Giuliani "had a blind spot when it came to people he knew well" and "very little respect for the vetting process," [said Jerome Hauer, who briefly headed the office emergency management.] "The competent people in the administration all tended to leave because they got tired of the borderline-incompetent people who got in. He ran off the professionals because they were difficult to work with. If they didn't do things the way he wanted or overshadowed him, he got furious."More in the article. This is an aspect of the Giuliani candidacy we need to study carefully.
Fran Reiter, a deputy mayor under Giuliani, said most initial Cabinet hires came via a "very extensive search process," but the mayor was more likely to emphasize personal ties when it came to public safety jobs. Giuliani wanted ownership over that realm because of his law enforcement background, she said. And he worried that department veterans who he did not have ties with would have more allegiance to the departments than to him.
"These were areas where he just really wanted people whom he trusted and who were not going to do anything other than what he wanted them to do," she said.
Giuliani's most ill-fated promotion, other than Kerik's, was his 1998 choice to run the city's Housing Development Corp.: Russell Harding, the son of the former head of New York's Liberal Party, whose backing of Giuliani was crucial in his election. Harding had no college degree or background in housing and finance, and was eventually convicted of stealing more than $300,000 from the agency and sentenced to more than five years in prison for the embezzlement and for possessing child pornography.
November 24, 2007
"Patronage does not mean giving a job to someone who supported you politically."
"It means giving a job to someone only because he supported you politically." So wrote Rudy Giuliani in his book "Leadership," quoted in this WaPo article, which airs the views of his critics:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
64 comments:
This is an aspect of the Giuliani candidacy we need to study carefully.
Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?
What percentage of ne'er-do-wells is normal in trying to staff a city the size of New York City?
I'd be surprised if you got one or two actually good people in the bunch, just owing to the Peter Principle.
People who are good in their previous job don't tend to turn out well in their promotion. Try staffing even a small project sometime.
Harding was the price you had to pay to get the liberal party line in the election. Ray Harding ran the Liberal Party as a one man fiefdom. Giuliani needed the Liberal Line for those Dem's who could not bring themselves to vote on the Republican Line. The son was a moron and a grifter who used city funds to go on sex tours and to bribe his sex partners. Mayor Nanny Bloomberg who everyone sees as such a great difference from Giuliani made similar alliances including a flirtation with Leonora Fulani and her bunch of nitwits at the New Alliance Party. New York City municipal politics is a dirty business and everyone involved gets soiled one way or another.
For anyone who was there and suffered the descent of NYC into a dystopia, followed by Rudy's stewardship, which made possible the miracle, that's not too strong a term, of New York's resurgance, his supposed shortcoming when it came to staffing was small potatoes.
Not that his performance as mayor is necessarily a reason to vote for him as president, should he be the Republican candidate. But he did take on the street thugs and race hustlers and unions and in doing so made recovery possible. No mean feat.
Hmmmmmmmm, are we looking for a reason to justify our inevitable robotic vote for Hillary, Prof A?
Perhaps you ought to avoid such pious posturing & consider casting the same cold eye on all of Hill's appointees & Bill's pardonees that you use on Rudy's.
At least Rudy didn't bear false witness against the travel dept employees in NYC in order to get his people in.
And it’s not like some of Rudy’s appointees were found to have made $100,000 on a $100 investment via a ‘phone call.
Trooper York
Pithy & to the point with no scatology. You’d never be hired by Hillary!
If the GOP really wants to go with a pristine candidate, Mike Huckabee would be a great choice.
The problem is the front-runners all have bigger names and a higher likelihood of winning due to their more 'centric' political goals. Iraq War aside, Giuliani, Romney and Thompson all wear different shades of liberal that might make them attractive with the American mainstream.
Mike Huckabee seems like a perfect GOP candidate, from his views on religion, to principled policy making and his "nice guy, trustworthy" appearance. In any other election year, Huckabee might even be the GOP candidate of choice. One small problem: President Bush has tainted the party; his policies, debt and War have America looking for 'something radically different'. That candidate must not smell like a Bush Republican, or else perceived "change" can not be achieved.
From Inwood, sorry I just got up. I will do better the rest of the day.
Somtimes not being on point, is exactly the point.
ricpic said...
For anyone who was there and suffered the descent of NYC into a dystopia, followed by Rudy's stewardship, which made possible the miracle, that's not too strong a term, of New York's resurgance, his supposed shortcoming when it came to staffing was small potatoes.
Right. That's why on 9/10 his approval rating in NYC was eleven percent.
Rudy was a ghastly mayor and the New York resurgence had absolutely fuck all to do with him....
Do you have writers helping you to be so stupid, or do you really do it on your own?
Pristine and candidate in the same sentence! A little too oxymoronic for my taste, but still--wow!
Rudy's an immoral creep and time will prove this to be the case.
Most of the people here would vote for literally anybody to avoid Hillary (or any of the Democrats for that matter) being elected.
It's interesting that, for a man who many here revere as the savior of New York, he sure has a lot of people who worked with him that feel he's nothing more than a disingenuous self promoting liar.
If he's nominated, the face to face debates will reveal him to be an empty bag of wind.
"Rudy was a ghastly mayor and the New York resurgance had absolutely fuck all to do with him..."
Can always count on you for a piss ignorant turd rate comment, chrissypoo.
Fred,
I realize Huckabee seems like a wonderful fellow, but do you really think America is ready for a Baptist preacher who doesn't believe in evolution, wants creationism taught in public schools and wants to make abortion a crime?
I doubt it...and here's a recent quote that has to send chills up the spines of many Americans:
"If you want to believe that you and your family came from apes, that's fine. I'll accept that," he said Friday. "I just don't happen to think that I did."
What happened to all the "WE LOVE FRED" crowd of a few weeks ago??
Here's what he thinks of your NEW HERO:
BRISTOL, N.H. — Presidential hopeful Fred Thompson said Friday that New York City isn't a model for the rest of the country and that Rudy Giuliani should stop basing his stances on his time as that city's mayor.
Thompson, campaigning at a New Hampshire gun store with stuffed moose and deer overhead, told reporters that Giuliani too often turns to his time as New York mayor to explain his support for stronger gun restrictions.
"He relates everything to New York City. Well, New York City is not emblematic of the rest of the country, I don't think. I think the sentiments of those people in the rest of the country are in support of the Second Amendment _ which is where I've always been and I don't think he's ever been," Thompson said.
ricpic,
The truth hurts, doesn't it?
ricpic said...
"Rudy was a ghastly mayor and the New York resurgance had absolutely fuck all to do with him..."
Can always count on you for a piss ignorant turd rate comment, chrissypoo.
Oh, so you're one those idiots who believe that the reason crime went down nationwide and in every major city during the 90s was because Rudy was mayor of New York?
BWHWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
Seriously, asswipe -- how do you explain the fact that his approval rating on the day before 9/11 was eleven percent?
He was a crappy mayor, an authoritarian prick and a bully who presided over an administration that was actively hostile to black people, and everybody knew it. He was an embarssment.
I can't wait for you Republicans to run him for President...his mobbed up police commissioner is pure comedy gold, and that's just the tip of the iceberg.
Oh, and incidentally --
This is an aspect of the Giuliani candidacy we need to study carefully
-- is the most hilariously clueless thing Ann has ever posted here, and that's going some.
The truth hurts? No, but you do, pain in the ass.
Presidential hopeful Fred Thompson said Friday that New York City isn't a model for the rest of the country and that Rudy Giuliani should stop basing his stances on his time as that city's mayor.
Now, this is funny.
REGARDLESS of the content of Fred Thompson's statement and what one thinks of Rudy Giuliani, Thompson would be better off paying attention to his OWN campaign and choices thereof. It ain't like he's taking off like a house a-fire, after all.
Lucy said,
I realize Huckabee seems like a wonderful fellow, but do you really think America is ready for a Baptist preacher who doesn't believe in evolution, wants creationism taught in public schools and wants to make abortion a crime?
Where did you read this?
Who said that?
When did they say it?
Turn about is fair play so answer these same questions you recently asked. Of course there is nothing fair about the way you comment so I don't expect a coherent answer.
What a hoot!
On the pro-Giuliani front, at least he likes to kill black people.
lawgiver,
The "internets," as G.W would call them, have what is called a GOOGLE search method that many here use to find interesting facts, quotes and other information.
Maybe if you were to take your hands out of your pants for a few minutes, you could try it out.
There is a massive amount of information regarding Huckabee's stand on literally every issue known to mankind.
Here are a few:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Mike_Huckabee.htm
http://presidentialpolitic.blogspot.com/2007/05/huckabees-evolution-beliefs.html
reader,
A few weeks ago you were touting Thompson as our savior.
What happened?
ricpic said..."The truth hurts? No, but you do, pain in the ass."
Have you discussed this with Titus?
lawgiver,
May 07, 2007
Huckabee says evolution is not an issue
Republican presidential candidate Governor Mike Huckabee said this weekend that it is irrelevant to his campaign that he thinks the theory of evolution is wrong. Huckabee, along with Senator Sam Brownback and Representative Tom Tancredo, asserted their disbelief in evolution last Thursday at the first Republican debate. Nevertheless, Huckabee says, his disbelief in evolution has no bearing on his qualifications to be president.
OR
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) - Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee on Friday sought to explain why he doesn't believe in evolution, saying he is not opposed to teaching Darwin's theory.
Republican presidential contender Mike Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas, answers a question during the first republican presidential primary debate of the 2008 election at the Ronald Reagan Library, Thursday, May 3, 2007, in Simi Valley, Calif.
Huckabee was one of three GOP candidates who raised their hand during Thursday's debate when asked if they don't believe in evolution — the development of organisms and species from a primitive state.
The other candidates were Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas and Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado.
Huckabee said if given a chance to elaborate on the question from MSNBC moderator Chris Matthews, he would have responded: "If you want to believe that you and your family came from apes, I'll accept that....I believe there was a creative process."
reader,
A few weeks ago you were touting Thompson as our savior.
What happened?
Luckyoldson: That is, simply, 100% inaccurate and 100% wrong.
You need to explain how you came to acquire that impression, because you surely can't come up with a citation of my support for Thompson for president, as either savior or just plain-old man.
Why (apart from the fact that I've written no such thing)? It's never existed.
I've thought for a while that you conflate my posts with someone else's (or some persons elses').
I'm curious as to whose, and which ones, and for what reasons--and why it's useful for you to do so. Care to elucidate?
reader,
Good lord...RELAX...I thought I read a post of yours, touting Thompson as the man who would come to the rescue of the Republicans.
If I'm mistaken, I feel absolutely HORRIBLE and it will probably ruin my entire day.
Really.
Now, pop another Prozac and get back to the knitting.
I don't think I've ever referred to a political figure as a savior, at least not seriously, and I'm fairly doubtful jokingly, either on- or off-line. Not a typical construction for me.
***
Lucky, at least so far, you're not pissing me off on this one, even in terms of misrepresentation, to which I admit I can be quite--overly--sensitive. It's just that freakin' out to lunch--comedy, in other words, on-line and IRL.
If I'm mistaken, I feel absolutely HORRIBLE and it will probably ruin my entire day.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. The day that's true--over something serious--I'll worry.
Until then, I WON'T pop Prozac (though I might sip spiked, spiced hot cider punch, especially during the holiday season), and as for knitting? My hands can't tolerate that anymore.
Thus my internet trolling for so-called relationships with fellow-travelers such as you.
reader,
I have a feeling it was Wittle Dust Bunny's comment that caught my attention.
reader_iam said..."Lucky, at least so far, you're not pissing me off on this one, even in terms of misrepresentation, to which I admit I can be quite--overly--sensitive."
Well, those things happen when people have "so-called relationships."
Anyway, sorry for confusing you with the Bunny.
Again, I ask,
Where did you read this?
Who said that?
When did they say it?
Can't show me one place where Huckabee says he wants to make abortion a crime can you?
As usual you make outrageous claims then can't back them up with facts.
Dumb getting dumber.
The emphasis on picking an "electable" candidate means that once again, 2008 will mean picking the lesser of two evils.
Hello people: the lesser evil is still evil. Vote for the nominee the one you really want, not the one you think you should want.
Good article in the Progressive about how Kucinich is organized labor's dream candidate; yet unions are throwing support to HRC and other turds.
lawgiver,
First of all you can kiss my ass.
If you don't want to follow the links I gave you then shove it up your ass. There's plenty of information out there, but one h to have a fucking brain to find it.
Something you evidently do not have.
Here's another comment from Huckabee, comparing abortion to the holocaust:
Speaking before a gathering of Christian conservative voters, GOP presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee said legalized abortion in the United States was a holocaust.
"Sometimes we talk about why we're importing so many people in our workforce," the former Arkansas governor said. "It might be for the last 35 years, we have aborted more than a million people who would have been in our workforce had we not had the holocaust of liberalized abortion under a flawed Supreme Court ruling in 1973."
Now, if you actually believe Huckabee feels abortion rights are comparable to the holocaust, but at the same time wouldn't consider abortion a "crime," then you're even dumber than I think you are already...and that would be a stretch.
If you want to vote for him...that's your prerogrative, but personally, I'd rather have a President who believes in evolution and a woman's right to choose.
former law student said..."Vote for the nominee the one you really want, not the one you think you should want."
Right on.
ballsniffer:
Fox News Sunday:
Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee rejects letting states decide whether to allow abortions, claiming the right to life is a moral issue not subject to multiple interpretations.
"It's the logic of the Civil War," Huckabee said Sunday, comparing abortion rights to slavery. "If morality is the point here, and if it's right or wrong, not just a political question, then you can't have 50 different versions of what's right and what's wrong."
"For those of us for whom this is a moral question, you can't simply have 50 different versions of what's right."
Inwood: "Hmmmmmmmm, are we looking for a reason to justify our inevitable robotic vote for Hillary, Prof A?"
Not at all. I have no current plan for who to vote for. I'm a little discomfited by the choice available. I'm just getting used to the reality that the next President will be one of these characters. If I could wave my magic wand and make one of the President, I wouldn't do it. I don't trust myself. If I was forced to choose among the current candidates, however, I would not choose Hillary.
Lucy,
Huckabee has strong moral convictions, unlike you, but I doubt he's fool enough to directly say, "I want to make abortion a crime."
I doubt Hillary would say, "I want to cut Bill's pecker off," but she has probably thought it a number of times.
When you started your Huckabee comments with abortion and evolution references it was obvious you just wanted to spew some of your verbal vomit again. Do you really believe Althouse readers are surprised Huckabee believes in evolution and is anti-abortion?
What a hoot!
Lawgiver: Oh, I don't know. I think at least a few of them, a few days ago, were at least a little surprised (myself excluded) by Huckabee's stance on federalism, when it comes right down to it, so to speak.
Maybe Googling isn't such a bad suggestion--even when it comes from LOS.
BALL SNIFFER,
Once again, since you evidently can't read...does this sound like someone who doesn't think abortion should be a crime?
FROM FOX NEWS SUNDAY:
Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee rejects letting states decide whether to allow abortions, claiming the right to life is a moral issue not subject to multiple interpretations.
"It's the logic of the Civil War," Huckabee said Sunday, comparing abortion rights to slavery. "If morality is the point here, and if it's right or wrong, not just a political question, then you can't have 50 different versions of what's right and what's wrong."
"For those of us for whom this is a moral question, you can't simply have 50 different versions of what's right."
OR
Speaking before a gathering of Christian conservative voters, GOP presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee said legalized abortion in the United States was a holocaust.
"Sometimes we talk about why we're importing so many people in our workforce," the former Arkansas governor said. "It might be for the last 35 years, we have aborted more than a million people who would have been in our workforce had we not had the holocaust of liberalized abortion under a flawed Supreme Court ruling in 1973."
BALL SNIFFER,
The point is not whether "...Althouse readers are surprised Huckabee believes in evolution and is anti-abortion..."
But whether they would actually vote for someone who doesn't believe in evolution (science)....and also compares abortion to the holocaust (a woman's choice versus the gassing of Jews)...and...regarding abortion, doesn't feel it should be left up to the states.
This at least implies he would want a national standard of behavior...and I can't imagine how one would govern such behavior with establishing legal guidelines...thus...making it a "crime" of some sort.
reader_iam said..."Maybe Googling isn't such a bad suggestion--even when it comes from LOS."
And just when our relationship was gaining speed.
GO MIZZOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I should think that from your point of departure, LOS, my comment would indeed speed the relationship.
Sheesh. There's no pleasing a single immortal [inimitable] soul [sole]--whatever--around here. What's an old girl to do?
The point is not whether "...Althouse readers are surprised Huckabee believes in evolution and is anti-abortion..."
But whether they would actually vote for someone who doesn't believe in evolution (science).
That is so much bullshit. You KNOW there are readers here that don't believe in evolution and are anti-abortion. You post crap like that just to needle them.
What a pinhead.
BTW, unprompted by LOS or anyone else, I posted a link to Huckabee's Sunday statement shortly afterward, on Sunday, in a comments thread here at Althouse.
All by my lonesome, I caught it. Fancy that. And I posted it in non-gotcha fashion, as a point of interest and for consideration, as an information point for another regular commenter here. LOL: I'm an ass much more often than I' a sheep. I've got that going for me, anyway. And thank God.
; )
Lucky: you are like the mobileKOS, I love it!
The characters on this forum make for wonderful entertainment because when opinionated type A's stand around a pool of acid and play tug of war, something interesting is bound to happen.
BALL SNIFFER says: "You KNOW there are readers here that don't believe in evolution and are anti-abortion."
Being anti-abortion is one thing, criminalizing it is another case entirely, but you wouldn't understand.
Soooooooooo, no evolution, huh?
And the dumb...just kep getting dumber.
fred,
I don't visit nor read KOS.
My opinions are based on reading books, newspapers and periodicals.
Maybe you should give it shot.
Mizzou is kicking ass.
Nah, I don't read. I can barely put my shoes on in the morning, thanks for the advice though, carry on.
Fred said..."Nah, I don't read...."
Neither do about 90% here.
That's why you're all such good buddies.
Just keep up your dues in the Bush Suckfest and you'll be okay.
Lucky: *smooooooooooooch*
Fred,
See Titus.
Mizzou wins!!!
Mizzou wins!!!
Mizzou wins!!!
Mizzou wins!!!
Mizzou wins!!!
Mizzou wins!!!
Mizzou wins!!!
Mizzou wins!!!
Mizzou wins!!!
Mizzou wins!!!
Mizzou wins!!!
Lucy says,
And the dumb...just kep getting dumber.
What a hoot!
Lucy: My opinions are based on reading books, newspapers and periodicals.
Hah. Sure, thats why 90% of your posts are content-free personal attacks. And the other 10% are mere cut-n-paste to derail any thread you're uncomfortable with.
This whole thread is content free.
Not that I'm whining about that. I hate it when people whine that someone else isn't providing content.
But there still may be value. For instance, considering Giuliani... do we need careful study or can we tell a whole lot simply from the sorts of anti-Giuliani statements posted? The tone, content or lack of,... same with Huckabee. How is this about Huckabee? Who is Huckabee?
Why would we rather talk about Huckabee than Giuliani? Is the simple shift of subject *itself* relevant?
Chuck Norris endorsed Huckabee.
What this means is that I now know two important things about Huckabee. He has a sense of humor *and* LOS really gets his panties in a twist over Huckabee.
It seems that LOS actually gets tighter twisted panties over Huckabee than Giuliani. Hm...
I've always liked Giuliani and still do (not having been swayed by the "insightful" commentary negative to Giuliani's person) but maybe I should consider this Huckabee fellow.
He seems to be annoying the right people.
(Oh... to whomever up there... "the lesser of two evils" is another way to say "the best is the enemy of the good." Voting for the person I think is best is stupid if doing so means that I help to defeat someone who I think is good and enable the victory of someone I feel would be worse.)
This whole thread is content free.
Maybe so. Or maybe you should look more closely, Synova.
Voting for the person I think is best is stupid if doing so means that I help to defeat someone who I think is good and enable the victory of someone I feel would be worse.
You have no idea how much that resonates. None. It does.
My problem is that, at the same time, it makes me think of, growing up, my parents arguing about voting--and specifically my father insisting that not to vote as a bloc is to cancel each other out. My husband, when he was my boyfriend (already at the time, in my mind most certainly my future husband, though I don't know whether, at that time, he thought, much less knew, that I was his future wife), tried that one on me exactly once.
To which I said, basically (actually, this is close to a quote): "How 'bout we count my vote in relation to some unknown whomever, God knows where or why, just floatin' out there somewhere, who's crazy enough to think that voting, that itty-bitty little thing, belongs to a person and not a bloc?"
Eh. Meh. Not so coherent or compelling a comment--nor posted as a smart-ass or as an attempt to be funny.
Just my reaction, raw and there.
And there it is.
Synova,
I've never mentioned Chuck Norris and could care less if Mike Tyson wants to endorse Huckabee.
My comments relate to a man, running for President, who does not believe in evolution.
I find that absolutely ridiculous.
Synova says: "It seems that LOS actually gets tighter twisted panties over Huckabee than Giuliani. Hm..."
Maybe if you were to actually read my comments before...commenting?
Luckyoldson at 12:22PM:
"Rudy's an immoral creep and time will prove this to be the case.
Most of the people here would vote for literally anybody to avoid Hillary (or any of the Democrats for that matter) being elected.
It's interesting that, for a man who many here revere as the savior of New York, he sure has a lot of people who worked with him that feel he's nothing more than a disingenuous self promoting liar.
If he's nominated, the face to face debates will reveal him to be an empty bag of wind."
"And it’s not like some of Rudy’s appointees were found to have made $100,000 on a $100 investment via a ‘phone call."
Chump change. A piker compared to Bernie.
Post a Comment