Two front-page articles in today's New York Times portray Mayor Giuliani as "extreme." The main news article reports, "he consciously took extreme positions on seemingly intractable issues so that the resulting compromise would further his agenda." The accompanying news analysis says, "When he took what were, by New York terms, novel or extreme stands, he said he was acting tactically, to stir movement in an intellectually stagnant political culture dominated by the Democratic Party. For example, this approach, he said, was behind his proposals to finance scholarships at private schools to give poor children an exit from failing public schools."
It's unclear from the Times whether the term "extreme" is the mayor's or the Times's. If it's the Times's, it sure is illuminating. What one article terms "extreme" is defined in the other article as extreme "by New York terms." Maybe the real definition should be extreme by New York Times terms. After all, the only example the Times cites of an "extreme" position by the mayor is "his proposals to finance scholarships at private schools to give poor children an exit from failing public schools." That's a proposal that tests at about 50% in national polls, depending on how the question is asked. It was part of the Republican platform that President Bush was elected on. The fact that the Times would define it as "extreme" by New York terms only proves the mayor's point about an "intellectually stagnant political culture dominated by the Democratic Party."