Is Giuliani Throwing Stones?
To get back in the race, Rudy Giuliani’s campaign is taking aim at his rivals’ stances on tax-cutting. As a Giuliani advisor told Mark Halperin’s absurdly-titled The Page
“We will continue to monitor the foodfight in New Hampshire between desperate candidates with do-or-die one-state strategies. As opportunities arise, we will be prepared.
Voters will tire of one candidate who opposed the Bush tax cuts attacking another candidate for voting against them. And this is just the beginning between two proven tax-raisers who will gladly point out each other’s dismal records on this issue of importance to New Hampshire voters.
As this goes on, voters will see Rudy is the only leader who has truly been tested in times of crisis and actually cut taxes and reduced real spending.”
Without choosing sides, the McCain campaign has an obvious and powerful rejoinder: when the United States government cuts taxes, the United States government can’t rattle the tin cup and expect, say, Paris or Beijing to make up the difference. (I mean, they sort of can and do, but you get my point.) New York city, in contrast, can and does demand increased transfers from Albany and Washington. Why did Rudy Giuliani endorse Mario Cuomo’s bid for reelection in 1994? Among other things, he sensibly concluded that Cuomo would be more likely to channel state largesse to the city.
Now, there are a lot of thorny issues here. For example, the five boroughs send slightly more to Albany than they get back. Slightly. The five boroughs plus Nassau, Suffolk, and Westchester send quite a bit more to Albany on net. So I certainly don’t object to New York city demanding “its fair share.” That’s to be expected. But all tax cuts and spending cuts, etc., need to be seen in this context. New York city’s fiscal policy doesn’t happen in a vacuum.
All this is to say that the Giuliani campaign is playing with fire: do they really want rival campaigns firing back with a detailed look at Giuliani’s aggressive lobbying for state and federal handouts? Whether or not it is fair to call these transfers “handouts,” how much do you want to be that this kind of attack would get results?
Personally, I think the Richelieu McCain-Giuliani scenario makes a lot of sense.
On the Saturday after the Iowa caucus, Rudy Giuliani drops out of the race and strongly endorses John McCain. McCain surges and wins New Hampshire. A national McCain surge accelerates. McCain campaigns with Rudy at his side, who is obviously the frontrunner now for vice president on a McCain/Giuliani security-and-competence ticket. In 24 hours Rudy goes from doomed to Superman. With McCain likely to only serve one term, Vice President Giuliani enters 2012 as the GOP frontrunner. You can argue a similar scenario for Romney, but the McCain scenario is more plausible. The two are friends, and McCain’s age makes him more likely to serve just one term.
Giuliani expects more from life than serving as a Super-Agnew, but there’s no denying that he’d be good at it.
There’s two problems with this scenario:
1- Could McCain win in the general without a social conservative on his ticket? (Especially against Obama, who is SO going to win the Dem nod?)
(This is the true clincher for me) 2- Could Giuliani, with his enormous ego, not only realize so soon that he’s doomed, but spend so much time campaigning for someone else all for a promise of a VP nod and a chance at the real deal in 2012 (or 2016 if McCain DOES decide to run for two terms)?
— PEG · Dec 30, 12:52 AM · #
I second PEG’s points, especially number 2— I suspect that Giuliani’s ego is just too towering to allow him to play second fiddle. And beyond that, anyway, there’s Mcain. Because of the media’s profound and perplexing love for him, a simple fact gets obscured: he’s a terrible politician. Conservatives hate and distrust him. He has no money, because he is a poor fund raiser. He is a terrible front runner. His tacking hard right since 2000 has not endeared him to conservatives, and has actually made him seem flighty. What’s more, whatever reputation he has for being a maverick or a bridge-builder is irrelevant because of a central fact: he is one of the most hawkish Senators in general, and particularly so on Iraq. Which means that he will not be picking up any liberal or moderate Democrats he may have in 2000.
I think if you look back at 2000 carefully, it seems that Mcain’s run was more a media product than a public upswell of support for him. I just don’t think he’s a viable Presidential candidate.
— Freddie · Dec 30, 03:11 AM · #
Giuliani has a titanic ego, but I suspect he’d accept the VP nomination if it is offered to him. If he didn’t do so, he’d end 2008 as the guy who went from being the front-runner to utterly crushed within a matter of months (this assumes an early primary shut-out for Giuliani), and that would probably mean the end of his political career. A VP run, on the other hand, would make him at worst the likely 2012 GOP nominee or at best one heartbeat away from the Presidency. I bet he’d take that deal, and he’d be a fool not to if it’s offered.
— Mark in Houston · Dec 31, 04:26 AM · #