Rudy Giuliani replacing John Bolton as U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.?? That’s the idea that James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal floated.? Obviously, there are some problems with this: the first and most glaring of which is, namely, that Rudy is obviously running for President in 2008, meaning that even if he did get picked, he would be in his post for a very short amount of time before he dropped out to pursue the Oval Office in full force.? However, Giuliani could sure use some more foreign policy credentials, which is commonly cited as one of his most worrisome weaknesses as a national political candidate.? Giuliani was “in” the Iraq Study Group (which released their recommendations today) up until about a couple of weeks ago, when he decided to drop out.? Unfortunately, he never attended a single meeting and some members didn’t even know Rudy was in the group at all.
While the idea of Rudy replacing Bolton is probably more novelty than anything, it does present an interesting question: What credentials is Giuliani going to point to to convince foreign policy-minded Republicans to nominate him?? His speeches and remarks seem to evidence a genuine understanding of many foreign policy situations and the War on Terror, but that in itself may not be enough to convince WoT conservatives who are still currently sitting on the fence in regards to 2008.? Being the mayor of the most diverse town in America and the city that hosts the United Nations and, as such, having dealt often with foreign dignitaries (including his confrontation with Yasser Arafat in 1995, much to the delight of many), offers him some claim to the foreign policy mantle, as does his extensive international traveling he has done as a businessman/consultant/speaker post-mayoralty.
Perhaps there will be another committee or think group for Giuliani to join since he sort of skipped out on the ISG, but somehow, Giuliani doesn’t strike me as a “committee” guy who likes to sit around pouring over charts and data.? He’s too much of a take-charge guy who would rather go get involved in the situations personally, which is why the UN Ambassador position sounds so suitable, were it not for the time limits presented by 2008.? Giuliani’s best bet might be to establish himself as a foreign policy expert by simply taking the lead of fellow presidential candidate Sam Brownback, who, despite being a backwater Senator, has made a name for himself by going to some of the most troublesome areas in the world (like Darfur) to learn personally about international situations.? Being seen on the television going from country to country, meeting with international leaders, and talking to diplomats, Rudy might just be able to carve out a niche for himself in the global affairs sector.
It also might behoove Rudy to cozy up to potential running mate candidates with strong foreign policy experience.? Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice immediately comes to mind–a Giuliani-Rice ticket offers immense electoral power.? Rice’s proven administrative capabilities would help create a very competent, professional, wise looking ticket to attract independents, and honestly a Giuliani-Rice ticket would help make females and minorities feel more included in the political process.
Another possible Veep that Giuliani might want to publicly look into is Minnesota Sen. Norm Coleman, who is currently on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.? Plus, Coleman’s not a career legislator–he was formerly the Mayor of St. Paul and a candidate for Governor.? Not only would a Giuliani-Coleman ticket claim two mayors on the same ticket, it would also claim two people who progressed from liberal Democrats to conservative Republicans as their education and personal searches coalesced, and sends a powerful message to liberals and swing voters.
A couple of other good popular running mates might be found in Sen. John Sununu of New Hampshire, or Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, both of whom are also members of the Foreign Relations Committee.
However, Rudy might not need to try too hard to be a big foreign policy wonk.? The other major candidates seem to be equally lacking in international affairs knowledge: John McCain doesn’t have much concrete foreign policy experience, despite being a Vietnamese POW.? Frankly, with great respect for McCain and his service to our country, being stuck in a closed cell on foreign soil doesn’t really count as “foreign policy experience”.? He was on a select committee on POW and MIA issues in the 90′s, but made a lot of blunders in that position that may come back to haunt him such as reportedly “yelling” at family members of MIA’s and being overly friendly with some Vietnamese former POW-torturers, which means he might actually want to try to sweep that stint under the rug.? Mitt Romney, likewise, doesn’t have anything grand with which to lay claim to the foreign policy mantle.? He chaired the 2002 Winter Olympics, which gave him some experience, but that hardly prepares one completely to be the leader of the free world in possibly the most internationalized era our globe has ever gone through.? The main exception may be Newt Gingrich–Newt probably has the most foreign policy experience of any upper tier candidate from his tenure as Speaker of the House and his service on countless boards, committees, and think-tanks analyzing global issues, however, many other factors look likely to clog his candidacy.
It might just be that Rudy won’t have to even try to really prove himself over any of the other major Republican candidates, because of the rest of the field’s lack in this area as well, but one thing’s for sure: he’ll have to get something more under his belt for the general election.
Update: Thanks to reader, Steve, who pointed out Newt Gingrich’s long list of qualifications in regards to foreign policy experience and knowledge.? I severely understated former Speaker Gingrich’s international affairs creds in the original version of this post and sincerely?apologize.
December 6th, 2006 at 6:10 pm
I’d say McCain and Newt are the most knowledgeable on foreign policy affairs (McCain by virtue of his chairmanship of the foreign relations committe and clear interest in international affairs), while Gingrich has offered a hawkish and fairly prescient critique of the situation in Iraq.
Rudy probably won’t be able to match their resume, but his handling of the 9/11 gives him a unique claim to leadership. Foreign policy experience matters, but the main reason it matters is that we need some sort of clue as to how the candidate will handle a crisis. Eisenhower had no foreign policy experience (strictly defined), but despite that fact the American people elected him in a landslide, partly for the purpose of extricating the US out of an unpopular war (Korea).
While Rudy’s leadership during 9/11 probably pales in comparison to Ike’s during WWII, it was far and away a more substantive window into his abilities as a national leader than we have seen of any President since. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if, in a foreign policy debate, McCain and Gingrich will be able to dance circles around him on policy and experience, but Rudy could very well win the debate anyway.
December 6th, 2006 at 6:14 pm
Sean,
When did McCain serve as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee?
December 6th, 2006 at 6:24 pm
Sorry, its the Counsel on Foreign Relations, a think-tank McCain has been a part of since 1997, not the Foreign Relations Committee. McCain was on the Armed Services Committee, however. All and all, I still think its the best foreign policy resume of any candidate in the Republican or Democratic field.
December 6th, 2006 at 6:44 pm
When it comes to foreign affairs, I think all of the big three have fairly equivalent resumes. None of them have exactly stellar creditials in that area.
Romney has been involved in a number of international businesses, ran the 2002 olympics, lived for 2.5 years in France (you can’t get more foreign than that!), and has been Governor of an important state with plenty of international ties for the last four years. Plus he has served on at least one committee dealing with National Security issues.
Rudy was Mayor of New York. That is perhaps the most cosmopolitian city we have. It is the home of the United Nations. It is second only to Washington as the city with the most diplomats. He had to clean up after 9/11.
McCain has the background you named. Lots of talking with little actual action, unfortunately. But at least he was thinking about it.
None of them have any real State Department creds, done Intelligence, or served as special envoys anywhere that I am aware of. In short, none of them really set my heart afire with their foreign affairs experience. So I can’t really say with any confidence that any one of them has the best resume in that area.
December 6th, 2006 at 6:56 pm
If push comes to shove, I think I like Giuliani’s and Romney’s resumes over McCain’s. They had to make decisions and live with them. McCain got to talk about decisions in committee. It’s all part of the Executive (Governor/Mayor) versus Senator problem McCain faces.
But as I said, none of them really sets my heart afire.
December 6th, 2006 at 8:04 pm
Dick Cheney for President…never would happen, but wouldn’t it be great if it could?
December 6th, 2006 at 8:18 pm
No, I don’t think it would be great. Dick Cheney = Great VP, bummer President
December 6th, 2006 at 8:18 pm
…Oh, and he’d lose.
December 6th, 2006 at 8:52 pm
Isn’t Cheney’s approval rating at like 14% nowadays? Frankly, I don’t even understand how that’s possible. I’m pretty sure that John Kerry could beat him in a landslide and that’s saying a lot.
December 6th, 2006 at 9:05 pm
On Newt Gingrich:
Earned Ph.D in Modern European History at Tulane University. Newt is the longest-serving teacher of the Joint War Fighting course for Major Generals. He also teaches officers from all five services as a Distinguished Visiting Scholar and Professor at the National Defense University . Newt serves on the Terrorism Task Force for the Council on Foreign Relations, Biosecurity and Bioterrorism, and is an Advisory Board Member of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. Recently, Newt was named co-Chair of the UN Task Force, a bi-partisan Congressional effort to reform the United Nations.
He is a member on the Committee on the Present Danger and Council on Foreign Relations: Terrorism Task Force, Advisory board member for the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, visiting fellow at the Hoover Inst., Professor of History at West Georgia College, former member of the advisory board on the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a member on the Defense Policy Board, and a former member of the Hart-Rudman Commission, a U.S. Commission on National Security-21st Century.
In 1999, Gingrich was appointed to the United States Commission on National Security/21st Century, the Hart/Rudman Commission to examine our national security challenges as far out as 2025. The Commission’s report is the most profound rethinking of defense strategy since 1947. The report concluded that the number one threat to the United States was the likelihood over the next 25 years of a weapon of mass destruction — nuclear, chemical, and/or biological being used against one or more major cities unless our defense and intelligence structures underwent a massive transformation. That report was published six months before September 11.
Because of his work on the Commission, Newt Gingrich is credited with the idea contained in the report of a Homeland Security Agency with a Secretary to serve on the Cabinet level. President George W. Bush has since created the Department of Homeland Security.
As Speaker, Gingrich was given the same clearance to all foreign policy information as the President.
Now,
After reading all that, I will repeat your line on Gingrich:
“Newt Gingrich is outspoken on international issues, but has little international experience as well, other than scraping a little insight out of his time as Speaker of the House.”
Really, how many times do I have to correct you before you actually start reading about your topic (let alone researching) before you write articles.
Oh and this has to count for something:
Despite the national media attention given the TWA incident, there is a minority of opinion that believes the United States has not faced up to the problem of terrorism.
To Gingrich, “We are a nation that has a nagging toothache called terrorism. We have gotten through the last terrorist assault with almost no casualties, few lessons and no medicine.”
The National Journal
August 3, 1985
Reagan Gets Mixed Reviews for His Loud Speech But Small Stick on Terrorism By Christopher Madison
Rep. Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., said that if Libyan-supported terrorism continues, the United States should declare war, invade Libya and depose its leader.
The Associated Press
April 15, 1986, Tuesday
“What I’m trying to do is start an argument on how we live in the first third of the 21st century,” Gingrich said. “My centerpiece is that we are now a country whose problems are 100 or 1,000 times bigger than its solutions. Our three biggest problems are that government costs more than society will pay, we are not competitive in the world market and there is a requirement that we lead the free world through the [Western] alliance and in the fight against terrorism.”
The National Journal
December 20, 1986
Eye of Newt
By Richard Cohen
Rep. Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., said that if Iraq is found to be behind the attack, “we should resolve explicitly and formally to drive Saddam Hussein out of power.”
The Record
May 10, 1993; MONDAY
US officials are calling for a go-slow policy with North Korea, a move that critics say reflects a lack of resolve by the Clinton administration. Congressman Newt Gingrich, the Republican minority whip, said decisions Washington makes today could very well decide whether the West will be threatened by nuclear terrorism over the next decade.
“Frankly, we need a debate over countries like North Korea and Iran and what we are going to do,” he told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee last week in Washington. “Are we prepared to lose one or two cities before we decide to act?”
The Jerusalem Post
March 25, 1994, Friday
Speaking to a conference of military and intelligence officers, Gingrich said he has yet to see a coherent strategy for fighting Islamic totalitarianism and which “ultimately is designed to force the replacement of the current regime in Iran, which is the only long range solution that makes any sense.”
AP
February 8, 1995, Wednesday, AM cycle
Gingrich Replacement of Iranian Regime Best Course for U.S.
By John Diamond
Rep. Newt Gingrich stated in a recent interview with the Israeli newspaper Haaret– (Jan. 8): “I believe that these two challenges — Islamic totalitarianism and Iranian dictatorship and the danger of nuclear weapons in Iranian hands are the single biggest near-term national security problem. I put that at the top of the list; it’s a problem that the United States should be working to solve.”
Testimony of Neal M. Sher, Executive Director American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) Before The House International Affairs Committee quoting Gingrich
April 5, 1995
“But the objective fact of the future is that the primary dangers of terrorism on the planet are essentially those of Islamic extremism and particularly those financed and abetted by the Iranian government,” Gingrich told the pro-Israel lobbying group.
The Record
May 10, 1995
Gingrich: Main Terrorist Threat Still From Iran
“We are, in fact, entering the age of terrorism,” Gingrich said. “We’ve had this fantasy since the fall of the Berlin Wall that the age of freedom has arrived.” Terrorism means more than bombs set off by shadowy groups, Gingrich said, but can extend to states threatening neighbors.
Telegraph Herald (Dubuque, IA)
March 7, 1996, Thursday
National/World National briefs
Speaker Newt Gingrich said today that the CIA under John Deutch has not anticipated terrorist threats very well. Gingrich told CNN that Deutch “is not doing a very good job anticipating the future” as far as threats to the US involving potential terrorism. Gingrich also said the Clinton Administration has had a very poor record on terrorism.
The White House Bulletin
July 25, 1996, Thursday
Gingrich attacks CIA chief over terrorism
NEWT GINGRICH: But the deeper point- USA Today, yesterday, had a very exhaustive report indicating that there are 11 training camps in Iran, with maybe as many as 5,000 people being trained for terrorism. Now, I don’t think that the international community has to tolerate a country operating training camps for terrorism. I think that we should jointly, on a world basis, indicate to Iran that they have to close those camps down. We’re not going to tolerate the indirect waging of war by using terrorists by a government. I think that’s just not acceptable behavior.
WOLF BLITZER: Well, when you say that the world can’t tolerate that, what would you recommend that President Clinton consider doing in order to shut those camps down?
NEWT GINGRICH: Well, I think that ideally we would go to the United Nations, present the evidence indicating these are terrorist camps, insist that there be international inspectors to close down the camps. If the Iranians refuse to close them down, I think that there are a number of military means capable of closing them down. I think that we should make them untenable. But the idea that we are going to sit around and allow – as the report indicated yesterday – maybe as many as 5,000 people at one time to be trained into terrorism, and then we’re going to spend enormous resources chasing individual terrorists after they’ve been trained, I think is exactly the wrong way to approach this. If Iran is sponsoring international terrorism, we should bring pressure to bear to force Iran to stop and, if necessary, we should strip Iran of the capability of doing it.
CNN Inside Politics 4:30 pm ET
August 3, 1996
ALLEN: We are interrupting that story because we have now on the phone with us Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. Speaker Gingrich, your reaction to the U.S. attacks today on Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network.
REP. NEWT GINGRICH (R), HOUSE SPEAKER: Well, I think the United States did exactly the right thing. We cannot allow a terrorist group to attack American embassies and do nothing. And I think we have to recognize that we are now committed to engaging this organization and breaking it apart and doing whatever we have to suppress it, because we cannot afford to have people who think that they can kill Americans without any consequence. So this was the right thing to do.
We have not yet gotten assessments of the damage, but I hope that it’s been very decisive. And I think it’s very important that we send a signal to countries like Sudan and Afghanistan that if you house a terrorist, you become a target. And if you want to get rid of the target, you’ve got to get rid of the terrorist.
Gingrich response to US Strikes against Osama bin Laden’s network
CNN BREAKING NEWS 13:45 pm ET
August 20, 1998; Thursday 1:45 pm Eastern Time
. . . terrorism is a much more profound threat than we have responded to. It should trouble every American that we’ve been trying to get bin Laden since 1993. You just mentioned the cost of repairing an American warship damaged by terrorists. We should all be concerned that we don’t have the intelligence to know where they are, the ability to preempt, or the capacity to punish. And in fact, we have people who routinely go around the world holding press conferences explaining they’re at war with the United States.
Gingrich Testimony to The House Armed Services Committee on U.S. National Security
Chaired By: Representative Bob Stump (R-Az)
March 21, 2001 (25 Weeks before September 11)
December 6th, 2006 at 9:42 pm
Pwned.
December 6th, 2006 at 10:27 pm
Steve,
Correction accepted. You certainly seem to have a far more indepth knowledge of Newt Gingrich’s career than I. Thank you for enlightening me further to Newt’s experience and qualifications. He certainly does have an impressive resume, and I can assume is probably one of the most experienced foreign policy candidates in the upper tier.
December 7th, 2006 at 10:46 am
Ummm… you may have forgotten a few things on Romney’s resume that look fairly impressive, like:
*he’s on the Department of Homeland Security’s Advisory Council
*he’s the co-chair of the National Governor’s Association Homeland Security Commission
*Massachusetts was one of only 10 states nationwide to receive the highest grade for disaster-preparedness
*he’s offered advice in the form of many speeches and testimonies to various Homeland Security commissions, etc. in federal government
Plus, he’s shown he ‘gets it’ with speeches like his “Know Thine Enemy” speech, his wiretapping mosques speech, and the whole Iranian/Harvard kerfuffle.
Romney’s one of the most solid candidates here, and you do him disservice by just glancing over the fact that he secured the ’02 Olympic Games (which in and of itself was a great feat anyway).
December 7th, 2006 at 1:43 pm
No way. Rudy would be WASTED in what is a thankless task, and he is going
to be waaaaay too busy getting his Presidential committee and personnel inorder.
This sounds like a cynical ploy by Dems to get Rudy out of the mix on the Presidential side
by shunting him into a no-win role at Turtle Bay.
I think Rick Santorum would be a great choice…. drive the UN thugs out of their minds !!!
December 7th, 2006 at 3:17 pm
HeavyM,
Yes, those are impressive things in Romney’s column, and I really have a lot of respect for the Governor. However, there’s a big difference between “homeland security”/”knowing your enemy” and knowing how to communicate internationally, defend global alliances, and conduct effective cross-cultural diplomacy.
December 8th, 2006 at 5:03 pm
[...] Giuliani’s inclusion in the group once looked like it would be a great foreign policy credential to add to his somewhat-lacking resumé. However, as noted in an earlier post, now that that ship has sailed forth, Rudy must find something else with which to broaden his clout in the global issues department. In what is possibly the most internationalized era our nation has ever gone through, credibility in international affairs will be key to winning the nomination. In this day and age, a leader must evidence effective cross-cultural and trasnational leadership. by Woodrow Eisenhower @ 5:03 pm. Filed under Rudy Giuliani, 2008 Misc. [Trackback URL] [link] Trackback URL for this post: http://race42008.com/2006/12/08/rudy-iraq-study-group-drop-out-more-about-political-integrity-than-disinterest/trackback/ [...]