Rudy’s real “Bulls**t”
A liberal blogger at Talking Points Memo is trying to stir up the conservative pot by posting old video of Rudy saying “Bulls**t” at a police union rally in 1992. TPM claims Rudy “screamed” and was “unhinged.” Not:
I’ve expressed my disapproval before when public figures use profanity in public. But making a big deal out of Rudy’s remark at an NYC rally and trying to score some kind of gotcha to embarrass social conservatives who might support Rudy makes the Left-o-sphere look even more ridiculous than they already are. Ace has a profanity-laced satire of this dumb tempest in a B-pot. Ann Althouse adds:
Some people don’t like the harsh word “bullsh*t” — and I’m modifying it here with an asterisk out of my bullsh*t fear of filters — but it’s a normal and useful word. I’m sure cops appreciate it. Using it doesn’t make you crazy, and I’m positive TPM doesn’t think it does. TPM is simply trying to hurt Rudy’s chances with conservatives so he won’t get the nomination and get his chance to win over liberals.
Besides, there are far better examples of Rudy’s B.S. that should set grass-roots conservatives’ teeth on edge. Like his denial that he supported illegal alien sanctuary policies as mayor of NY. From the Observer blog:
At a town hall-style meeting with about 100 voters at a technical college in Concord on Tuesday, Giuliani encountered a voter who asked why the former mayor made “New York City a sanctuary for illegal aliens.”
“You must be talking about another candidate,” said Giuliani, who went on to argue that his administration urged the federal government to deport as many illegal immigrants as possible.
“Here are the three areas that you have distorted into this view that I gave sanctuary to illegal immigrants,” said Giuliani, turning his back on the voter and addressing the other voters, seated on couches and loveseats around him.
He said that, as mayor he had to make sure that all kids went to school, that everyone needed access to hospitals and that illegal immigrants needed to be able to inform the police about crimes without fear of deportation.
“That’s why you are wrong,” said Giuliani.
“As mayor of New York City,” he said. “If I was nothing else, I was rational and sensible.”
As I reported in my book Invasion and noted many times since, Rudy wasn’t just a passive supporter of illegal alien sanctuary laws. He fought the federal government in court to keep New York’s policy in place:
New York City’s sanctuary policy was created in 1989 by Mayor Ed Koch and upheld by every mayor succeeding him.
When Congress enacted immigration reform laws that forbade local governments from barring employees from cooperating with the INS, Mayor Rudy Giuliani filed suit against the feds in 1997. He was rebuffed by two lower courts, which ruled that the sanctuary order amounted to special treatment for illegal aliens and were nothing more than an unlawful effort to flaunt federal enforcement efforts against illegal aliens. In January 2000, the Supreme Court rejected his appeal, but Giuliani vowed to ignore the law.
The Twin Towers are gone and Giuliani is out of office, but the city’s policy of safe harbors for illegal immigrants stands.
When Rudy denies he crusaded for illegal alien sanctuary policies, that’s B.S.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Keith Burgess-Jackson » Rudy
- The American Pundit » Blog Archive » OMG! Rudy Said BullSh*t 15 Years Ago
- Breaking news: Rudy said bulls**t in 1992 « Volunteer Opinion Journal
- Libroll - 7/21/07 - Afternoon - Libroll.com
- Ian Schwartz
- Michelle Malkin » Sanctuary Nation or Sovereign Nation: It’s your choice
- Marginalized Action Dinosaur » Soverign nation or sanctuary nation?
- Michelle Malkin » They debate. You decide.
- Michelle Malkin » Video: Hillary’s big blunder
- Michelle Malkin » The Kerik indictment, Giuliani, and the GOP
- Michelle Malkin » A very simple question for the GOP candidates
- Michelle Malkin » The Spanish-language panderfest, sprinkled with Ron Paul’s Blame America act (”We create the Chavezes of the world, we create the Castros of the world”)
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Rudy Giuliani, Sanctuary Cities
Pundit & Pundette
» Obama's drop in popularity and Michelle's handbag controversy
Pundit & Pundette
» Is the tide turning?Patterico
» Democrats Attack the CIATigerHawk
» The Blue Dogs are barkingRiehl World View
» Classless Paid Sarah Palin Assassin Mike Murphy (R)Weekly Standard
» Anchor MenRedstate
» $18 Million to Redesign Recovery.gov
Thank you, Michelle, once again, for the truth.
This should be interesting… if not tasteful. Rudy leads the Polls for the Republican Nomination, so I suppose the other candidates will have to step up and prove their credibility on the issue of calling Democrat talking points ‘Bullsh*t’. (Remember, Rudy was rebutting Dinkins’ commentary.)
It should be interesting to see which talking points each candidate chooses to expose, and the mean part of me is looking forward to seeing Mitt swear. I’ll bet he pronounces the asterisk.
It will be helpful, Michelle, if you will during the campaign, point out the
B.S. issuing from the mouths of the Republican candidates, if only that we may vote for the least distasteful of the lot.
But aren’t the Liberal Democrate majority spewing BS every single day. For example: Bad economy, Our military is losing the war on terror, etc, etc, etc…
Hillary + Obama + Kerry + Kennedy = BS
I oppose Rudy because of his stance on hardcore policing. I see no republican out there except Ron Paul. I am a fan of Ron Paul, but he seem not hard-line libertarian enough. It would be great if Obama became a libertarian.
Rudy is not a republican. He’s a war hawk, which is good. But that does not make him a republican. He should not be allowed on the republican ticket because he is opposed to the core values of the party platform.
It is frustrating that this fact never gets discussed. Where is the actual republican party leadership?
Rudy is a fox in a republican toga. I suppose they’re all together in the same sleeping bag. It’s disgusting..,
citizen
I’d drive 900-miles in a diaper to vote for Rudy.
I’m hoping that there is a video of Hillary and her profanities available somewhere.
He’s in favor of low taxes, strict constructionist judges, he thinks states should have more power, he’s for winning Iraq and the war on terror, etc. He may not be 100% Conservative, but he’s certainly a Republican. He took some big hits in New York because he refused to back down from his Republican ideals.
Yeah, I read a book about Hillary, written by a former employee….I cannot remember his name, but it seems he was in charge of the bodyguards.
He worked for other presidents as well.
I HIGHLY recommend it. The things about her will make you cringe, vomit, and NEVER even consider her as anything!
He stated that she had male/female genitalia ornaments made by kids, on her Christmas tree. He found it repulsive, but she thought it was cute.
SICK, I tell ya. That is only one example. She swore like a sailor and made it known to never make eye contact with her.
Michelle Malkin- “When Rudy denies he crusaded for illegal alien sanctuary policies, that’s
B.S.an unmitigated bald faced lie!“Rudy Giuliani speech - “Two days ago I announced that the City of New York has filed suit against the federal government. We are challenging a
provision of the recently enacted federal Welfare and Immigration law.
This new federal law is part of an anti-immigration (Now since there is no anti-legal-immigration movement, to speak of anyway, you already KNOW that he is talking about ILLEGALS) movement that can be seen throughout the United States, unfortunately.
Here in New York City we know the value of immigration. New York the greatest city in the world was built by the hands of immigrants and it continues to be built and strengthened by immigrants. New Yorkers know that any effort to eliminate immigration or unfairly burden immigrants could destroy the very process that is the key to New York and America’s success(Yes. Everyone knows that we native born Americans couldn’t do anything without illegals to show us how to do it or more likely have to do it for us as we are so lazy. Without them we would probably be living in the dark ages.)
That’s why the City of New York has filed suit in federal court. Our
lawsuit contends that the new federal law violates the Tenth Amendment of
the United States Constitution by invalidating New York City’s Executive Order 124. For those who may not know, Executive Order 124″ is New York City’s policy regarding undocumented immigrants. This order was issued seven years ago by Mayor Ed Koch and then later reissued by Mayor Dinkins and then by me. Executive Order 124 protects undocumented immigrants in New York City from being reported to the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service while they are using City
services that are crucial for their health and safety, and critical for the
health and safety of the entire city.
Joining me in defense of fair treatment for immigrants (Again, you know he means ILLEGALS) is a coalition of well-known individuals and organizations (I wonder who that would include? LaRaza? CARE? Ted Kennedy? Vicente Fox? Trysons Foods CEO?) who oppose the anti-immigration (You know that he is talking about ILLEGAL immigrants) forces in Washington (That would be a majority of Republicans in the Congress, not just Tancredo and Hunter) and elsewhere (That would be us bad nasty nativist lazy rednecks, I would “assume”)
He took some big hits in New York because he refused to back down from his Republican ideals.
That is a bit like saying that Trotsky was not a communist because Stalin hated him. It was an intra-liberal squabble.
Rudy has no Republican ideals, and not many ideals of any sort. The ones he has are mostly bad, i.e. liberal. He is for open borders. He is against guns. He is for gay marriage and abortion rights. He endorsed Mario Cuomo, for Gods sake. It takes a very vivid imagination to depict this as Rudy fighting tooth-and-nail against New York liberalism.
he thinks states should have more power
He finds that useful to say now, but you will have a hard time finding him saying it before he decided to run for President. The one place you will find him invoking the 10th Amendment is when he filed suit to keep his sanctuary city laws.
The amazing thing is how little is known about him and how little information about him comes up on the right wing blogs. There is pretty much a complete news blackout on Rudy’s bad points.
Meanwhile we get the blow-by-blow on what Thompson did as a lobbyist fifteen years ago, and round the clock coverage about Rudys crack legal team.
Ms. Malkin,
The immigration is a burning passion of yours, and I respect that. However, to judge Rudy Guliani in a vacuum is not fair. As someone born and raised in New York, and a conservative republican, I can sadly tell you that for a republican to be electable in New York City, some things have to give. It is what it is.
Mr. Guliani not only took on the Mafia, but he even took on the teachers’ unions. Nobody takes on the teachers’ unions.
http://blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com/2007/03/14/why-rudy-is-right/
Respectfully,
eric
http://www.blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com
A quick point, if I can somehow learn to find a way to be quick:
1. I was born and bred and lived a good many years in New Jersey. While not just over the river, I certainly commuted into the Big Apple for enough years to say this: this whole issue is Bulls**t. Rudy is a New Yawkah. And New Yawkahs - the real ones, not the zany, east village elitists who are not really from New York but rather more from Jupiter - don’t mince words. They say things. They say “Sh*t” and “F*ck” and even Motherf**ker is faily common if one is but only a bit annoyed. They’re also straight shooters who don’t f**k around and get the job done without alot of bulls**t and whining. That’s what makes New Yorkers, the real ones, like Rudy and the terrific Peter King - not the Carpetbaggers like Hillary - so appealing. In a world of real bulls**t, they stand out from the crowd.
Note to the Left: This does not make the Clintons look good because while Rudy’s speech was profane, Bill Clintons actions were profane, and that is much, much worse.
Remember, Bush called Gore - or some liberal - an “as*hole” unknowingly on an open mic, and those who tried to make hay on the matter regretted it, because instead of full grown adults posing like Makauley(sic) Caulkin in Home Alone saying “Oh my sensitive ears!”, they said, “You know, that guy he’s talking about really is an a*shole, and you know what? This guy Bush is starting to grow on me.”
See, I knew I couldn’t make it quick.
blacktygrrrr - “Ms. Malkin,
The immigration is a burning passion of yours”
This “issue” goes to the heart of our nation and what kind of a nation we are and will become.
To use a medical analogy, it is like heart condition (being a nation that does not uphold it’s own laws, has open borders and is letting greedy plantation owners formalize and legalize a form of serfdom, aka slavery light and dump the associated cost on Americans is like congestive heart failure), not some skin condition (having pimples or varicose veins).
Rush uses Barbara Streisand every time he means B.S. We all know that’s what he’s saying. So frankly I say “B.F.D.”. If Rudy wanted to be emphatic and express himself in that way, more power to him…..Besides, that was 15 years ago….Dems!! Get a life!!
I can attest to those from New York and New Jersey being “potty mouths”. When I was inducted into the Army along with about 100 other guys, they sent everyone to nearby Fort Lewis, WN for basic training, except for another guy and me, whom they sent to Fort Dix, NJ. Many of those guys there used the F word 2,3,4 times in a sentence. They basically used it whenever they used the word “the”. Instead of “the”, it was “the f-ing”. I sometimes thought that they thought that they got a dime every time they used it.
Michelle,
I’ve been hugely impressed by your writing since one of your first editorials published in the New York Post way back when I was a daily commuter then, so that makes me just a little bit ahead of the national curve in terms of being a fan and appreciator of your work, and I hope that gives me a little credibility on this. However, I have to agree with Blacktygrrrr 100%. As a former Jersey girl (no disrespect intended) you have to know what the mindest is in the Big Apple, just across the river (and presumably north if you were south-Jersey raised).
I would submit that Rudy’s view then wasn’t quite as nationally-oriented as it is now. Rudy can be socially liberal on some issues, but he’s a big anti-crime, pro-law-enforcement guy. It really seems to be in his blood. Those of us who have followed him from the beginning know that nothing pisses him off (in keeping with the tone of this thread) worse than blatant lawbreakers. It makes him angry. It just eats him up. I don’t know if it’s a healthy emotional response for a long life, but it’s the good makings for a President in this day and age.
Since the Mafia has been brought up already, I’ll remind everyone what he did with the sleezy, disease-spreading porno houses and bathhouses(alot of people dead today because of them, truly) and the sometimes dangerous street vermin, who too. Those issues, too, when Rudy took them on and like the illegal aliens issue of today, were defended on “moral” and “ethical” grounds by the left (yes, even the porno houses!). And more than that, he rebuilt upon the utter urban blight of Times Square and the genuine, after-dark horror hat was west 42nd street - in other words, he went the whole way with it, not just 50%, and made it magnificent. That was essenially his work, because in the beginning he had virtually no support on it. “Impossible”, they all said, and loudly and chidingly. You, yourself, recently visited the results. I don’t know if you could have remembered what it was in the early 80’s when I first came to know it, but the area was nothing less than an absolute nightmare when the sun went down. I know it well, I had to cross that area every day after dark from college to get to the Port Authority, and the subways were a nightmare and so was 8th ave north and south of the PA, so everyone needing to get there was screwed if they had to do it after rush hour where there was safety in numbers, in the winter after the sun drops behind the steel towers early and a dangerously unsettling form of night beset place around 6:00 pm. I was threatened on several occasions and almost killed, once, and saved by sheer chance when two cops rounded the corner.
I would submit reasonably that he now has a broader understanding and wider, national vision of the immigration issue, especially after 9/11.
No, with all due respect, Michelle, even Reagan was once a Democrat. Nobody’s perfect.
I honestly think we can pretty much rely on Rudy being tough on immigration, both for law enforcement as well as his political fortunes. As a fan of you both I’d personally ask you to cut him a little slack on immigration. He may indeed, as some pundits have postulated, be the only one who can pretty surely beat Hillary, and with the MSM 110% behind her, that’s going to be a tough road no matter who takes on the challenge.
No one is as infuriated by the unfair, illogical, immoral and downright wrong situation going on with illegal immigration than I am - my blood just boils at the destruction of our societal infrastructure because of it - and I agree that 1997 wasn’t that long ago. But as always, we find ourselves choosing the least of various evils because our guys need to win, if we even want 50% of anything, with the media stacked against us. We who have chosen to come here obviously respect you and love the voice you bring to the media - God knows, your media presence is long overdue - but being members of the practical party, also, let’s keep our eye on the big picture and not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Rudy does look good (tough guy leader) on the outside, but once you start to “Peal the Onion” … … … …
Feralcat,
You know, I didn’t write all that for the fun of it. Would you like to back you snide little statement up as a detailed rebuttal against what I wrote, because nobody here needs a stealth liberal in our midst, and dismissing considered arguements with a simple-minded little maxim is what stealth liberals do when they have no facts with which to debate.
I followed Rudy closely from the 1st day he became mayor, and gave some facts. What do you have to offer by way of meaningful rebuttal?
Sometimes you just gotta call ‘em as you see ‘em, and sometimes the people on the other side are full of “bull@#$%”
What these liberals are afraid of is that Rudy may soon be in a position to call Hillary out on her BS, and then, as my dear Grandma used to say, “Katie bar the door!”
Rational Thought,
Personally, I get the same gut feeling about the Dems reaction to Rudy. If they’re afraid to debate on Fox, of all the amazingly, open-cowardice stances to take, you can imagine what Hillary thinks of debating the Mayor-meister.
He may preface his rebuttals with phrases like, “With all due respect to the junior senator” instead of, “Listen here, you meglomaniacle, pie-faced old harpy”, but he won’t take any, dare I say it(?), bulls**t, either.
I use profane language when the situation is proper. Like when, as the engineer of record on a project, a fly-by-night sub-contractor questions my design. I use Bu!!sh!t rarely with family, but only to call Bu!!sh!t on a Bu!!sh!t line of argument.
Used judiciously, it is a good word, and effective.
As a values voter I’d say that having his mistress in the Mayor’s mansion while kicking his wife on the street would garner more outrage than someone uttering a word that 99.9% of “values voters” have said in their lifetimes (while being able to stay away from the live-in lover saga).
Sometimes those guys (like Sargent) really illustrate why they’re in need of the government to take care of them.
Illegal immigration and the war on Terror are closely related. If we can’t control our borders, how can we protect ourselves from jahadist? Having said that, I’m not willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I think Rudy understands the Global War on Terror. The Dems look at it as a law enforcement issue. I’d rather have Rudy in the White House than Hillary. Thank you MM for not letting Rudy slide. Where the heck is Fred!?????
http://95theses.wordpress.com/2007/06/01/something-about-rudi/
Here’s my 2c on Guiliani. Would I prefer him to hclinton? Well, they both want my guns, they both want me to pay for abortions against my conscience, and they both want to call the union of sexual perverts marriage.
What else do you have to know? So what if he enforced the law in NYC? He wants to enforce perversions on Americans. Is that a quid pro quo everyone in America wants to live with?
I think RJ would harm America every bit as much as clintons..,
citizen
That’s a very strong, unsupported statement to make. Lowering taxes while raising revenue isn’t a Republican ideal? He did it. Cracking down on crime isn’t a Republican ideal? He did it. Wanting to be on the offense in the war on terror isn’t a Republican ideal? He does. Nominating judges who won’t legislate from the bench isn’t a Republican ideal? That’s what he’d do.
None of the candidates are perfect - not even Fred. What did his campaign say in its explanation as to why they flatly denied he worked for a pro-abortion group, but turns out he did? In 1994, Fred said he was in favor of abortion “in all cases” if they were in the first trimester. He supported McCain-Feingold.
I’m from New York. I lived through pre-Rudy times. There was a time when people were selling guns on the street, in broad daylight, without a license. Hookers walked around in broad daylight, and would come up to your car in some places. It was beyond filthy. The city almost declared bankruptcy. People were getting layed off left and right. I was paying taxes out the nose.
Rudy changed all that. He lowered taxes, raised revenue, cracked down on crime, cleaned up the city, and made life better for New Yorkers. That’s how he was reelected with 60% of the vote in 1997.
Rudy’s in favor of states deciding on guns, and not the federal government. He’s in favor of of the Hyde Amendment, not all public funding of abortions. The Hyde Amendment pays for abortions in cases of rape, incest, or if the delivery of the baby would be harmful to the mother. The amendment is from the 70s. Not a single President - not Reagan, Bush 41, or Bush 43 - has made any real effort to repeal it.
If you think a man who wants to stay on the offense in the WOT is as dangerous as someone who wants to retreat and surrender, you’ve obviously been sleeping. Think Hillary’s going to appoint judges like Scalia, Roberts, or Alito - judges Rudy’s praised? Think Clinton will lower taxes? Think HillaryCare, then think Rudy’s solution is that the private sector is the solution.
Mr_Conservative_Cat said:
Feralcat,
You know, I didn’t write all that for the fun of it. Would you like to back you snide little statement up as a detailed rebuttal against what I wrote, because nobody here needs a stealth liberal in our midst, and dismissing considered arguements with a simple-minded little maxim is what stealth liberals do when they have no facts with which to debate.
Just a quick response as I have to split for now.
I am NOT A LIBERAL, stealth or otherwise!
I quoted a whole speech by the Rudy man himself. His own DAMNING words.
Rudy is NOT a big anti-crime, pro-law-enforcement guy. Well maybe he is sometimes, when it suits him, but that is not suppose to be how it works. See his words which I quoted in comment #12. His own words condemn him.
Like Arbusto, he is pro plantation owner, not pro American. I believe he was also the one who recommended Chertoff of the order of the lettuce heads to him to boot after the first guy he recommended turned out to have, how shall I say it, “some problems”.
What do you want me to do? Bring up Rudy’s being a draft dodger? A lot of folks will get mad.
BTW, I prefer the word pithy to the word snide.
Bye for now.
What? He prosecuted U.S. Representative Bertram L. Podell. In the Reagan Administration, he served in the 3rd highest position in the Justice Department. He convicted Michael Milken and Ivan Boesky for insider trading. He cracked down on the mafia, white collar criminals and drug dealers. Just as an attorney, before being mayor, his resume included 4,152 convictions.
Remember Marc Rich, who was later pardoned by Clinton? Guess who indicted him? Rudy. He indicted 11 members of the organized crime families, just in the Mafia Commission Trial. He convicted the heads of the Gambino, Genovese, Colombo, Lucchese, and Bonnanno families. They were sentenced to hundreds of years behind bars. That could’ve gotten him killed.
He cracked down on minor crimes like graffiti and turnstile jumping.
“When it suited him?” You mean like when there was a chance he’d be knocked off by a major crime family, criticized for cracking down on minor crimes, and convicting powerful members of Wall Street?
Amerpun,
Thanks for the reminders about the other things Rudy did. I had forgotten about the diseased hookers walking right up to guys on the street, the gun and drug selling on the street. It’s easy to forget how truly gross it was, isn’t it?
Yes, a 60% win in a super liberal city, second only to San Fran, after lowering taxes, getting tough on crime, stifling “free speech” as it related to pornography, getting hammered non stop by the Village Voice and the New York Times and being pro-Reagan. Like Reagan, to pull something like that off, you have to be good beyond politics, and that’s a winner, if an imperfect winner.
Feral
If that’s all you have to offer by way of debate, you aren’t offering much. In terms of not being a stealth liberal, I dunno… it’s one thing to be an independant thinker, it’s quite another to appear to be carrying water for the left quite so often. Ignoring what he did for NYC and saying he’s only “sometimes” in favor of law enforcement when it suits him is so entirely intellectually dishonest it staggers the imagination.
To anyone else: Yes, the abortion issue is a sore spot as is the mistress, but even Newt had a mistress (and Hillary most likely had Vince Foster, who just accidentally, on the day the Whitewater story broke, coincidentally shot himself with no bullet after walking through the mud without getting his shoes dirty. I knew Ken Starr was incompetent when the Clinton camp immediately embraced him as a “good man” - for them - when he was appointed. That is, before they torched him later.)
Re Fred Thompson:
Amerpun,
“Fred. What did his campaign say in its explanation as to why they flatly denied he worked for a pro-abortion group, but turns out he did? In 1994, Fred said he was in favor of abortion “in all cases” if they were in the first trimester. He supported McCain-Feingold.”
True? Well, in the spirit of this thread, Jes*s Chr*st! I’m sorry to those who have their hopes pinned on the old southerner, but if those things are true, then he’s as slick as slick Willy, and that’s too slick for me. I’ll campaign against him if those are facts. (unless he gets the nod to run against Hillary, and then God help us)
Mr_Conservative_Cat,
His campaign hasn’t said anything. Here’s the part about the 1994 survey with abortion.
He also said abortion should be left to the states.
Here’s him actually saying he still supports parts of McCain-Feingold, and admitting he was one of only 11 Conservatives to support it.
Let me ask you
If, during the ‘08 Presidential Debate, Rudy calls Hilary a ’stupid lyin’ f*ckin’ c*nt’, will that make him “Republican enough” for you Ms. Malkin?
Seriously, Rudy is for a STRONG AMERICA. Why do you think the NY Times & the NY Daily News hate him so much?
Who remembers when he tried to get Arafat kicked out of The City in 1995 during the UN’s 50th Anniversary? People in the streets CHEERED!! Then Pres. Clinton called it AN EMBARRASSMENT!!
Who remembers what a sh*thole NYC was FOR YEARS UNTIL RUDY TOOK OVER?
Who remembers Rudy backing the NYPD after the Diabllo shooting? HE BACKED THE COPS!!
STRONG LEADER! check
On 9/11, when asked to speculate on the potential losses in the WTC, Who remembers Rudy saying, “THE LOSSES WILL BE MORE THAN WE CAN BARE”?
THE ONLY CHOICE IN ‘08 IS RUDY!!!!
Ms. Malkin (and feralcat),
I am absolutely respectful of those who view immigration the way you do. I am simply saying that I do not judge candidates only on that one issue. Overall, I see a lot of positives in Rudy that outweigh this issue.
Also, I received even more antisemitic hate mail today, which is surprising given that unlike Ms. Malkin, I am an ordinary everyman living a non-controversial life.
http://blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com/2007/07/21/moveonorg-daily-kos-and-the-huffington-post-removing-the-cancer-within-the-axis-of-antisemitism/
I apologize for the capital letters, but can we start referring to Moveon.org, Daily Kos and the Huffington Post as the AXIS OF ANTISEMITISM?
I want that phrase to be part of the American lexicon, regardless of who gets credit.
Respectfully,
eric
#30 & #31, see #12
Pro open borders and pro greedy plantation owners (who want their mexican serfs as they can’t have black slaves anymore, rather than paying AMERICAN workers a legal free market wage) hombres like Senor Jorge and Senor Rudolfo do not want what is right for Americans.
Bush is dead to me.
Rudolf is dead to me. New Yorkers can vote for him if they think that he did a good job as mayor there. I have never lived in NYC. I was only there a couple of times and frankly did not care much for it.
My dream ticket Jeff Sessions/Lou Dobbs.
As opposed to all those other Republicans I guess. And what does “wanting to be on offense” even mean? What is his plan?
No, that is what he is now saying he would do. That is not what he did in New York, and it is not consistent with his general political views.
I’m from New York and I’ve lived through the pre-Rudy times. The city has changed, but Rudy had little to do with it. All of Manhattan and large parts of Queens and Brooklyn have been gentrified. The struggling artist types have decamped from SOHO to the outer buroughs due to high rent. I was walking around downtown today, and it was like being in a Benneton ad. Everyone you see is good looking and well dressed and clearly well employed. As you have to be to afford to live in a place where a one bedroom condo goes for a million bucks.
There are still hookers in NY. Head over to Scores or Larry Flynts place. They are now attractive, well dressed hookers who make a lot of money, in keeping with the New New York.
The poor we always have with us, they simply have been priced out of the city and are now in Long Island or NJ. And they took most of the crime with them.
Crime dropped all across America during the 1990’s, not just in NY.
Amerpun,
I was woefully ignorate about Fred’s record on those issues. Thanks and UH-OH!
You know, Fred and his cutsey “look-at-me-not-run-aren’t-I-special” approach to politics has begun to have a suspicious look to it for some time, now. Knowing those aspects of his record it seems like there is a method to the madness: delay until the last minute to avoid having your record widely disseminated and hope you just look good next to Clinton. Everyone was hoping Fred would be the true conservative, and he clearly isn’t. Rudy’s big problem for me is abortion, but if Fred has the same problem, then Rudy’s record blows Fred’s right out of the water. (admittedly, on a can-do basis, Rudy’s record blows everyone’s out of the water. To be the right guy in the right place to both rebuild the world’s largest city and lead it out of the worst terror attack ever known makes him pretty unique among politicians - and in many ways strictly on the merits - never something to rely on - makes him pretty close to unbeatable)
On a side note, I’d love to vote for Gingrich, but he has a fatal flaw in real-world politics: he has proven himself entirely unsuccess at defend himself against the mainstream media. Granted, what they did to him for years was unfair, but it was also often untrue. He’s brilliant and I agree with him almost always, but the fact that he still has a very low approval rating among average voters despite his wealth of accomplishments shows that he hasn’t found a way to fight back and be successful at it. For a Republican with the entire media against him (and they hate him particularly) this is a fatal flaw which will probably leave him just a few hanging chads short of the Presidency - and Hillary, disasterously and tragically, in charge.
You know, as this thread is starting to show, Rudy has done so much, accomplished such a treasure chest of remarkable manifestations you can really point to and say, “Rudy did that” that the other candidates are starting to look a little pathetic by comparison.
Feralcat,
“Rudolf is dead to me. New Yorkers can vote for him if they think that he did a good job as mayor there. I have never lived in NYC. I was only there a couple of times and frankly did not care much for it.”
With all due respect then as it relates to the depth of knowledge and analysis on Rudy in this particular thread, I’m going to take this as an honest admission that on the issue of NYC and Rudy, you don’t know what you’re talking about. I was on that bus and then train in and out of that city for the entire time he was mayor, and believe me, if you don’t like the Oz that is Times Square now, you absolutely wouldn’t have enjoyed its imitation of Dresden before. The difference between the two was due entirely to Guliani and his determined and inspired leadership as a Republican in a city where they eat Republicans for breakfast.
Flenser,
So in other words, during the time Rudy was mayor, the city went from a place where urban squalor was everywhere, the hookers were all over the streets, sleezy prono houses were on every other corner in some areas and everyone who was doing okay was “just” doing okay. But now, terribly, it’s a place where the hookers, what few are left are now upscale models - as opposed to diseased drug addicts - and are relegated to the few upscale places that Rudy handn’t gotten rid of; everyone you see now is well dressed because the city is so successful financially, and in every other way, that only the rich can live there and do so.
And you call that a bad thing?
Most of us call that capitalist free market economy, and rather than bemoan the inequality you don’t see in NYC anymore, I’d postulate back as a response that all the areas surrounding NYC would be similar if they had leadership like Rudy’s - and more people would be better off for it, all dressed in their expensive Bennington clothes (I guess you assume the poor dress like bums because they choose to do so - and guess what? They can still dress that way if they’re rich). Those rich people dressed like a Bennington ad you clearly have so much contempt for didn’t fall out of the sky - they became rich, and they had the opportunity, some of them no doubt, due to the booming economy that exists there due to what you, in a stunning display of self-contradiction, say Rudy isn’t responsible for.
Yes, he is responsible for the whittling down of postitution to the point where only a few expensive ones remain. Yes, he’s responsible for the fact that only a few upscale strip clubs remain where once they existed in the dozens as dirty disease-ridden places which were so good at keeping property values down that the nice, un-Bennington-like poor people could afford them. And yes, when those good, struggling poor people left they did take their highly valued, crime-statisitic-raising bahavior with them, and Rudy did that, too.
Too bad you weren’t in power to stop all that. NYC would probably have gone bankrupt as was predicted when Guliani first took office.
But guess what? Despite all those terrible things he did, I think I’d still vote for him - and so would anyone else who had a modicum of common sense when given a democrat alternative.
Those who say that the drop in crime in NYC under Rudy was just part of a nationwide trend have it backwards. Most of the nationwide drop in crime was due to the drop in NYC.
Rudy correctly understood that cracking down on small crime would reduce big crime. He went after the squeegee men for one, and the results were spectacular overall.
The city was falling apart under David Dinkins, and Rudy Guliani turned it around. The 1996 Welfare Reform Law helped, but that was already 3 years into his term.
I do not agree with him on every issue, but I give the man his due. On crime, he was solid.
eric http://www.blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com
Mr_Conservative_Cat - “With all due respect then as it relates to the depth of knowledge and analysis on Rudy in this particular thread, I’m going to take this as an honest admission that on the issue of NYC and Rudy, you don’t know what you’re talking about. I was on that bus and then train in and out of that city for the entire time he was mayor, and believe me, if you don’t like the Oz that is Times Square now, you absolutely wouldn’t have enjoyed its imitation of Dresden before. The difference between the two was due entirely to Guliani and his determined and inspired leadership as a Republican in a city where they eat Republicans for breakfast.”
Again, read Rudolf’s own words in #12. His own words damn him. I even put “sub-titles” in. What more do you want?
You keep talking about what he did for NYC. NYC is only a very small part of America. Maybe some in NYC think that it is the “Center of the Universe”, but it is not. I do not really care too much about Times Square. Do you care about what is out in my neck of the woods and who did what to whom there? Maybe he could run for NYC mayor again? If he could run again, would he win? I am concerned about what this pro plantation serf master (Of course the plantation serf masters get to make a whole lot more money by employing low paid serfs and then pass the associated “overhead, i.e medical care, schooling, crime, etc. on to Joe and Sally Smuck American) supporting politician will do to America!
Also, the last I heard anyway, he is for partial birth abortion, aka infanticide.
Additional “tidbit”:
“Wow, this is a surprising number: Hillary Clinton is not just beating Rudy Giuliani in his home state — and her adopted state — of New York, but is trouncing the former Mayor by over 20 points in a new poll. The survey, released today by Crain’s New York Business, finds that Hillary is beating Rudy 53%-32%.”
Doesn’t sound like most New Yorkers, the folks who “know him best”, like him all that much to me.
There also seems to be considerable dispute as to how much of NYC’s reduced crime rate was due to Rudolf and how much was due to the police chief and others and national and well as NYC trends. Also see comment #37 by flenser who appears to be from New York.
Again, as I said above, NYC is far less important to me than AMERICA!
I guess that I do not have an NYC-centric view of the world any more than I have an Iraqi-centric view of the world. To me NYC is just another city. It is no more important to me than Walla Walla, Washington.
In any case even with a NYC-centric viewpoint:
“(AP) Giuliani’s Mayoral Record Is Complicated”
Feral cat,
it really is apparent from your last 2 posts that you actually are a stealth liberal here to mix it up. Unsurprising.
After all, who else would point to an AP story as the prime focus of his arguement. Like they don’t lean to the left. And the idea that Hillary trounces Rudy in polls is typical left-wing dreaming - it’s the other way around (you were quoting “Crains”, LOL - that’s the kind of thing you get off a lib message board) .
All that aside, you have missed the point some of us have been making, so let me make it clear enough for a five-year-old (whether that will help in your case we have no way of knowing):
It isn’t just about New York City. Let me repeat that: it isn’t just about New York City. It’s about the level of his accomplishment. It’s about a virtual miracle made up of hard work, dedication in the face of adversity and a vision. Everyone said what he wanted to do was impossible. Koch, Dinkins, the NY Times, local business leaders - everybody. He turned a slum into a thriving, high-tech metorpolis. He got rid of the hookers, bathhouses and other disease spreaders when aids was skyrocketing at rates so high that some respected medical experts were predicting an eventual result like the black plague(remember that?). He took a huge preportion of the crime off the streets. Not just any city, the biggest one in the world, with a yearly budget that rivals most other countries. He prosectuted and broke the back of the mafia, not just anywhere, but particularly in the Fulton Street market area, where they had been entrenched - presumed unassailable - for decades. This isn’t just about New York. It’s a demonstration of what he can do with an impossible situation, and what were supposed to be the impossible to deal with components of that impossible situation. I’m not sure, with the exception of the founding fathers, Reagan and a painfully short list of others, that any one man has performed such miracles of leadership in the US in so short a time.
Of course you weren’t in NYC, so despite your quoting far-left reports from the AP, you don’t have even the slightest idea what the hell went on.
For perspective then, by comparison, what has Hillary done? Has she turned anything around - all jokes aside? Anything? Anything at all? Any miracles? Did she really do anything so far in public life worthy of a leader? Even worthy of mention? Talk is cheap. In this time of terrorism it’s too cheap.
What about Thompson. Okay, a Senator like Clinton. What has done? Forget what he says he can do - that only means something if all the other candidates have done nothing and can only compare visions of the future with each other, which is mostly the case. What has he done? Name something that compares to what Rudy accomplished. I’m open-minded, lay it on me. What?
Compared to Rudy, the answer in both questions might as well be nothing. Literally.
Mccain is toast, of course. What has Obama done? Forget talk, what can you point to manifestly and say “his leadership did that.” Nothing.
This isn’t about some NYC-centric perspective and I suspect you’re smart enough to know that much anyway. There isn’t a candidate running who has done anything remotely noteworthy by comparison. Presidents don’t push legislation back and forth and accept defeat as part of the turf, the way senators are trained to do - or they shouldn’t, the way Clinton did. Like Reagan both as Govermor and President, you have to be able to walk away at the end with some tangible accomplishment. Rudy’s record is absolutely staggering. It happened to be New Yor. It could have been anywhere that had the same budget, same crime, same midtown urban blight, and the same staggering accomplishments at the end.
You don’t know what you’re talking about Feral - literally - and I suspect from all the pro-Hillary talk you just dished up, that concerns about you being a stealth lib are confirmed. In my opinuion, people should regard your future posts accordingly.
Mr_Conservative_Cat said:
Feral cat,
it really is apparent from your last 2 posts that you actually are a stealth liberal here to mix it up. Unsurprising.”
I am NOT a liberal, stealth or otherwise. I told you that before. If I was a liberal I would be for Rudolf, at least for the Republican nomination, as he is BY FAR the most liberal of the Republican candidates.
Since you persist in calling me that, I am not going to read the rest of your comment, so you wasted your time.
OK, I cheated a little - my bad! - I sped read your comment and spotted the part where you “called” me a 5 year old and where you said that I don’t know what I am talking about.
When you have to resort to that much argumentum ad hominem, which is thought by MANY to be a liberal hallmark, you have clearly revealed that you have indeed lost the debate.
P.S. Rudolf was also a draft dodger.
You see, but you do not observe.
- Sherlock Holmes
Read my two comments, #13 and #17 on the “The Democrats Want You…to shut your traps” thread.
Do they sound liberal to you?
Read my comments #95, #96, #113, #115, #127, #129, #137, #176, #177, and #185 on the “Don’t let the Dems kill the John Doe amendment Update: House Dems kill John Doe amendment…fight moves to the Senate Update: 8:55pm Senate Dems kill John Doe amendment…roll added” thread.
Do they sound liberal to you?
To let the brain work without sufficient material is like racing an engine. It racks itself to pieces.
- Sherlock Holmes
It is human to err, and at least no one can accuse you of being a callous criminal.
- Sherlock Holmes
Memory error detected.
It is human to err, but at least no one can accuse you of being a callous criminal.
- Sherlock Holmes
Feral cat,
I see you’re enjoying this thread becoming more about you than Rudy. I would, however, be more impressed with your use of the bandwidth if you addressed some of my more salient questions, about Rudy compared to the other candidates, about Rudy in relation to his own record.
On your being a stealth liberal, I’m still not convinced, but that’s okay, it doesn’t matter if we stick to the facts, and that seems to be a problem for you on this. When you stick to the issues, and stop the blanket Republican posturing (one of the things that conservatives do best is to look things squarely on the merits of the facts and you aren’t doing that), and stop quoting liberal sources and stop trying to debate other people’s first-hand experience with second-hand theory and third-hand reporting, maybe you’ll have an arguement.
BTW, quoting Doyal doesn’t make you look more educated, it makes you seem like you need support from someone wiser than yourself.
AND on the issue of Rudy and NYC, you weren’t there, so you don’t know. Simple. But let’s not make it just between us. Ask Blacktygrrrr. Blacktygrrr knows more about it than you or Sir Arthur Conan Doyal.
On the issue of Rudy being the most liberal, consider this, since no one can read minds and politicians lie almost as much as lawyers: Thompson was for abortion and for all we know may still be. Romney was once for abortion and for all we know may still be. When Rudy says his opinion hasn’t changed on abortion, it may not be that he’s less conservative than the others, it may be that when it comes to the likely nominees, he may simply be the most honest. And after the endless democrats bulls**tting, I’ll take the honest guy just slightly more to the left than I want than the one dead center who quite possibly changed his public position simply to get the party nomination, and may revert back if he wins the nomination. I think we’ve all had quite enough of that.
Mr_Conservative_Cat said:
Feral cat,
I see you’re enjoying this thread becoming more about you than Rudy.
If it has become “more about me” (actually I think that it has been more about you) than Rudolf it is because you made it that way.
On your being a stealth liberal, I’m still not convinced, but that’s okay, it doesn’t matter if we stick to the facts, and that seems to be a problem for you on this.
There you go again.
BTW, quoting Doyal doesn’t make you look more educated, it makes you seem like you need support from someone wiser than yourself.
There you go again.
Life is really simple, but we insist on making it complicated.
- Confucius
When anger rises, think of the consequences.
- Confucius
#48 You engage in more ad hominems than most liberals. Far more. I guess that makes you a uber liberal.
Being for a liberal like Rudolf is also VERY suspicious.
Rudolf is:
1) Anti Gun.
2) Pro abortion, including late term abortion, aka infanticide. Oh I know, he says that “personally” he is against it. They all say that.
3) Draft dodger.
4) Pro gay marriage.
5) Pro illegal FANATIC.
6) Exceedingly poor personal life.
7) Recommended that turkey lettuce head Chertoff to Bush, after the first turkey that he recomended had to withdraw because of “personal” problems.
7) Etc.
If the Republican party can’t do better than Rudolf, they deserve to lose.
Feralcat,
I’ll try to keep this simple and direct, since you appear to be avoiding the important questions:
1. What first hand experience do you have with Rudy’s accomplishments?
2. What have the other candidates accomplished manifestly, that you can point to and see a dramatic improvement in something, on a scale with what Rudy did in NYC?
3. “Rudy is NOT a big anti-crime, pro-law-enforcement guy. Well maybe he is sometimes, when it suits him,”
Qualify that quote with examples.
The bottom line is that when it comes to The Global War on Terror, Rudy is the only candidate who has “Skin in the Game”.
I’ll put it plain and simple. A NE Republican will not win the nomination. This includes Rudy and Mitt both. Conservatives in the south, west, and mid-west will not trust them. This right here is the reason:
No one can tell what their true beliefs are and what they compromised in order to get elected.
I fail to see how using fowl language once in a blue moon in public could hurt a candidate with 3 adulterous marriages, who is pro-abortion, anti-gun, and voices a willingness on international TV to set aside an election so he can be appointed to office.
That is absolutely ridiculous. If he can find a CONSERVATIVE base to elect him, the use of a word like B.S. cannot affect his chances at all.
Now that is just embarrassing. The drop in nationwide crime was due to the drop in crime in NY? This is the view that NY is the center of the universe.
NYC has about 2.5% of the total population of America. Are you seriously trying to say that the drop in crime among that 2.5% resulted in a large drop in the crime rate of the entire country? New Yorkers would have had to be responsible for half of all the crime in America for this to be true.
Mr_Conservative_Cat
I think you are being obtuse. I am saying that the reason crime went down in NY was not that Rudy somehow converted all the bad New Yorkers you complain about into Benneton models, but that the rising cost of living in the city forced out most of the criminal elements and the poor in general.
If Rudy actually had the ability to take crack addicts and convert them into Wall Street traders I’d support him myself.
But all that happened in the ninties is that NY exported its poor and criminals, who tend to overlap, to places outside its own borders. It did this not as a matter of policy or on Giulianis orders. It was simply the natural and accidental byproduct of the rising cost of living.
For better or for worse, the President of the US cannot kick large numbers of American citizens out of the country. I gather that this is what you would like to see a President Rudy do. Changing the number of “good, struggling poor people” in the country is not something Giuliani can do. Except by welcoming millions more of them to come to America, which is his policy.
Flenser,
Firstly, if you volunteer “Rudy stinks” or some other such generalized message on a conservative message board, people will take offense. That’s basic manners 101. Those who strike first shouldn’t whine about civility or a lack thereof.
Debating your points makes little sense, because the points make little sense except one:
“For better or for worse, the President of the US cannot kick large numbers of American citizens out of the country. I gather that this is what you would like to see a President Rudy do.
No, not citizens, but when it comes to illegal aliens and the socio-political havoc they cause with their money-grubbing lawbreaking - and worse - A. he can, B. he should and C. you bet your bleeding heart I would, and so would 70% of polled Americans, too. By the way, Rudy didn’t kick anyone out of the city (what an absurd remark!), he just improved the neighborhoods, one result being that many of the less-ambitious, less-lucky and less any number of other things couldn’t afford to live there anymore. You know, your thinking rather completes the real world socialist/communist model: no free enterprise, nothing improves and the poor stay poor - right where they are.
But, somehow, I have this nagging suspicion that no one will convince you on the reverse of the positions you’ve taken, so I’ll stop trying, thanks.