Maybe a President Giuliani is exactly what the U.S. needs?

[yllus]

I thought someone should make an effort.

Politics has lost its charm

The core work of the Giuliani foreign policy advisors is to thrash out a coherent new foreign policy for the post-Bush era. That's the same work I do in

most of my other hours of the week: on this page, in other media and in the book I've just finished after three years work. We try to analyze problems and propose solutions.

But analysis and understanding are nothing without the ability to execute them effectively.

In the days when George Bush was more popular, many commentators compared him to Harry Truman: the fiery, argumentative president in place at the beginning of the Cold War. That was meant as a compliment, but it should be remembered that Truman ended his administration with the lowest popularity ratings in the history of the modern presidency. Truman suffered for many of the same reasons Bush is suffering now: the United States was mired in a protracted and inconclusive war (Korea then, Iraq now). Frustrated, Americans turned in 1952 to a leader who could get things done: Ike Eisenhower, the man who had presided over the single greatest public triumph of his time, the defeat of Nazi Germany.

Rudy Giuliani has proven himself the most successful public-sector executive of our time. In 1993, the year before he took office in New York, the city suffered 1,995 homicides. In 2001, his last year, the city suffered only 626, apart of course from the 9/11 terror attacks.

Giuliani was not riding a nationwide trend: Crime rates in New York descended radically more steeply than anywhere else. New York City is home to only about 2.5% of all Americans. Yet New York accounted for 15% of all the reductions in murder in the United States in the 1990s.

Of all the candidates running for president, Giuliani is the only one who can say: I accepted a public problem thought to be unsolveable -- and solved it. Then it was crime; now it is terrorism, war and the many domestic problems of the United States besides.

Does America need a leader who can get things done? Is Rudy Giuliani that guy?

 

[conehead433]

Yep, I like how Giuliani defeated the terrorists that attacked us on 9-11.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: yllus
I thought someone should make an effort.

Politics has lost its charm

The core work of the Giuliani foreign policy advisors is to thrash out a coherent new foreign policy for the post-Bush era. That's the same work I do in

most of my other hours of the week: on this page, in other media and in the book I've just finished after three years work. We try to analyze problems and propose solutions.

But analysis and understanding are nothing without the ability to execute them effectively.

In the days when George Bush was more popular, many commentators compared him to Harry Truman: the fiery, argumentative president in place at the beginning of the Cold War. That was meant as a compliment, but it should be remembered that Truman ended his administration with the lowest popularity ratings in the history of the modern presidency. Truman suffered for many of the same reasons Bush is suffering now: the United States was mired in a protracted and inconclusive war (Korea then, Iraq now). Frustrated, Americans turned in 1952 to a leader who could get things done: Ike Eisenhower, the man who had presided over the single greatest public triumph of his time, the defeat of Nazi Germany.

Rudy Giuliani has proven himself the most successful public-sector executive of our time. In 1993, the year before he took office in New York, the city suffered 1,995 homicides. In 2001, his last year, the city suffered only 626, apart of course from the 9/11 terror attacks.

Giuliani was not riding a nationwide trend: Crime rates in New York descended radically more steeply than anywhere else. New York City is home to only about 2.5% of all Americans. Yet New York accounted for 15% of all the reductions in murder in the United States in the 1990s.

Of all the candidates running for president, Giuliani is the only one who can say: I accepted a public problem thought to be unsolveable -- and solved it. Then it was crime; now it is terrorism, war and the many domestic problems of the United States besides.

Does America need a leader who can get things done? Is Rudy Giuliani that guy?

The problem with that theory is there are two parts to what you said. Yes, we need a leader who can get things done...but all I see is someone who has gotten something done in the past. Following that logic, we might as well elect the leader of a successful company (I wonder if Steve Jobs wants the job?). The problem is that being President isn't like being the foreman of a big factory, there are a lot of other skills that most mayors aren't going to have...and Giuliani has shown no aptitude for. The biggest drawback I see is that he is easily as divisive as Bush, that inability to learn from the mistakes of others is not a good sign.

 

[athithi]

Originally posted by: yllus
I thought someone should make an effort.

Politics has lost its charm

The core work of the Giuliani foreign policy advisors is to thrash out a coherent new foreign policy for the post-Bush era. That's the same work I do in

most of my other hours of the week: on this page, in other media and in the book I've just finished after three years work. We try to analyze problems and propose solutions.

But analysis and understanding are nothing without the ability to execute them effectively.

In the days when George Bush was more popular, many commentators compared him to Harry Truman: the fiery, argumentative president in place at the beginning of the Cold War. That was meant as a compliment, but it should be remembered that Truman ended his administration with the lowest popularity ratings in the history of the modern presidency. Truman suffered for many of the same reasons Bush is suffering now: the United States was mired in a protracted and inconclusive war (Korea then, Iraq now). Frustrated, Americans turned in 1952 to a leader who could get things done: Ike Eisenhower, the man who had presided over the single greatest public triumph of his time, the defeat of Nazi Germany.

Rudy Giuliani has proven himself the most successful public-sector executive of our time. In 1993, the year before he took office in New York, the city suffered 1,995 homicides. In 2001, his last year, the city suffered only 626, apart of course from the 9/11 terror attacks.

Giuliani was not riding a nationwide trend: Crime rates in New York descended radically more steeply than anywhere else. New York City is home to only about 2.5% of all Americans. Yet New York accounted for 15% of all the reductions in murder in the United States in the 1990s.

Of all the candidates running for president, Giuliani is the only one who can say: I accepted a public problem thought to be unsolveable -- and solved it. Then it was crime; now it is terrorism, war and the many domestic problems of the United States besides.

Does America need a leader who can get things done? Is Rudy Giuliani that guy?

I think he really did transform NYC into one of the safest large cities in the US. Since then, I think NYC has regressed a little. I read his autobiography a few years back and was very impressed with some of the things he did as Mayor, though they may have seemed callous to some. On a personal level, his fight against his cancer was also praiseworthy.

BUT, since 9/11 he has become a parody of "America's Mayor". Starting from his attempt to stay on as Mayor after the expiration of his term to his support of the hypocritical "with us or against us" policy of GWB, he has come across like a bit of an unstable and untrustworthy character. I don't know if he's quite had a McCain-Falwell moment yet, but it always seems like it's imminent.

In the 2008 elections, the choices are going to be clearer than ever before: those who want a pre-9/11 type administration vs those who want a post-9/11 type US administration. I think Hillary is trying to project that she can deliver most of the former with some of the latter, but I don't see Guiliani offering anything but more of the same GWB train-wreck.

I hope Hillary defeats Guiliani in 2008.

 

[jonks]

http://www.factcheck.org/elect.../florida_fandango.html

Anti-Crime Capital

Giuliani made a grandiose boast that he ?brought down crime more than anyone in this country ? maybe in the history of this country ? while I was mayor of New York City.? Crime certainly dropped dramatically during Giuliani?s tenure from 1993 to 2002. In fact, the city is still in the midst of a record-setting trend for consecutive years of declining violent crimes. However, it is a trend that actually started under Giuliani's predecessor, David Dinkins, in 1990, when a high of 174,542 violent crimes were reported, according to the FBI, and has continued under his successor, Michael Bloomberg. In 2006, a new low of 52,086 such crimes were reported.

Plus, the FBI itself warns against drawing broad conclusions (one might even say claiming undue credit) based on these statistics. Click on its most recent Uniform Crime Report and you'll see a pop-up window that advises:

FBI: Some entities use reported figures to compile rankings ? these rough rankings provide no insight into the numerous variables that mold crime in a particular town, city, county, state or region. Consequently they lead to simplistic and/or incomplete analyses that often create misleading perceptions.

We couldn?t have said it better ourselves.

*******************************

i.e. just cuz crime went down under rudy, don't mean rudy caused crime to drop. (correlation /=/ causation)

 

[Thump553]

Expect more of the same if Guiliani is elected. He has hired just about every neo-con that is still around.

As far as social policy, who knows? It probably will depend on how indebted he gets to special interest groups.

As far as government management goes, he will make GWB look stellar in retrospect. Guiliani is your typical Type-A low level politician-he wants credit for anything that goes right and constantly meddles and interfers. We will look back on the days of Brownie and FEMA with fond memories, for he will be far worse.

Guilaini will do little more than dig the hole deeper for this country and ratchet up the political agression.

 

[Jhhnn]

Does America need a leader who can get things done? Is Rudy Giuliani that guy?

Only if we want to be the dog wagged by AIPAC and Israel- Rudy's foreign policy advisers are the guys who were too nuts to be part of or stay in the Bush Admin-

http://www.veracifier.com/episode/TPM_20071016

Daniel Pipes is, imho, a raving looney toon, and the rest aren't much different...

 

[techs]

New York City had buyers remorse after 8 years of Guiliani.
I doubt it will take the U.S. 8 months before they hated him as much as New Yorkers.
Fortunately Americans won't get the chance.

 

[Narmer]

Why can't people accept the fact that some people are just right for certain things. Put them in another place and they'll fail miserably. Terrorism has been around since the dawn of man and you expect 9/11 to fix it? Tell me, how is he going to solve terrorism?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: conehead433
Yep, I like how Giuliani defeated the terrorists that attacked us on 9-11.

I take offense to any Canadian spewing what America needs.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: conehead433
Yep, I like how Giuliani defeated the terrorists that attacked us on 9-11.

I take offense to any Canadian spewing what America needs.

Considering a retarded six year old from Angola could formulate more coherent and useful policy ideas than you, that's no shocker.

Some brilliant policy from dmcmoron674:

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: charrison
I have no problem with leasing/selling roads to "Foreign" private companies to run, if they can do it better/cheaper than the gov.

You obviously have no problem with "Foreign" private companies controlling American infrastructure.

I do and I suspect many true Americans have a problem with it too.

I hope soon that true Americans have enogh of a problem with Foriegn loving American haters to round them up and ship them to the Countries they love.

That goes for all, from the Espanol loving illegals to the Foreign loving Corporate whores.

so maybe we should to round up all the foreign companies in the US and kick them out?

YES

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: conehead433
Yep, I like how Giuliani defeated the terrorists that attacked us on 9-11.

I take offense to any Canadian spewing what America needs.

If we could exchange you to Canada for yllus we'd do it in a second.

We already have an oversupply of ill informed boobs in this country.

 

[Moonbeam]

Bush was exactly what this country needed. We were on our way to being a world superpower and dominant force of the planet. Imagine if Bush had come to power in say 2050 when he could have taken over the world. It is a blessing in disguise, doubtlessly, that he sent us packing into the realm of the banana republic, hated and mistrusted by the rest of the world. And he's helping us to get to our feelings of being a worthless piece of shit.

 

[bamacre]

Hitler significantly reduced the crime rate in Germany.

 

[Moonbeam]

And weren't the trains on time in Italy?

 

[Lemon law]

I have to somewhat love the premise of the thread which is----------Maybe a President Giuliani is exactly what we need?

As a standing mayor on 911, we have a record of huge blunders. Equipping his emergency responders with radios that did not work and locating his emergency response center in the number one terrorist target in the entire country. Then Giuliani makes polarizing statements to the effect that if a democrat is elected President, we will have a terrorist attack. So either Giuliani is a traitor by having Al-Quida at his beck and call or he is claiming psychic ability. And if Giuliani has psychic ability, why didn't he he anticipate and prevent 911. And speaking of psychic ability, Giuliani selects wonderful people like Bernie Kerik and hires an accused Pedophile priest for an spiritual adviser.

Then when it comes to the hard work of serving on the 911 commission, Giuliani attended a few meetings and quit. A rather consistent Giuliani all image and no substance. And unable to work well with others.

So when it comes to the maybe we need a President Giuliani, it comes down to a very dubious maybe and an almost certain definitely not. The last thing we need after GWB is another imperial President who is not results oriented.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Bush was exactly what this country needed. We were on our way to being a world superpower and dominant force of the planet. Imagine if Bush had come to power in say 2050 when he could have taken over the world. It is a blessing in disguise, doubtlessly, that he sent us packing into the realm of the banana republic, hated and mistrusted by the rest of the world. And he's helping us to get to our feelings of being a worthless piece of shit.

Yep, because we were so beloved by "the rest of the world" prior to 43. I often wonder what sort of bubble one has to live in to believe such utter bullshit. :roll:

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Bush was exactly what this country needed. We were on our way to being a world superpower and dominant force of the planet. Imagine if Bush had come to power in say 2050 when he could have taken over the world. It is a blessing in disguise, doubtlessly, that he sent us packing into the realm of the banana republic, hated and mistrusted by the rest of the world. And he's helping us to get to our feelings of being a worthless piece of shit.

Yep, because we were so beloved by "the rest of the world" prior to 43. I often wonder what sort of bubble one has to live in to believe such utter bullshit. :roll:

I doubt that you do much wondering. Why would a person who thinks he knows as much as you do wonder about anything?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Bush was exactly what this country needed. We were on our way to being a world superpower and dominant force of the planet. Imagine if Bush had come to power in say 2050 when he could have taken over the world. It is a blessing in disguise, doubtlessly, that he sent us packing into the realm of the banana republic, hated and mistrusted by the rest of the world. And he's helping us to get to our feelings of being a worthless piece of shit.

Yep, because we were so beloved by "the rest of the world" prior to 43. I often wonder what sort of bubble one has to live in to believe such utter bullshit. :roll:

Well if you look at the world opinion of the USA on Sept 12th, 2001 and look at it now, Moonbeam's post makes sense. But then you may not want his post to make sense.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: conehead433
Yep, I like how Giuliani defeated the terrorists that attacked us on 9-11.

I take offense to any Canadian spewing what America needs.

I actually think Canadians in general have a better idea what Americans need than many Americans nowadays.

Yllus is not Canadians in general.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Bush was exactly what this country needed. We were on our way to being a world superpower and dominant force of the planet. Imagine if Bush had come to power in say 2050 when he could have taken over the world. It is a blessing in disguise, doubtlessly, that he sent us packing into the realm of the banana republic, hated and mistrusted by the rest of the world. And he's helping us to get to our feelings of being a worthless piece of shit.

Yep, because we were so beloved by "the rest of the world" prior to 43. I often wonder what sort of bubble one has to live in to believe such utter bullshit. :roll:

Nice logic. Not everyone liked us, so we might as well piss off the rest who didn't? No one is saying we were universally beloved around the world, but the world reaction to Gulf War I vs Gulf War II is night and day. We looked like saviors then, now like bullies. Nobody likes a bully.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Bush was exactly what this country needed. We were on our way to being a world superpower and dominant force of the planet. Imagine if Bush had come to power in say 2050 when he could have taken over the world. It is a blessing in disguise, doubtlessly, that he sent us packing into the realm of the banana republic, hated and mistrusted by the rest of the world. And he's helping us to get to our feelings of being a worthless piece of shit.

Yep, because we were so beloved by "the rest of the world" prior to 43. I often wonder what sort of bubble one has to live in to believe such utter bullshit. :roll:

Nice logic. Not everyone liked us, so we might as well piss off the rest who didn't? No one is saying we were universally beloved around the world, but the world reaction to Gulf War I vs Gulf War II is night and day. We looked like saviors then, now like bullies. Nobody likes a bully.

No, but some people want to be a bully. It says more about them than anyone else.

Pabster repels facts - of course world opinion towards the US has dropped dramatically under Bush, but you won't see any facts from Pabster when he claims otherwise.

Even your sarcastic use of the word 'logic' for Pabster is too generous. His 'logic' would also say things like 'ya, the police have really ended crime' and call for the end of police, or 'ya, doctors have really gotten rid of all disease' and call for ending doctors - he has nothing useful to add, he simply attacks any effort for the US to show any respect for any other nation.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: yllus
I thought someone should make an effort.

Politics has lost its charm

The core work of the Giuliani foreign policy advisors is to thrash out a coherent new foreign policy for the post-Bush era. That's the same work I do in

most of my other hours of the week: on this page, in other media and in the book I've just finished after three years work. We try to analyze problems and propose solutions.

But analysis and understanding are nothing without the ability to execute them effectively.

In the days when George Bush was more popular, many commentators compared him to Harry Truman: the fiery, argumentative president in place at the beginning of the Cold War. That was meant as a compliment, but it should be remembered that Truman ended his administration with the lowest popularity ratings in the history of the modern presidency. Truman suffered for many of the same reasons Bush is suffering now: the United States was mired in a protracted and inconclusive war (Korea then, Iraq now). Frustrated, Americans turned in 1952 to a leader who could get things done: Ike Eisenhower, the man who had presided over the single greatest public triumph of his time, the defeat of Nazi Germany.

Rudy Giuliani has proven himself the most successful public-sector executive of our time. In 1993, the year before he took office in New York, the city suffered 1,995 homicides. In 2001, his last year, the city suffered only 626, apart of course from the 9/11 terror attacks.

Giuliani was not riding a nationwide trend: Crime rates in New York descended radically more steeply than anywhere else. New York City is home to only about 2.5% of all Americans. Yet New York accounted for 15% of all the reductions in murder in the United States in the 1990s.

Of all the candidates running for president, Giuliani is the only one who can say: I accepted a public problem thought to be unsolveable -- and solved it. Then it was crime; now it is terrorism, war and the many domestic problems of the United States besides.

Does America need a leader who can get things done? Is Rudy Giuliani that guy?

The problem with that theory is there are two parts to what you said. Yes, we need a leader who can get things done...but all I see is someone who has gotten something done in the past. Following that logic, we might as well elect the leader of a successful company (I wonder if Steve Jobs wants the job?). The problem is that being President isn't like being the foreman of a big factory, there are a lot of other skills that most mayors aren't going to have...and Giuliani has shown no aptitude for. The biggest drawback I see is that he is easily as divisive as Bush, that inability to learn from the mistakes of others is not a good sign.

Youre right about basing opinions on previous accomplishments. But, as the saying goes, the prediction of future behavior can be made by looking at past behavior.

As far as lack of experience...I dont think anyone on the GOP or the Dem tickets have less experience than Obama. Barely 10 years in government. No one complains about that..

But, we dont really have to worry. I dont think Giuliani will make it past primaries.

 

[StageLeft]

Rudy was not the only contributor to reduced crime and in any case if that's the only thing he can promote as why to elect him for pres, that's pathetic.

 

[ProfJohn]

Having read his book on Leadership I would have no problem with him as President.