Skip to comments.Was Giuliani a Bum on 9/10/01?
Posted on 02/12/2007 7:39:47 AM PST by presidio9
click here to read article
In the Dorismond case (and maybe the other one, too), there were conflicting accounts over whether the undercover cops had actually identified themselves as such.
The cops definitely identified themselves in the Baez case. They had already arrested his brother. We could spend the rest of the day going over NY history. The original poster's point was that the idea that Giuliani wasn't well liked is a media revision. The people who didn't like him because trumped up charges of him condoning police brutality didn't vote for him in the first place. And the media played to that by manipulating the stories to make Giuliani seem worse. Anthony Baez was twice the size of the officer who choked him to death.
And they considered Mother Theresa well to the right of Hitler.
I didn't notice any "Rudy fatigue" prior to 9/11. I'm sure he could have been re-elected.
I'm sorry, but we must agree to disagree.
Liberals never really liked Rudy, so they wouldn't have voted for him. Conservatives were turning on him after his very public and very messy divorce. The coalition he had managed to put together in his previous two elections had unraveled.
He was widely viewed here in the city as ineffectual and politically damaged before 9/11. He was a lame duck in all senses of the words, and another election as mayor would have been extremely dicey at best.
I disagree with the last part -- he HAD a legacy already -- but you're right, I still don't think he could have been re-elected. People were really sick of the soap opera that his life had become, and the story-line was so unflattering to his character.
Actually, I think he brings up 9/11 in just about every speech. He did at the GOP convention.
You're right, he does. It is his standard stump speech.
Read the comment you were responding to professor:
He doesn't spend a lot of time talking about 9/11 in the speeches he gives.
Of course he brings it up. It was a major event in this nation's history and he presided over it. But like his book (which came out after 9/11) his speeches focus on the leadership strategies that brought NY back from the brink prior to 9/11. That's what schools and businesses pay to hear about, not war stories. Any good pulbic speaker adds segments to make what they are saying interesting, but no one would be paying that kind of money just to hear him re-hash 9/11.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.