I fear you may have misunderstood me

One of my commenters demands:

Lets say Rudy did just make a bad choice, no ulterior motives. Isn't that bad enough? Don't we want a president that makes good choices when he has to make a decision on these types of things?

Who were the other guys that recommended to him that they put the command center away from the big terrorist target? Wouldn't they make a better president.

I am not defending Rudy, the presidential candidate. Almost no one who has lived in New York wants Rudy anywhere near the nuclear football, nor would we like to see his strongly authoritarian instincts (however much they arguably may have done for New York's policing) unleashed on the federal justice system. Rudy is craaaaaaaaazy, albeit not in a way that made him a particularly bad mayor. And the decision to locate the command center where he did was stupid. I'm just not sure it was as stupid as it now seems, and I am skeptical of the claim that he put it there to keep as a love nest. Rudy was perfectly capable of getting crazy, stupid ideas, and then forcing them on everyone else, when there was absolutely no sex involved.

Comments

It's funny when we agree on things so perfectly. As a staunch demo/liber/progress/moonbat (or whatever my left leaning ilk are called this week) I happy voted for Rudy twice and thought he was a pretty good mayor for large chunks of it (I didn't like him going after cab drivers and hot dog vendors by DEATH to the squeegy guys...Hooray!) but I agree. What made him a pretty good NYC mayor is exactly the type of thing we DON'T need as a president.

One would hope that the next guy (or gal, since that's an actual possibility this time) we elect would have a less authoritarian touch than Bush, not mroe than.

Oh yeah, and as any NYer will tell you, Meg's right. The guy is bats*** crazy.

Posted by Kate | August 21, 2007 2:19 PM

Look. We don't accuse Dick Cheney of having deliberately ginned up the foolhardy invasion of Iraq in order to steer billions of dollars worth of no-bid contracts to Halliburton. We accuse him of having ginned up the foolhardy invasion of Iraq for other reasons, related to his poor judgment and to his political interests and instincts, and then of having had the low morals and arrogant sense of entitlement to pervert that war for the profit of Halliburton.

Similarly, we don't accuse Giuliani of having looked around for a suitable government program to feather a love-nest for his future conquests, picked the EOC, and put it in the WTC. Instead, we accuse Giuliani of having the poor judgment to override expert opinion and stick the EOC in a vulnerable location which was more convenient for him to use as a clubhouse, and then of having the low morals and juvenile sense of entitlement to have apparently used it for assignations with his paramours. And to have then pranced and preened on the smoking wreckage, playing firefighter and Brave Leader, on the spot where he'd cavorted with his mistresses.

Posted by brooksfoe | August 21, 2007 2:49 PM

"Almost no one who has lived in New York wants Rudy anywhere near the nuclear football"

Wow, that's just ridiculously false.

Posted by John Tabin | August 21, 2007 3:15 PM

Similarly, we don't accuse Giuliani of having looked around for a suitable government program to feather a love-nest for his future conquests, picked the EOC, and put it in the WTC.

Actually, that's exactly what Kleinman does do. The "least hypothesis that covers the phenomena as reported" he calls it.

Posted by Henry | August 21, 2007 3:22 PM

John Tabin:

The numbers I have seen (and I have not been looking hard) is that Guilliani's poll numbers are lower in New York State than the rest of the country and lower in New York City than in most major cities. I haven't been purusing polling data much about it, since I think that in the end there will be little or no chance that Rudy will get the nomination (and if he does he'll lose spectacularly) and, heck, we're more than a year before the actual presidential election, but you seem so sure that statement isn't true that I'd like to see the numbers you're looking at.

Any chance we can get a link?

Posted by Kate | August 21, 2007 3:30 PM

"Almost no one who has lived in New York wants Rudy anywhere near the nuclear football, nor would we like to see his strongly authoritarian instincts (however much they arguably may have done for New York's policing) unleashed on the federal justice system."-Megan

"Oh yeah, and as any NYer will tell you, Meg's right. The guy is bats*** crazy."-Kate

As someone who lived in new York while Giuliani was mayor, I do not think he is crazy. Nor would I mind him being in charge of America's nuclear arsenal.

What explains the quotes above? I think they reflect the ambivalence of leftists or wishy-washy centrists who will the ends--law and order, economic growth, etc..., but not the means that are necessary to attain those ends. Specifically, they are just too squeamish to accept that sometimes a mayor, or a president, has to be tough--tough on criminals, tough on welfare cheats, tough on terrorists, and tough on geopolitical rivals.

Does anyone really believe that Giuliani would launch nuclear missiles for fun? Of course he wouldn't. But, unlike many vacillating liberals, he would be willing to use force to protect America's vital interests. After president Bush's errors some people will be inclined to retreat into an unthinking pacifism and isolationism. But that would be an even greater error. Indeed, it was the same error that many made after World War I, both here and in Europe, with disastrous consequences.

Posted by isocrates | August 21, 2007 3:47 PM

After president Bush's errors some people will be inclined to retreat into an unthinking pacifism and isolationism. But that would be an even greater error. Indeed, it was the same error that many made after World War I, both here and in Europe, with disastrous consequences.

Why would anyone want to elect as President someone who has shown very poor personal and professional judgment and is likely to continue "Bush's errors"?

Posted by SavageView | August 21, 2007 4:32 PM

I don't know if Ms. McArdle actually read the other comment thread. I don't think anyone i nthe thread suggested the luxury apartment was placed there with the designed purpose of providing a love shack. The arguments against Rudy on this issue seem to be, more or less:

(1) Placing the center at the WTC was dumb.
(2) That choosing the WTC was dumb was recognized ahead of time and the experts were against it. This isn't just hindsight.
(3) There are suspicions that the WTC site was chosen not merely for Rudy's convenience but also to reward a supporter who was its landlord.
(4) Installing a luxury apartment (monogrammed towels? humidor?) is inexplicable and deeply inappropriate. If circumstances really required the mayor to be at the disaster center 24 or 48 hours, his enjoying these luxuries would be macabre. Ray Nagin may be lousy, but his using Air Force One to get a shower was extraordinarily affecting.
(5) Regardless of why it was installed, using the disaster center's luxury mayoral apartment as a love shack once it was available - which I think noone denies he did - reflects extremely poor judgement.

To try to update the 1992 mantra: it's the entitlement, stupid. Or maybe the expropriation. Ah well, I guess I'm no Carville.

Posted by Warren Terra | August 21, 2007 4:47 PM

I'm responding to the original post, which said:

But just why was it so essential that the command center be within walking distance of City Hall? Here's Barrett:

The mayor was so personally focused on the siting and construction of the bunker that the city administrator who oversaw it testified in a subsequent lawsuit that "very senior officials," specifically including Giuliani, "were involved," which he said was a major difference between this and other projects. Giuliani's office had a humidor for cigars and mementos from City Hall, including a fire horn, police hats and fire hats, as well as monogrammed towels in his bathroom. His suite was bulletproofed and he visited it often, even on weekends, bringing his girlfriend Judi Nathan there long before the relationship surfaced.

Giuliani so far has displayed an astonishing amount of Teflon. But if it comes out that he did his emergency planning with his little head instead of his big head, even Republican primary voters might get a little bit upset.

Posted by Megan McArdle | August 21, 2007 4:55 PM

Almost no one who has lived in New York wants Rudy anywhere near the nuclear football, nor would we like to see his strongly authoritarian instincts (however much they arguably may have done for New York's policing) unleashed on the federal justice system

Wow. So Megan doesn't have a clue what real New Yorkers are like. And I thought she had lived there. I guess she just spent all her time living on the Upper West Side.

Posted by Al | August 21, 2007 6:39 PM

A1, I'm a real NYer and virtually no one I know (and I know a bunch of fairly right wing NYers)want Giuliani as President. Please see my post above and let me know if the numbers I recall seeing are wrong.

Also, Giuliani isn't crazy? I give you the following true stories:

1) Suggested we "blow up" the Board of Ed. He made the suggestion TWO DAYS after Columbine. Now the Board of Ed was eventually restructured under Bloomberg and no one is denying that it needed it, but you have to be pretty nutso (or at the very least insensitive) to suggest that we blow up an educational institution right after a massacre at an educational institution.

2) Started a crusade to outlaw Ferrets. Why? No one knows.

3) Decided to close down the Freshkills landfill in Staten Island despite the fact that it still had 20-30 more years of fill-up to go. Then he was surprised that a) New Jersey didn't want the big barge of garbage he was trying to dump there (without ever discussing it with them according to Gov. Whitman); and b) suggested that if people from Virginia wanted to come to NYC they should take the barge of garbage.

4) Went after licensed taxi drivers and hot dog vendors with permits to, well, I've never been quite sure, piss off New Yorkers.

5) Announced at a press conference that he was leaving his wife, without actually talking to her or his kids first.

That's just a sampling. I could come up with dozens more ways the man is just not entirely stable.

Posted by Kate | August 21, 2007 7:04 PM

Kate: It doesn't matter if Giuliani doesn't get a majority in a poll of New Yorkers; all he needs to do to refute Megan's assertion is beat the margin of error. "Almost no one" is an extremely low bar, which is why it's so absurd.

Posted by John Tabin | August 21, 2007 7:13 PM

"Why would anyone want to elect as President someone who has shown very poor personal and professional judgment and is likely to continue 'Bush's errors'?"

First, I think it's very funny that the very same people who defended Bill Clinton vociferously are now outraged at Giuliani's marital transgressions. I never cared much about Clinton's affairs, nor do I care about Giuliani's.

Second, Giuliani was, by wide agreement, an effective mayor. And the same skills and the same toughness that made him a good mayor would probably make him a good president as well. I've heard nothing so far that persuades me otherwise.

Thirdly, the attention that Megan McArdle and others are paying to Giuliani's love life strikes me as unseemly. I have no interest in where Giuliani had his trysts. Those who do seem to me to be trying to live vicariously. Maybe they are envious? I don't know.

In sum, while I am aware of Giuliani's flaws as a man and as a leader, I find it hard to believe that a rational person could prefer Hillary Clinton as the leader of this country. Rudy believes in markets; Hillary believes in government control. Rudy believes that miltary strength is the best guarantor of peace; Hillary is deeply suspicious of the military and would much rather spend money on domestic programs. To me there is no contest.

Posted by isocrates | August 21, 2007 7:15 PM

A1, I'm a real NYer and virtually no one I know (and I know a bunch of fairly right wing NYers)want Giuliani as President.

Is your real name Pauline Kael?

Anyway, I'm a New Yorker, and many people I know (even some fairly liberal types) want him as President.

So we can all inhabit our respective worlds and duel our respective anecdotes.

Please see my post above and let me know if the numbers I recall seeing are wrong.

I have no idea what numbers you recall seeing.

Posted by Al | August 21, 2007 7:20 PM

my 89 year old mother thinks Rudy is a megalomaniac - and totally bizarro crazy. My 30 year old daughter thinks so, and wrote him a letter to say so. My 18 year old nephew thinks he's nuts. The only people who like him are lonely limp-wristed Gop hacks from long island. Who smoke cigars once a year and just Wish It Would All Go Away.

Posted by hardly | August 21, 2007 9:23 PM

"Almost no one who has lived in New York wants Rudy anywhere near the nuclear football".

How about "Exactly no one who has thought about attacking New York wants Rudy anywhere near the nuclear football"?

Personally, I'll be delighted to know that Rudy has nuclear power if the Red Sox sign A Rod.

Posted by Tom Maguire | August 21, 2007 9:27 PM

2) Started a crusade to outlaw Ferrets. Why? No one knows.

Also, this is misleading. The city Board of Health created a list of animals that may not be kept as pets in the city, under a long-standing provision of the Health Code that prohibited keeping wild animals as pets, so that they wouldn't have to litigate every time the Health Department claimed some animal was a "wild animal" under that section of the code. The list included ferrets, along with lots of other animals, from lions, tigers, and bears to alligators and venomous snakes to skunks and wolverines. That policy was not only retained by Bloomberg, but it was upheld by the courts. And for good reason - weasels are not appropriate pets in the city. They can get loose, easily move from apartment to apartment in large buildings, and harm children. Ferrets may be fine pets in areas where people don't live in apartment buildings, but they aren't appropriate for the city.

This is just another example of the left's many misleading attacks on Giuliani.

Posted by Al | August 21, 2007 9:45 PM

Ferrets are, BTW, illegal in the entire state of California.

Posted by Al | August 21, 2007 9:57 PM

According to Wikipedia, only domestic ferrets are kept as pets. My sister had a few ferrets for a time, and while I thought they weren't all that great, they certainly weren't "wild."

Also, the natural diet for ferrets include rats and mice. Maybe a few loose ferrets in an apartment building would be a good thing.

Posted by jlw | August 21, 2007 10:09 PM

4) Went after licensed taxi drivers and hot dog vendors with permits to, well, I've never been quite sure, piss off New Yorkers.

He went after taxi drivers because a lot of them drive like maniacs, and the number of accidents they were causing was shooting up. I guess you're on the side of the accident causers, not the accident victims?

And he went after hot dog vendors to alleviate congestion on some streets. (As it happens, while I'm not fan of congestion - I work around Times Square and know all about it - I don't think the vendors are a huge cause.)

Posted by Al | August 21, 2007 10:12 PM

So many excellent comments here in response to the idiocy being peddled by McArdle and by the (usually more intelligent) Julian Sanchez that I'm not sure how much added value another one can bring. Freddie in particular at 7:59 was spot on. Another point Sanchez might want to consider: presumably the point of considering people's responsibility for their own health behavior would be to encourage better health behavior and thus increase overall population health and reduce the cost of the medical system. And yet it is transparently clear from any comparison of health care systems which rely on individual responsibility (like the US) against those which have universal coverage (like Europe) that the universal coverage systems are better, not worse, at encouraging better health seeking behavior and promoting overall population health, and at keeping the medical system's costs down. People in France, Germany, the UK, Canada, the Netherlands and Japan eat and drink better, exercise more, and go to the doctor earlier to treat routine problems before they become severe and expensive. Why? In large measure it's because governments are much better and more responsible about promoting national health and saving money on health care than individuals are.

One might try a traffic analogy: one would think that countries which treated safe driving as an individual responsibility, rather than a public one, would have more careful drivers. And yet places that have few traffic lights, lane markers, or police issuing tickets and revoking licenses (like India and Nigeria) have much more aggressive and risky drivers than do places like the US that treat traffic safety as a matter for government to handle. Libertarians find this a mystery, but nobody else does.

Posted by brooksfoe | August 21, 2007 10:12 PM

excrementive pluminess dagbamba enteroneuritis cladosiphonic asphyxiation hobbling unwaterlike
http://www.nycroats.com >New York Croats
http://www.nataliercollins.com/agent-information/agent-listing.php

Posted by Annamarie Koch | December 16, 2007 12:33 AM