Rudy Giuliani
Beginning Score: 300
Score History:
10/22/07: Dave - Giulini: "Open Strategic Petroleum Reserve to battle high oil prices." This, along with his support for other energy interventions for the purpose of temporary cost reduction specifically removes natural incentives for country-wide energy efficiency & longer term cost reduction. A government intervention to decrease energy costs would be more costly than doing nothing at all, especially when "nothing at all" involves maintaining emergency oil reserves. Lower reserves have commonly been credited with higher oil costs. This is a dangerous intervention in a market dependent on individual & government planning and rational expectations. I'd say -8 points, for now on this one. This is debatable, of course, so post your disagreements...
NEW SCORE (unless debated) = 292
12/19/07: I just read these bullet points:
- He supports abortion rights & backs late-term abortions & Medicaid funding.
- He is for affirmative action based on race & gender and energetically administered set-aside programs in NYC to encourage minority contractors.
- He favors controls on handguns and rifles, and presided over the most restrictive gun controls in the nation as mayor of NYC.
- He supports greater immigration and the delivery of public services to those who are here illegally.
[Waiting for more...]
6 comments:
-2 points for his campaign dependence on the attacks in NYC on 9/11.
+2 points for the massive city tax reduction during his tenure as Mayor of NYC.
-2 points for not making his involvement in the reduction of the MOB dealings in NYC more known in the campaign. It would be a great selling point to be 'tough' on crime. I can't help but think he might be keeping that in his hip pocket for later.
I think we'd be justified in not liking the guy for trying to win the presidential election based on the fact that he happened to be the NY mayor during Sept. 11...
Remember, though, that -4 is the minimum point reduction, and we can't add points to a candidate's score...
And I'm not sure if being in the right place at the right time & constantly exploiting that fact necessarily means he'll be a horrible president... or that he should lose 4 points...
(Personally I think it's very telling, but I'm trying to stay as objective as possible.)
And as for his crime stance, you're probably right - we've yet to hear his real stance on this one.
So I guess upon those standards we should have -4 points for the 9/11 suggestions?
The reason I added points to the tax reduction, is because I am giving props, so I will stand with +4 points on that.
I'm not sure if it might be but premature to reduce -4 points in the lack of mention regarding crime.
So what I am suggesting is either a total of 0 points or -4 points. Either way, these arguments need to start coming out for debate, that is as long as he is a running candidate...
I am not being completely objective - I think we need to voice any concerns as needed for this experiment to be successful. Though I understand that you as a pledged voter, probably should stay more objective than critical.
Indeed - I say we wait until he starts making promises to score him.
We've got a long time, I think, to play Gamepaign with Rudy Giuliani - I have a pretty strong feeling he'll be his party's nominee...
And like I said, I don't think constantly using 9/11 for emotional reasons necessarily means he'll destroy the country.
...though it certainly doesn't help!
And as you surely know, Fred, if I wasn't trying to be overly-objective I would agree with those points 102%...
So, reading through this...at what point would we recommend point deductions based on a candidate not addressing certain issues. Should there be a specific number deduction per notable topic?
That's a good point/idea.
Fortunately, though, candidates usually go on record on just about every issue throughout a campaign - the only trick is to find it.
If, however, someone thinks of something important that a candidate has not addressed, then I think we should probably develop a standard deduction, as you suggested.
So, before I (and others...?) do any voting in primary elections, we ought to find all the important things that were purposely avoided by the candidate. Fortunately, we (and the candidates) have got a couple months left.
In Giuliani's case, he's definitely made his record on crime well-known to those that look into to it (but not "known to the campaign," as Fred suggested...) He is, though, avoiding a ton of other issues.
He'll get his comeuppance.
Post a Comment