Today there was an interesting article in the Hill about Rudy Giuliani being a possible “dark horse” in 2012. Apparently, “It’s not because Giuliani has shifted; it’s because the Republican Party has. The 2010 election was less about social conservatism than it was fiscal conservatism, and that aligns with Giuliani’s socially moderate and fiscally conservative ideology.”
As someone who worked on that campaign in 2007-2008, my answer is an overwhelming NO. I was on the ground with the campaign in New Hampshire and throughout NY/NJ, it was virtually run by a group of “yes men” who never told Rudy that it was a bad idea to run down to Florida for several weeks at a time “campaigning.” The election wasn’t a total loss for Rudy, after all, he got higher speaking fees and I’m sure his wink towards a possible 2012 bid is exactly what will keep those engagements in demand. If he really wanted the presidency, and didn’t bother vesting in the time in it during 2008 – when the “America’s Mayor” image was ripe in the minds of millions, I doubt he would bother putting in the will in 2012. I see Heinze’s point in the article, though, a less socially conservative candidate may be an easier sell and Rudy famously brought crime down and cut thousands off of welfare. However, John Thune, Mitch Daniels, Chris Christie, etc. etc. are also perfectly capable of looking fiscally responsible, relatively moderate on social issues, and have the drive to go through a presidential campaign. I love the Rudy, but he just didn’t want it enough.