११ फेब्रुवारी, २००७
"The GOP has morphed from a party that reveres limited government to a party that is girlishly infatuated with executive authority."
Writes Steve Chapman (in the Chicago Tribune), trying to emasculate those damned Republicans who always seem more masculine than the Democrats. See, their masculinity is really feminine, because when they like a really masculine character like Rudy Giuliani, they're acting like girls (or gay guys) lusting after a macho man. I love sexual imagery in political analysis. There's also a lot of talk about Shakespeare in the linked piece. I love literary crap in political analysis too. And, if you go to the link, good luck wading through it. Let me give you a quick translation: Hey, no fair nominating such a strong candidate!
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
४६ टिप्पण्या:
acting like girls (or gay guys) lusting after a macho man.
I think this is basically what happened in the 2004 election. Bush convinced people like yourself that he was going to stand up to terrorists while Kerry would coddle them.
It worked like a charm on low-information voters and at least one law professor.
Macho men? More like classic bullies. That is what George Bush and Rudy Guilliani are. They are incompetent boobs who talk tough and use intimidation to hide a deep-seated insecurity.
Here's a list of famous people who had lisps, including that girly man, Humphrey Bogart. You know, some guys are so masculine, they have to crank it down a notch so they won't scare you.
Chapman might want to read Hamlet or Lear before commenting. There's no evidence in his column that he has. Nor is there any explanation of why admiration of a strong executive is girly, unless, of course, Chapman follows that old sexist canard that women fall at the feet of macho men. By that logic, he'll have CAIR on his case. Don't Arabs prefer the strong horse?
What a muddle.
Mike Tyson also has a lisp. Go ahead, call him not masculine.
The referenced article seemed to be written by a rejected girlfriend.
From the story:
"Nominating the pro-choice Giuliani would require Republicans to abandon one of the party's bedrock positions: protecting the unborn."
No it wouldn't.
It's funny to watch the left-lib press attemp to scare conservatives away from Giuliani by trying to play to their own bigoted stereotypes of same.
"Why are those biblethumping Jesus camp hillbillys flocking to Rudy? Don't they know he likes homos and is pro-choice? We better let them know. Otherwise Hillary is toast."
When you juxtaposition this with their fawning slobbering over an empty suit like Obama, it is even more hilarious.
It shows that Giuliani is a very real threat to Hillary! in this next election.
Why are those biblethumping Jesus camp hillbillys flocking to Rudy? Don't they know he likes homos and is pro-choice?
Good question. Kind of like we couldn't figure out why Cheney got so pissed off, when Kerry mentioned his daughter is a lesbian, or why both Cheney and Mary get pissed when Wolf Blitzer mentions the fact that Mary is pregnant now (out of wedlock with David Crosby's (?) baby).
After all it is the "biblethumping Jesus camp hillbillys" (as you so crudely put it) who got this passage inserted in the 2004 Republican platform:
"That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the 14th Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions."
I'm sure that Guiliani, unless he is a bigger flip-flopper than the despised John Kerry, will never endorse such a statement.
Freder - page 84. Yeah, that wasn't our finest moment, and just goes to show that conservatives are perfectly willing to seek judicial activism when it suits them. As usual, I agree with Justice Scalia:
"I've spoken to people who say that The Constitution not only does not require the States to permit abortion, it requires the States to prohibit abortion.
And I read my Constitution, my Bill of Rights, I can't find anything in there about it. It says nothing about it. I mean, there is a due process clause in the Fourteenth Amendment. If you want to, you know, due process guarantees process and nothing more.
But the anti-abortion[ist]s say, 'well nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law. And the fetus is a person and therefore it's covered.' The only thing is the very next sentence; you see, I'm a lawyer so I do read the next sentence. I mean, talking about a text here.
The next sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment says representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers counting the whole number of persons in each State. You think they were counting fetuses?
I don't think so. So reading it as a lawyer I think The Constitution says nothing either way on it. And we should stop trying to resolve profound social questions by fighting them out on the Supreme Court and having the Supreme Court make essentially policy judgements."
This point, of course, further goes to underscore why it shouldn't be a problem for pro-lifers to support Giuliani despite his being pro-choice. Unless or until we can get a Constitutional amendment off the ground, a process which the President has no control over, abortion is, with a very few exceptions, a matter for the states. Period.
This point, of course, further goes to underscore why it shouldn't be a problem for pro-lifers to support Giuliani despite his being pro-choice.
This of course is why you think the pro-lifers shouldn't have a problem with Guiliani. The reality is somewhat different. There is a good chunk of the electorate out there for whom a candidate being pro-choice (no matter how they try and parse it) is a deal-breaker. And as for living with a couple of gay guys, well that doesn't play too well in Peoria. Dick and Lynne may be proud of their daughter, and Mary may be happy about her pregnancy but its not something they want to discuss too openly--the neighbors may not be as understanding, you know.
Freder:
"This of course is why you think the pro-lifers shouldn't have a problem with Guiliani."
Freder, I am a pro-lifer! In fact, I'm probably more hardcore than most pro-lifers in terms of my willingness to follow the logic to its logical conclusion (many pro-lifers accept exceptions for rape and incest on normative grounds, not just as a concession to political expediency; I support such exceptions only so far as they're necessary to secure passage of a law). I don't know why you and, oh, what was his name, the fellow the other day, seems to suggest that I talk about pro-lifers as some group that I'm not part of! I don't mind people disagreeing with my position on abortion, but it's starting to get a little insulting when they imply that I'm somehow not pro-life because I put my duties to the Constitution of the United Staets ahead of my moral and political views. That is my obligation, and while it applies with greater force to me than native-born Americans, to put one's politcal views ahead of fealty to the Cosntitution is unconscionable.
From Chapman's story ..."In office, he frequently pressed against the limits of his authority, and then kept going. One instance was his attempt to evict the Brooklyn Museum of Art because he objected to one painting in a temporary exhibit--an action that a federal court ruled unconstitutional."
Notice the way Chapman deliberately understates the "temporary art" which my memory say was the infamous despicable "art" that desecrated the Virgin Mary.
I hate the MSM (as if you all did not already know that). In his article, Chapman actually proves he is the one with no balls.
Feder talks about Guliani's imcompetence. Like most leftists,the facts are not on his side. He obviously didn't live in New York before Guliani became mayor. No sane individual spent any time in Time's Square w/o feeling intimidated by the lawlessness. Mr. incompetent changed all of that during his tenure at mayor. What have your saviours accomplishes during their careers as leaders,other than getting elected?
I don't know why you and, oh, what was his name, the fellow the other day, seems to suggest that I talk about pro-lifers as some group that I'm not part of!
Probably because you don't resemble the the stock characters in the cardboard-cutout-and-stick-figure world that furious, earnest, eternal adolescents (like F.F. and his cohort) inhabit. It is imperative that you be shoehorned into one of the acceptable categories.
Feder talks about Guliani's imcompetence. Like most leftists,the facts are not on his side.
Well, how about these facts. Contrary to all advice, he put the emergency response center in the World Trade Center, which had already suffered one terrorist attack and was probably the number one terrorist target in the country (okay, number 2 after the Capitol in Washington).
After the 1993 attack on the WTC, it was noted that police and fire radios were on different bands and that this lack of communication was a serious problem that needed immediate attention. With eight whole years to fix this simple problem what did Guiliani do? Absolutely nothing.
As they say in Texas, he is "all hat and no cattle". He is truly a worthy successor to George W. Bush. No wonder Ann is so enamored of him (Although if his candidacy crashes and burns I'm sure she will claim she always thought he was a bum.)
Notice the way Chapman deliberately understates the "temporary art" which my memory say was the infamous despicable "art" that desecrated the Virgin Mary.
Well, so what? The question is whether the action is whether or not the action was unconstitutional or not. Not whether or not you, or anyone else, find the art objectionable. Once we let a mayor decide what is suitable for you or me to see, then well, we are one more step towards displays of degenerate art which I'm sure Ann won't disapprove of.
Libbyterian,
You doth protest too much, methinks.
Freder's obsession with walkie-talkie frequencies recalls the old joke about how a group of Jesuits, upon being accused of killing two men and a dog, would always loudly produce the dog.
The NYC of 1992 was on its way to becoming what most of Detroit and LA are today: lawless free-fire zones. If we were to pull the troops out of Iraq, we ought to redeploy them to New Orleans and a dozen other places almost as badly in need of law and government as Sadr City.
Giuliani may get more credit than he deserves for saving New York--Bill Bratton deserves more for his part--but Giuliani had the guts, charisma, and will to make it all happen.
Rudy does have his bad sides. He is a bit of a diva (cf Bratton) and could be a bit of a bully as a prosecutor, though it's funny to hear the left say that, seeing as the best evidence of said bullying was his (overzealous) pursuit of greedy white male capitalists on Wall Street. His delayed exit from the 2000 race against Hillary also has uncomfortable echoes of H. Ross.
But no one is perfect, and as far as macho goes, I'll bet that there aren't many union halls out there where Rudy would be allowed to pay for his own beer.
The issue, Freder, was that the city was paying for the honor of showing the "art"
Well, that's not the issue at all. The mayor can no more decide what is good art after the funds are distributed than any other citizen can. That is black letter first amendment law.
Freder's obsession with walkie-talkie frequencies recalls the old joke about how a group of Jesuits, upon being accused of killing two men and a dog, would always loudly produce the dog.
Are you freaking kidding me? Do you realize how many people died because of the walkie-talkie frequencies you so easily dismiss? Or the boneheaded decision to put the emergency response center in the WTC? The lack of intercommunication was pointed out in 1993, again in 2001, and was supposedly a top priority of Homeland Security, yet it was a major factor in the deplorable Katrina response.
I'll bet that there aren't many union halls out there where Rudy would be allowed to pay for his own beer.
Oh really. I bet in most union halls he would get his lights punched out.
Why do Republicans want a black market in abortion?
Because the drug war is working so well.
==
Do Republicans support drug prohibition because it finances criminals or because it finances terrorists?
Republican Socialism. Price supports for criminals and terrorists.
WildMonk,
Well actually Guilani turned down Muslim money.
Freder - come off it. The "art" in question was purposely and maliciously intended to insult Catholics. Would you be so critical of Giuliani if he had objected to paying for an image offensive to Muslims? Or is your anger only reserved for situations where you see political gain?
Frankly, I could care less about the delicate sensibilities of Muslims. So yes I would be.
because Giuliani failed to do the ONE THING Freder mentions then we're supposed to buy his point that all of the rest of his extraordinary record means noting.
Well other than his extraordinary record with crimefighting (accomplished with anal rape with broomsticks) what are his other accomplishments?
freder,
Radio systems are very hard to change in short order.
The US military had a similar problem in Grenada. It took 20 years and a new generation of radios to get it all sorted out.
It is not just the vehicle radios, you also have to change proceedures, call center software and lots of other stuff. Very expensive.
The mayor can change policy with some effort. Spending a few hundred million is tougher.
Then you have the problem of changeover. Police and firemen still have to be able to respond to calls during changeover.
Please, folks. It's spelled G-I-U-L-I-A-N-I. And, even in a dress, he will kick terrorist ass. Look at the way he dealt with catamite-abusing Arafat.
Our local paper headlined with all the "trouble" Hizzoner will face from the usual cast of boogeymen: those fearsome, gun-toting, hetero, Christians.
We go ga-ga for a man with the right chip on his shoulder. Even when he's wearing a dress.
Hmmm, I am anti abortion because I believe it is murder. Why is that such a challenging position?
I am pro-legalization of marijuana because I believe it to be fairly safe. I am anti-legalization of cocaine and heroin because I think it steals people's souls through horrid addiction.
Why would you think that Christian conservatives are a homogeneous group?
Trey
So, let me get this straight. In addition to their usual stereotyping of their opponents and their insistence that both the opponents and the opponents policies must be perfect, FF and others are now arguing that THE SAME FREAKIN' BUREAUCRACIES that they want to take over health care and most other human behaviors failed to change radio frequencies? I *know* they aren't kidding, but this is just simple-minded.
Evidently, FF (and his supporters) believe that all bureaucracies need to be perfect purveyors of perfect policies is Lefties in charge. How about some evidence? I suggest they start with those sterling bureaucracies in the USSR, North Korea, Cuba and so on which do such a wonderful job.
Since I see such similar attacks on Giuliani on other blogs, I can only assume that the Left is scared sh*tless that not only can Giuliani win, he won't govern from the Left, or maybe even the left-center, or maybe even the center. As their hysteria mounts, I am only more sure.
I am, by the way, not remotely conservative (except in a few social areas where I support group choices), and Giuliani is not my favorite candidate at the moment. However, FF and such are pushing me more that direction with every idiotic attack they make.
No sane individual spent any time in Time's Square w/o feeling intimidated by the lawlessness. Hayek
Oh, give me a break. How much of a girly-man are you? Times Square has ALWAYS been dominated by tourists and commuters (being right near Port Authority). I had to walk down 42nd street between 7th and 8th avenues every day for a year when I commuted from New Jersey, pre-Giuliani and not once did I feel intimidated.
Yeah - there were porn shops, but big freaking deal. Since when does porn equal "lawlessness"? Times Square has always been one of the safer parts of New York, porn or not. You want crime? Go to the Bronx. Not Manhattan south of 96th street.
New York got safer after the crack wars subsided. Giuliani's use of computers to tackle crime helped as well, but crime was going down in the rest of the country well.
Why don't we give the real reason behind the drop in crime? The use of very aggressive anti-gun tactics, led by Giuliani himself. And also the fact that Roe V. Wade coming about in 1973 led to reduction in crime a generation later (that's not my theory by the way - there are books written on that subject).
The mayor can change policy with some effort. Spending a few hundred million is tougher.
The problem is he didn't even bother to try.
FF and others are now arguing that THE SAME FREAKIN' BUREAUCRACIES that they want to take over health care and most other human behaviors failed to change radio frequencies?
Well, of course the point is that we want different people in charge of the bureaucracies than the incompetents you would elect to run them.
Since I see such similar attacks on Giuliani on other blogs, I can only assume that the Left is scared sh*tless that not only can Giuliani win, he won't govern from the Left, or maybe even the left-center, or maybe even the center. As their hysteria mounts, I am only more sure.
Actually, as a Democrat, I should want nothing more than Giuliani to run (just like Hillary is the dream candidate for the Republicans). He is a disaster for the Republican party. He will tear it apart. If I didn't think that the Democrats were incapable of thinking strategically I would think that he was a Rovian plot on the part of the Democrats.
Yo Freder,
Grow up.
I used to be ignorant like yourself.
I know it's cool to be anti-establishment and all, but you've got to use your brain.
You'll regret all the stupidity you've typed sometime in the future, surely.
Tone it down man, you're really pathetic.
Not to try to get this back on track or anything, but I think that the topic quote is sad but true. While I am not sure if it is "girlish" or not, the GOP has become distracted from conservativism and focused on power. I am sick of it. I think it will be an important factor for the next elections and I am somewhat doubtful that the Republicans can reinvigorate their base.
We do not trust them anymore.
Trey
Since I see such similar attacks on Giuliani on other blogs, I can only assume that the Left is scared sh*tless that not only can Giuliani win, he won't govern from the Left, or maybe even the left-center, or maybe even the center. As their hysteria mounts, I am only more sure.
I would gladly invite Giuliani as a candidate for the Republican party. He will almost inevitably invite a 3rd party candidate from the right to siphon away votes from the base, and like the last Republican Congress he is a scandal-in-waiting. Forget his 3 marriages, his business dealings over the last 4 years (w/ Kerik mind you) will make Whitewater look like a Clinton-sponsored bake sale.
I'm not sure about the premise of the linked article, but I do know that the Republicans will be swayed by Giuliani at their own risk.
After the 1993 attack on the WTC, it was noted that police and fire radios were on different bands and that this lack of communication was a serious problem that needed immediate attention. With eight whole years to fix this simple problem what did Guiliani do? Absolutely nothing.
I was curious if your bold print was true, so I grabbed the book 102 Minutes by Jim Dwyer and Kevin Flynn off my shelf.
It looks like your bold print stating Giuliani did "absolutely nothing" is a lie.
On page 60: "In 1996 and 1997, dozens of these radios had been distributed to select police and fire commanders so the agencies could communicate, an important recommendation from the 1990 Aviation Emergency Preparedness Working Group. There was a hitch, though. Who would be in control of the inter-agency frequency? Who would decide when it should be used and how? Representaives of the Police and Fire Departments had met for months to settle these questions, but the talks broke down over unresolved issues of protocol. The radios were new and ready to use. It was just that no one outside the OEM was willing to talk on them yet. The fire chiefs kept them in the trunks of their cars. As for the police chiefs, the radios never left the shelves."
OEM = Office of Emergency Management, which was created by Giuliani in 1996.
Your claim that it was a "simple problem" to fix is also a lie, according to this book. The authors go over the deep, long-standing problems between the police and firefighters, who did not like each other, sometimes had fistfights at rescue scenes, and the only thing they could usually ever agree on was "the date of their annual boxing match."
I trust that, since you've been spastically trolling this forum as someone who seems to fancy himself a Warrior for Truth in the Blogosphere, you will retract these two lies. And that, in the future, you will check your facts before bold-printing your claims about Rudy Giuliani.
There's no doubt there are things to criticize Giuliani on with respect to 9/11. Just tell the truth and be fair about it. you know, the way you want us to be about Clinton and the path to 9/11. :)
Your claim that it was a "simple problem" to fix is also a lie, according to this book.
I was wrong, he did do something. Although buying "dozens" of radios when there are thousands of emergency responders in NYC is hardly much. And when I said "simple problem to fix", I was referring to the technological issues, not deep seated animosity between cops and firefighters. Of course, building bridges is not Giuliani's strong suit either.
I really enjoy reading the Lefties on blogs' comments sections (and in newspapers) tell the Righties what they simply must think about an issue.
Dance monkeys, dance. You amuse me.
They are incompetent boobs
The criminals Rudy packed into Rikers Island didn't think him such an incompetent boob.
Nor did all the NYC DEMOCRATS who elected him a few times.
Course, you could make the case all the NYC DEMOCRATS who elected him are moronic fools who vote for incompetent boobs.
Wildmonk - You complete moron. I voted for Giuliani both times, so stop trying to stereotype people's beliefs that you no absolutely nothing about.
There's ample evidence that New York City's crime rate was helped by the diminishing crack epidemic and the future criminals that were aborted starting in 1973. I gave Giuliani the credit where it was due, i.e. his use of computers to monitor crime and his avid anti-gun policy.
freder:
"Contrary to all advice, he put the emergency response center in the World Trade Center..."
Gee, can't imagine why he ever thought he'd need one there.
Repression is great for artists, btw. Bring it on!
did anyone mention crushing debt passed on by Rudy to Bloomberg?
How about the 3 trip rule for mothers seeking federal program aide for their kids...first trip you get the forms. second trip you bring back the forms. third trip you get to meet someone to review the forms and you are rejected but you are allowed to come back a fourth time to appeal the rejection...and since it was a federal program which the City of New York was merely and ONLY the administrator NOT THE DECIDER, the courts had to move in and order Rudy et al to cut it out.
We can of course delve into his restraining order, his adultery...Bernard Kerik anyone?
its a horrible notion to contemplate that unless there was a 9-11, there would be no current version of Rudy.
hdhouse,
Are you, as a liberal, saying that you're not in favor of a conservative Presidential candidate?
The deuce you say.
C.J.Colucci,
Giuliani strong? Come on, boys and girls, are you all that far removed from the schoolyard? Doesn't he just scream "overcompensating sissy?"
Not near as much as the non-binding resolution folks.
Way to miss the point, Ann. Chapman's article raises a number of legitimate, substantive issues about Giuliani that ought to give Republicans pause. Rather than address any of them the merits, you fixated on one gratuitous use of "girlishly," as if to imply that the article was about about. Lame.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा