Everyone likes to point out how Guliani fixed crime. He does deserve a ton of credit for that. But the guy basically didn't give a sh*t about other people's concerns. He didn't care about the concerns of the black community, whether or not they were valid. He was pretty dismissive.

I seriously lol'd.

 

By black community what are you referring to and what concerns of theirs should he have looked at/'considered'?

 

Like providing care and well-being to people like my grandmother who is a crack addict and had 9 kids with three different fathers? Who believes that the white man is evil and is trying to force some sort of monetary slavery on blacks?

 

Yeah, I do think tax dollars should be just funnelled to their 'concerns'.

Everyone likes to point out how Guliani fixed crime. He does deserve a ton of credit for that. But the guy basically didn't give a sh*t about other people's concerns. He didn't care about the concerns of the black community, whether or not they were valid. He was pretty dismissive.

I seriously lol'd.

 

By black community what are you referring to and what concerns of theirs should he have looked at/'considered'?

 

Like providing care and well-being to people like my grandmother who is a crack addict and had 9 kids with three different fathers? Who believes that the white man is evil and is trying to force some sort of monetary slavery on blacks?

 

Yeah, I do think tax dollars should be just funnelled to their 'concerns'.

 

First, I was referring to their concerns about how his crime reduction initiatives were being implimented. There were major concerns about rampant violations of civil liberties, police brutality, and questionable tactics. Of course most of that was dismissed as the black community just bitching. But there were incidents that happend and Guliani just dismissed them as isolated. Abner Louima and Amadou Diallo are two definite instances.

 

My point also was that he gets the credit for it, but he also has to take the negatives with it, right? It didn't have zero concerns.

 

It's also funny how Guliani gets credit for all the reduction of crime, but Bill Bratton gets no credit for being the architect and implenter of the approach.

 

But all of this aside, I do think he should get major points for the reduction of crime.

 

The biggest point is why does a person with such questionable and enormous marital issues, in addition to issues of influence peddling and questionable clients via his security firm, get a free pass, but people wanted to move away from the scandals of the Clinton years?

Fair enough. As for the Bill Bratton reference you know that people under the administrator don't get the credit they deserve for their accomplishments and history gives umbrella credit to the administrator, in this case - Giuliani. Bratton was the guy on the 'streets' doing it, but Giuliani's policies and direction were just as prevelant.

 

You won't get disagreements from me on your last line. I've had a hard time placing all the love for Giuliani on a national scale and as a potential presidential candidate. The Clinton analogy is a poor one thoug considering the circumstances of it and the fallout along with all the other allegations (factual or not) that surfaced as well.

 

Personally, moral values are at the low end of my personal totem pole when I consider a candidate I'd like to vote for.

 

Instead of people dissecting what Giuliani did or did not do (no one addressed my claim of what Giuliani did for the obscene welfare dependency in the city but I'm moving on) can people tell me what Bloomberg did do in office that would make him a good candidate for the highest office in this country?

 

F_M's post is a good one as to why he likes Bloomberg, but its pretty general and more of a personality profile than accomplishments.