Continetti on Giuliani
I should preface this by saying that I really have enjoyed most of Matt Continetti's work. His piece on George Allen last year had all the great virtues of magazine journalism - it was thorough, stylish and timely. But in three out of four consecutive issues of the Weekly Standard, Continetti has been reporting on Rudy Giuliani. In the first, Continetti takes on Michael Gerson's assertion that Giuliani is Nixon. Fine so far. The latest, "Rudy and the Commitments", contains a section I find somewhat strange:
After the debate, Giuliani stayed two more days in Iowa, outlining his "Eighth Commitment to the American People": "I will increase adoptions, decrease abortions, and protect the quality of life for our children." Giuliani is pro-choice in a pro-life party, and every time he discusses the Eighth Commitment, he's touching on an issue that divides him from the Republican electorate. It's a bold move, befitting a politician who has never blanched at controversy. The problem here is that his disagreement is with the voters he wants to nominate him for president.
A senior policy adviser to Giuliani gives three reasons the mayor thinks his Eighth Commitment is important. Giuliani "cares about children," says the adviser, and he can point to his record of increasing the number of adoptions in New York City. More important, though, the mayor wants to emphasize common ground with pro-lifers and get practical about steps he can take as president to reduce abortions. - Matt Continetti
Giuliani "cares about children." I'm just not sure that it's worth quoting an unnamed adviser on this matter. It doesn't exactly distinguish Giuliani from other candidates (who don't care about children - or who only care about them in the womb? Let's say something here). Also, this assertion that he "has never blanched at controversy." I know we are engaged in the opinion journalism business, but I'm not even sure what this means. Giuliani creates controversy - for instance, when he made a routine of calling constituents crazy, or when he promoted Bernard Kerik's career without having vetted him - or a worse possibility, after discovering his mob ties.
Anyway, I'm no stranger to writing flattering profiles, but this paragraph from the second article is inexplicable.
The rap on Giuliani is that his candidacy is based entirely on his leadership during September 11, 2001, and the days that followed. The truth is that Giuliani rarely mentions 9/11 on the stump. He speaks of it allusively or as part of a list of terrorist attacks against the United States and U.S. interests stretching back three decades. He seems more interested in preventing future attacks than in reminiscing about past terrorist successes. - Matt Continetti
There is just nothing presented to support this. Give me an anecdote that reveals this conscious or unconscious interest of Giuliani. The quote that follows doesn't support it at all. In fact, Giuliani's big essay in Foreign Policy would seem to contradict it as it begins and ends with several invocations of 9/11.
I really think the next piece from the Standard on Giuliani, should deal with the claims made by this piece.
Michael Brendan Dougherty
in Politics
|
2 Comments
Share this: del.icio.us | Digg | Google | Ma.gnolia | Reddit | Stumble Upon | Technorati
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (2)
What is republican to do? I am not excited about ANY of our candidates right now. I know it is very early, but I have to admit I am a bit concerned.
I'd give up on the G.O.P... if there was a sinking ship, that was it.
And something has got to be done about the abortion issue, because both parties will use it as a wedge issue for the next ten years to detract attention while the barbarians take over completely.