Bush / Giuliani in 2004?
June 9, 2002 10:20 AM   Subscribe

Bush / Giuliani in 2004? Is this the team the Democrats will have to beat in 2004?Rudy Giuliani is still riding on the wave of popularity from his post 9/11 actions. Apparently he's got his eye on the White House, even if it breaks Dick Cheney's heart.
posted by crunchland (34 comments total)

 
How about Giuliani / Powell 2004? Now that's something I can get behind. If we're lucky, they'll run as independents, thus getting rid of that stupid party thing we have going.
posted by geoff. at 10:31 AM on June 9, 2002


Bah. If anything, the article implies that Rudy the Fundraiser is well suited for the chairmanship of the RNC than a national elected position. It may sound shallow (and indeed it is shallow) but GOP wonks would never install a candidate with an adultery problem on the national ticket. Post-Clinton is a lot stronger then Post-9/11 in the backalley political world.
posted by PrinceValium at 10:33 AM on June 9, 2002


Bush/Condi!
posted by dagny at 10:33 AM on June 9, 2002


Breaks Cheney's heart? Hasn't he sufficient heart problems without Rudy? Why I love America: the 9/11 thing quyickly made the public forget the public nonsense and humiliation that Rudy, his girlfriend, and his wife enganged in. We did not need these silly antics pushed on us by TV and papers. Now he is heroic, and deservedly so.
posted by Postroad at 11:12 AM on June 9, 2002


Breaks Cheney's heart? Hasn't he sufficient heart problems without Rudy?

A little subtlety isn't lost on you, I can see.
posted by crunchland at 11:36 AM on June 9, 2002


thus getting rid of that stupid party thing we have going.

Thanks for the laugh.

What I'm really looking forward to is Bush/Guiliani vs. McCain/Clinton. What a wild ride that would be! It would guarantee me voting third party. Actually, I'd probably vote third party no matter what the outcome.
posted by insomnyuk at 11:52 AM on June 9, 2002


I like Giuliani--and might well vote for him if he were running for president--but I sincerely doubt that his brand of Republicanism would play with the GOP outside of New York (either city or state). NY "Republicans" would be Democrats anywhere else. Come to think of it, the current NYC Republican mayor really is a Democrat.

As for the adultery thing: that's Bad, but in some conservative quarters his willingness to appear in drag and take refuge with gay pals would probably seem Worse.
posted by thomas j wise at 1:43 PM on June 9, 2002


Much as I hate to say it, I think Bush/Giuliani might be unbeatable in 2004. I'd be depressed if I were Daschle or Gore now.
posted by gsteff at 2:14 PM on June 9, 2002


Why do people keep saying defeatist crap like "Bush could be unbeatable in 2004"? Do we forget this guy was barely above 50% approval on September 10th, that he didn't even win the last election? Keep saying stuff like that, and you'll make it true- but I don't actually know anyone from the plurality who voted for Gore in 2000 that is planning on voting for Bush in 2004- are you? Maybe Gore shouldn't run again, but that doesn't mean a quality alternative to Bush won't be there in 2004. There was one in the last election after all, and only some crooks in the Florida swamps prevented him from being declared the true and proper winner.
posted by hincandenza at 4:49 PM on June 9, 2002


People forget that Giuliani had a fairly bad reputation prior to 9-1-1. Running for VP would tarnish his good reputation and would be sure to be an added footnote in history as to why he lost the ticket.
posted by fleener at 4:50 PM on June 9, 2002


hincandenza: Bush tied the dems in 2000 when they had the benefit of an incumbent VP. Now Bush is the incumbent President. A wartime one. . Not only that, but with a first-termer in the White House, the Republicans will be able to avoid bruising intra-party primary squabbles, while by all appearances the Democratic 2004 primary is going to be one for the history books. Then factor in Giuliani's massive popularity. Then factor in the likelihood that by campaign season, the U.S. will have engaged and defeated (or be engaging and defeating) spoke-of-evil Iraq. Then add Giuliani's massive popularity.

Of course there will be a quality alternative to Bush in 2004. That doesn't mean that anyone will vote for him. Bush/Giuliani looks near-unbeatable, I think.
posted by gsteff at 5:26 PM on June 9, 2002


My guess is that it will be a Bush/Ridge ticket in 2004 with a campaign promise of Giuliani to replace Ridge as Director of Homeland Security.

As for whether they would be unbeatable, who knows? A lot can happen between now and then.
posted by homunculus at 5:38 PM on June 9, 2002


McCain/Clinton

Chelsea's not old enough to run yet.

What I really want to see is the Dems frame the campaign as against Bush/Enron. Whitewater was a nine-year old shoplifting baseball cards compared to Enron.
posted by billder at 5:47 PM on June 9, 2002


Bush is the incumbant Republican presidential candidate with Cheney at his side. Fresh off a successful war in the Middle East with oil overtones, his popularity rankings are off the chart. Does he win the next election?

Not in 1992.
posted by billder at 5:56 PM on June 9, 2002


Do we forget this guy was barely above 50% approval on September 10th

57% according to CNN. Hardly "barely above."

that he didn't even win the last election?

Well, in your fantasy world perhaps. If you keep campaigning the 2000 election you'll have no chance to campaign the 2004 election.

I don't actually know anyone from the plurality who voted for Gore in 2000 that is planning on voting for Bush in 2004

And how many people would that be exactly? And what percentage would that number be of the American electorate?
posted by ljromanoff at 7:11 PM on June 9, 2002


Bush will be a strong candidate in 2004, no matter who he's with. But like billder noted, in 1992 being a "wartime president" made little difference in the election. Because if everyone remembers, the Elder Bush botched the Iraq thing by not going in and finishing it off, something that very well may happen to this "war on terrorism."

Ten years ago I remember reading a terrific "genie in a bottle" style column about Bush and his inability to beat Clinton in 1992.

If Bush can't bag bin Laden, he might meet a similar fate.
posted by Happydaz at 7:29 PM on June 9, 2002


There's this strange assumption that people are going to change party lines because of who was in office during a terrorist attack. I don't think those who voted for Gore last time around are going to put on their I HEART NY t-shirts for this election and go GOP. I'm fully expecting the dems to make use of the last election, campaign promises, Bush's ties to Enron, bizzaro Ashcroft, etc. It'll be interesting and the "swing" voters will be completely confused as usual.

Bush is beatable regardless of who he runs with, but the dems are going to have to put up a bigger fight than the last election. If they don't go with Gore probably all the better.
posted by skallas at 8:03 PM on June 9, 2002


Dems frame the campaign as against Bush/Enron.

The Dems are as intertwined with Enron as the Republicans are (which isn't really that much).
posted by Mick at 8:18 PM on June 9, 2002


"that he didn't even win the last election?

Well, in your fantasy world perhaps."


umm... he didn't win it. his brother helped him steal a win. remember?
posted by jcterminal at 8:39 PM on June 9, 2002


but I don't actually know anyone from the plurality who voted for Gore in 2000 that is planning on voting for Bush in 2004- are you?

Your state won't go for Bush anyway, hincandenza. You're asking the wrong people. I know plenty of people who are considering voting for Bush post 9/11. And I'm talking about swing states, in the midwest, like Michigan. And Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Remember all those states that went for Bush last time? He'll get all of them again, and probably a few more.

Chelsea's not old enough to run yet.

Har. McCain is going to switch parties, and I think maybe run with Hillary. It could happen.

I don't really see who the Democrats could possibly have that is charismatic enough to take down Bush (speech faux pas and all). Barring a major catastrophe before election season, I don't think anyone has a chance. Except someone with the media popularity John McCain has. Name for me one well known democrat who would stand a chance... and then realize that with this lovely campaign finance reform everyone was so busy getting off on, Bush and Co. are going to be able to raise twice as much as they have in the past (the maximum per individual donation rate has doubled, to $2000 per person). Boy, it sure was a good thing they passed campaign finance 'reform'.

And yes, Bush the 1st did lose after 4 years, but he was facing one of the few truly brilliant politicians of our time(who was absolutely loved by the media). His son has learned from his mistakes, you can count on that.

umm... he didn't win it. his brother helped him steal a win. remember?

No one remembers that. Any candidate that tries to use that issue is going to fail, unless they are only trying to mobilize the party faithful.
posted by insomnyuk at 9:09 PM on June 9, 2002


skallas: A lot of people arn't devided by 'party lines' but rather vote for people they like. You know, the sane ones.
posted by delmoi at 9:32 PM on June 9, 2002


Once the war in Iraq starts, is anyone really going to want to change presidents mid-battle? That wouldn't make much sense.
posted by chaz at 9:42 PM on June 9, 2002


If bin Laden isn't found by '04, and if the opposing Democrat has the cojones to point this out repeatedly (asking a lot of the Dems, who don't have the bloodlust of the GOP) - Bush will lose.
posted by owillis at 4:34 AM on June 10, 2002


Yeah, I'd like to second the notion that Giuliani's post Sept. reputation won't withstand his pre-Sept. reputation which included publicly cheating on his wife, a messy divorce, promoting immigration (and lumping the paperless immigrants in with the papered), living with a gay man, dressing in drag in public and other likely hot points which may be irrelevant to most New Yorkers but likely will be key to chipping away at his chances among social conservatives elsewhere. In addition, the supposed Giuliani crime miracle will not withstand even cursory examination, not the least because, if Giulani is reponsible for crime dropping in New York City, why did it drop to a similar degree during the same period across the entire country? Then you've got that ugly period post-Sept. when the glory went to his head and he decided it would be nice to forgo the normal political process and stay in power past the end of the term.
posted by Mo Nickels at 4:39 AM on June 10, 2002


I think it's sad, in 2002, that whether or not a man had a messy divorce, lived with another man, or wore a dress as a joke is reason enough not to be a President, whether you're socially conservative midwesterner or not.

Don't get me wrong - I'm no big fan of Giuliani - but when will we ever live down the medieval morals of the god damned Puritans?
posted by crunchland at 5:39 AM on June 10, 2002


First: Everyone is assuming there will be elections in 2004. With the current ongoing attack on the Constitution that may be expecting too much. If there is, we need UN monitors, badly!

Second: Bush tied the dems in 2000 when they had the benefit of an incumbent VP. Now Bush is the incumbent President. A wartime one.

There are two falsehoods in this statement. Bush did not tie, he lost by 540,000 popular votes and got the office by a 5-4 vote. There is no WAR ON. Read the Constitution and US law. It is impossible for us to be at war currently and thus Dubya IS NOT a "wartime President." Get it straight.

Third: I sincerely believe that the right wing is speeding straight into a wall of reality with their "government is the problem" ideology and doing it at a very high rate of speed, especially on the state level (read about TN for a specific example.)

Fourth: Guliana has marginalized himself with his hypocrisy. The best he can hope for is a "political pundit" job at Faux News, where he would be a perfect fit.
posted by nofundy at 6:26 AM on June 10, 2002


umm... he didn't win it. his brother helped him steal a win. remember?

Keep telling yourself that. Maybe eventually you will even believe it.
posted by ljromanoff at 6:35 AM on June 10, 2002


Bush did not tie, he lost by 540,000 popular votes and got the office by a 5-4 vote. There is no WAR ON. Read the Constitution and US law.

If you're basing your argument on the popular vote maybe you should be reading the Constitution.

And by the way, the Supreme Court decision was 7-2. But I guess a bipartisan decision doesn't fit the conspiracy, so better leave that fact out.
posted by ljromanoff at 6:48 AM on June 10, 2002


It's too early to declare a president as "unbeatable" in 2004. The first President Bush was riding a huge wave of popularity in the Gulf War and the likely Democratic challengers were commonly derided as the Seven Dwarves. Did anyone at that time think Clinton would stand a chance?

I don't think the public esteem for Giuliani would make any difference at all in 2004. Nobody makes their decision on the basis of the veep.
posted by rcade at 7:02 AM on June 10, 2002


ljromanoff, 7-2? Bipartisan decision? Why that's spin-tastic! It's not a big issue for me personally but the freelance Ari Fleischer-isms, um, are kind of, you know...
posted by y2karl at 7:43 AM on June 10, 2002


insomnyuk: I don't really see who the Democrats could possibly have that is charismatic enough to take down Bush (speech faux pas and all).

Warren Beatty. Yeah, baby! No, seriously.
posted by mkultra at 7:44 AM on June 10, 2002


John Cusack. He'd beat the stuffing out of Dubya. And have a top 10 list of albums to go along with it.
posted by owillis at 7:54 AM on June 10, 2002


ljromanoff, 7-2? Bipartisan decision?

Karl, what part of the following don't you understand:
U.S. Supreme Court finds Florida court-ordered recount unconstitutional

December 13, 2000
Web posted at: 3:03 a.m. EST (0803 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision late Tuesday, reversed a Florida Supreme Court decision ordering the hand recounts of thousands of votes, a ruling apparently benefiting Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush in the razor-thin election that remains undecided more than a month after Election Day.

"Seven justices of this Court agree that there are constitutional problems with the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court," according to a 7-2 "per curiam," or unsigned, opinion. "The only disagreement is as to the remedy."
posted by ljromanoff at 8:06 AM on June 10, 2002


I think that the personal life thing won't swing. People said the same stuff about Regan in the 70's -- divorced actor from California, and an Irish Catholic to boot (although he converted to Episcopalianism before he ran for President).

Giuliani being twice divorced is nowhere near as scandalous as being once divorced was in the '70s. Of course, he better marry Judith Nathan as soon as his divorce is final -- I don't think anybody could run for national office with their shack-up in tow.

Giuliani being pro-choice, pro-gay rights, and other things quite common to California-and-North East Republicans, could give him more trouble, I think.
posted by MattD at 10:34 AM on June 10, 2002


« Older Sir Mick...  |  Neighbors of nuclear plant nor... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments