The Full Rudy: The Man, the Mayor, the Myth

The Nation ^ | 05/30/2002 | Jack Newfield

[Elyse]

This has nothing to do with the article, but I was watching the first season of the Sopranos on video the other day and whenever someone talked about the mother's dead mafia husband that she didn't get along with while she was married, she would exclaim,"The man was a saint!" I turned to my husband and said,"She sounds like a Guiliani supporter. Mayor Guiliani, the man was a saint!"

[Corin Stormhands]

As a cancer survivor, I would suspect that at the time he had to make the decision, much of the prognosis, the treatment and his reaction to it were unknown.

I was only 32 when I went through surgery and treatments. I was very fortunate and the treatment was minimal. I thought I could function normally, but soon found out I was wrong.

I won't second guess Rudy for his decision regarding his cancer. Likewise I won't second guess Elizabeth Edwards. People deal with cancer in many ways.

Unless you've had cancer, you can't really judge how you would react/deal with it.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Here is what the poster said in the prime comment:

From 2002.

Okay then. To all Rudy supporters, I will grant this: The Nation is a liberal equivalent of the Weekly Standard. However, some of the information within has been supported by other websites.

I want to know if any of the information in this article is DEMONSTRABLY false. If so, we need to know before the primaries.

Yes, you can infer if you want that his intent was the opposite of what he stated. But his statement was not one of support for the article, but was a plea to Rudy supporters to refute the factual claims in this post.

[dirtboy]

At a press conference Giuliani argued that the dead man's conduct at age 13 was "highly relevant."

Ain't that a hoot. The Rudy boosters tell us, when we post articles from ten years ago, that such isn't relevant. Yet Rudy attacked a guy for something he did when he was THIRTEEN?

The hypocrisy of Rudy and his cult of personality knows no boundaries.

[spikeytx86]

Though I back Giuliani, I respect your reasoned view point. I don't get why some people cant just say "I can not vote for him because I don't like his position on too many issues" instead of the vile spiel some do around here.

[CharlesWayneCT]

I think you have to look at his record in the context of the environment he was in. It is easy to stand for rigid theoretical principles when you live in a safe, rural or exurban environment. But when you are trying to bring order out of the chaos that was NYC, marshall law was probably the only way it could be accomplished.

I do think that one part of Rudy's support comes from the "law-and-order" conservatives, who don't seem to mind taking away a little liberty when "necessary" because of how bad things are.

I've noticed there are a lot of posters to FR that seem to feel law enforcement can do no wrong, criminals deserve whatever they get no matter how trivial the crime, people can't be trusted with freedom and instead require authority. There is a lot more "ends justifies the means" postings than I remember from even a couple years ago when I first showed up.

There is a fine line between a "tough, no nonsense leader" and a dictatorial egolomaniac with delusions of grandeur.

I do tend toward the law-and-order side, and like to give enforcement the benefit of the doubt (although you'd hardly believe that looking at my posts from the last few months). But I've been so alarmed by the rampant "whatever we do to stop crime/terrorism/illegals/liberals is OK, no matter what the cost to personal liberty, common decency, or basic humanity" arguments, that I've been essentially taking a hard line against it lately, just to try to balance things out.

[sitetest]

Dear spikeytx86,

"I don't get why some people cant just say 'I can not vote for him because I don't like his position on too many issues' instead of the vile spiel some do around here."

Well, part of the problem is that posters often get condemned for posting facts about Mr. Giuliani. It is a fact that Mr. Giuliani is very liberal on many social issues. It is a fact that he actually took guns from law-abiding citizens in New York City who previously were legally allowed to possess guns. It is a fact that he actually had a policy to have the option to seize cars from folks ACQUITTED of drunk driving charges. It is a fact that he's a serial adulterer and philanderer, that he paraded his latest floozy in front of all New York and his own children before divorcing his mother and marrying the floozy.

The rudybots might not like to hear this stuff and more, but it's true. And it's all germane to the question of whether we should vote for him.

As to the personal level between posters here, it's gotten ugly in part because those of us who have said that we will not vote for Mr. Giuliani have been attacked, often harshly and viciously, by rudybots. Often for little more than saying we won't vote for him, or for repeating the less edifying parts of Mr. Giuliani's record and life.

I've personally had my intelligence questioned, my integrity questioned, my patriotism, my party loyalty as well, to name a few items. I've been condescended to, told I'm naive, told I know nothing about politics, told that I'm over-emotional in my politics, otherwise called names, and been otherwise generally insulted.

I've seen some rudybots make stuff up, lie, have the lies pointed out repeatedly, seen the lies repeated.

Personally, I try not to respond in kind. I hope I haven't responded in kind too often; it's not my intention to lower myself to that level.

But it ain't easy.


sitetest

[Alberta's Child]

It is easy to stand for rigid theoretical principles when you live in a safe, rural or exurban environment. But when you are trying to bring order out of the chaos that was NYC, marshall law was probably the only way it could be accomplished.

Would you make the same silly, lame excuse if this kind of crap went on under a Democratic administration?

Giuliani's outright refusal to abide by the provisions of the 1996 Federal immigration reform law aimed specifically at prohibiting the kind of "sanctuary city" policy in place in New York City directly contradicts your statement that Giuliani was "trying to bring order out of the chaos that was NYC." In fact, this single issue destroys every shred of credibility he ever had as a "law and order" public official -- and exposes him as nothing more than a jac@ss with a totalitarian approach to governing who sees absolutely no constraints on his power in office.

A person who is willing to violate my right to keep and bear arms and seize my personal property without any due process -- while at the same time extending a welcome hand to a family of Muslim polygamist illegal aliens next door*, or an illegal immigrant from Africa who unwittingly spreads anthrax around the building next door from the animal skins he imports (illegally) for his bongo drums* -- should NEVER, EVER be trusted to keep your interests, or the interests of the nation as a whole, in mind as serves in an executive capacity.

* -- Yes, these are both true stories from the annals of "The Things Illegal Aliens Do for New York City"

[Simon_Smith]

Thanks!

[massadvj]

Completely agree. Personally, I oppposed the Patriot Act, but I cannot deny that it has been quite effective in preventing another 9/11.

I also personally hate NYC. It's too much like Disneyland to me. Highly controlled and all facade. But I cannot deny that it functions well, and therefore as a businessperson myself must admire the leadership that accomplished it.

Imagine Giuliani in the situation Bush finds himself in with Gonzales? Do you think Giuliani would go in there, apologize, admit that mistakes were made, allow the Dims their publicity stunt charade? I don't think so.

One man's tough law and order Republican is another man's dictatorial egomaniac, there's no denying it. And once you start fooling with liberty, it is a very dangerous game.

In Rudy's defense, let me just say I doubt that he sees the state of the USA to be parallel to that of NYC as far as initiating marshall law. If he does, I will fight him all the way, as I did Bush with the Patriot Act and Harriet Miers.

Having supported Giuliani with money, time and a vote, I'll at least have some influence into the decisions, as opposed to supporting someone who can't win and then having no influence.

[massadvj]

As I said. Imagine someone turning Washington DC into a financial stable, relatively peaceful urban oasis. You can point to this particular or that particular until people get dizzy with information. The fact is, the magnitude of what Giuliani accomplished will not be diminished by any of it. People will see that he walked the walk while others were merely talking the talk. And they will understand that any political leader who walks the walk will have political baggage; but in the end they will judge him by the outcomes, and that is why he will win.

[SJackson]

Well, 59 posts in and I haven't read anybody posting who agreed with any of the subjective statements made by the Nation. So I think the claim that there are fans of the Nation are wrong....In fact, I'm about the only one posting who seems to have picked any statements out of the article and claimed they were bothersome to me. And that was not about what the article said about it, but about the actual event.

They make the liberal ante-Rudy case well, and essentially the article seems accurate.

They don't really touch on the "conservative" anti-Rudy case. His sex life, immigration, his wife(ves), gun control, his cancer, gay marriage, his charity and Sat. Night Live appearances, et al.

For a candidate promoted as a terror warrior based on his policing experience, I'd say his push it to and over the line tactics is his greatest defect.

He controlled "crime" by creating new criminals, then confiscating their guns. Freepers don't like that one. Along with his clear attempt to bypass the legislative process with the manufacturers suit.

His aggressive "stop and frisk" tactics were unconstitutional, but I'm not sure that's a big issue here.

They resulted in several deaths, my experience those of us who consider that an issue are in the minority.

His relations with the minority community, that's not an issue.

I'm not surprised you're not seeing the facts of the article challenged, they're not really negatives from a conservative perspective.

[SJackson]

I think you have to look at his record in the context of the environment he was in. It is easy to stand for rigid theoretical principles when you live in a safe, rural or exurban environment. But when you are trying to bring order out of the chaos that was NYC, marshall law was probably the only way it could be accomplished.

I disagree.

Your reference to marshal law is instructive. If marshal law was needed, and I question that, there's a process in place which can be employed.

Unlike policing, marshal law is clearly an issue potentially adressed on a national level.

I want a President who, if needed, will work within the traditional guidelines and declare it, not achieve the same objectives through fleet footed end runs around either the legislature or the courts.

[sitetest]

Dear massadvj,

"As I said. Imagine someone turning Washington DC into a financial stable, relatively peaceful urban oasis."

Actually, that happened to a significant degree under former Mayor Anthony Williams. The murder rate declined from around 500 per year to about 170 last year. The city went from the very edge of bankruptcy to solvency. Before Mr. Williams became mayor, Congress had actually taken back some aspects of home rule because of the misrule of Washington's mayors and other officeholders.

But Mr. Williams did a lot to bring the city back. In fact, under Mr. Williams, the city was able to afford to bribe Major League Baseball to finally give 'em a team.

Mayor Williams did some smart stuff to get the middle class to move back in, especially by enticing buyers with lowered real estate property taxes. The Department of Motor Vehicles, although still moderately dysfunctional, actually works on some days, and with somewhat less corruption. The city pays its bills on time. The snow gets plowed, the roads get repaired at least occasionally.

Truly, Mr. Williams performed some miracles during his tenure in office.

However, like Mr. Giuliani, he had his failures, as well. Although the charter schools show some promise, and our recent Catholic archbishop, Cardinal McCarrick, was able to stitch together a conservative/liberal coalition to permit a limited experiment in private school vouchers, nonetheless, Washington's public schools are still an obscenely expensive morass of failure. Taxes are still too high. Not all the corruption and cronyism of pre-Williams days was eliminated. There are still more bureaucrats than needed, and too many still have the attitude of, "I'm with the government, I don't have to give a damn."

But altogether, as I'd give Mr. Giuliani a B or B+ for his efforts, I'd likely give Mr. Williams a B+ or even maybe an A-.

Nevertheless, I'd never vote for Mr. Williams for president, even if he decided it was politically convenient to slap an "R" on his back.


sitetest

[Revenge of Sith]

I'm familiar with Jack Newfield. He's a moonbat who was fired from the New York Post.

[Revenge of Sith]

"People in Brownsville, Texas, might have thought of him as their mayor, but blacks in Brownsville, Brooklyn, did not."

LOL!!! This gives away Newfield's agenda.

[Non-Sequitur]

He's an SOB who will butt heads with the 535 other SOBs in Congress, so nothing will get done.

[Corin Stormhands]

He's an SOB who will butt heads with the 535 other SOBs in Congress, so nothing will get done.

Might be worth it for the entertainment value alone...

[George W. Bush]

This is a pretty in-depth article, but I want to know if any of the information within is false. After all, it's from the Nation.

I expect it's shaded but it probably reveals some of the lines of attack that the Dims would use against him in the general election. We'd better find out before it's too late.

article: Giuliani also governed in a fashion that created problems beneath the surface, for which the bill of reckoning is only now coming due. His borrowing left his successor with a $4.5 billion budget deficit only eighteen months after Rudy sat on a $3 billion surplus.

We should look into this more. The economic record is, at best, mixed. The same scrutiny should be applied to Romney's record as well.

Some of the stuff about defending really indefensible police killings is going to come back to haunt the ex-mayor. It was way over the top, however you slice it.

article: In eight years, Giuliani's most famous comment about public education was that the school system should be "blown up."

Not a good quote.

article: Even Michael Bloomberg, Giuliani's Republican successor, who was elected with the help of a powerful Giuliani TV commercial, told me: "Giuliani never got his hands around the school system. There is no question that it's gotten worse the last eight years, not better."

Many people who dump on Bloomberg don't want to admit he is Rudy's pick. And Giuliani has recently been bragging about electing him as mayor. It's all part of the package. If you don't like Bloomberg, then why do you like the guy who put him in office when he pursues many of the same policies but, according to recent polls, is considered by New Yorkers a much better mayor and potential presidential candidate that Giuliani, at least according to recent polls where Bloomberg beat Giuliani hands down with the polled voters?

article: The next chancellor was Ramon Cortines, who was selected by Giuliani's supporters on the board. Cortines, Mexican-American and gay, was subjected to a brutal campaign of personal abuse by Giuliani, who called him "precious" and "the little victim."

Some of this is pretty ugly even by the standards of the right wing and religious conservatives.

article: On August 3, 1999, Giuliani wrote a nasty letter to Crew and leaked it to the tabloids, together with a blind quote from an aide saying, "It seems he's got one foot out the door." This was the same day that Crew was burying his first wife, Angela, in a private ceremony in upstate Poughkeepsie. Crew had to respond to press calls before delivering his eulogy.

Later Crew told Barrett: "This is a maniac. On the day I was burying my wife, I have these people concocting this world of treachery....

"When Rudy sees a need to take someone out, he has a machine, a roomful of henchmen, nicking away at you, leaking crazy stories. He is not bound by the truth. I have studied animal life, and their predator/prey relations are more graceful than his."

Do we really think this is how we can achieve school choice and vouchers? Someone who operates like this is, well, a big-city machine Democrat. With an 'R' next to his name.

It's repellent.

We shouldn't take the Nation as gospel on anything. But we'd better know the full story before all the money and support is cornered by a candidate who is so un-Republican in outlook and unprincipled in his performance. And the same tough standard for scrutiny should apply to every Republican candidate for president.

[George W. Bush]

If its in the Nation, it can generally be ignored. The Nation is so far to the left (stalinist), that they think Rudy is a Rush Limbaugh conservative.

Far to the Left? Yes. But not entirely obscure either. Wasn't David Korn, Nation editor, on ABC's This Week in the last few weeks? I think he appears there and other places regularly. So he and the Nation are part of the libmedia, admittedly, on the Left flank.

That Kristina van den Heuval is also on TV pretty regularly. Let's not pretend the hard Left does not have access to the public. And if they source and research an attack on our candidates, we'd better be ready to counter. Look at what they've done to Bush over the National Guard record in 2004 and over that old DUI back in 2000.

We may not like it but any GOP candidate is going to face this kind of trashing. And the more truth there is in it, the tougher it is to win the election. The last two were squeakers against really bad Dim candidates and we still barely pulled it out.