My Case for Rudy Giuliani
The LA Daily News published my case for Rudy Giuliani:
WHILE this presidential campaign features a number of strong Republican candidates, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, with his record of leadership and espousal of conservative principles, is best suited to unite the party and lead the nation.
In many ways, Giuliani is the Ronald Reagan of the 21st century. Just as the Gipper helped reform the Golden State, Giuliani brought the Big Apple back to life at a time when many talked about that city’s inevitable decline.
Even before the terrorist attacks of 9-11 tested his mettle, proving him able to keep his head in a crisis, Giuliani had shown his leadership qualities. As mayor, he held the line on city spending, stood up to the public-employee unions, reformed welfare and worked with police to develop tough anti-crime policies.
Click here to read the rest.
43 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
I heard Giuliani’s debate performance was off the other night. If anyone has a link to the debate video, please post it. (Or I will, if I find one.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 27, 2008 @ 12:20 pm - January 27, 2008
Giuliani is doing badly in the polls. Really, a candidate with moderate views on social issues? This was over before it started.
How long will he stay in the race after getting his ass kicked in Florida? That’s the real question. This must be disappointing to gay people who believe in conservative principles without the gay-bashing (sorry, GPWest, “pandering”), but I did tell you so.
Comment by Houndentenor — January 27, 2008 @ 12:23 pm - January 27, 2008
Well, at least Rudy still has his freak constituency behind him….
Comment by freddy — January 27, 2008 @ 12:46 pm - January 27, 2008
Good column, Dan! I couldn’t agree with you more but I’m troubled by how badly he is currently doing. I hope that his strategy bears fruit and he pulls it out on Super Tuesday, lest I be forced to make some unpleasant decisions in November.
Comment by John — January 27, 2008 @ 12:48 pm - January 27, 2008
Guliani is an authoritarian, and is not fit to be commander in chief of a nominally free republic.
Comment by Crow — January 27, 2008 @ 1:09 pm - January 27, 2008
Rudy’s a good guy, just wrong, wrong, wrong on abortion. And he’s taking votes away from McCain. The Florida primary would already be a done deal if it weren’t for him.
Comment by Bla — January 27, 2008 @ 2:45 pm - January 27, 2008
#2 – “Pandering,” Schweinhundtenor? That’s rich, coming from someone whose party has done nothing BUT pander to anyone who is not White Anglo-Saxon Protestant heterosexual…
As if you wouldn’t call this pandering (from AP):
“A group that lobbies for needle exchanges, for allowing more immigrants with HIV/AIDS to legally enter the country, and for condom distribution in prisons received a $303,000 federal earmark pushed by Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.).
“That was one of 261 earmarks Clinton personally helped usher through Congress. That’s more earmarks than any other member of Congress seeking the presidency, according to an analysis by the watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW).
“This specific appropriation is from the Department of Justice and is aimed at fighting methamphetamine use – that’s what the Gay Men’s Health Crisis Center is supposed to do with the taxpayer-funded money.”
Sounds like pandering to me.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — January 27, 2008 @ 3:44 pm - January 27, 2008
A strong piece for Rudy. He has some major drawbacks in my book. But, I find him to be superior to Sen. John “F— You” McCain. And I am a non-wavering Romney supporter. Rudy has danced around the abortion issue, and same-sex marriage. But, I think he has a relativly conservative record as mayor of New York City. On core issues important to he and New York City, he did not compromise. So, Rudy would be my number two in this race. When Mr. Romney is elected, he needs to make Rudy Homeland Security secretary.
Comment by Mark J. Goluskin — January 27, 2008 @ 5:49 pm - January 27, 2008
Very good column. Rudy is my guy too, but like John I’m really worried about how he’s currently doing.
For those who worry about his position on abortion, he has pledged to appoint strict constructionists to the bench. And if you distrust him on this pledge, keep in mind that his chief judicial adviser is Ted Olsen and remember too that Rudy is dead serious about the war on terror. I think he has watched activist liberal judges inserting their activist liberal noses into war policy where they dont belong with the same outrage as the rest of us.
Unlike John McCain, who has for too long talked about “consensus nominees” to be taken seriously, and Mitt Romney who has a history of compromise rather than confrontation, Rudy Giuliani has a long record of taking on a deeply entrenched liberal establishment — and winning.
There will be no conservative judicial appointments under a Democrat/Rhino senate without a fight. Rudy, I think, is the only candidate who is ready, willing and able to take on Democrats and the mainstream media to win those fights. I think he looks forward to them.
Just look how much the NYTimes loathes him. Rudy is the candidate they fear most.
Comment by American Elephant — January 28, 2008 @ 12:21 am - January 28, 2008
#6. WTF are you talking about? Are you saying that Republicans haven’t used anti-gay statements and policies to get votes?
And why are you talking about Clinton to me? I have said over and over that I am sick of the Clintons and not voting for her in the primary and almost certainly not in the general election should she get nominated.
And most importantly, “the other guys do it to” is not an excuse for bad behavior. Everyone else does it didn’t work as an excuse when I gave it to my parents and I don’t accept it either.
The GOP has routinely run on anti-gay platforms. All the rationalizations int he world don’t change that. That doesn’t excuse Clinton selling us out as president on DOMA and DADT. But that’s not my point at all. Giuliani is too moderate on social issues to get the GOP nomination. That was my point.
Comment by Houndentenor — January 28, 2008 @ 10:16 am - January 28, 2008
100% on the money… Thank you Dan. Rudy is and has always been and willbe my candidate for all of your reasons. If for no other reason than his wonderful leadership during, in and beyond 9/11. I think Al Quaeda (sp) would be afraid of him from the moment we elect him. The two moast important issues are
TERRORISM AND IMMIGRATION
aLL OTHER THINGS FALL IN PLACE IF WE GET IMMIGRATION IN ITS PROPER PLACE.
Comment by PatriotMom — January 28, 2008 @ 11:33 am - January 28, 2008
Houndtenor, I think GP’s point (plus lots more commentators on this site) is that we well know that the GOP has run on an anti-gay platform. At least the GOP is honest about it. The Dems pretend to support us but later stab us in the back: Clinton signing on to DADT, DOMA, etc. It’s the two-facedness (is that a word?) of the Dems that really ticks me off. We’re stuck with DADT because of Clinton, not the GOP. We’re stuck with DOMA because of Clinton, not the GOP.
Comment by Jimbo — January 28, 2008 @ 11:41 am - January 28, 2008
#9 Houndentenor lets loose at Peter Hughes (#6):
I will toss in my two cents:
Being for DOMA or concerned with DADT is only ant-gay to those gays who choose to see it that way. As a “straight” Republican conservative Christian from Virginia, I am opposed to gay marriage and strictly AOK with civil unions. I am certain that to gay leftists that I am a homophobe.
I have liberal democrat friends who see gays as crippled victims who need the compassion of federal judges and the force of law to demand respect.
Meanwhile, leftist gays attack the Cheneys for having a lesbian daughter and remaining conservative Republicans. What is that all about?
Judging from your statement, it appears that any Republican who opposes leftist gay policy is anti-gay and supports anti-gay policies to get the homophobe vote.
I suggest that if a gay is meeting a lot of homophobes, that gay might take a look in the mirror and see if he isn’t leading with his chin. It would seem that some gays put being gay ahead of being a regular part of a diverse society.
Comment by heliotrope — January 28, 2008 @ 11:46 am - January 28, 2008
#12: That’s not entirely fair on the DOMA issue. The law was passed by a Republican controlled Congress (with admittedly WAY too many Democratic votes) and then Clinton signed it. It’s not something he would have proposed and it’s probably not something that could have gotten out of committee if the Democrats had been in the majority. But yes, Clinton did sign it and yes I’m still mad about that. DADT was just a disaster all around. The right things the policy didn’t go far enough, the left thinks it goes too far. No one is happy. It was Clinton’s first big test as president and he blew it. It makes me wish he hadn’t promised to get rid of the military ban on gay’s in the first place. But he did and it was too soon and it blew up and he ducked for cover. I lived in Arkansas for awhile in the 80s and the fact that he covered his ass when he was in trouble rather than taking the heat didn’t surprise me at all. But to imply that those two things were all Clinton’s doing without any input from Republicans and more importantly (in the case of DADT from the right wing talk shows and press) is absurd.
#13: Well how nice of you to be for separate but not quite equal rights for gays. Let’s throw you a freakin’ parade. Yes, I know that the marriage question came up too soon and that in 20 years the majority of people are going to wonder what all this fuss was about. About Cheney’s daughter: I have to wonder about a father who thinks it’s okay for one daughter to be treated as inferior under the law than the other. I can’t trust such a man. But then I think Cheney is the embodiment of evil anyway so it wouldn’t matter anyway I guess.
And it’s our fault if there are a lot of homophobes? Honestly I don’t meet that many in my everyday life but then I live in New York City and people pretty much do their own thing and don’t care what you do so long as you aren’t doing it to them (or smoking while doing it LOL). But it doesn’t take much searching to find a LOT of homophobia in the right wing media and among conservative Christian groups (Dobson, Falwell, etc.). No I don’t encounter all that much homophobia in churches and temples in my area (I attend a wide variety mostly as a paid musician) but then again I am here in a very liberal area where such views would be unpopular.
However, it is true that around the country there are a lot of gay people who are the victim of assaults on them for no reason other than they are gay. It’s a real problem (also for minorities and women and in some cases white people and religious people as well…I am anti-violence so I’m not excusing any group that does this to another). However, I do agree with you about your liberal “friends”. Those people annoy the crap out of me too. I don’t need anyone’s tolerance. All I ask for is the same rights under the law as everyone else. If you don’t like me, I don’t really care. I don’t usually like the people who don’t like me anyway.
But do you really think it’s gay people’s fault that there is homophobia? Really? And how many gay people do you actually know in real life?
Comment by Houndentenor — January 28, 2008 @ 1:10 pm - January 28, 2008
#14 Houndentenor: Unfair! In no way have I ever come close to saying that “it’s gay people’s fault that there is homophobia.”
You really have to wriggle on the hook to come up with that one.
I have dozens of gay friends and associates. Two of them are cross dressers. When they come to dinner or parties in my home, they know to come as their mother’s sons, not as their fantasy other self. I was part of a team that worked with one of the top sex change physicians in the country. I understand the psychological complexities of being gay. I also understand the rules of acceptance of the general society.
You are equal in nearly every way I can find. If you want the legal advantages of being married, then get married. There is no law standing in your way. Except, you want to marry someone of the same sex. Well, that does not make you unequal. That makes you unhappy.
I stated above that most of us Neanderthal Southern hick Republican, Bible-thumping conservatives DO NOT oppose civil unions.
I am sorry that your understanding of what it means to be evil is so vague that you could possibly have room for Cheney in that category. You should save that adrenaline for the Pol Pots, Hitlers, and Amins of the world.
Comment by heliotrope — January 28, 2008 @ 2:53 pm - January 28, 2008
heliotrope – I really appreciate your contribution to this discussion (and others).
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 28, 2008 @ 3:11 pm - January 28, 2008
I very well know what evil is and I stand by my assessment of Cheney.
I will admit that I don’t know where drag queens find the courage to walk down the street dressed that way. It certainly is braver than anything I have ever done, that’s for sure.
And you can say that many of you do not oppose civil unions but many of the recent ballot initiatives (like Virginia) banned civil unions as well as marriage) so I find it hard to believe that you are in the majority among your kind.
And the idea that it’s equal rights for me to be able to marry a woman is absurd. Why shouldn’t I be allowed to marry the adult person of my choice? What right do you have to define that for me?
I wish we could have opposite day. Just one day where everything was backwards. Men were treated like women, whites were treated like minorities and straights were treated like gays. I wonder how straight white men would feel about these issues after living with what is reality for so many people for just a day. I don’t think they’d like it very much.
Comment by Houndentenor — January 28, 2008 @ 3:23 pm - January 28, 2008
And as usual I have been distracted from my original point.
No candidate with a moderate record on social issues is going to get the Republican nomination any time soon. Sorry, Rudy.
Comment by Houndentenor — January 28, 2008 @ 3:24 pm - January 28, 2008
An assessment for which, apparently, you would have no true/rational basis.
Impressive. (…-ly bad of you)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 28, 2008 @ 3:39 pm - January 28, 2008
I do not know if I am in the majority among my kind. I know I am among the majority among my kind that I hang around with.
I am a better friend to gays than you might think possible. I am well enough known in Richmond and by my Congressman. They know and respect my opinions. I am not claiming any power, I am merely stating that my voice is heard.
Now I am going to really anger you. You have no more right to change the definition of marriage than a pedophile, polygamist, or old lady with a cat fixation. There is no rational reason why a gay marriage between a father and son or man and a troupe of men should be prohibited if men are allowed to marry men.
You can not unscramble eggs. What do you want, to join the mainstream of society or to reorganize the Judeo-Christian ethic?
I do not know where “gay” originates. I know it exists and that for many of my fellow travelers it is a burden. That stinks. But bashing Christians and trying to shove laws up people’s noses is not a balm for the general concerns of society.
Comment by heliotrope — January 28, 2008 @ 4:27 pm - January 28, 2008
#16 ILC: Thanks. I suspect that we are kindred spirits. I have fought a lot of discrimination in my day, but I do not join pity parties.
Comment by heliotrope — January 28, 2008 @ 4:32 pm - January 28, 2008
Right on Heliotrope.
I agree with you 100%. I don’t understand how a small minority of people think that somehow we’re supposed to tear asunder 1,000s of years of tradition and something that is at the heart of people’s religion just because they think it’s not fair that 10 of them can’t get married.
Comment by Vince P — January 28, 2008 @ 5:47 pm - January 28, 2008
Houndentenor, I thought you were a reasonable person who simply had lefty leanings. But you dashed that one with the victim card.
What separates conservatives from liberals is that we believe in personal freedom, you believe in equality.
Get over it, there is no equality in the world, the only way would be to have everybody equally miserable.
Heliotrope isn’t in the minority, there are many good people who want to preserve the noble institution of marriage, while still finding a way to help gay couples have similar RIGHTS and responsibilities.
. CA has done that with AB 205. Ask Sean A, he has made some very interesting observations about it.
Meanwhile, I know many people who vote Democrat every time, and they are much more homophobic than Heliotrope will ever be. But hey, it must feel good to be a victim, otherwise why would you do it.
Comment by Leah — January 28, 2008 @ 6:29 pm - January 28, 2008
Vince P and I Love Capitalism:
Thanks guys. I hope and pray (literally) for the best for all of us. Sometimes, we get all flustered over mountains that won’t get out of our way, but that only means it is time to get out a teaspoon and start digging. Meanwhile, remember not to throw the dirt on someone else’s shoes.
Thanks again for the kind words.
Comment by heliotrope — January 28, 2008 @ 6:53 pm - January 28, 2008
Well, I was going to rebut Schweinhundtenor’s position regarding the DNC and pandering, but Heliotrope, ILC, Leah and Vince stole my thunder.
Suffice to say that I would rather be around people who judge me for WHO I am rather than for WHAT I am. That’s why I’m a Republican who just happens to be homosexual.
Anyhoo, thanks guys for making my point.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — January 28, 2008 @ 7:32 pm - January 28, 2008
Giuliani’s shrinking presence in this thread discussion is a symbolic reminder of his campaign. For a year, people have wondered how Mr. Giuliani’s strategy of skipping the early states and focusing on later, delegate rich states would work. Tomorrow, we’ll get the likely answer: not very well.
As late as Thanksgiving, Mr. Giuliani was leading in polls in South Carolina, Nevada and Michigan, was running second in New Hampshire, and placing third in Iowa. Still, he chose not to compete in a wide open field, settling instead for 4th, 5th and 6th place finishes. It was a grave mistake that is likely to bear it’s final bitter fruit tomorrow night.
And though Mr. Giuliani’s campaign is likely to end soon, his presence in the race will endure. For his ability to persuade NY, NJ and CT to award it’s delegates on a winner-take-all basis is still likely to play a decisive role in determining the Republican nominee. However, Mr. Giuliani is not destined to be the beneficiary. That man is Senator John Sidney McCain III.
Comment by Chase — January 28, 2008 @ 10:26 pm - January 28, 2008
Chase, you are right, Giuliani made a very big mistake, that will cost him the nomination. I think that more than his views on social issues is what will doom him.
It’s one thing to be the maverick, it’s quite another to actually lose it all because of such a gross miscalculation.
Comment by Leah — January 29, 2008 @ 11:12 am - January 29, 2008
How can you claim to be for freedom and and personal responsibility while denying some people the same rights that you enjoy?
Please explain to the owners of this blog why they aren’t as good as you are.
Yes, I know there are homophobic Democrats. Duh.
As for tearing down 1000 years of tradition, wouldn’t that have been a good argument for keeping segregation in place? If your only argument is “this is how it’s always been” then that’s a weak one. A lot of things that always were were wrong and needed to be changed.
No the difference between liberal and conservative in America is that liberals see something as wrong if they would feel it was wrong if it applied to them. Conservatives only see things as wrong WHEN they apply to them. It’s why gay conservatives are never going to get anywhere inside the GOP. Sorry but they just aren’t. It’s hard enough to make progress in the Democratic party but at least there is some movement and progress. It’s certainly not perfect but it is getting better.
No I do not, in spite of what some of you think, completely define myself as being gay. However, I can’t have respect for someone who thinks I am not their equal. Yes I believe in equality when it comes to civil rights and how the law treats citizens. I’m proud of that belief actually and I think it’s one that most Americans share.
Comment by Houndentenor — January 29, 2008 @ 12:06 pm - January 29, 2008
Dan, nice piece on Giuliani; concise, direct, insightful.
On the abortion issue, I was reminded while in New Hampshire this month that Governor Reagan signed one of the most liberal abortion statutes of his day. Yet somehow, he was ultimately made “acceptable” to that segment of the electorate when push came to shove. The poll watcher I was speaking with (who reminded me of RR’s earlier stance on abortion) also thought RG had erred in adopting his superTuesday-ish strategy.
I’m not too worried about Giuliani on abortion and other domestic issues or national security –but I am concerned that he’s 189 pounds of pure, unrestrained ego. Anyone who will ditch family, ditch wives, run roughshod over our strongest social contract relationships for HIS self interest brings on a far greater set of concerns to me than all the fomenting binLadens in the world. But then, SlickWillie proved to us all that an unrestrained self-interested egohead can govern effectively… whether or not we (Republicans) want to admit it. I know, RG isn’t SlickWillie on a whole lot of levels… but still that unrestrained ego and impulse to advantage self-interest over other issues makes me a tad nervous about RG as Prez.
Character matters in politics. Then, it’s all about good hair, teeth and a nice tie… it’s why JohnEdwards has been able to stay in for so long after he’s toast.
Nice piece on Rudy, Dan.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — January 29, 2008 @ 1:02 pm - January 29, 2008
Absolutely. I think Iowa was always tricky for Giuliani because of his social views and not competing there was probably a good idea. But New Hampshire could’ve been fertile ground if he had invested the time. Who knows what could’ve happened from there had he won it.
I always thought Mr. Giuliani’s strategy was doomed to failure for one simple reason: Most Americans are not news junkies or political wonks and would fail to realize Giuliani wasn’t just getting his clock cleaned time and again. Additionally, it shut him out of the news cycle, which is always bad.
I know I said as much weeks and months ago, but nobody here believed me. Even so, I didn’t quite expect Giuliani to fair as poorly in the early states as he has thus far. The strategy backfired even more than I anticipated.
Unless he pulls off some sort of miracle tonight (and there’s still the remote chance that early voting might skewer tonight’s result a bit from the expected), my guess is Giuliani drops out tomorrow.
Comment by Chase — January 29, 2008 @ 2:23 pm - January 29, 2008
One more thing…
In candidate interviews on CBS Evening News, Katie Couric asked of each of the presidential candidates: What’s the worst piece of advice you’ve ever been given?
Mr. Giuliani responded that it was friends who told him not to run for Mayor of New York because the city was unmanageable.
After tonight, he might have a different answer. For the individuals who sold him on his Super Tuesday strategy certainly gave him very bad advice.
Comment by Chase — January 29, 2008 @ 2:38 pm - January 29, 2008
Houndentenor, you are my equal. No right under the law is denied to you while extended to me. You can marry a woman; I can marry a woman. You can not marry a man; I can not marry a man. You want to marry a man; I do not want to marry a man. That is a difference of preference, but it is not a case of inequality.
The Judeo-Christian ethic permitted slavery until the 1860’s. That ethic has changed. The Judeo-Christian ethic has defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. That has not changed. It lacks the force of an idea whose time has come.
Now here is a digression: Take a careful look at how Sharia allows Islamists to bed children, have sex with animals, marry for an afternoon, divorce with a simple set of three statements, kill women who are raped, and worse. It does not square with the Judeo-Christian ethic upon which Western legal common law is based. At the base of the Islamic problems in Europe is the push to include Sharia as a part of the legal code. I suspect that Islamists outnumber gays in Europe.
Back to your concern: Why should the Judeo-Christian ethic concerning marriage be changed for a gay and not a polygamist or pedophile or a person who is fixed on sex with animals or an Islamist who desires Sharia? What mechanism do you suggest for weighing the merits of each?
You have a very strange view of equality. Apparently, gay marriage has you so frustrated that you have donned the hair-shirt of being a 24/7 victim.
Here is a suggestion. You and your partner find a lesbian couple. You marry woman “a” and your partner marries woman “b.” You need only get together with your “wife” to file taxes. Everybody can honestly wear a wedding band and be legally married.
I do not want to belittle marriage or the desire of gays to have unions. But this constant carping about “equality” is way off track.
I might add that the liberal’s love affair with situation ethics is no different that a cat chasing its own tail. “Right” and “Wrong” do not spring from transitory public opinion. The easiest way to escape the Judeo-Christian ethic is by creating a dictatorship that is benevolent to your point of view. Short of that, you have to come up with an argument that is stronger than a phony-baloney charge that the 14th Amendment is not working.
Comment by heliotrope — January 29, 2008 @ 3:57 pm - January 29, 2008
My position on gay marriage is this. It will benefit society. It will, eventually (probably taking a couple generations), change gay men for the better. As a civil matter – getting a license from the government – it should indeed be brought to pass. However, I am no longer as eager as I once was (when I was a little bit of a gay marriage activist back in the 1990s – before it was cool) to cram gay marriage down everyone’s throats. In order for it to work, it has to have broad social support – and that means it has to be voted in democratically. I am willing to PERSUADE people to support gay marriage. I am willing to let that process of persuasion and slow social change take whatever amount of time it needs to take. I am willing to accept any intermediate steps – full civil unions, civil unions lite, whatever – that it will take to get there. And I am NOT willing to take orders from the Gay Left leadership, anymore. I am NOT willing to pretend us gay people are victims, when the number of legal arrangements and options that we already have to secure our partnerships only increases with time.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 29, 2008 @ 4:32 pm - January 29, 2008
ILC, I do not have any differences with what you have posted above. It will become necessary for civil unions to have the force of federal law to overcome the problems with the “full faith and credit” clause of the Constitution. I suspect that will take some time in coming. I do not categorically oppose gay marriage. I just have not heard any argument that would compel me to take up the cause.
I have spent a lot of time in a famous gay bookstore in Georgetown and I fully understand how fractured the opinion is among gays on this topic. I have searched for a rational philosophy on why gay marriage would improve society in general and I have found none.
In the final analysis, I think that what happens is up to how gays approach the issue and a fair dose of time. I too suspect it is more than a generation or two away.
Comment by heliotrope — January 29, 2008 @ 5:36 pm - January 29, 2008
#34 I have spent a lot of time in a famous gay bookstore in Georgetown and I fully understand how fractured the opinion is among gays on this topic. I have searched for a rational philosophy on why gay marriage would improve society in general and I have found none.
That’s hilarious. I seriously doubt that you have searched effectively for them, because I can already think of two books on that specific subject of social improvement, and they’re among the best books on arguments for same-sex marriage.
Same-Sex Marriage: Pro and Con by Andrew Sullivan
Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America by Jonathan Rauch
Also Johnathan Rauch, and the folks at the IDF have written numerous articles on the subject from various angles. Careful though, the articles are highbrow compared to this blog.
Comment by Rob — January 30, 2008 @ 3:30 am - January 30, 2008
I have read them. But thanks for the encouragement and kind words. I am not certain what “highbrow” means. Is that a reference to the society one keeps? Is that indicating one’s attainment among “intellectuals” or the social elite? Is that a reference to writing that is technical and hard to comprehend? For the most part, my experience with the “highbrow” set is listening to their complaints about their hemorrhoids and having to deal with the common, little people. A cheerful lot they are.
Andrew Sullivan certainly is an interesting Prima Donna. It is too bad he has chosen to perfect the craft of polemics. He could have developed a valuable mind.
Comment by heliotrope — January 30, 2008 @ 10:10 am - January 30, 2008
Rob, I just did a scan of my bookshelves, and I have 37 books devoted to the study of gay marriage and seven think-tank or research group reports. Andrew Sullivan’s book is among them. My notes show that I have researched a bibliography of 157 sources.
My many trips to the gay bookstore in Georgetown is to gauge what the gay community is reading.
I am not inclined to load my academic shotgun with marshmallows. Yes, I have read the books, yes I have spoken widely with gays and straights on the topic. Yes I have an open mind. Hopefully, this will add a bit more hilarity to your day.
Comment by heliotrope — January 30, 2008 @ 11:39 am - January 30, 2008
I heard of a study released that stated that everywhere that allowed gays to be married, that overall marriage rates have decreased. or something to the effect that overall marriage has been weakened in the society.
Comment by Vince P — January 30, 2008 @ 2:07 pm - January 30, 2008
Vince P: A lot of what I have seen is so anecdotal that you can not really draw much substantive from what is offered. The studies that have tried to measure trends over time are from places like The Neatherlands, Sweden or Switzerland. It is difficult to take what occurs in one culture and make statements of prediction about our own culture.
Comment by heliotrope — January 30, 2008 @ 3:39 pm - January 30, 2008
“I just did a scan of my bookshelves, and I have 37 books devoted to the study of gay marriage and seven think-tank or research group reports.”
List the titles, heliotrope. If they’re sitting on your shelves, it should be an easy task.
Comment by Paul Raposo — January 31, 2008 @ 4:28 pm - January 31, 2008
Paul, I understand you are challenging my veracity. When I get back home next week, I will make the list. However, I do not think it is fair to tie up this site to satisfy your doubts. I have no idea of how large your personal world is, but my life has been spent in research and writing. Amassing a small library on a given topic is the backbone of my bread and butter. Perhaps you can list your e-mail and I will send it to you directly. Is there any other bibliography you might desire?
Comment by heliotrope — January 31, 2008 @ 7:33 pm - January 31, 2008
P.S. Paul, you should go to Amazon, click on books, enter “gay marriage” and then take a look at the over 5,000 titles that appear. This is the best search engine I know and it includes reviews that are often quite helpful. It has certainly taken the sting out of researching contemporary topics in the US culture. Most of the books I am using will be found on the first four pages. If you need further help in your quest for edification, don’t hesitate to ask. (It occurs to me that whatever list I submit to you is still no proof that I have the books or have read them. It is not easy to deal openly with an individual who considers you a fool.)
Comment by heliotrope — February 1, 2008 @ 8:12 am - February 1, 2008
I hear crickets.
Comment by heliotrope — February 2, 2008 @ 8:26 pm - February 2, 2008