In fact, it has already started. Writing for Human Events, Sean P. Trende discusses the upcoming “swifting” of Rudy Giuliani:
If there is one thing that drives Democrats crazy, it is the success Republicans have had defeating decorated Democratic war veterans while attacking those Democrats on their foreign policy credentials. For example, Georgia Sen. Max Cleland’s defeat in 2002 is frequently blamed on an advertisement that blasted Cleland for his opposition to certain homeland security efforts and went so far as to show his image next to Osama bin Laden. Even though the ad aired only briefly and was only one of many attacks on Cleland’s left-leaning record, Democrats were furious when he lost in a last minute Republican surge that swept Georgia.
The left is especially incensed that a group called Swiftboat Veterans for Truth questioned Sen. John Kerry’s war record and post-war activities in the 2004 elections. Democrats often blame the ads for the senator’s defeat. In truth, the group’s initial advertisements were shown in only a few states and were found credible by only about a quarter of independent voters who viewed them, while the later advertisements were run after President Bush had successfully found his footing after the Republican Convention. And there was nothing new about the accusations — in fact they were deployed successfully against Kerry when he ran unsuccessfully for the House in 1972 (when he was the only Democrat to lose an open-seat election in a district McGovern carried) — the Kerry campaign simply should not have been as slow to respond to the accusations as it was.
Regardless, Democrats still seethe at the fact that their candidate’s perceived strength — his military background — was used against him. They would love nothing more than to destroy a Republican hero on the basis of his perceived strengths. As Rudy Giuliani, the hero of September 11, cements his status as the Republican front-runner, the knives are simultaneously being drawn.
Although Mayor Giuliani is seen as the hero of 9/11, bravely supporting firefighters and police officers in the aftermath of the tragedy, he has had a tempestuous relationship with police and firefighters dating back to his pre-9/11 days as mayor. Some of this revolves around Giuliani’s numerous scuffles with unions over pay raises above the annual cost-of-living adjustments, while some of this simply revolved around the mayor’s gritty personality. Regardless, while Giuliani has plenty of admirers among the ranks of New York City’s finest, he has his share of detractors as well.
A recent event shows these detractors champing at the bit at the opportunity to go after Giuliani on his 9/11 record. In a draft letter, the International Association of Firefighters explains its initial decision not to invite Giuliani to its debate. Although the letter was not sent, and Giuliani was invited to the debate (the mayor declined, citing scheduling conflicts), the letter was leaked to the press. Though the mainstream media did not cover the story much, it spread throughout the blogosphere, where it waits to be picked up at some later date.
The gist of the letter is that, in early November of 2001, Giuliani decreased the number of firefighters searching for bodies in the wreckage of the twin towers, and shifted to a quicker mechanical search. According to the union, this “scoop-and-dump” operation made it much less likely that firefighter’s bodies would be found, and more likely that they would end up in a garbage dump. Moreover, the letter alleges that this shift was caused because precious metals from the tower’s vaults had been found.
The union letter is clearly a piece of propaganda. For example, it mentions that Giuliani had firefighters who protested his change in policy arrested, but omits that the arrested firefighters had assaulted police officers and overturned barricades as part of their protest. And there were certainly contemporary stories of the increasing safety risks to firefighters, which was the reason given for the cutback.
But in politics, fact is often merely a sidekick for perception. One can almost see the commercials now, with tear-streaked widows talking about their husbands being picked up like common garbage, as soon as “Big Business’” gold was found. While the mayor will almost certainly be able to rebut the accusations, this inevitably devolves into a he-said-she-said sort of debate about his intentions, and it is unlikely that the mayor will be able to avoid losing at least some independent support.
Other parallels are forming. Consider the counterpart to Unfit for Command, the book that placed the Swiftboat Vets’ allegations in print. Wayne Barrett’s book, Grand Illusion: The Untold Story of Rudy Giuliani and 9/11, tells a tale of a detached mayor who did not heed the warnings of the 1993 terrorist attacks, who grandstanded instead of governed in the wake of 9/11, and who valued his relationship with the always-evil “Big Business” so much that he refused to replace radio handsets that had malfunctioned (for a thorough takedown of Barrett’s book, read here.)
Make no mistake about it: If Rudy Giuliani is the nominee in 2008, the left will not sit idly by and allow Hizzoner to wrap himself in the mantle of 9/11. They have been waiting for over three years now for the opportunity to attack him on his home turf. If he is the Republican nominee in 2008, hopefully he will be better prepared than Kerry was in 2004.
Make no mistake about it… After 2004 election, opposition attacks will primarily focus on the destruction of a candidates perceived strengths, placing each candidate on the defensive on two fronts.
March 20th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
All the more reason for Republicans to thoroughly comb through the record and weaknesses of Mayor Giuliani, and all the GOP apirants, rather than be put in a position where we are locked into a GOP nominee before such vetting occurs.
It is inevitable that if the media fail to come after the Giuliani vulnerabilities during the primary then Alex Castellanos (Romney media guru) and Stuart Stevens (McCain media guru) will. There is a real risk that such negative advertising backfires in this day and age where folks are looking for leadership and substance. But the point is that Giuliani is going to get attacked big time as part of this campaign.
March 20th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
While I’m all for examining a candidate’s record, I don’t think that it would be a good idea to chose a candidate based on the basis of what the opposition might put out in negative ads – trust me, they will find (or fabricate) a way to try and “swift-boat” ANY Republican candidate.
March 20th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
I could not disagree more with Palin for VP!. Such a view is naive in the extreme, it seems to me. If there is bad or controversial news about a candidate you want it to come out before your party makes him or her your nominee. History is replete with examples. The revelations about Vice President nominee Senator Thomas Eagleton when Senator McGovern was the Democrat nominee in 1972 is one example. The revelations about the husband of Vice President nominee Geraldine Ferraro when Vice President Mondale was the Democrat nominee in 1984 is another example. The revelations about Vice President nominee Senator Dan Quayle when Vice President George H.W. Bush was the Republican nominee in 1988 is another example. And the DUI conviction revelation about Republican nominee Governor George W. Bush in 2000 is another example. All of those revelations hurt those tickets significantly and should have been vetted earlier for their electoral sakes.
It would make no sense, as a theoretical example, to claim that the Republican Party would be better off if the revelations about Bernie Kerik were surfaced after Mayor Giuliani became the GOP presidential nominee rather than vetted and debated during the primary.
Though the campaign process can arguably be excessively brutal and personal, the best disinfectant is the light of day and there is significant efficacy in the process of opposition research and vetting that occurs in campaigns, I think. Admittedly it is a fine line. But I don’t see where we want our party’s candidates to win nominations hiding baggage that can be exposed in the general election or to win offices hiding baggage that can be used to cloud their judgment once elected.
March 20th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
I am inclined to agree with Republius on this point. It is far better to have all possible slam points brought out, discussed, and internalized BEFORE the election takes place. The sooner the better.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
I agree with republius and marK….. Rudy has already proven that, in the PRE-PRIMARIES!!
March 20th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
Keep in mind as well that Giuliani sold the investment banking arm of his company in order to have 100 million on hand for the purpose of sddressing Swift Boat type attacks. (Chapter 3 of his book is Prerpare Relentlessly.)
After the public sees Giulani, McCain, and Romney in a debate together the lead will widen even more than it is now. McCain and Romaney simply do not have the status and the cache that Giuliani has.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Precisely what do you mean by cache Peter Q? Do you mean cash by any chance? Romney is considerably richer then Giuliani, and has equal fundraising contacts. And what in the world makes you think that Giuliani’s going to come out of the debates better then McCain and Romney? Romney is a phenomneal debater who took Teddy K to the cleaners in 1994. Kennedy’s always been a pretty excellent debater, because of his passion.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Matt:
http://americaabroad.tpmcafe.com/blog/qshio/2007/mar/20/mitt_romney_the_imaginary_frontrunner
I meant cachet, sorry. It’s very, very rare inded that a politician can point to a living, breathing, live and in color set of before and after pictures the way Giuliani can. Tens of millions of Americans visit New York a year, and the changes and the difference aren’t lost on them. The other guys just don’t have this kind of touch, feel it, see it resume available.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Geez Matt….RELAX! Let the guy state his opinion.
March 20th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
KT,
I thought my post was pretty relaxed. I honestly didn’t know what he was talking about and was trying to figure it out. Cachet rather then cache or cash, is much more clear. I’d disagree in the sense that Romney has left numerous different situations visibly better, while Giuliani’s good work has been entirely in the political arena. NYC is maybe more visible then Massachusetts or venture capital firms, but it’s hardly significantly more visible then the Olympics.
March 20th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Matt – NYC under Giuliani is perhaps the most crystal clear example of real world, real time, exposition of the bankruptcy of many major liberal ideas that the world has ever seen, and that’s no exaggeration. There was no competing political ideology in the Olympics.
March 20th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
But I’d argue that this election is as much about competency as it is ideology. And the Olympics under Romney is perhaps the most crystak clear example of real world, real time, competency from a political figure in recent times. Add to that the fact that Romney’s done many less visible, but nonetheless deeply significant, things for the conservative cause, and I hardly see a reasonable case for Giuliani being a terribly more compelling candidate. And we haven’t even considered social issues yet.
March 20th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
It’s going to be very embarrassing for Romney when he raises more money than anybody else and still can’t break 10% and circumven the programmed robot criticisms.
March 20th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
It almost hurts for me to criticize Romney now, the writing is so much on the wall.
March 20th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
Matt,
I would really like to rip into you and your comments comparing the stupid olympics in SLC to New York City, but Kavon will kick me off this blog. How in the world can you say that what Romney did in the olympics (any highly qualified business leader could have done the same) to how Rudy Giuliani turned around America’s most important city – - the capital of the world, in fact?? Add to that what he did in the aftermath of 9-11 to calm, and guide the 8 million souls back to normal, functioning, productive everyday lives. I’m sorry, Matt but please dont even respond… your ignorant comments are enough to make me lose my dinner.
Anybody care to add to this, or better yet, explain my comments a little more “eloquently”??… I dont mind….
March 20th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
KT says,
“How in the world can you say that what Romney did in the olympics (any highly qualified business leader could have done the same)”
Um, really? This is a fairly unsubstantiated claim, to say the least! In any case its besides the point, as all the other business leaders didn’t, Romney did, and he’s know standing for President. The olympics are notoriously difficult to manage (just ask London, who are already suffering budget overruns over the 2012 summer games) and Romney did well.
KT, if I told you that any reasonable Mayor could have done what Giuliani did with NYC, so his work was nothing special, would you believe me? No, didn’t think so…
March 20th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
KT also says that “Rudy Giuliani turned around America’s most important city – - the capital of the world, in fact”
You may regard NYC as the capital of the world, but not many outside NYC would agree with you. London is the financial capital of the world, Tokyo is the people capital of the world, and Washington is the political capital of the world. New York is a big city, and important, but don’t glamourize it too much.
March 20th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
KT, why don’t I give it a shot.
What you meant to say to Matt in more eloquent terms was that while you don’t know the managerial details of the turnaround Romney orchestrated in the Olympics, it couldn’t possibly approach the difficulty of watching New Yorkers take $9 billion in tax cuts while paying $36 billion in debt interest over Rudy’s 8 years in office, much less the difficulty of appearing in front of every camera in the lower Manhattan area for several weeks following 9/11.
Did I get it all?
March 21st, 2007 at 8:06 am
I agree Jaype. This bizarre obsession with New York is just that. I hate the place and still find it basically terrifying. There are much nicer cities (probably more important ones as well). There are hundreds, thousands, of cities. There’s only two Olympics’. And the 2002 Winter Olympics was one of the most successful Olympics ever, despite looking like it’d be the most disastrous one pre-Romney (why didn’t all those wildly successful businessmen who ran the previous games didn’t do as magnificient of a job). You can dismiss that if you’d like. You can rage about how outlandishly important, unique, and wonderful NYC is. But personally I think that just makes you look silly. Nobody wanders around denying that Rudy did many impressive things for NYC.
March 21st, 2007 at 9:54 am
Romney can’t win the general election. Let’s win this thing.
March 21st, 2007 at 1:42 pm
I agree, if Romney gets the primary the election will be very close, again. If Rudy gets it, there will be a slam dunk victory for the Republicans.