in fact Rudy's early acts as mayor resulted in more deaths than were needed (specifically fire fighters) on 9/11. but he gave some speeches about being tough on terrorism and he opposes socialized medicine, so he's got your vote i bet.
I don't see it as "recasting the issue" when Rudy says one thing in speaches but says another when he's testifying. If he kept his speaches within the bounds of what he actually did via 9/11 as G-man did then there wouldn't be a legitimate complaint IMHO. And it's always a concern when a candidate isn't up on the issues. Considering the issue with communications breaking down & firefighters dying during 9/11, I was surprised that Rudy hadn't read up on it right away.
I don't see it as "recasting the issue" when Rudy says one thing in speaches but says another when he's testifying. If he kept his speaches within the bounds of what he actually did via 9/11 as G-man did then there wouldn't be a legitimate complaint IMHO. And it's always a concern when a candidate isn't up on the issues. Considering the issue with communications breaking down & firefighters dying during 9/11, I was surprised that Rudy hadn't read up on it right away.
well being in new york on 9/11 makes him an expert. not spending a lot of time at ground zero or researching the issue. just being there makes him an expert. and that's why you should vote for him as president of 9/11.
As I've said innumerable times. I stopped being a Republican YEARS ago when I realized that being Republican is all about image and not about reality.
The gOP like thinking they're the party of all virtue, all goodness, all heroism, piety, holiness and of and for God himself, all patriotic, flag mom and apple pie, all fiscal responsibility. Upon closer scrutiny however, you find that the cup looks nice on the outside only. Inside, it's all deceit and hypocrisy.
Not that the Dems are pure either mind you, but at least they don't go around actively trying to perpetuate some Leo Strauss mythology to purposely manipulate people who want to believe in something.
and at least the Dems don't spend every waking moment trying to conjure up the idea that the boogeyman will kill you if you don't vote for them or if you happen to just go on with your life after the events of 9/11 without being afraid of your shadow.
Not that the Dems are pure either mind you, but at least they don't go around actively trying to perpetuate some Leo Strauss mythology to purposely manipulate people who want to believe in something.
No, they'll just settle for manipulating their usual disenfranchised cannon fodder.
and at least the Dems don't spend every waking moment trying to conjure up the idea that the boogeyman will kill you if you don't vote for them
What. The. Hell. Are. You. Talking. About?
Right or wrong, a good portion of the political debate on both sides of the aisle consists of elected officials, or people seeking elected office, trying to scare the voters into supporting them.
Maybe democrats don't try to scare us with the threat of terrorism (except when, you know, they're arguing that Bush's actions only encourage the terrorists and make us less safe). However, not a day goes by where the democrats don't try to conjure up the image of sick children, starving senior citizens, abused minorities and other nightmares that will occur (or are occuring) if we don't throw money at whatever problem they've decided requires government intervention.
For example, look at the fact that Bush didn't want to expand the SChip program as broadly as the Democrats did (see Ray's "Bush is Just Evil" thread). The entire Democrat message was "Children--sob--THE CHILDREN--will get sick and die if we don't have this." (NOTE: This is not an invitation to turn this thread into yet another discussion of that topic. I am simply using this as an example, given its' recent prominence on these boards and elsewhere). If that--the invocation of something that will endanger a bunch of kids--isn't the invocation of a "boogeyman," I don't know what is.
Now, if the liberals here want to downplay the idea of a suicidal Muslim crazy man who hates feminists, jews and homosexuals getting a nuke, I suppose that's their right. But it just seems weird that a group that spends so much time attacking "the Christian right" for being "intolerant" towards those same groups would be so unconconcerned about the threat posed by this guy.
...democrats don't try to scare us with the threat of terrorism (except when, you know, they're arguing that Bush's actions only encourage the terrorists and make us less safe)....
Case in point:
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Valerie Plame used to work on keeping those nukes out of Iran's hands
and at least the Dems don't spend every waking moment trying to conjure up the idea that the boogeyman will kill you if you don't vote for them or if you happen to just go on with your life after the events of 9/11 without being afraid of your shadow.
Originally Posted By: G-Man
What. The. Hell. Are. You. Talking. About?
Right or wrong, a good portion of the political debate on both sides of the aisle consists of elected officials, or people seeking elected office, trying to scare the voters into supporting them.
Really? Have the Dems told America that if they elect Republicans, their very lives and the future of America is in peril? that is quite different than " *sob* "the children" as you mockingly stated. Just more "Compassionate conservatism" I suppose to mock the sufferings of others. Which in and of itself is a valid point. A Republican President and his supporters refuse to cover 10 million kids and then in defense of that, either attack the kids coming forward in DNC ads or mock their collective sufferings. But this whole "only Republicans can save your life b.s. is beyond the pale.
Vote Republican or Die
Probably one of Olbermann's best "Special Comments" on the politics of using fear to win elections.
More fear: GOP AD : "Stakes"
and a commentary about the definition of the word "terrorism"
But that was the same reaction to the entire Bush program of trying to "reform" Social Security. You can't really blame Democrats when the majority of seniors don't want Republicans tinkering (trying to privatize) with these programs.
Not everyone is going to agree that Government is the problem just because conservatives are ideologically opposed to the Government providing services or a safety net to people without some asshole getting rich off of it.
They certainly did when Dole was running. I still remember those ads that depicted terrified looking seniors, and the voice over that all but said that Dole and the Republicans were looming around the corner, ready to push those old folks into the sewer.
So you're saying that running ads about Republicans trying to privatize medicare and seniors falling thru the cracks is the same thing as saying if you vote for Democrats, there will be another attack and more dead?
So how did The Dems say the future of America is in peril from privatized Medicare?
And I still don't see where you think that going against Bob Dole equates to Dems saying that people will die as a direct result.
G-Man said all candidates use fear tactics. I'm saying however, that no one has ever said that someone is going to outright kill you as a direct result of your election choice. That your choice is literally between being safe and being killed by Osama Bin laden. Which I should have worded as in order for it to be clearer to you.
This is the essense of my point as discussed by Chris Matthews:
AFFLECK: Giuliani, without a doubt. Giuliani is by far their toughest candidate. Giuliani is—I thought he did great in the debate. I think he has—because he—if he can get through the primaries with some of those liberal views, it‘s harder to pain him as an extremist socially. I think he‘s well-spoken. He‘s assertive. I think he knows how to play to his strength, which is being the kind of—the daddy that protects you when times are hard. Unfortunately, the way that he does that is by kind of engendering fear in the audience. But it‘s an extremely effective political tactic, and he‘s very good at it.
MATTHEWS:I agree. And he never lets us forget 9/11 and never lets us forget the possibility of another terrorist attack, does he. Ever.
AFFLECK: No. And I don‘t think it‘s—frankly, I object to it, but I think just from the macro point of view, it‘s excellent politics. And if he‘s the only one I think that—from a totally amateur man on the road, what do I know, I‘m just a dumb actor point of view...
MATTHEWS: I know.
AFFLECK: ... I think he‘s the only one who‘s got a shot at it.
MATTHEWS: And by the way, I disagree with you about you being an amateur. But I‘ll tell you one thing. I agree with what Fareed Zakaria wrote in “Newsweek” this week, which is terrorism isn‘t explosions and death, terrorism is when you change your society because of those explosions and you become fearful to the point where you shut out immigration, you shut out student exchanges, you shut people out of buildings, you begin to act in an almost fascist manner because you‘re afraid of what might happen to you. That‘s when terrorism becomes real and frighteningly successful. That‘s what I believe, and that‘s why I question the way Giuliani has raised this issue. He raises it as a specter. In a weird way, he helps the bad guys.
But that was the same reaction to the entire Bush program of trying to "reform" Social Security. You can't really blame Democrats when the majority of seniors don't want Republicans tinkering (trying to privatize) with these programs.
Not everyone is going to agree that Government is the problem just because conservatives are ideologically opposed to the Government providing services or a safety net to people without some asshole getting rich off of it.
The great thing about our seniors is that even though Bush's attempt to fix Social Security wasn't going to affect them, they still helped put a stop to it.
Depicting a terrified old lady, sitting alone in a dark room, while a voice tells of the evils of the Republican plan for Medicare doesn't exactly create a rosy vision of the future for the country...
But that was the same reaction to the entire Bush program of trying to "reform" Social Security. You can't really blame Democrats when the majority of seniors don't want Republicans tinkering (trying to privatize) with these programs.
Not everyone is going to agree that Government is the problem just because conservatives are ideologically opposed to the Government providing services or a safety net to people without some asshole getting rich off of it.
The great thing about our seniors is that even though Bush's attempt to fix Social Security wasn't going to affect them, they still helped put a stop to it.
George Will apparently wants those lazy seniors off the dole
Originally Posted By: George Will
Sixty-five days from now, the first of 78 million baby boomers begun (sic) to retire. Most Americans who collect Social Security begin to collect it at age 62, which is absurd. We have the public subsidizing increasingly long and comfortable retirement of people for a third to a half of their adult lifetime. Now. That’s why one in four voters in 2004 was over 60 years old. The elderly have the biggest stake in the welfare state, which exists to transfer wealth to them. So this is, politically, a loser.
Um, WTF??? The rules of Social Security have changed… While it’s true that you can begin collecting at the age of 62, you won’t get as much as if you wait until 65. And so now George is complaining about subsidizing people for up to half of their lives???? How many 120 year olds do you know, George? Are you suggesting that we should be making those indolent 75 year olds pull themselves up by the bootstraps and get back to work? Those lazy seniors…
Work till you die. Now that's a cool Election slogan!
It's to the point where you just need to sit back and just let the Republicans self-destruct.
In America’s darkest hour, Franklin Delano Roosevelt urged the nation not to succumb to “nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror.” But that was then.
Today, many of the men who hope to be the next president — including all of the candidates with a significant chance of receiving the Republican nomination — have made unreasoning, unjustified terror the centerpiece of their campaigns.
Which is the very defenition of "terrorism" actually...
Quote:
[b]Consider, for a moment, the implications of the fact that Rudy Giuliani is taking foreign policy advice from Norman Podhoretz, who wants us to start bombing Iran “as soon as it is logistically possible.”
Or just call it having another wargasm.
Quote:
Mr. Podhoretz, the editor of Commentary and a founding neoconservative, tells us that Iran is the “main center of the Islamofascist ideology against which we have been fighting since 9/11.” The Islamofascists, he tells us, are well on their way toward creating a world “shaped by their will and tailored to their wishes.” Indeed, “Already, some observers are warning that by the end of the 21st century the whole of Europe will be transformed into a place to which they give the name Eurabia.”
Do I have to point out that none of this makes a bit of sense?
"Islamofascists". heh.
To me, it's at the point where someone uses that phrase that it becomes crystal clear that they're one of those extremist loonies.
Krugman goes on about that idiotic phrase:
Quote:
For one thing, there isn’t actually any such thing as Islamofascism — it’s not an ideology; it’s a figment of the neocon imagination. The term came into vogue only because it was a way for Iraq hawks to gloss over the awkward transition from pursuing Osama bin Laden, who attacked America, to Saddam Hussein, who didn’t. And Iran had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11 — in fact, the Iranian regime was quite helpful to the United States when it went after Al Qaeda and its Taliban allies in Afghanistan.
Plus it's a way to try to mold simple pliable minds into equating Al Queda with what else? Hitler.
Quote:
Beyond that, the claim that Iran is on the path to global domination is beyond ludicrous. Yes, the Iranian regime is a nasty piece of work in many ways, and it would be a bad thing if that regime acquired nuclear weapons. But let’s have some perspective, please: we’re talking about a country with roughly the G.D.P. of Connecticut, and a government whose military budget is roughly the same as Sweden’s.
Global domination? Not likely. That it may have regional goals, certainly. Still, it's hard to take warnings of WMD's seriously from the Administration who cried wolf.
Quote:
Meanwhile, the idea that bombing will bring the Iranian regime to its knees — and bombing is the only option, since we’ve run out of troops — is pure wishful thinking. Last year Israel tried to cripple Hezbollah with an air campaign, and ended up strengthening it instead. There’s every reason to believe that an attack on Iran would produce the same result, with the added effects of endangering U.S. forces in Iraq and driving oil prices well into triple digits.
We're almost there. When we get to $100.00 a barrel , will that make George W. Bush, Jimmy Carter?
Quote:
Mr. Podhoretz, in short, is engaging in what my relatives call crazy talk. Yet he is being treated with respect by the front-runner for the G.O.P. nomination. And Mr. Podhoretz’s rants are, if anything, saner than some of what we’ve been hearing from some of Mr. Giuliani’s rivals.
It's the only card they have left. Scare scare scare and hope they get a fraction of the poll numbers from when people believed George Bush would save them from the evildoers.. That being Osama Bin Laden of course...
Quote:
Thus, in a recent campaign ad Mitt Romney asserted that America is in a struggle with people who aim “to unite the world under a single jihadist Caliphate. To do that they must collapse freedom-loving nations. Like us.” He doesn’t say exactly who these jihadists are, but presumably he’s referring to Al Qaeda — an organization that has certainly demonstrated its willingness and ability to kill innocent people, but has no chance of collapsing the United States, let alone taking over the world.
But I thought they were like Hitler.
Quote:
And Mike Huckabee, whom reporters like to portray as a nice, reasonable guy, says that if Hillary Clinton is elected, “I’m not sure we’ll have the courage and the will and the resolve to fight the greatest threat this country’s ever faced in Islamofascism.” Yep, a bunch of lightly armed terrorists and a fourth-rate military power — which aren’t even allies — pose a greater danger than Hitler’s panzers or the Soviet nuclear arsenal ever did.
All of this would be funny if it weren’t so serious.
Again. Vote Democratic and DIE. Only we can save you from the terrorists!!! The Democrats want to give them therapy etc.
Quote:
In the wake of 9/11, the Bush administration adopted fear-mongering as a political strategy. Instead of treating the attack as what it was — an atrocity committed by a fundamentally weak, though ruthless adversary — the administration portrayed America as a nation under threat from every direction.
And to this day they continue.
Quote:
Most Americans have now regained their balance. But the Republican base, which lapped up the administration’s rhetoric about the axis of evil and the war on terror, remains infected by the fear the Bushies stirred up — perhaps because fear of terrorists maps so easily into the base’s older fears, including fear of dark-skinned people in general.
And the base is looking for a candidate who shares this fear.
Do I really want to open that particular can of worms here?? Sure, why not!
Quote:
Just to be clear, Al Qaeda is a real threat, and so is the Iranian nuclear program. But neither of these threats frightens me as much as fear itself — the unreasoning fear that has taken over one of America’s two great political parties.
We have nothing to USE but fear itself.
Fear too IMO is so UnAmerican. Which is why I think people refuse to be manipulated thru and by it anymore. That Gulliani and the rest of the gOP frontrunners continue to try to use terrorism as if ONLY they understand it, onlyy they can do something about it. Only they are equipped to face it when 9/11 happened on their watch and after adequate warnings (which were dismissed) of the seriousness of the threat by several sources. Now suddenly they're the tough on terrorism party because they like to wage war on nation-states that had NOTHING to do with 9/11??
That's a little silly for Krugman to try and compare anyone to FDR on the "fear" issue. Maybe FDR said "we have nothing to fear, but fear itself." However, when faced with the threat of facism and an attack on American soil, FDR had little problem making clear that a threat, in fact, existed.
Roosevelt advocated for confronting Nazism. He didn't try to minimize the differences between their philosophy and ours. He didn't constantly beat the drum for "civil liberties" and demand rights for Nazi spies and saboteurs. He advocated battling them at every turn and at every cost.
Now, which party today wants to treat Islamo-facism and terrorism the same way that FDR confronted Nazism and facism? The Republicans who advocate for tough homeland security...or the Democrats who try and tell us that Islam is no worse than the Christian right, call for surrender in the middle east and demand we given terrorists the same rights we give US citizens?
There's a couple of things your missing. First, the islamo-fascist threat is alot diffrent from the nazi's because it's more diverse. Sure, there are guys like Al Queda that will attack anybody anywhere (like the nazi's) but there are also the Insurgents in Iraq that are fighting cause there pissed off we invaded there homeland and set up shop again. The problem with the republicans is that they want to lump everybody that doesn't go along with the U.S in as the evil enemy and go to war or demonize them.
And the Republicans only advocate tough homeland security when it suits them. Mostly they advocate America's supremacy.
Self-preservation is a harsh mistress sometimes. Look, you're deluding yourself if you think the United States is the only nation that places itself at the top of the list. Every country, from the most ideological Eurotopia to the most backward Third World regime, at some point looks at themselves and their own way of life as superior. Even if they derive their superiority from a lack of what's been called "drum-beating jingoism" (which is kind of like saying you're better than everyone else because of how humble you are).
The fact is that any nation that isn't looking to advance itself beyond its neighbors and rivals is already doomed to failure. Any contrived notions of false "humility" or "anti-nationalism" perpetuated by Guilty White Liberals™ run counter to our sense of self-preservation as a people. Unless that's what you want... hmmm...
The difference is that from the perspective of sovereignty - the ability of a nation to enact the will of its people within and beyond its borders - the United States is still the leading world power. It's a funny quirk of numerology that there is ALWAYS a number one, always a first place. And whether you like it or not, there will always be a leading world power. If it weren't us it'd be someone else. My question to you is, if people shouldn't be "advocating America's supremacy", whose supremacy should they be advocating? I've heard plenty of people in this forum piss and moan about what a shitty job the United States has done as a leading world power, but I have yet to hear a viable alternative. (Imagine that.)
So tell me - who should be running the show here? Who should decide what goes on in Iraq or Iran or northern Africa or south Asia? Certainly you have an answer for us. Maybe the same sort of solution as getting rid of taxes and just printing more money. I'm eagerly awaiting your solution to a similarly thorny problem - I doubt you'll even break a sweat fixing this one.
Biden: “…And the irony is, Rudy Giuliani, probably the most under qualified person since George Bush to seek the presidency, is here - talking about any of the people here. Rudy Giuliani. I mean think about it, Rudy Giuliani, there’s only three things he mentions in a sentence — a noun and a verb and 9/11 and I mean, there’s nothing else. There’s nothing else.”
Self-preservation is a harsh mistress sometimes. Look, you're deluding yourself if you think the United States is the only nation that places itself at the top of the list.
Quote:
Look, you're deluding yourself if you think the United States is the only nation that places itself at the top of the list. Every country, from the most ideological Eurotopia to the most backward Third World regime, at some point looks at themselves and their own way of life as superior. Even if they derive their superiority from a lack of what's been called "drum-beating jingoism" (which is kind of like saying you're better than everyone else because of how humble you are).
The fact is that any nation that isn't looking to advance itself beyond its neighbors and rivals is already doomed to failure. Any contrived notions of false "humility" or "anti-nationalism" perpetuated by Guilty White Liberals™ run counter to our sense of self-preservation as a people. Unless that's what you want... hmmm...
The difference is that from the perspective of sovereignty - the ability of a nation to enact the will of its people within and beyond its borders - the United States is still the leading world power. It's a funny quirk of numerology that there is ALWAYS a number one, always a first place. And whether you like it or not, there will always be a leading world power. If it weren't us it'd be someone else. My question to you is, if people shouldn't be "advocating America's supremacy", whose supremacy should they be advocating? I've heard plenty of people in this forum piss and moan about what a shitty job the United States has done as a leading world power, but I have yet to hear a viable alternative. (Imagine that.)
None of that negates or excuses the consequences of arrogance or avarice. To me, personally, I'd rather America be a good, noble, humble, and trustworthy country then the most powerful. And quite frankly, I'm not sure it is anymore.
Quote:
So tell me - who should be running the show here? Who should decide what goes on in Iraq or Iran or northern Africa or south Asia? Certainly you have an answer for us. Maybe the same sort of solution as getting rid of taxes and just printing more money. I'm eagerly awaiting your solution to a similarly thorny problem - I doubt you'll even break a sweat fixing this one.
That's an easy answer. The African should decide what happens in Africa, the Asians should decide what happens in Asia, the Iraqies should decide what happens in Iraq, and the Iranians should decide what happens in Iran. What's NOT easy is sharing a world with people who decide to do evil/stupid things...but that's reality. Thomas Payne wrote in his book "Common Sense" that an island cannot control a continent. Well, an extension of that logic is that a continent cannot control a globe.
“I had prostate cancer, five, six years ago. My chance of surviving prostate cancer, and thank God I was cured of it, in the United States, 82%. My chances of surviving prostate cancer in England, only 44% under socialized medicine.”
The claim is demonstrably false. Neutral fact-checkers have blasted Giuliani’s dishonest ad — the WaPo awarded the ad “four Pinocchios” — and the Annenberg Public Policy Center tore it apart.
Quote:
We tracked down the source of that number, which turns out to be the result of bad math by a Giuliani campaign adviser, who admits to us that his figure isn’t “technically” a survival rate at all. Furthermore, the co-author of the study on which Giuliani’s man based his calculations tells us his work is being misused, and that the 44 percent figure is both wrong and “misleading.” A spokesperson for the lead author also calls the figures “incorrect survival statistics.”
It’s true that official survival rates for prostate cancer are higher in the U.S. than in England, but the difference is not nearly as high as Giuliani claims. And even so, the higher survival rates in the U.S. may simply reflect more aggressive diagnosing of non-lethal cancers, according to the American Cancer Society.
Actually, men with prostate cancer are more likely to die sooner if they don’t have health insurance, according to a recent study published in one of the American Medical Association’s journals. Giuliani doesn’t mention that.
Everything about the ad is bogus. The mortality rates from prostate cancer are almost the same in America and Britain. Giuliani’s cancer was treated through taxpayer-financed healthcare, using a surgery developed under a socialized system.
Giuliani received his care for prostate cancer while still mayor of New York, which meant he was probably receiving insurance through the state of New York, utilizing one of those government-regulated purchasing pools he terms "socialism."
The technique used on Giuliani, prostate brachytherapy--using radioactive seeds--was pioneered in the modern era by a physician in Denmark, and brought to the US by one of his students.
You'd think a guy whose life was saved by bradytherapy would admit, however grudgingly, that European socialized medicine ain't all bad.
Also, given that the average age of patients diagnosed with prostate cancer is 70, clearly a large number of patients are being treated by Medicare, America's very own form of socialized medicine.
So Giuliani's case for the superiority of our "free market" health care system goes something like this: While on health insurance provided by New York state, he was treated, using a surgery developed by Europeans, for prostate cancer, a disease that most commonly afflicts those covered by the federal government's single-payer health care system. Take that, Europe/national health insurance.
The good news is, Giuliani’s campaign has heard the criticism. The bad news is, they couldn’t care less about whether they’re lying or not.
The NYT, which also did a little fact-checking today, reported:
Quote:
Asked if Mr. Giuliani would continue to repeat the statistic, and if the advertisement would continue to run, [Maria Comella, a spokeswoman for Giuliani] responded by e-mail: “Yes. We will.”
Of course they will.
One likes to think there are certain political norms. If a campaign is going to run an ad, first they make sure that it’s at least close to the truth. If a candidate and his or her team try and get away with a lie, and get caught, they pull the ad and replace it with something else. The campaign takes some heat for trying to sucker the public, but the story eventually fades.
Except those norms aren’t real at all. Giuliani and his campaign lied. They know they lied. They know they got caught lying. Are they going to backpedal? Not even a little.
Why? Because the Giuliani gang assumes they’ll get away with it. Paul Krugman challenged political reporters covering the campaigns to take this as seriously as, say, haircuts and cackles. But therein lies the point: Giuliani and his team are pretty confident that’ll never happen.
Now, it’s fair to say that several news outlets — ABC, WaPo, NYT, among others — have published reports noting that Giuliani’s claim is wrong. And that’s good — as a first step. But now that the campaign has pledged to keep running a bogus claim anyway, the obvious thing for the media to do is start following up. That might include, say, asking Giuliani about it while he’s campaigning. Maybe mentioning it on shows like Hardball. Perhaps noting that this seems to be part of a pattern with Giuliani, who has trouble with the truth.
In other words, make the fact that Giuliani got caught lying a campaign issue, like Edwards’ hair or Clinton’s laugh, only with substance this time.
I know, I know, it’s unlikely. But a guy can dream….
You'd think that ideas would be sound enough where you wouldn't need to flat out lie and scare people about "socialized medicine".
Giuliani’s ad is full of misleading right-wing claims that overhype the broken U.S. health care system. A look at his “facts”:
– Giuliani cites inaccurate statistics. While the rate for men with prostate cancer is slightly higher in the United States, the five-year survival rate in England is actually 74.4 percent according to the Office of National Statistics in Britain.
– Giuliani uses a weak measurement of comparison. Cancer experts note that mortality rates, which “show the number of people who actually die from the disease,” may be better measurements than five-year survival rates. Under this comparison, the two countries are even closer: “Age-standardized prostate cancer mortality rates are 15.4 per 100,000 people in the United Kingdom and 12.0 per 100,000 in the United States, according to the American Cancer Society.”
Instead of complaining about Britain and bragging about America, Giuliani should turn his attention toward improving the U.S. health system. According to a CNN poll from May, 64 percent of the public believes the government should provide universal health care.
I've said this repeatedly so I'll say it again. To me, the gOP is all about good sound bytes and image rather than with truth and facts. I've sourced and linked every one of my claims above. All Giuliani did was make a lot of unsubstantiated and inaccurate claims. Plus the claims that can be sourced, it turns out are being funded by the pharmaceutical industry who has a stake in keeping the status quo intact.
Why people are more willing to believe a person who shills inaccurately for an industry who has THEIR OWN interests at heart rather than the American public's using data that is easily refuted is a mystery to me. And then when confronted with the errors of those claims, Giuliani doesn't even care and continues to run the ads in hopes that enough people "trust" him. It's madness. Madness thru partisanship. He's right because he's ______. Not because the facts weigh in his favor.
You'd think the public would vote for the person who'll best serve THEM and not the guy who'll lie to them for an ideological agenda.
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
but he's mayor of 9/11, so if you say he's lying then you must support al queda.
Mayor of 9/11. It's aptly fitting. But not in the way he thinks.
A couple of weeks ago, Brave New Films released this devastating six-minute clip above about a Rudy Giuliani’s Achilles heel: his decision to ignore (and lie about) concerns over the FDNY’s radio equipment, which ultimately cost so many lives on 9/11.
Thanks to the film and 20,000 petition signatures collected in response, the city is going to launch an investigation.
Quote:
In the midst of his presidential candidacy, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani now faces a looming government investigation into his handling of the radios used by firefighters on 9/11.
The investigation, which will examine how the FDNY ended up using faulty equipment during the terrorist attacks and why Giuliani gave a no-bid contract to Motorola for that equipment, has been endorsed by New York City Councilman Eric Gioia, chair of the city’s oversight and investigations committee. […]
“These families deserve answers and really the entire city and our country deserve answers…. To watch this documentary and see the important questions that were asked and seemingly unanswered and ignored for so many years, it’s disturbing.”
This probably isn’t what the Giuliani campaign was hoping for. At the very least, such a probe could reveal more unflattering facts about his allegedly heroic 9/11 performance.
"Their willingness to stand their ground and not retreat?"
Well, it certainly sounds noble. It's a good mythology. As I've repeatedly said about the gOP, all sound bytes and mythologizing to people who want to believe in something, but with no common sense!
Standing their ground?? Against Al queda or against terror, I presume is how the narrative goes..
.. it couldn't possibly be because their radios didn't work.
If not, then did the police, who's radio's DID work, "Cut and run"?
Can't be too hard on Rudy for using 9/11. I was watching part of the Democrat debate the other night and a couple of the lesser known candidates (so much less I don't know who the fuck they are) were tooting there own horns about going to wherever to solve problems or brandishing a man who's life he saved. There all fucking shameless.
Of course Republicans are worse...except Ron Paul!!! Elect him and he can unfuck our egocentric, self righteous, messiah minded foreign policy.
Interesting piece in the American Spectator, questioning whether the left's antipathy towards Rudy goes beyond mere political differences and into full-blown hatred:
With the end of the dreaded Bush era approaching, Rudy Giuliani has slowly begun to supplant the President as the leading hate figure among liberals, a reality that will only help Giuliani in his efforts to overcome his differences with conservatives and win the Republican nomination.
Within the past month, the New Republic, the Nation, and the Washington Monthly have all run anti-Giuliani cover stories, with the latter one declaring that, "as president, Giuliani would grab even more executive power than Bush and Cheney."
In the Boston Globe, James Carroll wrote of Giuliani, "He's like a gang leader now, roving the streets, looking for some punk to bash. Iran will do."
This sentiment has dominated liberal blogs, where a general consensus has formed that Giuliani would be the worst president imaginable. The possibility of a Giuliani presidency had the Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias struggling for words. The Giuliani hate fest has also infiltrated the airwaves, where Keith Olbermann has made bashing Rudy a daily feature on his show.
The irony, of course, is that the more vocal, vicious, and unfounded liberal attacks on Giuliani become, the easier it is for him to make his case to conservative primary voters that they agree on a lot more than they disagree. Giuliani has often cited his liberal foes to burnish his own conservative credentials.
For a long time, Giuliani's liberal adversaries from New York were convinced that there was no way that Giuliani could win the Republican nomination, but as it has become a more realistic possibility, their worries have grown.
"It's totally unbelievable," Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), lamented in the New York Observer of Giuliani's resilience in the presidential race. "I refuse to believe that this could possibly happen to our country. I have too much confidence in our country to believe that this could really happen."
With enemies like Rangel, does Giuliani need friends?
Looking at the venom directed towards Rudy by some liberals, including our own MEM, I have to wonder if the Spectator isn't on to something.
For years, liberals have claimed their dislike of Republicans such as George W. Bush was based on him being too conservative, or that he wasn't smart enough.
Now, however, the frontrunner is an accomplished attorney, former big city mayor and definite moderate, who supports pro-choice and gay rights. You would think the left would be relieved at this. Instead, the attacks are perhaps, becoming even more vicious.
The only reasonable explanation seems to be a purely emotional one.
Responding to your mention of me, criticism isn't venom G-man. Calling Hillary Clinton a bitch or telling her to go to hell falls more into the venom category & you can find it on this very forum posted by you & fellow conservatives.
The record reflects, however, that your criticism often defies logic. As noted herein and elsewhere, you criticize the most moderate serious GOP candidate in decades as if he was a bible thumping firebrand. At times, you even attack him for things that you give a pass to when it comes to people like Hillary.
Since your attacks defy logic, doesn't that tend to indicate they are based on emotion instead?
The only reasonable explanation seems to be a purely emotional one.
Well, no actually but after watching Giuliani try to paint a faulty mythology using the NYFD not "retreating" and standing their ground" is sort of disgusting and does elicit an emotional response.
What sensible firefighter would CHOOSE to stand their ground inside a building that is about to collapse??
It was just a tasteless and frankly dumb thing to say.
![[Linked Image from i13.photobucket.com]](http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a275/captainsammitch/boards/banners/blogban3.jpg)
[/center]![[Linked Image from i13.photobucket.com]](http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a275/captainsammitch/boards/banners/jlamiska.jpg)
[/center]
