Cynical Nation

I know that this is a post about Rudy, but really? With numbers like that Bill Frist thinks he has a shot? Really?

I don't know what gets into their heads. And look at Pataki, lol.

I can't wait to watch the Southerners jump through hoops justifying Giuliani parading around with his mistress and announcing his intent to divorce his wife via a press conference -- before telling her. He's not a fundamentalist evangelical, so I'm not sure he gets a free pass to heaven regardless of his behavior here on earth. But this should be interesting. I love watching angels dance on the head of a pin.

"I can't wait to watch the Southerners jump through hoops justifying Giuliani parading around with his mistress and announcing his intent to divorce his wife via a press conference..." (Jill)
(Jill)


I don't see them having to justify it any differently than I do - "I'd much rather have a very flawed messenger (arent we all "sinners" anyway?) with the right message, than a good and decent man who espouses the wrong message."

I never had a problem with Rudy, nor Newt, for that matter, as I never expected either of them to be perfect...especially since I'm far from perfect either....and besides, these guys only messed up with a little infidelity and divorce!

Heck, I don't see anything wrong or hypocritical with someone who's literally gotten away with murder advocating hanging those found guilty of murder?

I mean, how could I???

It's the state of the message, NOT the state of the messenger that counts.

Besides, Clinton did it first.

JMK, are you that forgiving when it's Democrats or liberals who "sin"?

I didn't think so.

I myself believe that Rudy Giuliani's marital woes were and are none of my business as long as they don't bear on his ability to do his job. I do think, however, that he's a scumbag and schmuck of the first order the way he handled his little dalliance. I don't have to like him as a human being to consider how he would be as president, as long as he doesn't get on a soapbox and talk about the sanctity of marriage or sexual restraint. As soon as a guy like that becomes a hypocrite, all bets are off. So let's see how much he kowtows to the Christofascist Zombie Brigade in his effort to win the nomination.

I dont think Guiliani will win the nomination. The mistress/liberalism issue will kill his chances in the south. Now it looks good, but wait until his opponents start throwing dirt and negative commercials on him.

By the way, as you can imagine I can not stand Guiliani. He has been a strong supporter of Bush and that shows how poor his judgement is. Does he still support the (disastrous) war in Iraq? I am getting to conlude that anyone who still supports the war in Iraq at this point is not qualified to be elected in any office.

That list was missing Chuck Hagel, who is apparently the republican candidate with the highest intelligence, as he is the only one who realized how disastrous Iraq has been, and has been openly attacking Bush. Hagel also happens to be a conservative and he could pass the conservative-litmus test. If he runs he would be a very serious contender.

Blue, you are as predictable as death and taxes. Of course I'd never expect you to support Giuliani, because you're a yellow dog Democrat.

There are plenty of people out there like me, however, who are conservatives, but who don't embrace the agenda of the religious right. Rudy looks pretty good to us.

"There are plenty of people out there like me, however, who are conservatives, but who don't embrace the agenda of the religious right. Rudy looks pretty good to us.

I realize that, but he has been pro-war and that will not go well with voters in 2008. For a republican to win in 2008, he would have to be anti-war or at least very critical of the administration. And there is only one like that: Chuck Hagel. Remember me on that. Chuck Hagel is also considered more conservative than Giuliani and could survive the primaries. Anyway, I hope and believe that 2008 will be a year for a democratic president (finally!).

> For a republican to win in 2008, he would have to be anti-war...

I don't buy that at all. The Democrats may win in '08, with a little luck, but they've got to give us a candidate we can vote *for* rather than just voting against Bush and the war. A lot can happen between now and then, of course, but right now I don't see many strong Democratic candidates for the White House.

Truely patriotic Americans are very angry at the "conservative" Repug assault on the Constitution, incessant lying, hypocrisy and treason.

The term "conservative" has been sullied, and is quickly becoming the new "liberal" -- thus demanding that conservatives call themselves "TRUE conservatives" as opposed to all the elected conservatives.

Repuglicans are running to the middle just as hard as Democrats who want to win any election.

The "conservatives" will find themselves with the same problems as "liberals" -- their base is hated. The Christofacsists are now baggage, just like gays and Al Sharpton. But how can Repugs win without them? But how can they appeal to them and hold the center?

Ah, Repugs, welcome to your self-created hell!

The playing field is again level, let the gridlock begin!

I know I'm in the minority, but I don't like the idea of Rudy Giuliani as POTUS.

What made him a great mayor of NYC is exactly why he shouldn't be president.

Exhibit A - Bernard Kerik.

"JMK, are you that forgiving when it's Democrats or liberals who "sin"?

I didn't think so." (Jill)
"Don't expect much from others and you'll rarely be disappointed."

A lot of people hear that and take it the wrong way - it's not about cynically dismissing others as lazy, low-lifes who don't care about quality or workmanship, etc, it was about NOT holding others to YOUR OWN set of standards.

That's a very hard thing to do, as most of us feel very strongly about whatever code of ethics we live by.

For instance, I've always reviled the "make love not war" crowd, but mainly because I see conflict as inevitable and a certain amount of violence as something often foist upon us.

I learned that repossessing cars when I was younger and I've seen nothing that would disuade me from that view since.

Human conflict is inevitable and so is a certain amount of violence accompanying that.

So, as I said above, "I'd much rather have a very flawed messenger (aren't we all "sinners" anyway?) with the right message, than a good and decent man who espouses the wrong message."

I vote ideology NOT the person, so yes, I'd most likely vote for a Conservative whose personality and demeanor I can't stand (persoanlity and personal traits are far more important to me than personal failings like divorce, etc), over a very likable and articulate Liberal, simply because I don't agree with the Liberal ideology.

For instance, I really like Harold Ford's personality.

I loved his ambush of Corker at a recent Corker press conference and didn't think it "smacked of desperation" at all.

I like his pro-tax cut stance, I like his relatively Conservative social views, BUT, if I were voting in Tennessee, I'd vote for the guy who most mirrored my own views, or at least the guy who best espoused my own vision...if after listning to the two of them, I determined that that was Corker, I'd pull the lever for him and never think twice about it.

I look at government (ALL government, ours and anyone else's) exactly the way that America's Founders did - as the greatest threat to human freedom and dignity.

Government should always and everywhere be reined in for the good of the people.

Doesn't that put the Weak, the poor, the uneducated and the less ruthless at a distinct disadvantage in that open free-for-all called the market-economy?

Yes, without question!

But nothing can fix that.

The poor, the uneducated the naive and the less ruthless are ALWAYS going to be at a distinct disadvantage - I'd even argue that they should be, so long as we care about the true perfection via evolution of the human race.

Ruthlessness coupled with innovation and a certain amount of hucksterism (coniving) are postivive or dominant human triats, as they lead to material success. Naivete, timidity, and a "caring & sharing outlook" are all weaker or recessive traits and in a better world, the former would naturally predominate, while the latter would be bred out of society via natural selection.

That only sounds terrible, as I'd say far more harm has been done by naive dreamers with good intentions (Stalin, Hitler, Mao, etc) than by innovative and avaricious self-promoters like Tommy Edison and Hank Ford.

CRB - you're 100% right about the flaws of Giuliani...he wouldn't be among my top five choices, neither would McCain (who after his "Americans CAN'T do the work illegal immigrantsdo" remark, I almost detest), but I'd vote for either one of them over even a slightly more Liberal candidate.

Ironically enough, I WOULD vote for a Zell MIller or a Harold Ford over either of those guys for ANY office!

"The poor, the uneducated the naive and the less ruthless are ALWAYS going to be at a distinct disadvantage - I'd even argue that they should be, so long as we care about the true perfection via evolution of the human race."

I couldn't agree more. Further, the whole "disadvantaged child" issue is not my problem. The government is not the nanny (with my tax dollars) of all children born in this country. If some parents choose not to care for their offspring, let their genetic material vanish from the earth.

We should end compulsory education and stop feeding people who won't work. Let them cease to exist.

Well, compulsory education is all but dead already - thousands of kids simply refuse to go to school now-a-days and very little, if anything is really done about it. Some inner city schools in NYC have a better than 50% drop out rate.

As for those who "would not work," people only opt out of work for a perceived "better option" - even significantly less money for no work can seem like a "better option" for some folks.

After all, about ten years ago, NYC's welfare benefits when totaled up (WIC, food stamps, housing and clothing stipends, etc) amounted to over $25,000/year.

Even NYC's cops and firefighters start out making less than that?

So why would someone give up getting the same amount of money to do nothing, to take a job paying the same or less and having to put up with bosses, wear a uniform and do some things that may be considered dangerous?

Where's the upside for that person.

Now, if there were no "better option," most, if not all of these people would take jobs they now view as "undesirable."

There is no more effective motivator than deprivation. That's why "sociliast utopias" that try to "take care of the people at government expense" (I love that last phrase - there is no "government expense")always fail miserably because there's no way to effectively motivate people to do the most arduous and dangerous jobs within that system.

This is why Liberalism is so illogical. American Liberals argue in favor of tax increases, despite the fact that tax increases almost always result in lower tax revenues.

WHY?

Because "people respond to incentives." When high income earner's taxes go up, they tend to respond by putting more of their money in various deferred compensation programs - thus lower tax revenues.

Same with government "taking care of the most vulnerable among us." When government provides an income floor for the most reckless and irresponsible among us, those already "undesirable" jobs become even more undesirable...and the next thing you know they're bringing in illegal aliens to do the work that America's "poor" won't do!

"If some parents choose not to care for their offspring, let their genetic material vanish from the earth."

"We should end compulsory education and stop feeding people who won't work. Let them cease to exist."

Way to go, Bailey. Just let the poor kids die. Who needs 'em, right? Your own personal hell should be to live in the kind of world you envision, where no one cares about anything except their own subsistence.

Your way of thinking only leads to a country overpopulated by genetic trash at the expense of the productive and able.

But you are right, let's sterilize these morons instead, and find them a job. That way you won't have any children to feel sorry for.

Let me guess, you are against that too, right?

So, let's run a little simulation.

Let's model some people who work hard and put a lot of time and effort into raising children in a quality environment to the benefit of society, so they also control their fertility.

Also, let's model a bunch of stupid, lazy assholes who don't give a shit about their kids, won't control their reproduction, and contribute only crime and playing the race card every five minutes to society.

Well, no need to run this simulation. It has already been done.

WoW!

I believe Barely is largely correct, though woefully indelicate, on this particular issue.

One of the most basic and undenaible problems with "wards of the state" (those dependent on Public Assistance, incarcerated felons, the institutionalized or "managed mentally & emotionally disturbed) reproducing, or propagating at taxpayer expense is that it does irreparable harm to those ill-fated children.

If you care nothing for the corrosive impact on society, then we should all be able to put the welfare of the children above the mere "license" ("doing whatever one wants") of these unfit parents.

If you feel bad for children born into depravity, the basic answer would seem to be barring the depraved from having children, either through incentives/carrot &/or punishments/stick.

Such children are doubly doomed in any First World economy. First, as they tend to come from what could most charitably be called "very shallow gene pools," they generally lack the ability to effectively compete and secondly, they are born into these chaotic environments that put them even further behind the proverbial eight ball.

There is a basic social contract. When your parents pay for the roof over your head - you live by their rules. When the Military pays for your upkeep and education they require many things in return. Likewise, when the government pays for your upkeep, it ahs the right to demand any number of things in return - a code of conduct (no drugs, no alcohol, mandatory education and job training, etc), and can declare such people "unfit parents" while they remain "wards of the State," as that state certainly defines them as such.

All such government programs come with necessary "strings" or "social contracts." Government sponsored health care often comes (and SHOULD come) with both health care rationing and ever more government control or "micromanaging" the lives of the recipients, public assistance should be no different.

The fact that it has, for so long, has been proven disastrous.