Skip to comments.Citing Statistics, Giuliani Misses Time and Again
Posted on 12/01/2007 3:19:45 AM PST by america4vr
In almost every appearance as he campaigns for the Republican presidential nomination, Rudolph W. Giuliani cites a fusillade of statistics and facts to make his arguments about his successes in running New York City and the merits of his views.
Discussing his crime-fighting success as mayor, Mr. Giuliani told a television interviewer that New York was the only city in America that has reduced crime every single year since 1994. In New Hampshire this week, he told a public forum that when he became mayor in 1994, New York had been averaging like 1,800, 1,900 murders for almost 30 years. When a recent Republican debate turned to the question of fiscal responsibility, he boasted that under me, spending went down by 7 percent.
All of these statements are incomplete, exaggerated or just plain wrong. And while, to be sure, all candidates use misleading statistics from time to time, Mr. Giuliani has made statistics a central part of his candidacy as he campaigns on his record.
For instance, another major American city claims to have reduced crime every year since 1994: Chicago. New York averaged 1,514 murders a year during the three decades before Mr. Giuliani took office; it did not record more than 1,800 homicides until 1980. And Mr. Giulianis own memoir states that spending grew an average of 3.7 percent for most of his tenure; an aide said Mr. Giuliani had meant to say that he had proposed a 7 percent reduction in per capita spending during his time as mayor.
Facts and figures are often the striking centerpieces of Mr. Giulianis arguments. He has always had a penchant for statistics his anticrime strategy as mayor was built around a system known as Compstat that closely tracked crimes to focus law enforcement efforts. On the campaign trail
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Breslin said of him during the mayoralty:
“A small man in search of a balcony.”
Mussolini-like or not, he’d do better if his numbers added correctly.
Rudy claimed he cut welfare by 60% and the reporter gleefully said this was wrong, he only cut it by 58%. Crime was cut drastically, says Rudy, “it was on it’s way down anyway and Rudy merely used the 5000 extra cops Dinkins put on the force to do this, opines the reporter. Rudy says he lowered taxes 9 billion. Not so says reporter, he only lowered them 5.8 billion, the rest was State cuts.
Looks as if they want to zing the guy but cannot really come up with anything of substance to do so with. Even the attempt to pin the security escort thing on him is going nowhere.
He lied to his many brutally treated wives
He’ll lie to us in a heartbeat.
By all means, let’s start treating the NYTimes as THE source on political news!
I’m not necessarily opposed to the hit pieces on Giuliani. He isn’t my first or second or even third choice.
What frosts me is the lack of research into Hillary’s outright distortions and lies.
Amazing to me, we are always complaining about reporter’s lack of research, laziness when it come to writing an article or on the air piece.
But when a Republican candidate is involved it’s dig, dig, dig.
Your right lol
Now that you mention it...
And can you prove that the “security escort thing is going nowhere”?
He’s down significantly in today’s Rasmussen poll.
Giuliani is a con man. He dubbed himself some kind of hero for failing to protect his city against the terrorists.
Rudy's lack of honesty is central to his weak character. He's habitually lied to everyone in his life - family, voters, citizens, supporters.
Those closest to him (his family) and those who closely observed his perfomance (NYC's first responders) do not respect him or believe anything he says. They know he's a phony.
How could anyone seriously want to force our troops to salute a man like this?
Yep...Here is the Rasmussen Poll for Friday Nov 30:
Reading your post I thought you’d really appreciate the exchange I posted at the link below, only part of which I’ve provided here for your enjoyment.
You really should begin from at least post #34.
Sword-Waving Protesters Call for Death of Teacher Who Named a Bear Muhammad
The Guardian ^ | December 1, 2007 | The Guardian Staff
Say what you will , I was in NYC on 9/11 and Rudy was amazing in how he put everything together that day . Guess you had to be there and i guess youd have to see it through glasses that were not colored with your presidential choices. You dont have to like him for president but there is no way anyone can see the reality of those few days and not commend him . It was a massive organizational job in the middle of unreal chaos . I was there my my friend . A lesser man would have been running around like a chicken with no head.
I like Rudy. I’ve always liked Rudy.
His law and order morality, emphatically Pro-Israel stance, overwhelming strong ties with the Jewish community, staunchly jingoistic, America-first/forever perspective is about as politically congruent with
my views as anyone could be.
In the field of Republicans, he is for me, if not the de-facto candidate and eventual leader of the free world then definitely the default guy, above and beyond the utter vehemence, contempt and revulsion I have for Hillary.
There’s absolute nothing, nothing at all to know anymore than anybody else about the all-encompassing event of 9/11 by having been at Broadway and John Street on that horrible, tragic morning or wherever incredible vantage point you happen to have so fortuitously been positioned to speak with an authority about events nobody has a right to claim.
As far as what/where Rudy was, what he did, how he did it, on that fateful day is so fraught with as much ambiguity and confusion as anything could possibly be and I find it incomprehensible that you speak with such clarity and authority about events no one has any real inkling about.
Everything I expressed about Rudy remains unchanged that despite my support for him, Rudy has some very serious flaws that concern me.
46 posted on 12/01/2007 11:15:32 AM EST by america4vr (The ebb and flow of empires have come and gone but America shall forever reign supreme.)
Your right. The NYT must be scared to death that Rudy will beat Hillary. They run one negative article after another on Rudy.
BTW, I’m not a Rudy supporter, I will vote in the g.e. for the Parties nominee, whomever that is I was merely commenting on the media and their interest in nickel diming his stats.
We New Hampshire gun owners see through Rudy Juli-Anne. No way he gets our votes!
Glad to hear that, Mogger.
It’s hard to believe that no one asks him about the lawsuit he filed blaming gun makers for crimes. The only comment from him during the campaign has been something vague about the (perfectly predictable) way the evidence is being treated. Not one word questioning the original premise of his lawsuit, that gun manufacturers are responsible for crimes. I conclude that he still believes that, and Republicans in large numbers agree with him.
In a February 2000 interview on Meet the Press, Rudy said that Congress should pass a law saying we must prove that we need a handgun before being allowed to own one. While never specifically renouncing that position, he has made some vague flip-flopping statements which could lead a person to conclude that he has changed his mind, and now thinks it’s OK if we get guns without permission. OK, let’s say I believe that. I’m still left wondering where he thinks Congress gets that kind of power. Lemme guess...the commerce clause. It’s great that he says he has changed his long held views on gun control, but I can’t find any evidence he has changed his long held views on the power of Congress.
More lies - this time about the radios that didn't work at the WTC (1993 and 2001). Interview with Snuffleupagus.
http://www.amazon.com/Radio-Silence-FDNY-Betrayal-Bravest/dp/097590213X (The KRAMER radio scandal.)
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.