RUDY VERITAS

Remind Me Again, We Needed Bloomberg Why?

It's never a minor thing to overturn elections or upend standing constitutional amendments.  But that's just what the NYC Council and Mayor Bloomberg did in 2008.  The argument - at least from the Bloomberg angle - was that we needed this genius business executive to stay in office to steer us through the economic calamity (the City Council had no excuse other than to keep their jobs).  No other New Yorker could do that.  He was the only man among the 8 million who could do it. 

So he and the City Council overturned the twice voter approved City Charter amendment to limit the mayor to two terms.  The result?  New York City now has a far higher unemployment rate than national average - 10%.  New York State's rate, minus NYC, is far lower.  Over the last three years, the NYC unemployment rate has increased, even as the nation's has slowly dropped. Buffalo has a better employment climate than NYC.  Buffalo!!!

In nearly every recession since WWII, NYC has lead the nation in economic recovery, not lagged it.  Why is this time different?  Leadership, of course.  While the Mayor and his staff spend the majority of their time trying to stamp out smoking in China, New Yorkers suffer.  While the Mayor and his staff focus on his Foundation, New Yorkers cannot find work and the city loses jobs.  While the Mayor and his staff focus on Florida's gun laws, trans fats, sodium, bike lanes and smoking, New York's road and bridges crumble.  New York's tolls and subway fares increase.  His record on education - his top priority when first elected - is abysmal.  His pension giveaways to the City's unions in his first two terms will bankrupt the city for decades to come.  His dysfunctional and mediocre staff ignore and abet scandal after scandal, costing the city billions. 

It would be one thing to have perverted democracy for a competent leader.  But to have permitted the coup with this result and for this incompetent Bostonian, is just plain embarrassing.

 

Russell Harding

Do Virginia Pols Not Watch the News?

You might think that in the age of George Zimmerman and a national debate on the lengths communities should go to empower neighborhood watchmen, that elected officials would be wary of creating state-sanctioned bands of vigilantes.  But we've learned never to underestimate Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell's political tin ear. 

There is no man or woman who is more naked in his ambition to be named Mitt Romney's V.P. nominee.  So you'd think in the first instance that Gov. McDonnell's staff - with any eye beyond Richmond - would have advised him that supporting legislation that would mandate invasive ultrasounds for women seeking abortions might not play on the national stage - it didn't even play in Virginia.

Now, admittedly, there is no national, organized lobbying effort for sex offenders the way there is for abortion rights.  But Gov. McDonnell's latest proposal plays to a larger issue than sex offenders.  In fact, it's more than a proposal; it's contained in his passed budget and will be signed into law momentarily.  Gov. McDonnell has proposed to farm out the on-site residency check of sex offenders in Virginia. 

Under Virginia law, state troopers visit registered sex offenders twice a year to confirm their residency.  In order to free up troopers for more rigorous work, Gov. McDonnell proposes a new civilian group be tasked with that responsibility.  They will each be provided with a state vehicle, a clipboard, a two week training course and a salary of $27,000.  You know - and if you don't, I do - that this new job category will only attract a crusader class of person, out to avenge abused children.  While the job says they will not be armed, Virginia has some of the loosest gun laws in the nation and it's unclear if these new hires wouldn't be permitted to carry and conceal their personal weapon. 

Virginia troopers know what all local law enforcement officers across the nation know: these laws are useless, provide no protection to children and are a wasteful, pain in the ass for law enforcement.  Further, they know (see my post on Missouri's reformed sex offender registry) that most of these people have done nothing that should warrant their oversight by the state and that this is all a horrible waste of time and taxpayer money.  Will the average, yahoo citizen know that or will they think what most of the public thinks: that if you're on the registry you must be a dangerous, crazed, ravenous pedophile.  Imagine the average DMV bureaucrat visiting your house twice a year.  But instead of merely being rude and disinterested they actively and openly hated you. 

But here's what's so insulting intellectually about this.  The public, the states, the courts and especially the federal government tells the public that these sex offender registries are desperately needed to protect children.  And we, as Americans, suspend our natural and inherent mistrust of large government for the purported larger good of children's welfare.  We permit the most fundamental abridgment of civil liberties - the registration and lifetime monitoring of certain citizens - in the name of  this goal.  But then we hear privately, and increasingly publicly, that none of this has any effect and actually makes that goal harder to attain, not easier. 

It cannot be that if these people are so imminently dangerous to children that they will be better monitored by low-paid, poorly trained, recently unemployed civilians. No starker comparison could be made on this issue than that between Virginia and Missouri.  Both came to the same inescapable conclusion: these registries aren't working, detract from important work for law enforcement and are costly.  Missouri, however, took the rational approach to these facts and cut their registry by 40%.  Virginia, conversely, just dumbed down their enforcement and turned over a large portion of the enforcement to what will surely become an avenging band of vigilantes.

Imagine the deficit-ridden federal government proposing that in order to save money they were going to remove the trained correctional officers at the supermax prison in Florence, Colorado and replace them with Walmart workers.  You would think that either the public safety was being compromised or that these people must not be as dangerous as we're being told and don't deserve to be there.  You certainly wouldn't accept an argument from the Bureau of Prisons that the prison would be run with the same level of security.

But Virginia tells us these men are so dangerous that their residence, employment and movements must be monitored closely for the danger they pose but we'll monitor them with rent-a-cops.  Does anyone really think we're not going to see a Zimmerman-like incident once these people are hired and begin working?  As we all know, this is the last criminal justice issue that Democrats feel free to demagogue with impunity.  So you can imagine the TV ad the opportunistic Obama campaign could run against Romney on this issue with McDonnell as his running mate.  Certainly McDonnell's political advisors haven't.

Virginian-Pilot: Privatizing the SO Registry

{Thanks to Rudy Veritas reader George S. for bringing this story to my attention.}

 

Russell Harding

The Bin Laden Anniversary Hoopla

This is getting completely insane.  Both Romney and Obama are behaving badly and the analysis of these events on both sides is way off.

First, sure it's great that Osama Bin Laden is dead.  We all give credit to Obama when having been presented with credible, although not certain, intelligence that Bin Laden was in Abbottabad, he approved a mission to have him killed.  The only reason Obama is given so much credit is because of what happened on April 24, 1980.  Had Operation Eagle Claw (Desert 1) succeeded and Jimmy Carter not been thoroughly humiliated by the perception of a continuing inability to project American power, we wouldn't really know the risks Obama would have faced had the Bid Laden raid failed and therefore the credit he's received for making a tough decision not been so heaped.

Obama handled himself well the night of the announcement.  I thought the visit to the WTC was unnecessary pomp, however solemn.  But now we have this Obama campaign ad.  Contrary to the popular view from both the left and right, I think this ad and its repeated free media airings, will backfire.  He already has a reputation as a self-promoting guy with few accomplishments.  I think the American people will find this ad unseemly, even without the cheap shot at Romney.  However glad we all are he's dead, it's simply not in the American character to celebrate the anniversary of someone's death. We don't dance in the streets rejoicing at someone's death: that is something Muslim countries do, not us.  

Is April 30th an American holiday?  No foreigner's death meant more in American history than Adolf Hitler's.  But it was greeted at the time with sadness - for what he had put the world through - and intense relief.  But we didn't hold celebrations or remembrances in 1946 on that date and we never have since. 

This was, and is, all cheap political theatre.  Obama made a call to proceed, that's why he's the Commander in Chief.  FDR, Lincoln, Truman, et al. sent way more than two dozen men into perilous missions.  George H.W. Bush not only ordered 500,000 boys into war, he organized a nearly unprecedented diplomatic and military coalition.  That effort required monstrous skill and finesse.  And he lost!! 

I remember 1992.  Bush made ads touting the nation's victory in expelling Iraq from Kuwait.  But the credit was implied - a masterful job, guess who gets the credit?  His ads also focused on the troops, not himself.  He certainly questioned Clinton's foreign policy credentials.  He even hinted he was a commie pinko for dodging the draft and protesting the war.  But you never saw an ad that explicitly questioned whether Bill Clinton wouldn't have either the conviction or the ability to launch the first Gulf War.  The only proper place for that Obama ad, minus the Romney dig, is at the conventon this summer in Obama's bio piece before the delegates.

Obama makes this ad because this is really all he has.  No president with a real record of accomplishment would ever, ever produce an ad like that. And certainly not on the anniversary of someone's death.  I won't even mention the outrageous hypocrisy of Team Obama making this ad after they took extreme umbrage at an almost identical Clinton ad aired during their primary fight in 2008.   The Obama ad seriously diminishes the accomplishment itself.  And that is how I believe Americans will perceive it.  Watch the polling that will come out soon on the public's reaction to this ad.

As for Romney's response, my God, how stupid are these Bush advisors he surrounds himself with.  He is making an entire day tomorrow in NYC celebrating Obama's success. How on Earth does that make any sense?  Obama deflects and Romney obliges.  

Sure, it's fine at some point during the campaign to do the whole NYC visit thing complete with a Rudy-9/11 theme including cops and firemen.  But to do it tomorrow with Rudy is just cringeworthy.  He really thinks in 2012 just standing next to Rudy Giuliani immunizes him from the Obama slander (put aside the fact that Rudy took Obama's position on the OBL hunt back in 2007 and that he openly hates Romney)?  When the entire press corps - minus Fox News - is doing everything they can to bolster Obama and this anniversary, why would Romney help them?  Just give the day to Obama and let the liberal press corps give him the over-sized credit he's receiving.  Then move on and talk about the fucking economic mire we're in! Message, message, message!

{Addendum: Eric Fehrnstrom is the poster child for everything wrong with Mitt Romney and his campaign.  It is bad enough that Romney went on a radio show a few weeks back and told a joke about his father laying off hundreds of auto workers.  But you expect your advisors not to make these mistakes.  So Fehrnstrom is at a roundtable discussion and is asked to give an example of Mitt Romney's humor.  Perfect opportunity to humanize the man and make him relatable.  Fehrnstrom then proceeds to tell a joke that involves Romney firing someone.  In this case a "chambermaid."  She wasn't actually fired, but her firing was the crux of Romney's joke.  It's just unbelievable how Mitt Romney thinks his staff can compete with the ruthless Obama folks.  The shake-up in that campaign is now long overdue for the big event.}

Update:  Really, a secret visit to Afghanitan on the OBL anniversary?  This little campaign stunt will wind up costing the taxpayers probably $50 million.  Just as George W. Bush used to conflate the war in Iraq with 9/11, so too Obama seems determined to confuse Bin Laden's death and the so-called "War on Terror" with the decade-long war in Afghanistan.  Bin laden's death, if strategically significant at all by 2011, was about the "War on Terror" and Al Queda's ability to attack the U.S. or U.S. interests.  They were finished in Afghanistan.  Afghanistan has become a war with a totally different mission then when we invaded in 2001.  Our goal then was to get Al Queda and remove their bases and Afghanistan as a base.  It was never to kill every last Taliban sympathizer in the country.  However, that's what the war is about in 2012.

But after 9/11, the invasion of Afghanistan and then Iraq, the American people have stopped understanding what of this is interconnected and what isn't.  And that's just how the White House, the Obama campaign, the Dept. of Homeland Security, the NSA, the TSA  and the fawning news media like it.

I will give credit where credit is due though.  As bad a president as Obamas has been, he's always been a pretty good campaigner.  You have to just wince at how small and pathetic Romney and Rudy look handing out pizzas in Lower Manhattan while the Commander in Chief is signing agreements halfway around the world.  Score the day big time for Team Obama over the always one step behind Team Romney.

 

Russell Harding

This Century's Warped Moral Distinctions

So which is worse, degrading and humiliating a child or touching them?  It's not an either/or question - society has spoken loud and clear that it's legally fine for teachers to verbally and physically abuse children so long as it isn't affectionate. 

Recently in New York City we have had a rash of incidents of teachers accused of "sexually abusing" children (18 so far in 2012).  In a few of these cases, it's a non-issue whether the behavior was illegal; the teachers were engaged in sexual contact with the kids.  But in a few others the teachers were arrested for - by anyone's definition - being either verbally or physically affectionate. In a case just this week, a teachers aide was accused by an 8 year old of making a "sexually inappropriate" comment.  For this he was immediately removed from the classroom and suspended without pay.  For whatever this comment was, he was charged with sex abuse and endangering the welfare of a child.  For a comment!  Another teacher was criminally charged for hugging a child in his class and another was charged for praising a female child after a good test result.

And then there are these two cases: First in NJ, where an autistic boy was being verbally abused over a long period of time and exposed to inappropriate conversations (of a non-sexual nature) by his teachers - his dad secretly recorded it.  Then there's the story of the little girl in Missouri who raised her hand during a test to go to the bathroom.  The teacher refused.  The girl said she really had to go and would make in her pants otherwise.  The teacher said no.  The girl then sadly soiled herself very badly, severe diarrhea.  The teacher did nothing to help the child other than call the child's mother to come pick her up.  The teacher made the child sit in class the entire time.  When the mother arrived the teacher handed her a garbage bag to wrap around the child.  At no time did the teacher aid or comfort the deeply distressed child.  The school district did nothing whatever to discipline this teacher.

In the NJ case, the verbal abuse was so bad over a protracted period of time that it caused the boy's behavior to become violent.  The violence, as it turned out, was a child's method of communicating his anger and sadness at what was happening to him.  And when the school district was made aware of this, what did they do?  They fired a teacher's aide and then lied about the fate of the teacher who did this to poor Akian Chaifetz.  They said in a press release she was put on leave while this was investigated. But it turned out they merely assigned her to another school. 

In the Missouri case, the little girl's father said, "If any parent sent their kid to school with crappy pants, diarrhea-type crap, wrapped up in a garbage bag, stench badly, I believe with all my heart those parents would be facing criminal charges, I believe that with all my heart."

There's no question that father is correct.  Behavior that is criminal by parents is routinely excused by teachers, as long as it's merely cruel and not in any way "sexual."  I'm not a parent, so maybe my views on this are totally skewed.  But don't you think that little Missouri girl and that N.J. boy are going to be more life traumatized - an event they will remember 20 years from now - than an 8 yo girl who is hugged by her teacher or told she "looks pretty today."  Or for that matter, being inappropriately touched once.

On my first day of class in the 1st grade I embarrassed myself terribly.  The teacher began to collect milk money.  I panicked and began to cry in front of the whole class.  When asked why I was crying, I explained that I hated milk and didn't want to drink it.  Mrs. Kleinman smiled and calmly explained it wasn't mandatory and was only for the kids who wanted it. 

It is an admittedly stupid story, but I've remembered it vividly these last 42 years.  Don't you think that little autistic boy who was verbally abused for months will remember what happened to him for years?  I am sure that little Missouri girl will, after being made to sit in class, in front of her friends, covered in feces. And yet their teacher/tormentor's behavior is explained or condoned by the school.  They won't be sitting in a prison for ten years like their NYC counterparts who hugged or praised a child.  You can be sure those kids won't remember the hug or praise next week, let alone when they are in their 20's.

If all these "children's advocates" aren't merely moral crusaders but actually concerned about the welfare of children, shouldn't these sorts of episodes warrant greater action than hugging or praise?  Or perhaps my views just don't fit into this new century.

Missouri Girl

NJ Boy

 

Russell Harding

Worst People on Earth Award - Baseball Edition

With Bashir Assad and Robert Mugabe not in the news today, inarguably the worst people on earth are Sean Leonard and Shannon Moore.  They are the awful Texans who not only didn't give crying Cameron Shores a caught baseball at a Yankees/Rangers game, they then sat there and rubbed it in his face.  Have you seen these two?  She's a blonde, vapid, ex-cheerleading looking bimbo (I mean really, could a woman named Shannon be anything but that?)  and he's the sad, lonely guy who clearly is marrying for a second time hoping to trade up to trophy wife territory from the original Mrs. Leonard. 

While Mr. Leonard is taking a picture of Ms. Moore holding the caught ball (I can only imagine the other pictures he has of her on that camera), little Cameron is screaming his head off.  Later, these horrible people claimed they didn't hear a thing.  It's not only cruel, it's insulting to lie so badly.  Laughably, they want an apology for being labeled by all of America as the worst of the worst.  If you look at the video you can even see Shannon making a face of disgust as little Cameron screams. 

There are rules for attending baseball games: If you catch a random fly ball you give it to your kid or a kid seated near you.  If you catch Mark McGwire's record-setting ball, that, everyone agrees, is a different matter.  This wasn't even a foul ball, just one thrown into the stands by a player. Big kudos to Michael Kay for bring these two reprobates to the nation's attention.  Thankfully, Shannon clearly appears to be the type of woman who is not going to ruin her figure - and carefully pronounced cleavage - by reproducing.  That at least is some consolation.

Worst People Video

{Addendum: I could have named Delmon Young worst person on earth, but his actions weren't so much cruel, like the Texas yahoos, as they were laughably stupid.  Stupidity 1. He yells "You bunch of fucking Jews" to a group of men who aren't even Jewish and then beats them up for their perceived Hebrewness. Stupidity 2. Imagine how stupid you'd have to be to scream "You bunch of fucking niggers" in front of the Detroit Hilton or the Compton Motel 6.  Well that's how stupid it is to yell anti-semetic remarks at 55th & 6th (NY Hilton) in Midtown Manhattan.  I just have to laugh at people like Young or Mel Gibson who, when drunk, rush first to anti-semitism.  Even funnier, in each of those two cases the intended recipient of the slur wasn't Jewish.  Great to know, however, that lifelong thug Delmon Young - bear in mind he's 26 - chose today to commit these acts, as this is the 6th anniversary of his 50 game suspension for attacking an umpire.  Young now says "I will do everything I can to improve myself as a player and a person."  Well that's a relief.

 

Russell Harding

More DOJ Crimes & Cover-ups

Believe me, I have no desire to write as much as I do about the U.S. Department of Justice.  But its ceaseless web of lies, duplicity and corruption is just the gift that keeps on giving.  Today the DOJ made a calculated political decision that it had to finally acknowledge the Fast & Furious scandal as well as the far less reported criminal activity of DOJ staff involving an investigation in the US Virgin Islands (VI) by firing someone - sort of.  On the VI matter, evidence now exists that two US Attorneys accepted bribes from businessmen during that investigation.  Naturally, their criminality had been covered-up thus far by the DOJ.

So in an effort to save Eric Holder's job, DOJ has offered up Assistant AG Ronald Weich.  You might think that for repeatedly lying to Congress, Mr. Weich might be fired.  You'd be wrong.  He is being allowed to resign and most gallingly he has been appointed Dean of the University of Baltimore School of Law.  The age of Obama.  A high ranking Justice Department official lies time and again to Congress and he is not only not prosecuted, he gets to mold the minds of future attorneys.  But Roger Clemens' vitamin routine and John Edwards sleazy affair rate full fledged multi-million dollar prosecutions.  

Thus far not a single prosecutor has been disciplined, let alone fired, for framing Sen. Ted Stevens.  No a single DOJ employee has been prosecuted for Fast & Furious.  Not a single prosecutor has been disciplined or fired for violating a judge's instructions in the Clemens case that resulted in a mistrial.  But to demonstrate the brazen disregard they have for actual justice, they did it right in front of the judge!  And in the Virgin Islands case, the two U.S. Attorneys have not only not been prosecuted, DOJ won't even release their names.  And as a result, whatever the silly investigation they thought worthy of pursuing has been dropped, lest any future defendants bring to the fore the DOJ bribed employees at trial.  Like the GSA, it might be time for Congress to take a fresh look at the functions of the DOJ.  We need a Department of Justice.  Of that there is no question.  But just as surely, we do not need the Department of Justice we have and that has evolved over the last 50 years.

The Daily Caller: DOJ Scandals

 

Russell Harding

Where's Your AG Now?

You probably have read by now the story of Matthew Owens, the Mobile, Alabama man who was beaten near death by a mob of blacks who came to his home, dragged him out and beat him with pipes, brass knuckles, paint cans and chairs.  They presumably are the parents and friends of some teens he had yelled at for consistently playing basketball in the street.  As they left him bloody and beaten, one attacker said, "Now that's justice for Trayvon."  Mobile's black mayor and black police commissioner claim they cannot find any of the 20 even though the teens routinely play ball in the street and these adults are obviously connected to them.

So you have approximately 30 black people involved in a conspiracy to severly injure this white man.  Unlike the Martin shooting, this was completely premeditated.  Hours had passed between Owens shouting at the kids and their parents and friends showing up at his house.  No moment of passion or bad judgement here.  This was planned.  They had a specific name and address when they assembled to attack.  So where is the black president, the black attorney general, the black mayor, the black police commissioner and all the black civil rights leaders who told us their outrage over Martin wasn't just about race? 

Make no mistake, the hate speech against George Zimmerman that has spewed from Sharpton, MSNBC, Martin family attorney Crump, NYT columnist Charles Blow, Washington Post editorial writer Jonathan Capehart, et al. stoked the beating of Matthew Owens.  Although they would never accept responsibility, their reckless comments and statements lead to this result over a simple neighborhood dispute.

As you know, I don't believe in bias or hate crimes.  Whether they be against blacks, gays, Jews or Hispanics.  I don't think it should be relevant to your sentence why you shot me, only that I was shot and you should be prosecuted for having done it.  It certainly shouldn't be a separate crime.  However, many people do support them and for the time being they're on the books in most states and in federal criminal statutes. So why isn't the Justice Department involved when Mobile has said they can't solve this?

I believed it was appropriate within the limited scope of the Civil Rights Division's mandate for the Justice Department to enter the Martin case because the Sanford Police Department had proven themselves to be totally inept and that case cried out for answers.  If the Mobile Police Department is going to claim they cannot locate these attackers, then they are just as inept as their Sanford counterparts.  One NYC detective could find these people in an hour.  The more worrisome aspect here is that Mobile is Alabama's second largest city, not some sleepy Florida backwater town.  If their police force isn't capable - or willing - of finding these people with all the clues, witnesses, history and evidence that exist, then that is troubling on a whole other level.

Yahoo News/The Blaze: Justice for Trayvon

 

Russell Harding

The Prince of Gall

Just as it drives conservatives crazy to see countries like Libya, Syria, Cuba, etc. sit on or chair various United Nations human rights agencies, so too I cringe when I see Barack Obama at the U.S. Holocaust Museum.  

Hearing him say 'Never Again' or talk of trips to Buchenwald given his consistent, life-long, anti-Israel views makes me ill.  More puzzling is he claims a member of his dysfunctional family helped liberate Ordruff.  As the son of Holocaust survivors I cannot imagine having had a member of my family liberate a concentration camp and yet be opposed to Israel's continued existence if not in words then certainly by deeds.

Obama is the prince of gall.  On the same day that his Treasury Secretary announces that Social Security and Medicare are now broke, proposes no solutions and yet attacks Republicans for proposing one, the President of the United States in the face of Syrian mass murder appoints an Atrocities Prevention Board as some solution to Assad's torture and piling up of bodies.  It's like having Neville Chamberlain as President.  But never able to suppress his innate Israel hatred for long, he appoints to chair this board one of the leading Israel haters in the United States, Samantha Powers. 

For those of you who've forgotten, she is the Obama advisor who suggested the U.S. cease all aid to Israel and give it instead to 'Palestine."  She then went further by suggesting that the U.S. might have to invade Israel, "however unplesant that might be to certain interests with a lot of political and financial power in the United States,"  in order to help the Palestinians.  For these comments she was forced to resign from the Obama 08 campaign.  But if you're Barack Obama, you can't let a fellow Israel hater wander long. 

Obama couldn't just have a day where he said something nice about Jews and Israel without showing Jews worldwide, not just those of us here at home, that we shouldn't forget how much he loathes Israel and bleeds for 'Palestine.'

Can you imagine having a competent Republican nominee who would be condemning this appointment an hour after it was made?  At this point neither can I.

 

Russell Harding

Morning Rudy

Rudy Giuliani seems to have discovered a home on morning television news shows.  I'm not talking about the venerable Sunday shows: Meet the Press, Face the Nation, etc.  I'm referring rather to their weekday, more fluff-laden brethren.  

He want on Morning Joe a few months back to give his tacit endorsement to Gingrich, mainly by bashing Romney (1/12 post Is This the Inevitable Rudy Pivot?).  Then today he appears on Fox & Friends (can you get much lower than by appearing on a couch with Gretchen Carlson?) to endorse Romney.  But unlike Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio's tepid and off camera endorsements, Rudy felt the need (and the personal necessity) to do this live and on TV.  But compared to Rudy's endorsement, George Pataki and Mitch Daniels looked like Sammy Davis hugging Richard Nixon.  Maybe it's because they don't have a personal dislike of Romney.  Maybe it's because they weren't bested by him in 08.  Who knows. 

In the case of both Pataki and Daniels they were interviewed and gave their answer.  Rudy scheduled his appearance for this sole purpose.  So you would think political etiquette, not to mention just good manners, would dictate that if you're going to go to the trouble of setting the stage for this announcement that it at least be gracious.  Otherwise, why do it?  No one has been pining for this.  Rudy doesn't possess a constituency like Jeb or Rubio who may have political considerations for tempering their Romney praise.  There is no Rudy wing of the Republican Party that has been waiting patiently for his word.  Daniels has a following and even Pataki has one within the moderate GOP.  But Rudy? 

So in true Trump fashion, Rudy first makes it known that he had a long meal with Romney last week.  The idea being he was begged for this lukewarm and slightly bizarre endorsement.  Rudy matters, damn it!!!   Rudy told his friends on the curvy couch that he was endorsing Romney because he had won. Hmm, not exactly trumpets and fireworks.  He then compared Romney to the surgeon who operated on his prostate.  His explanation of this made clear he was endorsing Romney not because he liked him - you don't hire the surgeon with the best personality, he said - but because Romney had succeeded in gaining the nomination.  He finally told us that which even the most disinterested political watcher already knows, Giuliani is not on Romney's V.P. list.  That this toxic former mayor with a client list that can never be revealed and a personal animus towards the nominee is not going to be his running mate is not exactly news - even to Gretchen Carlson.

Are there still towns within counties within states where birther nation lives and where a Giuliani appearance would be useful?  Sure.  And no doubt the man whose post 9/11 epitaph was witheringly summed up by the current Vice President as "a noun, a verb and 9/11" will campaign for Romney - if asked - speak the noun and verb, listen to the applause for the nominee and dream of what might have been.

 

Russell Harding

Rudy and the Almighty Dinar

Like wading into Somali tribal conflicts, advising waring political factions in Serbia is not something for the naive or uncommitted.  Worse, unlike Somali factions, there actually are good guys and bad guys in Serbia.  I have traveled to Serbia many times and these are not waters you enter half-heatedly.  It is therefore difficult to comprehend why former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani would not only wade into this on-going political battle but side with the anti-western, pro-Milosevic, Serbian Progressive Party. 

As we all know by now, no one hires Rudy Giuliani to transform their company, party, city or country.  Rather, they hire him for the fading, increasingly Duke of Windsor-like luster he brings to whatever client retains him.  After 9/11 he was retained for his legitimate leadership abilities, record of accomplishments and access to Bush Administration officials.  But 11 years later his non law firm accomplishments - especially on the international consulting front - have proved rather thin.  So to continue to generate profits at Giuliani Partners he rents himself out to arab dictators and pimps for nuclear power plants.  And now he's taking talons of dinars to perform "economic consulting" for a non-incumbent candidate for mayor of Belgrade. 

His real purpose, however, is to implicitly endorse the candidates of the Serbian Progressive Party that oppose the pro-western policies of Serbian President Boris Tadic, who brought Ratko Mladic to justice at the Hague.  Tadic is also the man who formally apologized to Croatia and Bosnia for crimes waged against those states in the name of the Serbian people.  Not much to us, but pretty gutsy stuff internally in Serbia.

Tadic resigned recently and is running to retain his job against the Kremlin endorsed candidate, Tomislav Nikolic.  The presidential election will be held on May 6th, the same day as local and parliamentary elections.  Thereby allowing a Rudy endorsement to appear to be only for a candidate in the Belgrade mayoral race and not for its larger purpose, to help the presidential prospects of Mr. Nikolic.  

When asked during a Serbian TV interview about his fee, Rudy wouldn't reveal who was paying him or how much.  He did say that his company was in the business of advising cities on development and security matters.  Interesting since he's not advising a city - the current Belgrade Mayor has condemned his visit - and we can only flinch at what 'security advice' he's providing to pro-Milosevic Serbs.

Rudy Giuliani has now sided with the despotic political aims of Vladamir Putin.  Many of his 1990's critics would find nothing surprising in this.  The problem for Rudy's latest assignment in the Balkans is once again his total change of positions.  Unlike me, he supported the months-long bombing of Belgrade during NATO's attempt to remove Serbia from Kosovo in 1999.   So it's highly questionable how effective his tacit nod for the pro-Milosevic forces will be now given that past support. The pro-western opposition party is making much hay of his support for the city's destruction.  Even anti-Milosevic Serbs didn't much like the unrelenting bombing of their city. Surely, therefore, the pro-Milosevic ones aren't going to appreciate it much.

But in the end, win or lose, all that matters to Rudy is that the check clears and it be paid in Euros.  How long a road has Rudy Giuliani traveled from working for Ronald Reagan, the man who brought down Soviet Communism, to aiding Stalin successor Vladamir Putin in restoring a Russian sphere of influence in Eastern Europe.  It's hard to see how this gets any sadder.  Maybe a trip to Damascus to advise on 'security matters.'  I suppose all that's left to complete Rudy's downfall and bring this full circle will be for Giuliani Partners to sign a consulting contract with the Taliban after we pull out in 2014.

 

Russell Harding