GPW’s Man Rudy Readies a Run for ‘08
While Bruce and I generally agree on matters political, he appears to be backing our nation’s most excellent Secretary of State for the GOP presidential nomination in ‘08 while I favor the former Mayor of the Big Apple. As I wrote last September, echoing an excellent column by Lorie Byrd, the leadership Rudy Giuliani “showed in the wake of 9/11 makes him an especially strong contender.” Lorie said that the way he responded to the attacks that day shows he has a “proven ability to perform under pressure.” He is, as she put it, “already known as a uniter and a strong leader.” Exactly the man we need in our troubled times.
I was delighted to read in Robert Novak’s column today that the man who “on top of last month’s national Gallup poll measuring presidential preferences by registered Republicans . . . intends to run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008.” (Via Instapundit.) Giuliani is my type of Republican, a fiscal and judicial conservative who made public safety a top priority when he helmed our nation’s largest city. He supports the president in the War on Terror (as well as the war in Iraq), but is a social liberal, who, as Mayor of New York, signed a landmark domestic partnership program that his Democratic predecessors failed to enact.
If there is a man in America who could best unite us, Rudy’s the one. A conservative man, he was reelected by a comfortable margin in one of the most liberal jurisdictions in the nation. The extremes aren’t too happy with the man. While those on the far left have been more outspoken in their opposition, social conservatives have pretty much kept their grumblings to themselves. They may be impressed with his leadership on 9/11, but would they back a man for president who is pro-gay rights, pro-gun control and pro-choice on abortion?
Rudy has been doing the right things to woo these people, campaigning for social conservative candidates, even in the “reddest” areas of the “red states.” As the 2008 campaign approaches, he’ll need to find a way to finesse his liberal stands on social issues. On gun control and abortion, it should be relatively easy. He can say that gun control is an issue for the states. On abortion, he can say that while he is personally pro-choice, he is against Roe v. Wade, saying that the decision was wrongly decided. He believes it should be overturned so that the states can set abortion policy for their jurisdictions.
On gay rights, he will have to walk a finer line. He can make the case that he opposes the constitutional amendment the president supports because, as this week’s decision in New York shows, it’s not necessary. I would also expect him to come out against the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) on libertarian grounds.
Finally, he can appease the social conservatives, making sure they support the GOP ticket in November ‘08, with his Vice-Presidential choice. To that end, he would do well to pick someone like Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour or Virginia Senator George Allen.
While I like George Allen, I wold prefer Governor Barbour. Barbour has a long record of service to the GOP, having worked in the Reagan White House in the 1980s and helming the GOP at the time of the “Contract with America” in 1994. He clearly understands that conservative principles which have made our party ascendant.
Given the leadership Barbour showed in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, a Giulilani-Barbour ticket would be a Republican team composed of two tough men who did not crack, but showed their ability to stand strong in the toughest of times. A real sign of a GOP commitment to governing.
If my man Rudy can find a way to hold on to the social conservatives in the GOP, he’ll be able to win our party’s nomination and lead our nation well into the second decade of the twenty-first century. Let’s hope he succeeds.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
82 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Eh, I’m not convinced that Rudy is presidential material. He was a good mayor and might even make a good governor, but as president? No, I can’t see that yet. Of course I’ll take him over Hillary anyday…
Comment by John — July 8, 2006 @ 1:35 pm - July 8, 2006
Nicely written. I too love Rudy but while I’m a bit queasy over his anti-gun stance in the past, it’s his history of having his mistress living in the Mayoral mansion while his wife was virtually locked out of the house that’s probably going to cost him the nomination. Religious conservatives (count me in that group, even though I’m a libertarian on most social issues) can handle divorce, adultery or many other things….treating Donna Hanover in such a way so as to publicly embarrass her in almost the worst way imaginable is like a nail in the proverbial coffin. Then again, I could be wrong.
I’d dearly love to see a Condi/Rudy ticket, though…..they wouldn’t even have to campaign as it’d be a landslide & give him 8 years to further soothe the marital wounds.
Comment by RW — July 8, 2006 @ 1:56 pm - July 8, 2006
I couldn’t see Condi running for President ever. I’d probably vote for Rudy even though I’m not a Republican. Actually, I don’t consider myself a Democrat either.
Comment by Jack — July 8, 2006 @ 2:15 pm - July 8, 2006
Look, as hard core 2nd A/RKBA advocate, I mostly hope the GOP keeps the White House. Their performance at the UN conference on small arms last week was superb. However, if the GOP wants to win, they have to get Condi on the ticket. Period. The Dem ticket *will* be Hillary and Barack. To win, I suspect that Dem ticket will need a strong 3rd Party candidate to split the anti-Clinton vote. But that could happen. If the GOP wants keep the WH, they need a Rice/McCain ticket and I would prefer to see it in that order with Condi at the head of the ticket.
Comment by Letalis — July 8, 2006 @ 3:23 pm - July 8, 2006
I have been rooting for Rudy for years. But two things disturbed me: his former stance on gun control, and his prosocution of Leona Helmsley for a mistatement of 1/2 a percent of her tax bill.
These things seem to be part of his earlier career, when passion was untempered by experience. Now he strikes me as more human-after cancer and 9/11 and running New York.
Go Rudy!
Comment by michael — July 8, 2006 @ 3:41 pm - July 8, 2006
The only reason I can think of to support Rudy is… he’s not John McCain.
I would vote for Hillary for exactly the same reason.
Comment by V the K — July 8, 2006 @ 4:18 pm - July 8, 2006
Rudy pisses off the far left and the far right. That means he’s doing something correctly in my book. I don’t buy the libertarian argument for ENDA. If libertarian principles were truly at stake, then the general non-discrimination policy should be thrown out altogether. That’s actually something I’d prefer over passage of ENDA, but if we are going to have non-discrimination both for traits that are genetic, such as race, and traits that are by choice, such as marital status, then we should have it for sexual orientation too. I also doubt the GOP leadership will allow him to hold either of his stances on gay rights and abortion rights. Hell, he is a lot further left on those issues than McCain was in 2000, and look what they did to him back then? Of course if the current leadership can’t hold on to congress in 2006, then maybe the moderates would have an opening finally to take some control over the party. I can only dream.
Comment by Mr. Moderate — July 8, 2006 @ 4:54 pm - July 8, 2006
I can’t wait to see one of the Republican organizations use the footage of him in drag on New York’s Saturday Night Live, a show that rips on the United States mainland whenever it can.
Like McCain’s bastard black child in Carolina, we can be sure to see Republicans eat their own with Rudy, the man that strolled through Central Park with his girlfriend, while still married. Will the Catholic Cardinals threaten Rudy with excommunication due to his pro-gay, pro-choice, pro-science views? In their grasp for relevance, probably.
Comment by jimmy — July 8, 2006 @ 5:06 pm - July 8, 2006
I think you’re wrong thinking that Rudi could win over the pro-Second Amendment crowd by simply stating the “gun control is a matter for the states.” The Second Amendment is part of the federal Constitution, and applies to the states the same way as the rest of the Bill of Rights does.
The NRA won’t support Guiliani if he makes a fence straddling statement like that, and without NRA support, it would be very hard for him to win the general election.
Comment by Heartless Libertarian — July 8, 2006 @ 5:07 pm - July 8, 2006
I love Rudy. He was my hero in the days surrounding 9/11. I watched, from my rooftop, as the Towers came down. Mayor Giuliani seemed to be everywhere at once.
I’m with him on the social issues except for one: Gun Control. I’m a single issue voter and that is it.
Unless he changes his stance on gun control, I’m out.
Comment by MikeZero — July 8, 2006 @ 5:32 pm - July 8, 2006
Rudy pisses off the far left and the far right. That means he’s doing something correctly in my book.
By that “reasoning,” child murderers and cannibals must also be doing something right.
It’s really sad that there are so many people whose political philosophy isn’t based on principle, but on wanting to strike a pose.
Comment by V the K — July 8, 2006 @ 5:43 pm - July 8, 2006
The gun thing bugs me. But OTOH, how much of an issue is that any more? Still, I’d prefer Condi. But he’d be better than McCain or something like Frist or Allen or any of those types.
Comment by JeremyR — July 8, 2006 @ 7:22 pm - July 8, 2006
VK,
Just when I think you can get more infantile in your understanding of things you prove me wrong. Thanks for not letting me down!
Comment by Mr. Moderate — July 8, 2006 @ 7:48 pm - July 8, 2006
I too am a fan of Rudy. Unlike McCain who fought the Prez on important issues, Rudy’s a team guy. McCain scares me…he’s a loose cannon I wouldn’t trust. Plus could we have a semi attractive candidate? I remember the Dole fiasco. A war hero yes but geez a less attractive candidate you couldn’t find. The deal with Condi…I can’t vote for people who havn’t ever been elected to anything. I said it when Jesse ran. Same with Gen Powell. Condi and Powell are terrific people but get elected Mayor, or Sherrif or something. Who’s convention is first? If the Dems nominate HRC and Barack Osama, the Republicans will have to have a woman or an African American on the ticket. I heard on the radio today.. McCain/ Jeb Bush in that order. And McCain would only ‘t serve one term. I love W, but I’m about all Bushed out. I can’t fight with the nutts constantly. Couldn’t Hillary Rodman pick someone less liberal than Barack Osama? Like Harold Ford or…humm I’m not coming up with any mainstreamers. Is it true BILL Clinton had lunch with Colin Powell today? If there’s a HRC/ Powell ticket I dont think the Republicans can beat it.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — July 8, 2006 @ 11:56 pm - July 8, 2006
Rudy’s a gun grabber. He doesn’t have a chance. And I among many others will work to see he never gets anywhere near the white house.
Comment by rightwingprof — July 9, 2006 @ 6:56 am - July 9, 2006
Congratulations are in order for your blog headline featured on a listing of political blogs on the CBS Sunday Morning Show. Maybe Rudy has a chance.
Comment by Tom In Texas — July 9, 2006 @ 9:39 am - July 9, 2006
I like Rudy, but his personal life has been a mess. As a conservative, I can live with the gay rights and pro-choice argument to leave it with the states, but his second amendment views will kill any chance he has. I simply cannot support any candidate who wishes to limit my constitutional rights. That goes for McCain as well. One comment about Obama. Can anyone, anywhere, cite one single accomplishment this man has acheived, other than being elected senator? I like the guy, but jeez, he’s an empty suit.
Comment by Dan in Michigan — July 9, 2006 @ 9:46 am - July 9, 2006
I can live with Rudy. I am not thrilled about his stance on gun control but that is not a deal killer for me. The NRA owns too many politicians in Congress to allow him to do anything too far out. Nor am I impressed with his treatment of his wife. She deserved more respect than that. However It is far more important to keep the WH out of the hands of the liberal demoncrats with all that threatens our national security during these times. And with her background, if Condi ran on the ticket with him, that would be more strength to the ticket. I believe we have not heard the last of the Russian bear. If I were Jewish or Gay, I would be getting the hell out of Russia while I could.
Comment by davidb — July 9, 2006 @ 10:09 am - July 9, 2006
It is McCain’s hostility to the First Amendment (plus his personal vanity and vindictiveness, putting soldiers’ lives at risk by blocking military modernization programs just to settle personal scores) and Giuliani’s hostility to the Second Amendment that give me pause.
What I fear is an “only Nixon could go to China” scenario in which it is easier for a Republican president to get liberal policies enacted than a Democrat. We’ve seen it with Bush 43. Between the prescription drug giveaway, Ted Kennedy’s NCLB Act, and now Amnesty for Illegals, social policy has moved much further left under GWB than under Clinton.
Which is why I would definitely prefer Hillary in office to McCain, and probably prefer Hillary to Giuliani.
The counter-argument is, “what about judges? Hillary could still achieve ost of her agenda simply by packing the courts with Ruth Bader Ginsburgs.” But, Hillary was a full-throated supporter of judicial filibusters in the Senate. She won’t have a leg to stand on if Senate Republicans filibuster her far-left judicial picks.
Comment by V the K — July 9, 2006 @ 11:35 am - July 9, 2006
I like Condi a lot, but I don’t consider her to be presidential material, nor have I ready anything, anywhere that leads me to believe otherwise. Can someone please explain why people would want to vote for her?
Comment by windybon — July 9, 2006 @ 1:11 pm - July 9, 2006
And then there is Giuliani’s long association with corrupt New Your Republicans like Bernard Kerik. He was the one who convinced Bush that Kerik would make a good director of the DHS… a disaster that calls into question either Giuliani’s judgment or his integrity or both. That incident alone is proof that Giuliani is either too gullible or too corrupt to be President.
Comment by Anonymous — July 9, 2006 @ 8:50 pm - July 9, 2006
I’m a big fan of Rudy’s, but I think Condi will have the edge with the base when she jumps in, as she will. Condi is an absolutist on gun rights issues. Condi is much closer to the President on abortion than is Rudy, and I think that Condi can undo a lot of the damage on Gay issues while maintaining it as a strict States Rights question, which is where the country appears to be heading anyway (the Amendment thing is going to die a deserved death…). Rudy has charisma, but when the time comes, you’ll see why Condi is feared.
Comment by section9 — July 9, 2006 @ 8:55 pm - July 9, 2006
I forgot about the Kerik thing. Rudy’s a great guy, but he sold GW a bill of goods on Kerik. So far, by contrast, Rice has been able to remain fairly clean. She just placed her energetic chief of staff, Jim Wilkinson, as the incoming Treasury Secretary’s new Chief of Staff. The girl knows what she’s doing.
Comment by section9 — July 9, 2006 @ 8:57 pm - July 9, 2006
Has Bush gone beyond the powers of his office? Probably, and he’s irked a major member of his party.
Keep proudly gay, stay on touch and live in armony.
Kisses.
Blog de evangelina carrozo y anti papeleras
Site de evangelina carrozo y lucha anti papeleras
Este es un sitio de una amiga:
Buy tshirts, mugs, caps, bags and more products on anti bush, anti cpe, linux, che guevara, protect seals , hollydays and ocassions and more ideas
anti bush blog
anti bush blog
Comment by Eva — July 9, 2006 @ 9:09 pm - July 9, 2006
Rudy has been unafraid of being a true conservative on national defense, crime and taxes. He has great oratory skills, unlike our current president. His “this is who I am, and I’m not afraid to say it” attitude reminds me of Reagan. The second amendment issue, I can live with. But being evangelical, I am worried about the social issues.
However, if I choice comes down to McCain or Rudy, I’ll vote for Rudy any day of the week. I’m just hoping we get a better conservative on there.
Comment by Mark — July 9, 2006 @ 9:59 pm - July 9, 2006
Good God. I just heard the Italians beat the French. Are we going to have to land at Normandy and save the French again???
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — July 9, 2006 @ 10:39 pm - July 9, 2006
I’m just hoping we get a better conservative on there.
I like Mitt, but I think he’s going to be the token intellectual candidate who gets murdered in the primaries. Think Steve Forbes in 1996, or Bill Bradley in 2000.
Comment by V the K — July 9, 2006 @ 11:05 pm - July 9, 2006
When I was working for one of the “legacy airlines” I had a caller from NY tell me something to the effect that there were European cities that wanted Rudy to be their mayor. Have any of y’all heard anything like that? I don’t know if that was true or not, but it sounded cool. I do remember the caller telling me that he was a staunch Democrat, but loved Rudy. I remember thinking that that in itself said something.
As far as Condi goes, I think she might make a good president and would probably vote for her. My concern is that I don’t think the south would vote for a black, much less a black woman. I don’t think the south would vote for Hillary either. That’s just me though.
Last time I mentioned that on a blog, I was accused of being racist. However, I fail to see how that’s racist but calling her “Uncle Tom”, “Aunt Jemimah”, or “Oreo” as the libs love to do isn’t racist.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — July 10, 2006 @ 12:51 am - July 10, 2006
I’d prefer Condi. She doesn’t have as many stupid ties in one state or another like McCain or , and that means she could do what a president’s supposed to do : sign or veto laws based on their actual merit, and keep the executive branch from going nutso (see BATFE). She’s also one of the few politicians around that seems to actually care about all of the Bill of Rights, not just the parts that suit her.
I think we could give up the racist vote and not lose much. There aren’t many voting racists left, thank god, and those that do remain won’t touch a young Democrat if the alternative was drinking hemlock.
I couldn’t bring myself to vote for Rudi. I’d wager Alphecca’s gone over this before, but I don’t trust someone that wants to leave a federally recognized right to the states. That doesn’t bode well, and I hope I don’t need to give a history lesson on the buildup to the Civil War to show why.
I think we’re more likely to see a previously unknown governer pop up and make a run, though
Comment by gattsuru — July 10, 2006 @ 2:20 am - July 10, 2006
As long as the Second Amendment is in the Constitution, and as long as flyover America hasn’t been castrated like the cities have, it’s the litmus test issue. And Rudy is no conservative on crime. Conservatives do not prohibit citizens from defending themselves.
Comment by rightwingprof — July 10, 2006 @ 10:06 am - July 10, 2006
Its unlikely that Rudy could ever be “right enough” on social conservative issues to ever please the majority of his Party. He would make a good President, but thats not what matters to the leadership of the GOP. What they want is another President Bush, someone that will try to push forward their socially conservative agenda. Leadership is irrelevant, compliance with the agenda is. So if Rudy decides to give social Conservatives everything they want, and denounce his positions on gays and abortion, he might make it. Otherwise, no way. Dan and Bruce don’t seem to really comprehend exactly who is in charge of their Party at the national level. To the point of deliberate ignorance. Here is a clue: Its not people like Rudy.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — July 10, 2006 @ 10:10 am - July 10, 2006
#26. And who beat the US? Will the French have to come help us again?
(Or just teach us how to play futbol?)
Comment by jimmy — July 10, 2006 @ 10:46 am - July 10, 2006
Gramps, for you to lecture anyone on “deliberate ignorance” is mind boggling… comment after comment you allow your BushHatred to intervene in all practical or pragmatic considerations. You are the poster boi-come-senior for “Deliberate Ignornace” like Sen Debbie StupidCow is for “Dangerously Incompetent”. http://www.nationalreview.com/images/stabenow.JPG
You’re just plain old wrong, again. As someone INSIDE the GOP –I can categorically state there are hundreds of thousands rank-and-file Party activists who would support Rudy if it meant winning against any Clinton –Hillary, bubba, Chelsea, or their cats. Unlike the hate-filled, impotent fringe now controlling the Democrats, there are no GOP litmus tests except “Can he/she/they win?”… not pro-life, nor pro-2ndA, not fiscal restraint, not govt growth, not military as nation builders, nothing. You fail to understand the central mission of the GOP = winning for the Party. It’s why McCain will never be the nominee… to most Party regulars he’s only interested in winning if it advances his interest.
You have to do one of two things Gramps: either stop making lame political judgements about things on which you don’t even have a rudimentary understanding… or ditch the omni-controlling BushHatred and put down the tin foil hat long enough to think an independent thought off the Democrat Plantation.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — July 10, 2006 @ 10:57 am - July 10, 2006
#31 Patrick (Gryph) — July 10, 2006 @ 10:10 am - July 10, 2006
He would make a good President, but thats not what matters to the leadership of the GOP.
I have no evidence for that. He was floundering until 9/11 came along (except for the anti-Negro brutality exhibited by his police department which was brought to the fore in regards the Louima and Diallou cases). He made a couple of well-received speeches after 9/11. That says little about his management skills.
So if Rudy decides to give social Conservatives everything they want, and denounce his positions on gays and abortion, he might make it.
Not likely. It is highly unlikely that social “conservatives” (they aren’t really conservative) would believe what he says if he flipped and flopped in their direction. I certainly wouldn’t. Giuliani: I spoke out in favor of civil rights for gay people, before I spoke out against them.” I’m sure that would go over about as well with conservatives as Kerry’s “I voted for the war before I voted against it.”
Dan and Bruce don’t seem to really comprehend exactly who is in charge of their Party at the national level.
I doubt that. It should be obvious that they are Republicans first and gay second. That something-else first and gay second (or third or fourth…) isn’t limited to them–I’ve seen it quite often–particularly on message boards, but also elsewhere. “I’m female (or male) first and lesbian (or gay) second.” “I’m black (or asian, or Arab, etc.) first and gay/lesbian second.” “I’m Catholic (or Muslim, or Southern Baptist, etc.) first and gay second.” I’m a member of a homophobic family first and I have to take care of my ailing homophobic mother–because my heterosexual siblings have better things to do–and I’m gay second.” “I’m a gun-owner first and gay second.” “I’m Republican first and gay second.” There are other “I’m (whatever) first and gay second (or third or fourth).” It’s not unusual, and it is one reason why it is unlikely that gay people will–at least not in the near or even intermediate term–gain anything close to equal civil rights. “Gay” usually takes second (or third, or fourth….) fiddle to their primary affinity groups.
That was brought home to me with a vengance in the fall of 2002 a few months before the elections, when Dale Carpenter, UnivMinn law professor, frequent contributor to Independent Gay Forum, and more recently co-blogger on Volokh.com, published an article for the Texas Triangle gay newspaper entitled “What is a gay Republican to do”? (It’s not on the IndeGayForum site, but it should be available over the Internet.) Carpenter hemmed and hawed, bitched and moaned, complained about the anti-gay stances of the Republican party at the national level and many state levels, and, voila!, concluded: why, vote Republican, of course! As long as a substantial number of gay people are going to consider their interests as gay people of 2d, 3d, 4th, etc., importance, gay people are not going to achieve anything close to equal civil rights.
It really is as simple as that. I’m sure that Dan and Bruce know what’s going on (this is a presumption of course) in regards the Republican party’s stances in regards civil rights for gay people. It’s just that they have other priorities. It probably isn’t as though they don’t give a tinker’s damn, just that they have other priorities.
Comment by raj — July 10, 2006 @ 11:03 am - July 10, 2006
#31. You’re right about the current GOP leadership. Rudy (who I admire a lot) will have to do some serious back pedaling on the social issues or the party machinery will pull another McCain-in-2000 & put the kibosh on his presidential bid.
Comment by Jimbo — July 10, 2006 @ 11:03 am - July 10, 2006
raj baby, I think I know more gays who are Democrats first, victims second, gay third… at least that’s how it appears given their unfettered support for national leaders who insult gays (HowieDean & 700 Club & the DNC reorganizations & the staff firings), have miserable records on hiring gays (Sen Harry Reid, House Minority Leader NancyP), or use gays as wedge issues (JimmieCarville, Lamont, Kerry, Edwards, Gore, etc).
I know, others claim here… “but at least they aren’t as bad the GOP”. Right… I quit believing in the boogeyman at age 4 when I looked under the bed. The GayLeft, short on pragmatic political options and failures at issue leadership, only has the boogeyman card to play on most days.
Here’s a novel idea for you: maybe being “gay” isn’t quite the life-altering choice our community’s leaders and the ad industry project it to be… it might be critical in the Castro and to the Democrat Party leadership, but it might not be the dominant controlling influence for a majority of us.
When I was in high school and college, things associated with gay lifestyles were important to me and my friends. Then we grew up and most of us pitched the nonsense for the productive and meaningful in life. We became a productive part of society instead of sneering at it.
It isn’t a question of having a different set of priorities… it’s a question of growing up, maturing, becoming a valuable part of society and a greater good.
But if you JUST learned in 2002 that some gays place a different priority on being gay, you’ve got a looooooooooooong way to go, baby. Good first step, though. That’s promising.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — July 10, 2006 @ 12:11 pm - July 10, 2006
Jimbo at #35 writes: “…the party machinery will pull another McCain-in-2000 & put the kibosh on his presidential bid”.
Umm, the truth is that “the party machinery” has never been reputably ID’ed as having bashed McCain in 2k… that was local campaign staff operating in three early primary states and operating independently of the Bush Natl Campaign organization.
McCain acknowledged that fact on one of the Sunday morning talk shows during the successful 2004 Bush-Cheney campaign. Rove did as well before the RNC’s Leadership Conference in August, 2005.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — July 10, 2006 @ 12:19 pm - July 10, 2006
#36. “Here’s a novel idea for you: maybe being “gay” isn’t quite the life-altering choice our community’s leaders and the ad industry project it to be…”
But it is the society destroying force that Republicans claim it to be?
Keep coming up with more excuses to avoid the political screwing you are getting. And I take it you will continue to free ride this movement, while pretending to be a part of it, deserving of it.
Comment by jimmy — July 10, 2006 @ 12:57 pm - July 10, 2006
#36. So grown-ups now type things like “looooooooooooong way to go”? Last time I saw something like that, it was written in a high school yearbook. “Long” will do for the post-pubes crowd.
Comment by jimmy — July 10, 2006 @ 1:02 pm - July 10, 2006
Hey Dallas Guy!! Calling Dallas Guy!!
Would you please let #36 know that we should be focusing only on gay issues, as you did in a previous comments section? Thanks.
Comment by jimmy — July 10, 2006 @ 1:03 pm - July 10, 2006
“Gay identity” is not comparable to a political affiliation, like being a Republican, etc.
Whether you believe its inborn or chosen, being gay is personality characteristic more akin to hair color than say, being raised Catholic.
Being gay is a fundamental part of my identity as a human being. I truly believe that “gay rights” are human rights. In other words, they should be recognized on the basis of my humanity itself, not for any particular characteristic I may have.
To act otherwise is to truly reduce it to being a “lifestyle”.
So the reason I think being gay should trump identity with a political party is because I think the first affiliation should always be that of being human.
That is also BTW, why really the failure of either Party to accept and recognize “gay marriage” should be the ultimate trump card. Because its a failure to recognize the humanity of the participants. The fight is for recognition of our marriages, not our “gay” marriages.
Besides, most political discourse these days consists of people behaving like apes baring teeth and throwing feces at one another.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — July 10, 2006 @ 1:38 pm - July 10, 2006
jimmy, I knew that “speaking the unspeakable” –being “gay” isn’t a lifestyle determining factor for many gays and being mature may mean leaving behind the gay-centered lifestyle choices in order to contribute to society– would cause GayLefties like you to have a fit… but the real truth is that you and the PTown crowd have been landed –hook, line and sinker– by the GayLeft ad world. Gay cruises can be fun but to live your life in order to go on one isn’t being productive, no matter what your ego and pocket rocket tells you. Nor is a Pride Parade.
While it may be true that, to you, I’m not “worthy” of whatever those benefits are you think the GayLeft community has delivered to gay Americans (please, I can hear another lecture about Stonewall coming), the truth is that a lot of us would agree with the main thrust of raj baby’s comment >>being gay isn’t our first affinity, identity, or priority. Unfortunately, he didn’t make the point that applies to Democrats too.
NDXXX has frequently and accurately pointed out that the GayLeft has often supported candidates who were NOT supportive of conventional gay issues. I think those gays are more interested in hijacking gay activism for Democrat Party use than seeking meaningful progress on gay civil rights issues.
That may mean that you and your buds on the GayLeft aren’t entitled to the benefits derived from progress on the gay agenda, but given your self-interested, ego-driven natures… my hunch is you’ll take it, wallow in it and ultimately ask for more. Waaaay more.
It’s just the way it is. Rudy would make a good President because he won’t be like Kerry or Edwards or ClintonRedeux… under his leadership, we’ll still be free at the end of the day and not subject to the rants of terrorists threatening America >> which trumps gay rights any day in my book.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — July 10, 2006 @ 1:45 pm - July 10, 2006
OT- http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9181
realize most of you probably aren’t big fans of the above site, but it’s a cool piece about one man’s journey to the US. It’s both gay and patriotic so i had to post it
Comment by lester — July 10, 2006 @ 1:56 pm - July 10, 2006
Gryph, sorry but hair color is a physical attribute which may change over time –it is not a “personality characteristic”.
Maybe you meant that it’s an immutable aspect or a core element of our personhood? I think for some it’s just elevating sexual attraction to a controlling, addictive level in their life.
For me, gay rights and gay marriage are political agenda items. They aren’t based on my personhood, humanity. Otherwise they would be universal human rights pursued across the world… and we know that’s just not the case when more important rights like self-determination, free speech, freedom to associate and the pursuit of happiness are NOT considered basic human rights in 3/4ths of the world.
Sadly, for most of the world, the “right” to be gay is a death sentence.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — July 10, 2006 @ 2:00 pm - July 10, 2006
While Rudy is impressive under pressure; normal-events allow him to wander into pettiness and even vindictiveness….witness his bitter and rude treatment of his ex-wife, and his unusually-strident attacks against certain “enemies” while DA. Without the mind-clarifying presence of a crisis, he can get a bit rudderless…and is THAT a good character-trait for a U.S. President? Shades of Dick Nixon, at loose-ends, wandering the empty hall of the White House adding to his mental list of enemies….
And I’m very worried by his predilection to “gun-grab”, and his mis-reading of the intent of the Second Amendment.
Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — July 10, 2006 @ 2:07 pm - July 10, 2006
I will proudly admit that “gay rights” including the right to marry are not my first priority. You can’t be married if you’re buried, as a friend of mine says. There are a lot of other rights that seem much more important to my happiness and others like the right to keep what I earn and be independant and the right to defend my life from agressors (including gay bashers). While we’re waiting for gay marriage, privatised social security would do a lot to bridge the equality gap, for instance. And more importantly, I don’t think we can count on any rights as long as we are made to be dependant on someone else for our livelyhood. I don’t care for a government that chops off my legs and then offers me a government-subsidized wheelchair.
And as several others have demonstrated, there’s a lot of hypocrisy coming from the people who claim to put their gayness ahead of their politics by supporting Democrats. You don’t really want Republicans to become more gay friendly even though that would be the best thing for the gay movement. That’s why liberal gays negatively spin any events where a Repub is more gay friendly and postiviely spin whenever a Dem is. It perpetuates the cycle that often allows one candidate to ignore us because he knows he can’t get our vote anyway while the other side can ignore us because our votes are locked in.
Pfft.
Comment by Dalebert (aka Dale in L.A.) — July 10, 2006 @ 5:26 pm - July 10, 2006
“Sen Debbie StupidCow”
Oh, I just love the tone on this blog! So civilized! So refined! So unlike the hate-mongering leftists!
Comment by Anonymous — July 10, 2006 @ 8:51 pm - July 10, 2006
Hey A-nonie-non, I dare you to try to spend just 55 minutes with the Senator and you’ll see why everyone’s calling her in from pasture… she needs to put down the feedbag.
Stupid is just accurate. It’s not hateful. It’s not uncivilized. She wasn’t compared to Hitler as some have done here to her opponents. She isn’t being villified. She isn’t being charged with outlandish plans to build concentration camps as some have done here to her opponents. She’s the one who used the poster “Dangerously Incompetent” to characterize America’s President.
Her overweight, fat, corpulent body is the perfect metaphor for her political career –ever feeding at the govt trough, gorging up to over 375 lbs, slow to react to criticial issues, unable to move about Michigan to serve “the People”… she’s a virtual prisoner in her Senate Office surrounded by 3rd rate flackies and hacks bringing food to the livestock pen. My God, she’s an enormous stupid cow of a woman –and that’s being charitable.
It isn’t hateful –she’s a one-woman show who sends a message to our youth that laziness and over-eating is OK. It isn’t ok. We could feed most of east Africa for a day on just the burgers Debbie takes in on an average non-voting Senate day… save the fries for Rosie ODonnell and Michael Moore.
Those living in glass block houses shouldn’t throw stones.
And a sitting Senator who likes to take potshots at America’s President, just like FORMER Senator Tom Daschle, is fair game for the decidedly un-civilized world of campaign politics.
Civilized? LOL. Oh yeah, A-nonie-non, you can speak with authority to that issue. LOL.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — July 11, 2006 @ 7:45 am - July 11, 2006
#47 Anonymous — July 10, 2006 @ 8:51 pm - July 10, 2006
“Sen Debbie StupidCow”
Oh, I just love the tone on this blog! So civilized! So refined! So unlike the hate-mongering leftists!
No, “the proverbial excrement”! From what I have observed on more than a few right-wing-oriented message boards and comment threads, wingnuts love to deride their opponents on the basis of their appearance. It’s juvenile, of course, but so is much of their other rhetoric.
BTW, “the proverbial excrement” translates to “sh!t,” but I’m not sure that I’m allowed to say that around here, for offending the wingnuts’ delicate eyes.
Comment by raj — July 11, 2006 @ 8:25 am - July 11, 2006
Yet another thread descends into the abyss…
Thank God (or Gaia, if you subscribe to that silliness) Dan’s posted something new for everyone to kvetch over.
Eric in The Land Of Silk & Money
Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — July 11, 2006 @ 8:41 am - July 11, 2006
Debbie has earned the sobriquet Stupidcow. Beyond her “dangerously incompetent” efforts at weight control, there is the fact that she has done nothing in the senate… zip, zero, nada… except vote in lockstep with Hillary Rodham.
New York has had three senators long enough. It would be nice if Michigan could have 2 again.
Comment by V the K — July 11, 2006 @ 8:48 am - July 11, 2006
And if you’ve ever heard “Dangerously Incompetent Debbie” interviewed, you realize she is … well… if the words “Inflate to 30 PSI” were tattooed on her neck, you wouldn’t be surprised.
Comment by V the K — July 11, 2006 @ 8:50 am - July 11, 2006
V the K should be congratulated for proving the point I made in #49, in his posts ## 51 and 52.
One might seriously ask V the K what his BMI (Body Mass Index) is.
Comment by raj — July 11, 2006 @ 9:19 am - July 11, 2006
raj, no one ever cares about any “point” you ever make, because you have demonstrated yourself to be intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt. But it’s very cute that you cling to the delusion that anyone gives a shit about your “points.”
Now, why don’t you go threaten Jeff Goldstein’s toddler, or something…
Comment by V the K — July 11, 2006 @ 10:09 am - July 11, 2006
#54 V the K — July 11, 2006 @ 10:09 am - July 11, 2006
Ah, let me see. You proved my point. And you refused to provide your BMI. I infer from that that you must be as much a “cow” as you deride “Sen Debbie StupidCow” as being. On that presumption, I suppose that we are entitled to deride you and your views because of your girth, just as you deride “Sen Debbie StupidCow’s” because of her’s. Moo.
BTW, why should I pay attention to Goldstein? I’ve been to his “blogviations” a few times and found most of them to be quite stupid. I have no idea what you are referring to by “why don’t you go threaten Jeff Goldstein’s toddler,” but maybe his toddler would be able to escape the clutches of his or her idiot father. More than a few people have.
Comment by raj — July 11, 2006 @ 10:23 am - July 11, 2006
Actually, raj, most of my comments were devoted to her stupidity and lack of political achievement. You just chose to have a trademark raj hissy-fit on the small part of the comment related to her morbid obesity, because, as you demonstrated with ND30 and the gay-left-abortion-issue, one your favorite tactics when you can’t defend the indefensible (i.e. “Dangerously Incompetent Debbie’s” stupidity and complete lack of legislative achievement), you go into a hissy-fit about an irrelevent side-issue (the fact that it’s been pointed out, accurately, that DID has also never met a Twinkie she didn’t like).
And then, you delude yourself that you’re so clever no one can see what you’re doing. And it’s freakin’ hilarious that you actually believe that no one can see through your act.
Comment by V the K — July 11, 2006 @ 10:38 am - July 11, 2006
Also, raj, if you want to make nasty comments about the personal appearance of someone you’ve never seen or met… well, frankly, it would be entirely consistent with the pattern of ignorant, uninformed, and dishonest commentary with which you hve distinguished yourself.
Comment by V the K — July 11, 2006 @ 11:02 am - July 11, 2006
#56 V the K — July 11, 2006 @ 10:38 am - July 11, 2006
#57 V the K — July 11, 2006 @ 11:02 am - July 11, 2006
It seems to me that you are the one who, along with Matt, were denigrating “Sen Debbie StupidCow”–and, by extension–her views on issues–because of her appearance. Not I. And it’s far from clear what her appearance has to do with her views on issues.
It also seems to me that you have failed to provide your BMI–do you know what that refers to?–so what we can assess whether we should be denigrating your views on issues because of your appearance.
You bois started it. I’m sure that you and Matt can provide your BMIs.
Comment by raj — July 11, 2006 @ 11:45 am - July 11, 2006
raj, you are to reasoned debate what the Democratic Underground Rabbit Cage Arsonist is to civil engineering.
Comment by V the K — July 11, 2006 @ 12:02 pm - July 11, 2006
#59 V the K — July 11, 2006 @ 12:02 pm - July 11, 2006
Still no BMI. Are you ashamed of your’s?
Comment by raj — July 11, 2006 @ 12:28 pm - July 11, 2006
Tell you what, when you can name an outstanding legislative accomplishment by Debbie Stabenow, I’ll give you my BMI.
Comment by V the K — July 11, 2006 @ 12:35 pm - July 11, 2006
#61 V the K — July 11, 2006 @ 12:35 pm - July 11, 2006
Sorry, but it was you and lil’ Matty were the ones who denigrated “Sen Debbie StupidCow” because of her appearance. I am under no obligation to you to suggest any “legislative accomplishment: of her’s whether or not it is “outstanding.” The issue at hand was your and Matty’s denigrating her because of her appearance.
What are you ashamed of regarding your BMI?
Presuming, of course, you know what “BMI” refers to.
BTW, it’s interesting that your bud Matty seems to have gone underground.
Comment by raj — July 11, 2006 @ 1:35 pm - July 11, 2006
Why are you so desperate to steer the topic away from DID’s voting record? Or are you really that obsessed with my BMI? Frankly, if it isn’t a desperate attempt to change the subject, I find your obsession with my body deeply creepy.
Comment by V the K — July 11, 2006 @ 1:54 pm - July 11, 2006
I mean, when a creepy troll insists that you describe your body to him on the internet… eeeeeeeeeeew!
Comment by V the K — July 11, 2006 @ 2:02 pm - July 11, 2006
#63 V the K — July 11, 2006 @ 1:54 pm - July 11, 2006
Why are you so desperate to steer the topic away from DID’s voting record? Or are you really that obsessed with my BMI?
I don’t give a tinkers damn about your BMI, except that I am wondering whether we should refer to you as “V the stupidKow.”
I haven’t seen anyone mention Sen Debbie StupidCow’s voting record in this comment thread. Perhaps you can enlighten us.
Comment by raj — July 11, 2006 @ 6:49 pm - July 11, 2006
Um, maybe in comment #51, where I said, “she has done nothing in the senate… zip, zero, nada… except vote in lockstep with Hillary Rodham.”
Are you really this stupid, raj, or just pathologically dishonest? Or, both?
Comment by V the K — July 11, 2006 @ 7:32 pm - July 11, 2006
VtK–
The issue isn’t whether or not she has earned the nickname you are calling her, but whether this blog is the kind of place that tolerates and supports that kind of “tone”.
Some people might be of the opinion that you have amply earned the characterization as a self-loathing, vicious, not-too-terribly-bright Republican yes-man… but it would probably be rude to call you that and I wonder whether or not the operators of this blog would allow it. If you are going to call other people stupid cows and they are going to permit it, then perhaps we can get a little less whining from GPW about “the tone”?
Comment by Anonymous — July 11, 2006 @ 7:46 pm - July 11, 2006
you have amply earned the characterization as a self-loathing, vicious, not-too-terribly-bright Republican yes-man…
I am NOT a Republican.
Comment by V the K — July 11, 2006 @ 8:09 pm - July 11, 2006
#66 V the stupidKow — July 11, 2006 @ 7:32 pm - July 11, 2006
Um, maybe in comment #51, where I said, “she has done nothing in the senate… zip, zero, nada… except vote in lockstep with Hillary Rodham.”
I haven’t followed Debbie StupidCow’s career, and I don’t plan to. Since she is–I believe–a freshman, and a Democrat to boot, it’s doubtful that any legislation that might have been submitted by her or co-sponsored by her would have come up even for consideration in committees run by Republicans.
Regarding her voting record, you might want to check to see if she also votes “in lockstep” with other Democrats, not just Clinton. I’m well aware of the reason that you are citing Hillary–the reason is somewhat silly, but I understand the reason.
Comment by raj — July 12, 2006 @ 7:48 am - July 12, 2006
#68 V the stupidKow — July 11, 2006 @ 7:32 pm - July 11, 2006
I am NOT a Republican.
That’s interesting. You might not be a registered Republican, but, one wonders, just how many Republicans or DINOs (Democrats In Name Only) have you voted for, in relation to candidates who are not Republicans or DINOs?
I’ll presume for the time being that you haven’t voted for candidates affiliated with wacky wingnut parties such as the Constitution Party, although I realize that that might be a rash presumption.
Comment by raj — July 12, 2006 @ 7:52 am - July 12, 2006
So, the last two days of comments, raj has shown himself to be stupid, ignorant, obnoxious, creepy, and now completely devoid of any sense of humor.
Is there no beginning to his charms?
Comment by V the K — July 12, 2006 @ 10:02 am - July 12, 2006
#71 V the stupidKow — July 12, 2006 @ 10:02 am - July 12, 2006
So, the last two days of comments, raj has shown himself to be stupid, ignorant, obnoxious, creepy, and now completely devoid of any sense of humor.
Oh, so, now, according to you, it’s a comedy among conservatives to deride people or their perspectives on the basis of their appearance.
Interesting.
Your perspective would be about as dumb as me deriding Richard Feynman because of his Brooklyn accent.
Sorry, it doesn’t work like that.
And, no, I did not deride Richard Feynman because of his Brooklyn accent. And neither should you deride “Debbie Stupidcow” because of her appearance.
Comment by raj — July 12, 2006 @ 10:46 am - July 12, 2006
People, other than politicians, are always deriding their political opponents due to their appearance. It was all liberals could say about Rush Limbaugh back when he was the only really famous conservative pundit. People make bulimia and anorexia jokes about Ann Coulter who in turn poked fun at Cindy Sheehan’s body (a brief poke to go along with a LOT of political criticism). GPW may ask people to adjust their tone for the sake of having an honest debate, but he’s been letting you guys rant without deleting your posts. This thread reminds me of how liberals criticize Ann’s books. She’ll briefly mention some statistic in a biased way and they’ll harp on that, conveniently changing the subject away from their inability to rebut the much more damning points she makes in the rest of her book.
Raj, V the K used her appearance as a metaphor for her politics. Look that word up if you need to.
Comment by Dalebert (aka Dale in L.A.) — July 12, 2006 @ 12:41 pm - July 12, 2006
Wow, raj baby you’ve not only stepped in the proverbial pile, you’ve taken the act to a new level by actually rolling around in it for a while and tossing it at others.
Word to the wise: raj baby likes to pontificate, incite, inflame and bite the ankles of anyone not marching to the Gayleft’s Left Flank orders.
Ignore him. He’ll go away like Ian S and QueerPie and CowBoyBob and others… but it’ll take a little longer; he can’t smell his own stench.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — July 12, 2006 @ 1:10 pm - July 12, 2006
Actually, I would have quit a long time ago if it weren’t so entertaining watching raj whine, weasel and lash out. He ignorantly asserts that DID’s voting record was never brought up, when it clearly was. He stupidly acts as if her physical appearance was the only thing being criticized, which it was not. He creepily asks over and over again for Matt and I to describe our bodies to him. (If I wanted to describe my body to creepy trolls on the internet, I’d sign up for AOL.) He doesn’t get that response #68 was tongue-in-cheek, maybe because the only attempt at a witticism he has ever made was that hoary “don’t quit your day-job” chestnut that was probably a gut-buster when he first heard in 1934.
And then he thinks his childish name-calling will be a blow to my self-esteem. Ha! as if I even had any self-esteem.
I generally realize that this is just the comments section of a weblog, and nothing anyone says here matters, or has any effect on the real world. The comments are archived and probably never read again. So, really, I just can’t get too worked up about anything said here. Much less what some humorless twit may think of me.
Comment by V the K — July 12, 2006 @ 1:50 pm - July 12, 2006
And just for the record, I was onto Dangerously Incompetent Debbie a long time ago: http://kurlander.blogspot.com/2006/03/debbie-does-cspan.html
Comment by V the K — July 12, 2006 @ 2:40 pm - July 12, 2006
#76 V the stupidKow — July 12, 2006 @ 2:40 pm - July 12, 2006
That’s interesting. Citing to yourself–to your own blog, no less– to prove what you want to prove here. !Very informative.
BTW, from your picture–if that’s her, of course–she looks about as obese as more than a few right wing talk show hosts pictures of whom I’ve seen. Not Rush Lamebrain nowadays, of course, after he took the “diet pills.” Of course.
Comment by raj — July 13, 2006 @ 8:20 am - July 13, 2006
#75 V the stupidKow — July 12, 2006 @ 1:50 pm - July 12, 2006
Actually, I would have quit a long time ago if it weren’t so entertaining watching raj whine, weasel and lash out. He ignorantly asserts that DID’s voting record was never brought up, when it clearly was.
Oh, so likening someone’s voting record–in your characterization–to a particular someone else’s is “bringing the voting record up,” irrespective of the votes that had actually been cast. Interesting. If you actually discussed her voting record, you might have a point. Since you didn’t discuss it, you don’t. Maybe the only point that you have is on the top of your head, covering your dunce cap.
He creepily asks over and over again for Matt and I to describe our bodies to him.
Oh, dear V the stupidKow, you and Matt were the ones who brought up the form-factor of Debbie–what was it–Stupidcow?–physique, not I. Apparently, what is sauce for the goose is not necessarilly sauce for the goosettes. Or gooselles? Certainly not sauce for the ganders.
Comment by raj — July 13, 2006 @ 9:47 am - July 13, 2006
Ha! Made you look!
Comment by V the K — July 13, 2006 @ 12:52 pm - July 13, 2006
#79 V the stupidKow — July 13, 2006 @ 12:52 pm - July 13, 2006
Ha! Made you look!
Yes, I wanted to see what you look like in drag
Comment by raj — July 13, 2006 @ 3:35 pm - July 13, 2006
raj baby, you are the pits… and I don’t mean that in a hot way.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — July 13, 2006 @ 11:13 pm - July 13, 2006
Whatever he lacks in wit, honesty, common sense, and originality, he almost makes up for in obnoxiousness.
Comment by V the K — July 14, 2006 @ 9:25 am - July 14, 2006