Is Rudy a phony?

>>He proved on 9/11 and in the aftermath that he's cool and level-headed in a crisis. Which ain't nothing.

Thank you for noting that! So many commenters seem to think that simply because Rudy didn't dissolve into panic on 9/11, that makes him an anti-terror expert.

This is a very damaging article on Rudy Guiliani, but it does contain some partisan sniping about what Clinton vs. Bush II did or didn't do to counteract the Al Qaeda threat. Such sniping is not really relevant to Guiliani's role in handling terrorism in NYC.

On the other hand, Guiliani DID provide New Yorkers and, to a large degree, the rest of the nation a sense of leadership and control, even a bit of handholding, to a nation that was frigtened out its wits, much like FDR's sense of leadership and command in 1933-1934 at the worst of the Depression. Whether FDR's (and Guiliani's) reputations are deserved is questionable, but theses are instances where political perceptions matter every bit as much as reality, and these perceptions broke in FDR's and Guiliani's direction.

But Guiliani's appeal extends further than terrorism. A large part of the Republican constituency are the "law and order" Republicans, who deplore "soft on crime" judges and politicians, and see the Democrats as pandering to, and making excuses for, those sectors of society where criminality reigns the strongest. Guiliani's gloves-off approach to crime DID transform the city in dramatic ways, and it is hard to underestimate how well that resonants with rank-and-file Republicans. The problem, of course, is that most of the "fixing broken windows" strategy is something that is normally done at the local level, and that begs the question as to whether it is really the role of the federal government to fix broken windows. While I think that most Republicans would support an activist or "gloves-off" federal response at the local level to terrorist or seditious plots, there will be serious divisions amongst Republicans if Guiliani continues to extend the federal government into what were previously local and state prerogatives.

I don't beleive for a second this cast reading list baout Bin laden and Winston Churchill books that Judi Nathan supposedly gave Guiliani after 9/11. That's all crap.

I'm from a family of NYPD cops, and live in a neighborhood filled with cops and firemen, and several fewer after 9/11. I still find the way Guiliani campaigns on 9/11 as a hero unseemly, especially since Guiliani and his hand-picked snotty RINO midget treat them at contract time like useless DMV clerks than the heroes they were and still are.But had we had David Dinkins drunkenly babbling through the day, it would have been much worse. Or as bad with Mike Bloomberg worrying if the terrorists smoked cigs or had eaten trans fat in french fries.

Guiliani got the big things right and made the right enemies, like Al Sharpton. And when the Voice decides to do as huge expose on Sharpton, let us all know. But don't hold your breath. NY liberals like the Voice hate Guiliani because he in so many ways great and small exposed them as hacks and losers. Ans for that they'll never forgive him.

But Jack Rich is right. The Voice would rather worry about the impact of the war on the gay, lesbian and transgendered community rather than whether these animals will kill us all. And if they had their way, we'd be walking around in our hairshirts worrying about offending Arabs by even complaining baout 3000 dead NYers.

Simply, Guiliani is not a nice man. He will surround himself with yes men. he has a huge ego. Damn, he's a POLITICIAN! But he'll get the big things right.

I'd expect to vote among Thompson, Guiliani or Paul. But if you want to boost Guiliani's vote totals, psot more negative stories from the Voice.

There is only one thing I would want to see if Rudy gets elected. The look on the Saudi Ambassador's face when he looks into Rudy's eyes.

Bugg: And when the Voice decides to do as huge expose on Al Sharpton, let us know.

Here ya go -- from 2004, and written by the same reporter who did the Rudy hit.

I've had a soft spot for Rudy ever since 9/11. A recent article, not in the Village Voice, but, I think, in Slate, predicted what would happen if Rudy became President. (I don't have the link, and don't recall when I read it.)

Given his somewhat legendary short temper, the author suggested that within a few months of taking office, Rudy would not be on speaking terms with anyone in his cabinet. The author didn't discuss any big lies, but did suggest that Michael Bloomberg has accomplished just as much as Giuliani with less fuss and fanfare. I'll always be grateful for Giuliani's behavior on 9/11, but I'm not backing him for president, because I don't feel his experience in that one crisis qualifies him to be POTUS.