Ultimately, it doesn’t matter who runs and who wins. We, the people (who aren’t corporations) lose no matter who weasels his way into that white house. It doesn’t represent me!

I know loads of people in NYC that want Rudy to win the nomination. Most are centrists from both parties but I know a few conservatives that want to see him win. None of my liberal–let alone loony left–friends support Rudy’s run.

Keep in mind that this story is news because the firefighter’s union made it news – not some radical left-wing journalist.

The firefighter’s union supported Giuliani in both his races for Mayor. There are plenty of conservatives in the union who supported him during his term. Their fight with Giuliani is pretty much focused on this incident, where they felt he dismissed their wishes out of hand, then acted vindictively when they wouldn’t back down.

The NYT site appears to have opened up its archival reports on Giuliani, the relevant articles are between November 4-11 2001

This one describes the heat of the disagreement:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F07E5DB1238F932A25752C1A9679C8B63&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fG%2fGiuliani%2c%20Rudolph%20W%2e

And on Thursday, the mayor had again lashed out at the firefighters, calling union officials ”sinful” for questioning the city’s motives in making the staffing reductions at ground zero. The officials, who are still unhappy with the number of fire personnel at the site, have said that the change was an attempt to transform an effort to retrieve colleagues who had sacrificed their lives into a ”scoop and dump” operation.

Yesterday, while appearing pained by the notion of dropping charges, and still calling the behavior unacceptable, Mr. Giuliani took a more sympathetic stance.

Finally, the man who was the recipient of Time’s “Man of the Year” in 2001 can hardly complain that he’s never received positive press.

LOL…Mikkel, you are echoing Pauline Kael’s famous line expressing puzzlement about how Richard Nixon was elected president: “But no one I know voted for him.”

Rudy was elected and re-elected in NYC. Maybe folks didn’t like him, but some people respected him or his actions enough to vote for him.

Mikkel makes a very interesting point about GOP sources being behind much of the current Rudybashing…I think, in mentioning 2000, you are referring to the Bushwacking of McCain’s candidacy?…that I suspect is very likely.

In the past couple of weeks, multiple hits from different directions-family, transvestism, his 9-11 icon status.

Is McCain’s team behind this? That would be a wonderful irony of history, no?

This year is a bit startling in that all the putative front-runners – Giuliani, McCain, Romney – have done so. Each of them puts his own interesting spin on the soul-selling.

McCain, reduced to saying he doesn’t know what his own thoughts are on AIDS prevention, gets the Incipient Senility award.

Giuliani, hoping his authoritarianism will make the Base forgive and forget his gay-friendliness and lack of family values, gets the Cross-Dressing Travesti award.

And Romney, who in casting himself as a true believer in the Bible as the only legitimate guide for public policy trashed not only his own record but the entire state of Massachusetts and the people who elected him Governor, gets the Saint Peter “You Will Deny Me Three Times” award.

About Rudy though, I have yet to read any New Yorker of any ideology that actually likes him. They’ve all said, “if you thought Bush was authoritarian and cronyist, you ain’t seen nothin yet.”

It also doesn’t help him that in a recent poll they asked whether GOP voters would still support him if they knew he was pro-choice and over half said “no.” I expect his social views to come out big time in a couple months. But yeah, the word on the street is that he’s significantly more Big Government and less socially conservative for Bush. I don’t see how this is a winning combination — if anything he should switch parties and try again.

Between 1994 and 2001 a number of actionless years passed.

Actually, I defend Giuliani (did I get the spelling right?) in this case. From the outpouring of sympathy to the families of those who died, there arose a sense of entitlement among them. Somehow grief turned to the feeling that they should make all decisions regarding the aftermath and the site. This has led to much confusion, as they don’t even agree among themselves many times, and the endless consultations tie the hands of officials.

I don’t really see this negative press as being conspiratorial; I think Giuliani made a lot of enemies and the fact that his 9/11 hero image will undoubtedly be a centerpiece of his campaign will bring forward people who disagree with that image. Some of these people may get financed and boosted by other campaigns while some may come forward on their own. In other words, when a viable candidate emerges, there will be some attacks organized by his opponents because they fear his popularity and other attacks/negative information coming from people who simply don’t like him.

Another problem for Giuliani? Convincing people to write his name correctly?

All kidding aside: that is a great point Marlow. I had not noticed that error in the article.

And, thus far, there is no proof that these people are connected to other politicians / Rudy’s political opponnents… But an interesting point, we’ll have to keep an eye on it.

We have to be careful not to fall for propaganda / lies on the one hand, while not ignoring negative press / news on the other.

If we look at history, the American people normally react well to apologies. The problem only increases when one doesn’t apologize.

I think that’s a complicated issue. I’d say that generally, liberals react well to apologies while generally, conservatives do not. And liberals tend to react well to them from their own, but not from conservatives. If a liberal politician apologies, it’s seen as a strength of character while liberal voters who dislike conservatism seem to use an apology from a conservative as an opportunity to label him as a hypocrite. And that sort of explains why conservatives don’t like their elected officials to apologize because it’s used against them as a weakness.

Also, the liberal mindset tends to honor flexibility and decisionmaking based on changing circumstances while conservative philosophy is more based on making decisions based on principles, so that there’s less room to say, “I now have a different opinion and therefore I feel that I should apologize for my previous one”.

I also think it depends HOW one apologizes. In the case of the firefighters’ complaint, for example, Rudy could say that he is sorry that his decision hurt certain people and he understands that even though he felt that it was the right thing to do at the time (basically acknowledging that no decision in that situation could have been 100% right for everyone’s needs- the search couldn’t go on indefinitely). That’s different from apologizing in a manner that would imply weakness or rethinking a decision.

Consider the interesting, and true, point is made in the comments. Here is a quote from the article, suggesting Guiliani’s incompetence/callousness:
“The firefighters were still using the antiquated “handie-talkieâ€? radios that failed to work during the 1993 bombing of the twin towers, when Giuliani was also mayor. He not only failed to replace them…”

The commentor notes: “How do you write an article like this and make such a huge Blunder in facts. Rudy was not the Mayor during the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. If you report things so incorrect as this, how do we know what else is made up in this article.”

The commentor is correct. The attack was in Feb.1993, Guiliani assumed office at the beginning of 1994.

There is currently a full-court press against Guiliani, to undermine his 9-11 icon status in every way. Guiliani’s Wiki is currently sealed, as there have been multiple attempts to re-write this wiki and particularly his actions on 9-11 in a negative light.

Swiftboating indeed! The Great Left Wing Noise Machine is reving up….

And I think the part of Guiliani’s post 9/11 legacy that may hurt him more than this is the way he insisted on extending his mayoral term. I happen to think that was the right thing to do (it was too soon after such a major catastrophe to have a transition team go into effect). But I know that some people felt that he strongarmed the decision and in light of Bush’s extreme interpretation of Executive power, I can see how that would trouble some people.

Guilliani is a guy who did the right thing in an emergency. I don’t know if he can do the right thing on a daily basis.

That’s also, I suppose, because people can agree, normally, what doing the right thing during an emergency is. Doing ‘the right thing’ on a daily basis, well, there’s less consensus about what the right thing is.;)