First, Giuliani:

Exhibit A

Exhibit B.

Read away. Both are quick reads and informative in their own way. While Peggy Noonan struggles with the concept of reasonableness, I’ll set the bar at basic honesty. None of these Republicans can even meet that.

Then, we have the ridiculousness that’s the Romney campaign, best summarized by this quote:

But I do not think I have ever seen a candidate who has moved so far, so quickly, so shamelessly and so cynically across the political spectrum as Mitt Romney. I say “cynically” because that’s what it is; it should be painfully obvious to anyone with clear political vision that Romney’s political conversion was borne out of nothing so much as pure calculation. He thought he could win as a conservative, so he became one. If he thought he could win as a pirate, he would have become a pirate.

Sure, that last sentence is the funniest and most accurate description of the Mitt Romney, the candidate. But, the best observation in that post has to be the final line:

But if Mitt Romney does wind up as the GOP candidate, it will be an immensely revealing election for those who had the gall to deride John Kerry as a flip-flopper.

Well, duh… but you’ll NEVER see that on the evening news or the Sunday talk shows or the political press. After all, IOKIYAR. After all, it’s not just Romney. McCain and Giuliani have some pretty egregious flips, too.

(the quote found via Atrios)

Via Kevin Drum, I found this Times article describing the fast and lose way Giuliani is playing with statistics in his speeches and advertising campaigns. It debunks a number of his most commonly used statistical claims, some relatively minor but others quite significant. Worth a quick read just for that insight.

I’d rather draw your attention to a telling statement by Ramesh Ponnuru buried in the piece:

Ramesh Ponnuru, a senior editor at National Review magazine, said Mr. Giuliani’s plan “may be the best of the Republican health care plans.”

“The trouble is that the exact statistic he used was misleading,” Mr. Ponnuru said in a recent interview, elaborating on a blog post he wrote. “It became an argument about the statistics, and he dug in and defended it when he was wrong.”

That’s exactly the problem. He shares Bush’s inability to admit when he’s wrong, and like Bush and Cheney, will dig in and attack, attack, attack when he’s given evidence of his errors. It’s like having Bill O’Reilly as a candidate. Incompetence and stubbornness are a bad combination. Just look at President Bush.

This isn’t just an isolated incident, but a pattern with Rudy. Now that an honest-to-goodness scandal is brewing around him, one that Rudy insists is a non-issue, this is how he’s behaving:

Giuliani, who is normally friendly to reporters, bristled past them, and campaign staffers were unusually physical in keeping the press away. Several campaign aides told campaign reporters to return to the press area, and some of his security detail manhandled reporters. On other occasions, reporters have been free to video Giuliani as he is shaking hands and signing autographs after events, and he often informally takes questions from reporters.

Our current President hides from protestors. With a Rudy presidency, we could have the second coming of J Edgar Hoover’s secret files or COINTELPRO.

I think this says it best:

There is precedent for all this. And in Giuliani’s case, the threat has the added benefit of being true. You don’t need to make anything up, invent any scandals, concoct any problems. You just have to honestly evaluate the words coming out of Giuliani’s mouth, the rhetoric coming out of his campaign, and the advisers circling the candidate. It’s all there. There’s no blowjob, I know, but there’s a real threat, and the media should, in its role as guardian of some minimal level of competency within the political process, be pointing out that this man is dangerous, his statements scary, his campaign unsettling, and his advisers insane. His is not a normal candidacy, and so long as the reporters continue treating it as the equivalent of Hillary Clinton’s campaign rather than Pat Buchanan’s, we’re in trouble.

Giuliani will destroy this country. I tempered my words in my post on the subject, but that’s my honest sense of the situation. I don’t believe we can handle more wars and more autocracy from the White House.

First, let me say that being with a startup has a few drawbacks, one of which is that I don’t have time to put together thought out posts. There just isn’t enough time since I’m already burning hours all the time coding or thinking or planning what the team does.

Generally speaking, if I don’t just do a link post, it’s a sign that I consider the thought particularly important. Thankfully, for today’s important thought, I don’t have to write much because Josh Marshall has done the honors far better than I could.

Currently, our politics and our administration suffer from two grave sins. The first is the arrogance of authoritarian rule, the second is rooted in the shallowness of pop science and pop economics over actual study and understanding.

The first manifests itself in signing statements and the “daddy” behavior of the Bush Administration. “Trust us, we know best” is precisely what the Constitution’s protections are all about. Trust is openness and transparency. It’s not about trusting our authorities blindly. It’s not about the secrecy that permeates this administration.

The Administration’s second problem shows up in their policies where research contradicts conservative theories. We’ve seen it in the ridiculous obsession with tax cuts based on a back-of-a-napkin theory. Or denying global warming when the rest of the world not only gives it credence but have enacted policies.

Marshall goes into more details, so I won’t repeat the point here. The bottom line: any examination of Rudy Giuliani’s record and governing style as mayor shows the same tendencies as George W. Bush. As painful as these last few years have been, I really believe that another 4 or, God forbid, 8 years under a Giuliani presidency will irreparably damage this country. We’re facing some big issues, a falling currency that will have global ramifications, a complex situation in the Middle East that defies the simplistic framework Bush and Giuliani’s advisors put forward, and impending crises in oil and energy in general.

In other words, we need leadership that actually leads our country, not tries to win elections constantly. These are serious problems that need serious solutions and serious people to solve them. Unfortunately for him, Giuliani shows the same tendencies as Bush in governing and in his personality. Please, Republicans, nominate someone else…

What will the next presidency be about? Foreign policy is obviously a central focus. Terrorism and Iraq, are front and center, with Iran, China, imports, moral authority and a myriad of other issues also in the picture. At the same time, we’re talking about healthcare, the rising costs of health insurance, prescriptions, and the rolls of the uninsured. It’s probably fair to say that a presidential candidate should have a decent grasp of both of these issues.

I know a few of my friends (and FatMixx readers) consider Rudy Giuliani as a satisfactory Republican candidate. He does seem to be a decent candidate on the surface. Mayor on 9/11, showed calm leadership in the scary days right after the attacks, and has stances on hot button issues that both infuriate and excite both Democrats and Republicans. Unfortunately, any time Giuliani has made any policy statement, he’s shown how shallow his candidacy really is.

On foreign policy issues, Giuliani wrote a piece for Foreign Affairs. It is a horrible piece, completely devoid of the understanding of the world stage, terrorism, and diplomacy that one would expect from a serious presidential candidate. Read the piece and then read some of the reaction around the web. Hilzoy, at Obsidian Wings, wrote a great piece summarizing her views and the reactions from various observers. It’s the best place to start for reactions and analysis, as she links to most of the major reporters and scholars writing on this.

Matt Yglesias has the best line:

The result is a chilling vision of a world where peace can only be achieved through American military domination

Fills you with longing for the days when Bush randomly insulted enemies with no intention of following through.

On the healthcare front, we have a healthcare speech that Ezra Klein, of The American Prospect, broke down. The headline of his piece: “A Man with a Non-Plan,” which about sums it up. It’s simply not serious, but calculated to shape his political message. I think the message is “low taxes! Democrats are socialists! Socialists I tells ya!” Or something like that.

So, read those pieces and then answer one question: Why would you vote for this guy?

I suspect Rudy is actually trying to avoid saying he thinks the war is lost with his non-committal answers on the Iraq situation, but I, too, am disturbed by his refusal to work with the ISG given the opportunity. I’m not convinced Giuliani will be effective as President, in large part because he’s going through the same contortions that McCain went through. In other words, it will be nearly impossible to predict Rudy’s policy performance at the Presidential level because of who he’ll be beholden to if he wants another 4 years. He’s a risky bet for anyone. The true believers who still back Bush shouldn’t trust him and those of us who think Bush’s foreign policy has been a colossal cluster-f just can’t take the chance. Where does that leave him?

(PS. What do you think of the Featured Video addition to FM? Keep it? Chuck it? Leave a comment below and let me know.)

Odd thought: every criticism about waffling, making stuff up, and shifting with the winds when it’s politically convenient that one has ever heard about Clinton, Gore, or Kerry is absolutely true about McCain, Romney, and Rudy. Seriously, do these guys actually believe anything aside from their own infallibility? McCain has flipped on so many issues it’s hard to keep track. Romney has made up some incredible silliness in the last few months (this latest thing is just the most obvious). Giuliani is probably the straightest shooter of them all, but talk about shady business dealings… anyone want to ask him about Bernard Kerik on the campaign trail? Or speculate how that reflects on his judgment?

Anyway, I doubt you’ll hear anyone aside from Jon Stewart ask any of these candidates the hard questions. The media seems uninterested unless a haircut is involved.