What is so misinformative or wrong with what this pundit says now?  For pete's sake, it was his vernacular in assessing Guiliani's 9/11 role.

This is nitpicking extraordinaire, not even that.......it's silly.

Tommy, I have noting against MMFA for pointing out the statement. Rudy was not in "combat" on that day. However my question is even the headline where it says MSNBC not Keith Olbermanns countdown . The host of this show allowed Harwood to say this, yet he is not at all questioned. If it were FOX or CNN or other MSNBC shows you would bet they would be asked on here.  This is disapointing. 

Doris,

I admire your intellectual honesty.......but this is a little ridiculous.  Harwood was making a bit of an analogy to McCain, which is where the combat word comes in......he specifically says in a different way.

Olbermann was right not to challenge him, but for those that think this is some glaring misinformation, then they should call Keith out on it and be consistent.

My point is that it is misinformation and Olbermann should be called as to why he did not challenge him and why he was allowed to spew that type of lie.

Tommy,

I don't think it's glaring misinformation FYI. Hence the reason for my pee joke a little farther down. That's kinda my signature to let you know this is something I'm not taking very seriously. I'm with you on this one.

Snoop,  A P-signature, I like that.......be careful though, you may get accused of being braindead like those that didn't take issue with me yesterday in the Edward's hair thread.

I don't let that stuff worry me, I just lift my leg when I need to leave a mark!

If I were to criticize MMFA though, it would be because they haven't run anything yet about Coulter getting off her felony charges because a former boy toy in the FBI made a phone call in her name. Talk about elitism.

Apples and oranges. In the Edwards thread you were missing the entire point of the article, and then you continued to distract from that point after it was explained to you. You're not doing that here. Guiliani should not have been praised for  his "combat experience" and Olbermann should have challenged it.

Gotta disagree. Rudy did a bang up job that day. I don't like a lot of his positions, and he's constantly flip flopping to try to appease the reichonauts, but that day he did provide some strong leadership. I would have to say he can probably perform well under pressure far better than any other candidate the republicans are fielding (or have currently serving!)

Very well said, I agree.

Backslapper-in-Chief.  Pity he didn't plan ahead and fix those radios, etc.

Whether or not he did a "bang up job" that day is up for debate, but what he did that day should not have been elevated to "combat" status in order to make a direct comparison to McCain's wartime experience. Holding up Guiliani as a hero of 9/11 is one thing, but comparing his experience to McCain's is putting the pedestal rather high. And of course it follows an established pattern of the media idealizing Guiliani.

I have to disagree with you - the context of what he's saying is that Guiliani has credibility to talk about combat tactics, like torture, becuase of his "combat" experience on 9/11 - and he's implying that Guiliani's experience on this is somehow comparable to McCain's.  That's totally disingenuous.  Yes, Guiliani did show great leadership on 9/11, but that doesn't in any way mean that he now knows what it's like to be in "combat."  I was in New York on that day too, but I would never claim that I now  know what it's like to be a soldier in Iraq.

The point is that this is one pundit's opinion.  His analogy may or may not be to your liking, but it is not misinformation - it is an opinion. 

And I will further say that regardless of how I feel about him, that I personally find it quite hypocritical of him to run under the family values platform when he's been remarried so many times (and to a cousin - yuck!) that regardless, he did exhibit some strong leadership on 9-11 and helped bring immediate calm to the chaos. That was real leadership, not like the kind we got from someone sitting half glazed reading my pet goat.

Doris pounces unfairly on Keith Olbermann again.

First off, there is a time limit on the segments on "Countdown, and after Harwood's remark, that time was up, so Olbermann had no time to confront that comment.

Secondly, Olbermann does not have a history of allowing conservative misinformation like other people that Media Matters calls on their actions.

Thirdly, Harwood doesn't either have that history. This is not about who said it. It's about what was said. That's why Media Matters is covering it.

Doris tries to put Olbermann down every chance she gets, regardless of how appropriate it is. In this case, it's not appropriate.

Oh, it's the whole "time's up folks" defense, well, why didn't MMFA just say that?

It's a darn good thing that none of the other shows which let conservative misinformation go unchallenged don't have such pesky time restraints.  Poor Keith, how unfair.

It's not the "time's up defense"....

It's the facts.

Too bad you apparently have such a fear of the facts. You show an inreasonable aversion to the facts, Tommy, and that is your problem, not mine.

When you misinterpret or get someone's message wrong in a post, and get corrected, you then fail to adapt or alter your comments to reflect that corrected interpretation. The fact that it was at the end of his segment is a relevant fact! Sorry that bursts your (Doris') argument.

In addition, the person making this comment about Giulani that distorts reality and the person who "allowed" that comment don't have a history, and so both things figure into Olbermann not being deserving of the distain that Doris tries to heap on Olbermann. I explained that, and you puposefully missed the boat again.

Oops, can't respond to your post.........sorry folks, we've run out of time.

(does that work for me too please!!??)

If you really had run out of time, yes it would work.

That's not what happens though. If someone were to look at the time stamps, you still comment, but fail to reply when confronted with the admission that you were full of crap previously or that your mistaken interpretation of someone else's comments, once corrected, deserves a new, revised reply.

If you didn't have a history of doing this, when you did it occasionally, it would not be an issue. You do it all the time. Olbermann does not do it all the time, and he does not have a pattern established of allowing conservative misinformation to go unchallenged.

So yes, if you hadn't already established a pattern, then it would 100% excusable to not reply. You have clearly established that pattern, and so you don't get a pass.

It's fair, and not biased. I realize you don't understand fair and unbiased.

Who made you the boss? Doris is right the comment was and is terrible and Olbermann should of responded. Stop being an apologist for this crap. Also stop your vendetta against other posters and stick to the facts. 

Oh, and you're the boss of Media Matters now?

Sorry, but until I get the message from the "former" bosses of Media Matters that you have been given that job, I will never take my orders from you. I doubt I would take orders from you even if they did tell me that you were the new boss!

Evil there are alot of "bosses" on this website.  Some however attack with venom if you are not 100% behind the Party Line. I call it as I see it , the piece was a right wing talking point, the shows host should have confronted him on it.  MMFA should have called him out.  This guy works for the WSJ , a news organization extremely tied to the right wing. 

You call it as you see it in this case because you hate Olbermann and cannot address any issue that might even tangentially relate to Olbermann without showing your personal vendetta against him.

You've demonstrated this over and over again. You're a broken record on this subject, Doris.

Olbermann does not have a track record of allowing conservative misinformation, and neither does John Harwood, and it was a comment Harwood made at the end of a segment. All of those reasons combine to mean that it was not appropriate or reasonable for Media Matters to go after either Harwood or Olbermann. But that didn't stop you from going after Olbermann, Doris. You demonstrate your bias every chance you get.

I will say this notthatgeorge, that Doris is being consistent here. She does carry vendettas. She went after Don Imus with so much hate for months. I just wish Imus had the support on this site when Doris made her baseless attacks against him, calling him a "racist" "hater" etc. It is amazing that Imus who helps children with cancer gets smeared by Doris and other posters on MMFA and Olbermann has a guest who says a legitimate biased statement and there is a blanket forgiveness because it was the end of the segment.  You are all phony. I am the only consistent poster on this site.  Olbermann has lost standing with me in the wake of his role in the Imus story. He used to write to Imus according to Mike Francessa at WFAN in the late 90s and call him "MY Morning Diety".  As soon as Imus was lynched by MSNBC management , Olbermann attacked with such vitrol. Is consistency something that no one on here has ever heard of?

You are sad, instead of sticking to the issue you turn this into a story about me.  Proves you are not able to debate. Simply put you are taking lessons from Karl Rove.

I did talk about this issue on this thread, numerous times, Doris.

You are wrong again, and your bias against Olbermann colors your views when it's easy to disprove your statements.

You made it about you when you failed to discuss the issue fairly and you made it about your hatred towards Olbermann. You made it about you by talking about your feelings towards him. I'm not surprised that you try to switch the blame to someone else, but no one else is buying that, Doris. You're responsible for the post you made that I replied to. I didn't change the subject. I responded to the subject (your hatred) that you brought up!

I hate being in the position of defending Doris, someone who smeared Imus but it sure looks like you made Doris the subject, please read your statement below.

Doris pounces unfairly on Keith Olbermann again.

First off, there is a time limit on the segments on "Countdown, and after Harwood's remark, that time was up, so Olbermann had no time to confront that comment.

Secondly, Olbermann does not have a history of allowing conservative misinformation like other people that Media Matters calls on their actions.

Thirdly, Harwood doesn't either have that history. This is not about who said it. It's about what was said. That's why Media Matters is covering it.

Doris tries to put Olbermann down every chance she gets, regardless of how appropriate it is. In this case, it's not appropriate.

WHOA!!!

Not so fast MMFA....

Now if this wasn't your boy-toy Keith wouldn't this thread have read:

Olbermann did not challenge John Harwood assertion that Rudy Giuliani has a "claim to combat" because he was "on the ground" on 9/11

Mmmmmm?

Nahhhh?  Ya think?  If they could put their hand over their mouth when uttering his name in this piece to make it unintelligible, they would.

Good catch.

This is like some kind of intellectual circle jerk for you guys, isn't it?  Good for you.

Just spitting out a little hypocrisy alert, that's all.

You have no standing to be calling anyone on hypocrisy, Tommy.

Besides that, it's not hypocrisy. When a person or group with a history of conservative misinformation or with a history of allowing conservative misinformation allows another example to pass without comment, then both the person who says it and the group that allows it get called on it by Media Matters.

When a comment like Harwood's happens, the forum on which he did it doesn't have that backstory to then call their behavior into question.

Hypocritical people miss that differentiation. That'd be Tommy the hypocrite missing it this time, along with Jeter and Doris.

I'm trying, I really am.......so if there's two, and both are guilty of spewing or allowing conservative misinformation, then they are bad.  But if only one of the two spews or allows such misinformation, then neither are bad, or is it the one that spews, or the one that allows?  

This is so confusing, can we all get back in circle and start over?

OK my circle friends, everybody grab hands. Ready?

Kum by ya my Lord, kum by ya

Kum by ya my Lord, kum by ya

Kum by ya my Lord, kum by ya

Oh, Lord kum by ya

I still haven't figured out "who's the boss".

Tony Danza

You're confused?

I doubt it. I believe that your commentary is purposefully obtuse much of the time, and when it gets clearly explained to you, you then fail to alter your previous comments to adjust to that clarified information!

Patterns established by people matter, and those patterns then should be used to evaluate the comments and positions those people say they hold.

Anything else is hypocritical. That's your ticket to notoriety here, Tommy the hypocrite.

Wow you seem to love calling people names. just like Olbermann.

I agree 100% that Keith should have challenged him on this, but if I may be so bold, Tommy is really trying to have it both ways here...

Either MMFA's criticism of the comment about is valid, and Tommy has to retract his usual "This is not misinformation" rant... OR MMFA's criticism is invalid, in which case there's nothing to slam Keith for. But you can't say "It's not misinformation, but MMFA should have slammed Keith anyway."

I do understand that Tommy is trying to say that MMFA is showing a bit of a double-standard in the treatment of Olbermann, and that may very well be the case. But it also happens to be besides the point. The focus here is not the reaction to the claimed misinformation, but the claimed misinformation itself. (MMFA can only blame themselves for this critique by Tommy, though. Bill O'/Hannity/etc make plenty of questionable comments on their own, but MMFA shines a spotlight on them when they also fail to challenge misinformation, and this leaves them open to the double-standard attack. MMFA should either call out everyone who lets misinformation slide equally, or else give them the same anonymous pass they gave Olbermann here.)

You're missing it too, but you don't apparently have an ulterior motive in doing so.

People who have a history of either contributing to the conservative misinformation or groups which allow that misinformation to go unchallenged on a repetitive basis get called on that behavior.

Keith Olbermann and Countdown and John Harwood don't have that history, and that makes all the difference in the world to Media Matters.

And you speak for MMFA? 

No, but I can figure it out.

I've been reading this site for months now. It's clear as day to anyone with half a brain.

Guess that excludes you.

I've been reading this site for months now...By George [but not that one]

Yeah and some of us have been posting here for 2 or more years so don't come here and act like some Know-It-All. Because Georgie, you don't know what you're talking about.

MMFA has no criteria that includes the "history" of anyone they call out for MIS-information when presenting a thread.

It almost seems to me by reading these posts that this George guy has some love affair going on with Keith Olbermann. How someone can be so blind and say because the segment was ending its ok. Must be one of many of Keiths girlfriends.

No, not at all because we know Rudy's got lots of combat experience getting rid of the pee smell in NY.

Don't forget the squeegee guys. Rudy saved us from them too.

With his "combat experience" gained from the times he waged war on "the smell" (and his skirmishes with ferret owners) Rudy can chalk up his ethical lapses and erratic moments to PEE-TSD

Shoot, I just snorted water out my nose!

Well played, The Crapture!

No, Jeter, that's not true.

This was Harwood's last comment. Segments have time limits, and this was his last comment, so Olbermann had no time to reply at all.

Neither Olbermann or Harwood have a history or a pattern of spewing conservative misinformation. Therefore, this is Media Matters pointing out an invalid comment. The forum, Countdown, was not responsible for giving voice to that comment, since Harwood does not have a history, and Olbermann was not responsible for failing to reply to it since it was the last comment in that segment.

Apples and Oranges.

I agree with you on one part - Olbermann does not have a history of spewing conservative misinformation, his history lies in spewing liberal misinformation.

No he does not.

It's "funny" how you claim he does, but you fail to provide a single example of it.

No, it's really not funny. It's hypocritical.

But even if it was true, it would not affect what I said at all, because the reason that Media Matters didn't call out the people who were there is because they don't have a history of behaving badly and this is not a pattern for them. If Olbermann had that history of disseminating liberal misinformation, that doesn't mean he also has a history of disseminating conservative misinformation, and it would be a pattern of the conservative stuff that would matter here!

Now that your point has been totally demolished, make sure you fail to acknowledge that total failure on your part and never comment on the fact that since the pattern is not there, Media Matters is totally correct in not mentioning that non-existent pattern. I double dog dare you to admit reality.

I triple dog dare you to join reality.

I don't have to "join" reality.

I'm already there.

Lame George.

Keith could have interrupted Harwood the moment he made the comment. Trust me THAT would have been the expected reaction MMFA & all you apologists of Keith would have demanded IF the host in question was Chris Matthews, Tim Russert , or Bill O'Reilly.

But it's Keithy, Davey's bud, The Liberal Avenger. So he gets a pass...

Yeah, we get it. ::roll eyes::

I agree with you 100%. Keith the one who hates O'Reilly and has a partnership with MMFA is forgiven. Also why no minorities on Olbermanns show? NO diversity? Just white guys who hate Bush and O'Reilly. Amazing, where is George the Olbermann apolgist outrage on this one? Oh Olbermann has to take a break.

LOL

Pretty funny thread.  I give it a 8.7 on the netroots whacko scale.

And I give your post a 6 on the moronocon troll inanity scale

McCain's core message is tough -- toughness, and that "I'm tough enough that I can go against my party on this issue. Why? Because I've been in combat. I've been tortured myself, as you mentioned."

= 

Rudy Giuliani also has a bit of a claim to combat in a different way, because he was on the ground in 9-11.

FALSE

According to many posters here, where was the critical challenge by the host here who is supposed not to let this type of stuff slide?  Where was Olbermann, and why is he just being a shill for the corporate media here?

This is why there seems to be a double standard on MSNBC. Even this morning they have David Gregory with some of the old Imus crew and someone named the "radio Chick". Hasnt MSNBC learned from the past? Why do they allow someone to be called "Chick" on the air?

Doris, you are finally being consistent.  You and I disgreed very much on Imus, I thought he should not be fired and never say him as a "hater" like you did. But why now after 5 weeks is it ok on MSNBC to have Charles McCord on the air with David Gregory? Also why is it ok to call someone a " Radio Chick" but it was not ok for Imus to use the word (which he apologized for) and why do this on MSNBC . Where is Keith Olbermanns outrage?

You have a point. Olberman should have challenged him.

K.O. is still my boy though.

In fact, not only did they pass on any criticism of Olbermann but they failed to comment on Olbermann's praise of Harwood.

 - John Harwood of CNBC and The Wall Street Journal. Great thanks, John. - Olbermann, closing the interview.

Well another shining example of Keith Olbermanns journalistic integrity.

You're right, Wesley. Keith should have said something like, "You suck Harwood! You're the worst guest I've ever had, ha ha! Don't let the door hit you on the way out, a$$hole!" rather than politely thanking his guest for being on the show. But I guess you just expect a higher standard of civility than I do.

Olbermann should have challenged him

Why did MMFA not ask why Olbermann did not challenge him on this ridiculous statement? If it were Matthews, Scarborough or anyone at CNN or FAUX we all know MMFA would be asking why.  Tim Russert is asked all the time on here why he does not challenge statements. I have said earlier and I stand by that MMFA "closeness" with Olbermann places MMFA in a strange situation sometimes.

Dorris,

The answer is simple. MMFA is not interested in misinfomation. It clearly has as it's only agenda to try to tarnish everyone on the right.

I can see them snicker and laugh every time they put something stupid like this thread together and then read all those people commenting  trying to defend the supposed misinformation.

You are only now becoming aware that MMFA is as full of misinfomation as the rest. Only they come at it from the far left.

Because Olbermann never says anything bad about Hillary Clinton so MMFA gives him a break.

"MMFA is not interested in misinfomation. It clearly has as it's only agenda to try to tarnish everyone on the right."

 Congratulations, Einstein!  You finally figured out that a website that explicitly says it only covers conservative misinformation actually does only cover conservative misinformation!  But I like how you try to make it look nefarious.  For someone who seems to be criticizing this site for intellectual dishonesty, you seem pretty full of it yourself.

All I can say is the next time the documentary is on about 9/11 you will see brave and I mean truely brave Firemen/Women and Policemen/Women running into and around the towers that day doing unbelievable things and the aftermath of the sounds of the beepers going off for the Firemen buried beneath the rubble and I didn,t see the Mayor doing any of that. 

That is a ridiculous statement. I didn't see Hillary do any of that either.  (Not to pick on Hillary but that makes about as much sense.)

Of course only the police and fire were in the buildings trying to save everyone. Would you have wanted Rudy wandering around getting in the professionals way? (Knowing the eventual collapse, I wouldn't be surprised if some here would.)

anotheramerican

why is that statement so ridiculos ? I think gulliani is nthe only one running around saying how much he did during 9/11 aside from putting his emergency headquaters in the Wortld Trade Center. why are the firemen in New York not coming out for him? Hes the one thats always telling people what he did.The statement is not ridiculos.

Someone should tell Harwood that Giuliani's only relationship to 911 was that he was there at the wrong time and the wrong place like everyone else which isn't much to brag about when it comes to dumb luck.

Giuliani and other politicians are whoring out 911. Opportunists all of them. 

The stain on our image is that we used 911 to wage a war against an innocent nation a stain that will never wash off given the bloodbath is still going on over there in the name of nobody knows.

This tough cowboy act is getting old. What we need is a class act. Someone who can really put American back on track to being the shining beacon of Liberty we once were.

Someone to put us back on track of being a Nation of people that would rather face death than face the loss of liberty.

The current leadership has led us to be a people that would rather face the chains of Homeland Security instead of death. A sad period of United States history a sickening moment indeed.

Like or not like Rudy he was the only leader this nation had on that day. Our coward President was flying around the country. Now you want to take that away from Rudy because he is a Republican? if it were David Dinkins you would be singing his praises. Be consistent.

IT should be taken away from Rudy, because he likes to pretend he's some hero whne he in fact didn't do anything extrodianry at all. He wasn't the hero of 9/11, he didn't stop it or plan for something like it at all.

How ignorant can one be?

Of course the President was flying around. The Secret Service thought he also was targeted for assasination.  (And indeed the White House was a target.)  Are you criticizing them for doing their job and protecting the Prez? 

You must be one of those 61% of Democrats who think Bush knew in advance about the attacks and calmly went off to read "My Pet Goat" while thousands of people were being murdered.  (See the Rassmussen poll) 

Gotta love those Democrats and their leaders. Never let facts (as MMFA proves everyday) get in the way of their whacko opinions. 

How ignorant can one be?

Do you really want an answer, or is this more of your rhetorical baseless assertions?

The President should have been visable on that day .He failed. Like Rudy or not he was our leader. I will always be thankful for him for standing like a man and giving us a presence.

I'll 2nd that motion, he did provide leadership where elsewhere there was none. He flip flops to appease the reichonauts, is tarnished by multiple marraiges, and takes positions I personally will not support, but I give him credit for being able to perform under pressure.

Too bad he's milking it like a stud in an xxx film. He should be quiet and just ride the wave on this subject.

I have never heard that analogy before.  It's absurd, and implies that 9/11 was the money shot.  I demand that the Snoop retract that statement and tell us he didn't mean it.

It's a perfect analogy! In porn, you are in a room full of people watching you, filming you and directing you and you've got to maintain a constant h@rd-on while you're giving the performance of your life saying stuff you don't really mean as you prostitute yourself to the demanding public. That's not Rudy today?

If I still must be punished now, you will have to call Holly. I'm her dawg!

another american.

I see what you are about,I just wated my time.

Someone should tell Harwood that Giuliani's only relationship to 911 was that he was there at the wrong time and the wrong place like everyone else which isn't much to brag about when it comes to dumb luck.

I agree. And MMFA's boy-toy Keith had the opportunity to do so. But didn't.

Yet MMFA isn't asking why Olbermann didn't challenge Harwood.

Funny they always ask WHY others don't challenge a remark

Double Standards?

You bet!

Big time double standard. This smells of a cozy relationship between the MMFA staff and Olbermann. 

This obnoxious squabble about Olbermann (which is, of course, just a distraction from the topic at hand) can easily be put to rest.

Listen to Olbermann's special comment where he called out Giuliani on his 9/11 B.S. and blatant fearmongering. Anyone who's heard it will be left with no doubts about Olbermann's opinion of America's favorite psychopathic mayor.

It would have been nice if Olbermann had corrected Harwood, but he didn't. Maybe he simply didn't have time; after all, the interview was nearly over and Keith has a schedule to stick to. Olbermann does not have a history of lobbing softball questions to politicans nor of pushing talking points for any party; he deserves the benefit of the doubt.

The Olbermann hatred, and the attempt to impugn MMFA for "ignoring" Olbermann's supposed misinforming, is a distraction from the real issue: the media's love for Giuliani's supposed "toughness" and "manliness."

The fact is that Giuliani was a terrible mayor, and would be a terrible president. We've had enough of these phony Republican he-men: Reagan, Dubya, George Allen. We don't need another.

Thanks Steve.

Your point is totally valid and 100% accurate.

Tommy, that's crap. By this logic, everyone in the South Bronx is a veteran.

"Tinny and thin"?  I was thinking more "Jackbooted thug."

Will Olbermann scout the MMFA page for his material tonight and name Harwood "Worst Person in the World". You could bet if Harwood made the comment on FOX or CNN he would be "Worst Person in the World" 

MMFA please stop endorsing Olbermann this hurts the credibility of this website.

I'm still waiting for somebody to tell me what exactly Rudy Giuliani did in the aftermath of 9/11 that was so groundbreaking he deserves the millions he's getting in speaking fees. What did Rudy do that another mayor couldn't have done? All I've ever heard in response to this question was his presence. Is he put on a platform simply because he was there??

Kevin

Thats just it . As someone said in an earlier post"he was only doing what he was supposed to do,his job as mayor" the person who is being over looked is Mayor Bloomberg he had to pick up the pieces and believe there were and still are many pieces still being picked up.I live in the metropolitan area and they are still finding remains

just so a person like 'anotheramerican' dosen't misunderstand what I mean by the term pieces it meant putting the city back together so people like him or her can go to 42nd st and stare up at the lights and go wow!!!

Here's what he did:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudy_Guliani#September_11.2C_2001_terrorist_attacks

If you are at odds about how he handled subsequent issues like air quality and stuff, no prob I'd agree he blew it there. But for his leadership on that particular day and the days immediately following he did the right stuff - he kept the public informed about what was happening and if something wasn't working, he let the public know when it was going to be. Just doing his job? Maybe, but you have to admit, the methods he used to do it were the right ones, keeping the public informed, understanding the situation, getting the answers. I give him a high grade for performance

Here's what he did:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudy_Guliani#September_11.2C_2001_terrorist_attacks

If you are at odds about how he handled subsequent issues like air quality and stuff, no prob I'd agree he blew it there. But for his leadership on that particular day and the days immediately following he did the right stuff - he kept the public informed about what was happening and if something wasn't working, he let the public know when it was going to be. Just doing his job? Maybe, but you have to admit, the methods he used to do it were the right ones, keeping the public informed, understanding the situation, getting the answers. I give him a high grade for performance

Here's what he did:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudy_Guliani#September_11.2C_2001_terrorist_attacks

If you are at odds about how he handled subsequent issues like air quality and stuff, no prob I'd agree he blew it there. But for his leadership on that particular day and the days immediately following he did the right stuff - he kept the public informed about what was happening and if something wasn't working, he let the public know when it was going to be. Just doing his job? Maybe, but you have to admit, the methods he used to do it were the right ones, keeping the public informed, understanding the situation, getting the answers. I give him a high grade for performance and

I have no idea how that triple post just happened. Do I get a medal for doing a triple post summersault with a post partum spin?

The same thing that did the triple post must have affected my italics.

But my point is, would any other mayor not have done the exact same things Giuliani did in the aftermath? No, it's hyperbole. Calling Giuliani "America's Mayor" furthers the hyperbole to the benefit of a Republican. Thus, "America's Mayor" is simply conservative misinformation, whether it's said on CNN, MSNBC or Fox News.

I must have missed something, I'm not discussing the term "america's mayor". I guess it may be natural to assume that connection, but even the argument he was in the wrong place at the wrong time isn't good. Someone else may have done just as well, heck someone else may have done worse too. The only point I see is that he did act appropriately that day and did a lot more for the country as far as leadership presence than Bush did, who's kickoff was a photo op with a fireman days afterward.

We may have to agree to disagree.

The question I have is this:

Have we set the bar so low that when someone like Rudy actually does his job he's seen as a hero? Now THAT'S silly.

My honest answer? No. I look at this as I look at my own job. Think of Rudy as competing against 49 others, and we are the ones who are going to decide raises. I am going to give a better raise to someone who performs above his or her labor grade and I will give a lesser raise to an underperformer. When you look at all the disasters we've been confronted with in the last few years, Rudy clearly performed better because his #1 priority was to ensure his "team" knew what was going on. That is good leadership. I would like to hope that everyone in Rudy's position could perform to the same level, but that is unrealistic to assume. Perhaps we as a whole should demand that ability to perform under pressure be a key question we ask of every candidate from here on out.

You linked, and I checked the link, but it doesn't answer my question. Here's what the entry said in the Sept. 11 section...

"Giuliani coordinated the response of various city departments while organizing the support of state and federal authorities for the World Trade Center site, for city-wide anti-terrorist measures, and for restoration of destroyed infrastructure. He made frequent appearances on radio and television on September 11 and afterwards — for example, to indicate that tunnels would be closed as a precautionary measure, and that there was no reason to believe that the dispersion of chemical or biological weaponry into the air was a factor in the attack."

Coordinating city departments while working in tune with state and federal offices falls within a mayor's normal responsibility. Rudy was frequently on the radio and on television before 9/11, because he was the mayor of New York and it's a high-profile post.