January 30, 2007
— Ace I've held off linking this because it's so long it's hard to excerpt. But the City Journal makes a persuasive case for Guiliani, the small-government, personal-accountability free-marketeer:
But in a GOP presidential field in which cultural and religious conservatives may find something to object to in every candidate who could really get nominated (and, more important, elected), Giuliani may be the most conservative candidate on a wide range of issues. Far from being a liberal, he ran New York with a conservatives priorities: government exists above all to keep people safe in their homes and in the streets, he said, not to redistribute income, run a welfare state, or perform social engineering. The private economy, not government, creates opportunity, he argued; government should just deliver basic services well and then get out of the private sectors way. He denied that cities and their citizens were victims of vast forces outside their control, and he urged New Yorkers to take personal responsibility for their lives. Over the last century, millions of people from all over the world have come to New York City, Giuliani once observed. They didnt come here to be taken care of and to be dependent on city government. They came here for the freedom to take care of themselves. It was that spirit of opportunity and can-do-ism that Giuliani tried to re-instill in New York and that he himself exemplified not only in the hours and weeks after 9/11 but in his heroic and successful effort to bring a dying city back to life.
The entrenched political culture that Giuliani faced when he became mayor was the pure embodiment of American liberalism, stretching back to the New Deal, whose public works projects had turned Gotham into a massive government-jobs program. Even during the postWorld War II economic boom, New York politicians kept the New Deals big-government philosophy alive, with huge municipal tax increases that financed a growing public sector but drove away private-sector jobs. Later, in the mid-1960s, flamboyant mayor John Lindsay set out to make New York a poster child for the Johnson administrations War on Poverty, vastly expanding welfare rolls, giving power over the school system to black-power activists, and directing hundreds of millions of government dollars into useless and often fraudulent community-based antipoverty programs. To pay for all this, Lindsay taxed with abandon. The result: sharply increasing crime, a rising underclass inclined to languish on welfare rather than strive to uplift itself, a failing school system that emphasized racial grievance and separateness, and near-bankruptcy.
When Giulianis predecessor, David Dinkins, came into officethanks to voters hopes that as the citys first black mayor, hed defuse Gothams intense racial tensionshe wholly embraced the War on Povertys core belief that the problems of the urban poor sprang from vast external forces over which neither they nor the politicians had much control. Under Dinkins, the citys welfare rolls grew by one-third, or some 273,000 people. By 1992, with some 1.1 million New Yorkers on welfare, the citys political leadership seemed stuck on dependency, too. Dinkins became the chief proponent of a tin-cup urbanism, constantly hounding Washington and Albany with demands and grim warnings about what would happen if they were not met.
By the time Giuliani challenged Dinkins for a second time, in 1993 (his first try had failed), the former prosecutor had fashioned a philosophy of local government based on two core conservative principles vastly at odds with New Yorks political culture: that government should be accountable for delivering basic services well, and that ordinary citizens should be personally responsible for their actions and their destiny and not expect government to take care of them. Giuliani preached the need to reestablish a civil society, where citizens adhered to a social contract. If you have a right, he observed, there is a duty that goes along with that right. Later, when he became mayor, Giuliani would preach about the duties of citizenship, quoting the ancient Athenian Oath of Fealty: We will revere and obey the citys laws. . . . We will strive unceasingly to quicken the public sense of civic duty. Thus in all these ways we will transmit this city not only not less, but far greater and more beautiful than it was transmitted to us.
To those of us who observed Giuliani from the beginning, it was astonishing how fully he followed through on his conservative principles once elected, no matter how much he upset elite opinion, no matter how often radical advocates took to the streets in protest, no matter how many veiled (and not so veiled) threats that incendiary figures like Al Sharpton made against him, and no matter how often the New York Times fulminated against his policies. In particular, offended by the notion that people should be treated differently and demand privileges based on the color of their skin, Giuliani was fearless in confronting racial extortionists like Sharpton. Early in his tenure, he startled the city when he refused to meet with Sharpton and other black activists after a confrontation between police and black Muslims at a Harlem mosque. And though activists claimed that Giuliani inflamed racial tensions with such actions, there were no incidents during his tenure comparable with the disgraceful Crown Heights riot under Dinkins, in which the police let blacks terrorize Orthodox Jews for several days in a Brooklyn neighborhood.
For Giuliani, the revival of New York started with securing public safety, because all other agendas were useless if citizens didnt feel protected. The most fundamental of civil rights is the guarantee that government can give you a reasonable degree of safety, Giuliani said. He aimed to do so by reinstituting respect for the law. As a federal prosecutor in New York in the 1980s, he had vigorously hunted low-level drug dealerswhom other law enforcement agencies ignoredbecause he thought that the brazen selling of drugs on street corners cultivated disrespect for the law and encouraged criminality. You have to . . . dispel cynicism about law enforcement by showing we treat everyone alike, whether you are a major criminal or a low-level drug pusher, Giuliani explained.
Giulianis success against crime wasnt merely the singular achievement of a former prosecutor. He applied the same principles to social and economic policy, with equally impressive results. Long before President Bushs ownership society, Giuliani described his intention to restore New York as the entrepreneurial city, not merely providing the climate for new job creation but also reshaping government social policy away from encouraging dependency and toward reinforcing independence.
New York had gone in the opposite direction starting in the mid-1960s, when Lindsay had drastically increased welfare rolls, believing many of the poor too disadvantaged ever to succeed and thus needing to be permanently on the dole. The Gotham welfare bureaucracy saw signing people up as its goal, while an entire industry of nonprofit organizations and advocacy groups arose to cater to and contract with the citys vast welfare system. Budget documents from the Dinkins years projected an eventual 1.6 million people on welfare. The City of New York was actually quite successful in achieving what it wanted to achieve, which was to encourage the maximum number of people to be on welfare, Giuliani later explained. If you ran a welfare office, . . . you had a bigger budget, and you had more authority, if you had more people on welfare.
Giuliani decided to launch a welfare revolution, moving recipients from the dole to a job. Mindful that for years the citys welfare bureaucracy had focused on signing up new recipients (Lindsays welfare chief had been nicknamed Come And Get It Ginsberg), the Giuliani administration first set out to recertify everyone in the citys own home-relief program to eliminate fraud. In less than a year, the rolls of the program (for able-bodied adults not eligible for federal welfare programs) declined by 20 percent, as the city discovered tens of thousands of recipients who were actually employed, living outside the city, or providing false Social Security numbers.
Giuliani then instituted a work requirement for the remaining home-relief recipients, mostly men, obliging them to earn their checks by cleaning city parks and streets or doing clerical work in municipal offices for 20 hours a week. Welfare advocates vigorously objected, and one advocate pronounced the workfare program slavery. The New York Times editorialized that most people on home relief were incapable of work.
Giuliani persisted, and when Congress finally passed welfare reform in 1996, giving states and cities broad powers to refocus the giant, federally funded welfare program for mothers and children, Giuliani applied many of the same kinds of reforms. He hired as welfare commissioner Jason Turner, the architect of welfare reform in Wisconsin, which had led the nation in putting welfare recipients back to work. Turner promptly converted the citys grim welfare intake offices into cheerful and optimistic job centers, where counselors advised welfare recipients on how to write a resumé and provided them with skills assessment and a space they could use to look for work.
By 1999, the number of welfare recipients finding work had risen to more than 100,000 annually, and the welfare rolls had dropped by more than 600,000. It took steadfast courage to win those gains. The pressure on Rudy during these years was enormous, says Richard Schwartz, a Giuliani policy advisor. The advocates and the press trained their sights on us, just waiting for something to go wrong in these workfare programs.
As part of Giulianis quintessentially conservative belief that dysfunctional behavior, not our economic system, lay at the heart of intergenerational poverty, he also spoke out against illegitimacy and the rise of fatherless families. A child born out of wedlock, he observed in one speech, was three times more likely to wind up on welfare than a child from a two-parent family. Seventy percent of long-term prisoners and 75 percent of adolescents charged with murder grew up without fathers, Giuliani told the city. He insisted that the city and the nation had to reestablish the responsibility that accompanies bringing a child into the world, and to that end he required deadbeat fathers either to find a private-sector job or to work in the citys workfare program as a way of contributing to their childs upbringing. But he added that changing societys attitude toward marriage was more important than anything government could do: f you wanted a social program that would really save these kids, . . . I guess the social program would be called fatherhood.
I hope City Journal doesn't mind this very long excerpt. I'll try to make up for my transgression by strongly urging all to read the whole thing -- I've cut out all the stuff about race, crime, etc., which most know about. There's a lot there.
One thing I look for in a candidate is the ability to look straight at the New York Times and network news departments and say "Va fan cuul."
As someone who lived there, I can testify Giuliani not only did that on a daily basis, sometimes he'd seem eager to go out of his way to piss these people off.
Sometimes the measure of a man can be estimated by the enemies he's made. By that metric, Giuliani comes off pretty well.
Now, compare that to John McCain.
Plus, consider the fact that it's relaltively easy to sell Reaganism in the South and West. How about in Gotham, Gamorrah on the Hudson? Not so much.
So those who knock Giuliani for not being Simon Pure on conservativism ought to remember he was bringing the creed to the pagans. And, like early missionaries, sometimes one needs to bend a little on the details ("See, Jesus is kind of like Thor...") to sell the religion at all.
I can't believe I'm pimping this pezzanovante so hard and his people have never even sent me an email.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at January 30, 2007 01:53 PM (FuM7z)
Posted by: Ace at January 30, 2007 01:54 PM (4qddO)
Maybe she was just lying to that nice pale boy to screw with his head. It's what those people do.
Posted by: Ace at January 30, 2007 01:57 PM (4qddO)
Put that in his campaign literature.
Posted by: Judd at January 30, 2007 02:01 PM (/pHM6)
Posted by: Barry in CO at January 30, 2007 02:06 PM (KOkrW)
He goes nowhere unless he promises to not veto pro life legislation that passes, and not to elect provably prochoice judges, and that the gun grabbing ends, no new registration or restriction laws, or anything else that would will piss off the NRA, this is particularly true post 9/11, its made people much more security minded, even on the left.
Sorry, but thats political reality, and those are his Achilles heels.
Posted by: Sinistar at January 30, 2007 02:07 PM (oHd6r)
Posted by: goddessoftheclassroom at January 30, 2007 02:10 PM (0teZM)
Rudy's on the right side of the Big Issue -- the War. If we don't get that right, nothing else will matter.
Posted by: Purple Fury at January 30, 2007 02:12 PM (G4KmV)
I will never, EVER again vote for any Democrat for any office again. I don't care if the R's nominate Beezlebub himself, I will never vote for a Democrat.
Posted by: Purple Fury at January 30, 2007 02:13 PM (G4KmV)
But the thing from K-Lo shows he's, uhhh, had an "epiphany" on abortion.
He's a very smart guy. I expect he'll have more "ephiphanies" the more he, uhh, "studies the issues."
Either that, or he's not a very smart guy, in which case he won't get the nomination and doesn't deserve to.
Posted by: Ace at January 30, 2007 02:14 PM (4qddO)
Posted by: Ace at January 30, 2007 02:14 PM (4qddO)
He cares about law & order, economic growth, and, now, winning the fucking war. I don't think he really cares about the rest of it, the same as, frankly, most people care passionately about three or four animating issues and don't care much about the rest.
Posted by: Ace at January 30, 2007 02:16 PM (4qddO)
I actually think if he moved to right on abortion for the primary and back to center in general(but not enough to be considered a long knifing), and jumped permanantly outta the Brady Bunch(I think this could pull him Pennsylvania and Ohio, where there's a lotta gun owners , which would be a big bump in the electoral), he'd pull enough from the center to smash anyone.
Posted by: Sinistar at January 30, 2007 02:17 PM (oHd6r)
Posted by: Ace at January 30, 2007 02:18 PM (4qddO)
Still, I expect he'll come around on those issues quite a bit by next year.
Posted by: adolfo_velasquez at January 30, 2007 02:19 PM (qZ40r)
You guys don't believe me. Concealed carry may work nicely in smaller towns where most of the people know each other and all that, but in a big honking city, which attracts and breeds a lot of predatory criminals, and liberals scared shitless of guns, "everyone should have a gun" doesn't really work.
I can't prove that. It just seems to me that it wouldn't work.
Was Wyatt Earp a "gun grabber"? A pussy?
He banned guns inside the city limits of Dodge City and, uhhh, that other town he sheriff'd over. Can't remember which.
Posted by: Ace at January 30, 2007 02:21 PM (4qddO)
Posted by: Sinistar at January 30, 2007 02:21 PM (oHd6r)
Posted by: Edward Lunny at January 30, 2007 02:21 PM (QkaPP)
he's the only one who can out-man hillary and her eweple hordes.
Posted by: mcmorris at January 30, 2007 02:22 PM (/yU1h)
Nobody is stupid enough to believe this.
Posted by: at January 30, 2007 02:24 PM (u/+Ps)
And there was some crap -- like people buying dozens of pisols in Virginia and running them right up the highway to sell illegally in NYC -- that gun-rights advocates have to admit was criminal and dangerous.
I really don't think he was considering how he'd govern the entire nation when he was specifically proposing policy for a single city.
Posted by: Ace at January 30, 2007 02:26 PM (4qddO)
If it really bothers you that politicians sometimes, uhhh, "modify" their positions for reasons other than pure philosophical position, you're going to have a difficult time voting in 2008.
Posted by: Ace at January 30, 2007 02:27 PM (4qddO)
Posted by: Sinistar at January 30, 2007 02:29 PM (oHd6r)
Posted by: Edward Lunny at January 30, 2007 02:30 PM (QkaPP)
Posted by: Andrew at January 30, 2007 02:33 PM (GqxeF)
And he's right -- look, I don't care who you are, you don't need to buy 6 or 10 guns in one trip. Yes, hypothetically, there is one in thirty million gun collectors who might do this once -- once! -- but the people buying handguns in BULK are those who intend to resell them illegally.
I'm not big on the gun issue, but I simply cannot believe that there are people so dogmatic on gun rights that they'll claim their freedom has been reduced because they can't buy a big pile of guns over a couple of days, but rather have to space their purchases out.
Posted by: ace at January 30, 2007 02:34 PM (4qddO)
People, Rudy is that guy you don't have to worry about, you will actually look forward to debates, want more of them. He will wipe the floor with Hill, Obama, Edwards. They have no convictions and his will shine through comparetively.
He would win the general by 10 points.
Posted by: Judd at January 30, 2007 02:36 PM (/pHM6)
Posted by: Edward Lunny at January 30, 2007 02:36 PM (QkaPP)
Neither is Dallas or Houston
Concealed carry has worked well in all of these places.
In fact, I would venture that if tried in NY (with the appropriate background checks), it would have cut the crime rate more that Giuliani, if only from the attrition of criminals.
Posted by: hobgoblin at January 30, 2007 02:39 PM (p1s9n)
We had a similar problem with Blood Affiliated gang members from Philly buying guns here and passing them out to their homies. One or two were used to kill people.
The only reason I could see doing that is if it was a collector type deal or about to go up big in value (usually before a pointless banning because it looks spooky to libs), of course in those cases, you probably oughta have dealer papers anyway.
Posted by: Sinistar at January 30, 2007 02:40 PM (oHd6r)
You're right. The problem is that they change their positions back after they are voted in office. Me -- I'm looking for a bunker in Idaho to live out my golden years.
Posted by: at January 30, 2007 02:41 PM (u/+Ps)
Posted by: Ace at January 30, 2007 02:44 PM (4qddO)
Posted by: Sinistar at January 30, 2007 02:45 PM (oHd6r)
Posted by: Edward Lunny at January 30, 2007 02:45 PM (QkaPP)
Even with Schumer and Pelosi at the helm, guns aren't going anywhere. Particularly after the AWB sunset and the UTTER LACK of any ascertainable crime wave.
Posted by: hobgoblin at January 30, 2007 02:49 PM (p1s9n)
Posted by: Edward Lunny at January 30, 2007 02:50 PM (QkaPP)
The Dems won't even propose more gun-control laws anymore.
So how is Rudy a threat on this issue?
Posted by: ace at January 30, 2007 02:51 PM (4qddO)
Posted by: hobgoblin at January 30, 2007 02:51 PM (p1s9n)
How did he penalize large numbers of people?
He didn't CREATE the gun control laws in NYC, you know.
I don't even think he expanded them one iota.
He merely supported the status quo.
And the press conference I speak of was in rhetorical support of a common sense law (only a couple or three guns per month, or whatever). It's not as if he had the power to inflict this horrible law on the country himself.
And, look, I agree: If two or three guns per month isn't enough for you, well, sorry old chap, but you are a very small minority, and we can't accomodate you if it means letting illegal gun-runners sell handguns to muggers, drive-by killers, carjackers, liquor store thieves, and mobsters.
Posted by: ace at January 30, 2007 02:54 PM (4qddO)
Didja ever stop to think that the reason NYC attracts and breeds a lot of predatory criminals is that said criminals are practically guaranteed a huge pool of unarmed potential victims? Houston and Dallas are two big cities that have shall issue concealed carry laws, and their crime rates don't seem to surpass those of NYC. Could be the whole "everyone should have a gun" thing just plain works.
Wyatt Earp? Total pussy...
Posted by: Achmed at January 30, 2007 02:54 PM (j4t+e)
It would take a serious political shift for this country to start tearing down the 2nd Amendment again.
Still, if Giuliani doesn't get out from under the gun grabber label, it's going to hurt him.
Posted by: adolfo_velasquez at January 30, 2007 02:55 PM (qZ40r)
You're a faggot.
Posted by: hobgoblin at January 30, 2007 02:56 PM (p1s9n)
Posted by: robert at January 30, 2007 02:56 PM (Rb4Qc)
Posted by: Edward Lunny at January 30, 2007 02:56 PM (QkaPP)
Ace, you are wrong about the guns, its just the thing for NY to stop crime, the homies already have them.
I do not care about anything now but 2nd amendment.......Its the only thing that can save us from the same fate as the euros.......and from our own state....thats why its there....
Why do you think the eurowienies let the muslim trash walk all over them and burn cars.....they cannot fight back, they cannot protect their women from rapists.
They have to slink away because unless you are bruce lee what else are you going to do......
seriously, what, your entire attitude changes when you pack heat, everyone is suddenly real polite, you never know what grannies got in her purse.
Guns is the ONLY issue in 2008
Posted by: viperdisorder at January 30, 2007 02:59 PM (CxLTy)
Ace, as for the Dems not proposing gun control bills, lets say they hold their majorities, and a president that doesn't veto gun control bills is sitting in that office, it won't go over well.
Posted by: Sinistar at January 30, 2007 03:00 PM (oHd6r)
In the hypothetical we're considering, Rudy becomes President-- which is hardly the scenario described above.
Posted by: ace at January 30, 2007 03:00 PM (4qddO)
I.e., they're pro-gun.
And the rest of the Democratic Party has decided to take a pass on the whole issue.
Posted by: ace at January 30, 2007 03:03 PM (4qddO)
Posted by: Sinistar at January 30, 2007 03:03 PM (oHd6r)
I honestly and truly believe, as a NRA member and a CCW holder (carried every day of the last 9 years) that the Democrats cannot get a mojority of their own party on board with anything to do with gun control.
As for president hillary? It doesn't scare me much. If she gets in, the R's are almost certainly going to get back one of the 2 houses, so it'll be an obstructionist phase.
I love obstructionist phases. No bullshit gets passed, except when the President caves. ANd if Billary is caving, that makes me smile.
Posted by: hobgoblin at January 30, 2007 03:04 PM (p1s9n)
Posted by: Editor at January 30, 2007 03:05 PM (adpJH)
Absolutely wrong. They can help themselves from taking such actions when such actions will threaten what they crave most -- political power.
The math on this is all changed now. More liberal gun rights is not something that needs stalwart, steely-eyed defenders -- because it's now the tacit consensus position. It's more popular than the anti-gun position, and, once again, the Dems cannot maintain their majority without soft-pedaling this issue.
Posted by: ace at January 30, 2007 03:08 PM (4qddO)
Never happen. Tester won't do it. Webb won't do it. Casey won't do it.
Senate: With McCaskill taking Talent’s seat, we lose one seat for Second Amendment rights. In Vermont, Bernie Sander (“C-” rating) will take the place of retiring Jim Jeffords (“B” rated in his last election, but performed worse in his final term), so let’s call that a wash. In all other states, incumbents won, or were replaced by candidates who had nearly identical ratings on gun issues.
Net Senate results: -1.
Of the new pro-gun Democrats, Casey does not appear very deep intellectually, but Webb may emerge as an articulate, well-informed spokesman for America’s traditional culture of gun ownership. Jon Tester of Montana has Second Amendment views that are consistent with his state’s.
Assuming that Tester and Webb win, Majority Leader Reid will be one of a half-dozen generally pro-gun Democrats, along with Baucus, Ben Nelson, and Casey. The number of Democratic Senators who will vote against guns under all circumstances appears to be less then 20 (based on the number who voted in favor of allowing federal funds to be spent on gun confiscation during emergencies, even when the confiscation is not authorized by any law).
Posted by: hobgoblin at January 30, 2007 03:09 PM (p1s9n)
Posted by: Edward Lunny at January 30, 2007 03:09 PM (QkaPP)
Here is a good article on why Rudy can't win with conservatives:
Here are a few excerpts:
"If the Republican Party wants to send the social conservatives home for good, all they have to do is nominate Rudy Giuliani," said Rick Scarborough, a Southern Baptist minister and president of Vision America. "It's an insult to the pro-Christian agenda. . . . He's going to spend a lot of money finding he can't get out of the Republican primaries."
"For us to nominate him, we have to say those issues are not really important to us [and] we care more about winning regardless of the philosophy of our candidate," GOP consultant Curt Anderson said. "I don't believe that a majority of Republican primary voters will make that choice."
Giuliani made two visits to Iowa in 2006 -- spending Election Day stumping with Jim Nussle, the party's nominee for governor. But his inroads are few among social conservatives. Steve Scheffler, the head of the Iowa Christian Alliance, said Giuliani had yet to reach out to him. Scheffler takes a skeptic's view of the former mayor, noting that between 70 and 75 percent of Republican caucus voters in 2008 will be "pro-life and pro-marriage."
It also talks about why he could win the primaries too. It also reminded me how he dressed in drag during a city hall party. Oh good grief! How many times will we see that picture I wonder?
My point here is we can argue all day long why we like or dislike Rudy, but the relgious right will have their say in the primaries and I don't see this going Rudy's way.
Posted by: rightwingsparkle at January 30, 2007 03:18 PM (YdMYG)
On that note, it's late and I'm damn hungry so I'll leave the discussion to the rest of you. Enjoy your evening.
Posted by: Edward Lunny at January 30, 2007 03:21 PM (QkaPP)
Posted by: at January 30, 2007 03:21 PM (u/+Ps)
Posted by: Monty at January 30, 2007 03:26 PM (7Iqke)
Posted by: Purple Fury at January 30, 2007 03:30 PM (G4KmV)
My 2008 candidate better be photographed on the border with a M-4.
Posted by: at January 30, 2007 03:30 PM (u/+Ps)
Except to respond to RWS if she answers me in the thread below ;p
Posted by: lauraw at January 30, 2007 03:31 PM (DbybK)
So fuck off.
Posted by: hobgoblin at January 30, 2007 03:31 PM (p1s9n)
Posted by: Editor at January 30, 2007 03:34 PM (adpJH)
well, that explains your grumpiness. The women's magazine thread bummed me out too.
Posted by: rightwingsparkle at January 30, 2007 03:40 PM (YdMYG)
He'd better be the one, because he's the only nominal "R" on the long list who can beat Hillary in the general.
If its McCain, I stay home.
If its Romney, I stay home.
The McCain/Kerry whitewash of the whole MIA issue leaves me real cold on him.
Romney showed his true statist colors with RomneyCare.
If we get lucky, the dems commit suicide again and nominate some unelectable who Mickey Mouse could beat. I'm not willing to bet on that this time.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 30, 2007 03:46 PM (LITKT)
Posted by: joan at January 30, 2007 03:52 PM (eN8y0)
Posted by: adolfo_velasquez at January 30, 2007 03:54 PM (qZ40r)
No the grumpiness is just that, and hopefully passing. But I very much enjoyed the magaine thread, just no one can do any more funny until the batteries recharge, it seems.
Posted by: hobgoblin at January 30, 2007 03:54 PM (p1s9n)
Posted by: joan at January 30, 2007 03:59 PM (eN8y0)
There were some funny stuff in that thread, but the overall bitterness and heartache from many made me sad for them. Everyone deserves to be loved for who they are. It's sad that we treat each other so badly.
Posted by: rightwingsparkle at January 30, 2007 04:01 PM (YdMYG)
I don't see any difference between the fame and attention airheads like Paris Hilton and Britney get than the attention that is lavished on athletes.
Posted by: joan at January 30, 2007 04:10 PM (eN8y0)
The two big issues for '08 are putting the smackdowm on islamic terrorism, and immigration. Whoever gets both of those 'right' gets my vote.
And If Rudy runs, every MSM report on him will feature a clip from his 'drag' skit on SNL.
Posted by: Barry in CO at January 30, 2007 04:11 PM (KOkrW)
I agree, but I wasn't referring to the articles, real or satiric. I was referring to the obvious sadness and heartache in so many of the responses when it comes to relationships.
Posted by: rightwingsparkle at January 30, 2007 04:16 PM (YdMYG)
Some of teh bitter did creep into the women's magazine thread, but it was very mild -- and we did invite the ladies to come in and take their shots.
I realize some of the stuff there may have touched a nerve, but that's kind of the point.
Just remember that at AoSHQ, it's always about the love.
Posted by: Monty at January 30, 2007 04:19 PM (7Iqke)
Posted by: joan at January 30, 2007 04:29 PM (eN8y0)
Remember that we men always have to outdo each other in everything, even blogthreads, because Life really boils down to the question of who has the biggest di-
Posted by: Barry in CO at January 30, 2007 04:36 PM (KOkrW)
(But RWS does the candidate have to have a "pro-Christian" agenda to win and what does that mean?)
Posted by: Fred at January 30, 2007 04:38 PM (qfNFY)
The candidate doesn't necessarily have to have a "pro-Christian" agenda to win, but they do have to have one to get the religious right vote. Does that help them win? I think so.
What does it mean? Foremost it is to be pro-life because the religious right feels that this is such a horror and so wrong even beyond the religious aspect of it. It is wrong from a purely humanistic point of view. It destroys children and families and damages women. It means protecting the sanctity of marriage and it means fighting for family values such as keeping porn from kids, protecting kids from a poisonous culture ect. It means believing in right and wrong. Not being wishy washy.
The religious right doesn't expect a saint or even a strictly religious man or woman. They just expect someone who reflects their values.
Posted by: rightwingsparkle at January 30, 2007 04:54 PM (YdMYG)
Don't forget that the Democratic nominating process is not going to be as cut-and-dried as everyone thinks. I have yet to meet anyone who is genuinely pro-Hillary (although I've seen a total of 2 bumper stickers that are), and Obama has a long way to go to catch up. That said, that's looking to be pretty ugly on that end.
I have a distinct feeling that Giuliani can win the nomination, but he has some fences to mend to do so. RWS is correct- the Religious Right will have a significant say in this- but ultimately, I think that the right as a whole will look across the aisle at the death's head that is Hillary and place their trust in the devil they know.
Does anyone really have any illusions about what Giuliani is or is not? I'm a concealed carry guy- all Giuliani has to do to make me happy is leave the issue alone. As stated earlier, there's no traction to be gained on firearms legislation.
Whoever is president next will have to name at least one new Supreme Court justice- I suppose that that's the next major question to ask Rudy.
Under the circumstances, in any event, Romney has a long way to go to make up a sizable Giuliani lead, and I think we all know that the only way McCain gets the nomination is if all the other candidates drop out.
Another one for those who are uncomfortable with Giuliani- would having Gingrich as the VP candidate make you feel better about it?
I think the country as a whole (and using my newsroom as a lefty enclave microcosm) is comfortable with the notion of Rudy as president... he seems to me a good play at this time.
Posted by: tmi3rd at January 30, 2007 06:02 PM (bNOlH)
I bought a Ruger Mk 2 and another .22 target pistol the same day. If there had been an old Walther Olympia .22 available I'd have snagged that too. Been looking for an Olympia for years now...
Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 30, 2007 06:04 PM (LITKT)
Posted by: kbiel at January 30, 2007 06:19 PM (pQdrT)
There is only one issue in which we cannot afford a big loss. There is one thing that, if it goes wrong for the US, the world and our kids' future looks less than good. We can't afford to have the Democrats emasculate the US, retreat from the war on Islamonazis, or turn Iraq into The Killing Fields: Part Deux.
Rudi's right on the war and he will destroy any democrat candidate in the election. That's the complete deal.
Even if we assume the unproven worst about Rudi, gun bans will be stopped in court, and failing to act on abortion measures doesn't prevent anyone from following up on it in 8 years time.
We get the war wrong, I'm sorry, there will be no do-over, no mulligan, no rain check here.
Posted by: adamthemad at January 30, 2007 06:39 PM (8pbcs)
Did anyone mention that he was fucking his mistress in the public housing(Gracey mansion) he was living in with his wife and children?
Crude and classless. NOT deserving even a nod as a candidate.
I can see his x now on TV. He was screwing his mistress in my house with my children in the house. BUM.
Oh, that's right he stopped screwing cause he lost his dick to cancer. Some would say that was a Catholic pay back, but not me.
I say thanks Rudy for being a stand up guy and hiring crooks, like the chief of police, who also fucked his mistress on the public tit, but we have better candidates, somewhere who have morals. And they can shot a gun, asshole.
Posted by: kempermanx at January 30, 2007 07:01 PM (Wc54u)
With enemies like you, he doesn't need friends.
Sorry... couldn't resist.
Posted by: adamthemad at January 30, 2007 07:32 PM (8pbcs)
a bunch of you guys will vote for giuliani or not (or any other candidate for president) based on gun laws?
jeez. stop admiring yourselves in the mirror, narcissists.
Posted by: mcmorris at January 30, 2007 07:53 PM (/yU1h)
Doesn't matter. Clinton took care that. People simply don't care if a president is getting some on the side anymore.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 30, 2007 08:41 PM (LITKT)
Posted by: doc at January 30, 2007 09:26 PM (fZJcQ)
Posted by: mcmorris at January 31, 2007 12:53 AM (/yU1h)
How many republicans have been attacked for "normal" affairs in the past 5 years?
I'm not talking weird bondage shit or gay page diddling - normal banging your neighbor's wife kinda stuff.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 31, 2007 01:19 AM (LITKT)
His social liberalism can only help with the Metro appeal, San Fransisco especially. Before you know it he's won back both the coasts apart from LA.
Then all you have to do is set off a nuke in the San Adreas fault Lex Luthor-style, watch the Film Actors Guild slide into the Pacific and Bob's your uncle. He'll have all the Americans on side, just like old Ronnie.
Rudy can end the deep divisions in American politics, or at least reshape them. His combination of strength and respect for personal aswell as political and economic freedoms gives him and only him this potential.
The smart money is on Rudy, friends. Stop your moaning and get behind the guy. Pronto!
Posted by: The Orator at January 31, 2007 05:27 AM (kL46p)
Mac Video Converter
Mac Mp4 Video Converter
Mac iPhone Video Converter
Mac iPod Video Converter
Video Converter for Mac
Mac Video to AVI Converter
Posted by: yujinxiang at March 25, 2009 10:33 PM (x6PsB)
Posted by: Clawfoot tub at June 28, 2011 07:00 AM (0Q/wF)
High Definition Wallpapers | jam tangan | obat rematik
Posted by: kopet at September 05, 2011 08:18 PM (YafzN)
Posted by: gondez at September 05, 2011 08:19 PM (YafzN)
rematik | obat asam urat | asam urat penghitam rambut
Posted by: gondez at September 05, 2011 08:24 PM (YafzN)
62 queries taking 4.0415 seconds, 331 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.