Yesterday's chat conversation with Lederuvdapac prompted this topic...

Rudy Giuliani enjoys a tremendous popularity in GOP; some say that his appeal goes beyond that.
It's no secret that before September 11th Giuliani was sinking in the polls. Most would agree that his popularity skyrocketed after September 11th attacks.
Some now go as far as calling him a "hero" and "America's mayor".

The question for debate:

Do you think that on September 11th Giuliani performed well beyond and above of what was expected of him?
Do you think that we ought to call somebody a hero for just doing his/her job?

My own feelings on that are as follows: Giuliani indeed demonstrated quick and efficient decision-making. However, did he do anything other than his job would require him to do? I feel that we sometime tend to dilute the word "hero". Virtually every police officer killed in the line of duty is a hero. Every firefighter is a hero. Every slain soldier is a hero. I heard people calling all our troops abroad heroes en masse because they protect America.
Well, isn't it their job? Since when we tend to call somebody a hero for doing the job well?
Is a mayor of Jerusalem a hero? He has to deal with suicide bombings basically every week. Is President Putin of Russia a hero? They had three terrorist attacks in 8 days.
I don't think so. They're doing a job they were elected to do. Same applies to Giuliani. Yes he did his job well. The truth is that Dinkins or Bloomberg would probably do the job just as well in those extraordinary circumstances. Would any mayor in those circumstances hide under the desk and refuse to visit the site of the attack, like Giuliani did?

I think that Guiliani is a wolf in sheep's clothing. His policies consisted of exporing New York's problems to the surrounding counties all the while saying all the nice things about his city. What changed after September 11th? Nothing really. He played the the populace like a drum-set without facing the harsh questions like why Emergency Workers in the buildings couldn't hear the evacuation orders over their faulty equipment, or why he didn't challenge the EPA's assesment of NY's air quality when everone had their doubts.

The fact is that he has always struck me as a purely political animal; and he played the game pretty well, but he was a shell of a mayor after the twin Towers came down.

Should we call him a hero? No. I reserve that word for the very special. The people who go above and beyond to contribute something wonderful and noble for others. Guiliani, even if you argue he did his job masterfully, never sacrificed anything.

How...expected.

Again, if you claim that Mayor Giuliani just did his job...then someone else can make the same claim for the police and firefighters and emergency response people who lost their lives on that same day.

Furthermore, Rudy Giuliani was the mayor of New York City. Not Boston, not San Fransisco, not Miami...exc... He was not there to console the entire country and every single human being. He was there for New Yorkers and i am afraid only New Yorkers would be able to understand it. Most people have no knowledge of Giuliani except for that one event. So how can anyone make a rational decision?

It is in my opinion, everyone acted above and beyond the call of duty on that day. Giuliani headed the rescue effort, staying with the rescue teams coordinated the search as they went through the wreckage hoping that just one soul would make it out alive.

Bottom Line: Of course to anyone who is not from New York or was not in New York when the towers fell would not understand the leaderhsip put forth by Giuliani in that time. There is a reason that he has become popular and deemed "America's Mayor". A reason you obviously cannot or do not want to see. He stood strong and led this city through its most disasterous days. Whether or not you agree with it is insignificant because he is what he is and he is popular and most lilkely a front-runner for the '08 Republican nomination.

Lederuvdapac, first of all I live fairly close to New York (close enough to use Metro-North and go to the Lincoln Center or the MET after work) so while I can not be considered a "New Yorker" per se, I know New York politics and follow New York news. I know very well what Giuliani did during his tenure.



But you just proved my point that if it was Mo Green, or Bloomberg, or Dinkins, they "would be there" as well (Where else would they be?), so the fact that it happened to be Giuliani - does it make him a hero?



But it is THEIR JOB, they were not volunteers, they are paid by the government to do it. And while we can commend them for choosing this dangerous and underappreciated line of work, we can not call them heros for doing what they elected to do.
When you sign up to be a police officer or a firefighter you realize that one day you might be killed in the line of duty. One can sure hope that it will never happen, but it's a reality and one of the dangers of a job.
Firefighters and police officers on 9/11 did a great job, and so did the emergency workers. That is what they were trained to do. The moment came, and they didn't falter. Can we call them heroes for not faltering?

Leder, do you realize that if the military acted according to your logic, then EVERY SINGLE PERSON in combat who did not throw down his rifle and run would be eligible for the Medal of Honor?

Though I live in North New Jersey now (about 15 minutes from NYC), I did grow up in Brooklyn, and did spend most of my life there, including the reign of Rudy Mussolini....Benito Giuliani....whatever. So I do know what I am talking about.

The man did nothing heroic on 9/11. Period. The most he can be given credit for is doing his job. Your argument seems to rest on two points: 1) If the firefighters are heroes, why can't he be one? 2) He was out there running just like EVERY OTHER PERSON (who for some reason aren't heroes). If you feel that the man is a hero please explain your reasoning behind it. Other people are irrelevant in this case, so please explain how THIS MAN is a hero.

I just want a clear answer on this English Horn. So are you saying the fire fighters and emergency workers who rushed into the twin towers to save lives are not heros?

Is this just an attempt to bring down Giuliani because he had such a powerful speech the other night? I do not live in New York or have any relatives there, all I can comment is what I saw in the news. From what it looked like Giuliani went above and beyond.. He was there for his city and the people of New York love him for it.

As for the calling somebody a hero for doing their job..

If you stand by the position that somebody is not a hero for doing their job then you have to also say that there is no such thing as a war hero, because they were just doing their job.

I have a story for you. In the small town where I come from there was a local police officer who had two children and a loving wife. He was on his patrol when he noticed a crowd of people watching 3 young boys who's boat had capsized in a small lake, they were struggling and the water was cold. The office jumped in and saved one of the boys as other just looked on. He went back out to save the other two boys, but sadly he drown and so did they. You know what was amazing about that story.. All three of those boys could swim, but that officer could not...

Was he not a hero for just 'doing his job'?

And UJ, his name is spelled: Giuliani

I would suggest you can certainly call the ones who died or were injured heroes - death is not on anyone's job description. Equally "hero" is a useful descriptor for the men and women in the emergency services who came into work on 9-11 and immediately afterwards even though they were off duty or on vacation.

I think that a phrase we use for genuine military heroes - the ones we give medals to - is useful here: "above & beyond the call of duty".

Most, if not all, emergency service workers performed above & beyond the call of their duty on that awful day. I think you're onto a loser with this part of your argument, EH.

However, I'm not sure what, specifically, the duties of a city mayor in New York are, but they must surely include "leadership". Since I didn't see Giuliani doing anything in particular that didn't involve leadership - doing something more than that which a reasonable person would not have expected him to do - I'm not so sure he can be described in the same terms.

He may certainly have been brave, in taking diffucult or unpopular decisions. He may also have been a role model to aspirant politicians. But my sense of the true meaning of the word "hero" (as opposed to the daily hyperbole of applying it to sports or movie stars) doesn't really fit anything any living modern politician can do in modern politics.

Do you think that on September 11th Giuliani performed well beyond and above of what was expected of him?
Do you think that we ought to call somebody a hero for just doing his/her job?

No, I think the people would have rallied around their leader (see Sharpton's comment below), even if he was moderately competent. I certainly don't consider Giuliani a "hero". The firefighters and police officers were the heros. Rudy was the administrator, who admittedly stepped up to the plate during a difficult time for the city - but hero? Uh-uh.

People seem to conveniently forget that Rudy Giuliani was loathed by many New Yorkers (and beyond). He was arrogant, abrasive, and made many unpopular decisions. He, like Bush, enjoyed a good record-scrubbing by the events of 9/11.

The incident I remember best, which resulting in my writing a letter to the editor of my local paper for the first time, was when he cut funding to the Brooklyn Museum because a piece of work there that “offended him.” As I recall, it was a depiction of the Madonna made with elephant dung. OK, so maybe it wasn’t good art, but he got into a religious outrage about it, and decided to foist his moral/religious compass on the rest of the state/country by creating a “decency council” to expunge “anti-Catholic” art.

And as for race relations? Whoo, fuhgeddaboudit. An overwhelming majority of black New Yorkers DESPISED Rudy Giuliani. If it hadn’t been for 9/11, he never would have achieved the near-sainthood he enjoys today.

Y’gotta love the title of this article about Rudy’s mayoral record: Lower Crime, Higher Rents, Dancing Ban

Rudy even trashed the “Boss” in 2000 regarding the Diallo case:

Rudy’s record as mayor is much like Bush’s presidency – all hat and no cattle (what would be the NY equivalent?...all cream cheese and no bagel? ). And he’s just about as sensitive, too, as this remark after he won reelection in 1997 shows. (Oh, and let’s not forget his dirty little secret a la Clinton/Monica, either.)

Sharpton had the best one-liners when commenting on the "strong leadership" of Giuliani after 9/11, and when Rudy, buoyed by the adulation after 9/11, pushed to do away with term limits so he could run again:

Rudy and George, the New Yorker and the faux-Texan, are two peas in a pod. They each believe “you’re either for us or agin us”. Neither of them are particularly admirable; they just reaped the benefits of being in the right place (as horrible as that sounds) at the right time.

Those emergency workers who came to work while off-duty certainly were. Those firefighters and police officers who went up the stairs in the burning building knowing that the building may collapse anytime certainly were. A guy who worked in the North Tower, got out, and then went back THREE TIMES to help people to get out is absolutely a hero in my eyes. These people went far beyond what their duty would call for, and some of them made an ultimate sacrifice for that. However, not every emergency vehicle driver who happened to work his shift on the morning of September 11th is a hero. Not every member of NYPD who happened to be on duty on this fateful day is a hero.
In your example the officer could have called for backup or could have tried to save boys without endangering his own life. He went far beyond what his duty called for, and therefore he is a hero.

Now, what did Giuliani did that WASN'T expected of him?

1) No. I think Giuliani performed commendably well under pressure, and provided a reassuring figure for New Yorkers to look to during 9/11, but I don't see where this rises above the performance criteria expected of any major elected official at a crisis point.

2) Nope. I think the word "hero" like the word "genius" is greatly overused in the modern lexicon.

Incidentally, I'm not saying this for partisan reasons. I understand why a lot of people like Giuliani - He has an unpolished gruffness to his manner that seemed especially unguarded and human during 9/11. But I still wouldn't call him a hero.

Do you think that on September 11th Giuliani performed well beyond and above of what was expected of him?
Do you think that we ought to call somebody a hero for just doing his/her job?


'Hero' is a vastly overutilized word in our society....I think English Horn is a hero for calling this to our attention

Vincent Bugliosi uttered a similar sentiment in one of his books, but he was talking about incompetence being rampant. It is so rampant in our society that we are usually very impressed when we run into someone who is actually doing their job successfully (how many times a day do you ponder the sheer idiocy of something you see?). Guiliani's 'hero' status is due in part to this very sentiment, in confluence with our desire to see hero's everywhere we look. It's a way to get us to feel better about something--wasn't it in Grenada that more Medals of Honor were awarded than in all of WWII? Whenever we're in a situation that having a hero would help--we seem all to glad to anoint someone.

Power is like beauty - it's all in the eye of the beholder. I found the speech fairly offensive, but hey! It's me, with my decadent European roots. One of the first things I said is that I like the way Rudy Giuliani performed on September 11th and during weeks to follow. I can go even further and say that among things that he did during his tenure some were beneficial for the city of New York. See? I approve his performance. It's just not a reason to call him "America's mayor" or a "hero".

His popularity is based solely on the events of Sept.11, because he can't be criticized for anything he did that day. Rightfully so, his actions were superb, competent and authoritative - basically what they should have been in a time of crisis. In other words, he did his job, earned his paycheck. His popularity will quickly fade when his track record as mayor is scrutinized. Daffygrl points out the "art" episode, this might endure him to the GOP even more, for his willingness to abuse his power to forward his own personal philosophies and beliefs. However, his marital infidelity, his religion (roman catholic I believe), and his battle to stiff his ex-wife on child support make him a very large, very public, black eye to the "family values" party.



Guiliani was widely unpopular, he is, and was the type of person, to force his beliefs upon others, something that will further endear him to the GOP, but still not enough to hold up to the scrutinization of his personal life. Many positive accomplishments for NYC were at Guiliani helm, cleaning up times square, lower crime rates (although I think the re-defining of "crime" and the lack of many precents to take reports for crimes helped play a hand that one). Guiliani was the best D.A. NY has had since before I was born. It was the perfect job for him, he would make a fantastic representative for NY in D.C. The flip side to the coin would be that in exchange for his tenacity as a representative, we would have to be prepared for him imposing his personal beliefs and will upon us as a function of his legislative authority. Personally, I wouldn't want him in D.C. just for that reason alone.

The question for debate:

Do you think that on September 11th Giuliani performed well beyond and above of what was expected of him?

NO, he performed superbly, but just because he can not be faulted does not mean he went above and beyond in any way. This may stem from a public expectation of our politicians to make bad calls and be indecisive in a time of crisis. By not doing so he may have exceeded expectations, but heroic is a whole different ballgame.

Do you think that we ought to call somebody a hero for just doing his/her job?

NO, with a condition. That condition being that the person who takes the job knows full well that reasonable and prudent precautions are not being made to safeguard him in workplace. FOR EXAMPLE, those guys who had to fill in the reactor at Chernobyl with concrete, who knew that they were going to die of radiation sickness because the protective gear wasn't up to the job, or just wasn't.

A fire fighter who goes into a burning building to rescue someone without equipment is a hero, one who is reasonably assured of his safety by way of his equipment, assessment of the situation and other precautionary and redundant safety measures is doing the job of his choice, with acceptable risk. An auto mechanic who works under a car on a lift is at risk also, but do we call him a hero for getting under a 3000+lbs object suspended above him - NO.



I haven't seen any proof of him doing anything "other" in an above and beyond sense, anyone have some, I'd be willing to consider it.



I agree.



Maybe not Dinkins, at 9:00 am he was usually out on the tennis court.



I would hope not.


P.S. born and raised in the Bronx and Brooklyn.

In the terrible shock and disbelief aftyer the events of 9/11 there was a vacuum of leadership. Everyone understandably was horrified by the reality of what had just happened. In a scene of horror that we have become immune to by the advanced state of our media forms now made so very inconceivably real.
Americans- and more centrally New Yorkers-- were in a daze and responded to a figure of authority. Guliani stepped into the scene--and as a recognized leader--whether you like his politics is irrelevant. Leadership was needed and there was none coming from anywhere else.
So people latched on like he was a life preserver to a drowning man.
Guliani has presence. He is obviously well known in NYC and actually recognizable to the rest of America.
He gave the sense of things would be done, he expressed the pain and fear most Americans felt and he offered a sense of we would get through this and things would be made right. More importantly you could see the same horror in his eyes that we felt. Yet he was getting things done.
Did Guli do as we hope we would do in such a situation? Yes. He stepped up and took onto his shoulders a responsibility to lead and hopefully offer comfort that we all desire in our leaders and ourselves.
Is he a hero? That is up to you and how you view the world and people and humanity.
I didn't always like guli's politics but have always liked Guli's style.
A hero--no, but he did act in an admirable fashion.

Do you think that on September 11th Giuliani performed well beyond and above of what was expected of him?

Absolutely. Without a doubt he maintained 100% grace under fire and went far beyond his duties as mayor. What was most notable was his hands on approach. Of course any good leader would be down at ground zero, and he was. But what is different was that Giulianni was right there in the middle of the mess offering hope and help.

Doesn't anyone here think that as mayor his role should have been so much more relaxed? Usually in a situation such as a natural disaster or a major crime (like the BofA shoot out in North Hollywood) you would see the mayor on the scene for a couple hours and then you would see the attention turn to the President and the Governor.

Giuliani was a force during 9/11 and a source of comfort, just like President Bush. He overshadowed everyone but the President himself. On another note Giuliani was in a good position to do so because pre 9/11 he was so popular. Now I'm not from New York but I listen to Howard Stern from time to time and from listening to that show and reading New York news sources we all now just how great a job he had done as Mayor, pre 9/11 and how popular he was.

Do you think that we ought to call somebody a hero for just doing his/her job?
Yes, some people you do. Are firemen and policemen not hero's just for doing their jobs?

I would not call a Mayor a hero for instance. But For Giuliani I'll make the exception. As Hero's should be, Giuliani was the exception. He went above and beyond the call of duty. He acted with bravery and courage and it came to him instinctively. He gave spirit and heart and courage to a disillusioned city that was in panic and chaos awaiting the next enormous disaster that for all anyone knew was minutes away without warning.

If you won't call him a hero, I will.

Rudy Giuliani, you are a HERO!



Edited to add

ChargedDust,

I defy you! Anyone who runs into a burning building, even with a fire retardent coat is still a hero! Especially anyone brave enough to strap on an oxygen tank to their back while doing so.

And how exactly these two statement are different? Like you said, ANY good leader (except for our current President of course) would be there at Ground Zero. Giuliani was.
You may feel that the President was offering "hope and comfort", but you would be in a sound minority here. President was totally AWOL (unlike Giuliani) on the day of the attack, and when he finally appeared he looked dazed and confuzed.

As for Giuliani's popularity pre 9/11 - do some research man. This was just when he chose to inform his wife about his divorce by means of a press-conference. This was right after Amadou Diallo and Patrick Dorismond. This was soon after he was booed in Metropolitan Opera after his fiasco with Brooklyn Museum of Arts (an incident DaffyGrl referred to). No, he was not popular among New Yorkers in the months leading to 9/11.



It's sad that's your standard for heroism is so low. By your definition every soldier, every fireman, every policeman around the world is a hero. What an army of heroes!

Yea, guess who he wasnt popular with? Criminals and mob bosses. I do not need to do research...i know. Giuliani cleaned up NYC and made it a place people wanted to live and work and visit. The crime rate in NYC is the envy of many cities in America. It isnt because of Bloomberg but Giuliani's polcies.

Maybe Giuliani wasnt a hero...but he was a leader. He was the person New Yorkers relied on and he was there. Sometimes just being there is enough.

Listen as i said before, he is "America's Mayor" and it is irrelevant whether or not you agree with that. His speech at the RNC solidifies his place in the Repub Elite and he is definately a front-runner for the '08 nomination. Basically it does not matter how he got popular, but rather that he is.

I would call it a bit of a stretch since you just put a whole bunch of posters here on AD into the category of criminals and mob bosses

Guess what, the crime in Germany in 1930s was almost non-existent.
Listen, if he's a leading GOP man in 2008 - good for him! I definitely have much more respect for him than for the Bush/Cheney team. He has some qualities of a leader and is an intelligent man. I still wouldn't call him a hero though...

Well my friend there is a very simple remedy for that...don't. Nobody has asked you to call him a hero, it hasnt been thrown in your face. He is what he is and i am proud of him.

It's really hard to debate you when you just throw out snide comments sbout George W. Bush. You and I might have totally different opinions about Sept. 12 and where George W. Bush was on the 11th, but that's for another thread. President Bush did a fantastic job from the second that whisper went into his ear (maintaining composer) until this second now (maintaining a resolute attitude on terror and not flip flopping), and we can debate that on another thread if you so choose.



I already did. Rudy Giuliani was loved and adhored by New Yorkers pre- 9/11, for his work as DA and for his work as Mayor. He cleaned up the streets and made New York more beautiful and safer than ever. He had an on going relationship problem with his wife that everybody in New York was aware of way before that announcement, his wife included. But unlike people like Bill Clinton, his personal relationship with his wife wasn't an indicator as to what kind of a manipulative liar he is in his career as well. He also wasn't a serial sex harasser.

Don't discredit this man's leadership and heroism because he's a Republican. It's just not right to do things like that.

I never said anything about anyone's bravery.

ChargedDust,

I didn't say you did. I interjected that word in refernce to your comment that Firemen who were not heros. A mechanic standing under a car is just that. Fixing a car. A firefighter puts his life on the line for yours. He rushes toward that which others are fleeing. That's another defining quality of a hero. Bravery.

lederuvdapac


Sleeper


Hobbes


christopher


johnlocke


lederuvdapac



I see a distinct line of thought here, that no actions need be pointed to other than his presence. The argument that any other good mayor would have been there also just shows the lack of legitimacy with regard to any specific action he took that day. Earlier there were some specific examples given: rescuing the drowning children. I'd call that guy a hero - why: that officer KNOWINGLY took an otherwise unacceptable risk to save someone else. He didn't know how to swim, the possibility of hypothermia, the additional risk of trying to save more than one person, the lack of the proper rescue equipment. Those are the factors I consider in determining that man worthy of being legitimately called a hero.

With regard to fire fighters specifically, no ranking fire commander would, or should order his forces into a situation of unacceptable risk, not to say that there is no risk in being a fire fighter. In fact a good fire commander would order his forces to pull out if he deems the risk to their lives (by entering into, or remaining in, a certain situation) too hazardous. A fire fighter who goes in anyway against the orders to the contrary, aside form being insubordinate, may indeed be worthy of being deemed a hero. Why: again, the same reasons, the situation was deemed to be beyond the ability of the equipment to keep him safe in the given situation.


Those fleeing do not have equipment to increase the chances of them being safe in that situation, a fire fighter does.


He is clearly in a dangerous situation, most likely mortally dangerous, why does he do it? Because he is counting on the safety equipment (the lift and it's redundant fail safe mechanism). Like wise, a properly equipped fire fighter in a burning structure is doing just that - fighting a fire.

If the inherent risk of an occupation alone without the use of protective equipment is the determining factor for designation of the term hero, then let me start by nominating myself.....

I work for the local commuter rail, the trains run on 750 volts DC at amperage levels well beyond that which would power an entire city block - does that make me a hero for the risk I face everyday so that commuter can get to work everyday? I don't think so. Why because I have been schooled in proper safety precautions for the environment, and provided proper saftey equipment, just as the fire fighter has. Before that I worked for TWA as an aircraft technician, I could have been killed in any number of ways (sucked into a jet engine, or blown across the airport by one, a tire weakened from the force of landing could have exploded next to me, someone could have turned on the engine ignition system while I was changing one of the ignitor plugs (were talking Joules of energy here, not 45KVDC like on your car). Would anyone deem me a hero?

Since we're talking about dangers in the workplace, how about pilots, flight attendants, guys who clean up asbestos, people who work for power companies on live circuitry, or on gas mains, the guy who changes the bulb in the 40 ft. tall street light or the guy at the deli who risks his fingers very time he sliced you a pound of ham. The list can go on and on. Why are they not heros? I say it is because they use due caution and safety equipment for the given situation, I see no difference in the case of fire fighters.

Now back to Rudy, like I said before, I'm willing to consider any specific examples you'd like me to consider, but just being there doesn't count in my book, for the reasons I stated already. Being a figurehead, a source of inspiration, someone to look to, a comforting factor - that's all subjective. All in the mind of the observer, someone could just as easily find those same attributes in being with their dog, or their spouse, or other relative, their priest, their A.A. sponsor, a bottle of J.D., a chronic fatty-boombatty blunt, or having sex, at that particular instance. It is all in the mind of each individual.

The examples I've quoted above are more akin to hero worship, than heroism - IMO.

ChargedDust...who cares? It does not matter if another mayor would have handled the situation the same...Giuliani was the only mayor there that day and he was the one. It is insignificant how Giuliani got popular...he is what he is and he is popular.

I think people are bringing this up now only because Dems know Rudy delivered an incredible speech on Monday and know that he might get a Repub nomination in '08. So you want to start early at picking away at his credentials.

The topic up for debate here is "Do you think that we ought to call somebody a hero for just doing his/her job?" Your repeated claim that Giuliani is a popular politician, correct though it is, is not germane to this discussion. CD is addressing the topic at hand.



Either that, or they chafe at the notion that proximity to tragedy immediately confers heroic status upon a person, thereby denigrating that status for those who actually deserve it, i.e. rescue workers, firemen, and soldiers.

You're right Leder, Dems have a lot to learn in the subtle art of character assassination. I know, we're not allowed to challenge the credentials of someone who dare attack the other candidate using sound bytes (its done on this side too, we're just not very good at it).

From where I sit in Charlotte, Rudy was there for folks during 9/11. He did his job. He was an effective leader during that time, which is what folks expected him to do. English Horn posed an interesting and very relevant question as to whether Giuliani is deserving of the enshrinement in the political hall of fame that some folks seem willing to entertain. Doing so naturally requires that you view his actions during that time and ask what was extroardinary about it in comparison to what other mayors may have done. You may disagree with opinions on it but its a fair question regardless.

Barack Obama received similar treatment following his speech, only of differing caliber. The sane argument there was, "give him time, lets review this after a term or 2 in the senate" (which I subscribe to). Doing so based on one speech is just foolhardy either way.

Doc

Was he a hero?

Well, can you name me something specific that he did that wa heroic? I think this definition alone needs to be addressed- what, specifically, did he do, what specific action did he take, that was so heroic? Did he rush into a burning building? Save a baby? Tackle a looter? No? How about make some speeches and clap someone or somebody on the shoulder? Yes? Well, not exactly rising to the level of heroism, is it?

I hate to bring it to you John since you seem so sure that New Yorkers adored Rudy prior to 9/11, but here're a few snippets:

Fox News:



From BBC:



From The Nation:



Kerry is not really a hero since he only saved a man, and was wounded three times but not severely enough, but Rudy is a hero because "he was there for us"? "Ongoing relationship problem" is called "Adultery" and "Cheating on your spouse" in the real world John - that's how you would call it for Clinton, call it the same way for Rudy. I couldn't care less what he's doing in his personal life, but since Repubs made so much stink out of Clinton's escapades, why not do the same for Rudy?
Doclotus is right... Dems have a lot to learn from Karl Rove and Republicans...

you are right..."hero" must be somehow defined. I mean... if a soldier is out in combat and gets shot (or shoots himself ), he did not do anything heroic, he was doing his job and got shot...yet he gets a medal. The firemen and policeman who died on 9/11 were just doing there job. They followed orders handed down from their commanding officers and died doing them. If they ran away they would have been subject to being called a coward and other such things. They did their job just like they were trained to do.

I see them as heroes...but most people's subjective opinions do not. Who says that going above and beyond the call of duty is automatically a hero? How about a single mother who works two jobs but still makes time to sit with her kids and help with their homework? Is she not a hero? Sometimes being a hero is just always being there when you are needed.

You sidestepped the question- what particular act of heroism did Rudy do that made him a hero?

Jeez, this beatification of Giuliani is really kind of scary. Is starry-eyed worship unequivocal and unarguable? It sound like all the Giuliani worshipers are saying "I say he's a hero, so there, nyah nyah, nyah." If you hadn't noticed, this is a DEBATE forum - we don't HAVE to agree with you.

Gray Davis came to the San Fernando Valley after the Northridge earthquake - does that make HIM a hero too?!?!

First, i want to make it clear that nobody has ever contended that Giuliani was a "hero" in the same regards as those who lost their lives on 9/11. Being labeled "America's Mayor" has little to do with heroism and more to do with leadership.

Furthermore, I do indeed believe i answered your question. I thought that we should first define all the credentials that make a person a "hero". How am i supposed to know what i consider heroic are not heroic to you? I stated that just being there when his city needed him was good enough. So what if he was just doing his job and so what if he was in the right place at the right time? He was still the man. By your logic, what act has any President ever done that can be considered heroic and not just a part of the president's job? A president is supposed to be strong and unwavering for the people at all times. A president cannot go above and beyond the call of duty. He just does what he took an oath to do.

Don’t think I’d go as far as calling every cop and firefighter a hero, too many crooked cops and firefighters who never made it off the back of a truck. In my mind a hero is one who puts their life at risk for the sake of saving another.

I certainly don’t remember Rudy risking his life in any of his 9/11 duties.



Would agree here, but isn’t that his job?



Would disagree with you here, unless public speaking in NYC takes bravery and courage.

You're exactly right, and I have a hard time thinking about ANY leader - American, European, or Ancient Greek - that can truly be called a hero. We don't have Presidents - heroes, we have good presidents, average presidents, and really, really bad presidents.
I tell you who was a hero - King Christian X of Denmark, who not only stayed in Copenhagen during Nazi occupation of Denmark and did not go to exile like other Royal families from Scandinavia, but who ordered all citizens of Denmark to wear Star of David armbands, declaring, "I am my country's first Jew." This was a heroic act, which could have cost King his freedom or his life.
P.S. On closer look, the fact that I mentioned above is disputed by some as being a pure urban legend. So there're no exceptions to the rule that heroes are made out of common folk.

I agree with EH- Rudy was never in any personal danger- he just didn't make any major mistakes- which, as someone else pointed out in another post- seems to be extrodnary in this day in age in and of itself- but does not making any major mistakes make you a great leader? Well, it doesn't make you a bad leader, certainly, just average.

No, I don't consider any presidents heros with the exception of Lincoln and Washington, both of whom had to do extrodinary things far outside the scope of the presidency and duty. I don't even consider FDR or Teddy Roosevelt heroic, though they are a couple of my favorite presidents off all time, without either of them we would not be a super power or the country we are today.

As a Mayor of day to day business of New York, he was clearly very bad- I would not want him as mayor of our city either- I like a bit more pragmatism and a little less ideology on side issues in my city.

If you want to know who took a leadership role IMMEDIATELY after the 9-11 attack read William Langewiesche's article "American Ground: Unbuilding the World Trade Center" that was published in three parts in The Atlantic Monthly July 2002, September 2002, October 2002. It was then published as a book. It is the single best piece of literature/reporting on the WTC attacks. He was there with the few men who actually took the job of putting New York back together.

The real heroes of the post-attack response were two unknown and unspoken men named Ken Holden and Michael Burton who were the Commisioner and assistant of a little known public works department called The Department of Design and Construction.
They were usually the public works guys who we can't stand when in NYC. Digging up the sides of streets, putting scaffolding everywhere, and basically doing patchwork and repair all over the city.

Right after the attack there was chaos but, as Holden descrbes in the linked interview, none of the real authorities who should have been acting were able to do so (some were stationed in the WTC). Because he knew the construction people in the city and knew something had to be done Holden went to the site and began walk-throughs for safety checks, calling more engineers and contractors, and set up the entire rebuild.

They were managing the police, firemen and construction workers on the site. Setting the goals, making the decisions for safety and security etc...
You simply have to read the article to understand how these people from a public works department managed to control such an enormous task. Read the article if you want to know what "above and beyond the call of duty" means.


We have had MANY leaders in our history respond to times of trouble. As Hobbes pointed out eloquently, it is in our nature to find reasons to extoll their virtues, be they real or imagined. Guiliani DID make some great moves during that time and it is mentioned in the article. He shrunk the size of the disaster xone in order to allow New Yorkers to continue as close to a normal life as they could quickly. He also made efforts to allay the fears of people in the area in order to bring business back to the city. "America's Mayor"?? No way! Prior to the attack he was only a few steps from a public lynching a la Mussolini.
He did his job, made some good decisions and that's it. It's sad that the real people who took the bull by the horns in that tough time go unknown still to the vast majority of the American public.

Read the article and then come back and tell me about leadership and heroism.

Edited to add a quote from the Burton interview I posted:


Where did Rudy sleep?

Do you think that on September 11th Giuliani performed well beyond and above of what was expected of him?
Do you think that we ought to call somebody a hero for just doing his/her job?

IMO Mayor Giuliani performed well beyond and above of what was expected of him. To the loaded question, no I don't think someone should be called a hero just for doing his job. I found Mayor Giuliani to be an inspiration during the immediate aftermath of 9-11. He helped make the focus on the city that responded so well to that tragic attack. I think the fact that his political clout was at a low point at the time of the attack is actually evidence that he really impressed the American audience.

He had something in those days that appealed to me and I am pretty cynical about politicians.

I am not trying to get a Bush-bash jab in, but, in comparison, I found Bush's response to be more in the line of doing his job. Bush was moved and he was sincere, but I think the United States rallied around the office of the presidency and clung to Bush's public statements. I do not think his public response was exceptional and overly inspiring.

Giuliani, on the other hand really impressed me.

I am choosing at this time to personally hault debate on this topic as it seems that no one here can agree on a definition or heroism.

I have my definition and accordingly I believe that the work that Giuliani did on September 11 and in the following days (ie helping dig people outta would-be graves, giving speeches of hope to a fearful nation and carrying himself with the utmost of brave character) has made him a hero.

When we can focus on the debate and not get bogged down by the liberal rhetoric, I may choose to continue the debate.

Anyone who can't see that he went above and beyond the call of his duty is fooling him or herslef, but it is nice to know we have a forum here full of true hero's who would've been able to do the exact same thing if only they had been the Mayor of NYC.

But as I leave this forum I site these three acts of Giuliani's heroism to note that I do have in mind specific actions that he took that made him a hero

helping dig people outta would-be graves, giving speeches of hope to a fearful nation and carrying himself with the utmost of brave character

Johnlocke, I DID do something. I went down to an impromptu donor clinic and donated blood to NY City hospitals. What did you do?

As it stands though, you are in no position to "halt" the debate. You are free to leave it to those (both liberal and conservative) who wish to continue.

I think an integral part of being a "hero" is sacrifice; whether it is safety, wealth, well-being, whatever. Again, I see no evidence of that in Giuliani's actions. I do see a man who was more content to make speeches than to deal with the ACTUAL problems faced by people in NY which I discussed earlier.

Ultimate Joe,

I also donated blood that morning, but I can't figure out what that has to do with anything in this debate.

And for the record, I didn't hault the debate. I "personally hault"-ed debating as I said I would. As you state, that is .

I simply excused myself from debate while making known my lack of interest to debate word definitions with liberals, as many arguments in here become just that.

I suggest to you that is the case because few people define their terms when they debate.
Call me crazy, but something silly like "meaning" is important in a discussion of ideas.
Those crazy liberals!!!

Come on, that was an unfair assessment of liberals (not to mention being a massive generalization) If you join a debate about whether or not someone is a hero or an ideal mayor and NO ONE brings up the question about what those things mean then you are not debating, you are comiserating. It's too bad you see that as a bother because, in my opinion, it only lends credibility to the stereotype that moderates and liberals often have of conservatives: that they are closed-minded and overly righteous. (I'm well aware that liberals come across the same way, and tell them so as well)


I'm wondering, has anyone else read that story about the men who carried the burden of that disaster yet? I'd like for someone to agree or disagree with me on their heroism.