The Romney-Giuliani Divide
I guess I have to agree with this TPM reader that Mitt Romney, from the perspective of us here on the Left, is vastly preferable to Rudy Giuliani:
Josh, I totally agree with you about the danger to the Republic Rudy represents. He is totally and utterly unsuited to the oval office. Which is why, as allergic as you are to Romney's phoniness, you have to see that as plastic and anodyne as Romney may be, he doesn't represent quite the same danger as Rudy at the controls. As a Dem I'm hoping Romney gets the nomination, not only for this reason, but also because the media tends to run with the hero worshiping b------t narratives. No matter how hard we try, the narrative of a Rudy nomination will not be the one from the Village Voice's Wayne Barett. It will be the one from Roger Ailes's Fox News. Here's to rooting for Mitt...
Now Romney has said some pretty stupid things. And I've commented on here from time to time that it really is difficult to tell sometimes whether he is merely pandering or if at some level he actually believes his own utterances. But I offer the following observations about Romney:
- Romney's governing style, if we rely upon his past record rather than his current rhetoric, looks a lot like Rockefeller Republicanism. I find that sort of Republican attractive (in the strategic sense of supporting Dems) because it represents a real minority--the so-called "Eastern Establishment" as opposed to the conservative populism that rebelled against it--and for better or worse could be characterized as "moderate."
- Romney is less well-known nationally (which is why he has lavished so much money--including his own personal fortune--on changing this) and name recognition is a tremendous advantage. Obviously this will matter less if Romney wins the primary, instantly making his a household name.
- Romney clearly has the best organization and most professional campaign in the GOP fold.
I can't stress enough that Romney's obvious opportunism and shocking lack of conviction about anything other than the acquisition of power itself disturbs me greatly. But by the same token that lack of conviction could lead to pragmatic governance just as easily as it could lead to megalomania. We just don't know. Contrast this with Giuliani, who by most accounts would combine the worst of Bush and Nixon and then still be worse. That is simply unacceptable to me. And if the point of this exercise is to pick the lesser of two evils, then I've made my choice.