Rudy in 2008? Are they nuts?

In terms of his political positions, Rudy Giuliani should be my favorite candidate for the Republican nomination in 2008 (wait, we're starting the 2008 campaign already?...that's a topic for another day). Yet he irks me to no end, and I believe he will go on to irk many more people. Here's why:

Amoung likely Republican primary voters, he has been polling higher than former shoo-in John McCain or Mitt Romney 4.0 (earlier versions sold only in Massachusetts). In the latest issue of Newsweek, Rudy's stern face graces the entire front cover. He has been given the title "America's Mayor" (which he occasionally shares with current NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg, although I'm sure he does so begrudgingly), and it has been said that during the three days after 9/11, when the White House was still in shock, Giuliani was virtually our President (without the powers vested by that office, thankfully). He managed the crisis in New York beautifully in the immediate aftermath, and earned the image of a protector and a strong leader.

But that one point is really all he has going for him. (Yes, he reduced welfare rolls, and he reduced crime in New York, but I'm sure he did some back alley deals with mob bosses to pull some of ir off) Pages could be written about what he has going against him. Here are a couple of highlights:

- he's pro-choice
- he's pro-gay marriage (in fact, he lived with a gay couple for a while after a messy divorce, and yes, this was while he was mayor...by the way...)
- he's had two divorces
- he's pro-gun control
- photo's of him dressed as a female have been published (in that very same newsweek article)

Now tell me that members of today's Republican Party would vote for someone with that record. Primary voters are notoriously more extreme than the general constituents of their party, and with the religious right and evangelicals at such heights of power in the party, I can't imagine Republicans nominating Giuliani for President. On top of that, New York City got sick of Giuliani after several scandals, and they were looking forward to electing a successor by mid-2001. Of course, Giuliani tried to give his term in office a several month extension under "emergency circumstances" and tried to alter the New York City Constitution to allow him to run for another turn. That will not be good press later this year, when the campaigns are in full swing and the mud is flying.

Also, HELLO, he's only been the mayor of a city. Sure, its a city of 8 million people, and he made the city prettier and happier, but mayor of 8 million to president of 300 million is a pretty big step in my mind. Even the governor of Wyoming, who represents a population of around 500,000, is the head of a government with is very likely more similar to the national government than any city's system (even if it is New York).

Now, almost every conflict has had its hero presidents. Washington for the Revolutionary War; Jackson for the War of 1812; W.H. Harrison with his "Tippecanoe and Tyler too" slogan; Zachary Taylor from the Mexican-American War; Grant, Hayes, Arthur, Benjamin Harrison and McKinley all served in the civil war with at least the rank of Colonel; Teddy Roosevelt gained fame in the Spanish-American War; Eisenhower was catapulted to popularity by World War II; and even Colin Powell may have been president thanks to the Gulf War I. Will Rudy be the War on Terror's president?

I sure hope not. But it's pretty much all he has going for him. His campaign has already started to focus on the dangers we face, trying to use the same method Dick Cheney made so successful: scare people into voting for you by assuring them you're the only one who can protect them. Only this time, people don't have to hear it through Cheney's scowl, which is dangerous enough on its own.

But before I close, Rudy's got one other thing going for him, and this is probably the scariest thing of all: people think he can win. If he entire Republican electorate chooses him over other candidates who better reflect their ideals, it shows the degradation of politics to a mere power struggle. I wouldn't vote for Joe Lieberman simply because he can win Republican votes; I vote based on my ideals, opinions, and who I think would be best for the nation. If I just vote for who I think can win because I want my party to be the sole body in power, I'm betraying my fellow citizens and myself.

Newsweek pulled several sentences out of the article to put in bold along the bottom (for those skimmersout there). One in particular caught my eye: "Rudy excels when presented with a crisis; left to his own devices, he creates crises for himself." What if his "own devices" are those of the office of President of the United States?

Thank you for reading.