Good For Rudy

Jason Zengerle of TNR online reports (via Slate's John Dickerson*) the following exchange in which Rudy Giuliani not only takes the high road in the face of an audience member smearing Democrats, but in which he actually chides the audience member(s):

As the mayor answered the last of the three questions from reporters, he talked about the root causes of terrorism: "oppressive governments that demagogue and blame and project their problems other places and do nothing to solve the problems of their own people."

"Sounds like the Democrats," shouted a man.

The crowd roared.

It was the kind of stupid remark candidates usually ignore. They either agree but can't show that they do, or they don't want to cause a stir by contradicting one of the partisans they've come to court. Giuliani's aides were already preparing to move him to his waiting SUV. He could have just left.

"Time out," he said bringing his hands together to make a T. "Time out." The crowd quieted down. "The other thing we have to learn is that we can't get into this partisan bickering. The fact is that Republicans and Democrats have the same objectives.... Democrats are loyal Americans. Republicans are loyal Americans. I think we have better answers, but we have to respect each other."

Of course, even as we celebrate Rudy's stance, we probably have to agree with Dickerson that it shows that Giuliani may not be ruthless enough to win the GOP nomination. This is not only too bad for the GOP, but it also may be too bad for America. I have my issues with whether Giuliani would be a good president, or whether he is even qualified, but he certainly appears to be the kind of man who warrants consideration that the nominating process probably will not allow most of the country to have.

* The blogosphere requires the same sort of reliance on sources as academic writing. There may be more leeway in some ways in the blogosphere, but in some ways, because you rely so much as a blogger on sources for many of your posts, there is as much of an ethical obligation. But every time I receive info from a blog that itself receives its info from elsewhere, it reminds me of a dilemma about which Tom and I have talked a great deal. And that is -- what balance does one strike between citing the actual source from which you get information as opposed to going back to the original and citing that? For example, in my Freedom Ride manuscript I have never quite been able to excise citations to historians whose work I read even if I eventually got back to their original sources. It seems dubious to get information from a book and then to discover that their information comes from, say, the New York Times, and then simply to cite the Times as if you do not owe something to the original author you read. And this seems tome to be the case even if you would inevitably have discovered the information. It's a tough balance, and one that gets tougher the more work you read by other historians.