What's the scoop on Giuliani?

[Guest Thunderbuns]

As a person who does not reside in the USA, I am curious to hear an American opinion of ex-Mayor Rudy.

 

He seems to be riding high on the hit parade these days - almost as popular as Princess Di. First he's referred to as "The Mayor of America" - then he's picked as Time's "Man of the Year". News stories abound about his compassion, leadership etc. The list goes on and on.

 

Until Sept 11th I had always viewed him as one of the enemy. A man who tried to force his religious morals on NYC. Sure he was able to reduce the crime rate - good for him, that's part of his job - but why did he think that it was also his job to Disneyfy the city, so that every square mile reflected his so-called "family values"?

 

These same family values appeared to get a bit foggy when it came to his wife, children and his new squeeze

 

Then cam 9/11 and he became a self-styled hero. I don't take anything away from what he did, most of which was exemplary. But then, wouldn't any man who was the mayor at that time act in a similar manner?.

 

I have to ask myself "did he have a different agenda"? He knew he was toast in just over 3 months, presumably he wants to go on to bigger & better things - what better vehicle for his self promotion than the role he carved out for himself.

 

If he were to end up in either Albany or Washington, would you feel comfortable with that? Perhaps he could turn all of your country into the biggest Disneyland ever dreamt of!

 

Am I wrong? Tell me your views, I'd really like to hear them.

 

Thunderbuns

[Guest]

I must admit that I agree with you that I don't think the mayor did anything so extraordinary as to merit "Person of the Year" by Time. It's obvious that Bin Laden affected our world last year more than Giuliani did. Millions of travelers aren't waiting hours in airports, getting our shoes examined before we go on planes, because of something Giuliani did. Giuliani did a good job, but he just happened to be mayor of NYC at a time of crisis. Any number of mayors could have done the same thing. How Bin Laden has been able to screw up the life of billions of people is pretty amazing when you think about it. He hasn't even held elected position, yet he's been able to bring the world to the brink of WW-III.

Many subscribers, however, warned Time that they would cancel their subscriptions if Bin Laden was voted Person of the Year. Time has shied away for many years of putting evil men, such as they did when they made Hitler Man of the Year, that people have associated the title with only good men.

Unfortunately, the rules of the U.S. Senate are such that the party in the majority pretty much controls the agenda; issues will not even be voted on unless the party in the majority agrees. Were it not for filibustering, the minority party members could almost just stay home for all the effect they have on the system. Therefore, I would be loathe to support a Republican for Congress, unless I were pretty sure it wouldn't affect the control of that house. So I would rather see Sen. Clinton retain her seat, even though I respect Giuliani more as a person.

[Rick Munroe]

Thunderbuns, you just said everything Derek and I have been saying for months. And yes, we miss the sleaze of Times Square (Sandra Bernhard put it well last year...I can't remember it exactly but the gist was, "You want to have to look behind your back in fear when you walk down the street...that's the thrill of New York!")

[BgMstr4u]

There are as many opinions about Giuliani as there are New Yorkers, which mean 8 million opinions in the naked city.....

 

Giuliani's a titanic figure, with both superlatively good qualities and spectacularly bad ones. His agenda has absolutely changed New York. I don't agree that another mayor could have done quite so well. I think it took his explosive personality to make it happen. New York is such a complicated place that it needed a single minded, obsessive, near-fascistic egomaniac to get it off its dime and change. Anyone who remembers NYC ten years ago will recognize this. The place is cleaner, safer and more economically vibrant than most people could have dreamed a decade ago.

 

I live on the Fifth Avenue edge of East Harlem and I have watched this poorer area of the city be transformed, not into an eden certainly, but from the despair and filth of neglect and drugs and an attitude of "no se puede cambiar" to a decent community once again. This would not have happened without Giuliani. Ironically, I think that the greatest beneficiaries of Giuliani's legacy are the people who liked him least -- working people of color and immigrants, whose economic possibilities, incomes, and neighborhoods have measurably improved under his reign.

 

I used the word titanic, and I meant it. His tantrums, his legendary feuds, his dismissive remarks, his phobic attitudes to many things this community of folks enjoys, need no explanation and certainly will get no defense from me. But you have to take the man as he is. Without him, it would have been four more years of Dinkins, a thoroughly nice man, beloved by everyone, who was lost in the forest of NYC power politics like Hansel and Gretel lost in the woods. The city would have been worse than it was 10 year ago under him and his likely successor, Mark Green, because the same crowds of self serving politicians and unions and bureaucrats would have kept greedily feeding off the municipal trough and doing little to make the city better. If you want to know what the city would have been like, look at the schools, the one bureaucracy even Giuliani wasn't able to affect. What a universally acknowledged godawful mess they are. Even crack mothers have taken up home schooling for their kids, they're so awful.

 

And after 9/11? Well, he's a brilliant man for the times. What a blessing it has been to have him. Could some other leader have done what he did? Conceivably. But he DID do it, and we're all better for it.

 

So I add my voice of praise to the chorus thanking Giuliani. He's sure not perfect, but he changed this place for the better.

[+ Lucky]

The scare IS back in Times Square. Every time Rick and Derek walk though, parents hide their kids behind them, afraid of the Chelsea boys with lollipops!

Actually, the bigger scare is getting killed when one of those stupid tourists stops dead in his tracks, causing you to either hit him of step quickly into the street.

Yes, I miss the old Times Square....I miss the pre- Giuliani nightclubs, I miss getting sucked off by a squeegee man....They always cleaned me up so well.

[phage]

>Then cam 9/11 and he became a self-styled hero. I don't take

>anything away from what he did, most of which was exemplary.

>But then, wouldn't any man who was the mayor at that time

>act in a similar manner?.

 

Actually we can’t know that for sure. Any man would have been thrown into the same situation, but who knows whether he would have risen to the occasion. I think people always gain a measure of respect for anyone who has been tested by a crisis and proven themselves capable of meeting the challenge.

 

>If he were to end up in either Albany or Washington, would

>you feel comfortable with that? Perhaps he could turn all

>of your country into the biggest Disneyland ever dreamt of!

 

I’m not a New Yorker so I can’t speak to Albany, but Washington…NO. His focus is too narrow and intense for national politics and I think he is much too comfortable with strong arm policies.

[Guest Viewmaster]

I think both Giuliani and Bush both benefitted from the same thing - as a city and nation we projected our needs on them, and they demonstrated enough behaviorial characteristics that they enabled us to believe in them. This is no way is meant to minimize their contributions, which are very real, but I think the larger part of who they have become is a result of who we needed them to be, whether they actually were or not. In that context it becomes almost irrelevant as to who they are, and it becomes only important that we perceive them to be a certain way. Now here's something to think about, if you want to view it at a more global level: that same dynamic is exactly what is at the base of all religious faith.

[Guest TruthTeller]

>Until Sept 11th I had always viewed him as one of the enemy.

>A man who tried to force his religious morals on NYC.

 

You're quite mistaken about this. Although he's Catholic, Guiliani has been exceptionally supportive of gay rights since he's been in public life. He supports and instituted widespread domestic partnership programs for both City employees and NYC residents; marched every year in the Gay Pride parade (which, like all of those stupid parades, should be abolished immediately); and is a strong proponent of laws banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Virtually none of his efforts as Mayor had anything to do with traditionally "social conservative" issues.

 

Although his effort to "clean up" NYC has been excessive and destructive from the point of view of those of us who think that one of the uniqely valuable aspects of Manhattan was its dirty chaos, those who hold that view are in a distinct minority. Most of NYC has benefitted economically and socially by the conversion of NYC from a dirty, rat-infested shithole where criminals and mongrels ran wild (when I liked it much better), into a purified, clean, economically vibrant, tourist-friendly center of commerce. That conversion had nothing to do with religious views or "family values," and had everything to do with jobs, money, and prosperity - exactly what a Mayor should be concerned with.

 

A Mayor's job is to improve the city economically and make it safe. Long before 9/11, he did that way beyond what anyone thought was remotely possible in this "ungovernable" city. He is probably guilty of having an excessive compulsion to impose "social order," but none of that has anything to do with imposing his religious beliefs on anything.

[Guest TruthTeller]

>His focus is too narrow . . .

 

You mean he focuses too narrowly on economic prosperity and ensuring that the society in which we live is safe and that citizens adhere to the law? Instead, a politician should focus on what?

 

>and intense for

>national politics . . .

 

Too "intense" for national politics? We want our political leaders to be passive and laid-back and casual? Who are your favorite political figures? Let me guess - John Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Bill Clinton. I won't insult you by adding Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer (although I was tempted). Whoever they are, are/were they intense?

 

>and I think he is much too comfortable

>with strong arm policies.

 

"Strong arm policies" - a nice, evocative phrase. "Strong arm" usually goes with "dictator." Can you elaborate on this smear?

[+ Lucky]

Hey, TT, what was Rudy's position on crystal meth?

[Guest TruthTeller]

>Hey, TT, what was Rudy's position on crystal meth?

 

The time I shoved some booty bumps in him, he seemed to like it, at least judging by the nice hole twitching I saw (he was gagged, so that's all I could go by).

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

I think this round goes to TT and BigMstr4U.

 

BUt Mr. Mayor Bloomberg, couldn't we have just a little sleeze, say 6 city blocks (TImes Sq. area of course), sort of a Sin City set aside from Disney WOrld and I propose Rick M as Mayor, he fits the bill.

 

:-)

[+ Lucky]

Does that mean Derek would be first lady?

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>A Mayor's job is to improve the city economically and make

>it safe. Long before 9/11, he did that way beyond what

>anyone thought was remotely possible in this "ungovernable"

>city.

 

There seems to be something about the combination of Republican mayors and liberal cities that works well. GOP mayor makes trains run on time, liberal majority keeps scarier measures at bay, everybody wins.

 

Any LA people on the board with an opinion about Riordan? Did he fit the stereotype I just put out?

[Guest TruthTeller]

>There seems to be something about the combination of

>Republican mayors and liberal cities that works well. GOP

>mayor makes trains run on time, liberal majority keeps

>scarier measures at bay, everybody wins.

 

Yes, you're right. The popularity of Riordan in LA is caused by exactly the same dynamic as the popularity of Guiliani in NYC.

 

Liberals LOVE social disorder and have so much sympathy for the poor and for criminals -- as long as they're kept WAY WAY WAY over THERE. Then, criminals are so sweet and are owed so much understanding.

 

But as soon as criminals start showing up on the doorsteps of liberals, instead of just running wild in the poor neighborhoods where the liberals don't live, then the sympathy ends and they must be removed IMMEDIATELY. Riordan and Guiliani removed them, restrained criminal behavior, and since that behavior was starting to actually interfere with the lives of upper-middle-class liberals - rather than just creating barriers for the poor - they were grateful to these law-and-order Republicans for doing so.

 

It's the same dynamic as what has happened since 9/11. Liberals who previously mocked the military and had nothing but contempt and scorn for military values now suddenly feel such gratitude for it, and are eager to support it, now that they actually feel scared and need someone to fight for them.

[phage]

>>His focus is too narrow . . .

>

>You mean he focuses too narrowly on economic prosperity and

>ensuring that the society in which we live is safe and that

>citizens adhere to the law? Instead, a politician should

>focus on what?

 

Education; diplomacy; consensus building; equal opportunity (not to be confused with affirmative action); balancing social order with personal freedom; the usual liberal agenda that I know you are never going to agree with.

 

>>and intense for

>>national politics . . .

>

>Too "intense" for national politics? We want our political

>leaders to be passive and laid-back and casual?

 

I said his focus is too narrow and intense. Forgive me for not writing more clearly and saying “his focus is too intensely narrow.” I should, of course, have added “for my taste.”

 

>Who are your favorite political figures? Let me guess - John

>Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Bill Clinton.

 

I admire them all. “Favorite” would be pushing it. I don’t think I have a favorite, but Clinton would come close. He is the first president that I have been able to relate to. Please don’t start in about his moral failings. I don’t give a damn about that part of his life and I don’t think any of us whoremongers are in a position to question someone else’s moral choices.

 

>I won't insult you by adding Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer (although I

>was tempted). Whoever they are, are/were they intense?

 

I wouldn’t be insulted at all. I admire both women. Dianne has been a positive force (by my standards, of course) in California politics for decades. I know that you despise most (if not all) things San Francisco, but she has helped create one of the most progressive, inclusive, and…disgusting, I know…liberal cities in the country. Yes, SF politics sometimes goes too far. It’s at the far end of the spectrum, but I believe you need both ends of that spectrum to get balance. There are obviously many people in the country that don’t think like you and they need some place to call home. (Be thankful that they are on the other side of the country.)

 

>>and I think he is much too comfortable

>>with strong arm policies.

>

>"Strong arm policies" - a nice, evocative phrase. "Strong

>arm" usually goes with "dictator." Can you elaborate on

>this smear?

 

Again, I should have chosen my words more carefully and said that it is my impression of him. As much as I love New York, (and would still like to move there) much of what happens there is still just regional politics and not followed that closely by the rest of the country. My impression, and one that is probably not uncommon in the rest of country, is that he was very comfortable using the police to remove the homeless and harass other people he found socially undesirable. He also used regulating agencies to close businesses that he didn’t approve of. He succeeded in gentrifying Times Square, but I don’t think it’s a major exaggeration to say that he used strong arm techniques to accomplish this.

 

As I said…these are all my impressions, but I’m not stupid or totally uninformed, so if I have these feelings about him entering national politics…I imagine there are others with similar misgivings.

[Guest Thunderbuns]

>BUt Mr. Mayor Bloomberg, couldn't we have just a little

>sleeze, say 6 city blocks (TImes Sq. area of course), sort

>of a Sin City set aside from Disney WOrld

 

 

This would satisfy tourist in me as well. Take for example the German city of Hamburg. Very cosmopolitain, very civilized, but with it's sleazy area - The Reiperbahn (I know my spelling sucks:-) ) and the prostitute alley which has maze-like baricades at both ends so as unsuspecting people can't see what goes on there. It is called Herbert Strasse. The pros actually sit in ground floor windows scantilly clad trying to lure clients in.

 

If this can happen in Europe, why can't we have a touch of it here?

Is it because we are so out of tuch with reality that we can never catch up? Or is it because we let those religious nuts rule our lives?

 

Thunderbuns

[+ Charlie]

I'm not surprised that Giuliani was named Man of the Year, but it was a sentimental rather than a rational choice--I would have voted for Donald Rumsfeld if Mohammed Atta was taboo. However, I don't believe that anyone who happened to be mayor on 9/11 would have behaved the same way that Giuliani did; there have been plenty of NYC mayors--Abe Beame is a recent one who comes to mind--whose personalities would not have been so perfectly suited to the occasion. I think the city was lucky to have had him at that moment, no matter what they would have thought of him previously (and his popularity ratings were a lot lower before 9/11).

 

Would I want to see him in higher office? Not unless we were going to be in permanent crisis mode, which is when I think he performs best. I think his ego is too big to deal with mundane matters that require him to let others who are more competent make decisions. Although it galls me to say good things about George Bush, I think his greatest strength has been his ability to surround himself with competent people and let them do their work rather than try to bluster his way through on the power of his own personality, as Giuliani seems to do. Let Rudy enjoy his short-lived love fest with the media, which seems to really energize him, and then fade into history.

 

As a final caveat, I would point out that I, like most who have chimed in on this one, get most of my information about individuals like Giuliani filtered through the media, so in that respect being an American does not make me any more expert than you on this subject, except insofar as I have been exposed to more media-filtered information than you have.

[Guest pickwick]

Those who suggest that Giuliani simply took credit for the positive social effects of years of prosperity are suffering from amnesia. During much of his first term the region was still recovering from the recession of 1989-90 and Giuliani spent plenty of his time explaining to voters why the city did not have the money to fund the programs they wanted for their neighborhoods. His dogged efforts to improve the quality of life and create a business-friendly environment were certainly not the sole cause of the years of prosperity that followed, but they helped.

 

Banishing strip clubs and other sleazy establishments from the heart of Manhattan and helping convert it to a family-friendly tourist venue ranks as one of his major accomplishments. Broadway likes to portray itself as a place for cultured sophisticates, but the truth is that it couldn't survive without the hundreds of little old ladies bussed in from New Jersey each week for matinees by the "theater clubs," and they do not want to find themselves surrounded by strippers and streetwalkers.

 

In my opinion Rudy's current popularity derives from the fact that, unlike almost everyone in Washington, Rudy reacted to the events of 9-11 with calm, deliberate, honest leadership. He had long been a defender of the NYPD in the face of relentless attacks by liberals. Their heroic actions on 9-11 shamed and silenced their detractors and pushed Rudy's stock up even farther. It's not the first time in his career that he has taken an unpopular position and been proved right by events. It won't be the last time.

[SFViking]

>BUt Mr. Mayor Bloomberg, couldn't we have just a little

>sleeze, say 6 city blocks (TImes Sq. area of course), sort

>of a Sin City set aside from Disney WOrld

 

Any liklihood that that's going to happen? From what I read in the NY Times, I get no sense of how Mayor B. is going to deal with sex venues.