As a result, Giuliani's popularity plummeted again in the spring of 2000. He was almost a laughingstock when he withdrew from his Senate campaign against Hillary Clinton. The official reason given was the Mayor's diagnosis of prostate cancer, but even conservative writers like William Safire in the New York Times and Robert Bartley in the Wall Street Journal had urged him not to run in pointed columns focused on his chaotic personal life. In May 2000 Giuliani looked like a control freak who had lost control of himself.
There are no "facts" to dispute here. Only insults and slander.
Rudy was not a "laughingstock" when he withdrew from the race. He was a man fighting cancer, and most people understood that. The Nation may consider prostate cancer an "excuse" that was given, but that Rudy did have prostate cancer cannot be disputed, and he did undergo treatment. What "fact" has The Nation put forth in this excerpt??
That Rudy "looked like a control freak who had lost control of himself" is an opinion, not a fact. That William Safire advised him not to run is a fact, but what does that prove, except that Safire had an opinion.
Where's the beef?? :)
Sorry, that's not a refutation of the article. :)
If he were polling far ahead of Hillary Clinton in 2000, he never would have dropped out of the 2000 Senate race.
Yes, he had cancer. But he had a very common form of cancer and was undergoing a treatment regimen that has almost impact on the patient's day-to-day routines (witness John Kerry in the 2004 presidential campaign).