« My Commenters Is Smarter Than I:"Giuliani vs. The Facts" Edition | Main | Blast From The Past »

October 30, 2007

Against Giuliani

"Hillary and Obama are kind of debating whether to invite [Osama bin Laden and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad] to the inauguration or the inaugural ball," says Rudy Giuliani. Andrew's right. This guy is out of his goddamn mind.

You know, a few years ago, Sally Quinn wrote an article explaining why elite Washington had united against Bill Clinton. In it, David Broder famously said that, "He came in here and he trashed the place, and it's not his place." He got a lot of flack for that comment. But it gets at an important truth: That the media does, indeed, come together to repel perceived threats. In Clinton's case, it was a gauche striver. He was a threat to DC's prestige, or vision of itself. Not the greatest danger in the world, but the media was quite effective in kneecapping him.

So what of Rudy? Rudy, after all, is a danger to the world. Every reporter in this town knows that he's become a pandering lunatic. Why doesn't Time have cover stories asking "Is hGiulianie out of his #($*^ mind!?" Why aren't the Sunday shows filled with horrified reporters agreeing to disagree about much of the race, but uniting against the apocalyptic stupidity on evidence in the Giuliani campaign? Why aren't the various horserace reporters fitting every successive foreign policy pronouncement into an overarching narrative of Giuliani's crazed belligerence, "which is causing serious doubts about his campaign among some in the GOP?"

There is precedent for all this. And in Giuliani's case, the threat has the added benefit of being true. You don't need to make anything up, invent any scandals, concoct any problems. You just have to honestly evaluate the words coming out of Giuliani's mouth, the rhetoric coming out of his campaign, and the advisers circling the candidate. It's all there. There's no blowjob, I know, but there's a real threat, and the media should, in its role as guardian of some minimal level of competency within the political process, be pointing out that this man is dangerous, his statements scary, his campaign unsettling, and his advisers insane. His is not a normal candidacy, and so long as the reporters continue treating it as the equivalent of Hillary Clinton's campaign rather than Pat Buchanan's, we're in trouble.

October 30, 2007 | Permalink

Comments

"Hillary and Obama are kind of debating whether to invite [Osama bin Laden and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad] to the inauguration or the inaugural ball,"

Do US voters want to see a guy who uses such smears in political discourse as a president? I hope NOT.

Even Bush largely kept away from this mudslining, leaving it to his supporters instead. Giuliani not only has less class than Bush, he is even dumber (yeah, sounds unbelievable, I know..).
:-|

Posted by: Gray | Oct 30, 2007 10:12:23 AM

Also, as I note on my blog, HE WAS MARRIED TO HIS COUSIN!! FOR 14 YEARS!!!! C'mon! That should be enough to get anyone disqualified. For anything, really, much less the presidency. I have no idea why the Romney campaign isn't running endless "Do you know that Rudy Giuliani was married to his cousin?!?!?" ads nonstop in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Posted by: Dave J. | Oct 30, 2007 10:16:18 AM

Why doesn't Time have cover stories asking "Is hGiulianie out of his #($*^ mind!?"

A TPM reader makes the point that the Dem candidates haven't targetted GOPpers in the same way the GOP candidates have focused on Clinton (and to a lesser extent Obama and Edwards).

Of course, the media will only discuss the idea that Giuliani is a crazy fascist with a team of crazy warmongering advisors if a Democrat says it. Otherwise, it's not a 'campaign issue'.

And then, if a Dem candidate does mention it, the preliminary will be a long discussion on whether Rudy's obvious craziness ought to be a campaign issue: that is, whether the Dems are opening themselves up to accusations of 'being soft on national security' by doing so, along with various tangents on whether Hillary can say this, because she has girl cooties.

In summary:

1. If no Dem candidate mentions that Giuliani is a crazy, substance-free authoritarian whose campaign is based upon smears, petty insults and bullshit, it's not a 'campaign issue'.

2. If a Dem candidate mentions it, it's bad for the Democrats, because it raises questions of whether they're 'serious on national security', 'an area where they're historically weak' (TM every fucking Village idiot).

Welcome to American politics, 2007.

Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Oct 30, 2007 10:20:16 AM

The problem, though, is that while Rudy Guiliani's pronouncements are certainly insane in real-world terms, they aren't terribly outside the realm of what is considered sane within the media discourse on foreign policy. On the right, hawkish wing, of course. But not outside the talk show/op-ed columnist circuit realm of "reasonable" policies.

Posted by: rufustfyrfly | Oct 30, 2007 10:21:07 AM

Buchanan wants to re-argue our entry into World War II. Giuliani wants to actually start World War III, and, for extra bonus craziness, call it World War IV.

Compared to Giuliani, Pat Buchanan is a combination of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Pericles.

As to the larger question, you never, ever are dinged for unseriousness or place-trashing if you advocate invading or engaging in large-scale bombing other countries. Them's the rules, buddy. If you don't like it, you know how to find Canada, what with your fancy knowledge of geography and your love of socialism.

Posted by: Elvis Elvisberg | Oct 30, 2007 10:22:23 AM

Do you think we'll get to see Timmy Russert flashing his "Rudy" pin about town any time soon ?

For those of you outside the NYC Metro area, hold on to your hats, you ain't seen nothin' yet. Rudy has the potential to make The Chimp look like a statesman.

Posted by: mickey g | Oct 30, 2007 10:23:22 AM

"Also, as I note on my blog, HE WAS MARRIED TO HIS COUSIN!!"

SHOCKING! Didn't such a story ruin Jerry Lee Lewis' carreer only recently?
:D

Posted by: Gray | Oct 30, 2007 10:23:26 AM

I don't think they actually do perceive Giuliani as nuts. They think that wanting to nuke Iran, repeal the Bill of Rights and establish military hegemony over the earth are perfectly legitimate goals that deserve respectful consideration.

Posted by: Cervantes | Oct 30, 2007 10:23:28 AM

Thanks. My view is that it's time to bring the F-word out of cold storage, y'know, Fascist, with a capital 'F'.

Posted by: MattF | Oct 30, 2007 10:23:46 AM

I'm sure if approached on the subject, Giuliani would just use the Coulter-Beck Gambit: "I was only kidding! It was just a joke! You people really need to use your brains when listening to me..." etc. etc.

Hate-inspired Insanity. IOKIYAR.

Posted by: LittlePig | Oct 30, 2007 10:24:09 AM

oh noes!

Buchanan wants to re-argue our entry into World War II. Giuliani wants to actually start World War III, and, for extra bonus craziness, call it World War IV.

Compared to Giuliani, Pat Buchanan is a combination of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Pericles.

As to the larger question, you never, ever are dinged for unseriousness or place-trashing if you advocate invading or engaging in large-scale bombing other countries. Them's the rules, buddy. If you don't like it, you know how to find Canada, what with your fancy knowledge of geography and your love of socialism.

Posted by: Elvis Elvisberg | Oct 30, 2007 10:24:13 AM

End italics!

Hmm, I'm surprised that typepad doesn't close tags automagically...

Posted by: Gray | Oct 30, 2007 10:24:21 AM

Rudy Giuliani's entire candidacy is premised on the lie that he was America's Mayor on 9/11. He makes a fortune on the speaking circuit from it. So if any candidate feels the need to invite Bin Laden to his inauguration, it's Rudy.

He's using the Rovian tactic of accusing his opponents of having the very weaknesses which Rudy himself has. Very transparent.

Posted by: Discussed Ed | Oct 30, 2007 10:24:33 AM

Ugh, tried to fix the open ital tag, accomplished nothing. Sorry for breaking your blog, Ezra.

Posted by: Elvis Elvisberg | Oct 30, 2007 10:25:03 AM

I am not at all surprised by Rudy's statement.

It is also unsurprising that none of the Democratic politicians came out and said that it is quit touching to see Rudy take time off from activities to devise plans to send more of our kids to die in Iraq and to spend this time in examining the guest list of the Hillary Clinton White House.

Posted by: gregor | Oct 30, 2007 10:25:11 AM

Why are all the comments in italics all of a sudden?

Maybe I just fixed it with a tag?

Posted by: Cervantes | Oct 30, 2007 10:25:54 AM

Every reporter in this town knows that he's become a pandering lunatic.

Now that's really amusing as we watch Hillary, Obama and Edwards give away free ________________(fill in with expensive give-a-way du jour).

List to choose from:

Free healthcare
Free childcare
Free College
Free citizenship for illegal aliens
Guaranteed time off work
Guaranteed wage


On top of that, both Hillary and Obama went to Southern Churches and adopted fake Southern accents. I'd say the pandering, Ezra, is everywhere, even in your blind spot (Democrats).

Posted by: El Viajero | Oct 30, 2007 10:26:56 AM

I'm not sure you want the elite press to say these things about Giuliani -- as I explain here, that might be what gets him elected.

Posted by: Steve M. | Oct 30, 2007 10:27:38 AM

"Ugh, tried to fix the open ital tag, accomplished nothing."

{/i}
Of course, you have to use the arrow tags instead. however, almost all other blogging software closes tags automatically after every posting. :-/

Posted by: Gray | Oct 30, 2007 10:28:07 AM

"both Hillary and Obama went to Southern Churches and adopted fake Southern accents"

hmm, what kind of accent do the folks speak in Little Rock, Arkansas?
8-/

Posted by: Gray | Oct 30, 2007 10:29:56 AM

Clinton's big sin is that he saw the other side of Rock Creek.

Posted by: Roxanne | Oct 30, 2007 10:36:20 AM

A TPM reader makes the point that the Dem candidates haven't targetted GOPpers in the same way the GOP candidates have focused on Clinton (and to a lesser extent Obama and Edwards).

I don't see why that's confusing... the GOP has a more open field. Cutting an ad saying how you're the "best candidate to beat Giuliani" is a waste of hundreds of thousands of dollars if Romney becomes the nominee.

The appropriate Democratic message right now is "Jesus Christ, all of those guys are morons" and I think they're doing a decent job of that.

Personally, I think it's a good idea for the Democrats to hold their ammo on any particular candidate until it's too late for the Republicans to retract their standard-bearer. Contrary to Ezra, I'm giddy over the idea of Giuliani becoming the nominee... Hillary's attack campaign on him will be a three-month-long version of Sunday's Patriots game.

Posted by: August J. Pollak | Oct 30, 2007 10:37:44 AM

Those "accents" may not be "fake". Having lived north, east, north east, west, mid west, and south I find my southern accent comes and goes. It's not fake. I've even been asked if I come from a particular southern state. It's not always deliberate.

Posted by: Candymarl | Oct 30, 2007 10:39:37 AM

ElV, None of your dishonest statements in any way detracts from the fact that Rudy Giuliani is out of his mind. Why are you supporting candidates who are out of their mind? Do you endorse his insane stateements? I certainly don't want my children exposed to people who froth at the mouth andclaim that presidential candidates will invite Osama bin Laden to the inauguration. Why is it that these are the sorts of people you wish to associate yourself with?

Are all Republicans supportive of this sort of immoral dishonesty? Doesn't that place them at odds with mainstream Americans who do not believe such things? Why are Republicans pandering to their extremist, violent fringe?

Posted by: Tyro | Oct 30, 2007 10:39:50 AM

Speaking of pandering, why did Bush give Corporate America huge frickin' tax breaks in a time of war?

Posted by: Phoenix Woman | Oct 30, 2007 10:40:23 AM

Oh, this is classic El V.

A politician who panders by adopting the local accent is equally worthy of criticism compared to a leading candidate of the GOP, who (1) explicitly accuses his opponents of wanting to invite Osama Bin Laden to the inaugural, (2) hires advisors who are telling GW Bush to start a war with Iran right now, and (3) so far has gotten a completely free pass on all of the above from the 'librul' [snerk] media.

Yes, El V., someone used the word 'pandering' in an accusation against Rudy. I note how you carefully pretended not to notice the next word: lunatic.

Posted by: Captain Goto | Oct 30, 2007 10:43:14 AM

Pragmatism.

Giuliani's much more likely to destroy their careers and reputations should he get in.

H.Clinton wouldn't do much more than ignore, deny, and give the occasional practiced cackle.

How many negative stories on Gotti were published, while Gotti was out free?

If Giuliani loses the first few primaries, our beloved beltway sycophants will tear into him like rabid hyenas (as they did McCain after S. Carolina-2000).

Posted by: BUSTER | Oct 30, 2007 10:43:37 AM

Giuliani gets a free pass on this because he gets a free pass on everything.

The guy has absolutely ZERO terrorism-related experience. None. And not once does anyone ask him to specifically define his terrorism experience. They just allow him to run on an issue that he has absolutely no experience with.

His activities on 9/11 give him disaster recovery experience. They do not give him terrorism experience. From his perspective as Mayor, it may as well have been an earthquake. It's not like he fought terrorists with his bare hands, or conducted the investigation to determine who was behind the attack, or directed the national response, or in any way, shape or form did anything that day or afterward that had anything to do with terrorism in even the slightest way. He held a press conference, and that's about it.

Posted by: Brian | Oct 30, 2007 10:43:45 AM

"On top of that, both Hillary and Obama went to Southern Churches and adopted fake Southern accents. "

And of course you were there and heard them, right? Or did you (as usual) hear it from Rush and Michelle and assumed it was true because that's so much easier than actually thinking fr yourself...

Posted by: jjcomet | Oct 30, 2007 10:45:24 AM

Trudi Julie Annie wears dresses. And likes it.

Tht's all the Repuke base needs to know. They'll never vote for him once they've seen him getting felt up by Donald Trump.

Posted by: Tom3 | Oct 30, 2007 10:46:38 AM

both Hillary and Obama went to Southern Churches and adopted fake Southern accents

Sheesh.

If you actually saw that video, instead of just parroting what Rush said, you would know that Hillary was giving a quote--playing a role, enacting a performance--so her adopted accent was perfectly legitimate.

What's next? Will you now know what ellipses mean? No, no one could be that dense.

Posted by: Notorious P.A.T. | Oct 30, 2007 10:49:26 AM

Hillary Clinton lived in Arkansas for much of her adult life. Obama has lived in quite a few different places.

You don't need an extensive background in linguistics to understand that people often mirror accents subconsciously.

Posted by: Magenta | Oct 30, 2007 11:02:07 AM

"Hillary and Obama are kind of debating whether to invite [Osama bin Laden and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad] to the inauguration or the inaugural ball,

Actually, that would be great, because then when OBL shows up in his dress robes, we could arrest him.

I know that's silly, but no sillier that Rudy's statement.

Posted by: Jeff Fecke | Oct 30, 2007 11:11:11 AM

Freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be.
Freedom is about authority.
Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.
-Rudy Giuliani


...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....
-Benito Mussolini

Posted by: Carl from L.A, | Oct 30, 2007 11:14:24 AM

What a liberal says:

ElV, None of your dishonest statements in any way detracts from the fact that Rudy Giuliani is out of his mind. Why are you supporting candidates who are out of their mind? Do you endorse his insane statements?

What a wingnut hears:

ElV, None of your dishonest statements in any way detracts from the fact that Rudy Giuliani totally rocks. Why are you supporting candidates who rock balls? Do you endorse his rulingly awesome statements?

Posted by: Sadly, No! Investor Relations | Oct 30, 2007 11:14:59 AM

Grrr, tagfix.

Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Oct 30, 2007 11:24:26 AM

The appropriate Democratic message right now is "Jesus Christ, all of those guys are morons" and I think they're doing a decent job of that.

But not by name. They're talking about Generic GOPer, who's a bit phony, a bit crazy, a bit dumb, a bit lazy.

They'll never vote for him once they've seen him getting felt up by Donald Trump.

Yes, they will. They'd vote for Divine if they thought he'd torture people, bomb people and shoot the occasional black guy on the street.

Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Oct 30, 2007 11:40:50 AM

  • Huh. Why isn't Typepad closing these tags?

    Test unordered-list-tag-thinger...

    Posted by: Sadly, No! Investor Relations | Oct 30, 2007 11:42:42 AM

    Close unordered list tag.

Hmm.

Posted by: Sadly, No! Investor Relations | Oct 30, 2007 11:43:31 AM

The media narrative requires a fascist in the race. It's what the storytellers want, and Rudy's there to give it to them. Why would they take him down--ever? They want him there all the way to the finish because it's such a better story if he is. If he wins, Time's cover is "Look Out World, America's Back!" The total intercontinental US fubar that follows will be a continuation of the right-wing narrative that government doesn't work, anyway, so it's nobody's fault. If he loses, it's four years of, "Would things have been different for America is Rudy had won?" GOP honchos have this momentum all figured out and mapped, but the poll-driven "strategists" surrounding the Dem candidates can't see past next Tuesday. Be afraid.

Posted by: W Action | Oct 30, 2007 11:43:50 AM

Obviously, Dems are welcome to any view of Rudy they care to hold.

But strictly as a matter of tactics, the "Too crazy and irresponsible to be President" did not work against Reagan back in 1980, and (IMHO) many voters were surprised to see how genial Regan managed to appear after the apocalyptic build-up.

Similarly, Rudy often manages to come across as virtually human and nearly warm in many of his public appearances; if Dems warns us against a raving madman, voters may wonder of they should believe Dems or their own lying eyes.

Just for example - the specific red-meat line about Hillary and Obama debating about whom to invite to the inauguration obviously troubled Ezra, but what else in the linked story is clearly insane? How about this?

"Suppose Hillary Clinton and John Edwards' new position was their position back then, that it was a mistake to take him out," Giuliani said, referring to former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. "Wouldn't we be dealing with Saddam Hussein becoming nuclear right now? If Iran was becoming nuclear what would he be doing? Sitting there letting his arch enemy gain nuclear power over him? Or would we now be dealing with two countries seeking to become nuclear powers."

Posted by: Tom Maguire | Oct 30, 2007 11:59:11 AM

"Mayor, talk about Left Wing hit jobs, Liberal conspiracies — why do you and Judith have such a hyper-partisan view of politics?"

Posted by: Kris Wallace - Faux "News" | Oct 30, 2007 12:04:18 PM

I have often thought that George Bush was the literary equivalent of the Beast Rabban in the novel Dune. And I wondered, who is the Feyd, waiting in the wings.

If you recall, the Baron sent the Beast to Arrakis to get as much spice as he could, no matter how, no matter who he killed, no matter how much it cost. All he wanted was spice.

But what he really wanted is to create a monster for the people of Arrakis to hate, so that when he replaced the Beast with Feyd, they'd welcome him as a savior. Even though Feyd made the Beast look like a piker.

I'm thinking Rudy is our Feyd.

Posted by: Jeff | Oct 30, 2007 12:12:49 PM

'Why doesn't Time have cover stories asking "Is hGiulianie out of his #($*^ mind!?" Why aren't the Sunday shows filled with horrified reporters agreeing to disagree about much of the race, but uniting against the apocalyptic stupidity on evidence in the Giuliani campaign? Why aren't the various horserace reporters fitting every successive foreign policy pronouncement into an overarching narrative of Giuliani's crazed belligerence, "which is causing serious doubts about his campaign among some in the GOP?"'

Because he is currently the Republican front runner. You don't just attack the Republican with the best chances; you need to wait until he's down for the count and then get in a few good kicks. Just ask McCain.

Posted by: OmerosPeanut | Oct 30, 2007 12:13:41 PM

"I'm thinking Rudy is our Feyd."

Ain't he simply a sandworm???
:D

Posted by: Gray | Oct 30, 2007 12:14:12 PM

Why doesn't Time have cover stories asking "Is Giuliani out of his #($*^ mind!?" Why aren't the Sunday shows filled with horrified reporters agreeing to disagree about much of the race, but uniting against the apocalyptic stupidity on evidence in the Giuliani campaign?

I think you have to look at this as a case of selective adaptation -- both by politicians and the media. After almost 30 years of conservative Republican dominance, Democratic politicians in non-safe districts have learned that the best survival strategy is to scurry and hide whenever the subject turns to military force. Either that or adopt the protective camouflage of the "liberal hawk."

Corporate journalists, meanwhile, have learned that the path to success, fame and influence is to worship at the shrine of St. Broder and suck up to Republicans in power (the same thing, essentially.)

In both cases, those who adopted these strategies survived, or even flourished. Those who didn't went to the wall or were marginalized. Survival of the "fittest" in action. (If you went back and looked at the typical reporter or typical Republican in the early or mid-60s, you'd see a similiar pattern in reverse: Those who survived were those best adapted to living in a political world dominated, most of the time, by New Deal Democrats.)

But now the world has changed and the old rules don't work any more, neither as policy nor as politics. (Just like they stopped working for Democrats in the mid/late '70s) But the dinosaurs don't really know how to do anything else. They're trapped by their own evolution.

Bottom line: The system is heading for a crack up, either in the real world, the electoral map, or both. Hopefully, this will allow new politicians and new journalists who understand the new rules to rise to the top, while the dinosaurs go where dinosaurs always end up -- in a museum somewhere.

Posted by: Peter Principle | Oct 30, 2007 12:14:36 PM

The media doesn't do investigative journalism anymore... Or even just regular journalism for that matter. It's all "on the one hand, but on the other hand" no matter how freaking crazy either hand is! It won't be long before we hear stories like "local mother says child molestation is wrong, but local NAMBLA chapter president says it's just okay and the kids like it."

Just recently, a new ad campaign has started for my local news channel championing how "balanced" they are. I keep thinking... hey, some thing are just NOT balanced! They just are! How can you have a balanced account of everything?

You don't have to be liberal or conservative or middle ground to make most americans happy, and you sure as heck don't need to constantly search for the "other side" of a one-sided story, you just need to tell the truth! Grow a spine, media!

Posted by: Parrotlover77 | Oct 30, 2007 12:14:46 PM

"Wouldn't we be dealing with Saddam Hussein becoming nuclear right now?"

(a) No. (b) That is insane (c) Rudy still said something manifestly insane, bugging out his eyes, screaming that Osama bin laden would be invited to the inauguration if hillary were president, (d) the republican base is so unhinged that they accept this, and finally-- Rudy will be tar and feathered and scared away from mainstream voters by Hillary has swiftly and as viciously as Barry Goldwater was.

Posted by: Tyro | Oct 30, 2007 12:14:49 PM

"Why doesn't Time have cover stories asking "Is hGiulianie out of his #($*^ mind!?"

Firstly, they belong to corporate media.
Secondly, whimsy 'journalists' are afraid of rethuglican backlash.
Don't look for the media for help. "Very well, alone!"

Posted by: Gray | Oct 30, 2007 12:16:40 PM

Someone should invite bin Laden to the inaugural; other approaches to finding him haven't been working out so well.

Posted by: DonBoy | Oct 30, 2007 12:19:12 PM

"You ask, what is our policy? I can say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us: to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy. You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: It is victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."
W.C.
"No sports."
:D

Posted by: Gray | Oct 30, 2007 12:19:25 PM

See Rudi if you haven't already! His lead has to be due to the insane fascism, not in spite of it.

Posted by: lovable liberal | Oct 30, 2007 12:27:40 PM

What a liberal says:

ElV, None of your dishonest statements in any way detracts from the fact that Rudy Giuliani is out of his mind. Why are you supporting candidates who are out of their mind? Do you endorse his insane statements?

What a wingnut hears:

ElV, None of your dishonest statements in any way detracts from the fact that Rudy Giuliani totally rocks. Why are you supporting candidates who rock balls? Do you endorse his rulingly awesome statements?

Hahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahaha.

Well-played. And frighteningly accurate, I fear...

Posted by: Will | Oct 30, 2007 12:36:07 PM

Similarly, Rudy often manages to come across as virtually human and nearly warm in many of his public appearances

As long as no-one pays attention to what he actually says. A bit like Scooter Libby, really.

Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Oct 30, 2007 12:42:46 PM

Why is it that these are the sorts of people you wish to associate yourself with?

I don't. I didn't vote for either Bush and I don't like the amnesty, out-of-control domestic spending of the Republicans. Rudy has faults that will probably bother me deeply.

That being said, when discussing shortcomings and pointing to Republicans, let's not make the mistake of simply being cheerleaders and not mentioning the Democrats' same, if not worse, problems.

...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....
-Benito Mussolini

""We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
---Hillary Clinton


Posted by: El Viajero | Oct 30, 2007 12:46:48 PM

Italics OFF! OFF, I say!!

Posted by: El Viajero | Oct 30, 2007 12:47:26 PM

again...

Posted by: El Viajero | Oct 30, 2007 12:48:50 PM

So what of Rudy? Rudy, after all, is a danger to the world.

To his supporters, that's not a bug--it's a feature. The people who support Giuliani do so because they want to see him shove a nightstick up the world's ass.

Posted by: Tom Hilton | Oct 30, 2007 12:49:56 PM

"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." ---Hillary Clinton

You missed a few good ones.

Posted by: Sadly, No! Investor Relations | Oct 30, 2007 12:59:31 PM

Um, no blowjobs? So what did his mistress do to make him leave his wife? Rimjobs? Strap-on play? CBT?

Posted by: anon | Oct 30, 2007 1:08:14 PM

Personally, I think it's a good idea for the Democrats to hold their ammo on any particular candidate until it's too late for the Republicans to retract their standard-bearer.

Well, I kept telling myself Kerry was just holding his ammo re the swiftboaters and then all of a sudden the election was over. I'm not such a big fan of holding ammo anymore.

Seriously, how can it really hurt? I think it would be a particularly good move for Obama, who is floundering around for an issue to hitch his wagon to. It's not like Rudy or any of the GOPers except arguably McCain have any more foreign policy experience than he does, and it's a way to distinguish himself from HRC at the same time as pointing up her vulnerability for being too close to the GOP. "These guys are all whackjobs--just look at Rudy! We don't need more Cheney-ite nutcases in charge of our foreign policy; we need a foreign policy that decisively breaks with this utterly discredited approach." Better than deciding to embrace the GOP frame on the Social Security "crisis" that's for sure.

Posted by: DrBB | Oct 30, 2007 1:08:38 PM

"both Hillary and Obama went to Southern Churches and adopted fake Southern accents"

That is simply dumb. Almost everyone speaks in different registers. You don't use language in church that you would in a bar nor are either the same as you would use in a seminar room. You speak to people in the language and tone which is most likely to communicate whatever it is you are trying to accomplish.

I used to hang out at a bar casually drinking beer, watching and rolling dice with a black math grad, smart guy but not needing to show it right then and there. Most of the customers were white and so generally we talked 'Standard Bar' which was quite different than 'Standard Seminar'. I went to a party at his house where almost everyone was a fellow member of his frat, meaning I was hanging with a bunch of college educated black people, well they all fell back into a dialect that was certainly not 'Teachers' Lounge' and not 'Staff conference' either. At one point back in the day I spoke fluent 'Navy'. My grandmother would have been shocked, certainly I wasn't brought up to use words like that. Well sorry Navy guys don't defecate in toilets, they shit in shitters, and tend to talk kind of southern to boot.

I suspect that when Haley Barbour talks to his rural constituents that people outside the Delta probably wouldn't even understand him. Does that mean he is putting on a 'fake' Northern accent when he talks to the National Governers' Conference?

Do I drawl when I go into a Country Bar? Well no, but I certainly don't talk like I have a stick up my butt either. Hillary and Obama are simply being polite, this is all just more manufactured hysteria. And pretty patronizing to southerners to boot. Tone and accent are simply parts of dialect.

Posted by: Bruce Webb | Oct 30, 2007 1:18:25 PM

The DC establishment saw Bill Clinton as a threat to them because he was an outsider and Southern to boot; he wasn't connected to the DC structure.

Guiliani is no threat to the DC establishment, he's a consummate insider. They'll love him. He's one of their own.

Posted by: zak822 | Oct 30, 2007 1:20:33 PM

Italics ON!

Posted by: eb | Oct 30, 2007 1:20:42 PM

So that's why the R. Robot website doesn't work anymore! R's writing speeches for Giuliani now.

Posted by: C.L. | Oct 30, 2007 1:20:54 PM

let's not make the mistake of simply being cheerleaders and not mentioning the Democrats' same, if not worse, problems.

Their problems are neither the same nor worse. To say otherwise is an exercise in rank dishonesty, and to associate Rudy's unhinged fanaticism and dishonesty mentioned in the blog post with the Democratic candidates is an act of either ignorance, dishonesty, or rank hatred of the highest order. You made a big mistake by doing that, engaging in a typical deflection of the right-wing extremists who are dominating the Republican primary process right now and are enabling crazy people like Giuliani. The question is, what is wrong with you that you cheer when Giuliani says these things? Not once have you ever repudiated the unhinged right-wing who wants to nuke iran and thinks that Hillary is going to invite OBL to the inauguration.

If you want to engage in such things, you can start your own blog rather than attempt to deflect and avoid the issue at hand-- which is that the republican base is falling over themselves for a crazy person whose statements you did not in any way take issue with and instead made unrelated attacks to deflect from the moralk decripitude of the republican party.

Posted by: Tyro | Oct 30, 2007 1:25:24 PM


Spaghettis off!
:D

Posted by: Gray | Oct 30, 2007 1:26:57 PM

Wow. I wonder what'll happen if I leave several open tags.

  • Posted by: Sadly, No! Investor Relations | Oct 30, 2007 1:40:27 PM

    this post DOESN'T GET IT. The media will cater to ghouliani for the same reason they cater to bush/cheney in spite of the outrageous assault on the Constitution and rampant criminality: the media players are more interested in snuggling up to power than they are in either a) reporting facts or 2) performing their function as the 4th estate.

    The media will have NOTHING adverse to say about outrageous statements of republican candidates (and plenty have be spoken already to deafening silence), nothing at all, and will in fact assist republicans as much as they can to win, all in the hopes of being an insider if a republican were to win.
    .

    Posted by: pluege | Oct 30, 2007 1:40:44 PM

    Tee hee! Woo hoo!

    Posted by: Sadly, No! Investor Relations | Oct 30, 2007 1:40:52 PM

Sorry about that.

Posted by: Sadly, No! Investor Relations | Oct 30, 2007 1:41:36 PM

I am one who truly believes "everything changed on 9/11." To be specific, what changed was we forgot our courage, lost our best sense of ourselves and started letting ourselves be transformed into the kind of corrupt authoritarian surveillance state we generally outsourced to South American banana republics back in the day. Didn't have to go that way, maybe wouldn't've with different people in charge, but it is what it is.

Thanks to TPM, here's a key datapoint in that transition--Rudy! arguing for suspending elections and letting him remain in office, just after 9/11. He's talking about conducting elections and honoring the results. Can't do that anymore, says Hizzonor. Everything has changed:

And we can start think differently as a result of that. Which means we can everyone conduct our politics differently as a result of that. Or we can go back to the way we used to conduct our politics in the past. And I think it's a lot better if we try to conduct our politics differently now.

Whatever "same" problems there may be on the Dem side, there's at least a chance they won't continue down the disastrous path Bush has put us on. For people capable of the "post-9/11 thinking" in the quotation above, it's a virtual certainty. They think Bush hasn't gone far enough.

I recently learned I'm about to be a grandfather. I don't want my grandchild to grow up in a fascistic banana republic. So f***k the "same or worse problems" on the Dem side. None of 'em are "worse" than the vision Rudy and his party have in mind for this country and the world.

Posted by: DrBB | Oct 30, 2007 1:44:06 PM

The question is, what is wrong with you that you cheer when Giuliani says these things?


Please provide a link or quote where I have "cheered" Mr. Giuliani? The dishonesty is yours.


You don't use language in church that you would in a bar nor are either the same as you would use in a seminar room.

True. However, you also don't try to deliberately speak ebonics when addressing a group of Southern blacks when you're a rich, white and educated elite politician, either. I was going to give you a link to a youtube cut of her insulting the black audience, but we've all heard it before and it makes my skin crawl so you'll just have to find it on your own. Shouldn't be hard. Perhaps if she were pandering to Asians instead of blacks, she could say:

"I no wray tired. Come too far I started flum. Road berry clooked. Number one Dragon King take me far."




Posted by: El Viajero | Oct 30, 2007 1:50:35 PM

Not to come off as a history minded old fart but I think a lot of this has to do with the degree to which the Media has internalized the Right wing mythology concerning the Sixties/Seventies.

According to the standard narative the sixties saw the demoralization and emasculation of the US at the behest of an evil alliance between the Liberal establishment, the media and radical countercultural movements. The fall of Nixon and the election of Jimmy Carter in this scenario are seen as the triumph of the "left". The subsequent meltdown of Carter's foreign policy and Presidency are viewed as the inevitable result of a "sick" and "degenerate" liberalism (see Newt Gingrich).

This campaign had historical precedent in the similar operation performed against the movements of the Thirties and the New Deal via the "anti-communist" purge of the late Forties and early Fifties. Right wingers appreciate the continuity of their actions even if liberals do not. Witness Ann Coulter's screed "Treason" which essentially revamps the old anti-Communist charge of "30 years of treason!" by inflating it to "Seventy years of treason!".

According to Right Wing cant, the Sixties/Seventies revealed liberalism to be mushy, wimpish and in thrall to unwashed hordes of hairy, manhating lesbians, swishy faggots, Sex mad libertines and radical peaceniks/environmentalists who want to abolish the military and collectivize your power mower while holding hands singing kumbaya around the campfire.

Despite the lunacy of such an "analysis", after thirty years of constant propagandizing, it has been so ingrained in our discourse that it is treated as though it were a self evident truth rather than the partisan hackery that it is. Rudy and other frothers of the Right are treated as serious and non-crazy because their particular madness is the antithesis of the fantasy liberalism concocted by the Right. None of that nonsense about peace, love and understanding. Just a manly and aggressive desire to blow up buildings and people as an all-purpose response to any political problem or crisis. Anything less masterful is a relapse into hippie degeneracy and by definition nutty and unserious.

This isn't likely to change so long as the Right's narrative remains an unchallenge political verity, particularly among the newer crop of independent, critical journalists on the left. This is one reason why many find the tendency of otherwise trenchant and insightful progressives for falling in with Right Wing memes attacking popular expressions of political dissent so egregious.

Posted by: WB Reeves | Oct 30, 2007 1:58:05 PM

this post DOESN'T GET IT. The media will cater to ghouliani for the same reason they cater to bush/cheney in spite of the outrageous assault on the Constitution and rampant criminality: the media players are more interested in snuggling up to power than they are in either a) reporting facts or 2) performing their function as the 4th estate.

The media will have NOTHING adverse to say about outrageous statements of republican candidates (and plenty have be spoken already to deafening silence), nothing at all, and will in fact assist republicans as much as they can to win, all in the hopes of being an insider if a republican were to win.

Posted by: pluege | Oct 30, 2007 2:03:00 PM

"Insulted" the audience, ElV? Who's the liar now? Really, get out of the basement and stop talking cues from Limbaugh and Malkins about what you want to be upset about today.

Really, you can't confront the fact that the Republican party is overrun by a base of unhinged fanatics who think that hillary is going to invite OBL to the inauguration, so you have to recycle previous outrage you were instructed by the radio to get upset about. Your desperation is palpable.

Posted by: Tyro | Oct 30, 2007 2:04:37 PM

True. However, you also don't try to deliberately speak ebonics when addressing a group of Southern blacks when you're a rich, white and educated elite politician, either. I was going to give you a link to a youtube cut of her insulting the black audience, but we've all heard it before and it makes my skin crawl so you'll just have to find it on your own.

Did anyone in the audience say that they felt insulted? Did anyone, other than opportunistic wingers, exhibit the credulity to believe that she intended her audience to accepte her as speaking in her natural mode of expression? If you thought she was speaking in "ebonics "it's clear that you are not a southerner.

Posted by: WB Reeves | Oct 30, 2007 2:08:06 PM

Invite I'maDinnerjacket to the inaugural?

Funny, conservatives/Republicans have for decades been working with and inviting a man to sit at their table who openly states his desire to subvert all we hold dear. Without his cash and fronts the right would not be as extreme nor would they have gained power over the last 30 years. In short, without their savior and sugar daddy, there would have been no Bush 43 presidency. Would not have happened. Their savior spent billions over many years creating the political environment.

The right's savior also was a VIP guest at the Reagan Bush inaugural in 1981.

From Parry:

Yet, Moon also made clear that his longer-range goal was the destruction of the U.S. Constitution and America's democratic form of government. "History will make the position of Reverend Moon clear, and his enemies, the American population and government will bow down to him," Moon said, speaking of himself in the third person. "That is Father's tactic, the natural subjugation of the American government and population."

From the very, very conservative, James Whelan, the first editor of Moon’s Washington Times. Whelan quit the paper saying he had "blood on his hands" for helping the right's savior gain credibility.

Whelan:

"They (the Moonies) are subverting our political system. They're doing it through front organizations--most of them disguised--and through their funding of independent organizations--through the placement of volunteers in the inner sanctums of hard-pressed organizations. In every instance--in every instance--those who attend their conferences, those who accept their money or their volunteers, delude themselves that there is no loss of virtue because the Moonies have not proselytized. That misses the central, crucial point: the Moonies are a political movement in religious clothing. Moon seeks power, not the salvation of souls. To achieve that, he needs religious fanatics as his palace guard and shock troops. But more importantly, he needs secular conscripts--seduced by money, free trips, free services, seemingly endless bounty and booty--in order to give him respectability and, with it, that image of influence which translates as power."

Posted by: doe | Oct 30, 2007 2:35:47 PM

If you thought she was speaking in "ebonics "it's clear that you are not a southerner.

What's clear is that ElV has no knowledge of the event or what Clinton said, only that he was instructed to get outraged about it, and when Ezra pointed out that the Republican base is full of a bunch of unhinged lunatics, decided to express some outrage about Clinton regarding an issue with which he had no idea what he was talking about.

Posted by: Tyro | Oct 30, 2007 2:38:26 PM

The occasion of Mrs. Clinton's speech was the 42nd anniversary of Bloody Sunday, on March 7, 1965, when 600 civil rights marchers were attacked by police with billy clubs, cattle prods and tear gas, one of the high points in the black civil rights struggle. Commemorating a key point in American history is one thing but a white person mimicking black dialect is demeaning and insulting. And if it buys her votes from those in attendance, not much flattering can be said about them.
---Walter Williams, black columnist

Imagine a Conservative...say George Bush....going to Selma to the exact same audience and saying the same thing in the same dialect. Walter is correct. It probably bought her lots of votes. Perhaps the audience would also have tolerated her (or even Byrd) using the term "NI**ER". If that were the case, would it be OK simply because they didn't budge?

Where is the objectivism?

And before you start, Mr. Williams is, indeed, "black enough".

Posted by: El Viajero | Oct 30, 2007 2:38:59 PM

Kill strikethrough?

Posted by: DrBB | Oct 30, 2007 3:01:20 PM

It sounds like Mr. Williams was insulting the audience in that passage, not Sen. Clinton. I don't see you throwing a fit that "Walter Williams insulted the audience!!!11!1!!!!1!1"

Funny, your reactions are pretty much easy to understand-- attack Giuliani or any republican, and it sends you into a tirade about Clinton.

Posted by: Tyro | Oct 30, 2007 3:01:31 PM

Perhaps if she were pandering to Asians instead of blacks....

Perhaps if she hadn't actually spent 18 years in Arkansas, she would be pandering.

Thanks for your advice warning not being a cheerleader for the Democratic Party, by which I assume you mean that I don't look at the facts, I just cheer. You're a little late to be giving that advice, however: I don't think I've been doing so for my entire adult life. To expand, you take a look at the front page stories on Daily Kos and tell me whether anyone there is cheerleading for Democratic Presidential candidates (I'm not talking about diaries or comments). In fact, kos just posted on this very topic ("Gays, social security, and the loss of a real choice this primary").

This is Ezra's blog, and this is my comment, and neither of us need to say anything negative, nor need report on others saying anything negative, about Democrats every time we say or report something negative about Republicans, like our shared belief that Giuliani's mental condition is unfit for the job of U.S. President. I'm not concerned if such an omission diminishes your opinion of the quality of his or my statements.

Posted by: Aaron G. Stock | Oct 30, 2007 3:09:30 PM

Where is the objectivism?

Up Ayn Rand's ass, along with an alarming number of wingnut heads.

Posted by: Tom Hilton | Oct 30, 2007 3:10:41 PM

The guy has absolutely ZERO terrorism-related experience.

That's not quite true, of course.

He became mayor in the immeidate aftermath of the '93 attack on the WTC. That left him with several crucial decisions to make about terrorism--for example, did the fire department need a better communications system? Where should the new emergency command center, with its tank of reserve fuel oil, be located?

Of course, he made every one of those crucial decisions wrong.

Nevertheless, you can't say Giuliani lacks experience with terrorism, just as you can't say (at this point post-Katrina) that Mike Brown lacks experience in dealing with the aftermath of hurricanes.

Rather reminds of the early stages of the 1876 campaign, when serious people were preparing to nominate George Armstrong Custer because of his experience in dealing with Indians . . .

Posted by: rea | Oct 30, 2007 3:19:29 PM

El Viajero, note that I do understand that you weren't addressing me, who hadn't commented on this thread before 3:09:30 PM!

I'm just reacting personally while saying you have no need to worry about cheerleading. I and others have taken care of that a while ago.

Posted by: Aaron G. Stock | Oct 30, 2007 3:23:44 PM

Speaking for myself, I feel as though I have to support for Giuliani for president because I don't want people to think I'm bigoted against the mentally ill.

Posted by: Hieronymus Braintree | Oct 30, 2007 3:40:07 PM

As you mention in the next post, Ezra... I can't believe you cited Sally Quinn as a serious commentor on the Clinton affair...

Posted by: weboy | Oct 30, 2007 5:04:42 PM

"the media should, in its role as guardian of some minimal level of competency within the political process"

Huh-hah!

Huh-hah-hah-ha.

Huh-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.

Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Posted by: Junius Brutus | Oct 30, 2007 5:13:50 PM

Imagine a Conservative...say George Bush....going to Selma to the exact same audience and saying the same thing in the same dialect. Walter is correct. It probably bought her lots of votes. Perhaps the audience would also have tolerated her (or even Byrd) using the term "NI**ER". If that were the case, would it be OK simply because they didn't budge?

I couldn't ask for a better illustration of how blinkered your perspective is.

Of course the source of a statement makes a difference as to its import. People would have a far different reaction to the song "Springtime for Hitler" if it had been penned by David Duke rather than Mel Brooks. It isn't a question of bias but of mental and political acuity. Identical rhetoric may have widely divergent meanings depending on who is speaking.

If your notion of "objectivity" requires that people ignore this fact, it suggests that you don't understand the meaning of the term.

Posted by: WB Reeves | Oct 30, 2007 5:20:08 PM

My sense is that Giuliani stiffed the Baker-Hamilton Group because he sensed that he did not want to be associated with its likely, moderate recommendations. He had the sense to know that the Republican "base" would not buy it, and he did not want to be tainted.

Posted by: bob h | Oct 30, 2007 5:43:28 PM

It isn't a question of bias...

Lesse....
One group has license to use racial epithets and other groups don't.
One group can beat the crap out of another screaming racial epithets while doing so and there doesn't seem to be any hate crime investigation.
One group gets preferential treatment in state and federal programs and school slots based solely upon the color of their skin, and the other group is stiffed.

Hey, if it looks and walks like a duck and has the effect a duck would have, it's probably a duck.

Isn't your nuanced 'reasoning' about race simply an end-run around everyone being treated equally under the law and, in fact, it's really a duck, regardless of how you torture the language to exclude your favored racist groups from the responsibility that others must take? They make decisions based upon the color of one's skin, for God's sake. This is exactly what people protested against in the sixties...to get away from all of that shit.
The racism is the same, it's now just a different group on top getting the perks and a different group on bottom getting stiffed.

RACISM, it's not just for breakfast anymore!

Posted by: El Viajero | Oct 30, 2007 6:54:41 PM

Horseraces and war sell, Ezra. Sad but true. The Man, be Him corporate, military, or media, will make money on more of it. Everything else is just overanalysis.

Plus, none of our established "elite" are going to need to die for any of the horror that ensues, unless they are lightning-strike unlucky in a terrorist attack.

Beware The Man.

And keep up the good work. This post has been passed around by me personally, along with some rather strong comment.

Posted by: John O | Oct 30, 2007 7:15:30 PM

One group has license to use racial epithets and other groups don't.

Assuming you're talking about in group use of the word "nigger" by African Americans, I don't know of anyone objecting to white folks calling each other "honkey" or "ofay".

One group can beat the crap out of another screaming racial epithets while doing so and there doesn't seem to be any hate crime investigation.

If you think that hate crimes prosecutions have been racially specific you are displaying your own ignorance of actual case law. If you are refering to a particular instance you'd do well to document it.

One group gets preferential treatment in state and federal programs and school slots based solely upon the color of their skin, and the other group is stiffed.

I'd like to see you document a single instance where anyone has received such consideration based "soley upon the color of their skin."

Hey, if it looks and walks like a duck and has the effect a duck would have, it's probably a duck.

If I were to accept your logic I'd be forced to conclude that you are an unregenerate white racist. Fortunately for you I don't share your specious reasoning or your penchant for treating bias as fact.

Oh and in case you hadn't noticed, Hillary Clinton is white, which makes even more of a hash of your already incoherent rant. My response to you made no mention of race whatever and the principle cited relies on no racial criteria. It's clear you have issues where skin color is concerned.

Posted by: WB Reeves | Oct 30, 2007 7:35:57 PM

Its clear that you understand that decisions are made by race, by the color of one's skin, and *that*, my little friend, is racism by any other name.

Now, you may wish to torture the language, call it some euphamism that you think gives you license, make up new rules so that you can enable and protect certain races that you favor at the expense of those you don't, but everyone, including the minorities know what it is. They know, they just think they are justified.....and that's another discussion entirely.

What *YOU* do is stare blankely at the camera and say "it's not a duck".
It's a duck

Quack, quack.....AFLACK!!!

Posted by: El Viajero | Oct 30, 2007 7:48:38 PM

Hate crimes are just the next logical step towards thought police. It doesn't happen overnight, folks.

I don't understand why people don't see this.

It's all one and same.

Posted by: John O | Oct 30, 2007 7:55:24 PM

"SHOCKING! Didn't such a story ruin Jerry Lee Lewis' carreer only recently?"

Well Gray it was about 50 years ago. Not only was she his cousin, she was only 14, 15 tops.

I was in my teens when this happened and can't remember whether it was the cousin thing or the age thing that got people the most upset. At the time both were considered southern things.

You may be confusing 'recently' with the movie of a few years ago. If I remember correctly, Winona Ryder played Jerry Lee's cousin.

Posted by: cal1942 | Oct 30, 2007 11:19:26 PM

NBC is coming to the end of their more than 3-hour bash Hillary marathon.

Honestly, FoxNews would have been more circumspect in trying to wound her, and her alone, but not NBC. Russert and Fineman simply cannot hide their distain for her...they abused their positions as journalists.

The liberal media really sucks.

Posted by: frank | Oct 30, 2007 11:37:55 PM

I hope that someone in the DNC is keeping clips of Rudy's foreign policy statements.

The media will not put together any stories of Rudy's foreign policy lunacy. It's going to be up to the Democratic party and some 527s to shed the light.

A decision has to be made whether to take Rudy out before or after the nomination.

Personally I think that 527s should start during the GOP primaries. Rudy needs to go as soon as possible before he gets the nomination. I remember that in 2000 I felt that it would be better to run against Bush than against McCain so I wanted Bush to win the GOP nomination. I don't want to allow any chance for Rudy to become president.

Posted by: cal1942 | Oct 30, 2007 11:38:24 PM

Giuliani *is* out of his goddamn mind, but to invite Osama bin Laden to the inauguration *would* have an upside: the *perfect* opportunity to *capture* him, and in front of the world!

Subtleties like this are lost on wingnuts, though...

One thing that I'd love to ask Rudy is what he thinks about the fact that BushCo *sat back and did nothing* after they got the 8/6/2001 Presidential Daily Briefing, and how they let *his* city suffer because of *their* neocon agenda!

Of course, I'll *never* get the opportunity to ask...

The *real* question in the 2008 election, though, isn't "Who will make the best leader?", but rather, "Who can clean up Bush's mess?". That's the point that Democrats will *really* have to hammer home; it focuses on how badly Bush has screwed up the country with his incompetence, and how *any* other Republican will only make the situation *worse*!

In short, it should be *unmistakably* clear that a vote for Rudy would mean 4 more years of Dubya!

Posted by: Skippydelic | Oct 31, 2007 2:12:41 AM

*Really* *do* *you* *think* *so*?

Posted by: El Viajero | Oct 31, 2007 9:07:32 AM

Its clear that you understand that decisions are made by race, by the color of one's skin, and *that*, my little friend, is racism by any other name.

Now, you may wish to torture the language, call it some euphamism that you think gives you license, make up new rules so that you can enable and protect certain races that you favor at the expense of those you don't, but everyone, including the minorities know what it is. They know, they just think they are justified.....and that's another discussion entirely.

That you accuse me of "torturing" language would be amusing if it weren't so damn sad. Here you are attempting to equate the fact that white folks can't use the word "nigger", without raising suspicions as to their motives, to the 400 year plus history of white supremacy in this country by claiming that it is an expression of "racism". Such a patently absurd claim hardly recommends your judgement, assuming that you actually believe what you say.

In a further exercise of absurdity you go on to claim that any judgement based on color is ipso facto racist. This will certainly be an unpleasant surprise to the medical profession which takes account of color as well as ethnicity generally when caring for the health of their patients. I suppose in your book this makes all such practitioners Dr. Mengele.

Of course you may claim that you didn't intend to include such instances in your sweeping generalization. Unfortunately, since you don't bother to support any of youp assertions with more than rhetorical bluster, its impossible to identify your actual motivation. All that can be clearly determined is that you make the rather weird assertion that making racial epithets a social liability for white folks is a form of racism on par with that practiced against African Americans from the time of their arrival on this continent.

You don't just torture language, you torture reality.

Posted by: WB Reeves | Oct 31, 2007 11:42:43 AM

"Well Gray it was about 50 years ago. Not only was she his cousin, she was only 14, 15 tops."
Well, cal, I was joking (I tried to indicagte that by using the :D icon). By comparing this to Jerry Lee Lewis scandal, I wanted to show that the simple fact that someone married his cousin is no big deal.
;-)

Posted by: Gray | Oct 31, 2007 12:48:40 PM

...you go on to claim that any judgement based on color is ipso facto racist.

You are correct, Sir. The very term "Racism" is based upon the word "Race" and means that you use race in making decisions.

The regular guy doesn't buy into the left's tortured NEW definition of racism that has more conditions and twists to it than Ted Kennedy driving drunk, designed specically to allow you to promote one race over the other without the stigma of being "Racist".

People see it. They don't do or say much, but they see it.

Posted by: El Viajero | Oct 31, 2007 2:48:42 PM

You are correct, Sir. The very term "Racism" is based upon the word "Race" and means that you use race in making decisions.

Again your ignorance is evident. The concept of race is far older than the relatively modern developement of color prejudice. Racism is neither limited to, nor dependent upon, the category of skin color. The racism of the Nazis, for example, was intra European in character and had as its primary victims those classified as "white".

It is you who are imposing a narrow, self serving definition of Racism which ignores its actual history and character. That others share both your apparent ignorance and prejudice doesn't alter the material facts. That you offer no support for your assertions beyond an appeal to such ignorance speaks for itself.

Posted by: WB Reeves | Oct 31, 2007 3:23:35 PM

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would certainly disagree with you. They would tell you that racism is all about skin color.

Ya' know, your weaving and dodging and refering back to the Nazis is a poor attempt to be 'right'. It's as bad as saying that racism has nothing to do with skin color in this debate in todays world in todays US.

A ridiculous attempt. You wish to somehow feel intellectually "correct" while being obtuse to the real issues that I am attempting to discuss with you.
Disingenuous, at best. Dumb as worst.

Posted by: El Viajero | Oct 31, 2007 5:28:44 PM

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would certainly disagree with you. They would tell you that racism is all about skin color.

I don't think you have any justification for putting your own words into the mouths of either Sharpton or Jackson. One more example of the dishonesty and mental poverty of your approach.

Ya' know, your weaving and dodging and refering back to the Nazis is a poor attempt to be 'right'. It's as bad as saying that racism has nothing to do with skin color in this debate in todays world in todays US.

Actually what's ridiculous is your attempt to define racism without reference to the foremost example of racist genocide in the 20th century.

Of course, no one has said that racism has nothing to do with skin color. Only that it does not necessarily involve skin color. That is an ascertainable historical fact.

We can now add the conscious misrepresentation of other viewpoints to your catalogue of dishonesty, along with your unwillingness or inability to back up your statements with anything more than cheap demogoguery.

Equally ridiculous and lacking in character is your seeking sanctuary in the pecularities of racism in US. This even as you blithely ignore the history of racism in this country in order to pretend that your inability to use the word "nigger" without risking social censure is somehow on par with the effects of white racism on its victims.

A ridiculous attempt. You wish to somehow feel intellectually "correct" while being obtuse to the real issues that I am attempting to discuss with you. Disingenuous, at best. Dumb as worst.

Hogwash. You've attempted no such discussion. You haven't been responsive to a single inquiry or criticism. Nor have you provided any factual foundation for your assertions. If by "intellectually correct" you mean a refusal to accept unsubstantiated stupidities as "truth" I plead guilty.

Come back when you have something more than spurious arguments that were rife in the pages of "The Klansman" and "The Truth At Last" a generation ago.

Posted by: WB Reeves | Oct 31, 2007 6:32:24 PM

Mr. Reeves,

I have been polite and wished to discuss this issue with you. However, it seems more important to crush someone with a different viewpoint than to honestly discuss the issue at hand...racism. Who in their right minds would go off on a tangent about Nazis and the 1930's when we are discussing race as it pertains to the American Culture in contemporary times?

If it makes you feel better, then nuance this issue anyway you wish and believe skin color is not the issue.

Posted by: El Viajero | Oct 31, 2007 6:47:24 PM

I saw the clip of Giuliani saying the bit about inviting Ahmadinejad and Osama to the White House last night, and I'm pretty sure he actually said "Assad" (Syria) and not "Osama". I'm certainly not excusing the remark, but I do think the transcript is wrong, and it sort of bumps the "crazy factor" down a notch (he's still crazy).

Posted by: Doug Stameson | Oct 31, 2007 8:12:18 PM

> *Really* *do* *you* *think* *so*?

> Posted by: El Viajero | Oct 31, 2007 9:07:32 AM

El Viajero,
Yes, I do; I just didn't want to screw up the italics... ;-)

Posted by: Skippydelic | Oct 31, 2007 10:39:27 PM

*Great*

*Thanks* *for* *posting*

Posted by: El Viajero | Nov 1, 2007 12:09:29 AM

Mr. Reeves,

I have been polite and wished to discuss this issue with you. However, it seems more important to crush someone with a different viewpoint than to honestly discuss the issue at hand...racism. Who in their right minds would go off on a tangent about Nazis and the 1930's when we are discussing race as it pertains to the American Culture in contemporary times?

If it makes you feel better, then nuance this issue anyway you wish and believe skin color is not the issue.

It's hardly "polite" to engage in the systematic dishonesty that you have indulged in here. You are either a complete cynic or incapable of entertaining any perspective other than your own subjective view. You have no substantive response so now you wish to play the victim. Have at it. I doubt you'll convince anyone other than yourself. Particularly since you appear incapable of engaging any of the points raised.

Obviously you have issues with skin color but that doesn't mean that skin color is the issue. Rather, it is the ignorant and misinformed character of the generalizations you spout and your failure to support them with anything other than hollow rhetoric that is at issue.

If you actually were interested in a discussion you would respond to the criticisms raised rather making feeble and transparent attempts to change the subject.

BTW, I suggest you look up the definition of the word "nuanced".

Posted by: WB Reeves | Nov 1, 2007 1:07:32 AM

...but that doesn't mean that skin color is the issue.

Yeah, you're right. They must give DNA test or some other marker at the U of Michigan when givin out the educational slots. Probably use family tree when marking your drivers license with your race.

Posted by: El Viajero | Nov 1, 2007 9:38:16 AM

Yeah, you're right. They must give DNA test or some other marker at the U of Michigan when givin out the educational slots. Probably use family tree when marking your drivers license with your race.

It's pointless to attempt a conversation with someone who refuses to respond to anything other than the voices inside his own head.

Posted by: WB Reeves | Nov 1, 2007 9:50:26 AM

It's pointless to attempt a conversation with someone who refuses to respond to anything other than the voices inside his own head.

Amazing!!! I was just about to post that exact same thing!!!

However, I will try once more.

I am Caucasion. So, when it comes time to divvy up the priveleges, education slots, government jobs, etc. and the overlords must make a race decision about me and put me into a race category, what do you think they base their decision upon?

Posted by: El Viajero | Nov 1, 2007 1:09:54 PM

I am Caucasion. So, when it comes time to divvy up the priveleges, education slots, government jobs, etc. and the overlords must make a race decision about me and put me into a race category, what do you think they base their decision upon?

When you actually respond to any of the points I've raised I'll consider responding to the above.

Posted by: WB Reeves | Nov 1, 2007 2:22:48 PM

Post a comment