The nastiest candidate

Updated below, Wednesday morning.

For God knows what reason, the Washington Journalistic Elite has apparently decided that they want Rudy Giuliani to be the next President, despite the fact that he is by any objective measure the most despicable human being in the race and quite possibly the nastiest human being to run for President in my lifetime.

Next to Rudy, Nixon starts to look good.

Nixon loved his family.  Nixon was loyal to his friends.  Nixon bowled.

Make Rudy President and let him let his band of failure-crazed neo-con advisers get their hands on the wheels of our foreign policy and we might all start to think less harshly of Nixon's little Southeast Asian problems and South American misadventures.

Putting aside the question of why they think he ought to be President for a moment, I have to wonder why the Insiders think he can be President.

These people work in television, for crying out loud.   I know we're not supposed to pick a President based on image, but we do, we have always done so---George Washington would not have been our first President if he'd been short and had all his teeth and been able to smile like Jimmy Carter; Carter wouldn't have been our 39th President if he'd had a smile like George Washington's---and since Presidential campaigns have been conducted on TV image has come to matter even more.

And Rudy Giuliani does not play well on television.

He may look fine to Republican audiences watching their guys debate, but love is blind.  Maybe Dennis Kucinich looks like Cary Grant to his supporters.

Come the general election though, when Rudy starts appearing on TV screens all across America, when he stands on the stage at the debates next to Hillary Clinton---note to Progressives.  It's going to be Hillary, folks.  I'm sorry.  That's the way it's going.  Start getting your heads around it.---people are going to look at his long, narrow head, that high bony bald dome, the sunken eyes, the livid skin, and that toothy rictus of a grin and they're going to say, "Whoa!  Who let Death in the room?"

He will frighten the children.

Pundits like to natter about the Daddy Party and how we Americans are supposed love our tough father figure Presidents, but like most everything else they natter on about, they only half-grasp the point.

We don't elect tough fathers.  We elect Dads.

Dads are tough but comforting figures.

Carter, Reagan, Clinton---warm and fuzzy men, the three of them.  Carter became unpopular when he stopped being warm and fuzzy and turned into a scold, when he stopped coming across as a dad and started coming across as the kind of schoolteacher who feels morally compelled to pile on the homework.

The first George Bush was not all that warm and fuzzy, but his first time out he ran against what looked and sounded for all the world like a robot the Democrats had built in a basement laboratory by inadequate light and with a page of the instruction manual missing.  Second time out he got beaten by a teddy bear.

And the second George Bush was sold to us as the warm and fuzzy regular guy dad as opposed to the cold, aloof, condescending, know-it-all elitist technocrat, Al Gore.

We like our Presidents to be both comforting and tough.  We don't like them to be nasty and cadaverous.

In an ideal world, I suppose, how he looks on TV shouldn't count against him.  But in our world it will.  (And don't forget, by the time fall of 2008 rolls around, a lot of people are going to get their first good look at Rudy on HDTV.)  It will, and I'm amazed that professionals, people whose paychecks depend on how they look on TV, haven't noticed that Giuliani's image could be easily confused with the picture on an iodine bottle and aren't hedging their bets accordingly.

I guess I don't want them talking about how Rudy can go trick or treating without bothering with a costume.  Far more important, is their near unanimous certainty that Rudy is just what the doctor ordered for the nation.

All I can figure is that they are blind to his actual image as perfect casting for the role of a Dickensian undertaker because they are blinded by his other image, the one they created for him and the one he exploits every chance he gets, as the "hero" of 9/11.

It's stunning how it's possible to have been a hero of 9/11 without having rushed into a burning and collapsing building or wrestled with terrorists for control of an airplane.  Rudy's not the only one to do it.  He's just the only one who did it by holding press conferences.

If we had a smarter and braver National Press Corps, Rudy Giuliani's apotheosis as America's Mayor never would have happened because reporters and analysts would have focused on the fact that the only reason the mayor of New York City was on our TV screens so continually that day was that he had no competition from the one man who could have and should have upstaged him.

The President of the United States.

Who was hiding underground in Nebraska.

Giuliani was trapped where he shouldn't have been trapped because he'd foolishly ordered his crisis command center to be placed in a building that every expert had warned him was a target, but fortunately for him---and to a great degree us, because we needed somebody to tell us what the hell was going on--- there were microphones and cameras trapped in the room with him.

He rose to the occasion, but it hardly qualifies him to be thought a hero, let alone be elected President.

There is his reputation as the mayor who cleaned up New York City, but that rep is based on a record that's been overblown where it has not been outright fabricated and it includes, among other examples of his nastiness, his abuse of office to further his nasty sex life and the beginnings of his corrupt relationship with the even nastier Bernie Kerik.

Don't worry, though, the Insiders in the Beltway Media will get around to investigating and reporting on his record.

But there's a time and a place.

After he's nominated.

The gang at Tim Russert's clubhouse promises.

When they can bring it up in order to sweep it under the rug once and for all and get back to gushing about what a tough guy he is.

Fun with words update:  Bill Nothstine liked my use of the word "rictus" to describe Rudy Giulian's smile and, while not usually a fan of Latinsims, was inspired to look into its etymology and fine other examples of famous rictuses in this post.

At Interesting Times, Chris Andersen thinks I may be onto something with the notion that we like to elect Dad as our President, but wonders if we're ready to vote for Mom.

And, from September, Matt Duss writing for the American Prospect on Giuliani's War Cabinet.

Comments

[The Barefoot Bum]

I think you're missing the point. Giuliani is not unsuitable for the nomination because of his image. Image is not inherent: it's created. Will the Republican party have sole control over the creation of Giuliani's image as they did over GWB's image? If so, he'll beat Clinton handily, his personal attributes notwithstanding.

[Mike Schilling]

the most despicable human being in the race

Presidential or human?

[merciless]

bbum, I disagree that the msm is that magical. If Clinton is smart (and she's no dummy) she'll simply show clips of him with his first, second, and third wives, his pedophile priest friend, his indicted chief of police, and post his bon mots online. Heck, she could do commercials standing next to the firefighters and cops.

Oh, and she'll show lots of pictures of him. Lance is right; he looks like Snidely Whiplash without the mustache.

But right now it looks like we may not have this problem. Romney is ahead of him in both Iowa and New Hampshire, and the Super Tuesday strategy doesn't work. The msm won't be able to help themselves; it'll be all horserace all the time from the first block of elections to the second. If Huckabee, for instance, wins or finishes a strong second, it'll be a cinderella story, an underdog, and that's simply irresistible.

But lotsa time between now and then. We'll see.

[merciless]

bbum, I disagree that the msm is that magical. If Clinton is smart (and she's no dummy) she'll simply show clips of him with his first, second, and third wives, his pedophile priest friend, his indicted chief of police, and post his bon mots online. Heck, she could do commercials standing next to the firefighters and cops.

Oh, and she'll show lots of pictures of him. Lance is right; he looks like Snidely Whiplash without the mustache.

But right now it looks like we may not have this problem. Romney is ahead of him in both Iowa and New Hampshire, and the Super Tuesday strategy doesn't work. The msm won't be able to help themselves; it'll be all horserace all the time from the first block of elections to the second. If Huckabee, for instance, wins or finishes a strong second, it'll be a cinderella story, an underdog, and that's simply irresistible.

But lotsa time between now and then. We'll see.

[Apostate]

The MSM is not magical, but it's damned effective. They killed Gore and they're killing Hillary -- she's "shrill," doesn't tip, she isn't "genuine," she has bad legs, she's harsh, she schemes (!), she isn't feminine enough, etc., etc. It doesn't really matter what she does to Giuliani -- what matters is that the MSM will not help her.

I don't think Lance is missing the point: He is pointing out, not that image can't be created, but his own surprise at the fact that the media even wants to try to "image-build" such an unsavory character. I certainly hope the media is wasting its time, because so often, the reality they create is the reality people end up seeing and voting for.

[Vir Modestus]

For God knows what reason, the Washington Journalistic Elite has apparently decided that they want Hillary Clinton to be the next President nominee

There. Fixed that for ya. I don't know why it is that you can understand that the Washington Journalistic Elite have chose BOTH Rudy and Hillary. We've been handed these people as if their candidacies are inevitable, and they are not. You repeating the mantra doesn't help. There have been no primaries and if we don't push back on the "established wisdom" of the same idiots who brought us the Iraq war, then we will always get the same.

The MSM want Rudy because they are scared little children who want the tough Authoritarian to come in and tell them what to do (even if all the Authoritarians they have listened to for the last 5 years have been wrong wrong wrong every time without exception). They want Hillary because they think the tough Authoritarian can beat the "bitch." What we NEED is something else entirely and we need to start making some noise. We have a large field of progressive candidates, including Hillary, who will be a better president than anyone on the right. Start working for your favorite and DON'T sit back and complain about the inevitability of it all 11 MONTHS before the election!

[Lance]

Vir Modestus: We have a large field of progressive candidates, including Hillary, who will be a better president than anyone on the right. Start working for your favorite and DON'T sit back and complain about the inevitability of it all 11 MONTHS before the election!

Vir, who says I'm complaining?

Actually, I meant my aside about Hillary more in the spirit of offering to take bets rather than a prediction. I'm willing to bet the Red Sox will win their division next season too. Doesn't mean I think either is "inevitable." Lots can happen. But my willingness to put money on Hillary is NOT based on what the Beltway Insiders say. It's based on the way the campaigns have been trending, though I saw a report today that Obama's leading in Iowa by four points.

Anyway, my candidate is whoever the Democrats nominate.

[Lance]

Oh, and btw, I don't think Rudy's inevitable either. I think he's much less evitable than Hillary and I'm offering odds on Romney.

[Chris Andersen]

I think you are on to something with the "We elect Dads" point. Which brings up the inevitable question about Hillary: Is America ready to elect Mom?

[Chris the Cop]

I just don't get the whole 'Giuliani is evil' thing. His record esp. with respect to crime control is on balance extremely positive, and Bloomberg has had enough sense to continue his policies and even build on them. A 2/3 reduction in the number of homicides translated to about 1400-1500 fewer bodies a year. And as Lance says, he did rise to the occasion on 9-11. That said, HE...IS...NOT ELECTABLE. Tough Father, loving dad, whatever, he can't be elected president of the US. Conservatives will split on him, blacks hate him and it will be easy (and not inaccurate) to portray him as a Northeastern liberal. And image being all or not, his personal life is absolutely hysterical: sneaking around with his now third wife on his second? His current wife "forgot" one of her mariages? You can't make this stuff up.

And if I were the Democrtic party (and I an a registered Democrat still), I would do everything in my power to get him nominated.

As for Hilary being the inevitable nominee, let me just say that absolutely no one has voted yet. Howard Dean was going to be The Man until those pesky voters said different. Now,
Hilary's base is obviously greater than his was, but you never know what the American public will do.

One more thing - please, the media did not sell us a warm and fuzzy George Bush over a cold aloof Al Gore. That's just silly. The only reason and I mean the only reason Al Gore lost in 2000 was because of Ralph Nader. Nader doesn't run - we don't have all of these conversations about stolen elections.

[Muataman]

"but you never know what the American public will do."

The American public will do what the media tell them to do.

"The only reason and I mean the only reason Al Gore lost in 2000 was because of Ralph Nader."

Except that a lot of morons voted for Nader because they believed it when the media told them what a jerk and a liar Gore was.

[The Barefoot Bum]

I don't think the MSM is "magical"; the efficacy of advertising, public relations and the ability of the media in general to shape public opinion is scientifically proven. They cannot, of course, make anyone president, but the constraints on their abilities still leave them a lot of latitude.

If there's uncertainty in whether Romney or Giuliani will be the nominee, then it's because those who control the content of the MSM have not decided which will best serve their interests by opposing Clinton in the general election.

I will boldly predict that the Democratic nominee (probably Clinton, but I'm not sure the MSM has given up completely on Obama) will win the general election. If I were an evil genius working for the Republican party, I would employ political ju jitsu and throw the general election. Or, if the Republican party were truly as incompetent and anti-reality-based as they appear, they're not going to win, even against a Republican-lite Clinton. In either case, the Democrat party will be blamed for the aftermath and consequences of the Iraq war.

This election is a clear throw-away. A Democrat will win, and none of the realistic Democratic candidates have the requisite competence or political capital to end the war in Iraq, much less manage it "competently" (which would entail Soviet-style repression). This campaign is about putting a weakened Democrat in office to take the fall for Iraq. Giuliani is perfect for the role of opponent. He's unelectable, he's expendable, and he'll say anything at all about Clinton.

Look to 2012. We'll see a warm and fuzzy Republican presidential candidate with a Darth Vader VP. If the Republicans are really smart, they'll pick a squeaky-clean evangelical mega-church 2nd-tier leader as VP, who will do the First Amendment what Cheney and Gonzales have done to the Fifth and Sixth.

Be afraid, my friends, be very afraid.

[The Barefoot Bum]

Also: The idea that Gore lost because of any single factor is dumb. Assigning the blame to Nader is doubly dumb: there's always a Nader (a.k.a. Perot, etc.). Gore should have won in a landslide; the MSM and the Republican party threw everything they had at him, and all of it together was just enough to put Bush in the White house.

[Vir Modestus]

Lance, I'll support whatever Dem candidate is put forward as well. But the "inevitability" is playing out in all sorts of ways in the MSM, including proclaiming Hillary as THE candidate and someone with whom I agree on so many more issues, Kucinich as a "joke" candidate. I think it is such a shame that the horse race element of this stage of the campaigns is more important than what they candidates are actually saying. I've heard on Progressive talk radio otherwise-liberal voters saying that they would vote for Ron Paul since he's the "only candidate who will stop the war." They've so bought into the story that Kucinich is a "joke" that they discount him immediately. I can only hope that once these folks pay attention to Paul's other policies that they, too, will support whomever is nominated as the Democratic nominee.

[Lance]

Chris, I've called Rudy nasty and despicable, but I don't think I've ever said he was evil. Give me time though.

Barefoot,

The War on Gore hurt, and Nader didn't help, although he wouldn't have mattered at all if the ballots in Palm Beach County hadn't been screwed up. But I'm on record somewher in my archives as arguing that what really did Gore in was his choosing Lieberman as his running mate and refusing to let Bill Clinton come out and stump for him. It was as if Gore was telling the whole country, "These last few years of peace and prosperity? I'm against them. And by the way I think they should have impeached the son of a bitch too."

Which, Vir, to pick up on what I was saying about my betting on Hillary having nothing to do with what the natterers in DC are nattering, I think over here on our side of the bandwidth we give the Media Insiders too much credit. The candidates themselves have an awful lot to do with how their campaigns go. Gore made a couple of big goofs in 2000 that cost him more than the "I invented the Internet" lies. And Kerry ran a two state campaign in 2004, betting everything on Ohio and Florida, neither of which he'd have needed if he could have picked up Nevada and New Mexico.

[Lance]

One more thing, a Democratic President can only be as liberal as Congress lets him or her be and will only be as conservative as Congress forces him or her to be. Winning the Presidency is important, but so is increasing the Democratic majorities in the House and Senate.

As Atrios says, more and better Democrats!

[Chris the Cop]

Muataman: "The American people will do what the media tell them to do."

There are so many ways I disagree with that I wouldn't know where to begin. The shortest would be to argue that the country is just about evenly divided between left and right.(I'm a big believer in the 45-45-10 theory) How can the media control a populace so conflicted? (Although I do believe that people who voted for Nader were if not morons, did have a few screws loose in a fight-the-windmill sort of way.)

Barefoot - No, there isn't always a Nader,(i.e., a viable third party candidate) and often when there is, he doesn't make a difference. (Like Nader in 2004).

Theer was no significant third party candidate in 72, 76, 84 and 88. There was Wallace in 68 and he cost Hunphrey the election. There was Perot in 92 and he cost Bush the election. There was John Anderson in 80 and he had no impact and there was Perot again in 96 and although it would have been closer, Clinton still would have won without in him in the race.

Doubly dumb?: let's review. Gore won the popular vote nationwide by 600,000 votes. If he had won Florida, he'd have been president. The final tally (accurate or otherwise) showed him losing Florida by 537 votes. Nader polled 98,000 in Florida alone. The election was that close and Nader made the difference.

Lance: in terms of political discourse/rhetoric, I don't see a whole lot of difference between "despicable" and "evil," but okay, I don't get the whole Giuliani is despicable thing, either. That said, the whole thing with Kerik is extremely troubling for Rudy supporters. It looks like Kerik set a goal to violate as many laws and ethical standards as he could and was rewarded by being nominated to be head of homeland security. If Rudy can't spot this kind of illegailty on the part of his senior people as mayor of one city, what would slip by him as president of 50 states. Giulani's whole schtick is largely based on perceived competence and leadership, and it failed him here.

[burritoboy]

"His record esp. with respect to crime control is on balance extremely positive"

No, Bill Bratton and Jack Maple's record on crime control is extremely positive. Ghoolie booted Bratton out when Bratton took up some of the media spotlight that the Ghoolie demanded was his all his! and no one else's. Then Ghoolie put in his mobbed-up driver Kerik instead. And Kerik is buddy buddy with the Gambino family underboss (yeah, like the Ghoolie doesn't know who Gotti's old pals were. I gotta dis bridge to sell you.....)

[Chris the Cop]

Burrito,I like that Ghoolie handle...

The mayor sets the agenda (or in the case of the NYPD under Rudy, unleashes the hounds) and Bratton and Maple ran with it. And just to show how complicatd life is, no less an authority than the NY Times has previously (pre-indictment)applauded Kerik's tenure as NY police commissioner. Training cops in Iraq, on the other hand...

[Apostate]

If we really want to blame Gore for losing the presidency -- and I actually do, in the final analysis -- let's blame it on him being so ready at the end to give up. If he'd pushed for a recount and opposed Bush's petition to the Supreme Court (which wasn't valid), there is reason to believe he would've won. He wimped out in the face of the Republican thugs sent in to halt the recount. America, as a result, is worse off.

Heh, I found a way to blame the Democrats for the mess we're in because of the Republicans.

[The Barefoot Bum]

Gore won the popular vote nationwide by 600,000 votes. If he had won Florida, he'd have been president. The final tally (accurate or otherwise) showed him losing Florida by 537 votes. Nader polled 98,000 in Florida alone. The election was that close and Nader made the difference.

The point is that all the other factors made it that close, when it should have been a landslide. You might as well "blame" Buchanan. Your statement, "The only reason and I mean the only reason Al Gore lost in 2000 was because of Ralph Nader," [emphasis added] is excessively reductionist and trivially false.

I think it's dumb to blame anyone, left or right, just for running for President. The idea that Nader had any sort of moral obligation to support your candidate is preposterous. He ran for his own reasons, which he has as much right to do as any American. Nader certainly affected the election, but there's no reason to single him out for blame. And here are good reasons not to single him out: just running for president is not directly ethically objectionable as were other factors, e.g. the faux "riots" perpetrated by Republican apparatchiks, the lies of Dowd and others in the national press, not to mention the ridiculous Supreme Court decision.

Also, please try to read charitably. I understand that one should expect full academic unambiguity in blog comments, and I apologize for not speaking with absolute precision, but it's absurd to assign a patently false interpretation to an offhand comment such as, "There's always a Nader," and think you've scored some sort of intellectual point.

[The Barefoot Bum]

[L]et's blame it on [Gore] being so ready at the end to give up.

Excellent point. I knew I married you for a reason!

[Chris the Cop]

Barefoot - All I can say is that you and I are working from different assumptions and we'll have to agree to disagree.