Vanity Fair: Rudy is a lunatic
posted at 12:20 pm on May 1, 2007 by see-dubya
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Vanity Fair takes off from its full-bore, cover-to-cover Globwarming evangelism to helpfully compile all the gossip and scandal about Rudy Giuliani in one snarly piece. Their take isn’t that his judgment is bad, or his positions are odious to the base. No, we’re going for the nuance here—Rudy is mad, mad, MAD!
A famous person’s nuttiness is of an entirely different order than an unfamous person’s. The big issue with nuttiness is that it’s secret or shameful. But, in a sense, publicity cleanses or absolves nuttiness. That is, it makes it normal. We’re used to it. What’s more, with Rudy, there’s so much of it that sheer volume cancels the details out.
And, in some significant way, the nuttiness is the point. Rudy is reversing the basic political math, where likability = electability. Rather, it’s Rudy’s extremism, his vividness, the joie de guerre of his obsessions and fixations, his beastliness, that give him his chance.
I think what VF’s Michael Wolff calls insanity–not a case he makes at all, by the way; goofiness and insanity are not the same thing–translates out in the heartland as irascibility. And that’s a good thing.
Times are tough. We’re not looking for a nice guy for President. Romney-style decency isn’t necessarily selling to the base these days. The country wants someone who will treat Ahmedinejad like a ferret-rights activist and the Saudis like–well, like Rudy treated Prince Alwaleed after 9/11.
A few days back Jack M. (posting at Ace of Spades) unloaded a devastating critique of Mitt Romney’s counterproliferation strategy–naming a non-proliferation ambassador. That’s an intellectually plausible response, but as Jack notes, intuitively false. The proper response to being threatened with nuclear weapons is the natural one on any playground, prison yard, or anarchic international order: get emotional–or cold and dry, that works too–get up in the guy’s face, and make it clear that any assault is going to be met with overwhelming, humiliating retaliation.
Bush does that through exactly that cowboy swagger that the Euros hate so much. Rudy can do that, too, and even people who don’t follow politics or have strong preferences on the issues know that Rudy isn’t going to balk at demonstrating our resolve when it is tested. Our enemies will know that as well.
Nixon famously tried to deter and influence America’s enemies by what he called the “madman theory”: by sending a message that he was Whoa! out of control and you better not trifle with him, Chairman Mao, or you might just get a fusion shampoo. It didn’t work, because nobody believed Nixon was really crazy. I don’t think even Michael Wolff believes that about Giuliani, either. But what people do believe about him was summed up well by James Lileks in a column now lost to the internet (but preserved in part at Ed Driscoll’s):
He’ll nuke ‘em if he has to.
Any candidate I vote for is going to have to meet that test. Rudy’s far from my first choice in this race, but I really do admire his ability to project resolve and…let’s face it…menace when it comes to matters of national security. The race will be very interesting when the other Republican candidates learn to project that as well. The second tier candidates–Hunter, Gilmore, Tancredo–can do so already. The majors? We’ll see.
The Democrats–the “nurturing parent” party as their own strategist/guru George Lakoff dubbed them– are constitutionally incapable of doing so. Irascibility remains a virtue exclusive to the Republican slate. Let’s hope that whoever our nominee is knows how to compete on our ground.
You must be logged in to post a comment.

















Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
“Beastliness”? Sort of negates the entire opinion.
CliffHanger on May 1, 2007 at 12:28 PM
Coming from a liberal rag like Vanity Fair, this has to be a plus for Rudy.
thirteen28 on May 1, 2007 at 12:37 PM
Mrs. Bill Clinton is doing the best she can with preserving a warmongering image in the face of nut-root opposition. If she has to back down from support for the war during the primary, look for her to bolster her Sith Lord credentials by having another close aide be found laying down in a park with a pistol in his/her hand.
pedestrian on May 1, 2007 at 12:41 PM
Re: this:
Except that the analysis – in my reading – misinterprets Romney’s proposal.
I did not read his idea as “let’s send an ambassador to go talk to the Iranians and use diplomacy to get them to stop pursuing nukes,” rather “let’s have an official responsible for coordinating non-proliferation strategies among US agencies, plus applying diplomatic pressure on countries like Russia, who does a poor job of policing its nuclear material yet does not respond to simple deterrence, as it won’t be held violently accountable for a scientist who sells weapons grade material to a terrorist group anyway.”
i could be wrong, but the assumption that Romney was suggesting handing out lollipops to stop nuclear proliferation seems off.
BillINDC on May 1, 2007 at 12:43 PM
And even if the diplomacy does consist of “we will end you,” it’s not like that message is mutually exclusive from having someone exclusively devoted to nuclear non-proliferation deliver it.
BillINDC on May 1, 2007 at 12:48 PM
Rudy’s supporters are overlooking a problem with his image. Rudy does not do nice very well. Americans loved Reagan because the vast majority of the time he was an affable, easy-going man. Not mean but, when he needed to be, tough. Rudy does not project that father-like ability to be a strong, but fair leader. He always is on the edge and it is difficult to imagine him not being this way.
Romney’s problem is the opposite that it is hard to imagine him being tough and this is where Fred! comes in. Fred projects the calm but implacable (really testing the thesaurus on this post) leadership quality that people want in a President.
Americans do not want a President who is to trigger happy. We roundly rejected Goldwater when Johnson was able to paint him as being more likely to get us into a nuclear war. I am afraid it will be easy for the Democrats to portray Rudy as a hot head and we will have a replay of the 1964 election. I am convinced that is how Hilary is positioning herself for ‘08.
Bill C on May 1, 2007 at 12:51 PM
Why he’s simply beastly
*Huffs, adjusts bonnet, lifts up dress, storms off and goes to tend flowers*
Dash on May 1, 2007 at 12:51 PM
Right on Bill. I’m more interested in what Romney meant by what he said. Having listened to Romney for a long time and knowing him well he is not the “lets talk to our enemies” type. He is not a UN guy. Don’t let the smile fool you.
Zetterson on May 1, 2007 at 12:55 PM
Sorta like Teddy Roosevelt….when the German government sent the High Fleet to blockade a South American port he gave the German government 5 days to remove the German fleet. When they complained that they couldn’t do it that fast he said fine, you have three days then. The fleet moved. That’s the kinda ‘beastiness’ I want in the CIC. If Rudy gets the job I’m sure he wouldn’t hesitate to thump a few noggins.
Limerick on May 1, 2007 at 12:57 PM
Thank You.
amerpundit on May 1, 2007 at 12:59 PM
That’s the great thing about Republicans, not only candidates. We’re just crazy enough, to actually make a difference, and stand our ground. I’m sure the colonists were called crazy for fighting the mighty British.
amerpundit on May 1, 2007 at 1:01 PM
What we need is another president who could slap it down like the………..
Only this time it shouldnt be a joke and Russia should be replaced with Iran……….
Rock on…………….
doriangrey on May 1, 2007 at 1:03 PM
That’s all we need — two Irans.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on May 1, 2007 at 1:10 PM
I don’t care what face the nominee gives John Q. Public, he MUST be an “Alpha male” when necessary. The rest is gravy.
tormod on May 1, 2007 at 1:11 PM
And now to post this on the right thread…stupid IE tabs…
Quicker link to the ferret thang. (click on full episode, go to 22:00)
I’d missed that before. Now I wanna hear him talk to a Truther…
MamaAJ on May 1, 2007 at 1:24 PM
Thank you for the link and for the compliment, See-Dubya.
One of my concerns with Governor Romney’s proposal is that it sends a strong signal of weakness both internationally and domestically.
Internationally, I think that it sends a signal that the Governor is ready to abandon the Bush Doctrine’s bias towards preemption in favor of another layer of diplomacy that can be gamed by rogue states for their advantage. If I were the leader of a rogue state, not only would I be continuing to ignore/frustrate the United States thru all the current diplomatic avenues available, but I would be ready at a moments notice to make the very public appeal to “send in the new Ambassador for talks”. I’m not sure that Romney would be able to say “No” to such a request, after having advanced and created the position for just that purpose.
Domestically, I think that it appears as if Governor Romney is taking a page from the Democratic playbook by offering the “Ambassador plan” as a “competency”/”smarter, more effective” approach to Nuclear proliferation. Not only would this new Ambassador have to navigate a mine field of Agency turf battles in practice, but it would also be handcuffed from the outset by Constitutional Officers with differing agendas. In fact, I doubt it would be long until Romney had to “elevate” the position (maybe to Cabinet level?) in order for him to maintain it was an office that had any real teeth.
I wrote at Ace’s that it seemed like an approach that favored rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic over addressing the Iceberg problem. In any event, it appears to me as a walk-back from the strong preemption model.
And on this particular issue, I prefer to take my chances with preemption, even if done unilaterally, than with diplomacy.
Jack M. on May 1, 2007 at 1:53 PM
Face this: Fred! has got “menace” aplenty.
Fred on May 1, 2007 at 2:03 PM
I don’t think this is true, at least not in Hillary Clinton’s case. Firstly, she didn’t have to look around to see how the other kids were going to answer when asked “Is there a war on terror?” Secondly… to me, Clinton ranks up there with Karl Rove on the Emperor Palpatine scale. The Clinton White House was ruthless and cutthroat in a way that should make the Democrats lynching Alberto Gonzales blush crimson. If we have to have a Democrat, I’d rather it be her than any of the others.
Sometimes the best way to slay a monster isn’t to send in a hero, but to send in a bigger monster.
Lehosh on May 1, 2007 at 2:05 PM
Lehosh–yep. The Dems have their own nice guy/ cutthroat dilemma between happy, likeable Obama and the Glacier.
They’re not a serious party, so they’ll pick Obama.
see-dubya on May 1, 2007 at 2:12 PM
Vanity Fair? Their name isn’t “ironic” it’s what they really are.
It’s not like Guiliani is an unknown, having been a very popular and very competent mayor of nothing less than New York City for a number of critical years.
They are the ones who are mad, reducing the world’s complexities to where one lives, what one wears, and how chi-chi one’s dinner party was.
naliaka on May 1, 2007 at 2:55 PM
Unfortunately, I believe she’d spend more time being ruthless with us instead of the terrorists. We’ve already seen this.
ScottG on May 1, 2007 at 2:58 PM
We have a winner!
Shrillary is not our enemy’s worst enemy. She’s ours. We need a Mad Dog Mattis in the Oval Office.
Freelancer on May 1, 2007 at 3:05 PM
A fair suggestion, but I think that if at some point Hillary were to come upon the idea that her enemies and America’s enemies are the same thing… Like, for instance, if a public opinion poll said that Americans hate terrorists…
Directed at the right target, I can see Hillary being shockingly hawkish. Perhaps not in direct military means, but she has the high Mob Don factor that makes me think that foreign enemies would be found floating in a lake somewhere.
Lehosh on May 1, 2007 at 3:06 PM
Exactly!
naliaka on May 1, 2007 at 3:15 PM
The reason Hillary is so dangerous is not on how she’d handle foreign policy – it’s what she would do to the country from within.
Also, to get through the primaries, we haven’t seen nothin’ yet in sozi nuttiness, including from her.
Entelechy on May 1, 2007 at 3:23 PM
Libtards are apparently very afraid of Rudy…be afraid, be very afraid…
JustTruth101 on May 1, 2007 at 3:33 PM
INDC Bill–An entirely fair point. I was trying to distinguish between the logical arguments for such an approach and its emotional resonance.
A non-proliferation czar might not be a bad idea in itself. John Bolton has some experience in that field, I believe..
see-dubya on May 1, 2007 at 4:07 PM
Well, I don’t see that happening. Now I know she’s not stupid in the sense that she’s dumb, but she’s let her arrogance and ambition cloud her mind. Remember the VWRC was her statement. She may know that the islamist terrorists would gun her down too, but again her arrogance blocks her apprehension of them because she believes they are stupid and unable to stand up against leftists in the end. They expect to do away with their mutual enemies and then each other.
ScottG on May 1, 2007 at 4:40 PM
The Irascible Rudy! I like that one.
budorob on May 1, 2007 at 4:50 PM
Giuliani is a hard-ass. He had to be in order to run the political interference for the NYPD crackdown on street crime during his mayoralty. The crackdown was never popular with the media, its hangers-on and the professionally offended. It was only when people noticed that safer streets in the poorer areas directly translated into more businesses and jobs in those areas that he began to get some credit.
chsw
chsw on May 1, 2007 at 5:45 PM
Think you are on to something. The Left NEVER does this sort of hysterical piece unless they perceive a real threat.
Maybe the problem is really this: What kind of Judicial Tazmanian Devil might President-former-Prosecuting-Attorney Giuliani appoint as AG? Can think of a few political opponents who have personal, vested interests in making sure that never happens.
naliaka on May 1, 2007 at 7:10 PM
I absolutly love that a rag like VF pounces on Rudy. It might sting us a little, to sit up and take notice at just what a treasure he is!
NEMETI IN SYRACUSE on May 1, 2007 at 7:58 PM
.
And we know this because he says so or because he has mastered irascibility? Dear God.
honora on May 2, 2007 at 11:13 AM
Comment pages: