It's also worth remembering to ask what kind of character seeks to fight for one of the most powerful positions on the planet, and why so many candidates have palpably socio-pathic tendencies that can be readily identified long before they get their fingers on the nuclear button. The last thing the most powerful military needs is a commander-in-chief who is complex ridden, insecure, petty, vengeful, and narcissistic. A US military adventure should never be waged like a junior high school bathroom brawl. 'That all you got?'. 'Bring it on.' 'You want some?' 'You want some, too?'

"Where love rules, there is no will to power; and where power predominates, there love is lacking. The one is the shadow of the other.." -Carl Jung

I just have to say, this is a fantastic post.

thanks, really appreciate that. it's a subject that I feel pretty strongly about...

I told a friend the story about Rudy stopping recovery efforts the day after they reached the vault. He was shocked--hadn't heard it before. Lots of New Yorkers know him for the schmuck he is, but others need informing.

Giuliani is a very nasty piece of work; he does not care about anyone other than himself (he shares this trait with Bush). Unlike Bush he is not affable. He consorts with criminal, thug types like Kerik (who was mobbed-up) and he did so knowingly at the time. He has pursued racist policies. His unleashing the police certainly contributed to serious abuses (Louima and others); he will be very comfortable with the torture policies in place and will expand them as Romney has advocated. Here is some commentary from 1997:

"Despite a growing number of protests against police brutality, the recent veto by New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani of an independent police review board shows the problems that remain in monitoring abuses by the officers."

The way he screwed his wife and kids is the way he will screw the country.

Greg Sargent,

I couldn't understand what point you were trying to make when you first posted this video, and I am even more perplexed now.

The video's purported relevance is now supposed to derive somehow from the thoroughly obvious historical observation that the Giuliani/Dinkens conflict was played out against the background of New York's racial tensions. And indeed, the background circumstances of the rally at which the clip was filmed, as described in the Times article you are now hiding behind, are very interesting. You might want to discuss those circumstances in a halfway intelligent way. You said nothing about them in your original post except to mention that the speech took place at a "cop union rally".

But political context had nothing to do with your intentions in the original post. Rather, on your take, the chief interest of the video is not its circumstances, but the mere fact that it purportedly documents Giuliani becoming "unhinged". You honestly expected viewers to come away from a viewing of the video with fresh doubts about Giuliani's "reliability and temperament."

So your claim now that you were concerned with the larger political and cultural significance of the "bullshit moment" is bunk. It is clear from the original post that you only hoped that "values voters" - religious conservatives no doubt - would be shocked and dismayed by the use of the cuss word "bullshit". In response, one can only ask: what nursery school do you attend in that provincial shit hole at the mouth of the Hudson?

The video actually only helps Giuliani to the extent it receives greater circulation. He ought to have it mounted into a television commercial called "Rudy Calls Bullshit on Dinkens." You may have heard once or twice that David Dinkens has not exactly achieved a reputation as one of the most successful mayors in US history. Indeed, the outcome of several years of Koch and Dinkins leadership have had the result that one of the most Democratic cities in America now routinely votes for Republican or Independent mayors.

I know this kind of brainlessness is only your job, and the stock in trade of political hacks everywhere. But if Josh is paying you to rake some muck, I suggest you try rake something up that is actually mucky.

Grow up.

I think those who imagine that this video is going to hurt Giuliani with his natural supporters are due for a sad shock. To Republicans, this is just being "tough" and straight talking. I wouldn't dream of voting for a creep like him, but this video actually makes me like him a little better because at least it isn't the usual dreary, scripted pol-speak -- and I'm as far from being a Republican as anybody could get.

Guiliani is possibly the only candidate for president who could, if elected, make us all long for the good old days of Bush. The man is far too close to being our next president.

Hoppy in Sacramento

But there's a larger significance to Rudy's outburst that day that many who aren't from New York will completely miss. In many ways that aren't immediately apparent, that little moment, which had strong resonance in New York for years and years, embodies to a surprising degree Rudy's whole story -- his overwhelming drive, his monumentally flawed character, and his willingness to exploit the city's racial tensions in order to take power.

You left out the naked hypocrisy of the context, in light of his own actions once in office. Candidate Rudy got up and yelled "Bullshit" during a police riot protesting the formation of a Civilian Review Board for the NYPD. Mayor Rudy greatly expanded the powers of said CRB (which was, after all, a good idea). Neither Rudy apparently saw any contradiction there.

I have to say I'm somewhat conflicted about Rudy.  Those who choose to look only at his record of racial insensitivity need to remember just what state the city was in back in the early 1990s.  Most glaringly, there were 2,000 murders a years in the city. The New York Times took to calling the city the "New Calcutta".  Whole neighborhoods were completely ravaged by the crack epidemic.  And so on.

Now how much credit Rudy deserves for turning the city around is something that can be debated endlessly.  Clearly other factors were also at play.  But make no mistake, the city DID turn around on his watch.  New York when he left (9/11 notwithstanding) was an infinitely better place to live and work than when he came in to power.  It is not clear to me that someone who was more consensus-oriented, conciliatory and wary of taking on the power structure of the city could have pulled it off.

The issue for me is that it is clear he didn't know when to stop.  The truly great leaders, like Lincoln or Churchill are the ones who know when to play hardball or be confrontational and when that is just counterproductive.  Guiliani only had one mode - bulldozer. 

Which is to say that I think Guiliani is a weak candidate for president.  I think his naturial tendency to autocracy would lead to abuses of power even worse than under Bush and Cheney.  And I think if he treated Congress, especially if it's in Democratic hands, the way he treated the New York City council, he'd spin his wheels for four years at a time when there are many urgent matters to attend to.  In short, I'm sort of glad he was mayor, I'm suggesting his race record is not the only thing worth discussing.  But I think he'd make a terribly president.

Granted, destor, I've never been a big fan of the Election Central department,which strikes me as one tired insult to intelligence after another.

But even judged by the lame and superficial "gotcha"-politics standards of the political hackosphere, I can't wrap my head around the idea that "Rudy said "bullshit" once!" constitutes muck of any kind at all.

Or, excuse me, Rudy said "bulls#$t".

hey destor, thanks for the defense, and thanks for reading/commenting, it's much appreciated. Yes, we should have added more context the first time we posted the vid. It was late on a Friday night.

that's why I wrote the above post, actually -- to try to supply the context that was missing the first time around. The Times article provided the perfect hook to do that. Whether or not I succeeded is obviously an open question.

Also, for those other readers who seem to think that Election Central is supposed to rake muck, it's adamantly not supposed to do that at all. That is mainly the job of TPM muckraker. This site is about politics -- about polls, races, candidates, etc. It is not in any real sense a site that's supposed to do investigative journalism. That is not why Josh set it up.

anyway, thx again, destor...

Thsnks enormously for this post. I know there must be parts of the country in which the central pillar of the Republican ascendancy is not based on inflaming racism and xenophobia. However, like New Yorkers, Californians lived through the 90s riding out effort after Republican effort to arouse the racial anxieties of older white voters who are finding themselves in a country where they are no longer hegemonic. It is dirty ugly stuff and Rudy is the incarnation of modern Republican racism.

Just say no!
Can It Happen Here?

Of all the things in this post that interests me, I found this most interesting:

Several TPM Readers have written in to answer these questions with a resounding "No." One reader said that focusing on that moment was "petty" and that his "bulls#$t" moment paled alongside his more glaring flaws.

Where the hell have these people been for the last 10 years? Even if these people had been right about what is and isn't "petty," (which in this case they clearly were not), modern elections are decided by the "petty," as John Edwards is finding out. Democrats have to play the game we have, not the game we'd like to have -- you either hit back using these tactics or you lose to those who use them. I am stunned that we still have people, after all these years, who can't understand what drives our discourse.

Crooked cops, crooked lawyers, crooked judges, crooked politicians, crooked doctors, crooked scientists, crooked clergymen -- but no crooked journalists. An amazing record for an amazing class of people.

I agree, Rudy is dangerous. Right now we need to deal with Bush because Video: Bush Threats and Actions Risk Accidental War with Iran

Yeah, I obviously missed some of the meaning of this. All's been made clearer. I have to say, I still lean with Dan K on this in that I don't think the country will be shocked to hear that Rudy G. curses and I doubt they're interested enough in locaql NYC politics to really get the gist of it. This will be a challenge with Giuliani. He'll get away with a lot of bad local moments on the national stage because I think a lot of voters nationally will shrug.

I could be wrong, though. They might add up.

And, now that I see where you were going with this, things make a lot more sense.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

I don't think the country will be shocked to hear that Rudy G. curses and I doubt they're interested enough in local NYC politics to really get the gist of it.

How about smooching Donald Trump?  I wonder how that will play in Peoria.   :-)  His hair is better than Donald's...I'll give him that.

aMike

A person's character, as we found out the hard way these last 6+ years of the Bush/Cheney Junta, means a lot.

Rudy appears to be a control freak and doesn't like those who point this character flaw out to the public.

We can't afford another soicopath in the WH. Do you really want to give Rudy control of the world's largest nuclear weapons arsenal on the planet?

After Rudy hits the button, dooming all to Armageddon, it will be way TOO late for his spin doctor's and enablers to shine a different light on Rudy's "quirks."

One has to understand New York City's background to realize that while Guiliani ran an administration that presided over an improved New York he did so by aliening many New Yorkers. It is part of what distinguishes Bloomberg from Guiliani. Bloomberg has aliened people but because he is not warm and fuzzy not because he was perceived as biased against anyone group.

New York City fell into its financial crisis in the late 1960s and early 1970s because it spent so much on social programs even as its tax basis shrunk. Mayor Ed Koch, not Guiliani, and Governor Hugh Carey saved the City. They did this partly by scaling back the social services the the City provided, closing some hospitals, and raising the cost of CUNY to name two items.

Dinkins was elected to calm the waters that Koch both by his policies and his personality roiled. Dinkins was a disaster. The progress seen under Kock seemed to stall and Dinkins alienated for the Korean community, then the Jewish community and finilly the tradition rest of the liberal, not left, White Democratic population.

Guiliani arrived with is already well established arrogance and ego. However, in his support of the policen, and in the end every other policy he worked very hard to alienate Blacks. Thus by end of his second term, even with the general high marks for his actions on the day of 9/11 Blacks could not stand him and Whites were tired of him. Thus his "generous" offer to stay on even after the mayoral election was rejected.

Bloomberg arrived as still another Republican, who had been a Democrat, and annoyed everyone. In so doing he began, ironically, the recovery from the racial divide that Dinkins and above all Guiliani had caused in the City.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Giuliani perhaps got too much credit for New York's recovery in the 90's, but I think you're not giving him enough.  The most obvious area is in crime reduction.  Even though the 1980's were on the whole not bad for New York City and Ed Koch deserves credit for bringing the city bank from the brink in the late 1970's, the fact was that even through the 1980's and through the early 1990's crime in New York was still unacceptably high, particularly in minority neighborhoods.  As I've said elsewhere, Giuliani doesn't deserve all the credit for the dramatic reduction in crime on his watch, but he does deserve some.

I also don't quite understand your comment about Bloomberg.  Sure, it's pretty hard to gauge how he would have done electorally if he hadn't spent the tens of millions he did, but the fact remains his approval ratings are very high.  In the latest Q-poll last May, his approval rating was 74% overall and 77% among blacks.  That doesn't sound like someone who has "alienated" people.

we all know crime goes down when useful employment goes up and people have jobs that pay the rent and put food on the table.

Actually this is not so clear.  Crime trends are the result of many things, not just economic health.  And the trends can sometimes go in opposite directlons.  After all, the economy in New York City was pretty good through the mid-1980's, but the crime rate was still climbing.  In the country as a whole, crime rates climbed steadily in the 60's even though the economy was quite healthy.

You're giving Giuliani too much credit. He doesn't get it for turning NY around---the whole country improved in step, with falling crime and rising emplyment.
*******************************************
Sorry but that dog won't hunt. During the same time period that you say "the whole country improved in step" a whole series of cities didn't. Detroit comes to mind. Saying the whole country improved and the political leadership in individual cities had nothing to do with the circumstances and results in those cities just isn't true.

This whole Rudy's-nuts-cuz-he-said-bullshit thing of yours is now officially deeper than Ground Zero.

Just keep reminding people how he destroyed Dinkins paradise, that'll keep people from voting for him.

Thank You!  Both for directing me to the Giuliani document which is fascinating, and reminding me of Smoking Gun, which somehow had slipped below my radar.

aMike

The economy boomed in the 90s primarily becasue of High Tech and Finance.

Cities that had economies heavily based on one of them (or better yet both, New York!) did very well. Old industry cities (Detroit) fell even further behind. This doesn't say much of anything about Guilliani, it says a lot about the economy of the 90s.

Dinkins had funded the additional cops on the street and Rudy's Police Commissioner at the time began using crime-mapping as a tool for deploying the additional cops. So they were able to target the additional manpower to the area of high crime incidence. In other words, the cops started using epidemiology. When the Commissioner started getting the credit for the decline, (Time did a cover story on him-I forget his name) Guiliani fired him-he took his top guys and went to LA to work the same crime reductions. So it was strategy not Rudy's leadership that made the difference. Without the principled top cops, the incidents of cops-out-of-control increased.

We should be most afraid of the people Rudy surrounds himself with - his Mafia-connected buddies, the pedophile priest and other unsavories. If Michael Powell's article has any truth in it, Rudy can't tell the difference between the good guys and the bad guys. And that's the really scary thing about him.