Rudy, Rudy,Rudy

[Jack]

Four more years!

[Double High C]

Given the remaining choices, and Rudy's stellar performance in a crisis, I wish that this were possible. (As a Moderate Liberal Democrat, I may vote for Hevesi on the Liberal line, but arguably this is a wasted vote.)

However, since we were all styupid enough to vote for term limits (via referendum), IMO we must with the consequences until we hold another referendum to undo them.

[Double High C]

Now that Freddie (Ferrer) said that he won't go along with Rudy's plan to delay the new mayors term (for only 3 months), the election is now over. (Green and Bloomberg have agreed to Rudy's plan.)

Personally, while I am not sure that it is necessary to extend his term (as opposed to delegation by the new mayor of most of the responsibilities for a few extra months), Ferrer's comments - that you are "either ready for the job or you are not" - have further convinced me that he is the wrong man for the job.

IMO, the odds favor Mayor Green.

PS: Has anyone seen Donner (Hanover) lately?

[Single Mom]

I wouldn't be surprised if the first thing the new mayor does is to appoint Rudy to a newly created city position with the responsibilities of coordinating the continuation of the clean-up, victim resources, studying what/if to build something on the site, etc.

[Double High C]

A title with the word Czar would suit him.

Yes, he has been and can be very effective.

Rudy, please put out the fires ASAP so that it will be safe for the homeless Gateway Plaza residents to return!

[Guerilla poster]

Based on rudy's last eight years we know a mayor can do whatever he wants to do.

Is it possible if Bloomberg wins, he will simply say screw it I don't want this job now and appoint Rudy to run everything?

Of course, I know Bloomberg's ego is such that he would never do that.

[Botsy]

Not ony that, but Bloomberg is a Democrat posing as a Republican.

[Guerilla poster]

many would make the same argument about Rudy. Please recall he supported Cuomo over Pataki.

[Botsy]

Hardly the same. Bloomberg changed parties in order to run for mayor. He doesn't have a conservative thread in his body. He's a die-hard liberal. If he didn't get the Republican bid, he might have gotten in under the Green party.

[Patience]

Botsy: do you have a source. I know Badillo changed parties and is truly a Democrat, but I never heard that of Bloomberg. Politically I would put him about the same as Rudy.

Probably more oriented to business, less political and will stay out of the arts

[Guerilla poster]

It is a fricking mayor's race. Politics is much different than you see on the national spectrum.

The big difference between a democrat and republican in NY is whether or not you will shake Al Sharpton's hand.

[Botsy]

Here's what I found on the Times website:


Herman Badillo:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/08/nyregion/08BADI.html

"Mr. Badillo knows the rhetoric of the Democratic Party better than most. For most of his political career — city commissioner and borough president of the Bronx in the 1960's, congressman and deputy mayor in the 1970's — he was a liberal Democrat, a Puerto Rican pushing the agenda he thought would improve the lives of those he calls "my people." He was the voice of urban renewal and bilingual education, securing an amendment to the Voting Rights Act for bilingual voting."

"Then, eight years ago, he switched parties because, he said, his views on education were more in line with the Republican Party. In 1999, Governor Pataki appointed him chairman of the board of trustees of the City University of New York, a position he resigned earlier this week."


Mike Bloomberg:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/08/nyregion/08BLOO.html

"Mr. Bloomberg, a longtime Democrat who switched to the Republican Party to run for mayor, said that political ideology was almost irrelevant to the task of running a city like New York, and that the city would be better served by adopting an electoral process under which candidates for city offices are not identified by party on the ballot."

[Patience]

Botsy: thnx, so the parties are irrelevant anyway it seems

GP: I doubt even the Dems shake Sharpton's hand. Funny thing, a while back, I think for Rudy'd 1st term there were a lot of Dem candidates and the primaries were getting very ugly and in the mud. Of all the candidates Sharpton was the only one who took any sort of high road.

Though his reputation proceeded him.

[Botsy]

Fernando Ferrer will shake Sharpton's hand.

[Patience]

agreed. Didn' Ferrer also get a single digit total of the white vote in the primary?

I think Green will win the nomination, I just feel the demographics of the switch voters are against Ferrer, even though I believe it is a dead heat now.

A lot will depend on who goes to the polls compared to who went last time.

I think Bloomberg will win. He definitely has the strongest personality and in NY that is a job requirement

[Damn, Dirty Ape]

Single Mom "2001-10-01 11:51"
"I wouldn't be surprised if the first thing the new mayor does is to appoint Rudy to a newly created city position with the responsibilities of coordinating the continuation of the clean-up, victim resources, studying what/if to build something on the site, etc."

I heard that he will likely be asked to head up the Port-Authority's clean-up and rebuilding committee.

[Double High C]

I believe that Bloomberg gave money to Hillary's Senate campaign.

[Double High C]

Quiz:

Anybody remember the candidate who once campaigned against Rudy for Mayor, whose ad said, "Rudy Giuliani. A Liberal."?

(He also criticized Rudy for supporting McGovern against Nixon in 1972.)

[alex]

When's rudy gonna bring out the juvenile records of all the firemen taking dirt naps, so we can see that they deserved to die! He did a great job of this with an innocent guard in manhattan, even reminding us that the dead have no civil rights.

I hope mr cancer gets him soon! :smile:

[Anonymous]

Thank you for that intelligent, thought provoking post, alex. You are an inspiration to all of us. Never before has phpBB (A Forum that's Free!) been graced with such a rational, deep thinker.

[Patience]

It is actually very easy to hate the man. I believe everything (with recent exception) he does is driven by ego and publicity. He is extremely Machivellian (sp), and I truly dislike his means. Claiming to set a higher example while screwing around on the side doesn't help either.

I also have alot of knowledge of his prosecutor days and he had no problem stepping over justice to enhance his reputation.

All that said, he has done an extremely good job of managing the city during the crisis and I believe it is the first time he has truly shown what he could have been as an effective leader and actually a compassionate person. (I'll also give him credit for bringing minor league baseball to NYC).

But there is nothing left that someone else can't take over in a reasonable time. I will not be sorry to see him go, but wish more of what he has shown these last 3 weeks was there all along.

[Botsy]

I think it might help to be a hard ass when trying to run NYC. I'd take 4 more years of King Rudy even though I can't stand him. I've got a bad feeling about Ferrer. Another Dinkins on the way.

[Double High C]

Mayor Green is a shoe-in.

I'm surprized that Crazy Eddie endorsed Ferrer. I would have expected him to either endorse Bloomberg or no one at this point.

[Patience]

Even though Koch isn't political anymore, for some reason I don't think he would support a republican, regardless of how washed out the party lines are.

[Double High C]

Koch has supported Giuliani both times, and he is supporting Pataki for Gov in 2002.

[Patience]

then I'll have to find a way to edit that last post so that it becomes true.

btw, BPC: do you live there? and if so are you currently displaced?

[Double High C]

yes. yes.

[Anonymous]

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: nopenever on 2001-10-12 10:23 ]</font>

[Patience]

BPC: I hope everyone in your life is well and the place can be re-inhabited (is that a word) again. I know some of the buildings have been reopened.

[slam]

BPC: I feel a lot of empathy for that area. I lived there from 86-90 in my first apartment after school. I then moved to the Upper West Side where I still live. I'm a little leary about going down there to look around. My wife was there yesterday and came back devastated. She said it's much worse in person than on TV.

[Patience]

Slam: funny you say that, I have had friends go there and felt it wasn't as bad as they expected. They felt the TV desensitized them to it all.

I have no desire to go down there. I know ome people who just have a "need" to go down and see it for themselves.

I guess we all react differently

[Double High C]

Thanks.

I think that my apartment will be habitable in the near future (very near future, according to building management, but I may wait to move in until further environmental tests are conducted by people not accountable to building management). I have patience (small "p").

Fortunately, everyone I know (well) is safe, though there are a few in my building who I have not seen (e.g. at any tenant meetings) or heard about, but I am sure that I will find out that someone living there who I had seen and recognized did not make it.

As for the wreckage, I have been back to my apt a few times (to pick up necessities), and can look down directly on the scene.

One thing is certain - as Patience said, everyone reacts differently. I don't think that I am all that bothered by looking down on it when I periodically go back (any more than I am by seeing it on TV), but seeing it everyday looking out the window would be an entirely different matter.

[Actuary321]

What do you NY'ers think of Rudy giving back a $10M donation from that Saudi prince who said that US foreign policy in the middle east may have been a factor in causing people to attack america?

[Patience]

Here is money to help you out, by the way the US brought this on themselves with their policies.

paraphrased

I think he was right not to take it. I believe he did it for the right reasons and his feelings are that comments like the Saudi's hurt the cause for peace more than the $ would help NY.

to add, I have not been a huge Rudy fan in general b4 9/11. I accept his rationale on this.

[alex]

Whether or not rudy took the 10MM, the guy got his message out. You can't unring a bell. So I think rudy should have just kept the money, and ignored or criticized the guys comments. If, in order to give, one must forfeit one's right to free speech, then I hope no one gives to NYC.

[Patience]

If I don't like what someone believes in and what they say I don't accept their charity.

It isn't a matter of freedom of speech. No-one is stopping them from speaking, but it would be hyprocritical to take the $ while condemning their perspective.

I'm sure Rudy doesn't want the 50 cents you were planning to send in either.

[alex]

I'm sure Rudy doesn't want the 50 cents you were planning to send in either.



when all is said and done, I'll probably have to send thousands of $$$ to NYC in the form of federal relief. If you think rudy won't want to take it, I'd love to get it back, can you tell me how I can do that?

[42]

On 2001-10-12 09:30, Patience wrote:
it would be hyprocritical to take the $ while condemning their perspective.

Exactly. Look at the contempt we have for the people in other countries who put down America while still purchasing our products. Taking this money would have made us no better than them.

For the record, I believe that our foreign policy did play some part in fueling the anger that already existed against America (although nothing justifies 9/11), and that we should be more careful with foreign policy in the future (not change our strategy, but maybe some of our tactics). But I think our government is also well aware of this, and these public displays accentuating it, whether by a Saudi prince or well-meaning peace protestors just play into OBL's hand. ("See - even their own people and their allies think they deserve what they got.") Not helping!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: 42 on 2001-10-12 11:01 ]</font>

[Guerilla poster]

hey Alex,

If i recall, NY region has always been a net-giver by far. Tax payments versus tax receipts. The same can't be said of many other places (west virginia comes to mind).

[Actuary321]

On 2001-10-12 10:59, 42 wrote:

For the record, I believe that our foreign policy did play some part in fueling the anger that already existed against America (although nothing justifies 9/11), and that we should be more careful with foreign policy in the future (not change our strategy, but maybe some of our tactics). But I think our government is also well aware of this, and these public displays accentuating it, whether by a Saudi prince or well-meaning peace protestors just play into OBL's hand. ("See - even their own people and their allies think they deserve what they got.") Not helping!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: 42 on 2001-10-12 11:01 ]</font>


So didn't you just say basicly what the Saudi prince was saying? And though this probably won't get into the newspaper it is still a public statement.

[Double High C]

Rudy was right to give back the money, of course.

[Anonymous]

Making that statement while giving the money is condescending. It also makes it look like accepting the money would be tantamount to accepting our chastisement and agreeing not to be such bad little boys.

[alex]

Who is more on target here?

1) Folks who lecture america that the terrorists attacked us because "they're jealous of our money and freedom" and/or "they live in shadows"

2) Folks who say maybe the terrorists have a bone to pick with america about american foreign policy?

If I had to choose between the two, I'd say the second group of people, which includes the Saudi prince. At least they're operating in reality.

I have to doubt anyone who flew the planes was pissed off about my personal freedom or bank account, let alone "lived in shadows". But that's what GWB would have me believe.

Now, hizzoner will take bucks from bush and congress, since they don't say that america might have pissed someone off, which america does as a matter of routine.

[Damn, Dirty Ape]

Does anyone have an exact quote of the Saudi Prince's statement?

If it really was along "US foreign policy in the middle east may have been a factor in causing people to attack america", what's false in that? Every thinking person in America knows this statement to at least be plausible. Even if we disagree with which aspect of foreign policy is pissing people off the most, we can't ignore that it is.

Although I like the way Rudy handled events so far, I think his refusal of the money was too political.

Politicians are rallying behind the "Freedom and liberty" flag to give naive Americans the warm-fuzzies, and also to bait other democracies to join their coalition.

Although American liberties have made the U.S. the "Great Satan", it is very doubtful we would have seen an attack on this scale if there were no U.S. presence in the Middle-East.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: d*mn, Dirty Ape on 2001-10-12 15:27 ]</font>

[Aaron Brachowitz]

Here's what the Chicago Tribune wrote:

Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal, in a statement his publicist released during the prince's visit to ground zero, said: "At times like this one, we must address some of the issues that led to such a criminal attack. I believe the government of the United States of America should re-examine its policies in the Middle East and adopt a more balanced stance toward the Palestinian cause."

The comments drew a rebuke from Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, followed by an announcement that the check was rejected.

"We are not going to accept the check--period," said Sunny Mindel, the mayor's communications director, when asked about the prince's statement.

Good for the Mayor. They should drop Prince Dumba$$ off at the airport and thank him for not visiting again. To issue a statement like that at the site is like pi$$ing on their graves.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Aaron Brachowitz on 2001-10-12 15:45 ]</font>

[42]

On 2001-10-12 11:20, Actuary321 wrote: So didn't you just say basicly what the Saudi prince was saying? And though this probably won't get into the newspaper it is still a public statement.

You've got a point, and I know I'm walking a fine line on this, but I see two distinctions: the message, and the medium.

My message is not the same as those who say we completely brought this on ourselves and that we deserve what we got. I certainly don't believe that. My message is that we cannot afford to be in such denial that we assume that their message is 100.00% wrong. I believe there IS some truth to the notion that our foreign policy affects the way others view us. But that's still not even close to a justification for 9/11.

As for the medium, if a TV news reporter with a microphone and a camera asked me how I felt, in the interest of national unity, I would focus on the fact that we did not deserve 9/11, rather than any role that our foreign policy may have played. But I don't feel as much of a need to hold back on my feelings in a discussion forum like this that rarely gets beyond actuaries.

Perhaps this makes me a hypocrite for not saying 100% of what is on my mind all the time in every medium possible. I like to think it's just showing some discretion, but that's JMO.

[Guerilla poster]

The statement is a valid argument in general - criticizing US policy.

It was just wrong in the situation and in the wrong format - a written statement. In many less democratic countries, he would probably have been detained and tried for treason or something.

[Actuary321]

42: I can understand you point but don't you think any reporter worth their salt, will have done a little research and may point out or ask you directly about your feelings?

As for the Saudi prince, who do you think he was making the statement for, America or Saudi Arabia?

I agree that to deny that America's foreign policy had a role does no good but also agree that to release a statement like that while visiting the site also does no good.

[Guerilla poster]

He was obviously covering his *ss at home because the Saudi royalty are still terrified of Islam fundamentalism.

[Double High C]

The reasons that our evil enemies do what they do is irrelevant to the issue of our country's general public policy. We can not make policy based on what pisses them off.

To publicly engage in a discussion or make a statement about it (other than in the proper context, e.g. to try and predict our ememies' next move) is at best extremely tactless and at worst is a sign of sympathy with the terrorists.

I find the latter more plausible.

[alex]

To BPC, Why is it not okay to discuss what political realities might have encouraged the terrorists to target the US, but it is OK to make vapid statements like "they're evil", or outright idiotic statements like "they're jealous of our freedom". It's unfortunate that you to imply that there's something wrong with being sympathetic to the terrorists. Like it's as bad as folks being sympathetic to communists in the mccarthy era.

[Double High C]

On 2001-10-12 17:04, alex wrote:
... It's unfortunate that you to imply that there's something wrong with being sympathetic to the terrorists. Like it's as bad as folks being sympathetic to communists in the mccarthy era.


We strongly disagree, as do most people who share American values.

Also, criticizing others for holding views that one finds problematic and refusing to take their money is not "McCarthyism".

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Battery Park City on 2001-10-12 17:22 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Battery Park City on 2001-10-12 17:23 ]</font>

[alex]

On 2001-10-12 17:18, Battery Park City wrote:
Also, criticizing others for holding views that one finds problematic and refusing to take their money is not "McCarthyism".



Sure sounds like a new form of blacklisting to me! :smile:

[Aaron Brachowitz]

On 2001-10-12 17:04, alex wrote:
To BPC, Why is it not okay to discuss what political realities might have encouraged the terrorists to target the US?

I think many people have been struck by the disproportionate amount of time that our critics at home and abroad have spent criticizing past US policy vs. condemning the attacks. So many of the usual suspects have passed up the opportunity to simply condemn the attacks without reservation -- their mantra has been, "Nothing justifies this, but..." and then they proceed to try to justify it.

Let's bury our dead and not subject their families to self-hating critiques that make it seem as if their loved ones are paying the price for our collective sins.

[42]

[quote]On 2001-10-12 16:08, Actuary321 wrote:
42: I can understand you point but don't you think any reporter worth their salt, will have done a little research and may point out or ask you directly about your feelings?[quote]
Absolutely. But it doesn't mean I would have to answer them directly. :wink:

[quote] As for the Saudi prince, who do you think he was making the statement for, America or Saudi Arabia? [quote]
For Saudi Arabia. (But his comments still hurt us - I think we agree here.)

[42]

On 2001-10-12 16:18, Battery Park City wrote:The reasons that our evil enemies do what they do is irrelevant to the issue of our country's general public policy. We can not make policy based on what pisses them off.

Agreed. And there are many different tactics that we can use to implement that general public policy. And if one tactic pisses some maniacs off enough that they want to kill us, and another tactic doesn't, I think it would be prudent for us to consider the other tactic if it still allows us to implement our general public policy.

Can we agree on this point?

[Double High C]

On 2001-10-12 17:26, alex wrote:

On 2001-10-12 17:18, Battery Park City wrote:
Also, criticizing others for holding views that one finds problematic and refusing to take their money is not "McCarthyism".



Sure sounds like a new form of blacklisting to me! :smile:


Obviously, you don't understand the meaning of blacklisting, criticism, or freedom of speech. Nothing further.

[Double High C]

On 2001-10-12 18:02, 42 wrote:
On 2001-10-12 16:18, Battery Park City wrote:The reasons that our evil enemies do what they do is irrelevant to the issue of our country's general public policy. We can not make policy based on what pisses them off.

Agreed. And there are many different tactics that we can use to implement that general public policy. And if one tactic pisses some maniacs off enough that they want to kill us, and another tactic doesn't, I think it would be prudent for us to consider the other tactic if it still allows us to implement our general public policy.

Can we agree on this point?


I agree not to disagree.

PS Now that's why the word "tactic" has "tact" in it.

[Hierophant]

First, "tact" comes from the word root "to touch" while "tactic" comes from the word root meaning "order."

Second, free speech is a double edged sword in our country. Where McCarthyism went over the line was in using the subpoena power of the Senate to conduct a witchhunt.

Third, I think the only alternative for Giuliani was to accept the check for $10 million, and then turn around and make an announcement that he was using the money to buy 10 cruise missiles on behalf of NYC - perhaps they could have a photo-op with some missiles with New York City painted on them.

"Their walls were built with cannon balls, their motto is: Don't Tread on Me."

[alex]

NY politics with respect to the Israel palestinian issue is an absolute circus. As an indications of Guiliani's mentality, in 1995 Rudy ordered Arafat out of lincoln center, cause it was a decent photo op. Never mind that arafat was there at the invitation of the UN. This year dov hivkind and Gov Pataki were whining about Madam Tussaud's (sp) wax figure of arafat in their times square museum. Hivkind led a protest, and Pataki made some statement that a positive portrayal of arafat has no place in New York. I hope no other city or state would let their elected officials get away with this kind of garbage, but hey I guess New York has no crime, no poverty, no fraud, no bad schools, no trigger-happy cops, no affordable housing shortage, no couties near junk bond status on the island, and not a single resident who isn't more loyal to israel than they are to the US. So the politicians have nothing to worry about except demonizing Arafat and the palestinians. So I see that rudy did the right thing, and it was the only thing that a good man like him, rotting from the inside, could be expected to do. I still want my money back.

[Damn, Dirty Ape]

AB:"Let's bury our dead and not subject their families to self-hating critiques that make it seem as if their loved ones are paying the price for our collective sins."

Terrorists see two "sins". The sin of freedom, and the sin of infilatration of American infidels in their area.

The first "sin" Freedom is practiced and valued by all Americans. The second sin is practiced only by our governing bodies, and not valued by all Americans.

Seems the freedom sin is much more collective than the infidel sin. Our leaders our pinning the attacks as retaliation against the more collective sin. Our attackers are claiming it retaliation for the sin committed by the governing entity.

[Aaron Brachowitz]

DDA, I understand your point about American troops in Saudi Arabia. My objection is in trying to discuss a shockingly irrational act using rational arguments. The terrorist bombings don't tie back to the US troops in any rational way. Look at all the other courses of action that make more sense:

1) Petition the host government, at whose invitation the US troops are there.
2) Attack or attempt to overthrow the host government.
3) Attack the US troops (this already happened with Khobar and USS Cole).

It's just very objectionable to try to assign a rational or justifiable purpose to such an irrational act. In effect we're saying to the families of the dead, "Look what your government did, that is why you are made to suffer." But the connection just isn't there -- it was just an act of pure, irrational, religious-inspired hatred for the US.

[Damn, Dirty Ape]

AB:" it was just an act of pure, irrational, religious-inspired hatred for the US"

I also think that this is the case. What I am getting at is that although it appears irrational to us, it is rational to the attackers. And although a large proportion of muslim-Arabs don't support the acts, they do see the rational.

This is how I understand the rational:
1. God says that certain acts are sinful (I won't list them, since I don't really know them).
2. Westerners are constantly committing these sins (maybe similar to the way Lot perceived Soddom & Gammorha)
3. Americans are the biggest sinners of all (because of their freedom)

At this point, Islam fundamentalists could just say: "Hey, that's their problem. Let God rain fire and brimstone on the U.S."

But,
4. American troops are occupying Holy territory, spreading their sins to Islam, and Allah is not doing anything about it!
5. Rally and remove the infidels from the territory, by whatever means necessary (which leads to the progression you outlined in your post)

Of course, I find the above line-of-reason ludicrous. But if we dismiss the motivation for terror as irrational and evil, then there is no way we can properly address the problem.

Even though we may eliminate the terrorists, I believe we should also examine the cause of the hatred instead of dismissing it. Dismissing will only cause more disgruntled muslim-Arab citizens to become enraged.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: d*mn, Dirty Ape on 2001-10-15 12:19 ]</font>

[anon3]

Giuliani 'humbled' by knighthood

Just call me Sir Rudy....

http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/10/15/gen.guiliani.knighthood/index.html

[Double High C]

I did not go to the link, but ...

Humbled??? Rudy???

Bullshirt.