The real New Hampshire winner is a former New York mayor For all the talk of New Hampshire as a "notoriously unpredictable" place where anything could happen, the Democratic contest there on Tuesday played out in considerable obedience to the polls. John Kerry got his bounce off Howard Dean's head, even as the former front-runner from Vermont regained his composure. The novice hijinks of Gen. Wesley Clark left the seasoned voters of the Granite State uncharmed despite a prolonged flirtation. In fact, the most interesting bit of political theater wasn't on the Democratic side at all. Although President Bush didn't face a notable challenge in the state's GOP primary, the administration dispatched three Republican sluggers to draw some crowds of their own in Manchester. New York Gov. George Pataki was on the trail, as was Arizona Sen. John McCain, who beat President Bush there in the 2000 primaries. But the show-stealer was former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Capacity crowds greeted him at rallies and diner stops. He was energetic and engaged, and glowing in his endorsements of Bush. He looked, well, like a man on a mission for national office. That the former New York mayor was in New Hampshire to raise his political profile isn't rocket science. He has made it clear to interviewers that he's eager to get back into the game. Speculation abounds that he might challenge Hillary Clinton in 2006 for her Senate seat. (He was forced to bow out last time by a prostate cancer diagnosis.) In fact, all three New York politicians — Clinton, Pataki, Giuliani — are likely candidates for president in 2008. But Giuliani, despite his fame and popularity, has not been a national political player in the traditional sense. He'd immediately leap to the front as, say, George Bush's vice president. Of course, Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney did their best to put any rumors of a ticket change to rest about a year ago when concerns over Cheney's health put the question on the lips of pundits. But then, they might just have been preserving their right to surprise voters tuning into what otherwise would be this summer's suspenseless GOP convention in ... New York City! Besides, Giuliani would resolve a serious issue for Bush. Cheney has made it clear he won't be a presidential candidate, so Bush needs an understudy to inherit his incumbent laurels in 2008 (assuming he wins re-election). Yes, Cheney was a great asset in the last campaign, helping many voters get over concerns about Bush's relative inexperience. Among reasonable minds, he's still a great asset to the administration. But Cheney's public image has taken a drubbing. The absence of stockpiled WMDs in Iraq weighs against his account, since he was a strong advocate for the war. And his Halliburton ties have been a piñata for the Democrats. The left-wing Judicial Watch even sued him for defrauding the company's shareholders when he was Halliburton's CEO. It's all a little unhinged and irrational, but these themes are shaping up as big ones in the election. Every Democrat in the race has adopted the same populist rant, portraying Bush as the servant of guilty corporations and the undeserving rich. Which brings us to another Giuliani bonus: His path to the New York mayor's office was paved by his previous work as the U.S. attorney, where he gained fame for putting Wall Street malefactors, including junk-bond king Michael Milken and arbitrageur Ivan Boesky, behind bars. Combined with the quick work Bush's Justice Department is making with the Enron crooks, Giuliani would be a strong symbol of the administration's willingness to crack down on bad business actors. Politically speaking, a Bush-Giuliani ticket would solve a lot of problems. And the two men have more in common than meets the eye. Despite their reputations as partisan lightning rods, neither is an ideologue. Bush has taken strong leadership positions that have inevitably alienated the multilateral left, but his instincts are moderate. Giuliani, meanwhile, is the quintessential tough-on-crime, fiscally conservative but socially liberal Northeastern Republican. Assume John Kerry and John Edwards make up the Democratic ticket, playing on the same populist themes that are serving them well in the current campaign. Set up against Bush-Cheney, the election becomes a war for turnout of the bases, with many in the political middle written off. Put Giuliani in the mix and the story is very different. The son of Italian immigrants, his political capital from Sept. 11, 2001, remains substantial. Overnight, liberal antipathy for him melted when he became a national hero and he remains a figure of unquestioned authority for Americans of every political stripe. Giuliani would give Kerry a strong run even for the unionized firefighters who've been an unsung factor in Kerry's Iowa and New Hampshire victories. As Cheney's did four years ago, Giuliani's aura would compensate for many of Bush's perceived vulnerabilities and defects. Most of all — Cheney is a loyal-enough Republican soldier to recognize this, too — he gives President Bush someone to hand the mantle to in 2008.
I don't see it. Bush isnt Clinton. He doesn't fight over the middle (as if Rudy's in the middle). Bush is moving his entire party away from the northern socially liberal, economically conservative "Rockefeller Republicans". Bush is all about bringing out the base. Bringing out the wacky christian far right base. I don't see Rudy fitting into that. Maybe Rick Santorem or Condi Rice
A little math for you flaming liberals: George W. Bush + Rudy Giuliani = 12 MORE YEARS OF REPUBLICAN RULE
Rudy G. couldn't even stay in a Senate race long enough to beat weak carpetbagger and now you're giving him not only this election, but the next two as well? If this happens, it will hurt the GOP base in the South and it will draw a distinction that GWB would not want drawn... his immediate post 9-11 performance vs. that of Rudy's. ANy attempt by the GOP to play up Rudy's 9-11 performance will only diminish George's. And even though I expect the "Hear you" scene to be played out in GOP commercials, I also think the Dems counter that easily by having some of the firefighters in that scene talk about how they haven't got the money, radios, training, equipment, etc., they need to do a good job with Homeland Security and then wrap it up by saying Bush, with his OT rules actually cut the pay of first responders and made things less safe. I can also see the regional attack ads questioning Rudy's morals and I can see the national attack ads going something like this... show a decent (but not too good) clip of Rudy and then show George looking lost and scared when he landed in LA or somewhere, then the announcer says "The Republicans have WHO at the top of the ticket?" "Vote for a REAL LEADER, not a staff... Vote Democratic." Bring. It. On.
Maybe Rudy G. will ditch another wife or girl friend or whatever, than he can run as a "family values guy". It worked in California. The religious ditto heads might sqwauk a bit but will go along if the preachers instruct them properly. It wouldn't surprise me too much if Cheney decided to go back to Halliburton to personally cash in on the contracts he has locked in over there in Iraq. A good thing is that Cheney can at any moment claim that the doctors told him to retire to protect his heart. Bush could place all the blame for his scandals and war on Cheney, also.. Rudy G. would help Bush cash in on his main talking point, happening to be president when 9/11 happened. An interesting paralled is with Bush I. He supposedly thought of replacing the inept Dan Quayle, but stuck with him and went down to defeat. The only problem in putting Rudy G on the ticket is Dubya would suffer in comparison. IN addition the dittoheads might supsect Rudy of being a "yankee" or a "liberal".
But that would mean Bush would have to at some point admit he was wrong too in agreeing with Cheney , and even choosing him as a running mate in the first place. I don't think accepting defeat (see Election 2000) or taking personal responsibility for wrongful actions done to others is in Bush's nature.
can't see this happening, but should Cheney go (and i think he goes only if he wants to, W won't force him out) the more likely VP is Tom Ridge. Bush almost picked him in 2000. i'd love to see Condi, and so would much of the party, but i don't know how much sentiment there is for her inside the admin, or if she'd even want it. word is she'll leave after the election. one of the more interesting thoughts i've seen on the Dem side is Hillary as veep. hmmmm, nominating one of the most polarizing personalities in all of politics, is that a good strategy? it's certainly galvanize the dem/lib base, but then, it'd have the same effect on the right, since many of us feel she's the devil incarnate!
That's pretty funny. Did you know that Rudy ran on NY's Liberal Party ticket as well as the Republican one? Rudy is a major social liberal. basso: No matter how much you guys want her, you're not getting Hillary this year. It's amazing the backflips the right goes through to imagine this scenario. Is Clark still stalking for her, by the way? Is she still going to swoop in and accept the top spot at the convention?
Do any of you folks know what Rudy was like as Mayor before 911? As Al Sharpton said about the disgusting canonization of Giuiani in the wake of September 11, "Hell, we all would have rallied around Bozo the Clown if he were Mayor."
i really don't want her, but Safire had an amusing column in the times yesterday, imagining a brokered convention. i don't buy the scenario, and i think the nomination will be sewed up long before then, but it's still fun to dream, ain't it? just from a political junkie POV, since it's been a long time since there's been a convention with any real suspense. also, there is a battle within the party for control between the Clintonites (Clark, Edwards, etc) and the dean, gore, bradley wing. where kerry fits into this is unclear, and safire was speculating on a Kerry/Hillary ticket. also, do you really think i'm right wing? i think of my self as an andrew sullivan republican, w/o the gay stuff: Fiscal conservative, social-cultural liberal, foreign policy hawk. is that really "right wing?" lastly, do you think that when Kerry rails against the "billion dollar corporations and their special interests" he includes Heinz?
That the columnist says Bush is a moderate sort of puts it in perspective. . . . ideology and electoral politics so dominated the domestic-policy process during his tenure that it was often impossible to have a rational exchange of ideas . . . from O'Neill and other people attending Bush cabinet meetings. The ultimate poll driven presidency.
I think the best bet for the more conservative minded voters would be to change the ticket by replacing Bush with Sen. McCain. I'd vote for him
