EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- How the US Turned Three Pacifists into Violent Terrorists
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Revealed: How US State Department 'Twists Arms' on Monsanto's Behalf
Popular content
Today's Top News
This Is One Dangerous Man: It's George Bush with Brains
New York's former mayor Rudy Giuliani is living up to his reputation as someone who will do and say anything for power
People of Britain: congratulations are in order. You have now joined ferret owners, sidewalk artists, hot dog vendors, publicly funded attorneys for poor people, low-income community college students, museum curators, a couple of innocent black men shot dead by the police, the sections of the New York City charter governing rules of succession to the mayoralty and, of course, Hillary Clinton, as objects of Rudy Giuliani's demagoguery and wrath.
You may by now have heard the story. In a radio ad that his campaign prepared for New Hampshire voters, Giuliani tells listeners that he was diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2000 and goes on to say: "My chance of surviving cancer - and thank God I was cured of it - in the United States: 82%. My chances of surviving prostate cancer in England: only 44% under socialised medicine."
The numbers are false. The actual five-year survival rate in Britain is 74%, which is still lower than America's, but obviously high enough for the figure not to have constituted fodder for a campaign commercial. (Even the remaining, much smaller difference, is largely explained by more widespread screening in the US, which catches many more incidents of prostate cancer that are non-lethal).
It turned out that Giuliani's numbers were from a seven-year-old article in a conservative policy journal. The article was written by his own healthcare policy adviser, who admitted that his comparison was a "crude" interpretation of a study by a respected health policy group. The group, in turn, said the article's author had grossly misused its numbers.
That's about as red-handed as anyone in politics gets caught these days. But when asked if the campaign would continue to use the figure, a Giuliani spokeswoman said, "Yes, we will."
I know the form all too well. I covered Giuliani for a dozen years in New York (note to angry American rightwingers preparing to email me a warning to keep my foreign nose out of their business: I'm as American as a Ford F-150).
The man lies with staggering impunity. But here's the thing: he does it with such conviction and such seeming authority that people who are not inclined to study the matter will believe him - will in fact be utterly convinced that Giuliani is speaking the gospel truth, and they will prove almost impossible to shake from this conviction.
Giuliani's hypocrisy with regard to this ad doesn't end with the fake statistics. As Joe Conason noted on www.Salon.com, Giuliani was at the time of his treatment the mayor of New York and enrolled in a nonprofit health maintenance organisation for government employees - that is, mini-socialised medicine. And as Ezra Klein noted on Comment is free, the treatment that saved Giuliani was developed in Denmark - which, as Klein drolly notes, "is both in Europe and has a universal healthcare system".
But none of this will stop Giuliani. He will say and do anything he feels he needs to say and do to get power.
Newspapers write that he was "liberal" on social issues in his mayoral days, as if his positions on abortion and immigration were matters of conviction. Nonsense. He took the positions he needed to take to be elected in an overwhelmingly Democratic city. (Although to grant him a speck of humanity, I'd guess that his pro-gay rights views were more or less genuine: anyone living in the city gets to know many gay people.)
And now he is saying and doing whatever he needs to say and do to get millions of rightwing Americans to support him. He recently told a meeting of social conservatives that his reliance on God "is at the core of who I am". As mayor he was known to attend mass almost never, he obviously cheated serially on the wife (wife No 2) he married in the Catholic church, and the only occasions on which I can remember him invoking God when he was mayor were the two times he was forced to say "so help me God" in taking the oath of office.
But forward he will charge, telling more lies with even more impunity. And immunity, because in a culture where a sense of history is largely limited to remembering certain stirring television images, he will for the most part get away with it, confident in the knowledge that the main thing most Americans will ever recall about him is the film clip of him running from the rubble of the World Trade Centre on September 11. A far smaller percentage will know that the reason he had run was because he had catastrophically decided to place his emergency command centre in the tower complex - the only building in New York that had previously been the target of a major terrorist attack.
And by the way: shame on Gordon Brown for inviting him to No 10 in September. Yes, there's a long tradition of presidents and prime ministers welcoming party standard-bearers from across the pond. But Giuliani isn't yet that. Brown had no business giving him the kind of special benefit that an audience with a prime minister bestows.
Brown and all of Britain will be better off the sooner they figure this out: Giuliani is a dangerous man. George Bush with brains. Dick Cheney with better aim. Consider yourself warned.
Michael Tomasky is the editor of Guardian America
© 2007 The Guardian
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

34 Comments so far
Show Alltoo bad he doesn't live in Britain...I would welcome a 66% chance we would be rid of this lying weasel
I am 61 years old and have been engaged in politics my entire adult life, and I have never experienced this level of egregious lying and collusion in media coverage of our nation's doings. It is difficult not to start having strange thoughts characterized as "paranoia" that the American public has been enduring a very slick and effective method of mind control. I got rid of my TV ten years ago and have sought my information from the Internet almost exclusively. Even public radio with the exception of Pacifica, has been mostly compromised. I am afraid we are in for some very dark times before the citizens wake up from their numbed out, collective slumber and (hopefully) rise up to take this country back, before it is too late. I fear it may already be, but still believe it is important to detach from outcome and nevertheless stand for Truth, Justioe, and the Light. How else does one continue in the face of this?
The MSM here refuse to cover the NY Fire Department's demolition of the Giuliani myth; the heads of the broadcast owners are even closer drinking buddies with the Duce than they have been with the Smirk's pals.
starofthesea,
Giuliani is no more of a pathological liar than Bush was, and the press has been no more sympathetic to him than they were to Bush. Giuliani, like Bush, is a 100 percenter, meaning he is totally on board the fascist corporate oligarchy train with plenty of room for the military-industrial-complex, AIPAC, the pharmaceutical lobby, the insurance lobby, and the oil and nuclear industry lobbies.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out there are enormous problems with the health care system in the US. Even the average Republican should be able to figure it out.
This weekend my elderly grandmother had to be taken to the hospital by ambulance. When I arrived the ER, the waiting room was overflowing into an adjacent hallway. The tone was set when a woman in horrible pain due to a spinal injury was told to "have a seat". She couldn't even bend enough to stand upright - how was she going to have a seat - assuming that any seats became available?
The waiting room (and hallway) were filled with two types of people: 1) those who appeared to have conditions that were truly an emergency, and 2) those who appeared to be low income with kids suffering from colds and flu. I assume the folks that brought their kids to the ER because of a cold did so because they don't have insurance and weren't able to be seen by a doctor elsewhere. I don't blame them - if my kid needed medical attention and the only way I could get it was to take them to the ER and wait hours to be seen, I would do the same thing. I'm no economic wizard, but it seems to me that if we (as in "We, the people") provided low income folks with the ability to see a DR in his/her office or a clinic rather than in the ER, we would save a heck of a lot of money and provide better care to everyone.
Meanwhile, my daughter who is a graduate student can't get insurance at any price even though she can afford it. My group policy does not cover her beyond age 24. Even before age 24 she was not covered outside of our home state - and she does not go to school in our home state. How many kids do? Anyway, she applied for an individual policy and was declined to due a pre-existing condition. So she has no insurance at all. This points out the fact that the uninsured are not all low income, unemployed, and uneducated. It could be any of us. It could be you. Or your kid.
At the center of the problem is the fact that insurance companies do business based on the risk associated with the person or persons who are their customers. If you are part of a group over which the insurance company can spread risk, you will probably be ok - unless you lose your job due to outsourcing or NAFTA or merger or bankruptcy. If you're an individual trying to get coverage and you have any pre-existing conditions, you're just screwed.
This could all be addressed with a system that defines the group it insures as the entire population of the United States. Insurances companies are not interested in this because there are so many of them and they supposedly competing with each other for profit. But the Federal Government could do such a thing.
So the question why does the country that considers itself the greatest nation in the world refuse to step out of the dark ages in terms of health care? Most other economically developed countries have implemented some sort of national health care plan. Don't argue that the quality of health care in the US would suffer under such a plan, because the care delivered to those of us lucky enough to receive it isn't anything remarkable. The infant mortality rate in the US is on the rise, and the average lifespan of an American is decreasing.
We can do better - much better.
I think maybe it's best not to confuse ruthless self serving cunning with brains. Nor would he lie either to the public or to himself if he had the capacity for higher thought.
How many of us when asked, "are you on board?" have responded, "are we on a boat?"
dmia November 5th, 2007 2:38 pm
"..why does the country that considers itself the greatest nation in the world refuse to step out of the dark ages in terms of health care?"
In one phrase the Military Industrial Complex...If the trillions of dollars funneled into the largest Military Machine on earth were spent constructively on health, education and deteriorating infrastructure....
Oh I forgot I'm off my medication again...
I see no evidence of Guiliani's "brains". He seems extraordinarily uneducated in foreign affairs, which is why the neo-cons love him. They want a dupe without much of a conscience that they can exploit toward their ends.
I have the opinion that Rudolph Giuliani is using the 9/11 event for political gain.
Giuliani may give impressions such as:
"Vote for me! I was mayor of NYC on 9/11! That is the ONLY reason you should vote for me to carry on the Neocon legacy! Vote for me Rudy Giuliani! :-) On the sole basis that I was mayor of NYC on 9/11!"
Nice... If Rudy Giuliani is the President of the USA after George W. Bush, you do not have my sympathy.
Americans are Republican minded? They should vote for Ron Paul. Ron Paul is appealing to many people who live throughout the Europe continent, particualrly his views on USA foreign policy.
Please vote for Ron Paul Americans. He WILL save you from yourselves. He'll make the USA keep to its own and put your welfare before the welfare of other nations, such as Israel. I predict that he will be more anti-foreign policy than Bush has been. Ron Paul is the ONLY Republican that follows the ORIGINAL platform of the party; yet, the other Republicans candidates put him down.
The Republican party should die for what they have done since the 1950s both domestically and foreign policies. BUT, you have the chance for someone who can save your American party and that would be Ron Paul and NOT Giuliani.
He removed from 9/11 scene all and every forensic evidence that could have helped an honest investigation into what happenned on that sinister day and he was promised the presidency of the USA in return for the criminal services. A mafia job by a mafia gangster.He is one of the masterminds behind 9/11 massacre.
starofthesea... I've been on the other end of it... I've been in and around broadcast news most of my life, and I too am very distressed by the obvious determination of the Press to select Hillary and Guiliani as THE candidates, no matter what the public has to say.
Frankly, I feel the Clintons have been compromised by being in the political ring too long, and Guliani is just "BUSH LIGHT".
Frankly, I'm not that thrilled with ANY of the candidates so maybe I will just liquidate my assets and move my boat to Costa Rica.
Act 1. Scene I
King Lear
Fare thee well, king: sith thus thou wilt appear,
Freedom lives hence, and banishment is here.
I'm not convinced (entirely) of Bush's stupidity. As others have suggested, his broken drawl speech may somewhat be a ruse: he's a New Englander and Yale/Harvard grad.
So it may be a ruse, to keep us locked into a Hanlon's Razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor) guessing game: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
Just imagine if 100% of Bush's actions could be attributed strictly to malice on his part. Not disconnectedness, mental illness, bad policymaking, neglect, etc. But sheer contempt and malice.
When you examine Hillary, what she stands for, and just who backs her, you realize she is a right wing war mongering shill. But if Rudy is even worse, then that might put a different spin on it. The public will be given nothing to vote for. A choice between lies war for oil and war for Israel on the one hand, and the same on the other.
What election? We'll be in a depression before the election and or, under the rule of King Bush till he annoints his replacement.
Paul,
"I'm not convinced (entirely) of Bush's stupidity."
Someone else used the word "cunning" to describe Giuliani; the Smirk has always had the sharp eye for people's weaknesses & an absolute blind eye towards his own, as well as a capacious memory for faces, names, etc. His stupidity consists mainly in being unable to assimilate any information outside of what he has already determined the reality, centered on himself thanks to Mummum and Daddum, to be.
At Borders on Saturday the Giuliani calendar and Hillary calendar were placed prominently on an end shelf, the other candidates' calendars relegated to the crowd with the non-designate calendars.
Who do you think would win in a country devoted to "The Sopranos"?
Provoice, what frightens me is that Guliani does not appear to be Bush Light, but rather Bush Heavy -- Bush (and Cheney) on steroids. Just as it's hard for me to believe how much further Bush/Cheney have taken executive power than Nixon did, I fear Guliani would make them look like sane purveyors of democracy and due process.
I don't much like Clinton either (wish I did, feminism and all that) but I'd hold my nose and vote for her over Guliani any day.
Also remember that the unexpected can happen, and probably will. Think where we were a year before Nov. 1968: Gene McCarthy was just getting going, and King and RFK were still very much alive. That's scary, but also hopeful: there are more possibilities than our limited imaginations can grasp, and if we keep on pushing in progressive directions, something better might emerge from this insanity.
"When you examine Hillary, what she stands for, and just who backs her, you realize she is a right wing war mongering shill. But if Rudy is even worse, then that might put a different spin on it. The public will be given nothing to vote for. A choice between lies war for oil and war for Israel on the one hand, and the same on the other."
So, what's your point?
Tell it to Daniel David and his ilk who want us to march down the same path that brung us here.
Wake up folks! Your vote is not worth a shit and has never been either. The next president has already been picked up by the Powers that be. The rest is a Hollywood entertainment for fools.
I may sound like a broken record here folks, but we are being set up for still another stolen election. I'm not referring to the fake choices we are being presented with. I'm talking about a complete set up so that it doesn't really matter which one WE might choose. The one who will win has long since been decided and it will be the one most willing to do the bidding of the elite power brokers. Sorry guess that's either of the two perceived "front runners." Gee ya suppose that's why they're getting so much support from the MSM? Election Protection at every stage is our only hope of taking back power at the polls. Without it, and believe me, we don't yet have it, after how many stolen elections with MSM's and "opposition party's" complicit silence? Paper ballots---not just a paper trail on hackable DRE's. Unless and until we get that, we aren't even being offered the choice of the lesser of two evils, or even write-ins or a Third Party. We are being electorally raped, folks. Do the research and you'll know what I'm talking about. This isn't about partisanship. Hell, what's there to be partisan about anymore? It's an entirely rigged system, but it can be fixed. But it has to happen NOW!
nodupe, you are right on about 911 and Guilliani's little piece of the action. The MSM silence on this and other related issues around 911 only goes to reinforce how large the pool of darkness has become. Who will shed the light?
come now: he is a sociopathic liar (literally), but he's doing no more than imitating his betters.
"...Just imagine if 100% of Bush's actions could be attributed strictly to malice on his part. Not disconnectedness, mental illness, bad policymaking, neglect, etc. But sheer contempt and malice...."
Alternatively, just imagine if 100% of Bush's actions could be attributed strictly to being a multi-generational, evil little silver spooning pschopathic spoilt frat-boy; who gets off on destroying things and killing people; whilst lying and bullying people into submission...what a twisted little mongrel?
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the coup d'etat that Rudy attempted in the weeks after 9/11 when he tried to cancel the then upcoming NYC mayoral election. Rudy was not in it because of NYC term limitations, but thinking himself on par with FDR, Rudy wanted the term limitation and the election set aside so that he could continue as mayor into the new year for as long as the city needed him to resolve the "crisis." Think if he had been president then.
(Actually, I should not have compared Rudy to FDR. FDR went against convention by seeking a third term, but he did go against the law as it was then constituted. Rudy was trying to go against the law. Hitler did the same in 1933 after the Reichstag fire when he forced through the Enabling Act. It made him dictator for while the emergency lasted. The only difference was that Adolph succeeded.)
M.H. ISRAEL
CHECK OUT GIMPEL'S GALLERIES
http://hometown.aol.com/gimpelthefool/myhomepage/brag.html
For those who think a choice between Rudy and Hillary is a choice between Tweedledum and Tweedledummer, I have one word: OBAMA.
Vote early, and vote often in your primaries. You know the Republicans have and will.
M.H. ISRAEL
CHECK OUT GIMPEL'S GALLERIES
http://hometown.aol.com/gimpelthefool/myhomepage/brag.html
In todays New York Post, the Rupert Murdoch owned fascist newspaper of record, Giuliani is presented as a friend of brave fire fighters everywhere. No mention is made of the fact that he is loathed, despised, and has been repeatedly denounced by New York firemen who view this 9/11 "hero" as a complete fraud
You have hit the nail on the head. Both Rudy Ghouliani and Mitt Rommel are political chameleons who will betray any friend, renounce any principle, befriend any lowlife and say anything their political calculations require. Most frightening, however, is that both substantially endorse Bush's warmongering, war-profiteering, torturing, constitution-trashing, ally-offending and radical enemy producing agenda.
Folks, if you have a minute, please watch this just released short documentary about the NYC firefighters by Robert Greenwald, and see what the firefighters think of Giuliani's performance on and after 9/11:
http://therealrudy.org/blog/5400-rudy-s-9-11-failures-of-leadership-exposed-by-fire-fighters?play=1
It's a massive indictment of the man, and it could contribute to undermining his bid for the presidential nomination.
In response to the film about the firefighters' assessment of Giuliani, New York City Councilman Eric Gioia is launching an investigation into Giuliani. (See the entry by constitutional911 on Sat, 11/03/2007 - 11:32am, at 911blogger.com.)
Election question of 2008: Who will be in charge of the third term of the GW Bush presidency?
simonhhh,
I'm not saying I disagree with what you're saying. But it all provides political cover in a way, either for him or for Cheney and the Base. If Bush were a well-adjusted, thoughtful and mentally stable person what cover would he have? Can't hide behind spoiled upbringing, boorishness or mental illness -- he'd be seen as an innately hostile force to most Americans' interests.
Reagan was far better at it -- the middle- and working-class actually enjoyed handing their asses on a platter to him. The senile doddering old fool was cover for himself -- and for King George I. No such magic with King George II.
As far as I am concerned Republican's are no longer an option to vote for. I am not happy with Democrat's but at this moment they are the least of the evils out there. So, until the Republican's get rid of their 'ultra conservative' platform against women and gays, lunatic religious nuts, mean-spiritedness, snipping over BJ's that are none of their business and all the other all around nastiness that comes out of their party these days. I will not vote for them. If I have to vote for 'none of the above' or just leave it blank that's what I will do. This bunch of serpents will not get my vote. So as far as I am concerned Rudy is not an option.
This sentence is racist and wrong, "That's about as red-handed as anyone in politics gets caught these days."
It should read, "That's about as white-handed as anyone in politics gets caught these days."
Please update your thinking! Thank you.
Please why do we have to focus on this pathetic bastard as our adversary. Why not just focus on Hillary Clinton. Ignore the Republicans. They are never going to win back even a shred of credibility.
Paul Bramscher November 6th, 2007 9:17 am
Point well taken, perhaps ironically we are both right...