Yeah right!
Lets see (in no particular order):
- Invention of the airplane
- Mass production and affordability of the automobile
- Development of antibiotics
- Curing polio
- Defeat of fascism
- Defeat of the Soviet Union
- Manned space flight/moon landing
- Advances in communication (worldwide telephone, satellites, internet, etc.)
Rudy benefitted from a very strong economy throughout his administration, Wall Street executives were getting staggering paychecks and bonuses that resulted in greater tax revenues for NYC. Essentially, the economic benefits to NYC were going to happen regardless. In the end, the "economic turnaround" of NYC only had a real effect on people who lived there. But hey, if you want to go around telling everyone that Rudy's economic policies as mayor was the "greatest achievement of the 20th century" knock yourself out. But let me just warn you that Hillary Clinton WILL BE ABLE TO SAY THE EXACT SAME THING ABOUT THE AMERICAN ECONOMY DURING HER HUSBAND'S ADMINISTRATION.
Uh, not really, wagglebee. NYC has a larger economy than all but 5-6 states. And if you keep reading, you'll see that I corrected what I posted.
Rudy's achievements in NYC have been called both the greatest FISCAL conservative achievement of the 20th century and the greatest urban achievement of the 20th century.
I know I sound like an old tune played poorly, but Everyone in the race has something “greatest” good and bad thing in their past as far as having accomplished. In my mind’s eye, the greatest accomplishment for Rudy was something everyone chooses to ignore.
In 1995 Yassar Arafat was in NYC to give a speech to that body of crooks and evil people. He was at a performance in the Lincoln Center and when the Mayor of NYC found out, the Mayor grabbed a cop and had the cop escort Yassar to his hosting embassy. Yassar was restricted to two points and any request for deviation from his established “official” schedule had to be cleared before he was allowed to be in either of the two places.
The hooting and howling was predictable. Madeline and the entire State Department, all of the sycophants in the Clinton gang, all of the UN, most psychopathic liberals and the entire liberal MSM; were all condemning the Mayor. The Mayor’s response was simple enough. Yassar had been identified as the head of a terrorist organization and as such would not be allowed to walk the streets of NYC freely. He did NOT have diplomatic Immunity nor did he enjoy ANY rights to the hospitality of NYC.
Obviously the hooting and hollering built in crescendo until it was deafening. The result???? Simple; the Mayor didn’t back down and stood up for his beliefs, showed his courage, and stood on principle. The Mayor was declaring for all to see that he was a leader based on values the I happen to share.
As far as 9/11 goes, The same Mayor was “only doing his job”. Those quotes are mine, but the people of NYC elected him to do just what he did. The only ting about 9/11 where I give him credit for as being above and beyond the call is when he told that Saudi Sheik to stuff his $20M where the sun don’t shine. As I remember then he was criticized for not taking the $$. In all honesty, the criticism was somewhat subdued and muted.
I want the chance to vote for a man with courage and conviction and who will win in the WOT. I want a leader to be in charge of my country. We’ve had enough managers.
GREAT list!
I've got one more for you: the invention of the DISPOSABLE DIAPER! :D
"regardless" of what? many of those financial services businesses were moving out of the City, another term of Dinkins, and many more would have. how was NYC going to benefit from the tax revenues "regardless" of who was Mayor, if the businesses left the City?
You start off well, puncturing the statement that New York City's turnaround under Mayor Guiliani was the greatest accomplishment of the 20th century, but then make a serious of untenable arguments.
New York City's turnaround under Mayor Guiliani was indeed impressive. It had lost 1 million people under the prior mayor, and regained that number under Guiliani. Incomes and property values rebounded strongly, and crime fell by so much that it impacted the national figures.
You say the rebound of New York City wasn't due to Mayor Guiliani, but was due to President Clinton. If this were true, why didn't all or even most American cities rebound? Why is it that Detroit continued its slide into the abyss, and Philadelphia start to totter on the brink of demise?
Considering President Clinton, for two years he worked with a Democratic Congress and for six years he worked with a Republican Congress. A lot of credit for what we did in terms of maintaining and deepening the economic expansion that began in 1992 (cutting taxes, welfare reform and developing a budget surplus), has to go to both President Clinton and the Republican Congress.
On the other hand, President Clinton (and that Republican Congress) down-sized the military, and the Army in particular, leaving us unable to amass the kind of occupation force that could have overwhelmed any insurgency in Iraq. To be sure, the army was lighter, more moble, and more lethal, as was demonstrated in our amazing victories in both Afghanistan and Iraq. But, in terms of putting boots on the ground, our contingency plan for Iraq envisioned the blue helmets of the U.N. taking over, and that proved to be unrealistic.
The down-sizing of the army and the continuing treatment of the war on terror as a police matter instead of a military matter, left us exposed to the 9-11 attack and limited in our options in prosecuting the war in Iraq. These are, equally with the economy, part of the Clinton legacy.
Guiliani, among other candidates, would be fresh, free of any defensiveness with regard to the mistakes we made either under President Clinton or President Bush, able to learn from our experiences thusfar in the war on terror, and to move forward.