Chasing Rudy

Rudy Giuliani: Out of the Race

Congratulations, America.

Graph: Rudy Giuliani's Strategy

Rudy Giuliani and New Hampshire

It seems to be the conventional wisdom these days that Rudy Giuliani finished so poorly in New Hampshire simply because he decided to focus on the later states. But this narrative overlooks quite a bit:

Statistics compiled by ABC News Political Unit and ABC News' team of off-air reporters indicate that Giuliani held more events in this first-in-the-nation primary state than any other Republican except for former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in neighboring Massachusetts. He also spent more on TV ads than anyone except for Romney and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

I recommend reading the rest of this article, as well.

Campaign Ads

Barack Obama:



Rudy Giuliani:


Mitt Romney:

Rudy Giuliani's Use of Statistics

It looks like at least one major newspaper has caught on to Giuliani's use of statistics. From the New York Times:

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. Giuliani’s 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.

In addition to all this, Giuliani has misled his audiences about taxes, welfare, earmarks, and healthcare. It's about time people start reporting this for what it is, rather than simply saying that his figures are "disputed."

Rudy Giuliani's New Television Ad

Giuliani has a new ad. It's more of the same. From FactCheck.org:

Recycled Exaggerations

The ad repeats some other exaggerations we've criticized before.
An Old Tune on Taxes: The ad says of Giuliani: "He cut taxes 9 billion." But to arrive at the $9 billion figure Giuliani takes credit for the passage of 23 tax cuts. We found, however, that eight of those were state tax cuts approved in Albany and a ninth was a tax reduction Giuliani vociferously opposed before agreeing to side with the city council on the matter. Taking away those tax cuts, Giuliani can justifiably claim credit for lowering taxes by $5.4 billion, or $8 billion if he's allowed credit for the big cut he lobbied against.

Welfare Hype? Giuliani says in the ad that he reduced the number of people on welfare in the city by "60 percent." Not quite. As we said previously, the number of people receiving welfare benefits in New York declined from 1.112 million to 462,000 during Giuliani's term, according to the city's Independent Budget Office. That's a decline of 58.5 percent, not 60 percent. Furthermore, welfare rolls across the nation dropped by 62.2 percent during the same time period.

I wonder if people will start calling him out on this, or if they'll continue to let him get away with his exaggerations.

Rudy Giuliani Lies About Earmarks

According to Rudy Giuliani, "Well, the Democrats have been in power now for eight months. Not only have they not done away with earmarks, they’ve increased them."

Not true. Actually, this is demonstrably false. Take a look:


I'm really dismayed that this guy can repeatedly use phony statistics on health care , blatantly misrepresent Hillary Clinton's positions, and mislead an audience on earmarks, and the media still refuses to tag this guy as a liar. Or at the very least, a guy who has no idea what he's talking about. The media was absolutely apoplectic over way less than this in the 2000 election cycle.

Andrew Sullivan on Rudy Giuliani

Conservative (libertarian) commentator Andrew Sullivan has an excellent post at the Atlantic Monthly about this scary Rudy Giuliani quote:

"When you think of the debates just now on the confirmation of Mike Mukasey, when you think of the debates on the Patriot Act... Someone once said to me that, what they don't get about the Democrats, and even some Republicans that do this is, they're more concerned about rights for terrorists than the terrorists' wrongs. I mean, these granting of rights to criminals and terrorists, even when they're necessary, come with a price, a price at the other end of it. Even for the ones that are necessary, like, let's say, the Miranda ruling, it's one you agree with--there's a price for that. Maybe it's one worth paying.

The exclusionary rule, there's a big price for that: Criminals go free. They walk out of court. If you say, you know, no aggressive questioning, then we're not going to find out about situations. If you say no wiretapping, well, there'll be conversations going on, planning to bomb New York, or Los Angeles, Las Vegas, and you're not going to find out. And, when we draw these lines, at least let's be honest with people about the consequences of them. Let's not fool them into thinking that there is no consequences to this. People will say that aggressive questioning doesn't work. I, you know, I ... Honest answer to that is, it doesn't work all the time. Sometimes it does."

A couple of quick comments:

1. Nobody is saying "no wiretapping." The argument is the the wiretapping should occur after obtaining a warrant with minimal oversight. Hell, you can even get them retroactively under FISA. The point is that you need to show some sort of reasonable suspicion / probable cause (like our Constitution's Fourth Amendment demands). To characterize this position as "no wiretapping" is to create a dishonest caricature of the position, and appeal to peoples' fears.
   
2. "Aggressive questioning"? Seriously? I think that he's talking about the process of immersing a person in water, forcing water into his nose and mouth (or pouring water onto material placed over the face so that the liquid is inhaled or swallowed), such that the person being "aggressively questioned" (waterboarded) experiences "the sensations of drowning: struggle, panic, breath-holding, swallowing, vomiting, taking water into the lungs and, eventually, the same feeling of not being able to breathe that one experiences after being punched in the gut." The goal of "aggressive questioning" is to make the person suffer until they tell you what you want to hear.
3. There is a very important distinction here between "terrorists" and "terror suspects." To say that people who care about due process and prohibiting torture (which he calls merely "aggressive questioning") are "more concerned about rights for terrorists than the terrorists' wrongs" and that they want to "grant[] rights to criminals and terrorists" is very dishonest.

Sullivan also makes this important point:

It seems to me that a vote for Giuliani is a vote for a police state that uses torture. I put it that bluntly because I don't see how granting one man the right to seize and torture anyone anywhere is anything else. Let's be honest about that reality too, shall we? And it's in that context that you have to understand Giuliani's fondness for a certain kind of judge. Giuliani will appoint judges who believe that the executive branch should be granted carte blanche in wartime - and wartime is now defined as permanent and includes as potential "enemy combatants" anyone in the US or anywhere else liable to seizure and "aggressive questioning" by cops or soldiers. Just think about the consequences of that for a while, even in the hands of a man or woman with a record of restraint and level-headedness and magnanimity. Now imagine those powers handed to someone with a long history of vindictiveness, over-reach, and hot-headedness.

Considering that Pat Robertson endorses Rudy Giuliani precisely because of the judges he promises to appoint, I really don't want this guy to get the appointment power.

Robertson Supports Giuliani

In the wake of the 9-11 terrorist attacks, televangelist Pat Robertson and the pre-dead Jerry Falwell gathered together on the 700 club to tell the world that God was upset about the fact that our country allows consenting adults to view pornography, and doesn't use its public schools as a vehicle to promote the Christian religion. As a result, God has powered down America's overshield and allowed the terrorist attacks to happen as some sort of divine punishment. According to these two contemptible ghouls, we got "probably what we deserved" for "secularizing" America.

Pat Robertson still makes these claims on his website, blaming the attacks on "rampant pornography" and "rampant secularism." According to Robertson:

We have insulted God at the highest level of our government. Then, we say, "Why does this happen?" It is happening because God Almighty is lifting His protection from us. Once that protection is gone, we are vulnerable because we are a free society.

We lie naked before these terrorists who have infiltrated our country. There are probably tens of thousands of them in America right now.

Now, the crazy Pat Robertson has given Rudy Giuliani his official seal of approval.

Let's take a step back here for a moment. At a recent Republican debate, Ron Paul made the argument that the September 11 attacks occurred in part due to our foreign policies. Rudy Giuliani claimed that he had never heard that argument before (even though it's what Osama Bin Laden said immediately after the attack: "Terrorism against America deserves to be praised because it was a response to … the continuous injustice inflicted upon our sons in Palestine, Iraq, Somalia, southern Sudan, and … Kashmir"), and demanded that Ron Paul take the statement back. Rudy Giuliani was simply outraged that someone would make such an argument on live television.

Given this past history, you would think that Giuliani would condemn Robertson's crazy remarks. Instead, Giuliani has chosen to lie about them, and pretend it was just a simple case of misunderstanding. According to Giuliani, "I think the comments he explained a long time ago. I’ve had to explain lots of comments of mine."

A simple misunderstanding, right guys? Nope. He even says the exact same things today. How can you watch that video, and read what he has to say about the subject (without retraction), and then conclude that he means anything other than what he is so obviously saying? Robertson has even made similar statements in different contexts, once claiming that a privately sponsored "Gay Day" event at Disney could result in hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, terrorist bombings and "possibly a meteor."

In addition, Robertson is a liar (he claims to be able to leg-press the world-class weigh of 2,000 lbs. - a transparently false claim and an absolutely shameless attempt to sell his common-formula "Age-Defying energy drink"), and a fear monger (he claims that God told him there will be "mass killing" in the year 2007 from terrorist attacks in the United States; according to Robertson, "The Lord didn't say nuclear. But I do believe it will be something like that."). I wonder if people will press Giuliani on this, or if they'll keep on pushing non-issues involving Hillary Clinton.

UPDATE: Josh Marshall says it better. With video.


UPDATE II: Here are some more crazy-ass Pat Robertson quotes.

• "If anybody understood what Hindus really believe, there would be no doubt that they have no business administering government policies in a country that favors freedom and equality."
• "[Homosexuals] want to come into churches and disrupt church services and throw blood all around and try to give people AIDS and spit in the face of ministers."
  -The 700 Club 1/18/1995
• "I know this is painful for the ladies to hear, but if you get married, you have accepted the headship of a man, your husband. Christ is the head of the household and the husband is the head of the wife, and that's the way it is, period."
• "Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It's no different. It is the same thing. It is happening all over again. It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-based media and the homosexuals who want to destroy the Christians. Wholesale abuse and discrimination and the worst bigotry directed toward any group in America today. More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history."
  -Interview with Molly Ivins
• "I'm not necessarily saying it's going to be nuclear. The Lord didn't say nuclear. But I do believe it will be something like that."
  -Recounting how God talked to him about an upcoming disaster
• "Presbyterians are the spirit of the Antichrist."
  -The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, p. 239
• "When lawlessness is abroad in the land, the same thing will happen here that happened in Nazi Germany. Many of those people involved with Adolph Hitler were Satanists, many of them were homosexuals – the two things seem to go together."

CNN Starts to Fact-Check Giuliani

It's a good start, but this still leaves a lot to be desired. First of all, Wolf leads off by saying, "Some are now questioning whether the Republican front-runner got his facts straight." No, they're not. They're telling you that he got his facts wrong. And they're absolutely right (see here and here). Furthermore, not only were the facts just plain wrong, but they were also misleading on another level (something that shouldn't be ignored, either).

Wolf's CNN correspondent doesn't do much better. According to her, "Well, according to a lot of the folks we talked to, in fact, all of the folks we talked to, they said he did not get his numbers right." When every expert you talk to says that Giuliani's 44% figure was wrong (almost by half), it's safe for you to call it "wrong," instead of devolving into the normal he-said-she-said journalism. Furthermore, it's safe to call Giuliani a liar and a dissembler when he keeps on repeating the claims he knows to be false and misleading.

Perhaps due to this lazy-to-nonexistant journalism, Rudy Giuliani has stuck by his false claims, and says that he will keep on repeating them. Yet for some reason, the media keeps on focusing on Clinton's non-existent playing of "the gender card," and keeps on ignoring this outright false claim. Where are your priorities, people?

UPDATE: The Washington Post does a better job here, but the headline is still way off (the figures are not "questionable" - they're "spectacularly wrong").

Rudy Giuliani vs. John McCain on Torture

Waterboarding is an interrogation technique that involves either immersing a person in water, forcing water into his nose and mouth, or pouring water onto material placed over the face so that the liquid is inhaled or swallowed. As a result, the person being waterboarded experiences "the sensations of drowning: struggle, panic, breath-holding, swallowing, vomiting, taking water into the lungs and, eventually, the same feeling of not being able to breathe that one experiences after being punched in the gut." The goal is to make the person suffer until they tell you what you want to hear.

The United States has long considered this practice to constitute torture. In fact, we have convicted Japanese soldiers for torturing U.S. soldiers by waterboarding during World War II.

Despite all this, when asked whether waterboarding constitutes torture, Rudy Giuliani recently said "I'm not sure... It depends on how it’s done. It depends on the circumstances. It depends on who does it."

No, it doesn't. Whether you do it to Ghandi or Osama's limo driver, it's still torture. Whether the United States or Iran does it does not make any difference whatsoever. Whether you cause permanent brain damage or not is immaterial. You're still making a person physically suffer the sensation of drowning in order to get them to speak. You can maybe make the argument that "torture is useful in our war against terrorism because it makes people speak," but that's an entirely different issue. Its usefulness does nothing to alter the fact that it is indeed torture.

[Future Attorney General Michael Mukasey has similarly said that he can't say whether or not waterboarding is torture - but that's another story]

From Rudy Giuliani's interview with Bloomberg TV:

MR. HUNT: Let me try a couple of national security questions. Waterboard. You have noted the Congress has not outlawed it, and that you say it's not necessarily torture; it depends on the circumstances. John McCain says you are wrong and he says you haven't served in the military and have no experience in the conduct of warfare. Do you know more about torture than John McCain?

MR. GIULIANI: I can't say that I do but I do know a lot about intensive questioning and intensive questioning techniques. After all, I have had a different experience than John. John has never been - he has never run city, never run a state, never run a government. He has never been responsible as a mayor for the safety and security of millions of people, and he has never run a law enforcement agency, which I have done.

Now, intensive questioning works. If I didn't use intensive questioning, there would be a lot of mafia guys running around New York right now and crime would be a lot higher in New York than it is. Intensive question has to be used. Torture should not be used. The line between the two is a difficult one.

Comparing waterboarding to a prosecutor's "intensive questioning" of mafia suspects is beyond absurd. That is, unless Giuliani held their heads under water until they talked (which I doubt he did).

John McCain (who was tortured in Vietnam) called him out on this:

“When someone says waterboarding is similar to harsh interrogation techniques used against the mafia in New York City, they do not have enough experience to lead our military,” McCain said Sunday night at a town-hall meeting here.

I think he's got the right sentiment here, except I would replace the word "experience" with either "morality" or "honesty."

Rudy Giuliani and The New York Times

From Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting:

Krugman notes that when Rudolph Giuliani makes a wildly false assertion about healthcare policy in a campaign ad, the political media treat it as a ho-hum story. Compare the Times' story (10/31/07) on Giuliani's false figures on prostate cancer--500 words at the bottom of an inside page, wrongly calling the candidate's claims "disputed"--with the Times' report (10/30/07) on trivial-to-imaginary discrepancies in Barack Obama's 25-year-old memories of his time in New York, which got 1,500 words and the front page of the Metro section.

Rudy Giuliani's Prostate

Rudy Giuliani has a new campaign advertisement about his prostate:



According to Rudy Giuliani, “My chance of surviving prostate cancer — and, thank God, I was cured of it — in the United States? Eighty-two percent. My chance of surviving prostate cancer in England? Only 44 percent under socialized medicine.” There are a few problems with this, though.

(1) The statistic is just plain wrong.

The former New York mayor did survive prostate cancer, but otherwise his statistical claims were not difficult to debunk, as reporters for the New York Times, the Washington Post, MSNBC and other news outlets quickly discovered. Giuliani had picked up his numbers from an article in City Journal, a publication of the right-wing Manhattan Institute, and simply repeated them in public without bothering to check their validity. Unfortunately, they were essentially fraudulent figures, extrapolated inaccurately from old data (by a doctor who also advises the Giuliani campaign on healthcare).

Accurate and current data, easily available from public health agencies and medical authorities, shows that the survival rate from prostate cancer in England is better than 74 percent.

(2) Although the United States has a higher five-year survival rate, this discrepancy is attributed to our earlier detection and screening processes.

As the Journal of the National Cancer Institute wrote [PDF]: "similarity of mortality rates between the two populations supports the hypothesis that risk of fatal prostate cancer among British men does not differ from that among US white men. More intensive screening procedures, such as prostate-specific antigen testing, in the United States is the most likely explanation for the widening gap in incidence." In other words, we diagnose a lot of cancers that aren't lethal or are slow-moving enough to not require treatment. Saying, from that data, that we've got twice the survival rate is like saying we have a lower death rate from car crashes because we record more near-misses in the statistics.

(3) The average age of diagnosis for prostate cancer is 70. Therefore, you can expect that a whole hell of a lot of the people saved in the United States have Medicare (see "Socialized Medicine") to thank.

(4) The treatment used upon Rudy Giuliani was developed in a country with universal, single payer health care (see "Socialized Medicine").

[T]he technique used on Giuliani, prostate brachytherapy--using radioactive seeds--was pioneered in the modern era by a physician in Denmark, and brought to the US by one of his students.

http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/cgi/reprint/50/6/380.pdf

You'd think a guy whose life was saved by bradytherapy would admit, however grudgingly, that European socialized medicine ain't all bad.

I'm disappointed, but not surprised, that this story hasn't received more attention. Instead, I just watched the Democratic debates on MSNBC, and they preferred to ask questions such as "What are you going to be for Halloween this year?" and "Do you believe in extraterrestrial life?"

Instead of covering this issue (where the top contender for a party's nomination lies about one of the biggest domestic issues), there are endless segments covering topics like "Is Hillary being evasive?" (see here, here) and "Is Hillary playing the gender card?" (see here, here).

There is something seriously wrong here.

Giuliani Lies About Clinton - Part I

At the recent Republican debate, Rudy Giuliani told a couple of lies about Hillary Clinton:

1. "Giuliani claimed Sen. Hillary Clinton once called the free-market economy "the most destructive force in modern America." She didn't say that. She quoted another author who said free markets were "disruptive." She also said free markets bring prosperity."
2. "The mayor falsely claimed Clinton proposes to give $1,000 to "everybody." Her proposed subsidies to workers' retirement accounts would be for couples making up to $60,000 a year and would be $500 for those making up to $100,000. "
3. "Giuliani falsely claimed that more than 2 percent of the nation's gross domestic product is spent on "frivolous" lawsuits. The figure is from a study about the cost of all lawsuits."
   

That last one wasn't about Clinton, but I thought I'd keep it in there anyway.

I find it fascinating that none of the major news networks are really talking about the misstatements and misinformation from these debates. They should be hammering this guy, but instead they devote entire segments to whether or not Fred Thompson looked nervous.

(via FactCheck.org)

Rudy Giuliani on the Issues

On his changing position on gun control:

"There are some major intervening events - Sept. 11 - which cast somewhat of a different light on the Second Amendment."

On taking phone calls while in the middle of a speech:

"Since Sept. 11, most of the time when we get on a plane we talk to each other and just reaffirm the fact that we love each other"

On building a border fence:

"I support security at the borders. I think security is enormously important in the post-Sept. 11 period. I think we have to know who's coming into this country."

On his American flag pin:

"Each time I wear it, it reminds me of Sept. 11."

On religion:

"I need God's help for everything, and I probably feel that the most when I'm in crisis and under pressure, like Sept. 11, when I was dealing with prostate cancer, or when I'm trying to explain death to people."

On what day it is:

"For me, every day is an anniversary of Sept. 11"

(via New York Daily News)

UPDATE: TPM has a little montage here:

Giuliani Supports Regent University

Former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani spoke at Pat Robertson's Regent University (formerly "Christian Broadcasting Network University") today.

I am very, very impressed with Regent University, when I consider that it was founded just a short while ago. The number of graduates that you have and the amount of influence that you have is really, really terrific.

And of all the many things that you've done - and there have been many, and many contributions...

Regent University is ranked as a fourth tier law school, where it is tied for the the position of "worst school." It is simply the lowest ranked. Despite this academic ineptitude, one in six Regent grads are employed by the government, and 150 are specifically serving in the Bush administration (Monica Goodling is a Regent U. grad). We've got retards running wild, and Rudy Giuliani is congratulating them for carrying so much influence.

And just for fun, let's take a look at a few choice quotes from their leader, "Dr." Pat Robertson.

• "If anybody understood what Hindus really believe, there would be no doubt that they have no business administering government policies in a country that favors freedom and equality."
• "[Homosexuals] want to come into churches and disrupt church services and throw blood all around and try to give people AIDS and spit in the face of ministers."
  -The 700 Club 1/18/1995
• "I know this is painful for the ladies to hear, but if you get married, you have accepted the headship of a man, your husband. Christ is the head of the household and the husband is the head of the wife, and that's the way it is, period."
• "Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It's no different. It is the same thing. It is happening all over again. It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-based media and the homosexuals who want to destroy the Christians. Wholesale abuse and discrimination and the worst bigotry directed toward any group in America today. More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history."
  -Interview with Molly Ivins
• "I'm not necessarily saying it's going to be nuclear. The Lord didn't say nuclear. But I do believe it will be something like that."
  -Recounting how god talked to him about an upcoming disaster
• "Presbyterians are the spirit of the Antichrist."
  -The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, p. 239
• "When lawlessness is abroad in the land, the same thing will happen here that happened in Nazi Germany. Many of those people involved with Adolph Hitler were Satanists, many of them were homosexuals – the two things seem to go together."