In a certain respect, we should probably give Rudy Giuliani the benefit of the doubt over the news that he will be attending this year's 9/11 anniversary remembrance at Ground Zero: after all, he has attended every previous year's event. But now he's a candidate for president -- and he'll be the first and only candidate for office to make an appearance at any of the commemorations. As such, he stands to politicize the event, especially given the importance of 9/11 mythology to his campaign strategy.

Unsurprisingly, many victims' relatives are outraged:

"He's cashing in on 9/11 like it's his own personal tragedy. It's a photo op on a campaign swing for him," said Jimmy Riches, a deputy fire chief whose son was among the 343 firefighters killed.

Sally Regenhard, whose firefighter son was also killed, said she was stunned that the city would ask a presidential candidate to speak there.

"They should have every other single presidential candidate then, because this is outrageous," Regenhard said. "This is going to be seen across the country as a blanket endorsement from us. It's totally inappropriate."

No declared presidential candidate has ever spoken before at the ground zero ceremony; indeed, candidates running for local office have typically suspended campaigning on Sept. 11.

Of course, given how far in advance potential presidential candidates lay their plans, who's to say he wasn't campaigning in previous appearances? But by now any plausible deniability has evaporated: Rudy Giuliani is a candidate for president, in the thick of campaign season, and as such his presence at a solemn, nonpolitical remembrance ceremony is inappropriate. If he wishes to commemorate the victims -- as he should, and as we all should -- he should do so privately.

(Cross-posted at The Right's Field)

Taking a brief break from the Roger Stone saga for a moment of Andy Rooney-esque crankiness...

Clyde Haberman writes today about the dueling anti-flyer legislation in Albany and the City Council. Governor Spitzer signed a bill into law last week, but Councilmember Simcha Felder promises to revive his own proposal if what he sees as flaws in the new law aren't addressed. Whatever works, I say -- those soggy mounds of unsolicited supermarket ads are an environmentally-malign nuisance.

Haberman says:

Safety aside, laws like this satisfy a certain Garboesque streak in New Yorkers. Sure, they accept the city’s hubbub, even embrace it. But there is also a part of them that just wants to be left alone:

Enough with panhandlers hounding them on the weary subway ride home. Enough with loud cellphone yakkers on the bus. Enough with phone solicitors interrupting dinner.

Roger Stone, Republican astroturfer and Joe Bruno surrogate, is a nasty piece of work:

Lawyers representing Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s father, Bernard Spitzer, say a prominent political consultant who has been working for State Senate Republicans threatened the elder Mr. Spitzer this month in an anonymous, invective-laced phone message.

The allegations against the consultant, Roger J. Stone Jr., were laid out in a letter sent Tuesday to Senator George H. Winner Jr., an upstate Republican who is chairman of the Senate Committee on Investigations and Government Operations. A copy of the letter was obtained by The New York Times.

What kind of man is Stone? The kind who would say these things to an 83-year-old man:

In the message, the caller says, referring to a potential subpoena: “There is not a goddamn thing your phony, psycho, piece-of-shit son can do about it. Bernie, your phony loans are about to catch up with you. You will be forced to tell the truth and the fact that your son’s a pathological liar will be known to all.”

What does he say in his defense? That, obviously, Spitzer's people infiltrated his apartment and simulated his voice to make the calls. Seriously, that's what he's claiming. I'm surprised he didn't try to pin the blame on the CIA, the Trilateral Commission, and the World Wildlife Fund.

Via Andrew Sullivan: here's a frightening little map from the Atlantic archives, breaking down America by county and rating the percentage of structurally deficient bridges. Red, as you might guess, is the worst. And what's that state where every single county is red? Oy vey.

Susan Milligan of the Boston Globe reports on the danger that Rudy Giuliani's candidacy will end up being defined by a single issue (9/11, of course) and why such an approach could falter down the road, as voters ask for something more -- for instance, an Iraq war policy.

Particular credit to Milligan for mentioning the fact that here in New York there are a lot of people who consider his claim to 9/11 heroism totally fraudulent. The article actually features a nice juxtaposition, citing out-of-state sentiments like this:

"He took control," said Carolyn Mercadante , 70, a Delaware voter who came to see Giuliani speak. "Just the fact that he was such a presence there" in New York the day of the attacks, said 67-year-old Bill Uranko of Middleton, Del., when asked to explain what impressed him about Giuliani's Sept.11 performance. "You could see he was visibly moved by what happened.

...and contrasting them with the far different things you'll hear from New Yorkers, for instance:

In 2003 the Bush administration adopted a rule stipulating that any organization receiving US funds for HIV/AIDS prevention must sign an "anti-prostitution pledge." The pledge requirement, introduced by right-wing New Jersey Congressman Chris Smith (R), has had devastating effects on humanitarian organizations worldwide, crippling the ability of NGOs to work with the populations most at risk from HIV, isolating sex worker advocacy organizations from their allies, and fueling discrimination against sex workers and gay people.

Because of its vague, confusing language, and because it blocks groups receiving USAID money even from using their own private funds to aid vulnerable sex workers, the pledge has effectively gutted the otherwise-laudible President's Emergency Fund for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), a five-year, $15 billion effort to fight the spread of the virus. Arguably, it means that PEPFAR has done more harm than good. Last year, in response to a lawsuit by the Soros Foundation's Open Society Institute, a federal judge here in New York found that the pledge violated the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech. Rather than drop the requirement, however, USAID and the Department of Health and Human Services moved last month to make things even more difficult for humanitarian groups.

Now, the Network of Sex Work Projects has produced a 13-minute video called "Taking the Pledge," which interviews activists from a number of countries affected by the policy, documenting some of the harm it has done. An accompanying NSWP fact sheet explains why the pledge is so misguided:

These policies run contrary to best practices in public health and are undermining efforts to stem the spread of HIV and human trafficking. The restrictions preclude recipients of US funds from using proven effective practices to prevent the spread of HIV among marginalized populations, and undermine efforts to promote the fundamental human rights of all persons.

Kudos to NYC Transit for its frankness about the overcrowding crisis on the subways. As any rider of the L train or the numbered lines knows, the system is straining at maximum capacity -- and, NYCTA says, it's not just that the trains themselves are full; so are the tracks.

“From my point of view, this is scary,” said Howard H. Roberts Jr., the president of New York City Transit, who presented the data to members of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s board. “This is scary in the sense that right now, on a lot of these lines, we’re several years and a big capital construction project away from being able to provide what I consider adequate service. We’re constrained.”

I've written a lot in support of congestion pricing, and I continue to support it. But the Transit Authority's report is a clear reminder that the need to couple congestion pricing with serious capital investment in mass transit upgrades is far from academic.

Soren Dayton takes a look at early polling data from Pollster.com, comparing a Clinton-Giuliani race to a Clinton-Bloomberg-Giuliani race. Either way, the news right now is bad for the GOP:

1. Even without Bloomberg, Giuliani loses nearly every swing state. Giuliani would win only Missouri and Washington. Note that WV, CO, NV, AZ, PA, MI, and FL are not included in this sample.

2. Bloomberg seems to take his votes from both sides, but somewhat more from the GOP. However, in the swing states, the damage seems to be almost 2-1 against the GOP. However, these results are almost all within the margin of error.

I'm personally not big on horse race reporting, and these are way early polls anyway. But at least it gives you some idea where Bloomberg's support might come from.

According to the Times:

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg on Tuesday switched his party status from Republican to unaffiliated, a stunning move certain to be seen as a prelude to an independent presidential bid that would upend the 2008 race.

The billionaire former CEO, who was a lifelong Democrat before he switched to the GOP for his first mayoral run, said the change in voter registration does not mean he is running for president [Editor's note: the change in registration means he's running for president].

"Although my plans for the future haven't changed, I believe this brings my affiliation into alignment with how I have led and will continue to lead our city," he said.

Now we can argue for real over who he takes votes from. Does he get anti-war Republicans? Anti-Hillary Dems? Anti-smoking Jets executives?

It also, of course, suggests that he's likely to pursue big ideas like PlaNYC with more vigor than he might if they were just about his legacy. He'll be especially politically invested in his agenda. But will New York Democrats now have added incentive to oppose that agenda, especially if it looks like he'll be a real threat to Hillary?

The Times has a good editorial outlining a number of outstanding priorities as the state legislative session enters its final few days. At the top of the list: campaign finance reform. As the Times observes:

The bill now being considered is less than the good citizens of this state deserve, but it is far better than what we have now. Unfortunately, Senate Leader Joseph Bruno and his Republican majority are stalling. The Senate Republicans apparently don’t want to give up the easy money, especially from limited liability corporations that are now the favored loophole for well-heeled contributors.

Joe Bruno, who resents public service because it doesn't make him enough money, came right out and said last week that he thinks campaign finance reform is just a worthless idea in general. In a quote that set new and interesting benchmarks for chuztpah, the boss of New York's Senate Republican machine insisted that "Money does not buy elections," dismissing reform as "hocus-pocus." But Bruno's moral nullity really shines through in how he uses complaints about donation bundling as an excuse to reject any kind of reform, particularly of the LLCs through which real estate interests funnel millions of dollars a year into the pockets of Senate Republicans.