Grey Lady harshes on Giuliani

Today the editors of the New York Times endorsed Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination and McCain for the Republican nomination.

They also took the opportunity to discuss, at length, why they passed over hizzoner Rudy Giuliani.

Why not choose the man we endorsed for re-election in 1997 after a first term in which he showed that a dirty, dangerous, supposedly ungovernable city could become clean, safe and orderly? What about the man who stood fast on Sept. 11, when others, including President Bush, went AWOL?

That man is not running for president.

The real Mr. Giuliani, whom many New Yorkers came to know and mistrust, is a narrow, obsessively secretive, vindictive man who saw no need to limit police power. Racial polarization was as much a legacy of his tenure as the rebirth of Times Square.

Mr. Giuliani's arrogance and bad judgment are breathtaking. When he claims fiscal prudence, we remember how he ran through surpluses without a thought to the inevitable downturn and bequeathed huge deficits to his successor. He fired Police Commissioner William Bratton, the architect of the drop in crime, because he couldn't share the limelight. He later gave the job to Bernard Kerik, who has now been indicted on fraud and corruption charges.

The Rudolph Giuliani of 2008 first shamelessly turned the horror of 9/11 into a lucrative business, with a secret client list, then exploited his city's and the country's nightmare to promote his presidential campaign.

Ouch!

"The Treason Card", indeed

The Wall Street Journal, overall, is an excellent newspaper. But the editorial page, which is managed separately, can be, well, a little nutty at times. I had somehow missed this particular example of WSJ editorial nuttiness, as related by Paul Krugman in the NYT today ("The Treason Card"):

Does anyone remember the editorial that The Wall Street Journal published on Sept. 19, 2001? "So much for Florida," the editorial began, celebrating the way the terrorist attack had pushed aside concerns over the legitimacy of the Supreme Court decision that installed Mr. Bush in the White House. The Journal then warned Mr. Bush not to give in to the "temptation" to "subjugate everything else to the priority of getting bipartisan support for the war on terrorism." Instead, it urged him to use the "political capital" generated by the atrocity to push through tax cuts and right-wing judicial appointments.

Wait, what? They really published this? On Sept. 19, 2001? Guess I missed it because like most of America I was too busy comforting friends and relatives who lost loved ones at the WTC, tracking down my NYC friends, or simply dazed with the vicarious trauma.

Beyond the foulness of anyone openly considering taking political advantage of an event that claimed 3000 lives, not eight days after the fact, there is an added element of loathsomeness here because the WSJ is, in a way, the paper of record of lower Manhattan. I mean, the Wall Street Journal lost subscribership in that tragedy.

Where this same editorial board gets off accusing the New York Times of acting treasonously for breaking the bank data sifting story, I just don't know.