-
Never Having to Say You’re Sorry
November 5, 2012 | 38 comments
-
The Politics of Tragedy
March 26, 2012 | 388 comments
-
Reflections on Amanda Knox
October 5, 2011 | 148 comments
-
Obama’s Alter Boy
September 28, 2011 | 24 comments
-
Missouri Heat
September 26, 2011 | 7 comments
Political Hay
Rudy Returns
Will we see this key Romneyite on prominent display in Tampa?
(Page 2 of 2)
Yet, for all his conservatives triumphs, Giuliani ended up in the final tally a presidential also-ran, that most unappetizing of Convention speakers (fellow also-ran John McCain’s reported Tampa snub, and the ensuing controversy around it, don’t exactly bode well for Rudy’s speaking chances).
2008 simply was not Rudy’s year. His campaign manager Mike DuHaime famously bypassed Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina and targeted the Florida primary —erasing Rudy’s name from the first rounds of media coverage and causing him a third-place finish in Florida on January 29. That Giuliani could run on a promise of tax reform and a record of 23 tax cuts and still not trust early primary voters to look past his pro-choice beliefs signaled either a massive strategy mistake on the part of his campaign or a frustrating reality of the Republican nominating process. At different times over the past four years, Giuliani has blamed both.
Even if he had won the nomination, the financial collapse in September —blamed on the white-collar folks from Rudy’s own neck of the woods — would have sunk him even more drastically than it did McCain. As Bill Clinton told Esquire, “on September 15, when Lehman Brothers failed, the race was over. The only presidential election in my lifetime I think that ended before the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.”
With his firm Giuliani Partners overlooking Times Square and his other firm Bracewell and Giuliani located on the 49th floor of a Sixth Avenue office tower near Bank of America, Rudy would have had a tough time stealing voters away from the “nicest doctor” in that race.
But 2012 is a much different election.
In May 2011, a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll found Giuliani leading the field of possible Republican candidates, ahead of Romney and Sarah Palin. America’s mayor voiced his admiration for McCain’s traditional 2008 primary strategy and set off for a week of events in New Hampshire. He installed a New Hampshire-based spokeswoman and earned the stated confidence of a former New Hampshire Republican chairman. Potential New Hampshire primary voters popped up in mainstream news articles calling him an “amazing gentleman.”
The 2010 Tea Party Revolution — in which Rudy played kingmaker for young icon Marco Rubio and first-time House winners Richard Hanna and Nan Hayworth, among others — had seemingly done for the former mayor what the 1966 midterms did for Nixon. In opposition to an unpopular president, Rudy had set himself up for a comeback.
Of course, it was a comeback squashed by circumstance. When Rudy’s friend Rick Perry entered the race on August 13, the Texas governor instantly took an 11-point lead over Romney in a Rasmussen poll. Florida Republicans were treating Perry like an inevitability as late as mid-September.
Giuliani gave up hope, dropping into the pool of running-mate candidates alongside fresher-faced East Coast dynamo (and confirmed convention speaker) Chris Christie. “I’m a realist, and I understand how the primary system works,” Giuliani sighed.
But for all of Rudy’s self-deprecation, the Republican primary process this year yielded a high-earning blue-state governor pitching what our president calls “top-down economics.”
Faced with an opponent who doesn’t think business owners built their own companies, Republicans may want to hand Rudy a microphone at their convention.
“People who live in freedom always prevail over people who live in oppression. That’s the — that’s the story of the Old Testament. That’s the story of World War II and the cold war. That’s the story of the firefighters and police officers and rescue workers who courageously saved thousands of lives on Sept. 11, 2001,” Giuliani said in a moving speech at the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York.
No, Rudy Giuliani will never be president of the United States. But this year, he might still win in Florida.
aware| 8.6.12 @ 6:28AM
"Giuliani has been pitching his protégé Marco Rubio..."
That ought to tell you all you need to know about Rubio.
Jack in Wi| 8.6.12 @ 6:54AM
Is Rudy going to be in drag or is going to wear his tuxedo? Now he is a shill for Adelson. This is supposed to get us excited about voting for Romney? The vast majority of people in this country don't want anymore wars in the Middle East led by chickenhawks like Romney and Rudy. We want someone to get this country back in shape. Romney is wasting a chance to appeal to the people he needs, women, young people and independents, with all this nonsense. These wars are as popular as cancer and Obama is going to run as the peace candidate again.
Von Mises Jr| 8.6.12 @ 7:33AM
- Woodrow Wilson involved the United States in WWI after running on staying out of the War.
- FDR policies of interrupting gas to Japan were a contributing factor to Pearl Harbor.
- JFK and LBJ escalated the War in Vietnam
- Bill Clinton inserted the US in conflicts in Mogadishu, Serbia/Kosovo, Sudan, and Iraq
- Obama has inserted troops in Libya, and has escalated a drone campaign in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia and the Philippines.
And the two Bushes drove Iraq out of Kuwait and retaliate for 911 in Afghanistan and Iraq, and Republicans are Chicken Hawks?
Jack, you are truly a moron and a fool.
Jack in Wi| 8.6.12 @ 8:15AM
Von Mises you are a nasty little warmonger and an idiot. Of course Wilson, and FDR in 1940 both ran as people who kept us out of war and would keep us out of war. That is why they won their elections. Eisenhower ran a campaign to end the war in Korea and he won in landslide. Reagan ran on a platform of peace though stength. He made peace when he had a chance and he hated war and nuclear weapons. Nixon ran and won because he claimed to have a secret plan to end the Vietnam war. He won in 1972 with a huge landslide because he claimed to have fullfilled that promise. Bush Sr. was defeated in 1992 dispite the fact he won the 1st Iraq war. Bush 2 promised a more humble foreign policy. He almost destroyed the Party with his idiotic wars. Some mission accomplished. Obama won as the peace candidate with the best winning percentages for a Democrat since Johnson in 1964. Johnson won a huge landslide by portraying Goldwater as a lunatic warmonger not to be trusted.
Peace win elections. Warmongers like Romney and Rudy lose them. Rudy got one vote in his bid for the nomination despite having a huge warchest. He knows nothing about winning an election beyond the Hudson river. He and Romney are both chickenhawks not credible to most americans as war leaders. There no sane reasons for another war. If you want one go back to Israel and shed your own blood with the IDF. Israel and the whole Middle East has never been worth one drop of American blood or one American dollar.
Von Mises Jr| 8.6.12 @ 9:35AM
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics - USSR
National Fascist Party - Mussolini
National Socialist Party - Nazis
Chinese Communist Party - Mao's China
Integrated Revolutionary Organizations - Cuba
Workers Party of North Korea
Quiz, genius: Which of these totalitarian regimes were conservative?
Hint: none that define themselves as "Socialist," "Fascist," "Revolutionary," "Worker Party" or "Communist."
Boar Hunter| 8.6.12 @ 11:53AM
Jack you foolish coward.
When will you learn from your mistakes?
Your wife left you for a lot of reasons, but I believe the most significant one was your irredeemable cowardice and the lack of love you showed her.
Everything you write demonstrates your epic stupidity and vile foolishness.
You blame others for being warmongers, all while calling for the annihilation of Israel. You claim you believe if God, but gleefully challenge him to bring his curse on you, for your rants to destroy his chosen people.
Who are you to decide the worth of anyones blood?
You who admits he is a coward, unwilling to defend his own home or family. You who must call on other men to aid and protect you from harm, all while you scream and rant about how other men must die.
As a lonely old joke without a family, mocked by others for the stupid things you post from behind a dirty keyboard, maybe you are already living God's curse.
Von Mises Jr| 8.6.12 @ 1:10PM
And he is probably too stupid to collect his $10 per hour like Perp for being a "Useful Idiot."
CJW| 8.6.12 @ 6:55PM
Von
If Jack and purpie criticize you then your are saying the right stuff.
Crassus| 8.6.12 @ 1:48PM
CHICKENHAWK!!! CHICKENHAWK!!!!
Aristocat| 8.6.12 @ 7:10AM
Rudy does not support the Republican platform.
Romney needs to follow the Republican platform or he will lose:
FROM THE REPUBLICAN PLATFORM
Maintaining The Sanctity and Dignity of Human Life
Faithful to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence, we assert the inherent dignity and sanctity of all human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity and dignity of innocent human life.
Preserving Traditional Marriage
Because our children’s future is best preserved within the traditional understanding of marriage, we call for a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage as a union of a man and a woman, so that judges cannot make other arrangements equivalent to it. In the absence of a national amendment, we support the right of the people of the various states to affirm traditional marriage through state initiatives.
Libertyinfinite| 8.6.12 @ 11:18AM
America is now a nation of drones despotic unto themselves due to cultural marxism being ingrained in us for the past forty years, from our medias, entertainment industries, & now today we have fascist, & violently abusive against any child who doesn't go with them, schools here in America. The culture that got us this way is social liberalism. Feminism, abortion, gay marriage, these are the things that brought America to where she is now, to being a nation of marxist compliance. We needed to fight now, it we were to survive. Romney is handing the win on gay marriage to the left this year because he will not fight. Romney is a liberal, socially. He is pro-marxist nanny state. He comes across as smart because he has money. But his plans were found to only benefit those making over a million dollars a year, & cost money to those making less than $2oo thousand a year. He just wants to tweek the system so that he & a few of his friends make money off of this dying nation.
Because of cultural marxism, the American People are willingly in the dark, "to busy" to stop their governments from taking everything away from us. We needed to stop it now. Romney will only make our real problems worse for us. & he will never fight for conservative values, he doesn't believe in freedom. He believes in his own wallet, & nothing more. Conservatism died in 2012 with Mitt Romney for the right.
RCV| 8.6.12 @ 11:25AM
Here's a news flash: conservatives lost the GOP nomination. Romney and Guiliani and the moderate wing of the party are firmly in control. He owes you guys nothing.
Libertyinfinite| 8.6.12 @ 1:20PM
I can live with romney not fighting for anything that matters. What I can't live with is the right seems to be unaware that romney will never fight for conservative values. Media has made this an us vs. them race. But romney isn't one of us, & no one on the right has any objections to this.
America is going straight to hell. Well thank you for being one of the ten people in America who can see that romney is the rights going all in for the status quo. & don't be shy now, speak up, let the truth be heard. We might get to twenty who know the truth before obama wins a second term. Better than ten anyway.
Libertyinfinite| 8.6.12 @ 6:06PM
Check out newsmax, there is a link to a story on the page that you are on in newsmax, romney has just refused to comment on social issues. He will not fight for traditional values, he says that it takes away from his money statement. Not a direct quote, please read.
Aristocat| 8.6.12 @ 7:00AM
Rudy is plenty smart and would be a good campaign manager...Romney's staff is a bunch of arrogant amateurs who are doing more harm that good, such as the goofball who introduced "Etch-a-Sketch" as the Romney campaign slogan. Dear Romney, get a top flight campaign manager like Ed Rollins, Haley Barbour, or Rudy, and forget these kids who are ruining your campaign.
Appleby| 8.6.12 @ 7:25AM
What Aristocat said. Rudy is a third rail vis-a-vis joining a prospective Romney Ticket; however, putting him to work in the background where he has expertise is a good plan. Most of the Tweethead Generation has no idea who he is, by the way. Their idea of "classic" is "last week."
Libertyinfinite| 8.6.12 @ 11:06AM
Mitt Romney himself is the problem, that his staff isn't up to anything good is secondary. I think that his entire campaign will implode on itself very soon. His VP rubio & amnesty, his handing the win on the gay marriage issue to the left. He just hasn't got anything better than obama to offer Americans, & we all know that.
Libertyinfinite| 8.6.12 @ 6:52PM
Newsmax is reporting that Mitt Romney himself has now officially refused to stand up for the traditional family values that give America her freedom. Not his staff, he said it personally. He says that it detracts from his campaign on money. But don't take my word for it there is a link on this page to the story in newsmax.
Mimi | 8.6.12 @ 8:36AM
When you think about it...Rudy...if he vowed to abide by the party platform concerning "LIFE" issues...would make a terrific V.P.
He should definately have a chance to speak at the convention.....I could see Romney taking NEW YORK state in the election if Rudy was on the ticket....NO KIDDING! Upstate is a sure win and New York City area has many Black voters who are wavering..with the Minister making a call at their door against the Presidents change on the Gay Marraige issue ( They are going active after the "O" ignored them and their brave defense of religious values).
Libertyinfinite| 8.6.12 @ 11:02AM
The blacks not being behind obama is the only reason a pathetically liberal retard like romney is even close to O. Romney is spineless, his VP is going to be rubio, & they plan on handing out amnesty for the win. Didn't say I liked it, but when the right sees how bad these guys really are, they are going to have primary voters remorse. Romney is worse than obama because he is the destruction of Americas' traditional values of, by, & for the right.
Stkman| 8.6.12 @ 10:31AM
I saw all I needed to see with the comment that Romnay will pass immigration reform, ala, mass amnesty that will complete the destruction of the United states so the rich and powerful will have their un-educated work for minimum wage work force.
Mr. Romney, know this, YOU WILL HAVE A REVOLUTION ON YOUR HANDS IF YOU DO SOMETHING SO DUMB AS TO GRANT AMNESTY TO 28 MILLION ILLEGAL ALIENS NOW IN THE UNITED STATES.
REMEMBER THE ALAMO! BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, REMEMBER SAN JACINTO!!!!
Libertyinfinite| 8.6.12 @ 10:57AM
So you too know that romney plans on enacting amnesty here, & you still want to vote him in? Do you also know that every fight this year, romney will not talk about, & so all of the political wins will go to the left. This gay marriage issue could be huge, buy he lets the left have it's win without a fight on it. Romney will expand our cultural marxism, & nanny state by ignoring that they exist. His plans were found only to benefit people making over a million dollars a year. & you'd still vote for him? Why ask for something when he has destroyed what is left of America? Why not ask for something better today, before romney destroys America? Why not ask for a conservative presidential candidate on the Tea Party ticket, now, before conservatism dies?
Stkman| 8.6.12 @ 11:01AM
I'll vore for Romney before I vote for ANY Democrat. With the election of Cruz in Texas the Tea Party still has some pull. Maybe we can keep Romney honest and keep him from giving amnesty to the illegals.
Libertyinfinite| 8.6.12 @ 1:25PM
I am thinking Mickey Mouse. Romney handing the win on every issue to the left, & destroying America by refusing to be a conservative, just isn't any better than obama.
Rubio wants amnesty. & this attitude that we can elect a guy who will f- over conservatives & conservatism at every turn, but then "change him after he's in" is morbidly pathetic. That originated from liberal pundit Ann Coulter.
It's like saying, well maybe we can put out the fire after we go to hell. Good luck with that one.
Libertyinfinite| 8.6.12 @ 10:50AM
New Englanders have always been a breed apart from the rest of us. & out of the liberal republicans there, Giuliani had some really great reforms that were more conservative than what conservatives do.
Too bad he is stumping for the most liberal republican on the planet right now, Mitt Romney. & sorry, Ron Paul is more liberal than romney, but his mind is not on this planet, so...
In the end we will have four more of obama, because romney isn't any better than O. The right thinks that it can say how bad O is without having something better & win. The right is wrong. & conservatism died in 2012.
Truth to Power| 8.6.12 @ 11:09AM
You are not even good at what you are trying to do. The big O is going down and nothing you attempt will help him.
Libertyinfinite| 8.6.12 @ 1:36PM
Tell me this in October, when romney is still a liberal, has never said one word about cultural issues that got us here, & loses because he is an uninspiring moron.
Let me ask you this: what is romney going to do that can turn America around to be a nation of freedom again. & don't say tax cuts. His plans were found to only help those making over a million a year, & cost those making less than 200 thousand a year.
You really just don't care how bad romney really is. The right has given you the false hope that if we elect romney, freedom is automatic.
If we elect romney America will shoot through the toilet faster than anything.
Romney is merely feeding of of our corpse. He plans on rigging the system to help his rich friends. But go ahead, worship government in any way that you choose. Don't change America yourself. Don't become the Gray Champion.
Just listen to your leaders & go to sleep. You are killing freedom faster than anything else. It isn't them, it is us who must change. But put freedom on snooze, choose despotic government, Mitt Romney.
Mimi | 8.6.12 @ 4:54PM
You have CONVINCED me ! You are a TROLL !!
FOLKS ...READ BETWEEN THE LINES !
Libertyinfinite| 8.6.12 @ 6:08PM
Romney has just said that he will never comment on any social issues, his campaing is only about money issues. Check out newsmax, & now is he still your savior?
Libertyinfinite| 8.6.12 @ 6:57PM
What about this? Newsmax reports that Mitt Romney personally refuses to stand up for traditional family values during this chick-fil-a situation in America. He says that it detracts from his campaign on money. Still think romney is the answer? He will hand gay marriage & the presidency to the left & obama. Mitt Romney is liberal. But don't take my word for it, see newsmax, there is a link to the story on this page.
RJ| 8.6.12 @ 11:41AM
Rudy can be almost as compelling a speaker and debater as Newt, but his New York Senate and US Presidential campaigns were major disappointments. In 2008, he said he was the only Republican candidate who had a 50 state strategy to win and then sat out the first three primaries. For some reason, he just doesn't get the job done in major campaigns, nonetheless he could be a compelling speaker at the convention and perhaps could serve in a vital position in a Romney administration.
Who Knows?| 8.6.12 @ 11:48AM
A heads up---
An Obama ad has been spoiling my enjoyment of the Olympics, with his liar face reminding me of big brother.
In southern OREGON---a liberal state he shouldn't need to spend money on.
A sign of HIS desperation?
nathan| 8.6.12 @ 3:01PM
Sorry Rudy is and was grossly over rated.
Dinkins, not Rudy deserves a lot of the credit for things Rudy takes credit and many of the policies that Rudy so loudly proclaimed were already in place and being implemented by Dinkins before Rudy took office. Go back and really look at what happened and you will find that a lot of Rudy is smoke and mirrors. And of course he and Newt have a lot in common. Look at their ghastly behavior regarding their wives.
There are a lot of good people out there. MR doesn't need this guy and should stay away from him. He brings nothing of value to the table.
Nick| 8.6.12 @ 3:24PM
Dinkins? Do you just make-up this garbage? Or, do you have amnesia?
I'm no fan of Rudy's, by any means. But, NO ONE can deny that he turned around NYC.
Under Koch the number of murders per year were around 2,000, every year. When Dinkins got in, they shot-up to 2,600 his first year; just under 2,600, the next; and 2,400 the next two.
When Rudy left, he had total murders down to 960.
I'm sure all those murder victims appreciate what Dinkins did for New York, brainiac.
nathan| 8.6.12 @ 3:39PM
I am no fan of David, but a "careful" reading of the timeline back then shows that he had begun a lot of the policies that Rudy later takes credit for like not tolerating even "small" crimes and grafiti abatement which were credited with much of the turn around. Dinkins initiated a lot of that, then Rudy came in and fully implemented them and said, "see what I did." But he did not himself create a lot of what he takes credit for.
I know going after the "GREAT RUDY" is sacriledge but he's no where near as good as his PR machine makes him out to be. Sorry. And with all the baggage he has, MR needs to distance himself from this guy especially since there are so many others out there just as good. And that's part of the problem right? MR is surrounding himself with a lot of people folks he doesn't need to be hangin with.
Nick| 8.6.12 @ 4:03PM
I made it perfectly clear that I am no fan of pro-abortion, pro-homosexual Rudy. He did, however, manage to reduce the number of murders. Something Koch and Dinkins, mayors for over a decade, couldn't do.
Koch & Dinkins were letting their fellow New Yorkers get slaughtered. Year after year.
Dinkins did nothing. He was disaster. He was so bad, New Yorkers went and elected a Republican.
No amount of spin and revisionist history is going to change that.
Mimi | 8.6.12 @ 4:58PM
Nick....nathan...A TROLL TOO!
Nick| 8.6.12 @ 6:04PM
I know, Mimi.
But, sometimes, when blatant lies are posted, I can't help myself. I have to set the record straight.
God Bless!
DRed| 8.6.12 @ 5:09PM
Dinkins drastically expanded the police force and violent crime decreased for something like 3 straight years during his administration. You could look it up. Giuliani and former commissioner Bratton (who Rudy ran out of town when he started stealing too much of his precious limelight) deserve plenty of credit too, but saying Dinkins did nothing is not true.
Nick| 8.6.12 @ 6:02PM
I don't have to look it up, DRed. I remember it, having been in my teens and twenties during this time.
Your typical liberal distinction of "violent crime" is meaningless, when 2,500 New Yorkers, on average, are being murdered every year. (2,000 for Koch.)
The first duty of a mayor is to protect the citizens. Dinkins did nothing, as the data quite clearly shows.
p.s. Are you ever going to admit that your initial comment about the Ohio voting law was false, DRed?
DRed| 8.6.12 @ 6:37PM
Huh? It's not. That lawsuit won't effect the ability of military members in the slightest. There's nothing to argue about.
Were you living in NY at the time? I was. Since you're obviously unwilling to look up the stats (I wonder why!), I can tell you that from my own personal experience the city started getting safer in the early 90s while Dinkins was mayor.
Nick| 8.6.12 @ 6:57PM
Don't play dumb, DRed, it's unbecoming. Don't you have a history button on your browser? Or, will you claim you can't remember which thread it was in? I can provide a link, if you'd like?
And, no, I'm from Detroit, remember? Which is irrelevant. Since I provided the stats. Can't you read?
Here, I'll state it another way: About 7 people were dying EVERY day under Dinkins. That's a record to be proud of, huh?
New York was a war-zone at this time. It was worse than Chicago is right now. Or, Detroit in the early 1980s.
Rudy dropped the total number of murders by 400, his first year in office. He dropped it another 500, the next. So, there were 900 more people living in those two years, thanks to Rudy.
Maybe you were one of those 900, DRed?
Or, maybe your family brainwashed you into thinking Dinkins was some great savior? How old were then?
DRed| 8.6.12 @ 7:13PM
No, I'm just saying crime noticeably started to drop while Dinkins was mayor. He got additional funding for cops, hired a lot of them, etc-he didn't do nothing.
I have no idea why you are back to claiming that Obama is trying to limit military votes in Ohio. You're going to have to explain that one to me. Didn't we go through this yesterday?
Nick| 8.6.12 @ 9:42PM
"No, I'm just saying crime noticeably started to drop while Dinkins was mayor."
That's just false. Murder went up, & stayed above the highs of Koch. Rapes hovered around 5,000+. These are the most violent crimes.
You know when they started dropping, DRed? Like a rock? That's right, when Rudy became mayor.
Dinkins DID NOTHING. Because he was incompetent liberal.
"Didn't we go through this yesterday?"
You posted there this morning, and then ran away. Do you and a friend post under the same name?
Besides, it was you who falsely claimed, "The lawsuit seeks to restore early voting in Ohio for ALL Ohio voters."
Ohioans never lost their early voting privileges. You were wrong, DRed. Be a man, and admit it.
DRed| 8.6.12 @ 10:34PM
One last time. The law the Obama administration is challenging in Ohio does not affect military voting. If the law is upheld, military voting will stay the same. If the law is not upheld, military voting will stay the same. If you think otherwise, you are wrong, plain and simple.
Crime declined during Dinkins time as mayor. Not as drastically as it did during the Giuliani era. Giuliani and his administration were able to build off the work Dinkins and his administration did. If you think increasing the police force by 25% is doing nothing, you have a very different definition of nothing than I do. You're factually wrong on all these issues, Nick. We can go around and around and around on this, but there's not much point.
Nick| 8.6.12 @ 10:59PM
"One last time."
Then you should've posted it in the original thread:
http://spectator.org/blog/2012.....ent_851302
There, now everyone can see how wrong you are & continue to be. Should I link to the marriage thread, since you never answered my questions there, either.
Plus, you are a hypocrite for claiming that I wouldn't admit that you accurately quoted the complaint, which I did, while you refuse to admit your false statement. Typical liberal diehard.
Crime declined during...blah...blah...blah.
All you have are your false assertions. I provided actual data, which you cannot refute.
The murder stats prove that Dinkins was DISASTER.
I know it must hurt having your clock cleaned, repeatedly, by me for almost a week. But, that is no excuse for making-up lies, DRed.
DRed| 8.6.12 @ 11:34PM
I'm not sure what you think linking to that thread proves, but it doesn't change the facts of the lawsuit.
Between 1990-1993, the rates for murder, rape, robbery and assault all declined in NYC. Look it up. Giuliani, as I keep saying, did a better job in a better economic climate (violent crime rates plummeted nation wide during the Giuliani years, something even Rudy doesn't have the chutzpah to take credit for), but his gains would have been impossible to achieve without Dinkins raising additional money and using it to hire thousands more cops. Even Bill Bratton says so. You say Dinkins did nothing. You're wrong.
Nick| 8.7.12 @ 12:54AM
Is this the depth to which you have lowered yourself, DRed?
A pathetic, lying toad?
From 1992 to '93, the murder rate rose from 13.2 to 13.3 per 100,000. In real numbers, it went UP from 2,397 to 2,420 murders.
From 1991 to '92, the rate of forcible rape went from 28.2 to 28.4 per 100,000. In real numbers, it went UP from 5,085 to 5,152 rapes.
By the end of Rudy's first four years, murder was DOWN to 1,093, and forcible rape was DOWN to 4,075. The rates were DOWN to 6.0 & 22.5, respectively.
As compared to your hero, Deadman Dinkins, who, at the end of his first four years, saw a decrease in the murder rate go from 14.5 to a whopping 13.3; and the rate of forcible rate go from 29.8 to a completely safe 27.5.
What a crime-fighter Dinkins was. Why didn't he get re-elected, DRed?
Why do you enjoy being embarrassed like this, day after day? Why must you bleeding heart liberals lie, instead of admit you were wrong, DRed?
DRed| 8.7.12 @ 8:31AM
You really beat the stuffing out of those straw men, Nick. Dinkins my hero? Didn't say that. Dinkins a great crime fighter? Didn't say that. Dinkins a good mayor? Didn't say that. Every measure of violent crime declined every single year of his administration? Didn't say that. I haven't seen that many tortured figures outside of a Munch retrospective. Crow all you want, but you were wrong about the lawsuit and you're wrong about Dinkins.
Nick| 8.7.12 @ 9:22AM
"Every measure of violent crime declined every single year of his administration? Didn't say that."
"Between 1990-1993, the rates for murder, rape, robbery and assault all declined in NYC."
You were sayin'? If you didn't mean "every single year," learn to write and express yourself better.
And talk about straw men!
Except for the statement that I quoted above, I never stated that you said or asserted the others. Or, else, I would have put them in quotation marks.
I was being sarcastic. Do you understand that concept? It's not supposed to be taken literally, DRed.
DRed| 8.7.12 @ 9:55AM
Yeah, I got the sarcasm. You were using sarcasm to completely misrepresent my argument and call me a liar. I'll forgive you, though. I realize it's hard to be a smug, condescending prick when you're factually wrong.
Nick| 8.7.12 @ 10:35AM
Are you going to cry, DRed?
Do you need a cookie?
"[...] when you're factually wrong."
Says the guy who has provided NO DATA whatsoever. Only his mere assertions, which were shown to be false.
As compared to myself, who has done nothing but provide actual data.
I'll give you some advice. If you don't want to be called a liar, don't repeatedly write things that aren't true, DRed.
DRed| 8.7.12 @ 11:06AM
What did I write that wasn't true? "Between 1990-1993, the rates for murder, rape, robbery and assault all declined in NYC." Look at the numbers for violent crimes in 1990 and then in 1993. Tell me which ones are higher? Actually, you don't have to. You already have looked at the data. That's why you dishonestly cherry picked two instances where rates of one particular crime increased. You understand why that doesn't prove my contention was false, right? Come on, you're not dumb, are you? You're just a childish ideologue.
Nick| 8.7.12 @ 1:17PM
"Look at the numbers for violent crimes in 1990 and then in 1993."
Look up the words "between" and "all," DRed.
"Between 1990-1993, the rates for murder, rape, robbery and assault all declined in NYC."
You falsely claimed that murder and rape declined EVERY year between 1990 & 1993.
They didn't.
It's not my fault that you can't write clearly. Or, that you don't know the meaning of words like between & all. And subsidy.
You must have went to one of those NYC publik skools, huh?
Plus, murder increased when Deadman Dinkins took over as mayor from Koch. And rape stayed about the same. (Dropping only 234, from 5,242 in 1989 to 5,008 in 1993. A statistical insignificance.)
So, how did "violent crime" decrease during his tenure?
What? Are you related to Deadman? Why do keep defending this loser? And, embarrassing yourself in the process?
Man, you are a glutton for punishment, DRed.
I almost feel sorry for you.
DRed| 8.7.12 @ 1:47PM
"Between 1990-1993, the rates for murder, rape, robbery and assault all declined in NYC." Look at the numbers for violent crimes in 1990 and then in 1993. Tell me which ones are higher.
Nick| 8.7.12 @ 2:07PM
Learn how to speak English, DRed.
You WRONGLY claimed that the numbers of murder and rape dropped EVERY YEAR from 1990 to 1993.
Not that 1993 had lower numbers than 1990. That statistic proves absolutely nothing.
And, look at all the years. Not just the two narrow years you have deluded yourself into believing prove your point.
If you keep pounding your head against the wall like this, you will get brain-damage. It might already be too late.
DRed| 8.7.12 @ 2:34PM
I'll give it one more shot. If I told you that between January and April I lost weight, would you think that means I lost weight every week in that period, would you think I was saying that at the end of April I weighed less than I did in January?
Now let's try you for a second. Dinkins, during a recession, got a variety of taxes passed to fund a massive expansion of the police force. Why do you lie and say he did nothing about crime?
DRed| 8.7.12 @ 3:22PM
I realize I forgot an or in there. Another thing to forgive me for.
Nick| 8.7.12 @ 3:31PM
But, that's not what you wrote, brainiac.
You wrote between 1990 [through] 1993, the dash symbol ("-") means through.
So, if you said, "Between January through April, your weight declined," you would be saying that you lost weight EVERY MONTH.
This is redundant, by the way. Grammatically, you should've wrote, "Between 1990 & 1993" or "From 1990-1993," but not both. The statement would still have been false.
To write what you are now claiming that you meant, and be accurate, it should've been, "From Deadman Dinkins first year, 1990, the rates for murder, rape, robbery and assault all declined in NYC by 1993."
I'm going to start charging you for English lessons. Sheeesh!
You're as bad as guy named Toddard, who used to post here, who couldn't get it through his thick head that the words "compare" and "contrast" can be synonymous.
"Why do you lie and say he did nothing about crime?"
Because I'm not lying. More police officers doesn't mean anything if you don't use them correctly, nor get results. Typical lefty thinking. It's the effort that matters, not the outcome.
"During a recession" means nothing, by the way. We are currently in the Great Recession. Is the murder and rape numbers back to where they were during Deadman Dinkins' regime? Nope.
DRed| 8.7.12 @ 4:38PM
Nick, my friend, I'm afraid I can't take lessons in English usage from someone who writes "you should've wrote". You should have written you should've written. If a dash means "through", why did the Yankees lose to (your?) Tigers last night by a score of 7-2?
Doing something inefficiently or incorrectly is not doing nothing. To write what you now claim you meant, you would have had to write something like "David Dinkins' efforts to reduce crime were only slightly effective". And then I would have agreed with you and we could have saved so much time. It's almost tragic.
Nick| 8.7.12 @ 5:46PM
Oops! Yep, should've been written.
Showing, yet again, that conservatives can admit their mistakes, while, liberals, like you, couldn't admit you wrong if your life depended on it.
Did you ever watch Happy Days, DRed? Did you ever see Fonzi try to say, "I was wrrrrrrrong"? That is you.
Plus, I've always said, here at AmSpec, that my grammar is atrocious. (Which makes what you wrote even worse, if someone like me can spot it.)
And yes, a dash can also mean "to", as in "seven to two" in your example. But, this is just more deflection. Your statement was still false. As is your assertion that Deadman Dinkins lowered crime.
"Doing something inefficiently or incorrectly is not doing nothing."
I didn't change what I've contended all along:
Dinkins did nothing.
Because he didn't lower the numbers of murders. He continued to let New Yorkers get slaughtered, year after year. Which is why he got booted from office.
Nice try.
RCV| 8.7.12 @ 6:05PM
As Nick knows well, no one ever accused me of being a conservative or a Republican. But as a former New Yorker, I can honestly say that Rudy G. was the finest mayor The City had in decades. He deserves great credit for helping to restore the luster and beauty and magic the world's greatest city had lost before his tenure.
Nick| 8.7.12 @ 7:42PM
Thanks for the props, RCV.
DRed| 8.7.12 @ 6:26PM
My rule is that anytime you try to correct someone's grammar on the internet you will invariably make a grammatical error. I call it DRed's Law. Feel free to use that.
2262 murders in 1990. 1951 murders in 1993. That's a reduction of almost 14%. The number went down 3 years in a row. Seems like progress, no?
Never watched Happy Days.
Nick| 8.7.12 @ 7:41PM
Oops! You got me again. I was WRONG!
(See how easy it is, DRed.)
I was looking at the chart that gave the stats for the State of New York. Sorry.
So, that's one for you, and at least 3 for me, in the past week.
The FBI site says 2,245 murders for 1990 & 1,946 for 1993, or, 13% decrease. Just to be fair (if my math is correct.) Progress? Very little. Seeing as the rate increased 15% during his first year in office.
My premise still stands. Deadman Dinkins' murder rate rose above Koch's, and stayed above all four years of his tenure. His forcible rape rate was a little better. Rudy's murder rate plummeted from 21.3 to 10.5, over 50%!, in four years.
Dinkins did nothing. Deadman was a disaster.
Even your fellow liberal, RCV, agrees with me.
I blame you, by the way, DRed. You could've save us both a lot of typing if you had bothered to check my stats earlier! Ha-ha!
Just google "fonzi" & "wrong." I'm sure it's on youtube.
DRed| 8.7.12 @ 8:17PM
Don't feel bad. I made the same mistake myself once.
Giuliani did a lot of good. He also took credit for a number of things he wasn't responsible for. But I'm not trying to bash Rudy, or say Dinkins was a more effective mayor than he was. I think we've said all we need to say on this one. I think the drop in crime reflected (at least partially) things Dinkins did. And I think Guiliani built on those things. You don't. Fair enough.
Nick| 8.7.12 @ 8:51PM
Fair enough.
And, don't let it get to you, man. It's just the internet!
Joe D.| 8.6.12 @ 3:53PM
You forget he is wrong on Gun rights as well has homosexual marriage. I sure I am forgetting some others from 2008. So spare us how conservative he is on social issues, judges. He was not all perfect on taxes as well. No Rudy!
Kingofthenet| 8.6.12 @ 3:58PM
IF Rudy wasn't so concerned about dogging every female he sees, he could have been a Senator, but his refusal to go under the knife for his Prostate Cancer least it screw up his banging around, means he is a NOBODY today.
Kingofthenet| 8.6.12 @ 4:02PM
Hey one of your 'Choir Boy's' done good:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....46542.html