RUDY G. Killed Firefighters on 9/11

Rudy Giuliani is dangerous.  Dangerous because he can win.  Dangerous because if he wins he'll make Ann Coulter look like a diplomat.  Dangerous because he was incompetent as mayor of NYC.

The only practical question is, how to stop him?  Rely on pictures of Rudy in drag making the rounds in the GOP primary?  Think again.  

Author Robert Polner says Dems need to go straight after his supposed strength.  9/11:

As Rosaleen will tell anyone willing to listen, the vintage radios that Sean and 342 other city firefighters carried at their deaths on 9/11 were known to be defective. The faulty radios were the target of years of scathing internal assessments, bureaucratic wrangling, and accusations of bidding favoritism, and still the Giuliani administration had never replaced them.

http://www.salon.com/...

Here, in the radios fiasco, was government paralysis at its worst, the sort he frothed about as a reformist candidate for mayor. The city's firefighters were sent into the towers without the basic ability to send or receive maydays. The buck stops with Rudy, who knew that the same radios had faltered when the World Trade Center was first bombed by terrorists in 1993, the year he was elected mayor.

http://www.salon.com/...

Rudy's incompetence before 9/11 killed firefighters.  That's a serious charge.  Does it explain Rudy's unquestioning support for Bush?  His apologies for incompetence?

Until this week, Mr. Giuliani’s views on Iraq were not well known. But on this trip he made clear, though never mentioning President Bush by name, that he firmly supported the administration’s current strategy, including Mr. Bush’s decision to send more than 20,000 additional combat troops there.

http://www.nytimes.com/...

Is it too early to start asking the really relevant questions?  Like, is it true you want to turn Abu Ghraib into a restaurant/theme park?  

For those who say "nothing to worry about," the Christian right hates Rudy, think again.  

First, this news:  

The Pew Research Center examined how often early frontrunners for the presidential nomination actually win the right to represent their party in the general election. Pew found that "early frontrunners for the Republican nomination in most of the past seven open contests have gone on to win the nomination."

http://pewresearch.org/...

McCain's sinking.  Mitt has Mormon problems.  Some evangelicals are getting really worried about losing in 2008 after the ass-whupping the GOP got in 2006.   Read about the crazies here There's even evidence that the Christian Right is losing its stranglehold on the GOP in states where they've been huge:  Religious Iowans Lose Political Clout

Rudy can make it past the GOP primary.  If he does, watch out.    

•  You think Rudy will lose the GOP primary?

  I don't.  

  by markymarx on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 04:11:57 PM PDT

  •  I'm sure he'll lose some of them

    I can't see him ever winning the S. Carolina primary, for example. But if you meant lose the nomination, I'd still say his chances aren't good, especially if someone like fred thompson gets in.  All we can do is exactly what you're doing, that is, provide some sort of opposition research for the general. You wrote a good diary for that.

    For the pub primaries, though?  my question is why bother? I don't think that pubs are gonna come here for advice on how to vote in their primaries and I also don't think that a lot of people here are gonna cross over and vote for rudi in the pub primary.  

    by dougymi on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 04:59:47 PM PDT

    •  Fred Thompson?

      Based on his experience, you mean?

      The issue is not how we stop the Republicans from nominating Rudy. The issue here is how to define him once he gets the nomination.  

      by markymarx on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 05:02:55 PM PDT

      •  exactly

        and you did a good job of it here.

        by dougymi on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 05:06:40 PM PDT

      •  And the issue isn't thompson's experience

        but how the media and his campaign define him. He'll be the new flavor of the month when he gets in and I see tweety and the gang all jumping on the bandwagon along with the evangelicals.  But it will be interesting, to be sure.  guiliani sure isn't in mccain's position.  He's very viable.

        by dougymi on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 05:08:43 PM PDT

•  The greater issue is how first

  responders still don't have the equipment that they need to respond effectively to CBRNE-style incidents. The greater issue is how many first responders still don't have the equipment that they need to do their jobs. Basic infrastructure here--chemcial plants, oil rigs, pipelines, train lines, etc.--still is very unprotected. No one ever mentions that.

  by jiacinto on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 04:23:03 PM PDT

  •  course he's no longer mayor, but yeah...

    by markymarx on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 04:55:14 PM PDT

•  Fighting Dem speech

  Dem advisors are telling us to roll in the gutter of GOP dirty tricks, they want us to say Guiliani's leadership was a disastrous for the civil liberties of New Yorkers and that Bush's unexplained absence during the aftermath of 9/11 allowed a corrupted incompetent womanizing authoritarian mayor like Giuliani to become a media hero - The same GOP who funded the Swift Boat liars who convinced you that a war hero like John Kerry was a coward and a traitor, that Gore was stiff and boring ..... Well, we aren't the GOP, we couldn't be more different, we have principles and integrity and we wont need to lie about our opponents personal records when the truth about them is enough to show them unfit to be elected to any position of responsibility let alone the high office of the presidency.

  Yep hit their perceived strengths AND elevate your own, slightly more advanced than the Rovian way.

  by UniC on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 04:27:13 PM PDT

  •  Lie, how?

    The facts in this case seem pretty clear.  After 9/11 Rudy postured a lot.  

    If taking the high ground means watching the GOP walk all over the Democrats in 2008, no thanks.  There's too much at stake.

    by markymarx on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 05:00:46 PM PDT

•  Do you live in New York City? n/t

  by Bouwerie Boy on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 04:28:22 PM PDT

  •  why do you ask?

    by markymarx on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 04:56:33 PM PDT

    •  I ask because

      you wrote...

      Dangerous because he was incompetent as mayor of NYC.

      Did you live in New York when he was mayor? It is a reasonable question.

      by Bouwerie Boy on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 05:07:07 PM PDT

      •  He wasn't exactly the bees' knees

        but he did some things half-okay.

        However he did screw the pooch royally, with the failure to equip the two branches of fire and police with proper communications tools, which could work together.

        by Dcoronata on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 05:40:33 PM PDT

        •  Believe me, I don't Care for RG and I certainly

          would never vote for him. I grew up in the New York area and have lived in the East Village for nearly twenty years. I have witnessed the administrations of every Mayor of the City of New York from Robert Wagner Jr to Mike Bloomberg and have personally lived under Ed Koch, David Dinkins, Rudy and now Michael Bloomberg. I am further quite knowlegable in New York City History and it's politics. The fact is he was not that bad a mayor. Nuts? Yes? An extremist? Yes. Were people ready for a change by the end of his second term? Yes. But, were they mostly pleased with the results of his two terms? Yes. It is simply unfair to descibe this man as incompetent. It is also completely unfair to blame the radio issue on the Mayor alone. Many parties were at fault including the leadership of the Police and fire departments themselves.

          by Bouwerie Boy on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 06:54:15 PM PDT

          •  I don't trust this guy one bit

            And with his torture wife, the two of em would be quite the pair.

            by comstockgrants on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 06:59:47 PM PDT

            •  You do understand how unfair that story is to

              this woman yes?

              by Bouwerie Boy on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 07:07:52 PM PDT

              •  It is unfair--

                --but if it helps to sink Rudy, who has chimed in with the rest of the GOP anti-Hillary chorus, I feel no pity.  Especially in light of the fact that he has said, frankly, that Judith Nathan would sit in on health care policy meetings, and contribute.  

                There's no way in hell that I would help put a right-wing equivalent to Hillary Clinton in the White House.  

                by IrishCatholicDemocrat on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 11:23:11 PM PDT

          •  Rudolph appointed the Commissioners

            for the Fire Department and the Police Department involved in these decisions.  One could also say, "Bush wasn't responsible for Katrina, Brownie was".  His appointee Kerik was a corrupt toadie who may soon be making big rocks into small ones.

            In the typical hagiography for Rudolph, it is usually forgotten that all major metropolitan areas throughout America had record-breaking decreases in crime and that the Clinton-era economic expansion particularly benefited the New York City area and other depressed East Coast cities.  New York was not particularly special because of Giulani.  One only has to think of his response to the killing of Patrick Dorismond, let alone the Louima and Diallo cases, to realize that he is not competant to lead New York, let alone our country.  

            And yes, I was there, from the police riots in '92 to the WTC.  

            by zootfloggin on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 07:17:21 PM PDT

          •  Uh...the buck stops where?

            Many parties were at fault including the leadership of the Police and fire departments themselves.

            So who do you blame for Iraq?  The Pentagon? Rumsfeld?  Cheney?

            by markymarx on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 08:05:09 PM PDT

            •  Well, this pretty much answered my question.

              You don't really know squat about New York City do you?

              by Bouwerie Boy on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 08:27:02 PM PDT

              •  Look

                The "Mr. New York" pissing contest isn't that interesting to me.  

                If you support Guiliani on this you're not serious about winning in 2008.  It's that simple.  

                by markymarx on Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 12:45:28 AM PDT

      •  yes

        I still don't see the point.  

        by markymarx on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 08:01:59 PM PDT

•  Badly needed diary

  Should be at the top of everyone's reading list.

  by formernadervoter on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 04:45:20 PM PDT

•  shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

  I can't stress this enough.  

  Ixney on the Guiliani dirt until after he wins the primary.

  by Alter Ego Manifesto on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 04:57:22 PM PDT

  •  That's Uilani-gay irt-day (n/t)

    by zootfloggin on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 07:46:07 PM PDT

  •  why?

    If Rudy makes it through the primary...we're in deep shit.  

    by markymarx on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 08:06:31 PM PDT

•  The link to the "crazies"

  is instructive.

  A Christian Broadcasting Network "reporter" has a "blog" in which he promotes Republican candidates.

  He's obviously a Giuliani fan, since he thinks that those who oppose Giuliani are embarked on an impossible mission:

  I have an extra bonus here on The Brody File. I have found the theme song that the anti-Rudy crowd has decided to use at their campaign events.

  He then links to the "Mission Impossible" theme music.

  Of course, there are no "anti-Rudy campaign events," but satire has always been a challenge for the wingnuts.

  The key point is that the Robertson wing of the Christianists will support any Republican for president in 2008, even one who supports abortion.

  Because they have become entirely, and illegally, committed to one political party.

  by devtob on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 05:30:07 PM PDT

•  about those radios

  It's inexcusable that so many police officers and firefighters died because their radios didn't work. We have the technology. I attribute the failure to corruption, pure and simple. I don't mean that someone was paid to make sure that those radios didn't work. I mean that this disaster was only possible in a corrupt environment of irresponsibility. Noone in charge made sure that basic equipment worked.

  Pathetic.

  by DrReason on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 05:38:21 PM PDT

•  Giuliani might beat W for worst ever

  If he were elected boy would that be it for the country! I hope Hillary or whoever is the candidate uses every smear and negative she can against this guy, including ads showing him in drag, nothing's off limits from keeping this guy out of the oval office.  We would never be able to show our faces abroad again, if the G man gets in. Goodbye to the remaining shreds of our freedoms in this country and goodbye world. Expose HIM please!

  by comstockgrants on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 06:57:57 PM PDT

•  Gulliani has gotten a free ride..

  
  Can you imagine if Al Gore had had affairs while married, two wives (or is it three?), dressed up as a woman?, and there were photographs of him dressing up as a woman?

  Can you just imagine how the U.S. News Media would have turned him into a National joke?  Can you imagine just what the likes of Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Dennis Miller, etc. would have said about him?

  Gulliani has been given a free ride.

  The question now is will the Democrats and the Democratic candidates use this Gulliani material (Do we really want a cross dresser as our President?) or will they (as they always do) take "the high road" even as they face these opponents with their schoolyard bully tactics and marketing of pure lies?

  I think the Democratic Party has to start using this material.  Do advertisements with the Gulliani photos and take him out of this thing.

  The Diarist is correct, Gulliani is both corrupt and incompetent.  He was no "hero" on Sept. 11 and certainly no "hero" before.

  He must be taken down along with the other War-mongers (McCain, Fred Thompson).

  There are no good GOP candidates, but Mitt Romney is probably the least dangerous of the bunch.

  But then again, Jeb Bush likes him ... so maybe he's just as bad.
  
  
  
  

  by LiberalWithBalls on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 07:32:50 PM PDT

•  A Draft-Dodging Nixon in Drag...

  ...who will not get my vote, nor even the obligatory, turdig concession that he was an effective mayor.

  If you cannot make the simple decision to put your emergency command center ANYWHERE other than your city's most likely potential terrorist target, you are not strong on security.  I will not go as far as saying that Rudy killed firefighters on 9/11, but his role in failing to update communications equipment shows the most glaring example of how he failed to live up to his own supposed belief (in Leadership) in extensive preparation.

  Finally, his support for the surge, equivocation on how he would manage the Iraq War compared to GWB, and glib mocking of Senate Democrats who worked to build consensus with a non-binding resolution are disgraceful.  This man's candidacy is a joke, and he has absolutely no business leading my country.  

  If he makes it past the primary, millions of tired, angry Americans will be ready to shut him down.

  by IrishCatholicDemocrat on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 11:11:57 PM PDT