Cynical Nation

But will the Christofascist Zombie Brigade be able to handle the fact that he's gay-friendly and that he paraded his girlfriend all over town when he was still married, and announced his separation via a press conference?

I guess as long as he says "I know Jesus has forgiven me because I've accepted him as my personal savior" they will. :rolls eyes:

Of course, Jill. Surely you're the last person I'd have to explain IOIYAR to. ;-)

Heck, remember when we (the base) called "Red Tony" Blair Clinton's lap dog? We now understand that the British PM is a man of character and stature who just happens to disagree with us on few peripheral issues.

I, for one, welcome the diversity of Mr. Giuliani's views. Whether or not I agree with him on those issues, I appreciate the value of seeing things from the other side.

I think gay marriage is probably a bad idea, and abortion is arguably murder, but those aren't the things we expect a President to deal with. Keep the borders safe and don't screw with the economy- that's all we ask.
I'll take Rudy over Mcpain any day-
until somebody clones Ronaldus Magnus...

Posted by Jill:

But will the Christofascist Zombie Brigade be able to handle the fact....

Oh puhleeze!

Look at the national efforts of all your left-wingnuts to crucify Joe Lieberman in Connecticut.

There is only one party where deviation from the Daily Kos wing is considered lethal and it is your own, Jill.

BTW, still haven't been arrested yet, huh?

Must be all that red tape in DC.

Keep your hopes up!

Like most candidates (there are few exceptions), the closer you look at Guiliani, the worse he looks.

The best thing about the Guiliani administration, transforming NYC from a crime ravaged city (over 2000 murders per year under predecessor David Dinkins) to one of the lowest big city crime rates was architected by Bill Bratton (now the LAPD Commissioner).

Even that great achievement (which was mainly Bratton's) was magnified by the dismal failure of his predecessor, a typical "Liberal New York Democrat."

After that, aside from his amusing bullying of the local media and press and his standing up on a few peripheral issues, like the anti-Christian art that the anti-Christian bigots on the Left so fondly embrace (Chris Ofili's painting of Mary covered in elephant dung and Jose Seranno's "Piss Christ"), his was a checkered administration marred by outright Union coercion/corruption, involving Dennis Rivera of 1199, failed to improve education and later expanded some of Bratton's policies without the previous strict oversights, resulting in the Diallo killing. He also suffered from a venal paranoia that had him jettison Bratton as soon as he found Bratton had political aspirations of his own and cutting off communications with both Commisoners and Union leaders he didn't like.

9/11 made Guiliani who was reeling pre-9/11 after a messy, public dvorce.

That's not to say he's "not electable," he IS.

He certainly has less public negatives than Hillary Clinton, McCain, AlGore, Kerry or Gingrich.

Nutty Dems who think that "socially Liberal" Republicans can't win, because they can't get "the OK" from the Religious Right, are delusional.

Sure, they, like ANY GOP candidate, will HAVE TO court that vote and make some amends, but yeah, they can get the endorsement...and they can win.

“...a man of character and stature who just happens to disagree with us on few peripheral issues.” (WF)
”men of stature just happen to AGREE with us on some issues,” in Blair’s case, Iraq and the global WAR on radicalized or traditional Islam and in Guiliani’s case in fiscal responsibility, lower taxes and the WAR on crime.

As far as the "gay marriage" issue goes, I believe, as currently framed, it can amount to a "backdoor attack on organized religion."

Government does not have the Constitutional authority to force the Catholic Church, Orthodox Jews, or ANY other religion to marry homosexuals in their institutions...or EVEN to make any of them stop preaching that homosexuality is "a sin," or an "abomination" (whatever an "abomination" is). The 1st Amendment makes that crystal clear to all except the most fanatical anti-religious bigots and outright dolts.

Some form of "Civil Union compromise" should be able to be reached, but it will have to be couched in better terms, without any hint that any organized religions (or their teachings) be assaulted by the results of any such compromise.

Well stated, JMK, except you fail to note that gays can probably expect to be married in the Episcopal church - maybe by a gay or Lesbian priest!

That's very true Mal, but that policy should, even MUST be up to the individual religion.

To seek to force the RC Church, Orthodox Jews and fundamentalist Christians to Marry homosexuals (against their teachings) and to legislate that they stop preaching that homosexuality is a "sin" would clearly violate the 1st Amendment.

If a given religion chooses to change its teachings &/or Marry gays, that's an entirely different matter, at least, it would appear so from a Constitutional viewpoint.

Oh, good Lord, JMK, no one is talking about forcing Catholic priests to conduct marriages. Gay marriage is about civil issues, not religious ones. The government doesn't mandate that a Catholic church house a Jewish wedding; and no one requires synagogues to conduct masses.

If that's your argument against gay marriage, it's a pretty shallow one.

That's what must be clarified Jill.

Boston recently forced the RC church's hand on its adoption services, mandating that they also make their adoption services available to gay couples.

As a result, the RC Chruch has withdrawn its adoption services from that area.

Those hurt most are the children who'll now be underserved.

I really can't blame the RC Church. Their views are what they are.

I do blame a governmental organization for over-reaching and making laws "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (of a religion).

We certainly wouldn't want the government, even in error, and one that would no doubt be rectified by the SC, to enact a law that might be used to mandate that religious groups from Roman Catholics, to Orthodox Jews, to Muslims recognize homosexual marriage within their institutions.

That would be a very clear violation of the 1st Amendment.

Civil Unions with all the benefits of marriage? Yes, I think a lot more people would be fine with that.

I don't think that quote supports your contention. The idea that a New Yorker can represent "Red State America" doesn't work for me. Of course someone in New York can overlook Giuliani's record on abortion. New York is not Red State America. Will someone in Alabama turn out and vote for a candidate who is pro-choice, gay-friendly, and a New Yorker?

I remain entirely unconvinced of his acceptibility to Red State America. He is tracking well in the polls only because Alabama, Mississippi, and the like don't know him for anything but his steadfast, resolute appearance when the WTC fell. Get a real campaign going and tell them just how pro-choice and gay-friendly he is and see how well they like him.

And then please, please nominate him as the Republican candidate. Please. You have no idea how much I want that.

"I remain entirely unconvinced of his acceptibility to Red State America. He is tracking well in the polls only because Alabama, Mississippi, and the like don't know him for anything but his steadfast, resolute appearance when the WTC fell." (DBK)
(DBK)


Guiliani certainly has a LOT of negatives among, not only Conservatives, but anyone with common sense.

His stance on guns and Capital Punishment are far more problematic than his stance on gay rights.

His opposition to SMALLER government and support for MORE EFFICIENT government is equally problematic.

But the idea that "Red Staters" will either vote against or simply stay home if a Guiliani or a McCain or even a Rice took the GOP nomination is foolish.

The opposition has an equal share in "bringing out the vote."

A Hillary versus ANYONE will bring out the Right, so would someone in the mold of a Howard Dean or Dennis Kucinich.

The last Liberal to win election won in the wake of one of the biggest governmental scandals in our history, and Carter won against a fellow Keynesian (Gerald Ford).

Since 1980 the Presidential candidate that's ran Right has always won. Reagan twice, Bush Sr. against Dukakis, Clinton ran to the Right of BOTH Bush Sr & Dole, and Bush Jr twice.

Unless the Dems can come up with another real pro-business centrist, like Bill Clinton, they're going to have a real rough time.

Murdering babies is OK with you repugs, just so long as the baby has been alive 18 years and become a Marine (Iraqi cannon fodder). Or the baby could be inside an Lebanese woman who is blown to bits by an American bomb launched by the Israelis ... that kind of abortion is OK!

But naturally using fetal stem cells from medical waste that will otherwise be tossed in a dumpster, THAT IS CLEARLY MURDER!!!

You retards are no better than your muzzie islamofascist brothers.

Hasn't been the same without you, Bailey.

Thanks, BTW, for all the traffic you've directed here from people Googling "Fuck Israel."

"You retards are no better than your muzzie islamofascist brothers." (Barely Hanging)
No go get your SHINEBOX!

I was banned, as you well know. When I proxied in you started reviewing all new posts, so that you could filter out dissenting opinions, just like your daddy Pres Chimpboy.

Of course your blog died without me, since nobody wants to read your boring ass-kissing. They can already get that 24/7 on the radio from Lush and Slannity.

"I was banned, as you well know..."
"Bush is a liar, and a criminal.

Now I say farewell to this blog. It was fun pointing out the absurdity of your childish beliefs, your hypocrisy, and the fact that you really do get all of your information from Limbaugh, Hannity, and O'Reilly.

In the end, all you can come up with is "Clinton did it first!" Tsk, tsk, tsk.

You all don't seem to lack intelligence, I must admit, so your minds will remain stubbornly closed to daddy Dubya's real agenda. You will support him, but eventually reality will teach you that you are NOT on his team, as you think you are. He isn't looking out for you.

I'll just hope that even his level of corruption won't break the back of America. We've survived a lot of bad stuff before.

Oh, and Barry -- you should write about the locals going after Souter's property under the very "Government confiscation of property for more tax revenue is OK!" ruling.

http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/01232006/news/84213.htm

It's better than just being an apoligist for Bush and his fellow criminals.

It's been fun, except for reading JMK's novel length ramblings paraphrasing what Rush said on each and every topic.

Hi ho.

Posted by: Bailey Hankins | January 23, 2006 09:35 AM
"Now go get your SHINEBOX!"

Never knew your troll, BNJ. Bailey Hankins, eh? I guess you know how I feel when I get my trolls, though I don't seem to have any regulars. Thing is, and I'm sure you know this but I'll say it anyway, you can't let them hijack your threads. Let 'em stay on topic at least.

Now where were we? Yes, I have to agree that the opposition candidate will certainly influence the response, but I see a lot of talk among the religious extremists of the Republican Party about "staying home" when they don't get the candidate they want. It is the ace they keep as a hole card and they let it be known. I believe they would do it, too, even if Hillary Clinton were the candidate (my least favorite Democratic choice, by the way).

I also think you cannot overstate the importance of gay marriage and abortion to that same core group of religious extremists.

Now, let's take a close look at the results of the last two elections. They were closer than any other in which I have voted. They were a hair's breadth of closeness. And that was with a Democratic candidate who was perceived as being as liberal as they come. Now swing a small piece of that base away and see where it gets you. And do that with an electorate that is already disenchanted with the Republican politicians both in the White House and in Congress, if you believe the polls, after five and a half years of the Republicans holding onto both of them.

No, I don't think Giuliani wins anything for the GOP. It may be that things are at such a point that nothing can win the White House for them next time out of the box. But I don't think Rudy is the guy to stop the presidential slide.

That's severely underestimating these so-called "religious extremists" DBK.

It's like a Conservative positing, "If the Dems don't put a hard-Left, "Soros annointed" candidate forward, the MoveOn.org crowd and the "Moore-Sheehan Left" will stay home...it's wishful thinking.

People, that's generally ALL people, generally vote what they perceive to be the lesser of two evils.

Now I know I've said that Dems who claim that "working class people who vote Republica, are voting against their own interests are idiouts, but I'll go out and confidently say almost the exact reverse, ANY working class person who votes in favor of the Democratic agenda of higher taxes for more social spending certainly IS voting against his/her best interests.

Higher marginal income rates are targeted at working people, NOT "the rich," (who don't rely on income for their wealth), moreover, virtually none of that social spending goes to those working people. So they're, in effect, paying for someone else's boondoggle.

The trump card Guiliani has today is a corrolary of the one he used to win in NYC.

Back in 1993 he ran as a "tough on crime" Mayor, now he can run as "a tough on terror" Presidential candidate.

The "let's give diplomacy (words) another chance held by many Democrats and almost ALL of the hard-Left is ridiculously naive. We share no common-ground with the Islamo-fascists - no common morality, no common culture.

Verbal diplomacy amounts to brining a book to a gunfight.

Not only does Guiliani know this, he can win the argument against ANYone who offers a different view on that. And his position (rightly or wrongly) as the "hero of 9/11" is not going to be shaken by anyone unwilling to go even further hardline than he...which is a pretty hard thing to do.

I'm not a Guiliani supporter, but I acknowledge that he'd be a formidable candidate, at least as formidable as Hillary Clinton would be, especailly having wisely distanced herself from the radical Moore-Sheehan Left.

She has good political instincts (running from the hard-Left), but so does Guiliani, having won two consecutive terms in a town where Democrats outnumber Republicans something like 6 to 1!

He wouldn't be my first, or second, or even fifth choice, but I'd take him over a Kerry, a Gore, a Kucnich, or a Hillary any day.

I think Barry is right that (he) "knows the Republican "base" in red America a helluva lot better than" those who think it turns on one issue, or set of issues.

DBK, all that I can tell you is that I still have many friends who are activists in the South Carolina Republican Party. Hell, in some cases they *are* the SCGOP. I'm talking about the modern-day heirs to Lee Atwater -- passionate, dedicated, and extremely informed. They know as much about Rudy as we do and they *still* adore the guy. At the risk of committing the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority," I'd have to submit that I understand the red-state, religious conservative GOP stalwart better than Northeastern progressives do, and I find them friendly ground for a Rudy candidacy.

> No, I don't think Giuliani wins anything for the GOP.

Of course he does. He can bring in all those highly educated, fiscally conservative voters who happily went for Reagan in the 80s, but are turned off by the modern GOP's religious bent. There are plenty of us still out there.

> But I don't think Rudy is the guy to stop the presidential slide.
I'm not sure I understand that. Most administration critics I talk to cite its coziness with the Religious Right as the biggest obstacle to their support. It's *very* possible that a Rudy candidacy could reassure people like that and bring Reagan Democrats back into the (Republican) fold.

And thanks for your advice on troll maintenance, BTW. Sorry you never new Bailey. You missed a lot. ;-)

At least Rudy had the balls to go out in public and rally people while chickenhawk Dubya hid in his underground lair like a frightened child.

I'll never forget when the whole country looked to Bush, united, ready to help, and he stammered and said ... "Um, go buy something!"

Corporate jackass.