is the worst matchup democrats could have.

none of Giuliani's personal skeletons would come into play if he ran against clinton.

What they are looking for is an authoritarian to look like he's taking charge, and the way an authoritarian takes charge is to attack liberals and stomp on people who aren't like them.

precisely so

If by right-wingers you mean the "activist basis" of the Republican party, then I rather suspect you're right. But I don't think the argument applies to the Christian right - the fundies who prefer to stay away from politics unless you give them a pseudo-religious reason to vote. I think what's really happening right now is that Dobson & Co. have taken a look at the annointed candidate, i.e., at McCain, and have said no thanks. So now Giuliani and Romny are benefitting from that. That's going to continue until the leaders of the American Taliban signal to the faithful that they have chosen another standard bearer or that they are going to sit 2008 out.

Boy, I dunno. After all the comments I heard canvassing about how people would vote for a Democrat if they weren't so pro-choice, I can't help but think that maybe they mean it. Though Giuliani's "strict constructionist" talk may mitigate that.

All that a lot of people know about Giuliani is that he's the man who made New York safe for Whitey again. And his cavalier attitude towards civil liberties is a feature, not a bug, with the mean Republican primary voter

If I were running his campaign, I'd make damn sure the median primary voter knew all about Amidou Diallo and Abner Louima.

He's the perfect GOP candidate for the post-Bush era -- one part Benito Mussolini, one part Senator Bilbo.

Christian Right Labors to Find '08 Candidate in the Times.  

I think Matt makes a very important point about right-wingers and the authoritarian style.  As Mayor, Giuliani was as authoritarian as any Mayor could be, especially his cultivation of the everyday authority figure New Yorkers see most, the Police.

However, for an awful lot of GOP caucus & primary vothers the ultimate authority can never be a politician.  God is the great authority figure, GOD!  And for many, Rudy's stand on many issues defy, in GWB's words, "The Higher Father."

"God said it.  We believe it.  That settles it." read the sign on a church near my boyhood home in Glencoe, Missouri.  It is going to be very tough for Rudy to win God's vote.

Matt, do you actually know any people who believe abortion is murder? I don't mean the GOP talking heads who don't care about anything but preserving power for the Republican Party. I mean the rank and file Republican voters.

Sadly, I have met too many people who vote Republican solely on the abortion issue. They "should" be Democrats and they even admit this (for instance, they may be strong environmentalists), but they cannot look past the fact that the Democratic Party, in their eyes, wants to continue allowing the murder of thousands of helpless babies.

Many of these people vote in primaries. And even some of the pro-choice Republicans will be repulsed when they learn more about Giuliani's personal life. He has no chance in hell to get the nomination.

As a comparison I could never vote for an anti abortio Democrat like Bob Casey Jr. for President, and I don't care who he was up against. Giuliani offers the hardest challenge for any Democrat because the MSM will talk up his lieral "credentials". Giuliani vs. Clinton or Obama is bad for both of them. However, you can be guaranteed that a lot of religoius voters won't show up.

I think the assertion that a Giuliani-Hillary campaign would mean his personal skeletons are negated has it backwards. It means the Repubs can't campaign against Hillary's marital issues. The Dems wouldn't run against Rudy's three marriages anyway. There's plenty of other stuff. Besides, people seem to be missing a fundamental point: Rudy's unfavorables are 20 percent at worst right now because he's still living off 9/11. Those will at least double if he manages to get the nomination, because no nominee has negatives under 40 percent, even winning ones. nominees by definition are all "polarizing."

And in most polls, Rudy leads Obama by at least the same margin as he leads Hillary.

Frankly, Rudy has nowhere to go but down.  

Spot-on Matt...

You nailed it. Couldn't agree more. I'd add too that the prospect of Giuliani shaking up the blue/red state divide, watching Democrats scramble, trumps their need to have Giuliani check off box on the Conservative checklist.

And anyone who's seen Giuliani in motion knows he's a political opportunist -- he will give them their conservative wingnut judges, take a blind eye on guns -- as long as it gets him what he wants.

I mean this is a guy who endorsed Mario Cuomo for Governor and now spends his time endorsing religious right loons like Ralph Reed.

The upside is that there are piles of negative stories, video, etc. about Giuliani that could be exploited -- and he would not be inoculated -- even if Hillary is the nominee.

The Q Poll is a skewed poll; this was the same poll that showed lieberman winning the democratic primary.

alas.. lies, damned lies..

I posted this a few days ago. I'll repost, because it's a perfect example of what Matt's talking about:

 My parents are both theocon Republicans. Whenever we get together they ALWAYS try to bait me politically, and last Saturday was no exception. This time I took the opportunity to turn the tables and told them that "at least I know you'll never support Giuliani, given his personal history". I was fishing to see what kinds of mental gymnastics and rationalizations religious wingnuts would come up with to justify voting for Rudy Giuliani. My parents did not disappoint.

"He's admitted he's made mistakes. He's grown in his faith."

"He now admits he was wrong about abortion. He's seen the light."

"He's shown contrition. And anyway, the divorces were his wives' fault."

"He doesn't try to parse his way out of it like Clinton did."

 You get the idea.

 The thought that maybe all this sudden "contrition" might have an ever-so-slight correlation with his decision to run for president registers in their minds not at all.

 I don't think Giuliani would have the slightest problem attracting the theocon vote. These people can rationalize anything. If James Dobson signals that Giuliani is OK, they'll vote for him in droves. Even if Giuliani is caught in bed with an underage male stripper.

 For fundies, religion is a political club to swing, not an expression of faith in a higher power.

Hayzeus, how many times must this be pointed out:  Rudy wants power for its own sake.  As mayor of NYC, he consistently claimed credit for advances made by his predecessor, David Dinkins, including the fact that crime was falling -- not because of anything that Rudy did.  He is a scumbag, a douchebag, a piece of human excrement.  I cannot put it more tactfully than that.  I endured 8 years of him as mayor, and frankly, it was a huge relief when Bloomberg took office.

One other point that you may have missed if you didn't live in NYC after 9/11:  Rudy threatened to stay in office because "the city needed him" even though Bloomie had already been elected.  Luckily for the city he backed down on that threat: but given his autocratic tendencies, he should not be allowed to run for dog-catcher, much less president.

Giuliani and Brownback will be the last two guys standing on the GOP side.

I am no Hillary fan, but I have to say this. If Giuliani is the candidate in 2008 for the Republicans, I'm by far most comfortable with her running. Whoever runs against him will have to run AGAINST him, and she's the only one who'd be able to run and survive in a dirty, brutal, no holds barred campaign.

That said, I think any of our candidates have a good shot at winning in 2008, Giuliani or no.

Gotta say I think Matt is wrong on this one.  While I agree that the christian right leadership will likely support anyone to stay in power, rank and file theocons are different.  There are districts out there where pro-choice candidates literally can't win b/c there are so many single issue abortion voters.  Many of those same voters are ALSO authoritarian in nature, but won't vote for ANY candidate that doesn't check the right boxes on the social issues.

Obviously Republican primary voters don't think like Democrats.  And clearly the GOP is full of voters attracted to authoritarian candidates.  But if Rudy wins the nomination a ton of rank and file voters WILL sit out the election or vote for a third party candidate.  National polls at this point do little more than measure name recognition.  To prove that, all you have to consider is that JOE LIEBERMAN was leading Democratic primary polls at this point in the 2004 cycle.  Rudy's numbers will fall as voters learn more about him.  Ironically, we should hope they don't.  If Roy Moore or some other christian right third party candidate picks up 8% of the vote, whoever we nominate will win.  

I remember how Dems were led into voting for John Kerry "because he can win," without further investigation.

And I watch the current top 3 Democratic candidates, each with only a couple years of experience in political office, none with executive experience, and the bloggers who apparently think that's just fine.  Even as they complain about the incompetents who the Bush administration has been appointing based solely on their "issues" not their experience.

And I wonder how different we are.

    Look. Republicans in the primaries will go with whoever can retain the White House. As long as Guliani is seen as the man for that job, he will coast through the primaries, even if he had been screwing a prostitute a day every years since getting to the mayor's office. Matt Stoller is right. Its about power. Also, Guliani has promised the religious right the supreme court nominees they want. And big business the tax cuts and deregulation. Remember how much they love Reagan. Well, Reagan signed a law allowing divorce in California. He was divorced at least once. He never denied the right to choose explicitly (although he did implicitly, like his nod wing racism), and the right loved him anyways.

Hillary scared Rudy so bad before that he had to run crying he had to drop out of the race cause he had butt cancer.  Bull.  Most men who have prostate trouble go directly on with their lives.  It was an excuse...he didnt wanna lose to a woman.  Welll, now that he thinks he's a hero (oh he does) his ego wants to defeat her so he can live down that disgrace.  But the Clintons got his number, we oughta WISH he's the nominee, he is soooo beatable.  McCain is the one to fear. You betcha - no doubts - oh boy.  Pray for Rudy, really do.

Josh is assuming that both Democrats and Republicans are intellectually alike.

He(and all Democrats) need to read Bob Albermeyer's new book which explains how the Republicans (who are also Right-wing Authoritarians) differ from Democrats.

Albermeyer is posting his new book online, one chapter at a time. He has six chapters up and the 7th (and last) is due tomorrow. I found this when Digby recommended it after reading the first three chapters, and it is superb. Social Science identifies the Right-wing Authoritarians and the Social Dominators, then shows how they work with each other to create the Authoritarians. They are NOT LIKE DEMOCRATS!

Go read The Authoritarians. The book is outstanding as well as being an easy read.

Then you will understand what we are up against. Josh needs to read it, also.

Forgive me for posting this twice but I probably put it in the wrong diary.

POLL: Rasmussen Giuliani Survey February 23, 2007

A new Rasmussen Reports automated survey of 800 likely voters (conducted 2/21 through 2/22) finds:

    * Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani (at 52%) leads Sen. Hillary Clinton (43%) in a nationwide general election match-up.

    * A similar general election match-up pitting Giuliani (at 46%) against former Sen. John Edwards (44%) shows a statistical dead heat.

I certainly found this result surprising.  Maybe the independents just aren't ready for a black or woman as president?  The difference is significant.

I watched Rudy's career in NYC over the years and we are missing the whole point with the social conservative agenda, as Matt said.  This guy is as tough as nails.  As Federal Prosecutor he took on the Mafia in NYC and beat the crap out of them and lived.  That was serious turf war and while it is true in some ways the Mafia's time had come Guiliani made it happen.  He shook them like a puppy.

And as mayor he didn't make a lot of friends but he had them all standing to attention.  He scares the crap out of people and he is a take-no-prisoners type.  Three strikes and your out and this guy is throwing fast-balls.  He may not be able to get elected mayor again there but he left an indelible impression.  And NYC has a bigger population than half of the states, so he kinda' has the governor thing going on executive experience without having had to deal with a legislature.  Like a baron and fiefs.

I think the Republicans love that kind of stuff.  Social issues may pale compared to the desire for leadership among Republicans and Rudy can do that, no worries.  His career is paved with those who stood in his way, and if he can't get through he goes around.  If he can rally the GOP on the leadership issue he will be difficult to beat.  And unfortunately hitting him head-on is costly, and he loves it, the best way to deal with Rudy's brand of political machismo is to outmanoeuvre him and get him off balance.  He gets respect, ya' know, in the Rocky tradition.  And comes across as a real straight-shooter.

Having said that he probably has never seen a tractor or a sucker-rod pump in his life before this campaign so the rural heartland is going to have to get used to him.  But I think they will get over it once he gets warmed up.

Unlike the Christian fanatics, these guys dont seem to be in a mood to give second chances even if they sucked up to after a "thought" crime has been committed against their interests?

If they treated Jim Zumbo for writing a fairly harmless article questioning assault rifles for hunting like someone who needs to disappear from the face of the earth despite an apology from him later on, what are they going to do with Guiliani? If I am a democratic party bigwig, I would look into funding a third party pro guns rights guy to take away votes from Guiliani in a General Election.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17307316/?GT 1=9033

If you frame the argument well, you can make out a case how Guiliani , despite his "examplary leadership"(i personally thought he got too much credit for that, but good luck convincing people of the opposite in the next year) during the 9-11 incident, he hasn't had a clue on how to battle the war on terror. He has actually been more embarassing than McCain when it comes to holding Bush accountable on the Iraq war. The guy is so dense he is still in denial.

The guy also made some embarassing fan boy comments on how a leader should look and said how he got teary eyed when he saw Bush lead the war on terror with some media appearance. At that point, whatever respect I had left for Guiliani(and it was not much after his wretched attitude towards police brutality), I lost it.

I'll understand if this thread is dead....but in case Matt comes back...

...it's not any type of leadership it's the type of leadership. You can say well Republicans love an authoritarian figure...but that's not really true.

What Republicans want is a strong leader to keep the streets clear and the markets open...to protect them FROM something and allow them to believe that this enables them to be otherwise independent and free of the state. That's why Giuliani has strong support so far: as the hero of 9-11-01 he appears "strong" on national defense...etc....and has personal gravitas. He can win the nomination if he is seen as not the MOST SOCIALLY LIBERAL choice...regardless of what the truth is.

Giuliani CAN win the nomination but I am not sold on it.

The Republican nominee will meet with all of the consituencies and promise them whatever is necessary to gain their support.  It won't matter what the candidates said or believed beforehand, just as George H.W.Bush was able to change from pro-choice to pro-life in the few short months between when he was defeated in the 1980 Repub primaries and chosen as (pro-life) Reagan's VP.  

People snickered at the amazingly rapid and complete change of heart, but in the end they accepted him as pro-life and he returned the favor by appointing Clarence Thomas to the US Supreme Court.

The problem with Giuliani is not that he believes things that they don't, for that can be changed by him from one moment to the next, with sufficient motivation.  

The problem with Giuliani is that he blinked when he went up against Hillary in 2000 (he was going to run but ducked out) and he might well blink again in 2008.  (Authoritarian men don't like to be beaten by mild-mannered women.)

I disagree a bit, Matt.

I do believe issues matter to conservatives, but they also seek an authoritarian father-figure at the same time.

At this point, in a post-9/11 world, they are willing to let up on their stringent social issues in order to feel safe. It could be, however, a conjunction of post-2006 defeatism coupled with the need to appear not racist, bigoted or homophobic to win the White House in 2008.

Conservatives believe Giuliani is tough on security. But belief is not synonymous with fact. Truth is, Giuliani is not tough on security. He made a serious security blunder by putting the emergency command center in WTC 7. His "leadership" on 9/11 has nothing to do with stopping terrorists. He earned that moniker after the towers fell. He didn't do anything to stop terrorism.