La Cité, C'est Moi
Jacob Sullum | October 25, 2007, 12:32pm
In The Washington Monthly, Rachel Morris examines Rudy Giuliani's record as mayor of New York and concludes that "if he reaches the White House, he will almost certainly do what he did at City Hall: punish dissent, circumvent the law, conceal the workings of the government in secrecy, and use his litigator's gifts to obstruct mechanisms of oversight and accountability." She suggests that Giuliani's view of executive authority may be even wider than George W. Bush's:
Embedded in his operating style is a belief that rules don't apply to him, and a ruthless gift for exploiting the intrinsic weaknesses in the system of checks and balances. That's why, of all the presidential candidates, Giuliani is most likely to take the expansions of the executive branch made by the Bush administration and push them further still.
Having lived in New York during most of Giuliani's two terms, I did not need to be persuaded of his authoritarian tendencies. But Morris' piece provides damning details I did not notice at the time, including Giuliani's sly use of city charter commissions, his attempts to undermine both the public advocate and the Independent Budget Office, and his resistance to releasing even the most innocuous information. "Once," she notes, "the city even denied a Freedom of Information request inquiring how many Freedom of Information requests had been denied."
Still, if it comes down to Giuliani vs. Clinton (as it does in my nightmares), the choice won't be hard. I'm not convinced Clinton would be any less power-hungry than Giuliani, and she would in all likelihood be abetted by a Democratic Congress. Keeping the executive and legislative branches in the hands of different parties seems like the best strategy for containing the megalomania chronicled by Morris.
Carol Herman | October 26, 2007, 9:25pm | #
This is just an observation. But Guiliani is being hurt by the process of primary selection. While Hillary has benefitted.
How?
Rudy has had to pander to the right. He's had to talk about his willingness to destroy ROE. And, I'm not so sure that's a mainstream item.
Hillary, however, has been on a stage that seemed to offer competition. But she's made no deal with any devil. And, in the end, she won the beauty contest.
Now, the real contest occurs a year from now. Lots can change. And, Bush may yet be exposed for the fool that he's been since the beginning? (According to THE PRICE OF LOYALTY, by Paul O'Neill, who had worked in other administations; Bush has been "incurious." Never asking for staff reports that would detail other choices, than the one he wants. And, his ears are closed. Period.)
Why is Bush now "dabbling" in Israel finding itself next to a terrorist state? Because the Saud's want to kick the roadmap away. And, want Bush to carry through on his early promise. (CRAIG UNGER's book, HOUSE OF BUSH/HOUSE OF SAUD, has within it, reporting of a 3-page handwritten letter, Bush sent to an angry King Fahd. In August 2001. Where to appease him, Bush promised him "more Mideast real estate.)
That it cost $3-trillion, so far, to topple Saddam? Seems a bit high, for something the Saud's wanted. But now fear Irak is beyond their grasp. We're stuck with these bills, though.
And, Bush was supposed to be gangbusters on the foreign stuff!
And, Laura's coming back from her recent trip to visit the arabs! With her own burka!
How did Bush get away with doing so much harm? Nixon ended up watching Rodino, a republican representative from NJ, throwing in the towel. And, signing on for impeachment.
Nobody's put a glove on Bush.
Amazing.
Anyway, why do republicans do this stuff to themselves? Bush isn't doing the party any favors.
And, I think Rudy gets nothing positive from having to beg republicans for a chance to run against Hillary.
Where's the voice that would attract MAINSTREAMERS? Was that job handed to Ron Paul?
Mister Write | October 27, 2007, 12:59am | #
There's nothing admirable about refusing to vote. That's exactly what the a--holes in charge want you to do - give up and walk away from your rights. Every nonvote is heard by Washington as "I don't care, do what you like."
You must learn to hold your nose and vote anyway. I too have bad feelings about Hilary - I think she's as sold out as any big-business Republican. But here's why you MUST vote for her, or whatever other suit wins the Democratic primary.
We must defend the U.S. Constitution.
Permawar. Half a trillion U.S. down the toilet. Domestic wiretapping. Secrecy. Imprisonment without charges or trial. Torture. Everything for the rich, nothing for the poor. Bush has had us on the run for seven years and a Republican successor wouldn't stop until Social Security has been gutted, education and healthcare have been ruined, and the entire Middle East lies under a neochristian boot.
If we turn all the Royalist a--holes out of office this b.s. may slow down a bit. To do anything else is to cast a "ja!" vote for the rise of the Fourth Reich.
Let us not kid ourselves here. Cheney and the other oilman knew exactly what they were doing when they greenlighted Iraq. In 30 years all of the world's remaining oil reserves will be in the Middle East. Oil is what makes the armies move. The idea was to get there first, though we jumped too early as time will tell.
So Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, the War on Terror and all the rest aren't some passing nightmare. This is the new America, baby, and if you're not neocon you just along for the ride. We will never leave Iraq and we will never stop the killing. To kill effectively you've gotta hate, and so control of the press becomes absolutely essential.
The neocon goal was, and still is, world domination with a cornering of the oil market as its primary modus. To what end? Doubling every multibillionaire's personal wad, of course. To win big you must dominate.
Too bad for American mooks if they're too dumbed-down or drunk to figure it out for themselves. We feed 'em celebrity news and they lap it up like dogs.
There is just one difference between the two major political parties. You can still shame one of them into doing the right thing, at least some of the time.
Those are the people you must return to power at the end of 2008.
- MW
