I’ve always been ambivalent about Rudy “Freakin'” Giuliani. On the one hand, he’s never been a conservative in terms of his personal approach and too many of his policy initiatives.
On the other hand, he’s a genuine leader.
And – unlike too many candidates, including all the Democrats – he understands the situation in this world – and that the Democrats’ perception of this world froze solid on 9/10:
Rudy Giuliani said if a Democrat is elected president in 2008, America will be at risk for another terrorist attack on the scale of Sept. 11, 2001.
But if a Republican is elected, he said, especially if it is him, terrorist attacks can be anticipated and stopped.
“If any Republican is elected president —- and I think obviously I would be the best at this —- we will remain on offense and will anticipate what [the terrorists] will do and try to stop them before they do it,” Giuliani said.
And while “anticipate” might not have been the most judicious choice of words, the real choice – between the party that knows there’s a war going on and the one that denies it as hard as they can – couldn’t be more stark.
The former New York City mayor, currently leading in all national polls for the Republican nomination for president, said Tuesday night that America would ultimately defeat terrorism no matter which party gains the White House.
“But the question is how long will it take and how many casualties will we have?” Giuliani said. “If we are on defense [with a Democratic president], we will have more losses and it will go on longer.”
“I listen a little to the Democrats and if one of them gets elected, we are going on defense,” Giuliani continued. “We will wave the white flag on Iraq. We will cut back on the Patriot Act, electronic surveillance, interrogation and we will be back to our pre-Sept. 11 attitude of defense.”
Bingo.
That’s the key to the whole thing; if the Dems win, they will cede the initiative to the enemy. And ceding the initiative is how nations lose.
He added: “The Democrats do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us.”
After his speech to the Rockingham County Lincoln Day Dinner, I asked him about his statements and Giuliani said flatly: “America will be safer with a Republican president.”
He’s got that going for him.
Top wingnut pros and cons for Giuliani:
Pro:
9/11
Con:
pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-gun control, married three times – once to a cousin, Bernard Kerik, talks like Elmer Fudd, chickened out of senate race against Hillary, likes to dress up as a lady.
How’d you like to drag that record into the South Carolina primary? So far, no Republican has gained enough traction to shove all of that down Rudy’s throat. That will change. The field will sort itself out and, once the rightwing smear machine decides on its candidate, all the righty thugs will fall in line against Rudy. And Angryclown will post an amused “told ya so.”
By the way, once he gets past the 9/11 part of his stump speech, is there anything in that gets you wingnuts excited? Mostly it’s backfill – trying to convince you he didn’t really mean anything that happened in his anti-gun, pro-abortion career that preceded that holiest of days.
As far as ceding the initiative to the enemy, that’s already a fact. Bush bet the house on Iraq and lost. The rest is damage control.
Chickened out of senate race? He had just been diagnosed with prostate cancer. If he had stayed in you would have criticized him for that too.
“Bush bet the house on Iraq and lost. The rest is damage control.”
Only if Harry “We surrender” Reid gets his way.
Giuliani said,
“We will wave the white flag on Iraq.”
Bullshit. Pulling out the troops, redeploying them strategically and developing, implementing and executing a diplomatic solution supported by special forces is not surrendering.
“We will cut back on the Patriot Act
Again. Bullshit. Reviewing the Act and revising or enhancing sections that protect the civil rights of citizens is not cutting back.
“electronic surveillance”
No one has ever said it couldn’t be done. You simply have to follow the guidelines of reporting and accounting.
“interrogation”
You can’t utilize techniques defined or considered torture.
“we will be back to our pre-Sept. 11 attitude of defense.”
Pure rhetoric, demagoguery and fear mongering with zero basis is fact.
Giuliani said,
“We will wave the white flag on Iraq.”
Harry Reid said,
“We have lost the war.” With troops still in the field.
Want some whine to wash that crow down, Doug?
Ah, Kermit. Ye of little knowledge and intelligence. Rudy’s heart was never in that race – he was looking for a way out weeks before the diagnosis. (Almost forgot the embarrassing press conference in which he pulled out and credited the support of his newest special lady – First Lady to be? Haha! – Judy Nathan. )
Interesting that the Democrats here are SO frightened of Rudy Giuliani that they will attack him for AGREEING with them on abortion, gay rights, gun control and marital infidelity, just to prevent him from getting elected and actually fighting the War on Terror.
Doug, “redeploying” our troops is a retreat, any way you cut and run it, and Murtha’s suggestion of moving them to “nearby” Okinawa (8000 miles away) would get any normal person laughed out of town.
You are profoundly silly, J.R. Ewing. Giuliani is a lot more palatable to Democrats than most of the Republican alternatives. Who do you think elected him mayor of an overwhelmingly Democratic town? *If only* you wingnuts had it in you to nominate a centrist simply because he’s a good leader. You don’t. You’ll eat him alive.
“You’ll eat him alive.”
Joe Lieberman, anyone?
“Bullshit. Pulling out the troops, redeploying them strategically and developing, implementing and executing a diplomatic solution supported by special forces is not surrendering.”
Doug is apparently alone in considering the end of the Vietnam war a US victory.
Giuliani is a lot more palatable to Democrats than most of the Republican alternatives.
Ah. ANOTHER reason they’re scared of him!
Given a choice between Rudy and Hillary!, Republicans will at the worst hold their noses and vote Rudy (especially if there’s a solid conservative for Veep, and if Rudy pulls his head out and makes some big, dramatic constructionist noises. Which I think he’ll do; I think his announcements about abortion in the past few weeks were to get the issue over with) and giggle themselves silly over Hills. Democats? Well, the sensible, non-koolaid-sotted ones (and there are a few out there) will look at Hillary!, consider the consequences – and Rudy won’t look so bad.
J. Ewing Says:
April 26th, 2007 at 7:15 am
Interesting that the Democrats here are SO frightened of Rudy Giuliani that they will attack him for AGREEING with them on abortion, gay rights, gun control and marital infidelity, just to prevent him from getting elected and actually fighting the War on Terror.
This is what I was thinking as I began to read through the posts here. It seems to me that leftists are trying to convince us that we do not like Giuliani. We say we do, they say no, you don’t really, he does a, b and c and has stood for x, y, and z. They’re scared we will nominate him and are trying to talk us out of it. This argument has been hashed out on this forum before and no matter how many times social conservatives say that YES, we would vote for him, we hear how we won’t and we shouldn’t and-haha-watch and see. Well, we’ll watch and see alright.
Haha! How do you know Angryclown isn’t using REVERSE PSYCHOLOGY? Maybe Angryclown *wants* you to nominate Giuliani. Or DOUBLE-REVERSE PSYCHOLOGY? Maybe Angryclown wants you to think he wants you to think you don’t like Rudy so you will nominate him. Mwahahahaha!
Either way, Angryclown’s evil plan has been deployed. You have only a 50% chance of foiling it before Angryclown – through the election of his subversive puppet Rudy or the defeat of super-patriot Rudy: Angryclown’s not tellin’ – ruins America!
Cripes, you wingnuts are so sued to the conspiracy theorizing you can’t see straight. Calm down and have a glass of water, Scary Colleen.
Ha! Almost made you drink fluoridated water!
I think most right-leaners are going to go with Rudy – once he goes through the refinement process a little bit more and announces that he really doesn’t care quite so much about disarming legal gun-owners. Once we get assurances from Rudy that he’ll leave the lawful pistol-packers alone, most of us can live with his views on abortion, gays, yada yada. He gets most of the big picture, and he understands the terror situation as well as any of the other yahoos.
Plus, he is a real leader, unlike just about all of the others.
So come on, Rudy – cut the crap about gun control for law-abiding citizens and we’ll all buy in! We’re ready to help you, Rudy – just toss us that bone. That’s all you’ve got to do.
To answer Colleen, I don’t think any leftists are scared of a Rudy nomination. I think most of us are scratching our heads as to his current popularity. And what is even more head scratching is PaulC’s assertion for Rudy to “toss us a bone.” I think that is what they call flip-flopping if my memory serves me right.
My guess is Rudy, like McCain, wins early in the primary season, then at some point…the campaigning gets down right ugly (perhaps McCain takes a page out of the Bush playbook) and his campaign is squashed.
and JEwing, what that F? You said, “AGREEING with them on abortion, gay rights, gun control and marital infidelity.” Maritial infidelity? Are you saying the democrats are pro-infidelity? Take a look at the republican front runners and democratic front runners…talk about the party of family values.
Number of divorces for Clinton, Obama and Edwards = 0
Number of divorces for Rudy, Mitt & Mccain = 3
Number of spouse’s extramarital affairs ignored for own future political gain:
Rudy, Mitt and McCain – 0
Obama and Edwards – 0 that we know of
Clinton – Dozens and dozens.
Uh, dude. Rudy? That’s another closet full of skeletons. Google “Cristyne Lategano.”
Also Rudy gets bonus points for letting Donna Hanover (wife #2 and the mother of his kids) know he was dumping her in a press conference. Oh, and his college-age son Andrew is estranged from Dad cause of the way Rudy treated mom and he hates his stepmom. And isn’t shy about talking to the tabloids.
I know, I know. Angryclown’s just locking Colleen’s Rudy vote in place. But I gotta wonder what you’re thinking. Do you know any NYC Republicans you can ask? Cause I think you’ll get a note of caution, if not Angryclown’s utter disbelier.
My take is that Rudy is pro-choice, but not pro-abortion like most Democrats are. Not ideal, but I can live with that.
Interesting is that Howie Dean went nuts over Rudy’s comments, but didn’t refute any of them. Just got mad that Rudy said those things.
Oh, and I agree that character counts. That is why I have reservations about both Rudy and Newt. If you treat your ex-wife like they have, it could mean you will have problems elsewhere.
Look at Clinton as a perfect example. Rapist of Juanita Broaddirck, sexual harrasser. Slick politician who can’t be trusted.
Chuck blathered: “My take is that Rudy is pro-choice, but not pro-abortion like most Democrats are.”
Yeah, I’m pretty sure Pelosi’s poking holes in condoms so there’ll be more unwanted pregnancies to abort. If only Democrats were just pro-choice!
AC, Democrats are against:
24 hour cooling off period before abortion
Full disclosure of fetal development, financial aid, adaptive services, etc
Banning abortions on nearly full term children who can survive outside the womb
Or talk to kids who went to Duluth East high school. The staff there didn’t want to be known as the school with the pregnant kids (that was Duluth Denfield), so if a girl would go in for counciling after getting pregnant, they would just automatically set her up for an abortion. No discussing alternatives.
Big abortion is a scary industry.
“Big Abortion.”
You’re an idiot, Chuck.
“Big Abortion.”
You’re an idiot, Chuck.
Well, you sure showed him.
The abortion industry has gotten away with raping the First Amendment in ways that dwarf any of the right’s so-called infringements, for starters. The kind of thing that liberals would cause liberals to solemnly knit their brows and chant “scary! scary! scary!” if it were aimed at them.
Well, you sure showed Angryclown.
Um, like what, for instance? And where does the scary, First-Amendment-raping “abortion industry” fall in the Fortune 500?
Cause that must be the only industry you wingnuts won’t take it from willingly.
More than 1 million abortions are performed in the US every year. That would be a billion dollar industry, AC. That’s pretty big in my book.
Stunning, angryclown! *applauds*
Now, since you enjoy a good “for instance”, will you provide one of those “Fortune 500” “willing” First-Amendment-rapes you were referring to?
Kerm, did you know that 5.5 million individual servings of lemonade and other beverages are served by small children in roadside stands every year? It’s Big Lemonade you should be afraid of.
Hint: a medical procedure is not the same thing as an “industry.” The medical “industry” makes lots more money from each live birth than from abortions. Your wacky fear-mongering is (as usual) misplaced.
Um, like what, for instance?
Um, like, try to picket a Planned Parenthood clinic. Many of them have gotten court orders pushing the protests back a LONG way from the clinic property. And violating that order will get you a lot more jail time and higher bail than, say, equally-civil protesters at any of the big Republican conventions.
And where does the scary, First-Amendment-raping “abortion industry” fall in the Fortune 500?
Strawman. Doesn’t have to be on the Fortune 500 to be an industry. But I’m not really focused on the financials here.
I prefer to call it a “leftist sacrament”.
And the U.S. has the most liberal abortion laws in the world. Or should I say non-laws. The only nation more progressive is China, where they take you at gunpoint and force you to have an abortion once you’ve reached your child allotment.
You mean you’re not really focused on the facts. If you’re going to call abortion an industry, seems to me you’d have some economic or financial support. The truth is, the medical industry makes tons more money delivering babies and taking care of kids than it does from 86ing fetuses.
If abortions were done with handguns, you’d be all for ’em.
If you’re going to call abortion an industry, seems to me you’d have some economic or financial support. The truth is, the medical industry makes tons more money delivering babies and taking care of kids than it does from 86ing fetuses.
I don’t really care what you call the industry – although even a liberal like you, Clown, oughtta know that size doesn’t determine whether something’s an “industry”.
The Big Three make more money than auto scrapyards, but both are industries.
At any rate, the restrictions that the abortion, um, movement has clapped on their dissenters’ free speech are the big issue to me.
Way back when I was a little buzz, our family Dr was Dr Tiller of Wichita, Ks. Then came 1972. Check out his practice and see how much he made from this. Big industry indeed.
There’s also an industry for making refrigerator magnets, Mitch, but its relevance to this discussion is equally doubtful
When your fellow wingnuts Upchuck and Kermie talk about “the abortion industry” and – the most nutty – “Big Abortion,” they are hinting darkly at organized forces conspiring against the common good for their own economic benefit. That’s stupid.
Abortions are performed by doctors, hospitals and clinics. Secondary economic players include drugmakers and medical instrument manufacturers, among many others. All of whom, taken as industries, make buttloads more money from delivering live babies and treating them cradle to grave.
Yet another example of wingnuts simply making shit up to trash the motives and ethics of people who differ with them on policy.
Too bad you didn’t come along a little later, Buzzkill.
angryclown said:
“If abortions were done with handguns, you’d be all for ‘em.”
and then he said:
“making shit up to trash the motives and ethics of people who differ with them on policy.”
angryclown is so very funny!
Bringing the conversation back to Rudy. In regards to his stance on abortion apparently his flip flops are broken in:
Guiliani 2007:
“The Supreme Court reached the correct conclusion in upholding the congressional ban on partial birth abortion,” Giuliani said in a statement on the 5–4 decision. “I agree with it.”
Guiliani 1999-2000
When asked whether he supported a ban on what critics call partial-birth abortions, Giuliani replied, “No, I have not supported that, and I don’t see my position on that changing.” Giuliani also told The Albany Times Union that he would not support a ban on late-term. Moreover, when asked “If you were in the Senate and he [President Clinton] vetoed the so-called partial-birth abortion procedure.you would support the president on that.” Giuliani replied: “Yes. I said I then that I support him, so I have no reason to change my mind about it.” [CNN, 12/2/99; New York Times, 11/26/99; CNN Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, 2/6/00]
Actually Fulcrum, the two statements don’t conflict.
Rudy said he has not problem with inficide…I mean partial birth abortion.
But the law passed and the USSC (or is it the SCUS) said there is no legal or constitional reason to over turn this law.
Let me give you another example. I love beer. I think I should be able to drink a beer while driving down the road. I think that should be legal (not really, but I’m making a point). The legislature has ruled that I cannot not do this. If someone in big beer sues and it goes to the Supreme Court and they uphold the ban on what it’s opponents call “open container”, I would have to agree that the decision is correct. I may not like it, but it would be the right court ruling.
Actually Chuck, it’s SCOTUS. And very few lemonade stands and refrigerator magnets result in an ex-fetus being thrown in a garbage can.
Wow, Upchuck, nice job on the beer/abortion parallel.
Angryclown was right. You’re an idiot.
So, Mitch wrote:
Number of spouse’s extramarital affairs ignored for own future political gain:
Rudy, Mitt and McCain – 0
Obama and Edwards – 0 that we know of
Clinton – Dozens and dozens.
Just for sake of accuracy, the number of affairs ignored for Rudy, Mitt and McCain should also be cited as “0 that we know of” unless you were there, but that’s not my issue.
So Clinton decided to keep her marriage together and work on reconciliation instead of divorcing the former President. How can you argue both for the defense of marriage and encourage non-tolerance within the marriage to the point of demanding divorce?
Seems to me that she is living up to the Christian ideal of forgiveness and taking vows seriously, but conservatives have a complete null-set loop when they try to hold the idea of “Iron Bitch Hillary” with “Wronged wife who took her vows seriously”.
Or maybe your are allowing your own marital experience to cloud your thinking?
You know you’ve won the debate when the other guy starts calling you names. Can’t
debate the message, so attack the messenger.
Amazing how frequently leftists call conservatives/Republicans names, ain’t it.
So Clinton decided to keep her marriage together and work on reconciliation instead of divorcing the former President. How can you argue both for the defense of marriage and encourage non-tolerance within the marriage to the point of demanding divorce?
Strawman. I’m not. I’m saying that Mrs. Clinton put on a huge show of publicly ignoring her husband’s infidelities, largely for political benefit.
Seems to me that she is living up to the Christian ideal of forgiveness and taking vows seriously, but conservatives have a complete null-set loop when they try to hold the idea of “Iron Bitch Hillary” with “Wronged wife who took her vows seriously”.
It’s possible. It’s equally possible – given her demonstrable cold-heartedness in so many other matters of her personal and professional life – that had Bill not promised her a road to the political top, she’d have tubed him decades ago.
They’re both equally likely.
Or maybe your are allowing your own marital experience to cloud your thinking?
Nope! Although that was a staggeringly cheap shot, even for an anonymous commenter.
Mitch said,
“I’m saying that Mrs. Clinton put on a huge show of publicly ignoring her husband’s infidelities, largely for political benefit.”
That’s en entirely subjective statement with zero basis in fact.
How does one “put on a huge show of publicly ignoring” something? Put out a press release stating you have nothing to say?
And for the marital comment, it wasn’t meant to be a cheap shot; I too went through a nasty divorce of staggering proportions and it does affect how I see things, so I constantly question whether I am filtering things through that crap filter or seeing the same shadows on the cave the rest of the world is seeing.
And I’m not anonymous, you already know me from a humor list.
RB
Does not anyone else notice: The “real” conservative “real leaders” either cannot stand up to conservative ideology (Guiliani, McCain) or cannot walk the walk and keep it in their pants (Gingrich, DeLay, Limbaugh). Funny, that.
Mitch lose big time in this thread – weak premises and weaker arguments – a D+ performance:
Protests far enough away from clinics ot keep theh threateners out of clients faces, vs anti-Bush protestors hearded completely out of site of his motorcade – there is an interesting debate topic.
I am no Hillary supporter, but any objective analyst would notice that she had infidility done to her, while the pro-family values claimers were the initiators – of both their divorces and affairs. An F on that one.