Swing State Blues...or WTFlorida?!

They're better than the red state blues, but a lot more confusing. Oh, I know this state is purple, and that political allegiances shift like the waves as the population grows and moves around, but a lot of the results around here point to an electorate that is maybe a wee bit schizophrenic.
The state managed to elect Barack Obama with 50.9% of the vote, which is close, but not unusually so for Florida. On the other hand, 62% of the electorate voted for Amendment 2, which seeks to define marriage as between one man and one woman, and outlaws anything else that "is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof". It's a sweepingly overreaching constitutional amendment, especially considering that homosexual marriage is prohibited by state statute anyway (blame Jeb Bush). Also, in rejecting Amendment 1 (by 52.1%), Florida elected to retain language in the constitution that allows the legislature to prohibit aliens ineligible for citizenship (like, oh, the king of Bhutan) from owning land.
This means that, statewide, there are about 200,000 people who voted for a black, liberal, pro-choice, pro-equality president, but also voted to ban anything that smelled like legal marriage between homosexuals and to retain the possibility of taking land away from law-abiding resident aliens. Conservative black voters? Maybe. Crackers Against Palin? Maybe. Who knows?
Locally, the results are equally as odd. I live in Hillsborough County, which is comprised of the sizable city of Tampa, its suburbs, a few smaller towns, and a large amount of rural land in the southeastern portion (it also comprises the central section of the Sunshine Skyway Bridge, whereas the northern and southern ends of the bridge are in Pinellas and Manatee counties, respectively. Not that there are any voters living on the bridge). The county elected Barack Obama with 53% of the vote, reflecting the trend of population centers going blue. Amendment 1, however, failed by the same margin. Amendment 2 passed by 59% here, which I personally find sickening. However, this county elected the openly gay Kevin Beckner to the county commission with 55% of the vote. This means that 14% of this county's electorate think it is a good idea to have a gay man on the county commission, but he can't be allowed to marry his partner. Quoi?
These observations are, of course, oversimplifications in that I barely paid attention to that commission race and am not sure what arguments were thrown back and forth. I personally voted based on my dislike for Beckner's opponent Brian Blair, the former professional wrestler who has been avidly pro-uncontrolled-growth and arrogantly anti-environment.
But that's not all the fun in Hillsborough! After five years of ridiculous problems with nearly every election he supervised, Buddy Johnson (a Jeb Bush appointee), conceded his own race to his opponent Phyllis Busansky after losing votes, miscounting votes, and being out of communication for several days, leaving the Supervisor of Elections election in limbo. Tribune columnist Daniel Ruth today described Johnson as "dumber than a sack of toothpicks".

I guess the good thing is that all this swinging about keeps us Floridians on our toes.

Election Night

This election cycle has taught us a lot about John McCain and Barack Obama. We've learned more, I think, from the way they each campaign than from any of the late election smear campaigns.

As of this point in the evening (7:30), Vermont has been called from Obama and Kentucky has been called for McCain. No real surprises there.

I was forwarded an article from Rolling Stone that completely took McCain apart from his childhood on. It made the case, very well, that McCain was a selfish, womanizing hot dog for most of his adult life. It also contended that his success in life is the direct result of flagrant nepotism. It painted the man as saying or doing absolutely anything that would make him look good, as well as making erratic decisions with sometimes disastrous consequences.
These contentions make a lot of sense in the context of McCain's political life, and his 2008 presidential campaign has provided a lot of evidence for their veracity. Sarah Palin is one such erratic decision, I feel. He seems to have spent very little time in considering her, and I believe that he only met her once or twice before declaring her his veep pick. Se was, of course, under investigation, and has very little experience on the national and world stages. Oh, and she's an idiot. Okay, that last jab was mine. Her politics are evangelical Christian conservative. If McCain was banking on the fact that she is a woman, thinking that this is the only thing that Hillary Clinton supporters care about, he seriously underestimated them. Hillary had women's issues at heart, after all, and Palin takes the opposite tack on all of them. The only think McCain could seriously hope to gain with Pain was the renewed respect of the religious right....and who would they vote for anyway? Not a Democrat.

OK,TN and SC have been called for McCain. ME,MA,CT,NJ,DE,MD and IL have been called for Obama. (8:26)

So yeah, I once said that McCain would probably be better than Bush. I don't think I believe that anymore. His reactions are too reflexive, he has too hot of a temper, he's not enough of a diplomat to be a real head of state.

Speaking of things that are ridiculous, accusations of "socialism" are really annoying echoes of Nixon's lambasting his opponents as "soft on Communism". Even if Obama was a true socialist, there is no way true socialist policy could be made with even a supermajority of Democrats in congress. There would be too much resistance. The biggest socialist steps we ever took came only after a decade of absolutely terrible economic performance. Not that our economy has really been that great during the Bush era.

Waiting with 'bated breath.

The first (insert distinction here) President!

Any way you slice it, assuming that Huckabee (heavens forbid) dosn't have a sudden surge of popularity leading to victory in November, the next President will be a first.

The most obvious firsts being Hillary Clinton as the first woman president and Barack Obama as the first biracial president. Only slightly less obvious is McCain as the oldest President at time of assuming office.

Did you know, though, that McCain would also be the first President born in a U.S. territory, not a state? Obama would be the first from Hawaii, and Clinton would be the first former First Lady president. All three are sitting senators, of which only two others have been elected to the presidency: John F. Kennedy and Warren G. Harding.

I'm sure there are a slew of other firsts that the color commentary researchers will make notes of on Inauguration Day.

ClintonVania

I recalled recently one of the things that I seriously dislike about Hillary Clinton. On the issue of freedom of speech, I believe that all art forms should be free of government controls or interference. Censorship is, in my opinion, not only wrong but damaging to the social development of our society. Voluntary censorship to reach the widest crowds possible, as in the movie industry, is acceptable as long as there are no governmental civil or criminal consequences when one wishes not to self-censor. A system of ratings is fine for the quick reference of parents who wish to control what their children are exposed to (good luck with that), but ultimately the responsibility should be on the consumer/viewer/player (or their guardian) for choosing what they consume.

Violent video games have been blamed for violent kids in the last decade or so mainly because they have arisen as a predominant medium, much in the same way that comic books, movies, heavy metal, and television have each in their time been accused of making kids violent. As if children were pacifists before. It really depends upon the temperament of the individual child, which is a case of parentage (in one sense) and parentage (in another sense).

Hillary Clinton sponsored a bill, S. 2126 [109th]: the "Family Entertainment Protection Act", which provides stiff fines and mandatory community service for anyone caught selling a game that has been rated "Mature","Adults Only" or "Rating Pending" to anyone under 17 years of age. As I said, this would be a government-mandated punishment for violating the dictates of a censor. This is a far stiffer control than that applied (voluntarily) to the movie industry or (also voluntarily) to the comic book industry.

That rubs me the wrong way. Fortunately, the bill died the death. Unfortunately, if Clinton became president, she would likely find a way to resurrect it. Not Unlike Dracula.

Primary Day!

Actually Super Tuesday. I neglected to blog on Florida's actual primary day. I would tell you that it was because Florida's votes didn't really count, but it was truly because I've been a very lazy kitty of late. Predictably, Clinton won our race due to early fronrunnerness and a bit of guerilla marketing. McCain also won, which showed a bit of sense perhaps...but most likely just a sense of solidarity among the elderly of this state.
I am paying attention to the polls today, though. Somewhat. I'm playing with friends, though, which does divide my attention somewhat. I saw Huckabee won West Virginia. Unsurprising, as it is rumored to be a very conservative electorate that tends toward the evangelical.
I think, however, that whoever the Democratic nominee is will win the presidency. The biggest challenge would come from McCain, and he's been too deeply in bed with the current administration for the taste of those who find W distasteful.

Toeing the line is, in fact, what I have against McCain. Despite railing against Bush in the 2000 campaign, he has since agreed with most everything the neocons have spit at the public. I suspect that the GOP promised McCain that if he would lay off they would give him the nomination this year. He tries to play the maverick, but he can't have it both ways. That being said, he'd likely be better than W anyway.

I am not afeared of Hillary either, I just think that she has been terribly gullible in voting for the Iraq war among other things. Either gullible or politically expedient, which is what has gotten us into an unfortunate mess with the hawks in the white house. She's mediocre. Meh. Not a dynamic centrist like her husband, though she can count on him for support.

Obama is a stirring speaker, and an inspirational leader. He has had a quick rise, which I appreciate. He's young, which I also appreciate. He has a rich baritone that I would not mind listening to for the next few years. On the other hand, he wants to be president, which means he is obviously insane.

More as the zany Super Tuesday results come in, maybe.

Huckabeeee, Huckabaaaah, Huckabooooo...

I wouldn't vote for this guy for a number of reasons, but none of them are as universally damning as Giuliani's résumé.

Huckabee's corruption seems to be limited to creative campaign financing, personal use of public funds, and soliciting gifts in excess of what was allowed by state law via a wedding registry. I say "seems to be," because this fellow has covered his trail. Right before announcing his bid for the presidency, Huckabee ordered the destruction of the hard drives of 83 computers and four servers that his office had access to. This move, while possibly not illegal (as far as I can tell it's still under investigation), stinks of cover-up. Huck probably destroyed the hard drives after recalling that electronic information stored on them had contributed to previous scandals (including the one about his use of governor's mansion funds for personal wants).

So yeah, that was the short short version of Huck's corruption record. On to ideology. This fellow has pinned himself to the radical right. He opposes abortion. He opposes same-sex marriage and civil unions ("homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk"). He opposes gun control. He supports creationism and the death penalty. He believes that his political success is due to divine intervention. His stance on illegal immigration has changed of late, being a bit muddy, but he is now advocating sealing the Mexican border and deporting illegal immigrants before they can apply for citizenship. His presidency would be a hard right turn for the country that was veering right to begin with, and it would drive us off a cliff.

"When fascism comes to America
it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross."

- Sinclair Lewis

Benedicking around Mitt religion

(originally posted 12/7/07)

Last Week, former Massachusetts governor and current presidential rat-runner Mitt Romney delivered a speech that was likely meant to comfort the conservative base of his Republican party and smooth over his adherence to a non-mainstream religion. In it, he fielded some pretty glaring logical fallacies and attacked the non-religious and the idea of a secular state.

Also last week, former Hitler Youth and current head of the Catholic Church Joseph Ratzinger...I mean Pope Benedict XVI...issued an encyclical letter that fielded some pretty glaring logical fallacies and attacked the non-religious and the idea of a secular state.

The first gem in Romney's diatribe goes like this:

"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone."

How does freedom require religion again? I see how he would think that religion required freedom, as it opens the window and all that, but if it is true freedom then it equally opens the window for those who would have no religious belief. It's freedom, y'see. You're free. To believe or not, as it were. Incidentally, religion survived for thousands of years under totalitarian and monarchial rule, so I'm not seeing how religion requires freedom either. I suspect that Romney was just attempting to invoke fear of repressive states that officially reject religion, such as the USSR and the PRC. If so, I would like to remind him of states where religion is everything and the only thing, such as Iran and the Sudan. They're not free either, even though they have lots of religion.

Benedict's first little illogical statement is actually the subject of most of the letter. His encyclical is titled "Spe Salvi" (In hope we are saved or suchlike, excuse my rusty Latin), and it deals with the idea that hope is salvation, and therefore hope is faith, and therefore those who are without faith are without hope. Don't take it from me, you can read it if you want on the Vatican's website here. I was going to attempt to pull a quote from it, but Benedict is mostly too rambling and wordy for such a thing. Now, we all know people can live without faith and still have hope, hope that their family and friends will continue to be well, hope that the world will eventually be a better place. Benedict argues, through quotations from the apostle Paul, that the Ephesians were living in a "dark world, facing a dark future" because even though they had religion, it wasn't the Christian religion. Whatever. People were doing just fine before Christianity, and we will likely be doing fine long after it is gone. People who have never been Christians live with hope, and also live full lives in happy times. There are plenty of hopeful and happy Buddhists, Hindus, Neopagans...on down the line through every religion of the world and including complete lack of religion.

Back to Mitt.

"I believe that every faith I have encountered draws its adherents closer to God. And in every faith I have come to know, there are features I wish were in my own: I love the profound ceremony of the Catholic Mass, the approachability of God in the prayers of the Evangelicals, the tenderness of spirit among the Pentecostals, the confident independence of the Lutherans, the ancient traditions of the Jews, unchanged through the ages, and the commitment to frequent prayer of the Muslims. As I travel across the country and see our towns and cities, I am always moved by the many houses of worship with their steeples, all pointing to heaven, reminding us of the source of life's blessings."

So Mitt has completely failed to encounter other world religions, despite the fact that there are many in the United States. Mitt seems to think that the only religions that exist are ones that derive from the Abrahamic faiths. He completely missed the 17-ish percent of Americans who ascribe to no such faith. I recently noticed a beautiful Hindu temple being built north of my home city, and I know several people affiliated with Buddhist sects around hereabouts. Romney has completely ignored them, as he has ignored or marginalized the 15+ percent of Americans who profess no religion.

"We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They are wrong."

I'm not entirely sure where to start digging in here. There are so many places. Romney begins with an affirmation of the separation of church and state, but he ends this paragraph —and goes through the next— with sledgehammers to that barrier. He then, in the second little clause of this paragraph, poses straw man argument. Always be suspicious of people who will use "some say" or "some believe" or, in this case "taken by some" in a persuasive argument, as it is meant to mislead by misrepresenting the opponent's position. He then moves on attack secularism as a religion, when in fact secularism is simply the assertion that religion should be separate from government. There is nothing to worship there, therefore not a religion. Got it, Mitt? And how exactly is starting a new religion wrong, anyway?

"The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation 'Under God' and in God, we do indeed trust."

Both of those phrases came into public use long after this country's founders were dead. "In god we trust" first appeared on a coin in 1864 in response to pressures from Christians during the Civil War. It was adopted by Congress as a national motto almost a century later (1956), probably to differentiate our country from the officially atheistic USSR during the hotter, earlier parts of the Cold War. The "under god" phrase was tacked on to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 by an act of Congress under pressure from the Knights of Colombus and some outspoken clergy. The common use of both of the phrases, then, date from the dramatic swing to the right the country took in the '50's, which are unfortunately still considered a golden age by conservatives.
Regarding elimination of religion from the public square: Would you really believe that you were going to be judged not based on religion if there were crosses and copies of the ten commandments all over the courthouse?

"We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders – in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our Constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty."

Hello, push for teaching creationism! Sheesh. Who is this "god who gave us liberty"? Is it John Locke, who wrote of it in his Two Treatises of Government? Liberty is a human concept, exactly as its opposite is.

"Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government."

Do we now? Liberty is completely an indulgence of government. If there is a totalitarian government, scrutinizing the daily lives of its citizens, there can be little liberty. Government regularly takes away the liberty of its citizens who have been convicted of crimes. Mitt's little idea here is a really and truly dangerous one, as it philosophically allows government to do any damn thing it wants and just say "Sure, you're pent up in a cage here, but God gave you liberty, so you have it. Even if you can't use it."

"No people in the history of the world have sacrificed as much for liberty. The lives of hundreds of thousands of America's sons and daughters were laid down during the last century to preserve freedom, for us and for freedom loving people throughout the world. America took nothing from that Century's terrible wars – no land from Germany or Japan or Korea; no treasure; no oath of fealty."

This man has no grasp of history. He forgets the many wars that were fought for liberty by the Dutch, South Americans, Chinese, Russians, Zulu, and nearly eveyt other nation on Earth. He also has forgotten America's wars this century which had nothing to do with preserving freedom, like the invasion of Nicaragua. The biggest falsehood in this paragraph is the notion that we took nothing from Germany or Japan at the end of the second world war...We certainly did take treasure (reparations, favored trading status), land (for military bases, see Rammstein or Okinawa), and oaths of fealty (forcing West Germany to join NATO, and the security treaty signed by Japan as a provision of the ending of U.S. occupation of that nation).

Romney draws to a close by criticizing the countries of Europe for having large cathedrals but dwindling numbers of faithful, and lashing out at militant Islam. He then tells a story about the founding fathers kneeling to pray together, and his penultimate sentence is this: "In that spirit, let us give thanks to the divine 'author of liberty.' And together, let us pray that this land may always be blessed, 'with freedom's holy light."
The "divine author of liberty"? John Locke again, this time divine?

I'm so done with Mitt. May he never be president of anything ever.

So back to Benedick.

"To protest against God in the name of justice is not helpful. A world without God is a world without hope (cf. Eph 2:12). Only God can create justice. And faith gives us the certainty that he does so. The image of the Last Judgement is not primarily an image of terror, but an image of hope"

Only god can create justice, eh? Not doing that great a job, is he? Or is the concept of justice completely within the eye of the beholder? I'm pretty sure it is. Benedict might think it was just if everyone was forcibly converted to Catholicism. I don't quite see it so.

No wonder it's taken me so long to complete this little critical essay...I am so sick of both of its subjects. Mitt Romney can go stick his head in a pig as far as I'm concerned, and I'm sure that Benedict will be regarded as a terrible Pope, especially after that patience and kindness of his predecessor.

Why I'm Not Voting For Rudy Giuliani

(originally posted 11/7/07)

The first in what may be a series of my jabs at presidential candidates in the lead-up to the 2008 election.

An Authoritarian

I'm not going to vote for, nor could I be convinced to vote for Rudy Giuliani. The number one reason being that he is an authoritarian. His clampdowns on everything from jaywalking (for which a person could be strip-searched) to ferrets (which he banned in the city) bespeak of a man convinced that power rests in the hands of not the people, but the tyrant. He has said it himself before. In a speech at a forum on crime convened by the New York Post in 1996, Guiliani spake thusly:
"We look upon authority too often and focus over and over again, for 30 or 40 or 50 years, as if there is something wrong with authority. We see only the oppressive side of authority. Maybe it comes out of our history and our background. What we don't see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do."
Freedom is about ceding your free will? Very Orwellian, Rudy, and indicative of why your popularity just before the attacks of 9/11 was in the 30th percentile. In his early days as mayor, he partnered with his police commissioner, Bill Bratton, to enact a policy on crime known as "broken windows." This policy is about crime prevention through pruning, harsh prosecutions of small crimes to prevent, in theory, larger crimes blossoming. Giuliani and Bratton cracked down on such crimes as graffiti and jaywalking, going so far as to construct concrete barriers to prevent jaywalking and a giant surveilance network to monitor for grafitti. A bit of a misplaced priority, yes? When the crime rate went down (in a continuation of a trend that started under the previous mayor, David Dinkins), Bratton made the cover of Time magazine. Later that year Giuliani forced Bratton to resign, reportedly largely because Bratton had become more noteworthy than he. One part vengefulness, one part narcissism.
Guiliani refuses to talk to people who don't agree with him. In an interview with American Legends, Ed Koch (Former Mayor of New York and Giuliani supporter) recalled this little episode:
"When Rudy was mayor he refused to meet with two important black leaders, Carl McCall, the then state comptroller, and Virginia Fields, the Manhattan borough president. This went on for over a year. I had occasion to ask him, "Rudy, why won't you meet with them?" And, he said: "I don't agree with them." I told him: "Rudy, you only meet with people you agree with? That's crazy." This episode was part of his insensitivity, his inability to respect others."
Rudy Giuliani is the only person to thus far have recieved three consecutive Muzzle Awards from the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression. The awards are intended to draw attention to abridgements of the freedom of speech, and, noting that Giuliani has "stifled speech and press to so unprecedented a degree, and in so many and varied forms, that simply keeping up with the city's censorious activity has proved a challenge for defenders of free expression," the TJ Center awarded him an unprecedented Lifetime Muzzle Award.
Fortunately, most of Rudy's attacks on free expression have been rejected by the courts. More than 35 successful lawsuits were brought against Giuliani and his administration for infringing on First Amendment rights. In a December, 2001 letter to the editor of the New York Times, NYCLU director Donna Lieberman wrote:
"An assessment of the Giuliani mayoralty should encompass the whole record. During his tenure, the NYCLU went to court in 34 separate cases to challenge the city's violations of First Amendment rights.
"In nearly every case, the courts rejected the city's policies including: the firing of Police Officer Yvette Walton in retaliation for testifying before the City Council about racial profiling; the attempt to censor the Sensations exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum; the ban on press conferences and demonstrations by Giuliani critics on the steps of city hall; the ban on condoms as part of AIDS education in City Parks. Occasionally, after being sued, the City agreed to reverse the offending policy as with the one that singled out political demonstrators charged with minor offenses so that they could not get appearance tickets to return to court and often had to stay in jail overnight.
"And lest we think these transgressions were a pre-September 11 phenomenon, only last week, a federal court rejected the Giuliani administrations violation of religious freedom and ordered an end to police harassment of homeless people sleeping on the steps of the Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church."
Clearly, Giuliani doesn't stand for freedom any more than kleptocrat Vladimir Pultin does.

Vengefulness

The episode indicated above with Bill Bratton illustrates a bit of Rudy's venegful nature, but it is really just the fluke of the whale. When the City Council overrode his veto of a bill to change the operations of homeless shelters in December 1998, Giuliani sought to evict five community service programs, including one that served 500 mentally ill people, in the district of the bill's chief sponsor, and to replace them with a homeless shelter. In responce to an assertion by Rev. Calvin O. Butts that Giuliani doesn't like black people, Giuliani withdrew city funding for programs with which the cleric was connected. In Newsweek, columnist Jonathan Alter says: "His ridiculously thin skin and mile-wide mean streak were not allegations made by whiners and political opponents. They were traits widely known to his supporters."
Do we want or need another vengeful president? There are suspicions in many minds (including mine) that one of the bigger reasons that W so badly wanted war with Iraq was revenge for an alleged plot by Saddam Hussein's govenment to assasinate G.H.W. Bush. What would Giuliani do if Hugo Chavez tweaked his nose (as he is wont to do) in a diplomatic setting? Invade Venezuela? I shudder to think what he might do to domestic critics using the power of the presidency.

Corruption

Rudy is corrupt. Cronyism and underhanded dealing have been large parts of his years of public service. He promoted Bernard Kerik to the position of Police Commissioner, despite the positioning requiring a college degree and Kerik's lack thereof. He also lobbied for Kerik to be made Secretary of Homeland Security, but Kerick withdrew his acceptance of this nomination once several scandals broke. He later pled guilty to charges of corruption resulting from his connections with the Gambino crime family. He is currently under investigation for tax evasion.
Rudy also appointed Russell Harding, another unqualified and undegreed friend, to head the New York City Housing Development Corporation. Harding, like his presidential predecessor, went down in flames when it was revealed that he defrauded the corporation for millions.
Giuliani Partners is a corportaion, ostensibly a consulting firm, that Rudy organized to make his influence in government available for hire. The firm's partners include the aforementioned Bernard Kerik and indicted sexual abuse practicioner and former priest Alan Placa as well as a former FBI agent who admitted taking items from ground zero. The clientele who seek out Giuliani for his influence include Hank Asher, an admitted drug trafficker and datamining baron.
Giuliani's firm has also been sued for alledgedly scheming to defraud the plaintiff of $10 million.
Recently, Giuliani's campaign has been linked to money laundering and electoral manipulation. Oh, joy, another bought and rigged election.

Power Grab

When the attacks of September 11 happened, the New York mayoral primary election was in full swing. It was delayed by the attacks, and Giuliani used this basis to lobby to circumvent the New York consititution and run for a third term. When this was denied, he sought three months more in office. He claimed at the time that the city needed him desperately. Not so, it turns out.

Lies!

Giuliani doesn't let the facts get in his way. His presidential campaign has claimed, in states far away from New York, that he took the $2.3 billion dollar deficit left him by Mayor Dinkin and turned it into a billion-dollar surplus. In reality, he left office with more than double the deficit, $4.8 billion.
Just a week after the attacks of September 11th, Giuliani moved to re-open the financial district around Wall Street, claiming that the air was "safe and acceptable." This was not true. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the air around lower Manhattan at that point and for weeks to come still had high levels of asbsetos and caustic substances. This was obviously a case of putting the financial markets ahead of public safety.
He has recently claimed to have spent as much time at Ground Zero as any of the cleanup workers. Investigating this claim, the New York Times reported that Giuliani's appointment log tells that he spent only 29 hours at the site in three months. Many of the cleanup workers spent 10-hour daily shifts at the site.
Giuliani and his campaign have asserted that Giuliani has been a student of Islamic terrorism for 30 years. However, during Giuliani's term as a federal prosecutor he garnered no significant terrorism convictions and was focused mostly on organized crime and corporate corruption. He also published no academic paper, delivered no policy address, wrote no journal article, nor wrote any book on Islamic terrorism prior to September 11, 2001. Funny behavior for someone who is intensely interested in the subject.
Another dishonest moment is when he announced his intention to seperate from his second wife, Donna Hanover, at a news conference. This was the first she had heard of it.
Giuliani has a well-documented history of cheating on his spouses. He seems to have the worst attributes of Bill Clinton as well as the worst attributes of W.

Egad...

I could go on. Really. For a long time. The skeletons in this man's closet could decorate Dia de los Muertos celebrations in every city of the Spanish-speaking world. I'll post some references later, but this information is out there, in the archives of any institution that has ever dealt with him. I can't believe that anyone would ever consider him to be a good choice to lead this country, but I guess people voted for Hitler, so there's no telling with a manipulated electorate.