish.
Fiorello shared another trait with Giuliani: he recognized a Fascist when he saw one, knew what they were up to, and wasn’t afraid to say so. In fact, he recognized certain things about Fascism long before others did:
[La Guardia] was also a very outspoken and early critic of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime. In a public address as early as 1934, LaGuardia warned, “Part of Hitler’s program is the complete annihilation of the Jews in Germany.”
Apparently, Fiorello believed that someone like Hitler tends to mean what he says, and that we ought to pay attention. Too bad all that most people know of Fiorello these days is getting stuck in traffic trying to get to that airport named after him.
Sorry, but can I just say one thing off-topic?
That whole “hat-tip” thing on blogs really bugs me.
Who came up with that anyway?
The Unknown Blogger
PS: “I Like Mike!”
“After all, he was a Republican Episcopalian who had grown up in Arizona, and had an Istrian Jewish mother and a Roman Catholic-turned-atheist Italian father. He reportedly spoke seven languages, including Hebrew, Hungarian, Italian, and Yiddish.”
(sigh, only in America, right?)
No wonder the Europeans can’t stand us and the rest of the world hates us!
Giuliani as…LaGuardia? Oh please. I know we’re desperate but really, it’s too early for that kind of hysteria.
The GOP has spent decades building up an electorate for which rabid hostility to abortion and gay rights were not merely prerequisites but the most important issues possible. George W. Bush owes much of his success to that. Do you really think the party as a whole can overcome that in less than two years, while holding on to their base? I have my doubts.
Oh, LA, the Republicans have a much bigger tent than you think. Look at Arnold; pretty much the same as Rudy, and yet he got elected in a really blue state. Probably because he was a socially liberal Republican. That the Left thinks all Republicans are warmongering capitalist woman-hating gaybashers is pretty much the reason the Republicans have been in control of Congress up until recently. It’s when Republicans started behaving like William Jefferson (he of the refrigerated $90K) Democrats that the “base” decided to vote against them.
We’re a whole lot more tolerant of differing viewpoints than the nutroots.
“We’re a whole lot more tolerant of differing viewpoints than the nutroots.”
I should say, “differing viewpoints based on solidly-reasoned opinions“.
Give me a good reason to believe other than I do, and I might change my mind.
loyal–
I hope so. I’m worried the party might nominate a putz like Duncan Hunter or a Buchananite like Tancredo and hand victory to Team Clinton. I wouldn’t be so worried if Obama was nominated– Obama’s uber-Marxist record here in Illinois gives him as much chance of winning as Willie Horton. Voters will learn about the Obama Hussein Obama that is for early release for sex offenders, pornography in schools, not protecting born children who survive abortion procedures, leniency for gang members, higher taxes, a government takeover of health care, and so forth.
Giuliani is a guy that believes in law and order, solid judges, free markets, and killing terrorists, so he should be preferable to the alternatives.
I have a hard time getting past this:
” Giuliani continued a policy of preventing city employees from contacting INS about immigration violations. He ordered city attorneys to defend this policy in federal court.[11] Giuliani has also expressed doubt that the federal government can stop illegal immigration” (Widipedia)
I, for one, do not mind in the least that “…the Europeans can’t stand us and the rest of the world hates us!”
Leadership is a tough thing.
Fighting an unwelcomed war is a tough thing.
God Bless The United States of America.
I’ll relatively agree with the abortion thing – since a vast majority of the conservatives consider the Fetus a separate human life we are rabidly against killing it. I would (and do) highly question someone who believes that it is a separate life, it is murder, but do it anyway. Thats an awfully low bar to allow something to be murdered – I have MUCH more respect for someone who thinks it is a wad of cells and therefore can be removed.
Anti-gay is a huge huge stretch. There is no “anti” outside of a small group of vocal nutcases, most just don’t want the federal govt involved in it at all. Gay agnostic is correct, but to some out there unless you want to give homosexuality some special status then you are anti-gay.
Guiliani definitely has the pro-abortion problem. However from what I have seen his “states rights” approach can appease most if he doesn’t start waffling like Kerry did trying to get both sides to like him.
The other big issue is his stance on firearms. Recently it has taken a shift towards to pro-gun side though it is unknown if that ends up being too little too late.
I know many people who do not want to have to choose to vote for him. They are afraid that it is talk. Personally, I’m not sure. I can understand someone truly believing in the states rights and allowing their personal feelings to not influence things – it is just very very very rare. For instance, if he *truly* believes that it is states rights then a govt subsidy and protection of abortions should get the same veto a ban would – however I suspect that it wouldn’t based on his personal beliefs.
For me, the only issue is the war on Islam (let’s not kid ourselves about it). Giuliani looks like the best of the candidates to take a strong, aggressive, no-apologies stance in the ongoing war. Therefore he’ll get my vote.
McCain? I dunno. He talks big, sometimes — but sometimes he seems ready to cut and run.
The Democrats? Completely hopeless in the war. The _best_ of them are motivated by cynical opportunism. Hillary seems to be in that camp. Most seem to actually want our enemies to triumph. A Democrat victory in 2008 would be a disaster for America, Western civilization, and humanity in general. It’ll be _worse_ than the 1970s. Much worse.
I’m coming to see Giuliani not just as the best candidate, but as our last hope.
Leaf stuck to cobweb,
twirling in a breeze at dusk;
darkness–then the wind.
Here’s a semi-trivial thought for you:
I was traveling in Italy when Rudy was elected Mayor of NYC, and he was on front page of every newspaper I saw there. If he were nominated by republicans to run as pres, I think Italy would erupt, and if he won, it would be a bigger party than if Italy won the World Cup.
Has Rudy made any substantial comments on Iraq since the ’04 convention?
But, consider: in two years, barring a dramatic turnaround in the war’s progress, any presidential candidate who supports prolonging it indefinitely might as well eat a live puppy on television for all the chance they have.
Such is my opinion, anyway.
As a non-American, watching from abroad, I kinda like Giuliani. Actually I hope he becomes the next US president. Not only for what he did in NY and his leadership in 9/11, for several other reasons as well. And the idea of yet another Bush or Clinton in the White House is a bit depressing.
If Giuliani runs, I will actively campaign for him. I think L.A. makes a good point that it might be very difficult for him to get the Republican nomination, but, frankly, I think he is exactly the kind of politician this country is crying out for. To me, he’s about freedom:
Freedom from government interference in your personal life (the socially liberal aspect)
Freedom from government interference in business (the fiscally conservative aspect which, incidentally, completely turned around the fortunes of NYC.)
Freedom from fear (the hard line against criminals and, I assume, terrorists.)
I like the fact that he has a checkered past, and I hope that prevents him from being too self-righteous, and, of course, I greatly admire the way he handled 9/11. I can imagine that he would have handle Katrina much better than Bush also.
If he can’t get the Republican nomination, I hope he runs as an Independent.
I’ve always been impressed by Rudy’s can-do ability, and I do think he’s electable despite the messy divorces. What I wonder is whether his prostate cancer will hinder him. I know he’s been treated and cleared, but how many voters will invest in a candidate with a history of cancer. You’ve gotta like his running mate to take that risk.
Bookworm:
My father lived more than eight years after being treated for and cured of prostate cancer. Ultimately it was a stroke that killed him. Rudy will be fine. Prostate cancer is a very slow-growing version of the disease.
strcpy – don’t take the bait. People who use terms like “rabid” and “anti-gay” aren’t really that attentive to the actual content of their individual words. You have to go more phrase-by-phrase with those guys. They pack those things in as whole objects, like a scop in the oral-formulaic manner.
LA: The GOP has spent decades building up an electorate for which rabid hostility to abortion and gay rights were not merely prerequisites but the most important issues possible. George W. Bush owes much of his success to that.
Actually, that’s the blue state propaganda, about like the as the red staters calling all Kerry voters commies. Of course, there’s a little truth in both.