The Rudy Problem The "Rudy problem" is one that is familiar to Democrats. In past years, desperate for traction among swing voters enthralled by Republican greed and machismo, Democrats played along with such dedication that, come election day, people couldn't tell the parties apart. One should not be surprised at the outcome: why vote for a fake Republican when a real one is on the ballot? The 2008 election poses the same problem, except this time for the GOP. The front-runners for the party's presidential ticket, wrangling for the attention and affections of swing voters, do not exactly look like Republicans. Fred Thompson is a Hollywood elitist, a Washington insider who brings with him the kind of baggage that chills the evangelical wing of the GOP's base, including lobbying work for abortion rights and terror suspects, as well as a trophy marriage. Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, is finding that his religious affiliation is the least of his worries. Not only is Romney a leading candidate in this cycle's race for "Waffle King", but he now faces question about dog torture and closet homosexuality.° But of all the frontrunners, perhaps the most problematic and least secure is Hizzoner, the former Mayor of New York, Rudy Giuliani. First, the man's ethical judgment cannot avoid the spotlight. While many refused to listen during his term in New York, his regard for the U.S. Constitution--which he would, as president, swear an oath to protect and preserve--is legitimately suspect. And then there is his quest to become the luckiest beneficiary of the September 11, 2001 tragedy that has left many of New York's firefighters disgusted by his slatternly capitalization. Add to that, of course, his three marriages, and for some reason, it's hard to imagine Rudy sealing the vote among the GOP's socially conservative, terrorized, or libertarian blocs. And now add what might be the stake through the heart of what many consider a vampiric campaign. Worse than family instability, crass capitalization of tragedy, or even opposition to the U.S. Constitution, Rudy may bear the mark of the unforgivable sin: In today's A section, the Washington Post includes a bit of controversy from Sunday's GOP debate on FOX News. Fred Thompson charged that Giuliani is, essentially, Hillary Clinton. Later in the debate, Chris Wallace pushed the point: "The point seems to be that on a lot of the social issues, like abortion and gay rights and gun control, that there's not much difference between you and Clinton. Is there?" Giuliani's response: "You got to be kidding." According to the Washington Post: The article goes on to examine several hot policy issues, showing considerable overlap regarding: • Gun control • Abortion • Gay rights • Immigration To the other, the Post notes, Giuliani has been adjusting his position. NARAL accuses the former mayor of flipping on abortion after he began his presidential run; Giuliani has tried to separate himself from his former lawsuit against gun manufacturers and has begun pandering to the NRA; whereas Hizzoner formerly pronounced a position in favor of gays in the military, he has since used the Bush Wars as an excuse to change that outlook, and forsaken his prior opposition to a constitutional amendment against gay marriage. Yet, Above all else, the problem Rudy Giuliani presents the GOP is that he reminds them too much of Hillary Clinton. The one bit of good news to definitely come out of this one is that the idea that Democrats are too liberal is coming apart. After all, if Rudy is like Hillary, then Hillary is like Rudy. And I doubt we're going to start calling Rudy liberal. In addition to alienating social conservatives, Giuliani also puts a round behind the ear of the tired argument that Hillary Clinton is a liberal. ____________________ Notes: ° dog torture and closet homosexuality - What? Did Clark Griswold have a thing for vanilla steamers and tube steaks? Washington Post. "The Claim". October 23, 2007; page A06. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/22/AR2007102202331.html ----- "The Facts." October 23, 2007; page A06. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/22/AR2007102202333.html See Also: NYTimes.com. "Transcript: The Republican Debate on Fox News Channel". October 21, 2007. See http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/21/us/politics/21debate-transcript.html
the dog torture allegations are horrific. i propose it may be symptomatic of conditions far more heinous and abhorrent. devil worship incest sacrifice orgies i propose a task force to have a.... looksee
It's really pretty ironic. For years the left has complained that the Republican Party is a puppet dancing on the strings of the Christian right. Now we have a front runner who's more in line with "mainstream" values, and you're bitching about that? Irony aside, you have a point. Should the Christian right be sufficiently disenchanted with the nominee, they may stay home. Worse yet, a third party candidacy on the right would pretty much guarantee a Democratic victory in 08. Still, nominating Hilary may be the biggest favor the Democrats could do for the Republicans. She is so widely reviled that her presence on the ballot may just energize the base in a way the Republican nominee does not. It's going to be an interesting election.
Romney, closet tubesteak demon? I wouldn't go that far. Normalized (sublimated) sadism might be symptomatic of the closet. I mean, if you follow the links all the way back to the Boston Globe story, you'll find some hints of sexual repression that are sometimes lost to our more conservative neighbors. Let's think about this: Mitt Romney is part of a church with an underwear fetish: He drove his kids around in a "white whale" and apparently refusing to let the kids relieve themselves (there is an entire division of the porn industry related to bowel and bladder functions). Add to that the recent thing about vanilla steamers, and also his love for tube steaks, and a recent crack by Newsweek's Andrew Romano-- --and it really does start to look like this really bad joke that nobody wants to admit they're seeing. Nonetheless, none of it spells doom the way the Rudy = Hillary comparison might. ____________________ Notes: Swidey, Neil and Stephanie Ebbert. "Journeys of a shared life". Boston Globe. June 27, 2007. See http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/romney/articles/part4_main/ Darman, Jonathan and Lisa Miller. "Mitt's Mission". October 8, 2007. See http://www.newsweek.com/id/41889 Romano, Andrew. "Romney's 'Republican Stool'". October 15, 2007. See http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2007/10/15/romney-s-republican-stool.aspx
reviled 1. to assail with contemptuous or opprobrious language; address or speak of abusively. –verb (used without object) 2. to speak abusively. fucking peasants are ruining everything!
(Insert title here) Nah, I'm not particularly upset about it. In fact, I'm more amused than anything else. This whole controversy serves my political outlook just fine. Rudy looks more and more hollow; Hillary looks less and less liberal. The GOP is stung on at least two points, and life goes on. I'm not afraid of Giuliani. I don't think he can win the office. What's actually interesting is that I'm starting to think the press is truly over-asserting itself. The power of the Hillary campaign actually starts with the GOP laying the foundation for her back when she first won her Senate seat. The press, rushing toward a spectacular story--the first woman president--has helped push her along. Throughout this process, the press has ignored local polls showing different results in order to repeat "national polls" showing Hillary Clinton the front-runner. Problem is, as we're all aware, there is no national presidential election. "National" polls mean nothing. I'm starting to think that the press is also pushing Giuliani, perhaps in deference to the 9/11 myth. Maybe it's just animosity toward the South; Hillary may have married the eventual Governor of Arkansas, but she's a northern-educated lawyer who serves New York in the Senate. Imagine the gnashing and wailing in the South as they have to choose between two New Yorkers for president. No, I really don't get it with Giuliani, but the press has largely done everything it can to push Giuliani and Thompson to confront Romney while burying McCain. If only I had faith in the contemporary voice of history, the analysis of this cycle could be the stuff to entertain masochistic minds for decades. But no matter how dramatic, the story will be cast according to the blandest, most general, most idiotic terms. Right now, the only thing that could make this election any more bizarre is if Mitt Romney gave up and came out of the closet, or John McCain announced he was joining Al Qaeda. (Okay, I'm sure Colbert has potential toward the weird, but ... well ... truth is stranger than fiction, so his contrivances will be cute at best.)
The two big things in polling is the negatives and the positives. A candidate may poll only 30 percent favorable, but as long as they poll under 20 percent unfavorable (the gap is the "swing" portion), then they are safe. Although Hillary has a huge favorable percentage (something like 40%) her unfavorables don't budge from year to year (something like 40% as well). When your unfavorables don't budge, that's usually a disaster. Though I, personally, view Hillary as more favorable than most Democratic candidates, I still think that she is the biggest favor the Dems can do for the Republican ticket. If she gets the nom, then whoever (probably Giuliani) gets the Republican nom, will easily coast to victory next November. ~String
We CCRs don't like any of our choices right now. We know a plan Z (third party candidate) will ensure a dem victory and we sure don't want that. We want another W without his flaws. I know.... good luck with that...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Then the Democrats MUST fund a far right wing Christian Conservative Republican like that idiot talk host guy (whatsehisname) to split the Republican base. Divide and conquer. I still have not hear any good things that the Republican party did for their base? What exactly did they do when they ran both the Congress and the WH? Did they even pass a single law that helped their fundamentalist base at all? David Kuo was Special Assistant to President George W. Bush as well as Deputy Director of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives and he writes in his book Tempting Faith that whikle 'National Christian leaders received hugs and smiles in person and then were dismissed behind their backs and described as 'ridiculous,' 'out of control,' 'goofy.' and 'the nuts'. Again, what have the Republicans done for their evangelical base? What have the Republicans done for their fiscal conservative base? What the hell did they do that was good - anything at all???? Lets say Hillary was elected and lets say she did a great job with both the economy and the nation. Republicans will still hate her? The reason being that they have been told Democrats are bad bad bad. But I ask them: What has Bush Cheney and the Republican Congress done that was sooo great for them? In 6 years they did absolutely nothing but bankrupt the nation. Just add fear (9/11) and *poof* sheep head goes right good and deep in the arse.
Just list 5 things good about GW and also 5 things he accomplished during his time in office. the truth is Sandy is there is little extraordinary about Bush. His is not scholastically brilliant, he is not self made and he is not remarkable. His family was well connected and you'd agree that's the only reason he became President. That's it. Jesus Alan Greenspan, a darling Republican when asked what he liked about Bush, sad only that he never once came to discuss the economy and this allowed them to do as they wanted without interference. So? his "good" comment about Bush was he did nothing??? Asked who he thought was the most brilliant people he worked with he said Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. Anyway Sandy, we both know you can not write down 5 good things about Bush and you can not write down 5 good things he did in office. Instead you will post some smiles - how Bush of you. Michael
The Clintons and the Bushs are poor leaders of both parties. So much so that it tends to make the imagination wander as to how they are still being considered to run the country. Back me up, you people from other countries. We look silly, I'm sure. You don't have to say it. We know we look silly because our dollar is dropping like a stone.
Low-value values? Which is strange to me, since you've at least one candidate who is a Southern Baptist minister who panders to D. James Kennedy's crowd. Given that he has a rock band and actually pardoned Keith Richards, you'd think Huckabee would get better consideration from the GOP than he does. Chris Cillizza, at WaPo's "The Fix", notes: It's strange. Huckabee is actually the kind of candidate that makes true liberals nervous. He has pop appeal, and is well-positioned among conservative voters. He placed second at the Ames Straw Poll. In fact, there is so far only one question I've found that can derail a Huckabee bid for the presidency, and he may well be vulnerable: Governor, when you attended the 2006 Reclaiming America for Christ Conference, did you recite the Pledge of Allegiance to the Christian flag? If he answers no, and is lying, he'd be caught. If the answer is yes, he's sunk. But as even Republicans admit, it's not about principles. It's about winning: "CCR" (chortle!) values are suspect if they're willing to trade them for the letter in parentheses after a president's name. After all, "Stop Hillary, elect Rudy" brings exactly that result. Mitt? Fred? Yeah. You "CCRs" (effing chortle!) really are screwed in this one. So just keep rollin' on the river, and maybe the elephants will be in the band. ____________________ Notes: Cillizza, Chris. "Mike Huckabee: A Campaign of Starts and Stops". The Fix. October 23, 2007. See http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/10/mike_huckabee_a_campaign_of_st.html
