On Fri, 14 Sep 2007, Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:
> [WS:] I understand that he was arrogant and alienated a lot of people,
> which in itself is not a good thing, but otherwise what was so horrible
> about him i.e. substantially worse than a typical mayor of a large US
> city, really?
Several things. To start with, a maniacal hatred of criticism and vindictiveness that makes Bush look like an open source freak. He famously once sued New York Magazine for running an ad on buses that said (of itself) "the only thing the Mayor hasn't taken credit for." Now this might sound funny, except he was totally serious. He pursued that lawsuit for years even though it was obviously deep within the shelter of the first amendment and made him look like a crazy maniac. This wasn't done for PR reasons, it was done in spite of it, because he couldn't help himself. You do not want this man in charge of the secret police. You really, really don't. He's a prosecutor and a control freak who made his bones stretching the RICO law. God only knows what he would do with the Patriot Act. He thinks vindictive force is the solution to everything. And his secrecy towards news organizations was astonishing as mayor; again, if you liked secrecy under Bush, you'll love Guiliani.
> Another thought: a northern Repug is better imho than a southern Dem
> from an urban person's point of view. That should apply to Giuliani as
> well. I'd rather have him than some nominally Democratic boll weevil
> from the South.
I think you're stuck in the past here; boll weevils were transition creatures from before the South became Republican. John Edwards is probably the most progressive candidate the Dems have to offer and Gore is probably second -- both Southern Dems. Guiliani is the scariest thing the Repugs have on offer among the main candidates.
Michael