TNR BLOGS

July 05, 2009 | 12:13 PM
July 04, 2009 | 11:18 PM
July 04, 2009 | 6:29 PM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 05, 2009 | 12:02 PM
July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
25.01.2008
There Won't Be Blood

Last night I postponed plans to see There Will Be Blood after figuring I could get my Gothic violence fix for free by watching the Republican debate. Alas, as Noam pointed out, the thing was a bubble bath. Just a couple stray thoughts to add:   

--I'm abandoning my counterintuitive predictions that Rudy will surprise people in Florida and become a player in the race again. The handwriting was already on the wall in the form of polls. But I couldn't believe how subdued and fatalistic the man is. I guess Rudy's decided it's not worth furthering curdling his reputation by going down ugly.

--Again, Romney seems to have a knack for sounding out of touch. Consider this quote about natural disaster insurance:

We had the problem not just in Florida, but we also had the problem in Massachusetts. Those poor folks that are snow birds, that go from Massachusetts to Florida, see it in both states, because people who live along the coastline across the Atlantic have the same problem. Getting homeowner's insurance is oftentimes almost impossible.

Poor folks? My understanding of the term "snow birds" is that it generally applies to Northerners who spend winter months in their second home down south. Those folks aren't poor and most regular people probably don't feel too sorry about their insurance headaches.

--My favorite moment: When international-finance obsessive Ron Paul challenged John McCain to supply his opinion of "the president's working group on financial markets." It was plain from McCain's furrowed brow that he had no idea what Paul was talking about, and he proceeded to stammer through a long non-answer. Paul tried to follow up but the man is just too timid to do such a thing successfully.

--One more thought about Rudy: He looked horrible. The process seems to have taken a real toll on him. Did anyone else notice the bizarre teeth-baring chipmunk face he kept making? 

--Michael Crowley

Posted: Friday, January 25, 2008 9:59 AM with 14 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

jmurph79 said:

Question: Will Rudy's "campaign" go down as the worst in history, or just one of the worst?

January 25, 2008 10:29 AM

miceelf said:

I feel sad that we won't have Judy "Bring me those puppies" Nathan as first lady.

January 25, 2008 10:47 AM

miceelf said:

PS. As for worst campaigns, surely Fred Thompson's deserves at least an honorable mention?

January 25, 2008 11:33 AM

Wandreycer1 said:

He's probably trying to salvage that high priced "consulting" racket - his price drops every day. Who needs him now?

Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

January 25, 2008 11:37 AM

dmorehous said:

jmurph79: That's hard to say, since this year alone, just looking at the GOP field, we have the Thompson and Duncan Hunter (!) examples to consider as well.

January 25, 2008 11:41 AM

jmurph79 said:

Re: Thompson vs Rudy.  

It's close.  Thompson at least took a stab at campaigning; granted, he was typically unenthusiastic, lethargic, and maybe even downright drowsy most of the time.  But still.  Rudy's just been riding around in parades in Florida, getting heckled by "Rudy's a baby-killer" types.  

January 25, 2008 11:43 AM

Bukharin said:

I hope these aren't premature or the least bit mistaken farewells to Rudy.  God knows the churlish man deserves his time in oblivion.

January 25, 2008 11:57 AM

austinexpat said:

It would be a tough call, choosing whether Rudy or Fred's campaigns were more laughable.  I think I'd have to give the edge to Fred, simply because the buzz about him as a "man on horseback" riding to the rescue of the Republicans was so overblown and cheesy.  Rudy, despite all his various flaws and his extremely dubious strategy to win the nomination, at least appears engaged in the process, rather than a celebrity candidate who was a little too important to bother with that whole "campaigning" thing.

January 25, 2008 12:33 PM

boneill said:

Rudy, by far.  Rudy wanted to win.  Fred had that "it doesn't mean too much to me, but if you all want to give me the nomination, I'll take it."  Clownish?  Sure, but I couldn' help but admire it, in a perverted way.  Rudy desperately wanted to be President (at least at first- I don't think so anymore) and ran a campaign predicated on the worst strategy ever.  Fred's "screw it- vote for me if you want" might have been wose abstractly, but given their ambitions Rudy fares worse.  

January 25, 2008 12:50 PM

stgla said:

Both Rudy and Fred have lucrative other careers (speech circuit/"consulting" and acting).  The question is, who was hurt worse by his presidential campaign?  Surely Rudy because he makes money giving speeches.  After giving it away free for so long, now he can't pay people to listen to him.  Fred, on the other hand, was just biding his time until the writers' strike ends. If anything he'll get more offers, although probably continue to be type-cast.  We should ask Chris Orr what he thinks.

Huckabee will come out of this having gained the most from running a losing presidential campaign.  His Iowa win and any delegates he can pick up in the next couple of weeks are good for a political appointment, some lucrative speaking engagements, or maybe a job at one of those Christian zealotry colleges.  God knows he can use the money.

January 25, 2008 1:03 PM

blackton said:

To be fair, I took Romney's line about poor not to mean financial but unfortunate.

I would love to express my delight in Rudy's failure, but I am afraid I might be psychoanalysed as having some deepseated God-father issues, so I will forestall that by saving. Good Try Rudy, viva Italia! May the best ma...oops person win.

January 25, 2008 1:10 PM

ackyri said:

Giuliani was more lazy than even Thompson. At least Thompson begrudgingly met a person or two in Iowa. For a while Giuliani was considered the front runner (while in the race; that's a distinction from Thompson) and then started throwing up white flags in the early states as soon as they ceased to look like cakewalks for them. If I were a GOP voter I'd have to question one of Rudy's basic premises: If this man can't even confront his opponents in primaries, how are we to expect him to confront Islamic terrorists worldwide?

Maybe Rudy should think about becoming pro-life, let's say... oh, sometime later today. Most Republicans these days tend to take flip-flops from their candidates at face value (i.e. McCain on immigration and Bush tax cuts, Romney on anything and everything). I sense just a bit of desperation.

January 25, 2008 1:36 PM

cspencef said:

Romney doesn't even know what a snowbird is, and he hasn't bothered to look at any of the catastrophe pool plans before coming to campaign in the state.  And yet he's still near the top in FL polls...*sigh*  I lived there for thirteen years and I still do *not* get that state.

January 25, 2008 5:07 PM

sabatia said:

I did notice what you refer to as the "chipmunk" face. I looked like a man who has recently started taking an anti-depressent, like Wellbutrin or Paxil. Not depressed, feeling a little good, just a bit more smiley and sociable than usual.  I even felt bad for him when confronted with the NYT's description.  And McCain was truly thoughtful in his defense, though I completely disagree.

Shtupgate and Kerik: Rs said to themselves: "Oops. Rudy's got slime. We don't want another Clinton." And that was the bullet that shot Mr. Rudy dead, not bad strategy nor his so-called "liberal" (actually "moderate") social views.

For you Rudy afficianardos!: There are some really funny Rudy political cartoons at the Cartoons section at Slate.com

January 25, 2008 7:22 PM