Posted on 04/05/2006 12:21:18 AM PDT by goldstategop
The American people got shafted in 2000 and 2004 with some rotten political choices.
In fact, the American people get shafted with rotten political choices all the time – choices called Democrats and Republicans.
There are some people gearing up to ensure that your choices in 2008 are just as rotten as they have been since about 1988.
We all know who the leading Democratic candidate for president is – Hillary Clinton.
But do you know who the leading Republican candidate is as of this moment?
By some reckonings, it is Rudy Giuliani.
No, the smart money has long suggested that Giuliani is incapable of winning the Republican nomination for the presidency because of his hideous positions on homosexuality and abortion. But it appears Giuliani is aware of this weakness and is attempting to hoodwink American evangelicals the way Bill Clinton did.
As Andrew Sullivan put it, "If Rudy is talking Jesus, he's going to run."
And, boy, is he ever talking the talk.
Now, before I tell you what he said, and to whom he said it, let me first introduce to you the real Rudy Giuliani.
Is America really ready for a drag-queen president?
Can America survive another obnoxious phony baloney masquerading as one thing and governing as another?
Will Republicans be fooled again and nominate a candidate who favors unrestricted abortion on demand?
Should we expect the Grand Old Party to become the Gay Old Party in 2008 and put its stamp of approval on a guy 100 percent committed to the homosexual activist agenda?
No that photo you're seeing has not been retouched. It really is Rudy Giuliani made up in a blond wig and pink dress in a spoof of "Victor-Victoria" for the 1997 Inner Circle dinner. He followed that up with more cross-dressing antics on "Saturday Night Live." Then in 2001, he agreed to appear in drag in an episode of "Queer As Folk."
Rudy Guiliani In Drag
Is it possible that Giuliani could survive all this to become the Republican nominee for the presidency in 2008?
He's going to try. And his strategy for overcoming his past is to reach out to Christians – pretending, quite frankly, that he is one.
Back in January, Giuliani was invited to speak to the Global Pastors Network in Orlando – an evangelical group determined to establish 5 million new churches around the world in the next decade to fulfill the Great Commission.
Suddenly, before this audience, Giuliani was transformed into a man of faith.
Asked if he was running for president, he said: "Only God knows. I'll know better in a year whether I can fully commit to that process." Notice he said "fully commit," which suggests he is already partially committed.
The pastors unwisely said they'd pray for him. I hope they meant that they would pray for his conversion, pray that he would renounce his sins, pray that he would not run for president, pray that he would not win. But I have no such confidence in foolish evangelicals who are too easily seduced by worldly power politics.
Giuliani's response: "I appreciate you. I can tell you from my heart how much I appreciate what you are doing: saving people, telling them about Jesus Christ and bringing them to God."
Excuse me, shouldn't a man with Giuliani's record be kicked out of the church? Again, I'm all for praying for his salvation, but does anyone really believe Giuliani is a sincere follower of Jesus Christ? Shame on any professing Christian who doesn't have sufficient discernment to see through this charade.
Guess what, folks: If you fall for this self-serving hokum, you will have only yourself to blame for your poor political choices in 2008.
Don't forget the tunnels, either.
How naive you are, mkjessup ! But then again, your image of Giuliani is 99.9% wishful thinking.
America has a character flaw. We consistently overestimate how much other nations admire and emulate us and wish to imitate us. This leads to a bloody nose when dealing with a culture that does NOT admire and wish to imitate us. Like Islam. Mkjessup, I assume that even in MKjessupfairytaleworld the fact that Bush is in severe political trouble because public confidence in the Iraq War has collapsed has managed to push its way past the sugar plum fairies and Giuliani equestrian statues into you awareness. You can whine and yell, Howard Dean and Moveon all you like but the truth is the truth.
I have every confidence in the ability of the American people to recognize when an enterprise was based upon foolish assumptions and the entire assumption that America could rewrite the political culture of the Islamic world was delusional.
Mkjessup, try a little factual reality based thinking.
Giuliani is an anti-gun, pro-homosexual phoney who loves illegal aliens.
Like his predecessor parasit mayors i New York, he ordered the police not to cooperate with INS regarding illegal invaders.
While mayor of New York, he supported Florio of New Jersey and Cuomo of New York, both Democrat governors of the worst sort against Republicans.
Now he wants to be Mr. Republican and run for President.
Reject him.
Well, ya hadda know Donna, I guess.
RUDY 2006!
"[Within minutes of taking the Oath of Office, I would end Islam forever. It cannot exist without Mecca.]"
Yep, just what the Romans said about Judaism when they destroyed Solomon's Temple in 66 A.D. or thereabouts.
How simple-minded of you! The issue with Islam is not the religion, per se (which is foul enough), but the political use to which it's been put and the underlying culture in which it festers. Until those conditions change (political freedom comes to the Middle East, and the people somehow free themselves of their midieval mindset), Islam will continue to be nothing more than a prop for the politically adroit and socially dangerous.
Go ahead and wipe Mecca off the map, Mr. President. Makes no difference (although it certainly would be satisfying).
P.S. - as for giving any "credibility to Giuliani", I never intended to do so. My post was simply to present you with the facts with regards to your ridiculous remarks about Patton.
As far as Rudy is concerned: as a native New Yorker, who walked away from 1 WTC on 9/11, I'd say there was never a better leader in the history of New York City (surpassing even the sainted LaGuardia, in my opinion). It';s a shame that the Puritan wing of the republican party (which hasn't had a thought that did not originate somewhere in scripture since about 1640 or so), would throw their usual hissy fit and not consider him for as much as dog catcher within the party hierarchy.
I think this is a mistake, that perfectly good and qualified individuals are ignored (and vilified!) simply because they cannot pass an incredibly high-level smell test (mostly applied by hypocrites, but that's another matter altogether), to the detriment of the party.
In this day and age, should George Washington himself rise from the grave and announce his candidacy, it's very difficult to see him winning a nomination in this party, let alone a general election.
Incredibly high level smell test ?
Try every issue that matters to every Republican across the Hudson.
"I have every confidence in the ability of the American people to recognize when an enterprise was based upon foolish assumptions and the entire assumption that America could rewrite the political culture of the Islamic world was
delusional"
Didn't scroll back to see who wrote that, but I have one question for the origiator of this piece of pure crap:
JUST WHAT ARE YOU SMOKING????
It's not the "political culture" of the Middle East or Islam that's going to be transformed by exposure to western ideas of freedom and democracy, it's the underlying SOCIAL CULTURE that will be change, which in turn, dictates the political culture.
You sound just like a graduate of the Kennedy School, aking a statement like that. It shows a lack of understanding of just what makes Western democracy that is shocking.
And the Arabs will learn. They will learn by example and experience. Just as the Japanese did. But it will not be a short-term thing, completed within 5 or 10 years (which is about all the patience most people, whose attention spans are measured in RPM, have to offer, particularly democrats and the new crowd of "I-voted-for-it-before-I-voted-against-it" Republicans, i.e. WFB, Fukuyama, George Will), which was always wishful thinking anyway. We're talking DECADES, at least, before it catches on in any way.
To coin a phrase, Rome was not built in a day, and neither will the new Baghdad.
Really? let's put Washington's record to the test using the criteria we would today:
1. As a wartime leader, Washington was a disaster. Starting with the Fort Necessity disaster (overstepping his authority, making bad tactical descisions) in the French and Indian Wars, to not beating the British in a single, set-piece battle in the Revolutionary War (greatest victories: Trenton - Overran 2,000 drunken Hessians in the middle of the night. Monmouth - Army almost ran from the field, more British killed by heat stroke than American arms. Yorktown - French Naval victory made land victory possible.)
Let's not forget about the near-disaster oif Valley Forge, the fact that American soldiers were finally trained by Von Steuben and Lafayette (a German and a Frog, I thought that was supposed to be Washington's job?). There's the Benedict Arnold fiasco and the loss of New York (splitting the Colonies).
2. The Whiskey Rebellion - Use of government force (i.e. STORMTROOPERS, sans the black helicopters) in order to enforce an "illegal" tax, against "Americans exercising their constitutional right to protest peacefully".
3. Washington fervently believed in maintaining American freedom of action with regards to foreign policy. Therefore, he would probably have scoffed at the UN, the WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA, NATO, ANZUS, etc, etc. He owuld have serious problems selling certain parts of the American electorate (those who believe in the UN as end-all-be-all, the CEO's who love NAFTA and WTO, etc) on this view. He would be derided as an "isolationist", just as whacky as Pat Buchannan.
4. I think we could assume that Washington would be pro-life, anti-gay marriage. Where he would stand on immigration is an open question, I think.
5. Washington was a slave owner, although he did free his slaves upon his death. In this day in age, only democrats can have "evolving" (i.e. contradictory) positions on issues, so Washington would be hammered day in and out on this issue, regardless of the fact that it ultimately means nothing.
Nope. The way I look at it, GW would be a dead duck right out of the starting gate if he ran today.
YOu know what? There's an awful lot of the same issues that matter to those of us on THIS side of the Hudson too. However, because we have had to live for so long under the democratic (small 'd' intentional) yoke, we have learned to be pragmatic and take our republican and conservative victories as and where we can get them.
Perhaps that's the main problem (besides the ridiculous cross-dresser remarks and revelations about his personal life. Those of you without sin, feel free to cast the first stone, and such), between the "Rudy has a place crowd" and the "The Bible tells me he's the Antichrist crowd". A sense of pragmatism and the sense that you can't always get a custom fit in an off-the-rack world.
The Jews do not worship a black idol in the middle of a desert. Islam cannot exist without it.
And, for that matter, the Islamics want to do far worse than the Romans did to the Jews and everyone else.
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
The issue with Islam is not the religion...
“Islam” is the idea of the world under a dominant Moslem state.
Francis, I'm sorry to inform you that you have arrived for this battle of wits completely unarmed.
"The Jews do not worship a black idol in the middle of a desert. Islam cannot exist without it. "
I guess that explains the millions of Jews who gather around the Wailing Wall every year (last remnant of Solomon's Temple)?
There are sects of Judaism that believe that the Temple of Solomon (or what's left of it) is the center of the Jewish world, and that the Messiah will not arrive until the Temple is restored. There are other sects who also believe that the religion cannot exist without the Temple (or what's left of it).
History (my speciality, remember?)shows that long, long ago, Judaism and the Templeof Solomon were inseperable. the Temple was built to house the Ark of the Covenant, the container that held the sacred contract between Jews and God. As such, the temple (an inanimate object) and the land it sits on, is considered holy (despite the laughable idea that divine power can be transmitted to inanimate objects), and is not worshipped, as much as revered, as such.
It was the duty of every Jew to make the pilrimage to Jeruslaem and the Temple in much the same way as it is the duty of every Muslim to travel to Mecca. The reason this became less important as time went on was the Babylonian Exile, when the Jews were taken into slavery, taken away from their temple, and were forced to make do. They found that they could very easily keep the convenant and the Torah law without physical contact with a temple. This is the FIRST, and probably mmost important, "reformation" (for lack of a better term) of Judaism.
Still, despite this, there are plenty of Jews (we'll call them Ultra-orthodox types, the actual sect names are beyond my capability to spell correctly) who still believe that Judaism cannot be made whole without the Temple being rebuilt and restored.
So, your original assertion that "Jews don't worship a black rock in the middle of the desert" is essentially wrong. Some do worship (or rather, worship at) the remains of white stone wall which sits upon a site that is religiously and historically revered and indivisible from the Jewish identity.
"And, for that matter, the Islamics want to do far worse than the Romans did to the Jews and everyone else."
Really? And I guess the imposition of foreign rule by military force and terror, and the collection of exhorbitant taxes to support a machine of state that breaks the backs of many to fill the bellies of a few, is considered a good or bad thing depending on who does it?
Why should Roman tyranny be judged any worse than what Islam has to offer? I certainly do not advocate living under Sharia law, but I certainly cannot fathom the logic behind your reasoning. Either is tyrranical and subverts the wills and needs of the individual to the will and needs of the state or supreme ruler. I see very little difference at all.
"“Islam” is the idea of the world under a dominant Moslem state."
No, quite franlkly, in direct translation, "Islam" means "submission", and is conditioned by belief to mean "submission to the will of God". However, the "will of God" was transmitted to the faithful by a paranoid child molester, who was sure to have skewed a lot of what the Almighty had to say, or filter it to suit his megalomaniacal ways.
Mohammed is first and foremost a raider. A political busybody. A paranoid kook who usurped the parts of the two parent religions (Judaism and Christianity) that suited his needs, and chucked the rest, to replace it with his own paranoid (often contradictory) ramblings. In effect, Mohammed is Norm from "Cheers" (the guy who sits at the end of the bar saying "Wouldn't it be great if..."), only with ambition.
Islam is not so much a religion as it is a systematic control of every aspect of an individual's life, from which hand he wipes his behind with, to who and how many times he marries, to how the state should be run. It would have made Stalin and Beria green with envy.
So, the traditional pilgrimage to Mecca and the seven circuits around the Kabah, are not acts of religious worship as much as they are the slaves renewing their pledge to remain, menatally and spiritually, on the plantation.
There is a whole lot of America that doesn't have rump rover diversity day. A whole lot of America that hasn't resigned itself to Rainbow Day. It is unfortunate that you live in the areas controlled by deviants. But then again, I believe that sodomite political power has grown because they are the maggots on the corpses of what used to be family friendly cities. As families bailed they flowed in and took over.
You have learnt to accept cultural defeatism. We here in the clean, moral, rest of the country, the areas where it is safe to raise families, don't.
And as for Washington he had to balance the "people's army" types like Samuel Adams with the soldier of fortune types like Arnold, Lee, Lafayette, von Steuben, Gates, and Collins (?). While the soldier of fortune types had skills the rebels needed to learn they were often ambitious intriguers. Adams certainly had a point because an 18th century army was a uniformed maximum security prison where brutality constituted discipline.
You criticize Washington because he wasn't Frederick the Great. That shows your failure to understand the kind of war Washington was fighting. The British lost the Revolutionary War because no matter how many battlefield victories they won, they did not have Tories to occupy and pacify the region. They could not hold Philadelphia because they could not secure land communication to New York. They couldn't even sortie out of New York to friggin Bergen County for firewood. The French in Indochina could either spread out to pacify real estate OR concentrate to engage the Viet Minh regular divisions. They couldn't do both. The British had the same problem. So for Washington it was about playing for time. Rolling with the punches. Staying alive. Not going for a Rossbach in New York State.
Once again, you have missed it.
Change the social culture ? The very point of oil is that a nation can have lots of money without having to undergo cultural modernization. No need for the emancipation of women, full religious tolerance, non-confessional politics.
My daughter's principles dressed up for a talent contest in drag for a funny show. Does that make him a drag queen? No, it makes for a funny show. And in Rudy's case, a funny party.
Jeez, some people are too uptight.
Pardon me, I've been out of the country for a couple of weeks on biz and am wondering if the California Ilk herd are trying to take the defeat of all republicans to a national level?
"There is a whole lot of America that doesn't have rump rover diversity day. A whole lot of America that hasn't resigned itself to Rainbow Day. It is unfortunate that you live in the areas controlled by deviants. But then again, I believe that sodomite political power has grown because they are the maggots on the corpses of what used to be family friendly cities. As families bailed they flowed in and took over."
Wow! I'm floored by just how much that mirrors exactly what was said by many a great Calvinist pamphleteer, circa 1630-50. It must really be inconvenient sometimes to be such a paragon of virtue and still have to suffer us poor sinners who will not be saved at the time of Rapture. Perhaps if your nose was not stuck so far up in the air, you might take the time to smell the roses.
The people of New York City elected Rudy Giuliani for four reasons: to reign in rampant crime, to lower taxes, to make city government more responsive and effective, to cut the City budget and restore some fiscal sanity. Last time I looked, these were all republican (and conservative) bullet points. These issues overrode considerations of social issues because it's really hard to concentrate seriously on matters of abortion or whether or not you should be able to own Napalm when you can have your skull bashed in on the subway on the way home from work.
The fact is that Giuliani did all he set out to do. He did it so well he was re-elected. And you'd better believe the people of this City were eternally grateful that Rudy was in charge on 9/11 and not Al Sharpton or another Dinkins-type dunderhead. For all he did to resurrect a great city, he is revered around here, and we don't care if he wore a skirt once: we can walk the streets at night.
As for your remarks about "family friendly" cities, New York is considerably safer than most cities a quarter of it's size. And if your intent is to make an argument that Mid-Western (Fly-over, I think the other side calls them) cities, grounded in "American values", are somehow morally superior to New York, I remind you that the Crystal Meth problems those cities are dealing with now mirror the same problems New York had at the height of the Cocaine crisis in the 80's.
"You have learnt to accept cultural defeatism. We here in the clean, moral, rest of the country, the areas where it is safe to raise families, don't."
I have not learned to accept "cultural defeatism". To make such a an assinine statement, you have to believe that there is an indigenous American culture based upon the contributions of one group of people; and that would probably be white Christian males, perferably rabildy Presbyterian and Protestant/Evangelical, and native English speakers. Because that's the "culture" you really seem to be talking about when you make that kind of statement. Your narrow frame of mind shows, embarrassingly for you.
It's really insulting to someone like me, the descendant of Italian immigrants (Sicilian and Catholic, no less!), who all bled for their country. You make it sound as if their contributions to the "culture" do not count. There is no "natural" or "indigenous" American culture; we're an amalgam of peoples and customs, who simply agree on how a system of law and the apparatus of government voluntarily (it's called a Constitution). Learn what "culture" means before you use it so casually and incorrectly.
It must really be hard work to be this kind of self-righteous jerk, huh?
As far as Washington and Frederick the Great, etc,. your view is EXTREMELY flawed, because, whether you know it or not,it is tempered by Clauswitzian conventional wisdom that has been proven wrong time and again. The British did not "lose" the American Revolution as much as we managed to stay in the field long enbough for the French to distract them. It was ultimately the chance to take India from the French thatled to the Treaty of Paris, not victory at Yorktown. Without simultaneous wars elsewhere to contend with, the British would have crushed Washington and his band like bugs.
Washington was a wonderful symbol, but a ROTTEN commander.
Americans were used by the French, Spainiards and Dutch to achieve their own ends. We're just extremely fortunate that France or Spain didn't step into the vacuum created when the British left, because they easily could have. Why, had that happened we wouldn't be debating the merits of a candidate based upon his positions on certain issues: abortion would be a foregone conclusion, no one would own a gun, the government could arbitrairly do whatever it wanted to when it wanted to. This is how things are in France and Spain RIGHT NOW, and they will only get worse thanks to the EU, but that's another discussion entirely.
"Once again, you have missed it.
Change the social culture ? The very point of oil is that a nation can have lots of money without having to undergo cultural modernization. No need for the emancipation of women, full religious tolerance, non-confessional politics."
I haven't missed anything. You have missed EVERYTHING.
The easiest way to explain this to you, I guess, is by demonstration.
To perpetrate a crime like the one that was committed on 9/11 by 19 Islamic nutjobs, the toolbox had to include the following: international air travel, credit cards, cell phones and telephones, computers and e-mail, ATM Machines, flight schools, jumbo jets, international funds transfer, driver's licenses and other forms if identification (whether real or false), automobiles, buses, skyscrapers, and last but not least, boxcutters.
All of those things are expressions and extentions of Western culture, particularly those parts of western culture specifically forged in the fires of rational secularism (i.e. thought and experiment independant of religious audit and/or sanction). All of these things are Western inventions and adaptations.
What, in all of this, did Islam provide?
Nineteen kamikazes.
The point, which you miss, is NOT that oil wealth can be used to advance the standard of living of a people without having to advance political and social freedom (just ask the Chinese government how that little experiment is going, if you want to know). For all the oil wealth the Arabs have, they can purchase all the vestiges of Western civilization they want, but they CANNOT PRODUCE IT FOR THEMSELVES.
And THAT is the crux of the problem. They cannot comprehend how it is that apparently godless people can prosper and advance, while they, the very CHOSEN OF GOD, live in squalor with the flies, without realizing that it is PRECISELY the blind devotion to their faith and adherance to a cultural mindset that "might-makes-right" that keeps them there. They have not learned to balance faith with reason, politics with enlightened self-interest, like we have in the West. Islam has not had a Reformation of an Age of Enlightenment, like we have. It seriously needs one, and we should take advantage of the opportunity we have now.
Oil wealth doesn't even enter into the equation. The real wealth doesn't come from the ground: it springs from the minds and hearts of the people.
Seriously, where people come up with such skewed views of the world (like yours)is beyond me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.