Read Paul's bio and previous columns
February 4, 2008
Rudy Giuliani Lost
Because He Was No Conservative
The pundits are absolutely stunned. The man they months ago decided
would be the Republican nominee is, um, not. Now they are writing
columns and editorials and articles about how the man who had it locked
up could so quickly give it up. They are shocked.
Well, I am not so shocked. Even when the pundits, the polls and the
political markets showed Rudy Giuliani on top, it was obvious that he
would not get elected – either in the primary or in the general. The few
of us who saw Giuliani going nowhere were not geniuses or psychics, we
were just wondering what in the world everyone else was seeing that we
weren’t. And boy oh boy were we going against the conventional wisdom.
But yet again, the conventional wisdom was wrong. Giuliani ended up
coming in sixth in Iowa, sixth in Michigan, sixth in Nevada, and sixth
in South Carolina. Each time he came in behind the maverick John McCain,
the flip-flopper Mitt Romney, the boring Fred Thompson, the
big-government Mike Huckabee and the same Ron Paul that Giuliani had
repeatedly mocked throughout the campaign. In New Hampshire, a moderate
Republican’s heaven, he eked out a fourth-place finish. In Florida,
where he threw his entire campaign’s resources, Giuliani finished a
every corner in the country, Giuliani performed badly. The appropriate
reaction should be: “Right. He’s a liberal running in a Republican
primary. Why is anyone surprised?”
Instead, the pundits are asking, where did Giuliani’s campaign go wrong?
Those who had crowned Giuliani king of the Republicans have come up with
a multitude of justifications for his resounding defeat. His former
police commissioner, Bernard Kerik, was indicted. Or people heard that
he spent city resources on his girlfriend. Or his campaign aides were
all inexperienced friends of his. A popular one is, he’s a New Yorker
and Republicans don’t like that in their candidate. (Oh, and they like
But by far the most prevalent rationalization for Giuliani’s fate is now
the latest product of conventional wisdom: He skipped the early states.
That’s right. Apparently, Giuliani lost because he didn’t compete in the
early states, and thus lost momentum and media attention with each
course, there are two major problems with this excuse. First, wasn’t
this his planned strategy? Wasn’t he supposed to lose all
of the early states and then take the entire nomination in a big,
massive, Giuliani wave on Super Tuesday? If anything, his strategy was
going perfectly according to plan. Since people knew about his strategy,
why didn’t they wait until February 5, or Florida, to cast their votes?
It looks like the more Republicans learned about Giuliani, the more they
Second, contrary to what everyone assumes, Giuliani did compete in the
early states, and quite actively too. He was regularly on the ground in
Iowa, until he realized that he would perform poorly there. He focused
more on New Hampshire, up through the final weeks of 2007, where he
spent millions of dollars and more time than in any other state. But his
time and money could not overcome his politics there, either. So he
pulled out, and allowed the media to justify his strategy of waiting
until Florida and Super Tuesday to really show what he could do.
The reality is, Giuliani competed, and competed hard, to become the
Republican nominee. And he lost because he is not a conservative.
You have a northeastern politician who takes the liberal position on
social and economic issues such as abortion, gun control, the minimum
wage, NAFTA and the line-item veto, but who is strong on national
security. And no, I’m not talking about Joe Lieberman – the Senator from
Connecticut actually supported NAFTA and the line-item veto.
When you can’t categorize a politician as a conservative based solely on
the issues, he is hardly a Republican. Giuliani may not belong in the
Democratic Party either, I don’t know. But that definitely doesn’t make
him a Republican.
Giuliani knew he was seeking the nomination of a party that was not
truly his own. That is why he needed external justifications for his
run. One was 9/11. The other was his supposed electability. They weren’t
enough. While Republicans appreciate Giuliani’s work in the aftermath of
9/11, they are not ready to put him in charge of the country for it.
And though many bought the electability factor at first, it became
increasingly clear that Giuliani would be no more electable than any
other Republican nominee. The final, pre-withdrawal RealClearPolitics
poll averages show him trailing Hillary Clinton by 11 points and Barack
Obama by 16. This is far behind McCain and as bad as Romney and Huckabee.
So much for moderation – if Republicans are going to have such an uphill
battle in the general election, they might as well fight it with a true
is about time we defeat the notion that in order for Republicans to
perform well in November, they need to shift to the left. The fact is,
Republicans can’t win in November unless they first bring out their own
base, and then appeal to independents with correct and convincing
conservative positions. Giuliani would have done neither. May his failed
run be a lesson to the pundits, Republicans and Giulianis of the future.
© 2008 North Star
Writers Group. May not be republished without permission.
Click here to talk to our writers and
editors about this column and others in our discussion forum.
To e-mail feedback
about this column,
click here. If you enjoy this writer's
work, please contact your local newspapers editors and ask them to carry
This is Column # PI091.
permission to publish here.