"Why, as a New York-based paper, are we not backing Rudolph Giuliani? Why not choose the man we endorsed for re-election in 1997 after a first term in which he showed that a dirty, dangerous, supposedly ungovernable city could become clean, safe and orderly? What about the man who stood fast on Sept. 11, when others, including President Bush, went AWOL?
That man is not running for president.
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."
I for one was shocked...just shocked that the NY Times, firmly anchored in the ideological middle, would come out so forcefully against a Republican candidate, endorse the one Republican who most closely resembles the Democrats, then heap praise on both the Democratic frontrunners but, alas, can only endorse 1. Never expected that out of them.
I've always felt Guiliani was a tool. His wife...the whole tool bench. That said, I was a little taken back by the tone of the smackdown. Found it to be quite inappropriate. And I love reading the NYT...editorial content aside, it's a great mofo paper.
For the record, in case you missed it, I think RG is a tool.
i was shocked at the NYT tone against RG...you rarely see that forceful a condemnation. while the NYT is bad enough, the most damning thing for RG is that his own kids (i think they are 20 and 18 or so) won't have anything to do with his campaign (or him, i imagine!) yuk! tool.
