In almost every appearance as he campaigns for the Republican presidential nomination, Rudolph W. Giuliani cites a fusillade of statistics and facts to make his arguments about his successes in running New York City and the merits of his views.
The New York Times is checking facts these days -- the facts behind a powerful pol's statements. Yes, the Times deserves the snark. But let's be grateful for what we get.
Discussing his crime-fighting success as mayor, Mr. Giuliani told a television interviewer that New York was “the only city in America that has reduced crime every single year since 1994.” In New Hampshire this week, he told a public forum that when he became mayor in 1994, New York “had been averaging like 1,800, 1,900 murders for almost 30 years.” When a recent Republican debate turned to the question of fiscal responsibility, he boasted that “under me, spending went down by 7 percent.”
All of these statements are incomplete, exaggerated or just plain wrong.
When you think of the WMD's... the Miller... Well, we should be grateful. By their very own account, the Times is now being non-partisan and effective.
To be sure, many candidates if not most cite statistics in a questionable way. Last month, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York, said that financing for the National Institutes of Health had decreased under President Bush; it has increased. Senator Barack Obama, Democrat of Illinois, said the national debt had doubled under President Bush; it has not.
In recent days, with The Times and others raising questions about his use of facts, Mr. Giuliani seems to be taking greater care to be precise.
Like the Times. I wish... but that's not fair. After all we've almost survived the Times' bad judgment during the first five years of the Bush presidency. Well, not everyone has survived, but let's not talk about the toll taken by the war. If the New York Times helps in taking out Rudy Giuliani, they really will be doing a public service this time.
Comments