Latest Lists

Do you agree with what the New York Times said about about Giulliani in their endorsement of McCain?

Which is as follows: The real Mr. Giuliani, whom many New Yorkers came to know and mistrust, is a narrow, obsessively secretive, vindictive man who saw no need to limit police power. Racial polarization was as much a legacy of his tenure as the rebirth of Times Square. Mr. Giuliani’s arrogance and bad judgment are breathtaking. When he claims fiscal prudence, we remember how he ran through surpluses without a thought to the inevitable downturn and bequeathed huge deficits to his successor. He fired Police Commissioner William Bratton, the architect of the drop in crime, because he couldn’t share the limelight. He later gave the job to Bernard Kerik, who has now been indicted on fraud and corruption charges. The Rudolph Giuliani of 2008 first shamelessly turned the horror of 9/11 into a lucrative business, with a secret client list, then exploited his city’s and the country’s nightmare to promote his presidential campaign.

Public Comments

1. I don't agree with much the NY Times write's anymore.
2. Yes. I strongly agree with this assessment of Rudy.
3. The only good use for the New York times is to line the bird cage.
4. I trust any NY source about Giuliani than anything else. Who will know him better? Giuliani is unashamedly corrupt and sleazy.
5. Yes. Totally accurate. They went a little easy on him -- they left out his attempt to suspend the 2001 mayoral election to keep himself in power PS those dismissing this because it "was in the New York Times" have no idea what they are talking about and know nothing about Guiliani other than what they saw on TV.
6. sorry I don't read it Maybe I need to start reading it
7. I'd say they hit a bullseye!
8. Absolutely agree with NY times. Guiliani is a bad candidate who just use 9/11 as an excuse. Good that he is doing so bad in his presidential campaign
9. That sounds about right. But let's be real...every mayor of New York since Jimmy Walker was a less than perfect. And who can forget 'Boss Tweed'? Now there was a fun guy....a true New Yorker! The real question is not what Rudi is or was...maybe being a ruthless unprincipled SOB is a good thing in a president..depending on just who the candidate wants to be the president of. Somehow I can't see Rudy, or 'Mitt' or 'Huck' being more than narrow advocates of the same clientle that George's Junta represents...the corporations, the overbloated military and the Oil Mafia. I'll cut Huck a little slack on that because his main concern is Jesus...who incidently isn't an American citizen. Admittedly Obama, Clinton and Edwards also have ties to the basic power structure of 'our' country, but all three of them, inspite of the BS put out by the right wing talk shows actually have a real concern for the working class...why? Because all wealth is generated by the folks that tote the barges and lift the bales and when that class, the blue and white collar middle class goes to hell so does the country....as it's going now. Wealth doesn't 'trickle down'....it roars upward. The GOP, since Eisenhower, Nixon and Ford, has forgotten that simple fact. The Democrats forgot it for awhile as well, but that was then and this is now. Any of the above three would be better for the American wage-earner than a whole bunch of 'Rudys'.......the Times nailed it....good for them!
10. Of course I do. The NY Times has been around for over a century. Guiliani is a passing fad..:)
11. N O. I consider the New York Times as not creditable.