But now it's dawning on the pundits that Americans probably know all that stuff by now, so why isn't Rudy sunk? They're shuffling around for explanations. You could say "terrorism fears trump everything," or "the rest of the field is weak." But Rich thinks the right answer is that Americans really aren't as narrow-minded as they are portrayed by Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, James Dobson of Focus on the Family, Gary Bauer of American Values:
These self-promoting values hacks don’t speak for the American mainstream. They don’t speak for the Republican Party. They no longer speak for many evangelical ministers and their flocks. The emperors of morality have in fact had no clothes for some time. Should Rudy Giuliani end up doing a victory dance at the Republican convention, it will be on their graves.Is Rich right about this? I hope so. This is my favorite thing about Giuliani: his potential to bring out the social liberal in the Republican Party.
By the same token, my favorite thing about Hillary Clinton is her potential to bring hawkishness to the Democratic Party.
If this is right and the 2 frontrunners become the nominees, the 2 parties will become more alike and more to my taste. I'm finding that very odd.
Posts
248 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 248 of 248LuckyTroll: And here we are...listening to Fen, Pogo, etc...amateur "hacks"...espousing the same right wing bullshit we've been hearing since before and after the invasion.
"Bullshit" you still haven't been able to counter with valid counterpoints - all you have is your ad hom card. Keep overplaying it.
Rev: Well, polls indicate that somewhere around a quarter to a third of Republicans will consider going third-party if the nominee is (like Giuliani) personally pro-choice.
I left the party over its feeble immigration plan, but I don't understand those who would oppose Rudy b/c he is pro-choice. The only way POTUS can influence the abortion issue is by appointing strict constructionists, which seems to be what Rudy has promised to do.
Lucky will say: &*!!$# wingnut &^%%@@!! [insert ad hom] !@### [insert strawman]!**&& [insert red herring]..
Yawn.
Fen,
You're dumb as a stump.
And you know it. too.
Fen says..."I left the party over its feeble immigration plan..."
As if anybody could possibly believe Fen was ever a Democrat.
Like I said...dumb...and a liar, too.
Luckyoldson said...
"Simon, Wishful thinking isn't going to negate the job your hero has done over his two terms."
My Hero has life tenure, has served a lot more than two terms, and still has a lot more years left in him yet. And I think I've made it fairly clear that not only is George W. bush not my "hero," but that I find him and the anti-intellectual strain of the GOP that he represents (which is not a slam on the Christian right, many of whom are in no way part of said strain) distasteful at best. If that wasn't clear to you before, I hope it is now. The issue was never whether George W. Bush was a good candidate or would make a good President; it was whether he was better than the alternatives.
"Whatever happens, it will be an approvement over what we've experienced."
Non-responsive. Again, no matter how unlikely you think it is, suppose next November rolls around, the election happens and the GOP candidate is declared the winner. You can fill in whatever blanks please you to set the stage. What do you and your fellow members of the nutsroots do?
Simon,
Nothing I said was non-responsive.
Unless you can tell the future, nobody knows exactly what will or will not happen after 2008...but...we ALL know what has already happened with Bush running the show.
A better question is this; What are YOU basing your continued support on??
Being a sycophant doesn't mean you're right, only that you don't think for yourself.
And the Suckfest continues...
Simon:
• Oil sets new record above $93
• Dollar hits record low against euro
Keep on suckin'...
Simon,
After six years, the liberation of Afghanistan has become a triumph without victory. The fighting is the greatest it has been since the beginning of the war and more civilians are dying. In fact, while the enemy has killed hundreds of civilians this year, a similar number of civilians have been killed by American forces.
With relatively few troops there, the U.S. and NATO rely on air power. The number of civilians killed in air strikes has doubled.
Simon,
Guess who’s back in the administration’s good graces? “Ahmad Chalabi, the controversial, ubiquitous Iraqi politician and one-time Bush administration favorite, has re-emerged as a central figure in the latest U.S. strategy for Iraq.
Simon,
The claim that Iran is on the path to global domination is beyond ludicrous. Yes, the Iranian regime is a nasty piece of work in many ways, and it would be a bad thing if that regime acquired nuclear weapons.
But let’s have some perspective, please: we’re talking about a country with roughly the G.D.P. of Connecticut, and a government whose military budget is roughly the same as Sweden’s.
Simon,
Buck, buck, buck, buck, buck...
I'm not sure how important Clinton's high negatives will be(this business about 40% won't vote for her no matter what). I've never seen a regional breakdown of that, so it's hard to know how important that is. If her negatives are 70% in the south and other states she has no chance of winning, but only 20% in big swing states, this will not matter that much to the electoral vote. She can get 35% of the vote in half the states, and 52% of the vote in the other half and still win, so long as it's the right half.
Rev mentioned that the Democrats won't be stupid enough to support a Nader-y third party again. I wouldn't bet on that. (I say this as someone who almost always votes Democratic.)
I wouldn't underestimate Romney. He leads in the early states, he has a ton of money, and he looks good superficially. A lot of people aren't paying attention now, and with the quick succession of primaries, there won't be a lot of time to start paying close attention later. And the media will just report it as a horse race once we have the first caucus, so if you haven't tried to differentiate the candidate's positions by then (and most people haven't), it'll become a lot harder to do. The superficially attractive candidate benefits from that, especially if the media create the impression of momentum around him after he wins in Iowa and New Hampshire.
I seem to recall a poll recently that showed a lot of people didn't know where Giuliani stood on abortion rights and gay marriage. (Couldn't find a link.) Perhaps that is why his support among social conservatives is higher than expected. Or perhaps social conservatives prioritize those issues lower than the media has led us to believe. Or perhaps, and this is most likely, no one really has a clue.
Lucky: As if anybody could possibly believe Fen was ever a Democrat. Like I said...dumb...and a liar, too.
[whoosh!]
I left the GOP b/c of its feeble immigration plan.
Stupid troll, you can't even launch into ad hom without screwing it up.
Luckyoldson said...
"Simon, Nothing I said was non-responsive. Unless you can tell the future, nobody knows exactly what will or will not happen after 2008...."
It was non-responsive to the hypothetical posed, which was (and is now repeated): what are you and your pals are going to do if the morning after election days rolls around and the GOP candidate is declared the winner? You can fill in the blanks to taste, I'm not trying to cabin you.
Fen,
So you're a full fledged Nazi now?
Simon,
We ALL know what has already happened with Bush running the show...so how could things possibly be worse than this:
• Oil sets new record above $93
• Dollar hits record low against euro
• After six years, the liberation of Afghanistan has become a triumph without victory. The fighting is the greatest it has been since the beginning of the war and more civilians are dying. In fact, while the enemy has killed hundreds of civilians this year, a similar number of civilians have been killed by American forces.
• With relatively few troops there, the U.S. and NATO rely on air power. The number of civilians killed in air strikes has doubled.
• Guess who’s back in the administration’s good graces? “Ahmad Chalabi, the controversial, ubiquitous Iraqi politician and one-time Bush administration favorite, has re-emerged as a central figure in the latest U.S. strategy for Iraq.
• The claim that Iran is on the path to global domination is beyond ludicrous. Yes, the Iranian regime is a nasty piece of work in many ways, and it would be a bad thing if that regime acquired nuclear weapons. But let’s have some perspective, please: we’re talking about a country with roughly the G.D.P. of Connecticut, and a government whose military budget is roughly the same as Sweden’s.
simon
i'll answer your question
that's totally not going to happen
the dems will win big
and i say more power to them
because i believe in the two potty system
when one gets full you empty it
the other will fill up soon enough
sometimes they overflow
and we're up to our ankles in
you know what
that's because washington dc
was built on a swamp that doesn't drain well
hillary's next ads will feature her
with a toilet plunger in hand
go hillary
blogging cockroach,
And if anbody knows about eating shit...it would be you.
Gobble, gobble.
ooh
the thanksgiving turkey
somebody get an axe
Simon...
Two things.
First, Lucky isn't a nutroot, as he hangs out here too much. At Kos and Greenwald he'd be ignored...one of the multitude.
Second, Lucky is an armchair asshole. I suspect in real life he's a Walter Mitty type, you know, a meek, quiet cubicle worker thought of as a nice guy by everyone. He's probably sick of being a nice guy and comes here to let down his hair...if he has any hair. Here he can write dirty words and call people nasty names. This is where Lucky can ply his alter ego.
I don't think you're going to get any useful information about the nutroots from Lucky. He's not in their club.
Genitalia,
If anybody would profess to know about assholes...it would be you.
Althouse said.....
"perfecthair said...'the glee with which you cheerlead this stupid Iraq war, and anticipate future wars...as long as you can enjoy your walks on the beach and your creamy-topped coffee drinks.'
You're not reading very competently. I've been perfectly clear that I don't like the beach. Also, you don't seem to understand coffee drinks very well. That's milk foam on a latte, not cream.
'Ann, I think that you are a sick, sadistic necrophiliac and the worst kind of coward.'
"Sadistic necrophiliac" makes no sense. Sadism involves enjoying the pain of others. Necrophilia involves sex with a dead body. Dead bodies don't feel pain. You'll have to put your basic building blocks together better before I'll address what you seem to think is your big idea.
OK, thanks for the editorial remarks. I'll consult my Chicago Style Manual next time.
That you had nothing at all to say about the substance of my comments says quite a lot. To amend what I said before, I would say that your views betray what seems to be joy over the pain of others and an affinity for death, of other people. What else can be gathered from an unqualified, enthusiastic endorsement of war for its own sake?
So, yes, I could rephrase my post for clarity.
that's actually
the chicago manual of style
which of course i never consult
for obvious reasons
"Mr Grumpy" is "cyrus pinkerton". Just click on cyrus' profile link in this thread; it links to the same unavailable profile page as does Mr Grumpy's.
Nice detective work, Palladian. Truly, you are deserving of the title of "Ann's favorite poster".
And Simon -- yeah, I can live with Giuliani-Huckabee. In fact, I think Giuliani-Huckabee is probably the ticket with the best shot of winning in 2008.
Mind you, if Huckabee ever becomes President I am moving to Australia.
I'm not sure how important Clinton's high negatives will be(this business about 40% won't vote for her no matter what).
It's down to 40%? That's a significant improvement, then; it was over 50% last I checked.
"...an unqualified, enthusiastic endorsement of war for its own sake?"
Really? Where?
Perfecthair said...
"I'll consult my Chicago Style Manual next time."
The preferred citation guide of the Althouse blog is the bluebook.
"That [Ann] had nothing at all to say about the substance of my comments says quite a lot. "
Yes, it says that there was no substance in your comment - just the usual dready ADS ad hominem. You flatter yourself to think your comment had substantive content to respond to.
Comparing the position of AQ in the modern world to that of Nazi Germany in the 1930s is silly. AQ has nowhere near the capacity of Nazi Germany to wage war.
Interesting because AQ killed more Americans on 9/11 than they did on D-Day.
Do you discount the possibility of AQ obtaining a nuclear weapon and detonating in somewhere in the US?
As for fearmongering, I recall a whole lot of fearmongering by the Left back in the 1980s with a No-Nukes march every other week and the ubiquitos Day After Tomorrow end of the world by nuclear fire movie. I recall a lot of fearmongering about how Reagan was going to destroy the planet (never mind that Saint JFK actually came pretty close himself).
And again, I go back to the fearmongering that we're all going to perish from global warming. Inconvnient Truth shows Florida being swamped by rising seas as if that will happen next week. I recall the last couple of years fearmongering predictions of killer hurricanes which will devastate the coasts. Now two years in a row with the lowest number of hurricanes. And didn't AlGore say the internal combustion engine was the greatest threat to the planet in his book?
Considering that Islamic terrorism has repeatedly demonstrated its desire and ability to inflict devastation on this country, you're dimissing of the threat as fearmongering is what I call the Ostrich syndrome.
So, as a hypothetical in relation to what Gedaliya and I were just saying, what do you foresee yourself and your fellow leftospherians doing if this prediction turns out to be wrong and you lose in 2008?
Oh that's easy. Claim the election was a)stolen b) rigged c) democrats disenfranchised d) all of the above.
I challenged anyone to give me a scenario for the burka-ization of American women within the next 20 years. No takers so far.
I’m your huckleberry.
Muslims cabdrivers have demanded, and have gotten footbaths in Kansas City International and even here in Indianapolis, they’re making similar demands. In Minnesota, Muslim cabdrivers are refusing to carry anyone who has a dog or alcohol. The Empire state building gets lit up in green for Eid. So is 20 years unrealistic? Perhaps, but I think you are missing the bigger picture. It’s already happening in Western Europe and only because they have a much higher proportion of Muslims. Considering the kind of concessions Muslims in this country are getting mainly due to the howling that CAIR makes, I’d say their influence is quite disproportional to their numbers so who is to say what things would be like in 20 years.
Now before you begin discounting this as ‘fearmongering’, ‘hysteria’ or ‘unrealistic’, substitute Muslim for Christian and I can pretty much guarantee that the Left would be in convulsions if we insisted on holy water fonts in the airports or the like.
Late to the party:
"Assume OBL gets his demands, unites the ME under a Caliphate and kicks out all the "infidels". What do you think will happen next? Do you really believe Europe will be ignored [echo reconquest of Spain] or that America will not be targeted for intefering?"
Grumpy: "I think the likelihood of this scenario playing out is infinitesimal. The notion that anyone could unite the ME is a joke. How is this scenario even remotely consistent with the reality of the history of the ME?"
Yet the threat of impending Christian Theocracy in the US gets people in all a twitter and wins "The Handmaid's Tale" some small award or other.
Why do you suppose that is?
I can't see the middle east getting united either...
...because we won't let the Islamist extremists over there have the opportunity.
No matter how many racists insist that those brown people over there simply can not handle liberty or democracy.
/echo
Grumpy/Cyrus: I'm not against fighting Islamic terrorists if we fight intelligently.
Elaborate please. For example, whats your "intelligent" solution for nation-states [like Iraq and Iran] that support terrorist organizations?
fen
if you're wondering what to do about nasty countries
may i suggest interpretive dance
seems the only option a lot of commenters here would support
Lucky on any conceivable topic:
ASSHOLE! NEOCON! IDIOT!!!
Otherwise intelligent responder to Lucky.
(intellegent discourse here. Facts. Opinion. Historical documentation)
Lucky response:
Fuck you. And you think your smarter than me with your head up Bush's ass?
Neutral observer: Huh. I had no idea turrets could be channeled thru typing.
Lucky's unique interpretation of neutral observers response:
YOUR A ASSHOLE!
Yes, I can understand why he no doubt wins many arguments in the real world. I am guessing that most of them are with his mother about watching Oprah or Walker, Texas Ranger down in his "man cave" in her basement. (His mother is the one NOT wanting to watch Oprah)
jeff
i think you mean tourette's
which is an inherited neurological disorder
so they say
i think we medicalize everything these days
and give scientific-sounding names to
and make excuses for what used to be
sin and moral failure
i hate anything dead i can't eat
especially languages
but there's an old latin saying i like--
causa latet res est notissima
the cause is hidden but the effect's in your face
scientific reasons change
but sin and moral failure are robust concepts
that have withstood the test of time
and slicing and dicing with occam's razor
althouse was recently at a golf tournament
golf being invented in scotland
made me think of what bobby burns
might have said in all his simplicity
had he been a modern blogger--
an asshole's an asshole for a' that
I like your style, bc.
thanks gedaliya
same to you
i'd do a happy face
but you know my limitations
Rich's column is pure projection. He knows the far left would devour any candidate in the Democratic Party that differed from the holy writ of the NYT. He cannot see that conservatives are, heaven help us, more nuanced. We know that no one is going to be perfect and claims to the contrary are posturing.
Rudy is not my favorite Republican. I have serious doubts about some of his positions, particularly on social issues. But he is so far superior to anyone that the Democrats might nominate that if he is the nominee, he'll get my vote unless he does something completely unbelievable.
Mr Rich, the Times and the rest of the Democratic propaganda machine create mythical Republicans and then try to persuades those imaginary voters that someone like Hillary is an acceptable choice. Since so many dead people, house pets, cartoon characters and non citizens vote for their party, I suppose appealing to nonexistent Republicans would be understandable.
Mr Rich has about as much chance of understanding values voters, or for that matter values, as I have of winning the Nobel Peace Prize.
I always find Ann's longer threads interesting to see where they end up going. This time it went all over the place, before ending up back where it started, at least for awhile.
I was struck last night seeing how well Romney was doing in the first three states. I see it as further evidence of his superb organizational skills - which he appears to have more of than much of the rest of the field combined. So, on paper, he is probably best suited of all candidates to run the vast bureaucracy that we know as the U.S. government.
But I don't think that we are looking for a manager. We might have been in 2000, so Bush's term as governor and his Harvard MBA (which Romney also has, along with his JD), after Bill Clinton ran the country through pizza fueled all nighters. But 9/11 intervened.
One reason that Rudy, and to a lesser extent, Fred Thompson, is attracting so much attention from the Republicans across the spectrum is that he/they are willing and able to take the fight to the Democrats. We have had almost seven years now of a president who would rather stay home at the White House and run the government and the war, and not deal with the political side, and leaving his Democratic opposition the field of battle for the American center.
Rudy does it in his brash New York way, and Thompson in his folksy Southern way. Rudy's NY in-your-face attacks on the Democrats, terrorists, etc. are really what a lot of Republicans seem to be looking for right now, which is why I see him beating Thompson too.
So, while I would prefer a Romney presidency, I prefer a Giuliani candidacy. Yes, he has a lot of personal flaws, but what is important is taking the fight to the enemy and winning, and I see him doing that best.
I'm one of the people who thought he would tailspin as soon as America got to know him better. Not because of the specific factors Ann cites, but others: the unstable personal life (3 marriages; his kids hate him; he's the son of a low-level mobster)and his long, long, enemies list.
Nevertheless, it's looks like I'm going to be wrong. He'll either win the nomination, or lose it narrowly.
Maybe I'll turn out to be right, but..
Not even close. I challenged anyone to give me a scenario for the burka-ization of American women within the next 20 years. No takers so far.
Okay, I'll bite.
Saudi Wahhabists use mosques to promote Sharia law to Western Muslim populations.
From an Oct. 30 London Times article,
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2767252.ece
Books calling for the beheading of lapsed Muslims, ordering women to remain indoors and forbidding interfaith marriage are being sold inside some of Britain’s leading mosques, according to research seen by The Times.
We've had similar reports crop up as regards U.S. mosques.
Within Western countries, there have been efforts to permit Muslims to set up Sharia-based courts to enforce Sharia within Muslim communities. E.g. in 2005 in Canada.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4236762.stm
Even without formally sanctioned judiciary procedures, Western Muslim immigrants are known to force members of their communities to adhere to "customs" that are at odds with Western law/customs. E.g. forced marriages.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hSkkeV-rn2KAosDef_C7EExQawygD8SJ2M7G0
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,2198275,00.html
So, scenario:
American immigrant populations, under cover of cultural "tolerance," use their social and political influence to enforce Sharia-based customs on members of their communities --including first- and second-generation immigrants as well as converts.
In fact, unless you define "American women" as "American women of European descent excluding any who have converted to Islam and haven't thought better of it later" it's quite likely that there are already "American women" being forced to wear burkas.
As a "values hack" I will not vote for Rudy. However, one thing the Left always says is that people like me are "haters." In point of fact i don't hate anyone much. I just don't want the public square pornified further, and Christian expression driven underground. Also, I believe the view of human value driving the pro-abortion ideology is devastating to the American experiment. That said, Rudy is more articulate and demonstrably competent than most people running. All elements of the Republican coalition yearn for someone who knows how to argue and expose the Left, and who can run a large organizaiton effectively. Finally, sorry Frank Rich, and Tony Perkins, conservative and evangelical voters (I'm one but not the second) are not as the Washington Post want put it "poor, uneducated, and easily lead." That drives surprising results.
Doyle said
Also, the wingnuts' collective lack of humility in the face of being so completely wrong about Iraq's WMDs is really shocking.
What the Kay? [IIRC] WMD report ABSOLUTELY confirmed was that Sadaam had maintained the tech know-how, the base line equipment and plans, and the WMD scientists, to aggressively restart & ramp up his dormant programs once sanctions were lifted. If you remember Oil for Food & Russia, France etc, he was actively buying his way toward that day -- aided by lefties who gladly bought all his propaganda about deaths caused by the sanctions (as opposed to his diversion of approved aid), lefties who wanted sanctions dropped.
[Funny how once war was on the horizon, they claimed to be in favor of continued sanctions.]
Yes, we'd all be a lot better off with Sadaam and the Iranians racing each other to nukes.
{sick & tired of the twisted 'no wmd' argument}
Well, at least it's not *American* women being forced into burkas, so we don't have a thing to worry about.
/sarcasm
Linked on Drudge, this very day:
British school orders students and teachers to dress like Muslims for a day...
Already, in the banlieues of France, non-Muslim women are having to cover their hair to avoid harrassment or outright threats of rape by the local "yutes".
Add to that the deplorable picture of a few days ago of Laura Bush in hijab, and I don't see how anyone can say that Western women will never be forced into burkas. No one put a gun to her head -- which makes it all the more deplorable that she consented to wear it. Burkas won't be imposed by guns, but by glares, pinches, shoves, sneers, spitting, or even attacks with knives and gasoline -- all indignities and injuries that French girls and women have endured, as a matter of record -- and, even more, by a policy of "silent treatment" against women as customers, clients, co-workers, and supervisors. Not all force is violent.
Note that I don't anticipate that our government wil impose sharia, but I do anticipate that our government will stand by and do nothing while repressive norms are imposed by the militant Islamic community, with violence, or the threats of it, to enforce them. Look at what's happening in Great Britain right now to see what I mean.
Amendment to above -- the harrassment episodes I was thinking of took place in Belgium.
Back on topic -- Rudy might have worn a dress, but I canNOT see him in a burka! :-)
"That's exactly what I mean when I say that the Democratic party is plenty hawkish. It just hasn't been so monumentally stupid, dishonest, and counterproductive."
Reid, Murtha, and Pelosi the DemDwarfs aka Stupid, Dishonent and Counterproductive!
No offense, Althouse, but if Rudy and Hillary are the two nominees then I'm either going to kill myself or move to Canada. This used to be one hell of a great country.
bareboat charter balearic islandscolor consultation
Villa received the final paperwork from LA Galaxy during the early hours of Thursday morning, and he now faces an instant reunion with Galaxy team-mate Landon Donovan, who has linked up with Everton for a second loan period, at Villa Park on Saturday.
Post a Comment